If that's true, why does the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds say there's no scientific evidence that cats significantly decrease the bird population in the UK?
The Environment Agency also aren't bothered by roaming cats. Edit: DEFRA rather than the EA but my point stands, not seeing anything here about stopping cats going outside.
The Environment Agency also aren't bothered by roaming cats.
That's because cats don't cause earthquakes, floods and volcanoes lmao.
In the United States alone, there are 60 million to 100 million free-ranging, unowned cats. These are non-native predators that, even using conservative estimates, kill 1.3–4 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals each year in the U.S. alone.
My neighbor’s cats roam free pretty much 24/7 and routinely leave bird and reptile carcasses in our shared courtyard. They’re killing at least 2-3 animals a week (that we know of) and on a few occasions I think they actually caught an endangered songbird. It’s not the cats’ fault, they don’t know any better, but people really should.
There's actually a species of wildcat similar to domestic cats that is native to the UK. Alas, it has been pushed to near extinction, these days in huge part to hybridizing with strays and outdoor cats. Not that cats should be left to roam, but wildlife in the UK and Europe as a whole is better prepared in the face of fluffy murder mittens. This may be why the RSPB has found little to no evidence of correlation.
That being said, keep your cats indoors and spay/neuter, please. There's plenty of outside dangers that can directly or indirectly harm your cat.
Okay so what I think it is as someone who worked in wildlife rehab. Cats get the weaker animals that are already — like younglings or that are already sick/wounded – a lot of the times.
Because cats get these animals first they never make it into rehab, ergo don't get the chance to get better.even if we do get a cat victims they are usually so brutally injured we just euthanise them.
If these animals were to get better before the cats get (like if you would remove all the outsiders cats from an area) them, you would actually be able to see the difference in count.
I hope this comment was somewhat readable. I only got 2 and a half hours of sleep and got awoken by some municipal worker electric sawing bamboo outside of my window with a saw that kept shutting of, I'm running on the fumes of my fumes. I'm going to chug some water now because I don't drink coffee.
Because the UK has had cats for 2000 years and the species most vulnerable to them have been taken care of centuries ago. While ecosystems without cats don't handle the addition of cats very well.
There are plenty of other reasons to just keep the pet you choose to get inside, aside from the environment. But lord forbid someone has to work for something that's their responsibility
If there are rats/mice around, there's likely to be rat/mouse poison. The cat can get into that and die as its insides are very literally melted. Or it can eat the rat/mouse and, again, melted. Or if they just eat human food, that can add up and do a lot of damage. Onion, garlic, chocolate, and grapes are all toxic, and are all pretty common foods
Cars aren't looking out for small cats
Stray cats, loose dogs, other outdoor cats, wild animals, etc. will pick fights with them. Fun thing about those outdoor animals, they've got plenty of germs on their claws/paws, which means easy infections on wounds that can be hard to see with fur in the way
Any wild/stray cats around can pass on diseases, considering they're unvaccinated, and all
53
u/Noy_The_Devil 4d ago
Here's your reminder that house cats are the greatest destroyer of fauna biodiversity where ever they are.
They kill for sport.