this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
967 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
8891 readers
2880 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm not sure what you're saying here. But, like most suburbs do in fact host some songbirds- especially during migration. Parks, wooded areas, etc. Cats don't really care if it's a suburban park or a shitty nature preserve that apartments maintain because they bought the land but it's wetlands (and set it up as a sort of "we bait deer and racoons and shit ~~so your kids can catch rabies and other exciting diseases~~ pet them."
There are very, very few places that humans haven't modified in some way. and I'm not sure they even exist at all.
There's peregrine falcons that hunt doves in downtown minneapolis (and they're super fun to watch if you can catch them. Animals can and do adapt to humanity's bullshit. feral cats are more of that bullshit.
Cats should absolutely not be let out. it's not safe for the cat (Coyotes, owls. diseases. cars. Just getting stuck. and enviromental exposure.) and it's not safe for other wildlife (songbirds, rodents. etc,)
Not a lot to disagree with here, except your conclusion is really out of place.
Those falcons don’t really hunt doves…they mostly hunt imported pigeons…and that’s not a unique thing…I live in Canada where we have far more exciting prey birds in every city.
Anyways. People in cities get really weird about focusing on things that really aren’t significant…this kind of reminds me of wind turbines killing birds. Sure…it’s true…but neither cats nor wind turbines could possibly threaten birds. What threatens birds more profoundly is driving a gas vehicular or subscribing to Netflix so you can watch a documentary about how evil cats are. Or…living in a city in the first place.
I could wax philosophical and wonder if it’s a general aversion to witnessing predation that makes people anti cat…but it’s probably just people who have bird feeders being really loud. Hope you win, and have fun with all the rats…another totally natural species lol.
House cats have literally been responsible for the extinction of several species. Their roaming territory can be a several mile radius.
They are absolutely a major threat to local wildlife regardless of human changes to the area.
I'd really like to see where you get these facts. I am not awa of any species that went extinct because of cats specifically, and I never saw a cat with a territory of more than a few hundred meters radius.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat
I've personally witnessed one of my cats well over a mile from home back when they were allowed outside.
Cats haven’t made anything go extinct, don’t be silly. You’re likely talking about that one cat on that tiny island.
Cats don’t live near wildlife…or they’d get killed by predators.
I like how confidently incorrect you are.
Hm? I’m perfectly correct. Figuratively :)
I don’t give a shit about cats…insofar as they’re only useful if they can survive long enough to kill mice for me.
My interest in this topic is fleeting…I think it’s amusing that some city people believe that cats are on any list that’s important. Be an anti materialist…you’ll save a lot more “wildlife”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_predation_on_wildlife
House cats are an invasive species. They reproduce quickly and are very effective hunters. They are absolutely a recognized threat to local ecosystems.
This isn’t some zero sum thought exponent where you “win” if you can find me some edge cases. What else do you think was involved with these extinctions? Do you think maybe it was a bunch of people showing up with a bunch of bullshit and destroying everything, perhaps? Yeah…we’ve destroyed things 10000 different ways…I’m sure cats were high in that list once or twice.
You’re kind of skipping the elephant in the room if you make cats the bad guy instead of human nature. All you’re doing is treating a symptom and you’ll save approximate 0% of the environment (rounded the the closest %) of you go on an anti-cat crusade.
Man, you really enjoy being confidently incorrect, don't you.
You're right about one thing, though, this isn't some zero sum issue. You can definitely acknowledge cats are an ecological threat without taking away from the fact that humans are also an ecological threat.
Lots of claims from you in here about being personally fine with allowing invasives into your area, but is there any researched evidence for it?
I never said I was “personally fine with invasive species” you’re projecting.
Looks like he's just trying to steelman the things you say into something that is at least logically defensible.
Someone gets it
Pretty much. To me it’s such a “boutique” opinion to get outraged about how dangerous cats are…without any context or consideration for the context in which cats exist in the first place.
Like…it’s akin to a first world problem…a bunch of people saw a documentary about cats, felt that they had some measure of power to deal with cats…and haven’t considered any of the major problems created by routines that they participate in that actually mean something.
Yes, cats are terrible. But killing all the owls (another commenter brought this up) and putting up all the bird feeders that gave the cats so much easy “prey” is also worth considering.
The weird thing is the OP is about cats getting killed by coyotes…who are a much more dangerous pest species (in the contexts that they’re eating cats) than the cats.
I’m definitely overthinking this…but my angle is I’m a rural person who has livestock and rodent problems. A much different scenario to somebody who lives in an apartment and got radicalized by some amateur birder who hates cats because they don’t want to leave the city to see birds
Radicalized?
lol. That’s right. We’re going to show up and terrorize you. Make you eat tofu and crunchy granola.
There are better, more effective and less expensive methods of control that don’t harm native life nearly as much. But given your a rural farmer raising livestock, you’re insistence cats aren’t that bad is rather telling. Though I’m uncertain as to why you’re unwilling to educate yourself about more modern controls… quite literally better for your bottom line.
This “educate yourself” nonsense is rich…given you didn’t engage with anything I said.
I’m an off grid subsistence farmer and an anti-materialist. It’s exactly because I “educated myself” that I’m out here. Cats are pretty fucking low on the list of harm the humans cause to the environment…they only exist as a “problem” in fake environments created where humans mass together.
You clearly haven’t studied anything, and frankly, your rhetoric is ignorant. Haven’t engaged with anything you’ve said is also a lie.
Go back and read my comments.
By the way, “fake environments” is a pretty fucking ignorant thing to be saying. Urban environments may be dominated by humanity, and transformed to fit us- for better or worse- they’re certainly real, and wild animals are evolving and adapting as they do.
You’re the one who sounds like a radicalized nut job. Keep talking I’m done listening to some one who equates me with white supremacists and Islamic jihadists. (Yes. That’s what “radicalized” means you asswipe.)
Rhetoric? I wish my arguments were rhetorical.
Yes, if you live in city and you’re a materialist you live in a fake environment and you’re the problem. If you think that’s radical, pour it on me.
Your room-temperature IQ is showing.
Such nuance.
Such a lack of intelligence.
Insults are the perfect argument. You win.
You know that pigeons are a type of dove, right?
Sounds rather like you don’t know what you’re talking about and don’t actually have a real argument. Most predatorial birds will take whatever they can without being too picky about it.
Peregrine don’t care if you call it a rock dove or a pigeon, they’ll happily call it dinner. Same as they would any other kind of dove.
Except that cats don’t reduce the overall ecological burden in the way that windmills likely do. That’s a complex topic and I’d say irrelevant.
I rather doubt you can, actually. Seeing as your entire arguments so far have been whataboutisms and dismissive personal attacks. Uninspired ones at that.
I’m not anti cat so much as I am “anti-letting cats out.” But you seem to think that being “anti” is a bad thing. It’s not. It’s just semantics. I’m also “anti-letting rats run free” too; and for the same reasons.
Cats also don’t generally go after actual rats, either. They tend to go after mice and voles and other smaller (and safer,) rodents, so the “cats kill rats” isn’t really a good argument either. (Also small lizards, bugs and other smaller critters in general.)
There’s better ways to deal with rats that don’t affect native rodents (or other native wildlife) in the way cats do. And letting cats out to hunt is dangerous for the cat on several fronts.
My argument is you’re spending way too much energy thinking about outdoor cats, which are irrelevant to the larger argument of harm to the environment.
It’s a distraction from the problem that humans themselves pose to the environment…you’d get a lot more bang for your buck and the cat problem would take care of itself it if you were less materialistic, for example.
If you think you’re doing a goddamn thing by keeping your cat indoors, while at the same time running on the hamster wheel on consumerism…I have news for you.
How much energy I spend on something is irrelevant to this conversation. You’re welcome to walk away any time if you feel you’re spending too much.
My argument is simple:
Your arguments are basically “nuhuh” and anti-consumerism screeds that belong elsewhere, and are rather a bit hypocritical considering you have to be engaging in some level of commerce just to be having this “conversation”
Noting you say about consumerism is all that relevant. That doesn’t change anything about three points, and any criticism you’re going to make about humanity being awful also doesn’t change those three points.
I could go on about decision theory, but humanity sucking or another irrelevant whataboutism doesn’t matter here. Those things will remain the same regardless of if you or anyone one else lets the cat out or not. A billionaire is going to do billionaire shit regardless.
You’re rearranging the deck chairs on The Titanic. If it makes you feel better, knock yourself out.