House Cats

[Captain Retardo]

Okay, to be honest I didn't read all the link through, especially the part that said that cats have an integral part to play in the ecosystem, which I believe is bogus. And yes I do believe a feral cat problem does exist. I read through the arguement against cats and through part of the arguement in defence of them.

But who says the fact that cats only kill 4% of wild songbirds is fake. About half of domestic cats are indoors so that's why 50% don't hunt at all. And my cat would choose a mouse or a baby rabbit any day over a bird, he is not even interested in birds anyway (Other than looking at them). And I know of other cats who are the same. And you didn't put out a link to disprove it.

Humans do a lot more damage to the ecosystem compared to domestic cats.

I was wondering though: When humans develop on land to make houses they destroy habitat in which bobcats, foxes, coyotes, hawks, and owls used to live in. But because they can't live in it any more they leave, leaving no predators in the area at all, wouldn't cats kind of take up that duty a little bit?

And as for the songbird population: When all the native predators are kicked out because of humans, the songbird population would skyrocket, but then when domestic cats would come wouldn't they even it out? I am just thinking here, this is not a fact that I know of...

Really nice cats KathyM!

 

[KathyM]

Ahaa another interesting question to pose to you then.

The vast majority of those that are against the keeping of indoor cats on here are arguing the "natural habitat".

I wonder how those that posed this opinion feel about the keeping of other domestic pets such as:

Dogs - very difficult to gauge a "natural habitat" on them, but since domestication the closest you can get is living outside permanently. If we take it back a peg or two it's back to pack hunting in the wild.

Hamsters/Rats/Other rodents - are you against the keeping of them if not in a "natural habitat"?

- A hamster's natural habitat (Mesocricetus auratus) is terrestrial (burrows in the ground) in the grassland of the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

- The Norwegian Rat (rattus norvegicus) is the species that we keep as pets. Naturally they live in farms and similar situations, especially in dense cover. It lives in large colonies.

Both of these animals are nocturnal, and have to adapt to people keeping them as "daytime" pets, which goes against what's "natural" for them.

Reptiles/Fish/Other exotics - nothing "natural" about how we keep them.

Seriously though - these are just basic examples of how pet keeping defies "nature"- and you can't knock one without eamining all the others and explaining why it's okay for other animals to do without what's "natural" to them, but not acceptable at all for cats to live indoors. It's not natural to keep fish in tanks, hamsters in cages, or birds in aviaries. Where do you draw the line as to what's acceptable and what's not? Because I see far greater defiances over "natural habitat" than a well cared for domesticated cat living indoors.

Ahaaa!

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Okay, to be honest I didn't read all the link through, especially the part that said that cats have an integral part to play in the ecosystem, which I believe is bogus. And yes I do believe a feral cat problem does exist. I read through the arguement against cats and through part of the arguement in defence of them.

But who says the fact that cats only kill 4% of wild songbirds is fake. About half of domestic cats are indoors so that's why 50% don't hunt at all. And my cat would choose a mouse or a baby rabbit any day over a bird, he is not even interested in birds anyway (Other than looking at them). And I know of other cats who are the same. And you didn't put out a link to disprove it.

Where did you read that half of all cats are kept indoors? From someone else?
Wether cats go for fish, birds, small rodents etc it comes down to personal preference- the fact of the matter is there is no solid information on what cats prefer what- all we know when it comes to songbirds is that cats have been as damaging to their populations as modern farming practises have been, and thats pretty bad.

Humans do a lot more damage to the ecosystem compared to domestic cats.

I was wondering though: When humans develop on land to make houses they destroy habitat in which bobcats, foxes, coyotes, hawks, and owls used to live in. But because they can't live in it any more they leave, leaving no predators in the area at all, wouldn't cats kind of take up that duty a little bit?

And as for the songbird population: When all the native predators are kicked out because of humans, the songbird population would skyrocket, but then when domestic cats would come wouldn't they even it out? I am just thinking here, this is not a fact that I know of...

Thats when you get an inbalance in the ecosystems populations- the problem is, is that songbirds are also wiped out along with the predators when that happens, so there's no boom so to speak in their population. Generally speaking, the only non-domestic animals that tend to thrive in these situations are mice, rats and pigeons. Occasionally you get foxs in the cities.

Everything else, including the songbirds, gets wiped out when people develop property on their natural habitats, detroying the local food chains in the ecosystems. Songbirds pretty much only come into developed area's to feed from bird feeders, most of the population exists out of our human populated areas.
On the other hand, cats can have territories of many miles, and will often move even further a feild when abandoned or hungry, and will continue to wipe out wildlife populations well out of our developed area's.

Generally speaking, cats would not exist in the numbers they currently do over here if it weren't for us, we are basically artificially supporting their numbers by domesticating and feeding them, they simply don't have a place in wild ecosystems except in very small numbers.

 

[Captain Retardo]

I am for the keeping of outdoor cats because of their happiness, not because I feel its natural. Although I did make that ridiculous comment before....

I draw the line at the happiness of the animal if the hamster absolutely hates living in his cage. Then thats when I say its bad to have hamsters living in cages. Why make animals suffer at the expense of your happiness?

Tokis-Sorry, I can't give a link, I'll look for a credible one though...It was something like 50% of cats in America are indoors and 30-40% are indoors in Britain. Sorry I can't give a link at this moment though, as its not very credible if I just say that I remembered it from something. I swear I'll look it up though! Okay I found one website that says something about the amount of cats kept indoors: http/www.petplace.com/cats/the-great-deb...cats/page1.aspx Look at the section that says letting cats out: the pros

On the other hand, cats can have territories of many miles, and will often move even further a feild when abandoned or hungry, and will continue to wipe out wildlife populations well out of our developed area's.

A domestic cat wouldn't need a territory that large and wouldn't have one that large. A cats territory is based on food availability. Since most outdoor cats still get most of their food from their owner they wouldn't need a larger territory. which would require more energy spent patrolling it rather than a small territory. So domestic cats would stay near your house and in your yard.
The only cat that would move out into the wilderness would be feral cat, Which I believe should be euthanized to control their population.


And thanks for clearing up the human destruction, songbird thing, I forget that the songbirds would die along with the predators. BTW how do we know cats have been as damaging as farming. the link just said that and didn't give any facts or statistics.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Ahaa another interesting question to pose to you then.

The vast majority of those that are against the keeping of indoor cats on here are arguing the "natural habitat".

I wonder how those that posed this opinion feel about the keeping of other domestic pets such as:

Dogs - very difficult to gauge a "natural habitat" on them, but since domestication the closest you can get is living outside permanently. If we take it back a peg or two it's back to pack hunting in the wild.

Hamsters/Rats/Other rodents - are you against the keeping of them if not in a "natural habitat"?

- A hamster's natural habitat (Mesocricetus auratus) is terrestrial (burrows in the ground) in the grassland of the Middle East and Eastern Europe.

- The Norwegian Rat (rattus norvegicus) is the species that we keep as pets. Naturally they live in farms and similar situations, especially in dense cover. It lives in large colonies.

Both of these animals are nocturnal, and have to adapt to people keeping them as "daytime" pets, which goes against what's "natural" for them.

Reptiles/Fish/Other exotics - nothing "natural" about how we keep them.

Seriously though - these are just basic examples of how pet keeping defies "nature"- and you can't knock one without eamining all the others and explaining why it's okay for other animals to do without what's "natural" to them, but not acceptable at all for cats to live indoors. It's not natural to keep fish in tanks, hamsters in cages, or birds in aviaries. Where do you draw the line as to what's acceptable and what's not? Because I see far greater defiances over "natural habitat" than a well cared for domesticated cat living indoors.

Ahaaa!

With dogs- i strongly disagree with keeping dogs indoors all of the time. I don't think it is any justification to say "well that owners completely removed their pet from the outside world, so its okay for me to do so".

With hamsters or rats or any other rodent, even i am against the puny cages we put them in, even i let my hamsters have a little run aorund in the garden when i can.
Same goes for reptiles and other pets etc.

I simply believe you shouldn't keep it if you cannot attend to the basics of keeping it, and cats simply do beter when not kept indoors all their lives (i'm not talking about statistics from highly populated area's where people's cats get run over all the time, i'm talking about big gardens and rolling countryside and farms etc).

Answer me this- how would you feel if a friend of yours was getting a pony and was planning on keeping it indoors its entire life, never to see a growing blade of grass or feel the wind in its mane?
Would you be like, oh thats fine because i keep my cats indoors their entire lives, or would you be like- no, i think a pony should be able to run around outdoors?

I am for the keeping of outdoor cats because of their happiness, not because I feel its natural. Although I did make that ridiculous comment before....

I draw the line at the happiness of the animal if the hamster absolutely hates living in his cage. Then thats when I say its bad to have hamsters living in cages. Why make animals suffer at the expense of your happiness?

I agree, natural is one thing, but happiness is another- in the case of cats i believe these things are often one and the same thing, being outdoors is just something cats like doing, its as normal for them to run around outside just as it is for us .

 

[Captain Retardo]

I agree with Tokis exactly on that statement.


Tokis- I edited my last comment so that it also answered your comment before that...

And here is another link that says how many cats are indoors only: http/www.dispatch.com/pets/pets.php?stor...ndoor_cats.html
I read the entire link and it mentioned that people are doing things that zoo's do for their animals. I would just like to say though that zoo animals have an absolutely terrible life, but it is for a reason though because they are there to breed so that maybe the zoo can release them into the wild if the natural population is extinct and so that people will get conservation messages from the zoo after gawking at the animals and hopefully the people will help that animals numbers.

 

[KathyM]

With dogs- i strongly disagree with keeping dogs indoors all of the time. I don't think it is any justification to say "well that owners completely removed their pet from the outside world, so its okay for me to do so".

Sorry, we must have our wires crossed - I said about keeping a dog completely outdoors. Maybe not the best example, sorry.

With hamsters or rats or any other rodent, even i am against the puny cages we put them in, even i let my hamsters have a little run aorund in the garden when i can.
Same goes for reptiles and other pets etc.

But most people don't. Most people keep them in the commonly sold "adequate" but not "ideal" housing. I personally agree with you and strive for that with my rats, but considering their "natural" range in the wild, even the best small animal/reptile home is not providing what is "natural".

I simply believe you shouldn't keep it if you cannot attend to the basics of keeping it, and cats simply do beter when not kept indoors all their lives (i'm not talking about statistics from highly populated area's where people's cats get run over all the time, i'm talking about big gardens and rolling countryside and farms etc).

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe that with domestic pets we have to strive to give them a happy life, so that we agree on. but I don't agree that fundamentally happiness depends on going out for a cat. It's much deeper than that, and a cat can be just as happy living indoors (as I have proven with mine) than going out. It's not a choice I feel people should be forced into, and I completely respect the views of those that let their cats out - just when this topic comes up anywhere, the indoor cat owners don't seem to get the same respect back (and I am in no way meaning from you in that - your posts are really interesting and this thread is going well).

Answer me this- how would you feel if a friend of yours was getting a pony and was planning on keeping it indoors its entire life, never to see a growing blade of grass or feel the wind in its mane?
Would you be like, oh thats fine because i keep my cats indoors their entire lives, or would you be like- no, i think a pony should be able to run around outdoors?

A pony needs to be outdoors to feed and stay healthy. You can't substitute that in an indoor home (although I've read of people keeping miniature ponies as indoor pets). Cat's don't fundamentally need to go outside. All of their natural behaviours can be enacted in the home if people choose to keep indoor cats. It's hard work and a massive responsibility, and it's not for everyone. I'm not trying to push my views on anyone, just trying to dispel phallasies about indoor cats being miserable and neglected.

I am for the keeping of outdoor cats because of their happiness, not because I feel its natural. Although I did make that ridiculous comment before....

I draw the line at the happiness of the animal if the hamster absolutely hates living in his cage. Then thats when I say its bad to have hamsters living in cages. Why make animals suffer at the expense of your happiness?

I agree, natural is one thing, but happiness is another- in the case of cats i believe these things are often one and the same thing, being outdoors is just something cats like doing, its as normal for them to run around outside just as it is for us .

I don't agree that for cats natural = happiness. As I said before I think it goes way deeper than that, dependant on the cat and it's individual needs. I respect your view though.

 

[pica_nuttalli]

Okay, to be honest I didn't read all the link through, especially the part that said that cats have an integral part to play in the ecosystem, which I believe is bogus. And yes I do believe a feral cat problem does exist. I read through the arguement against cats and through part of the arguement in defence of them.

FYI (since I know you have a serious interest in science as a life-long pursuit), never ever ever cite an article unless you have read it all the way through and it is consistently accurate/trustworthy. Even if everything you say is perfect, if your cited authorities are at all "bogus", your arguement and reputation are shot. It doesn't matter what sort of academic discussion you're involved in--its essential to have a good reputation as a discerning and contemplative researcher. I know its a little early to worry about scientific reputation but its never too early to develop good research habits.

But who says the fact that cats only kill 4% of wild songbirds is fake. About half of domestic cats are indoors so that's why 50% don't hunt at all. And my cat would choose a mouse or a baby rabbit any day over a bird, he is not even interested in birds anyway (Other than looking at them). And I know of other cats who are the same. And you didn't put out a link to disprove it.

even if the 4% fact can be proved, it doesn't apply to the situation in the UK or US. ANZFAS is an Australasian organization similar to PETA and, like all of the other information presented on the site in question, this fact is generated with regards to the Australian cat issue. the condition of Australian wildlife is vastly different from that of the UK/US. Australian birds are the product of ra adically divergent evolutionary path and face less direct competition with introduced bird species. (they are more directly threatened by non-avian species and predation.)

basically, the fact that cats in Sydney and Melbourne don't like to eat parrots does not necessarily mean that they'll turn down a finch in Devonshire. i'm further suspicious with regards to this information because its based on survey data--which means asking a cat owner what he observed his cat killing. thus the study is non-descriptive of feral cat populations and is subject to the level of observation each owner keeps over his cat.

the actual, original "study": http/www.petnet.com.au/reark/reark.html

please note that this survey only requests data on cats in a metropolitan area based on the understanding that the majority of Australians "live in highly urbanized areas", which would imply that most cats are kept in cities. this is not the case in the US or the UK. this discrepancy further undermines the study's accuracy in describing hunting behavior in other locales.

I would also like to point out that this information has also not been normalized to account for differences in prey population size that one would expect in a city. (it would make sense to find more rats than honey-eating birds). the survey also made no apparent distinction between indoor and outdoor hunting, which is also a significant source for skepticism on my part as apartment buildings frequently harbor various sorts of small animal life such as mice or lizards. it does report on how prone a cat was to "wander from the home surrounds", but does not clarify what is meant by "home surrounds" nor does it quantify what difference wandering makes.

Humans do a lot more damage to the ecosystem compared to domestic cats.

I was wondering though: When humans develop on land to make houses they destroy habitat in which bobcats, foxes, coyotes, hawks, and owls used to live in. But because they can't live in it any more they leave, leaving no predators in the area at all, wouldn't cats kind of take up that duty a little bit?

And as for the songbird population: When all the native predators are kicked out because of humans, the songbird population would skyrocket, but then when domestic cats would come wouldn't they even it out? I am just thinking here, this is not a fact that I know of...

this assumes that all the predators are driven out while the prey thrive in the revised environment. it would seem to be that the inverse would be more logical.

songbirds typically resolve themselves into seed-eaters and insect-eaters. as native plant life dwindles or disappears due to development and preferential planting of non-native plants, seeds stop being readily available. insects are largely hated by people and are killed off whenever possible. (our housing development once even sent out a newsletter saying that everyone with birds in their yards obviously needed to spray for insect larvae.) thus without active intervention on the part of people (i.e. birdfeeders), it would seem that bird populations would be forced to relocate simply due to lowered food supplies.

predators, on the other hand, are frequently omnivores and readily adapt to living with people. not only can they eat the vermin that always show up around people, eat the remaining prey animals, and eat all the yummy garbage that people put out--every so often they can snack on a small furry pet! i'll give you that bobcats don't generally stick around humanity, but foxes, hawks and the like often fit right in.

 

[Synirr]

Cats do not hunt hares- if you have ever seen a hare, you will note that it is bigger, faster and stronger tahn a cat- cats simply don't hunt hares.

True hares and rabbits are not the same thing at all. Hares are not even in the same genus as either domesticated rabbits or cottontails. Of course most cats wouldn't dare take on a hare, they tend to be much larger, faster, and more powerful than rabbits. A kick from a hare, with their powerful legs and sharp claws, has the potential to do some real damage to a cat.
Until very recently I lived in the country with my parents, and I can assure you that while rabbits are not their prefered prey, they certainly won't all turn one down, either. The thing about domestic cats is that they began as mousers, so the best mousers were bred more often, and domestic cats as they are today do not only kill for food like most wildcats, they kill for fun. Our cats killed at least three cottontails over the years, in an area that doesn't have many to provide as potential targets because the young often fall prey to fireants (and for the record, the cats didn't eat any part of any of them, just left them on the porch). Particularly for a hungry feral cat, a small rabbit would present a formidable but tempting target. But yes, there's no way the feral cat problem could somehow manage to cancel out the rabbit problem in Australia.

The fact remains that housecats are a domesticated species, no matter how easily they can revert back to a feral state. They may be less far removed from their wild roots than dogs, but all the same, they have no "natural" habitat, and no "natural" place in the wild. Their place is with humans, and though they were initially bred and perpetuated in the company of humans as mousers, they have also been bred as companion animals for hundreds of years, the departure from their wild ancestors being easily observed in such breeds as the Persian. Yes, it is great if you can safely let your cat have time outdoors, but their natural behaviour can be replicated to a good extent in the home if their owners actually take the time to provide appropriate enrichment activities for them. The fact is, a lot of people don't even think to take the time to research cat behaviour and try to provide enrichment that suits their needs, which leads to a lot of misconceptions, such as the one that cats should not be kept as indoor-only animals or that they are most happy living "wild". Like I said, I think it is great if you can allow your cat safe outdoor time, but the idea that it is an absolute requirement and it is cruel not to provide it is utter tosh with respect to most cats. What IS cruel is not taking the time to do your homework and provide a suitable home for your pet, complete with plenty of entertainment and attention. If it were cruel to keep cats as indoor-only animals, I seriously doubt that so many cat-specific rescue centers, run by people who devote their lives to these animals and have spent years in the company of many, would make it a REQUIREMENT for adopting their animals, no ifs ands or buts, even when they also require the animals to be spayed/neutered, vaccinated, and microchipped before adoption. Many catteries also have such a requirement, and sometimes that's coming from people who care enough to feed their animals raw or lightly boiled meat to replicate their "natural" diet as closely as possible. Keeping them indoors is so cruel that some of those most knowledgeable about and who care the most about these animals make it a requirement.

Aside from all that, even if I didn't believe that indoor-only housing is not only adequate but can be made great, cats, dogs, and other common pet animals are a little unique with respect to the tremendous overpopulation problem. No one is going to shed a tear if someone passes up an exotic reptile because they cannot provide it with housing above and beyond what is adequate, but maybe in this kind of circumstance, adequate is better than dead. Giving an unwanted animal that would otherwise spend the remainder of its short life in a cage at the shelter and be euthanized when its time has run out a loving home where it will be cared for and live a good, long life with owners who adore it can't possibly be a bad thing, even if it is not allowed time unleashed outdoors.

 

[wodesorel]

Giving an unwanted animal that would otherwise spend the remainder of its short life in a cage at the shelter and be euthanized when its time has run out a loving home where it will be cared for and live a good, long life with owners who adore it can't possibly be a bad thing, even if it is not allowed time unleashed outdoors.

 

[KathyM]

I know this post is off topic, but considering it was discussed on here I thought it best to post this link to an article I found while researching for an article I'm writing on neutering.

http/messybeast.com/antineuter2.htm

I thought it was fascinating, and certainly applies to a small minority of men (and women) I've met personally.

 

[lissie]

Hi, if any of you guys keep house cats, why do you?

Thanks

its cruel to keep a cat indoors all its life

 

[RandomWiktor]

Oh, yeah, totally; you're right. When my cat was living feral, filled with parasites, emaciated, suffering the effects of the FIP he'd been infected with, and crouched terrified under the hooves of two ton steers after wandering into an auction to try and find shelter from the cold, his life was so much better. God, I'm such a cruel, cruel jerk for bringing him home and keeping him in the house so he doesn't get lost, hit by a car, killed by roaming dogs, or in a fight with my neighbors cats (who would then be infected with his deadly disease). He's so miserable and unhappy with all of the attention, toys, behavioral enrichment, and interaction with other animals; that must be why the one time he ventured back outside, he crouched under my porch in terror for 3 hours until we found him, and practically clawed his way up into my arms to get back inside.
Call the humane society folks - we've got a classic case of animal cruelty!

You know, just once - ONCE - I would like to see someone back an opinion with some fact.

 

[Bex]

I can't believe this thread is still going! Surely the different opinions on this prove that neither are right or wrong?

As I said before, as long as the animal in question is well looked after and not kept indoors/outdoors against it's will. As long as it is happy and well fed and can go out if it wants or can stay in if it wants (not all cats WANT to go outside). As long as the owner is prepared to take full responsibility for it and pay for vet bills then what really is the problem if someone has a house cat?

There are valid arguments for both sides, but everyone's cat and home situation are different, so as long as the above is followed and the pet is never neglected - surely that is the most important thing here?

 

[coloradogirl]

I keep a cat because I want companionship. Not only that, but I had a cat who I had to put to sleep five years ago, because of Feline Leukemia. Tests that we got back from our veterinarian showed that she was born with it. I first got her in 1996 when she was eight weeks old. I don't really remember this, but my mom does. When we first saw her and I brought her home, she had this weird cough, which would not go away. I think the cough was caused by the FELV that she had that sadly took her life after five years of a wonderful life with me. She brought me so much love and happiness. When I was having a bad day, she would be there to comfort me and give me kisses. I miss her very much, even though I have another cat now, Sueña.