Should cats be allowed to roam "at will"?

[Heyo]

A human is not a cat so that is called the fallacy of false equivalence.

It is only a false equivalence when unrelated characteristics are compared.
The outside is dangerous for cats and humans. Cats and humans are a danger for the environment. Cats and humans live longer when they stay inside. Cats and humans know about the dangers but venture outside anyways (though some decide not to). Both humans and cats don't like to be locked up against their will.
So I'm only comparing related characteristics. No false equivalence here.

 

[Valjean]

As for your question... I think locking up cats is cruel. Cats are roamers. Hunters. Independent.

Just my experience.

Fair points, but in my experience, cats adjust well to dependence and restricted territories. They can live happy, in-house lives hunting moths, bottle caps and lazer dots.

 

[Trailblazer]

It is only a false equivalence when unrelated characteristics are compared.
The outside is dangerous for cats and humans. Cats and humans are a danger for the environment. Cats and humans live longer when they stay inside. Cats and humans know about the dangers but venture outside anyways (though some decide not to). Both humans and cats don't like to be locked up against their will.
So I'm only comparing related characteristics. No false equivalence here.

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."
False equivalence - Wikipedia

What I see you doing is using flawed reasoning to compare cats to humans.

The outside can be dangerous for cats but how is the outside dangerous for humans?
Cats live longer when they stay inside but humans do not live longer when they stay inside.
Humans know the danger of venturing outside but cats do not know the danger of venturing outside.
Humans and cats don't like to be locked up against their will but cats are locked up for their own protection whereas humans don't need to be locked up for their protection, unless a virus like Covid-19 is going around.

 

[Trailblazer]

Fair points, but in my experience, cats adjust well to dependence and restricted territories. They can live happy, in-house lives hunting moths, bottle caps and lazer dots.

And straws.... my Busia gets on the counter and grabs straws and knocks them down on the floor and chases them all around.

 

[Stevicus]

I was reading this guide by the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) in Australia which states;

'RSPCA Australia encourages the containment of cats in an enclosed area (within the owner’s property boundaries). Containment of cats can help to protect cats from disease and injury through fighting and accidents, increase the opportunity for owner-animal interaction and reduce the impact of hunting by cats and disturbance caused to neighbours.'

Source: RSPCA Policy A09 Cat management – RSPCA Knowledgebase

So what do you think about religion/(s) that legislate that cats be allowed to roam "at will", is it in the best interests of the cat and/or other sentient creatures such as native birds and other native species?

When I was a kid, we had cats, and letting them roam around the neighborhood just seemed the natural thing to do. Sure, they'd catch mice and birds and leave them on the front porch. Sometimes, they'd get into fights, especially the tomcat we had (we called him "Tom"), so we'd have to take him in for various infections he got from fighting other cats. One time I got into my car, and the moment I started the engine, Tom came jumping out of the backseat, over my shoulder and out the window. I didn't even know he was in there.

In more recent decades, I've come to understand that the prevailing wisdom is that cats should be kept indoors, although I can see from this thread that plenty of people still disagree with that idea. I can see both sides to the argument.

Another problem is in having to take measures and maintain them to keep a cat indoors, such as always having to remember to keep the back door shut. You can't open the windows too much, because they'll push out the screen to get out. If you make one mistake, the cat can get out.

 

[Trailblazer]

As for your question... I think locking up cats is cruel. Cats are roamers. Hunters. Independent.

Then a large fenced yard is the solution.

Purrfect Fence Image Gallery

 

[Stevicus]

 

[Valjean]

And straws.... my Busia gets on the counter and grabs straws and knocks them down on the floor and chases them all around.

Concerned with the environmental consequences of plastic pollution, I see.
Good kitty!

 

[Heyo]

"False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency."
False equivalence - Wikipedia

What I see you doing is using flawed reasoning to compare cats to humans.

The outside can be dangerous for cats but how is the outside dangerous for humans?
Cats live longer when they stay inside but humans do not live longer when they stay inside.

Here you are misinformed. While today most people live inside most of the time, the effect is small but significant (Error - Cookies Turned Off) but in earlier times, being a cloistered monk or nun could raise your life expectancy by decades.

Humans know the danger of venturing outside but cats do not know the danger of venturing outside.

I think we both can't substantiate our position so that I write this off as opinion.

Humans and cats don't like to be locked up against their will but cats are locked up for their own protection whereas humans don't need to be locked up for their protection, unless a virus like Covid-19 is going around.

With what authority do you decide what is good for cats? Might makes right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Here you are misinformed. While today most people live inside most of the time, the effect is small but significant (Error - Cookies Turned Off) but in earlier times, being a cloistered monk or nun could raise your life expectancy by decades.

I did not know that. Do you know why they lived so much longer? It could have been the no sex rule.
I'll probably live a long time then, the way I cloister myself inside and avoid sex.
I will be keeping my husband inside too. He never wants to go out anyway.

With what authority do you decide what is good for cats? Might makes right?

I can decide what is good for my cats and you can decide what is good for your cats.
My cats are all prissy Persians and we have families of raccoons and other wild animals on my property, not a good idea to let cats outside.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fair points, but in my experience, cats adjust well to dependence and restricted territories. They can live happy, in-house lives hunting moths, bottle caps and lazer dots.

It kind of depends what kind of cat it is, I think.
I wrote my post with "regular cats" in mind. There are indeed quite some breeds where letting them roam is generally a bad idea. But such are mostly breeds, like certain dog breeds, which in some cruel way are a rape of nature. Breeds that wouldn't be able to survive on their own.

As for regular cats, sure, there are those as well that wouldn't mind much.

In general though, my experience with "regular cats" is that they are happier if allowed to roam freely.

With our first cat, we tried to keep it indoors. At first this was easy, as it was very young. Within a couple of months though, that quickly changed. The cat clearly had an urge to go out exploring.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Then a large fenced yard is the solution.

Purrfect Fence Image Gallery

Our home had a fence all around the garden.
The cat just climbed up a tree and jumped over it. One of the cats used the roof to leave the garden. To this day, it is still a mystery to everyone how it managed to get up there.

 

[danieldemol]

What religions are those?

See post #12 here;
Are dogs "forbidden" in Islam?

 

[danieldemol]

It is only a false equivalence when unrelated characteristics are compared.
The outside is dangerous for cats and humans. Cats and humans are a danger for the environment. Cats and humans live longer when they stay inside. Cats and humans know about the dangers but venture outside anyways (though some decide not to). Both humans and cats don't like to be locked up against their will.
So I'm only comparing related characteristics. No false equivalence here.

You are merely asserting that humans live longer if they stay indoors, however someone has to purchase food, earn an income etc, and this tends to be humans, therefore unless you can survive without food and an income etc you wouldn't survive longer indoors.

Therefore it is impractical to restrain humans, however it is not impractical to restrain cats.

Also it is partly a strawman since the RSPCA information said enclosed within property boundaries (not indoors)

And we do restrain some humans indoors for their own safety - think dementia patients, people in psych wards - and the safety of others -think prisons.

 

[Heyo]

You are merely asserting that humans live longer if they stay indoors, however someone has to purchase food, earn an income etc, and this tends to be humans, therefore unless you can survive without food and an income etc you wouldn't survive longer indoors.

Therefore it is impractical to restrain humans, however it is not impractical to restrain cats.

And you contradict yourself just right here:

And we do restrain some humans indoors for their own safety - think dementia patients, people in psych wards - and the safety of others -think prisons.

So, it is possible to constrain humans to the inside or property.

I provided evidence for the fact that humans live longer inside in post #49.

I just value my freedom very much and don't like it to be restrained and I apply the golden rule for other creatures who value their freedom.
So, if you are OK with being constrained to your mothers basement or even prefer it that way, you can't understand my reasoning and, in fact, it wouldn't apply to you. Only if you value freedom, I'd call you a hypocrite if you restrain it for others.

 

[Erebus]

Of course cats should be allowed to wander free. They're animals after all.

That's why I let my dog off the lead in people's gardens. She should be free to dig and poo as much as she likes and it really isn't my responsibility to do anything about the mess she leaves behind. If she kills somebody's pet rabbit in the process, well what can you do? I'm sure the people living in that house will understand.

End of sarcasm.

Other posters have brought up the fact that outdoor cats get injured or killed at a much higher rate than indoor cats. That should be enough to deter cat owners from letting them roam free. What a lot of cat owners tend not to think about though* is the nuisance free-roaming cats present and the potential harm they pose to other people's pets. I always have to watch my dog for eating cat poo and it's unfair that my pet should be put at risk of getting parasites on my own property.

If you would be unhappy about somebody letting their pets into your garden, it's selfish to allow your own pets to do the same thing.


*For the cat owners in this thread who don't let their cats wander free, thank you. I wish more people were like you.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Other posters have brought up the fact that outdoor cats get injured or killed at a much higher rate than indoor cats. That should be enough to deter cat owners from letting them roam free

I'm 110% positive that the same goes for humans.
Just imagine how little deaths from being run over we would have if no human, ever, crossed a street.

What a lot of cat owners tend not to think about though* is the nuisance free-roaming cats present and the potential harm they pose to other people's pets. I always have to watch my dog for eating cat poo and it's unfair that my pet should be put at risk of getting parasites on my own property.

I could easily turn that around and complain about the amount of hurt dogs cause - including those dogs that never roam free. A reasonably sized dog can kill a human, while cats run away like crazy if you say "BOE!"

I sadly know MANY examples of humans being killed by dogs. I have yet to hear about any human being killed by a cat.

Also, your dog really doesn't require cats to get parasites and alike.

If you would be unhappy about somebody letting their pets into your garden, it's selfish to allow your own pets to do the same thing.

If you don't like cats in your garden, spray them with the hose. Do that 2 or 3 times and I assure you, it won't be coming back. It would have to be some seriously stubborn, almost abnormal, cat for it not to be deterred by such.

*For the cat owners in this thread who don't let their cats wander free, thank you. I wish more people were like you.

Here's an idea: if you don't live in an area where having (free) cats isn't an issue, then perhaps don't get cats in the first place.

I always die a little inside when I see folks living in an apartment on the 15th floor in the middle of a metropolitan, with cats.

 

[Erebus]

I'm 110% positive that the same goes for humans.
Just imagine how little deaths from being run over we would have if no human, ever, crossed a street.

This point has always baffled me. It strongly implies that since there's a risk of death to humans, it's pointless to try to minimise that risk for our pets. Pets don't have to wander unattended. It's always the owner's choice whether or not to take the risk and I would argue that the risk isn't worth it.

I could easily turn that around and complain about the amount of hurt dogs cause - including those dogs that never roam free. A reasonably sized dog can kill a human, while cats run away like crazy if you say "BOE!"

I sadly know MANY examples of humans being killed by dogs. I have yet to hear about any human being killed by a cat.

Yes, most dogs pose a greater danger to humans than cats do. No argument here. That's one of the reasons I get infuriated by the number of dog walkers who let their dogs run rampant in the local park. It's also one reason why I support laws that require dogs to be kept on a lead in public.

Bringing up the size of the dog does raise an interesting point though since there are dog breeds that pose no more danger to humans than cats do. I take it you'd be fine with those in your garden?

Also, your dog really doesn't require cats to get parasites and alike.

Cats roaming free increases the odds of it happening though, doesn't it? It's also pretty disgusting to have to clean up.

Would you be okay with dogs pooing in your garden?

If you don't like cats in your garden, spray them with the hose. Do that 2 or 3 times and I assure you, it won't be coming back. It would have to be some seriously stubborn, almost abnormal, cat for it not to be deterred by such.

Again, apply this logic to literally any other pet. If you aren't happy with it in your garden, just spray it.

Here's an idea: if you don't live in an area where having (free) cats isn't an issue, then perhaps don't get cats in the first place.

I always die a little inside when I see folks living in an apartment on the 15th floor in the middle of a metropolitan, with cats.

What areas are you thinking of where free-roaming cats aren't an issue?

Frankly, my stance is that if you think it's cruel to keep cats indoors then fair enough. Don't have cats.


I think my core point in all of this still stands though. Even if you feel the freedom offered by letting your cats roam free outweighs the danger, other people are going to have to deal with any damage, mess and disease your pet causes. That just isn't fair on other people and cats seem to be the only pet that even makes this a debate.

 

[Stevicus]

Cats roaming free increases the odds of it happening though, doesn't it? It's also pretty disgusting to have to clean up.

Would you be okay with dogs pooing in your garden?

One thing I will say about cats is that they're typically cleaner and lower maintenance than dogs. Cats tend to bury their poo. Dogs are a different matter. In fact, on any given day when walking down the street, one is more likely to find dog poo than cat poo (for which I would blame irresponsible dog owners).

 

[Erebus]

One thing I will say about cats is that they're typically cleaner and lower maintenance than dogs. Cats tend to bury their poo. Dogs are a different matter. In fact, on any given day when walking down the street, one is more likely to find dog poo than cat poo (for which I would blame irresponsible dog owners).

Yes, no argument there. Unfortunately their habit of burying poo has a couple of other side effects. Firstly, it means they're digging in order to do it. I've known a few gardening hobbyists get upset that their work is being destroyed by cats digging up their plants. Secondly, it makes it harder to spot and stop your dog from eating it. They're able to sniff it out far better than a human is at seeing it.

I can't speak for every country but in the UK at least, there are fines for not picking up after your dog. Perhaps that should apply to cats too.