Poll: Cats: Indoors or Outdoors?
You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
Indoors only
6 60.00%
Outdoors only
3 30.00%
1 10.00%
Total 10 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Cats: Indoors or Outdoors?
^ "Like what..."?

You just have no idea. Comparing Raccoon dogs to cats for example. Or Europe to Oceania.

Its a simple matter of what is practicable, & extirpation of feral cats, 'cept in specific zones - is not.
Having a small set of 'exterminators' going out manually shooting/trapping/baiting is a 'token' only.
It amounts to a 'seen to be doing something' program, & research shows it is actually ineffectual.

& if anything, your illusions about the 'value' of native wildlife, to most people, compared to the
perceptions of those who 'value' keeping a cat, are grossly over-estimated, numbers/popularity-wise.

Human politics means that no wholesale cat-eradication or home cat-ban deal is ever going 'to fly', frankly.
Who said I compared Europe to oceania? Didn't I specifically state the harm was less in places that were not Australia and New Zealand in general?
And Raccoon Dogs can be used due to their rapid breedings. They only live 4 years, and live basically only for mass breeding.

Why only a small amount of exterminaters? You could probably on the islands hunt them down to the extent of beginning to inbreed. And it will keep the numbers down anyway, perhaps even keep them off certain areas. You don't disagree with that right?

When did I make a comparison between pet owners and how much people value wildlife?

I would not be surprised if New Zealand and Australia would one day do it. They wonder about domesticating Marsupials anyway.
^ No raccoon dogs in Oceania. No harm by them escaping & going feral there, then.

Likely, due to their nature, feral raccoon dogs are less difficult to destroy than cats. & who keeps them as 'pets'?

As noted, on small islands, eradication may be feasible, but then what of the exotic rodents, they proliferate.
It has to be a more considered approach than amateurish "hunting", as you suggest.

Relative values are what will cause any meaningful change, & sorry to sweep away your illusions, but its really only 'greenie' types that do 'care' so avidly for most small wildlife in Oceania, & they are seen as a 'lunatic fringe'.

No way are the majority of 'regular' people going to accept that cats cannot be kept as pets anymore, ever.
I didn't say there were Raccoon Dogs in Oceania? I compared them because we in Europe have managed to remove their popilations from key areas despite their long travels and quick breedings. some of the smaller islands could be similar with cats.

For some reason, people do wanna keep them as pets in similar ways people want an actual Raccoon, but that is becoming a No-No in countries.

We have managed to get rid of the rodents in some places, and with future tech and knowledge, we may get rid of them for good easier, with potential genetic altering. And you must ask yourself, does cats benefit the wildlife more from keeping the rodents down, than the damage they do on the native birds and other wildlife?

Some places of Oceania are quite different from our western world to the point they see neither dog or cat as a cute pet. There is a good start to go from there.

That is if they are going to have a say on the matter. And in some countries it would not surprise me. A good dream.
It is a hypocrisy that the killing of feral and introduced species to save the native wildlife is done by humans, who are also a non-native species to all the land masses except Africa (see the "Out of Africa" scenario of modern humans origin). It is like saying "look who is talking"...I wonder why modern humans, as a conservation effort, do not retreat back to Africa too, leaving the rest of the world uninhabited and so protected.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Claudiu Constantin Nicolaescu's post:
  • Mondas
The difference is we as humans did it ourselves; all other invasive species required humans to introduce them in the first place.
The killing of the megafauna of so many territories is a good example of the disaster that modern human colonisation has bring. The modern humans are really an extinction-prone species for the megafauna. They did the overkill of so many megafauna species on all the territories.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Claudiu Constantin Nicolaescu's post:
  • Mondas
That is a stupid argument. Not only do I not think humans and general animals can be compared in that way, it is basically like having rats on some bird islands making the birds extinct there and then go "we have brought more extinctions than rats, therefor it is okay for Rats that were brought by humans to make animals extinct and we should do nothing about it". It is about limiting our damage, we might as well stop trying to stop poarchers and farmers from mass killing Lions, Tigers, Elephants, Rhinos, Whales and so on according to your logic.

If a country brought Raccoon Dogs and Mink to Iceland which is a bird land, would it not he said countrys responsibility to protect the island against the problem it itself created?
Or should it just go "meh, we humans are invasive too, so it is perfectly okay for us to protect these birds from going extinct from a problem we could protect them from. We might as well add more invasives since it is okay cuz we are worse".
What kind of logic is that?
The Arctic Fox (Vulpes lagopus) is a native land mammal in Iceland.
Alright, so, let's say Coyotes where introduced to Iceland and began making the Arctic Foxes extinct. Or Raccoon Dogs came and began competing with the Foxes and killing off sea bird species. Should we just let that happen? Should we just go "look whos talking. We did this problem and we don't wanna fix it and protect these animals".
You could basically attempt on purpose to introduce species to various areas with the intention of destroying the ecosystem. It would not be a problem if people just went "meh, we have done worse".
I have read in 1998 a critical comment of a reader of National Geographic magazine. It was about the killing of the feral pigs in the Hawaii Islands. The reader said something like that: "If a species of plant or a small insect is transported by the wind or the birds on Hawaii Islands, then it is a natural fact, and we call it a native species. It the feral pigs were transported to Hawaii Islands by people, then it is an invasive species and we must exterminate it. By the people who call themselves conservationists." I totally agree with the point of view of that reader.
Of course, one is naturally migrating the other is not. Golden Jackals are not invasive in Denmark because they came on their own, Raccoon Dogs are killed in mass by basically every single country because it is both more harmful than the Jackal and it did not come on its own.

Are you really defending that we should just let our own wild domestic animals rampage Hawaii and make the Birds there extinct? Could I not put an invasive animal on some random island to make all the animals there extinct and then just go "Ha! No one is going to protect their native widlife, because humans have already done worse!".
If an invasive animal species overkills the native wildlife and proliferate excessively, sooner or later it will go extinct by depleting its own food and habitat resources. Nature knows best.
I like how the outdoor cat defenders have basically just resorted to "lol who cares about native wildlife and biodiversity? We should just let the cats kill them all"
[-] The following 2 users Like M4A2E4's post:
  • Ryo, ScottishWildcat
How do you differentiate between native and non-native? After how long a non-native species can be called native? And non-native species are part of the biodiversity? If they are not part of the biodiversity, why are they allowed to exist in nature?

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)