Not how cats work. Nice job getting butthurt about a funny comic on the internet, though.
And just so you can be better informed in the future. Feral cats are the ones affecting the ecosystem. Outdoor house cats have a negligible influence on wildlife. Let your cat go outside sometimes.
And, just a guess, you should probably go outside sometimes too.
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
Downvoting doesn’t make you right and it doesn’t make your cats less miserable.
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
Maybe don’t believe every sensationalized social media article that’s really just a barely disguised cat litter ad.
Im a professional ecologist. I have to listen to one of my colleagues rant about this topic on a nearly weekly basis, because its the focus of her grant work.
There are multiple groups of actual researchers in nearly every institute of biological study on the planet dedicated to spreading local awareness about wild cats.
There are multiple websites entirely dedicated to trying to inform people that the small apex predator from a far off desert doesnt actually belong wandering the wilds of your neighborhood.
There are a few actual native species of wild felines currently threatened due to feral domestic cats, that are having trouble becoming stable again because of folk like you.
The kind of person who doesnt really grok that owned cats are where feral cats come from, because your cat is fucking left and right in the bushes.
The kind of person who thinks their cat can win a fight with a car, or coyote, or wolf, or fox, or badger, or weasel, or any other predator in the wild that youre gleefully feeding it to.
The kind of person who is to blame for multiple feline diseases spreading and festering in local populations because you let your cat go pick them up from the source and spread them about willy nilly.
The kind of person who failed to pay attention in grade school science.
But please. Go on, tell me how the majority of science is a pop article about cat litter, flunkie.
I mean… I know Im not lying, and my comments are repeating the current standard. So either you retired 4 decades ago, or youre about as successful an ecologist as you are a conversationalist.
Letting your cat outdoors means its interacting with wild populations. That makes it succeptable to the same problems. An ecologist would know this.
A responsible pet owner doesnt let their pets roam outdoors, so thats a confirmed lie. But at least its not breeding, yes.
Wildcats are often refered to as apex predators in their native environments, because they dont live near all those predators. But piddling over the exact definition of apex doesnt really stop your cat becoming a coyote meal.
This basic concept is a grade school science lesson. If you dont know algebra, why would I assume you took calculus classes?
Some of us, sure. I dont think youre part of that collective group though.
For starters, Ive never met an ecologist who wants to feed their pets to the local wildlife, or who completely ignores the massive issue of feline disease spreading.
E: I just noticed your edit, on apex predation. Do you genuinely think that cats cannot be an ecological threat to small mammal, reptile, and amphibian populations just because they can be eaten by larger locals? By that logic, you are counting on your pet getting eaten. Thats… Thats insanely fucked up.
By that logic, you are counting on your pet getting eaten. Thats… Thats insanely fucked up.
And something an actual ecologist would have thought of, as you are essentially considering your pet cat as part of the food web, a high school level ecological concept.
You cited a decade old research paper with funding conflicts.
But my awareness of cat risk makes me not an ecologist?
Lol, ok. Your cat is likely riddled with parasites and other diseases, and might vanish one night in a smear of red alongside the road to die a slow, painful, lonely death.
But you keep spreading your lies. Im sure the slow, painful, lonely deaths of other peopled beloved pets makes it worth it to you.
If you’re a professional ecologist, then you should know full well that even if a cat is perfectly sedentary and kills nothing, and is neutered, they can still get and spread diseases, they can still get run over, and they can still be attacked and killed by other outdoor animals
If you don’t think outdoor cats, not just feral cats, are destroying the ecosystem, then you’re not only an ignorant ecologist, but a fucking dangerous one. God only knows what other goody-ass looney tunes theories you have. Not only are you misinformed, but you go so far as to defend and spread that misinformation. Jfc.
As a “professional ecologist” you should be aware of the concept of “landscape of fear”.
Non-consumptive effects have an equally strong (some argue an even stronger) effect on prey populations compared to consumptive effects.
Letting domesticated cats roam freely creates an unnaturally high predation pressure in the area and has more effects on the local wildlife than just killing it.
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
Loss, S., Will, T. & Marra, P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4, 1396 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
There. Do I have to do all you peoples’ thinking for you?
If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then you do the opposite of thinking for others - you provide your sources so your audience can review and then think for themselves based on the data. Otherwise you’re just expecting people to take your word for it, which means you would be doing all of the thinking for the people who don’t question which, based on your comment, is not what you want.
This study is about the immense magnitude of cat predation, and your takeaway is that we shouldn’t limit owned cat predation simply because un-owned cat predation is higher…
We estimate that cats in the contiguous United States annually kill between 1.3 and 4.0 billion birds (median=2.4 billion) (Fig. 1a), with ∼69% of this mortality caused by un-owned cats. The predation estimate for un-owned cats was higher primarily due to predation rates by this group averaging three times greater than rates for owned cats.
This study estimates that annual bird deaths by owned cat predation in the US is around a 750 million median figure, and you’re just fine with that?
If you quote an authority source you are obligated to cite it. It is not other’s job to backwards full-text-search a quote to determine who your were referencing. Pretty common academia stuff, but as you said you’re an ecologist and for sure know that, so you must have omitted it purposefully
It kind of sounds like this is part of a paper that is detailing seemingly large amounts of predation from cats of which the majority is attributable to un-owned cats which I gather you reckon means “outdoor” owned cats aren’t a big threat to wildlife populations since they aren’t responsible for the greatest amount of the total predation from cats overall.
But, without the context, the numbers cited sound instinctively like ‘big’ numbers so if the total magnitude of predation from cats is large and “owned” cats are responsible only for a fraction of it, their contribution could well be substantial nonetheless. Not knowing the scope or the details of the quoted paper it’s unclear if it goes in to what the estimated proportion is other than not the majority and its unclear how much predation can be tolerated by the populations upon which cats, both owned and unowned, prey.
For example maybe owned cats are responsible for 40% of the total predation by cats on local wildlife in an area with the remaining 60% being attributable to un-owned cats. This would make un-owned cats majority responsible for the predation yet you could reduce the total predation by 40% if owned cats were all kept indoors in that hypothetical. The actual numbers are likely different and could well be much more slanted between owned vs un-owned cats’ share of predation but if the estimates for the sustainable amount of predation certain populations can withstand are below the current total amount of predation then removing even a smaller fraction might be the difference between endangerment and extinction.
Exactly this, as Signtist posted above, about 31% of deaths are predicted to be from owned cats which is around 750 million birds per year. That’s horrific.
Not how cats work. Nice job getting butthurt about a funny comic on the internet, though.
And just so you can be better informed in the future. Feral cats are the ones affecting the ecosystem. Outdoor house cats have a negligible influence on wildlife. Let your cat go outside sometimes.
And, just a guess, you should probably go outside sometimes too.
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
Downvoting doesn’t make you right and it doesn’t make your cats less miserable.
Thats exactly how cats work.
The comic is funny and cute, but dont get it twisted. The science is pretty firm on the destructive effects of invasive domestic cats.
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
Maybe don’t believe every sensationalized social media article that’s really just a barely disguised cat litter ad.
“The science is pretty firm” lmao
Im a professional ecologist. I have to listen to one of my colleagues rant about this topic on a nearly weekly basis, because its the focus of her grant work.
There are multiple groups of actual researchers in nearly every institute of biological study on the planet dedicated to spreading local awareness about wild cats.
There are multiple websites entirely dedicated to trying to inform people that the small apex predator from a far off desert doesnt actually belong wandering the wilds of your neighborhood.
There are a few actual native species of wild felines currently threatened due to feral domestic cats, that are having trouble becoming stable again because of folk like you.
The kind of person who doesnt really grok that owned cats are where feral cats come from, because your cat is fucking left and right in the bushes.
The kind of person who thinks their cat can win a fight with a car, or coyote, or wolf, or fox, or badger, or weasel, or any other predator in the wild that youre gleefully feeding it to.
The kind of person who is to blame for multiple feline diseases spreading and festering in local populations because you let your cat go pick them up from the source and spread them about willy nilly.
The kind of person who failed to pay attention in grade school science.
But please. Go on, tell me how the majority of science is a pop article about cat litter, flunkie.
Removed by mod
Holy shit you’re insufferable
I mean… I know Im not lying, and my comments are repeating the current standard. So either you retired 4 decades ago, or youre about as successful an ecologist as you are a conversationalist.
Letting your cat outdoors means its interacting with wild populations. That makes it succeptable to the same problems. An ecologist would know this.
A responsible pet owner doesnt let their pets roam outdoors, so thats a confirmed lie. But at least its not breeding, yes.
Wildcats are often refered to as apex predators in their native environments, because they dont live near all those predators. But piddling over the exact definition of apex doesnt really stop your cat becoming a coyote meal.
This basic concept is a grade school science lesson. If you dont know algebra, why would I assume you took calculus classes?
Some of us, sure. I dont think youre part of that collective group though.
For starters, Ive never met an ecologist who wants to feed their pets to the local wildlife, or who completely ignores the massive issue of feline disease spreading.
E: I just noticed your edit, on apex predation. Do you genuinely think that cats cannot be an ecological threat to small mammal, reptile, and amphibian populations just because they can be eaten by larger locals? By that logic, you are counting on your pet getting eaten. Thats… Thats insanely fucked up.
And something an actual ecologist would have thought of, as you are essentially considering your pet cat as part of the food web, a high school level ecological concept.
“Never met an ecologist who wants to feed their pets to the local wildlife.”
“A responsible pet owner doesnt let their pets roam outdoors.”
Dude. You’re clearly not an ecologist, just some loudmouth repeating sensationalist, unfounded, unresearched pseudoscience. Just stop.
You cited a decade old research paper with funding conflicts.
But my awareness of cat risk makes me not an ecologist?
Lol, ok. Your cat is likely riddled with parasites and other diseases, and might vanish one night in a smear of red alongside the road to die a slow, painful, lonely death.
But you keep spreading your lies. Im sure the slow, painful, lonely deaths of other peopled beloved pets makes it worth it to you.
I’m sure this is frustrating for you but I am enjoying every response you get that you then get to reply to.
Yeah they’re the loudmouth …
Enjoy getting trounced. It’s obvious to everyone else.
You can put anything you like in quotes, it’s not cited. As a “professional ecologist” you’d habitually cite your sources
If you’re a professional ecologist, then you should know full well that even if a cat is perfectly sedentary and kills nothing, and is neutered, they can still get and spread diseases, they can still get run over, and they can still be attacked and killed by other outdoor animals
If you don’t think outdoor cats, not just feral cats, are destroying the ecosystem, then you’re not only an ignorant ecologist, but a fucking dangerous one. God only knows what other goody-ass looney tunes theories you have. Not only are you misinformed, but you go so far as to defend and spread that misinformation. Jfc.
Please, present your credentials mr professional ecologist
The argument is based on hearsay, personal experience, and this flimsy excuse for authority.
Troll, or insane person?
As a “professional ecologist” you should be aware of the concept of “landscape of fear”.
Non-consumptive effects have an equally strong (some argue an even stronger) effect on prey populations compared to consumptive effects.
Letting domesticated cats roam freely creates an unnaturally high predation pressure in the area and has more effects on the local wildlife than just killing it.
Your other comment drivel makes the irony here quite palpable. It’s delicious.
How is it not?
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
You keep posting this without citing a source, which doesn’t help your argument. Please provide a source for this quote.
Loss, S., Will, T. & Marra, P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4, 1396 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
There. Do I have to do all you peoples’ thinking for you?
If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then you do the opposite of thinking for others - you provide your sources so your audience can review and then think for themselves based on the data. Otherwise you’re just expecting people to take your word for it, which means you would be doing all of the thinking for the people who don’t question which, based on your comment, is not what you want.
Thank you for providing the source.
This study is about the immense magnitude of cat predation, and your takeaway is that we shouldn’t limit owned cat predation simply because un-owned cat predation is higher…
This study estimates that annual bird deaths by owned cat predation in the US is around a 750 million median figure, and you’re just fine with that?
If you quote an authority source you are obligated to cite it. It is not other’s job to backwards full-text-search a quote to determine who your were referencing. Pretty common academia stuff, but as you said you’re an ecologist and for sure know that, so you must have omitted it purposefully
It kind of sounds like this is part of a paper that is detailing seemingly large amounts of predation from cats of which the majority is attributable to un-owned cats which I gather you reckon means “outdoor” owned cats aren’t a big threat to wildlife populations since they aren’t responsible for the greatest amount of the total predation from cats overall.
But, without the context, the numbers cited sound instinctively like ‘big’ numbers so if the total magnitude of predation from cats is large and “owned” cats are responsible only for a fraction of it, their contribution could well be substantial nonetheless. Not knowing the scope or the details of the quoted paper it’s unclear if it goes in to what the estimated proportion is other than not the majority and its unclear how much predation can be tolerated by the populations upon which cats, both owned and unowned, prey.
For example maybe owned cats are responsible for 40% of the total predation by cats on local wildlife in an area with the remaining 60% being attributable to un-owned cats. This would make un-owned cats majority responsible for the predation yet you could reduce the total predation by 40% if owned cats were all kept indoors in that hypothetical. The actual numbers are likely different and could well be much more slanted between owned vs un-owned cats’ share of predation but if the estimates for the sustainable amount of predation certain populations can withstand are below the current total amount of predation then removing even a smaller fraction might be the difference between endangerment and extinction.
Exactly this, as Signtist posted above, about 31% of deaths are predicted to be from owned cats which is around 750 million birds per year. That’s horrific.
Cats, even owned ones, have cause extinctions
deleted by creator