House cats have more impact on local wildlife than wild predators
npr.org
npr.org
"As an invasive species and superpredator, they do considerable ecological damage. In Australia, hunting by cats helped to drive at least 20 native mammals to extinction, and continues to threaten at least 124 more. Their introduction has caused the extinction of at least 33 endemic species on islands throughout the world. Feral and domestic cats kill billions of birds in the United States every year, where songbird populations continue to decline."
And the soot from the industrial revolution would've covered the entire environment for a peppered moth, whereas many birds fly over incredibly large distances, which wind turbines will only cover a small fraction of.
http://www.batcon.org/resources/for-specific-issues/wind-pow...
>Current research suggests that the overwhelming majority of bat fatalities are caused by collisions with turbine blades. There is some evidence to suggest that a phenomenon known as barotrauma may result in a small proportion of bat deaths, as well. Barotrauma involves tissue damage to air-containing structures, such as lungs, caused by rapid or excessive pressure change. Air pressure changes can occur at the edges of moving turbine blades and may help explain some bat fatalities.
>Between 2000 and 2011, an estimated 650,000 to 1.3 million bats have died from collisions with wind turbines in the United States and Canada (Arnett and Baerwald 2013). Additionally, as many as 400,000 estimated fatalities may have occurred in 2012.
>in the U.S. and Canada, at least 24 species of bats have been reported as killed by wind turbines. The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) and silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), all migratory tree bats, account for nearly 78% of the kills north of Mexico. The hoary bat accounts for 38% of the fatalities. A new study that looked at hoary bat mortality at wind energy facilities during 2014 revealed that populations of the species may plunge by a staggering 90 percent in the next 50 years if no action is taken.
>At some sites in the Midwest and Eastern U.S., species that are already battered by White-nose Syndrome (WNS), can account for up to 60% of wind-energy fatalities.
Two federally endangered species, the Hawaiian hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus semotus) and the Indiana myotis (Myotis sodalis), also have been killed by turbines.
Birds know well that cats are dangerous. The real problem is the habitat loss and pesticides. The first force birds to nest in dangerous suboptimal places, where cats can catch them. The second makes them much more vulnerable to cats.
Windows crashes take its toll also.
Think of a giant farm water-pump windmill. Those things were bird blenders. Modern three blade wind turbines are a different beast, but many people have not caught up with the changes in engineering.
[ Also, some of the initial wind farms using the bird blenders (e.g. the Altamont Pass near Livermore, CA) were right on the Pacific Flyway, which is a massive migratory path. ]
Incidentally, here's a critical take of a study on the amount of wildlife cats kill that made headlines in 2013 cited in the article, also by NPR: https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/03/170851048/do-we...
Speaking of published studies, the article I linked sheds an interesting light on one particularly relevant study.
In terms of individuals among the cats, I guess about half have tried to stalk and catch the birds, and of those probably about half were effective. But in terms of impact, that seemingly small quarter punched above their weight to be a total menace. Carcasses of the birds and other animals (even rabbits!) would keep showing up until they were stopped with a bell collar. If left to their own devices, I don't have trouble imagining they'd put a huge dent in the local ecosystem.
It's very different from walking a dog. Ours usually hides in his favourite spot and just sits there for 20 minutes straight, then takes his usual route, sniffing and rubbing his face on places where apparently other cats have been.
The upside is that you only need to do that once every 2-3 days.
Now that we're on quarantine he's been calling out other cats from the balcony. Fortunately on Monday we'll be allowed outside, so he'll get the chance to catch up with his buddies - or actually - their scents.
I would suggest you should go outside anyway.
They’re even trained to return to the front door when I say “Haus”.
Then a treat when they are good, which is everyday!
Cat’s do very well with a solid routine.
I live in an suburban single family neighborhood where the houses are close together. (5000sq lots) There are 3 or 4 different solitary cats I see slinking through my yard from time to time. They all seem like outdoor house cats as opposed to feral cats.
I try to hiss at them and scare them off but they come back. Is there a method that will encourage them to avoid my yard?
Each cat can release toxoplasm parasites once, maybe for less than two weeks in 12 years, if healthy
If you have an old cat in your garden is removing toxoplasmosis (killing rodents that act also as hosts and crap also over your kale and under your carrots).
If you kill this cat or chase it off your garden, then new cats will apear and refill the territory. Think that you could be increasing the risk, in fact. Not to mention that people can pick up toxoplasm perfectly in a supermarket can of soup / rodent dance-floor. If you want cats out of your vegetables install sprinklers.
If you are concerned about the cat effect in birds, just add more natural areas and tall trees
Life is full of "why me?" and little dramas... If you want my silly advice, just try to enjoy it more.
I bought him a motion activated lawn sprinkler, which did work, but he was still angry the cats would come anywhere on his property.
There are also little motion activated cans of pet corrector, too.
If cat's get into my traps, they just get dumped at the pound. Their owners can go pick up their little invasive darlings there.
But they usually don't get near my yard due to the hounds guarding the chickens.
https://www.alleycat.org/resources/cat-fatalities-and-secrec...
If it were my cat who kept being dumped off at the pound, after being attracted to the cat food you purposefully left out to trap him, I'm guessing you'd start having some strange issues with your cable / fiber line constantly being cut.
Automatic sprinklers with motion sensors work well
One thing that stuck with me after watching both videos is that Youtube posts a content warning on the video showing dogs being hunted, but not the feral cat equivalent.
From a conservation perspective, I'm skeptical that hunting dogs and cats with traps and rifles will have much of an impact on Australian wildlife.
Terriers on the other hand... https://youtu.be/l2Pyu-Cj0gg
Seems like utter crap, and it is clear the cats are killing the local birds.
It probably is related to the size of the animals. If there would be more tiger-sized cats and more Chihuahua sized-dogs it would most likely be different.
EDIT: Forgot to say, it don't matter even one bit what size the dog is or how small it is. If they aren't on your side, they're capable and very willing to bark at and attack you.
Similarly, different classes of vehicles get different licensing requirements; saying all cars are the same is just lazy, and a regulation meant for big risky entities being applied to small ones is what we call regulation moats. We have enough pet owners that we should be able to quantify risks and burdens for the purpose of licensing. Here we have an article which provides empiricism on the community burden from cats.
All good abilities when trained properly, if not, it's a recipe for a disaster.
Cats are far more skittish around people as a rule. There are practically zero stray/outdoor cats that will attack a person unless they're backed into a corner and provoked. The same thing isn't true for dogs, some dogs are simply aggressive.
Owning any equipment or process with bad waste or ecological burden should also require extra licensing under the same rationale.
If not, you can try to out-aggress the dog, usually dogs aren't stupid and won't attack people who seem to be intimidating. ...on the other hand some breeds have had this instinct bred out of them and will try to kill anything of any size with no regard to their own safety.
Dogs are more dangerous than cats for humans, that's enough to justify why to own a cat you don't need a license while to own a 70 pounds dog you do.
I live in a country, Italy, where you don't need a license to own dogs, but I can clearly see why they aren't needed for cats where dog licensing is mandatory.
Sorry
Not trying to derail or start a flamewar, but wanted to point out that there is a kind of rhetorical distinction-without-a-difference-making at work there, that I've noticed tends to be completely innocent and well-intentioned, but left unchecked for what it is leads to some absolutely farcical legislative outcomes.
Dog fighting is already illegal; and licensing on whether a dog meets some nebulous, ill-defined criteria by which it is judged to be a "fighter dog" or not seems ill-advised as a productive expenditure of governmental oversight.
That I think the same logic already extends to firearms is tangential to the topic at hand, but I figured I'd toss it out there anyway in the interests of dispelling any speculation as to there being secretive ulterior motives.
Anywho, back on topic; I let my boys out onto a woefully undersized porch, but we have a stray cat colony next door, and no fence. So I'm leery of letting them wander around too much. Especially since we had a scare with one of them over a rather strong reaction to a an immunization booster given too early because we couldn't find paperwork for one of them having gotten a rabies shot. I've been gunshy a bit because the vet that readministered the vaccination was totally prepared to amputate the limb before biopsy results came in in and if it weren't for getting a second opinion our boy may be a tripod now.
I find any law that leads to something like that to be a rather antagonistic application of force, and requirement to induce pain and suffering. Yes, I collect immunization records like a hawk now, but injection site sarcoma fears are not something I wish on anyone.
Cats climb trees and can hide easily if they get scared.
But that's in general. Specifically, registering indoor pets does nothing to prevent pets from being abused. What it does is satisfy the state's innate desire to assert control, and create a fakejob for a bureaucrat to administer the registration.
Feral dogs fight more and are scary to people. Feral cats just kill everything in sight and attract pity.
The End of Cats: An Interview With the New Zealand Economist Calling to Eliminate All Kitties
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/01/the-end...
The rabbits got wise of this in a week or two and just took a quick sprint and resumed eating instead of running all the way to the woods =)
The cited study (https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12563; sci-hub.tw has a copy) has some methodological flaws:
* The cat studied were were not randomly selected; they were chosen by "local volunteers". There may be confounding variables that explain part of the effect and so turn the observed effects from being statistically significant to not being statistically significant.
* The data on kills was self-reported, allowing bias to creep in.
* All the cats were English-speaking.
* Only 10 un-neutered pet cats were studied. I don't know if being neutered would increase, decrease, or have no effect on the kill rate, but the subject is not discussed.
I also question the conclusion that cats have a significant impact on local fauna.
* The average kill rate for a pet cat was (roughly) less than two animals per week, which doesn't seem very high. I'm left with the feeling that the authors had to resort to killings/area to make the results impressive.
* The authors did not report on the total size of the home ranges of cats compared to total area. So, for example, if the ratio was 1:1000, then so what? If the ratio was 1:20, then house cat might have a significant affect on local fauna.
Finally, I have a question about the presentation of the data: Figure 2b does not indicate that "75% of cats spent 90% of their time in disturbed habitats". The graph indicates that 500+ (out of 875 cats) spent between 95% and 100% of their time in developed habitats. Perhaps the y-axis is mislabeled, but even if it is, the graph does not match what the authors say.
For mammals some mice, rabbit and squirrel species are invasive species too.
Invasive cats killing invasive animals. It seems cats like small birds and mammals that tend to be invasive.
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/baylisascaris/prevent.html
Occasionally I burn their latrines cause these diseases scare me to death. NO NOT FEED RACCOONS! Walt Disney is lying to you -- they are nasty creatures to have around.
Kind of the key question here. Does your local jurisdiction have native species that live in towns and cities that are vulnerable? Some places are different than others. In some places the typical small city bird may even be an introduced species.
In New Zealand for example yes absolutely. Other places maybe not so much...
It is absolutely wild to me how laissez faire Kiwis are about the right to have their cats roam while at the same time being so militant against other mammals (including dogs!).
You probably don't notice them, all little birds, insects, lizards, hedgehogs (I saw a cat mauling one once, same with lizards and birds),..
Actually, in my city, near woods, there's a small outdoor refuge for "wild cats" as the woman I talked to call them. She was feeding them, so I wonder how wild they are and how much they harm the local ecosystem, on top of all the other pets
I think there's an unhealthy addiction and love for pets. If you like animals, you could let them live normally in their natural habitat, and observe them once in a while. I hope this mentality will change
In the worst cases (ie. NZ) your cat may be killing literally endangered birds.
"How easy it is to grow up without learning [that cat bites are really serious and if bitten you need to wash the bite and call a doctor immediately]"
Dogs do sometimes get aggressive towards random passers by and they do kill people.
True, most cats are very prudent about human interaction -- most strays will avoid you. But if a stray has been taught to expect food, or gets cornered, they can do a surprising amount of damage
What are you basing this on? Are you implying a cat bite is worse than, say, a dog bite?
Cat bites are more likely to cause infection. Dog bites usually cause more physical damage.
They don't cite a statistical source for this. It sounds like it's based on the preceding fact that cat fangs are sharper and can reach deeper.
The study they link to cover statistics of patients treated for cat bites, but I wonder what percentage of overall cat bites get infected. Most cases that don't probably never reach an emergency room, I would assume.
you can find training regimens and videos online, but basically, you need to find a motivating factor for the cat (food, play, grooming, etc.) and train out from that.
i volunteered at a kitten nursery for a while helping socialize rescues. i've seen cats go from completely vicious to humans to being pettable and loving. not all cats can make that much progress though.
Understatement of the century. As I said, it's not my cat, but anyway, he was rescued from a very abusive situation as an adult, has diabetes and a voracious appetite.
I wasn't posting here to get cat advice: I've lived with them my whole life and have nurtured several stray kittens into pleasant companions. I was responding to the notion that cats are ambivalent to human existence and wouldn't bother to harm us.
> not all cats can make that much progress though
Yes
The city also has a large variety of songbirds, which people generally like.
On a low level, I don't mind when I see cats patrolling the block. They're little human friends. They sometimes sit with me on the porch. However, I do think it's a bad practice to have an outdoor cat. I adopted a cat very recently and I will be keeping it indoors (against its wishes). It will have to be content killing virtual prey.
Google has (or had) a stray cat feeding station at the Plex. When birders complained, the security threatened the birders if "anything happened to the cats." The Plex is located next door to wetlands containing two endangered species that are at risk of predation.
In rodent models, infection appears to exert effects which make the rodent more likely to be killed and eaten by felines in order to complete the infection cycle of the parasite in the digestive tract of the feline.
The suggestion being that similar effects might be occurring in humans, particularly cat owners who are likely to be carriers of the parasite, manifesting in increased positive behaviours towards the cat.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/schizophreniabulletin/article/33/3/...
The comment is not designed to take a thread into a flamewar, it's a legitimate grievance based on living in habitats destroyed by released domestic cats. I don't hate cats, I own an indoor cat. Removing them from a habitat they do not belong to is no different than government agencies encouraging the removal of snakehead fish from U.S. waterways. They're both destructive, predatory species hurting native species, the only underlying difference is that cats garner the irrational support of humans to exist in a feral/outdoor state and destroy with impunity (cuteness bias?).
This is one reason the guidelines include: "Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." Cats are one hell of a divisive topic. (So are dogs, but I think less so.) It maybe doesn't quite sink to the pit of flamewar hell with cyclists vs. drivers but it's close.
> "CDC is aware of a very small number of pets, including dogs and cats, outside the United States reportedexternal icon to be infected with the virus that causes COVID-19 after close contact with people with COVID-19. CDC has not received any reports of pets becoming sick with COVID-19 in the United States. To date, there is no evidence that pets can spread the virus to people.
The first caseexternal icon of an animal testing positive for the virus that causes COVID-19 in the United States was a tiger with a respiratory illness at a zoo in New York City. Samples from this tiger were taken and tested after several lions and tigers at the zoo showed signs of respiratory illness. Public health officials believe these large cats became sick after being exposed to a zoo employee who was actively shedding virus. This investigation is ongoing."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/...
Governments seem to be ignoring this because politically it would be a nightmare.
If it transmits cat-cat(seems proven) and cat-human, killing all the cats would save lives, how many cats hang out at nursing homes?
I don't care
Until someone can show me strong evidence that cat related hunting of this wildlife has a short or even long term affect on humans (through biodiversity loss of keystone species for example) than I think that the utility gained from enjoying the company of the local feline hunters is worth it. Frankly, I don't give a damn about pidgons or whatever else they're hunting until it impacts me directly. Shun my egoism with your Christian inspired morality all you want but at heart the vast majority of people are egoists in denial anyway.
Maybe I got the parasite as a serial cat owner and that's what's motivating me to talk this way but there seems to be an opposite parasite going around since many here are openly calling for folks to murder domestic house cats who are allowed to roam outside.
Part of what I'm articulating is based on my fundemental belief in anthropocentrism which I've never understood to be a bad word. Humans have more value-to-life than wild animals. The animals humans care about (like pets) have more value-to-life than pidgons. The alternative to this view (animal and human value to life is comparable) is veganism and you see how often that view shunned by the public at large.
Admittedly, nature is pretty messed up and it'd nice if house cats would be better about not causing their prey to suffer on the way out - but nature doesn't seem to care about morality so I'll give cats a pass as "not being ethical actors" on this one...