ext_13055 ([identity profile] teratologist.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] urbpan 2007-09-03 02:19 pm (UTC)

Naturally we must introduce larger predators that eat cats! That always works so well.

Snark aside, I personally think that the decision to keep or kill feral cats needs to be weighed carefully, not only against the number of native animals killed by no-feral-cats, but by the number of native animals killed by other means of pest control. I don't have any numbers on this, but it may be that in some instances cats (especially well-fed ones who stick close to buildings) have less of an effect, ultimately, on native species per non-native pest killed than poisons or kids with bb guns or what have you. In other cases, obviously, this is not the case, and in those cases cats should of course be eliminated.

But I can't get behind using them for meat and fur. With dogs in the U.S., the fact is that the places where the population of feral dogs has come under control are identical with the places, not where the dogs are viewed pragmatically, but where they are viewed extremely sentimentally. Dogs viewed as 'members of the family' are more frequently spayed and neutered, more frequently kept in their owners' sight where they can't easily get at wildlife, and less often turned loose because they have become inconvenient than dogs regarded as tools. We should be encouraging people to regard their cats in the same light, and allowing them to purchase bits of feral cats while fostering that attitude towards domestic ones (including domestics that have strayed, since we definitely want people to be inclined to pick those up off the street before they breed ferals,) is, I think, expecting a little too much compartmentalization to expect even from the American mind.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
No Subject Icon Selected
More info about formatting