Cats survived before us by hunting small mammals and small birds, and they are very effective at getting fed.
The motivation at the core of naming owners of outdoor cats as irresponsible is a sharp decline in songbird populations in direct proportion to the increase in outdoor cat population.
Cats survived before us by hunting small mammals and small birds, and they are very effective at getting fed.
And, conversely, the prey evolved to avoid cats. So it is only a problem if you take cats to a place that historically did not have them. In fact, removing a predator from an ecosystem it used to keep under check can be just as devastating as introducing a foreign species.
Literally nowhere historically has had cats. Wild cats existed in Northern Africa/Mediterranean regions about 10 to 15 thousand years ago and were from there spread by human agricultural revolution to be introduced throughout Egypt, Rome, and then Roman Colonies as well as Asia, and some thousands of years later they exist on every continent except Antarctica.
The tiny speck of area and population that they should naturally have is like a grain of sand on a beach compared to the destructive force they have become.
F. Silvestris, the European Wildcat, is generally considered a separate lineage from domesticated cats, though somewhat capable of crossbreeding, and because of human introduction of domestic cats the Scottish Wildcat in particular is functionally extinct in the wild. Just one of many great examples of the destructive nature of this pet and human negligence.
"That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, then it's not a big deal.
And if it is, then it's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did... You deserved it."
As you yourself said, cats have been living across most of Africa, Asia and Europe for over a thousand years. So unless you are talking about Australia, the Americas, or a few corners of the old world, cats are either native or naturalised enough that they are now a part of the ecosystem.
A thousand years is nothing to an ecosystem. Birds have been migrating across Europe, Asia, and the Americas for hundreds of millions of years, only to get slaughtered in droves by furry shit machines.
It depends on the ecosystem. Pollution famously caused certain moths to shift from being mostly light-coloured to mostly dark-coloured in a matter of years. The removal and reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone caused observable changes in prey behaviour within a decade or so. Of course longer-lived species like trees take much longer to adapt, but we’re talking about birds, geckos and rodents here.
Edit: Also, most geckos, birds and rodents are r-strategists, meaning they are limited more by food than by predation.
The danger isn’t to the cats, it’s to everything else. Ecologically speaking, cats are an invasive apex predator. They absolutely wreak havoc on local bird populations.
They are still mesopredators. A big bird of prey, a coyote, or a fox wouldn’t mind going for a cat.
But it’s not even relevant for the discussion whether they are apex predators or not. They are efficient predators and the artificial high number of individuals is harmful for the ecosystem.
Yeah, one wonders how they survived until we came along.
Cats survived before us by hunting small mammals and small birds, and they are very effective at getting fed.
The motivation at the core of naming owners of outdoor cats as irresponsible is a sharp decline in songbird populations in direct proportion to the increase in outdoor cat population.
And, conversely, the prey evolved to avoid cats. So it is only a problem if you take cats to a place that historically did not have them. In fact, removing a predator from an ecosystem it used to keep under check can be just as devastating as introducing a foreign species.
Literally nowhere historically has had cats. Wild cats existed in Northern Africa/Mediterranean regions about 10 to 15 thousand years ago and were from there spread by human agricultural revolution to be introduced throughout Egypt, Rome, and then Roman Colonies as well as Asia, and some thousands of years later they exist on every continent except Antarctica.
The tiny speck of area and population that they should naturally have is like a grain of sand on a beach compared to the destructive force they have become.
Literally nowhere? What absolute bollocks.
Cats moved across a land bridge to the UK over 9000 years ago, long before the Romans had anything to do with it.
F. Silvestris, the European Wildcat, is generally considered a separate lineage from domesticated cats, though somewhat capable of crossbreeding, and because of human introduction of domestic cats the Scottish Wildcat in particular is functionally extinct in the wild. Just one of many great examples of the destructive nature of this pet and human negligence.
We should consider the centuries of persecution by humans and the severe habit loss.
"That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, then it's not a big deal. And if it is, then it's not my fault. And if it was, I didn't mean it. And if I did... You deserved it."As you yourself said, cats have been living across most of Africa, Asia and Europe for over a thousand years. So unless you are talking about Australia, the Americas, or a few corners of the old world, cats are either native or naturalised enough that they are now a part of the ecosystem.
A thousand years is nothing to an ecosystem. Birds have been migrating across Europe, Asia, and the Americas for hundreds of millions of years, only to get slaughtered in droves by furry shit machines.
It depends on the ecosystem. Pollution famously caused certain moths to shift from being mostly light-coloured to mostly dark-coloured in a matter of years. The removal and reintroduction of wolves in Yellowstone caused observable changes in prey behaviour within a decade or so. Of course longer-lived species like trees take much longer to adapt, but we’re talking about birds, geckos and rodents here.
Edit: Also, most geckos, birds and rodents are r-strategists, meaning they are limited more by food than by predation.
I don’t think the introduction of thousands of F. Catus to any local ecosystem will have anything other than dire consequences.
Introduction of a new predator will disturb the ecosystem. Removal of an existing predator will also disturb the ecosystem.
The absolute brain-dead mentality of the people who will just downvote anything that doesn’t fit their predetermined conclusion.
There’s no evidence of this. Pet cats mostly take weakened or frail prey.
Another middle school drop out
Brilliant comment!
This thread is for debate. No one cares that you disagree with me personally unless you actually have a point to make.
Gonna need to speak with an adult, it feels weird dunking on someone who hasnt taken a high school biology class
Songbirds should die
Wheres your parent? This is an adult conversation
The danger isn’t to the cats, it’s to everything else. Ecologically speaking, cats are an invasive apex predator. They absolutely wreak havoc on local bird populations.
Cats aren’t apex predators. But yes, they can be quite damaging in araes where they are invasive.
Not in the wild, but in a suburban neighborhood they are. Apex is relative to what else is out there.
They are still mesopredators. A big bird of prey, a coyote, or a fox wouldn’t mind going for a cat.
But it’s not even relevant for the discussion whether they are apex predators or not. They are efficient predators and the artificial high number of individuals is harmful for the ecosystem.