Submitted by fireside_blather t3_yyza89 in Pennsylvania
CaptainBrant t1_iwyy5ps wrote
Reply to comment by aboutsider in Allentown becomes 2nd city in Pa. to make declawing cats illegal by fireside_blather
Fine anyone who let's theirs outside unsupervised, fine anyone who feeds feral cats and isn't taking them in to shelters, make it legal for dispatching wild ones that are unfriendly and couldn't be adopted without attacking someone.
aboutsider t1_iwz2of5 wrote
Feral cats don't belong in shelters, and they shouldn't be killed just because you're afraid of and don't understand them. You're a cruel coward.
CaptainBrant t1_iwz55m8 wrote
That's the problem. They don't do in shelters, they are a disaster to wildlife, so we anthropomorsize them over all the other wildlife that are being harmed by them. The problem only gets worse because we consider it cruel to remove the cats. Getting them spayed and neutered hasn't solved the issue as they still kill wildlife and new feral cats constantly show up. It's not cruel, it's a real situation unfolding every day. We put blinders on under the guise of being "humane" but only to cats and not to the native wildlife suffering from our lack of action.
aboutsider t1_iwz9xn2 wrote
That's not what anthropomorphize means. You're literally saying "we attribute human characteristics to them over all other wildlife". That doesn't make sense in this context.
It hasn't solved the issue but killing off the feral population has? Tell me when that occurred. Also, are you saying that TNR hasn't improved the situation either? Do you have evidence of that?
CaptainBrant t1_iwzcx4n wrote
What hasn't solved the issue? I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to. I've mentioned quite a few things. We definitely do attribute human characteristics to cats and dogs over many other species.
And to answer your question, do a thought experiment. Let's say you have 50 feral cats that kill and eat 1000 wild animals a year. If you spay or neuter them and re-release them, you still have 50 cats eating 1000 wild animals a year. They aren't breeding and thus aren't increasing, but it's not DECREASING their negative impact. Plus, new cats are continuously introduced, so the overall number of wildlife losses keeps increasing.
aboutsider t1_ix32r6v wrote
None of that is actually proof. It's just more of you insisting you're right without evidence. And, unless you have evidence you just sound like a sociopath who wants an excuse to kill cats.
CaptainBrant t1_ix3bqmz wrote
Okay I'll stoop. You sound like a sociopath who loves watching wildlife become endangered and our environment suffer because an odd obsession with one species over all others.
aboutsider t1_ix3dk8j wrote
Insulting someone after failing to prove your claims just makes you look like a sore loser.
CaptainBrant t1_ix3gkf6 wrote
I'm doing what you've been doing this entire time! Lol
But here are some resources https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-tackling-feral-cats-and-their-impacts-faqs.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiduZTA8Lz7AhWKD1kFHXxDDtsQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1s1TdX1X-LBpLIiG8340kQ
aboutsider t1_ix3n4t9 wrote
You realize that we're in Pennsylvania and not Australia, yeah? If you think the two situations are comparable then you need to explain yourself.
The second two are behind paywalls but the first says nothing about euthanasia and the second says that it's effective in certain situations but that TNR is effective in others. So which article is the basis of your claim that euthanasia is more effective than TNR for controlling feral cat populations? The one that doesn't mention it or the one that says it's only effective in situations where TNR isn't?
CaptainBrant t1_ix3rhoa wrote
So if the study isn't in Pennsylvania, it isn't valid? You're finding any way to discredit things. How can you study something in Pennsylvania when people like you would call such a study to dispatch feral cats sociopaths? For like the third time, you're treating animals unequally for some reason and just anthropomorphsizing cats as if they deserve more humane treatment than other species. It's like trying to study Marijuana, you can't really find out I'd it's harmful or beneficial for something, because of the legal limitations to study it because people for so many decades thought Marijuana was the most evil thing on Earth.
The second two studies basically show that TNR is useless when it comes to reducing harm cats cause to other species, claim by claim.
There is another study in the references of the third one about removing friendly cats to shelters and to euthanize the ones that will harm people if picked up, was effective in reducing the cat population and thus harm to other species.
aboutsider t1_ixyomai wrote
It's valid as a representation of Australia but considering that Australia is an island nation with an entirely different eco system, what part of that do you think is comparable or representative of a state within a country with a totally different eco system?
Actually, that's my point. Even if you could get someone to enact such a state measure, you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone who wants to be on the kitty genocide team. Not to mention, making it only a state law wouldn't stop the population either. It's pretty fucking sad that you find the fact that people are too empathetic to kill cats a bad thing.
No one treats all animals equally. Emotionally, fundamentally, or legally. If we were then we would also pick off humans that were destroying the ecosystem too. I don't see you advocating for that...
Again, that's not what anthropomorphize means.
If you're going to summarize the second two studies then you should probably use a quote from the abstract because that's not what they said, basically or otherwise. Furthermore, they don't prove your initial point that euthanasia is always the best approach. It's a bit difficult to have a conversation when you deliberately ignore nuance and context, particularly in your own "proof".
CaptainBrant t1_ixyq638 wrote
Fetal cats play the role of invasive predator species in every ecosystem they have ever plagued. Australia is just the first to try to do something about it as the loses of native species mounts due to cats. Continental sized Islands, or continents its the same niche. Some ecosystems still have native feline predators, but their populations are dwarfed, and even outcompetrd by feral cats. Where feral cats wreak the most havoc is where most other felines are absent.
It wouldn't be that tough. Contractors airway exist in every state that their daily job is dispatching nucense wildlife. Government agencies as well, USDA wildlife services. Moot point there. Again using emotional language.
Laws already regulate humans' pollution and destruction of the ecosystem, and need to increase and be stronger. The same should go to controlling feral cats which get a 100% free pass to cause harm due to that human bias.
Anthropmorphizing animals gives them human-like qualities. Dogs and cats top the list. You are biased towards cats over the wildlife losses you don't bat an eye at.
Both methods are not well backed by studies but TNR is not well supported in reducing ecological harm.
CaptainBrant t1_ix3gwjz wrote
And here are more links to emphasize the problem and show your bias towards ignoring it and deflecting the problem and also offering 0 effective solutions to the problem.
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073
aboutsider t1_ix3krrn wrote
That doesn't prove that killing them is effective. And you haven't proven that any solution I've suggested is 0% effective.
You're assuming that because I'm arguing with you about how to solve the problem that I don't think there is a problem. I just don't agree that the solution is killing cats. Either you're intentionally building a straw man or your emotions are interfering with your reading comprehension. Would you like to try again?
CaptainBrant t1_ix3pfzm wrote
The problem is, you haven't suggested a solution.
aboutsider t1_ix3qx0b wrote
Says you.
CaptainBrant t1_ix3riz2 wrote
What's your solution?
CaptainBrant t1_ix3heib wrote
In conclusion, I've identified the problem, given solutions, provided evidence, provided examples of this happening with controlling other species. And all you've done is called me a sociopath on numerous occasions and ignored everything I've provided you with and still don't even recognize this major ecological problem.
Please evaluate whatever problems you may have and try to be a better person who cares about animals as a whole. Look at the big picture. You can't be cruel to animals just because you like one species in particular. Humans caused this suffering to animals and we must better manage it.
aboutsider t1_ix3hrt5 wrote
You never provided evidence. Or a cogent argument. Or answers to a number of my questions. Don't bullshit me.
Dude, you're advocating for citizens to go out and shoot outside cats. Don't fucking lecture me about being cruel.
CaptainBrant t1_ix3i3ds wrote
Scroll back in the conversation? Someone else provided examples, too. When did I advocate for citizens to do this? Please answer one of my questions instead of you asking them and ignoring my answers.
aboutsider t1_ix3lnaw wrote
Scroll back in the conversation. You'll find lots of questions that I've asked about how the kitty genocide is supposed to proceed that were never answered.
Oh, were you not agreeing with the guy who said that people should be able to go out and kill ferals? My bad. You guys just sound so similar and I didn't see anyone tell him that his ideas were garbage so...
CaptainBrant t1_ix3pbk6 wrote
Lol um...okay
natureboi143 t1_iwz5l3d wrote
"You don't understand them"
Okay, what's your solution. Getting feral cats fixed is not a silver bullet to them harming the ecosystem. So what then? We kill animals that inconvenience us but are important to the ecosystem like native mice, bats, and raccoons that get in our houses, bears, heck even insects if you want to consider all animals equal. Why do we put mean feral cats on a pedestal?
aboutsider t1_iwz90y9 wrote
So, unless I have an easy solution that will fix everything immediately then it's worthless? And, do you have any proof that killing feral cats would be a silver bullet? How would that be carried out, by the way? Do you imagine this to be a governmental operation that goes around picking up and picking off ferals? Or, volunteer run? And, do you actually imagine that there are as many cowardly sociopathic cat killers to take out ferals as there are cat loving volunteers to do TNR who aren't afraid of a ten pound animal like you apparently are? And, what's the longevity of such a plan? Do you imagine that you'd just create a kitty genocide and never have to do it again? Let me ask you this, has anyone else ever tried killing ferals in order to reduce the population, and how well has that worked?
Not all animals are equal. Fucking duh.
natureboi143 t1_ix000n8 wrote
If you kill feral cats, less feral cats can call wildlife.
How would that be carried out? Many states have programs to reduce nucence wildlife. Like wild hog control programs. Pennsylvania had dog wardens that round up stray dogs. People are also required to get dogs licensed (but not cats, unfortunately). Contractors are also contracted to do that.
I'm not afraid of cats, using names and insults are not making your argument valid. TNR doesn't reduce the problem.
The longevity would be ongoing. You can't just ignore the problem. It requires proper management until people don't let their cats outside.
And yes, feral cats have been eradicated in some places. Specifically on islands where they were decimating wildlife populations. The same has been done with rats.
I hope that answers your qlquestions and soothes whatever anger you have to use all those insults.
susinpgh t1_iwzbmvc wrote
Cats are responsible for decimating bird populations. There are no natural controls on them when they are feral. The solution of keeping cats supervised, and fining people that feed them is actually a good one and may help in finding a way to balance the population. They should be brought into shelters in order to spay or neuter them.
It's like what happened when wolves were reintroduced in Colorado and other Western states.
aboutsider t1_ix33od5 wrote
He didn't suggest that they be supervised. He suggested they be killed on sight. You think it's a good idea to have citizens empowered to kill stray animals?
Y'know, in some areas of the country, there is a great need for the reduction of some of the cat's natural prey. For instance, our cities are great examples of rats running wild. There are programs now to introduce feral cats into these areas where their hunting talents are useful for getting rid of pests. I've also been to breweries and campsites that have working feral cats on hand to deal with pests. But, I guess that's not as fun as killing cats?
susinpgh t1_ix3fq8f wrote
Did I say anything about killing cats? (scrolls up, checks post). Nope, I didn't.
Domestic cats should be supervised and not permitted outside unless they are attended. Cats have really impacted bird populations, and I don't think that's a good thing at all. I understand what you are saying about cat programs, but it's not solving the bird problem, is it?
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments