Those cute, fluffy killing machines

Ooookaaaaay… not sure why this is news. ABC must be really bored. Either that or they’re afraid to touch anything political.

The first thing to ask, as always, is who funded this study – and the 22 studies aggregated in this study? Then, how good are the research methods involved? Watch this site to find out. 😉

Re: Kirk @ 4. Ah yes, the kitty cam study. Brought to us, in part, by National Geographic, who backed all that good research into the historical Christ, like the Jesus tomb and the Jesus wife. 😀

You can have my kitty when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

Well, okay; you can take it now, for all I care. I’m with New Zealand. Kiwis, unite!

@Tom

You’re in denial. Your cats a psychopaths.

*Cats are psychopaths.

I swear I passed 4th grade.

For Joe and others:

Who cares? What better proof that we live in a fallen world than the nature of cats. When you pet a cat well enough, it will want to bite, claw, and draw blood. Cats are very efficient killing machines; but they do not kill quickly. I have seen a cat we had take over an hour to torture a mouse to death. Our neighbors say this is nature’s way – but does nature include vet visits, regular meals, and a safe place to sleep? We have far fewer songbirds than when we were younger. Farmers have to use more pesticide because fewer birds eat fewer insects. The world can be beautiful as well as wretched. Do we need to feed and encourage those aspects reminding us of the Fall?

Of course by writing sentences like this gem: “Why not have do a study about whether the sun will rise in the east?” I have probably convinced you all that I could benefit from a study of the sun’s rotation around the earth. 😉

1) I hate cats.

2) I hate people who let their cats roam the outdoors.

3) We are running out of some birds, in a manner of speaking, partly due to items 1 and 2 above. Domestic cats disproportionately kill (attractive) songbirds that like to hang out in residential neighborhoods. In fact, within about ten years in my last neighborhood, we went from being a veritable songbird sanctuary to a desolate barren of ugly brown sparrows and starlings because a few neighbors started letting their stupid, sociopathic cats out.

Give the cats this toy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSuCslonmQY

Maybe with such kind, loving care we could stop the killings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiDHXu5THj0

Never mind that the cat/bird predation studies are badly flawed (one reason being they’re usually done on the cheap), but it’s generally recognized, even by the anti-cat types, that the biggest killer of bird populations is … ta da! … impacts with windows in cities, i.e., a human effect on the environment.

Abby @ 20, these predation studies usually involve a couple of researchers with limited time and funds, a tiny sample of cats, and the birds in a very small area. It’s bad enough that their conclusions, just for those small areas, involve a lot of guesswork, but then they extrapolate to whole regions and the country, arriving at worst-case counts.

Tom@24,

First, I didn’t dispute the possibility of other causal variables. That is, I doubt the cats worked alone. But that’s no reason for you to pretend that they had no impact on the bird population whatsoever.

Second, I didn’t claim that the cats decimated the songbird population by killing all the birds. Of course, I know for a fact that these cats (more than a few!) were fairly successful when hunting. But I also know that the mere presence of cats can keep many birds out of a given neighborhood. Bird are very sensitive to their ecosystems: the mere presence of a hawk, cutting down a favorite shade tree that provides a safe roost, or changing up the recipe in your bird feeder can be enough to keep certain species of birds from entering an expansive radius around said tree or bird feeder–or cat.

Of course, this contributes to actual declines in the population of the birds. Unable to find suitable habitats due to the presence of cats, etc., the birds either die or stop reproducing. So even if the cats aren’t directly killing that many birds, they’re absolutely contributing indirectly to the broader decline in songbird populations in United States.

Our lazy cat also has his claws trimmed and the birds and squirrels laugh at him. He is fierce on bugs.

Thank you, Tom for the new information.

Our Chihuahua thinks he’s a cat. He, too, likes to hunt birds and rodents. And he’s quite good at it.

Tom,

Well, at the level of my old neighborhood, yeah, I think cats were a causal factor based on my personal observations. My entire region (Appalachia!) was static, and virtually no other discernible variables changed during the songbird decline I observed except the presence of cats. The only bird whose increasing absence was not due to cats was the purple martin: it’s a bird that migrates each winter to Brazil, where its rainforest habitat was being destroyed.

But no, I don’t think that my anecdote is equivalent to data that would prove that cats are behind America’s songbird implosion, if such a thing exists.

Anyway, I don’t know why anyone would apologize for free-roaming cats–unless, like Joe, you live on a farm and have barncats, who thus serve a utilitarian purpose. But in a typical, densely-populated neighborhood, free-roaming cats (i.e., cats that aren’t leashed–can’t help but laugh at that thought–or kept indoors) are little better than half-feral vermin. They pick up diseases and carry parasites. They serve as a vector for rabies and other dangerous illnesses. They run in front of cars, and when hit, cause grief for both drivers and owners. They kill useful creatures like songbirds and field mice that keep pest populations down. They attract more dangerous predators like coyotes to neighborhoods (currently a problem where I live now). There’s just no reason to let your cat out unattended.

Mike @ 31 –

When we had foxes living in the small park across the road from us, the neighbourhood cats didn’t roam as free. But they’ve left now, so the “cat came back”. OTOH, our border collie / lab cross isn’t bothered by birds, but has kept our yard cat free for a number of years now. Maybe letting him out occasionally will bring order to the neigbourhood…

Mike has identified the solution – more coyotes. Then we need some wolves, bears and cougars to control the coyotes and the rampant deer who consistently destroy bird habitats by eating them (the habitats that is).

Cincinnatus, you do understand, don’t you, that the point in leashing cats is to protect them. From the diseases you mention, deliberate poisonings, and getting run over.

Peskoponian @ 33, yes, it amazes me the way we either divinize or demonize cats – things we don’t do with dogs. Of course, it’s an indication of something irrational about us, not of something wrong with cats.

Song (and other)birds are making something of a comeback in Appalachia, at least in my small backyard portion of it. We have cardinals, blue birds, robins, mockingbirds, jays, song sparrows, house sparrows, chickadees, a few orioles now and again, cowbirds, towhees, house finches, gold finches, purple finches, some nuthatches, and titmice that I can think of off the top of my head. Others say they see juncos, catbirds and even indigo buntings in the area. My wife swears she’s seen a pileated woodpecker, but I told her to lay off the sauce. We also get a small hawk or two (not sure of the exact type) that prowls around the farm out back looking for rabbits, mice and stray cats presumably. Then again, our neighborhood is mostly dogs, very few cats, but mostly I attribute it to conscious efforts by people in the neighborhood to put out houses, feeders and gardens/beds that will attract birds.

Tom,

I appreciate your scientific skepticism. So let’s discuss other studies on the subject. For example, this one (which I randomly selected from Google; many other studies have been conducted, with similar results): http://smithsonianscience.org/2011/03/alarming-number-of-fledgling-suburban-catbirds-fall-prey-to-domestic-cats-study-finds/

Key finding: 79% of fledgling bird deaths in the Washington, D.C., area were a result of predation. 47% of those predations were committed by domestic cats.

A fairly obvious conclusion from such studies, in my opinion, is that domestic cats are a causal factor in declining bird populations. They are not the only variable, and probably not even the most important variables (I think urbanization in general gets that award). But they are certainly a non-negligible variable in, at the very least, localized bird population declines.

Besides, there must be some reason many jurisdictions across the developed world officially consider domestic cats an “invasive species.” Cats, when not properly controlled, create imbalances within local ecosystems. They are bad for the environment, in other words–like kudzu.

Bottom line, you sound rather like apologists who deny that pit bulls were selectively bred to be aggressive. Well, speak for your own dog, but facts are facts.

Joe,

A few fallacies in your comment.

1) …how could cats drive coyotes out of a neighborhood? That’s not only counterintuitive, but factually wrong. My own (fairly wooded) city is currently having a problem with coyotes because–guess what?–domestic cats and dogs make easy pickings for a hungry coyote. So, in fact, it’s likely that your cats would attract coyotes to the neighborhood. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

2) The cat population is exploding. Globally, the domestic cat population has tripled in the past four decades. Obviously, not all cats are spayed. Again, not there’s anything wrong with this, but it does mean you’re flatly mistaken. And it also means we shouldn’t just laugh off claims that domestic cats are a threat to local wildlife.

3) Claiming that domestic cats are “made” for the outdoors suffers from two problems. First, it’s simply not true. Domestic cats were bred to hang out with people indoors, which is why they tend to kill for sport and not survival; claiming that your tabby was “designed” to live outdoors is equivalent to claiming that your Yorkshire teacup terrier was designed to live outdoors. Second, even if domestic cats are designed for outdoor life, that doesn’t justify letting them roam free. Kudzu is also designed to thrive in the wild, but that doesn’t mean we should have imported it to the Deep South. Tigers love the outdoors, but that doesn’t mean we should turn a few loose in, say, Missouri. Ball pythons do pretty well in the outdoors too–and now the Everglades is having a huge problem. You get the idea: Asian carp, English sparrows, smallpox–these are invasive species that, when transplanted to a new environment, are bad for that environment.

Joe@44:

Fair enough. I’ll advance a hypothesis: in the early twentieth century, there were very few domestic cats roaming about killing birds (this is a fact). Can I assume, then, that, in the past, about 47% fewer fledgling birds were killed each year? And wouldn’t that obviously decrease the replacement rate? It’s not as if birds are laying more eggs now to make up for the loss caused by cats.

Or are modern cats just getting to the fledglings faster than previous predators, meaning no effective change in replacement rate?

Joe,
I frankly don’t care what you do or don’t do with your cats. I just find it puzzling that you and Tom so intransigently deny statistical evidence suggesting that domestic cats–a non-native species–could possibly be a disruptive influence in certain local ecosystems.

I’m sure some kid’s mom in Florida thought the same thing when she dumped her son’s ball python down the storm drain. No doubt cats are less harmful to the average environment than pythons. But to claim that tens of millions of cats who weren’t there a few decades ago roaming our forests and meadows couldn’t possibly have any effect on the environment, and certainly no bad effects–well, that’s just a bit ignorant.

And, seriously, to clarify: I’m not anti-cat; I’m anti-cat-people, by which I mean the types who, with some measure of indignance, insist that everyone else in the neighborhood silence all concerns they might have when Fluffy terrorizes their birdbaths, etc.

Cincy – You have asked the fundamental question: “Or are modern cats just getting to the fledglings faster than previous predators, meaning no effective change in replacement rate?”

That is the real question that must be answered. And, it is answerable.

Cincy – I should probably clarify too. I’m not actually of the position that feral cats could never be a problem. I’m just against the idea good policy can be achieved by looking at SOME data disconnected from the measures that actually matter. If they really are having a significant effect on the songbird replacement rates then that would be a real problem. This is not that hard of a puzzle to solve, yet I have never seen anyone report this data. This data was curiously missing from the debate over a bill that would have made it legal to hunt feral cats with a small game licence a few years back. The backers of the bill justified it by citing the raw data in number of birds killed but never said anything about the actual impact on replacement rates. (I opposed the law because a plan reading of the current small game hunting regulations does not excluded feral cats – you can already shoot them.)

Steve – chill out, we can all chew gum and walk at the same time. Do we ever get to have any fun or must we always be serious.

Wow – who’d of thunk everyone would be so riled up about cats! My wife and I have had one or two cats running around all our married lives. Each one has had a distinct and memorable personality. There seems to be an inverse relationship in our yard between the number of cats and the mole population. They do score the occasional bird, which is okay by me – I keep bees and the birds don’t seem to have any qualms about dive bombing my hive entrances and snatching a few. Any bird that gets itself caught by a cat needs to be out of the gene pool, for sure.

Ha!

Tom@56:

Maybe I’m missing something, but the links–especially the first link–seems to be critiquing the Smithsonian’s report on the study and not so much the study itself (which, as I recall, was published in The Journal of Ornithology).

Some of their critiques are well-taken: at best, the study–like most scientific studies–proves correlation, not causation. And that makes sense: if bird populations are declining, it’s probably not due to a single isolated variable. As I said above, cats would be joining a host of problems like (sub)urbanization, climate change, windmills, and so on.

But pardon me if I’m just not very convinced by the word of a blog called “vox felina” that proclaims itself a partisan of “free-roaming cats.” At least I bothered to find something from a reputable source 😛

Tom H should be forced to get rid of his cats for the same reasons gun owners should have to get rid of guns:

1. He doesn’t really need one,
2. They pose a hypothetical danger (no case by case stuff, don’t try to claim that some individuals might be responsible owners), and
3. Some people, for emotional reasons, don’t like them.

Joe, maybe YOU can keep your cats. But only if you pass a background check. 😉

What a great story!

I had no idea that cats liked to kill other critters!

I can’t wait for another hard hitting expose’. Maybe they could let us know how many bugs are killed, inadvertently, by people walking in public parks all throughout the world! (horror). It must be a tremendous number.

I was going to make some comment about “global warming” but thought, “no, that couldn’t apply to this topic.” Well, while I was at Starbucks today reading the USA Today, up popped the article about “Bad Kitty — Study tracking cat carnage.” Sidebar article to the main article: “Report: Climate change a threat to wildlife.” “From birds in the Plains to bighorn sheep in California, a new study says animals are struggling to adapt to the warming atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels.

Climate change is the biggest threat wildlife will face this century, says the report out today from the National Wildlife Federation in Reston, VA.”

@23 Between the Smithsonian doing the “cat study” and this one on “global warming”, sounds like big Federal bucks to me!

Hanni @ 64, unfortunately, many of the researchers, and the organizations for whom they do these predation studies (including the American Bird Conservancy, the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), are opposed to TNR (trap/neuter/release) programs. Vehemently opposed. Indeed, some of the predation studies are done to support their anti-TNR campaigns (which of course involve getting their studies written up in USA Today, the New York Times, Mother Jones, etc.)

But Tom @62, it doesn’t have to be you or YOUR cats. Your logic has always been that everyone’s guns should be taken away if ANYONE uses a gun to kill, say, 20 people. Therefore, if ANY cats spread enough disease to kill 20 people, by you own logic, everyone’s cats should be taken away. And as I said, nobody really NEEDS cats, so you have no reason to claim you have any individual right to have one of these dangerous creatures. Live by your own rules, pal.

Hi Tom @65,
Really like your posts, but am shocked at this one, will have to check up, my daughter works for Audubon, and she told me (cat owning mom) that cats can give me skin diseases. I am not worrying, am just getting over amonths flu from a human, I imagine.

Tom@70:

When did the discussion become one of diseases? The diseases that can be transmitted by cats are well-known, which is why doctors sternly warn pregnant women to avoid emptying litter boxes. None of that is in dispute, nor is your associated claim that these illnesses are nonetheless rare.

The claim is that the dramatic rise in the domestic and feral housecat population (in case you forgot, tripled since 1970) has had something to do with (localized?) declines in bird populations. Obviously, this claim only applies to cats–unlike yours–who are allowed to roam freely, killing whatever they find. How is is possible to deny that cats kill lots of birds? I’m inclined to believe that the middle number–100,000,000 birds–is closest to the truth. That’s a lot of birds!

To emphasize Tom’s point, just looking at so called “cat-scratch disease,” it’s not terribly common, although this is rate for the entire population, not the rate for cat owners specifically: “In one study using a United States national database, the incidence of CSD was approximately 9 to 10 cases per 100,000 persons per year (22,000 cases per year); most cases occurred in persons less than 21 years of age.” It is notable that cat-to-cat transmission is usually via fleas, so letting your cat outside to roam around may lead to increased likelihood of your cat getting fleas which transmit the bacteria. As for toxoplasmosis, infection in pregnant women is much more likely to be due to ingesting improperly cooked meat or unwashed vegetables than from cats. (UpToDate is the most fantastic website ever invented for looking up current medical information, with links to all the original data.)

We get it Tom H. The Government can have your cats when they pry the cats from your cold dead fingers. 😀

Kerner @ 59, 67, 75, 76: I’m glad you’re not irritated by my gun control comments elsewhere. If you were, who knows – you might try to drag the subject over into unrelated threads. And sound like a Gun Nut ™ doing it.

@Tom #37- Actually there’s no S in pekoponian, but that’s ok.
@Cincinnatus #38- I don’t really care if oher people like my cats or anyone else’s fro that matter. You probably don’t intend to demonize cats, but it sure sounds that way when people are saying things like kill them all, sane people get dogs, and yes, I know that was Joe who said that. I’m also not a blanket defender of all cats. Some do suck and I have given away one who was a thoroughly unsuitable pet. And yes, they really should stay indoors or on a tie-out for their own good.

I’ve tried twice now to post that third link, and both attempts have gone to moderation. Google “animal people news roadkill of cats” if interested.

All this points up is that if you are going to have communities banning pit bulls, they would actually be doing society a greater favor by banning cats who are probably the greatest danger to public and animal health ever conceived in the wicked imagination of Satan who they almost certainly worship.

Pekoponian @ 82, I wasn’t in any way correcting you. I just used your comments @ 79 as a springboard.

SK @ 83, 😛