I feel like arguing both it isn't dangerous to wildlife and also it keeps pests away is at contradiction to each other here. Like it's still fucking with whatever is left of it's nature, even if it's not actively killing it.

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 5 points 3 months ago (2 children)

This is a good point and I'm glad you brought it up. A dog will frighten wildlife but won't kill it. Like a dog will never be able to actually catch and kill a deer. So they'll scare it away but won't actually harm it. This is in the context of being in a fenced in area, as opposed to like a wildlife preserve where maybe a single off leash dog isn't a problem but hundreds of them are

[–] 7bicycles@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago

I'm not going to blame the state of things on like your dog or a dog specifically, but it kind of gets into "no drop of water feels responsible for the wave" thing as per frightening wildlife. Like that's still bad for the wildlife, just less bad. It seems to draw the line at "anything that isn't actually shooting them is not somewhat bad", but I don't think that works out, because you can apply it to pretty much anything that is detrimental to nature.

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Livestock and rodents though. My sister found out her dog had a monstrous prey drive the hard way. Took it on holiday out in the country side and it killed a rabbit, attacked a sheep, and tried to fight a fox. An otherwise very normal and even timid city raised dog.

[–] Assian_Candor@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Wow interesting. I am surprised a dog could catch a rabbit, seriously. I didn't think they'd be fast enough but clearly I am mistaken.

Maybe it's a breed thing. Anyway clearly I shouldn't generalize the way I did, clearly it's a call that has to be made on a case by case basis. At any rate I think there are some instances where it's ok to let a dog spend most of its time outside, but definitely not for cats

[–] MaoTheLawn@hexbear.net 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It is surprising, yeah, considering it was not a specialised hunting breed. Could've been a dozy old rabbit I suppose.

I'd be less surprised if a whippet or a borsoi caught one. I also wouldn't be surprised if a Jack Russell came back with any sort of rodent in its maw.

But yeah, otherwise true. But then isn't it cruel to make a cat live a life indoors? Once upon a time they were wild and free to catch as many birds as they liked.

Surely there are different areas cats could roam free - rats and cats from colonist ships destroyed flightless bird populations. But where were cats and rats native in the first place? What's a safe place to be for them to exist as a non-invasive species?

I don't really have a strong opinion considering I don't, never have, and never will own a cat.

Dogs on the other hand of course get to rule the roost. I think they can be domesticated much further away from their wild side, unlike cats.

A dogsitter of my dogs now trusts them to hang out unsupervised with their uncaged guinea pigs and rabbits. One of my dogs is completely unbothered by their existence. The other approached a gerbil - the room went silent in anticipation of an urgent gerbil rescue mission - only for the dog to give it a huge lick and then wander off, uninterested.

In fact, that dog once brought back a baby squirrel in his mouth. I was anticipating a bloody cleanup, but no, it was completely alive and well, and he set it down in front of me and stayed by it, licking it every now and again. The local wild animal rescue team came by and said it had probably fallen out of its tree and been left to die. They said it was fine but in a shocked state, and took it away, presumably nursed it and released it.

I was shocked. Up to that point, given his overall demeanor as a scrappy squirrel chaser, who often didn't quite understand the boundaries of play fighting, I thought he would've ripped that thing to pieces.