Someone has already posted what happens to cats that cause problems outside of the 'first world'. I'm sure we don't want to see that in this country so yes maybe it is a first world problem.
So if you want clearly defined goal posts for this debate. Peoples' cats aren't welcome on other peoples' properties. We still haven't had one good reason yet why cat owners should allow their pets into places where they're not welcome. All we've had is cat owners telling us we shouldn't make a fuss and to just accept it or we should spend money to deal with their pet.
If you can keep your head, while those around you are losing theirs, you may not have grasped the seriousness of the situation.
Started watching Hawking on BBC4 here, it got me wondering, do you think there is a parallel universe somewhere with cats debating what to do with the humans that shit allover their kit-e-kat and whiskas plants?
Someone has already posted what happens to cats that cause problems outside of the 'first world'. I'm sure we don't want to see that in this country so yes maybe it is a first world problem.
Yes, after the post I was referring to, so please don't try to just create a problem.
I'm not a cat owner, or a dog owner, and as I previously said I get very annoyed by cat mess like everyone else. But to play devil's advocate, are you able to speak on behalf of everyone that cat's aren't welcome on other people's property. The lady in the flat downstairs from me welcomes in and feeds the neighbours cats. The only solution I've really heard from those who are against the cats is for them to be kept indoors. Do you really think that's a viable solution. So, there's been a lot of spleen venting (learned that on Who Wants to be a Millionaire) but little real clarity.
What does actually concern me about this is that having worked in conservation for over 20 years I find trying to simplify species decline down to the impact of domestic cats isn't very helpful and risks misinforming if not put in proper context. I pointed out some of the other factors in an earlier post and I think most people here are probably well aware of them. Criticising organisations like the RSPB for not taking a stand is a little unfair. All charities have to use their supporters funds wisely and at times pragmatically, though recent history has of course undermined that view a little. You fight the fights you have a chance of winning to get to the greater goal. You don't spend limited supporter funds on things you don't have a cat in hell's chance of winning (sorry), however much your moral desires may say otherwise. The RHS may reasonably take the view that they will refuse money from smokers, but would you be prepared for half the RHS gardens to close due to the reduced funding. Similarly if the RSPB alienated all the cat owners half the bird sanctuaries would probably be lost.
Internet discussion forums and pragmatism don't mix. It's why we cringe when Trump makes foreign policy on Twitter. That's why I take a less serious and at times flippant approach on a Gardening discussion forum. I apologise if that has offended, but please don't entrench views by attacking or preaching at the cat owners. The sun got the man to take off his raincoat, not the wind.
“Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm.” Winston Churchill
Posts
So if you want clearly defined goal posts for this debate. Peoples' cats aren't welcome on other peoples' properties. We still haven't had one good reason yet why cat owners should allow their pets into places where they're not welcome. All we've had is cat owners telling us we shouldn't make a fuss and to just accept it or we should spend money to deal with their pet.