http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/11/12/bird-on-bird-hatedinner-crime-on-seattles-capitol-hill Comments On: Bird-On-Bird Hate Crime/Dinner Time on Seattle's Capitol Hill by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Fri, 24 May 2013 07:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss Posted by Mister G]]> Thu, 15 Nov 2012 11:16:16 -0800 The Stranger
@32 I looked at your links, and the first one is about Australia. Cats haven't been there as long as they've been in North America, and I don't know if any Shakespeare-loving idiots stupidly imported any English songbirds there. The equilibrium, if any, between the introduced mesopredator and the native birds may not the be same as in North America. Because of this (and because reading the article would cost $31.50) I focused on the second link.

The second study was conducted in North America. It seems to be saying was that cats did eat lots of birds but it doesn't specifically say whether or not they were damage done. Cat predation was found to be independent of cat population density. I've read elsewhere that cats' hunting territories shrink if they must compete with other cats. One of the reasons I didn't keep my non-insano cat indoors was because we had so many strays in the area and I believed they'd take over any territory that she didn't use. In this way, the findings of this paper are consistent with the belief that allowing my pet cats outside did not cause significant additional damage.

It also seems that lots of researchers agree with me: "Because domestic cats have coexisted with humans for centuries, Fitzgerald and Turner (2000) argue that any continental population of birds that could not withstand predation by cats would have been extirpated long ago. Another perspective holds that cats are simply occupying the role of a natural predator. That is, cats are assumed to fill a role similar to that of species such as raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), and raptors. A final point that has been made is that people simply observe avian depredation by cats more than other natural phenomena because it takes place during the day time and often close to the house, which results in the assumption that cats are reducing bird populations (see Patronek, 1998 for details)."

I notice that the second paper mentions specific species, naming which ones are threatened and which aren't. That's good. Drawing distinctions between native and introduced bird species would be even better. No one should mind that my cats ate starlings and other European birds.

As to the lack of correlation that these researchers found between the level of respondent education and the tendency to allow cats outside, I can answer that right now: It's not that people aren't hearing the message. It's that the request is not reasonable. Even among cat owners whose pets do not become violent if kept indoors, it constitutes a moderate lifestyle change.

This makes me wonder. We have studies of cat predation on birds, but what about rodents? In the northeast, the deer ticks that cause lyme disease are carried by the white-footed mouse far more than by deer. I wonder if cats have any effect on the prevalence of lyme. ...but then, the white-footed mice are also eating those nasty invasive gypsy moth larvae... Hm.
Posted by DRF]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:32:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by mitten]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:15:31 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Squirrel Cop]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:55:08 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DRF]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:09:16 -0800 The Stranger
@30 The cat I mentioned above? We got him from a litter. He had never been outside except. We'd planned for him to be indoor-only, but he became violent. We let him go outside and all the problems evaporated within weeks. And we know it wasn't just aging because whenever we had to keep him in, like for a snowstorm, he'd go nuts again.

@32 Thanks for the links. I stand by what I said: There are places in North America where keeping all cats indoors would not make any difference because any damage they could do was done before 1850. Look at it this way, if I took public transit into the city, it would be better for the environment, but it would take three times as long as driving. Telling cat owners to make all cats indoor-only no matter what is unreasonable. Saying, "Here are the three critical fledging weeks for bird species your area; keep the cat inside then if reasonably practical" is a bit more like, "Take the bus a few times a month." It might actually work and it doesn't demonstrate any gross ignorance about what cats are actually like.
Posted by DRF]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:03:16 -0800 The Stranger Posted by CATSPAW666]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 12:03:06 -0800 The Stranger
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_…
Posted by Anti-m]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 11:40:49 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Friendstastegood]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:30:33 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Friendstastegood]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 10:28:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Totalpukoid]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 08:44:56 -0800 The Stranger
And as far as I'm concerned, my cats can eat as many house finches as they can catch. The damn birds breed worse than mice and there are hundreds here. Fortunately for the birds the cats aren't very interested in them, but instead go for voles and mice. Some of us let our cats outside during the day for a reason and that reason is pest control.
Keeping cats indoors at night seems to keep them alive for close to twenty years around here.
Posted by swing state voter]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:40:03 -0800 The Stranger www.birdsbesafe.com) which has worked great. The birds see the brightly colored collar and fly away. If you like allowing your cat outside and also care about species survival, check these collars out!
Posted by Drusilla]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:34:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Eric from Boulder]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 07:18:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pick1]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 06:53:01 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MemeGene]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 04:37:08 -0800 The Stranger to keep the minds of the credulous greedy grasping Moocher Class off the impending Fiscal Crisis.
best not to discuss that their Mooching Lifestyle is on the chopping block.
in 48 days....
Posted by Prosperity=Seagull. Obama=Owl. yumyum.]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:47:04 -0800 The Stranger
Who gives a shit?
Posted by blarglkasdfj asld]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 02:10:08 -0800 The Stranger
I am sympathetic to the dangers of allowing cats to roam free. I am lucky in that my own cat likely suffers from some combination of kitty introversion and kitty asperger's -- she's a freak and is 100% okay with not being the slightest bit curious about the weird world outside the window.
Posted by emor]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 01:19:02 -0800 The Stranger
And cat-lovers who rationalize why Mitten MUST be allowed outside: accept some responsibility.

View it as comparable to being an omnivore: yes, it is better for the planet, and my health, and for the animals that I eat, for me to go vegan. But I LIKE meat. Yum. So I continue to eat meat despite it not being optimal for the planet, or my health, or certainly for the critters I eat.

Likewise, an owner of an indoor-outdoor cat should bite the bullet and accept some fucking responsibility: yes, Mittens is a human-introduced predator to North America, and contributes to a devastating problem for native birds. But you LIKE Mittens, and she's happier when she can go outside. So you keep her, and continue to allow her outside, despite it not being optimal for the native wildlife, especially the birds, where you live.

That is all.
Posted by Functional Atheist]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:37:44 -0800 The Stranger Ditto @32.
Posted by hayfromstraw]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:31:18 -0800 The Stranger Posted by eric1972sea]]> Tue, 13 Nov 2012 00:12:56 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Pussy Galore]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:44:59 -0800 The Stranger Posted by watchout5]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:32:34 -0800 The Stranger
Saying that cats have been on the continent for 400 years is kind of disingenuous. I mean things like climate change and disease have been around since time immemorial, but they still represent risks to species. Just because it appears that there is an equilibrium doesn't mean that there aren't ongoing negative effects. Domestic and feral cats remain a stressor on various populations through not only direct predation, but by altering the behaviour patterns of prey species and by introducing diseases and parasites. Note some of these effects would not be negated by only occasionally keeping domestic cats indoors.

Even if domestic and feral cats aren't directly wiping out species (although they have done so several times in the past), they still put stress on populations which in conjunction with stress from habitat destruction, climate change and other factors which threaten the long term survival of many species. No one is saying that cats are the greatest ecological threat we face, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't recognize and act on the harm they cause.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…

http://archive.csis.msu.edu/Publications…

Some non-birder research I found in a minutes of poking around. There's more in depth and more recent stuff around if you feel like putting effort into looking for it. As an environmental scientist I agree with the spirit of your comment and the view expressed in the second paper, that various parties need to come together to form some sort of acceptable solution. However cat owners in my experience are the party which is really loathe to do so, to the point where colleagues tend to joke about coyotes and possum traps as the answer.
Posted by Hanging in C.C]]> Mon, 12 Nov 2012 23:14:59 -0800 The Stranger