Cat bringing in Nestlings

[Hugh Jarse]

I'm not sure if you're wilfully misrepresenting the article or if you are genuinely incapable of comprehending its conclusion:

"Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds...Those bird species that have undergone the most serious population declines in the UK (such as skylarks, tree sparrows and corn buntings) rarely encounter cats, so cats cannot be causing their declines. "

Full article without the cherry picking

And I haven't. We have three cats and a dog, plus six bird feeders spread around a large rural garden. We have about 25 species of regular bird visitors. The cats take a few - perhaps averaging one per week between them - and many more mice and rats (do you think this is bad?). I would think that by putting out food for birds I am doing more to help numbers than the combined efforts of three cats to reduce them. And if you'd be bothered to read the rest of the article that you cited, rather than cherry-pick the bits you like, you may see that a high proportion of birds taken by cats are the weak and ill.

Please tell me that you are joking here? You can't possible equate the behaviour of two such different species as cats and dogs in seriousness, can you? Have you seen a tropical fish that helps the blind? A hamster bomb detector? Do you understand the concept of 'species' as opposed to 'pets'?

'Course you're not, mate! 'Course you're not; you just don't want them in your neighbourhood and wouldn't want your daughter to bring one home. I bet some of your best friend have cats

Ooh, great idea, Mr-I-don't-hate-cats-by-any-means. Shall we have this between the cock fight and the the badger bating?

I'm sure I could hear a little sigh of regret there.

Coming back to my question: are you attacking farmers for the number of birds they are killing, or is this like the rest of your selectivity?

Thank you....

Cogency rules OK

Steve

 

[Trev4]

Jon, I don't know why I am surprised that you have turned this discussion into a personal sniping session based at playground level, and Steve has supported you. Either take my comments in the way they are meant, whether you agree or not, and discuss them sensibly and openly, or leave them alone.

With that in mind, I am not going to give your comments credence by replying to each point individually.

My comment about "dogs have a place in society" was in reply to someone who had previously said that they could "see no point in dogs", it wasn't in reply to yourself.

Out of respect to Steve the OP, who responsibly started this discussion, I am only going to reply to comments that relate directly to the original subject, and if I can add something relevant. I am not going to continue with the childish pettiness that has started to creep into the comments.

 

[jon ryan]

Jon, I don't know why I am surprised that you have turned this discussion into a personal sniping session based at playground level, and Steve has supported you. Either take my comments in the way they are meant, whether you agree or not, and discuss them sensibly and openly, or leave them alone.

With that in mind, I am not going to give your comments credence by replying to each point individually.

My comment about "dogs have a place in society" was in reply to someone who had previously said that they could "see no point in dogs", it wasn't in reply to yourself.

Out of respect to Steve the OP, who responsibly started this discussion, I am only going to reply to comments that relate directly to the original subject, and if I can add something relevant. I am not going to continue with the childish pettiness that has started to creep into the comments.

I'm sorry if you see this as personal sniping. Do you accept the findings of the article that you cited which conclude that cats have little or no part in overall bird numbers? And you still haven't answered my question about whether you are also preaching to farmers, who provenly do have a significant effect on bird numbers.

Well?

 

[ronnus]

Well technically thats a slight exaggeration dogs killed 6 children between 2007 and 2013 hardly every other month. Also the figure compares well to the fact that in 2008 124 children died on our roads. I appreciate that dogs can be a menace but a little perspective please.

Steve

How on earth did this become about cars, I'm lost.

Or wait.... Are you saying cat owners are more likely to run over children? The monsters!!

 

[Trev4]

I'm sorry if you see this as personal sniping. Do you accept the findings of the article that you cited which conclude that cats have little or no part in overall bird numbers? And you still haven't answered my question about whether you are also preaching to farmers, who provenly do have a significant effect on bird numbers.

Well?

I said I wasn't going to answer you again, but as you replied politely, I will.
I do accept the article by and large, and am not cherry picking. Its not clear when it says "little or no part in overall numbers" though. As we all have, I have seen directly the results of cat predation on birds and their young (many of us also witnessed cat predation on a nest on Springwatch last year), not all of these can be said to be unhealthy creatures that wouldn't survive anyway. While the RSPB is a respected body, I am sure they don't want to alienate the cat loving society by finger pointing directly at them as being anything more that a small part of the problem. They have to be as politically correct as all of us and therefore moderate their comments where necessary, especially where there is perhaps no hard scientific evidence only figures based on their findings of enquiries (no, I am not being biased, that's just my opinion based on logics). While they may not have hard evidence, I am sure they have sufficient knowledge and information to sustain the figures they are making public.

Whether that's right or not, the loss of wildlife is being caused by many other factors as well, some are small, others more damaging. Its well known that the delicate balance of nature can be damaged by a small action, and most of these are caused by man.
Introducing non indigenous species to other countries has proved disastrous to many native species, look at Australia for examples. It is thought the domestic cat was introduced to the UK by the Romans but that is still unclear.
While this and many other factors are relevant, are you suggesting that the small factors that together make up the large picture should be ignored. We are talking about cats in this thread, so lets address that area, and surely its not unreasonable to ask owners to take small but fairly effective measures to help alleviate the predation problem. Its not possible to stop it altogether, but any reduction is a move in the right direction.

With regard to the endangered species, even the loss of one nest can have an affect. Surely its reasonable to start and address this by encouraging responsible cat owners to take a few simple measures to reduce the predation as mentioned above.

I am not in involved in the farming community but I do live in a very rural area. I am not a member of any farming forums or similar so am not passing comments, these are already being done by people with much much greater knowledge of farming methods than me. I will add that I have signed a petition to encourage the use of more sustainable farming though, I feel that would be a good place to start to correct the many mistakes made in the past, mistakes made by lack of knowledge or understanding at the time, but we now have a better scientific knowledge and can move forward with better practices.

 

[jon ryan]

There are native British cats. Felis silvestris is hanging on-just- in Scotland. But this and anything introduced by the Romans or anyone else cannot be compared to the depredations caused by the cane toad or rabbit in Australia and is irrelevant to this discussion.

The RSPB study makes clear that cats make no significant difference to UK bird populations, and it seems to be this that you are having difficulties with. You say "I do accept the article by and large, and am not cherry picking." However, you have mined the article for numbers of how many birds cats are estimated to take, yet fail to acknowledge the conclusion of the study which makes clear that the birds taken by cats make little difference to the overall population. That is quite clearly cherry picking. Whether or not cats are made to wear collars or are kept in at night will make little difference in the long run, so having a go at cats is pointless. If you have a genuine concern for preservation of wildlife, you could direct your energies to where some difference may be made, but say you have not made any effort to do this beyond, um, signing a petition(!)

 

[Trev4]

There are native British cats. Felis silvestris is hanging on-just- in Scotland. But this and anything introduced by the Romans or anyone else cannot be compared to the depredations caused by the cane toad or rabbit in Australia and is irrelevant to this discussion.

The RSPB study makes clear that cats make no significant difference to UK bird populations, and it seems to be this that you are having difficulties with. You say "I do accept the article by and large, and am not cherry picking." However, you have mined the article for numbers of how many birds cats are estimated to take, yet fail to acknowledge the conclusion of the study which makes clear that the birds taken by cats make little difference to the overall population. That is quite clearly cherry picking. Whether or not cats are made to wear collars or are kept in at night will make little difference in the long run, so having a go at cats is pointless. If you have a genuine concern for preservation of wildlife, you could direct your energies to where some difference may be made, but say you have not made any effort to do this beyond, um, signing a petition(!)

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I stand by my opinions and views. Its not my job to convince you that you are right or wrong, you do seem to have difficulty when I generalise on a subject that is meant to explain a point. So be it, I'll leave you to continue with your life and wish you well.

 

[TriggerHappy]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I stand by my opinions and views. Its not my job to convince you that you are right or wrong, you do seem to have difficulty when I generalise on a subject that is meant to explain a point. So be it, I'll leave you to continue with your life and wish you well.

Loosely translated: "I can no longer justify my opinion, but I'm unwilling to change it."

 

[jon ryan]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this. I stand by my opinions and views. Its not my job to convince you that you are right or wrong, you do seem to have difficulty when I generalise on a subject that is meant to explain a point. So be it, I'll leave you to continue with your life and wish you well.

My main problem here is trying to understand how you can use a study to support an argument, then say that study is flawed, saying: While the RSPB is a respected body, I am sure they don't want to alienate the cat loving society by finger pointing directly at them as being anything more that a small part of the problem. They have to be as politically correct as all of us and therefore moderate their comments where necessary, especially where there is perhaps no hard scientific evidence only figures based on their findings of enquiries.
I have pointed out that the study did the exact opposite of what you wanted it to say, and now you do a U turn and accuse the people who conducted it of deliberately skewing the evidence to avoid alienating cat lovers! And you follow this by running away rather than defending your position...

I'm very much reminded of the people who occasionally knock on my door to explain that the Earth was formed in 4,004 BC and that Noah's Ark actually existed because it says so in this here book. When asked to explain how the kangaroos swam the Pacific -twice- well, they run away as well. :shrug:

 

[Trev4]

Loosely translated: "I can no longer justify my opinion, but I'm unwilling to change it."

Very helpful to this discussion

My main problem here is trying to understand how you can use a study to support an argument, then say that study is flawed, saying: While the RSPB is a respected body, I am sure they don't want to alienate the cat loving society by finger pointing directly at them as being anything more that a small part of the problem. They have to be as politically correct as all of us and therefore moderate their comments where necessary, especially where there is perhaps no hard scientific evidence only figures based on their findings of enquiries.
I have pointed out that the study did the exact opposite of what you wanted it to say, and now you do a U turn and accuse the people who conducted it of deliberately skewing the evidence to avoid alienating cat lovers! And you follow this by running away rather than defending your position...

I'm very much reminded of the people who occasionally knock on my door to explain that the Earth was formed in 4,004 BC and that Noah's Ark actually existed because it says so in this here book. When asked to explain how the kangaroos swam the Pacific -twice- well, they run away as well. :shrug:

We're going round in circles, I have clearly made my point, you don't agree, well that's fine, its your right to do so, but neither am I going to agree with you. Yes, we can argue till the cats come home (excuse the expression), but its not going to change either of our opinions. As I said, I stand by my opinions and can see no point in prolonging this discussion when the end result is going to be stalemate anyway. I'm not running away, I am firm in my beliefs, but I also know when its pointless and a waste of time to continue a discussion with someone that's intractable.

 

[jon ryan]

Very helpful to this discussion


We're going round in circles, I have clearly made my point, you don't agree, well that's fine, its your right to do so, but neither am I going to agree with you. Yes, we can argue till the cats come home (excuse the expression), but its not going to change either of our opinions. As I said, I stand by my opinions and can see no point in prolonging this discussion when the end result is going to be stalemate anyway. I'm not running away, I am firm in my beliefs, but I also know when its pointless and a waste of time to continue a discussion with someone that's intractable.

Please don't accuse me of being intractable. I am agnostic in most things, including the age of the earth and the swimming ability of kangaroos. As I say to the fundamentalists, all I want is evidence. You are the one who says I have clearly made my point...I stand by my opinions...I am firm in my beliefs...how is that not being intractable?

 

[Trev4]

Please don't accuse me of being intractable. I am agnostic in most things, including the age of the earth and the swimming ability of kangaroos. As I say to the fundamentalists, all I want is evidence. You are the one who says I have clearly made my point...I stand by my opinions...I am firm in my beliefs...how is that not being intractable?

I didn't say that I wasn't intractable, I did say that I stand by my opinions. Nothing said in this discussion so far has convinced me that I am in error or need to review my views.
You say you are agnostic in most things, sorry, but true as that may be, it hasn't been shown here.

I will add again that this is Keith's thread and we have hijacked it, that's probably as much my fault and I think its unfair on him when he has responsibly brought attention to a problem he has.
If you want to start a discussion thread of your own that goes into this subject in depth, then fine. For now though, I am not going to continue these tit for tat posts.

 

[jon ryan]

Nothing said in this discussion so far has convinced me that I am in error or need to review my views.

How about the study that you brought to the table?

Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide.

You refuse to accept evidence that you have provided yourself?

This is indeed futile!

 

[Hugh Jarse]

I didn't say that I wasn't intractable, I did say that I stand by my opinions. Nothing said in this discussion so far has convinced me that I am in error or need to review my views.
You say you are agnostic in most things, sorry, but true as that may be, it hasn't been shown here.

I will add again that this is Keith's thread and we have hijacked it, that's probably as much my fault and I think its unfair on him when he has responsibly brought attention to a problem he has.
If you want to start a discussion thread of your own that goes into this subject in depth, then fine. For now though, I am not going to continue these tit for tat posts.

Trev
pack up and p
Having lost the thread to cogent and meaningful counter argument you now withdraw.

The biggest killer of birdlife is mankind and the actions of an unevidenced domestic cat population on same is not accepted by you when a specific group (RSBP) is clear that the loss of bird populations is not due in signicance to the cat population.

Thus the finger pointing at the cat population is specious and illogical.

Steve

 

[Neil B]

As a cat owner of over 50 years I am sorry to read some of the responses here.

Personally I don't see the attraction of dogs. Never had one nor want one. Too much effort owning them.

Woof

Sorry Steve but i could only pick out this bit that made any sense, it does seem to say a lot about yourself :bonk:

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Sorry Steve but i could only pick out this bit that made any sense, it does seem to say a lot about yourself :bonk:

And your point is????

 

[rhody]

The Americans are concerned about cats killing billions of animals too

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21236690

These numbers and the impact upon wildlife simply cannot be ignored.

On a personal level with direct experience, we have had blackbirds nest in our garden every year for the past 20 years in various trees and bushes - sometimes 4 different nests a year around the garden.

Every year local domestic cats kill all the nestlings and the adults too if they get the chance.

The cats target the nests in the early hours of the morning and the shrill distress cry of the adults is clearly heard in our bedroom.

I often run down and chase the cats away (or throw tennis balls at them) but in the end the cats only stop attacking the nests once everything is dead or gone away.

The cats also go after the fish in my pond and other small mammals in the garden.

My neighbour boasted that his cat killed a woodpecker on the lawn in full view of the house. He seemed proud that his cat could jump high enough to take a woodpecker as it tried to fly away and he openly admits his cat is a "killing machine". The same cat also killed a pheasant last winter on the edge of the village green.

Domestic cat predation needs more open discussion and more action to recognise the impact stray, feral and domestic cats are having on wildlife around the world.

We cannot keep ignoring the millions of cats wandering around the UK and pretend they are not killing vast numbers of our native wildlife.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19353/Cats-kill-275-million-animals-year.html

At the very least, this needs to be discussed openly and objectively.

 

[jon ryan]

*Sigh*. Cats kill things shock horror. Have you any opinion on the RSPB study that states (for the umpteenth time...) "Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation."

The article in that well-known bastion of unbiased and accurate reporting, the Daily Mail(!), seems to have drawn that story from a 2009 PhD study (link)
I have not been able to find the research conclusion, but would like to see it. Have you looked, or simply taken the Mail at face value? I take it you believe everything the Mail tells you? Cats cause cancer, probably. What the report does make clear, as do others I've seen, is that cats prey far more on mice than birds. What do you think the effect would be if cats caught fewer mice and other vermin?

As I have asked before, are you going to go and have a shout at the farmers who are causing far more destruction of habitat, or will you just bully little old ladies who keep a cat for companionship? (Look! I too can do emotive, selective, cherry-picking to support one side of a story while ignoring the wider picture because it doesn't support my pet hatred! Stop Cat Haters Bullying Little Old Ladies! Cat Haters Want All Cats To Die! Rat Plague To Hit UK Because Of Cat Haters!)

Both sides of the story, please. And please note: emotiveness is not evidence and nor is the Daily Mail.

 

[ZoneV]

A couple of squirts of humidifier out of the window usually disuades a neighbouring cat who often likes to lay ambush under the bird table.

Unfortunately it doesn't work so well on windy days so I'm looking for a better solution - would a "super-soaker" type water-gun be considered cruel or excessive?

 

[jon ryan]

I find a water pistol works very well for this! The other thing I've done is clear as many 'ambush spots' in the garden as possible - places where the moggies can lurk and leap. If birds spot a cat, they'll zoom off.

 

[Tigger.ufo]

A couple of squirts of humidifier out of the window usually disuades a neighbouring cat who often likes to lay ambush under the bird table.

Unfortunately it doesn't work so well on windy days so I'm looking for a better solution - would a "super-soaker" type water-gun be considered cruel or excessive?

From a cat lovers perspective, I have absolutely no problem with my cat getting very wet but draw the line at physical harm so perhaps not at close range!

I have told my neighbours that it is ok to throw a jug of water (without letting go of the jug!) if my cat bothers them, he has soon learnt where he is welcome and where to avoid.

I realise that not everyone likes/tolerates cats but there is never an excuse to hurt them.


Heather



Heather

 

[Nod]

for the water pistol/supersoaker/water jug. I've got a shotgun type water cannon thingy that lobs out a slog of about 4 tablespoonfulls of water in a lump. Even full in the face it doesn't hurt, just makes you jump (and wet!). I've also got a very accurate water pistol with a decent range so if I spot her stalking, I can wet her nose (and she then spend 5 minutes cleaning it, by which time she's forgotten what was on her menu. She's now given up trying to get at the blackbird nest in the ivy on the fence - every time she heads towards it, she mysteriously gets wet!