Submitted by Bezotcovschina in AskRaddle

Skipping the question about the whole ethics of having pets:

So, my cats are outdoor cats. Always have been. And, honestly, I've never ever thought about is it good or bad. Well, I assumed it's good, because... it's good - they left whenever they like and come back whenever they feel like it and who am I to keep them locked in a flat. Yes they bring a mouse or two per year, one bird maybe once in two years, but that's how life goes, right? Predators hunt. Yes, they not even hungry, but people made them like that, so what?

But today I've stumbled upon an opinion that outdoor cats are big no-no. Not every their kill they show me. And it's my duty, as a member of specie that made them like so, to hold them isolated from wildlife.

I'm feeling very conflicted. I can understand the reasons for keeping cats indoor only. But... I don't know, they are used to it.

So, what do you think?

11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

hellofriendilu wrote (edited )

You're letting a predator out into the world, which is like cool, if there were other predators that could even the odds. Predator prey natural systems have balances so that no one is too powerful. Like in the wild maybe lions are the top predator but there's a bunch of other animals that can get lucky and take out a lion to keep that population under control. There's nothing out there doing the same for domestic cats in human population centers.

Instead they just attack the local bird, lizard and other small animal population that are already at risk with the suburbanization of what little wild lands we have left. And like I haven't read the studies but reports about it have said that domestic cats have hunted to extinction several species of small mammals, lizards, birds and other small animals.

Everyone argues that it's so natural for cats to be outside, and like sure, in places where they can actually exist within the ecosystem. But that's not where we are. And I understand the desire to let cats be the animals they want to be but whether we domesticated them or not, we did build a society where they are able to be an almost unchecked predator that reproduces quickly and has given us a hand in causing the extinction of countless species. That's on us. And the remedy to that is to make sure that cats stay inside, and that the ones that aren't inside are fixed.

9

Ennui wrote

I just want to add that it's not so much that other predators can keep predators in check, but that the prey and predator populations are tied together, and the prey evolved alongside the predators so that they can respond better.

7

lettuceLeafer wrote

But we are talking about pets here animals who population is artificially held up. If prey populations fall predator populations fall unless they are pet cats who are garunteed cat food twice a day. So predators are artificially high and don't due out if they hunt the prey to extinction.

Tho I don't understand why this is where the argument has gone to. What is natural vs what is oppressive.

4

hellofriendilu wrote (edited )

Tho I don't understand why this is where the argument has gone to.

Because of the human intervention of bringing domesticated animals out of their natural habitats and putting them in places and situations where their survival isn't dependent on prey populations we fucked up their ecosystems and it's our responsibility to mitigate as much of the harm that we've created as possible.

Like the problem of cats causing the extinction of a ton of specials of small animals is entirely the fault of humans. We did that. It's our responsibility. We can't side step that and be like "welp it's oppressive to cats" and pretend like letting them out to do what they want isn't terrorizing entire populations of small animals and driving them to extinction.

Everyone seems to be bending over backwards to free cats from the oppression of human "ownership" or control but no one seems to give a shit to all of the other animals that are being driven to extinction. What is that even about?

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

I agree with what u are saying. I did mention it in my comment. I think authoritarianism can never be the answer so I provided solutions of like relocating the cat or killing that cat but if I was OP I would just accept the extinction of animals as a acceptable externality to not do those other actions. I did talk about it.

My comment was mostly talking about how the discussion moved from the quandry of animals killing animals and instead moved for if it's natural rather than if it's anarchist.

2

vos wrote

Also, what even is 'natural'.

2

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

not to excuse myself, but we do have several huge packs of stray dogs in my neighborhood...

2

hellofriendilu wrote

What happens to rabid dogs though? Like there are some stray dogs in my area too. Not as many dogs as cats but yeah. Except that when a dog goes rabid and starts killing animals they get caught up by animal control and killed. Cats don't ever get dangerous to humans so we don't practice the same kind of population control as aggressively against cats as we do against """"""dangerous"""""" dogs.

None of this absolves us of our responsibility for having these animals live in areas they are not meant to live in.

5

vos wrote

Why are we talking about letting nonhuman people out into the world? Why do you claim authority over their bodies?

Astonished at the blatant speciesism in this thread... Isn't it against the ToS?

−3

hellofriendilu wrote (edited )

Why are you ignoring human animal intervention in the lives of domesticated nonhuman animals? Cats live in the city because we brought them there with us. We did that.

Take some fucking responsibility.

4

vos wrote

And so because we brought them into the city, they have to be incarcerated?

4

hellofriendilu wrote

So no concern at all for the hundreds of "nonhuman person" species hunted to extinction by cats?

5

vos wrote

How's that hunting any different from all the other hunting that animals engage in? Only because a human concept called 'species' ceases to refer to anyone in the arbitrarily chosen set of individuals that make up this species?

5

hellofriendilu wrote (edited )

Do you understand how ecosystems work? Do you understand what an invasive species is?

edit to add: species as in any kind of organism, not just animals.

5

emma wrote

Cats want three things:

  1. food
  2. cuddles
  3. my office chair, sometimes with my lap between it and them

They do not give a shit about "incarceration" or "authoritarianism". I've read many essays about these topics to my cats, and they always respond by getting me to feed them, or by licking themselves downstairs. The very idea that a cat can give a shit about these things, or feel they're subjected to them, makes me wonder if some of you have ever even seen a cat in your entire lives.

Predictably, the discussion has degenerated into comparisons of how the way we keep pets is superficially similar to bad stuff that is done to humans. These kind of arguments, along with the recurring "real anarchists do so and so" threads, just make me feel despair when reading this site. But I digress.

Ultimately, indoor cats can be happy and healthy. If you let them outdoors, in addition to the effect on wildlife, they risk being hurt by factors outside your control, like traffic or wild/stray animals. It's up to you if you think the benefits of letting your cats (free litter box lol) outweigh the risks.

9

vos wrote

Cats I've lived with clearly wanted to go outside and communicated this. The fact that they might not realize they're being 'subjected' or 'incarcerated' in the sense that we understand those concepts, doesn't mean that it's okay to actually have them subjected and incarcerated.

4

emma wrote

Would love to have a nice discussion about indoor pet keeping, but it can't be with someone who refers to it by loaded terms that imply cruelty, sorry.

9

vos wrote

'Indoor pet keeping' already implies a certain control or ownership over the 'pet', who is defined in terms of their subservient position or relation to their owner.

I agree that at least 'incarcerated' is somewhat loaded and I wouldn't normally use the word myself. I only did it here in this thread because other people who I replied to used them. But it doesn't change the fact that cats are kept inside, i.e. that they are not allowed to go outside, and you can't deny that they do occupy the position of a subject, in the sense that they are subject to our will.

2

emma wrote (edited )

'Indoor pet keeping' already implies a certain control or ownership over the 'pet', who is defined in terms of their subservient position or relation to their owner.

This is just yet another instance of anthropomorphising pets to draw shallow parallels between human atrocities and pet keeping. Presumably a nod to slavery?

But it doesn't change the fact that cats are kept inside, i.e. that they are not allowed to go outside, and you can't deny that they do occupy the position of a subject, in the sense that they are subject to our will.

Cats don't care about this. Cats only care about the things I listed above, and depend on humans to provide them. If anything, my cats own me, as I have to constantly feed and clean up after them (not indoor cats, btw).

Addendum: I will admit there's a valid point to be made about power imbalance, but it only really matters if you abuse your pets. This has nothing to do with indoor keeping, however.

5

vos wrote

This is just yet another instance of anthropomorphising pets to draw shallow parallels between human atrocities and pet keeping. Presumably a nod to slavery?

I'm well aware of bad parallels drawn between groups of oppressed peoples, but this was not a nod to slavery. People literally talk about being owners of 'pets'. Legally, 'pets' are considered property. It's not antropomorphizing to point out hierarchical differences.

Cats don't care about this. Cats only care about the things I listed above

You're presenting a very shallow picture of a cat's desires, which you simply cannot claim to know exhaustively or indeed, at all, because... well you're not them and you can't look into their brain. Doesn't mean we can make inferences from their behavior, but even then your list falls short.

And as I said, in my experience cats do care about being kept inside, since the ones I've lived with cried in front of the door to be let out and often tried to escape when they got the chance (staying away for days when they managed to get away). I don't get how you can claim cats don't care about being kept inside.

And even if they didn't care, because maybe all they've ever known is inside, that still doesn't mean that it's okay to keep them inside, is it? Imagine keeping a human inside from birth, and then claiming it's okay because they don't care about being kept inside.

Addendum: I will admit there's a valid point to be made about power imbalance, but it only really matters if you abuse your pets. This has nothing to do with indoor keeping, however.

At least you admit there's a power imbalance but I don't understand how you can claim that it doesn't have anything to do with keeping them inside.

2

emma wrote (edited )

You're presenting a very shallow picture of a cat's desires, which you simply cannot claim to know exhaustively or indeed, at all, because... well you're not them and you can't look into their brain. Doesn't mean we can make inferences from their behavior, but even then your list falls short.

Until it's proven that cats understand unjust hierarchy and such, I'm just going to assume cats are more or less what they seem: simple creatures that eat, sleep and hump things, with relatively complex emotional needs, and just enough cognitive ability to figure out that doors are hinged and climbing on furniture gets their humans' attentions. The concerns about authority and ownership are fundamentally beyond their understanding, and raising them on behalf of cats just comes across as some weird drive towards moral purity in the face of other anarchists who are equally lacking in sense of perspective and realistic expectations of cats' anti-authoritarian leanings.

And as I said, in my experience cats do care about being kept inside, since the ones I've lived with cried in front of the door to be let out and often tried to escape when they got the chance

This means very little, sorry to say. We have neighbour cats that will do this when they want to be let inside. It's not in any way indicative of some desire for autonomy or free roam, they're just trying to get food lol.

And even if they didn't care, because maybe all they've ever known is inside, that still doesn't mean that it's okay to keep them inside, is it? Imagine keeping a human inside from birth, and then claiming it's okay because they don't care about being kept inside.

And here you do the "what if you did this to a human" thing again. Amazing.

4

ziq wrote

cats are native here, so they have as much right to be outside as any other native animal. this ecosystem has evolved with cats as the apex predator for thousands of years.

8

Styx wrote (edited )

I think you are fine. A bigger threat to birds is the extinction of insects, deforestation and the disappearance of tall trees in cities, where they can safely hide from cats. Blaming cats for a decreasing bird population is peak liberalism.

7

moonlune wrote

A bigger threat to birds is the extinction of insects, deforestation and the disappearance of tall trees in cities, where they can safely hide from cats. Blaming cats for a decreasing bird population is peak liberalism.

I agree with this.

7

moonlune wrote

cats are partly to blame thought. If ur vegan you should probably keep your cats indoors.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

I disagree, I would say if u incarcerate animals u can't be vegan. Anarcho super nice prisons uwu aren't ever good form an anarchist perspective also. (I'm trying to be nice and friendly but I can't figure out how to say my criticism without sounding like a dick). U r interesting to talk to and doing things I view as harmful and authoritarian doesn't make u a bad person or like not an anarchist or whatever.

But I do agree that cats are a massive problem and provide many quandries for veganism. So I'm glad I'm not the only one who understands how bad this argument is.

8

moonlune wrote

Its ok I caught your vibe. I'd probably catch it if you were trying not to be nice and firendly too haha.

yeah I agree that keeping cats indoors is also animal torture. I have a friend that has a lone cat indoors and she's going insane (she was also kept alone in a rabbit cage by farmers as a baby and I assume she also was separated from her mom before being weaned, my friend "saved" her). She has cat anxiety and is scared of visitors and pisses blood when she gets stressed so my friend put her on a special diet. She wouldn't go outside anyways she's too scared but it breaks my heart to see her each time I go to my friend's place, she hisses at me when I'm less than 2 meters away.

The only real vegan solution is that all (house) cats should be sterilized asap to the limit of extinction.

6

vos wrote

Yeah violating their bodily autonomy because you as a human deem their numbers to be too high is very anti-speciesist.

/s

4

moonlune wrote (edited )

bodily autonomy

male cats rape and have spikes on their dicks.

Are you suggesting to let people's pets eat and kill to near extinction local wildlife like they did in new zealand?

4

vos wrote

Maybe if those people you call 'wildlife' hadn't had a lot of their habitats destroyed by humans, they wouldn't now be near extinct. And maybe if humans didn't massively sexually exploit the nonhumans you call 'pets', their numbers wouldn't be so high in the first place. My point is, this is the fault of humans and punishing nonhumans for our mess is messed up. So yeah, only thing that rests us now is to cope with the consequences of our actions. And of course fight civilization.

4

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

male cats rape and have spikes on their dicks

Hmmmm... I don't get your point. How it's relevant?

4

moonlune wrote

I was implying that not sterilizing cats because of "bodily autonomy" is an interesting idea when cats have rape built into their reproduction. It was mostly a gotcha argument, I didn't think much more about it.

The idea that cat sterilization is speceist is nonsense for me anyways.

1

vos wrote (edited )

The idea that cat sterilization is speceist is nonsense for me anyways.

Now replace 'cat' with any other marginalized identity and 'speciesist' with the corresponding oppression this identity faces. It's not speciesist for you because you're speciesist.

3

moonlune wrote (edited )

I'm antinatalist lol, I want humans sterilized too I don't discriminate based on species.

−1

[deleted] wrote

5

moonlune wrote (edited )

well we could also lock people up so that they can't meet other people & reproduce or destroy wildlife while playing, but the ethics of locking people up isn't great...

2

Styx wrote

the ethics of locking people up isn't great

You're almost there!!!

5

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

You just predicted my question I'll have courage to ask half-year later

3

vos wrote

I think it should be obvious that projecting human ideas about what counts as 'too many' onto nonhuman people, let alone sterilize them on the basis of these ideas, is incredibly speciesist/authoritarian.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

Okay cool. Idk about sterilization it's something I don't have an opinion on bc I'm unsure on how I feel

3

metocin wrote (edited )

So is it vegan to take cats who were raised indoors and force them to rewild against their will, and against their learned abilities? I'm vegan and I live with two cats that I took in that were both essentially abandoned by their owners. I don't think that trying to maintain the only lifestyle they know is cruel or inhumane or not vegan/not anarchist. They did not grow up hunting, and they are poorly adapted to survive the cold climate in which I live. I think the best case scenario for pets in that position is to keep them comfortable in the situation they are accustomed to, which is being indoors.

Are you honestly suggesting that the ethical thing to do is for people to abandon their pets who were raised indoors and force them to go feral?

To be clear, I don't agree with breeding pets, shopping for pets, or forcing wild animals indoors. But in the same way that I, as a domesticated human would not survive outdoors alone, house cats would not survive either.

To insinuate that I'm "incarcerating" my feline family members is ridiculous.

4

lettuceLeafer wrote (edited )

That would be a silly thing to claim. Good thing I didn't. Tho I stand by my incarceration comments.

I mean if u can quote where I said that you shouldn't feed cats or let them inside

2

metocin wrote (edited )

So you're saying that keeping an indoor cat indoors is incarceration right? What's the difference?

2

vos wrote

Well if you keep them indoors, you're incarcerating them. Nothing wrong with having a feline roommate who decides for themselves whether and when they want to go outside.

2

metocin wrote

That's not really possible or practical, and I live in a city where there are many ways for them to get injured, infected, or killed. Would that be better than "incarcerating" them? You might say that if I live in such a place then I shouldn't have taken them in. But there are many cats who get abandoned here in the city that would suffer without the help of humans because they weren't raised outdoors by other outdoor cats. It's also not really possible or practical to relocate all of these cats to rural areas.

Ideally I would live in a situation where I could have the cats come and go as they please, but that's not really possible for me and them living with me is better than living in a pound until they get put down, or abandoned on the street to starve and get ran over by a car. I'm doing the best I can for them, as good as they would likely receive from any other adoptive family, and to compare what I do for them to imprisoning humans is inaccurate, ignorant, and kind of insensitive to incarcerated people.

2

vos wrote

I don't get why it wouldn't be possible or practical. The cat that lives with my dad generally leaves and comes back whenever they want, and they live in a city.

There's also many ways for humans to get injured, infected and killed. Yet, you wouldn't advocate for humans to be locked up because of this. Cats are free agents that can make their own decisions. Who are you to determine what's best for them?

2

metocin wrote

  1. These cats did not grow up being let outside, they were indoor cats until I took them in.
  2. I took them in, therefore taking responsibility for protecting them. One of them was starving after being kicked out of their house.
  3. Cats do not possess the same level of decision making as humans.

If I think my cats want to go outside and I let them, and they get sick, get seriously injured, or killed, I am responsible for that. Do you think that's an ideal situation? Do you think it's based + praxis for me to let my sheltered indoor cats hurt or kill themselves?

It's unfortunate that animals grow up in captivity, in unnatural environments. It's also a shame that humans do. But to think that a domestic, captive cat is prepared to survive in the city where there are hostile cats and dogs, countless things to be cut by or trapped under, and moving vehicles to crush you, is ignorant. Your dads cat is lucky. The amount of cats that have to be put down or are accidentally killed in the city is ridiculous. I think its much better for me to "incarcerate" my cats and ensure they live healthy, full lives with lots of attention instead of risking an early, painful death.

And to make another point about cats and humans. Like I said, cats don't possess the decision making skills of an "average" human. If you had a human relative, who's cognitive function prevented them from having decision making skills that are expected in humans, would you allow them to roam freely in the city whenever they wished, knowing that they could easily harm themselves or be harmed by others? Or would you only allow them outside in a way that you could supervise or accompany them?

4

vos wrote

Are you responsible for what happens to them though? This implies that they are somehow not able to navigate the world themselves. And as I said, accidents do happen, but that applies to humans as well.

I find that you seriously underestimate cats, and for lack of a better word infantilize them. I also think it's arrogant and speciesist to assume that their level of decision-making is not the same than that of humans, with 'level' implying ours is superior.

Furthermore, in a sanist and ableist world where disabled people are often denied agency because of their supposed incapability to make their own decisions, and are often imprisoned because they are considered a 'harm to themselves and others' - often falsely, and even if suicidal, it's their own life - your analogy kind of falls flat...

0

metocin wrote

I find that you seriously underestimate cats

I don't think I do. As I said, I am quite aware of all the dangers that are present for a free roaming cat in the city. I made the decision to take them in, if I let a cat out doors and something bad happens to it, I do think I'm responsible because I didn't have to let them outside.

arrogant and speciesist to assume that their level of decision-making is not the same than that of humans, with 'level' implying ours is superior

Listen if you don't think your intellectual abilities are above that of a cat, then that's your problem. It's not speciesist to recognize varying levels of cognitive and rational capabilities in different species, just like it's not ableist to recognize those differences exist in humans.

your analogy kind of falls flat

An ableist world doesn't change my "analogy", which was a question that you conveniently avoided answering. In fact, a speciesist and ableist world only reinforce the point I was making because the world we live in (specifically the urban areas) present many dangers because they are ableist and speciesist.

3

vos wrote

I made the decision to take them in, if I let a cat out doors and something bad happens to it, I do think I'm responsible because I didn't have to let them outside.

By this logic, human parents are responsible for something bad happening to their children throughout their whole lives because they didn't have to let them outside.

The fact that you're referring to a cat as 'it' reveals a lot by the way.

It's not speciesist to recognize varying levels of cognitive and rational capabilities in different species, just like it's not ableist to recognize those differences exist in humans.

I agree it's not speciesist to recognize differences between species, but to claim you know the precise nature of these differences and measure them against human standards, on the basis of which you deem them inferior... yeah, that's speciesist. Just like it's ableist/sanist to do the same with cognitive differences between humans.

your analogy kind of falls flat

I'm sorry, I might not have been so clear. I think your analogy falls flat because it rests on ableism. Your analogy implied that at least some humans with cognitive abilities different from those we 'expect' from humans (i.e. neurotypical humans) should not be allowed to 'roam free' - which is quite a derogatory way to refer to the movement of disabled people to be honest - on the basis of ableist/sanist assumptions about the danger of neurodivergent people and/or because they are deemed incapable of making their own decisions.

Furthermore, while I agree that this ableist and speciesist world presents many dangers, I don't think that the way to go about this is to not allow nonhuman animals or disabled people to go outside. A better way to go about this would be to take actions that directly target ableism/speciesism, for example through making places more accessible, making spaces safer for nonhumans, educating people about neurodivergence and how to support disabled people and help them meet their needs, etc.

1

metocin wrote

The fact that you're referring to a cat as 'it' reveals a lot by the way.

I actually try not to use "it", didn't mean to

but to claim you know the precise nature of these differences and measure them against human standards, on the basis of which you deem them inferior... yeah, that's speciesist

So is it anti-speciesist to assume all species of animals have equal intelligence? lol

it's ableist/sanist to do the same with cognitive differences between humans

It is not abliest to recognize that there are cognitive differences between humans. I have adhd, it's not ableist for someone to recognize that I function differently to others. That's ridiculous.

while I agree that this ableist and speciesist world presents many dangers

Okay, so wouldn't you agree that in the meantime, while those dangers still exist, that there is some reason to be cautious of allowing certain domesticated species or humans with severely limited cognitive abilities to explore (specifically urban) outdoor spaces alone in order to keep them from harming themselves or being harmed by others?

By the way you can respond but I am not replying any further because I don't think either of us are going to convince each other of anything and I'm kind of sick of you calling me ableist and speciesist for caring about the well-being of nonhuman species and differently abled humans. It's not bigoted to understand that some folks need care and companionship in order to thrive in an ableist, speciesist world.

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

U didn't listen to OP. Their problem is that their cats kill things they didn't bring up an argument about them killing a lot.

Blaming cats for a decreasing bird population is peak liberalism.

This is literal denial of reality. OP said their cat kills birds so of course it decreases bird population.

So I don't need to engage with the argument but I do think the argument if relevant is really bad too.

4

Styx wrote

Their problem is that their cats kill things they didn't bring up an argument about them killing a lot.

Can you quote the bit I supposedly overlooked?

Yes they bring a mouse or two per year, one bird maybe once in two years, but that's how life goes, right? Predators hunt.

/\ Seem the OP are not really bothered by their cats killing things. So I'm really confused what it is that you are trying to say.

cat kills birds so of course it decreases bird population

Yes and birds kill insects, so shall we also blame them for the drastically decreasing numbers of insects??

If you wish to blame nature for being nature, be my guest. But I think there is someone else who should be blamed for the destruction of the entire planet's ecosystem and that someone walks on two legs and builds really huge factories.

5

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

/\ Seem the OP are not really bothered by their cats killing things.

I wasn't bothered. Nature being nature, sure. Until I pondered about it and my responsibility. Sorry for misunderstanding.

4

Styx wrote

It's nothing to do with you, don't worry.

5

Bezotcovschina OP wrote

U didn't listen to OP

That's my bad. My post is incoherent rumble. I didn't know how to put it properly

3

lettuceLeafer wrote

U post is extremely obvious. The person who responded literally just assumed what ur argument Is. Ur post is exactly fine. This is something Styx is natorious for doing at this point

2

lettuceLeafer wrote

Authoritarian utilitarianism and anti authoritarianism are concepts often at odds. So often removals of freedom or hierarchies are justified by doing something from a utilitarian standpoint good.

For me I think the only good way to have pets is to let them do whatever they want. If I where to have a pet I would have to live pretty secluded so they could just run around and do whatever. Often times the stray dynamic is good. Have a way for them to come inside and leave anytime they want and maybe feed them. The pets relationship can be terminated at any time and their interactions with u r always their choice.

Now a while ago I posed an interesting question that no one really answered to my satisfaction. Is it okay to kill species which are invasive. For example house cats in my area elimate many species and absolutely destroy local ecosystem. At my uncle's farm people dump strays there constantly. They reproduce incredibly fast so there has gotten up to like 100 strays. And over the years they have decimated most of the life on like 100+ acres. So there is a question to be asked from a self preservation standpoint having animals just kill everything until the local ecosystem collapses and the said invasive species starves unless artificially propped up is bad. Would killing the animals be something even vegan or anarchist? I'm still not sure. Tho in the scenario it's irrelevant how much kill as it's a discussion about how they do kill.

Now I'm also extremely against controlling behavior that limits freedom. Now I would say I'm against the possession of living things but u would be enabling of hobby killing potentially endangered species for sport. So I guess if I where u I would give myself two options. Either kill the cat, have it live somewhere it can't kill living room things while not being restricted or just let the cat live it's life and own the harm u cause.

The authoritarian urge to restrict living things and control them for utilitarian purposes is something I am vehemently against. Now sure it would be for preservation of life but I mostly am only pro disencouragment of violence, avoidance or killing. I don't want to live in a world where people try to restrict others autonomy and rob them of freedom so I don't consider it an option as I'm so against it.

If I where u I would be pretty confident I would just let the cat do what it wants and .make it's own harmful decisions. Prob think about how I've come closer to bug game hunters that I would think. And maybe gain some empathy for how it's more understandable why people would do such a thing. I treating question tho I disagree with the premise that trying to control the pet would something to do or the ownership philosophy that u are responsible for a pets decision and u aren't. (well if u massively control a living thing u are but if u let it live it's life like u say u do then the pets decisions r its own.)

6

cicada wrote

get them a break-away collar with a bell

6

lettuceLeafer wrote

Ah yeah, trying to get stuff so the cats fails at hunting is a good idea

7

fortifiedmischief wrote

5

hellofriendilu wrote

I don't think that domesticated cats are native to the Americas. We have native cats but they're not domesticated as far as I can tell. I didn't research this recently but I remember looking into it once when thinking about cats as house pets and if they should be indoors only.

4

cdubose wrote (edited )

I used to have cats and I preferred them to be strictly indoors. My reasons for it (in addition to the idea you already outlined that they tend to devastate local rodent/insect/bird/lizard/etc. populations):

  • indoor cats are less likely to catch an enrivonmental illness and get sick
  • indoor cats are less like to get pregnant/contribute to a pregnancy and create a community of stray cats
  • outdoor cats can wander into people's yards/garden and eat plants that are poisonous to them (or dear to the person who tends the garden)
  • outdoor cats can also run across people who are allergic to cats
  • outdoor cats are more likely to be run over, terrorized by a loose dog, injured in a cat fight, stolen, taken to a shelter without your knowledge, etc.

I had the opinion that if I was "trapping" them inside or permanently locking them up by not letting them go outside, then I shouldn't have cats--which is a large part of the reason I no longer have cats.

5

videl wrote (edited )

depends on how much you enjoy living in a diverse ecosystem.
if it were me i'd try to find a cat sanctuary for the cat or i'd keep them generally indoors if no sanctuary is available.
indoors is not ideal but I would feel more guilt/anxiety as I notice less birds lizards frogs etc over the years because of this cat that I introduced to the area. it would just upset me more to see this ecological decline in my area that is already declining faster than I like than it would be to keep the cat generally indoors.
but really no good available solution under current systems and we're all fucked.
at least spay/neuter the cat.

5

lettuceLeafer wrote

Another thought I have. Many humans lives are far more destructive to living things compared to cats. So letting the cats be out in the wild and spending that time to solve human caused destruction is prob the best solution.

4

vos wrote

Kind of shocked at the fact that many people here seem to think it's okay to determine for cats what's best for them and lock them up as a consequence. And that cats should be sterilized and/or held captive because they are with 'too many', which is the fault of humans anyway. Respect their autonomy and leave them the fuck alone.

3

[deleted] wrote

3

vos wrote

They don't need our saving. They can take care of themselves. We just need to stop destroying the environment they live in.

2

vos wrote

To be clear, with 'leave them the fuck alone' I don't mean that living and interacting with cats is somehow not okay. I just mean that you shouldn't interfere with their autonomy and restrict their movement or remove a fucking organ.

1

veuzi wrote (edited )

I get this argument but nah, I'm not gonna keep my cat locked inside. She would go crazy.

But if it's of any help, she's neutered and also really bad at catching birds. I don't think I've seen her catch a single bird so far. There are also other cats in this neighborhood (and they sometimes get into fights with mine) but I'm not seeing any less birds around the place. These are mostly smaller birds like the blue tit who can fly fast, so that's a major advantage. I haven't seen any nests that would be accessible to any of the cats.

There are like no rodents here though, so that may be an indication of overhunting, or just that this neighborhood was never a suitable environment for rodents and small mammals in the first place.

She's otherwise a decent hunter of rodents and rodent-sized mammals. During the summer my family takes her up to their vacation house, which is in a remote, coastal area. She has learned to avoid the birds over there (seagulls and eagles are nothing for a cat to mess with), but she utterly decimates the mice and shrews that inhabit the crawlspaces under the house and the forest next door. She doesn't like to eat the shrews so she brings them to us, and then I have to pick it up by the tail and chuck into the ocean for the seagulls to chomp down on. But the fact that she doesn't stray far from the house and she's only predating there 1-2 months a year, that probably gives the shrews and mice a fighting chance.

3

Quicksilver wrote

Maybe compromise. Like, some folks walk their cats on leads/leashes, so that's an option. Or supervise your cats outdoor time.

I think this conversation can have a bit more nuance than either "cats have unrestricted freedom to roam the earth" and "cats must be held prisoner in my house".

Like, unfortunately, weve created these sort of situations, and while the compromised action isn't the most ethical action, I don't think there is an action that is. I do think it's probably on the least unethical side at least, all things considered.

3

videl wrote (edited )

sounds like a few of you are probably ok with colonization then judging by your cat supremacist logic. "let the colonizers kill! dont interfere with their autonomy! its natural!" funny since the raddle mascot is a frog but ok.

1