Cat is a Killer

andekwarhola

The title of the thread is akin to starting a thread called LION KILLS LARGE UNGULATES

kylith

pilly wrote: »

And by the way if my cat was killed tomorrow whilst out wandering by a dog, car or whatever I'd accept that too as part of life.

I just can't understand this attitude. "If my pet, who I love, was horribly killed I'd be grand with that, even though I could have prevented it".

B0jangles

Shivi111 wrote: »

It's instinct, animals don't make decisions, or even have 'fun' as we understand it.

Cats hunt, and hunting takes energy, they don't just walk up to things an instantly kill them.

I think your knowledge of whether or not animals have a concept of 'fun' might be a bit outdated.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150219-crocodiles-playing-animals-science-behavior-fun/

The Definition of Play

Many animals have fun, whether it's otters romping in the river, cats chasing lasers, or canines "play fighting." Sometimes, though, it's hard to tell what's enjoyment or what's something else, like defending territory or finding food.


Enter Gordon Burghardt, a biologist also at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, who developed a scientific definition for play.

According to that parameter, play must be repeated, pleasurable behavior done for its own sake that's similar, but not identical to, other behaviors in which the animal regularly engages. It also must be seen when the animal is healthy and not under stress.

Burghardt's definition greatly expanded the number of animals that have fun, including turtles and even wasps. And now, with Dinets's new study, researchers can add crocodilians to that list, Burghardt said.

It is now widely accepted than many species, including cats, do in fact understand the concept of 'fun' and will play well into adulthood.


I never claimed hunting took no energy, I think most well-fed domestic cats have all too much energy to spare for garden hunting activities.

kylith

Lumen wrote: »

Why is it shamefully selfish? Cats are clean animals that bury their excrement. Why would I want to deal with it if the cat can sort it out themselves?

Because they bury it in other people's gardens! People put their hands in it while gardening, children dig it up in their sandboxes. It's disgusting and it carries diseases.

sidious-sam

B0jangles wrote: »

It is now widely accepted than many species, including cats, do in fact understand the concept of 'fun' and will play well into adulthood.

I never claimed hunting took no energy, I think most well-fed domestic cats have all too much energy to spare for garden hunting activities.

According to that parameter, play must be repeated, pleasurable behavior done for its own sake that's similar, but not identical to, other behaviors in which the animal regularly engages.

According to that blurb, play must not be identical to other behavior in which the animal regularly engages.

Hunting is not "Play" for a cat and thus not done for fun.

B0jangles

Lumen wrote: »

Why is it shamefully selfish? Cats are clean animals that bury their excrement. Why would I want to deal with it if the cat can sort it out themselves?

Because I believe that when someone chooses to become a pet-owner, they are agreeing to take full responsibility for their pet, including their crap.

Mary-down-the-road is not responsible for your pet, I don't see why she should have to deal with its excrement in her garden.

sidious-sam

kylith wrote: »

Because they bury it in other people's gardens! People put their hands in it while gardening, children dig it up in their sandboxes. It's disgusting.

That's a fair point, one I was going to bring up myself. In the countryside, it's less of an issue, but in an urban environment it is a little more serious, as cat faeces and urine are pretty damn toxic.

B0jangles

sidious-sam wrote: »

According to that blurb, play must not be identical to other behavior in which the animal regularly engages.

Hunting is not "Play" for a cat and thus not done for fun.

Why is the cat hunting then? Its not for sustenance since it has an owner to feed it?

In any case, this is a largely irrelevant tangent; whether or not the cat is hunting for pleasure or for some other reason, its hunting activities are unnecessary for the cat's food needs and demostrably damaging to the environment. Reason enough I would have thought, to justify restricting such activities.

sidious-sam

B0jangles wrote: »

Why is the cat hunting then? Its not for sustenance since it has an owner to feed it?

In any case, this is a largely irrelevant tangent; whether or not the cat is hunting for pleasure or for some other reason, its hunting activities are unnecessary for the cat's food needs and demostrably damaging to the environment. Reason enough I would have thought, to justify restricting such activities.

As several have already said above, it's instinct. Cats are not the only predators to display this trait, it's just that we see moggies more than we see wolves or lions etc. Predators hunt as often as possible, as they do not know where their next meal will come from. Remember, not every hunt is successful, not every successful hunt will yield a high energy snack, it's just as likely to be a bag of bones so to speak, and every hunt regardless of outcome takes energy. The key to survival then is to hunt at every opportunity regardless of whether the cat is hungry or not.
That's not something you can train out.

sidious-sam

B0jangles wrote: »

In any case, this is a largely irrelevant tangent; whether or not the cat is hunting for pleasure or for some other reason, its hunting activities are unnecessary for the cat's food needs and demostrably damaging to the environment. Reason enough I would have thought, to justify restricting such activities.

I would argue that it's not irrelevant. The statistics that have been bandied about all throughout this thread, do not distinguish between domestic and feral cats. Feral cats are more successful when it comes to hunting, particularly if they are several generations removed from a domestic cat. There are also far more feral cats than domestic. Furthermore, ferals, by their nature, do not have owners, and thus are required to hunt for their food. So if damage is indeed being done it's the feral situation that needs to be addressed.
In order to address that situation, then people need to firstly neuter their domestic cats. Secondly, TNR operations need to be better funded so that they can help control Feral numbers.

So save your anger at our poor little domestic moggy, and spend it instead on people who refuse to neuter their little monsters.

pilly

pilly wrote: »

Oh so once we have we'll just go around giving all the feral cats toys and lasers will we? Are you even reading my posts or simply ignoring what you don't have a smart answer for?

I am reading them, but I'm not willing to get drawn by them

B0jangles

sidious-sam wrote: »

I would argue that it's not irrelevant. The statistics that have been bandied about all throughout this thread, do not distinguish between domestic and feral cats. Feral cats are more successful when it comes to hunting, particularly if they are several generations removed from a domestic cat. There are also far more feral cats than domestic. Furthermore, ferals, by their nature, do not have owners, and thus are required to hunt for their food. So if damage is indeed being done it's the feral situation that needs to be addressed.
In order to address that situation, then people need to firstly neuter their domestic cats. Secondly, TNR operations need to be better funded so that they can help control Feral numbers.

So save your anger at our poor little domestic moggy, and spend it instead on people who refuse to neuter their little monsters.

The discussion in this thread is largely about domestic, owned cats. The problem of feral cats has to be dealt with on a large-scale, national level because no-one is claiming to own a feral cat.

I am talking about 'poor little domestic moggies' because there are a significant number of people who own such cats in this thread and indeed all over this country who think it is reasonable and responsible for them to open the door, let the cat out to do whatever it wants, whereever it wants until it comes back hours later looking for its dinner.

Those people need to accept that responsible pet ownership requires them to actually exert some level of control over the pets they claim to care for.

The world outside their door isn't a giant playpen cum litterbox for their cat, and it would probably be a better, cleaner, more birdsong-filled world if they'd take that on board.

sidious-sam

sidious-sam wrote: »

Ok, these are the statistics I've found so far. Bear in mind, this is for the Scottish Wildcat, which is classed officially as an isolated island population of the European Wildcat, so I suspect that their breeding habits are mostly similar.

Scottish Wildcat
Mating season: January to March, most births in April to May
Oestrus: 2 to 8 days, in presence of males
Gestation: 63 to 68 days
Litter size: Mean 3.4, range 1 to 8, skewed high by observations of hybrids
Age at independence: 4 to 5 months, up to 10 months
Age at sexual maturity: Females 10 to 12 months, males 9 to 10 months
Interbirth interval: one year, females can only exceptionally breed twice in one year, such as when the first litter is lost
Longevity: Probably around 6 to 8 years in the wild, up to 15 years in captivity

Domestic Cat
Mating season: Spring, Summer and Autumn
Oestrus: 7 to 10 days
Gestation: 64 to 67 days
Litter size: Mean 4.0, range 1 to 9
Age at sexual maturity: Male - 6 months Female - 6 to 10 months
Interbirth interval: Females can have 2 - 3 litters per year
Longevity: 4 - 5 years (Feral) 15 years (Domestic (Breed dependant))

And why is such a big difference there when it comes to interbirth interval?

sidious-sam

B0jangles wrote: »

The discussion in this thread is largely about domestic, owned cats. The problem of feral cats has to be dealt with on a large-scale, national level because no-one is claiming to own a feral cat.

I am talking about 'poor little domestic moggies' because there are a significant number of people who own such cats in this thread and indeed all over this country who think it is reasonable and responsible for them to open the door, let the cat out to do whatever it wants, whereever it wants until it comes back hours later looking for its dinner.

Those people need to accept that responsible pet ownership requires them to actually exert some level of control over the pets they claim to care for.

The world outside their door isn't a giant playpen-cum litterbox for their cat, and it would probably be a better, cleaner, more birdsong-filled world if they'd take that on board.

Again, I would disagree somewhat, no surprise there. You can't talk about domestics and their adorable little murder sprees and not talk about Ferals. Ferals either were domestics at one point or are descended from domestics. So the subject of responsibility applies to both types.

I agree that people need to accept responsibility over their cats, but denying it the ability to roam as it pleases? Nonsense. The day a cat kills a person, sheep, cow, etc. I'll agree with you. Neuter your cat, give it shelter, feed it and it will be fine.

Speaking of litter, maybe you should have a word with dog owners. I'm tired of stepping in dog****. I've yet to step on Cat poop.

I'm at a loss as to how you think the world would be better and cleaner. As for birdsong, I'll refer you back, again, to the Feral issue.

sidious-sam

riffmongous wrote: »

And why is such a big difference there when it comes to interbirth interval?

There may be several factors, but I'm not a biologist, nor even a cat or wildcat specialist. However, my thinking is that feral cats have less issue getting food as they live side by side with us, so they have energy to spare for more than one litter per year, also note though that even though it says two to three litters per year, kittens are actively hunted by male cats so as to bring the female into heat again, so this may result in a higher yearly average.
Wildcats actively avoid humans, they are crazy hard to spot in the wild as the minute they detect our presence they are gone, so food for them is harder to come by, meaning less energy intake over the year and less energy to spend on breeding.
Also note that Ferals don't live as long in the wild as Wildcats.

That's my guess.

B0jangles

sidious-sam wrote: »

Again, I would disagree somewhat, no surprise there. You can't talk about domestics and their adorable little murder sprees and not talk about Ferals. Ferals either were domestics at one point or are descended from domestics. So the subject of responsibility applies to both types.

I agree that people need to accept responsibility over their cats, but denying it the ability to roam as it pleases? Nonsense. The day a cat kills a person, sheep, cow, etc. I'll agree with you. Neuter your cat, give it shelter, feed it and it will be fine.

Speaking of litter, maybe you should have a word with dog owners. I'm tired of stepping in dog****. I've yet to step on Cat poop.

I'm at a loss as to how you think the world would be better and cleaner. As for birdsong, I'll refer you back, again, to the Feral issue.

And there is the insuperable obstacle to agreement; I maintain and will always maintain that your cat's 'right' to roam is completely and utterly trivial compared with the need to protect native wildlife from destruction.

Also the fact that you only accord value to people, and to animals which are financially valuable to people says something quite revealing about you.

Edit: One last comment; I have yet to meet a dog-owner who will defend to the death their right to allow their dog to crap in public spaces; I wish I could say the same about cat owners.

sidious-sam

B0jangles wrote: »

And there is the insuperable obstacle to agreement; I maintain and will always maintain that your cat's 'right' to roam is completely and utterly trivial compared with the need to protect native wildlife from destruction.

Also the fact that you only accord value to people, and to animals which are financially valuable to people says something quite revealing about you.

Does it? Really? So even though I've argued your points with facts and we still disagree, you're going to make it personal. That's the refuge of any weak mind.

You can't argue that Domestic cats are having a serious effect on songbirds and at the same time discount the Feral populations, which prey on the very same birds.

The fact of the matter is that I do like songbirds, I like their song, but I'm also cognisant of the fact that their natural predators' numbers have been reduced by habitat loss and human activity. To a certain extent cats have taken up the slack here.

EDIT: No one is defending a cat's "right" to crap in public spaces no more than anyone is arguing to defend dogs' right to do so. That was a specious comment.

B0jangles

sidious-sam wrote: »

Does it? Really? So even though I've argued your points with facts and we still disagree, you're going to make it personal. That's the refuge of any weak mind.

You can't argue that Domestic cats are having a serious effect on songbirds and at the same time discount the Feral populations, which prey on the very same birds.

The fact of the matter is that I do like songbirds, I like their song, but I'm also cognisant of the fact that their natural predators' numbers have been reduced by habitat loss and human activity. To a certain extent cats have taken up the slack here.

sidious-sam wrote: »

Finally, a reasonable argument.

sidious-sam wrote: »

Madness! Here's the long and short of it.

sidious-sam wrote: »

Birds! Oh god! Won't somebody please think of the birds!!!

You've presented little in the way of fact beyond your own opinions and you've helped those along with a more than healthy dose of snide, which up until this point I've mostly ignored as irrelevant to the discussion.

For the record and for the second or third time, I do not discount the effect of feral cats, I simply do not see the point of discussing them here, when the discussion is about the behaviour of domestic, owned cats.

I suspect that the effort to switch the discussion over to ferals is to deflect from the responsibility all pet owners, including cat owners, have to ensure that they exercise control over their pets and prevent them causing damage to the wider environment. You'd think that would be a basic, unarguable thing but it's apparently a massive inconvenience to the average cat-owner.

sunny2004

PUT A BELL ON THE CAT AND SAVE SOME WILDLIFE.

sidious-sam

B0jangles wrote: »

You've presented little in the way of fact beyond your own opinions and you've helped those along with a more than healthy dose of snide, which up until this point I've mostly ignored as irrelevant to the discussion.

For the record and for the second or third time, I do not discount the effect of feral cats, I simply do not see the point of discussing them here, when the discussion is about the behaviour of domestic, owned cats.

I suspect that the effort to switch the discussion over to ferals is to deflect from the responsibility all pet owners, including cat owners, have to ensure that they exercise control over their pets and prevent them causing damage to the wider environment. You'd think that would be a basic, unarguable thing but it's apparently a massive inconvenience to the average cat-owner.

I admit to my bias, I am, after all a cat owner, I did mention this earlier. As for opinions, everything in this thread is an opinion, except for a select few posts. And no, I was not attempting to "switch" the conversation over to ferals. I'll say it again, you can't talk about one without the other, I've said this several time in several ways. Oh, the snide, or rather the so called snide. Of the three items you've quoted, only one of them is applicable, and I apologised for it. The other two are you adding tone where none existed except in your own head.
If we all listened to you we'd all think that the Domestic cat was the greatest threat to the land that has ever existed. Personally I'd say humans have a far greater impact.
I'm going to be the bigger person here and stop replying to you after this as you're making this more and more personal and you've already started firing insults. It's not that I'm running away from an argument, it's that i just don't see the point of arguing with someone who's last stand position is to start throwing insults rather than standing by their argument. If you're going to lose, lose with a little dignity.

B0jangles

sidious-sam wrote: »

I admit to my bias, I am, after all a cat owner, I did mention this earlier. As for opinions, everything in this thread is an opinion, except for a select few posts. And no, I was not attempting to "switch" the conversation over to ferals. I'll say it again, you can't talk about one without the other, I've said this several time in several ways. Oh, the snide, or rather the so called snide. Of the three items you've quoted, only one of them is applicable, and I apologised for it. The other two are you adding tone where none existed except in your own head.
If we all listened to you we'd all think that the Domestic cat was the greatest threat to the land that has ever existed. Personally I'd say humans have a far greater impact.
I'm going to be the bigger person here and stop replying to you after this as you're making this more and more personal and you've already started firing insults. It's not that I'm running away from an argument, it's that i just don't see the point of arguing with someone who's last stand position is to start throwing insults rather than standing by their argument. If you're going to lose, lose with a little dignity.

Nice use of the parthian shot there :P

sidious-sam

This is in no way a reply ... but if I were going to reply, I'd say...

"I thought so!"

kathleen37

B0jangles wrote: »

I maintain and will always maintain that your cat's 'right' to roam is completely and utterly trivial compared with the need to protect native wildlife from destruction.
/QUOTE]

I don't doubt that native wildlife may be being impacted, but there is just no evidence to support "destruction".

pilly

B0jangles wrote:

Getting serious "If a tree falls in the forest.." vibes right now.

Hang on, your the one arguing that cats have maybe destroyed an eco system we may have had because we didn't know about it!!

B0jangles

Look, I posted scientific evidence that:

- In an environment similar to ours, cats were shown to be killing between 85-100 million small animals and birds over a five month period.

- In environments which had only introduced cats fairly recently, cats were specifically responsible for the extinction of upwards of 50 species.

The response from the cat people here has been mostly a.) It doesn't matter how many animals they are killing, you have to prove that they are having a detrimental effect on specific species numbers. B.) It doesn't matter that cats in other environments have been specifically shown to cause species extinction, Ireland is too different from those places for any comparison to be made.

What is being asked for is essentially impossible to provide - Ireland-specific data which compares the variety of species and their numbers before and after the introduction of cats.

I'm arguing that it is reasonable to assume that Ireland is not some unique place whose native fauna is miraculously unaffected by the introduction of an extremely successful predator species.

You appear to be arguing that since we cannot demonstrate this Ireland-specific data, then it is reasonable to asssume that Ireland is indeed miraculously unaffected by the introduction of cats.

Hence the tree falling in a forest comment.

BTW I'm think I'm done with this thread; I've made my arguments and backed them up as far as possible. I'm not asking for cats to be eradicated, all I'm asking for is for cat owners to recognise that free-roaming cats are damaging and to do their best to mitigate that damage.

Lumen

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not asking for cats to be eradicated, all I'm asking for is for cat owners to recognise that free-roaming cats are damaging and to do their best to mitigate that damage.

Fair enough. I have a lot of birds and a cat with a bell. Judging by what gets brought back, the cat mostly murders rodents, at a rodent/bird ratio of at least 10:1.

For me, this is acceptable, whereas keeping the cat inside would not be, given that I have a large garden for it to roam around apparently happily.

boomerang

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not asking for cats to be eradicated, all I'm asking for is for cat owners to recognise that free-roaming cats are damaging and to do their best to mitigate that damage.

This.

One of the happy consequences of keeping my cats confined is that the starling and house sparrow fledglings here will be safe.

Knine

I have a nest of Starlings in my roof. I can hear them in the bathroom. Unfortunately when they fledge, I have dogs that are worse then cats. All I can do is keep a close eye & block up the roof when they come out. Not a good place for mammy starling to have her nest!

Falcon L

sunny2004 wrote: »

PUT A BELL ON THE CAT AND SAVE SOME WILDLIFE.

I challenge you to put a bell on the ferals that roam my gardens. Extra points if you can trap the big black bastard that left the remains of a swallow on my front step yesterday. It's not that I haven't tried to trap him, it's just that he's as cute as a fox and just walks past the trap and the food in it. Luckily we caught him as a kitten and had him, his mother, brother and sister snipped.

The TNR scheme is nothing but words. We paid vets to do the neutering for the local killers. When I lived in Spain I was chatting to an Irish vet who was over on a jolly to neuter feral cats for the Spanish authorities for no fee. Yet they charge for the same service at home.

Just to touch on the crow chat a little earlier. I watched a pair of hooded crows dealing with a cat on top of a 3m wall, near their nest. One flew close over the cat and the cat's head turned to follow it. The other crow followed up with feet extended and pushed the cat off the wall. It took me a while to stop laughing, and the story still makes me grin. The cat no longer uses the wall.

boomerang

Falcon L wrote: »

The TNR scheme is nothing but words. We paid vets to do the neutering for the local killers. When I lived in Spain I was chatting to an Irish vet who was over on a jolly to neuter feral cats for the Spanish authorities for no fee. Yet they charge for the same service at home.

You're very wrong. Our little organisation in the Mid-West has neutered 1000s of feral cats, and get a very favourable discount from all the vets we use. (They have costs to cover and can't do it for free!)

As for vets and vet nurses doing TNR overseas, most of the time all the charities can afford to provide is free accommodation. In some cases they might part-sponsor some of the flight cost. And the work is gruelling.