this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
1588 points (100.0% liked)
Comic Strips
16962 readers
1688 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- [email protected]: "I use Arch btw"
- [email protected]: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Cat owners who let their cats roam are irresponsible and entitled
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.
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.
There's no evidence of this. Pet cats mostly take weakened or frail prey.
Another middle school drop out
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.
You're uninformed. Cats co-evolved with humans to serve a job (pest control, in exchange for safety and the occasional bit of food). There have only been fully indoor cats for a few hundred years. Not all cats have to have a job, but some WANT one, just like dogs. We should let them.
My cat is angry with me if I don't let him spend at least 12 hours a day roaming and catching bugs and mice. He has neighbor cat friends that he goes to see. Why would I deprive him of that?
I think we have different definitions of irresponsible or entitled behavior if you think giving the cat what it wants or otherwise doing whatever our selfish uninformed ancestors did is the correct option.
You should deprive your invasive manmade predator the option to kill local wildlife for sport because the local ecosystem takes irreparable damage every time a species goes extinct due to human incompetence. Cats naturally belonged to a small region of northern Africa and the Mediterranean before humans spread them across the entire earth and let their population boom from hundreds to hundreds of millions.
mmmmmega akshully vibes
Ah yes, those damned educated people making choices that are beneficial to themselves and others. NEEEEEEERRRRRRRDDDSSSSS~!!!
Yes, as we all know cats never went outside before they were domesticated by humans...
You think cats could sail? Then youre definitely stupid enough to let it roam outdoors
Yeah, actually, that's accurate. Cats generally stick to a small territory, lots of studies show this behavior to be consistent. The spread of domestic cats has always been understood to coalesce with the spread of human agriculture.
"Outdoor domestic cats are a recognized threat to global biodiversity. Cats have contributed to the extinction of 63 species of birds, mammals, and reptiles in the wild"
You shouldn't be proud of contributing to the extinction of animals...
Dude the trash animals are getting killed, oh noooooooo.
Think of the stupid rats,mice,lizards and birds! Oh no! The worst problem we're facing right now!
Does your mom know youre on her computer right now?
Your cat is your property. Keep it in your property. If your pet becomes my pest, it will be dealt with as such. I once had a neighbor's cat almost rip through my window screen to get inside and go after my pet parrot. If the cat had made it inside, he would not have made it out alive.
Then I could return it's corpse to you, and you can tell me all about how they evolved alongside humans, and how that means you're entitled to let your pet fuck up my yard, home and pets
Fantasizing about killing pets is a strong indicator of psychopathy.
In the United States.
Wherever there's birds, it's irresponsible to let cats out. NZ in particular, it's a damn massacre out there.
In the UK, the RSPB determines no negative impacts on bird populations. And the ecosystem is irrecoverably damaged from 3000 years of human impact on a relatively small island. Unlike new colonies like NZ, USA etc.
The UK is losing its wildcat population because of british arrogance about cats.
Youre also bringing in all your local predators into human settlements with the free food that cats become. Foxes love outdoor cats, theyre easy meals. You know what else loves cats? Tires. Smears a cat like jam.
But whats another destroyed ecosystem to the brits? Yall love ruining ecosystems, may as well fill your own backyard with piss.
What is different in other places?
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.
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.
British cats go to cat school as soon as their eyes open so we have very smart cats that can navigate roads.
They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.
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.
I’m in total agreement just to be clear
Ah alright. It just felt so weird seeing all the comments about USA being different, so my mind got all jumbled.
I thought it was the same everywhere more or less as well.
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.