this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2026
579 points (97.7% liked)
Just Post
1226 readers
3 users here now
Just post something 💛
Lemmy's general purpose discussion community with no specific topic.
Sitewide lemmy.world rules apply here.
Additionally, this is a no AI content community. We are here for human interaction, not AI slop! Posts or comments flagged as AI generated will be removed.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Humans don't "allow cats to breed". Cats breed whether you want them to or not, often well outside the purvey of people.
What humans have done is to obliterate the rest of the ecosystem. No predatory birds or snakes. No legions of field critters. No native plant life.
Bobcats and pumas were natives of the Texas heartland for hundreds of thousands of years before humans arrived and they got on just fine. Much better at killing wildlife than any Maine Coon, too. You didn't need the SPCA snipping their nutsacks to keep them in check. No more than you needed a breeding program for ground squirrels or passenger pigeons to keep their population size up.
Domestic cats' population is orders of magnitude larger than the native cats population was or is.
While you're correct that humans are also devastating the habitats of native birds, and that that is likely a (much?) larger effect, the invasive species that is the domestic housecat is also talking a toll of a couple billion birds per year.
There are multiple well-regarded studies providing those numbers. You choosing to disbelieve them is about as valid as believing vaccinations are more harmful than diseases, that climate change is a hoax, or that illegal immigrants are responsible for the housing shortage.
We've demolished the ecosystem of the native cat, so its no surprise they're at the brink of extinction in the modern day. I haven't seen any numbers on wild cats prior to the arrival of European settlers. But given the lack of demographic analysis, I'm betting these figures have enormous error bars, even assuming you're conjecture is correct.
Might not help that predatory birds and wolves have also been virtually wiped out. So domestic cats have no natural predators. But - again - that's not due to the cat population. It's due to the human population. Cats aren't the ones hunting wolves with sniper rifles out of helicopters.
Habitat destruction has consistently been the primary cause of population decline, dating back to the extinction of the passenger pigeon. Housecats aren't killing birds at a meaningfully faster rate than prior era natural predators. Bird breeding is whats on the decline, with an enormous part of that decline coming from the decline in the insect and plant population that birds subsist on.
The fixation on cats is one more example of the personalization of an industrial extinction event. You're deflected from blaming pesticide manufacturers and real estate developers, so that you can scream your head off at your neighbor's SPCA rescue. Killing all the housecats will not bring back the bird population because housecats aren't the ones destroying the habitats birds need to hunt and breed.
Blaming cats for the declining bird population is exactly like blaming immigrants for the housing shortage. These are practically one-to-one comparisons.
I literally said that habitat destruction was a larger effect, you just chose not to quote that part of what I said.
For bobcats, wiki cites a journal from 1996 that said population density of bobcats varied from 1-38 per 25 sq km (numbers from surveys in the 80s, when I read the journal). Making an assumption that pre-European settler numbers averaged out across North American habitats to be more like the 38, and given that the lower 48 is ~8 million sq km, that would make the pre-1500s bobcat population ~12 million. The estimates for the current free roaming domestic housecat is about 100 million. You mentioned a couple other types of cats, but mountain lions are bigger and not the ones preying on small birds. Ocelots are more akin to the domestic cat, but their native range within the United States is much smaller (AZ to LA), with large portions of that area probably not able to support nearly as many animals. But even if I generously said there were another 12 million ocelots in the US, you'd still be only at a quarter of the current domestic cat population.
No. It's due to the fact that they are not native to the United States. They don't have natural predators because they aren't naturally here.
Your visceral defense of housecats is just another example of the hypocrisy of humans. Everyone is willing to sacrifice the desires of someone else. No one is ever willing to give up their own destructive vices though. I didn't even say people shouldn't own them! I just said they should keep them indoors. Obviously, that's not what cats want. Cats want to go outside and explore....and kill small animals. Because they are naturally predators and it's their nature. But if you want to take responsibility for your personal impact, you would keep it indoors.
And again, while I agree that the industrial amounts of habitat destruction is a bigger effect, it doesn't change the fact that the main impact you as an individual can have/ affect, is reining in your cute murder bot.