Man do you guys think it might be cruel to keep my cats indoors? I kinda want to just let them roam free outside. I mean yeah they might/probably will get injured and sick, but I would totally pick that over being inside all the time. Do you think I should at least offer them the choice?
I think my big hangup is that I live on the second floor of an industrial building. There are other cats in the other building that come and go as they please, but they go out of the dude's space (no problem installing a cat door, already have one inside my place between rooms) and then they somehow find their way to this open window and then climb down some diamond grating like 10ft and then jump to the ground and go off and do their thing. Then they climb back up the grating (seriously, this is very impressive to watch) and head on home. My cats would have no way to get from outside back to my place easily, they'd have to wait for someone to open the outside door.
This is really one of the big reasons I decided to go back to school, so I can start pulling in that mech eng money and be able to afford a real house with a yard that my kitties can play and hunt in.
Now I do take poos outside for field trips around the hallways and outdoors when she starts getting a hankering for it. I tried putting a harness and leash on her, but it's not really worth the hassle at this point. She just kinda walks around rubbing stuff and chirping at me, then eats some grass and rolls around in it. Then after a while I'm like "okay poos, time to go back in" and I just scoop her up and carry her back upstairs and she just chirps away at me all happy on the way up.
My other fuzzball, Sasha, is younger than Poos and has never really shown an inclination to go out, I hold the door open for her and ask her if she wants to take a field trip, but she doesn't like leaving her comfort zone I think. She's maybe ventured into the hallway twice.
For what it's worth, they both came from the streets.
>like why else would Poos want to go out?
it means you're not providing enough of it.
cats aren't complex animals with complex thoughts, they're relatively dumb for mammals of their size.
Like horses have no concept of freedom and it's perfectly fine to keep them inside a box big enough to just turn around whenever no one is riding them. Doesn't matter if it is in their nature to run, they don't know that.
Or how it's perfectly fine to keep animals in small cages at zoo's, it's not like they'll be happier in bigger enclosures because they can't don't know what it's like being happy. Or you know, how it would be better if they could be free, because they have no concept of freedom and therefor they can't enjoy it either.
Same with pigs really, why are people getting so angry about farmer keeping thousands of pigs in tiny enclosures inside all their lives, they don't know they're trapped so they don't care. Wait, what am I thinking, they can't even care! They're just meat robots without the ability to think or feel after all.
those animals require larger cages for exercise, not because it makes them 'happy'
a pet cat doesn't need a large cage for excercise, it needs an owner that isn't a complete sack of shit that's too lazy to play with it so it can get stimulation.
Not the same one, but an owner can't be a replacement for every type of stimulation that a cat wants, especially as some cats wants different things than others. While they don't have concept of freedom like we do, they definately know the difference between outdoors and indoors. For one thing, outdoors is limitless and has way more smells, sights, sounds etc that you will never be able to reproduce inside your house.
That being said, I don't think every cat has to go outside or wants to, but I also think that not every cat are able to be a happy indoor cat.
I don't think that cats think as humans do, but I do believe they enjoy some things more than others, I do think they know when they are trapped or feel trapped, but that doesn't mean every cat feels trapped inside. Some strays that become pets do though.
>but an owner can't be a replacement for every type of stimulation that a cat wants
there is only one type of stimulation.
>especially as some cats wants different things than others
>they definately know the difference between outdoors and indoors
no you just pretend they do, just like you pretend they need to go outdoors.
>For one thing, outdoors is limitless and has way more smells
cats dont require limitless space, its meaningless.
There's no issue with letting cats outside. It's letting them roam unsupervised like people do. Either teach it to take walks on a leash or the better option, build an outdoor enclosure for it. Literally no other pet is allowed to roam free, cats are not some special snowflake exception.
Here's your solution, OP. Just drop em off here. I guarantee their happiness.
I agree that people have to responsible. I was just arguing the point about anthropomorphising. While I think people tend to give thoughts and ideas to animals they obviously don't have, I do think it is a bit more complex than just a question of stimulation and that they do have feelings and thoughts to some extend. It's not just humans vs animals to me, because we are animals aswell and we have a lot in common, especially with the other mammals.
>I do think it is a bit more complex
>and that they do have feelings and thoughts to some extend
>It's not just humans vs animals
it isn't, there's plenty of animals that might be capable of complex instincts and feelings like we do, cats aren't one of them.
I think it's cruel to keep a cat inside that clearly wants to go outside OP. However, not every place is a good place to let cats outside.
Doesn't matter if there is only one type of stimulation, you will never be as interesting to your cat as the outdoors will be.
No because a dog might attack people. A dog is not careful and stay away from people and animals like cats do. They are different.
Teach your dog to stay on your property and you can let it out on it's own though.
If doable, I would try to set it up for her so she could go outside. All my cats have been outside/inside as they please. One died at 16 because of cancer, the ones I have now are 15 and 9 and are very happy cats. They usually just go outside to do their business now or sleep in the sun, but they still want to go out everyday.
Because dogs can be a danger to people, dogs like to go up to people, dogs can bite people. They are very social animals. Cats aren't. Therefore, society treats dogs and cats diffeent. Obviously there are exceptions.
That being said, I don't mind if you let your dog loose. My neighbour's dog is allowed to be on either their or ours property, and she often comes and says hello. Sometime she explores the forest behind my house a bit. I was on vacation on the Isle of Samos once, and in the village I was staying people let their dogs run free all day long and at night they went home. Worked fine. Lots of cats there too. Maybe move there? Seems like society accepted it there. Pic is one of the dogs we played with most of the days, never saw the owners.
More free roaming dogs on Samos. The owners of this dog ran a restaurant. At night the dog would get food in a plastic bag and he would take to the beach and eat there, then go home.
Another Samos dog. Obviously the owners had no idea what these dogs ate, they would run up to people and get food all day. They also ran in the middle of the road, but very little traffic so it wasn't a problem. Would be a problem in cities though.
Name one other pet that is okay to let roam free. Your cat could be shitting up someone's garden or killing birds they purposefully paid money to attract to their lawn. Heck, just your cat being on someone's property when they might not want it there is wrong.
Our society isn't always logical, and letting cats be this special snowflake exception is one example of that.
This Samos dog was a bit crazy. It would sometimes nip a bit, but it would also not leave you alone and loved it when you pet it, then it would randomly bite a bit. Not hard though. Families with children would chase it away but it always came back.
I think it depends on where you live if it is okay to let your cat roam free and what is the norm there. Here it would be seen as animal cruelty to keep cats indoors only, especially by the older people (I live out in the countryside).
I'm not saying you have to keep your cat indoors only. I'm just saying your cat is likely to be causing problems for other people and is also in danger by roaming unsupervised. Regardless of cultural norms, the best thing for everyone is to be responsible and supervise your cat, in an outdoor enclosure or walks on a leash, just like literally every other pet.
Letting any animal roam free is simply irresponsible.
Sure, but I do think there is a big different between cats and dogs and also logical reasons for why cats are treated differently. Also location plays a role. There are many places in the world where dogs also roam free. Might not be right the way it is with cats being allowed outside some places, but to simply say dogs should be able to do the same as cats, just because cats are allowed, is flawed. One should always be responsible and take good care of their pets. Some people simply think what cats gain from being outside is greater than the risk. The risk and gain obviously varies from where you live and the cat.
As for causing problems for people, again location and culture. Where I live there is snow half of the year, we have moose walking over our lawn regularly leaving shit for example, aswell as other animals. We have the freedom to roam law, which means you are allowed to cross and walk on private property of other people. It takes a lot to cause problems for people as we are used to all sorts of things and it is a part of life here. A bit of cat shit is not a big issue for most people, especially not when almost every house has a cat themselves. There might be a few who does not like it, but they really are in the minority where I live.
>cats arent wild animals
i think they are still kind of wild. they are capable of surviving quite well without human help in the outdoors for some time.
cats were never domesticated like dogs; they just chose to be with umens by themselves and are strong and independent.
they just get bored inside and fuck your shit up.
you mean where most wildlife is?
yeah great way to fuck the entire ecosystem over, idiot.
>i think they are still kind of wild
your opinion doesn't matter, they're a domesticated species.
>they are capable of surviving quite well without human help
outdoor cat colonies depend on humans.
>cats were never domesticated like dogs
it's funny because feral cats do the exact same thing as cats.
they scavenge our garbage and scraps, they can't live without us feral or not.
>they are a domesticated species
they just chose to live near humans when they started agriculture because of the mice. You can still find cats on the countryside which are terrified by humans. Even some raised in direct proximity to humans may never let them touch you. Therefore id say they are semi-domesticated; some are and some are not.
>outdoor cat colonies depend on humans
only if there isnt enough space and food. The population size will shrink down to an amount which can survive in the given space and natural resources. Its the same with every population.
There are thousands of feral cats in my country and there is no garbage lying around on which they feed. They feed on mice, rabbits and birds.
Good discussion guys. I'll probably just keep doing what I'm doing then. That is, take poos and sasha out when they want to go out and continue to love them and cuddle and play with them.
Not bait or anything, I just really wanted to get people's take on indoor/outdoor cats. Pretty intense opinions here
Whenever I get stray cats in my yard, I call the animal control officer at town hall and they schedule a day to come out and set a cat trap.
When a cat gets caught, I call them up again and they eventually swing around to pick up the trap.
It's funny as fuck to see my idiot neighbor screaming at the animal control officer while they take that cat to be euthanized.
alright. I made some further poor investigations. If you want to find the core of nature you have to look into the genetic code. Scientists compared the genetic code of the house cat with the wildcat (felis silvestris sp.) and they found some small differences which take influence in the learning by rewards, fear and memory. If you look at it this way the house cat is a domesticated animal.
thats a little funny and very sad.
>they just chose to live near humans
they're cats, they don't choose anything.
>there is no garbage lying around on which they feed. They feed on mice, rabbits and birds.
there's old people feeding them most likely.
>like why else would Poos want to go out?
I see OP's issue has been resolved but belatedly, it always makes me chuckle when people employ this reasoning. My cats are curious, contrarian little shits that immediately want to go anywhere they know is forbidden or blocked off to them. If I close the door to a room they normally never even fucking go in they'll be sitting outside it, crying pathetically like their absolute heart's desire is on the other side, trying to stick their paws under the doorcrack.
So of course they want to go outside, because Outside is almost always a place they aren't supposed to be (save for supervised periods we allow). Forbidden fruit always tastes the sweetest.
>like why else would Poos want to go out?
Why are cat people so retarded? I mean seriously. Next thing you know they'll try to convince people their stupid pet has religious beliefs.
>what is basic ethology
>they're cats, they don't choose anything.
in a restricted way they can actively choose between different food sources if you believe in a concept of free will
>there's old people feeding them most likely.
yeah, but not all of those millions of cats. there are also some in the wilderness and woods and old people can not get there because they are too old. I once saw a cat kill a rabbit; i believe in their survival skills.
it doesn't matter you don't like them. it's less food for other wildlife don't you get it? the cats are acting as competitors with other animals that would make better use of that food
also you sound hypocrite as fuck
>I like animals guise xD but fuck anything else that isn't a cat or a dog xDDDD AMIRITE AHAHAHA
> Caring about animals = autism
Well fuck me we must all have autism considering we're on /an/
>we can't breed it out of them
It would be possible, but of what use would a cat like that have been as pest control a few thousand years ago?
we did it with wolves, some dog breeds have a very low hunting instinct
I will never let another cat of mine be an outdoor cat after my family's first one was torn to shreds by a pack of pit bulls. She never even left our property, except to go in our neighbors yard, who had no problem with it and thought of her as their cat as well. Fucked up thing is she died on my birthday, and we didn't even find her body until hours after it happened. She was unrecognizable.
Having a concept of "outside" or "freedom" isn't necessary. Cats are naturally curious and are stimulated by discovery. The inverse of mental stimulation is boredom. Are cats bored by spending their entire lives in the same surroundings?
Better thought experiment. Let's say a cat was equipped with a forcefield that made it impervious to injury or sickness. Would that cat have a better overall mood compared to an indoor cat? I'm willing to bet that the outdoor cat would be a happier cat.
>they can actively choose between different food sources
they don't choose, they just follow programming, instinct.
>yeah, but not all of those millions of cats.
you'd be suprised.
there isn't much garbage in the netherlands cats can get to, all colonies here soley depend on people that feed them, that's what most colonies depend on, a cat that isn't scavening doesn't live long because even if they're able to catch wild animals their instinct is often deluded to the point where they don't even eat them.
cats are lousy mousers.
they have no use, not even as vermin control, terriers are 100 times better at it and they can be trained not to harm actual native wildlife.
>Are cats bored by spending their entire lives in the same surroundings?
Those turdpiles sleep for 16 hours a day. Is it really that hard to entertain them for an hour or two and get them some toys? If you can't or won't do that don't get a fucking cat. Simple as that.
Depends, there will be days you won't want to interact with it, or can't, and it will affect the animal. When thinking about this stuff you can't see from your own perspective, but from the animal.
If that makes any sense.
>If the animal doesn't serve a purpose, then you shouldn't have it. Owning an animal for the sake of owning one is god-tier retardation.
So what purpose do you serve? What's the point of keeping you around?
I own animals because I enjoy watching them grow, and watch their behaviors, but I don't do it every day. I have animals that I only really observe them every few weeks (tarantulas and mole salamanders) and others that I enjoy more frequently, but never in a daily basis. I do worry about their health and well being every day however.
>humans need to go outside.
[insert john oliver CURRENT YEAR meme here]
There are plenty of people in the world who never leave or at least rarely leave their homes that function fine. It's about how you treat yourself in your home that's important.
But they serve no purpose. Them being in a tank on a bookshelf isn't serving any purpose. It could be a block of wood in the tank and it would still have the same interactional properties.
>But they serve no purpose
Do you not know what that means or are you retarded on purpose?
It's fun to watch them eat/grow/interact with each other. It's entertaining to watch them, that's their purpose.
>Why do people have a TV, if it does not help with chores?
>I was wrong but managed to talk myself out of it
A cat that got hit by a car crawled onto my front porch.
My roommate called animal control, and AC said they couldn't do anything for the cat.
My roommate might've exaggerated the injuries, though.
I gave it a blanket, and it died overnight.
>read retarded argument.
The anon is probably the type of guy that says complete garbage even if he perfectly knows he is wrong
i hate that people think it's ok to let their cat roam free. they shit everywhere and piss everywhere. if you're cat goes into backyard i'm going to shoot it, and if that doesn't work then the tuna can i mixed antifreeze in will definitely will.
sounds hella edgy but i don't care. i hate cats. good fucking riddance.
>And people accuse Bugguy of being edgy.
There's nothing wrong with Bugguy. He is 100% logical and lacks emotion, empathy, and social grace. He doesn't try to be difficult. He just doesn't care if he steps on toes. He is a lot easier to understand than most people. That's what happen when you strip out emotion from the equation. The world needs more logical people.
>He is 100% logical
5% at best.
Though I guess if you know absolutely nothing about logic he might fool you.
he's also just plain wrong about half of the time.
and more than a little bit of an attention whore.
so what do you think it means?
English is my native language. Unlike bugguy.
I assume it's yours as well, you're probably a young American. A product of the No Child Left Behind Act. You know we purposefully made you dumber, right?
>If you still think it means '(take in from outside)' once you've done that you should check it again
>take in or soak up (energy, or a liquid or other substance) by chemical or physical action, typically gradually
>Try guessing how vitamin D is made.
why would I guess? Wikipedia has a nice article on the subject. You should read it.
>With a internal source?
except in English we say "AN internal source."
try to get it right.
yeah, I've covered that already.
I posted the dictionary definition of "absorb" for you and referred you to the Wikipedia article which states in the first paragraph that vitamin D synthesis takes place in the skin
you've got nothing. You're wrong, anyone can see you're wrong, and you're going to deny it until the fucking cows come home because that's just what you do.
>I posted the dictionary definition of "absorb" for you
It has more than one meaning, you should check the others.
>vitamin D synthesis takes place in the skin
We have sunlight in our skin?
>It has more than one meaning, you should check the others
post the one you think bugguy was using then.
>We have sunlight in our skin?
but that just means you absorb sunlight, not vitamin D.
>but that just means you absorb sunlight, not vitamin D.
Every component that is required to produce it is part of it.
>post the one you think bugguy was using then.
There's multiple, check other dictionaries if you can't find it, or refer to how it's commonly used.
>Every component that is required to produce it is part of it
yes, but every part is not the same as the whole.
fallacy of composition.
this entire argument springs from the fallacy of composition.
some of your cells absorb vitamin D. This isn't the same as saying you absorb vitamin D. Because you can't absorb something you already contain. That would be the fallacy of composition - what happens to your parts isn't necessarily the same as what happens to you as a whole.
>I guess losing weight is impossible
or you simply don't understand that losing weight comes from metabolizing fat and excreting it, not from absorbing it.
or perhaps you're continuing with the fallacy of composition but reversing it to the fallacy of division and saying that if you can't absorb fat then your cells can't either.
>Metabolizing is absorption
fair enough, but that's being done by your cells, not your body as a whole.
a cell can absorb fat or vitamin D because it doesn't already contain it.
you can't absorb human fat or vitamin D because it comes from inside you.
fallacy of composition. Something that happens to a part doesn't necessarily happen to the whole.
>Most of the cells in your body aren't even yours
yes, that's the fallacy of composition again.
>most of the cells in your body aren't yours
>so you don't exist.
a textbook example of the fallacy of composition.
he had that argument at least twice, with at least two different anons.
come to think of it, that was another fallacy of composition.
he really seems to have trouble with composition and division.