Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CaptainBrant t1_ix3rhoa wrote

So if the study isn't in Pennsylvania, it isn't valid? You're finding any way to discredit things. How can you study something in Pennsylvania when people like you would call such a study to dispatch feral cats sociopaths? For like the third time, you're treating animals unequally for some reason and just anthropomorphsizing cats as if they deserve more humane treatment than other species. It's like trying to study Marijuana, you can't really find out I'd it's harmful or beneficial for something, because of the legal limitations to study it because people for so many decades thought Marijuana was the most evil thing on Earth.

The second two studies basically show that TNR is useless when it comes to reducing harm cats cause to other species, claim by claim.

There is another study in the references of the third one about removing friendly cats to shelters and to euthanize the ones that will harm people if picked up, was effective in reducing the cat population and thus harm to other species.

1

aboutsider t1_ixyomai wrote

It's valid as a representation of Australia but considering that Australia is an island nation with an entirely different eco system, what part of that do you think is comparable or representative of a state within a country with a totally different eco system?

Actually, that's my point. Even if you could get someone to enact such a state measure, you're going to be hard pressed to find anyone who wants to be on the kitty genocide team. Not to mention, making it only a state law wouldn't stop the population either. It's pretty fucking sad that you find the fact that people are too empathetic to kill cats a bad thing.

No one treats all animals equally. Emotionally, fundamentally, or legally. If we were then we would also pick off humans that were destroying the ecosystem too. I don't see you advocating for that...

Again, that's not what anthropomorphize means.

If you're going to summarize the second two studies then you should probably use a quote from the abstract because that's not what they said, basically or otherwise. Furthermore, they don't prove your initial point that euthanasia is always the best approach. It's a bit difficult to have a conversation when you deliberately ignore nuance and context, particularly in your own "proof".

1

CaptainBrant t1_ixyq638 wrote

Fetal cats play the role of invasive predator species in every ecosystem they have ever plagued. Australia is just the first to try to do something about it as the loses of native species mounts due to cats. Continental sized Islands, or continents its the same niche. Some ecosystems still have native feline predators, but their populations are dwarfed, and even outcompetrd by feral cats. Where feral cats wreak the most havoc is where most other felines are absent.

It wouldn't be that tough. Contractors airway exist in every state that their daily job is dispatching nucense wildlife. Government agencies as well, USDA wildlife services. Moot point there. Again using emotional language.

Laws already regulate humans' pollution and destruction of the ecosystem, and need to increase and be stronger. The same should go to controlling feral cats which get a 100% free pass to cause harm due to that human bias.

Anthropmorphizing animals gives them human-like qualities. Dogs and cats top the list. You are biased towards cats over the wildlife losses you don't bat an eye at.

Both methods are not well backed by studies but TNR is not well supported in reducing ecological harm.

1