Cats tagged in bird killing study (BBC News) [Archive]

deborah4

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 11:01

''It is estimated that people in the UK consume 1bn farm animals and 1.5bn fish each year.''

In cat food? Or is there plans under foot to tag humans too?

Good to see studies are still being done because after the last survey impact of cat predation was inconclusive and given the prey estimates, not a satisfactory outcome but not sure what it will show that the last survey didn't. These type of surveys are always going to be weighted by lots of other things including variation in local populations due to other environmental impacts, time of year, variation in cat density vis a vis SEG demographic type (shown by the last survey by B&S) and owner bias, absence of non-cat owner records for prey items found etc etc

(Dont need to tag my own neighbourhood cats to know where they are hunting, it's round my feeders since it seems they are attracted to a hunting patch that holds the highest density of prey!!).

Mary

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 12:51

Anyone who watches their garden birds for any length of time, e.g. surveying them, will know just what effect cats have on them. Besides killing them, they make the habitat unuseable for nesting. Other species, such as slow worms, are wiped out. Cat owners should be responsible for keeping THEIR pet in THEIR garden; if they can't, then don't have one. A very emotive subject, but especially for those of us on the receiving end of such selfishness.
I hope this research will finally give wildlife organisations enough clout to begin some form of cat control. It would take a long time, much effort and, probably, cash, but the problem will only get worse as owners are unable/unwilling to afford sterilisation etc. I won't bore you with details of our local situation, but it's becoming dire.

antshrike69

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 13:29

the problem will only get worse as owners are unable/unwilling to afford sterilisation etc.

A typical cat neuter is £35 (m) or £50 (f). A small cost compared to the cost of feeding a cat over 15-20 years. Just thought I'd get in before cost is used by anyone else as a justification ;)

Jill57

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 15:07

We may have to stop feeding the birds,we now have three cats visiting our
garden,no idea where they come from,we are forever chasing them off,but they
still come back and hide in the shrubs,one even climbs the apple tree,where we
have feeders hanging from!!

ColonelBlimp

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 17:14

Even if the study were to show incontrovertible evidence of real slaughter, the chances are that nothing would still be done.

Big wildlife charities (e.g. RSPB) wouldn't say anything other than the standard "Put a bell on it" because they know that a lot of their members would have a fit if someone told them little Tiddles was a bad'un.

Cats Protection League et. al. would try and explain it away with the usual mix of half-truths.

The government??? At the moment, I don't think so...

Which basically leaves us lot who see our garden birds massacred by these invasive creatures sitting on our hands. Or buying a catapult big enough to fit a cat in... ;)

Chrysophylax

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 22:01

When I first moved into my house (11 years ago) my neighbour had 3 cats, all of them would hunt and kill birds (iv'e watched them). One day not too long ago, Sharon (next door neighbour) came knocking on the door in a bit of a state, she said that one of her cats had caught a bird and took it into the lounge, she also said this was strange as the cats caught birds almost daily and bought them in dead. I went into the lounge and there was a female blackbird sitting on the window sill with 3 cats watching it, waiting for it to move. I cupped my hands around the bird and took it away, the lounge floor was covered in feathers. On close inspection the bird was mortally wounded with a huge gash under one of it's wings. I had to put the bird down (which really upset me) as there was no way it would recover from such a terrible injury. I asked her to put collars on her cats with bells on them. She has done this but they still stalk the birds and sit under my feeders and bird table. I have moved some of my feeders high up into an Oak tree where the cats have no chance of reaching them. I have heard about people shooting the cats with one of those high powered water guns which fire a strong jet of water, but not sure if this deters them for good. I have nothing against responsible cat owners, but my neighbour just lets them run everywhere doing their dirt all over my lawn and borders. I just collect the dirt up and throw it over into her back garden. With cats, magpies and squirels, it's a wonder there are any birds left. IMO something needs to be done, there is a law for dog owners having to pick their dirt up, but cats are free to roam into anyone garden and crap all over the place, not nice when you have 2 small children. Rant over. Neil.

deborah4

Tuesday 17th February 2009, 23:04

You have my sympathies Neil, I've experienced similar over the years.

However, I'm afraid the issue won't be about whether cats are responsible for ''incontrovertible evidence of real slaughter'' (I think we know that!) but whether that 'slaughter' has a significant effect on bird populations. Unless that is shown to be the case, I doubt the RSPB or any other conservation charity will have much to say on the matter and I seriously doubt that there will be any governmental initiatives to tighten up the law on cat ownership.

The way forward for any individuals with some cash to spend, might be tort law on the grounds of nuisance caused to your rightful enjoyment of your property - would be a new one for the courts though!

ColonelBlimp

Wednesday 18th February 2009, 07:38

I have nothing against responsible cat owners, but my neighbour just lets them run everywhere doing their dirt all over my lawn and borders. I just collect the dirt up and throw it over into her back garden. With cats, magpies and squirels, it's a wonder there are any birds left. IMO something needs to be done, there is a law for dog owners having to pick their dirt up, but cats are free to roam into anyone garden and crap all over the place, not nice when you have 2 small children. Rant over. Neil.

I have much the same problem here. In particular, I'm not looking forward to this year's nesting season-in 2008 I had a ridiculously small, newly fledged wren that sat by my garage while its parents went bananas when they saw me. Last I saw of it was a cat-mangled corpse by my pond. In much the same way I had to basically fend off the local cats that were trying to get at a gormless newly-fledged blackbird.

If someone's dog comes into your garden, it's a serious matter for the police and/or the dog warden, especially if it is racing around and being threatening. If someone lets their cat maraud through your garden, killing all manner of wildlife, you aren't really allowed to do much for fear of 'being cruel'. It really is a ridiculous situation.

However, I'm afraid the issue won't be about whether cats are responsible for ''incontrovertible evidence of real slaughter'' (I think we know that!) but whether that 'slaughter' has a significant effect on bird populations. Unless that is shown to be the case, I doubt the RSPB or any other conservation charity will have much to say on the matter and I seriously doubt that there will be any governmental initiatives to tighten up the law on cat ownership.

The trouble is, due to local variations in cat ownership, local variations in specific species predation, and again local variation in compensation in the form of food, nesting boxes etc., any declines are very likely indeed to be found in specific species, in specific areas.

Now, are the press going to take time out to explain that complexity to their lowest-common-denominator reader? I don't think so. All they will say on a fairly marginally newsworthy area is "new study shows no overall decline in bird numbers due to cats". The defence used by most cat owners I know is "it's what cats do", which shows a complete ignorance of ecological principles-so how likely would they be able to quickly grasp an idea such as this mentioned variation even if it were explained?

Jos Stratford

Wednesday 18th February 2009, 19:25

are the press going to take time out to explain that complexity to their lowest-common-denominator reader?

With comments such as below, I take that lowest-common-denominator to be you.

Can't they just tag them with one ton lead weights and then see how many birds are lost...

... shows a complete ignorance of ecological principles

Haven't noticed much discussed either way on this thread, or any other similar thread.

bkrownd

Wednesday 18th February 2009, 22:30

I have heard about people shooting the cats with one of those high powered water guns which fire a strong jet of water, but not sure if this deters them for good.

I'd think a wrist-rocket and bag of marbles/bearings would be more effective. I'm a bit puzzled - do you actually let your neighbors' pets run about on your property unmolested?

ColonelBlimp

Thursday 19th February 2009, 08:00

With comments such as below, I take that lowest-common-denominator to be you.

Firstly, my 'tagging with lead weights' comment was joke intended to poke a bit of fun at any question asking to what extent cats kill birds, being that if you stop them going out, you are likely to see a decrease in predation.

Secondly, the second comment you have taken was from the following context:

The defence used by most cat owners I know is "it's what cats do", which shows a complete ignorance of ecological principles

the ecological principles being elicited being that yes, cats kill birds naturally, but not naturally-i.e. a human-supported non native (at least in recent history) predator, with little absolute population ceiling, being allowed to continually hunt for sport ina given areas, despite local and animal variation, has the scope to do real damage to marginal populations of birds.

Jos Stratford

Thursday 19th February 2009, 10:32

the ecological principles being elicited being that yes, cats kill birds naturally, but not naturally-i.e. a human-supported non native (at least in recent history) predator, with little absolute population ceiling, being allowed to continually hunt for sport ina given areas, despite local and animal variation, has the scope to do real damage to marginal populations of birds.

A non-native predator hunting in a non-native environment, preying upon species supported in unnatural abundances by non-native foodstuffs, nesting in non-native habitats and unnatural localities. Population controls upon both the prey animal and predator exist in suburbia, just as they do in any other area.
...the scope for damage is very different to actual damage, let the study run its course.

Ban suburbia, ban cars, ban cats, we'll all live in utopia ...in your mind.

PS Cats do sport in Blimpland?.

ColonelBlimp

Thursday 19th February 2009, 11:05

A non-native predator hunting in a non-native environment, preying upon species supported in unnatural abundances by non-native foodstuffs, nesting in non-native habitats and unnatural localities. Population controls upon both the prey animal and predator exist in suburbia, just as they do in any other area.

The influence of man in these environments and situations is clear. But that is not to say that everything you quote is not natural or native. If we are treating 'natural' or 'native' as being the relict state of the ambient ecology before human influence (which I would disagree with incidentally, man being a natural being and therefore his action being part of the natural environment as well), it is very clear that human influence has not progressed to the extent where the relict has been obliterated.

If the overt desire is to protect this relict, to restrict further human influence and development (as is a core part of conservation), then this will encompass trying to minimise the impact of factors such as the domestic cat, that have the scope, as I have expained, to destabilise wildlife populations. You say that they have population controls as well-indeed they do, but not anything like those that exist in nature-this is merely just the number of shovelfuls of Kitekat they are given. A figure of 9/10 million cats in the UK today bears no relation to what it would be without support.

The natural environment and ecology is incredibly complex, and can easily be drastically altered by small human influence. Elements such as the cat that have potential to lower populations below natural tolerance levels for no benefit must therefore be curtailed where possible.

...the scope for damage is very different to actual damage, let the study run its course.

I have no doubt that actual damage is being caused in some areas and to some species but without a really all-encompassing, detailed, localised survey being done of cat predation (as hasn't been done before) I can't draw definite conclusions other than those based on the damage that I have seen. As I said earlier, I am sceptical that this survey would fulfil these criteria.

Ban suburbia, ban cars, ban cats, we'll all live in utopia ...in your mind.

An unhelpful generalisation. I'm not in favour of reverting to hunter-gathering, but neither am I in favour of turning the land into a giant feedlot/metropolis/grain field, and I bet others share this view. The question is, where should we stop on this sliding scale. Without giving a definite answer, I believe the elimination of wasteful damage to the ecology is a key factor, and this should well include stuff like limiting the numbers of cats left to roam about.

PS Cats do sport in Blimpland?.

Yes, if they're not hunting directly to sustain their food needs.

Jos Stratford

Thursday 19th February 2009, 12:49

The influence of man in these environments and situations is clear. But that is not to say that everything you quote is not natural or native.

Peanuts, bird tables, cars, cats, square nest boxes with metal anti-woodpecker damage protection, all reasonably unnatural in my eyes. Point being cats are one element in the urban system and, despite your opinion to the contrary, there still exists the basic fact that most suburban bird populations have increased dramatically. And even for the few species in decline, isolating one cause of mortality, or even removing it, does not mean mean the decline will be tempered.

A figure of 9/10 million cats in the UK today bears no relation to what it would be without support.

The densities of suburban bird populations in the UK today bear no relation to what they would be without support

Elements such as the cat that have potential to lower populations below natural tolerance levels for no benefit must therefore be curtailed where possible.

"Potential ..." Given it is potential, not shown, and given that actual populations of most suburban birds are rising, then I can think of better thinks that conservation bodies might wish to direct their attentions.

"For no benefit" - I personally do see a benefit to cats, I personally do not see a benefit to decking though, nor patios, nor cars for people who live in suburban settings, shall we curtail them too?

I have no doubt that actual damage is being caused ...based on the damage that I have seen

If this is within the suburban setting, might I suggest you publish your observations, along with criteria supporting your views and any other relevant information. It might be the vital study that provides the information until now never produced. But given you start with a considerable bias, I would hope all factors really are factored in to support your conclusions.

An unhelpful generalisation.

I completely agree, about as helpful as half the crap posted on the other half of the debate. Hyped headline figures, lead weights, comments such as 'a wrist-rocket and bag of marbles/bearings would be more effective', etc, etc.

Jos Stratford

Thursday 19th February 2009, 12:55

do you actually let your neighbors' pets run about on your property unmolested?

Don't Americans always run around on the property of others without permission and unmolested?

Xenospiza

Thursday 19th February 2009, 13:26

Don't Americans always run around on the property of others without permission and unmolested?
I know what you're hinting at, but I don't think you should try that in Texas.

username

Thursday 19th February 2009, 13:52

Hoo-haarr......heating up a bit ain't it?!!

When i was a youngster...living at home....we had two cats....and yes they wud 'do' the odd bird in [much to my annoyance and distress]...and i wud always leap out and try n save the bird. Don't 'own' a cat now [if anyone really does 'own' a cat...that's wot i like about them...they have they're own 'separate little world' out there...solitary predators etc]. Can understand totally why people get so upset....i still love cats tho [don't shoot me]!...i love me birds too.....! [not much in nature i don't like really....humans i sometimes have problems with....if ever a species needed 'culling'!...kidding...sort of...]!

VATH 82

Thursday 19th February 2009, 16:50

ColonelBlimp

Thursday 19th February 2009, 17:27

Peanuts, bird tables, cars, cats, square nest boxes with metal anti-woodpecker damage protection, all reasonably unnatural in my eyes.

Clearly so, but the point I made in the rest of the section you refer to is that the "relict" of the pre-human environment is still sizeable, and ostensibly worth protecting. Cats don't intrinsically 'have' to be part of the urban system, if one exists. There are sizeable variations in cat ownership and density.

there still exists the basic fact that most suburban bird populations have increased dramatically. And even for the few species in decline, isolating one cause of mortality, or even removing it, does not mean mean the decline will be tempered.

Naturally, these figures are heartening, but the ones that I have seen talking about this make little or no reference to local variations that could fit with local variations in cat numbers, illustrating a potential causal link. As for the species in decline, I agree that removing one cause of mortality may not reverse the trend, but it may well help especially if there is especially great predation there.

I still believe that even if the bird population is already stable, lessening the impact of an introduced predator is a good thing, purely so that instead they could be limited by a native predator. But while some species are in decline this would naturally be pushed to the back of the agenda.

The densities of suburban bird populations in the UK today bear no relation to what they would be without support

Clearly, and in that may leave scope for cat losses to be absorbed, but they may not across the board, and cat predation extends to other wildlife that may not enjoy the same support, e.g. small mammals etc.

The fourth comment of mine, that you quoted, in full was:

I have no doubt that actual damage is being caused in some areas and to some species but without a really all-encompassing, detailed, localised survey being done of cat predation (as hasn't been done before) I can't draw definite conclusions other than those based on the damage that I have seen. As I said earlier, I am sceptical that this survey would fulfil these criteria.

...which to me shows a clear inference of a professed probable lack of certainty or representiveness from what I personally have seen. I would not attempt to draw such conclusions from my own experience, as I know that they would be likely to be inadequate.

I completely agree, about as helpful as half the crap posted on the other half of the debate. Hyped headline figures, lead weights, comments such as 'a wrist-rocket and bag of marbles/bearings would be more effective', etc, etc.

Come on, my 'lead weights' remark as I explained before was a joke, not like the rest of my point following the 'generalisation' bit which was the crux of my argument.

As for the hyperbole you quote, introduced stuff coming into your garden to kill more stuff will naturally elicit such opprobrium. Like someone's pet that came into my garden last spring and mauled a newly-fledged baby wren to death. A bird unsupported by me, declining in my local area, and unnecessarily killed. That elicits strong feelings!

bkrownd

Thursday 19th February 2009, 19:37

comments such as 'a wrist-rocket and bag of marbles/bearings would be more effective', etc, etc.

That's not a "comment", it's a proper course of action to drive away vermin like feral cats and dogs. If you're out in the country of course you can simply use a rifle to take care of the problem.

James Lowther

Thursday 19th February 2009, 19:39

Don't Americans always run around on the property of others without permission and unmolested?

what's that got to do with anything??

bkrownd

Thursday 19th February 2009, 19:53

what's that got to do with anything??

Classic Red Herring.

Farnboro John

Friday 20th February 2009, 09:55

James_Owen

Friday 20th February 2009, 10:46

If we can't decide what's 'natural' and what's 'unnatural', does that mean the argument becomes about which do we like most, murderous cats or the beautiful birds they kill?
I think I'm with the birds on that one.

Fingers crossed whatever conclusions this study arrives at aren't too woolly-worded.

Chrysophylax

Friday 20th February 2009, 17:43

I'd think a wrist-rocket and bag of marbles/bearings would be more effective. I'm a bit puzzled - do you actually let your neighbors' pets run about on your property unmolested?

What else can I do? I cannot be there 24/7 to see if cats are roaming on my property. Maybe the laws in the USA are different, and you are allowed to do something about it. I'm afraid it's a criminal offence to harm cats in this country. Neil.

Jos Stratford

Friday 20th February 2009, 18:43

That's not a "comment", it's a proper course of action ...

You might wish to remember that this is an international forum, what you advocate is illegal in many countries, including the one that is at the centre of this particular thread.

McMadd

Friday 20th February 2009, 19:24

Pile of rocks by the front and back doors every time I visit the folks...should I hit when I throw so be it...

McMadd

Friday 20th February 2009, 19:28

...that said when we were out ticking White-backed Woody a couple of Sunday's back we did find cat prints around the base of one forest feeder and were well pleased...it's probably the closest I'll come to encountering a LYNX!!!

Gastronaut

Friday 20th February 2009, 21:15

Exterminate all the cats and see if the bird population increases. If it doesn't then we were wrong, but at least I wouldn't have to put up with cats crapping in my garden any more. It would be worth it just to wipe the smug look off their faces.

username

Friday 20th February 2009, 22:26

Wonder why cats don't bury their 'doo doo's' [shite] anymore? Perhaps some still do..do..

[nasty stuff tho i know.....can get bad allergic reaction to it].
Out in garden today...usual fox shite....and tons of pigeon crap....lovely eh?!

ColonelBlimp

Saturday 21st February 2009, 07:53

What else can I do? I cannot be there 24/7 to see if cats are roaming on my property. Maybe the laws in the USA are different, and you are allowed to do something about it. I'm afraid it's a criminal offence to harm cats in this country. Neil.

It's a criminal offence to harm birds in this country as well-that is, unless you do it by proxy... ;)

Fozzybear

Saturday 21st February 2009, 08:30

The densities of suburban bird populations in the UK today bear no relation to what they would be without support

Is it not the case that urban populations of birds have risen due to population movement from the countryside where there is a depletion of suitable habitat? The use of nestboxes and feeders is an attempt to redress the balance - not natural of course, but since we've affected the natural habitat of these birds, many of which are woodland residents, then should we not be trying to help them?

I doubt cat owners would take well my releasing a dog near their cat and saying as it tore it apart "don't worry, it's only doing what comes nat'ral!".

alcedo.atthis

Saturday 21st February 2009, 08:53

I love this thread. Bored birders, no migrants yet, so lets dig up that olde Chestnut, Birds -v - Cats. That's bound to get someones hackles up AGAIN. Early spring, mid summer and the end of the year. Same crap, same time of the year. And that's not the woopsies left on the lawn by some stray moggie. Admin', can we have a re run of this thread mid summer and at the end of the year when the autumn migration is over and the armchair birders are bored, waiting for their pagers to go off. That will save them starting a new thread.
Guys, try going out to see what is out there. Throw away the pagers. Be independant.

Regards

Malky

Fozzybear

Saturday 21st February 2009, 09:27

Guys, try going out to see what is out there. Throw away the pagers. Be independant.

I don't have a pager and I've already spent an hour sat outside watching the birds in my garden this morning. :t:

I did think of writing something about the same old argument, the same old points of view, the impossibility of anyone changing their point of view, but that goes without saying really!

Mary

Saturday 21st February 2009, 14:35

It's not that long ago, that anyone speaking up against drink-driving was thought to be a woolly-headed do-gooder; use of mobile phones whilst driving is now beginning to change, albeit slowly. It takes a long time to change people's attitudes to things they have done for a long time.
Hopefully, continued research and education will eventually persuade at least the majority of cat owners that they should be keeping guinea pigs instead :) Sadly, it won't be in my life time:(

Helen O

Saturday 21st February 2009, 16:52

Priceless.

It's not that long ago, that anyone speaking up against drink-driving was thought to be a woolly-headed do-gooder; use of mobile phones whilst driving is now beginning to change, albeit slowly. It takes a long time to change people's attitudes to things they have done for a long time.
Hopefully, continued research and education will eventually persuade at least the majority of cat owners that they should be keeping guinea pigs instead :) Sadly, it won't be in my life time:(

ColonelBlimp

Saturday 21st February 2009, 19:16

Is it not the case that urban populations of birds have risen due to population movement from the countryside where there is a depletion of suitable habitat? The use of nestboxes and feeders is an attempt to redress the balance - not natural of course, but since we've affected the natural habitat of these birds, many of which are woodland residents, then should we not be trying to help them?

The trouble is that intervening by providing food/nesting places can cause problems for the birds sometimes by impacting on other resources they need that aren't similarly provided, e.g. soft food for chicks, leading to the population growing not as much as one would think, and potentially also impacting badly on unhelped stuff they prey on in greater numbers than usual e.g. caterpillars.

In my garden at least when messing around with bird populations I always try to go from the bottom up, by providing more habitat (such as hazel, holly etc. I have planted). But then again I do put some food out during hard times for the birds-a sin borne primarily out of softness! ;)

Sherry Liu

Monday 23rd February 2009, 09:44

There are a large number of wild cats in our schoolyard and I have no idea where they came from.Their food consisted of birds,food from the students,etc.
Last spring,I heard that two chicks fell from their nets.Sadly,they were eaten by a cat.

Gastronaut

Monday 23rd February 2009, 16:31

the armchair birders are bored, waiting for their pagers to go off.

Guys, try going out to see what is out there. Throw away the pagers. Be independant.

Regards

Malky

Yawn.
Same old, same old. Every time a couple of people post something in jest some killjoy comes along and pretends they're above all that sort of thing. And just to prove their moral superiority they roll out the old favourite, their ultimate birding put-down, you're just waiting around for your pager to go off. Yeah right. 9.15 on a February night, I should be ashamed of myself for not being out in the field, like you obviously would have been. :t:

bkrownd

Monday 23rd February 2009, 20:20

Not in Britain you can't, and we're not talking about feral cats and dogs but some old dear's Tibbles.

A cat that is outside is not a housepet. It's a pest and is equivalent to a feral animal. It kills, spreads disease and causes destruction all the same, so no need to split hairs. Nobody who loves their "dear" pet would ever let it roam outside.

I don't know how it is there but here one of the best ways to deal with problem strays is to trap them and turn them in to the Humane Society. They charge $90 for the so-called "owner" to get their so-called "pet" back.

bkrownd

Monday 23rd February 2009, 20:25

Hopefully, continued research and education will eventually persuade at least the majority of cat owners that they should be keeping guinea pigs instead :)

Mmmm, I'm sure they're nice but I don't think guinea pigs ever cause the "melty" feeling of affection that a kitty does when it looks up at you all a-purr and says "meooooow?". Nope, I'll always be a pussy man.

Macao

Monday 23rd February 2009, 22:49

I am sorry to butt in however I think that before we start accusing other species for demolishing the wild life we should look at ourselves. There is a lot of hatred against feral cats and dogs in this post, but these animals don't kill for fun, they only kill what is necessary for them to survive. There is also a lot of hatred against domestic cats. What about ourselves? Just because some put feeders in their gardens it doesn't mean we are fulfilling our duty to wild life. How many birds, squirrels, foxes and other animals die because we built where forests used to be, we make roads, industrial zones, houses etc?
If we all so much love wild life and birds, how about all agreeing to live in residential blocks of flats, in confined spaces, and give up the land that the houses occupy to become forests again? How about demolishing airports, motorways and industrial zones and live with considerably less comfort but hand the land back to wild life? How many would agree with that? Very few.. though this would be the best for the birds and wildlife. Typical - we demand all other species to make sacrifices but no, not us!!!
If there is one species which has taken over the planet with detrimental effects to all wild life this is us, the humans. We overpopulate, we destroy and we drive the other species to extinction. To come back with hateful remarks about other species to me is at least hypocritical. Sorry to upset - but I think it is time to face our own responsibilities and stop preaching what we don't do.

bkrownd

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 00:50

This kind of bogus "it isn't the animals' fault, and we're not morally perfect enough to judge them" nonsense is a serious impediment to effective conservation efforts. Cry, cry, cry, boo-hoo. Don't we feel all smug and virtuous now? Pfff! Impotent, arrogant and morally hollow is more like it! This self-defeating emotionalism is frequently employed to confuse an ignorant and sentimental public to block important conservation work. In an ideal world we would be able to downsize the human presence, but in this world we know it isn't ever going to happen. However, we CAN do something about the invasive species problems that humans created and the imbalances in nature that human influences have created, which cause a lot more harm than most people understand. Usually the invasive species we introduce are far more damaging than anything humans do directly. (Except of course for the ages old land-consuming death machine called agriculture.)

And to be clear there's nothing "hateful" about removing problem animals. In fact, it is for the true love of the whole of nature that we should have the moral fortitude to do it decisively.

ColonelBlimp

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 07:21

And to be clear there's nothing "hateful" about removing problem animals. In fact, it is for the true love of the whole of nature that we should have the moral fortitude to do it decisively.

Couldn't agree more with what you're saying. You probably know about the grey squirrel situation in England, and exactly the same delaying, lie-feeding tactics are used by bodies trying to stop a cull. They just clearly don't understand that in situations like this, with invasive predators, it isn't a choice between all the animals living in harmony versus a murderous cull-in fact, whatever we do we kill, either the native flora and fauna that get squeezed out, or the invasive organism. I know which I'd prefer!

I am sorry to butt in however I think that before we start accusing other species for demolishing the wild life we should look at ourselves.

Humans are part of the ecosystem too, and it could be argued that we are just another species making its mark on the ecology. This makes us clearly different from invasive species.

However, if the question is whether humans should scale back their encroachment onb nature, I would clearly say that that would be good. However, the number of people like you and me that value the natural environment over say a new McDonald's or a parking lot is vastly outnumbered by those that would prefer more development. Large but necessary population drops would result in catastrophic war. Instead of dreaming about impossibilities, tackling invasive species is something we can do right now with far less expense.

bkrownd

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 09:56

This makes us clearly different from invasive species.

The fundamental difference between humans and other problem species is of course that we can choose to limit our impact, and to even compensate for it and have a beneficial role. Hopefully soon we'll transform our view of our place in the world from one of conquerors and consumers to one of caretakers.

deborah4

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 12:44

I am sorry to butt in however I think that before we start accusing other species for demolishing the wild life we should look at ourselves... There is also a lot of hatred against domestic cats. What about ourselves? ... Sorry to upset - but I think it is time to face our own responsibilities and stop preaching what we don't do.

Well to stay on topic ...

Who owns domestic cats? Who artificially breeds them, then sells them? Who fails to exercise control their behaviour? Who fails to neuter them? ... humans! ;) I agree you can't blame an animal for any of it's actions when it has no concepts of 'morality', ''population concerns of urban birds'' or why, when born with all physical tools of a hunter, it's ''wrong'' for it to use them! That would be daft as blaming dogs when their poop ends up in a plastic bag hanging from a tree!

Perhaps surveys/studies such as the one being carried out might produce some results that effect change with regard to our responsibility with domestic cats, but I doubt it somehow.

Chrysophylax

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 15:58

Originally posted by Macao

but these animals don't kill for fun, they only kill what is necessary for them to survive.

Have to disagree with that one i'm afraid. My neighbours cats kill a bird almost every day, they toy with it as they would a ball of string and DO NOT eat it as the owner feeds them regularly.

Macao

Tuesday 24th February 2009, 17:39

Firstly, nobody is crying - get a grip of yourself.
Secondly,
However, we CAN do something about the invasive species .
WE ARE the invasive species, eg - but not only:
(Except of course for the ages old land-consuming death machine called agriculture.)
Thirdly, I just love the way in which we admit that we can do nothing about the young people who shoot or trap birds for fun, about us constantly destroying their environment (see for instance my post about lifting the protected status of the great cormorant because the anglers want to) but we are prepared to ask every other species on the planet to make sacrifices. Is it just me who can see the double standards?
Conservation work won't move an inch if it goes on like that. It boils down to individual people's preferences, not a moral stance. And since we value ourselves and our preferences so highly everybody's view is valuable so nothing will ever happen as people do not agree.

ColonelBlimp

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 07:23

WE ARE the invasive species

That is clearly not the case: human populations have reached where they are through natural movement. Invasive species such as cats, grey squirrels etc. are where they are because humans have put them there. Whether they are 'naturally' there is a question of semantics: whether they are an invasive species is clear from the term's definition.

Thirdly, I just love the way in which we admit that we can do nothing about the young people who shoot or trap birds for fun, about us constantly destroying their environment (see for instance my post about lifting the protected status of the great cormorant because the anglers want to) but we are prepared to ask every other species on the planet to make sacrifices. Is it just me who can see the double standards?

But the vast majority of people that don't value nature for its own sake are just doing what comes naturally to them: i.e. valuing their species and themselves the most-pretty much what every other species does.

As I said, the real point here is not whether our changes are natural or not, but if we want to scale them back to aid the relict ecology.

navman

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 08:13

That's not a "comment", it's a proper course of action to drive away vermin like feral cats and dogs. If you're out in the country of course you can simply use a rifle to take care of the problem.

There speaks the voice of experience!

Where's my soapbox ??

I have never really understood why people have cats, :cat: they come in when it suits them, they upset the neighbours either (in my case by killing the birds), or by digging holes, and depositing unmentionable things in your garden, and other than that, they exist for no other reason. As cats are bred by man (with the exception of feral cats) they do not belong in the ecological chain of 'natural' predators so that is an extra burden on the 'natural' food chain.
Anyone who believes that cats don't affect bird populations, needs to come and sit in my back garden for a day, the only birds that are brave enough to come into my garden, are wood pigeons, and during last summer a sparrow hawk, which had a smaller bird, (starling) which to me is 'natural predatory behaviour'. I lost my dog just before Christmas, and have noticed the number of cats increasing and number of birds decreasing, hopefully we are getting a puppy in June, (the house is just not the same without someone to greet you when you come in!) so should see the return of the birds and demise of the cats once he/she has settled in. When we had the dog, she would sit/lie on the decking, which is only 10 feet from the bird feeders, and we would have all manner of birds coming and going, and were not at all bothered by the dogs presence, so birds can obviously tell the difference between something that IS going to eat them ,and something that is going to STOP them being eaten!

Rant over, will put my soapbox away till next time. ;)

Sandra (Taylor)

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 08:34

CrimsonTopaz

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 11:46

A typical cat neuter is £35 (m) or £50 (f). A small cost compared to the cost of feeding a cat over 15-20 years. Just thought I'd get in before cost is used by anyone else as a justification ;)

Local council's are offering a free service to neuter both cat's and dogs (i know they are in South Tyneside)
We have 6 cat's in the street although they dont come into my garden as my dog doesnt like them.
I think this thead is getting very heated....ive said my piece so i'll leave....

John o'Sullivan

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 20:56

Strangely enough. I have two cats (both avid hunters) and a garden full of birds. it can be a bit of a bloodbath in the autumn when they catch the stupid and the slow. Then the birds catch on and for the rest of the year the cats very rarely catch anything.

If we stopped getting excited about the fact that cats eat birds and left the birds and the cats to it, over time wouldn't populations of birds that are good at avoiding getting caught evolve and then the particular niche that is the urban back garden would find its own balance.

If we structure our gardens to provide food and nesting habitat (the bottom up approach mentioned earlier) then whilst cats will catch some birds a population of birds will survive that can manage this particular habitat.

If we took all the cats out wouldn’t other processes reduce prey density (starvation, predation from other sources i.e. more magpies, sparrow hawks, avian disease).

All prey species have predators. Most small birds produce lots of offspring so that most of them can end up dead.

There is interestingly enough an argument that humans "have" cats because they adopted us, When humans started storing grain cats moved in to exploit this source of food. Over time the more sociable cats moved closer and closer to humans and became part of the fabric of human environment. They evolved
(with some help from us) into the domestic cat. Like many people who have cats I know I am are their pet not the other way round. Evolution in action and a wonder of nature. An adapted species so clever it can spend nearly all day asleep in the warm before waking up for food that they deign to eat, before moving out into their adopted territory for some fun.

The whole argument about natural/invasive/native is in many ways ludicrous. How many of the British posters on here would advocate going out and chopping down that Great British icon the “Conker” tree introduced as recently as 1616 or all the sycamores, Blackthorns, Sweet Chestnuts and Larch’s. Never mind a whole range of other introduced trees/birds/flowers etc. etc. etc.

There isn't a natural environment but there are some obvious stand out species that people can get excited about. Excited about in the lets get rid of them sense.

Any one who thinks they are talking about the natural environment in Britain ( the world??) is having a laugh, The great “must be protected at all costs” Peat Bogs aren’t natural but apparently a result of human deforestation. Southern heaths another human created habitat that are trumpeted as “natural” and a must be protected.

There is an argument that we are 200 years into the Anthropocene Epoch. An era when human influence on the world is predominant. Massive systemic changes to global processes affecting everything in one way or another. On this level cats are irrelevant, they won’t affect anything that matters so lets stop worrying about them.

Much of “conservation” is literally about trying to prevent certain changes or action taken to reverse other changes. Changes that the conservation/political/business movement labels as being either desirable or undesirable. Often its about trying to prevent species that are good at exploiting habitats over species that can’t manage environmental change. Instead of supporting evolutionary processes Humans have this urge/drive to interfere with the rest of the natural worlds attempts at organising itself.

If Lovelock’s GAIA theory holds water and the world adjusts itself to maintain an overall homeostasis then slaughtering/removing the successful species could be argued to be interfering with homeostatic processes and ecologically counterproductive.

Self Domesticated cats could be part of this process. A feline reservoir of genetic material adapted to and living amongst the enemy i.e. us.

Learn to see them in this way and learn to love evolution and change. Not the human construct of conservation and futile attempts at stasis.

navman

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 21:10

(1) I have never really understood why people have cats..........

(2)... (the house is just not the same without someone to greet you when you come in!) .............

You've answered your own question (1) with (2) except you refer to another sort of s**t machine! :t:

:cat::cat:

The BIG difference is I can control what and where my dog goes, very FEW cat owners choose to do this, and allow them to go and as you put it s**t in other peoples gardens and kill the local wildlife! I know my neighbours certainly do, as I have found the evidence in my garden, both the dead kind and the smelly kind!!!

Jos Stratford

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 21:30

The BIG difference is I can control what and where my dog goes, very FEW cat owners choose to do this, and allow them to go and as you put it s**t in other peoples gardens

Yeah right, I guess the streets and local parks in Cheshire aren't blighted by dog crap, huh? And given dog owners are so responsible, how come hospitals get people admitted every year attacked by dogs ... funny don't seem to see that from moggies.

Jos Stratford

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 21:38

Strangely enough. I have two cats (both avid hunters) and a garden full of birds.

It's simple John, half those moaning can't be bothered to get off their backsides and actually look at their garden and see if they can't make it a little safer for birds. Much easier to blame the 'irresponsible' neighbour than actually do something themselves.

Turn the argument round, you are attracting birds into the garden in unnatural densities, you are also irresponsible if you be bugger all to think about a bit of design to make the garden and feeders, etc, safe from cats.

Jos Stratford

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 21:41

I have never really understood why people have cats....

Not really relevant if you understand or not, those having the cats understand.

I don't understand why lots of people do lots of things, so what?

Keith Dickinson

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 21:51

Not often will I step into this sort of thread but making an exception today....
Had both cats and dogs over the years, never once stepped in any cat cr@p.
As present day cat owners, we have the garden arranged so that our cat has to really work to catch a bird. There's loads of shrubs with thick tangles of branches that the birds can negotiate but the cat can't. We let her out during the middle of the day rather than early or late so that there are few birds around when she is in the garden.
As to her cr@pping in someone else's garden... if she does then she's got a bowel problem as the litter tray in our kitchen will testify...she goes out and then comes into the house to have a dump!
In 20 years in this house with cats for all but 1 year, I can think of only 5 times that we have been presented with a bird by either cat.

navman

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 22:07

OK

I know when I am beaten, there are obviously a lot of 'cat lovers' on here, I will bow down graciously as I am a 'newbie' don't want to start a slanging match. Sorry for any offence caused, I will go and crawl back under my rock :-X

Keith Dickinson

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 22:10

No offence taken Navman. This battle has been fought over many threads...LOL.

Jos Stratford

Wednesday 25th February 2009, 22:10

Sorry for any offence caused, I will go and crawl back under my rock :-X

No offence caused ...cat threads are rarely harmonious ;)

username

Thursday 26th February 2009, 00:20

As a 'relative' newcomer to this forum...i never knew that there had been many 'cat threads' in the past?....so itz a regular sorta 'crap throwing' contest is it?!
Mate o mine is a real 'anti-cat' man who expresses similar views to some on this thread...we still get on tho....we just agree to disagree! I like me 'fur-bags'...especially the 'big ones'...
Wonder where the expression 'fights like cats n dogs' comes from?! Guess 'man' is essentially a pack/dog animal...prefer the 'smug cats'...they juz yawn and go...'hey ho...wotever.....where's me dinner n give us a bit o fuss will ya'?!

ps....juz walked in from pub....huge pile of 'dog doo' on pavement outside me flat......fecker!...not the dog....the poxy owner!....[hey...i'll get over it...'step over it' rather]...........

pps...John o'Sullivan.......liked yer comments.....!

ColonelBlimp

Thursday 26th February 2009, 07:21

It's simple John, half those moaning can't be bothered to get off their backsides and actually look at their garden and see if they can't make it a little safer for birds. Much easier to blame the 'irresponsible' neighbour than actually do something themselves.

Turn the argument round, you are attracting birds into the garden in unnatural densities, you are also irresponsible if you be bugger all to think about a bit of design to make the garden and feeders, etc, safe from cats.

Totally disingenuous-I shouldn't have to be always playing catch-up in my garden because some person thinks that it is perfectly alright to leave their cat to come and kill birds and sh*t in my garden, irrespective if I feed the birds or not. As I said earlier, some species that aren't supported by food handouts from me e.g. wrens are still declining in my garden due in most part to cat predation.

Anyway, how do you design a cat-free garden? Pretty impossible in my experience, unless you surround it with armed sentries and gatling guns...

ColonelBlimp

Thursday 26th February 2009, 07:28

Jos Stratford

Thursday 26th February 2009, 08:56

...some person thinks that it is perfectly alright to leave their cat to come and sh*t in my garden...

Some person thinks that is perfectly okay to feed birds, thereby attracting them in numbers that sit on my washing line and sh*t on my jacket.

wrens are still declining in my garden due in most part to cat predation.

Maybe fact, maybe opinion. Have recommended before, Colonel please publish your findings.

I shouldn't have to be always playing catch-up in my garden .

You're the one who claims to wish to protect the birds, take some responsibility. Cats are there, moan as you might, they are likely to stay there - do something yourself, rather than expecting others, and maybe you see a change.

Anyway, how do you design a cat-free garden? Pretty impossible in my experience, unless you surround it with armed sentries and gatling guns...

Pretty simple to design a garden. Maybe easier though to just moan.

Jos Stratford

Thursday 26th February 2009, 09:00

...a population that is heavily unlikely to resemble what would be there without the cats in species or density.

Already covered, for the most part, suburbian populations are at levels already greater than in non-suburban settings.

ColonelBlimp

Thursday 26th February 2009, 17:32

Some person thinks that is perfectly okay to feed birds, thereby attracting them in numbers that sit on my washing line and sh*t on my jacket.

Noted that my statement you quoted had the bit "and kill birds" omitted. Sh*t on jackets can be washed off, and sh*t in gardens can be buried, but native birds killed can't be easily replaced at all.

If we're going to be really pedantic, no-one has a washing line within about 500m of where I live, and for the record I would rather come into contact with bird faeces rather than the feline equivalent. But this is nitpicking.

Maybe fact, maybe opinion. Have recommended before, Colonel please publish your findings.

because Nature would be interested in a paper from me examining the suspicious death of wrens in my garden? I doubt it. What I have said is that wrens for example are declining in my garden, which I have seen myself. I'm making no presumptions about how that could be reflected nationwide, just that cats can cause local problems.

You're the one who claims to wish to protect the birds, take some responsibility. Cats are there, moan as you might, they are likely to stay there - do something yourself, rather than expecting others, and maybe you see a change.

I enjoy seeing native wildlife in my garden. Others enjoy sending cats to get rid of bits of it. Why on earth should it be my prerogative to try and stop that?
A kept in cat may be a sad cat, but it is not a dead or potentially species-threatened cat. A dead bird is a dead bird.

Pretty simple to design a garden. Maybe easier though to just moan.

To make my garden bird-friendly, I would essentially have to remove all the close cover that usually has, for example, two pairs of bullfinches nesting in it. I would just have to have the feeders in the middle of a huge lawn. Cat-proof? Possibly. But bloody hard work to do, and very injurious to the habitat there, just because people can't be arsed to stop their cats killing native bird.

Moaning, you say? I will moan if the birds in my garden, who I take great delight in seeing their lives, are mown down. People would moan if the same thing happened to their cats. But the native one is allowed to die and the non-native one is protected at all costs- how is that reasonable???

Already covered, for the most part, suburbian populations are at levels already greater than in non-suburban settings.

As I've said so often before, this is true overall. But for some species in some areas, is isn't. Who would pay to keep a study going watching the degree of islandisation, in order to have a more conclusive picture of the danger? Not many. This also ignores the rest of the wildlife that get affected eg. slow worms which are much more adversely affected.

I just don't get all this apologetics for an invasive predator Jos.

DunnoKev

Thursday 26th February 2009, 20:23

it can be a bit of a bloodbath in the autumn when they catch the stupid and the slow.

Then fake a mega-rarity in your back garden this autumn, and they'll have plenty enough human flesh to feast on instead ;)

Jos Stratford

Thursday 26th February 2009, 20:25

I just don't get all this apologetics for an invasive predator Jos.

I'm not an apologist, I do everything in my power to reduce bird losses to cats ..and in my garden have achieved near zero loss (in a garden that attracts upward of 500 passerines per day and several cats). I fully understand that individual persons might want to exclude cats from their garden, let them do it, no worries to me. However, read this thread and you will find posts that question why persons might want a cat, think they need educating, are cruel (to the cat) if they let them out, etc, etc ...all irrelevant to the topic in question and merely illustrating an ignorance of understanding that not all persons have the same mindset.

At the same time, I also don't believe, and have yet to see anything to persuade me, half what is said by many of the anti-cat persons on this and similar threads. I don't consider cats an invasive predator in suburbia any more than anything else that exists there, its all a highly man-created unnatural environment and birds thrive and die by it, the swings and roundabouts of our provided benefits countering the provided damages.

The reality of suburbia is that cats exist - they have not, as yet, been shown to have any negative impact on overall populations.

ColonelBlimp

Friday 27th February 2009, 07:28

The reality of suburbia is that cats exist - they have not, as yet, been shown to have any negative impact on overall populations.

The trouble is, the nature of such research is that it is usually unlikely to study local/species variations in the context of islandisation etc., the method of collecting data is likely to be suspect, and even if it proved that cats were really knackering bird populations, no organisation would have a vested interest in presenting the data in its entirety for fear of offending the cat-owning section of the public.

All I've been saying is that I can see how cats could adversely impact bird populations, and I have seen this in my local area, but for an overall verdict we would have to wait for research that is unlikely to be acceptable. Abscence of evidence, as always, is not evidence of abscence.

Personally, from what I have seen I believe that keeping cats out of the suburban ecology as much as possible will be beneficial for the native birds, slow-worms etc. etc. The ecology there is very complex, yes, but surely this is a reason to avoid mucking around with it as much as possible!

navman

Friday 27th February 2009, 08:06

Some person thinks that is perfectly okay to feed birds, thereby attracting them in numbers that sit on my washing line and sh*t on my jacket.

I Don't want to get drawn into this argument again, but if you read that statement (Singular) without reading the rest of the post, and then take a look at your avatar, (Depending on which way you interperet you avatar) it would seem to me that you detest the birds that come into your garden! So why are you on this forum?
A bird doesn't have to land on your washing line to sh*t on your jacket, it can do it from 100 feet up in the air, a cat has to come a bit closer to shit in your garden, usually about 0 feet!

I try to make my garden as bird friendly and as cat proof as possible but unfortunately due to the large amount of fencing i have round the garden, it would cost a small fortune to fit it all out with cat spikes, and as the shooting of cats is illegal in the UK that option is out!

The problem I have is I love birds and HATE cats, I can sit and watch birds for hours, even days, I have only got to look at a cat, and a primal urge to throw something at it, or if I can get near enough kick it takes over.

I am now sat with tin hat and flak jacket on, so ready for any backlash. :storm:

Jos Stratford

Friday 27th February 2009, 14:10

I Don't want to get drawn into this argument again, but if you read that statement (Singular) without reading the rest of the post, and then take a look at your avatar, (Depending on which way you interperet you avatar) it would seem to me that you detest the birds that come into your garden! So why are you on this forum?

My point was merely that we co-exist with neighbours - whilst we might moan about the behaviour of our neighbours, they might moan about ours. Perhaps we don't like their cats wandering in, some do not like the flocks of birds we attract. A healthy degree of tolerance would go a long way in both cases.

Every so often a thread starts about neighbours who complain about birds being fed - by and large, the forum criticises the neighbour and states they are either sad individuals or should mind their own business.
Every so often a thread starts about a neighbour's cat that is impacting our garden - by and large, the forum criticises the neighbour and calls them selfish, ignorant or cruel.

Jos Stratford

Friday 27th February 2009, 14:13

take a look at your avatar (depending on which way you interperet you avatar), it would seem to me that you detest the birds that come into your garden!

The gun-totting cat and 'stuff them all' is the cat's response to the likes of you ;)

username

Friday 27th February 2009, 15:16

'Gun-totting cats'?.....now that wud definitely make an 'impact' on the birdlife....probably on dogs too..........!

ColonelBlimp

Friday 27th February 2009, 17:05

Every so often a thread starts about neighbours who complain about birds being fed - by and large, the forum criticises the neighbour and states they are either sad individuals or should mind their own business.
Every so often a thread starts about a neighbour's cat that is impacting our garden - by and large, the forum criticises the neighbour and calls them selfish, ignorant or cruel.

This dichotomy is clear, but the way I like to 'justify' feeding the birds is that you're mostly going from the bottom-up in the food chain, so you aren't impacting adversely onto other species that get preyed on. There are some exceptions, e.g. blue tits being overly supported then preying more than usual on caterpillars etc., but in my garden at least the tits seem to be edged out by the finches massively that mostly feed their young on seeds anyway.

Whereas cats tend to affect the ecology top-down and impact badly on the stuff they predate on that isn't linked to their food availability primarily.

I agree messing around with the ecology is a bad idea, and I've often had soul-searching moments about feeding the birds in my garden, but along with the above I wouldn't be able to cope with a sudden die-off if I stopped.

AndyM

Friday 27th February 2009, 19:10

Okay people chew on this...

We have a multi-cat household. Happy with cats, happy with birds. We have the luxury of a long (not large) garden. Thanks to very cheap netting and a few fence posts the cats are confined to one half of the garden and the birds have the rest where they are fed, watered, able to breed and thrive. Despite other peoples Cats having use of the area, we used to have breeding Bullfinch, Turtle Dove and Lesser Whitethroat but Human activity put paid to that.

But that's our story...

The gardens in the rest of the neighbourhood have long since taken down feeders, birdtables and the like because of the thriving populations of Rats & Mice, (hated even more vehemently than the occasional cat) that also found the food an irrisistable attraction.

Funnily enough, we never experienced this rodent problem (and my shirts are hung out in the Cats side of the garden). :t:

I wonder why? ;)

Macao

Sunday 1st March 2009, 13:37

We also have feeders in the garden as well as hanging dishes with water. The birds are regular visitors. The cat can't get anywhere near as we use the type that stick on windows or go up iron poles, which he can't climb. We have identified some bushes which the birds use for nesting and since last year we have put protective fensing around them to protect the fetherlings. There are a lot of magpies in the area as well as some urban foxes, neighborhood cats and our cat. We can't do much about the mapgpies - the parents need to work this one out. The fensing go put up just to protect the fetherlings which fall off the nest on the ground until they are ready to take off.

crimson skies

Sunday 1st March 2009, 14:31

neil said:

I have heard about people shooting the cats with one of those high powered water guns which fire a strong jet of water, but not sure if this deters them for good.

neil, speaking from experiance, ( I have 3 house cats and a number of farm cats) if you continuosly shoot the cat in the side every time it comes into your garden, in 2 or 3 weeks the cat would have got the message that it gets wet going into your garden, and will not go there. however, if you allow it to roam freely across your garden a few times in the 3 weeks, it will not have learned.
I am a cat lover, and being a farmers son, I can see cats have there uses, especially if you have problems with rats, mice, stoats, etc.

Tom

Egret

Monday 9th March 2009, 21:15

Anyone who watches their garden birds for any length of time, e.g. surveying them, will know just what effect cats have on them. Besides killing them, they make the habitat unuseable for nesting. Other species, such as slow worms, are wiped out. .

My garden is visited by legions of cats but it also has lots of slow worms. The reality is that there were no slow worms before we built a compost heap - now managed exclusively for reptiles and amphibians - so cats were not our limiting factor, habitat was. Similarly, before I dug a pond we had very few amphibians but now we have plenty of frogs and toads with the occasional hint of newt.

On the bird front we have nesting blue tits, great tits, robins and blackbirds.

Andy

ColonelBlimp

Tuesday 10th March 2009, 08:24

My garden is visited by legions of cats but it also has lots of slow worms. The reality is that there were no slow worms before we built a compost heap - now managed exclusively for reptiles and amphibians - so cats were not our limiting factor, habitat was. Similarly, before I dug a pond we had very few amphibians but now we have plenty of frogs and toads with the occasional hint of newt.

On the bird front we have nesting blue tits, great tits, robins and blackbirds.

Andy

But what would it be like without the cats? Would it indeed be even better?

For example, my garden has no slowworms, newts etc. etc. but has nesting bullfinch, dunnock, wren, goldcrest (I think) etc. If the climatic condition preclude the slowworms, coud the fewer cats I get be causing the wider breeding diversity? There are so many factors involved however that it would be jolly difficult to prove either way by personal observation.