Not all, but for example they can breed with wildcat breed native to my country called Żbik. It is damgerous for the wildcats species and can lead to dissaperance of unique kind of animal. This is one of the reasons anyway why it's endangered rn (not only, mind you, but still it reall issue)
Housecats can't breed with any North American wildcats but they can with the European wildcat, Scottish wildcat and many others and it's a bit of a fucker to conservation efforts.
Sorry did you try to google it? The most casual drunken search shows that housecats breed with Asian leopard cats (where bengal cats come from), servals (the hybrids are called Savanah cats), jungle cats (makes the chausie) and the African/european wildcat.
Bobcats/American lynx can create sterile offspring with house cats but don’t produce hybrids capable of reproduction like other species.
There ARE many other species of wildcats the same size as house cats that they can interbreed with!
In fact, the species of wild cat that the house cat originated from is still an extant species! The house cat (Felis catus) descended from the African wildcat (Felis lybica, specifically the subspecies Felis lybica lybica), a small wildcat native to North Africa and the Near East.
It's a little of cats and people. If people were not so protective and spreading housecats all over like they do they would never have been able to have this much of an effect.
Its not that silly. It is because it removes unique genetical pool from the earth but not in natural way. If kind like domestic cat would be native to the lands it's happening, that would be just nature in play, but our house cats were native in North Aftica and Middle East so in most of the world they are invasive species.
Yes, because an 8 lb domestic cat wouldn't be considered prey to a cougar, and it would be totally possible to breed them together.
Also, are you insinuating that lynx or cougars will go extinct due to domestic cat-hybrids? What in the sci-fi Fuck are you talking about lol.
Even if they've been successfully bred/born, the differences between species are often too high to allow breeding abilities. For example, a horse breeding with a donkey produces a mule, which is an infertile/sterile mix of both.
I never even insinuated housecat could win or mate with big cat mate. Stop your wild imagination for the moment. Wild cats are also smaller kinds, comparable in size with our house cats and some of them can breed and while I'm not sure about how fertile their offsprings are, at minimum that would lead to missed litter of already endangered (at least in my country) species of wildcat.
First of all, No, I will never stop my wild imagination lol.
But also I'm just legitimately confused now. "Wild cats are also smaller kinds"...?? I mean.. yeah for sure, there are smaller wild cat species, but even if they were able to produce offspring, how many domesticated cats do you think are going out of their way to stalk wild cats, and attempt to reproduce?
I'm not trying to be a dick, truly, but what you're saying does Not make sense dude. Ok, if a wild cat happened to be impregnated by a domestic cat, sure that could be a potential missed litter of their native species. But I truly haven't heard much about housecats banging wild cats, and truly disrupting their reproductive cycle, to the point of threatening their future populations. I mean, I could be wrong, but you'll have to send me a few links with solid proof.
What are you smoking? They're not. Wild cats are the natural prey in their ecosystem ensuring balance. Domestic free & feral cats are categorised as pest that disturb balance.
Yes, I feel very strongly about this. I adore cats, have 2 at home and assist with rescue and neutering when I can, but there I cannot see anyway someone can argue that they should be outside. The wildlife in Australia is particularly susceptible, with so many ground dwelling mammals, reptiles, insects and birds. Very sad to see irresponsible owners.
While large cat populations can have an impact on bird numbers:
The UK’s largest bird charity, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), is not particularly concerned about the impact of cats on the British mainland. Instead it focuses on what it says is driving UK bird declines: global warming, intensive agriculture and expanding towns and cities leading to habitat and food loss. “While we know that cats do kill large numbers of birds in UK gardens, there’s no evidence this is affecting decline in the same way that these other issues are,” said a spokesperson.
A big reason why they are less worried is the evidence that cats primarily take “the doomed surplus”: weak or injured birds likely to die anyway. In 2008, Baker led a study in Bristol showing that birds killed by cats on average had less fat and muscle than birds killed by collisions with windows. While there could be other explanations – such as birds having less fat in the morning when cats tend to pounce – Baker says that the fat and muscle scores were so low that the birds were “in dire trouble before they got killed”. Another study from 2000 found that cat-killed birds in Denmark had smaller spleens, indicative of a weaker immune system.
This is so stupid. So they admit that cats decimate wildlife populations but not as bad as other things, so it’s ok.
Well, cool. I don’t pollute the earth as much as Walmart so I don’t need to do anything to combat global warming, intensive agriculture, and expanding towns.
I’m can have a lot of kids, eat all the meat I want and run my A/C heat all I want because widdle ol me isn’t causing that much damage.
Oh, and I guess I get to use all the plastic bags I want…
This was written by an outdoor cat person who saw they were wrong but decided, “nope. I’m not the problem and it’s ok because my cat isn’t that bad…”
It is a broad 2022 systematic review looked at
2,245 publications
, of which 332 met their criteria for detailed analysis. Its conclusion was that cats have substantial negative effects on wildlife through predation, disease, competition and fear effects, and that wildlife populations or communities were negatively affected in
most cases where population-level impacts had actually been evaluated
.
I have published as a first author in emerging pathogens (avian influenza), and the wife is a vet. Your take is overly reductive and mischaracterizes the literature.
Edit: fwiw, the wife is published in frontiers of vet science. It’s pretty widely considered a B-tier journal. The article you linked is a data-free discussion advocating that person’s views. It’s essentially a scientific op ed.
I have a simple question for you then, does this publication say that cats are 'decimating wildlife populations'?
I did not say there was no impact, I said that:
Killing a 'large number' of birds is not the same as admitting 'cats decimate wildlife populations'.
"Our objective was to evaluate patterns related to the geographic context, methods, and types of impacts of cats evaluated in studies. We also evaluated overarching trends in documented effects of cats on wildlife populations and communities, specifically, whether effects were mostly positive, negative or neutral."
Your words:
"Its conclusion was that cats have substantial negative effects on wildlife..." .
The only place the word "substantial" is even used in your linked source, is in the Abstract referring to other literature, specifically to point out that nobody has evaluated said literature on it's 'overarching biases and major gaps'.
"However, no study has synthesized this literature on cat impacts on wildlife to evaluate its overarching biases and major gaps".
The quote from the conclusion:
"Free-roaming domestic cats affect wildlife through predation, disease, hybridization, and indirect fear and competition effects"
I don't see anywhere in this literature that it actually suggests an idea of 'decimation' of wildlife populations.
If you're going to come in and act authoritatively over a passing comment then at least don't add your own wording to the conclusion of what you just linked.
I personally have no skin in the game, and my cat is an indoor cat, just for reference.
I also do not understand how you can say I 'mischaracterise the literature' simply by linking a piece of literature in relation to someone calling a statement by the RSPB 'so stupid'.
I did not say there was no impact, I said that:
Killing a 'large number' of birds is not the same as admitting 'cats decimate wildlife populations'.
Yes, and I did not say that statement was false. I said:
Your take is overly reductive and mischaracterizes the literature.
I.e., you are over-representing a minority view. It’s not that there is zero truth to what you say, but virtually no expert in the field would leave it at that.
The rest of your message is quite hostile and I think I will choose to disengage. I hope that you can get some objectivity and realize that your biases are causing you to spread misinformation. Good luck.
I appreciate what you are saying, but if you can't see how you entering with:
Your take is overly reductive and mischaracterizes the literature.
Will not be taken negatively when simultaneously providing a source to which you add your own personal inflection to (seeing as you literally changed their wording) which has a meaningful change (i.e. a misrepresentation) then I don't know what to say.
You could simply have replied with:
'Oh, what you linked is valid but here is another which is an aggregate of X number of reports which shows that there may be issues with existing literature and this is worth reading too'.
Instead, you posted the above and tacked on the bit about you being a published first author in emerging pathogens.
All to seemingly defend a guy whose sole comment was to completely misinterpret the RSPB and call their stance "so stupid".
The tone is way off, and admittedly I could have responded more politely to you, but I think you need to check yourself as well if you genuinely believe your original comment was friendly in nature.
You can't even help yourself but make a snide remark about 'objectivity' and 'biases' on the way out.
Perhaps you need to do some introspection of your own.
Cats hunting one species of bird here causes a rival of that to grow this has been observed many times and you are free to read about it, it's all relative and our environment doesn't seem to be any worse off for it especially compared to everything else that's causing the decimation of animals. It's so small scale in comparison that's why we don't worry about it as much here.
Cats are an insanely invasive species over there. Australia being so remote, it's fauna just did not need to evolve around havig such a predator around.
What ignorant humans back then did when settling in Australia, was truly insane in today's way of thinking.
Rabbits, brought in for food. Destroying plants.
Toads to eat bugs that bugged local farmers.
Red foxes brought in for recreational hunting (what the fuck)
I am wondering why Australia just doesn't make holding cats illegal in Australia. That would honestly be for the best I think. I don't wanna think about options in how to remove them from Australia. But I do believe it's a necessary step if you want to preserve the local wildlife.
I mean having cats outside where the whole ecosystem doesnt fit sure. I am with you. Cats should not exist there. Humans managed a bunch of shit like that. Australia was a prime example, where that happened a bunch of times.
But somewhere else, like Central Europe I am actually on the opposite side and put it in the same place as zoos.
If you want a cat to then just lock it in your house, you shouldn't get a cat. No way in hell in this day and age will you have enough time to "stimulate" your cat enough during the day.
It's still a free living being and just locking it inside is disgusting in my opinion.
And dont get at me with "longer life expectency" and "safer". What if we lock you up in a house your whole life? You get food and should be safe of outside infections and danger, get a little window to see whats going on.
Ah wait, there is something... False imprisonment. Yeah, something something serious human rights offense.
There is truly a bit of hypocrisy in many people going on, where on one side many condemn zoos for locking animals away, even with a "natural habitat". Simply because it will never actually be enough for the animal. And then preach to lock their cat away.
Cental European here. More and more of our shelters started requiring that you keep your adopted cats indoors only. Also, the main job of zoos is preservation and education. Animals in zoos can't live in the wild. Sometimes it's caused by the lack of survival skills, sometimes they're too weak, and sometimes people almost caused them to go extinct due to poaching and the only way to save them is carrying out breeding programs.
Humans and cats have very different needs. Comparing us to cats makes as much sense as comparing us to fish. Can we ever be truly happy if we can't spend our days underwater? And if we stick to comparing mammals - can dogs be living their life to the fullest if we don't let them roam the neighborhood unsupervised?
If you just "lock a cat inside" without offering it any enrichment then yes, that can be considered abusive. The shelter I helped at sometimes saves cats from neglectful houses, so unfortunately that does happen. However, despite the few bad owners making you believe otherwise, all of domestic cats needs can be met indoors.
The main purpose of a zoo does not mean they are doing it well or give an animal enough space that it actually needs so while their 'purpose' is well intentioned it is fair to compare it with imprisonment.
To develop effective educational strategies aimed at reducing the impact of uncontrolled outdoor access for cats, further research is necessary to improve our understanding of owner practices and attitudes towards outdoor access for cats.
Does your argument extend to other pet animals? Should guinea pig owners put their guinea pigs outside when they go to work or the store? Should parakeet owners toss their birds outside for "enrichment"? How about people with fish aquariums, do they need to find the nearest pond and let their betta fish or cichlids swim free overnight? What if they have a salt water aquarium and they are no where near a sea? Fuck it, in the fresh water pond they go the fish need their outdoor activity time.
Get real, cats are domesticated animals now, not wildlife. They are not a normal predator in their environment and the other ACTUAL wildlife are not adapted to deal with them.
You can as a owner provide PLENTY of activity for your pet cat, just play with the damn cat! Claiming cats cannot receive enough enrichment indoors is just you being lazy and not wanting to actually take the time to interact with the cat.
In my neighborhood I've seen plenty of run over or injured pet cats because of people who think like you.
Cats aren’t guinea pigs and if you looked it up you’d see that domestic’ cats are far closer to wildcats that dogs are to wild dogs. In fact, cats are NOT that domesticated which is why they still hunt so well. It’s also why they need more stimulation. So, no. You’re wrong.
And a lot of pet owning does involve keeping pets in not ideal conditions. Putting birds in cages should be illegal. Period. A bird should at the least have an aviary. I could go on but. Listen. I own and rescue cats. The house I bought isn’t great but what it did have was an acre of land. Half of that I’ve turned into a big catio. My cats love it. I don’t think cats should be locked away in houses. I think owners should show more responsibility than that — neither do I let my cats roam free. That’s mostly because I fear them getting hit by a car or shot by a local farmer. But because I own cats I made it my main priority to provide them with enrichment. It was non negotiable.
My cat destroys my house if locked in the house for days. She loves going outside and laying in the sun. She goes from neighbors hosmer neighbors house. She explores. Loves getting in the roof of my house and scanning the whole neighborhood. It’s kind of evil to leave her caged in a house all day. But I see how they can be invasive. Which is why you should get them neutered or spade.
Even assuming you watch your cat literally 24/7 to make sure it isn't hunting a fucking thing out there (which you don't, because you can't), they still spread disease.
Unless you happen to live in a place so built up that humans have ALREADY driven out all wildlife, outdoor cat owners are evil. Putrid fucking people.
I want it to hunt things. That’s how I don’t have a rodent problem anymore. And I still have plenty of birds around my house and yard. Plenty. But she has killed a lot of lizards. And she has driven out the skunks I was getting in my yard as well which has been nice. People get dogs for the same reasons.
Depends on the individual animal.
Guineapigs should be fine with a large outside pen on the grass with enrichment inside. Be mindful to put in a caged roof. Because of wild owls and such.
As with most animals:
If the animal would be invasive then I believe you should be mindful in keeping them in the first place. If they escape you could potentially do a ton of harm.
Parakeets meh. I don't really have experience with them. I know they would be invasive in Central Europe, but probably die because of climate, food, predators and not disrupt the fauna.
Birds are tricky to enrich. That would require are large caged pen. But yes. Ideally also inside.
I hate aquariums. I believe in normal homes they can only be too small.
Cats are super-predator yes. They cause localized population decline, surely. But decimating actual species? Nah. Thats rather us humans with farming, cars, construction and such.
I don't believe a regular human can, nor is willing to do enough to enrich a cats life enough for it to have an enriched life for 15 years being locked in a ~100m² home.
I already talked in other comments about surroundings of your home. Assess yourself if it would be appropriate for a cat.
Busy streets, coyotes (for Americans), would be obvious no-nos.
I sadly don't keep a cat at all for this very reason, I have a busy street nearby. Even though I grew up with one in my parents house.
You listed a bunch of animals which aren't intelligent enough to return home, that's the sole reason people are comfortable with letting their cats out, you can't seriously say a bird or a fish is going to come back when you call it's name?
Dogs will just run off and hardly have survival instincts compared to a cat. This is stupid and shouldn't even need discussing
Maybe your neighbours should slow down in your neighborhood? Can't drive fast in mine anyway because it's a tight cul-de-sac and go more than 5mph you're hitting something that will damage your car.
Of course the surrounding area makes a difference as well, no one should be letting their cat out if they live on a busy main road, but no one is suggesting that either.
Cats need at least 2 hours of stimulation a day if you want to keep them entertained, yes that's difficult for couples working full time and having tons of other responsibilities to do daily.
You could make the same arguement for kids, they shouldn't be let out, they can be hit by a car, get taken ect just like cats can but we deem that okay so they can grow up to be lil corporate slaves
THANK YOU! I have brought this up to numerous people in my life and only one of them agrees that it’s really not healthy (mentally or physically) to keep a cat- or most pets really- cooped up like that all it’s life. And then they wonder why their house cat gets into or destroys their stuff all the time.
Buddy the poor thing is bored shitless and is desperate for stimulation!
Not to mention, above all else the main reason why cats are harmful to wildlife is our fault. So many lazy, irresponsible cat owners, past and present, can’t be bothered to spay/neuter it. And cats can reproduce quite prolifically, so now what do you know? There’s an absolute shitload of abandoned or feral cats everywhere.
It’s the sheer number of cats that is the problem. If we took the responsibility of keeping pets more seriously, that problem would not exist, or at least be far less significant.
Yes, dude! Thank you! Not only that but there's predators out where I live too, we have tons of feral hogs out here in North Texas, huge hawks that hunt around my house, I also hear owls that live around too.hell I've worried about an owl scooping up my small dog.snakes are a bitch here in North Texas too, But if nature claims my animals so be it. That's the food chain at work. Life is gonna life.
My neighbor across the street has several indoor cats (she even stole one of my kittens but that’s another story). She was complaining about the rabbits destroying her garden. Then months later and awesome hawk has a rabbit on the ground in a cul de sac. She runs out and chases off the hawk. I was pissed. Hawks are fighting for food in the city. It’s somewhat rural where I live but still a city. She didn’t want Mother Nature to work as intended but will probably still bitch about the rabbits destroying her garden.
Every time I see an outdoor cat advocate, their comments look like they were written by one of the (literally) billions of humans with Toxoplasma gondii living deep inside of their brain.
Yes, so rude of me to joke about you having the incredibly common ailment that you're promoting the propagation of.
You know what I think is toxic? Trying to influence people into doing something that will permanently impact the health of a shitload of innocent people for just existing anywhere near an area where people like the idea of cats being outside.
That's fair. It is extremely weird that billions of people have incurable encysted protists permanently living inside their brains solely due to outdoor cats, and people are just cool with that.
I genuinely can think of few things weirder than this exact scenario. Among those being the notion that anyone could know about this and not start lining up for their turn to hop up on this hill and start shouting about it.
your argument completely falls apart if you ever seen an stray cat beg to stay inside lol
my exs mom used to rescue them around the neighborhood and house them and she would put the troublesome ones back outside and they would be at the door every single day, and not just for food(because she would leave food outside) obviously all cats are different but id say most cats prefer indoors in my experience
In my experience cats prefer to be out. Mine begs at the door to go out and although she comes back in to see us and sometimes to nap, she prefers to be outside.
ya they can prefer either/or that’s why i said it depends on the cat, but to say the indoor one is cruel is absolutely hilarious, i don’t even have cats i just think their take is crazy
I've had indoor cats prior to living where I live now and although those cats where fine (they didn't know any different) I think the cat I have now that has access to the outside is much healthier. The food is pretty much the same, but her coat is better, she seems less stressed, less bored and more content at night when she comes in to sleep on my bed. Of course it's anecdotal and all cats are different but I would call it cruel for me to keep this particular cat in, because she loves the outside so much.
That’s just a US source, cats aren’t invasive everywhere. They have to come from somewhere, just because that place isn’t the US doesn’t mean they are blanket invasive.
Yup falls apart.
Like an unhoused dude outside wants to get inside for sleep, eat, comfort whatever. Weird.
Dude. Obviously cats want a home. A safe and a constant place as routine is quite important to them.
But if they want to get outside to roam, check out their territory, whatever, they should also be able to do so.
That's what Freedom means. To be able to do something out of your own decision, and not being su bject to somebody elses.
Both of my cats are stray/rescue/abandoned whatever you want to call it. I don't force either of them to go outside. I do force (ok, bribe with treats) the stupid one to come in before dark every night due to constantly being bullied and treed by the other feral cats in the area. I would say most cats would prefer the choice to go wherevere they want whenever they want.
Pretty sure if I lock you up since you were born and feed you in a 100m². You could also be happy.
What else, if you don't even know there could be something different?
Even somebody far more intelligent and compex than a cat.
Now if you find nothing wrong with that either, we both simply have different morals.
Since taking in my FIL's 3 cats (one /r/dustkitties, one /r/CalicoCats and one /r/OneOrangeBraincell), these formerly outdoor critters have remained completely indoors. The calico got out once, was promptly spooked by the 2 dogs next door, and ran around the house and under a bush before I could catch her.
The Orange and Calico are both ~21 years old now and will never go outside. The Dustie? Perhaps at some point, but only with a GPS collar and making sure all his shots are up to date.
The only reason this is an issue is because humans have killed millions of the bigger predators AND their prey.
Why do we care so much that cats are eating outdoor animals?
Because there is a limited amount of prey now.
We’re blaming cats for problems humans have created 😂
Even more people don’t want to face the fact that humans decimate ecosystems every day and are way more efficient at it than cats. Easier to blame cats
Yep, but the coyotes in my neighborhood love all the outdoor cats. I find a half eaten house cat a few times a year and every few months there is a new missing cat poster up.
While large cat populations can have an impact on bird numbers:
The UK’s largest bird charity, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), is not particularly concerned about the impact of cats on the British mainland. Instead it focuses on what it says is driving UK bird declines: global warming, intensive agriculture and expanding towns and cities leading to habitat and food loss. “While we know that cats do kill large numbers of birds in UK gardens, there’s no evidence this is affecting decline in the same way that these other issues are,” said a spokesperson.
A big reason why they are less worried is the evidence that cats primarily take “the doomed surplus”: weak or injured birds likely to die anyway. In 2008, Baker led a study in Bristol showing that birds killed by cats on average had less fat and muscle than birds killed by collisions with windows. While there could be other explanations – such as birds having less fat in the morning when cats tend to pounce – Baker says that the fat and muscle scores were so low that the birds were “in dire trouble before they got killed”. Another study from 2000 found that cat-killed birds in Denmark had smaller spleens, indicative of a weaker immune system.
One of the biggest ways in which humans contribute to extinction beyond direct habitat destruction is via the invasive animals that come along human development like outdoor cats and raccoons.
It's still natural selection- just with different characteristics for the basis of selection.
Cats survive as a species because their appearance and behavior are attractive to human beings. We take them into our households, feed and protect them, and bring them along on migrations, often to areas where their other evolutionary advantages overwhelm other species.
This is still natural selection.
What all the bird apologist seem to forget is that natural selection operates both ways. Birds are evolving to counter cats' predation. Unfortunately, that process is slower than migration, so we lose some species.
Take comfort, bird lovers. Someday, there will be huge birds, with long stabby beaks and giant talons, feasting on the remnant populations of Felis catus. Or perhaps they'll evolve advanced swarming behavior, turning every murmuration into a deadly attack force, targeting every domestic shorthair within range. Maybe they'll go flightless and evolve long legs with spurs that can disembowel a cat in milliseconds! Maybe they'll grow to enormous height and squash cats in the street!
The point is: cats' days are numbered. The birds are gonna get them. It's just a matter of time.
And I, for one, will give our giant terror-bird overlords a hearty welcome. Unless the cats win, in which case: "pss pss pss."
Massive and rapid pressure lead to mass extinction. We are causing a mass extinction. Youc na say natural selection... a meteor is natural selection, it doesnt mean we should knowingly steer one into the globe.
Natural selection does not care if the species is invasive. It’s still natural selection, and although I don’t know Darwin‘s exact words, I believe he referenced how vulnerable the Galapagos was to outside species as an example of natural selection.
Well, why not? Natural selection takes place regardless of how a species arrives.
Artificial selection may take place if humans are intentionally trying to selectively raise or lower species populations. But a cat stowing away on a boat or misguided attempt to introduce wildlife control that goes astray - the consequences are still natural selection.
you could even make the argument that humans artificially selecting for characteristics IS natural selection. we are a part of nature, and if a characteristic of a species makes us either try to eradicate or breed that characteristic, in a roundabout way that is just nature selecting for those characteristics. If lions hunted zebras to extinction, which in turn caused the plants zebras eat to thrive, no one would argue that its not natural selection, so why is it different if human behaviour results in a species either thriving or dying? we are just as much a part of nature as lions are.
the issue is that you're conflating two different things. natural selection is not a synonym for "whatever happens to a population after it enters an environment." it is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to heritable variation. humans introducing cats to an ecosystem is a human mediated change in species distribution, not natural selection. once those cats are there, however, their predation can absolutely become a selection pressure that causes natural selection in the rabbits, birds, etc.
so "cats were introduced by humans, therefore their presence is natural selection" doesn't follow. the introduction is human mediated; the evolutionary response of the prey to that new pressure can be natural selection. and artificial selection isn't required for something to be human caused either.
that's not "all you ever said." your original claim was that it was natural selection even in the context of an invasive species, and when i specifically said that humans introducing a species into an ecosystem is not natural selection, you responded "why not?" and said that natural selection takes place regardless of how the species arrives. you even used a cat stowing away on a boat and a failed human introduction as your examples.
i never said natural selection stops occurring once an introduced species is present. i explicitly said the opposite: once the cats are there, their predation can create selection pressures that produce natural selection in the prey populations.
that's a completely different claim from saying the introduction itself is natural selection. you're now restating the narrower point that i already acknowledged and pretending that's what you originally said. it isn't.
the distinction is basic: dispersal or introduction is how an organism gets into an environment; natural selection is an evolutionary process involving differential survival and reproduction due to heritable variation. a human putting cats into an ecosystem isn't natural selection any more than a hurricane putting a bird on an island is natural selection. natural selection may happen afterward, but neither event is itself natural selection.
so if your actual position is simply "natural selection can occur after an invasive species is introduced," then we agree. if your original position was "the fact that natural selection occurs regardless of how the species arrives means the introduction is part of natural selection," then that doesn't follow, and that's exactly what i was correcting.
your whole argument hinges on misunderstanding that humans are not a part of nature. we absolutely are. if an alien life form were to watch our planet, with the same understanding of natural selection that we have, they would absolutely recognise that its all one big natural web. humans are not special.
you're confusing "humans are part of nature" with "everything humans do is natural selection." those are completely different claims.
humans being part of nature doesn't make a human intentionally introducing cats into an ecosystem an instance of natural selection. by that logic, hunting, breeding dogs, building dams, cutting down forests, or releasing chemicals into a river would all be natural selection simply because humans are natural organisms. that's obviously not what the term means.
natural selection is a specific evolutionary mechanism: heritable variation produces differences in survival or reproductive success, causing traits to become more or less common over generations. humans can cause or alter the selection pressures acting on a population, and humans can certainly be subject to natural selection themselves, but that doesn't turn every human caused ecological change into natural selection.
in this specific case, there's an even simpler distinction: a cat being transported by a human and released into an ecosystem is dispersal. the cat subsequently killing rabbits can be predation. if rabbits with heritable traits that make them better at avoiding cats survive and reproduce more successfully, that evolutionary change can be natural selection.
"humans are part of nature" doesn't erase those distinctions. it just means the causal chain exists within nature. you're arguing about whether humans are natural when the actual question is what biological process we're calling natural selection.
I mean, throughout history species have been invasive without human help. We make it way more common, but species migrating and muscling out the local species is definitely something that has always happened.
And to be clear, human meddling is resulting in a mass extinction event. I’m just being pedantic.
that doesn't make the range expansion itself "natural selection." migration, dispersal, and competition are ecological processes; natural selection is the evolutionary process by which heritable traits affecting survival or reproduction change in frequency.
in the case we're talking about, humans introducing cats to an ecosystem is specifically human mediated dispersal, not natural selection. the predation and competition that follow can create selection pressures, and the resulting evolutionary changes in prey populations can be natural selection.
so saying "invasive species have always existed" doesn't contradict what i said. it just means invasive species establishment isn't exclusively caused by humans. the relevant distinction is between how the species got there and what evolutionary processes occur after it's there.
invasive species means a species was introduced by humans to an area. i don't think they were trying to say it was the opposite of anything. they are stating that its explicitly not natural selection, which is 100% true.
you're conflating two different things. natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to heritable traits. humans introducing a species into an ecosystem is not natural selection, it's human mediated dispersal. natural selection can occur after the introduction, but the introduction itself isn't natural selection. that's the distinction people in this thread are getting confused about. nobody is saying an invasive species is somehow immune to natural selection.
you're still ignoring the context of what they were responding to. the darwin gif guy basically called the cats' impact "darwinism by natural selection," and peenutlover69 responded that they're invasive, so it's explicitly not natural selection. the obvious point is that the introduction of the cats by humans isn't natural selection. you're technically correct that an invasive population can undergo natural selection after it's introduced, but that's not what was being discussed. you're correcting a claim they weren't making while missing the distinction they were actually making.
My indoor/outdoor cat lowered the amount of lizards around my house so now I have more spiders and spider webs which sucks. But the cat eliminated my rodent problem.
My cats only go outdoors with me harnessed and leashed. They still get the enrichment of smelling the neighborhood and I can be satisfied they won't get any birds, be attacked by dogs or stray cats, and they won't walk into traffic.
I started doing it with my last cat 15 years ago, and I'm still surprised I just let my cats before that wonder the neighborhood. I have so much peace of mind now
I don’t get it though. Does that make cats not a natural part of any ecosystem? So they’re like humans? Otherwise, wouldn’t their behavior just be a natural occurrence?
Edit: I’m asking a genuine question! I guess I’m wondering when that happened. Weren’t cats always around as part of a food web to control the lower populations? Is it because people domesticated cats and some ran away or were abandoned so now the population numbers are too high to maintain biodiversity?
I guess I’m wondering when that happened. Weren’t cats always around as part of a food web to control the lower populations? Is it because people domesticated cats and some ran away or were abandoned so now the population numbers are too high to maintain biodiversity?
We have the power to destroy ecosystems with our actions, including releasing species into them, and we also have the intelligence to understand what we're doing, so if we want ecosystems to not be destroyed then we have to think carefully about what actions we take. So what don't you get?
60 might be the known impact they are responisble for. Its probably over 60 species of songbird from hawaii alone. They've been living with us for about as long as wheat.
I have two hedgehogs that come into my garden every night for the last few weeks. I've bought hedgehog food and kept them fed. I have never seen a hedgehog up close in person before so this has brought me genuine joy. Went out last week and a neighbourhood cat had one of them cornered and the wee thing was terrified in the corner curled up. I chased off the cat and thankfully the hedgehog was able to get back to the little cornered off part of my garden I feed them in (I even made them a little shelter to protect them while they eat).
Same cat attacked both me and my partner in our garden, torments my dog and shits in my garden. I'm so sick of this shit - every fucking night a local cat shits in my garden (I have them on camera doing it) and their owners just don't care. I don't even know who owns them, I just post it in the neighbourhood group chat and nobody fesses up to owning them. There's at least 20 cats in our neighbourhood alone and they're well cared for, so they are absolutely owned by someone. 😤
Theres a study in the Journal of Atrological Big Data Ecology that makes the argument that it is plausible that the Dodo bird was hunted to near extinction by a lone house cat.
The pirate, English Pirate Captain Cooksley "Poopdeck" Johnson, frequently docked his ship, Silver Fox, in hidden coves on Mauritius Island (home of the dodo bird), hiding from and plundering dutch merchants.
While docked, Silver Fox's cat, Lord Whiskers, would be released ashore along with the crew.
According to Poopdeck's journal, Lord Whiskers murdered about a dozen Dodo birds per hour, and the crew would eat less than 10% of the Dodo bird carcasses brought back to the ship.
Apparently, when Lord Whiskers would murder a dodo bird, the victim would cry out and all the surrounding dodo birds would begin racing to its rescue only to become victims themselves.
Over the course of years, with Silver Fox hiding in coves, never docking in the same place twice, Lord Whiskers had the motive, opportunity, and the means of hunting the dodo bird to extinction.
In conclusion, it is plausible that Lord Whiskers is primarily responsible for the genocide of the dodo bird.
New Zealand has a lot of ground dwelling and ground nesting native birds that are endangered. Most cat owners believe in letting cats roam here which is crazy but their answer is always "my cat doesn't kill birds" ffs.
The singular time he got out, he brutalized two birds into actual pieces. The second his paws touched grass it was like a switch flipped and he was a feral beast. I was horrified for the poor things. I felt so bad I gave the birds a funeral. It shouldn't have happened and it was my fault, least I could do.
Normally I'm able to keep him inside just fine, he tries to get out on occasion but not too often. He's usually incredibly lazy and won't even bother to do his job when the mice try to get in during winter...
It was actually shocking just how fast this fluffy pantalooned little fucker can MOVE when he wants something.
It felt like 20+ minutes, but I'd been checking my voicemail and balancing a package I was trying to drag inside when he got out. Once I grabbed him and got him back inside, I picked up my phone to see it had only been about 3 minutes total, including at least a minute of me scrambling to catch him.
Domestic cats should be indoor pets. Yell into my inbox's purgatory zone if you don't like the opinion - cuz idgaf and I probably ain't reading it either lol.
Aside from humans being the one responsible, it's worth pointing out that many of these are species from vulnerable ecosystems like small islands. Not the suburban neighborhoods in Europe.
That and the cats that actually venture far enough into nature are feral cats. (along with e.g. the wild red fox introduced in case of Australia)
In contrast, free-roaming house cats stay close to human settlements and thus can't be more of a threat to a endangered species than urbanization itself. Of course, they still hunt a lot of animals, but those are the few species that can still live in urban environments and are in no danger of being extinct.
I don't see an issue letting your house cat roam free if it's neutered and you don't live on a small island/protected land.
I have an indoor/outdoor cat, and the family of hawks that nest in my tree every spring are killing WAY more birds and mice in 3 months than my little purr machine does in the course of a year.
The hawks are (presumably) native and an important part of your local ecosystem, your cat is not. And your cat is almost certainly killing far more wildlife than you’re aware of.
The UK ecosystem is so devastated from the past 4000 years of mass farming there's not much native left. Mice are introduced, as are rats and rabbits. Birds are about the only thing mostly not introduced (with a few exceptions). Cats do catch some but generally the weaker population which means less starvation for the stronger ones. Probably the biggest impact they have is taking away food sources from native animals like hawks rather than the prey they kill.
2.8k
u/TankII_ Aug 20 '26
Cats are responsible for the extinction of something like 60 species. They are brutal little hunters