In countries where cats are native, they have significantly less impact on wildlife, or at the very least form a part of an ecosystem rather than being a manual introduction (admittedly one complication here is cat populations grouping up in suburban areas). As for safety for the cats, in their native countries they don’t have any serious predators to harm them.
I don’t know if Finland is considered native for cats but it’s against the law to let cats roam freely because there’s a very real risk of them getting injured, disease or dying. Not just from predators but from humans and cars and so on. A dead cat on the side of the road is a too common of a sight. I think the effect on wildlife is seen as secondary and the welfare of the cat is the foremost reason for it.
I live in the UK where there are an estimated 10.8 million cats and have literally never seen “a dead cat on the side of the road”. I appreciate that it is a real risk and that it does happen, but you’re either blowing things out of proportion or there is something weird going on with Finnish cats and or Finnish drivers.
Statistically only 25% of road traffic accidents involving cats are fatal, so the chances are good the cat can survive with urgent care - instead of being left to suffer a painful death.
I was just showing you that there’s a lot of cats dying from accidents with cars. A lot more getting injured from it. And it’s just one hazard of many. That’s why it’s not seen as responsible pet ownership (and not legal) where I live to let them roam without supervision. Could get hit by a car and suffer horribly from it without you being able to do anything about it, which would be horrific.
What’s really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?
I mean getting a cat is selfish to begin with since you are getting yourself a pet after all, but as a pet owner you’re supposed to take as good care of them as possible. It’s like with kids. Once you’ve made the decision to get one you’re responsible for it and it would be silly to expect a small child to make the decisions. You’re the one who is responsible for their well-being.
If we’re going to get philosophical, is there truly such a thing as an unselfish act?
So you wouldn’t let a kid ever do anything that had any sort of risk at all? Do you know how many children die in RTAs each year? Would you stop your child from ever walking down the street or being in a car or bus?
If not, why is it ok to put your own child at risk of an RTA but not a cat?
We don’t have to get philosophical. It’s just that here you’re not supposed to let cats roam freely without supervision because there’s a fair risk of injury, disease or death and if those happen you might not be in position to help. So it would be irresponsible pet ownership to put them under unnecessary risk.
That’s not what I’m saying. Not only the USA. Other places where domestic cats are very new, like USA, NZ, etc also probably shouldn’t do outdoor cats.
What is different in other places?
In countries where cats are native, they have significantly less impact on wildlife, or at the very least form a part of an ecosystem rather than being a manual introduction (admittedly one complication here is cat populations grouping up in suburban areas). As for safety for the cats, in their native countries they don’t have any serious predators to harm them.
I don’t know if Finland is considered native for cats but it’s against the law to let cats roam freely because there’s a very real risk of them getting injured, disease or dying. Not just from predators but from humans and cars and so on. A dead cat on the side of the road is a too common of a sight. I think the effect on wildlife is seen as secondary and the welfare of the cat is the foremost reason for it.
British cats go to cat school as soon as their eyes open so we have very smart cats that can navigate roads.
Sounds like it since nobody seems to be concerned about the cats, just birds.
I live in the UK where there are an estimated 10.8 million cats and have literally never seen “a dead cat on the side of the road”. I appreciate that it is a real risk and that it does happen, but you’re either blowing things out of proportion or there is something weird going on with Finnish cats and or Finnish drivers.
Found this
https://www.cats.org.uk/teignbridge/news/animal-road-accident-awareness-day
230,000÷10,800,000÷4x100%≈0.5%
If I had to personally take that risk or stay in the house for the rest of my life. I’d choose freedom every time.
What’s really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?
Wheres your mom? This is a convo for grown ups who understand pet ownership
I was just showing you that there’s a lot of cats dying from accidents with cars. A lot more getting injured from it. And it’s just one hazard of many. That’s why it’s not seen as responsible pet ownership (and not legal) where I live to let them roam without supervision. Could get hit by a car and suffer horribly from it without you being able to do anything about it, which would be horrific.
I mean getting a cat is selfish to begin with since you are getting yourself a pet after all, but as a pet owner you’re supposed to take as good care of them as possible. It’s like with kids. Once you’ve made the decision to get one you’re responsible for it and it would be silly to expect a small child to make the decisions. You’re the one who is responsible for their well-being.
If we’re going to get philosophical, is there truly such a thing as an unselfish act?
So you wouldn’t let a kid ever do anything that had any sort of risk at all? Do you know how many children die in RTAs each year? Would you stop your child from ever walking down the street or being in a car or bus?
If not, why is it ok to put your own child at risk of an RTA but not a cat?
We don’t have to get philosophical. It’s just that here you’re not supposed to let cats roam freely without supervision because there’s a fair risk of injury, disease or death and if those happen you might not be in position to help. So it would be irresponsible pet ownership to put them under unnecessary risk.
They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.
That’s not true. In Finland it’s actually against the law because it’s considered irresponsible animal ownership.
USA isn’t the only place where there’s reason to fear the cat gets hurt, disease or could die.
I’m in total agreement just to be clear
Ah alright. It just felt so weird seeing all the comments about USA being different, so my mind got all jumbled.
I thought it was the same everywhere more or less as well.
That’s not what I’m saying. Not only the USA. Other places where domestic cats are very new, like USA, NZ, etc also probably shouldn’t do outdoor cats.