Where do feral cats originate from?The answer is irresponsible owners who allow ' intact ' cats to roam and create mayhem . To state that roaming cats kill next to nothing is typical of someone unwilling to accept the truth.
I am not claiming that roaming cats kill next to nothing. I am claiming that the effect of banning cat roaming (forcing owners to keep cats on their property) would be next to nothing.
Where do feral cats originate from?The answer is irresponsible owners who allow ' intact ' cats to roam and create mayhem . To state that roaming cats kill next to nothing is typical of someone unwilling to accept the truth.
I am not claiming that roaming cats kill next to nothing. I am claiming that the effect of banning cat roaming (forcing owners to keep cats on their property) would be next to nothing.
it would eliminate the piles of shite they leave everywhere in OTHER peoples garden. That's good enough for starters
@edhelka, your statement contradicts itself. If you admit that roaming cats kill a significant amount of wildlife then surely banning them would have an immediate effect and consequently there would be less feral cats. As a dog owner there are many areas out of bounds to me and my dog, all come with reasons that I may or may not agree with, but I'm duty bound to comply. However I'm supposed to accept that a cat owner believes it's their right to allow their pet to come onto my property where they defecate and slaughter the wildlife I try to promote.
@edhelka, your statement contradicts itself. If you admit that roaming cats kill a significant amount of wildlife then surely banning them would have an immediate effect and consequently there would be less feral cats.
They don't. As I said, there would still be feral cats (they don't disappear just because you ban them, they will continue being there and having kittens). There would still be cats killing birds on their owner's property. There would still be cats that manage to escape occasionally. The immediate effect would be very small. It would take decades for the feral cat population to get significantly lower. Given that there isn't a consensus right now about the connection between the declining number of birds and roaming cats, I can't imagine reviewing the results of such a ban in any meaningful way. Needless to say, it would make many cats, at the moment used to going out, very miserable.
I see the birds argument as mostly an appeal to emotions. On the other hand, I completely understand people's annoyance with cats coming to their gardens and leaving unwanted gifts. Cat owners should certainly at least feel responsible (and possibly be legally responsible) for any damage their pet does to someone else's property. That still isn't an argument for a cat roaming ban for me though. It is an argument for education, looking for viable compromises and for people to be kind and considerate to each other. Treating cats more as pets we are responsible for than as an animal that just lives with its human and comes and goes as it wants is a part of it. If more cat owners tried to supervise their cats more when outside, neuter their cats, and reach out to their neighbours to make sure that the cat isn't a nuisance (maybe offering a bottle of wine if they are aware that it is), I believe there would be fewer cat haters. Maybe I am naive, thinking like this, I don't know.
If roaming is banned then feral cats are treated as strays and come under the same restrictions as stray dogs so it wouldn't take decades to eradicate them. I really can't make sense of your argument that cat owners should be responsible and yet still be allowed to let them roam, that's counterintuitive.
…,I see the birds argument as mostly an appeal to emotions. On the other hand, I completely understand people's annoyance with cats coming to their gardens and leaving unwanted gifts. Cat owners should certainly at least feel responsible (and possibly be legally responsible) for any damage their pet does to someone else's property. That still isn't an argument for a cat roaming ban for me though. It is an argument for education, looking for viable compromises and for people to be kind and considerate to each other. Treating cats more as pets we are responsible for than as an animal that just lives with its human and comes and goes as it wants is a part of it. …
You see the birds argument as ‘an appeal to the emotions’ …. but what is the cat owners’ response to pleas to keep their cats on their own property, if not emotional?
You speak of a need for education. Who are you proposing should be educated?
a) Educate cat owners to keep their pets on their own property?
b) Educate the cats to observe garden boundaries?
c) Or educate the neighbours to accept that most cat owners will never be responsible for their pets and the damage and harm they do?
Which of the three protagonists in this situation are the ones who could change the whole situation for the better?
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I think there's a lot of truth in what you say, @edhelka. In Britain, cats and wildlife are fairly well adapted to each other and although most cats count as pets, they are not domesticated in the way dogs are.
It's true that cat poo in your garden is undesirable. I have more problems with fox poo, badger poo and tons of pigeon poo. But I wouldn't suggest confining these animals. They come and go - as it were - just like the cats.
I don't quite understand the hostility towards cats that some people express but I think it important that we all work together to make life as good as possible for all.
@Posy, cat faeces is not just ' undesirable ' it's toxic! You're honestly telling me that I should accept that, sorry but my tolerance levels don't stretch that far.
I really can't make sense of your argument that cat owners should be responsible and yet still be allowed to let them roam, that's counterintuitive.
That's because I think that many cats* need to go out to have a happy life. But at the same time I think that if they cause any damage, their owner should be responsible for it (pay for the damage or clean the mess if possible). Given the damage that cats usually cause, it really isn't a practical solution, I know, but I can't think about a better one.
*At least cats that are used to it. If they need it as a species is up to a debate, I honestly don't know.
You speak of a need for education. Who are you proposing should be educated?
For a start, anything that leads to reducing the number of cats. More people neutering their cats, fewer people letting them have kittens just because it is nice, and more people taking rescue kittens rather than buying new ones. Also microchipping so fewer cats get lost. Then talking more about how to give cats outside time that is less harmful to wildlife and neighbours - more supervising when they are out, letting them out during the day rather than at night, leash training, cat-proofing gardens, or just little things like the ideas mentioned in The Guardian article (keeping them well-fed, making them wear something colorful, playing with them). Cats hunt mostly because they are hungry or bored, both can be fully or partially prevented. Not forcing people to do these things but slowly changing the culture so it isn't taken for granted that cats need access out 24/7 and that they can do whatever they want there without the owners caring. Also getting rid of the idea that cats are "the easy pet" that just needs cheap dry food and a catflap. It won't stop all problems caused by cats but it could help a lot.
Posts
That's good enough for starters
As a dog owner there are many areas out of bounds to me and my dog, all come with reasons that I may or may not agree with, but I'm duty bound to comply. However I'm supposed to accept that a cat owner believes it's their right to allow their pet to come onto my property where they defecate and slaughter the wildlife I try to promote.
As I said, there would still be feral cats (they don't disappear just because you ban them, they will continue being there and having kittens). There would still be cats killing birds on their owner's property. There would still be cats that manage to escape occasionally.
The immediate effect would be very small. It would take decades for the feral cat population to get significantly lower.
Given that there isn't a consensus right now about the connection between the declining number of birds and roaming cats, I can't imagine reviewing the results of such a ban in any meaningful way.
Needless to say, it would make many cats, at the moment used to going out, very miserable.
I see the birds argument as mostly an appeal to emotions. On the other hand, I completely understand people's annoyance with cats coming to their gardens and leaving unwanted gifts. Cat owners should certainly at least feel responsible (and possibly be legally responsible) for any damage their pet does to someone else's property.
That still isn't an argument for a cat roaming ban for me though. It is an argument for education, looking for viable compromises and for people to be kind and considerate to each other. Treating cats more as pets we are responsible for than as an animal that just lives with its human and comes and goes as it wants is a part of it. If more cat owners tried to supervise their cats more when outside, neuter their cats, and reach out to their neighbours to make sure that the cat isn't a nuisance (maybe offering a bottle of wine if they are aware that it is), I believe there would be fewer cat haters.
Maybe I am naive, thinking like this, I don't know.
I really can't make sense of your argument that cat owners should be responsible and yet still be allowed to let them roam, that's counterintuitive.
b) Educate the cats to observe garden boundaries?
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
It's true that cat poo in your garden is undesirable. I have more problems with fox poo, badger poo and tons of pigeon poo. But I wouldn't suggest confining these animals. They come and go - as it were - just like the cats.
I don't quite understand the hostility towards cats that some people express but I think it important that we all work together to make life as good as possible for all.
*At least cats that are used to it. If they need it as a species is up to a debate, I honestly don't know.
For a start, anything that leads to reducing the number of cats. More people neutering their cats, fewer people letting them have kittens just because it is nice, and more people taking rescue kittens rather than buying new ones. Also microchipping so fewer cats get lost.
Then talking more about how to give cats outside time that is less harmful to wildlife and neighbours - more supervising when they are out, letting them out during the day rather than at night, leash training, cat-proofing gardens, or just little things like the ideas mentioned in The Guardian article (keeping them well-fed, making them wear something colorful, playing with them). Cats hunt mostly because they are hungry or bored, both can be fully or partially prevented.
Not forcing people to do these things but slowly changing the culture so it isn't taken for granted that cats need access out 24/7 and that they can do whatever they want there without the owners caring. Also getting rid of the idea that cats are "the easy pet" that just needs cheap dry food and a catflap.
It won't stop all problems caused by cats but it could help a lot.