[Namari]

What don't you do the same, stay indoor, humans too are highly destructive to fauna, they can get injured, die, breed, pick up parasites, or catch communicable diseases that may be incurable.

All animals should be free, if you can't provide freedom to your animals then you should not have any.

[NL807]

You are making an obtuse argument. You do realise pets are introduced species in many parts of the world, and actually end up being significant pests, right? Predatory pets like cats are especially destructive in most ecosystems, many small native species are vulnerable and end up being endangered, because they have not evolved a defence strategy against them. Places like Australia has a huge problem because of it.

Again, keep your cat indoors. Otherwise, you're part of the problem.

[slibhb]

It's not an obtuse argument. People value different things. You listed a bunch of things you value (lifespan of cat, not killing lots of birds, etc) but other people are uncomfortable preventing their cat that wants to go outside from going outside. They're weighing their cat's own preferences over the things you value and reasonable people can disagree over questions like this.

[NL807]

It is an obtuse argument. Because they identify themselves in what I said earlier, got defensive about it, and then resorted to mental gymnastics in an attempt to absolve responsibility for the harm caused by their own pets.

[alphanumeric0]

I understand where you're coming from, as they can be highly destructive and are to be blamed for some species on Pacific Islands going extinct! The humans who brought cats to such fragile ecosystems are clearly to blame.

By and large, domestic US outdoor cats are not in fragile ecosystems, but they are the number one killer of birds. They roam outside along with other species (like squirrels and crows) that have had to adapt to the insane environment humans have developed.

I've always seen my pets as persons, with feeling and moods. Trapping them inside is cruel. Cats in nature are adapted to roam and explore.

My cat in the US regretably, has brought home a few birds, but all of the birds were species of least concern. Fortunately, there are a lot of cheap collars owners can use to help alert the bird of the cat's presence before predation occurs.

[sys32768]

Your cat doesn't know which species are of least concern, and you certainly aren't seeing every bird or small mammal or reptile your cat kills for fun.

I recently took a course on ornithology and was stunned by how difficult a bird's life is from the migrations, predations, building collisions, and the sheer amount of work they invest in nesting and raising their young. It's easy to take them for granted until you actually understand what they go through just to exist, unlike a pampered cat who gets to kill for sport.

Cat owners who allow their cats outdoors are being cruel to birds and small animals, period. A bell on your cat's collar doesn't make much difference. There's no way to wiggle out of this moral dilemma. If you love nature and want it balanced and protected, then keep your cat indoors. Or, if you can, train your cat to kill only invasive species.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/animals/2020/09/the-232... https://abcbirds.org/program/cats-indoors/cats-and-birds/

[alphanumeric0]

> Your cat doesn't know which species are of least concern, and you certainly aren't seeing every bird or small mammal or reptile your cat kills for fun.

Of course they don't know which is of least concern, but by and large I do see everything they kill because they bring it home and I have to clean it up. It is in their nature to bring it home.

> A bell on your cat's collar doesn't make much difference.

Bells and other deterrents absolutely do make a difference (https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2022.85044...)

There's barely any species of concern in urban environments anymore, because:

* Industrial run-off * Habitat destruction * Roads and highways with vehicles * Air pollution * Light pollution * Poisons * Electrocution from power lines * Buildings with glass (actual a #2 killer of birds!) * Hunting (both legal and illegal)

Domestic cats are merely a cherry on top of the myriad of environmental mistakes humans have made in the name of progress.

They are simply acting on instinct and trying to be happy in a world of human creation.

If you truly care about birds I would urge you to:

* stop driving * use no lights past dusk * not use or consume any product that contributes to air pollution * not use any power grid that uses power lines * not use any building with glass * not consume any poultry

[nerb]

1. those collars don't work. birds didn't evolve alongside cat w/ flashy collars, so it doesn't always trigger flee instinct

2. if your cat wants to go outdoors, you can leash them like any dog-owner is required to do. the whole "cats need to be in nature" argument is rooted in the assumption that you as the owner aren't involved in that nourishment. if you can't be a responsible cat owner (keeping it from roaming on it's own; keeping it stimulated) then don't get a pet. is the cat really a critical unit of your family if you skirt responsibility and are okay w/ it dying violently outside?

3. the US is very much a fragile ecosystem. source on it not being? we, like many other place, have had a huge and trending decline in biodiversity.

4. cats haven't adapted to the human environment; we've developed technology and laws that have protected cats in our human environment. i'm not sure how they've had to adapt as they can interact with humans safely.

5. you don't see everything your cat kills. you may be able to placate yourself that your cat isn't one of the "rampant killers", but that thought isn't based solely on fact.

[rcpt]

I've only been into cat discourse for a few months but in my experience it's almost a guarantee that someone will make the "humans are the real invasive species" argument to defend letting their cat out

[yencabulator]

Proving their point by demonstrating invasive behavior themselves!

[Namari]

You're the one who decide to take an animal as a pet, knowing all the damage it can do to the environment. If you're fine with it then that's ok for you but you can't force your pet to be in prison because you don't want it to kill other species, if that's the case then you should not consider getting one in the first place.

Would you want to live in a cage your whole life? Then why do you want to do it to others? Never heard of the Golden Rule: "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you"?

I understand your point of view, I share it, cats are deadly to many smaller species that's why if you're against that then you shouldn't get a cat at all.

PS: Australia's problem is about the Feral cats and they are making traps in the wild to poison their skin thanks to some box trap and AI.

[NL807]

Oh please, cats are perfectly fine indoors if they are raised that way. There are solutions, like building a catio, indoor platforms and so forth. You can even train them for walking on a leash in a park. If there is a will there is a way. But people are lazy and pretend letting cats out is not a problem.

And if you are living in a shoebox yourself, where you regard your own home as a "prison" or a "cage", then you have no business keeping such a pet anyway.

> PS: Australia's problem is about the Feral cats and they are making traps in the wild to poison their skin thanks to some box trap and AI.

Feral AND domestic. There are laws introduced in Australia that mandates cats to be kept indoors for this reason.

[Namari]

Indeed I guess it depends of the size of the house.

> Feral AND domestic. There are laws introduced in Australia that mandates cats to be kept indoors for this reason. I didn't know about the domestic one.

[rockostrich]

> cats are deadly to many smaller species that's why if you're against that then you shouldn't get a cat at all.

Many people who have cats do so by adoption of strays found in their area so not getting a cat is the same as letting a cat roam free in that area without a safe space and consistent food source.

The whole "prisoner" argument seems so dumb to me when we've already decided as a society that it's in the best interests of society to neuter/spay as many cats and dogs as possible to prevent an explosion in the stray population. Do you think we shouldn't do that because you wouldn't neuter/spay yourself?

[Namari]

If they are strays why would you want to force them to be inside? I really don't get you.

We can have both desexing pets and letting them roam free. No need to force them to live inside.

[rockostrich]

The point is that you're ok with forcing them to be desexed but not forcing them to live inside. Why?

[ivraatiems]

I genuinely don't understand why you feel the same rules ought to apply to humans and non-sapient animals, especially animals introduced into an environment by humans.

What about the fact that animals introduced to an environment by humans in the name of "freedom" cause disproportionate harm to other animals? Whose freedom wins?

[Namari]

Just don't get a cat?

[ivraatiems]

That's a pretty big "just" for someone who grew up loving cats.

I'm sure it seems easy to you to not have animal companions, but plenty of rational people place a lot more value on it than you do.

Your point of view is based on faulty assumptions about the importance of that experience.

[Namari]

It's a choice you have to make.

It's the same as cigarets, you know it's toxic to you and others but still you want it regardless.

PS: I love cats and always had one until few years back but I don't want to have one to force him to stay indoor, as long as I don't have a place for it to go out I won't get any.

[stephenr]

> if you can't provide freedom to your animals

How free are they if you consider them yours?

[toastercat]

If I'm understanding correctly, you're suggesting that all pet owners should disown their pets and let them free?

[Namari]

Do you have a pet or a slave pet?

[toastercat]

I don't understand the difference in your point of view. Aren't all pets slaves from your definition (not free)?