So I guess the situation is this: it depends. For example our cats do kill a bird a year maybe (species that are around in large numbers) but they mostly hunt mice which are abundant in most places and it's actually a benefit to cull their numbers.

While we also had one cat get poisoned by assholes we don't have any issues with cats getting run over ever and that's in a (EU) city.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No. It doesn’t depend

[–] Strider@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you say so.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

It’s more like if the consensus among ecologists and veterinarians says so, but yes also because I say so I guess

[–] MBech@feddit.dk -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It really does. Situated in Europe, there is no more wildlife to destroy. What wildlife could be destroyed by cats was decimated 10.000 years ago by people. At this point cats are important to cull rat and mice populations. Europe doesn't have nature anymore, and it hasn't in a very long time.

[–] prettybunnys@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. This is straight up wrong.

House cats are not effective mousers, they’re indiscriminate killers who will also kill rodents but will happily kill birds or whatever else they can.

Historically dogs are better mousers than cats, because you can train a dog to kill just what you want.

Cats are ambush predators, they’re not super into chasing prey very far.

Dogs on the other hand will.

It’s why the dachshund or rat terrier exists as a breed.

Your pet cat isn’t a beneficial member of the ecological niche. Sorry.

Feel free to look what I’m saying up and prove me wrong at any point.

[–] Nalivai@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is as far from the truth as it can possibly be