Chasing cat and rat fatally stuck in organ pipe (both mummified)

This is a short story from The Times following a similar story that was recently well reported on news media regarding a cat trapped in a disused shaft in St. Paul's Cathedral. That cat was a Burmese stray and microchipped. She was rescued by the RSPCA and will be rehomed.

However, in a new cat and cathedral story, the cat faired a lot worse. As told by a former school boy of Christ Church Cathedral in Dublin, Ireland, a mummified cat was found in the organ pipes. A mummified rat was also found.

Many years ago a cat had chased a rat into the organ and into the pipes and become stuck in perpetuity. It must have been a terrible death for both. I feel for their distress and slow death from starvation and no water.

The mummified cat and rat were mentioned in James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake according to Anthony Mc Gibney writing to the Times.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Jackdaw rather than family cat killed blackbird

The infographic-style image explains. But the story goes wider in saying that Corvids can and do attack intruders. The second letter below reports on magpies killing ducklings and magpies often attack cats! They think the cats are a danger to their offspring in nests nearby. 

I'll add a bit by quoting this letter to The Times in today's newspaper from Dr Mark Taylor of Coalville, Leics, whose letter is headed: Cruelty of nature.

Sir, David Noble's letter (July 15) about the effect that cats can have on the local bird population triggered feelings of guilt over finding the body of a young blackbird on my driveway, one I had been watching with delight for the previous few days as its father fed it. Fearing that one of my seven cats was responsible, I nervously reviewed the CCTV and discovered the assassin to be a jackdaw that had targeted the blackbird mid-flight. Nature indeed read in beak and claw.

Dian Pollock writes to The Times as follows:

Sir, Councils in Australia have introduced curfews on cats at night and strict regulations about identifying trespassing felines. Maybe it's time for one here. We also have issues with magpies. On Monday I saw the last duckling on the University Lake being attacked by one.

Cat owner thought his cat might have killed a blackbird but CCTV showed it was a jackdaw by Michael Broad

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Whose fault? House cat brought to remote Island (1894). A year later a species was extinct.

This article is a reminder that we should not blame the domestic or feral cat, as an invasive species on the continent of Australia and New Zealand, for the destruction of a part of the wildlife of those countries. At root, this is not the fault of the cat. 

Lyall's Wren. Image credit at base of page.

In fact, the cat is an innocent victim as much a victim as the wildlife that they kill. It is the human who is the creator of invasive species by transporting animals across the globe. We must remind ourselves of that. It may help us treat the feral cat more humanely. 

This is not happening in Australia where they blame the feral cat as a horrible invasive species attacking and killing their vulnerable, native small mammals and marsupials which are ideal prey animals for feral cats.

So why have I addressed this problem again today? Well, Forbes have an article about a "house cat" brought to a remote island in 1894 and a year later a bird species was extinct.

That species was a charming bird - adapted to life on an island - called the Lyall's Wren. Because there was an abundance of food on Stephens Island they never evolved to fly. 

This was a small, flightless bird once native to Stephens Island, New Zealand, known for its unique adaptations to a predator-free environment. It relied on its agility and camouflage rather than flight to get around its habitat but once the domestic cat was imported into the island by a lighthouse keeper in 1894 to keep them company in the solitude and monotony of that job, the bird rapidly became extinct through incessant attacks by this domestic cat and the cat's offspring.

The cat brought to the island was called Tibbles and she was pregnant! An instant family of cats brought to the island where they were allowed to roam outside of the lighthouse, into the habitat of this sweet flightless bird who suddenly became catastrophically vulnerable to predation, something they had never experienced before.

It was a unique set of circumstances but the fault lies firmly at the feet of the lighthouse keeper. The cat didn't make their way to the island by themselves. The lighthouse keeper allowed the cat to out into the habitat of this bird as mentioned. Back in the day they didn't understand the problems of conservation and predation by domestic cats.

But this single act has stained the international reputation of the domestic cat ever since. It's one more reason why the Australian authorities go diligently about their business of slaughtering hundreds of thousands of feral cats on the continent. The authorities there constantly recite this story of the destruction of an entire species of bird at the hands of a ravaging predator; the humble domestic cat.

The lighthouse keeper was David Lyall. The bird was named after him. He brought his family, his wife and at least one son and their cat to Stephens Island. He was an amateur natural history enthusiast. He was delighted to be sent to the island. He knew there would be species to study and discover. He didn't understand the dangers of bringing his cat Tibbles.

Tibbles was equally delighted because all around her was wildlife to be attacked and eaten. She would bring this small bird subsequently called Lyall's Wren back to her owner who would perform amateur taxidermy operations on the deceased animals.

By the time the catastrophic conservation problem of Tibbles had been realised, it was too late. The last known sighting of a live Lyall's Wren was in 1895, just a year after Tibbles was brought to Stephens Island.

Image credit: By John Gerrard Keulemans - Ibis 1895, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=11097962

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

To save birds should we kill off cats (National Geographic)?

A National Geographic author, Noah Strycker, titled their recent article: "To save birds should we kill off cats?"

What kind of title is that? I don't think you could write a more absurd title about domestic and stray cats than that. I guess you know what the article is about; it's about the predation of birds by domestic, stray and feral cats all over the world. This topic comes up all the time. And my response comes up all the time because what they say annoys me.

They rely on numerous studies about cat predation on wildlife and they come to the general conclusion that domestic cats and stray cats kill billions of wild animals including precious birds which are more precious to humans than mice (speciesism).

But the studies are in quite small areas and you can't conclusively decide that bird populations are under threat or that anyone bird species is currently under threat of being made extinct by domestic and stray cat predation. The studies don't conclude that. In fact, in the UK, the RSPB, some time ago, said that there was no evidence that bird species where under general threat of extinction by cat predation.

We don't like to see it cats killing birds. It is an aspect of domestic cat ownership which is unwanted. We wish that all domestic cats were cuddly, furry non-predator creatures who kept us company and never had any desire to kill but unfortunately they are top predators and we domesticated them with their approval.

They are our responsibility. We created all the feral cats on the planet. We created all of stray cats on the planet. As mentioned we domesticated the cat. We are responsible and if we don't like the fact that they kill birds then we don't just kill all cats to resolve that problem we look to ourselves to resolve it humanely and responsibly.

And on that topic, you will find one very firm conclusion about the loss of bird species and the overall threat to wildlife in general. It all comes from humans. Human activity. Global warming caused by human activity. The building of human settlements destroying habitat.

There are no studies which compare the number of birds indirectly or directly killed by humans and the number of birds indirectly or directly killed by cats. But if there was such a study I would like to propose that humans kill far more birds than cats. Most of it indirectly but sometimes directly like building tall buildings into which migrating birds fly and die en masse.

But even if you go to the studies which conclude that a particular bird species on an island somewhere has been made extinct by domestic cats turned feral, you have to go to the human and their behaviour to find blame. These people imported domestic cats to an island and set them free where they procreated and became feral. But for that they would have been no predation of birds on those islands.

All invasive species including the feral cat, for example, in Australia, have been created through human activity. Humans create invasive species because they transport them from one continent to another. From one country to another.

How do you think hippopotamuses arrived in South America and started to procreate? Because a drug baron in that country decided to import hippopotamuses into his private zoo. When this drug baron was captured and put into prison for life, the zoo was abandoned and the hippopotamuses were freed and procreated. South America now has a very peculiar invasive species: hippopotamuses. Point made. Humans have created invasive species because humans are the only animal that can travel so widely and freely across oceans and bring other species with them either deliberately or accidentally.

So to blame the cat for devastating bird predation is incorrect anyway and it is a distortion of the truth to imply that cats kill birds and humans don't. If we are to kill any predator to protect birds it should be the top predator on the planet: the human. That would be equally absurd. Nobody is proposing that we kill humans to protect birds.

What we should be proposing is that human behaviour should be altered to protect wildlife in general including birds. At present there is no attempt whatsoever to do this at scale. There will be small projects in various countries but the general trend or tenor of human activity is to destroy nature and therefore animals that live within nature and that will go on for the indefinite future.

So this article on the respected online magazine National Geographic is idiotic and the headline is click bait. That's why I am addressing it. It needs to be counteracted with a counterargument. What's your argument?

You may know, incidentally, that in Australia they do think and believe that they can exterminate all feral cats by shooting them or poisoning them! So on that continent they actually agree with this National Geographic journalist. They think it's feasible to wipe out the feral cat population in Australia. However, they don't know how many feral cats there are. They don't know exactly where they all are. In killing feral cats with poison they kill other animals. Their task is impossible. As they don't know how many feral cats there are they can't assess how many birds are killed by cats. They say they can but they can't. More idiotic behaviour in my opinion. And it's cruel and inhumane. It's entirely wrong. Because, as mentioned, it totally ignores the origin of the feral cat problem: people.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Lord Blencathra would ban cat flaps to protect wildlife

Lord Blencathra sits in the House of Lords in Parliament. He is a peer of the realm and a life peer. He was a former Member of Parliament (MP) for Penrith and The Border from 1983 to 2010. He wants to protect wildlife and he has some ideas in that respect which he announced in the House of Lords which has been reported by The Telegraph.

The Rt Hon Lord Blencathra.

One of his silliest ideas (and I'll explain why I think it's silly) is that all cat flaps in the UK should be banned under the law. He doesn't believe that cats should be allowed to come and go as they please from indoors to outdoors (which is not an unreasonable thought of itself). 

And to justify that attitude he says that "All independent studies suggest that cats allowed the wonder will kill about 260 million mammals per annum in the UK and 60 million garden birds."

He doesn't say that these statistics are based on estimates from relatively small-scale studies. There is a lot of incidental information that one needs to bring into the equation when you talk about domestic cat predation on wildlife. But that is another story.

In addition to banning cat flaps and allowing cats out manually through the back door when the sun rises and after the sun has set, he suggests that all domestic cats allowed outside should wear bells on collars.

This last suggestion is fairly reasonable because although domestic cats learn to keep the bells as quiet as possible when stalking prey, bells on collars can help save the lives of some birds stalked by domestic cats. I can't see a problem with that suggestion in general terms but both his suggestions are unenforceable.

Enforceability

If a government makes a law in any field of human life, it has to be enforceable to be effective. That means that if somebody breaks the new law it must come to the notice of the authorities and law enforcement. The prosecution services should prosecute the individual and punish them under the law.

How is law enforcement going to find out if a homeowner has a cat flap in their back door or not? There are many millions of them across the UK. No one knows who's got one and no one knows who has not got one. No one in authority can check because they open to the backdoor in the backyard which is invisible from the street.

Neighbours will or might know but that means that neighbours have to spy on neighbours which is going to cause friction. If that goes on across the country it is going to create a problem in society. You cannot rely on neighbours to spy on other neighbours as happened in East Germany during the communist era.

So Lord Bethcathra's suggestion is foolish and entirely unworkable. It will never happen.

And therefore I don't see why he's bothering to suggest it in a debating chamber in the Houses of Parliament. He is wasting his time, the time of the other lords in the debating chamber and he is wasting taxpayers money who pays him to be there.

It's also unworkable to enforce a law which makes it mandatory for domestic cats to wear bells on collars. It's easier to enforce it than the cat flap proposed law but it is still unenforceable. It would rely upon neighbours spying on neighbours as well.

You've got to work backwards with the creation of laws. You've got to ask yourself if it's enforceable and how could it become enforceable. What kind of machinery do you need to make it enforceable? 

And if existing machinery i.e. law enforcement and prosecution services and the local authority can't make new laws enforceable they should not be enacted unless you think that the law is so popular and universally supported by the public that they will comply with the law voluntarily but this makes the law unnecessary. Government advice, under those circumstances, would probably suffice.

In the meantime, there is a need for a much more thorough evaluation of domestic cat predation on wildlife over a much larger area. You can't extrapolate data from a small study in one particular area and say that those figures apply to the rest of the UK. You might get a rough idea but you do not end up with really accurate data.

And we need to know how many feral cats there are in the country. We don't know (accurately) and if you don't know the number of feral cats in a country you can't decide how many birds and mammals they attack and eat

------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Arguments for curbing cats' right to roam and counterarguments

Overview: this is an argument between allowing domestic cats to express their natural desires such as being crepuscular hunters and keeping them much safer indoors, away from road traffic, predators and poisons but unable to behave naturally. 

Which argument wins? Safety versus natural behaviour?

Let’s explore the arguments for curbing domestic cats’ right to roam:

1. Safety Concerns:

   • Cats who have unrestricted outdoor access are at higher risk of road traffic accidents, injuries, and predation by other animals.
   • Exposure to outdoor hazards such as disease, parasites, and toxins can compromise their well-being .

2. Wildlife Impact:

   • Free-roaming cats are natural hunters, and their instinct to catch small animals and birds can have a significant impact on local wildlife populations.
   • They contribute to the decline of songbirds and other small mammals, which is a concern for conservation efforts.

3. Public Health and Disease Transmission:

   • Cats allowed to roam freely can spread diseases to both humans and wildlife. This includes diseases like toxoplasmosis.
   • Their interactions with wildlife can create a pathway for disease transmission.

4. Cat Overpopulation and Abandonment:

   • The lack of control over outdoor cats has led to an ongoing “cat crisis” in many countries, including the UK.
   • Thousands of lost, abandoned, and unwanted cats contribute to the excess cat population.
   • Charities spend significant resources trying to repatriate them and combat indiscriminate breeding.

5. Perceived Nuisance:

   • Cats’ natural behaviors, such as scratching, toileting habits, and hunting instincts, can be perceived as a nuisance by some people.
   • Their reputation as pests often leads to negative sentiments toward them.

6. Ethical Considerations:

   • While some cat owners feel that restricting their cats’ movements is unnatural, there is a need to balance their freedom with responsible ownership.
   • Restricting outdoor access may be necessary to protect both cats and wildlife .

In summary, while cats’ right to roam is legally protected in many places, it’s essential to consider the impact on safety, wildlife, public health, and responsible pet ownership. Finding a balance that ensures cat welfare while minimizing negative consequences is crucial. 🐾

Counterarguments

Let’s explore the arguments for preserving domestic cats’ right to roam:

1. Legal Status and Freedom:

   • Unlike most other captive animals, domestic cats have the wonderful status under the laws of many countries, including the UK, of the “right to roam.”
   • In the UK, cats do not have to be securely confined and can roam without fear of legal repercussions for their actions.
   • They cannot trespass, so neither the cats nor their owners are liable for any damage, soiling, or nuisance caused by their roaming.

2. Safety and Well-Being:

   • While indoor cats tend to live longer (often 15+ years), indoor/outdoor cats probably have a lifespan that is a little shorter due to various threats such as road accidents, killed by predators and poisoning by criminals.
   • Allowing cats to roam freely satisfies their natural instincts and contributes to their overall well-being.

3. Less Likely to Cause Harm:

   • The law recognizes that cats are less likely to cause injury to people or damage property compared to some other animals e.g. dogs. 
   • This distinction justifies their right to roam without strict confinement.

4. Enhancing Reputation and Well-Being:

   • Some cat owners feel that restricting their cats’ movements is unnatural. There is a need to let the domestic cat express its hunting desires. These are at the core of feline behaviour.
   • However, they are generally in favour of restricting their right to reproduce, which can help manage the cat population.

5. Balancing Freedom and Responsibility:

   • While preserving cats’ freedom is essential, responsible ownership involves finding a balance.
   • Encouraging neutering, vaccination, and responsible breeding practices can address the drawbacks associated with unrestricted roaming.

In summary, the debate around cats’ right to roam involves weighing their natural instincts, safety, and impact on the environment. Finding a middle ground that protects both cats and their surroundings is crucial. 🐾

Sources: various including: The Conversation, Psyhology Today and Cats.org.uk.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

30% of New Zealand cat owners are opposed to cat confinement and almost 50% are ambivalent

NEWS AND OPINION: This is a recent study from New Zealand about confining cats to the home i.e. full-time indoor cats. It's a modern trend and one that is being discussed in New Zealand as it is in many other developed countries. The objective is twofold (1) to keep the cats safe and (2) to keep wildlife safe from cat predation.

The New Zealand government and local governments within the country are particularly concerned about cat predation on wildlife - native species. They have a mentality which is similar to that found in Australia. It's one in which a focus is placed on protecting native species. The free-roaming domestic cat undermines that objective. But what do the citizens of New Zealand think about domestic cat confinement?

A survey of 395 cat owners as reported online on the Newshub website tells us that 30% of New Zealanders are opposed to keeping their cat inside the home full-time. Only 6% of cat owners in New Zealand do it at the moment while 17% are open to the possibility and 48% are unsure about the concept of full-time indoor cats.

This is not resounding support from cat-owning citizens for keeping cats inside the home. It doesn't surprise me. I've written in the past about the motivation of cat owners in keeping their cats indoors all the time and the prime objective is not to protect wildlife but to protect their cats. And in protecting their cats they avoid the emotional distress of their cat being harmed outside perhaps on the road.

RELATED: Places where domestic cats are confined to the home by law.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that normally cat owners keep their cats inside to avoid the distress that they will suffer if their cat is harmed on the road for instance. To use a long word it is an example of anthropocentrism.

This, I would argue, explains why the percentages from this study are rather poor for those people in authority who wants to keep cats inside to protect wildlife.

The general trend in New Zealand and Australia is for the authorities to want to change the law or make demands on cat owners to keep their cats inside. This survey represents somewhat of a pushback from that desire.

Cat advocates in New Zealand think that it is impractical to demand that all cat owners keep their cats inside all-time and it might be too expensive in for example having to build a catio or a cat confinement fence all around the back yard (£4,000). Both these options are fairly expensive. Although a mini-catio is cheap and better than no catio:

RELATED: Mini-catio is better than no catio.

You can't keep a cat locked up inside your home full-time unless you do something to entertain them which means enriching their environment. Hence the need for a catio. Even then it wouldn't be as good as allowing your cat outside in terms of mental stimulation.

The survey doesn't say this but a lot of cat owners want the best for their cat which means they want them to be happy and a domestic cat is happiest when they are out hunting! That sounds very anti-conservation and it is but if you are focusing on the cat only that is your objective.

New Zealand's cat advocates say that making micro-chipping and sterilisation obligatory would be effective over the long term in protecting wildlife. The problem with that plan is that it will take a very long time and it is difficult to enforce. Both these weaknesses in their plan will upset the authorities because they want something tangible quite quickly because they are elected officials and they need to demonstrate results i.e. success.

My personal view is that it's good that New Zealand is discussing these things but the problem is very hard to totally fix. One plank in the solution that has not been discussed in this news media article is education. If every cat owner was perfect they would microchip their cat, they would sterilise their cat, and they would take their cat outside on a lead or if they confine their cat to the home they would make sure that it was thoroughly enriched for their cat's entertainment. Many cat owners are far from perfect of course.

One issue is a lack of knowledge despite many years of discussion about cat caregiving on the internet. Things have improved by there is work to do.

I think education about cat ownership needs to be in the frame here. I would like to see domestic cat husbandry introduced into schools. It could be wider than that. You could have a course about companion animal husbandry for schoolkids. That should and could be part of the curriculum.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

The reasons why the majority of cat owners don't stop their cats killing native species

The Daily Mail talks about waging a war on killer cats. The deadly domestic cat. Humans need to wage a war against them to stop them preying on precious wildlife. There is already a news media war against the domestic cat especially in Australia where the citizens of that fine country are gradually being indoctrinated into believing that the domestic cat is the embodiment of the devil; something like the belief of Europeans in the Middle Ages. The era of witchcraft.

Cat predation on crested lark curtailed by Walldorf's administrators. Image assessed as being in the public domain. The cat is starting to be seen in the same way as they were in the Middle Ages.

I don't think it is wise to talk about "waging a war" against the domestic cat because it is likely to encourage animal abuse. But certainly, the predation by domestic cats, a so-called invasive species, on native species is highly problematic and is beginning to upset a lot of people.

Natural process

But it doesn't upset, enough, the cat owning public across the planet (except Australia!). I think the truth of the matter is that most cat owners - and this certainly applies in the UK - are aware that their indoor/outdoor domestic cat occasionally kills wildlife but they don't mind enough about it. They see it as nature taking its course.

It seems that cat owners see the domestic cat as just another wild animal which should be allowed to prey on small mammals and marsupials because it's nature in action. What right have people got to prevent domestic cats expressing their natural desires and motivations? I think that is the reasoning behind a lot of people allowing their cat to go outside unsupervised and kill animals.

Pet owners simply don't care enough about small native species being killed by their cat companions. That's the raw truth of it I believe.

Speciesism

Perhaps this is an example of speciesism. This is when people favour one animal species over another. And it is probably normal and natural for a cat owner who adores their loved domestic cat to favour their pet above small rodents, the typical prey animal of the domestic cat. And birds. Birds are favoured above rodents by nearly everybody and cats kill birds and rodents. They don't mind about rodents being killed but the birds are another matter. This is another example of speciesism.

RELATED: Domestic cats are NOT an invasive species everywhere.

Don't care enough about nature. More concerned about the home

To be brutally frank, I don't think people are sensitive enough to the predation of animals by domestic cats. They just don't see it as a problem in terms of ecology and conservation. Cat owners see domestic cat predation as a problem for them because the cat can bring the animal back into the home and cause a bloody mess. 

Or the mouse runs under some furniture and you can't get it out and the animal starves to death and starts to rot making a smell in the home. Once again the problem with domestic cat predation for most pet owners is not the killing of prey animals but the disruption to the way of life of the human caregiver that predation causes.

Until the wider public have been indoctrinated into believing that it is their duty to protect wildlife and the planet in general, I don't think we going to see a big change in attitude by cat owners in the UK and other countries.

Perhaps another reason why many people are distanced from nature and therefore don't want to really get involved in protecting nature is because they've become emotionally distanced from the natural world. People often live in the urban environment and are not really connected with nature and wildlife. Global warming is an example of how humankind has become distanced from nature and addicted to products and a way of life which harms the planet. Think big diesel SUVs (still sold) and sport hunting (still prevalent).

A lot of people enjoy wildlife and one can't generalise because there are many people who really are sensitive towards wildlife and nature and the natural world. I'm afraid not enough people are genuinely concerned about the predation of native species by the domestic cat which is an invasive species. Although, we have to question the phrase "invasive species".

Invasive species?

How long has the domestic cat got to live in a country to become native to that country? There are no hard and fast rules on that.

RELATED: Making the case that domestic cats are not an invasive species in America.

We can't pass the buck

Whatever happens next, people need to remember that it is humankind who domesticated the North African wildcat and created 500 million domestic, stray and feral cats on the planet. It is the work of humans. The cat is an innocent victim of human behaviour. Anything we do needs to be humane and decent. The problem is ours. We can't pass the buck onto the domestic cat.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

The domestic cat would be a better pet if they weren't predators!

The video is about the capybara described as one of the world's friendliest animals. It is semi-aquatic which is probably one reason why it can't be a great pet despite the potential for being a much better pet than a cat! We are all familiar with the domestic cat as one of the world's most popular pets with the dog; but both cats and dogs are predators. This a great drawback to their success as pets. 

There are constant aggravations as a consequence of the cats desire to chase and kill prey. The predatory instincts are a barrier to the cat's friendliness. The weapons! Claws and teeth which scare a lot of people.

The capybara is said in the video to be the world's friendliest animal because they are not predators but herbivores. They don't make enemies. Other animals don't run from them. It's a point worth making. 

We have to play with our cat to entertain them especially if they are indoor cats. But play is centred around hunting. All cat play is a variation on hunting. And if there is a problem between cat and owner it can often be put down to undesirable cat behavior. This is an oblique reference to being bitten or scratched. And that comes from their predatory instincts often in self-defence when mishandled for instance by a human.

I'd bet the capybara wouldn't do that!

The reason why indoor cats often become bored is because they can't hunt. It is such a deep-seated desire. It needs to be expressed. Sometimes I think that domesticating the wild cat was a mistake. 

Going a step further you can also argue that the wild cat hybrid pets cats such as the Bengals are a mistake especially the F1-F3s which retain some wild cat traits which makes it more difficult to live with them.

Am I being too negative? I don't think so. Just exploring the difficulties of satisfying a top predator and the domestic cat is a fantastic predator. Their anatomy has evolved over eons to hunt and kill. It is all about that.

Porcupine parents protect their 2 babies from a leopard (video)

 

The parents defending their babies in this video do so with great effectiveness. Porcupine quills are deadly. There are many cases of leopards and for example lions dying after being harpooned by porcupine quills because they tried to attack the animal. 

Once the quills have been inserted into a predator like a leopard they are released from the porcupine and the barbs on the quill means that movement by the leopard forces the quill deeper into their body and they are impossible to extract. They can cause an infection.

A study published on the science.org website tells us that "a porcupine quill needs only about half the force of a hypodermic needle" to pierce skin. Interestingly, they studied porcupine quills to see if they could improve the design of medical instruments!

The tiny barbs (top) coating the tips of the quills from North American porcupines (bottom) make it more difficult to extract a quill from flesh, but they also help the quill penetrate the flesh. Image: WOO KYUNG CHO on science.org.

Porcupine quills are large stiff hairs. The North American porcupine has about 30,000 quills. Each one is adorned with between 700 and 800 barbs along the 4 mm of the tip. The barbs help the quill remain embedded in the victim's skin.

Barbed quills required about half the penetration force of quills that do not have barbs. And, as mentioned, 56% of the force needed for a hypodermic needle to be inserted into human skin.

The barbs mean that they are four times harder to pull out once they are embedded. The barbs located within the 1 mm tip of the quill contributed to about 50% of the pull-out resistance.

Porcupines do not shoot their quills at predators but they detached easily when touched. I have seen many pictures of large wild cats such as pumas with quills in their snouts. When that happens, they can't do a thing in terms of predation. The puma with a face full of quills is going to starve to death. This is why porcupines are very dangerous animals to wild cat predators and which is why the defensive measures put up by the parents and the video are so effective.

Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations?

Do you know what the title means? It is a bit technical as it comes from a study. It is asking if predation of birds by domestic cats kills so many birds of a certain species that the species is in danger of becoming extinct.

My cat. Image: MikeB

And the answer is: we are unsure but it is unlikely. Here are the exact words:

"..the magnitude of the estimated cat catch suggests domestic cats are having a significant impact on prey populations."

'Significant impact' indicates that the birds are not going extinct through cat predation.

The study was conducted by questionnaire of cat owners living in Dunedin, New Zealand, over 12 months. A country where they are very sensitive about cats killing birds.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.013 - this is the link to the study if it interests you.

Years ago, I wrote on the same topic and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) in the UK decided that cats did not harm the population of any one bird species to make them endangered. The 'harvest' was acceptable.

This would have upset ornithologists who invariable portray the domestic cat as a terrible and destructive predator of birds when in fact cats kill far more land-based mammals and reptiles than birds as the latter are harder to catch for obvious reasons.

Here is the article:

Domestic cats don’t cause bird populations to decline says the RSPB

Australian journalists massively exaggerate the number of native animals killed by roaming domestic cats

By a factor of more than 10, Australian journalists and the authorities in Australia exaggerate the number of native animals killed by roaming domestic cats. I mean that they multiple by more than 10 the true number. 

Domestic cat predation in Australia is hugely exaggerated. Image in the public domain.

How can I make that bold statement? Well, perhaps one of the oldest if not the oldest study about the predation of animals by roaming domestic cats was published in 1987. The scientists found that each domestic cat in a village killed 14 animals in one year.

"A total of 1090 prey items (535 mammals, 297 birds and 258 unidentified animals) were taken, an average of about 14 per cat per year." - Predation by domestic cats in an English village. Link: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02915.x

There was a factor of 14 between animal killed and domestic cats. There are 3.8 million domestic cats in Australia according to Wikipedia. But only 2.9 million are allowed outside according to the journalist I mention below. Multiply 2,900,000 x 14 and you get 40.6 million.

That means domestic cats that are allowed to go outside in Australia kill 40.6 million animals per year in Australia as a rough number.

Laura Chung writing for The Sunday Morning Herald opens her article (link) with the statement, "the Biodiversity Council, Invasive Species Council and Birdlife Australia found that roaming pet cats kill 546 million animals a year in Australia, 323 million of which are native animals".

This is more than 10 times than that which was revealed by the study I mention which is a very distinguished and recognised study.

And, I think we can use our personal experience on the subject. My cat who is a great hunter and who is allowed outside in a productive urban environment in terms of access to wildlife, perhaps kills around 10 animals per year maximum.

Laura Chung is stating that each pre-roaming domestic cat in Australia is killing 188 animals per year! Does that sound right to you? Can you believe it? I can't. It seems fanciful. It looks like fiction to me. It means that each domestic cat is killing an animal every 2 days. It's just unbelievable.

It is another example of how journalists in Australia and the authorities on that continent exaggerate the predation of domestic and feral cats on their native species in order to push forward and campaign for domestic cat confinement around the clock. This is the goal of the authorities in Australia.

The ones who don't know better have been indoctrinated by the news media and by the authorities to believe what Laura Chung states in her article. It's a gradual training of the mind of Australian citizens to believe what I think is a fiction. It is wrong.

I could go to any other study actually and come up with a similar result. In a counterargument, you might state that free-roaming domestic cats in Australia have a much greater opportunity to kill prey animals because there are more prey animals to kill. I don't believe it. If you want to state that you're going to have to produce evidence to back it up.

Domestic and feral cats are a political hot potato in New Zealand

OPINION: Do you remember the recent furore over the competition for New Zealand's schoolkids in which they had to shoot feral cats with either an air rifle or a .22 calibre rifle (or any other calibre I guess). The competition was pulled because of press coverage and the fact that there were fears that the children would be shooting people's pets because you can't tell the difference between a domestic cat and a feral cat at the kind of range you would be at when shooting at them with a rifle. 

RELATED: New Zealand’s junior school kids love to shoot cats for prize money.

NZ pest controller holds feral cats. This is cruel and unfair on cats. Image: The Press.

Shooting domestic cats in New Zealand is a serious crime. The organisers were asking kids to commit a serious crime! Thoughtless comes to mind. But the Kiwis have a cruel attitude towards feral cats as is seen in the photos above. It is identical in Australia. The mindset is inhumane and in my honest opinion immoral and crude. It is the kind of mindset which generates the idea of the competition mentioned in the first para.

The idea of the competition itself was ridiculous and it should never have been proposed. But the problem is that animal lovers and animal advocates saw the madness in it and criticised the organisers online and social media. There were some tough criticisms even death threats I believe. And on the other side of the fence, there are those who supported this kind of competition. Society is split on feral cats.

The stuff.co.nz website reports that:

"Several organisations contacted by Stuff said they had views they’d love to share regarding feral cats, but couldn’t do so for fear of being 'personally abused' or 'targeted by crazy cat-lovers'".

You can see the problem. The issue of domestic cats becoming feral cats and feral cats killing wildlife has become a political hot potato in New Zealand as is the case in Australia. It is tricky for a politician to please two factions with such diverging views.

And the article on stuff.co.nz say that the numbers are scary. They said that there is an estimated 2.5 million wild and feral cats in New Zealand. Note the word "estimated". They don't know how many there are. If you don't know how many there are they can't say it is scary! You got to have the facts to hand.

And the same problem goes for estimating the number of native species killed by feral cats in New Zealand. They don't know the numbers.

What annoys me is that journalists like the one who wrote the stuff.co.nz article don't know the facts. No one does. They are all estimates. But they regurgitate them as if they are facts.

The first thing that the New Zealand's authorities need to do is to work out accurately how many feral cats there are in New Zealand. They need to get a handle on the problem. They need to stop speculating.

And the competition I refer to above basically indoctrinates children to hate feral cats. And it might be fair to say that if they hate feral cats, they are going to at least dislike domestic cats and the owners who have them. After all, domestic cats are the source of feral cats.

I don't think it is wise and sensible or indeed fair to indoctrinate children like this. It's important to protect New Zealand's native species of course but you can't do that while being cruel to feral cats which were put there by careless cat ownership. The root cause of the problem is people. The cat is the innocent victim in all this.

Adelaide has become a city of a 200,000 private zoos

Adelaide, South Australia, have placed the ultimate restrictions of cat ownership. They lead the world in this regard.

Aussies see cats both domestic and feral as a pest when it comes to their relationship with native flora and fauna. Some local authorities are ahead of others in restricting cat ownership freedoms in order to protect native species and the administrators of Adelaide, Australia have probably gone as far as any jurisdiction can to restriction cat ownership. 

The long-suffering cats and their owners have to desex, microchip, register with the authorities and confine to their home all domestic cats.

We all understand the rules but are they genuinely enforceable? They probably don't have to be as 99% of Adelaide's residents will probably willingly comply because they've been indoctrinated with the notion that domestic cats are a massive threat to native species while ignoring the greater threat from humans (increased human population leading to more settlements and activity destroying habitat).

Adelaide's cats have to be registered once they are 3 months old. I think Adelaide is one of only a handful of councils anywhere in the world where they have compulsory registration. It may be the only council with this requirement. It is that rare.

The fees for registration are as follows:

CATEGORY	FEE
Non-standard cat	$100.00
Standard cat (desexed and microchipped)	$30.00
Concession non-standard cat	$50.00
Concession standard cat (desexed and microchipped)	$15.00

A cat owner can take their cat out on a lead but few will as it is a tricky process. Violation of the local law leads to a fine of $187.50.

The big prob

The council have overlooked one enormous problem with their ordinance. None of these confined cats will enjoy a substitute that matches the fun of their freedoms when allowed outside. They'll become bored and fed up. They'll moan to their owners and meow to be let out. They'll torment their owners.

The big flaw that is never admitted in keeping cats indoors full-time.

They'll eventually give up and settle in to a life or boredom and pleasure eating, leading to obesity. I understand the local laws and am sympathetic but they should be extended to mandate that cat owners provide an enriched confined environment such as an obligatory garden enclosure.

That would be asking far too much of course. So, they just bang-up (imprison) the cats. Adelaide has become a city of a 200,000 private zoos based on the rough estimate that there are that number of households with a pet cat.

Cats bring back prey because they know they can play with it without being attacked by predators

A form of feline behaviour which all cat owners are aware of and which the experts have spoken of is bringing prey animals back into their caregiver's home where they either eat the mouse if it's dead or they 'play' with it until it dies and then perhaps eat it.

Cat bringing prey home. Image in public domain.

Normal explanation

The normal theory for this form of cat behaviour is that domestic cats are bring their prey back to their natal den within their natal range because they have the mental state of a kitten and they are kept in that state by their human care givers who provide for them completely. They are bringing prey back to their mother in the den as she teaches them how to hunt (and see below - role reveral).

That is my preferred theory. 

New theory

A new theory has been proposed by Celia Haddon in conjunction with Dr. Daniel Mills FRCVS in their book Being Your Cat: What's Really Going on in Your Feline's Mind.

They say that domestic cats bring their prey to their owner's home because they want to play with it without being attacked by a predator. I have thought about this and these are my thoughts if you are interested.

Their suggestion indicates that the domestic cat makes a positive rational decision to bring prey back into the security of their owner's home to avoid predators and where they will have time to be cruel (in the eyes of humans) to the prey animal by playing with it.

Reasoning

Cats don't make rational decisions like that. They make instinctive decisions based on indoctrination. And their answer begs the question as to why domestic cats "play" with prey? The classic answer to that is that cats are not deliberately playing with a mouse to be cruel. 

Because they normally have little opportunity to exercise their natural desires to hunt, they want to extend the hunt by not killing the mouse immediately.

Secondly, they want to play safe by battering the mouse and killing it in a safe way rather than placing their mouth up to it and getting a bite which may harm them.

These are the classic responses to that scenario and I prefer them. The one aspect of Celia Haddon and Dr. Daniel Mills' response which is correct is that domestic cats will go back to the security of their home but this is for a general reason of security and to bring the prey animal back to their owner who is their surrogate mother.

Role reversal

Sometimes domestic cats kill the prey animal in a role reversal. In the wild, the mother teaches her offspring how to kill animals in the den. And in the classic domestic cat-to-human relationship, the cat is the kitten and the human is the mother.

But when an adult cat brings prey back home, they become the mother and the human becomes the kitten. The position in which the domestic cat is placed in the human home can be confusing to them. 

For example, it is automatically confusing for them to be constantly provided for as if they are kittens. They never grow up and have the opportunity to adopt the mentality of an adult cat except when they are allowed outside and suddenly within seconds, they become a wildcat until they return home again where they flick the switch and within about 15 minutes become a tame human companion. 

At that point in time, they are adults as they've just left the wild. When cats are outside, they become adult wildcats. Back inside the home and they adopt the characteristics of a tame kitten.

Large feral (?) 'Siamese' cat in Australia trapped and killed causing an outcry from some sections of the community

A large feral cat in Australia has been trapped and killed causing an outcry from some sections of the community. But was the cat feral or an inside/outside domestic cat? It appears so.

Large feral cat in Australia trapped and killed causing an outcry from some sections of the community. Image: Daily Mail Australia.

Comment on the above photograph: I find it very strange. The comments on the right-hand side appear to be have been made by the owner of this 'feral cat'. That means that the cat is not feral but an outdoor/indoor domestic cat. And the person has described the cat as "Siamese". The cat does not look like a Siamese cat judging by the camera traps image. The cat does not have pointing but appears to be an even colour throughout. So, I'm not sure what is going on. And if this is the case the authorities have killed someone's pet! Damages come to mind. The owner should sue them.

-------------------

I have followed the shenanigans and attitudes of the Australian authorities towards feral cats on the continent for years. It doesn't surprise me one jot that the authorities in charge of administrating Moreton Island off the coast of south-east Queensland decided to trap a so-called feral cat weighing 6.8 kg (15 pounds) and euthanise it (kill it). At least they didn't shoot it! That is the normal way for Australia's authorities to deal with feral cats.

Trapping and euthanising is way too humane for Australians when it comes to the 'vermin' and 'pest' that is the feral cat on that continent. They hate the animal but not everyone does because in this instance this feral cat who had earned the name 'Tangalooma puma' had a following and there was an outcry when the feline was trapped and killed.

A resident caught the cat in July having set up a humane trap. He learnt the technique in a workshop run by Brisbane City Council. The cat was then euthanised by Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services in accordance with the Biosecurity Act 2014.

In order to verify that this cat was a pest by preying on native species, they conducted an autopsy and discovered the remnants of a crow and a bandicoot in the stomach. This proved to them that the cat was decimating native while species which justified their actions in killing it.

Residents of Moreton Island are allowed to have pets but as it is given over to being a national park, they can't really let their cats go outside. I'm not sure if there is a local ordinance which forbids domestic cats going outside. The reports don't comment on that.

Of course, most of the residents are happy that the cat was killed but, as mentioned, not everyone is in agreement perhaps because it was a pet cat 😎. It makes me smile ironically. No one should agree to domestic cats being killed by the authorities for doing nothing wrong. It is wanton cat killing.

It's peculiar that they dubbed the cat a "puma". It seems that in the imagination of many they exaggerated its size to that of a mountain lion (a very large feline). This is not untypical of humans. And in doing that there was a gradual swell of hatred of the animal resulting in one resident deciding to trap it.

But 15 pounds in weight for a domestic or feral cat is not that big. It is slightly bigger than normal but not huge. And if a cat has become feral for whatever reason, they're going to have to hunt to survive. 

People need to look more carefully at why the cat became feral cat in the first place. The only reason is because of human carelessness. I always think it is very unfair if the existence of an animal due to human carelessness becomes such a nuisance that they have to kill it. The animal is an innocent victim of sloppy human behaviour. This is not a reason to kill the animal.

It is a reason to educate people to stop being sloppy on cat ownership. It's a reason to be kind to the animal because they are victims as well as the animals that they eat.

Here's your chance to stop your cat bringing in prey! OnlyCat cat flap.

If you are one of those cat owners who really objects to your cat occasionally bringing in prey animals, through the cat flap, into your home and really can't wait to do something about it, well you can now! You can subscribe or you can be an early bird and buy this smart cat flap today and get big discounts. 

OnlyCat® cat flap. Screenshot from their kickstarter programme.

On the downside, its projected retail price is £499. Sadly, I will have to conclude that that is just too much even if you don't like your cat bringing in prey. You've got to have quite a lot of disposable income to want to pay that kind of money for the convenience of a bit of peace and quiet. And don't forget even in homes with cat flaps sometimes the backdoor is open or the patio doors are open in warms summers. The cat will prefer that route of entry.

And the UK is currently embarking on a cost-of-living crisis which is set to become much worse when gas and electricity prices more than double shortly.

That said, it is, by the look of it, an excellent product. It is called OnlyCat®. You can get a discount if you participate in the kickstart program and there is about 23 hours of the program remaining. The manufacturers have been backed by 57 people to the tune of £24,504 as at the date of this post.

If you purchase the cat flap before it goes into manufacture in the UK, it will cost £379 which is 24% off the retail price. The estimated date of shipping is April 2023. This discount has been claimed by, on my understanding, 22 people. If you pay a £7.99 p subscription which I believe is another way of acquiring the device now, you pay £149 for the device.

This would seem to be a way of getting around paying the heavy initial charge. And distributors can buy 10 OnlyCat® cat flaps for £3,690 which is a 26% discount.

Your cat, they say, will typically kill 110 animals per year and bring 80% of them inside the home. They use advanced AI vision technology to detect the prey. It can detect mice, birds, rabbits, rats, squirrels and other animals large enough to be seen by the camera.

RELATED: Smart cat flap donates money to a bird charity when cat with prey tries to enter.

If your cat approaches the cat flap and tries to get in with a mouse in their jaws the cat flap won't open and they will have to turn away and eat the mouse in the backyard.

This cat flap connects to your Wi-Fi and sends a short video clip of your cat's movements to your smartphone. You will feel connected to your cat and receive an alert whenever he or she attempts to bring prey into the home.

The video explains all.

Home owner loves to feed birds but their neighbour's cats attack the birds

There is an interesting post on the Reddit.com website which in a way encapsulates the "war" between bird lovers and cat lovers. It seems that it is impractical for people with these diverging views to live close to each other in suburbia.

An ultrasonic cat deterrent recommended by the RSPB. Image from the RSPB. They are moderately successful. Click this link for more. 

In this instance, the bird lover who has "tons of feeders, lots of activity" in respect of birds coming to their property, is complaining vociferously on the Reddit.com website because one of their neighbours (and this is in America) "has a couple of free-range cats". These cats are indoor/outdoor cats which is fairly typical although there is a drift towards keeping cats indoors which is exactly what this person wants their neighbour to do.

They're complaining because despite their efforts he blames one or both of the cats for killing a phoebe nest with three little eggs which were "up in the rafters of our covered porch". This species of bird is medium-sized and insect-eating. They are in the "tyrant flycatcher family" of birds.

They say that in the past "we found piles of feathers around our yard, little corpses left on the porch, and now our little phoebe family that we've been watching and caring about like our own little reality TV show are GONE because of someone's irresponsibility in letting their cats run free". 

I left a comment on that post to say that clearly the prime responsibility is that of the cat owner but bird lovers also take some responsibility in feeding their birds in their backyards in the knowledge that close by are a couple of free-roaming indoor/outdoor domestic cats who are likely to prey upon the birds. This is a scenario of human making and both parties are ultimately responsible in varying degrees.

It is very difficult to keep domestic cats out of backyards but I do have a page on cat deterrents which features two particular deterrents that are probably the most effective - click link below.

RELATED: 2 devices I would try first to keep cats out of your backyard plus alternatives.

So, what could this person, the bird lover, have done? I don't think it would have helped in the slightest to have talked to the cat owner. They don't take kindly to suggestions that they should keep their cats indoors. I would sense that that would simply produce an argument, plenty of heat but no light.

I sense that if the bird lover who wants to feed birds is going to do it really seriously, they could have built some sort of protection around the garden against the cats which would entail building a high fence with an overhang pointing outwards.

As I commented on the Reddit page, I think the only really genuine way to keep domestic cats out of a backyard is to build a cat containment fence which you can purchase in America and in the UK designed to keep cats in but you turn the fence around so that the overhang at the top points outwards and prevents cats coming in. 

A physical barrier like this is 99.9% effective. Very few cats can get through it and over it. And that is peace of mind. It may cost several thousand dollars but as I say it's peace of mind which is worth the money anytime. 

Domestic cat's predatory instinct which was so essential cannot be obliterated overnight

Until around the 1980s, the predatory instinct of domestic cats was essential to them because commercial cat food do not contain all the correct nutrients. But since around the 1980s or perhaps a bit earlier in the 1970s domestic cats have been relieved of the need to hunt to ensure that they have a balanced diet containing the nutrients that they need. 

Feline predatory activity. Photo: Tambako the Jaguar

And this is today's perhaps biggest dilemma with domestic cat caregiving. How do cat owners allow their cat companions to express their hunting instincts without upsetting the ornithologists and the wider anti-cat lobby who bombard the Internet with articles about the billions of native species lost to domestic cat predation.

The anti-cat lobby relentlessly wheel out information from the same study by the Smithsonian in which the scientists did their best to estimate the impact of domestic and feral cat predation on wildlife in the USA. However, over the years these estimates have become fact but they are not fact. Unfortunately people have started to believe the figures. They might be correct. 

We don't know but the current situation is unsatisfactory because a significant percentage (see link below) of concerned cat caregivers are not only concerned about cat welfare but about the wider welfare of all animals including wild species. They don't like cat predation any more than the anti-cat lobby does. But what can they do about it?

ASSOCIATED PAGE: Internationally almost 50% of domestic cats are kept indoors for their safety

They can keep their cats inside, is the answer given to them by those who don't look after cats. But we, who do, know that this is a very big compromise which works against domestic cat welfare. Pretty well nobody who keeps their cats indoors full-time does a good job of allowing their cats to express their hunting instincts in some form of substituted hunting game.

So the domestic cat is left in a position where they don't really fit in the modern world any more. They are behind the curve. They need to lose their predatory instincts but they can't switch them off. It will be hundreds of years before they do. 

The early years of domestication, many thousand years ago, were probably the best for the domestic cat except for the fact that there were no veterinarians at that time! They found their own food through hunting and it was high quality, containing all the required nutrients. And now, that skill is no longer required and it undermines their quality of life and even their existence.