Absolutely; I agree they should be kept indoors. But if they do roam, you cannot make yourself the self-appointed animal control facility. What you can do is either humanely trap them and let the proper authorities take care of the situation (which it sounds like you plan to do), or speak to the owners and if they won’t listen to your concerns, report them to the proper authorities and keep reporting them until action is taken.
I will also say that just about every study citing the huge number of birds killed by cats is skewed, naturally, to its own agenda. They extrapolate in a faulty manner, much like you just did. The fact is that NOT every house on every street in every town in the country lets out a cat who then kills birds. So your “what if” scenario is not very realistic.
As an aside, I get a little weary of hearing about people who feel they have this huge problem, so they call Animal Control and “they won’t do anything,” so they decide the only other option is to kill the cats on their own. Animal Control is not an island unto itself. They report to someone. They are a city-run, tax-funded agency. If they won’t do anything, people should go to the next level. And keep going. People should really learn to stand up for themselves when they are given an unsatisfactory answer.
I think your single-handed attempt to reclaim the safety of birds’ haunts is a fool’s errand. Not to mention that - as others have pointed out - many bird species are recently introduced. I assume you will be taking steps to ensure that these feathery interlopers do not take advantage of your goodwill?
With your tagline ‘Death to cats’, did you expect the cat lovers to lie at your feet purring?
And on the other side of the coin, you do not get to decide what replies you will get to your thread. You don’t like that some people find your proposed actions inflammatory and unnecessary at best? Well, that’s life.
The problem from my PoV is that you are basically wanting to kill these cats because you prefer the birds they will kill to the cats themselves. Fine, that’s your own preference. However, the argument that these (3) cats will impact birdlife is specious. Some info, from more reliable sources that personal reflections or the chitterings of bird lovers:
Cats do have considerable impact on closed ecosystems (i.e., islands), but even there cats do not decimate the entire wildlife population. What happens on introduction of non-endemic predators into (island) ecosystems is basically - susceptible (bird) populations are rapidly extinguished, and a new equilibrium is established where the remaining bird life is not at risk of extinction via predation (see Blackburn et al. , 2004; Science 305: 1955-1958).
In non-island ecosystems (e.g., UK, USA), there is little unbiased evidence that cats are decimating the bird population. For example, studies that have examined ferals cats’ stomach contents typically find that 4-6% of the ingesta once had wings. Hardly a huge proportion of the diet. In cities feral cats tend to be garbage scavengers, obtaining a huge majority of their food this way. Cats are opportunistic in their hunting, and their methods do not support a diet which includes a large proportion of birds.
Basically, there is no evidence that cats have pushed bird species to extinction in non-island ecosystems. The introduction of us is a far greater issue than our introduction of cats, the problems being our destruction of bird habitat.
Additionally, most of the work that suggests cats are great killers of birds has been carried out by bird societies and the like - hardly unbiased researchers. Also, some of the research that is used to support the terrible toll of the cat is egregiously flawed (e.g., the UK-based study of Churcher & Lawton) or taken out of context.
Now, Australia is an exception to the above, and there is clear evidence that cats have been terribly destructive in that situation.
Basically, your desire to kill these cats on the grounds of preserving bird life is nonsense. Moreover, the cats you propose to kill are - at least to come extent - pets of your neighbours. Your proposed actions are just not rational, beyond the personal preference you have for certain types of wildlife.
Now, if these cats are not neutered (are they?) then you do have a good argument for removing / neutering 'em. If you must get rid of 'em otherwise, well a humane trap and carriage to a shelter would work, though I hope you are not such a coward that you would do this behind your neighbour’s back.
Did you read the post in which I pointed out that few species are recently introduced, and that I do take steps against one of them (the only one that’s a problem locally)?
Did you read the OP, in which I make it quite clear that I didn’t?
Did you note that my point was addressed to the suggestion that the presence of “20 cat threads a month” should be used to interpret my thread? Have you found any post in which I suggest that people should not be free to reply as they choose? (I certainly hope you don’t feel that my disagreeing with a post implies that I believe it should not have been posted.)
It’s based on direct observation of those cats. That have “impacted” (i.e., ended) the lives of dozens of birds.
The local ecosystem isn’t closed, but it certainly has some “island” aspects to it - there is no other suitable bobolink habitat anywhere nearby. I think it is unacceptable for these cats to extinguish these susceptible birds, and establish a new equilibrium that omits them.
The issue isn’t proportion of diet, but effect on bird populations. Meaningful threat to even one species would, I’d argue, be enough to view cats as a problem.
One way we destroy it is to make the remaining bits untenable for certain birds by allowing our pets to roam there.
You are well short of presenting the evidence that would compel this conclusion. I argue that getting rid of these cats will preserve the lives of the birds they would otherwise eat - based on having seen them eating birds in the past. Why is that nonsense? It seems rather simple and logical to me.
I think I have rather thoroughly presented the rational basis for this. I understand that you may disagree, but not that you can conclude it’s irrational.
Unknown - my guess would be no, based on the limited attention they get.
My one neighbor will know; the rest of the street won’t. I agree that there’s an element of cowardice in that, but (as noted above) I feel it’s the best for all concerned.
<digression>
Oh! Maybe your country is the reason that in New England(other parts of the US? I’ve only owned ferrets in two states- MA and NH - and had a RI based vet) it’s nearly impossible to buy a ferret that hasn’t been spayed or netutered before being sent to the pet store. Only a licensed breeder is legally allowed to own an unaltered ferret. They remove the scent glands at the same time, so that’s a plus.
</digression>
Well here, owning a pet rabbit is a bit of a no-no. I think you can, but they have to be neutered, and you tend not to see them in pet shops. Be caught with a rabbit capable of reproduction, or worse still actually breeding them, and you can expect all manner of government kickarsery to come raining down on you.
This is nonsense. There are very few widespread introduced bird species in the US, and of those even fewer are found much away from cities. It’s mostly just Rock Doves, Starlings, and House Sparrows anywhere outside of southern California and south Florida.
This site claims that c. 10% of US bird species are non-native, and elsewhere it is claimed that ‘Many species of birds have been introduced’. Neither of these sources provide primary evidence, however.
In this list of bird sightings in NC, 7 of the 232 species are identified as introduced.
You seem to wish to exclude Florida from the discussion. Well, last time I checked Florida was a part of the US, and a part where perhaps 25% (PDF) of flora and fauna is introduced.
You can argue how many species would constitute ‘many’, but I think you would be less able to argue against the impact of (some of) these species, regardless of the number of distinct introduced species.
You take some minor steps against the interlopers, and in eliminating the cats you will assist the interlopers as well as native species. C’est la vie, I suppose.
Again, you can want a dead cat on a velvet blanket all you like, but you’ll get what you’re given. Saying ‘I’m sorry if this gets some folks riled up’, but posting an inflammatory OP regardless is not going to somehow neutralize the inflammatory nature, and it is not the best way to get the replies you want.
‘I frequently slap my wife about - I know some people will find this offensive, but anyway does anyone have any suggestions for some good wife-slapping gloves’?
If there was actual evidence that the cats were probably going to extinguish these bird populations, then you would have a point. No way of knowing if this is so, though, and I doubt you are unbiased in this regard.
Um, the proportion of birds in the cats stomach is a direct measure of impact on bird populations - i.e., if a cat’s stomach contained .000001% winged ones, then that’s a different kettle of kod to a 100% bird content.
Our other points of impact are far more important.
Given that you are clearly not open to this evidence, I have no intention of trying to ‘compel’ you.
It is not rational on the basis of preserving bird species in the ecosystem - those 3 cats are just not going to have a significant impact. I agree that it is rational in the sense that you are killing something you don’t like much in order to preserve something you do like. It’s a bit like if I decided to kill all hawks I see above my house because I happen to like small rodents. The hawks would not threaten the rodent species as a whole, even if they caused local damage to 'em. Your argument is simply personal preference and has no basis in preservation of bird species in a wider sense.
Certainly best for you in that a hairy-arsed cat loving neighbour will not remove your liver with his teeth after you kill their (semi) pets.
Another possibility is that after you get rid of the cats, some more move into the vacuum. Quite possible, and one argument in favour of TNR programs.
I think you are right, and I’m sorry for the provocative nature of the OP.
I can’t prove that these cats will extinguish any local bird populations, but I don’t feel I need to. The fact that they are killing many dozen of them seems more than sufficient to me.
No, it’s a direct measure of the effect of birds on the cats’ diet. If a population of birds contains 3 individuals and a cat kills one of them, that’s a significant impact on the birds and a trivial component of the cat’s diet. If a cat subsists entirely on canada geese (of which there are many hundreds of thousands in the northeast) that’s a huge effect on that cat’s diet and a trivial effect of the population of canada geese.
Name the evidence you have cited that I’ve not been willing to discuss.
It is not simply personal preference - you’ve omitted the deeper reason: preservation of the natural and native species that are threatend by an invasive, exotic one.
Do they not count, then? And are there really none of the birds listed in these 38 pages (PDF) of introduced / possibly introduced species in the USA where you are? Or in this list, which gives huge numbers of introduced bird species?
Yes; as I’ve said this is purely a personal preference, with no basis is preserving bird species, and a side issue in that you’re snidely shoving a greasy pole up your neighbour’s fundament and you bugger off with their cats.
To a limited extent, you are correct. However that birds constitute a small portion of a cat’s diet certainly says that it’s relatively unlikely that cats will generally decimate bird populations. Also, if a population of birds consists of 3 individuals, then it’s quite unlikely that the cat will ever even find the bleedin’ bird, never mind eliminate its species.
“Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds. We also know that of the millions of baby birds hatched each year, most will die before they reach breeding age. This is also quite natural, and each pair needs only to rear two young that survive to breeding age to replace themselves and maintain the population. It is likely that most of the birds killed by cats would have died anyway from other causes before the next breeding season, so cats are unlikely to have a major impact on populations. If their predation was additional to these other causes of mortality, this might have a serious impact on bird populations.”
The site goes on to note that the bird populations in decline (in the UK) are probably in this situation because of “habitat change or loss, particularly on farmland”. It is also noted that “Populations of species that are most abundant in gardens tend to be increasing, despite the presence of cats”.
In the USA, the Audabon Society suggests that “Feral cats are a serious threat to beach nesters such as the Piping Plover, Black Skimmer, American Oystercatcher and Least Terns.”, although they do not provide any evidence for this contention. Indeed, even the American Bird Conservancy (PDF) cannot provide any evidence that cats are pushing any bird species into endangered status. The one suggestive finding in mainland USA was in a isolated habitat pocket, where researchers suggested that the level of predation by cats was not sustainable. However, this is only so if cats maintain their killing effectiveness as prey populations grow sparser. This is no so - e.g., see the Science article I cited earlier in the thread.
Well, there’s some more above. I’ll also note that any research you are likely to use to support your position will almost certainly be flawed, given that most such research is! Not that you’ve actually provided any cites to support your position that cats are decimating bird populations.
Nope. First of all, you’re now contradicting yourself - you said above “I can’t prove that these cats will extinguish any local bird populations, but I don’t feel I need to.”. Second, you’ve no evidence that cats are threatening endemic species - indeed, evidence I’ve provided suggests this likely not to be so. Can you list any bird species that has been driven to near extinction by cats? And specifically, if any such cases exist, can you demonstrate that they apply in your environment?
As noted above, the RSPB in the UK suggests that no bird species have been driven to extinction by cats. Note that in the UK nearly all cats have outdoor access, which is not true of the USA.
Hm, trapping and releasing animals can get quite tedious - though TBH I doubt there will be hundreds of cats in yer prison.
Now, despite all this blarney, I do understand your position (esp. if the cats are not neutered) - it’s your craven cowardice that sticks in my craw.