• jpeps@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    In countries where cats are native, they have significantly less impact on wildlife, or at the very least form a part of an ecosystem rather than being a manual introduction (admittedly one complication here is cat populations grouping up in suburban areas). As for safety for the cats, in their native countries they don’t have any serious predators to harm them.

    • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      I don’t know if Finland is considered native for cats but it’s against the law to let cats roam freely because there’s a very real risk of them getting injured, disease or dying. Not just from predators but from humans and cars and so on. A dead cat on the side of the road is a too common of a sight. I think the effect on wildlife is seen as secondary and the welfare of the cat is the foremost reason for it.

      • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I live in the UK where there are an estimated 10.8 million cats and have literally never seen “a dead cat on the side of the road”. I appreciate that it is a real risk and that it does happen, but you’re either blowing things out of proportion or there is something weird going on with Finnish cats and or Finnish drivers.

          • XIIIesq@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            230,000÷10,800,000÷4x100%≈0.5%

            If I had to personally take that risk or stay in the house for the rest of my life. I’d choose freedom every time.

            What’s really more selfish and entitled? Imprisoning an animal for life in return for an increased 0.5% of safety or letting it makes its own choice?