My My cat just killed a woodpecker -- immoral?

[VarlosZ]

Basically, I’m with Ace here.

I think we can all agree that you’re on the hook, ethically speaking, for your cat’s actions if you let him outdoors. If he kills a neighbor’s pet bird, or if he somehow kills a significant portion of the ecosystem’s wildlife, then that’s your fault.

. . . but how does morality attach to a cat killing a single wild bird in the first place? That’s what cats do.

To put it another way: who was wronged?
– It’s not the woodpecker. He was certianly inconvenienced, but by his very nature (and by the fact that he himself kills poor defenseless insects for sustenance) he must “accept” the possibility that one of his natural predators will kill him.

– It’s not the neighborhood. A few birds and/or rodents here and there isn’t going to affect significantly much of anything. No ecosystem of any size is that fragile. Hell, it’s just as likely that the bird population needed thinning as it is that it was too thin already.

If no one was wronged, then there’s simply no “wrong” in the situation that can be attached to Ace, his cat, or anyone else.
The question of whether you should keep your cat indoors for its own sake, though valid, is quite beside the point.

[Scylla]

Varlosz:

So, if I just dump a little toxic waste in the river, enough to kill a few fish, but not destroy the ecosystem, that would be ok?

[robertliguori]

Depends on who owns the river.

[VarlosZ]

Scylla:

So, if I just dump a little toxic waste in the river, enough to kill a few fish, but not destroy the ecosystem, that would be ok?

Well that’s a loaded example. Dumping toxic waste into a river would necessarily have unpredictable effects, none good, on wildlife in and around the river. More importantly (for our purposes), it’s not analogous to the situation. I said that morality doesn’t attach to a cat killing a wild bird. This says nothing about humans killing for sport.

robertliguori:

Depends on who owns the river.

Also true.

[Scylla]

Ace:

You have cites from Cat loving organizations, human societies, veterinary societies all saying the same thing:

1. It is unhealthy to let your cat roam.
2. It is harmful to local wildlife to let your cat roam
3. Your cat can happily adjust to being an inside cat

There is not one reasonable authority or study that will disagree with these facts

On the other side of the coin, we have your personal opinion that it’s not so bad. This is not the opinion that would reasonably be held by a prudent and diligent individual concerned with the ethical responsibility of keeping a cat in a neighborhood.

As far as I can see, your cat is in the highest risk segment possible. He’s not a barn cat in a rural area, he’s an indoor/outdoor cat in a neighborhood area, with roads, other cats, and wildlife in the neighborhood that is not really yours to kill.

Without containment, you cannot ensure your cat’s safety, the safety of the wildlife, or other neighborhoods cats, and pets, as well as respecting your neighbors’ property.

I would suggest to you that one of the main responsibilities of owning a pet, is making such assurances.

Seeing is you are unwilling to accept this, I regard your ownership of said cat as irresponsible and unethical.

You are failing in your responsibility to your cat to provide it a safe environment.

You are failing in your responsibility to protect the neighborhood’s wildlife.

You are failing in your responsibility to ensure that your cat does not invade other people’s property.

The end result of this is that your cat will continue to kill things, possibly transmit disease to other animals or pets, and will likely sicken or be killed before it’s time.

This will happen because you stubbornly refuse to accept the reasoned and studied unanimous opinions of athorities on the subject that have been cited to you, and cling to your rather naive and ill-founded personal opinions of cat-actualization.

I think that sums it up.

[Scylla]

Varlosz:

You can’t really predict what your cat will kill either. It might be an extremely endangered bird.

I hope you see my point though, just because the damage isn’t extreme doesn’t mean that it’s ok to do it. A lot of the environmental problems that we have occur because of the aggregrate effect of lots of people doing things that individually don’t amount to much.

One guy letting his cat out, doesn’t do a lot of damage. Millions of people doing it can be catastrophic. That doesn’t make it ok for the one, though.

Also, housecats are not an indigenous species to North America. That woodpecker isn’t being killed by a natural predator.

[VarlosZ]

Yeah, this is certainly a very big deal. Ace not only opened up the door so his cat could go out, he opened up the door and let Satan escape from hell.

[Scylla]

*Originally posted by VarlosZ *
**Yeah, this is certainly a very big deal. Ace not only opened up the door so his cat could go out, he opened up the door and let Satan escape from hell. **

Well, yeah. But it was he that asked about the ethics of allowing cats to kill wildlife.

In the final analysis it’s just a cat and just a woodpecker. T’aint no huge thing.

On the other hand, I think this kind of delusionary attitude toward pet ownership is foolhardy, dangerous and causes a lot of needless suffering.

Up until May I lived on a farm adjoining the PA state game lands.

For some silly reason people seemed to be convinced that setting their dog free in the game lands was a better decision than finding another for it, taking it to the pound, or having it euthanized.

They’d set them loose in the game lands when they no longer could keep them, doubtless singing “born free” as they did so.

At the end of every summer, the game lands are full of sick feral dogs and cats. They take a huge toll on the wildlife, and they suffer horribly.

When winter sets in the dogs, lean sick and hungry, go looking for food.

Every year or so, I’d end up having to shoot 5 or 6. My neighbor who had sheep and cows would shoot dozens.

Both my wife and I had been menaced by these dogs. They are dangerous. It was a sad thing to see these former pets, sickly and starving, often with festering wounds from encounters with others of their kind.

The cats would mostly just die of starvation in the winter.

All this happened because people insist to clinging to absurd illusions about their pets

A free-roaming cat is one that will cause damage, likely be a nuisance, cause suffering, and likely sicken or be killed before it’s time.

That is not what pet ownership and responsibility is about.

[VarlosZ]

One guy letting his cat out, doesn’t do a lot of damage. Millions of people doing it can be catastrophic. That doesn’t make it ok for the one, though.

That’s a fair point, but I think we have to consider whether the action that could cause lots of damage if everyone did it is actually causing even measurable damage (you may disagree with this, depending on what you think of Kant, I guess). I see that Ace lives is Brooklyn. I can assure you that there is no cat-killing-the-wildlife epidemic in New York City, and that his cat is extremely unlikely to come into contact with anything resembling an endangered species. Those living near spotted owl preserves, on the other hand, should probably keep their cats indoors.

Also, housecats are not an indigenous species to North America. That woodpecker isn’t being killed by a natural predator.

I’ve got to disagree here. Cats have been part of the North American ecosystem for hundreds of years. The pigeons on our terrace sure know to get the hell out of there when they see one of our cats.

Also, serious question: are there no woodpeckers in Eurasia?

[Scylla]

Cats have been part of the North American ecosystem for hundreds of years.

That’s not the same as indigenous.

Also, serious question: are there no woodpeckers in Eurasia?

I’m sure there are several species. The species indigenous to North America have not evolved to deal with housecats as predators though.

An interesting anologue is the Kakapo, a flightless South American Parrot now facing extinction because it builds its nests on the ground and is not evolved to deal with introduced European predators.

As for him being in Brooklyn? Well, if he lets his cat out there, and thinks its trained not to encounter cars, and that it won’t interract with feral cats and inconvenience neighbors, as well as kill what little wildlife remains in the area, I think he’s being foolhardy.

If he thinks releasing it into an urban environment that its instincts are not equipped to deal with will help actualize it, he’s probably right. His cat will likely be actualized into a street frisbee.

[Rockford]

VarlosZ–
It’s not the neighborhood. A few birds and/or rodents here and there isn’t going to affect significantly much of anything. No ecosystem of any size is that fragile. Hell, it’s just as likely that the bird population needed thinning as it is that it was too thin already.

No. One cat killing one bird is not an issue, but millions of cats killing millions of birds is. Are you suggesting that before domestic cats were introduced to North America, the bird population was “not thin enough” and somehow needed to be reduced?

It’s not the woodpecker. He was certianly inconvenienced, but by his very nature (and by the fact that he himself kills poor defenseless insects for sustenance) he must “accept” the possibility that one of his natural predators will kill him.

First of all, domestic cats are not natural predators. “So if the cat hadn’t killed him then something else would,” you say. True enough, except that whatever else would have eaten him- a real natural predator like a hawk- now has one less opportunity to eat. Multiply this by a few million and see how the environment is disrupted. Perhaps you should go read a book on ecology before you start making pronouncements about how wildlife killings by pets are “natural.”

[VarlosZ]

Scylla:

[me:] Cats have been part of the North American ecosystem for hundreds of years.

That’s not the same as indigenous.

Yeah, I know. I was saying I disagreed with the statement that “that woodpecker isn’t being killed by a natural predator.” In the context of this discussion, I’m not overly concerned with strict scientific definitions (though I’d be interested in hearing from an actual biologist about whether a cat is a ‘natural’ predator for North American woodpeckers – I suspect that it would be, but I may be wrong). The point I was hinting at is that you’ve got to draw the line some place. After so much time with cats, the North American ecosystem reflects their presence to a degree. Significantly, it has been my experience that rodents and birds (i.e. cats’ prey) know to stay away from cats. Are woodpeckers (and/or some other prey) different in this regard? (Also see the end of my reply to Rockford.)
Rockford:

One cat killing one bird is not an issue, but millions of cats killing millions of birds is.

Please read my fourth post, in which I address this very issue, or read Scylla’s posts preceding mine, which raise precisely the same objection.

Are you suggesting that before domestic cats were introduced to North America, the bird population was “not thin enough” and somehow needed to be reduced?

Not even remotely accurate. Way off. How did you come up with that interpretation?

First of all, domestic cats are not natural predators.

Of course they are, though there is some question over whether the North American woodpecker is among their natural prey.

Perhaps you should go read a book on ecology before you start making pronouncements about how wildlife killings by pets are “natural.”

Please don’t be rude and condescending.

“So if the cat hadn’t killed him then something else would,” you say.

I said no such thing. Please don’t put words in my mouth. And please don’t attribute straw men to me so you can tear them down and insult me.

. . . whatever else would have eaten him- a real natural predator like a hawk- now has one less opportunity to eat. Multiply this by a few million and see how the environment is disrupted.

Right, but what I’ve said before is that you have to consider if letting your particular cat out in your particular environment is contributing to some particular, non-hypothetical problem. If not, I have trouble condemning it on ethical grounds (the question of the cat’s well-being aside).

Part of this (and I’m addressing this to Scylla as well) is that, by whatever means, cats are part of the environment. The ecosystem of New York (and virtually every other non-rural community) is already affected by countless outdoor cats (strays, specifically). The wildlife population already reflects their presence, already is in a certain equilibrium with respect to them, and there isn’t much of anything we can do about it (other than keeping it from getting out of hand).

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Right. I spoke to some eco-minded folks, who pointed out that woodpeckers hibernate in the winter, so this fellow was probably injured or sick, and perhaps even on the ground.

That sound true?

[Scylla]

It’s not winter.

[RickJay]

*Originally posted by DanielWithrow *
**Ace, check out my cites. You’ll see that Rickjay was wrong: **

Daniel, what the hell are you talking about? Your cite said I was right - that cats are better off inside.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Varlosz, you raise some interesting questions about the harm of outdoor cats to urban ecosystems. I don’t have comprehensive answers for you, but I invite you to poke around the American Bird Conservancy’s Web site.

Specifically, check out this pdf: Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wldlife. On page 3, there’s a section called, “Cat Predation of Wildlife in Habitat Reduced to Islands”"

Cats can have highly significant impacts on local wildlife populations, especially in habitat “islands” such as suburban and urban parks, wildlife refuges, and other habitats that are surrounded by human development. For birds, the loss of species from habitat islands is well documented, and nest predation is an important cause of the decline of neotropical migrants. The Point Arena mountain beaver, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, and Pacific pocket mouse, protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act, now live on habitat islands created by destruction and fragmentation of their habitat in California. Domestic cat predation by pet and feral cats on these species is a serious threat to their future existence on the habitat that is left.

Daniel

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

D’oh! Rickjay, my deep apologies: I was confusing something DrDeth said with your post. Specifically, DrDeth posted that

If you really love you cat- you will make it an inside only cat- such felines live twice as long.

and I was saying that according to HSUS, this was wrong – indoor cats live 4-5 times as long.

Again, sorry for the mistake!
Daniel

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

Daniel, I had the time to do the research last night. Indoor/outdoor cats are common in both the UK and Australia; they make many of the same assertions I have, and thus the cites, both opinion, anecdotal, and experience are markedly different from what you have provided:

http://messybeast.com/indooroutdoor.htm

In America it is claimed that indoor cats live twice as long as outdoor cats, although no-one has yet produced enough statistical evidence to support this claim beyond doubt. Neutered cats live longer and house pets are more likely to be neutered than free-living cats; but this longevity difference is due to neutering, not to indoor-living.
British indoor/outdoor cats frequently reach their teens and a good number reach their twenties despite their indoor/outdoor nature

http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/petswelfare/cats/indoor.html#long

Indoor cats live longer. This is true on average though plenty of outdoor cats live as long as their indoor counterparts, in fact many of the statistics quoted for the longevity of indoor cats are skewed, being based solely on breeding cats living in catteries. Always such arguments must beg the question about quality of life versus quantity. Obviously it is foolhardy to not confine cats living in high risk situations, but those extra years must be happy and fulfilling for the cat.

http://messybeast.com/towards-end.htm

With improved owner education, neutering, vaccinations and modern vet care, cats are living longer than ever before and spending proportionally more time in their senior years than their ancestors. A modern cat averages 12-16 years compared to 6-8 years in the 1930s i.e. life expectancy has doubled. Whether an indoor or indoor/outdoor lifestyle influences this is down to the locality and whether the outdoor access is free-ranging or via an enclosure. **In some areas indoor/outdoor cats average 8 years, elsewhere they average 12-14 years. In the UK, my indoor/outdoor cats average 16 years, with several reaching 19-21 years **(the exceptions died of kidney disease and of cardiomyopathy, neither condition being linked to their lifestyles).

Where outdoors is too dangerous, an indoor lifestyle prolongs life. Where outdoor dangers are moderate or minimal, it is up to you to judge whether your cat should enjoy outdoor pleasures. Remember - your cat lives for now, help him enjoy every minute of ‘now’. Some people consider the risk of infectious disease means indoors-only, others accept that the risk to a neutered cat is relatively small and that fatal accidents also occur in the home. Weigh up the risks and make an educated decision. What is right for your locality may be wrong for someone else’s locality.

Further, you may check the numerous supporting anecdotal posts here: http://www.angelfire.com/sc2/petswelfare/cats/indoor.html#long

And finally, to find hard data, I have e-mailed the American Veterinary Journal of Medicine for the relevant statistics. Failing this, I think this needs to be kicked upstairs to the big man.

Regards,
Ace

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Jesus, Ace. I offer you cites from HSUS, AHA, AVMA, ABC – from a veritable alphabet-soup of animal-related organizations – and the best you can come up with in response is an angelfire website and messybeasts.com?

Jack in the Box has been showing ads in my area lately, in which Jack threatens to air back-to-back episodes of Cat Theater unless we eat his burgers. I encourage everyone to take a look at messybeast.com – it looks like it’s created by the same folks who created Cat Theater.

Pardon me if your cites don’t blow me away. Pardon me if I laugh at your criticisms of my cites, when these are what you offer.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Daniel

[The_Ace_of_Swords]

That’s fine with me. I regard anecdotal evidence as vastly superior to factually unsupported advocacy groups. We’ll just have to disagree on the quality of our various cites, at least until the research study comes in.

-Ace.