When people talk about how their pets are acting funny, I always wonder whether they realize that it's because of the boring habitat their pets have been put in. Asking them about it is delicate because it implies that their pet might be unhappy about its situation.
I can personally just bring up that my cat does (xyz) when bored. If you don't have such a cat, "A cat I had once" or "a cat a friend had" works as well.
It is a great non-confrontational way to say the same thing - and one most folks are willing to try because it is cheaper than a vet visit.
I wanted to downvote you, but this is part of why letting cats out is cruel. They're best off living a life of leisure indoors. Make sure it's a good life by entertaining and caring for them. That's what pets are supposed to experience in the modern era.
> but this is part of why letting cats out is cruel.
Because they might die relatively quickly and painlessly at some point? How is that cruel?
Given the choice, cats always prefer to go outside, even after being exposed to hostile animals outside. Presumably their walnut brains have evolved heuristics w.r.t. the utility of being eaten. Plus, I think I'd rather be killed by a dog than slowly grow arthritic, tumorous, and blind until I can't eat anymore and I have to be taken to that place I hate so they can stick a needle in me and kill me. If that's "what pets are supposed to experience in the modern era" then I want none of it.
I've had a number of cats, and the outdoor ones don't usually live as long as the indoor ones, but they seem a lot happier about it. Live fast, die young.
In my case I got sick of cats coming into my life and then promptly dying within a year of that.
As far as keeping them happy goes, I have found that they tend to do well if they have other cats for company. Solitary cats usually don't make great pets.
I am however, talking about stray cats with no breeding history. I have heard that many pet cat breeds are bred for specific behavioral traits which make them better suited for an indoor only life. I also don't condone such practices.
I have 5 cats in my home right now. All of them healthy and since they constantly play among themselves, I would assume they are happy too. Our family is financially well off, considering all things, so we had the time and resources to modify our home so that a bunch of cats would be comfortable living with us.
With regards to your comment, forgive me but I find such a way of thinking to be extreme with no middle ground. I am from India and all sorts of people keep pets here. In many cases the pets are strays who just wander into people's lives. Since everyone does not have the money to provide for an indoor animal, your way of thinking would deprive a lot of animals of some measure of human kindness. Considering the short brutal lives they would have otherwise, any human help is better than none at all.
No. Not letting cats out is cruel. They are outdoor animals by nature. They enjoy exploring the neighborhood(how much varies from cat to cat). And they have instincts to deal with whatever might be out there.
If you live in an area that really is too dangerous to let the cat out, then you were being cruel by getting a cat in the first place.
Badly trained and feral dogs definitely love to kill smaller animals. I've lost chickens to a neighbor's dog and at least one cat to the feral dog packs that roam San Antonio. There are certain social groups there who don't exercise good pet ownership and see releasing unwanted puppies onto the street as a preferable alternative to spaying and neutering.
Standard operating procedure on rural ranch land is to shoot any dog that you don't recognize near your livestock. The reasoning is that it's either feral, has a disease, or is poorly trained enough to leave its own property. Either way, it poses a serious risk to your livestock; such dogs frequently kill small animals (chickens, rabbits, barn cats, etc.) in bulk (they don't even bother pausing before going to the next one) and will sometimes kill or harass large animals like cows or goats.
People often have a pretty optimistic view of dog behavior because their main exposure to dogs is as relatively well-trained, well-fed, and neutered pets.
I lived in the country side for a long time. It was a small farming town of no more than 1000 people surrounded by farming and grazing land. I don't remember dogs attacking anything other then themselves. They were never a problem with livestock, chickens, etc. They did sometimes bite a human, most cases it was the human's fault. Kids sometimes had a habit of tormenting dogs by throwing rocks at them so it was no surprise that some of them would turn on you.
>>Either way, it poses a serious risk to your livestock; such dogs frequently kill small animals (chickens, rabbits, barn cats, etc.) in bulk (they don't even bother pausing before going to the
I've never actually seen this nor heard anybody in the town mention this as a problem. I still have family there that farms and raises livestock and to this day I've never heard something like this mentioned.
I don't know what to say; what I said applied in both rural Idaho and Texas. People don't exactly bring it up in conversation, as it's kind of unfortunate. Dogs aren't nearly as much of a problem as hogs here in TX, but people do have to deal with them occasionally. It's usually not an issue because farmers know to keep their dogs chained/fenced up or to train them not to wander around.
