this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
166 points (89.9% liked)

Australia

3590 readers
171 users here now

A place to discuss Australia and important Australian issues.

Before you post:

If you're posting anything related to:

If you're posting Australian News (not opinion or discussion pieces) post it to Australian News

Rules

This community is run under the rules of aussie.zone. In addition to those rules:

Banner Photo

Congratulations to @[email protected] who had the most upvoted submission to our banner photo competition

Recommended and Related Communities

Be sure to check out and subscribe to our related communities on aussie.zone:

Plus other communities for sport and major cities.

https://aussie.zone/communities

Moderation

Since Kbin doesn't show Lemmy Moderators, I'll list them here. Also note that Kbin does not distinguish moderator comments.

Additionally, we have our instance admins: @[email protected] and @[email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
lodion
Fluid
bestusername
eatham
166
Keeping pet cats indoors would save millions of native animals and billions of dollars. So what's stopping us? (www.abc.net.au)
submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by trk to c/australia
65 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Broader adoption of keeping cats safe at home would have large benefits for cat welfare, human health, local wildlife and even the economy. So, should cat owners be required to keep their pets contained to their property?

The answer to the question is obviously "yes".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8640698/

  1. We didn't know or study the effects of pesticides in various wild birds. And it varies wildly between species, with chickens not being a good general case. Also that birds are considerably more affected by pesticides than mammals.

  2. Simple logic. Housecats do not have access to deep woods or exist in large populations outside of cities and suburbs in North America, yet the populations are declining there. This implies that they are not the cause of the decline.

  3. This logic is backed up by https://www.birds.cornell.edu/home/bring-birds-back#:~:text=All%20told%2C%20the%20North%20American%20bird%20population%20is,declined%20by%2053%25%2C%20or%20another%20720%20million%20birds.

LWhich points out that it is a multitude of factors and that grassland species(i.e. farmland) are the most affected, with wetland and forest species being less affected.

  1. Further logic is that the decline is a relatively new phenomenon. But housecats killing birds is not new. Therefore something else is behind the decline, and simply keeping cats inside will not fix the issue.
[–] trk 9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

That's a whole heap of words to say "maybe". On the other side of the world.

If you're happy being a selfish piece of shit, feel free to leave your cat roam. When Mittens gets hit by a car / contracts feline aids / otherwise meets a premature death, you can rest easy knowing that akshually it was probably pesticides.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Say you didn't understand what any of those papers said without saying you didn't understand what those papers said.

[–] Riftinducer 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I mean, he doesn't have to say it, your comment and the sources did a good job suggesting you only did a cursory read yourself.

  1. The first paper states that birds are less sensitive to pyrethroid based pesticides, which makes your broad statements about pesticides sketchy at best.

  2. Simple logic doesn't work in science specifically because it's simple and is subject to internal biases. You can't make an assumption and appeal to intuitive reasoning without some evidence to draw that link.

  3. Your second paper doesn't back up your claim. It states that bird population loss is a multifaceted problem. Yes, pesticide use is called out as a factor, but so too is habitat loss through urbanisation and unregulated harvesting practices, which kind of answers your point 4.

  4. These are all American sources. As a result, very little of this is applicable to the Australian biosphere beyond the most broad strokes since they dont take into account differences in local food webs, urban planning, environmental legislation etc.

TLDR, someone is using irrelevant sources and their dislike of pesticides to justify keeping their cats outside

[–] [email protected] -5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

No it absolutely doesnt.

It absolutely states that birds are considersbly more at risk, and that we dont know how by how much. Try reading more than the intro next time.

I said that cats arent the problem, they're a symptom of it. That is a definition of a multifacted problem. That paper absolutely says the same thing.

The reality is that you could keep every housecat inside and it would not stop the decline.

[–] trk 4 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

"There's a possibility that some other factor may play a part in offsetting one of the negative impacts of free-range cats... therefore, all other positives of containing pets may be completely ignored"
- You, 2024

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I feel like you're a top tier anti-vaxxer too.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 5 months ago

Lol, Person points out logical flaws in only blaming cats and suggests the root problem is known problematic pesticides and herbicides that are doing things like creating the conditions for "colony collapse disorder" in bees.

Also I'm up to date on my booster shots.