[A study] show[s] [that domestic cats] eat more than 2,000 species globally – including hundreds that are of conservation concern.

“Our study sheds light on the predatory habits of one of the world’s most successful and widely distributed invasive predators,” the researchers, led by Christopher Lepczyk from Auburn University in the US, wrote in the paper.

  • luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    There’s a lot of strong wording in the thread so please let me bring a little bit of perspective. I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind.

    The fact that endangered species are being hunted by domestic cats is often a consequence of humans transforming natural habitats into suburbs. Animal welfare organizations have also spoken out in the past against sudden outdoor cat bans. Some papers have had a more nuanced outlook as well, raising questions about the welfare of cats confined indoors for their whole existence, unable to act out on their natural behaviour.

    What I’m trying to say is that as with all controversial topics, it’s easy to get caught up but it’s useful to remain cool and curious. (Please don’t hurt me.)

    • cobra89@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I guess my only comment is that even if being kept inside all the time is bad for cats (which is really yet to be seen, cats live much longer lives on average indoors, but I guess it depends on what you mean by “good” for cats) you still can’t justify bringing an invasive species into an area where they’re not meant to be and justify it by saying “it’s bad for their health”. Then let cats be outside where they’re native. Let them be outdoors in Europe where they’re not as much of a threat and prey is more adapted to them. But letting them be outside in places like the US because it might be better for their health while it’s been proven to be bad for the health of hundreds of other species is silly, and I think anyone that is looking at it objectively can agree with that.

      • CherryBlossoms@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        From the article they mentioned that has a nuanced outlook: “While there are potential welfare impairments with indoor restrictions, a number of enrichment strategies have been suggested for counteracting these effects to promote the health, affective states, and performance of natural behaviors of indoor cats. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy of these strategies and to determine whether the welfare of cats is impaired by restriction. To develop effective educational strategies aimed at reducing the impact of uncontrolled outdoor access for cats, further research is necessary to improve our understanding of owner practices and attitudes towards outdoor access for cats.“

        Pet owners that are responsible should be enacting enrichment strategies to keep them happy and healthy. Further research is needed to conclude strategies are effective, but I’m not sure the conclusion is no pet cats for all because “cruel”. My anecdotal evidence points to the strategies being effective, at least.

        • Devi@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It is weird if you think about it that people buy intelligent animals as pets and then don’t bother to entertain them at all. It’s neglect. Cats are not difficult to care for but if your only entertainment for them is opening the door and hoping they find something out there to do without getting killed, then just don’t have them?