Broader adoption of keeping cats safe at home would have large benefits for cat welfare, human health, local wildlife and even the economy. So, should cat owners be required to keep their pets contained to their property?

The answer to the question is obviously “yes”.

  • YungOnions@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    33
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’ve always assumed that a cat would go nuts stuck inside all the time. Maybe I’m wrong but I imagine that most people would view it as cruel.

    • Riftinducer
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Cats go nuts at the witching hour anyway, being inside or outside has nothing to do with it.

      Basically, nah, they’re alright inside. They sleep for between 12 to 18 hours a day and get most active at dawn and dusk, so having some way for them to burn off energy with a good cat tree or the like will keep them occupied. And if they want more than that, they will come to you and make their demands known. And if that’s still not enough and you’re willing to put the effort in and do some acclimatising, you could get a second cat and they’ll keep each other occupied.

    • Baggie@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I have two cats, they have never been let outside and they’ve been completely happy. Granted the house is a decent size and we have a lot of things to keep them entertained, but that responsibility comes with the ownership I figure.

    • 𝚝𝚛𝚔OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      7 months ago

      Maybe I’m wrong

      You totally are, but at least now you know

    • Taleya
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      They don’t if you exercise a modicum of responsibility and actually make the environment one that meets their needs

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Well there you have it dumb dumb.

      But seriously I thought cats were like tigers or any other big cat and would prefer an open environment rather than a zoo type setting. At least being able to go outside they get both

      • ExtraPartsLeft@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Cats are to tigers as dogs are too wolves. They all would like to roam around freely. We don’t generally want people to let their dogs roam though.

        I have a cat and a dog. The dog gets to go out unsupervised for short periods, but he digs so I mostly go outside with him. I take the cat out several times a day and she wishes I’d let her out more. But I don’t want her killing stuff so I make sure she has plenty of toys and entertainment inside too.

    • itsmect@monero.town
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      32
      ·
      7 months ago

      That’s because it is cruel.

      Large numbers always seem terrifying, because our human minds are not made for them. The only way to comprehend them is to compare them to other things - in this case all the ways we humans cause damage to the environment directly. Our suburbs are ecological dead zones already. There is just not much space left between asphalt roads, driveways, and neatly trimmed lawn. It’s definitely the cat that goes outside for one hour a day who is the problem. Right next to plastic straws.

      The real frustrating thing about all this that the companies that exploit our planet to core keep doing their shit (Noooo you cant work from home for your office job, you MUST commute to the city daily, because reasons!) while we fight with our neighbors about things that don’t really matter in the grand scheme of things.

      • A1kmm@lemmy.amxl.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        7 months ago

        Cars definitely kill wildlife too - estimation methodologies vary, but I’ve seen estimates saying:

        • Vehicles directly kill about 10,000,000 native animals across Australia per annum. That’s not including habitat loss, and doesn’t include insects (birds, reptiles, and mammals only).
        • Pet cats kill about 546,000,000 native animals across Australia per annum. I believe that’s using a similar definition excluding insects.
        • Feral cats kill about 3,000,000,000 native animals across Australia per annum.

        Of course, habit destruction and pollution has a huge impact as well.

        But roaming pet cats legitimately are a major part of the problem. It is possible to simultaneously replace lawns with tree cover, and reduce the burden of cats. That could also feed into a comprehensive policy of tackling stray and feral cat populations - something which is made harder in suburbs due to roaming pet cats.

        As for whether it is cruel: change is a stressor for cats, so a sudden change from outdoor access to indoor-only could increase stress levels, but that is a one-off transition and there could be ways to manage that (for example, by providing a lot of notice of a change and allowing owners to phase out access, or by having a permit system for indoor and outdoor cats, and allowing renewal of existing permits for specific microchipped cats, but no new outdoor cat permits). Outdoor access / hunting outdoors is a form of enrichment for cats, but not the only one possible. Indoor cats can play with toys, and have owners simulate chasing and hunting activities indoors (for example, with ribbons, small balls, chasing cat treats, and so on) to provide similar enrichment. At the same time, the indoors protect cats from stressful situations like encountering or being mauled by dogs, aggressive cats, foxes, brushtail possums, injuries on the roads, and disease.