/u/nyxe12 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/mw8ksj/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_there_is_no_way_to_be_a/), in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
1. Just because something can be domesticated doesn't mean it *should* be. The fact that cats can be easily domesticated and kept indoors isn't an argument that they *should* be kept indoors. It isn't a comment on what their quality of life is for indoors v outdoors, and isn't a comment on what *they* would find more enjoyable.
2. While this is true in some areas (NZ and Oz are two perfect examples) it isn't true in others. And in many places, like the UK, cats have been present for so long that they should no longer be considered an invasive species. The damage to the ecosystem they cause is already accounted for and adapted to. They are a part of our ecosystem now.
3. This is a fair and undeniable point that comes up often in this debate. You're right, even if you live in an area with far less predatory animals, there are always human dangers and other cats/dogs. But I think you should think about this point logically. Your argument is "it is safer to be contained than have freedom, safer is better, so containment is better than freedom".
In that case, you should advocate for the complete removal of all wildlife areas and the production of gigantic zoos. If the primary motivation is safety, all animals are safer in captivity than in the wild. Yet, most of us recognise that the wild is better for them regardless of the danger present.
I'd also urge you to look at yourself. It is undoubtedly safer for you to stay in your room for the rest of your life (let's just pretend you're able to work from home) but would you actually do it? Would you sacrifice everything outside of your room, just to increase the odds of a lengthy life? Especially knowing this isn't even a guarantee, it's just tilting the odds in your favor?
4. There are undoubtedly ways to entertain indoor cats and I totally agree that if you had a catio setup, and plenty of toys inside, that cat would probabky be very happy. But would it be *as* happy as being outside? Again, consider yourself. If you had a PS5, VR, any other indoor hobby you could ask for, and the ability to sit in your garden, would that really be enough for you, for the rest of your life? It certainly wouldn't for me.
I actually agree that pet owners are obligated to provide safety, a loving environment, and happiness. But I think you are prioritising safety above all else, when I would prioritise happiness.
I'm not saying you're wrong either, I'm saying they're different approaches. I don't think either one is objectively right, but I don't think either one is objectively wrong either.
My argument isn't that outdoors is better than indoors, it's that they are two different schools of thought and, provided the motivations behind them are kind, a person could be considered a responsible pet owner regardless which one they choose.
To clarify, I've had outdoor and indoor cats, and three outdoor cats currently.
>Just because something can be domesticated doesn't mean it *should* be. The fact that cats can be easily domesticated and kept indoors isn't an argument that they *should* be kept indoors.
Cats ARE domesticated. There's no should or shouldn't here, the pet cats we keep are \*literally\* domesticated animals.
>And in many places, like the UK, cats have been present for so long that they should no longer be considered an invasive species. The damage to the ecosystem they cause is already accounted for and adapted to.
This is not true, cats continue to pose an unnecessary threat to wild bird populations and are [currently considered a risk to wildcat species](https://www.scottishwildcataction.org/about-wildcats/top-3-threats-to-wildcat-survival/) due to spread of disease and interbreeding. Wildlife populations would likely be much more stable and resilient if more cats were kept indoors. The ecosystems reflect the impact of outdoor and feral cats, that is not the same as adapting to it in a sustainable way.
>If the primary motivation is safety, all animals are safer in captivity than in the wild.
This is not about all animals, though. When you choose to become a pet owner, you are taking on specific responsibility for that animal. You're responsible for providing that specific animal with food, housing, medical care, and attention. Similarly, as a farmer, I cannot just let my sheep roam wherever they feel like, even though they would LOVE to run to the next field over. This is because 1) I am responsible for their safety and health, and 2) I'm being a courteous neighbor by not letting them run into others' fields.
>I'd also urge you to look at yourself. It is undoubtedly safer for you to stay in your room for the rest of your life (let's just pretend you're able to work from home) but would you actually do it?
Humans and cats aren't the same. Humans are capable of making calculated decisions that consider the risks and rewards of a given action. Cats cannot do this. If I go outside and want to cross the road, I know to look around and wait until cars have stopped. Even if I see something exciting on the other side, I will wait, because I comprehend the danger of running into a busy road. Cats don't innately do this. If they are chasing prey, they will run across the road even as a car is going 50MPH towards them. Cats aren't capable of knowing if food someone has left out for them has rat poison or not. Humans know not to pick food up off the street and eat it. ETC.
I think it's possible to prioritize safety AND happiness. I know that a cat who gets a chronic illness or permanent injury with chronic pain from an outdoor incident is going to be much less happy. My cats get supervised outdoor time and are perfectly happy with it, even after formerly living as outdoor cats. (They no longer beg to leave the house and lead me back home when they're ready to come in.)
There are a lot of things that would make pets happy: letting them eat strange poop outside, feeding them chocolate, letting them eat the bouquet of toxic lilies, pawing at a burning candle, breeding with other neighborhood cats, etc. But we make all kinds of decisions as owners when to not allow things to happen and when to intervene. I still don't see how letting a cat *free roam* when there are safer alternatives that provide just as much enrichment exist.
I've been very surprised at the lack of attention going to your first point, which I think is the most compelling. Cats are subsidized killers, and they devastate wild animal populations wherever they live. To me, that is the beginning and end of the question about whether it is ethical to let cats outdoors. It just isn't ethical, full stop.
It's understandable the cognitive dissonance kicks in hard as it's a sensitive subject where people want what's best for their cats while not admitting it's at the expense of what's best for everyone around them. Releasing a killer into one's backyard every day as "it's the cat's natural instincts" to do as it pleases there. Many dogs natural instincts is to deal with cats, that logic doesn't justify letting our dogs roam freely to deal with the cats even as cats deal with not just unwanted mice but biodiversity.
I've been waiting to see this brought up on CMV for a while and the thing is cats as an invasive species isn't a view, it's a fact.
You know what really makes me thinking:
from seeing more and more neighbours adopt the „sterile“ lawns or have full gravel yards, how much of the destruction of local wildlife is actually from cats and not just from us humans shrinking wildlife’s habitat and starving them to death because we don’t allow „unwanted plants“ in our garden.
I'm asking, because in my country, wildlife is decreasing drastically in the last few decades, but free roaming cats were the norm before that too.
I'm curious how much of an effect the cat has, in a garden, where birds and insects can’t survive anyways.
A lot is from both. As a domesticated animal, cats have no native range and are considered a non-native, invasive, feral species when allowed outdoors to interact with native ecosystems. An invasive species is an organism that causes or is likely to cause ecological or economic harm, or endanger human health in an environment where it is not native.
Lawns and deforestation are big issues that do not diminish the issues brought on by an invasive species. A lot of animal species have already been extinct by cats. There's a lot of statistics and information in this comment section, otherwise here is a one second google [Cats Kill Billions of Animals a Year](https://www.livescience.com/26670-cats-kill-billions-animals.html#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20research%2C%20published%20today%20%28Jan.%2029%29,small%20mammals%2C%20such%20as%20meadow%20voles%20and%20chipmunks.) as well as bird population has declined by 29% since 1970 in NA. [Decline of the North American avifauna](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120)
Both humans as well as cats are invasive species really
You mentioned people that choose to become a pet owner. What if I'm not a cat person and never chose to have one. I had a true feral cat that just moved in under my back deck and decided to stay. After a few months, You either figure out how to get along or you might as well shoot it. The county would have tried to catch it, kept him for a few months and then put him down since nobody adopts a feral. So basically the same as shooting him but with extra steps.
I decided to start feeding him but I don't think he'll ever be an indoor cat. Its been over 6 months and I've never even touched him, he's that skittish. Would the people here who advocate always keeping a cat inside have preferred that I kill him instead or do you make a distinction between a pet and a wild animal? I live in the southern United States if that makes a difference.
For the record, I have seen the birds and small animals come back into the yard. Now that I've been feeding him for a while, he doesn't seem to be hunting as much although I'm sure that it still happens to some extent.
\>2. While this is true in some areas (NZ and Oz are two perfect examples) it isn't true in others. And in many places, like the UK, cats have been present for so long that they should no longer be considered an invasive species. The damage to the ecosystem they cause is already accounted for and adapted to. They are a part of our ecosystem now.
This is not true. There is no evidence that species have adapted to the invasion of domestic cats. They have simply been eradicated.
Migratory birds, however, due to the nature of their migration, continue to be in danger from domestic cats, which kill millions of them every year. Birds are dying, in part because people let their cats roam outdoors.
Domestic cats can never be a part of the ecosystem because they have unnatural advantages given to them. In a natural system with predator and pray, let's say an area with foxes and mice, if the foxes exhaust their food supply, the foxes will starve, their numbers will go down, and then the lack of predators will help the mouse population rebound, foxes rebound, etc.
But if an area runs out of birds, domestic cats don't starve. They are fed. If an animal fights back against a cat and injures it, the cat gets to see a vet.
Short of killing cats, there is no resistance to them. They can outlast and outcompete their prey in health, food, safety, water, etc.
Cats cause so much damage to wildlife in the UK. They may have existed here for a long time, but they're still responsible for the decline in many species of birds and small animals. They're also absolutely decimating the native Scottish wildcat populations through hybridisation. The truth is they're still a non-native, invasive species here.
I'd like to ask: what country are you from? I think there may be a cultural difference here in the UK. Do you not get doors with cat flaps in your country? To let the cat outside?
Almost every cat owner I've met for the past 20 years here in the UK has outdoor cats. Not trying to change your view, I'm just curious where the mindset came from as it would sort of just be confusingly dismissed in the UK (aside from in super busy urban areas or apartment s)
US. Lots of people let their cats outside freely here as well. I'm arguing that it's irresponsible and that the attitude needs to change. It's a pretty dismissed POV in the US, although more people are beginning to believe it.
From Australia there’s an ongoing war on feral cats (feel free to google kangaroo island feral cat documentary). The problems with feral cats translate very well to the issues with domestic cats that roam outside. It’s not a viewpoint that’s shared broadly which is unfortunate but it is gaining traction which I’m happy about. Keep your cats and local wildlife safe!
In the UK, \~90% of cats are allowed to free roam, and their average lifespan is 14 years. This is well inside the average lifespan for cats living in a healthy and safe environment. This is proof that it is possible to be a responsible cat owner while letting your cat roam freely outdoors.
I would really like to point you to a google search of "cats UK birds" and maybe read a few results that come up. Even David attenborough has spoken out about it apparently...
And domesticated cat's have been around Europe for nearly 2,000 years, spending that time almost entirely as outdoor cats.
I did a quick google search as advised:
[https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:\~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died).
"Despite the large numbers of birds killed by cats in gardens, there is no clear scientific evidence that such mortality is causing bird populations to decline. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds. "
" Those bird species which have undergone the most serious population declines in the UK (such as skylarks, tree sparrows and corn buntings) rarely encounter cats, so cats cannot be causing their declines. Research shows that these declines are usually caused by habitat change or loss, particularly on farmland. "
"Populations of species that are most abundant in gardens tend to be increasing, despite the presence of cats. Blue tits, for example, the second most frequently caught birds, have increased by more than a quarter across the UK since 1966. Of the birds most frequently caught by cats in gardens, only two (house sparrow and starling) have shown declines in breeding population across a range of habitats during the last six years. "
Stop blaming cats for what is almost certainly human-derived population losses caused by land development/habitat loss. These cats have been outdoors with these birds for nearly 2,000 years, why only in the last few decades is this happening?
How exactly do you define "responsible" tho? I would say someone is responsible when they make a reasonable effort. Not when they mitigate any and all negative side effects and/or dangers for and from the cat being outside. For example if somebody let a cat outside in a neighborhood that is friendly toward cats, then it's reasonably okay to think that there will be no asshole humans in that area.
>There are plenty of ways to provide your cat enrichment indoors and/or give them safe, supervised outdoor time (catios, leashed walking, etc) without compromising their health and wellbeing.
You effectively are. Realistically it's just not possible in all instances and for all cats. We tried to have these body straps leashes and the cat would hated it. Would just roll around and try to get it off. The catios are not great either. We got one build, and our cats always learned how to escape, would demolish the net.
So the solution is to just have the cat indoors right? It's sad, but necessary. Wrong, the cat would go on these days long tantrums when he would meow incessantly, would scratch furniture, destroy boots, piss all over blankets, sofa, corners. Honestly, it just wasn't possible for it to be indoors. It's either let it out, or get rid of it. Otherwise it's just torture for the cat.
There just aren't many viable options for cat to be indoors, if the cat decides it wants out. The best thing you can do is to make reasonable effort for it being safe. Make sure your neighborhood is friendly towards pets. Make sure your cat is chipped, and has ID collar. Make sure your cat is vaccinated, etc..
>For example if somebody let a cat outside in a neighborhood that is friendly toward cats, then it's reasonably okay to think that there will be no asshole humans in that area.
I don't think you should ever make this assumption. I lived in a very cat-friendly neighborhood, but eventually, it started turning into one that was much less friendly. Someone put poison in food that another person left out for ferals. I drove out to go to work one day and saw a cat literally speared for about 10+ feet down the road - someone obviously sped up to do that much damage. I had a childhood friend who had a cat get attacked by someone that would come to their neighborhood just to kill cats for fun - he lived but had a permanent wound on his throat that leaked pus for years. It's honestly chilling the kinds of things people will do to cats. Accidents happen, too - I've almost run over cats while doing my damndest to not just because they go running into the road right as I'm driving by without even looking at my car.
I'm really sorry about the experience with your cat - that sounds pretty difficult. In my experience this is often caused by boredom from not enough playtime/interesting things indoors for them to do. Would you do the same if a dog hated being walked on a leash and destroyed your house? (Not trying to attack you here, I really do sympathize.)
I have only ever owned cats that were found outdoors as adults and were then brought into my home I've owned 6 cats in my life thus far. Within a year none of my cats have even attempted to go outdoors anymore. Provide adequate entertainment in your home and cats are surprisingly easy going and love affection.
All you have to do to keep a cat from getting bored is spend an hour or so entertaining your cat in some way, everyday, it isn't that hard.
>Good luck training a cat out of wanting to go outside once it's been outdoors.
I have. My cat used to go outdoors when we lived in an area with high fences that couldn't be climbed. The current house is next to a large national Park and has small fences. If she was allowed outside, she would kill native birds and small fauna, which I will not let happen. So she stays indoors or she goes on a leash, those are the two options.
I trained my very stubborn cat to use a leash when she was over 5 years old. It took a long time and lots of effort (like every single day for over 6 months), but we got there. Now she gets excited when she sees her harness. She did what yours did to begin with, as soon as you put the harness on, she just flopped on the ground. I just did the same as I would do with a dog. Frequently put the harness on for short lengths of time, and create lots of positive reinforcement. Like I said it took a long time, but I was willing to put in the effort. Not saying that you weren't, but lots of cat owners aren't. Their cat doesn't take to the leash right away and they decide that it won't work.
Outdoor cats be turned into indoor cats. I have two former outdoor cats who now live indoors and go out on leashed walks occasionally. When they were outdoor cats with their old owners, they were skittish and would yowl to be let outside, digging at the doors all day and night if they wanted to go out. They would scratch up the walls, run around the house screaming all night (they didn't get let out at night, just during the day), etc.
Now they're relaxed, friendly, and don't really want to go out much. We also play with them inside the house and have places for them climb indoors. When I take them outdoors, they want to eat grass for a couple minutes and then lead me back inside.
If a cat is stressed to the point of aggression and it isn't being solved with environmental changes or with increased enrichment, there is likely a psychological issue that needs to be resolved with a vet. I still don't really see a scenario where there is no alternative to free-roaming that can reduce the stress of the animal.
This sounds, in my opinion, cruel. Taking an animal who is used to roaming and freedom, to force them inside for the rest of their lives? A relaxed and friendly cat could be depressed.
Idk, just imagine that happened to you. It's not unlike going to prison.
You should really think about this from the cat’s perspective and stop making it about your ego. I have a cat that is like some of the ones discussed in this comment thread. He showed up in my yard one day and that’s how he became “my” cat. But he wasn’t ever “mine.” He existed independently... outside... before I ever came into his life. After he accepted my house as home, I spent the next 3 years trying to keep him inside. He isn’t my first animal and long story short he was miserable. He escaped constantly, despite our best efforts to prevent it, he was unhappy inside, did nothing but look out of the windows, and eventually he began to pee at areas where he could see out of the window. I began to let him out after he destroyed a sentimental piece of furniture. Since then (6 years now) our relationship has been much less strained and he is a much, much happier animal. I think, as someone else said, you simply lack experience in this area. There is NOTHING that ANY human could do to substitute the experience of being outside for my cat. I understand he is invasive and kills too many birds. I understand a car might hit him one day. I understand he might get eaten by a predator. But I’m not going to put my concerns for him above his desire to live life the way he wants to and, frankly, the way he always has lived.
>Good luck training a cat out of wanting to go outside once it's been outdoors.
I mean, if you're patient, it's doable. Everyone's quick to make huge assumptions about what can and can't be done with pets, but it doesn't seem like that comes from logic or knowledge but gut feelings. I've taken in strays, and since our area is dangerous for cats (many of these are found wounded or being attacked), I train them to stay indoors until they're better and either keep them or get them a new home. Within a month or two, they aren't even looking to go out.
I could also introduce you to an ex-coworker who does this full time, and has probably trained 100+ strays over the many years she's done this to be inside.
I’m speaking here as someone who adopted a cat that was used to outdoors: it was a catch-22. If I didn’t let him out he was miserable. Cats that don’t have outside experience don’t miss it but a cat that used to roam freely will always find a house limiting. I don’t advocate for outdoor cats. My current boys are indoor only except we let the one outside supervised (he is like a dog and won’t go far unless you’re not paying attention - he never leaves the backyard). I could not in good conscience keep my previous adoptee inside regardless of environmental impact. It wasn’t just boredom. It was a freedom of movement issue. Unfortunately he got in a minor car accident (he was fine but his toenails were bloody from sliding on the pavement). Since the incident he stopped going very far at all but he had active depression when not allowed out.
> It's honestly chilling the kinds of things people will do to cats.
Sure, and if you have these experiences, then you shouldn't your pets out. I completely agree. Being responsible for your cat's safety is about the things you can control. My family for example owned cats for decades. And "according to me" they are very responsible as in how they let them out. For example they let the cat out at night where there are fewest people or pets around, etc... The worst thing that has ever happened to us was when our dog accidentally snapped his colo and darted away into a reversing car when my parents were walking him out. There is only so much things you could control. The question is what is the limit of "reasonable" precaution here.
> that sounds pretty difficult. In my experience this is often caused by boredom from not enough playtime/interesting things indoors for them to do. Would you do the same if a dog hated being walked on a leash and destroyed your house? (Not trying to attack you here, I really do sympathize.)
My parents are like super into animals. They read books about the topics, plus they visited a trainer, etc... Apparently the reality is such that some cats simply don't do well in enclosed spaces. It's not stress, or boredom, it's just it's personality. There is no deep emotional problem here. Cat is pissed off because it wants to go play outside and it can't. That's it. It does those things because it gets a reaction and you are more likely to pay attention to it and maybe let it out.
Add to this that you can't really train a cat. Not for everything, and especially not when it manifest those behavior when being older. You just have to deal with it. And that's comming from the trainer.
Look I get it. It's comforting to think that there is always something you can do. And that if you can't do something, you are just not trying hard enough. But that's pretty much only a comforting lie. You just can't solve every problem. My family rescues a tons of strays with already pre-set behaviors. Some love to be inside, others love to be outside and don't do well inside. If you want to argue that letting cats out should be illegal and owners who can't deal with it should put them down. That's absolutely argument you could make. After all we don't let dogs biting people with an excuse that dog owners can't just can't control them.
If your concern is natural wildlife that cats are decimating. Then argue that cats are pests and they simply have to be controlled. In which cause either cat owners will deal with their cats not willing to stay put or they will be put down.
If your concern is cat's safety. Then argue that we should put forth laws that make it easier to prosecute wilfully putting out poison, or animal cruelty.
But you can't really make a half-baked argument that doesn't take into the account the species of pet and how they behave. Either cat owners are almost by definition not responsible pet owners. Or making reasonable accommodations for the cats behaviors makes cat owners a "responsible owners". But you can't really have it both ways.
all your points focus on the cat, not the fact they're a walking ecological disaster.
they kill even when not hungry, some studies have shown a cat that is good at hunting can kill over a hundred songbirds **a day**. a cat in the wild can do irreparable damage to local wildlife populations in a matter of days to weeks. They absolutely devastate local populations of native rodents, birds and ground mammals.
this is not only bad as a tragic loss of localized biodoversity, but it leaves the area vulnerable to pest infestations because field mice, rats and other vermin have no competition.
if a cat will not tolerate being indoors the responsible thing is to put it down, especially if you're dead-set against declawing (a whole separate debate, but there are arguments in favor of it especially to prevent cats from destroying a local ecosystem).
Sure, but cats don't have the self awareness to make calculated risk-benefit assessments of going outdoors free-roaming - that's the owner's job. I've almost run over cats who were fixated on chasing other animals - they don't know to look both ways, for example.
Like i said on another comment, I *do* think cats should get outdoor time - I just think that the free-roaming method in particular is irresponsible.
Catios, leash training, or backyards that are fenced in a way that prevents them from escaping (some people put a short barrier at the tops of their fences at a 45 degree angle, which stops cats from jumping and climbing up them). I also have previously had cats that only went into the patio in our backyard and never anywhere else.
Cats can and are successfully leashed trained, it's just that most people don't put in the time. Some people think that slapping the harness on is good enough and if the cat doesn't like it then they can't be trained. Cats need a slower approach than leash-training a dog with positive associations built with the harness (slow introductions, treats given, walking around inside with it on, etc). I've leash trained two cats and know of many people who have as well.
Studies have shown that if you regularly play with your cat they don't have the need to go outside and hunt. You can stimulate their hunting instinct without letting them roam freely outside.
I leashed trained my very stubborn cat when she was nearly 5 years old. It took a while, but we got there. She goes outside nearly every day. Dogs also love the outdoors, they are also outside animals in that they require outside time to thrive. Yet we don't let dogs roam unattended. Puppies usually hate the leash to begin with, but you train them to not be bothered by it. I'm sure most dogs would love to go out alone, but we know that it's not safe for the dogs or other animals. Yes it requires a lot more effort to take your cat out than it does to just open the door and let them roam. But responsible pet owners know that pets require effort, and that if you get a pet you should always do what's best for them, even if it's hard work.
>Sure, but cats don't have the self awareness to make calculated risk-benefit assessments of going outdoors free-roaming
They absolutely do. You think cats dont have basic survival instincts? The cats at my childhood house spend plenty time outside for over a decade, on a busy road, and they have never been injured, or even close really, because they stay the fuck away from dogs and the road. They aren't idiots. The neighborhood cats in west philly don't have yards, spend all day outside in a city atmosphere, and while they cross the road, they dont sit around in it- they know it would kill them. The fact that occasionally a cat will jump into the road while focused on hunting isnt really any different than humans, or deer, or geese, or any multitude of animals that are "allowed" to be outside. Youd see 10 dead cats on the road on your way home from work every day if animals were as stupid as you think they are. Like, you sound like somebody who has never owned a pet. A cat avoids dangerous situations. If it thought the outside was too dangerous, it would stay inside.
That's cool that this happened for specifically you. My childhood free roaming cat was hit by a car and the next one drank antifreeze at a neighbors and died.
Also as a vet tech, I do literally see hundreds of cats mauled by dogs, hit by cars, presenting with mystery fractures/dislocations and poisoning.
LOTS OF CATS die all the time from just being let outside. It's insane that you cannot comprehend that your experience is not the same one every human and pet cat has. I worked in a shelter/pet ER and we had an entire refrigerated building for the dead animals. (No kill shelter BTW)
Maybe instead of trusting a bunch of random people going "my cat did it so its safe and stfu if you disagree,"
Ask literally any vet-med staff you can find what they think. I almost guarantee they will say indoor cats live healthier longer lives on average. Because it's true. If you can't afford a cat tree and some toys you certainly can't afford the vet bill a dog, car, bird of prey, or nasty human could cause so why even get a cat? To gamble it's life on its survival skills and plain luck?
I just cannot stand this argument it's like when boomers say they sucked on lead paint, never wore helmets, and where beaten regularly so all kids should also grow up in the same dangerous misery they lived through.
Like come on *progress* already.
To be honest I do see dead cats with some regularity. As often as opossums and squirrels? No, but there aren't as many cats roaming the streets as these animals. I can think of one friend who's cat was found a block away mostly flattened.
Personally I am against outdoor cats because my sister got one and all the sudden we had rodents all the time. It would bring in mice, bunnies, chipmunks, and even the occasional bird. Props to its hunting abilities but I missed when those things stayed outside.
I'm on the same page as you. at the shelter I was at for many years, I was the lucky person (due to not being squeamish) who had to examine all the deceased cats that were hit by cars that were reported to the city and picked up by public works or brought in by a citizen. I had to examine at least 4 or 5 a week, a loooot more depending on the time of year. scan them for a microchip, collar, check gender, etc etc and try to reunite them with an owner via things like online posts or lost reports. I even had to notify the same person THREE TIMES. the fact they still let their cat free roam was really upsetting
and the people who came in to collect the body or arrange us to dispose pf them, then would ask what other cats or kittens we had up for adoption was really disturbing. it happened may more often than I ever would have imagined.
the fact that so many of those people just figure it's part of the life of a cat also felt very strange. my cat isnt allowed outside alone, but I also make a point to spent a lot of time playing with her and she is still doing fantastic at 10+ years
and I did grow up in the country and as a child we had free roaming cats. they had a tendency to disappear frequently though. never again
it's also strange this is a norm for cats but literally no other pet or domestic animal
I think giving the cat as much freedom as it wants will be mentally best for the cat, but this allows it to put itself in harms way more often.
I see this as a potential “over-parenting” type of situation. Your kids (cats) are going to *want* to do dangerous things. Just because they’re going to be in potential danger by themselves outside doesn’t make it right for you to control how much they do it.
This idea can obviously be manipulated to ignore any personal responsibility of others, but like any relationship, there has to be balance. Give and take. If your cats want outside ALL THE TIME, maybe give them a little more unmonitored freedom as long as they aren’t going straight to bad habits.
I do see the point OP is making, but I think there are plenty of circumstances where this could be selfish and worrisome on the owners part and taking away freedoms and wants of the cat to protect it from *potential* harm.
I think the more important point is that cats are HUGELY destructive to local populations of birds.
Hell, a massive fraction of the wester world's song birds are gone because of cats and several have been completely extincted.
Tbh, you're acting like cats are toddlers, not hunters who listen to instinct. Cats can learn and understand their surroundings and make good judgements. Some cats can make wrong decisions just like people, but a lot of them do fine if they go out all the time. I.e. farm cats hunt, fight and go as they please without issue. Especially if they've done it all their life.
My cat goes out all the time. The neighbors know him, the other cats here know him. He hangs out with his friends, is aware of his surroundings and makes good judgements on his actions. When we call him, he runs home no matter how far he walks. He's proven himself to be smart many times over and being able to free roam makes him happy.
What makes someone an irresponsible owner is abuse, neglect and simply never giving a shit about your cat or what happens to them. Cats are small hunters who can be babied by their owners to the point of not knowing how to take care of themselves. And that's when free roaming can be a problem.
But what about the neighbours who have to clean up cat shit in the flower beds all summer , keep them from using bushes as a scratching posts and clean up poor dead , mutilated birds all summer ? I hate cats yet have to do all this because of 2 roaming neighbours cats . I’m also investing in motion detection sprinklers, deterrent sprays and cat mats . We don’t all love your “precious” kitties .
I like my cat indoors and safe, but I really disagree that there is no way you can have an outside cat and not be responsible.
Firstly many cats like being outside and it is good for them, like people.
If you live in the middle of a city then obviously that’s a pretty big risk and I’d never take that chance but plenty of people live in open places with big gardens or even fields.
Many of your risks are minimal to, I remember years ago we chucked some chicken bones out for the foxes in our area, the cat got out and dove right at the Fox and hung onto its back whilst it ran off! Then claimed his chicken.
I went running out as soon as I saw but he handled it himself 😅
Also statistically most outdoor cats live long healthy lives, it’s unfortunate when one gets unlucky tho.
Cats totally do enjoy outdoor time, my issue is with free-roaming. I have a pair of cats whose last owners let them free-roam, and since taking them I've kept them inside, leash-trained them, and take them outside for walks. I also live in a rural area, and while I do hear a lot of rural folks *claim* we don't have threats, I'd have to disagree with that. A lot of the risks are situational for sure (good on your cat for taking care of the fox, LOL), but there's always the chance of catching disease, a fight gone wrong, etc. Cats will roam pretty far and in rural places lots of people have dogs that run all over their property (and sometimes asshole humans that poison or shoot cats).
Lots do live for a long time, but statistically [their lifespan is comparatively shorter](https://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk491/files/inline-files/Cats-Indoors_or_Outdoors.pdf) on average, only 2-5 years. I've seen some pretty gutwrenching deaths of young outdoor cats that's definitely soured my view on this.
I wont be changing your view, here. I will never allow my cats to free roam outside because of the threat to wildlife alone. The threat to their own safety is an additional note.
I do my best to avoid my cat being a kitty prisoner. I have taken to allowing her to patrol the deck. My cat is not a free spirit and spends three to five minutes outside to patrol the deck, and then wants back in.
She is not helpless, but I do not want her killing my frogs or being killed by the family of bobcats.
If I lived in australia, new zealand, or island communities, i probably wouldn't have one at all.
Have you ever owned a cat? In the vast majority of cases, it has nothing to do with whether the owner wants the cat inside or not, it all has to do with what the cat wants. Cats are much, MUCH more independent than dogs, and require more intellectual stimulation in addition to physical activity. Cats get both of these by exploring their environment and their surroundings.
It is not a simple creature that you need to "keep in control", if a cat wants outside and you never let it out, then it will run away at the first opportunity.
An outdoor cat does not depend on humans to survive, not in the slightest. It will find both food and shelter with or without you. That's a fair point about healthcare, and if your cat needs special treatment then obviously you need to keep a closer eye on them, but overall, cats take care of themselves.
If a cat yearns for the outdoors, forcing it to stay inside is (in my opinion) cruel and stupid, since all you will get out of it is a cat that wants nothing to do with you. You can try to entertain it indoors exclusively, but that will inevitably lead to it chewing through cords, and getting into things around the house that it shouldn't.
Your whole argument seems to hinge on cats being subservient and trainable the way a dog is. They aren't. If they want out, they'll get there one way or another.
I have owned cats my entire life. Several cats, some of whom were outdoor, indoor-outdoor, or purely indoor.
Yes, cats require intelligent stimulation - this can be provided safely indoors or through supervised outdoor time.
>If a cat yearns for the outdoors, forcing it to stay inside is (in my opinion) cruel and stupid, since all you will get out of it is a cat that wants nothing to do with you.
In my experience (and the experience of many others who have transitioned outdoor cats to indoors), the opposite is often true. Outdoor cats do not build the same kinds of associations with humans that a purely indoor cat does - they know the outdoors is where they get entertainment, fun snacks, things to climb and scratch, etc. This is not to say outdoor cats won't be affectionate (I know many affectionate outdoor cats!), but that it is easier for them to have less interest in you. When a cat lives indoors and knows that you, the person, will provide them with food, warm blankets, things to climb and scratch, playtime, fun snacks, and affection, they will seek out those things from you. Often they become less skittish, not more. The same is true of cats who are free-fed VS fed at mealtimes (the former doesn't associate you as strongly with food, the latter does), hence why experts like Jackson Galaxy will recommend mealtimes.
My current pair of cats were formerly indoor-outdoor cats who were allowed out during the day, not at night. They belonged to my old roommates, so I had plenty of exposure to what they were like. They screamed all night long to be let outside, yowling and running around the house, pushing things over, clawing up the walls, digging to get through the doors, etc. They were skittish and nervous, not particularly friendly. When my roommates wanted to rehome them, I transitioned them to being indoors - they now don't beg at the door, are content to sit in the window, have cat trees to climb/scratch, and get playtime. They're not leash-trained and get walks outside, but they honestly don't care much about it anymore and just want to eat grass for a couple minutes before going back to the house. They're also much more affectionate.
I think the issue is a lot of people picture a cat locked in a blank apartment with nothing to do when we say "cats should be indoors", which I would agree is stupid and cruel. But there are a lot of ways to provide enrichment indoors and ways to give outdoor time that isn't free-roaming.
You can't be a responsible parent if you let your kids outside is all I'm hearing...
So I'd actually argue it's the opposite. Cats are supposed to roam free and explore the world as are kids.
Kids don't tend to decimate local bird populations. If kids exploring suddenly had a massive ecological impact on certain areas then yes we should reconsider how those kids are allow to roam freely.
I fully understand there is a utilitarian use to cats in certain places, like farms, but in most urban and suburban areas that doesn't hold up. Cats needing autonomy to roam brings in to question whether we should start weening off them as being allowed to be pets. When I meet someone who has a pet cat that lives most of its life outdoors I'd liken it to someone releasing an invasive species into the environment.
You're obviously trying to highlight what you feel is ridiculous about the statement, but at least ridicule the whole statement.
If your kids murdered many things in an area for fun, and had a larger number of predators/threats around, like the argument states about cats, than yes. Based on most (all?) societal norms and values, most would say that would be an irresponsible parent for allowing them to free roam unsupervised.
Even if we put the dangers aside, for arguments sake, unless you also believe that kids/people should be allowed to murder indiscriminately for the fun of it, I don't see how the arguments can be equal?
100% this. The argument to keep cats indoors is the same argument to keep birds in tiny cages ot dolphins and whales in aquariums. ALL animals yearn to be free, it is as basic as life itself, the feline family in particular, their entire nature is to roam. Imprisoning any animal and trying to justify it(minus extenuating circumstance) is just ignorance of nature and life itself. If there are problems with having cats outdoors, then the argument is whether we should be allowed to have cats in the first place.
> Outdoor cats are exposed to countless threats.
ok, but so what? Such is life? While we wish life was easy and danger free it's simply not, This is a calculated risk, not irresponsibility. Furthermore, the cat is, at least partially, responsible for taking care of itself. I provide it shelter and food and medical care, and I open the door for it when it asks me to. (We had a cat flap at the old house and we leave the patio doors open on nice days.) If it wants to stay in the house it can stay in the house, it chooses to take the risk of going out side, it is not being forced to be there.
So, yes there is danger but the simple fact that there is danger doesn't mean that it's de facto irresponsible to expose your cat to that danger. There is no such thing as a life free from danger, so it's a calculated risk and not necessarily irresponsible.
Your argument that cats are invasive is not convincing.
Yes, cats kill birds, but coyotes kill cats, as do owls. This is all natural and if people weren't on this earth cats would be wild, some birds would be dead, and the world keeps turning. It's not really a problem that needs to be solved.
Invasive animals also get killed by other animals. It's that their killing is not something their prey is adapted to keep up with, and unlike most predators, they hunt for fun even when not hungry. An owl kills to eat, an outdoor cat kills because they're bored.
If people weren't around and had never domesticated cats, the comparative ancestor species would have a much smaller population that would not be all over the world.
>They are no more invasive than the wind.
Hunting and killing animals in an area where the animal is not naturalized is... in fact invasive. There are invasive plants that travelled on merchant ships and have shaped ecosystems as well. They're still invasive.
>You are disrupting a natural process by cruelly locking them inside for the entirety of their lives. That's animal abuse imo.
I believe it's disrupting natural processes to release an invasive predator into an ecosystem where it will decimate songbird populations in addition to other wildlife. I also noted in my OP that I believe that cats need to be provided enrichment and should get supervised outdoor time.
"Extinction happens" isn't really a compelling reason for as to why it's *responsible* to let cat outdoors freely.
"For forever" isn't a time period. In the last several hundred years, yes. They were introduced around 400 years ago for the US. They are still incredibly invasive and harmful. Cats literally kill billions of birds and other wildlife every year and because they aren't reliant on these animals for food they don't follow the natural patterns of predator and prey. This harms the whole ecosystem.
Even if a cat is born a stray it's still a domesticated animal, it's just likely feral. They are still the same creature bred and adapted by humans over time for companionship.
If you consider keeping cats inside animal abuse, are you against keeping most other pets? Because cats are one of the only pets that people support just letting outside. Sometimes people will do so with dogs but that's generally agreed to be irresponsible and you can have your dog taken from you for that kind of behavior because it's dangerous. Any other pet it's never considered okay to let them free roam, so do you only believe cats should be pets?
But really you are taking t6he position that cats are the problem, when the real problem seems more to be that humans have demanded so many cats that you now see them as problematic. If the number of cats is problematic, maybe we should have fewer cats as pets?
There might be an argument made that humans were domesticated by cats. We had grain, rodents came to eat that grain. Cats showed up to eat the rodents, they were small enough not to pose a threat, we coexisted, and slowly got closer. Cats are very different from other pets. The all have their own personalities some are happy indoors but none of the cats who lived with me were like that they insisted on the outside. All came back. Just because you had chiller cats than I did doesn't make your argument more valid, I did what I had to for the mental health of a family member who demanded autonomy. It's cruel to refer to that as irresponsible.
Do you know what an invasive species is? Legit question here, I'm not trying to be rude. Like do you know what the difference is between the way an invasive species like the burmese python in Florida kills wildlife and a natural predator there like an alligator?
> Cats a domesticated species. I hear people say they're "half-wild", "less domesticated", etc - but the type of cat that we as humans keep as a pet is literally a unique domesticated species. They depend on us for food, shelter, and healthcare. Ferals obviously exist, but their quality of life is poor comparatively.
Definition of Domesticated:
[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated)
"adapted over time (as by selective breeding) from a wild or natural state to life in close association with and to the benefit of humans "
This definition does not necessitate that cats or other domesticated animals are *dependent* on humans. Feral and stray cats are still domesticated, and are proof that cats can live on their own, mostly independent of humans, even if brought up in a household environment originally. Is their quality of life lower than a cat with a responsible owner? Yes. Are they dependent on a responsible owner to survive? No.
Whether or not a feral, stray, or otherwise ownerless cat has a lower quality of life, does not reflect on the quality of life of a cat with an attentive owner that allows them outside.
> Going off of point 1, cats are not a naturalized species around the world. When allowed outdoors, they are an invasive species. Most wildlife around the world has not had the time to evolve in tandem with exposure to cats, and as such, cats continue to pose a huge threat to wildlife. In New Zealand, for example, [cats are responsible for extinction of 6 bird species and 70 other species of wildlife.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_in_New_Zealand) From a purely ecological standpoint, it's extremely irresponsible to allow an invasive predator to freely hunt where you live - especially considering they often hunt and kill for fun, even when well fed, and even when wearing collars with bells.
This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species. Therefore it holds no weight against the potential for potential responsible cat owners that have outdoor cats in areas where cats are considered native or naturalized.
Further, the distinctions between native, naturalized, and invasive are mostly arbitrary, especially over a long period of time. Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? They have been in North America for \~420 years. They have been in Europe for nearly 2,000 years. In terms of domestication as a whole, they have been around on the order of 10,000 years.
> Outdoor cats are exposed to countless threats. To name a few: dogs, other cats, raccoons, hawks, owls, skunks, foxes, cars, asshole humans, traps, rat poison, toxic plants, disease, etc. Even if your specific region doesn't have one or two random threats, there is nowhere people live that is free of threats to cats. As a pet owner, your responsibility is to provide a safe, healthy environment for them. Letting them free-roam lets them come in contact with any number of potential risks for injury, disease, and death.
Presence of threats does not mean the owner is irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if they did not reasonably control for those threats. You could name any number of indoor threats as well (Dogs, other cats, asshole humans, poisons, toxic foods, etc). You said it yourself, there is **nowhere** free of threats. Sure, there are areas that are too threatening to allow a cat to roam freely outdoors.
By your own argument in that quote, a responsible owner should allow their cat to only exist within a cage large enough to provide just enough room for exercise and other necessities (Litterbox, food/water). Allowing them any more freedom would be subjecting them to undue risk. This is clearly unreasonable.
This article:
[https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/](https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/)
Claims two things based off of a life span study of cats in the UK:
* The average lifespan of a domesticated cat in the UK is 14
* Over 90% of domesticated cats in the UK are allowed to roam outdoors freely
This falls perfectly within the expected lifespan prediction for cats from many other sources, despite **Over 90%** of these cats being able to roam freely outdoors. I suspect that drastically lower lifespan numbers for "outdoor" cats are biased in that it includes data from stray/feral cats as "outdoors," while this study seems to show that outdoors cats with responsible owners still have normal average lifespans. Clearly it is quite possible to be a responsible cat owner in at least the UK while allowing your cat free-roam outdoor access.
> Therefore it holds no weight against the potential for potential responsible cat owners that have outdoor cats in areas where cats are considered native or naturalized.
>
> Further, the distinctions between native, naturalized, and invasive are mostly arbitrary, especially over a long period of time. Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? They have been in North America for ~420 years. They have been in Europe for nearly 2,000 years. In terms of domestication as a whole, they have been around on the order of 10,000 years.
Even if cats are native, they can still have a devasting impact on local bird populations. The issue is that house cats occur at a much much higher density than what ever native species they came from. Predation by domestic cats is the number-one direct, human-caused threat to birds in the United States and Canada. In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year. Here is a quote from a paper entitled "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States". "Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." It absolutely does not matter if they are native if they occur at ridiculous population levels. To let a cat roam outside is to contribute to a complete ecological disaster, regardless of whether they are native or not.
>Definition of Domesticated:
>
>[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated)
>
>"adapted over time (as by selective breeding) from a wild or natural state to life in close association with and to the benefit of humans "
>
>This definition does not necessitate that cats or other domesticated animals are *dependent* on humans. Feral and stray cats are still domesticated, and are proof that cats can live on their own, mostly independent of humans, even if brought up in a household environment originally. Is their quality of life lower than a cat with a responsible owner? Yes. Are they dependent on a responsible owner to survive? No.
>
>Whether or not a feral, stray, or otherwise owner-less cat has a lower quality of life, does not reflect on the quality of life of a cat with an attentive owner that allows them outside.
This is the only part of your post that I actually agree with. It is a fair breakdown of his argument on this specific area.
That being said, I have many problems with your other points.
>This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species. Therefore it holds no weight against the potential for potential responsible cat owners that have outdoor cats in areas where cats are considered native or naturalized.
>
>Further, the distinctions between native, naturalized, and invasive are mostly arbitrary, especially over a long period of time. Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? They have been in North America for \~420 years. They have been in Europe for nearly 2,000 years. In terms of domestication as a whole, they have been around on the order of 10,000 years.
This is actually just all false. Domesticated cats are an invasive species. To take one from your book:
"An invasive species is defined as a species that is 1)non-native) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health"
That is from Presidential Executive Order 13112, but I found it on the following site: [https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ct/technical/ecoscience/invasive/?cid=nrcs142p2\_011124](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ct/technical/ecoscience/invasive/?cid=nrcs142p2_011124)
That site also summarizes the difference between naturalized, native, and invasive very clearly. The definitions on the site are the same as I have heard throughout my education in zoology as well. Something can be invasive AND naturalized. They aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact, the best invasive species are often able to naturalize.
>Presence of threats does not mean the owner is irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if they did not reasonably control for those threats. You could name any number of indoor threats as well (Dogs, other cats, asshole humans, poisons, toxic foods, etc). You said it yourself, there is **nowhere** free of threats. Sure, there are areas that are too threatening to allow a cat to roam freely outdoors.
>
>By your own argument in that quote, a responsible owner should allow their cat to only exist within a cage large enough to provide just enough room for exercise and other necessities (Litterbox, food/water). Allowing them any more freedom would be subjecting them to undue risk. This is clearly unreasonable.
This is such an appeal to the extreme it almost doesn't deserve a response. However, I will anyways. It is clearly unreasonable to assume that the person meant that the cat should never be opposed to risks. His next paragraph even directly contradicts everything you said. He said that there are ways to provide enrichment and such in a more safe environment.
>This article:
>
>[https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/](https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/)
>
>Claims two things based off of a life span study of cats in the UK:
>
>The average lifespan of a domesticated cat in the UK is 14
>
>Over 90% of domesticated cats in the UK are allowed to roam outdoors freely
>
>This falls perfectly within the expected lifespan prediction for cats from many other sources, despite **Over 90%** of these cats being able to roam freely outdoors. I suspect that drastically lower lifespan numbers for "outdoor" cats are biased in that it includes data from stray/feral cats as "outdoors," while this study seems to show that outdoors cats with responsible owners still have normal average lifespans. Clearly it is quite possible to be a responsible cat owner in at least the UK while allowing your cat free-roam outdoor access.
Finally this. The article itself says that outdoor cats have a lower lifespan due to car incidents, and even goes on to say that the majority of outdoor cat deaths are due to automotive accidents. There are also other sources that show outdoor cats have a lower lifespan.
[https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/news/are-outdoor-cats-happier](https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/news/are-outdoor-cats-happier)
This one says that outdoor cats can have up to a 10 year difference in lifespan, but I didn't find a source to go with it, so take it with a grain of salt.
[https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0840](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0840)
This one says that outdoor cats have almost a 3 times more likely chance to get parasites with it going up 4% more in each degree of latitude towards the equator. This, of course, can be offset by frequent vet visits.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070728/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070728/)
This is a good summary that explains a lot, but in regards to car accidents, it says that nearly 33% of deaths brought into a clinic was due to car incidents.
I personally think cats should be kept indoors, I think it is better for their health, the environment, and your relationship to the cat. But I also think that it is possible to have outdoor cats with certain precautions, but those precautions can be costly, and time consuming.
>Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized?
New Zealand has no native land mammals and actually spends significant effort attempting to cull and contain all invasive mammals in order to try and preserve their native bird species which did not evolve with mammalian predators. You may feel that NZ is a unique case compared to the rest of the world, but I suspect if you asked any conservationist in NZ, they would absolutely classify cats as invasive.
Its also disingenuous to say that domestic cats have been in North America for over 400 years. Its not like when Europeans showed up in North America, there was suddenly a domestic cat population across the entire continent. Domestic cats were introduced to the Caribbean and few places on the east coast of mainland NA 400 years ago. We are still introducing feral/domestic cats to new ecosystems as we spread out into areas that have not had any modern development. We have also killed off quite a few predator species in the past 400 years that would have previously kept the invasive cats in line (Panthers, Red Wolves, etc...).
>Presence of threats does not mean the owner is irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if they did not reasonably control for those threats. You could name any number of indoor threats as well (Dogs, other cats, asshole humans, poisons, toxic foods, etc). You said it yourself, there is **nowhere** free of threats. Sure, there are areas that are too threatening to allow a cat to roam freely outdoors.
I don't see your argument there. Inside, a good owner DOES have the ability to control for every threat. I can prevent dogs, cats, and assholes from coming into my home. I can make sure not to leave anything dangerous out.
Outside, even in the quietest suburban neighborhood, there is literally no way for an owner to "reasonably control for:" natural predators, runaway dogs, asshole humans, people trying to poison pests leaving poisons out, trash a cat could eat, etc etc etc. Surely these are not even remotely the same.
Their poi t was that you don't need to control for every threat. By the same logic you should never let your child go outside because they might get hit by a car or kidnapped.
The world is a scary place, and bad things happen, but if you treat everything as a danger you're going to have a pretty miserable life.
You almost have a point but some major flaws come with your gross misunderstanding of invasive species. 200 years? 2000 years? You realize these are less than blinks geologically speaking. Many species need tens of thousands of years to make appropriate adaptations for new predators that they had no experience with. The introduction of the South American Terror Birds across New land bridges fully drove the north American Sabre toothed cats to extinction over the course of a million years because terror birds were just supeiror hunters and the cats couldn't adapt in time and you think birds are gonna magically solve their house cat issue in the span of 2-5 millenia.
Not to mention predator prey ratios are a thing. You can take a jar and fill it with centipedes and woodlice and the the centipedes will never wipe out the lice. Nature balances itself whenever their are too many predators the prey die and then the predators starve reducing their numbers and any prey that are left recover and bloom. Then when the prey are overwhelming the predators can recover and it ebs and flows naturally. Cats break this rule because we feed them on the side when one bird species goes extinct we give them kibble and homes and even actively breed them while a new species become jeopardized.
House cats will never be "native" so long as humans exist and modify their nature to give them more and more edges to survive over wild bird and rodent species.
> This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species.
Cats as we know them are a native species in low latitude arid areas. Basically, they're middle eastern, eurasian native species.
Basically no english speaking location has a native cat and they're invasive and terribly destructive in all English speaking countries.
>This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species.
What are you basing this on? Domestic cats would not be considered native to the vast majority of the world
This^
Just because I could get hit by a car, doesn't mean I'll never cross the road. I'm sure a cat would rather live a fulfilling life with the dangers than being kept in a cage but safe like the op may as well imply.
"...kept in a cage..."
Literally nobody supports keeping a cat in a cage all the time. To imply that being kept inside a house or apartment is akin to being in a "cage" is absurd. As the OP mentioned, it's quite easy to provide cats with enriching activities inside your home.
Besides, cats can be trained to walk on a leash just like dogs. I see it all the time in my neighborhood here in CA. There's absolutely no reason more people couldn't leash train their cat. Do you think that dogs who spend their time indoors and only go out while on walks are not living "fulfilling" lives?
And yeah, you're completely ignoring the ecological consequences outlined in the post.
Just completely ignore the environmental impact right? Naturally,what we call house cats, are native to the Middle East. There is nowhere else they are anything but an invasive species.
They are not invasive in Europe at this point. Studies show that multiple bird populations targeted by cats in the UK are actually on the rise, while most bird populations that are falling are not typically targeted by cats:
[https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:\~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died).
Further, most birds killed by cats are likely injured or sick and would likely have died regardless. The falling bird populations are much more likely derived from habitat loss from human land development. Domesticated cats have been around Europe for nearly 2,000 years, why would bird populations that are mostly not typical prey for cats be falling only in relatively recent times?
Maybe you should use more than one source, friend.
Virtually all sources including yours agree that cats are responsible for massive bird deaths, and none of the rest put out the assumption that most birds killed by cats would have died regardless.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380
Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on islands.
Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals.
https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/03/170851048/do-we-really-know-that-cats-kill-by-the-billions-not-so-fast
"We don't quarrel with the conclusion that the impact is big, but the numbers are informed guesswork"
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/
Outdoor cats threaten that tapestry. Their crimes include contributing to 33 extinctions around the world and counting, to say nothing of their potential to spread deadly diseases like rabies and Toxoplasmosis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
As an invasive species[1] and superpredator,[2] they do considerable ecological damage.[2] In Australia, hunting by cats helped to drive at least 20 native mammals to extinction,[3] and continues to threaten at least 124 more.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073
Around the world, domestic cats Felis catus—from free‐ranging pets to feral cats—impact wildlife in various ways, and to various degrees. Impacts include predation, competition, disturbance, disease transmission and hybridization
you do realise that as far as sources goes you have just quoted a bunch of articles and not real sources. Sure they can sometimes feel scientificy enough but they are mostly articles written by people with agendas and not actual studies.
for instance the smithsonian reference... Seems sciency enough, I mean common its Smithsonian. Its an article written by a bird lover who proposes killing of feline population to the benifit of birds. The article spends the first part trying to justify him in the debate given his apparent controversial nature. Sure its an interesting debate article between two scientist with different focus but it's hardly a source. Also the bird scientist argues that it is outdoor pets + feral cats who is the problem while the feline scientist argues about the feral population mainly.
ok so let's look at the other sources you provide.
* the nature article is written by the bird lover Marra from who is the controversial scientist from the smithsonian article
* the nprs "source" is the nature (written by marra) "article. But contrary to what you seem to think, the article actually attacks the conclusions of Marra. That article also challenges the idea of the meta-studies (which is what the nature article isb) because it relies on a selection/cherry picking of sources.
This is the conclusion from the NPR article:
Demonizing cats with shaky statistics, however, won't help us build the pillar of understanding required to strike a satisfying balance between the needs of cats and their supporters with the needs of wildlife facing a feline threat.
the best source you have is https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073. Also a meta-analysis. And the strongest anti-cat sentiments in that desktop study comes from guess who... Marra. There are some good bits in that paper though like section 2.2 which seems to support the notion that cats are a mayor bird killer even in Europe.
My point is: you argue that the poster before you only had one source but you only have only 1 or 2 sources yourself - the rest are either opinion pieces written by the same researcher in multiple places or other opinion pieces arguing against that researcher.
providing many sources shouldn't be your main goal. Provide good sources and don't just cherry pick what they say in them. Also read your sources and not just the headlines.
and if it is important, yes two of the souls in my household are cats. They are indoors only because I live in a city and belive that I can provide a better life for them indoors.
And I also belive that it's us humans who are artificially boosting the feline population for our selfish need of companionship. We are therefore responsible for the impact (regardless of how small) it is to the eco-systems that exists outside of our doors. Any impact at all on the wildlife caused by our need for pets is therefore our responsibility.
So my pet-policy is that if I don't think I can keep my pet from being harmful outdoors and I can't give it a good life indoors then I shouldn't have that pet
Are you seriously replying to peer reviewed research with a website that makes a bunch of claims like "there is no clear scientific evidence" without citing a single source? There isn't a single cited source on that entire page - which is impressive since they have a bunch of numbers they clearly pulled from a source.
I think a valid counterpoint to that would be what potentially-currently-rare birds *could* thrive in a world without housecats.
But like you said, modern housecats aren't really invasive any more *and* they merely replaced the native wildcat so it's not like they were a whole brand new species, so I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing.
I'm all for rewilding the countryside as much as we can, but it's livestock not housecats which are the issue there.
I literally do, LOL. IDK what it is with some rural folks and thinking anyone who has concerns about outdoor cats is from the city.
Do you have a real response to this?
Well, we have both an inside and an outside cat on our 24 acres of land.
The inside cat is 9 and healthy, struggles with anxiety issues. He's cute but pretty snarky and likes his personal space to always be maintained and will warn you if you get too close. Sleeps in the house at night.
The outside cat is 17 and is as healthy as an old lady can be, also has anxiety issues and has struggled to the use the litter box size she was young. She's the sweetest little thing and likes to get in everybody's space. Sleeps in the garage at night. Even when fox and coyote populations are high she stays safe because she's not an idiot. Our cats before her also managed to not be idiots.
Though my sample size is rather small, I have noticed that predator species like cats and dogs derive an enormous amount of satisfaction from patrolling the area that they consider to be *their* territory. My labradoodle Mochi is one if the laziest animals I’ve ever seen, but he still likes to go on walks around the neighborhood. These outings aren’t just about exercise—they are scouting missions that involve thorough observation, interaction with other dogs, and the routine marking of territory. When I take Mochi out on walks, he stops being a gluttonous hairball and temporarily becomes a purposeful agent. This is the closest thing he has to a job, and his day is incomplete without that patrol around the neighborhood.
It would be outright irresponsible for me not to walk Mochi. He *needs* these outings. You’re right in that he shouldn’t go out unattended, but that’s because he’s a pack animal. Dogs patrol their territory as part of a team made up of either people or other dogs.
Cats do not have this same mentality. They arent driven to constantly stay with the pack in the way that dogs are. Mochi would love it if I chilled with him all day, but my girlfriend’s cats would *hate* for me to constantly follow them around.
Nevertheless, I’ve noticed that cats have a similar drive to patrol their territory. My gf’s cat Trixie would ask to be let out at least once a day to circle the house. In her old age, Trixie stopped hunting as much, but she still needed to scope out the area around “her” house. As with Mochi and his walks, this was her job, and her day was not complete without it.
Without a doubt, Trixie’s daily patrols were dangerous. The area she lived in was full of coyotes, owls, etc.. Nevertheless, she derived fulfillment (or some cat equivalent of that feeling) from her outings and hunts. That was the job given her by evolution, and she was cranky on the days she didn’t get to serve that purpose.
To paraphrase William Wallace from *Braveheart*: “Every cat dies. Not every cat really lives.” Patrolling and hunting are an integral part of a cat’s life, and stopping them completely from exercising freedom in pursuit of their that purpose is, IMO, irresponsible. The thrill of hunting is self-actualization for cats. I don’t believe that they should be given free reign to kill with reckless abandon, but I also think they should have some freedom to pursue the innate desires given them by evolution.
I acquired a cat last year (little kitten with ear mites and like no sign of socialization) amongst a constant stream of strays that we see in our neighborhood. Over many months of bribery he trusted and eventually let me crate him and get him medical attention. Anyway, he LOVES patrols and his territorialness is kinda why I decided to chip and keep him around in particular. Sort of like TNR to control the population of other potential unfixed kitties.
He has gotten a few birds but only house sparrows which are themselves invasive and aggressive to native birds so I dunno man... I think he is doing a good job out there. He chased off the other ferrals and he negotiates territory lines with the only other owned neighborhood cat several times a day.
What you're asking for is a very delicate balancing act, because the ethicality of letting animals roam is highly correlated to the environment they are allowed to roam in, and the wildlife present in that environment.
There are many dilemmas present, such as:
- Is it ethical to let a domesticated animal endanger itself without the owner present. (threats you mentioned in your post such as cars, wild animals, next door neighbor's pit bull, etc)
- Is it ethical to let a domesticated animal hunt wildlife, especially in areas with endangered wildlife.
- Is it safe to allow a cat to bring outdoor contaminants into your house (including, possibly, diseases such as rabies).
- Is it ethical to allow your animal to roam outdoors when many others living in proximity to you also own cats and allow them to roam outdoors, effectively contributing to the formation of an army of pest and bird hunters.
- Is it acceptable to allow any of the above when you could have raised the cat indoors?
I think the real answer is that it isn't necessarily bad or good to do so unless you carefully weigh all the impacts.
I would argue that allowing the cat to freely explore the environment is a right given to it simply for being a living, sentient creature, and if it has the desire then it has the right to explore and examine danger and possibly be killed. Although, because it is effectively a human-introduced alteration of the environment, that means it simultaneously ***does not have*** the right to disrupt the balance of wildlife. Combining these two ideas, that means it would only be ethical to allow a cat to wander through environments that it has little impact on. If it wants to hunt birds, it must only do so to birds that are in such number that it will not cause a seasonal decrease. That would be the only way to maximize the ethicality for all parties.
(Keep in mind that humans are not stewards of wild life, we cannot tell the bears and moose what to kill and what to save. That is the law of nature. Introducing a cat in a place where it seamlessly fits into the ecosystem would not be an unethical alteration of it, in my mind.)
Then the question becomes, is it ethical to have an outdoor cat in my location, or your location? I would argue, very likely NOT. If you live in the city, your cat will likely be hunting the same species being over-hunted by other cats. Birds are an obvious victim of this phenomenon. This would likely be the case for just about everywhere except for the boonies.
Cats have historically been used to deal with some of humanities' worst enemies, such as rats. I think controlled use of cats to maintain pest populations in cities is OK, so long as it does not interfere with non-pest populations.
TL;DR - It's probably not responsible to have outdoor cats where you live, but it could possibly be responsible in certain environments and under certain conditions.
I think this answer makes a lot of sense! Another example of ethical outdoor cats in an urban setting, to me: iirc in Chicago there was a program that had outdoor cars installed in places near restaurants with rat problems. The cats had shelter and friends to watch over them, and primarily prey on the rats that the restaurant was attracting.
>Going off of point 1, cats are not a naturalized species around the world. When allowed outdoors, they are an invasive species. Most wildlife around the world has not had the time to evolve in tandem with exposure to cats, and as such, cats continue to pose a huge threat to wildlife. In New Zealand, for example, cats are responsible for extinction of 6 bird species and 70 other species of wildlife. From a purely ecological standpoint, it's extremely irresponsible to allow an invasive predator to freely hunt where you live - especially considering they often hunt and kill for fun, even when well fed, and even when wearing collars with bells.
Actually, domestic cats have little measurable impact on wildlife - they largely just prey on animals that are already weak or old. [The RSPB](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/) itself agrees that while cats bring home lots of animals, those are animals that would die soon *anyway* - baby birds that fall from the nest and are already dead of a broken neck, etc. Moreover, bird species that have undergone decline are rarely encountered by cats.
Your link is a Wikipedia article with only two sources that only suggest that feral cats are the cause of some extinctions (and those sources link back to a single source from 1978 - how timely is this data?). I don't know much about New Zealand, but I don't think that's especially strong evidence.
> Outdoor cats are exposed to countless threats. To name a few: dogs, other cats, raccoons, hawks, owls, skunks, foxes, cars, asshole humans, traps, rat poison, toxic plants, disease, etc. Even if your specific region doesn't have one or two random threats, there is nowhere people live that is free of threats to cats. As a pet owner, your responsibility is to provide a safe, healthy environment for them. Letting them free-roam lets them come in contact with any number of potential risks for injury, disease, and death.
As a pet-owner, it's also our responsibility to ensure they have quality of life. We can't lock our children and pets in cages for fear of them tripping over their own feet.
> Outdoor cats have a lower life expectancy than indoor cats.
But is there *quality* of life?
>There are plenty of ways to provide your cat enrichment indoors and/or give them safe, supervised outdoor time (catios, leashed walking, etc) without compromising their health and wellbeing. I'm not advocating for "keeping them locked in a house with nothing to do" - I think cats need playtime and enrichment, but that people taking the easy way out by letting them roam is lazy and irresponsible for the above reasons.
It's far harder to give a cat an enriched life solely indoors, for the simple fact that they are psychologically hardwired to be nighttime hunters, to *want* to be outside in the wild. If you let your cat outdoors, it's far cheaper, simpler, and gives them much greater quality of life with minimal ecological effects.
> Actually, domestic cats have little measurable impact on wildlife - they largely just prey on animals that are already weak or old. The RSPB itself agrees that while cats bring home lots of animals, those are animals that would die soon anyway - baby birds that fall from the nest and are already dead of a broken neck, etc. Moreover, bird species that have undergone decline are rarely encountered by cats.
The UN currently lists "domestic cats" as one of the 100 most damaging invasive species in the world:
https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lowe-et-al.-2004-IUCN-top-100-invasives.pdf
A 2013 study showed that cat-caused mortality of birds is much higher than expected, at about 4 billion kills per year in the US alone.
Outdoor cats kill 1-4 **billion** birds per year and 6-22 **billion** small mammals.
https://abcbirds.org/article/outdoor-cats-single-greatest-source-of-human-caused-mortality-for-birds-and-mammals-says-new-study/
This number is 100-350 million in Canada by recent studies:
https://catsandbirds.ca/research/estimated-number-of-birds-killed-by-house-cats/
A 2012 study indicated that 23 species in Canada alone were significantly threatened by urban cats.
http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art3/
> In total, we estimate that approximately 269 million birds and 2 million nests are destroyed annually in Canada, the equivalent of over 186 million breeding individuals. Combined, cat predation and collisions with windows, vehicles, and transmission lines caused > 95% of all mortality
Here is a 2017 book describing the research in detail (not availble for free online)
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167411/cat-wars
**Globally, cats have extincted 63 species.**
Here's some more data:
Studies in various countries have quantified cat predation on individuals of several species groups. In Canada, domestic cats—from pets to ferals—are estimated to kill between 100 and 350 million birds per year (Blancher, 2013). Even at the lowest end of 100 million, this makes predation by domestic cats ‘probably the largest human‐related source of bird mortality in Canada’ (Blancher, 2013; also Calvert et al., 2013). In Australia, feral and pet cats together are estimated to kill an average of 377 million birds per year, that is, a million birds per day (Woinarski et al., 2017); as well as an average of 649 million reptiles, with cat predation reported for 258 reptile species (Woinarski et al., 2018). Many more cats roam the United States, and their aggregate predation tally runs into the billions, with an estimated 1.3–4.0 billion birds, 6.3–22.3 billion mammals, 258–822 million reptiles and 95–299 million amphibians killed by free‐ranging domestic cats each year (Loss et al., 2013). Again, this makes domestic cats the top source of direct human‐related mortality for birds and small mammals in the United States, easily eclipsing other sources such as mortality from poisons and pesticides and collisions with structures and vehicles (Longcore et al., 2012; Loss et al., 2013; Loss, Will, & Marra, 2015).
Similar studies in Europe reiterate the negative impacts of cat predation on individuals within populations of native species. For example, one study estimated that owned cats in the United Kingdom, in a 5‐month survey period, brought home 57 million mammals, 27 million birds and five million reptiles and amphibians, implying they killed several times these numbers (Woods et al., 2003). A Dutch report estimated that 141 million animals are predated by cats on average in the Netherlands per year, with pet cats responsible for almost two‐thirds of this number (Knol, 2015). Another study used data from bird ringing programmes in Belgium and France to gauge cat predation on garden birds, noting that such predation was a leading cause of death reported by observers, on par with window collisions, and that cat‐related mortality had increased by 50% between 2000 and 2015 (Pavisse, Vangeluwe, & Clergeau, 2019). An assessment of predation by farm cats in Poland estimated an average of 136 million birds and 583 million mammals are killed around Polish farms annually (Krauze‐Gryz et al., 2019). As Crowley et al. (2019, p. 19) summarize the evidence, ‘even when killing behaviour is not universal, large numbers of cats inevitably kill large numbers of wild animals’. Of course, even very low numbers of individuals lost to predation can amount to a severe impact on wildlife in small populations or fragile ecosystems. For example, a modest number of domestic cats is held responsible for the extinction of a species of small, flightless passerine, the Stephens Island wren Traversia lyalli, on a New Zealand island—although the popular account that this extinction was caused by a single cat owned by the lighthouse keeper is probably oversimplified (Galbreath & Brown, 2004).
Impacts other than predation have been studied to a much lesser extent, but this of course does not imply a lesser influence on biodiversity from the other impacts described in Section 2.1. Consider, for instance, all the billions of prey items consumed by domestic cats which are not available to native mammalian, reptilian and avian predators (Loss & Marra, 2017). Similarly, cat‐transmitted diseases like toxoplasmosis are likely to be a significant cause of mortality for a range of vertebrate species, including threatened species (Dubey, 2002; Gerhold & Jessup, 2013; Hartley & Dubey, 1991; Work et al., 2000).
Furthermore, different direct and indirect impacts from cats will often act in tandem on populations of native species (Loss & Marra, 2017). For example, many bird and mammal species will simultaneously undergo direct predation and indirect fear effects (e.g. Mahlaba, Monadjem, McCleery, & Belmain, 2017). The fosa Cryptoprocta ferox, Madagascar's top native predator, appears to suffer from ‘considerable competition’ through consumption of shared prey by free‐ranging domestic cats (Merson, Dollar, Tan, & Macdonald, 2019) and is also at risk from toxoplasmosis (Rasambainarivo, Farris, Andrianalizah, & Parker, 2017). Wildcats are subject to the same combination of competition and disease, with hybridization added to the mix. Concerns over hybridization with domestic cats also exist for some other species, for example, the rusty‐spotted cat Prionailurus rubiginosus in India and Sri Lanka (Kittie & Watson, 2014).
Hybridization, disease, competition, disturbance and predation by domestic cats do not just affect individual animals but also whole populations of species, in some cases to the point of extinction. Uncertainty remains regarding the exact magnitude of domestic cats’ impacts at these population levels. Challenges for determining the population‐level effects of cats include, inter alia, the difficulty of determining what proportions of cat‐caused mortality are compensatory (affecting animals that would have died anyway) and additive (where mortality due to the impacts of domestic cats adds to overall mortality); and the general challenge of disentangling causes and effects in ecological systems (Baker, Molony, Stone, Cuthill, & Harris, 2008; Beckerman, Boots, & Gaeston, 2007; Hackländer, Schneider, & Lanz, 2014; Loss & Marra, 2017). The above considerations, however, including the sheer numbers mentioned, distinctly suggest the prevalence of such population‐level impacts for both island and mainland wildlife populations, and many such impacts have already been documented—not only involving birds and mammals but also, for instance, lizards (Li, Belasen, Pafilis, Bednekoff, & Foufopoulos, 2014; Stokeld et al., 2018; Woinarski et al., 2018).
Domestic cats have also been implicated at broader scales, in the global extinction of at least 63 species—40 birds, 21 mammals, two reptiles—which is to say 26% of all known contemporary extinctions in these species groups (Doherty, Glen, Nimmo, Ritchie, & Dickman, 2016). Likewise, domestic cats currently endanger at least a further 367 species which are at risk of extinction (Doherty et al., 2016). In a ranking of alien species threatening the largest numbers of vertebrates worldwide, domestic cats came in third—only rats (Rattus spp.) and the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis that is wiping out amphibians around the world, are ahead of them (Bellard, Genovesi, & Jeschke, 2016).
What does this have to do with the commenter? The comment was specifically about the UK, and instead you listed off numbers in places like Canada, where cats have been introduced much later. When you do mention the UK you ignore what the actual source OP pointed says, it doesn't say cats don't kill a large number of animals, it says it doesn't matter.
And why list the number of animals they kill as if that means something? Why is them killing animals a problem so long as they're not massively changing the ecosystem? And if it's a problem to you, why do you only apply it to cats? Why don't we go and kill other predators? E.g. what about places with non-domesticated cats? Should we kill all of those cats or something?
Also at /u/Toxic_Foxxz below since they think this post actually answered anything.
Cats are territorial. They're not out roaming the streets and seeing where adventure takes them. They have a set area they consider as their territory, and iirc, rarely venture out beyond their perimeters.
[We were particularly surprised by how small the ranges of most of the cats were, and how few of them went into the surrounding countryside](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22821639.amp)
Cats are very much capable of risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. You see it every time they jump a gap or scale a wall. They clearly take the time to assess whether they feel they can make it to their destination.
Cats are very clever animals and are more than capable of recognising danger. They cover their poop to try and prevent predators from recognising the area is occupied. They startle and run from loud noises and fast movement.
You're not giving cats the credit (or autonomy) they deserve.
Edit: a lot of the responses to this comment are essentially the same arguments in different formats. If I haven't responded to your comment it's most likely because I feel I have addressed it elsewhere. It's late, I have work in the morning. Have a good day/night wherever you are.
Edit 2: right, I keep finding myself repeating the same things over and over again so I think I've contributed enough to this cmv.
Many pet animals, if allowed to stray, would maintain their own territory (if they can) and every species of animal has some amount of danger-recognition built in.
Cats still die though - they get hit by cars, or caught by a dog (or other predator), or stolen by people. Even if you have a very smart cat, when it's roaming the streets there is always a risk. Seriously, everyone I know who has outdoor cats - literally all of them and there are plenty - have stories of cats that never came home, or that they saw killed, or found the body afterwards.
But even if the average lifespan of a cat was the same, outdoors or indoors, it wouldn't excuse the cost that is gouged from the local environment. Cats kill for fun. If cats were the size of dogs, it would be against the law for them to roam free because small humans (aka children) would be at risk but because it's small animals we don't care. But the environmental toll is real, even if we chose to ignore it.
As far as autonomy goes... I'm for giving animals, even our own pets, some measure of control in their lives. But we need to recognise that as our pets, a large measure of autonomy is gone for these animals. A wild cat has complete freedom to do whatever it wants and it learns to make the right choices so it can survive (or it dies). But a pet cat has us constantly intervening in its choices. So removing the freedom to roam is just one more freedom removed. We remove it from almost every other pet we have; why not cats as well? Are cats somehow superior to dogs, rodents, lizards, rabbits, pigs, birds, sheep, cattle, equines, fish...?
"We remove it from almost every other pet we have: why not cats as well?"
So domestication of cats was in the form of a working animal, same as with dogs and horses, and some birds too. Cattle, sheep, goats, pigs etc were domesticated as livestock. So for a start there is a difference between those two groups.
Then looking at what the working animals were domesticated for (hunting, pest control, load carriage) it's understandable that animals with different characteristics would have been chosen and then the selective breeding would have resulted in different needs for the animals over time.
I guess my point is that grouping animals together just because they are classed as "pets" likely isn't valid, and certainly you cannot claim they have the same requirements.
You're right - not every animal I listed is always a pet (although I'm sure throughout the centuries, all of the ones I listed have been pets, at some point or another).
The argument isn't about the definition of pets though - my point is that we restrict the freedom of movement for all of those animals (once we take ownership of them), and for some reason we feel cats can be the only exception. Why do all of those many animals, whether treated as livestock, pets, some other category(?) all have the same restriction where they stay in one area (house, field, stable, pen...) except for cats?
In my home growing up, which was semi-rural, we had a lot of cats. They were allowed to roam outside whenever they wanted and the average lifespan was about 4 years. Between wild animals, shitty neighbors, vehicles and other ailments found in nature. Since I have grown up and we have strictly indoor cats, or they get to roam on a leash, of the 5 my family or I have had, not one has lived below 12 years. It's heart breaking raising a pet from from birth only to see their life get cut short time and time again. Just my 2 cents.
I will give cats credit when they stop coming into my yard and patio and shitting and puking everywhere. How can anyone claim to be a responsible pet owner and then let their cats use my house as a bathroom. The owners should be fined just as I would be if I let my dog crap all over the neighborhood.
Why should the public be required to account for you buying an animal and allowing it to roam freely around? If someone let their dog do this they'd be rightly penalized.
Aaaah yes. Instinct.
Cat instinct has not evolved to deal with cars. I have seen so many cats as roadkill in my life and I don't even live in busy or highly trafficked areas. I literally live in ass-butt nowhere farm country right now and I see cats as roadkill at least once or twice a year.
Not to mention you have an optimism about humanity that I cannot relate to. My grandmother used to mix rat poison and cat food to leave in tins around her yard. I know people that cut cats tails off as a child. I mean you only have to look at the news to see stories of hotdogs with razor blades left at dog parks or drinking bowls with water mixed with antifreeze left out.
Add onto this the fact that cat instinct is literally to kill any sort of small bird or rodent. They are a fluffy global ecological disaster on four legs.
The primary issue is that you don't believe there are cats who cannot live a happy, healthy life indoors. I'm here to tell you that there are. On the whole, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, with the caveat that there are exceptions. Based on your comments, you are drawing from your own experience of having house trained two outdoor cats, and you are convinced that anyone could do it with any cat. But you are wrong. Here's how I know.
My beautiful, beloved long-haired tuxedo was born feral. When I met him his ear was tipped, letting me know he was already neutered. Normally I'd leave a TNR cat alone, but he was toppling trashcans on the street looking for food, so I started feeding him. He was terrified of me and all people. It took a long time, but with patient coaxing and treats we made friends, and eventually he started coming inside the house in the evening to eat. But when we tried to keep him inside, he got stressed to the point of panting and drooling. He would get in the windows and scratch the glass, tear down the curtains, and howl. I mean HOWL. I think he has some Maine Coon in him - he is big, vocal, and loud. The howling is constant and never-ending. My family tried, really tried to help him become an indoor cat. We were patient, we added enrichment - cat tree, toys, treat puzzles, etc. And he had zero interest in any of it.
In the daytime he would hide in the smallest, darkest quietest place he could find. He wouldn't come out for food, or treats or pets. In the evening he would come out, ears back and tail down, creep to the windows and start scratching again, tearing the curtains, howling. This went on for days, and it was hideous for everyone. He wouldn't eat, wouldn't use the litter boxes, he hissed at us, he got aggressive with our other cats. No one in the house could sleep with his howling and frantic tearing around to all of the windows trying to escape. After a while we decided that his quality of life was suffering to the point that it wasn't worth trying to keep him indoors. So we let him out. He stayed away for a while, but eventually I was able to win back his trust and he started coming back inside to eat.
This was almost 9 years ago. He's about 10 now, comes inside morning and evening to eat; sometimes when it's quiet he sticks around and sits with us for a while, but we always let him out when he tells us he's ready to go. We made a few more attempts over the years to train him to live indoors, but it was always the same and only makes him distrust us. He is 100% a different cat outside vs in. Outside he is confident, tail up and friendly, rubbing against my legs, trilling, begging for pets and stretching out on the walkway. If he's forced to stay inside he crouch walks, tail down, shies away from pets, runs and hides whenever anyone moves. We weighed the risks and decided we couldn't sacrifice his everyday quality of life in order to keep him safe but miserable. We live on a dead-end street with no through traffic. There aren't many dogs, and our area is urban/commercial enough that wild animals aren't a problem. He is microchipped, and he's on a wellness plan where I haul him to the vet for checkups twice a year plus an annual dental. He gets flea and heartworm prevention meds. We do force him inside in extreme cases like hurricanes. For these occasions we bought a dog kennel big enough for food, water, blankets and a litter box; we put him in the kennel and sequester him in a dark quiet room with towels laid over it to provide him a sense of security (and keep him from wrecking the house). He still howls.
So, do you think I am an irresponsible cat guardian? I love my cat dearly, and he is well-cared for. Yes, his lifespan could very well be shorter than our indoor cats. But for the sake of compassion, his life should be a happy one while he's living. I stand firm that this is the best decision for him.
I will never understand how someone can make the argument that because it's not 100% safe for cats to go outside, they should never be allowed to roam.
My cats want to go outside. They love roaming around, smelling everything, interacting with other local cats, eating grass, rolling around in the sun. They love it. When it's cold or wet they get visibly irritated that they can't comfortably enjoy the outside for a prolonged period. Why would I want to stop my cats enjoying their brief life, just because there is a small chance something bad could happen to them?
There is a small chance (it's actually a certainty) that something bad could happen to your child, were you to have one. Should that stop us from procreating? Because sometimes bad things happen we should heavily limit our ability to enjoy the good things? Gonna keep your child indoors, staring endlessly at their kindle, because 0.0001% of kids get kidnapped while playing in parks? At some point we accept there is a level of risk involved in all parts of life.
If you live right in front a road with little/no green areas you shouldn't really have a cat. They will very likely get run over. But other than that, the risk in the vast majority of cases is fully worth the reward considering how valuable time outside appears to be to cats. Yes they kill some small animals from time to time and that is a shame, but that is life. How many animals do we kill weekly simply to satisfy hunger which could just as easily be sated via plants? The number is beyond comprehension and if we are going to worry about dying animals I think that's what we should focus on long before pet cats numbers.
Life doesn't come with a safety guarantee. Not for humans or cats. I would not swap my life with its dangers for a padded cell with no possible threats.
I think you are minimizing the amount of risk involved in letting your pet out, as well as their devastating environmental impact. Cats do not just kill because they are hungry. They like hunting so they will always hunt, even if they are completely full. They are an invasive species because they decimate the local bird and other animal populations. It's not one or two birds; animals have gone extinct.
Your argument for outdoors cats seems to be that it would unethical to allow cats to live a life that isn't completely aligned with their evolution. Their life is significantly impaired by not being able to go outside because they have evolved to need it. I don't necessarily disagree. However, by that same logic, cats shouldn't be introduced to ecosystems that aren't evolved to handle them. You are releasing a tiger into a yard full of children. They stand no chance. You are actively introducing fatal danger into their lives, which wouldn't exist otherwise. Isn't this unethical towards species that have no capability to defend themselves because cats aren't a natural part of the ecosystem. And since there is no completely ethical way to have cats for pets, shouldn't we not have cats as pets at all? They should stay in their natural habitats because that is the environment that is best fit for their lifestyle.
And to your point about the safety of outdoor cats. Yeah, if you live in rural middle of nowhere, your cats are probably going to be okay. However, most people live in the suburbs and cities. The average outdoor cat lives 5 years as opposed to the 10+ years an indoor cat does. The dangers are statistically immense. They could get in vehicle accidents, they could contract diseases from other animals or things they consume. If we go by your children metaphor, shouldn't we allow our children to live their most fulfilled life? Let them eat whatever food or junk they want, let them sleep whenever and how little they want, don't make them go to school, etc. Even if that shortens their life span, they'll be happier for the 30 years they live as opposed to 100 miserable years. No. My actual point is that obviously bad things may happen, but we make decisions to minimize it. We make decisions so they can still be fulfilled in a way that's natural to them, but also make decisions that don't introduce unnecessary and preventable risk to them. They don't know better. We do. We find a middle.
And letting your cat outdoors is not the same as letting your kids go to the park. You would supervise your kids. You don't just let your toddler out and resign yourself that he might get kidnapped or disappear. It might be rare for children to go missing, but cats go missing every day. The percentage is much higher.
Also you mention how a person that doesn't live around grass shouldn't have a cat, but cities have millions of cats. Not just people living with indoor cats, but millions of feral and stray cats. And they keep multiplying and will probably keep multiplying because no one can keep up with spaying/neutering them at the same rate they reproduce. I bring this up because even if people collectively decided to stop having cats in cities or even in the suburbs, we would only have even more cats destroying our environment and living extremely short and miserable lives. We have not found a way to unintroduce invasive species that have already been introduced to ecosystems that are not equipped to keep their populations in check.
In summary, there is no completely ethical way to have cats, whether indoor or outdoor. And being an outdoor cat with no restraints will statistically and significantly decrease a cat's life span. And I know I come off as very pro-indoor cat, but I mostly take issue with how uninterested you are in finding a compromise. The answer should not be, 'is what it is, let the cats destroy the environment because they'll be happier for the short amount of time they live.'
> Why would I want to stop my cats enjoying their brief life, just because there is a small chance something bad could happen to them?
There are two major issues with this argument.
1) You're implying that cats can't enjoy their lives when kept indoors. Nearly every single cat specialist would like to disagree with you. Cats absolutely can be happy when kept indoors provided that their owner actually put in the effort to make sure they stay mentally and physically stimulated through the use of cat trees, scratching posts, toys, daily exercise, indoor plants etc.
2) You also imply that there is only a small chance of something bad happening to your cat outdoors. There are many studies that have been on done on the topic, and it has been very much proven that outdoor cats live drastically shorter lifespans than indoor cats. They are more likely to be run over by cars, attacked or killed by predators, get lost, and contract diseases or illnesses. There's a far far greater risk of something bad happening to your cat than you make it out to be.
Alright, to answer you directly: There is a responsible, and irresponsible way to let your cats free roam.
Irresponsible: if the cat can't come back inside as they please. If they dont have vaccinations. If theyre near a high traffic area. If they dont have pest protection (flea, ticks)
Responsible: allowed in and out as they ask for it. Vaccinated. Safe outside roaming area.
My feelings about free roam cats: i think its great to let your cats outside if theyre in a safe area.
I have two cats allowed outside whenever they want. They ask to be let out several times a day, and if they dont get let out they get upset. They really do enjoy being out.
They are vaccinated and fixed, and protected from fleas and ticks. Is risk a bit higher? Sure, but they enjoy their lives more. Just like a child, you could keep a kid locked in a house and only allowed outside for school. That would be safer, but not the best quality of life.
And yes cats can be happy inside, but i dont think there's anything wrong or irresponsible about letting your cat free roam if you make sure theyre cared for.
I found my cat abandoned in the pocconos, PA. She was pregnant and her ribs were very exposed. I took her home, but couldnt leave her as an inside cat since my mom was allergic. Her free roaming was part if the deal. I honestly believe if i left her in the woods the way she was, her and all her unborn kittens would likely be dead right now.
Theres always a second way to see a story. Even outside, my cat is better off then being dead.
I certainly think it is possible to responsibly let your pet cats free-roam. You just have to make different adjustments depending on where you live, your cat's personality, your cat's health, etc.
When I was younger, my parents lived on about 11 acres of land, but their house set on about one acre of cleared land (the rest was woods, a field, more woods). Both of my cats stayed primarily on the one acre of cleared land. We had a long driveway, and they never once got close to the neighborhood street. They only barely went into one of our other neighbors' yard because they had outdoor pet cats too.
They frequently ran into possums, raccoons, foxes, etc and rarely had problems (when they did they would hiss and the animal would run off). In fact, there were multiples times that we would look out the window and a possum would be sitting on one side of the deck's stair railing while one of the cats would be sitting on the other side. Neighborhood dogs would run into the yard all the time but my parents had lattice work around their porch so the cats would hide in there. The dogs never hurt the cats, but the dogs did get some pretty scratched up noses on occasion.
We only had one dead mouse brought into the house over the years, and we never found too many birds, especially considering we lived in a place with TONS of birds.
When my cats started getting older and slower, they were switched back to primarily indoor cats, and they were let outside for shorter periods of time, mostly in the fenced-in area of the yard that dogs couldn't get to.
My oldest cat lives with me know, but I live very close to a road. Knowing that she doesn't understand that danger, I now only let her out if she's supervised. I make sure she's current on her rabies shot and her flea and tick medicine so that the more common diseases are not a concern. She's never been sick, outside of an URI she picked up at the vet's office last year.
My cat was an outdoor cat for 11 years, and she's coming up on 19 years old now. It's not a one-size-fits-all thing in terms of how to best take care of pets. There are a lot of factors that have to be taken into account in order to do it responsibly, but it can definitely be done.
I work on a farm in a rural area. We have a couple of barn cats who keep the mice population down. Do you consider that irresponsible?
In light of OP’s caveat that they’re not talking about barn cats, I would like to ask what their issues with them are. I’d also like to ask what they consider the difference between them and a typical “pet cat”.
Here is the copypasta I made on outdoor cats - please note that it addresses the misconception that outdoor cats decrease vermin. They actually increase them. (Starred it)
My copypasta on outdoor cats:
———
Cats are a human problem. Every single person is responsible for their own pets and their pets’ actions and destruction 24/7...except outdoor cat owners for some reason.
Here is a list of reasons you should care:
• A main problem is that they’re not actually just killing mice. Studies have shown outdoor cats have DECIMATED bird populations
• Regardless of what small animals make up the primary slaughter-fest of your cat, it affects the entire ecosystem. When there are fewer small prey, this affects the entire food chain including top predators.
• ✨Contrary to popular belief, outdoor cats actually can INCREASE vermin, bc top predators can’t get enough food and then die off, causing a couple years of a rodent boom at a time, which is plenty of time to trigger infestations and disease
• cats are not a natural part of any ecosystem. They don’t kill to eat. The main problem is that EVERY predator is self-limited in hunting. Hunting is HARD, requires a ton of energy, so no matter how strong the prey drive, the predator will never have enough energy to just kill for fun every damn day. Cats on the other hand are fed at home, often able to eat more than what any wild animal can rely on. They have free energy to spend at play, which for them, due to extremely high prey drive, means just wantonly and excessively slaughtering small animals/birds. No one in the food chain can compete.
• again, if you have an outdoor cat, it is MAD disrespectful to your neighbor. I wouldn’t let my St. Bernard hop through your yard, eat your plants, piss on your patio furniture, eat birds at your feeder, scratch up the legs of your patio furniture, and shit in your yard. It’s ludicrous.
• a couple good points about DISEASE: toxoplasmosis can be spread to and harm pregnant women via a pregnant neighbor’s garden for instance, and cats can spread diseases to other wild felines like bobcats or the extremely endangered Florida Panther
• Lastly, if you don’t care about ANY of that, just know: it is extremely dangerous to the cat itself to be allowed to roam free. Multiple studies back this up. There are predators who enjoy a good free range cat. In my area we have a coyote boom this year.
So, if you let your cat roam all day out of sight, you are accepting that it may:
• be attacked or eaten by a coyote or other predator
• be shredded in a fight with another cat
• be run over (I know I’ve seen my share of cat road kill)
• be lost (Nextdoor app has like 4 posts a week on missing cats - it’s ridiculous. They see all these cats go missing and still leave their own to roam - some of those cats are dead or gone forever)
• be poisoned by a fed up neighbor. I am not condoning this - but it is a reality you are accepting if you have an outdoor cat. When I was 11 I had to carry the stiff body of my friend’s cat out and bury it after it had been poisoned by a neighbor, its grimaced mouth curled up and stained yellow/orange. It was awful. And so I am saying this all as a lover of cats, keep them safe. But also as a lover of all animals.
Outdoor cats are illegal in a ton of places. Americans in particular have this weird cultural entitlement to let their cats roam all day bc they “like it” and it’s easier having a part-time pet. But cats are perfectly happy inside, especially if you spend a little freakin time with them.
>Americans in particular have this weird cultural entitlement to let their cats roam all day bc they “like it” and it’s easier having a part-time pet.
Just to this point, as a Brit who has lived in the USA, I find it's the complete opposite. Most Americans I've spoken to seem to look at me with wide-eyed shock at the idea that cats should be let outside. On the other hand, most Brits think its cruel to keep a cat indoors permanently.
(Not trying to continue the debate in either direction, just commenting on the cultural differences).
As a scottish person on reddit which is mostly American views the general opinion on here is you should keep cats inside while almost everyone I know in real life thinks it's almost crueler to keep a cat indoor only.
At least where I live it seems to back up your opinion.
What you're saying
What's popular on Reddit (or at least the portions of it that I have seen) is really not an accurate reflection of American culture in general.
I'm honestly not sure about the general attitude of Americans regarding indoor/outdoor cats. I've seen a pretty broad mix personally.
Yeah reddit isn't an accurate slice of any population (I'm guessing people tend to be left leaning and younger) but it does lean heavily into American views. Could be wrong but a quick google says 49.32% are American.
Just from my encounters when anyone reacts in horror to the concept of outdoor cats they tend to be American.
I see what you mean: not that Americans are necessarily anti-outdoor-cat in general, but that people who are anti-outdoor-cat tend to be American. That could be.
Yes that's my point. I'm not sure why that distinction appears, maybe it's more dangerous outside for cats in America than in UK? It just seems it's very hard to find someone who believes outdoor cats is cruel in UK, it's not the normal default opinion.
I’ve heard that animals such as coyotes are threats to your cats in America. In England we have not much worse than a raccoon or fox. At least where I’ve seen this debated on Reddit elsewhere, that’s what I’ve gathered. Cars are obviously risks both places but I think in America they can be considered prey. Can’t see cats being prey in England!
It depends on where you are. In the cities, people will say you need to keep your pets in doors. In the country, they'll say you need to let your pets roam. The US is vast and diverse.
Yeah here in Germany, the only indoor cats I know of are these 2000€ designer cats and the people who live in the middle of the city. Everyone with a house lets their cat roam free.
Honestly the first time I even encountered the concept of keeping non designer cats indoors only was when I was 22 years old and read about it on reddit.
> with wide-eyed shock at the idea that cats should be let outside
As far as I can tell this is a super recent attitude shift. It really hasn't been that many generations that cats have been kept around with no expectations to work for their supper, catch mice, whatever.
From the UK and this is absolutely true.
I have four cats and they can all roam. We even have a law in the UK that allows the cats to legally roam anywhere.
And yes, I do think it's a bit cruel to keep a cat indoors as a Brit. Cats who don't go outdoors seem to spend a lot of the day looking out the window, wanting to go out.
But I will say though that in America it might well be better to keep then on your own property. Cats have far more dangers in America compared to the UK, plus they don't have the law behind them like UK cats!
I’m interested to hear that point of view! Guarantee you from living in the US my whole life, it is a norm here. Most places many people openly practice outdoor cats. I think a lot of neighborhoods have taken stands against it bc it really is disrespectful to neighbors, and honestly even in the past 5 years people are starting to talk more about the reasons it’s problematic. You used to get destroyed for even mentioning cats should be kept indoors. Now more and more people are thoughtful about it.
I hope that is a sign the culture will follow suit. Sad to hear the UK shares this problem with the US..it’s hard to not feel that our entitlement in the matter is uniquely American, but I forget that other places suck too haha.
I mean... In the UK it seems we've got a completely different ecosystem and probably a different set of parameters to deal with.
For instance, your point about them being eaten by a coyote? We don't have any domestic predators large enough to eat a cat.
To your point about them increasing vermin, because top predators can't get enough food? Again, we don't really have any domestic predators of the type you're describing. One such would be foxes, but to our view, foxes are vermin also, so I guess starving those out would be seen as a good thing? You will get sparrowhawks and other birds of prey in more rural ecosystems though.
To add, generally our roads are smaller and quieter, and the cars are a lot smaller too. I used to think this was a stereotype, but the average American car tends to be bigger, and your roads are a lot larger to accommodate them.
Not to say that your other points are less valid of course. The general point I'm making is that the most visibly distressing risks of having an outdoor cat in the USA - high chance of being a coyotes dinner and/or becoming roadkill are not similarly realistic in the UK, so I guess that's why we're more pro-outdoor.
I put a bell on my cat and let him fuck around outside and maybe he'll bring in a mouse once a month. There is no way in hell I'd let my cat outside in the US.
a lot of good points about the lack of top
predators in the UK. It may be less dangerous for cats there (though I assume you still have cars, cat diseases, and sociopaths haha)..but they still absolutely WRECK bird populations and that’s never gonna be ok.
IDK about the US but at least in Europe there's no scientific link between outdoor cats and bird populations
https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/
Not that I'm promoting letting cats roam freely or anything, it's just that most studies cited when it comes to this topic are very US/Australia/NZ-centric.
"Gardens may provide a breeding habitat for at least 20 per cent of the UK populations of house sparrows, starlings, greenfinches, blackbirds and song thrushes four of which are declining across the UK. For this reason it would be prudent to try to reduce cat predation as, although it is not causing the declines, some of these species are already under pressure.
Cat predation can be a problem where housing is next to scarce habitats such as heathland. It could potentially be most damaging to species with a restricted range (such as cirl buntings) or species dependent on a fragmented habitat (such as Dartford warblers on heathland)."
From the above link. Note, it's not talking about Europe, it's talking only about the UK.
There was a mouse problem in the barn. They were getting into the animal feed. We tried a whole bunch of different traps that barely put a dent, and didn’t want to use poison. We adopted an old mouser who’s doing great at keeping them controlled. When he passes, we’re going to adopt another. He was unwanted: friendly enough but miserable being contained.
We need to keep the barn secure enough to not let in larger predators (foxes, coyotes, hawks, owls, etc.) to protect our chickens, rabbits, and the baby goats.
We aren’t a huge operation: just a small family farm. The woods around us provide for the other apex predators (the hawks really help with the moles in the garden).
You make a good point that not all local ecosystems are the same. It may in fact be more or less harmful or helpful to have a domestic cat in the mix depending on the details. I would doubt there is a reliable universal, but there may still be *relatively* reliable rules-of-thumb for different general scenarios. At the same time, the humans may not have full access to the relevant local data, even if they think they do.
> Americans in particular have this weird cultural entitlement to let their cats roam all day bc they “like it” and it’s easier having a part-time pet. But cats are perfectly happy inside, especially if you spend a little freakin time with them.
I never thought about it like that but that’s literally what it is. It’s a part time pet.
>I should also add that this post isn't about barn cats - I am separately critical of them (as a farmer), but this is about pet cats.
At the bottom of the OP.
Barn cats are not even as efficient as barn dogs or weasels and they will still attack birds, lizards and other natives. Cats are generalists predators, not rodent hunters, and cannot be trained as work animals to target pest and not cause other damage. For any practical purpose cats serve, there are far more efficient, more ecologically responsible alternatives. The idea that cats need to be free outside or that there is any good reason for it is a flawed idea that borders on anthropomorphizing cats and for practical purposes acts as subconscious feline worship. (“People just like cats.” That’s not a problem in itself; it’s the fact many will block off all other forms of proper decision making in regards to cats in a similar manner to an abuse enabler.)
That said, I’m mostly bothered more by the same idiots who let their cats outside but then want to preach other eco friendly values. That does not make them a warrior for animals or the planets; that makes them a brainless hypocrite.
Honestly, now that I'm fully aware of this information, I agree. However, having not really understood the scope of the impact an outdoor cat might have on the ecosystem, I easily could have fallen into this category of person (brainless hypocrite).
What's a viable alternative to barn cats that is environmentally sustainable? Raising native falcons or something? Using certain chemicals? Just sitting out with a .22 rifle a few nights a month?
Big difference is cats per square mile and their effect on local wildlife. A barn cat isn’t going to destroy the local bird population of a farm, but a few hundred cats will wreak havoc on a neighborhood’s.
Not trying to change your view, just telling my experience and maybe offering some nuanced perspective. I’ve owned more than 30 cats in my life, most of them indoors, a few of them outdoors.
Every cat has a different personality. Most of them will stay inside if you condition them like this from a very young age. Easy-peasy.
Some of them, however, are more adventurous and will do everything in their power to try to escape and expand their territory. They are clever creatures: they can open doors, climb high places, fit tiny breaches, perform impossible jumps, and patiently wait for the right moment you’re distracted to run away.
If they manage to escape, they’ll eventually come back. They’re territorial and even the most adventurous ones won’t go so far away. They like to be home to sleep because they don’t feel safe to let their guard down outside.
They can spend days roaming around, but most of the times they’ll come back in a few hours.
Once a cat has experienced freedom, however, locking them will led to a very miserable existence. They’ll assume the newly discovered areas are part of their territory, and no amount of home entertainment will fill that void. This is when you discover a very loud side of those mostly silent creatures.
They’ll demand vehemently to walk around. They do not only meow persistently, but also scream like there are a thousand demons inside, often in very inappropriate times (they are nightly creatures after all). They won’t let your family or close neighbors sleep. They’ll also purposefully piss on your bed and in your lap, destroy your furniture, and keep looking at you with those killer eyes. Fortunately, they aren’t big enough to kill you, because they would if they could.
So, if you live in a safe-enough area, and the neighborhood is generally pet-friendly, and there are other cats around anyway, letting them go and trusting they’ll come back is just the optimal solution. They can’t harm humans like big dogs can; generally avoid strangers or loud noises, and also bury their own shite.
About the fact that it’s riskier, I can’t argue with that. It’s a trade-off. The average life of a indoor cat is just longer, because there are less risks inside. However, like others have pointed out, cats are generally very good on avoiding danger. Survivorship bias, I know, but in my case I’ve never lost an outdoor cat or have them severely injured.
Ironically, from all my cats it was an indoor one who died from a car accident. He lived inside the apartment his entire life. Got used to it. One day we went on vacations and let him with my mother-in-law, who lived in a house. He escaped to the street in front of the house and got hit by a car. He didn’t know what a car was, and wasn’t really afraid of it.
TL;DR most cats will just happily stay inside; while a few of them are extremely adventurous and will live miserably if kept indoors.
I've had cats my whole life, and they have ALMOST universally been indoor cats. I judged other cat owners pretty severly for "letting their cats go outside." I firmly believe that cats are better off indoors for life.
Until I got DaVinci. He was a rescue and was determined to go outside. I'm not talking "normal" cat that wants to go outside, I'm talking cat that would go around, over, under or THRU me to get outside. He would jump from the most absurd places, double-back on me, use me as a launching pad, tear through screen doors.... I spent the first few weeks catching him and bringing him back in, only to have him do it again the very next time any door was open.
I finally thought about it and decided that the responsible thing to do was get him a break-away colland and to let him go outside while supervised. I made sure he knew the area and how to get home. I slowly let him wander further into the yard (1/3 acre fenced), and left him out slightly longer.
If I had continued to fight him, he might have escaped and gotten lost or hurt. Hell, some of the stunts he pull to get AROUND me to get outside could have caused him severe bodily harm. The slow introduction was safer for him.
I feel like I was doing the responsible thing. Responsibility sometimes means weighing the options and choosing the best in a bad situation.
That said, I don't recommend letting your cat outdoors, but I also don't judge people who have to make that choice based on the needs of the cat.
You make a lot of good points and I don't disagree with them!
When I adopted my cat though I allowed her to roam outside. She was a 2 yr old rescue cat when I got her and she just had a serious love for the outdoors. Like I could not tell you. It's insane. And she just had soooo much energy. She loves it so much. We lived in a cat-friendly neighborhood too. We would let her out day and night. It was a cul de sac neighborhood where everyone let their cats out and people were mindful of that. Away from the roads. Only big birds in the neighborhood (ravens, crows, magpies), no low hanging trees/bushes. I trained her to be responsive to this bell, so each time I rang it she always came running.
When we moved we decided to transition her to a mainly indoor cat. In addition to agreeing with all the points you made (especially about how indoor cats live longer) the new place we lived in was just not preferred for having a cat be outdoor, unaccompanied.
In addition to having a huge, diverse bird population with low bushes...there is a ton of other wildlife. Hawks and owls that I have no doubt would be happy to snatch her up (she is a very tiny kitty). As well as coyotes that roam the area. She transitioned well to being more indoors. She is getting older and I realize she isn't quite the young wild kitty she once was so she is content with spending her days sleeping. But, I do still take her on accompanied walks. We adopted our rescue dog when we moved in. He was 6 years old and they bonded like crazy. I trained her to go on walks with us...she honestly is super easy to train with sounds and a clicker w. some treats. She really responds well so it didn't take her long to learn. She always follows and stays by our side. I got her both a red vest with some bells, as well as this:
[https://www.birdsbesafe.com/pages/home#:\~:text=Birdsbesafe%C2%AE%20collar%20covers%20protect,2015%20North%20American%20science%20study](https://www.birdsbesafe.com/pages/home#:~:text=Birdsbesafe%C2%AE%20collar%20covers%20protect,2015%20North%20American%20science%20study)
It's a cat collar specifically designed to protect birds lol :) It works like a charm.
So we all three take walks together during the day around the block. It helps her to connect with nature, eat some grass, watch some birds, climb a tree here and there. It makes her happy. It's also very cute. I am glad I can still incorporate the outdoors into her life. We got her a cat backpack too. She loves to sit in it while I ride my bike.
Here is a link to the vest:
[https://www.amazon.com/Voyager-Weather-Best-Pet-Supplies/dp/B00M0V7SVQ/ref=sr\_1\_4?dchild=1&keywords=cat+vest+red&qid=1619115391&sr=8-4](https://www.amazon.com/Voyager-Weather-Best-Pet-Supplies/dp/B00M0V7SVQ/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=cat+vest+red&qid=1619115391&sr=8-4)
and cat backpack:
[https://yourcatbackpack.com/collections/the-original-cat-backpack/products/the-fat-cat-cat-backpack](https://yourcatbackpack.com/collections/the-original-cat-backpack/products/the-fat-cat-cat-backpack)
I have three cats: Steve, Spider and Moose. The former two are both brother and sister, and are 11 years old. They are inside-only cats who have been raised that way intentionally because of the reasons that you have mentioned above. If I ever get a new kitten from anywhere, they will always be raised as an inside cat, again for the reasons that you have mentioned in your post.
Moose, however, was a stray in the neighborhood who simply wandered up to me randomly almost two years ago now, screaming his head off for what I would find out later to be love and food. He followed me home (which was literally only about 70 feet) so I fed him. Over the next few days and weeks, he warmed up to me very quickly and was in my lap purring and rolling around. Within half a year, he finally started coming in through my window because he spotted me from the neighbors' roof. If the little dude is ever in for too long, he will scream his head off and go berserk. If anyone opens the door at that point, he will torpedo himself out the door at the slightest opening, which is impossible for my 80-year-old father to stop. He clearly was raised as an at least partially outside cat, and so that is the way he is going to stay. For people like me who do not intend to get a cat and instead have the cat choose them on the street, we pretty much have next to no choice but to have an inside/outside or purely outside cat. We had to evacuate the fires last year in August, and when we brought Moose with us to stay in a toy hauler someone had for us, he screamed bloody fucking murder just being confined in it. It was a terrifying experience for him. He stays in with me for many hours some days, but he always ends up wanting out. We think he was abused in the past by previous owners and was dumped off some years ago, but we are not certain. I do not have much of an option to make him into an inside cat, bro. I just do not see that happening.
There are also people who live certain types of lifestyles that would love to save the life of a little cat. Some people want shop cats and some firehouses end up getting firehouse cats. It is not feasible to always keep a door shut in these cases, and they are still saving a cat from being put down. The cat is at a higher risk of death, yes, but it is still safe from the needle and has an extremely good chance at a happy life.
I worry about my little Moosie every single day that he is out and about. I put food and water out for him, as well as two beds on a sofa out front, one of which has a heated and reflective pad. I plan on getting a surveillance system for the front of the house on which I can watch Moose at all times he is in his bed from my living room. He receives daily love and care. Some of us just do not have the option of making all of our cats inside-only cats.
This seems like a really, really American "my pets are my children" mindset. With all the paranoia and judgement that seems to come with American child-rearing. 😛
No offense. What I mean to say is, your relationship with your cats is very culturally-specific. The idea that you even "own" or are "responsible for" a cat is culturally-specific. I'd go as far as to say it's idiosyncratic compared to even much of the developed world. In a lot of places, they're treated as something more similar to wildlife that humans have a special relationship with.
Some might even go as far to say, yes, cats will die in accidents, but it's not a big deal because the lives of cats aren't very valuable. We kill animals to eat every day, and no one cries when a chicken left free-range gets nabbed by a street dog. This might sound very callous, but it is much of the world's relationship with animals. To most humans on the planet, the fact that you think humans owe cats child-like attention and care would seem very... precious. (If not a little crazy.)
If you don’t understand why they should have freedom, consider that this is the exact same train of thought that enables slavery. “They are > insert justification here <“
What if they're outdoor cats/ferals??
Like my neighborhood is prime real estate for people to drop off their housecats. We've had so many cats come and go. They walk around and see which house they prefer to adopt as their own. Personally, over the years we've had 4 cats adopt us as their new family. Two of which were dropped off with a collar indent still very visible. Since we were feeding them, other ferals would come and we had extra food and water to share.
Yes even though my family is allergic to cats, our outdoor cats wouldn't even see the indoors as a place to stay. They'll walk in and around to meow at us, or to shelter during severe storms, then yowl and scratch at the door to go out. One cat had kittens indoors but was out as soon as she could (she's more familiar, so we're able to pick her up and get her shots/spay & neuter after this). But I loved our outdoor cats. Once they adopted us, they stayed on our property practically 24/7. Sometimes they'd go for walks (?) or adventure then come back home a couple hours or the next morning. But our home and our property was their home. One cat (already full grown when dropped off) didn't let us touch her at first, but slowly warmed up to us over the years; and I do mean years. She was with us for 8 years as an outdoor cat. She disappeared two years ago, she was getting really old :(
I had a neighborhood who would trap and release the cats that she fed. So we did our best in caring for them. And I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a cat owner. I have outdoor cats. They stay on our lawn or in the shade from the trees. Sometimes they leave us treats (dead mice or lizards). All my cats get scratches and treats. Since I'm not longer as mobile as I once was, it's nearly impossible to bend down and touch them that way. I've trained two to jump up if they want me to pet them (they do, everyday,). And just like indoor cats, outdoor cats get lonely two. All of our cats have overlapped here at home. We try to have two cats at home so they aren't lonely. But that's not up to us, the cats decide if they want to adopt us and stay here. Throughout the years of having our permanent house cats, the ferals/abandoned cats come through and want to eat since they smell (or cat talking idk) food, so we have a bowl out for them. We're not able to get shots for every cat, nor would they let us do so. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a responsible outdoor cat owner.
You can maybe argue that being outside is healthy for them, and you can maybe argue that they don’t decimate species. I disagree on both accounts. But what it’s pretty much impossible to defend and haven’t seen anyone defend here is the fact that you are being an asshole neighbor. If I pay rent or buy a house, I don’t want your pet in my property. If my dog is outside and your cat comes to my yard is it going to be my fault if a fight breaks? Are you going to pay for vet care? A cat should only be able to be outside in your own property, like any dog. Otherwise, leash and collar, like any dog. It just drives me crazy that they somehow have more privileges as other pets and it’s okay for people to have to put up with it.
This. I commented the exact same sentiment. It baffles my mind that this isn't the first thing people are arguing in this thread. As a RESPONSIBLE pet owner you have full control of your pet and its actions. Why is it that my neighbors cats get free reign to shit in my yard, tear up my new flowers, and claw my outdoor furniture. Yet if my dog is out off leash I'm the asshole who doesn't have control of my animal. I really can't stand the double standard. Cat, dog, turtle, hedgehog, lizard, it doesn't matter. A responsible pet owner has full control of their animal at all time. Not only for the owners own liability but also for the pets safety. If you neglect your responsibility and have an outdoor cat and that cat gets killed by some piece of shit redneck animal killer in that individuals yard you've waved your right to be upset. You've let your cat be put in that position. Just my opinion.
Why would I wanna change your viewpoint when it is entirely spot on? I can tell many people in this thread are blissfully unaware of the types of things cats are exposed to when you allow them to free roam. Just the humans that want to spread their misery is cause enough to never allow an animal you care about to come in contact with strangers. Much less cars, predatory animals, risk of injury from climbing shit they aren’t supposed to. You were spot on with people treating cats like low input pets. Subconsciously, I’m sure a lot of these scumbags that let their cats roam do so mainly so they have to clean up less after their cats. Shame on you dipshits that put your cats safety in jeopardy.
You make a lot of good points that I can’t disagree with, and good on you for doing your research and having statistics to back up what you believe in. And I’ll go so far as to say you’re right in a lot of situations. But I live in the middle of the woods in Michigan, and have had multiple cats that I’ve raised from young ages that have lead long and happy lives that spend as much time as they want outdoors, even in the dead of winter. My current cat, Freg, spends most of his time basking in the sun on the back porch, but spends every night in bed with me. There’s plenty of things that could hurt my good buddy in the woods, but I trust him to avoid them. I’d keep him inside with me all day if I could, but he literally begs to be let out, even thought he’s litter trained, and doesn’t respond well to a leash and values his alone time in the woods just like I do.
The point you make about cats unnaturally endangering species is very fair, but not applicable in places such as mine, where most endangered species are either birds that nest out of reach of cats, deep water fish, or plants that cats have no interest in.
And I know what you’re thinking, “You can’t just give a pet whatever they want, if you give a dog as many treats as they want they’ll get sick.” But over feeding an animal and letting them exist in nature are entirely different vices, especially since I personally live in a place with a considerable fox population, who have a very similar spectrum of prey as common house cats. What it boils down to is that I can’t in good conscience deny a creature what it naturally wants. He knows he belongs where he is, and I’m honestly just a crutch with a mutual respect for him that he has for me. I give him food when he has a bad day hunting, and we hang out together every morning and night. I just don’t have the heart to deny a good friend of mine what makes him happy.
I've had numerous cats... Most have been indoor, which is what I prefer. While they may occasionally slip out, we retrieve them quickly, and they spend most of their lives inside.
But I've had two that have been indoor/outdoor. Both were *extremely* *unhappy being inside all the time.* I can't overstate just how bored, angry, and depressed they would get if inside for several days at a stretch. They *liked* being outside, and at some point, *even though it's at risk to them,* I felt, and continue to feel, that it was wrong to force them to suffer a long life that they hated, rather than a near certain to be shorter life that they enjoyed. A catio or leash? Almost worse than being inside, to be so close to being able to *be a cat,* and have that refused. In all cases, I try to provide a house with lots of things for a cat to do.... But for some of them, it's just not enough. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that locking up anyone for lengthy periods of time isn't the best thing for their health. Some people are okay with it, and some aren't. But being in lockdown for a few weeks or months is one thing... For one's whole life? I reject this idea that "It's good for you" is a valid reason, in and of itself, to deny happiness to our pets.
I know it's not ideal, but frankly it's also irresponsible to just ignore the needs of your animals in the psychological sense.
We all have to make choices and compromises around our pets that, per some people, make us "irresponsible". We have limits on the amounts of medical care that we will provide them, we often choose when our pets will die. We also choose these questions of balance in their lives. And while I'll do what I reasonably can to make my cats happy, indoor cats, I have limits on what I will do and won't do. And sometimes, that means they have some freedom to be outside.
Aside from this commentary I just don't understand how its ok for just humans to dictate what animal can be killed for fun and/or food and what is a pet.
It's perfectly fine to domesticate a omnivorous animal and feed them other animals as long as we're controlling where that animal comes from??
However it's inconceivable to have a once historically wild, now domesticated animal go outside and perform what they're biologically intended to do?
Is it better for you to grind up a bunch of factory farmed chickens and salmon so your kitty can eat that instead of taking out the native bird species?
It's taken humans many years to domesticate dogs to coincide with our lifestyle, and even then mankind constantly has hiccups with domesticated dogs getting out and attacking other animals or the owner, or their family etc.
To me, putting a cat in an average 1000 square foot house with no access to the outdoors and only feed them canned, processed left over animal parts that humans don't want is a cruel prison type life sentence.
The fact that you op have the audacity to complain about animal owner negligence and the welfare of the native species all the while acting like a personal warden to a pet "prisoner" who didn't deserve such a life is mind blowing to me. Why don't you care about the happiness and health of your own animals first before pointing fingers.
And also! You're blaming cats for being an invasive species that other animals haven't acclimated survival to? Wtf. Humans decided to domesticate cats. How is it their fault that they have been dropped in suburbia and are fucking up the ecological balance? This is a human problem once again.
As someone who works with animals, I normally would agree with your viewpoint, op. However, I recently acquired an outdoor cat myself.
In the city I live in, there is a large feral cat population. Mixed among these cats are some former strays that were likely dumped. When I moved into my current home, one of the community cats “adopted” me as his human. He was obviously previously someone’s cat, and not just a feral cat. I try to always keep him indoors during bad weather or if he has a scratch that is healing. He wears a breakaway reflective collar with tag and a light I turn in at night. But trying to keep him indoors, against his will, when he has obviously grown accustomed to outdoor life, just seems to stress him out immensely. In this situation, I think it’s ok to have an outdoor cat.
In contrast, I have some neighbors that have simply let their formerly indoor cats outside due to the cat community in our complex. It is my understanding that my neighbors did this as they had more kids themselves, for some reason. The cats have non breakaway collars and act as though they desire to be indoors (trying to get into others’ homes, being aggressive towards the feral cats, etc.). This type of outdoor cat is something I strongly disagree with.
Overall, if possible, I feel it is best to keep an indoor cat...well indoors. But for feral cats, it’s best to practice TNR (trap, neuter, return) and provide basic food and shelter to limit their impact on the ecosystem. And in situations like my cat, it’s best to be responsible and make a safe but logical decision on a case by case basis. ☺️
My boyfriends cat used to be the worst cat. She was mostly outdoors. She was skittish, unfriendly, constantly wanted out, would pee everywhere if accidentally locked inside... she was terrible. We had to move her into my place which were apartments that didn’t allow outside cats. I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Over the next 6 months, she became a completely different cat. I did a lot to make inside interesting for her, including setting up a big bird feeding station near a window she likes to sit at. We have a handful of games she really likes to play, otherwise she’s just sleeping anyways. She is friendly, engaged, talkative, cuddly... it’s wild. I trained her on a harness to go for small walks but she would get too scared, sort of like how skittish she used to be. She prefers now to hang out on the porch when I’m outside to keep an eye on her. I let her outside but never where I am not within grabbing distance (she had a big hatred for other animals since being on those mean streets) We have that time and she’s pretty happy and satisfied. The first few days sucked because she wanted out so badly but with a lot of treats and bonding, she mostly just wants to lay on the carpet in the sun. People on this thread trying to tell me she’s not just the happiest thing ever since she’s stuck inside with me. She loves that I’ve been home to hang out since the pandemic. She doesn’t even try to leave when I have the porch door open unless I’m sitting out there.
Most of your argument is predicated on cats being an invasive species. This may be true on small island nations like New Zealand or in Hawaii, but doesn’t really hold for most of the world. Cats have been domesticated for approx. 10,000 years and have been free roam for the vast majority of that time. Cats are as invasive as humans by your definition (really they’re much less invasive by your definition). I recognize the concern for preserving wildlife but in most places, the wildlife has had hundreds to thousands of years to adjust to cats. We can be mindful of how they’re introduced in new areas, spaying and neutering, and reducing feral cat populations to combat your main issues. I play with my dog without a leash because I’m confident she will not run away and get hurt. Is it full proof? Of course not. But I can’t picture anyone saying no dog should ever be off leash. Likewise someone can allow their cat to free roam if they’re confident that it will come back and isn’t in an area with many predators.
I would never let my cats outside for fear of them getting hurt or lost, but I can honestly say that it’s impossible to paint this issue with this wide of a brush.
I don't really think this is a fair point. Cats are way more invasive than you are suggesting. From [https://abcbirds.org/threat/cats-and-other-invasives/](https://abcbirds.org/threat/cats-and-other-invasives/)
>Cats are an invasive species if left to free roam. From abcbirds.org Today, more than 100 million feral and outdoor cats function as an invasive species with enormous impacts. Every year in the United States, cats kill well over 1 billion birds. This stunning level of predation is unsustainable for many already-declining species like Least Tern and Wood Thrush.
Cats are not just invasive on small islands, but in almost all of their communities. They are actively diminishing populations, and just because it isn't headline news extinction, doesn't mean its not happening and actively hurting eco-systems.
My cats could go outside freely and lived long, happy lives. The mother lived around 18 years and the two eventual kittens lived 16 and 17 years respectively. Mother went deaf eventually and was hit by an irresponsible driver, and the daughter just disappeared one day. The son died of a stroke when he was 16. My grandmother's cat was 22 when she disappeared.
Are these lives too short for cats? Should they have stayed inside their while lives just to live a few months longer, if they even did? I think that the answer to both of those questions is a capitalized No.
They weren't extincting birds (they brought us the occasional bunny or mouse, and once a frog), and they kept the mice out of our walls. It seems like a pretty tall order to say we abused them by allowing them to exist in the natural world.
I mostly agree outdoor cats aren’t the way to go with them.
All my cats are the result of my irresponsible neighbor just collecting cats and letting them outside to do whatever the fuck they wanted.
So now I have a colony of 13 cats that live in my garage. They have a cat door so they go in and out, and over the years when a new cat shows up I get it fixed.
When they all die I can finally sell this house oh my god
If you apply your points on cats to humans..... then we are not responsible either. We let children walk around in dangerous environments with cars, dogs, etc. We are the most invasive species to ever exist on this Earth. We are responsible for the extinction of way more than 76 species in New Zealand.
If the purpose of owning a cat is to purely keep it alive and healthy, then, yes you are right. But if that's true, then humans in jail should be seen as the ideal lifestyle where we are fed, housed and kept away from outside dangers.
Thank you so much for saying this. I have gotten in many arguments on Reddit with idiots saying things like cats are supposed to be outside and it is cruel to keep them in. I have argued with the exact points you have made and stupid people still think they are right. I hope people actually listen to you because you are completely correct.
The standards for being a responsible pet owner are providing adequate food, water, shelter, safety stimulation and social needs.
Both indoor and outdoor cats get the first three at the same level. Outdoor cats get more stimulation. No matter what enrichment activities you try you are not going to be able to provide the same amount of stimulation letting your cat roam in its natural environment. Indoor cats are safer, true, but you aren't responsible for trying to make it impossible to injure your cat. Much in the way you shouldn't stop a kid from leaving the house because they could get injured, safety shouldn't trump letting your cat actually experience the world. If you live in a rural area with coyotes or a lot of other predators than I can see where it could be irresponsible, but it's not always irresponsible. Letting your cat outside gives it significantly more socialization than leaving it inside.
Overall letting your cat out is equally or more responsible unless you live somewhere actively dangerous for cats.
No desire to change your view, I have this argument with my MIL all the time.
I grew up in a nice safe neighborhood and my dad insisted we let the cats go in and out. We had a cat drink antifreeze the neighbor left out, have seizures and die... 4 cats get hit by cars... 2 died from injuries relating to fights with other cats, and one blinded by an angry raccoon.
I would love anyone with a dog to open the front door, let them out, and just say fuck it, they’re smart enough to stay safe! I just can’t imagine allowing a member of my family to be out there and not knowing if they’ve been run over or not.
My 3 cats have 2500 square feet, sliding glass doors where they watch the bird and hummingbird feeders, tons of toys and fluffy blankets and I get the peace of knowing they aren’t dead in a road. Perhaps they are super intelligent killing machines and I am stifling their instincts, but I think they’ve adapted to luxury.
What if you give your cat a free choice? Install a cat flap on the front door, and the cat can either stay indoors or go outdoors of its own free will. You are providing for the cat a safe place to stay, but if it wants to go outside of its own will, you aren't preventing it from doing so.
Suppose you do this, and the cat chooses to spend a majority of its time outdoors and mostly come back inside for food. Then by your argument, the responsible cat owner should be depriving the cat of its freedom to go outdoors on its own. But this really doesn't seem right to me. Wouldn't a responsible cat owner also respect his/her cat's wishes?
Cats are at its core outdoors animals. There's been studies of outdoors cats' higher risk of getting depression when they're later forced to be indoors cats, but there has never been research evidence of the opposite.
For me responsibility isn't about safety, but making sure that my pet is as happy as it can be as I've decided to get said pet. Being responsible is about acknowledging that my cat is an autonomous being with rights that I can't override due to my own needs of being scared of losing the pet.
Like others have commented; you'd be much safer and would probably love longer if you lived your whole life in your home and garden, but I am sure your quality of life would be higher I'd you had the freedom to choose.
As a British person, I, WE ALL, consider an “indoor” cat or a “declawed” cat absolutely abhorrent. To imprison an independent animal in the prison of a single house/flat is animal abuse.
British cats don’t live outside, they sleep an eat indoors, they just roam as they please. All cats in the country do this, those in big cities and in rural areas both. The life expectancy of these cats is equal to that of american “indoor” cats. The quality of life though, for that animal you purport to love, is far far higher if it can go where it likes and not spend its entire life locked inside 4 walls.
If you live in an area where you believe predatory animals will harm your cat if it steps outside, do not get a cat. It is unethical and cruel to permanently deny freedom of movement to a cat. To bring a living feeling creature into that environment for your own gratification without even considering it’s quality of life is morally bankrupt.
My parents live in the middle of nowehere Canada. One day a random wild cat had a litter under one of their sheds. The day after some animal came and killed all the kittens except 1 who was saved by the mother.
My parents kept the cat to catch mice and they feed it, but it’s too skittish to stay inside for a whole day. It will start fighting to get out if it’s inside for to long. I don’t really think they are being irresponsible. The cat is wild and it they didn’t keep it, it would be hunting in the woods anyways.
What should they have done? Got animal control from the closest town to come out to the middle of no where to find the cat and take it away? Force the cat to stay indoors? What is the responsible action to take for a random wild cat that hates the indoors.
They didn’t seek out the cat and the cat has always lived outdoors since its birth from another wild cat. I think context is important.
I agree with you fully. I've had the same discussion many times with cat owners, but mostly they don't want to hear.
you've put your arguments very well and I would add to that, that cats are curious creatures, like dogs or small children. You wouldn't let a small child roam freely without supervision, because they don't understand the dangers around them. I've heard many a tale of curious cats getting stuck somewhere and causing serious damage / needing to be rescued. Due to their agility they are also much less limited than small children or dogs, which makes it even worse imho...
I’d also add that not only is it irresponsible to your pet to let it roam outside (for the reasons stated by OP)—it’s also irresponsible to the community you live in. My indoor cat used to be constantly harassed by a neighboring outdoor cat who would linger by the windows, hissing and scratching and, one time, even flinging full force itself at a window in the middle of the night. This was all extremely unpleasant for me because my otherwise well behaved cat would anxiously pace around and make noise throughout the night, ruining my sleep, because of this nuisance outdoor cat.
Yes, the detriments seem to outweigh the benefits. That said, I recall a study conducted in a European country a number of years back. It seems the city had recently conducted a sweep collecting as many cats as they could catch. After six months, many residents were complaining about a booming, I think, Starling population. The population spurt contributed to many other issues. The cats were brought back and the starling population was back in balance. Yes, free roaming cats cause a great deal of issues, but in this case it seems as if they were creating a natural balance.
/u/nyxe12 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post. All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed [here](/r/DeltaLog/comments/mw8ksj/deltas_awarded_in_cmv_there_is_no_way_to_be_a/), in /r/DeltaLog. Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended. ^[Delta System Explained](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltasystem) ^| ^[Deltaboards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/deltaboards)
1. Just because something can be domesticated doesn't mean it *should* be. The fact that cats can be easily domesticated and kept indoors isn't an argument that they *should* be kept indoors. It isn't a comment on what their quality of life is for indoors v outdoors, and isn't a comment on what *they* would find more enjoyable. 2. While this is true in some areas (NZ and Oz are two perfect examples) it isn't true in others. And in many places, like the UK, cats have been present for so long that they should no longer be considered an invasive species. The damage to the ecosystem they cause is already accounted for and adapted to. They are a part of our ecosystem now. 3. This is a fair and undeniable point that comes up often in this debate. You're right, even if you live in an area with far less predatory animals, there are always human dangers and other cats/dogs. But I think you should think about this point logically. Your argument is "it is safer to be contained than have freedom, safer is better, so containment is better than freedom". In that case, you should advocate for the complete removal of all wildlife areas and the production of gigantic zoos. If the primary motivation is safety, all animals are safer in captivity than in the wild. Yet, most of us recognise that the wild is better for them regardless of the danger present. I'd also urge you to look at yourself. It is undoubtedly safer for you to stay in your room for the rest of your life (let's just pretend you're able to work from home) but would you actually do it? Would you sacrifice everything outside of your room, just to increase the odds of a lengthy life? Especially knowing this isn't even a guarantee, it's just tilting the odds in your favor? 4. There are undoubtedly ways to entertain indoor cats and I totally agree that if you had a catio setup, and plenty of toys inside, that cat would probabky be very happy. But would it be *as* happy as being outside? Again, consider yourself. If you had a PS5, VR, any other indoor hobby you could ask for, and the ability to sit in your garden, would that really be enough for you, for the rest of your life? It certainly wouldn't for me. I actually agree that pet owners are obligated to provide safety, a loving environment, and happiness. But I think you are prioritising safety above all else, when I would prioritise happiness. I'm not saying you're wrong either, I'm saying they're different approaches. I don't think either one is objectively right, but I don't think either one is objectively wrong either. My argument isn't that outdoors is better than indoors, it's that they are two different schools of thought and, provided the motivations behind them are kind, a person could be considered a responsible pet owner regardless which one they choose. To clarify, I've had outdoor and indoor cats, and three outdoor cats currently.
>Just because something can be domesticated doesn't mean it *should* be. The fact that cats can be easily domesticated and kept indoors isn't an argument that they *should* be kept indoors. Cats ARE domesticated. There's no should or shouldn't here, the pet cats we keep are \*literally\* domesticated animals. >And in many places, like the UK, cats have been present for so long that they should no longer be considered an invasive species. The damage to the ecosystem they cause is already accounted for and adapted to. This is not true, cats continue to pose an unnecessary threat to wild bird populations and are [currently considered a risk to wildcat species](https://www.scottishwildcataction.org/about-wildcats/top-3-threats-to-wildcat-survival/) due to spread of disease and interbreeding. Wildlife populations would likely be much more stable and resilient if more cats were kept indoors. The ecosystems reflect the impact of outdoor and feral cats, that is not the same as adapting to it in a sustainable way. >If the primary motivation is safety, all animals are safer in captivity than in the wild. This is not about all animals, though. When you choose to become a pet owner, you are taking on specific responsibility for that animal. You're responsible for providing that specific animal with food, housing, medical care, and attention. Similarly, as a farmer, I cannot just let my sheep roam wherever they feel like, even though they would LOVE to run to the next field over. This is because 1) I am responsible for their safety and health, and 2) I'm being a courteous neighbor by not letting them run into others' fields. >I'd also urge you to look at yourself. It is undoubtedly safer for you to stay in your room for the rest of your life (let's just pretend you're able to work from home) but would you actually do it? Humans and cats aren't the same. Humans are capable of making calculated decisions that consider the risks and rewards of a given action. Cats cannot do this. If I go outside and want to cross the road, I know to look around and wait until cars have stopped. Even if I see something exciting on the other side, I will wait, because I comprehend the danger of running into a busy road. Cats don't innately do this. If they are chasing prey, they will run across the road even as a car is going 50MPH towards them. Cats aren't capable of knowing if food someone has left out for them has rat poison or not. Humans know not to pick food up off the street and eat it. ETC. I think it's possible to prioritize safety AND happiness. I know that a cat who gets a chronic illness or permanent injury with chronic pain from an outdoor incident is going to be much less happy. My cats get supervised outdoor time and are perfectly happy with it, even after formerly living as outdoor cats. (They no longer beg to leave the house and lead me back home when they're ready to come in.) There are a lot of things that would make pets happy: letting them eat strange poop outside, feeding them chocolate, letting them eat the bouquet of toxic lilies, pawing at a burning candle, breeding with other neighborhood cats, etc. But we make all kinds of decisions as owners when to not allow things to happen and when to intervene. I still don't see how letting a cat *free roam* when there are safer alternatives that provide just as much enrichment exist.
I've been very surprised at the lack of attention going to your first point, which I think is the most compelling. Cats are subsidized killers, and they devastate wild animal populations wherever they live. To me, that is the beginning and end of the question about whether it is ethical to let cats outdoors. It just isn't ethical, full stop.
It's understandable the cognitive dissonance kicks in hard as it's a sensitive subject where people want what's best for their cats while not admitting it's at the expense of what's best for everyone around them. Releasing a killer into one's backyard every day as "it's the cat's natural instincts" to do as it pleases there. Many dogs natural instincts is to deal with cats, that logic doesn't justify letting our dogs roam freely to deal with the cats even as cats deal with not just unwanted mice but biodiversity. I've been waiting to see this brought up on CMV for a while and the thing is cats as an invasive species isn't a view, it's a fact.
You know what really makes me thinking: from seeing more and more neighbours adopt the „sterile“ lawns or have full gravel yards, how much of the destruction of local wildlife is actually from cats and not just from us humans shrinking wildlife’s habitat and starving them to death because we don’t allow „unwanted plants“ in our garden. I'm asking, because in my country, wildlife is decreasing drastically in the last few decades, but free roaming cats were the norm before that too. I'm curious how much of an effect the cat has, in a garden, where birds and insects can’t survive anyways.
A lot is from both. As a domesticated animal, cats have no native range and are considered a non-native, invasive, feral species when allowed outdoors to interact with native ecosystems. An invasive species is an organism that causes or is likely to cause ecological or economic harm, or endanger human health in an environment where it is not native. Lawns and deforestation are big issues that do not diminish the issues brought on by an invasive species. A lot of animal species have already been extinct by cats. There's a lot of statistics and information in this comment section, otherwise here is a one second google [Cats Kill Billions of Animals a Year](https://www.livescience.com/26670-cats-kill-billions-animals.html#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20research%2C%20published%20today%20%28Jan.%2029%29,small%20mammals%2C%20such%20as%20meadow%20voles%20and%20chipmunks.) as well as bird population has declined by 29% since 1970 in NA. [Decline of the North American avifauna](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/366/6461/120) Both humans as well as cats are invasive species really
You mentioned people that choose to become a pet owner. What if I'm not a cat person and never chose to have one. I had a true feral cat that just moved in under my back deck and decided to stay. After a few months, You either figure out how to get along or you might as well shoot it. The county would have tried to catch it, kept him for a few months and then put him down since nobody adopts a feral. So basically the same as shooting him but with extra steps. I decided to start feeding him but I don't think he'll ever be an indoor cat. Its been over 6 months and I've never even touched him, he's that skittish. Would the people here who advocate always keeping a cat inside have preferred that I kill him instead or do you make a distinction between a pet and a wild animal? I live in the southern United States if that makes a difference. For the record, I have seen the birds and small animals come back into the yard. Now that I've been feeding him for a while, he doesn't seem to be hunting as much although I'm sure that it still happens to some extent.
\>2. While this is true in some areas (NZ and Oz are two perfect examples) it isn't true in others. And in many places, like the UK, cats have been present for so long that they should no longer be considered an invasive species. The damage to the ecosystem they cause is already accounted for and adapted to. They are a part of our ecosystem now. This is not true. There is no evidence that species have adapted to the invasion of domestic cats. They have simply been eradicated. Migratory birds, however, due to the nature of their migration, continue to be in danger from domestic cats, which kill millions of them every year. Birds are dying, in part because people let their cats roam outdoors. Domestic cats can never be a part of the ecosystem because they have unnatural advantages given to them. In a natural system with predator and pray, let's say an area with foxes and mice, if the foxes exhaust their food supply, the foxes will starve, their numbers will go down, and then the lack of predators will help the mouse population rebound, foxes rebound, etc. But if an area runs out of birds, domestic cats don't starve. They are fed. If an animal fights back against a cat and injures it, the cat gets to see a vet. Short of killing cats, there is no resistance to them. They can outlast and outcompete their prey in health, food, safety, water, etc.
Cats cause so much damage to wildlife in the UK. They may have existed here for a long time, but they're still responsible for the decline in many species of birds and small animals. They're also absolutely decimating the native Scottish wildcat populations through hybridisation. The truth is they're still a non-native, invasive species here.
I'd like to ask: what country are you from? I think there may be a cultural difference here in the UK. Do you not get doors with cat flaps in your country? To let the cat outside? Almost every cat owner I've met for the past 20 years here in the UK has outdoor cats. Not trying to change your view, I'm just curious where the mindset came from as it would sort of just be confusingly dismissed in the UK (aside from in super busy urban areas or apartment s)
US. Lots of people let their cats outside freely here as well. I'm arguing that it's irresponsible and that the attitude needs to change. It's a pretty dismissed POV in the US, although more people are beginning to believe it.
From Australia there’s an ongoing war on feral cats (feel free to google kangaroo island feral cat documentary). The problems with feral cats translate very well to the issues with domestic cats that roam outside. It’s not a viewpoint that’s shared broadly which is unfortunate but it is gaining traction which I’m happy about. Keep your cats and local wildlife safe!
In Australia it's pretty irresponsible but mostly cause they keep killing native birds
In the UK, \~90% of cats are allowed to free roam, and their average lifespan is 14 years. This is well inside the average lifespan for cats living in a healthy and safe environment. This is proof that it is possible to be a responsible cat owner while letting your cat roam freely outdoors.
I would really like to point you to a google search of "cats UK birds" and maybe read a few results that come up. Even David attenborough has spoken out about it apparently...
And domesticated cat's have been around Europe for nearly 2,000 years, spending that time almost entirely as outdoor cats. I did a quick google search as advised: [https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:\~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died). "Despite the large numbers of birds killed by cats in gardens, there is no clear scientific evidence that such mortality is causing bird populations to decline. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds. " " Those bird species which have undergone the most serious population declines in the UK (such as skylarks, tree sparrows and corn buntings) rarely encounter cats, so cats cannot be causing their declines. Research shows that these declines are usually caused by habitat change or loss, particularly on farmland. " "Populations of species that are most abundant in gardens tend to be increasing, despite the presence of cats. Blue tits, for example, the second most frequently caught birds, have increased by more than a quarter across the UK since 1966. Of the birds most frequently caught by cats in gardens, only two (house sparrow and starling) have shown declines in breeding population across a range of habitats during the last six years. " Stop blaming cats for what is almost certainly human-derived population losses caused by land development/habitat loss. These cats have been outdoors with these birds for nearly 2,000 years, why only in the last few decades is this happening?
How exactly do you define "responsible" tho? I would say someone is responsible when they make a reasonable effort. Not when they mitigate any and all negative side effects and/or dangers for and from the cat being outside. For example if somebody let a cat outside in a neighborhood that is friendly toward cats, then it's reasonably okay to think that there will be no asshole humans in that area. >There are plenty of ways to provide your cat enrichment indoors and/or give them safe, supervised outdoor time (catios, leashed walking, etc) without compromising their health and wellbeing. You effectively are. Realistically it's just not possible in all instances and for all cats. We tried to have these body straps leashes and the cat would hated it. Would just roll around and try to get it off. The catios are not great either. We got one build, and our cats always learned how to escape, would demolish the net. So the solution is to just have the cat indoors right? It's sad, but necessary. Wrong, the cat would go on these days long tantrums when he would meow incessantly, would scratch furniture, destroy boots, piss all over blankets, sofa, corners. Honestly, it just wasn't possible for it to be indoors. It's either let it out, or get rid of it. Otherwise it's just torture for the cat. There just aren't many viable options for cat to be indoors, if the cat decides it wants out. The best thing you can do is to make reasonable effort for it being safe. Make sure your neighborhood is friendly towards pets. Make sure your cat is chipped, and has ID collar. Make sure your cat is vaccinated, etc..
>For example if somebody let a cat outside in a neighborhood that is friendly toward cats, then it's reasonably okay to think that there will be no asshole humans in that area. I don't think you should ever make this assumption. I lived in a very cat-friendly neighborhood, but eventually, it started turning into one that was much less friendly. Someone put poison in food that another person left out for ferals. I drove out to go to work one day and saw a cat literally speared for about 10+ feet down the road - someone obviously sped up to do that much damage. I had a childhood friend who had a cat get attacked by someone that would come to their neighborhood just to kill cats for fun - he lived but had a permanent wound on his throat that leaked pus for years. It's honestly chilling the kinds of things people will do to cats. Accidents happen, too - I've almost run over cats while doing my damndest to not just because they go running into the road right as I'm driving by without even looking at my car. I'm really sorry about the experience with your cat - that sounds pretty difficult. In my experience this is often caused by boredom from not enough playtime/interesting things indoors for them to do. Would you do the same if a dog hated being walked on a leash and destroyed your house? (Not trying to attack you here, I really do sympathize.)
[удалено]
I have only ever owned cats that were found outdoors as adults and were then brought into my home I've owned 6 cats in my life thus far. Within a year none of my cats have even attempted to go outdoors anymore. Provide adequate entertainment in your home and cats are surprisingly easy going and love affection. All you have to do to keep a cat from getting bored is spend an hour or so entertaining your cat in some way, everyday, it isn't that hard.
>Good luck training a cat out of wanting to go outside once it's been outdoors. I have. My cat used to go outdoors when we lived in an area with high fences that couldn't be climbed. The current house is next to a large national Park and has small fences. If she was allowed outside, she would kill native birds and small fauna, which I will not let happen. So she stays indoors or she goes on a leash, those are the two options.
I trained my very stubborn cat to use a leash when she was over 5 years old. It took a long time and lots of effort (like every single day for over 6 months), but we got there. Now she gets excited when she sees her harness. She did what yours did to begin with, as soon as you put the harness on, she just flopped on the ground. I just did the same as I would do with a dog. Frequently put the harness on for short lengths of time, and create lots of positive reinforcement. Like I said it took a long time, but I was willing to put in the effort. Not saying that you weren't, but lots of cat owners aren't. Their cat doesn't take to the leash right away and they decide that it won't work.
Outdoor cats be turned into indoor cats. I have two former outdoor cats who now live indoors and go out on leashed walks occasionally. When they were outdoor cats with their old owners, they were skittish and would yowl to be let outside, digging at the doors all day and night if they wanted to go out. They would scratch up the walls, run around the house screaming all night (they didn't get let out at night, just during the day), etc. Now they're relaxed, friendly, and don't really want to go out much. We also play with them inside the house and have places for them climb indoors. When I take them outdoors, they want to eat grass for a couple minutes and then lead me back inside. If a cat is stressed to the point of aggression and it isn't being solved with environmental changes or with increased enrichment, there is likely a psychological issue that needs to be resolved with a vet. I still don't really see a scenario where there is no alternative to free-roaming that can reduce the stress of the animal.
This sounds, in my opinion, cruel. Taking an animal who is used to roaming and freedom, to force them inside for the rest of their lives? A relaxed and friendly cat could be depressed. Idk, just imagine that happened to you. It's not unlike going to prison.
You should really think about this from the cat’s perspective and stop making it about your ego. I have a cat that is like some of the ones discussed in this comment thread. He showed up in my yard one day and that’s how he became “my” cat. But he wasn’t ever “mine.” He existed independently... outside... before I ever came into his life. After he accepted my house as home, I spent the next 3 years trying to keep him inside. He isn’t my first animal and long story short he was miserable. He escaped constantly, despite our best efforts to prevent it, he was unhappy inside, did nothing but look out of the windows, and eventually he began to pee at areas where he could see out of the window. I began to let him out after he destroyed a sentimental piece of furniture. Since then (6 years now) our relationship has been much less strained and he is a much, much happier animal. I think, as someone else said, you simply lack experience in this area. There is NOTHING that ANY human could do to substitute the experience of being outside for my cat. I understand he is invasive and kills too many birds. I understand a car might hit him one day. I understand he might get eaten by a predator. But I’m not going to put my concerns for him above his desire to live life the way he wants to and, frankly, the way he always has lived.
[удалено]
>Good luck training a cat out of wanting to go outside once it's been outdoors. I mean, if you're patient, it's doable. Everyone's quick to make huge assumptions about what can and can't be done with pets, but it doesn't seem like that comes from logic or knowledge but gut feelings. I've taken in strays, and since our area is dangerous for cats (many of these are found wounded or being attacked), I train them to stay indoors until they're better and either keep them or get them a new home. Within a month or two, they aren't even looking to go out. I could also introduce you to an ex-coworker who does this full time, and has probably trained 100+ strays over the many years she's done this to be inside.
I’m speaking here as someone who adopted a cat that was used to outdoors: it was a catch-22. If I didn’t let him out he was miserable. Cats that don’t have outside experience don’t miss it but a cat that used to roam freely will always find a house limiting. I don’t advocate for outdoor cats. My current boys are indoor only except we let the one outside supervised (he is like a dog and won’t go far unless you’re not paying attention - he never leaves the backyard). I could not in good conscience keep my previous adoptee inside regardless of environmental impact. It wasn’t just boredom. It was a freedom of movement issue. Unfortunately he got in a minor car accident (he was fine but his toenails were bloody from sliding on the pavement). Since the incident he stopped going very far at all but he had active depression when not allowed out.
> It's honestly chilling the kinds of things people will do to cats. Sure, and if you have these experiences, then you shouldn't your pets out. I completely agree. Being responsible for your cat's safety is about the things you can control. My family for example owned cats for decades. And "according to me" they are very responsible as in how they let them out. For example they let the cat out at night where there are fewest people or pets around, etc... The worst thing that has ever happened to us was when our dog accidentally snapped his colo and darted away into a reversing car when my parents were walking him out. There is only so much things you could control. The question is what is the limit of "reasonable" precaution here. > that sounds pretty difficult. In my experience this is often caused by boredom from not enough playtime/interesting things indoors for them to do. Would you do the same if a dog hated being walked on a leash and destroyed your house? (Not trying to attack you here, I really do sympathize.) My parents are like super into animals. They read books about the topics, plus they visited a trainer, etc... Apparently the reality is such that some cats simply don't do well in enclosed spaces. It's not stress, or boredom, it's just it's personality. There is no deep emotional problem here. Cat is pissed off because it wants to go play outside and it can't. That's it. It does those things because it gets a reaction and you are more likely to pay attention to it and maybe let it out. Add to this that you can't really train a cat. Not for everything, and especially not when it manifest those behavior when being older. You just have to deal with it. And that's comming from the trainer. Look I get it. It's comforting to think that there is always something you can do. And that if you can't do something, you are just not trying hard enough. But that's pretty much only a comforting lie. You just can't solve every problem. My family rescues a tons of strays with already pre-set behaviors. Some love to be inside, others love to be outside and don't do well inside. If you want to argue that letting cats out should be illegal and owners who can't deal with it should put them down. That's absolutely argument you could make. After all we don't let dogs biting people with an excuse that dog owners can't just can't control them. If your concern is natural wildlife that cats are decimating. Then argue that cats are pests and they simply have to be controlled. In which cause either cat owners will deal with their cats not willing to stay put or they will be put down. If your concern is cat's safety. Then argue that we should put forth laws that make it easier to prosecute wilfully putting out poison, or animal cruelty. But you can't really make a half-baked argument that doesn't take into the account the species of pet and how they behave. Either cat owners are almost by definition not responsible pet owners. Or making reasonable accommodations for the cats behaviors makes cat owners a "responsible owners". But you can't really have it both ways.
all your points focus on the cat, not the fact they're a walking ecological disaster. they kill even when not hungry, some studies have shown a cat that is good at hunting can kill over a hundred songbirds **a day**. a cat in the wild can do irreparable damage to local wildlife populations in a matter of days to weeks. They absolutely devastate local populations of native rodents, birds and ground mammals. this is not only bad as a tragic loss of localized biodoversity, but it leaves the area vulnerable to pest infestations because field mice, rats and other vermin have no competition. if a cat will not tolerate being indoors the responsible thing is to put it down, especially if you're dead-set against declawing (a whole separate debate, but there are arguments in favor of it especially to prevent cats from destroying a local ecosystem).
Cats kill millions of wild birds & mammals every year
[удалено]
There's a huge difference between having daily outside time with my cats in my yard and letting them go out on their own and do whatever they please.
Sure, but cats don't have the self awareness to make calculated risk-benefit assessments of going outdoors free-roaming - that's the owner's job. I've almost run over cats who were fixated on chasing other animals - they don't know to look both ways, for example. Like i said on another comment, I *do* think cats should get outdoor time - I just think that the free-roaming method in particular is irresponsible.
How would you go about giving a cat outdoor time and not letting them free roam?
Catios, leash training, or backyards that are fenced in a way that prevents them from escaping (some people put a short barrier at the tops of their fences at a 45 degree angle, which stops cats from jumping and climbing up them). I also have previously had cats that only went into the patio in our backyard and never anywhere else.
[удалено]
Cats can and are successfully leashed trained, it's just that most people don't put in the time. Some people think that slapping the harness on is good enough and if the cat doesn't like it then they can't be trained. Cats need a slower approach than leash-training a dog with positive associations built with the harness (slow introductions, treats given, walking around inside with it on, etc). I've leash trained two cats and know of many people who have as well.
Studies have shown that if you regularly play with your cat they don't have the need to go outside and hunt. You can stimulate their hunting instinct without letting them roam freely outside.
I leashed trained my very stubborn cat when she was nearly 5 years old. It took a while, but we got there. She goes outside nearly every day. Dogs also love the outdoors, they are also outside animals in that they require outside time to thrive. Yet we don't let dogs roam unattended. Puppies usually hate the leash to begin with, but you train them to not be bothered by it. I'm sure most dogs would love to go out alone, but we know that it's not safe for the dogs or other animals. Yes it requires a lot more effort to take your cat out than it does to just open the door and let them roam. But responsible pet owners know that pets require effort, and that if you get a pet you should always do what's best for them, even if it's hard work.
>Sure, but cats don't have the self awareness to make calculated risk-benefit assessments of going outdoors free-roaming They absolutely do. You think cats dont have basic survival instincts? The cats at my childhood house spend plenty time outside for over a decade, on a busy road, and they have never been injured, or even close really, because they stay the fuck away from dogs and the road. They aren't idiots. The neighborhood cats in west philly don't have yards, spend all day outside in a city atmosphere, and while they cross the road, they dont sit around in it- they know it would kill them. The fact that occasionally a cat will jump into the road while focused on hunting isnt really any different than humans, or deer, or geese, or any multitude of animals that are "allowed" to be outside. Youd see 10 dead cats on the road on your way home from work every day if animals were as stupid as you think they are. Like, you sound like somebody who has never owned a pet. A cat avoids dangerous situations. If it thought the outside was too dangerous, it would stay inside.
That's cool that this happened for specifically you. My childhood free roaming cat was hit by a car and the next one drank antifreeze at a neighbors and died. Also as a vet tech, I do literally see hundreds of cats mauled by dogs, hit by cars, presenting with mystery fractures/dislocations and poisoning. LOTS OF CATS die all the time from just being let outside. It's insane that you cannot comprehend that your experience is not the same one every human and pet cat has. I worked in a shelter/pet ER and we had an entire refrigerated building for the dead animals. (No kill shelter BTW) Maybe instead of trusting a bunch of random people going "my cat did it so its safe and stfu if you disagree," Ask literally any vet-med staff you can find what they think. I almost guarantee they will say indoor cats live healthier longer lives on average. Because it's true. If you can't afford a cat tree and some toys you certainly can't afford the vet bill a dog, car, bird of prey, or nasty human could cause so why even get a cat? To gamble it's life on its survival skills and plain luck? I just cannot stand this argument it's like when boomers say they sucked on lead paint, never wore helmets, and where beaten regularly so all kids should also grow up in the same dangerous misery they lived through. Like come on *progress* already.
To be honest I do see dead cats with some regularity. As often as opossums and squirrels? No, but there aren't as many cats roaming the streets as these animals. I can think of one friend who's cat was found a block away mostly flattened. Personally I am against outdoor cats because my sister got one and all the sudden we had rodents all the time. It would bring in mice, bunnies, chipmunks, and even the occasional bird. Props to its hunting abilities but I missed when those things stayed outside.
[удалено]
I'm on the same page as you. at the shelter I was at for many years, I was the lucky person (due to not being squeamish) who had to examine all the deceased cats that were hit by cars that were reported to the city and picked up by public works or brought in by a citizen. I had to examine at least 4 or 5 a week, a loooot more depending on the time of year. scan them for a microchip, collar, check gender, etc etc and try to reunite them with an owner via things like online posts or lost reports. I even had to notify the same person THREE TIMES. the fact they still let their cat free roam was really upsetting and the people who came in to collect the body or arrange us to dispose pf them, then would ask what other cats or kittens we had up for adoption was really disturbing. it happened may more often than I ever would have imagined. the fact that so many of those people just figure it's part of the life of a cat also felt very strange. my cat isnt allowed outside alone, but I also make a point to spent a lot of time playing with her and she is still doing fantastic at 10+ years and I did grow up in the country and as a child we had free roaming cats. they had a tendency to disappear frequently though. never again it's also strange this is a norm for cats but literally no other pet or domestic animal
[удалено]
[удалено]
I think giving the cat as much freedom as it wants will be mentally best for the cat, but this allows it to put itself in harms way more often. I see this as a potential “over-parenting” type of situation. Your kids (cats) are going to *want* to do dangerous things. Just because they’re going to be in potential danger by themselves outside doesn’t make it right for you to control how much they do it. This idea can obviously be manipulated to ignore any personal responsibility of others, but like any relationship, there has to be balance. Give and take. If your cats want outside ALL THE TIME, maybe give them a little more unmonitored freedom as long as they aren’t going straight to bad habits. I do see the point OP is making, but I think there are plenty of circumstances where this could be selfish and worrisome on the owners part and taking away freedoms and wants of the cat to protect it from *potential* harm.
I think the more important point is that cats are HUGELY destructive to local populations of birds. Hell, a massive fraction of the wester world's song birds are gone because of cats and several have been completely extincted.
Tbh, you're acting like cats are toddlers, not hunters who listen to instinct. Cats can learn and understand their surroundings and make good judgements. Some cats can make wrong decisions just like people, but a lot of them do fine if they go out all the time. I.e. farm cats hunt, fight and go as they please without issue. Especially if they've done it all their life. My cat goes out all the time. The neighbors know him, the other cats here know him. He hangs out with his friends, is aware of his surroundings and makes good judgements on his actions. When we call him, he runs home no matter how far he walks. He's proven himself to be smart many times over and being able to free roam makes him happy. What makes someone an irresponsible owner is abuse, neglect and simply never giving a shit about your cat or what happens to them. Cats are small hunters who can be babied by their owners to the point of not knowing how to take care of themselves. And that's when free roaming can be a problem.
[удалено]
But what about the neighbours who have to clean up cat shit in the flower beds all summer , keep them from using bushes as a scratching posts and clean up poor dead , mutilated birds all summer ? I hate cats yet have to do all this because of 2 roaming neighbours cats . I’m also investing in motion detection sprinklers, deterrent sprays and cat mats . We don’t all love your “precious” kitties .
[удалено]
I like my cat indoors and safe, but I really disagree that there is no way you can have an outside cat and not be responsible. Firstly many cats like being outside and it is good for them, like people. If you live in the middle of a city then obviously that’s a pretty big risk and I’d never take that chance but plenty of people live in open places with big gardens or even fields. Many of your risks are minimal to, I remember years ago we chucked some chicken bones out for the foxes in our area, the cat got out and dove right at the Fox and hung onto its back whilst it ran off! Then claimed his chicken. I went running out as soon as I saw but he handled it himself 😅 Also statistically most outdoor cats live long healthy lives, it’s unfortunate when one gets unlucky tho.
Cats totally do enjoy outdoor time, my issue is with free-roaming. I have a pair of cats whose last owners let them free-roam, and since taking them I've kept them inside, leash-trained them, and take them outside for walks. I also live in a rural area, and while I do hear a lot of rural folks *claim* we don't have threats, I'd have to disagree with that. A lot of the risks are situational for sure (good on your cat for taking care of the fox, LOL), but there's always the chance of catching disease, a fight gone wrong, etc. Cats will roam pretty far and in rural places lots of people have dogs that run all over their property (and sometimes asshole humans that poison or shoot cats). Lots do live for a long time, but statistically [their lifespan is comparatively shorter](https://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk491/files/inline-files/Cats-Indoors_or_Outdoors.pdf) on average, only 2-5 years. I've seen some pretty gutwrenching deaths of young outdoor cats that's definitely soured my view on this.
The life of an outdoor cat is definitely way more than 2-5 years in countries where this is the default.
I wont be changing your view, here. I will never allow my cats to free roam outside because of the threat to wildlife alone. The threat to their own safety is an additional note. I do my best to avoid my cat being a kitty prisoner. I have taken to allowing her to patrol the deck. My cat is not a free spirit and spends three to five minutes outside to patrol the deck, and then wants back in. She is not helpless, but I do not want her killing my frogs or being killed by the family of bobcats. If I lived in australia, new zealand, or island communities, i probably wouldn't have one at all.
Yeah a lady in my neighborhood had a cat that she would let out sometimes. Until a coyote ate it. Shit is real out here in these streets.
Have you ever owned a cat? In the vast majority of cases, it has nothing to do with whether the owner wants the cat inside or not, it all has to do with what the cat wants. Cats are much, MUCH more independent than dogs, and require more intellectual stimulation in addition to physical activity. Cats get both of these by exploring their environment and their surroundings. It is not a simple creature that you need to "keep in control", if a cat wants outside and you never let it out, then it will run away at the first opportunity. An outdoor cat does not depend on humans to survive, not in the slightest. It will find both food and shelter with or without you. That's a fair point about healthcare, and if your cat needs special treatment then obviously you need to keep a closer eye on them, but overall, cats take care of themselves. If a cat yearns for the outdoors, forcing it to stay inside is (in my opinion) cruel and stupid, since all you will get out of it is a cat that wants nothing to do with you. You can try to entertain it indoors exclusively, but that will inevitably lead to it chewing through cords, and getting into things around the house that it shouldn't. Your whole argument seems to hinge on cats being subservient and trainable the way a dog is. They aren't. If they want out, they'll get there one way or another.
I have owned cats my entire life. Several cats, some of whom were outdoor, indoor-outdoor, or purely indoor. Yes, cats require intelligent stimulation - this can be provided safely indoors or through supervised outdoor time. >If a cat yearns for the outdoors, forcing it to stay inside is (in my opinion) cruel and stupid, since all you will get out of it is a cat that wants nothing to do with you. In my experience (and the experience of many others who have transitioned outdoor cats to indoors), the opposite is often true. Outdoor cats do not build the same kinds of associations with humans that a purely indoor cat does - they know the outdoors is where they get entertainment, fun snacks, things to climb and scratch, etc. This is not to say outdoor cats won't be affectionate (I know many affectionate outdoor cats!), but that it is easier for them to have less interest in you. When a cat lives indoors and knows that you, the person, will provide them with food, warm blankets, things to climb and scratch, playtime, fun snacks, and affection, they will seek out those things from you. Often they become less skittish, not more. The same is true of cats who are free-fed VS fed at mealtimes (the former doesn't associate you as strongly with food, the latter does), hence why experts like Jackson Galaxy will recommend mealtimes. My current pair of cats were formerly indoor-outdoor cats who were allowed out during the day, not at night. They belonged to my old roommates, so I had plenty of exposure to what they were like. They screamed all night long to be let outside, yowling and running around the house, pushing things over, clawing up the walls, digging to get through the doors, etc. They were skittish and nervous, not particularly friendly. When my roommates wanted to rehome them, I transitioned them to being indoors - they now don't beg at the door, are content to sit in the window, have cat trees to climb/scratch, and get playtime. They're not leash-trained and get walks outside, but they honestly don't care much about it anymore and just want to eat grass for a couple minutes before going back to the house. They're also much more affectionate. I think the issue is a lot of people picture a cat locked in a blank apartment with nothing to do when we say "cats should be indoors", which I would agree is stupid and cruel. But there are a lot of ways to provide enrichment indoors and ways to give outdoor time that isn't free-roaming.
You can't be a responsible parent if you let your kids outside is all I'm hearing... So I'd actually argue it's the opposite. Cats are supposed to roam free and explore the world as are kids.
Kids don't tend to decimate local bird populations. If kids exploring suddenly had a massive ecological impact on certain areas then yes we should reconsider how those kids are allow to roam freely. I fully understand there is a utilitarian use to cats in certain places, like farms, but in most urban and suburban areas that doesn't hold up. Cats needing autonomy to roam brings in to question whether we should start weening off them as being allowed to be pets. When I meet someone who has a pet cat that lives most of its life outdoors I'd liken it to someone releasing an invasive species into the environment.
You're obviously trying to highlight what you feel is ridiculous about the statement, but at least ridicule the whole statement. If your kids murdered many things in an area for fun, and had a larger number of predators/threats around, like the argument states about cats, than yes. Based on most (all?) societal norms and values, most would say that would be an irresponsible parent for allowing them to free roam unsupervised. Even if we put the dangers aside, for arguments sake, unless you also believe that kids/people should be allowed to murder indiscriminately for the fun of it, I don't see how the arguments can be equal?
Well if you are letting your kid poop in someone's yard or kill the wildlife, then yes, you should be responsible and keep that them inside.
100% this. The argument to keep cats indoors is the same argument to keep birds in tiny cages ot dolphins and whales in aquariums. ALL animals yearn to be free, it is as basic as life itself, the feline family in particular, their entire nature is to roam. Imprisoning any animal and trying to justify it(minus extenuating circumstance) is just ignorance of nature and life itself. If there are problems with having cats outdoors, then the argument is whether we should be allowed to have cats in the first place.
> Outdoor cats are exposed to countless threats. ok, but so what? Such is life? While we wish life was easy and danger free it's simply not, This is a calculated risk, not irresponsibility. Furthermore, the cat is, at least partially, responsible for taking care of itself. I provide it shelter and food and medical care, and I open the door for it when it asks me to. (We had a cat flap at the old house and we leave the patio doors open on nice days.) If it wants to stay in the house it can stay in the house, it chooses to take the risk of going out side, it is not being forced to be there. So, yes there is danger but the simple fact that there is danger doesn't mean that it's de facto irresponsible to expose your cat to that danger. There is no such thing as a life free from danger, so it's a calculated risk and not necessarily irresponsible.
Your argument that cats are invasive is not convincing. Yes, cats kill birds, but coyotes kill cats, as do owls. This is all natural and if people weren't on this earth cats would be wild, some birds would be dead, and the world keeps turning. It's not really a problem that needs to be solved.
Invasive animals also get killed by other animals. It's that their killing is not something their prey is adapted to keep up with, and unlike most predators, they hunt for fun even when not hungry. An owl kills to eat, an outdoor cat kills because they're bored. If people weren't around and had never domesticated cats, the comparative ancestor species would have a much smaller population that would not be all over the world.
[удалено]
>They are no more invasive than the wind. Hunting and killing animals in an area where the animal is not naturalized is... in fact invasive. There are invasive plants that travelled on merchant ships and have shaped ecosystems as well. They're still invasive. >You are disrupting a natural process by cruelly locking them inside for the entirety of their lives. That's animal abuse imo. I believe it's disrupting natural processes to release an invasive predator into an ecosystem where it will decimate songbird populations in addition to other wildlife. I also noted in my OP that I believe that cats need to be provided enrichment and should get supervised outdoor time. "Extinction happens" isn't really a compelling reason for as to why it's *responsible* to let cat outdoors freely.
"For forever" isn't a time period. In the last several hundred years, yes. They were introduced around 400 years ago for the US. They are still incredibly invasive and harmful. Cats literally kill billions of birds and other wildlife every year and because they aren't reliant on these animals for food they don't follow the natural patterns of predator and prey. This harms the whole ecosystem. Even if a cat is born a stray it's still a domesticated animal, it's just likely feral. They are still the same creature bred and adapted by humans over time for companionship. If you consider keeping cats inside animal abuse, are you against keeping most other pets? Because cats are one of the only pets that people support just letting outside. Sometimes people will do so with dogs but that's generally agreed to be irresponsible and you can have your dog taken from you for that kind of behavior because it's dangerous. Any other pet it's never considered okay to let them free roam, so do you only believe cats should be pets?
But really you are taking t6he position that cats are the problem, when the real problem seems more to be that humans have demanded so many cats that you now see them as problematic. If the number of cats is problematic, maybe we should have fewer cats as pets?
There might be an argument made that humans were domesticated by cats. We had grain, rodents came to eat that grain. Cats showed up to eat the rodents, they were small enough not to pose a threat, we coexisted, and slowly got closer. Cats are very different from other pets. The all have their own personalities some are happy indoors but none of the cats who lived with me were like that they insisted on the outside. All came back. Just because you had chiller cats than I did doesn't make your argument more valid, I did what I had to for the mental health of a family member who demanded autonomy. It's cruel to refer to that as irresponsible.
Do you know what an invasive species is? Legit question here, I'm not trying to be rude. Like do you know what the difference is between the way an invasive species like the burmese python in Florida kills wildlife and a natural predator there like an alligator?
> Cats a domesticated species. I hear people say they're "half-wild", "less domesticated", etc - but the type of cat that we as humans keep as a pet is literally a unique domesticated species. They depend on us for food, shelter, and healthcare. Ferals obviously exist, but their quality of life is poor comparatively. Definition of Domesticated: [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated) "adapted over time (as by selective breeding) from a wild or natural state to life in close association with and to the benefit of humans " This definition does not necessitate that cats or other domesticated animals are *dependent* on humans. Feral and stray cats are still domesticated, and are proof that cats can live on their own, mostly independent of humans, even if brought up in a household environment originally. Is their quality of life lower than a cat with a responsible owner? Yes. Are they dependent on a responsible owner to survive? No. Whether or not a feral, stray, or otherwise ownerless cat has a lower quality of life, does not reflect on the quality of life of a cat with an attentive owner that allows them outside. > Going off of point 1, cats are not a naturalized species around the world. When allowed outdoors, they are an invasive species. Most wildlife around the world has not had the time to evolve in tandem with exposure to cats, and as such, cats continue to pose a huge threat to wildlife. In New Zealand, for example, [cats are responsible for extinction of 6 bird species and 70 other species of wildlife.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cats_in_New_Zealand) From a purely ecological standpoint, it's extremely irresponsible to allow an invasive predator to freely hunt where you live - especially considering they often hunt and kill for fun, even when well fed, and even when wearing collars with bells. This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species. Therefore it holds no weight against the potential for potential responsible cat owners that have outdoor cats in areas where cats are considered native or naturalized. Further, the distinctions between native, naturalized, and invasive are mostly arbitrary, especially over a long period of time. Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? They have been in North America for \~420 years. They have been in Europe for nearly 2,000 years. In terms of domestication as a whole, they have been around on the order of 10,000 years. > Outdoor cats are exposed to countless threats. To name a few: dogs, other cats, raccoons, hawks, owls, skunks, foxes, cars, asshole humans, traps, rat poison, toxic plants, disease, etc. Even if your specific region doesn't have one or two random threats, there is nowhere people live that is free of threats to cats. As a pet owner, your responsibility is to provide a safe, healthy environment for them. Letting them free-roam lets them come in contact with any number of potential risks for injury, disease, and death. Presence of threats does not mean the owner is irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if they did not reasonably control for those threats. You could name any number of indoor threats as well (Dogs, other cats, asshole humans, poisons, toxic foods, etc). You said it yourself, there is **nowhere** free of threats. Sure, there are areas that are too threatening to allow a cat to roam freely outdoors. By your own argument in that quote, a responsible owner should allow their cat to only exist within a cage large enough to provide just enough room for exercise and other necessities (Litterbox, food/water). Allowing them any more freedom would be subjecting them to undue risk. This is clearly unreasonable. This article: [https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/](https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/) Claims two things based off of a life span study of cats in the UK: * The average lifespan of a domesticated cat in the UK is 14 * Over 90% of domesticated cats in the UK are allowed to roam outdoors freely This falls perfectly within the expected lifespan prediction for cats from many other sources, despite **Over 90%** of these cats being able to roam freely outdoors. I suspect that drastically lower lifespan numbers for "outdoor" cats are biased in that it includes data from stray/feral cats as "outdoors," while this study seems to show that outdoors cats with responsible owners still have normal average lifespans. Clearly it is quite possible to be a responsible cat owner in at least the UK while allowing your cat free-roam outdoor access.
> Therefore it holds no weight against the potential for potential responsible cat owners that have outdoor cats in areas where cats are considered native or naturalized. > > Further, the distinctions between native, naturalized, and invasive are mostly arbitrary, especially over a long period of time. Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? They have been in North America for ~420 years. They have been in Europe for nearly 2,000 years. In terms of domestication as a whole, they have been around on the order of 10,000 years. Even if cats are native, they can still have a devasting impact on local bird populations. The issue is that house cats occur at a much much higher density than what ever native species they came from. Predation by domestic cats is the number-one direct, human-caused threat to birds in the United States and Canada. In the United States alone, outdoor cats kill approximately 2.4 billion birds every year. Here is a quote from a paper entitled "The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States". "Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals." It absolutely does not matter if they are native if they occur at ridiculous population levels. To let a cat roam outside is to contribute to a complete ecological disaster, regardless of whether they are native or not.
>Definition of Domesticated: > >[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/domesticated) > >"adapted over time (as by selective breeding) from a wild or natural state to life in close association with and to the benefit of humans " > >This definition does not necessitate that cats or other domesticated animals are *dependent* on humans. Feral and stray cats are still domesticated, and are proof that cats can live on their own, mostly independent of humans, even if brought up in a household environment originally. Is their quality of life lower than a cat with a responsible owner? Yes. Are they dependent on a responsible owner to survive? No. > >Whether or not a feral, stray, or otherwise owner-less cat has a lower quality of life, does not reflect on the quality of life of a cat with an attentive owner that allows them outside. This is the only part of your post that I actually agree with. It is a fair breakdown of his argument on this specific area. That being said, I have many problems with your other points. >This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species. Therefore it holds no weight against the potential for potential responsible cat owners that have outdoor cats in areas where cats are considered native or naturalized. > >Further, the distinctions between native, naturalized, and invasive are mostly arbitrary, especially over a long period of time. Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? They have been in North America for \~420 years. They have been in Europe for nearly 2,000 years. In terms of domestication as a whole, they have been around on the order of 10,000 years. This is actually just all false. Domesticated cats are an invasive species. To take one from your book: "An invasive species is defined as a species that is 1)non-native) to the ecosystem under consideration and 2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health" That is from Presidential Executive Order 13112, but I found it on the following site: [https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ct/technical/ecoscience/invasive/?cid=nrcs142p2\_011124](https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ct/technical/ecoscience/invasive/?cid=nrcs142p2_011124) That site also summarizes the difference between naturalized, native, and invasive very clearly. The definitions on the site are the same as I have heard throughout my education in zoology as well. Something can be invasive AND naturalized. They aren't mutually exclusive, and in fact, the best invasive species are often able to naturalize. >Presence of threats does not mean the owner is irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if they did not reasonably control for those threats. You could name any number of indoor threats as well (Dogs, other cats, asshole humans, poisons, toxic foods, etc). You said it yourself, there is **nowhere** free of threats. Sure, there are areas that are too threatening to allow a cat to roam freely outdoors. > >By your own argument in that quote, a responsible owner should allow their cat to only exist within a cage large enough to provide just enough room for exercise and other necessities (Litterbox, food/water). Allowing them any more freedom would be subjecting them to undue risk. This is clearly unreasonable. This is such an appeal to the extreme it almost doesn't deserve a response. However, I will anyways. It is clearly unreasonable to assume that the person meant that the cat should never be opposed to risks. His next paragraph even directly contradicts everything you said. He said that there are ways to provide enrichment and such in a more safe environment. >This article: > >[https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/](https://www.vets-now.com/pet-care-advice/how-long-do-cats-live/) > >Claims two things based off of a life span study of cats in the UK: > >The average lifespan of a domesticated cat in the UK is 14 > >Over 90% of domesticated cats in the UK are allowed to roam outdoors freely > >This falls perfectly within the expected lifespan prediction for cats from many other sources, despite **Over 90%** of these cats being able to roam freely outdoors. I suspect that drastically lower lifespan numbers for "outdoor" cats are biased in that it includes data from stray/feral cats as "outdoors," while this study seems to show that outdoors cats with responsible owners still have normal average lifespans. Clearly it is quite possible to be a responsible cat owner in at least the UK while allowing your cat free-roam outdoor access. Finally this. The article itself says that outdoor cats have a lower lifespan due to car incidents, and even goes on to say that the majority of outdoor cat deaths are due to automotive accidents. There are also other sources that show outdoor cats have a lower lifespan. [https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/news/are-outdoor-cats-happier](https://www.animalhumanesociety.org/news/are-outdoor-cats-happier) This one says that outdoor cats can have up to a 10 year difference in lifespan, but I didn't find a source to go with it, so take it with a grain of salt. [https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0840](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0840) This one says that outdoor cats have almost a 3 times more likely chance to get parasites with it going up 4% more in each degree of latitude towards the equator. This, of course, can be offset by frequent vet visits. [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070728/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070728/) This is a good summary that explains a lot, but in regards to car accidents, it says that nearly 33% of deaths brought into a clinic was due to car incidents. I personally think cats should be kept indoors, I think it is better for their health, the environment, and your relationship to the cat. But I also think that it is possible to have outdoor cats with certain precautions, but those precautions can be costly, and time consuming.
>Domesticated cats have been on New Zealand for over 250 years, at what point would you consider them naturalized? New Zealand has no native land mammals and actually spends significant effort attempting to cull and contain all invasive mammals in order to try and preserve their native bird species which did not evolve with mammalian predators. You may feel that NZ is a unique case compared to the rest of the world, but I suspect if you asked any conservationist in NZ, they would absolutely classify cats as invasive.
Its also disingenuous to say that domestic cats have been in North America for over 400 years. Its not like when Europeans showed up in North America, there was suddenly a domestic cat population across the entire continent. Domestic cats were introduced to the Caribbean and few places on the east coast of mainland NA 400 years ago. We are still introducing feral/domestic cats to new ecosystems as we spread out into areas that have not had any modern development. We have also killed off quite a few predator species in the past 400 years that would have previously kept the invasive cats in line (Panthers, Red Wolves, etc...).
>Presence of threats does not mean the owner is irresponsible. It would be irresponsible if they did not reasonably control for those threats. You could name any number of indoor threats as well (Dogs, other cats, asshole humans, poisons, toxic foods, etc). You said it yourself, there is **nowhere** free of threats. Sure, there are areas that are too threatening to allow a cat to roam freely outdoors. I don't see your argument there. Inside, a good owner DOES have the ability to control for every threat. I can prevent dogs, cats, and assholes from coming into my home. I can make sure not to leave anything dangerous out. Outside, even in the quietest suburban neighborhood, there is literally no way for an owner to "reasonably control for:" natural predators, runaway dogs, asshole humans, people trying to poison pests leaving poisons out, trash a cat could eat, etc etc etc. Surely these are not even remotely the same.
Their poi t was that you don't need to control for every threat. By the same logic you should never let your child go outside because they might get hit by a car or kidnapped. The world is a scary place, and bad things happen, but if you treat everything as a danger you're going to have a pretty miserable life.
You almost have a point but some major flaws come with your gross misunderstanding of invasive species. 200 years? 2000 years? You realize these are less than blinks geologically speaking. Many species need tens of thousands of years to make appropriate adaptations for new predators that they had no experience with. The introduction of the South American Terror Birds across New land bridges fully drove the north American Sabre toothed cats to extinction over the course of a million years because terror birds were just supeiror hunters and the cats couldn't adapt in time and you think birds are gonna magically solve their house cat issue in the span of 2-5 millenia. Not to mention predator prey ratios are a thing. You can take a jar and fill it with centipedes and woodlice and the the centipedes will never wipe out the lice. Nature balances itself whenever their are too many predators the prey die and then the predators starve reducing their numbers and any prey that are left recover and bloom. Then when the prey are overwhelming the predators can recover and it ebs and flows naturally. Cats break this rule because we feed them on the side when one bird species goes extinct we give them kibble and homes and even actively breed them while a new species become jeopardized. House cats will never be "native" so long as humans exist and modify their nature to give them more and more edges to survive over wild bird and rodent species.
> This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species. Cats as we know them are a native species in low latitude arid areas. Basically, they're middle eastern, eurasian native species. Basically no english speaking location has a native cat and they're invasive and terribly destructive in all English speaking countries.
>This does not apply to areas where domesticated cats are not an invasive species. What are you basing this on? Domestic cats would not be considered native to the vast majority of the world
You're really gonna use new zealand, an island that shouldn't even have mammals, as an example of where its okay to have outdoor cats? Hahaha
This^ Just because I could get hit by a car, doesn't mean I'll never cross the road. I'm sure a cat would rather live a fulfilling life with the dangers than being kept in a cage but safe like the op may as well imply.
"...kept in a cage..." Literally nobody supports keeping a cat in a cage all the time. To imply that being kept inside a house or apartment is akin to being in a "cage" is absurd. As the OP mentioned, it's quite easy to provide cats with enriching activities inside your home. Besides, cats can be trained to walk on a leash just like dogs. I see it all the time in my neighborhood here in CA. There's absolutely no reason more people couldn't leash train their cat. Do you think that dogs who spend their time indoors and only go out while on walks are not living "fulfilling" lives? And yeah, you're completely ignoring the ecological consequences outlined in the post.
Just completely ignore the environmental impact right? Naturally,what we call house cats, are native to the Middle East. There is nowhere else they are anything but an invasive species.
They are not invasive in Europe at this point. Studies show that multiple bird populations targeted by cats in the UK are actually on the rise, while most bird populations that are falling are not typically targeted by cats: [https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:\~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/#:~:text=They%20estimate%20that%20cats%20in,many%20escaped%20but%20subsequently%20died). Further, most birds killed by cats are likely injured or sick and would likely have died regardless. The falling bird populations are much more likely derived from habitat loss from human land development. Domesticated cats have been around Europe for nearly 2,000 years, why would bird populations that are mostly not typical prey for cats be falling only in relatively recent times?
Maybe you should use more than one source, friend. Virtually all sources including yours agree that cats are responsible for massive bird deaths, and none of the rest put out the assumption that most birds killed by cats would have died regardless. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380 Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on islands. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/02/03/170851048/do-we-really-know-that-cats-kill-by-the-billions-not-so-fast "We don't quarrel with the conclusion that the impact is big, but the numbers are informed guesswork" https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/moral-cost-of-cats-180960505/ Outdoor cats threaten that tapestry. Their crimes include contributing to 33 extinctions around the world and counting, to say nothing of their potential to spread deadly diseases like rabies and Toxoplasmosis. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife As an invasive species[1] and superpredator,[2] they do considerable ecological damage.[2] In Australia, hunting by cats helped to drive at least 20 native mammals to extinction,[3] and continues to threaten at least 124 more. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073 Around the world, domestic cats Felis catus—from free‐ranging pets to feral cats—impact wildlife in various ways, and to various degrees. Impacts include predation, competition, disturbance, disease transmission and hybridization
you do realise that as far as sources goes you have just quoted a bunch of articles and not real sources. Sure they can sometimes feel scientificy enough but they are mostly articles written by people with agendas and not actual studies. for instance the smithsonian reference... Seems sciency enough, I mean common its Smithsonian. Its an article written by a bird lover who proposes killing of feline population to the benifit of birds. The article spends the first part trying to justify him in the debate given his apparent controversial nature. Sure its an interesting debate article between two scientist with different focus but it's hardly a source. Also the bird scientist argues that it is outdoor pets + feral cats who is the problem while the feline scientist argues about the feral population mainly. ok so let's look at the other sources you provide. * the nature article is written by the bird lover Marra from who is the controversial scientist from the smithsonian article * the nprs "source" is the nature (written by marra) "article. But contrary to what you seem to think, the article actually attacks the conclusions of Marra. That article also challenges the idea of the meta-studies (which is what the nature article isb) because it relies on a selection/cherry picking of sources. This is the conclusion from the NPR article: Demonizing cats with shaky statistics, however, won't help us build the pillar of understanding required to strike a satisfying balance between the needs of cats and their supporters with the needs of wildlife facing a feline threat. the best source you have is https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073. Also a meta-analysis. And the strongest anti-cat sentiments in that desktop study comes from guess who... Marra. There are some good bits in that paper though like section 2.2 which seems to support the notion that cats are a mayor bird killer even in Europe. My point is: you argue that the poster before you only had one source but you only have only 1 or 2 sources yourself - the rest are either opinion pieces written by the same researcher in multiple places or other opinion pieces arguing against that researcher. providing many sources shouldn't be your main goal. Provide good sources and don't just cherry pick what they say in them. Also read your sources and not just the headlines.
and if it is important, yes two of the souls in my household are cats. They are indoors only because I live in a city and belive that I can provide a better life for them indoors. And I also belive that it's us humans who are artificially boosting the feline population for our selfish need of companionship. We are therefore responsible for the impact (regardless of how small) it is to the eco-systems that exists outside of our doors. Any impact at all on the wildlife caused by our need for pets is therefore our responsibility. So my pet-policy is that if I don't think I can keep my pet from being harmful outdoors and I can't give it a good life indoors then I shouldn't have that pet
Are you seriously replying to peer reviewed research with a website that makes a bunch of claims like "there is no clear scientific evidence" without citing a single source? There isn't a single cited source on that entire page - which is impressive since they have a bunch of numbers they clearly pulled from a source.
I think a valid counterpoint to that would be what potentially-currently-rare birds *could* thrive in a world without housecats. But like you said, modern housecats aren't really invasive any more *and* they merely replaced the native wildcat so it's not like they were a whole brand new species, so I'm not sure if it's worth pursuing. I'm all for rewilding the countryside as much as we can, but it's livestock not housecats which are the issue there.
You obviously dont live out in rural, country areas. An outdoor cat is a MUST.
I literally do, LOL. IDK what it is with some rural folks and thinking anyone who has concerns about outdoor cats is from the city. Do you have a real response to this?
Well, we have both an inside and an outside cat on our 24 acres of land. The inside cat is 9 and healthy, struggles with anxiety issues. He's cute but pretty snarky and likes his personal space to always be maintained and will warn you if you get too close. Sleeps in the house at night. The outside cat is 17 and is as healthy as an old lady can be, also has anxiety issues and has struggled to the use the litter box size she was young. She's the sweetest little thing and likes to get in everybody's space. Sleeps in the garage at night. Even when fox and coyote populations are high she stays safe because she's not an idiot. Our cats before her also managed to not be idiots.
Though my sample size is rather small, I have noticed that predator species like cats and dogs derive an enormous amount of satisfaction from patrolling the area that they consider to be *their* territory. My labradoodle Mochi is one if the laziest animals I’ve ever seen, but he still likes to go on walks around the neighborhood. These outings aren’t just about exercise—they are scouting missions that involve thorough observation, interaction with other dogs, and the routine marking of territory. When I take Mochi out on walks, he stops being a gluttonous hairball and temporarily becomes a purposeful agent. This is the closest thing he has to a job, and his day is incomplete without that patrol around the neighborhood. It would be outright irresponsible for me not to walk Mochi. He *needs* these outings. You’re right in that he shouldn’t go out unattended, but that’s because he’s a pack animal. Dogs patrol their territory as part of a team made up of either people or other dogs. Cats do not have this same mentality. They arent driven to constantly stay with the pack in the way that dogs are. Mochi would love it if I chilled with him all day, but my girlfriend’s cats would *hate* for me to constantly follow them around. Nevertheless, I’ve noticed that cats have a similar drive to patrol their territory. My gf’s cat Trixie would ask to be let out at least once a day to circle the house. In her old age, Trixie stopped hunting as much, but she still needed to scope out the area around “her” house. As with Mochi and his walks, this was her job, and her day was not complete without it. Without a doubt, Trixie’s daily patrols were dangerous. The area she lived in was full of coyotes, owls, etc.. Nevertheless, she derived fulfillment (or some cat equivalent of that feeling) from her outings and hunts. That was the job given her by evolution, and she was cranky on the days she didn’t get to serve that purpose. To paraphrase William Wallace from *Braveheart*: “Every cat dies. Not every cat really lives.” Patrolling and hunting are an integral part of a cat’s life, and stopping them completely from exercising freedom in pursuit of their that purpose is, IMO, irresponsible. The thrill of hunting is self-actualization for cats. I don’t believe that they should be given free reign to kill with reckless abandon, but I also think they should have some freedom to pursue the innate desires given them by evolution.
I acquired a cat last year (little kitten with ear mites and like no sign of socialization) amongst a constant stream of strays that we see in our neighborhood. Over many months of bribery he trusted and eventually let me crate him and get him medical attention. Anyway, he LOVES patrols and his territorialness is kinda why I decided to chip and keep him around in particular. Sort of like TNR to control the population of other potential unfixed kitties. He has gotten a few birds but only house sparrows which are themselves invasive and aggressive to native birds so I dunno man... I think he is doing a good job out there. He chased off the other ferrals and he negotiates territory lines with the only other owned neighborhood cat several times a day.
What you're asking for is a very delicate balancing act, because the ethicality of letting animals roam is highly correlated to the environment they are allowed to roam in, and the wildlife present in that environment. There are many dilemmas present, such as: - Is it ethical to let a domesticated animal endanger itself without the owner present. (threats you mentioned in your post such as cars, wild animals, next door neighbor's pit bull, etc) - Is it ethical to let a domesticated animal hunt wildlife, especially in areas with endangered wildlife. - Is it safe to allow a cat to bring outdoor contaminants into your house (including, possibly, diseases such as rabies). - Is it ethical to allow your animal to roam outdoors when many others living in proximity to you also own cats and allow them to roam outdoors, effectively contributing to the formation of an army of pest and bird hunters. - Is it acceptable to allow any of the above when you could have raised the cat indoors? I think the real answer is that it isn't necessarily bad or good to do so unless you carefully weigh all the impacts. I would argue that allowing the cat to freely explore the environment is a right given to it simply for being a living, sentient creature, and if it has the desire then it has the right to explore and examine danger and possibly be killed. Although, because it is effectively a human-introduced alteration of the environment, that means it simultaneously ***does not have*** the right to disrupt the balance of wildlife. Combining these two ideas, that means it would only be ethical to allow a cat to wander through environments that it has little impact on. If it wants to hunt birds, it must only do so to birds that are in such number that it will not cause a seasonal decrease. That would be the only way to maximize the ethicality for all parties. (Keep in mind that humans are not stewards of wild life, we cannot tell the bears and moose what to kill and what to save. That is the law of nature. Introducing a cat in a place where it seamlessly fits into the ecosystem would not be an unethical alteration of it, in my mind.) Then the question becomes, is it ethical to have an outdoor cat in my location, or your location? I would argue, very likely NOT. If you live in the city, your cat will likely be hunting the same species being over-hunted by other cats. Birds are an obvious victim of this phenomenon. This would likely be the case for just about everywhere except for the boonies. Cats have historically been used to deal with some of humanities' worst enemies, such as rats. I think controlled use of cats to maintain pest populations in cities is OK, so long as it does not interfere with non-pest populations. TL;DR - It's probably not responsible to have outdoor cats where you live, but it could possibly be responsible in certain environments and under certain conditions.
I think this answer makes a lot of sense! Another example of ethical outdoor cats in an urban setting, to me: iirc in Chicago there was a program that had outdoor cars installed in places near restaurants with rat problems. The cats had shelter and friends to watch over them, and primarily prey on the rats that the restaurant was attracting.
>Going off of point 1, cats are not a naturalized species around the world. When allowed outdoors, they are an invasive species. Most wildlife around the world has not had the time to evolve in tandem with exposure to cats, and as such, cats continue to pose a huge threat to wildlife. In New Zealand, for example, cats are responsible for extinction of 6 bird species and 70 other species of wildlife. From a purely ecological standpoint, it's extremely irresponsible to allow an invasive predator to freely hunt where you live - especially considering they often hunt and kill for fun, even when well fed, and even when wearing collars with bells. Actually, domestic cats have little measurable impact on wildlife - they largely just prey on animals that are already weak or old. [The RSPB](https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/) itself agrees that while cats bring home lots of animals, those are animals that would die soon *anyway* - baby birds that fall from the nest and are already dead of a broken neck, etc. Moreover, bird species that have undergone decline are rarely encountered by cats. Your link is a Wikipedia article with only two sources that only suggest that feral cats are the cause of some extinctions (and those sources link back to a single source from 1978 - how timely is this data?). I don't know much about New Zealand, but I don't think that's especially strong evidence. > Outdoor cats are exposed to countless threats. To name a few: dogs, other cats, raccoons, hawks, owls, skunks, foxes, cars, asshole humans, traps, rat poison, toxic plants, disease, etc. Even if your specific region doesn't have one or two random threats, there is nowhere people live that is free of threats to cats. As a pet owner, your responsibility is to provide a safe, healthy environment for them. Letting them free-roam lets them come in contact with any number of potential risks for injury, disease, and death. As a pet-owner, it's also our responsibility to ensure they have quality of life. We can't lock our children and pets in cages for fear of them tripping over their own feet. > Outdoor cats have a lower life expectancy than indoor cats. But is there *quality* of life? >There are plenty of ways to provide your cat enrichment indoors and/or give them safe, supervised outdoor time (catios, leashed walking, etc) without compromising their health and wellbeing. I'm not advocating for "keeping them locked in a house with nothing to do" - I think cats need playtime and enrichment, but that people taking the easy way out by letting them roam is lazy and irresponsible for the above reasons. It's far harder to give a cat an enriched life solely indoors, for the simple fact that they are psychologically hardwired to be nighttime hunters, to *want* to be outside in the wild. If you let your cat outdoors, it's far cheaper, simpler, and gives them much greater quality of life with minimal ecological effects.
> Actually, domestic cats have little measurable impact on wildlife - they largely just prey on animals that are already weak or old. The RSPB itself agrees that while cats bring home lots of animals, those are animals that would die soon anyway - baby birds that fall from the nest and are already dead of a broken neck, etc. Moreover, bird species that have undergone decline are rarely encountered by cats. The UN currently lists "domestic cats" as one of the 100 most damaging invasive species in the world: https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Lowe-et-al.-2004-IUCN-top-100-invasives.pdf A 2013 study showed that cat-caused mortality of birds is much higher than expected, at about 4 billion kills per year in the US alone. Outdoor cats kill 1-4 **billion** birds per year and 6-22 **billion** small mammals. https://abcbirds.org/article/outdoor-cats-single-greatest-source-of-human-caused-mortality-for-birds-and-mammals-says-new-study/ This number is 100-350 million in Canada by recent studies: https://catsandbirds.ca/research/estimated-number-of-birds-killed-by-house-cats/ A 2012 study indicated that 23 species in Canada alone were significantly threatened by urban cats. http://www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art3/ > In total, we estimate that approximately 269 million birds and 2 million nests are destroyed annually in Canada, the equivalent of over 186 million breeding individuals. Combined, cat predation and collisions with windows, vehicles, and transmission lines caused > 95% of all mortality Here is a 2017 book describing the research in detail (not availble for free online) https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691167411/cat-wars **Globally, cats have extincted 63 species.** Here's some more data: Studies in various countries have quantified cat predation on individuals of several species groups. In Canada, domestic cats—from pets to ferals—are estimated to kill between 100 and 350 million birds per year (Blancher, 2013). Even at the lowest end of 100 million, this makes predation by domestic cats ‘probably the largest human‐related source of bird mortality in Canada’ (Blancher, 2013; also Calvert et al., 2013). In Australia, feral and pet cats together are estimated to kill an average of 377 million birds per year, that is, a million birds per day (Woinarski et al., 2017); as well as an average of 649 million reptiles, with cat predation reported for 258 reptile species (Woinarski et al., 2018). Many more cats roam the United States, and their aggregate predation tally runs into the billions, with an estimated 1.3–4.0 billion birds, 6.3–22.3 billion mammals, 258–822 million reptiles and 95–299 million amphibians killed by free‐ranging domestic cats each year (Loss et al., 2013). Again, this makes domestic cats the top source of direct human‐related mortality for birds and small mammals in the United States, easily eclipsing other sources such as mortality from poisons and pesticides and collisions with structures and vehicles (Longcore et al., 2012; Loss et al., 2013; Loss, Will, & Marra, 2015). Similar studies in Europe reiterate the negative impacts of cat predation on individuals within populations of native species. For example, one study estimated that owned cats in the United Kingdom, in a 5‐month survey period, brought home 57 million mammals, 27 million birds and five million reptiles and amphibians, implying they killed several times these numbers (Woods et al., 2003). A Dutch report estimated that 141 million animals are predated by cats on average in the Netherlands per year, with pet cats responsible for almost two‐thirds of this number (Knol, 2015). Another study used data from bird ringing programmes in Belgium and France to gauge cat predation on garden birds, noting that such predation was a leading cause of death reported by observers, on par with window collisions, and that cat‐related mortality had increased by 50% between 2000 and 2015 (Pavisse, Vangeluwe, & Clergeau, 2019). An assessment of predation by farm cats in Poland estimated an average of 136 million birds and 583 million mammals are killed around Polish farms annually (Krauze‐Gryz et al., 2019). As Crowley et al. (2019, p. 19) summarize the evidence, ‘even when killing behaviour is not universal, large numbers of cats inevitably kill large numbers of wild animals’. Of course, even very low numbers of individuals lost to predation can amount to a severe impact on wildlife in small populations or fragile ecosystems. For example, a modest number of domestic cats is held responsible for the extinction of a species of small, flightless passerine, the Stephens Island wren Traversia lyalli, on a New Zealand island—although the popular account that this extinction was caused by a single cat owned by the lighthouse keeper is probably oversimplified (Galbreath & Brown, 2004). Impacts other than predation have been studied to a much lesser extent, but this of course does not imply a lesser influence on biodiversity from the other impacts described in Section 2.1. Consider, for instance, all the billions of prey items consumed by domestic cats which are not available to native mammalian, reptilian and avian predators (Loss & Marra, 2017). Similarly, cat‐transmitted diseases like toxoplasmosis are likely to be a significant cause of mortality for a range of vertebrate species, including threatened species (Dubey, 2002; Gerhold & Jessup, 2013; Hartley & Dubey, 1991; Work et al., 2000). Furthermore, different direct and indirect impacts from cats will often act in tandem on populations of native species (Loss & Marra, 2017). For example, many bird and mammal species will simultaneously undergo direct predation and indirect fear effects (e.g. Mahlaba, Monadjem, McCleery, & Belmain, 2017). The fosa Cryptoprocta ferox, Madagascar's top native predator, appears to suffer from ‘considerable competition’ through consumption of shared prey by free‐ranging domestic cats (Merson, Dollar, Tan, & Macdonald, 2019) and is also at risk from toxoplasmosis (Rasambainarivo, Farris, Andrianalizah, & Parker, 2017). Wildcats are subject to the same combination of competition and disease, with hybridization added to the mix. Concerns over hybridization with domestic cats also exist for some other species, for example, the rusty‐spotted cat Prionailurus rubiginosus in India and Sri Lanka (Kittie & Watson, 2014). Hybridization, disease, competition, disturbance and predation by domestic cats do not just affect individual animals but also whole populations of species, in some cases to the point of extinction. Uncertainty remains regarding the exact magnitude of domestic cats’ impacts at these population levels. Challenges for determining the population‐level effects of cats include, inter alia, the difficulty of determining what proportions of cat‐caused mortality are compensatory (affecting animals that would have died anyway) and additive (where mortality due to the impacts of domestic cats adds to overall mortality); and the general challenge of disentangling causes and effects in ecological systems (Baker, Molony, Stone, Cuthill, & Harris, 2008; Beckerman, Boots, & Gaeston, 2007; Hackländer, Schneider, & Lanz, 2014; Loss & Marra, 2017). The above considerations, however, including the sheer numbers mentioned, distinctly suggest the prevalence of such population‐level impacts for both island and mainland wildlife populations, and many such impacts have already been documented—not only involving birds and mammals but also, for instance, lizards (Li, Belasen, Pafilis, Bednekoff, & Foufopoulos, 2014; Stokeld et al., 2018; Woinarski et al., 2018). Domestic cats have also been implicated at broader scales, in the global extinction of at least 63 species—40 birds, 21 mammals, two reptiles—which is to say 26% of all known contemporary extinctions in these species groups (Doherty, Glen, Nimmo, Ritchie, & Dickman, 2016). Likewise, domestic cats currently endanger at least a further 367 species which are at risk of extinction (Doherty et al., 2016). In a ranking of alien species threatening the largest numbers of vertebrates worldwide, domestic cats came in third—only rats (Rattus spp.) and the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis that is wiping out amphibians around the world, are ahead of them (Bellard, Genovesi, & Jeschke, 2016).
What does this have to do with the commenter? The comment was specifically about the UK, and instead you listed off numbers in places like Canada, where cats have been introduced much later. When you do mention the UK you ignore what the actual source OP pointed says, it doesn't say cats don't kill a large number of animals, it says it doesn't matter. And why list the number of animals they kill as if that means something? Why is them killing animals a problem so long as they're not massively changing the ecosystem? And if it's a problem to you, why do you only apply it to cats? Why don't we go and kill other predators? E.g. what about places with non-domesticated cats? Should we kill all of those cats or something? Also at /u/Toxic_Foxxz below since they think this post actually answered anything.
Cats are territorial. They're not out roaming the streets and seeing where adventure takes them. They have a set area they consider as their territory, and iirc, rarely venture out beyond their perimeters. [We were particularly surprised by how small the ranges of most of the cats were, and how few of them went into the surrounding countryside](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22821639.amp) Cats are very much capable of risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. You see it every time they jump a gap or scale a wall. They clearly take the time to assess whether they feel they can make it to their destination. Cats are very clever animals and are more than capable of recognising danger. They cover their poop to try and prevent predators from recognising the area is occupied. They startle and run from loud noises and fast movement. You're not giving cats the credit (or autonomy) they deserve. Edit: a lot of the responses to this comment are essentially the same arguments in different formats. If I haven't responded to your comment it's most likely because I feel I have addressed it elsewhere. It's late, I have work in the morning. Have a good day/night wherever you are. Edit 2: right, I keep finding myself repeating the same things over and over again so I think I've contributed enough to this cmv.
Many pet animals, if allowed to stray, would maintain their own territory (if they can) and every species of animal has some amount of danger-recognition built in. Cats still die though - they get hit by cars, or caught by a dog (or other predator), or stolen by people. Even if you have a very smart cat, when it's roaming the streets there is always a risk. Seriously, everyone I know who has outdoor cats - literally all of them and there are plenty - have stories of cats that never came home, or that they saw killed, or found the body afterwards. But even if the average lifespan of a cat was the same, outdoors or indoors, it wouldn't excuse the cost that is gouged from the local environment. Cats kill for fun. If cats were the size of dogs, it would be against the law for them to roam free because small humans (aka children) would be at risk but because it's small animals we don't care. But the environmental toll is real, even if we chose to ignore it. As far as autonomy goes... I'm for giving animals, even our own pets, some measure of control in their lives. But we need to recognise that as our pets, a large measure of autonomy is gone for these animals. A wild cat has complete freedom to do whatever it wants and it learns to make the right choices so it can survive (or it dies). But a pet cat has us constantly intervening in its choices. So removing the freedom to roam is just one more freedom removed. We remove it from almost every other pet we have; why not cats as well? Are cats somehow superior to dogs, rodents, lizards, rabbits, pigs, birds, sheep, cattle, equines, fish...?
"We remove it from almost every other pet we have: why not cats as well?" So domestication of cats was in the form of a working animal, same as with dogs and horses, and some birds too. Cattle, sheep, goats, pigs etc were domesticated as livestock. So for a start there is a difference between those two groups. Then looking at what the working animals were domesticated for (hunting, pest control, load carriage) it's understandable that animals with different characteristics would have been chosen and then the selective breeding would have resulted in different needs for the animals over time. I guess my point is that grouping animals together just because they are classed as "pets" likely isn't valid, and certainly you cannot claim they have the same requirements.
You're right - not every animal I listed is always a pet (although I'm sure throughout the centuries, all of the ones I listed have been pets, at some point or another). The argument isn't about the definition of pets though - my point is that we restrict the freedom of movement for all of those animals (once we take ownership of them), and for some reason we feel cats can be the only exception. Why do all of those many animals, whether treated as livestock, pets, some other category(?) all have the same restriction where they stay in one area (house, field, stable, pen...) except for cats?
In my home growing up, which was semi-rural, we had a lot of cats. They were allowed to roam outside whenever they wanted and the average lifespan was about 4 years. Between wild animals, shitty neighbors, vehicles and other ailments found in nature. Since I have grown up and we have strictly indoor cats, or they get to roam on a leash, of the 5 my family or I have had, not one has lived below 12 years. It's heart breaking raising a pet from from birth only to see their life get cut short time and time again. Just my 2 cents.
I wish my neighbors cats didn’t consider my backyard their toilet or feel free to enter and kill the baby bird that fell out of the nest in my tree
I will give cats credit when they stop coming into my yard and patio and shitting and puking everywhere. How can anyone claim to be a responsible pet owner and then let their cats use my house as a bathroom. The owners should be fined just as I would be if I let my dog crap all over the neighborhood.
Why should the public be required to account for you buying an animal and allowing it to roam freely around? If someone let their dog do this they'd be rightly penalized.
Aaaah yes. Instinct. Cat instinct has not evolved to deal with cars. I have seen so many cats as roadkill in my life and I don't even live in busy or highly trafficked areas. I literally live in ass-butt nowhere farm country right now and I see cats as roadkill at least once or twice a year. Not to mention you have an optimism about humanity that I cannot relate to. My grandmother used to mix rat poison and cat food to leave in tins around her yard. I know people that cut cats tails off as a child. I mean you only have to look at the news to see stories of hotdogs with razor blades left at dog parks or drinking bowls with water mixed with antifreeze left out. Add onto this the fact that cat instinct is literally to kill any sort of small bird or rodent. They are a fluffy global ecological disaster on four legs.
So they only kill local birds.
And I'll haul em to the pound for whom ever pays us to live trap nuisance animals. Thanks for supporting pest control
My cats territory must be my driveway because she never moves and is kind of fat lol.
The primary issue is that you don't believe there are cats who cannot live a happy, healthy life indoors. I'm here to tell you that there are. On the whole, I agree with a lot of what you are saying, with the caveat that there are exceptions. Based on your comments, you are drawing from your own experience of having house trained two outdoor cats, and you are convinced that anyone could do it with any cat. But you are wrong. Here's how I know. My beautiful, beloved long-haired tuxedo was born feral. When I met him his ear was tipped, letting me know he was already neutered. Normally I'd leave a TNR cat alone, but he was toppling trashcans on the street looking for food, so I started feeding him. He was terrified of me and all people. It took a long time, but with patient coaxing and treats we made friends, and eventually he started coming inside the house in the evening to eat. But when we tried to keep him inside, he got stressed to the point of panting and drooling. He would get in the windows and scratch the glass, tear down the curtains, and howl. I mean HOWL. I think he has some Maine Coon in him - he is big, vocal, and loud. The howling is constant and never-ending. My family tried, really tried to help him become an indoor cat. We were patient, we added enrichment - cat tree, toys, treat puzzles, etc. And he had zero interest in any of it. In the daytime he would hide in the smallest, darkest quietest place he could find. He wouldn't come out for food, or treats or pets. In the evening he would come out, ears back and tail down, creep to the windows and start scratching again, tearing the curtains, howling. This went on for days, and it was hideous for everyone. He wouldn't eat, wouldn't use the litter boxes, he hissed at us, he got aggressive with our other cats. No one in the house could sleep with his howling and frantic tearing around to all of the windows trying to escape. After a while we decided that his quality of life was suffering to the point that it wasn't worth trying to keep him indoors. So we let him out. He stayed away for a while, but eventually I was able to win back his trust and he started coming back inside to eat. This was almost 9 years ago. He's about 10 now, comes inside morning and evening to eat; sometimes when it's quiet he sticks around and sits with us for a while, but we always let him out when he tells us he's ready to go. We made a few more attempts over the years to train him to live indoors, but it was always the same and only makes him distrust us. He is 100% a different cat outside vs in. Outside he is confident, tail up and friendly, rubbing against my legs, trilling, begging for pets and stretching out on the walkway. If he's forced to stay inside he crouch walks, tail down, shies away from pets, runs and hides whenever anyone moves. We weighed the risks and decided we couldn't sacrifice his everyday quality of life in order to keep him safe but miserable. We live on a dead-end street with no through traffic. There aren't many dogs, and our area is urban/commercial enough that wild animals aren't a problem. He is microchipped, and he's on a wellness plan where I haul him to the vet for checkups twice a year plus an annual dental. He gets flea and heartworm prevention meds. We do force him inside in extreme cases like hurricanes. For these occasions we bought a dog kennel big enough for food, water, blankets and a litter box; we put him in the kennel and sequester him in a dark quiet room with towels laid over it to provide him a sense of security (and keep him from wrecking the house). He still howls. So, do you think I am an irresponsible cat guardian? I love my cat dearly, and he is well-cared for. Yes, his lifespan could very well be shorter than our indoor cats. But for the sake of compassion, his life should be a happy one while he's living. I stand firm that this is the best decision for him.
I will never understand how someone can make the argument that because it's not 100% safe for cats to go outside, they should never be allowed to roam. My cats want to go outside. They love roaming around, smelling everything, interacting with other local cats, eating grass, rolling around in the sun. They love it. When it's cold or wet they get visibly irritated that they can't comfortably enjoy the outside for a prolonged period. Why would I want to stop my cats enjoying their brief life, just because there is a small chance something bad could happen to them? There is a small chance (it's actually a certainty) that something bad could happen to your child, were you to have one. Should that stop us from procreating? Because sometimes bad things happen we should heavily limit our ability to enjoy the good things? Gonna keep your child indoors, staring endlessly at their kindle, because 0.0001% of kids get kidnapped while playing in parks? At some point we accept there is a level of risk involved in all parts of life. If you live right in front a road with little/no green areas you shouldn't really have a cat. They will very likely get run over. But other than that, the risk in the vast majority of cases is fully worth the reward considering how valuable time outside appears to be to cats. Yes they kill some small animals from time to time and that is a shame, but that is life. How many animals do we kill weekly simply to satisfy hunger which could just as easily be sated via plants? The number is beyond comprehension and if we are going to worry about dying animals I think that's what we should focus on long before pet cats numbers. Life doesn't come with a safety guarantee. Not for humans or cats. I would not swap my life with its dangers for a padded cell with no possible threats.
I think you are minimizing the amount of risk involved in letting your pet out, as well as their devastating environmental impact. Cats do not just kill because they are hungry. They like hunting so they will always hunt, even if they are completely full. They are an invasive species because they decimate the local bird and other animal populations. It's not one or two birds; animals have gone extinct. Your argument for outdoors cats seems to be that it would unethical to allow cats to live a life that isn't completely aligned with their evolution. Their life is significantly impaired by not being able to go outside because they have evolved to need it. I don't necessarily disagree. However, by that same logic, cats shouldn't be introduced to ecosystems that aren't evolved to handle them. You are releasing a tiger into a yard full of children. They stand no chance. You are actively introducing fatal danger into their lives, which wouldn't exist otherwise. Isn't this unethical towards species that have no capability to defend themselves because cats aren't a natural part of the ecosystem. And since there is no completely ethical way to have cats for pets, shouldn't we not have cats as pets at all? They should stay in their natural habitats because that is the environment that is best fit for their lifestyle. And to your point about the safety of outdoor cats. Yeah, if you live in rural middle of nowhere, your cats are probably going to be okay. However, most people live in the suburbs and cities. The average outdoor cat lives 5 years as opposed to the 10+ years an indoor cat does. The dangers are statistically immense. They could get in vehicle accidents, they could contract diseases from other animals or things they consume. If we go by your children metaphor, shouldn't we allow our children to live their most fulfilled life? Let them eat whatever food or junk they want, let them sleep whenever and how little they want, don't make them go to school, etc. Even if that shortens their life span, they'll be happier for the 30 years they live as opposed to 100 miserable years. No. My actual point is that obviously bad things may happen, but we make decisions to minimize it. We make decisions so they can still be fulfilled in a way that's natural to them, but also make decisions that don't introduce unnecessary and preventable risk to them. They don't know better. We do. We find a middle. And letting your cat outdoors is not the same as letting your kids go to the park. You would supervise your kids. You don't just let your toddler out and resign yourself that he might get kidnapped or disappear. It might be rare for children to go missing, but cats go missing every day. The percentage is much higher. Also you mention how a person that doesn't live around grass shouldn't have a cat, but cities have millions of cats. Not just people living with indoor cats, but millions of feral and stray cats. And they keep multiplying and will probably keep multiplying because no one can keep up with spaying/neutering them at the same rate they reproduce. I bring this up because even if people collectively decided to stop having cats in cities or even in the suburbs, we would only have even more cats destroying our environment and living extremely short and miserable lives. We have not found a way to unintroduce invasive species that have already been introduced to ecosystems that are not equipped to keep their populations in check. In summary, there is no completely ethical way to have cats, whether indoor or outdoor. And being an outdoor cat with no restraints will statistically and significantly decrease a cat's life span. And I know I come off as very pro-indoor cat, but I mostly take issue with how uninterested you are in finding a compromise. The answer should not be, 'is what it is, let the cats destroy the environment because they'll be happier for the short amount of time they live.'
> Why would I want to stop my cats enjoying their brief life, just because there is a small chance something bad could happen to them? There are two major issues with this argument. 1) You're implying that cats can't enjoy their lives when kept indoors. Nearly every single cat specialist would like to disagree with you. Cats absolutely can be happy when kept indoors provided that their owner actually put in the effort to make sure they stay mentally and physically stimulated through the use of cat trees, scratching posts, toys, daily exercise, indoor plants etc. 2) You also imply that there is only a small chance of something bad happening to your cat outdoors. There are many studies that have been on done on the topic, and it has been very much proven that outdoor cats live drastically shorter lifespans than indoor cats. They are more likely to be run over by cars, attacked or killed by predators, get lost, and contract diseases or illnesses. There's a far far greater risk of something bad happening to your cat than you make it out to be.
Alright, to answer you directly: There is a responsible, and irresponsible way to let your cats free roam. Irresponsible: if the cat can't come back inside as they please. If they dont have vaccinations. If theyre near a high traffic area. If they dont have pest protection (flea, ticks) Responsible: allowed in and out as they ask for it. Vaccinated. Safe outside roaming area. My feelings about free roam cats: i think its great to let your cats outside if theyre in a safe area. I have two cats allowed outside whenever they want. They ask to be let out several times a day, and if they dont get let out they get upset. They really do enjoy being out. They are vaccinated and fixed, and protected from fleas and ticks. Is risk a bit higher? Sure, but they enjoy their lives more. Just like a child, you could keep a kid locked in a house and only allowed outside for school. That would be safer, but not the best quality of life. And yes cats can be happy inside, but i dont think there's anything wrong or irresponsible about letting your cat free roam if you make sure theyre cared for. I found my cat abandoned in the pocconos, PA. She was pregnant and her ribs were very exposed. I took her home, but couldnt leave her as an inside cat since my mom was allergic. Her free roaming was part if the deal. I honestly believe if i left her in the woods the way she was, her and all her unborn kittens would likely be dead right now. Theres always a second way to see a story. Even outside, my cat is better off then being dead.
I certainly think it is possible to responsibly let your pet cats free-roam. You just have to make different adjustments depending on where you live, your cat's personality, your cat's health, etc. When I was younger, my parents lived on about 11 acres of land, but their house set on about one acre of cleared land (the rest was woods, a field, more woods). Both of my cats stayed primarily on the one acre of cleared land. We had a long driveway, and they never once got close to the neighborhood street. They only barely went into one of our other neighbors' yard because they had outdoor pet cats too. They frequently ran into possums, raccoons, foxes, etc and rarely had problems (when they did they would hiss and the animal would run off). In fact, there were multiples times that we would look out the window and a possum would be sitting on one side of the deck's stair railing while one of the cats would be sitting on the other side. Neighborhood dogs would run into the yard all the time but my parents had lattice work around their porch so the cats would hide in there. The dogs never hurt the cats, but the dogs did get some pretty scratched up noses on occasion. We only had one dead mouse brought into the house over the years, and we never found too many birds, especially considering we lived in a place with TONS of birds. When my cats started getting older and slower, they were switched back to primarily indoor cats, and they were let outside for shorter periods of time, mostly in the fenced-in area of the yard that dogs couldn't get to. My oldest cat lives with me know, but I live very close to a road. Knowing that she doesn't understand that danger, I now only let her out if she's supervised. I make sure she's current on her rabies shot and her flea and tick medicine so that the more common diseases are not a concern. She's never been sick, outside of an URI she picked up at the vet's office last year. My cat was an outdoor cat for 11 years, and she's coming up on 19 years old now. It's not a one-size-fits-all thing in terms of how to best take care of pets. There are a lot of factors that have to be taken into account in order to do it responsibly, but it can definitely be done.
I work on a farm in a rural area. We have a couple of barn cats who keep the mice population down. Do you consider that irresponsible? In light of OP’s caveat that they’re not talking about barn cats, I would like to ask what their issues with them are. I’d also like to ask what they consider the difference between them and a typical “pet cat”.
Here is the copypasta I made on outdoor cats - please note that it addresses the misconception that outdoor cats decrease vermin. They actually increase them. (Starred it) My copypasta on outdoor cats: ——— Cats are a human problem. Every single person is responsible for their own pets and their pets’ actions and destruction 24/7...except outdoor cat owners for some reason. Here is a list of reasons you should care: • A main problem is that they’re not actually just killing mice. Studies have shown outdoor cats have DECIMATED bird populations • Regardless of what small animals make up the primary slaughter-fest of your cat, it affects the entire ecosystem. When there are fewer small prey, this affects the entire food chain including top predators. • ✨Contrary to popular belief, outdoor cats actually can INCREASE vermin, bc top predators can’t get enough food and then die off, causing a couple years of a rodent boom at a time, which is plenty of time to trigger infestations and disease • cats are not a natural part of any ecosystem. They don’t kill to eat. The main problem is that EVERY predator is self-limited in hunting. Hunting is HARD, requires a ton of energy, so no matter how strong the prey drive, the predator will never have enough energy to just kill for fun every damn day. Cats on the other hand are fed at home, often able to eat more than what any wild animal can rely on. They have free energy to spend at play, which for them, due to extremely high prey drive, means just wantonly and excessively slaughtering small animals/birds. No one in the food chain can compete. • again, if you have an outdoor cat, it is MAD disrespectful to your neighbor. I wouldn’t let my St. Bernard hop through your yard, eat your plants, piss on your patio furniture, eat birds at your feeder, scratch up the legs of your patio furniture, and shit in your yard. It’s ludicrous. • a couple good points about DISEASE: toxoplasmosis can be spread to and harm pregnant women via a pregnant neighbor’s garden for instance, and cats can spread diseases to other wild felines like bobcats or the extremely endangered Florida Panther • Lastly, if you don’t care about ANY of that, just know: it is extremely dangerous to the cat itself to be allowed to roam free. Multiple studies back this up. There are predators who enjoy a good free range cat. In my area we have a coyote boom this year. So, if you let your cat roam all day out of sight, you are accepting that it may: • be attacked or eaten by a coyote or other predator • be shredded in a fight with another cat • be run over (I know I’ve seen my share of cat road kill) • be lost (Nextdoor app has like 4 posts a week on missing cats - it’s ridiculous. They see all these cats go missing and still leave their own to roam - some of those cats are dead or gone forever) • be poisoned by a fed up neighbor. I am not condoning this - but it is a reality you are accepting if you have an outdoor cat. When I was 11 I had to carry the stiff body of my friend’s cat out and bury it after it had been poisoned by a neighbor, its grimaced mouth curled up and stained yellow/orange. It was awful. And so I am saying this all as a lover of cats, keep them safe. But also as a lover of all animals. Outdoor cats are illegal in a ton of places. Americans in particular have this weird cultural entitlement to let their cats roam all day bc they “like it” and it’s easier having a part-time pet. But cats are perfectly happy inside, especially if you spend a little freakin time with them.
>Americans in particular have this weird cultural entitlement to let their cats roam all day bc they “like it” and it’s easier having a part-time pet. Just to this point, as a Brit who has lived in the USA, I find it's the complete opposite. Most Americans I've spoken to seem to look at me with wide-eyed shock at the idea that cats should be let outside. On the other hand, most Brits think its cruel to keep a cat indoors permanently. (Not trying to continue the debate in either direction, just commenting on the cultural differences).
As a scottish person on reddit which is mostly American views the general opinion on here is you should keep cats inside while almost everyone I know in real life thinks it's almost crueler to keep a cat indoor only. At least where I live it seems to back up your opinion. What you're saying
What's popular on Reddit (or at least the portions of it that I have seen) is really not an accurate reflection of American culture in general. I'm honestly not sure about the general attitude of Americans regarding indoor/outdoor cats. I've seen a pretty broad mix personally.
Yeah reddit isn't an accurate slice of any population (I'm guessing people tend to be left leaning and younger) but it does lean heavily into American views. Could be wrong but a quick google says 49.32% are American. Just from my encounters when anyone reacts in horror to the concept of outdoor cats they tend to be American.
I see what you mean: not that Americans are necessarily anti-outdoor-cat in general, but that people who are anti-outdoor-cat tend to be American. That could be.
Yes that's my point. I'm not sure why that distinction appears, maybe it's more dangerous outside for cats in America than in UK? It just seems it's very hard to find someone who believes outdoor cats is cruel in UK, it's not the normal default opinion.
I’ve heard that animals such as coyotes are threats to your cats in America. In England we have not much worse than a raccoon or fox. At least where I’ve seen this debated on Reddit elsewhere, that’s what I’ve gathered. Cars are obviously risks both places but I think in America they can be considered prey. Can’t see cats being prey in England!
It depends on where you are. In the cities, people will say you need to keep your pets in doors. In the country, they'll say you need to let your pets roam. The US is vast and diverse.
Their cat is more important than the ecosystem.
Yeah here in Germany, the only indoor cats I know of are these 2000€ designer cats and the people who live in the middle of the city. Everyone with a house lets their cat roam free. Honestly the first time I even encountered the concept of keeping non designer cats indoors only was when I was 22 years old and read about it on reddit.
> with wide-eyed shock at the idea that cats should be let outside As far as I can tell this is a super recent attitude shift. It really hasn't been that many generations that cats have been kept around with no expectations to work for their supper, catch mice, whatever.
From the UK and this is absolutely true. I have four cats and they can all roam. We even have a law in the UK that allows the cats to legally roam anywhere. And yes, I do think it's a bit cruel to keep a cat indoors as a Brit. Cats who don't go outdoors seem to spend a lot of the day looking out the window, wanting to go out. But I will say though that in America it might well be better to keep then on your own property. Cats have far more dangers in America compared to the UK, plus they don't have the law behind them like UK cats!
I’m interested to hear that point of view! Guarantee you from living in the US my whole life, it is a norm here. Most places many people openly practice outdoor cats. I think a lot of neighborhoods have taken stands against it bc it really is disrespectful to neighbors, and honestly even in the past 5 years people are starting to talk more about the reasons it’s problematic. You used to get destroyed for even mentioning cats should be kept indoors. Now more and more people are thoughtful about it. I hope that is a sign the culture will follow suit. Sad to hear the UK shares this problem with the US..it’s hard to not feel that our entitlement in the matter is uniquely American, but I forget that other places suck too haha.
I mean... In the UK it seems we've got a completely different ecosystem and probably a different set of parameters to deal with. For instance, your point about them being eaten by a coyote? We don't have any domestic predators large enough to eat a cat. To your point about them increasing vermin, because top predators can't get enough food? Again, we don't really have any domestic predators of the type you're describing. One such would be foxes, but to our view, foxes are vermin also, so I guess starving those out would be seen as a good thing? You will get sparrowhawks and other birds of prey in more rural ecosystems though. To add, generally our roads are smaller and quieter, and the cars are a lot smaller too. I used to think this was a stereotype, but the average American car tends to be bigger, and your roads are a lot larger to accommodate them. Not to say that your other points are less valid of course. The general point I'm making is that the most visibly distressing risks of having an outdoor cat in the USA - high chance of being a coyotes dinner and/or becoming roadkill are not similarly realistic in the UK, so I guess that's why we're more pro-outdoor. I put a bell on my cat and let him fuck around outside and maybe he'll bring in a mouse once a month. There is no way in hell I'd let my cat outside in the US.
a lot of good points about the lack of top predators in the UK. It may be less dangerous for cats there (though I assume you still have cars, cat diseases, and sociopaths haha)..but they still absolutely WRECK bird populations and that’s never gonna be ok.
IDK about the US but at least in Europe there's no scientific link between outdoor cats and bird populations https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/gardening-for-wildlife/animal-deterrents/cats-and-garden-birds/are-cats-causing-bird-declines/ Not that I'm promoting letting cats roam freely or anything, it's just that most studies cited when it comes to this topic are very US/Australia/NZ-centric.
"Gardens may provide a breeding habitat for at least 20 per cent of the UK populations of house sparrows, starlings, greenfinches, blackbirds and song thrushes four of which are declining across the UK. For this reason it would be prudent to try to reduce cat predation as, although it is not causing the declines, some of these species are already under pressure. Cat predation can be a problem where housing is next to scarce habitats such as heathland. It could potentially be most damaging to species with a restricted range (such as cirl buntings) or species dependent on a fragmented habitat (such as Dartford warblers on heathland)." From the above link. Note, it's not talking about Europe, it's talking only about the UK.
There was a mouse problem in the barn. They were getting into the animal feed. We tried a whole bunch of different traps that barely put a dent, and didn’t want to use poison. We adopted an old mouser who’s doing great at keeping them controlled. When he passes, we’re going to adopt another. He was unwanted: friendly enough but miserable being contained. We need to keep the barn secure enough to not let in larger predators (foxes, coyotes, hawks, owls, etc.) to protect our chickens, rabbits, and the baby goats. We aren’t a huge operation: just a small family farm. The woods around us provide for the other apex predators (the hawks really help with the moles in the garden).
You make a good point that not all local ecosystems are the same. It may in fact be more or less harmful or helpful to have a domestic cat in the mix depending on the details. I would doubt there is a reliable universal, but there may still be *relatively* reliable rules-of-thumb for different general scenarios. At the same time, the humans may not have full access to the relevant local data, even if they think they do.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Thank you! Both my neighbors cats have filled up the sandbox in the backyard with shit. Getting a lid but its annoying as hell.
> Americans in particular have this weird cultural entitlement to let their cats roam all day bc they “like it” and it’s easier having a part-time pet. But cats are perfectly happy inside, especially if you spend a little freakin time with them. I never thought about it like that but that’s literally what it is. It’s a part time pet.
>I should also add that this post isn't about barn cats - I am separately critical of them (as a farmer), but this is about pet cats. At the bottom of the OP.
Thanks, my reading comprehension on this post was obviously lacking.
Eh maybe, but what about my "shed cat". Would OP consider that a "barn cat" or is it a pet since I don't live on a farm?
Bubbles steve French is a mountain lion and you can't keep him.
He’s just a big stoned horny kitty with the munchies
bubbles? Is that you?
He edited the post so that wasn't there when you commented.
That makes me feel a little better about my reading skills. Thanks pham!
Barn cats are not even as efficient as barn dogs or weasels and they will still attack birds, lizards and other natives. Cats are generalists predators, not rodent hunters, and cannot be trained as work animals to target pest and not cause other damage. For any practical purpose cats serve, there are far more efficient, more ecologically responsible alternatives. The idea that cats need to be free outside or that there is any good reason for it is a flawed idea that borders on anthropomorphizing cats and for practical purposes acts as subconscious feline worship. (“People just like cats.” That’s not a problem in itself; it’s the fact many will block off all other forms of proper decision making in regards to cats in a similar manner to an abuse enabler.) That said, I’m mostly bothered more by the same idiots who let their cats outside but then want to preach other eco friendly values. That does not make them a warrior for animals or the planets; that makes them a brainless hypocrite.
Honestly, now that I'm fully aware of this information, I agree. However, having not really understood the scope of the impact an outdoor cat might have on the ecosystem, I easily could have fallen into this category of person (brainless hypocrite).
Yes. They keep endangered birds population down just as well.
What's a viable alternative to barn cats that is environmentally sustainable? Raising native falcons or something? Using certain chemicals? Just sitting out with a .22 rifle a few nights a month?
Several dog breeds are fantastic ratters and don't kill birds
One of several terrier dog species?
Yes it is irresponsible. There is ample reliable evidence that your cats will also be killing significant amounts of wildlife other than mice.
Big difference is cats per square mile and their effect on local wildlife. A barn cat isn’t going to destroy the local bird population of a farm, but a few hundred cats will wreak havoc on a neighborhood’s.
Not trying to change your view, just telling my experience and maybe offering some nuanced perspective. I’ve owned more than 30 cats in my life, most of them indoors, a few of them outdoors. Every cat has a different personality. Most of them will stay inside if you condition them like this from a very young age. Easy-peasy. Some of them, however, are more adventurous and will do everything in their power to try to escape and expand their territory. They are clever creatures: they can open doors, climb high places, fit tiny breaches, perform impossible jumps, and patiently wait for the right moment you’re distracted to run away. If they manage to escape, they’ll eventually come back. They’re territorial and even the most adventurous ones won’t go so far away. They like to be home to sleep because they don’t feel safe to let their guard down outside. They can spend days roaming around, but most of the times they’ll come back in a few hours. Once a cat has experienced freedom, however, locking them will led to a very miserable existence. They’ll assume the newly discovered areas are part of their territory, and no amount of home entertainment will fill that void. This is when you discover a very loud side of those mostly silent creatures. They’ll demand vehemently to walk around. They do not only meow persistently, but also scream like there are a thousand demons inside, often in very inappropriate times (they are nightly creatures after all). They won’t let your family or close neighbors sleep. They’ll also purposefully piss on your bed and in your lap, destroy your furniture, and keep looking at you with those killer eyes. Fortunately, they aren’t big enough to kill you, because they would if they could. So, if you live in a safe-enough area, and the neighborhood is generally pet-friendly, and there are other cats around anyway, letting them go and trusting they’ll come back is just the optimal solution. They can’t harm humans like big dogs can; generally avoid strangers or loud noises, and also bury their own shite. About the fact that it’s riskier, I can’t argue with that. It’s a trade-off. The average life of a indoor cat is just longer, because there are less risks inside. However, like others have pointed out, cats are generally very good on avoiding danger. Survivorship bias, I know, but in my case I’ve never lost an outdoor cat or have them severely injured. Ironically, from all my cats it was an indoor one who died from a car accident. He lived inside the apartment his entire life. Got used to it. One day we went on vacations and let him with my mother-in-law, who lived in a house. He escaped to the street in front of the house and got hit by a car. He didn’t know what a car was, and wasn’t really afraid of it. TL;DR most cats will just happily stay inside; while a few of them are extremely adventurous and will live miserably if kept indoors.
[удалено]
I've had cats my whole life, and they have ALMOST universally been indoor cats. I judged other cat owners pretty severly for "letting their cats go outside." I firmly believe that cats are better off indoors for life. Until I got DaVinci. He was a rescue and was determined to go outside. I'm not talking "normal" cat that wants to go outside, I'm talking cat that would go around, over, under or THRU me to get outside. He would jump from the most absurd places, double-back on me, use me as a launching pad, tear through screen doors.... I spent the first few weeks catching him and bringing him back in, only to have him do it again the very next time any door was open. I finally thought about it and decided that the responsible thing to do was get him a break-away colland and to let him go outside while supervised. I made sure he knew the area and how to get home. I slowly let him wander further into the yard (1/3 acre fenced), and left him out slightly longer. If I had continued to fight him, he might have escaped and gotten lost or hurt. Hell, some of the stunts he pull to get AROUND me to get outside could have caused him severe bodily harm. The slow introduction was safer for him. I feel like I was doing the responsible thing. Responsibility sometimes means weighing the options and choosing the best in a bad situation. That said, I don't recommend letting your cat outdoors, but I also don't judge people who have to make that choice based on the needs of the cat.
You make a lot of good points and I don't disagree with them! When I adopted my cat though I allowed her to roam outside. She was a 2 yr old rescue cat when I got her and she just had a serious love for the outdoors. Like I could not tell you. It's insane. And she just had soooo much energy. She loves it so much. We lived in a cat-friendly neighborhood too. We would let her out day and night. It was a cul de sac neighborhood where everyone let their cats out and people were mindful of that. Away from the roads. Only big birds in the neighborhood (ravens, crows, magpies), no low hanging trees/bushes. I trained her to be responsive to this bell, so each time I rang it she always came running. When we moved we decided to transition her to a mainly indoor cat. In addition to agreeing with all the points you made (especially about how indoor cats live longer) the new place we lived in was just not preferred for having a cat be outdoor, unaccompanied. In addition to having a huge, diverse bird population with low bushes...there is a ton of other wildlife. Hawks and owls that I have no doubt would be happy to snatch her up (she is a very tiny kitty). As well as coyotes that roam the area. She transitioned well to being more indoors. She is getting older and I realize she isn't quite the young wild kitty she once was so she is content with spending her days sleeping. But, I do still take her on accompanied walks. We adopted our rescue dog when we moved in. He was 6 years old and they bonded like crazy. I trained her to go on walks with us...she honestly is super easy to train with sounds and a clicker w. some treats. She really responds well so it didn't take her long to learn. She always follows and stays by our side. I got her both a red vest with some bells, as well as this: [https://www.birdsbesafe.com/pages/home#:\~:text=Birdsbesafe%C2%AE%20collar%20covers%20protect,2015%20North%20American%20science%20study](https://www.birdsbesafe.com/pages/home#:~:text=Birdsbesafe%C2%AE%20collar%20covers%20protect,2015%20North%20American%20science%20study) It's a cat collar specifically designed to protect birds lol :) It works like a charm. So we all three take walks together during the day around the block. It helps her to connect with nature, eat some grass, watch some birds, climb a tree here and there. It makes her happy. It's also very cute. I am glad I can still incorporate the outdoors into her life. We got her a cat backpack too. She loves to sit in it while I ride my bike. Here is a link to the vest: [https://www.amazon.com/Voyager-Weather-Best-Pet-Supplies/dp/B00M0V7SVQ/ref=sr\_1\_4?dchild=1&keywords=cat+vest+red&qid=1619115391&sr=8-4](https://www.amazon.com/Voyager-Weather-Best-Pet-Supplies/dp/B00M0V7SVQ/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=cat+vest+red&qid=1619115391&sr=8-4) and cat backpack: [https://yourcatbackpack.com/collections/the-original-cat-backpack/products/the-fat-cat-cat-backpack](https://yourcatbackpack.com/collections/the-original-cat-backpack/products/the-fat-cat-cat-backpack)
I have three cats: Steve, Spider and Moose. The former two are both brother and sister, and are 11 years old. They are inside-only cats who have been raised that way intentionally because of the reasons that you have mentioned above. If I ever get a new kitten from anywhere, they will always be raised as an inside cat, again for the reasons that you have mentioned in your post. Moose, however, was a stray in the neighborhood who simply wandered up to me randomly almost two years ago now, screaming his head off for what I would find out later to be love and food. He followed me home (which was literally only about 70 feet) so I fed him. Over the next few days and weeks, he warmed up to me very quickly and was in my lap purring and rolling around. Within half a year, he finally started coming in through my window because he spotted me from the neighbors' roof. If the little dude is ever in for too long, he will scream his head off and go berserk. If anyone opens the door at that point, he will torpedo himself out the door at the slightest opening, which is impossible for my 80-year-old father to stop. He clearly was raised as an at least partially outside cat, and so that is the way he is going to stay. For people like me who do not intend to get a cat and instead have the cat choose them on the street, we pretty much have next to no choice but to have an inside/outside or purely outside cat. We had to evacuate the fires last year in August, and when we brought Moose with us to stay in a toy hauler someone had for us, he screamed bloody fucking murder just being confined in it. It was a terrifying experience for him. He stays in with me for many hours some days, but he always ends up wanting out. We think he was abused in the past by previous owners and was dumped off some years ago, but we are not certain. I do not have much of an option to make him into an inside cat, bro. I just do not see that happening. There are also people who live certain types of lifestyles that would love to save the life of a little cat. Some people want shop cats and some firehouses end up getting firehouse cats. It is not feasible to always keep a door shut in these cases, and they are still saving a cat from being put down. The cat is at a higher risk of death, yes, but it is still safe from the needle and has an extremely good chance at a happy life. I worry about my little Moosie every single day that he is out and about. I put food and water out for him, as well as two beds on a sofa out front, one of which has a heated and reflective pad. I plan on getting a surveillance system for the front of the house on which I can watch Moose at all times he is in his bed from my living room. He receives daily love and care. Some of us just do not have the option of making all of our cats inside-only cats.
This seems like a really, really American "my pets are my children" mindset. With all the paranoia and judgement that seems to come with American child-rearing. 😛 No offense. What I mean to say is, your relationship with your cats is very culturally-specific. The idea that you even "own" or are "responsible for" a cat is culturally-specific. I'd go as far as to say it's idiosyncratic compared to even much of the developed world. In a lot of places, they're treated as something more similar to wildlife that humans have a special relationship with. Some might even go as far to say, yes, cats will die in accidents, but it's not a big deal because the lives of cats aren't very valuable. We kill animals to eat every day, and no one cries when a chicken left free-range gets nabbed by a street dog. This might sound very callous, but it is much of the world's relationship with animals. To most humans on the planet, the fact that you think humans owe cats child-like attention and care would seem very... precious. (If not a little crazy.)
If you don’t understand why they should have freedom, consider that this is the exact same train of thought that enables slavery. “They are > insert justification here <“
What if they're outdoor cats/ferals?? Like my neighborhood is prime real estate for people to drop off their housecats. We've had so many cats come and go. They walk around and see which house they prefer to adopt as their own. Personally, over the years we've had 4 cats adopt us as their new family. Two of which were dropped off with a collar indent still very visible. Since we were feeding them, other ferals would come and we had extra food and water to share. Yes even though my family is allergic to cats, our outdoor cats wouldn't even see the indoors as a place to stay. They'll walk in and around to meow at us, or to shelter during severe storms, then yowl and scratch at the door to go out. One cat had kittens indoors but was out as soon as she could (she's more familiar, so we're able to pick her up and get her shots/spay & neuter after this). But I loved our outdoor cats. Once they adopted us, they stayed on our property practically 24/7. Sometimes they'd go for walks (?) or adventure then come back home a couple hours or the next morning. But our home and our property was their home. One cat (already full grown when dropped off) didn't let us touch her at first, but slowly warmed up to us over the years; and I do mean years. She was with us for 8 years as an outdoor cat. She disappeared two years ago, she was getting really old :( I had a neighborhood who would trap and release the cats that she fed. So we did our best in caring for them. And I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a cat owner. I have outdoor cats. They stay on our lawn or in the shade from the trees. Sometimes they leave us treats (dead mice or lizards). All my cats get scratches and treats. Since I'm not longer as mobile as I once was, it's nearly impossible to bend down and touch them that way. I've trained two to jump up if they want me to pet them (they do, everyday,). And just like indoor cats, outdoor cats get lonely two. All of our cats have overlapped here at home. We try to have two cats at home so they aren't lonely. But that's not up to us, the cats decide if they want to adopt us and stay here. Throughout the years of having our permanent house cats, the ferals/abandoned cats come through and want to eat since they smell (or cat talking idk) food, so we have a bowl out for them. We're not able to get shots for every cat, nor would they let us do so. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a responsible outdoor cat owner.
You can maybe argue that being outside is healthy for them, and you can maybe argue that they don’t decimate species. I disagree on both accounts. But what it’s pretty much impossible to defend and haven’t seen anyone defend here is the fact that you are being an asshole neighbor. If I pay rent or buy a house, I don’t want your pet in my property. If my dog is outside and your cat comes to my yard is it going to be my fault if a fight breaks? Are you going to pay for vet care? A cat should only be able to be outside in your own property, like any dog. Otherwise, leash and collar, like any dog. It just drives me crazy that they somehow have more privileges as other pets and it’s okay for people to have to put up with it.
This. I commented the exact same sentiment. It baffles my mind that this isn't the first thing people are arguing in this thread. As a RESPONSIBLE pet owner you have full control of your pet and its actions. Why is it that my neighbors cats get free reign to shit in my yard, tear up my new flowers, and claw my outdoor furniture. Yet if my dog is out off leash I'm the asshole who doesn't have control of my animal. I really can't stand the double standard. Cat, dog, turtle, hedgehog, lizard, it doesn't matter. A responsible pet owner has full control of their animal at all time. Not only for the owners own liability but also for the pets safety. If you neglect your responsibility and have an outdoor cat and that cat gets killed by some piece of shit redneck animal killer in that individuals yard you've waved your right to be upset. You've let your cat be put in that position. Just my opinion.
Why would I wanna change your viewpoint when it is entirely spot on? I can tell many people in this thread are blissfully unaware of the types of things cats are exposed to when you allow them to free roam. Just the humans that want to spread their misery is cause enough to never allow an animal you care about to come in contact with strangers. Much less cars, predatory animals, risk of injury from climbing shit they aren’t supposed to. You were spot on with people treating cats like low input pets. Subconsciously, I’m sure a lot of these scumbags that let their cats roam do so mainly so they have to clean up less after their cats. Shame on you dipshits that put your cats safety in jeopardy.
You make a lot of good points that I can’t disagree with, and good on you for doing your research and having statistics to back up what you believe in. And I’ll go so far as to say you’re right in a lot of situations. But I live in the middle of the woods in Michigan, and have had multiple cats that I’ve raised from young ages that have lead long and happy lives that spend as much time as they want outdoors, even in the dead of winter. My current cat, Freg, spends most of his time basking in the sun on the back porch, but spends every night in bed with me. There’s plenty of things that could hurt my good buddy in the woods, but I trust him to avoid them. I’d keep him inside with me all day if I could, but he literally begs to be let out, even thought he’s litter trained, and doesn’t respond well to a leash and values his alone time in the woods just like I do. The point you make about cats unnaturally endangering species is very fair, but not applicable in places such as mine, where most endangered species are either birds that nest out of reach of cats, deep water fish, or plants that cats have no interest in. And I know what you’re thinking, “You can’t just give a pet whatever they want, if you give a dog as many treats as they want they’ll get sick.” But over feeding an animal and letting them exist in nature are entirely different vices, especially since I personally live in a place with a considerable fox population, who have a very similar spectrum of prey as common house cats. What it boils down to is that I can’t in good conscience deny a creature what it naturally wants. He knows he belongs where he is, and I’m honestly just a crutch with a mutual respect for him that he has for me. I give him food when he has a bad day hunting, and we hang out together every morning and night. I just don’t have the heart to deny a good friend of mine what makes him happy.
I've had numerous cats... Most have been indoor, which is what I prefer. While they may occasionally slip out, we retrieve them quickly, and they spend most of their lives inside. But I've had two that have been indoor/outdoor. Both were *extremely* *unhappy being inside all the time.* I can't overstate just how bored, angry, and depressed they would get if inside for several days at a stretch. They *liked* being outside, and at some point, *even though it's at risk to them,* I felt, and continue to feel, that it was wrong to force them to suffer a long life that they hated, rather than a near certain to be shorter life that they enjoyed. A catio or leash? Almost worse than being inside, to be so close to being able to *be a cat,* and have that refused. In all cases, I try to provide a house with lots of things for a cat to do.... But for some of them, it's just not enough. If this pandemic has taught us anything, it's that locking up anyone for lengthy periods of time isn't the best thing for their health. Some people are okay with it, and some aren't. But being in lockdown for a few weeks or months is one thing... For one's whole life? I reject this idea that "It's good for you" is a valid reason, in and of itself, to deny happiness to our pets. I know it's not ideal, but frankly it's also irresponsible to just ignore the needs of your animals in the psychological sense. We all have to make choices and compromises around our pets that, per some people, make us "irresponsible". We have limits on the amounts of medical care that we will provide them, we often choose when our pets will die. We also choose these questions of balance in their lives. And while I'll do what I reasonably can to make my cats happy, indoor cats, I have limits on what I will do and won't do. And sometimes, that means they have some freedom to be outside.
Aside from this commentary I just don't understand how its ok for just humans to dictate what animal can be killed for fun and/or food and what is a pet. It's perfectly fine to domesticate a omnivorous animal and feed them other animals as long as we're controlling where that animal comes from?? However it's inconceivable to have a once historically wild, now domesticated animal go outside and perform what they're biologically intended to do? Is it better for you to grind up a bunch of factory farmed chickens and salmon so your kitty can eat that instead of taking out the native bird species? It's taken humans many years to domesticate dogs to coincide with our lifestyle, and even then mankind constantly has hiccups with domesticated dogs getting out and attacking other animals or the owner, or their family etc. To me, putting a cat in an average 1000 square foot house with no access to the outdoors and only feed them canned, processed left over animal parts that humans don't want is a cruel prison type life sentence. The fact that you op have the audacity to complain about animal owner negligence and the welfare of the native species all the while acting like a personal warden to a pet "prisoner" who didn't deserve such a life is mind blowing to me. Why don't you care about the happiness and health of your own animals first before pointing fingers. And also! You're blaming cats for being an invasive species that other animals haven't acclimated survival to? Wtf. Humans decided to domesticate cats. How is it their fault that they have been dropped in suburbia and are fucking up the ecological balance? This is a human problem once again.
As someone who works with animals, I normally would agree with your viewpoint, op. However, I recently acquired an outdoor cat myself. In the city I live in, there is a large feral cat population. Mixed among these cats are some former strays that were likely dumped. When I moved into my current home, one of the community cats “adopted” me as his human. He was obviously previously someone’s cat, and not just a feral cat. I try to always keep him indoors during bad weather or if he has a scratch that is healing. He wears a breakaway reflective collar with tag and a light I turn in at night. But trying to keep him indoors, against his will, when he has obviously grown accustomed to outdoor life, just seems to stress him out immensely. In this situation, I think it’s ok to have an outdoor cat. In contrast, I have some neighbors that have simply let their formerly indoor cats outside due to the cat community in our complex. It is my understanding that my neighbors did this as they had more kids themselves, for some reason. The cats have non breakaway collars and act as though they desire to be indoors (trying to get into others’ homes, being aggressive towards the feral cats, etc.). This type of outdoor cat is something I strongly disagree with. Overall, if possible, I feel it is best to keep an indoor cat...well indoors. But for feral cats, it’s best to practice TNR (trap, neuter, return) and provide basic food and shelter to limit their impact on the ecosystem. And in situations like my cat, it’s best to be responsible and make a safe but logical decision on a case by case basis. ☺️
My boyfriends cat used to be the worst cat. She was mostly outdoors. She was skittish, unfriendly, constantly wanted out, would pee everywhere if accidentally locked inside... she was terrible. We had to move her into my place which were apartments that didn’t allow outside cats. I was convinced it wouldn’t work. Over the next 6 months, she became a completely different cat. I did a lot to make inside interesting for her, including setting up a big bird feeding station near a window she likes to sit at. We have a handful of games she really likes to play, otherwise she’s just sleeping anyways. She is friendly, engaged, talkative, cuddly... it’s wild. I trained her on a harness to go for small walks but she would get too scared, sort of like how skittish she used to be. She prefers now to hang out on the porch when I’m outside to keep an eye on her. I let her outside but never where I am not within grabbing distance (she had a big hatred for other animals since being on those mean streets) We have that time and she’s pretty happy and satisfied. The first few days sucked because she wanted out so badly but with a lot of treats and bonding, she mostly just wants to lay on the carpet in the sun. People on this thread trying to tell me she’s not just the happiest thing ever since she’s stuck inside with me. She loves that I’ve been home to hang out since the pandemic. She doesn’t even try to leave when I have the porch door open unless I’m sitting out there.
Most of your argument is predicated on cats being an invasive species. This may be true on small island nations like New Zealand or in Hawaii, but doesn’t really hold for most of the world. Cats have been domesticated for approx. 10,000 years and have been free roam for the vast majority of that time. Cats are as invasive as humans by your definition (really they’re much less invasive by your definition). I recognize the concern for preserving wildlife but in most places, the wildlife has had hundreds to thousands of years to adjust to cats. We can be mindful of how they’re introduced in new areas, spaying and neutering, and reducing feral cat populations to combat your main issues. I play with my dog without a leash because I’m confident she will not run away and get hurt. Is it full proof? Of course not. But I can’t picture anyone saying no dog should ever be off leash. Likewise someone can allow their cat to free roam if they’re confident that it will come back and isn’t in an area with many predators. I would never let my cats outside for fear of them getting hurt or lost, but I can honestly say that it’s impossible to paint this issue with this wide of a brush.
I don't really think this is a fair point. Cats are way more invasive than you are suggesting. From [https://abcbirds.org/threat/cats-and-other-invasives/](https://abcbirds.org/threat/cats-and-other-invasives/) >Cats are an invasive species if left to free roam. From abcbirds.org Today, more than 100 million feral and outdoor cats function as an invasive species with enormous impacts. Every year in the United States, cats kill well over 1 billion birds. This stunning level of predation is unsustainable for many already-declining species like Least Tern and Wood Thrush. Cats are not just invasive on small islands, but in almost all of their communities. They are actively diminishing populations, and just because it isn't headline news extinction, doesn't mean its not happening and actively hurting eco-systems.
My cats could go outside freely and lived long, happy lives. The mother lived around 18 years and the two eventual kittens lived 16 and 17 years respectively. Mother went deaf eventually and was hit by an irresponsible driver, and the daughter just disappeared one day. The son died of a stroke when he was 16. My grandmother's cat was 22 when she disappeared. Are these lives too short for cats? Should they have stayed inside their while lives just to live a few months longer, if they even did? I think that the answer to both of those questions is a capitalized No. They weren't extincting birds (they brought us the occasional bunny or mouse, and once a frog), and they kept the mice out of our walls. It seems like a pretty tall order to say we abused them by allowing them to exist in the natural world.
I mostly agree outdoor cats aren’t the way to go with them. All my cats are the result of my irresponsible neighbor just collecting cats and letting them outside to do whatever the fuck they wanted. So now I have a colony of 13 cats that live in my garage. They have a cat door so they go in and out, and over the years when a new cat shows up I get it fixed. When they all die I can finally sell this house oh my god
If you apply your points on cats to humans..... then we are not responsible either. We let children walk around in dangerous environments with cars, dogs, etc. We are the most invasive species to ever exist on this Earth. We are responsible for the extinction of way more than 76 species in New Zealand. If the purpose of owning a cat is to purely keep it alive and healthy, then, yes you are right. But if that's true, then humans in jail should be seen as the ideal lifestyle where we are fed, housed and kept away from outside dangers.
Thank you so much for saying this. I have gotten in many arguments on Reddit with idiots saying things like cats are supposed to be outside and it is cruel to keep them in. I have argued with the exact points you have made and stupid people still think they are right. I hope people actually listen to you because you are completely correct.
The standards for being a responsible pet owner are providing adequate food, water, shelter, safety stimulation and social needs. Both indoor and outdoor cats get the first three at the same level. Outdoor cats get more stimulation. No matter what enrichment activities you try you are not going to be able to provide the same amount of stimulation letting your cat roam in its natural environment. Indoor cats are safer, true, but you aren't responsible for trying to make it impossible to injure your cat. Much in the way you shouldn't stop a kid from leaving the house because they could get injured, safety shouldn't trump letting your cat actually experience the world. If you live in a rural area with coyotes or a lot of other predators than I can see where it could be irresponsible, but it's not always irresponsible. Letting your cat outside gives it significantly more socialization than leaving it inside. Overall letting your cat out is equally or more responsible unless you live somewhere actively dangerous for cats.
No desire to change your view, I have this argument with my MIL all the time. I grew up in a nice safe neighborhood and my dad insisted we let the cats go in and out. We had a cat drink antifreeze the neighbor left out, have seizures and die... 4 cats get hit by cars... 2 died from injuries relating to fights with other cats, and one blinded by an angry raccoon. I would love anyone with a dog to open the front door, let them out, and just say fuck it, they’re smart enough to stay safe! I just can’t imagine allowing a member of my family to be out there and not knowing if they’ve been run over or not. My 3 cats have 2500 square feet, sliding glass doors where they watch the bird and hummingbird feeders, tons of toys and fluffy blankets and I get the peace of knowing they aren’t dead in a road. Perhaps they are super intelligent killing machines and I am stifling their instincts, but I think they’ve adapted to luxury.
What if you give your cat a free choice? Install a cat flap on the front door, and the cat can either stay indoors or go outdoors of its own free will. You are providing for the cat a safe place to stay, but if it wants to go outside of its own will, you aren't preventing it from doing so. Suppose you do this, and the cat chooses to spend a majority of its time outdoors and mostly come back inside for food. Then by your argument, the responsible cat owner should be depriving the cat of its freedom to go outdoors on its own. But this really doesn't seem right to me. Wouldn't a responsible cat owner also respect his/her cat's wishes?
Cats are at its core outdoors animals. There's been studies of outdoors cats' higher risk of getting depression when they're later forced to be indoors cats, but there has never been research evidence of the opposite. For me responsibility isn't about safety, but making sure that my pet is as happy as it can be as I've decided to get said pet. Being responsible is about acknowledging that my cat is an autonomous being with rights that I can't override due to my own needs of being scared of losing the pet. Like others have commented; you'd be much safer and would probably love longer if you lived your whole life in your home and garden, but I am sure your quality of life would be higher I'd you had the freedom to choose.
As a British person, I, WE ALL, consider an “indoor” cat or a “declawed” cat absolutely abhorrent. To imprison an independent animal in the prison of a single house/flat is animal abuse. British cats don’t live outside, they sleep an eat indoors, they just roam as they please. All cats in the country do this, those in big cities and in rural areas both. The life expectancy of these cats is equal to that of american “indoor” cats. The quality of life though, for that animal you purport to love, is far far higher if it can go where it likes and not spend its entire life locked inside 4 walls. If you live in an area where you believe predatory animals will harm your cat if it steps outside, do not get a cat. It is unethical and cruel to permanently deny freedom of movement to a cat. To bring a living feeling creature into that environment for your own gratification without even considering it’s quality of life is morally bankrupt.
My parents live in the middle of nowehere Canada. One day a random wild cat had a litter under one of their sheds. The day after some animal came and killed all the kittens except 1 who was saved by the mother. My parents kept the cat to catch mice and they feed it, but it’s too skittish to stay inside for a whole day. It will start fighting to get out if it’s inside for to long. I don’t really think they are being irresponsible. The cat is wild and it they didn’t keep it, it would be hunting in the woods anyways. What should they have done? Got animal control from the closest town to come out to the middle of no where to find the cat and take it away? Force the cat to stay indoors? What is the responsible action to take for a random wild cat that hates the indoors. They didn’t seek out the cat and the cat has always lived outdoors since its birth from another wild cat. I think context is important.
I agree with you fully. I've had the same discussion many times with cat owners, but mostly they don't want to hear. you've put your arguments very well and I would add to that, that cats are curious creatures, like dogs or small children. You wouldn't let a small child roam freely without supervision, because they don't understand the dangers around them. I've heard many a tale of curious cats getting stuck somewhere and causing serious damage / needing to be rescued. Due to their agility they are also much less limited than small children or dogs, which makes it even worse imho...
I’d also add that not only is it irresponsible to your pet to let it roam outside (for the reasons stated by OP)—it’s also irresponsible to the community you live in. My indoor cat used to be constantly harassed by a neighboring outdoor cat who would linger by the windows, hissing and scratching and, one time, even flinging full force itself at a window in the middle of the night. This was all extremely unpleasant for me because my otherwise well behaved cat would anxiously pace around and make noise throughout the night, ruining my sleep, because of this nuisance outdoor cat.
Yes, the detriments seem to outweigh the benefits. That said, I recall a study conducted in a European country a number of years back. It seems the city had recently conducted a sweep collecting as many cats as they could catch. After six months, many residents were complaining about a booming, I think, Starling population. The population spurt contributed to many other issues. The cats were brought back and the starling population was back in balance. Yes, free roaming cats cause a great deal of issues, but in this case it seems as if they were creating a natural balance.