"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
You keep posting this without citing a source, which doesn’t help your argument. Please provide a source for this quote.
Loss, S., Will, T. & Marra, P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4, 1396 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
There. Do I have to do all you peoples’ thinking for you?
If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then you do the opposite of thinking for others - you provide your sources so your audience can review and then think for themselves based on the data. Otherwise you’re just expecting people to take your word for it, which means you would be doing all of the thinking for the people who don’t question which, based on your comment, is not what you want.
Thank you for providing the source.
This study is about the immense magnitude of cat predation, and your takeaway is that we shouldn’t limit owned cat predation simply because un-owned cat predation is higher…
We estimate that cats in the contiguous United States annually kill between 1.3 and 4.0 billion birds (median=2.4 billion) (Fig. 1a), with ∼69% of this mortality caused by un-owned cats. The predation estimate for un-owned cats was higher primarily due to predation rates by this group averaging three times greater than rates for owned cats.
This study estimates that annual bird deaths by owned cat predation in the US is around a 750 million median figure, and you’re just fine with that?
If you quote an authority source you are obligated to cite it. It is not other’s job to backwards full-text-search a quote to determine who your were referencing. Pretty common academia stuff, but as you said you’re an ecologist and for sure know that, so you must have omitted it purposefully
It kind of sounds like this is part of a paper that is detailing seemingly large amounts of predation from cats of which the majority is attributable to un-owned cats which I gather you reckon means “outdoor” owned cats aren’t a big threat to wildlife populations since they aren’t responsible for the greatest amount of the total predation from cats overall.
But, without the context, the numbers cited sound instinctively like ‘big’ numbers so if the total magnitude of predation from cats is large and “owned” cats are responsible only for a fraction of it, their contribution could well be substantial nonetheless. Not knowing the scope or the details of the quoted paper it’s unclear if it goes in to what the estimated proportion is other than not the majority and its unclear how much predation can be tolerated by the populations upon which cats, both owned and unowned, prey.
For example maybe owned cats are responsible for 40% of the total predation by cats on local wildlife in an area with the remaining 60% being attributable to un-owned cats. This would make un-owned cats majority responsible for the predation yet you could reduce the total predation by 40% if owned cats were all kept indoors in that hypothetical. The actual numbers are likely different and could well be much more slanted between owned vs un-owned cats’ share of predation but if the estimates for the sustainable amount of predation certain populations can withstand are below the current total amount of predation then removing even a smaller fraction might be the difference between endangerment and extinction.