this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2023
77 points (100.0% liked)
News
19 readers
12 users here now
Breaking news and current events worldwide.
founded 1 year ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I used to work with a trap neuter release program in my area. The fact that cats absolutely devastate native rodent and bird populations is well established. The problem is actually extremely severe and wild domestic cat populations continue to be out of control in many places and the impact they're having on biodiversity is massive. Each ownerless domestic cat (per the nature study) kills on average 200 mammals a year to sustain itself. Even with very low estimates on the size of these populations, the impact they have i tremendous on birds and rodents. This is also not accounting for home animals who go outside and hunt, which is very common for outdoor cats to do.
The impact they have is absurd and in several countries the government is actively funding trap neuter release programs to desperately try to control the wild population size. I'm not speculating on which thing specifically impacts wild bird populations the most, but cats kill unironically billions of small wildlife every year. It is an extremely serious issue that people barely think about.
"Well established" aka "we estimate" on estimates of estimates of estimates. Yes, thanks for proving my point in the lack of actual factual data on that field and backing it up with anecdotal evidence about your previous work life. That's exactly what I was talking about. This is also a huge issue on how scientific studies can skew results in a broader picture that has become a terribly large issue as well and is basically the same garbage that for example the tobacco & oil industries did to provide us with amazing studies that all benefited their cause / push certain agendas. This entire topic becomes even more stupid when you try to apply the data (or estimates of data) from islands, such as New Zealand, and try to apply that onto big continents, such as Europe or the US. Invasive species are always a much bigger issue on islands, because the other species that are native to them have typically no point of retreat & recover. You can't apply this to landmasses of the size of continents. And doing so with such wonky data points, that on top of that rely on top of other wonky data points, is just making shit up at this stage. That's also why you people always cite the same study over and over again.
To what possible end? I'm not denying climate change and deforestation are huge issues for birds too, but I've lived with a lot of cats in my life. My friends have had outdoor cats. I know how much they kill even when its not their primary source of food. You also seem to be downplaying the impact of any invasive species not on an island, or misunderstanding why the risk is so high on an island. It's not simply a lack of room for escape but also small populations of animals. Which can obviously accelerate how fast extinction occurs. That doesn't mean that invasive species are not also a major problem on continents though, merely that it takes a longer time for ecological disruption to play out.
This study cites the 2013 study in addition to several other studies done since. It's not just a single study that documented this, nor a single region of the world. I also don't understand why you refer to me as "you people" as though I am even attempting to argue your original point. I'm not, I know and agree that climate change is especially in the long term the most serious issue for biodiversity. I'm only commenting to add that there are other human caused factors also decimating wildlife populations.
To win a pointless internet argument, who knows. I don't even care, because the why doesn't really matter. The point is that anecdotal evidence is pointless and just there to make you feel better about whatever hypothesis you're supporting, but it's not actually factual data we should trust and build policies around. And sorry, but studies citing this study as their base assumption is also not making that point any more valid, it just proves my point further. If anything you want proper studies that back up this claim and actually confirm it, but with actual data instead of a bunch of guesstimates. Until then I cannot take it seriously.
Its not worth arguing over since the end result is the same either way. Wild domestic cat population control is important enough that people all around the world are addressing it, and whether you think cats have an impact or not will not affect that in any way. I only initially commented because it's one of the many reasons you shouldn't let your cats go outdoors, and the topic of small birds is relevant. I had no intention of arguing with anyone lol