• jpeps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      In countries where cats are native, they have significantly less impact on wildlife, or at the very least form a part of an ecosystem rather than being a manual introduction (admittedly one complication here is cat populations grouping up in suburban areas). As for safety for the cats, in their native countries they don’t have any serious predators to harm them.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I don’t know if Finland is considered native for cats but it’s against the law to let cats roam freely because there’s a very real risk of them getting injured, disease or dying. Not just from predators but from humans and cars and so on. A dead cat on the side of the road is a too common of a sight. I think the effect on wildlife is seen as secondary and the welfare of the cat is the foremost reason for it.

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I was just showing you that there’s a lot of cats dying from accidents with cars. A lot more getting injured from it. And it’s just one hazard of many. That’s why it’s not seen as responsible pet ownership (and not legal) where I live to let them roam without supervision. Could get hit by a car and suffer horribly from it without you being able to do anything about it, which would be horrific.

                What’s really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?

                I mean getting a cat is selfish to begin with since you are getting yourself a pet after all, but as a pet owner you’re supposed to take as good care of them as possible. It’s like with kids. Once you’ve made the decision to get one you’re responsible for it and it would be silly to expect a small child to make the decisions. You’re the one who is responsible for their well-being.

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    We don’t have to get philosophical. It’s just that here you’re not supposed to let cats roam freely without supervision because there’s a fair risk of injury, disease or death and if those happen you might not be in position to help. So it would be irresponsible pet ownership to put them under unnecessary risk.

    • MacDangus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        That’s not true. In Finland it’s actually against the law because it’s considered irresponsible animal ownership.

        USA isn’t the only place where there’s reason to fear the cat gets hurt, disease or could die.

      • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s not what I’m saying. Not only the USA. Other places where domestic cats are very new, like USA, NZ, etc also probably shouldn’t do outdoor cats.