• jpeps@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

        • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

            • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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?

              • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                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.

                • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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?

                  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    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.

    • MacDangus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      They’re saying that only people from the United States believe that outdoor cats are a net negative.

      • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        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.

      • Sunfoil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.