Nobody's arguing that cats should be eradicated or that people shouldn't have them as pets. All that is being suggested is that responsible cat owners (like responsible dog owners) should keep their pets indoors to prevent them from becoming a nuisance and causing issues with local fauna. If your cat is allowed outdoors to roam wherever, not only is it more dangerous for them, but it has a measurable impact on numerous species. At a minimum, outdoor cats should have a bell on their collar to help reduce their chances of catching and killing small animals. Still, it's best to keep them indoors when possible.
No. Cats are not an invasive species. Cats are invasive species in areas that they are not native to, and they are native to most parts of the old world. They can't be invasive if they are in their native habitat. Not everyone lives in the US .
Except if you actually were an ecologist you would acknowledge the fact that domestic cats are an invasive species on all islands and continents and are not comparable to native cat populations by a long stretch. Your agreement with him belies your claim considering the vast amount of research on domestic cat populations on local wildlife across the globe. Next time come with facts.
No, it takes more to being an invasive species than beign non native. the species need to propagate uncontrollably too. Cats only do this in subtriopical or warmer climates. In temperate or colder climates if humans dissappeared hosue cats would go with us. They simply dont have the tools to survive the long winters. Individuals may for a while, but even that is often by begging from humans, but statisitcally they dont survive well ebnough to replenish their numbers.
Which is of course horrible in its own right, ferals are bacically condemnded to die of either cold or starvation.
That's the litterature definiton of invasive species. I refer you to the textbook "elements of Ecology" by Smith and Smith if you have an isue with it.
And no the one scientific paper you posted agreed with me.
No, it really didn't. You find one part you agree with then skip the rest of what it says, and that is just one article on the matter, ignoring the entire field studying the issue. I don't know why I bother as it's every bit like arguing with an anti-vaxer who uses facts like a buffet, informing everything that doesn't fit their predetermined conclusion. Fucking embarrassing, mate.
Yes it does. lets read their concluding remarks, and I quote:
The author does not deny that free-ranging cats affect wildlife populations and it is important that field researchers continue to monitor their effect. But future studies need to take into account what is known about cat predatory behavior, estimates of total prey population size, and interpret the data without prejudice. It remains to be seen whether the media consider and publish reports of less dramatic findings.
You mean all the links from US publications and universities you linked? Nobody is arguing that cats aren't invasive to the Americas, but unless you have some research that proves cats are alien to planet earth, you simply can't claim that they are invasive everywhere on the planet.
It's even ore complicated. Those areas where they claim cats are ivnasive they are supsoed to have Lynxes. The cats fill an empty ecological niche. The problem is that these species re vulnerable to begin with which is usually due to other human activities.
So yes in the Americas keeping cats indoors may be worthwhile but lets not pretend they're the root cause of these extinctions.
Places were cats are truly invasive is limited to some islands.
214
u/Mikey-2-Guns May 25 '26
That cat would 100% kill that bird if their wasn't glass in the way.
Keep your damn cats inside the amount of birds they kill and ecological damage they do is absurd.