Cats: Why? Why not? Vote now please!

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.

Do you like/love cats?

Yes
10
45%
No
5
23%
Not sure
0
No votes
Not in my back yard
3
14%
Prefer dogs
2
9%
Cats, dogs, horses, the more the better
2
9%
 
Total votes: 22

mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by mercalia »

Marcus Aurelius wrote:Cat’s bringing you birds is interesting. They are only doing it to ‘help’ you, because obviously you’re too crap to do it by yourself.


from the above giving you left overs it dont want :lol: thats all you are worth, now if it was a rabbit it would mean it respects you :evil:
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20718
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Vorpal »

Ben@Forest wrote:
Vorpal wrote:I like cats. I don't like cat owners allowing them to kill small birds.

Our cats only go out supervised, and I think that all owners shoudl either keep their cats in, or supervise them. I don't have a problem with using them for rodent control, like farm cats. They can, to some extent be trained for that. They can also be fitted with collars that birds can see better than the cats, themselves.

https://www.stlawu.edu/news/biology-pro ... d-atlantic
The collars prevent cats from hunting birds and lizards, but not rodents.


We have a cat. It kills (and eats) rodents, sometimes rats but more usually mice and voles. The guts are left uneaten on the terrace, though sometimes whole rats are left for us as a gift. It doesn't seem to get birds which l guess is just because they're more difficult prey to catch.

Both this and our previous cat were fitted with collars on multiple occasions and both managed to divest themselves of them easily and regularly until we gave up. Most collars were never found but we found one once hanging from a sturdy twig which showed how he must have hooked the collar onto the twig and backed out of it.

I don't really see why a collar which allows a cat to kill field mice but not wood pigeons is a 'good thing', and if we're so concerned about bird deaths l trust we will all stop driving cars tomorrow. I've just come back from a ride, as usual there must've been a bird carcass at least once a mile.

Cats have devastated bird populations. Biologists figure they are responsible for more than 30 extinctions. They account for between 8 & 10 times as many deaths as cars do.

I'd be happy enough if everyone stopped driving cars tomorrow, but the chance of that happening is next to nil. I mean if people won't stop for human deaths, why would they be bothered about the birds?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Ben@Forest »

Vorpal wrote:Cats have devastated bird populations. Biologists figure they are responsible for more than 30 extinctions. They account for between 8 & 10 times as many deaths as cars do.

I'd be happy enough if everyone stopped driving cars tomorrow, but the chance of that happening is next to nil. I mean if people won't stop for human deaths, why would they be bothered about the birds?


I don't doubt that extinction figure though I'd expect a considerable number of those were in locations where there was no competing mammal population until we introduced the cats (and rats and dogs and pigs etc).

However we as a species are far more responsible for extinctions of amimal and plant species through such introductions and, more importantly, habitat destruction. Of the endangered bird species in the UK (and this is a UK forum) I'd bet none are endangered principally through cat predation even the RSPB has no clear evidence that it is the case - but proofing our houses against birds nesting in roofs is a proven decline in sparrows.

Overall I'd prefer cats didn't kill birds, but pointing a finger at cats is somewhat missing the target - us.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20718
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Vorpal »

Ben@Forest wrote:
I don't doubt that extinction figure though I'd expect a considerable number of those were in locations where there was no competing mammal population until we introduced the cats (and rats and dogs and pigs etc).

However we as a species are far more responsible for extinctions of amimal and plant species through such introductions and, more importantly, habitat destruction. Of the endangered bird species in the UK (and this is a UK forum) I'd bet none are endangered principally through cat predation even the RSPB has no clear evidence that it is the case - but proofing our houses against birds nesting in roofs is a proven decline in sparrows.

Overall I'd prefer cats didn't kill birds, but pointing a finger at cats is somewhat missing the target - us.

Of course we are mostly to blame... habitat destruction, hunting, poaching, illegal animal trade, egg collecting, agriculture, pollution, etc. all contribute to the decline of bird populations.

They don't need cat predation on top of that.

I like cats. We have four of them. But there is no need for them to hunt birds, so they aren't allowed. We feed the birds, and do what we can to create habitat and housing for them. We've had hedgehogs and badgers in our garden, as well. I'm pleased about that because it means we've succeeded in wilding it, if only a little. The cats stay in at night. I don't think it's that difficult to enjoy having cats, and not let them hunt birds. They do need hunting as stimulation, but they can get it through play, with each other, and with humans, and they can get it through hunting rodents.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Ben@Forest »

Vorpal wrote:...I like cats. We have four of them. But there is no need for them to hunt birds, so they aren't allowed....The cats stay in at night. I don't think it's that difficult to enjoy having cats, and not let them hunt birds. They do need hunting as stimulation, but they can get it through play, with each other, and with humans, and they can get it through hunting rodents.


Our cat's activity is almost entirely nocturnal. He does little during the day except sleep either in or outside and though he's intrigued by birds he invests almost no effort in chasing them.

However if we tried to keep him in all night we wouldn't get a wink of sleep. It was the same with our last cat. And we couldn't 'form' their behaviour, they were both adult rescue cats when we got them. The RSPB says:

According to a recent major survey by the Mammal Society, birds comprise a relatively small proportion (about 20 per cent) of all the creatures caught by cats. Most of the rest of their catches will be mice or voles. Most of the birds are taken around dawn and dusk, during the breeding season and mid-winter.
It often seems that cats catch more birds than small mammals. This is because birds are mainly caught during the day, so you are more likely to see it, while mice and voles are mainly caught at night


And our cat definitely catches mice/voles, and sometimes rats (though l don't think it's nightly) and l don't really see why preferring cats caught small unseen rodents rather than charismatic birds is a good thing? What if field mice were endangered?

There are so many variables it's hard to know what to think about cat activity. Dogs have a huge impact on ground nesting birds simply because of their presence where people walk their dogs. Where you see dogs romping over fields around a public footpath that area is useless for nesting. I've even seen a study which showed even having walked dogs on leads reduces bird nesting numbers more then humans with no dogs at all.

Sorry - l've managed nature reserves and l think it shows! And on the whole we probably have similar views, but there's so much more than 'cats being out at night' to the argument.
francovendee
Posts: 3151
Joined: 5 May 2009, 6:32am

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by francovendee »

Cyril Haearn wrote:Five cats, is that a record? Are they allowed to roam the dwelling at will?


Not a record, my wife had 6 cats when I met her.
The cats have access to most of the house but not bedrooms. We have a cat flap so they come and go at will.
I've yet to find a strong cat flap, they all eventually break if a cat is being chased and slams through the flap.
I've now made my own and after years it's not broken.

Would i have 5 cats? Probably not but my wife loves all animals and the cats are mostly strays that got taken in.
Marcus Aurelius
Posts: 1903
Joined: 1 Feb 2018, 10:20am

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Marcus Aurelius »

I once tried to tell one of my cats what to do. That was 5 minutes of my life I won’t get back.
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by merseymouth »

I think the cat thought that as well! :oops: :oops: :oops: MM
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56367
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Mick F »

Vorpal wrote:Cats have devastated bird populations.
Nellie, and before her, Fizzy, have devastated the rabbit population within a mile of here, maybe more.

Say a female has a litter of six .......... baby rabbits are ironically called kittens! ............. Fizzy and Nellie would kill and eat all six soon after they start running about.

Then the female has another litter, and they get eaten too. Rabbits breed like rabbits of course, so a litter every six or eight weeks during the breeding season, and every single kitten will get eaten. Isn't long before the adults die of old age with no offsprings to show for it.

Last summer, we hardly saw Nellie for one week to the next, and Fizzy would disappear for weeks on end ........ though we often caught sight of him in the fields hereabouts.

There's so few rabbits about this summer coz they've been eaten, Nellie is hungry enough to come home for catfood as a victim of her own success.
Mick F. Cornwall
mercalia
Posts: 14630
Joined: 22 Sep 2013, 10:03pm
Location: london South

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by mercalia »

Mick F wrote:
Vorpal wrote:Cats have devastated bird populations.
Nellie, and before her, Fizzy, have devastated the rabbit population within a mile of here, maybe more.

Say a female has a litter of six .......... baby rabbits are ironically called kittens! ............. Fizzy and Nellie would kill and eat all six soon after they start running about.

Then the female has another litter, and they get eaten too. Rabbits breed like rabbits of course, so a litter every six or eight weeks during the breeding season, and every single kitten will get eaten. Isn't long before the adults die of old age with no offsprings to show for it.

Last summer, we hardly saw Nellie for one week to the next, and Fizzy would disappear for weeks on end ........ though we often caught sight of him in the fields hereabouts.

There's so few rabbits about this summer coz they've been eaten, Nellie is hungry enough to come home for catfood as a victim of her own success.


well your cat is a menace killing all the rabbits.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19801
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Pebble wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:And if a fix or badger defecates on your lawn you would celebrate....

Cats are fantastic creatures, not all kill pointlessly... one of mine was very proud when he caught a stick, others have grabbed the odd mouse from the nearby fields - but generally they are well enough fed at home to not bother.

Well fed cats hunt for pleasure, they will take a lot more wildlife than hungry one, you will have no idea how much damage it is doing to our already hard pressed and struggling wildlife population. It really should have a bell around its neck if you are letting it out unsupervised.


Cat's hunt better with a bell on, it tells them how stealthily they are moving.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19801
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Cyril Haearn wrote:Escaped cats are a curse in Australia, they kill and displace innocent native marsupials

I'm not in australia...
But the same could be said for grey squirrels over here.

A friend had a greyhound and a spaniel, the greyhound could catch the squirrels but had no idea what to do next, the spaniel arrived slightly after and dispatched them.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19801
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by [XAP]Bob »

Ben@Forest wrote:
kwackers wrote:My missus is in constant denial about how many things the cat kills and I suspect most owners are. They don't need to kill that many things to make a huge hole in the local ecology....


Not more than us of course. They are about to build a new retail park up the road, it will destroy hedges, a bit of woodland and some farmland which was generally under arable but could have been even more useful to wildlife when under a ley crop or pasture. That land will be lost to birds, small mammals, insects, soil dwelling creatures etc forever.

Essentially what we will do will be the effect of having 1,000 cats on it forever. It will be lost green space with maybe 1% of the previous biodiversity quality. It's hard to compare that to cats.


New housing estate here - got permission to remove ~30m of hedge to create an entrance way, so they removed ~1.5km, as well as tens of mature trees (100+ year at a guess).
Repercussions from the council... none.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by kwackers »

Ben@Forest wrote:
kwackers wrote:My missus is in constant denial about how many things the cat kills and I suspect most owners are. They don't need to kill that many things to make a huge hole in the local ecology....


Not more than us of course. They are about to build a new retail park up the road, it will destroy hedges, a bit of woodland and some farmland which was generally under arable but could have been even more useful to wildlife when under a ley crop or pasture. That land will be lost to birds, small mammals, insects, soil dwelling creatures etc forever.

Essentially what we will do will be the effect of having 1,000 cats on it forever. It will be lost green space with maybe 1% of the previous biodiversity quality. It's hard to compare that to cats.

I'm surprised anyone is willing to invest in a retail park atm.
That aside you could plan the retail park with such features in place. A lot of the industrial complexes near us have ponds, woods etc all left alone along with stretches of linear park joining them up.
Not as ideal as leaving the land alone but there's no shortage of wildlife in there and the best bit is that it's relatively unmolested since it's out of the way.
There's absolutely no need to build a retail park as a giant square of tarmac with buildings on it and a few potted plants.

Housing estates otoh are a veritable desert. Even where they leave hedgerows, trees and ponds (like where I live) there are so many cats that any wildlife that tries to make it their home is always going to struggle.
And that's before we include our current penchant for my current pet hate; plastic grass.
A material specifically designed not to bio-degrade of which there are thousands of tons being laid up and down the country and which needs regular cleaning with chemicals.
Hideous stuff.
Ben@Forest
Posts: 3647
Joined: 28 Jan 2013, 5:58pm

Re: Cats: Why? Why not?

Post by Ben@Forest »

kwackers wrote:I'm surprised anyone is willing to invest in a retail park atm.
That aside you could plan the retail park with such features in place. A lot of the industrial complexes near us have ponds, woods etc all left alone along with stretches of linear park joining them up.
Not as ideal as leaving the land alone but there's no shortage of wildlife in there and the best bit is that it's relatively unmolested since it's out of the way.
There's absolutely no need to build a retail park as a giant square of tarmac with buildings on it and a few potted plants


Well it took them years to get permission and there are hoardings around the site. I can't see Covid being anything more than a temporary delay.

There are plenty of biodiversity metrics and offsets and l bet they'll have agreed plenty of mitigation measures. But it will be principally tarmac and concrete (how else can parking, roads and shops be built?). And the site had mature woodland already - it'll take 100 years to re-create that. So l find it hard to credit that there'll be any improvement - making it a cat zoo would be a better choice :wink:.
Post Reply