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”.

  • 𝚝𝚛𝚔OP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    That’s a whole heap of words to say “maybe”. On the other side of the world.

    If you’re happy being a selfish piece of shit, feel free to leave your cat roam. When Mittens gets hit by a car / contracts feline aids / otherwise meets a premature death, you can rest easy knowing that akshually it was probably pesticides.

    • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 months ago

      Say you didn’t understand what any of those papers said without saying you didn’t understand what those papers said.

      • Riftinducer
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        I mean, he doesn’t have to say it, your comment and the sources did a good job suggesting you only did a cursory read yourself.

        1. The first paper states that birds are less sensitive to pyrethroid based pesticides, which makes your broad statements about pesticides sketchy at best.

        2. Simple logic doesn’t work in science specifically because it’s simple and is subject to internal biases. You can’t make an assumption and appeal to intuitive reasoning without some evidence to draw that link.

        3. Your second paper doesn’t back up your claim. It states that bird population loss is a multifaceted problem. Yes, pesticide use is called out as a factor, but so too is habitat loss through urbanisation and unregulated harvesting practices, which kind of answers your point 4.

        4. These are all American sources. As a result, very little of this is applicable to the Australian biosphere beyond the most broad strokes since they dont take into account differences in local food webs, urban planning, environmental legislation etc.

        TLDR, someone is using irrelevant sources and their dislike of pesticides to justify keeping their cats outside

        • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          No it absolutely doesnt.

          It absolutely states that birds are considersbly more at risk, and that we dont know how by how much. Try reading more than the intro next time.

          I said that cats arent the problem, they’re a symptom of it. That is a definition of a multifacted problem. That paper absolutely says the same thing.

          The reality is that you could keep every housecat inside and it would not stop the decline.

          • 𝚝𝚛𝚔OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            “There’s a possibility that some other factor may play a part in offsetting one of the negative impacts of free-range cats… therefore, all other positives of containing pets may be completely ignored”
            - You, 2024

            • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              7 months ago

              Lol, Person points out logical flaws in only blaming cats and suggests the root problem is known problematic pesticides and herbicides that are doing things like creating the conditions for “colony collapse disorder” in bees.

              Also I’m up to date on my booster shots.