|
Edited on Wed Jul-13-11 02:17 PM by mike_c
...after it was bombed! :rofl:
Yes, feral cats are a factor in urban degradation of natural habitats. So are concrete and asphalt, electromagnetic radiation, heating/cooling disruption, land conversion to nonhabitat uses, light, sound, air, and water pollution, disruption of natural fire regimes, human overpopulation, disruption of natural migration and movement patterns (I'd hazard that EVERY paved and traveled road in the world kills more small mammals than the local cat population preys upon, for example).
The list goes on and on. Yes, somewhere in there cats contribute to habitat degradation.
But consider this: first, feral cat populations are a direct result of piss-poor population management by humans. I talked about that in my original reply. Blaming cats because people don't take their responsibilities seriously is not going to solve the real problem, is it? Managing pet populations is pretty straightforward, if people would simply do it, and the results are dramatic. Case in point: have you ever seen a feral domestic ferret population? No, you haven't, even though California has more pet ferrets than any other state (illegally, of course). That's because virtually EVERY one of them is neutered. That's something of a happy accident for ferrets-- they simply don't make acceptable pets when reproductively intact-- but the efficacy of universal and RESPONSIBLE population management is pretty obvious. In fairness, domestic ferrets have some other reproductive peculiarities that contribute to their lack of feral success, but the main cause is effective population management by humans. Pity people don't discharge their responsibilities to cats as well, but again, that's not the cat's fault, is it?
Second, if feral cat populations are reduced by responsible population management, the remaining pet cats have much less ecological impact (and remember, we're having this discussion against the backdrop of HUMAN ecological impact, for cryin' out loud!). Well fed cats hunt only occasionally and with relatively low success. Yes, hunting is instinctual, but it's also very risky behavior, and cats forage WAY less if they don't have too, just like you and I. It is simply not true that cats are voracious and unstoppable hunters-- cats are extremely vulnerable meso-predators whose hunting puts them at tremendous risk of injury or death-- well fed cats simply are not driven to engage in prolonged foraging in the face of the risks it entails. The same is true for feral colonies too-- feed them regularly, and you'll reduce their ecological impact greatly, along with their suffering, especially if you also capture, neuter, and release them to control population growth. They'll live longer, healthier lives and create less ecological damage, but again, for humans to accuse cats of having a big ecological footprint is pretty much the height of hubris!
Third, since I know your primary consideration is cat predation on bird populations, most cats are far more successful hunting rodents and other small mammals than they are at preying upon birds, and in that context they do far more good than harm. They replace native meso-predators that have been extirpated or reduced to ineffectuality. They interrupt disease transmission cycles (small mammals and their parasites are vectors). They reduce rodent intrusion into human habitations and stored products, including food. As I noted in my original reply, the worst damage cats inflict on bird populations is confined to areas with relatively dense human populations where habitat loss and other disturbances are the PRIMARY threats to bird survival, not cat predation-- not even close. Turtle Bay is one such place-- an island of human development embedded in a sea of undeveloped habitat. I'll bet you don't lament cat predation in, say, the Trinity Alps because there isn't any to speak of (not house kitties, anyway!)-- it's only an issue where humans have already modified habitats and created the real ecological disturbances that affect bird populations the most.
Personally, I think it's something of an urban myth that cats "completely decimate fledgling birds." Do you have data to support that? If they do, then one would expect those populations to BOTH collapse-- birds from reproductive failure and cats from loss of prey. Instead, I think songbirds are marginal prey for cats at best. They're just too risky, difficult, and infrequently available for primary forage. I think they're just opportunistic prey at best.
And besides, birds are just nasty little feathered lizards anyway, right? And their blood is HOT, isn't it, Precioussssss? :evilgrin:
|