Made with Love

Cats killing billions of animals in the US

OneEyeGuy

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Messages
254
Never knew this, did you?.

Cats are one of the top threats to US wildlife, killing billions of animals each year, a study suggests.
The authors estimate they are responsible for the deaths of between 1.4 and 3.7 billion birds and 6.9-20.7 billion mammals annually.

in Nature Communications, the scientists said stray and feral cats were the worst offenders.

However, they added that pet cats also played a role and that owners should do more to reduce their impact.
The authors concluded that more animals are dying at the claws of cats in the United States than in road accidents, collisions with buildings or poisonings.
The domestic cat's killer instinct has been well documented on many islands around the world.

Felines accompanying their human companions have gone on to prey on the local wildlife, and they have been blamed for the global extinction of 33 species.
But their impact on mainland areas has been harder to chart.

To find out more, researchers from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute (SCBI) and the US Fish and Wildlife Service carried out a review of studies that had previously looked at the predatory prowess of cats.
Continue reading the main story“Start Quote

Our study suggests that they are the top threat to US wildlife”
Dr Pete MarraSCBI

Their analysis revealed that the cat killings were much higher than previous studies had suggested: they found that they had killed more than four times as many birds as has been previously estimated.

Birds native to the US, such as the American Robin, were most at risk, and mice, shrews, voles, squirrels and rabbits were the mammals most likely to be killed.
Dr Pete Marra from the SCBI said: "Our study suggests that they are the top threat to US wildlife."

The team said that "un-owned" cats, which they classified as strays, feral cats and farm cats, were killing about three times as many animals as pet cats. However, they said pet cats were still killing significant numbers of animals, and that their owners should do more to limit the impact.

Dr Marra said: "We hope that the large amount of wildlife mortality indicated by our research convinces some cat owners to keep their cats indoors and that it alerts policymakers, wildlife managers and scientists to the large magnitude of wildlife mortality caused by cat predation."

A spokeswoman for the animal welfare charity the RSPCA said that a properly fitted collar and bell could reduce a cat's success when hunting by at least a third.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21236690
 
As long as they keep killing mice and rats I don't mind them.
 
Cats don't kill rodents, people do. The media blows it out of proportion. :-Cool/"
 
As long as they keep killing mice and rats I don't mind them.

that's the problem, they don't just kill rats and mice...they kill squirrels, chipmunks, and all sorts of birds including robins, chickadees, bluenbirds etc. Stray cats up here is a real problem because many of the hicks up here won't get their cats spayed or neutered. For eg: a neighbour down the road has...3 or 4 cats that she doesn't let inside and one started hanging around my place so I keep him fed. I can't afford to get him fixed and have been thinking of taking him to the shelter but they're overloaded with cats.

I'm a cat person and none of mine have ever ventured outside (except for supervised excursions) and all have been spayed or neutered.
 
that's the problem, they don't just kill rats and mice...they kill squirrels, chipmunks, and all sorts of birds including robins, chickadees, bluenbirds etc. Stray cats up here is a real problem because many of the hicks up here won't get their cats spayed or neutered. For eg: a neighbour down the road has...3 or 4 cats that she doesn't let inside and one started hanging around my place so I keep him fed. I can't afford to get him fixed and have been thinking of taking him to the shelter but they're overloaded with cats.

I'm a cat person and none of mine have ever ventured outside (except for supervised excursions) and all have been spayed or neutered.

You kidding me. A cat can kill a squirrel?
 
You kidding me. A cat can kill a squirrel?

I had 2 cats and one would be on top of the garage and the other would chase
the squirrels to ward the garage.....I am so glad they never caught one...

With the ones I have now I have the leash and on the cloths line so they can move
around the backyard....
 
You kidding me. A cat can kill a squirrel?

I've heard that they can even kill adult jack rabbits. Plus they are one of the few animals known to kill for pleasure.

In Australia, cats are consider a real threat to the indigenous wildlife. They've also played havoc with some of the species native to the Galapagos Islands.

Like tboy, the cat population is a real issue up here as well.
 
https://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013...ow-that-cats-kill-by-the-billions-not-so-fast

On NBC Nightly News on Thursday evening, Brian Williams revealed there's a backlash underway to all the cat-killer headlines of this past week.

Those headlines reported a startling result from a new study in the journal Nature Communications: free-ranging domestic cats in the United States kill many billions of birds and small mammals per year, far more than previously thought. Many cat owners, Williams reported, took umbrage. He featured a photograph of a cat from Rhode Island named Magoo who had sent in to the NBC studios a protest note ("I am not a bird murderer; don't judge me"). Williams commented that the bird community has so far been silent, possibly because of its "decimated" numbers.

In fact, the situation is no laughing matter. Cats are hunters and other creatures do fall prey to them in significant numbers.

And yet there are serious reasons to suspect the reliability of the new, extreme cat-killer statistics.

The study at issue is a meta-analysis, an overarching review that aggregates data from previously published sources. The accuracy of meta-studies in health and medicine raises some concern, and it's easy to see why: for a meta-analysis to be solid, wise choices must be made among the available sources of information, and results that may vary wildly must be weighed fairly.

In the Nature Communications study, authors Scott R. Loss, Tom Will, and Peter P. Marra needed to incorporate into their model the number of "un-owned cats" (such as stray, feral, and barn cats) in the U.S. As they note in an appendix to the article, "no empirically driven estimate of un-owned cat abundance exists for the contiguous U.S." Estimates that are available range from 20-120 million, with 60-100 million being the most commonly cited. In response to this huge uncertainty in the numbers, they performed mathematical calculations using what they feel to be a conservative figure (specifically, they "defined a uniform distribution with minimum and maximum of 30 and 80 million, respectively.")

At this juncture, the authors note that local analyses of cat numbers are "often conducted in areas with above average density." That is an obvious problem, yet when they estimated the proportion of owned cats with access to the outdoors (and thus to hunting), of eight sources of information, "three [were] based on nationwide pet-owner surveys and five based on research in individual study areas." Are the local studies representative of the national situation? For that matter, are the different owner surveys administered in a consistent enough manner to allow them to be aggregated?

Of course, the authors make statistical perturbations designed to increase the reliability of their conclusions, but it seems to me there's an unsettling degree of uncertainty in the study's key numbers.

It seems this way to others also.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, had this to say in response to the study: "It's virtually impossible to determine how many cats live outside, or how many spend some portion of the day outside. Loss, Will, and Marra have thrown out a provocative number for cat predation totals, and their piece has been published in a highly credible publication, but they admit the study has many deficiencies. We don't quarrel with the conclusion that the impact is big, but the numbers are informed guesswork."

If even animal advocates admit "the impact is big," why do the specific numbers matter so much? Because when people start thinking of cats primarily as murderers, it then becomes the cats' lives that may be seriously endangered. Of concern are not only extremists like the man in New Zealand who recently suggested a ban on pet cats; cat advocate organization Alley Cat Allies says that the study is so "biased" that it amounts to an invitation to "ramp up the mass killings of outdoor cats."

As a cat rescuer, I know such threats to outdoor cats are real. I've heard them. And as a cat person, I also care very much about the lives of birds and small mammals, taking steps in my own life to reduce our cats' predation upon them. The truth is that we do need to better understand the relationship between cats and the greater natural world.

Demonizing cats with shaky statistics, however, won't help us build the pillar of understanding required to strike a satisfying balance between the needs of cats and their supporters with the needs of wildlife facing a feline threat.
 
I would say that if they really wanted to, they could extrapolate a cat population in urdban areas by simply taking a 1 block area and doing a count. Then multiply the number of cats in that block by the number of blocks in a given area. Now I know feral cats in NYC are at such a level that some advocates have taken to building cat condos (structures designed to house feral cats in incliment weather).

1) it is a given and common knowledge that cats kill.
2) it isn't a stretch to say that outdoor cats kill
3) it isn't a stretch to say that outdoor cats kill birds and other wildlife
4) therefore you can (without imperical data) extrapolate that they impact natural species

I can attest to ALL cats being natural born predators. I let my indoor cat who rarely goes outside, outside for a bit of fresh air and he saw my friendly neighbourhood chipmunk (whom I feed peanuts to) and immediately tore off across the lawn to get him.....Now as I said, he's been outside maybe 3 times in his life......but his first instinct was to go after it...and yes, indoors he's a great mouser. He's killed 3 since I have lived up here and yes, brings em to me to show off.

Now, what would be impossible to calculate is the number or impact a cat has on a particular species. How can you determine how much an outdoor cat kills? Other than strapping on a cam there is really no way. I saw a program on a group that wanted to learn more about urban raccoons and they strapped gps locators on a number of them then tracked them via satellite.

One more thing: up here at least, cat's have predators too. In talking with co-workers one has gone through 4 cats in the past couple of years. It seems he lets them outdoors and there's a pine martin around that preys on them. He finds their carcasses on his lawn. I asked him, why the fuck do you let them out then? He says "I don't want an indoor cat".......idiot lol......so the answer is, don't get anymore cats lol...you know, sometimes I listen to the hicks up here and have to shake my head.....I know they probably do the same with me being a city slicker but seriously, some of the shit they come up with.....
 
They have done a few documentaries on this in the past few years. which is why they are trying to push so hard Trap, Neuter and Release programs. but I don't think cats are really responsible for those high numbers. but the over cat population has been a problem and they are now noticing it.
 
It would solve hunger problems if we ate them...
I mean the produce higher litters than cows.....
Also they would not let off the gases as cows...

I mean you can have your own little farm in the back yard....
Also the don't carry the Bird Flu.....

Ok I am joking....now don't get upset..
 
actually is you follow the gun nuts logic we should ban them


Make it illegal to own one unless you neuter it.

and make the waiting period to get one several years.

if we ban them from homes we will solve the problem in the wild.

Exact same logic leaps in play.
 
actually is you follow the gun nuts logic we should ban them


Make it illegal to own one unless you neuter it.

and make the waiting period to get one several years.

if we ban them from homes we will solve the problem in the wild.

Exact same logic leaps in play.

:LMAO: Then we will have people hurting people with cats....
throwing them at eat other...or using them for hold ups...
I have shivers thinking about it.....Waking up to a cat
pointed at my head .........
 
actually is you follow the gun nuts logic we should ban them


Make it illegal to own one unless you neuter it.

and make the waiting period to get one several years.

if we ban them from homes we will solve the problem in the wild.

Exact same logic leaps in play.

I have NO problem with making it illegal to own a pet unless you spay or neuter them first. Unless of course you're a registered breeder and hold a valid licence to own a fertile cat. But then again, you'd have to put up a bond to insure you won't sell fertile pets.

If we ban fertile pets then yes, we will eventually solve the problem with more wild or feral cats.....

No one ever proposed waiting 2 yrs to own a gun and no one should be expected to wait 2 yrs to obtain a pet. But what should happen in both cases is you should have to prove that you're going to be a responsible pet owner.

As for banning them, dude, you know as well as I do that certain breeds are already illegal to own. To do a proper analogy, yes, we should ban assault type weapons just like it is illegal to own a tiger, lion, cheetah, leopard, etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom