Jump to content

Talk:Cat predation on wildlife/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


disinformation

reading this, it seems that the cat fans are mounting a dis information campaign very similar to the climage change denialist or the tobacco does't cause cancer croud any thoughts ? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-018-1796-y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:519D:9181:46A7:996D (talk) 13:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

On the pet owners section

I just deleted the pet owners section, I believe Wikipedia isn’t here to try to change minds on subjects and I think that the wording of the section was rather pointed at “convincing” people of how bad cats can be outdoors. Along with the reference to cognitive dissonance which just feels cliche, the fact that one journal piece is used, the whole thing needs to be rewritten if it wants to stay up IMO. 2601:1C0:5A00:4650:F0BC:F4F4:A6E2:92DC (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  • It's not one "journal piece", it's two articles published in scientific journals. If you have a problem with the claims made in the article--well, Wikipedia is not the place to vent them. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Extinctions of island species

Please tell me why you have deleted my edit about the claim that domestic cats have exterminated 33 (bird) species. The claim is false and I posted a reference about it. Please reinstate my edit immediately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Strippedsocks (talk • contribs)

Because your edit [1] was not reliably sourced, per the content policy found at WP:PREPRINT, which says, Preprints, such as those available on repositories like arXiv, medRxiv or bioRxiv, are not reliable sources. Research that has not been peer-reviewed is akin to a blog, as anybody can post it online. Their use is generally discouraged, unless they meet the criteria for acceptable use of self-published sources, and will always fail higher sourcing requirements like WP:MEDRS. There was no evidence it was published in a journal later, and no evidence that the author is a recognized expert that would satisfy WP:SPS. Note that claiming that the IUCN is wrong about the number of species exterminated by cats, which seems to be the argument you're making here, is going to require excellent sourcing. Geogene (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-neutral edits

@Strippedsocks:, This edit [2] is original research because the sources in it don't mention cats. The subject of this article is Cat predation on wildlife, not extinction as a general phenomenon. Additionally in your edit summary you write, They have not exterminated 33 bird species, as I prove in my preprint, which it seems must wait until it is published in a journal. Your preprint? This implies that a WP:SELFCITE issue is presenting itself here as well. Geogene (talk) 15:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Your page is not about extinction, you say? Is that why on such a short page you mention extinction as many as 11 times? And one more entry on extinction is too much, especially when it is just one sentence that gives necessary perspective?
The trouble with your page is that you are cherry-picking: selecting only a very few sources which support a particular view and deleting entries with contrasting views. Strippedsocks (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The views that are being deleted are your own personal opinions, not those of reliable sources, which is not allowed by content policy. Even if this were some kind of debate club where you would be allowed to present novel arguments, your arguments here are untenable. Do you know how many species of birds were eradicated by DDT? None. Zero. Does that mean that DDT isn't a problem for bird conservation? Of course not. It's just whataboutism. Geogene (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Geogene's edit. Drmies (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been reading about resolving editing disputes on Wikipedia. So I am asking you just once more, for clarification, why will you not allow me ANY edits on this page? I even tried to cite a very relevant book for further reading but you deleted it. Please give a clear and concise reply numbered point by point. (I accept what you said about preprints, so that is not a problem for discussion and can be left out.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strippedsocks (talk • contribs) 13:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand. I only have one edit to the article since my last post on this page, and it's this one [3]. It looks like you promoted the Loss (2013) study to a header by mistake by framing it with equal signs, and I demoted it. I didn't remove anything from Further Reading. Geogene (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I think I see the problem now. You added this book [4] to the further reading section but it's being hidden by <ref> template. I'll see if deleting that template will make it appear. Geogene (talk) 13:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
And here you deleted it again, probably by mistake trying to get the wiki-markup to work [5]. The markup is not user friendly. But it's restored. Geogene (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Principles of Ecology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2022 and 22 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nprocaccini, Jeanius1, Planariaworm (article contribs). Peer reviewers: KMorales34, Ablip, Lonelychild1.

— Assignment last updated by Chelsei.L (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I would like to add these two sources, to help expand on the topic of cat predation on wildlife, I would like to mention how one of the "human effects on biogeochemical pathways," such as global warming can have an impact on cats and how it might effect native species. Which also connected to the other topic I want to talk about, "Fear Effects," which I will explain how it affect the native species.
Jeanius1 (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Jeanius1
Fear effects should be added to the article. The Animal Conservation paper is probably reliable for that, and it's a topic I've seen discussed elsewhere. I don't believe the sourcing for global warming causing a sudden increase in the cat population should be added without peer reviewed papers supporting it. The livescience article only quotes opinions from cat rescue groups, and a 30% increase between 2006 and 2007 doesn't sound like a climate change effect, which is a long-term phenomenon. The same goes for this content I just now removed [6]. The Daily Cat is probably not a reliable source, and are harsh winters really likely to be one of the main things limiting the feral cat population in Los Angeles? Geogene (talk) 23:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Population management

It's inevitable that there will be some coverage of feral cat management strategies, but I don't think this article should be a WP:Coatrack for that. And recent additions in that aspect are problematic because they frame management options as a dichotomy between Trap-Neuter-Return and otherwise undiscussed "trap euthanize" options. In reality, cats are managed in many different ways, through toxic baits [7], [8]; hunting with air rifles [9], automated poison spray stations [10], with genetic engineering methods (gene drives) probably coming down the pipeline [11]. Turning everything into TNR verses Trap Euthanize is WP:UNDUE. But if we're going to mention TNR, the main point is that it should a minimum reflect the apparent scientific consensus that TNR does not work. [12] Geogene (talk) 20:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

"cats are the top human-caused threat to wildlife in the United States"

This is not correct? It says in the article linked to this claim:

"Estimates of annual US bird mortality from predation by all cats, including both owned and un-owned cats, are in the hundreds of millions13,14 (we define un-owned cats to include farm/barn cats, strays that are fed by humans but not granted access to habitations, cats in subsidized colonies and cats that are completely feral). This magnitude would place cats among the top sources of anthropogenic bird mortality; however, window and building collisions have been suggested to cause even greater mortality15,16,17. Existing estimates of mortality from cat predation are speculative and not based on scientific data13,14,15,16 or, at best, are based on extrapolation of results from a single study18. In addition, no large-scale mortality estimates exist for mammals, which form a substantial component of cat diets." Kirschn (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

It says in the abstract, which wasn't quoted Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. [13]. Now, parsing the text you quoted with my annotations estimates of annual bird mortality [MADE PREVIOUSLY BY OTHERS] are in the hundreds of millions...however window and building collisions have been suggested [BY OTHERS] to cause even greater mortality [CITES TO OTHERS' WORK]....Existing estimates of mortality from cat predation [BY OTHERS] are speculative and not based on scientific data.... There is no contradiction here, although the Wiki article may state the claim more strongly than the source presents it. Geogene (talk) 14:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
"the Wiki article may state the claim more strongly than the source presents it" is inherently problematic and needs to be fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

"...after humans".. surely? Holocene_extinction JeffUK 07:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by that. If there were no humans, there would be no cats. Geogene (talk) 14:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned with recent efforts to suggest that the article has "too few opinions", namely in support of the notion that pet cats are not a signficant contribution to the problem, which is not at all what the sources are telling us. It's correct that Loss et al. (2013) pinned most of it in a specific place on feral populations, but that study certainly did not rule out the contribution of free-roaming (indoor-outdoor and outdoor-only) pet cats, and other sources certainly don't exclude them, either. And this article is not about feral cat predation on wildlife, but all Felis catus predation on wildlife.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Fear effects

Why was my contribution deleted? It was about cats striking fear into their prey. Please explain. The article without my paragraph strongly suggests that cats are unique in striking fear into prey and therefore that cats are evil. The paragraph I added puts cats in perspective, showing that they are not unique because all predators, even humans, induce fear in prey animals. You always delete my edits such that it is pointless trying to make the page better than just the c-rated and biased article it is. We will have to have a wider discussion about this article and why it is impossible to improve it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xhkvfq (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@Xhkvfq: Moving the discussion here from my talk page [14]. Diffs of the edit in question [15] my revert [16]. Geogene (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
As I noted in the edit summary, I think it's off-topic to talk about things like fear effects from dog walking in an article about predation by cats. I have some additional concerns about how you're framing things in your post as well. Geogene (talk) 18:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
I disagree, as I explained on your talk page. How can we get a discussion going with impartial editors, etc? People need to discuss this more broadly because it is impossible to edit anything on your cat page. Xhkvfq (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, I see that you've written thes drafts [17], and [18]. If that's what you're planning for this article, it's a pretty clear example of WP:RGW on the issue of cats predating wildlife. Geogene (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Just lay out here what changes you are trying to make, to what encylopedic end, and with what sources. User-talk discussions rarely resolve content disputes at articles, which are almost always of keen interest to more than the two editors in the original dispute. I'll say right off the bat that "The article without my paragraph strongly suggests that cats are unique in striking fear into prey and therefore that cats are evil" is basically nonsensical. It may indeed need to be clarified that prey in general are fearful of predators and that this is not unique to cats, but we do not need an entire paragraph about this; this is not the Predation article. And "it's off-topic to talk about things like fear effects from dog walking in an article about predation by cats" is certainly correct. We might even consider removing the "fear"-related material entirely, since it may not be very pertinent. Your goals seem to be shoehorning into the encyclopedia your random thoughts (most of which is just your personal opinion, and otherwise is your own "original research", taking disparate ideas from sources and synthesizing them together to make new claims not found in the sources). That is not what encyclopedia articles are for or how they are written.
PS: I have seen your drafts at Draft:Cat predation on islands and Draft:Human–cat conflict, and they are personal op-eds (completley redundant with each other) presenting a contrarian viewpoint that verges on fringe-theory advocacy; they are not encyclopedic at all and the second of them is not a viable topic even with a total rewrite (the first could be a viable topic, but only if Cat predation on wildlife got so long that we needed to split off side articles on subtopics). Please review our core content policies as well as WP:Writing better articles and WP:Wikipedia is not a blog.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
PPS: I've been over your paragraph and agree with its reversion. It utterly misses the point and is extraneous, confusing blather. The point is that the native wildlife on these islands do not have natural predators there and are ecologically naïve. The introduction of cats to these islands produces a cascading and population-disruptive ecology of fear effect, that is specific to these cats and these native species on these islands. It has absolutely nothing of any kind to do with the general fact that prey animals have evolved fear responses to predators. That the same ecology-of-fear effect can be observed under other circumstances (dogs, humans) in other places is completely irrelevant; while it is further evidence that the ecology-of-fear effect is measurable, it has nothing to do with cats and island sea birds. The entire point of your editing in this topic area seems to be "I love cats, and people saying anything critical about them upsets me, so I'm going to champion the cause of their honor". This is not encyclopedia writing, it's WP:ADVOCACY / WP:ACTIVISM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Two drafts with potential sources, maybe the nugget of DUE presentation of contrary claims

Please see: Draft:Cat predation on islands and Draft:Human–cat conflict. These are not viable drafts, but they contain a variety of sources that might be usable here in a WP:DUE manner. The entire gist of both drafts can probably be summed up in a single paragraph here along the lines that claims about the specific number of species extincted by cats has been subject to some debate, both because some turned out to have been pushed to the brink of extinction but not quite over that cliff, and because of definitional disputes about "species".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Lynn et al (2019) versus Loss & Marra (2018)

In user-talk, Xhkvfq has finally come up with a source (one) in support of their position, "I still stand firmly by my statement that the page Cat Predation on Wildlife is hugely biased and needs balance." It is this:

  • Lynn, William S.; Santiago‐Ávila, Francisco; Lindenmayer, Joann; Hadidian, John; Wallach, Arian; King, Barbara J. (3 June 2019). "A Moral Panic over Cats". Conservation Biology. 33 (4): 769–776. doi:10.1111/cobi.13346.

This is a rebuttal piece to the following:

Xhkvfq didn't mention (perhaps didn't know about) refutation of the Lynn et 2019 work above:

Most of Lynn et al. published later a response to that as well:

  • Lynn, William S.; Santiago‐Ávila, Francisco; Hadidian, John; Wallach, Arian; Lindenmayer, Joann (5 May 2020). "Misunderstandings of science and ethics in the moral panic over cats: reply to Crespin et al. 2020". Conservation Biology. 34 (4): 1038–1040. doi:10.1111/cobi.13527. Note the doubling down on their mischaracterition of these concerns as a "moral panic". No free full text of this one has been found yet, but it might be readable by WP:The Wikipedia Library if someone really wants it.

While Conservation Biology appears to be a reputable journal by the journal metrics I just looked up, and it is not listed at WP:RSNP as problematic, that particular article is neither a work of primary-research science nor a secondary literature review (which would be much more valuable than the former). It is an opinion editorial, clearly labelled an essay, and it is polemical in nature. Its very title is an accusation that people who disagree with the authors are engaged in a moral panic, and the authors do nothing even in their abstract to disguise the fact that they are advancing a colleague-condemnatory opinion: "Some conservationists ... claim that those who question the science or ethics behind their arguments are science deniers (merchants of doubt) seeking to mislead the public. ... we believe these ideas are wrong and fuel an unwarranted moral panic ... it is a false analogy to compare [us] with corporate and right-wing special interests that perpetrate disinformation campaigns over issues, such as smoking and climate change." In short, it's a butt-hurt rant about the tone of and the analogy used by two of their ideological opponents, namely Loss & Marra 2018 (another opinion piece, not the Loss & Marra 2017 research paper we already cite in our article). The authors are correct that Loss & Marra used a bogus analogy against them, but this has absolutely nothing of any kind to do with the underlying science, and is only about collegiality in academic publishing (which the authors of this essay are of course also failing at dismally, perpetuating the mudslinging to push their "protect the kitties" agenda instead of sticking to the science).

The essay does not in detail address anything like the broad body of research in this area. It does go to some pains to criticize cats-as-a-rabies-vector and toxoplasmosis as they relate to humans, but this really has nothing to do with our subject, since ours is not an article about zoonotic cat–human disease transfer (our only disease material here is about cat–wildlife transfer). Indeed, after the "screw Loss & Marra" ranting that takes up the entire first half of the essay, the bulk of the remaining material is about human zoonosis (and fears thereof), not about cat predation on, or spread of diseases to, wildlife.

This essay is problematic in its content in other ways. E.g., "there are significant ... ethical and policy issues ... relative to how people ought to value and coexist with cats and native wildlife": This is pure, unadulterated socio-political positioning, and has nothing to do with scientific facts at all. It's advocacy. The so-called conclusion, "Society is better served by a collaborative approach to produce better scientific and ethical knowledge about free-ranging cats", is just empty buzzword-laden rhetoric that has no implications for our article or any of its sources. There is no demonstrable evidence of lack of "collaboration", nor any evidence that the scientific data (aside from nitpicks one might have with very particular papers) is wrong; certainly the preponderance of it is not. "Ethical knowledge" is undefinable gibberish (like "moral fact" or "upstanding data" or "conscientious observation" or "respectable information"; it is confusing two different categories of things and producing an oxymoron).

It also, in its more substantive parts, is not aiming in the direction Xhkvfq seems to believe it is: "There are good ... reasons ... to be skeptical that free-ranging cats constitute a disaster ... in all circumstances." This a) does nothing whatsoever to dispel evidence that free-ranging cats are disastrous in many circumstances, and b) has nothing to do with the claims in our article, or even the claims in the sources used in that article, since neither are using any "in all circumstances" language. In short, it's a straw man. More to the point, though, on p. 773: "[Our] skepticism should not be used to deny the impact cats may have when rigorously documented for specific contexts." The authors are telling us directly not to try to misuse their essay in the way Xhkvfq seems to want to misuse it. And more yet: "We welcome calls for the adoption of a precautionary approach, when it involves the implementation of mitigation measures that are not harmful, and monitoring and adaptive management". That is, the authors support extirpation if it comes to that, as long as a "harm-reduction" path is tried first, and here and several other places they urge for ethics monitoring of extirpation efforts. (The thing is, "mitigation" or harm-reduction measures already have been tried, again and again, in multiple ways, and have not worked.)

If this essay turns out to be demonstrably influential (notable authors, cited a lot, covered in the press, etc.), then there might be a WP:DUE reason to mention it as a considered opinion in the topic area, directly attributed to the authors, not stated by us as if the opinion is demonstrable fact. However, to the extent any of it is actually generalizable to the topic instead of being anger with Loss & Marra, or kumbaya "be sweet to all the creatures" stuff, this seems to be a fringe viewpoint. They're basically accusing their ideological opponents of engaging in a pseudo-scientific conspiracy (and in smear campaigning, meanwhile the authors of the essay are themselves smearing other academics, who mostly actually have much better claim to that term). As for notable authors, we have no articles on any them, except Barbara J. King, a former academic anthropologist who is now a pop-science writer – someone writing entirely outside their own field. Of the others, two are directly associated with "predator protection" stance-taking bodies; one is Carnivore Coexistence Lab [19] which has no expertise in anything but protecting native wolf populations in the US; and Centre for Compassionate Conservation [20] which is also focused on wildlife and has nothing to do with domestic species (beyond putting out a position paper against using an infertility drug on Australian feral horses – specifically opposing a bill to outlaw culling them, I might add). Neither of these organizations have anything to do with management of feral cat populations or reducing their wildlife impact. Oh, doing some more background research, there's a third: PAN Works [21], "a nonprofit think tank dedicated to the wellbeing of animals" to "cultivate compassion, respect and justice for animals, a reverence for the community of life, and a desire for people, animals and nature to thrive together. ... a global platform for ethicists, scholars and civil society working to improve animal wellbeing." So, very clearly an advocacy not research group. Oh, and there's another one: Project Coyote [22]: an advocacy group around human coexistence with coyotes (and bears and other native predators that actually belong in their environments), with a particular focus on "reforming predator management", which is a clear bias; but no connection to feral cats. Another was formerly with the the Humane Society of the US which is obviously an advocacy body, but also with US Wildlife Protection Program, so at least able to see both sides; yet also closely associated with WellBeing International [23], which "envisions people, animals and the environment thriving in a healthy and harmonious world", i.e. another advocacy organization.

"As ethicists and scientists who value the lives of individual animals as well as the preservation of biodiversity, we recognize that non-native species may, in specific circumstances, pose a threat to native wildlife" is key for two reasons: it establishes clearly that the piece is based in an "ethics" moralizing position not just science (if you think that's a stretch, the very next sentence says "conservationists ... losing their moral compass"). They continue more bluntly and emotively and personally condemnatory in this same direction: "the harming of sentient, sapient, and social individuals, such as cats, that Loss and Marra (2018) ... countenance requires strict ethical and scientific scrutiny". This is a piece of regulatory advocacy aimed directly at colleagues they disapprove of. Secondly, it also makes clear that, despite this angle, it is not actually a refutation of the premise of non-native cats' deleterious effects on native wildlife to begin with, and that matters very much here.

The more I read of the actual content in the essay, the more apparent it is that it is in large part confused, activistic nonsense. I'm shocked this actually got published in any journal at all (even an ethics one, which might have made more sense). It makes obviously nonsensical arguments, such as that because any predator can have something of a population suppressive effect on its prey species, that overwhelming evidence of cats wiping out or nearly wiping out various species in environments in which cats are invasive, and killing literally billions of birds and other small animals per year in general, somehow cannot be distinguished from native-species predation in any environment. This is, to put it bluntly, complete horseshit. And here's a double straw man: "it may be tempting to appeal to a precautionary approach that would argue that even if the impact of freeranging cats on nature and society is not settled science, we should take action to reduce or eliminate outdoor cats as a matter of precaution." Not only is there no non-fringe doubt at all about such cats' impact, no one (that we know of, covered with reliable sources in our article) has advanced any such precautionary "just kill them all now, just in case" idea; it's pure scare-tactic argument to emotion. In reality, culling of all feral cats (and rats, and foxes, and some other species) has been advocated (by anyone notable enough to quote) only in closed ecosystems like various islands. And programs to do this have been remarkably successful. One of the closing sentences in the essay (p. 774) is particularly rich: "Finally, we urge everyone concerned with free-ranging cats to reject framing this debate as a matter of us versus them." The entire point of their piece is castigating and questioning the ethics of Loss & Marra, a textbook case of "us versus them".

I do not believe this essay has any implications of any kind for this Wikipedia article. It is primarily a tit-for-tat personality dispute, mired in a "don't shoot feral cats because that's mean" emotive position, and confused cavilling about what the actual science is saying and on what basis, plus a pretense that more "collaboration" is needed when there is no independent evidence of any lack thereof (all they have to support the idea is a quote from a conference calling for a "consensus on how to manage conflicts with outdoors cats", which is a call for collaboration on regulatory solutions not a claim of lack of collaboration in the science). In short, this is not a science article of any kind, it is a socio-poltical opinion piece about what to do at the public policy level and how to arrive at that decision, and what voices should count (not Loss & Marra!) – what the authors call an "ethical dialogue that has just begun". It is not about the science question of what the facts of invasive cat predation are. The only even slight potential I can see this essay having with regard to our article is brief mention in the "Feral cat population management" section, but only along with analysis and summary of the position the authors are railing against (Loss & Marra 2018, Marra & Santella 2016, and a few others they cite by name), and post-publication rebuttal of this essay by others (Crespin et al. 2020). Remember that Loss & Marra themselves wrote "cat population management is traditionally contentious"; this essay is simply proof of it. Something from Lynn's own official bio: "specializes in animal and sustainability ethics as they interface with public policy. Exploring why and how we ought to care for people, animals and nature, this is practical research translating insights from his interdisciplinary training in ethics, geography and political theory into public dialogues over moral problems." Advocacy not science. Here's a key example from the essay that is also a fringe position: "the intrinsic value of all animals (wild and domestic) in conservation". Domestic and invasive animals have no "instrinic value" within conservation whatsoever, by definition. Conservation is about protection of a natural environment from invasive species and other anthropogenic disturbance and destruction. The authors have taken an idea from the philosophical ethics of the animal-rights platform (and vegan activism for that matter), "the intrinsic value of all animals", and glued it onto a field, conservation, that is not based on that idea at all and in fact mostly supports efforts to extirpate invasive species from environments in which they do not naturally belong! (Re-quote: "conservationists ... losing their moral compass"; the authors are angry at conservationists for not holding the authors' viewpoint that feral cats are "precious", but trying through verbal sleight-of-hand to stick this viewpoint onto them anyway as if they'll aborb it by osmosis.)

Review the abstract of the Loss & Marra 2017 paper we already cite, and reflect on the fact that literally zero of their scientific conclusions are refuted by the essay above; rather, the two researchers were kevtched at for taking (in Loss & Marra 2018, an op-ed, not this 2017 science paper) a false-analogy potshot at their opponents.

Domestic cats (Felis catus) have contributed to at least 63 vertebrate extinctions, pose a major hazard to threatened vertebrates worldwide, and transmit multiple zoonotic diseases. On continents and large islands (collectively termed "mainlands"); cats are responsible for very high mortality of vertebrates. Nevertheless, cat population management is traditionally contentious and usually involves proving that cats reduce prey population sizes. We synthesize the available evidence of the negative effects of cats on mainland vertebrates. More than a dozen observational studies, as well as experimental research, provide unequivocal evidence that cats are capable of affecting multiple population-level processes among mainland vertebrates. In addition to predation, cats affect vertebrate populations through disease and fear-related effects, and they reduce population sizes, suppress vertebrate population sizes below their respective carrying capacities, and alter demographic processes such as source-sink dynamics. Policy discussions should shift from requiring "proof of impact" to a precautionary approach that emphasizes evidence-driven management to reduce further impacts from outdoor cats.

That is from:

Importantly here, this is not even a source we are relying on for anything in our article at all but an ecology-of-fear side point. While we could cite it for a large number of other scientific claims, the fact is that all these claims are already cited to other reliable sources, which the Lynn et al. essay does not refute in any way either.

I don't normally do a citation analysis of this length and detail, but it seems warranted here given the extremity of the claim that "the page Cat Predation on Wildlife is hugely biased and needs balance", and the rather single-minded insistence on this by Xhkvfq (plus the fact of this overall subject area having few watchlisters; no one else is likely to examine the source closely). If there is a balance problem in this article, the Lynn et al. 2019 essay certainly does not demonstrate it.

Author comparison (via Google Scholar if not otherwise noted):

The original paper (and original op-ed) authors:

  • Scott R Loss (Oklahoma State University, PAN Works): 7,435 citations - conservation biology, ecology, urban ecology, invasive species, disease ecology (academic scientist)
  • Peter P. Marra (Georgetown University): 30,244 citations - avian ecology, migratory birds, conservation science, ornithology (academic scientist)

Authors of the essay above:

  • William S. Lynn (Clark University): does not rate a Google Scholar profile; there are two researchers by this name, and the one we're looking for has stats on ResearchGate: 509 citations - animal ethics, ethics and public policy, ethics and science, sustainability ethics, hermeneutics, interpretive policy analysis, precautionary principle (is an academic, but clearly a political activist and moralist, not a scientist)
  • Francisco J. Santiago-Ávila (Project Coyote, Carnivore Coexistence Lab): 711 citations - nature ethics and policy, large carnivores, multispecies justice (?!?), animal studies (another activist; not a scientist judging from his published work; former academic with University of Wisconsin)
  • Joann M. Lindenmayer (Tufts University): No GScholar profile, but found on ResearchGate; 74 citations - environmental science, soil science, ecology, social policy (is an academic but "social policy" = advocacy; almost all of her material is about "One Health" notions and urban animal welfare)
  • John Hadidian (Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, ex US Humane Society, ex US Wildlife Protection Program, WellBeing International, and Project Coyote again): No GScholar or ResearchGate profile; no citation data - wildlife biology, urban wildlife, urban ecology, animal welfare and protection, integrated pest management, primatology, anthropology (a low-impact academic by training, unclear if he's a scientist; background in anthropology not zoology or ecology, which he picked up later, but focused on urban/domestic welfare)
  • Arian Wallach (University of Technology Sydney, Centre for Compassionate Conservation); 6,649 citations - apex predators, trophic cascades, novel ecosystems, environmental ethics, compassionate conservation (an academic, and the best-cited of this bunch, but far behind Marra's 30K); some work is actual science not just public-policy stuff, though there's a lot of that as well)
  • Barbara J. King (Scientific American); no GScholar or RG profile; no citation data - anthropology; ethology, including animal emotions (former academic with College of William and Mary, but out of her field)

Authors of the rebuttal:

  • Silvio J. Crespin (University of Chile, University of Concepción, Instituto de Investigaciones Tropicales de El Salvador); 295 citations - conservation science, human–nature coexistence, Pasteur's quadrant (academic scientist, but also a conservation activist)
  • Dario Moreira-Arce (University of Concepción, Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Instituto de Investigaciones Tropicales de El Salvador); 2,150 citations - wildlife ecology, conservation biology, landscape ecology (academic scientist)
  • Javier Andrés Simonetti Zambelli (University of Chile, Instituto de Investigaciones Tropicales de El Salvador); 6,587 citations - wildlife ecology, wildlife conservation, species diversity, biodiversity, conservation, conservation biology, ecology and evolution, climate change, natural resource management (academic scientist, probably also a conservation activist, and some involvement in public policy)

This took a great deal of time to dig into. Please present better sources than this. Hint: if it's an op-ed, it is not a good source, because it is a primary source full of opinion, not a secondary source presenting an overview of facts (not even a primary source presenting novel scientific research, just socio-politicized opinion-mongering). PS: I say all this as a "crazy cat gentleman". Being a cat fancier does not equate to pretense that cats (including both feral populations and indoor-outdoor pets) are not murder machines when it comes to local small wildlife. The absolutely are, and it is a real problem. Keep your cat indoors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: I think it's weird that discussions of the impact cats have on isolated islands (counting Australia) are measured in the number of species driven extinct, but their effect in other places is discussed in terms of absolute number of animals killed. And yet, a quick skim of this article would leave the reader with the impression that the difference is unimportant. You describe Lynn et al 2019 as fighting against the strawman that free-ranging cats constitute a disaster in all circumstances. If this article is not supposed to be saying that, we should adjust it to make that very clear, because currently it very much gives that impression. Moreover, Crespin et al had the perfect opportunity to clarify their position in 2020, but instead continued to describe cats as an ecological disaster with no qualifiers regarding different circumstances. "These anthropogenic cat densities generate predation rates with depensatory effects on low-density wild prey (a common attribute of most threatened species) that can lead to extinction (Holt 1977)." "However, compassion should not deter us from acting when drastic times call for drastic measures. The longer we waver and argue about the solution to invasive species, the more lives are lost and the more species arrive at the brink of extinction."
I agree that we are better off focusing on scientific points made, as arguments over ethics would likely go nowhere.
For a rebuttal, Crespin et al 2020 do a remarkably poor job of rebutting the points raised. Lynn et al 2019 make the point that though cats have been shown to cause clear harms and multiple extinctions on ecologically naive islands, there are reasons to be skeptical of the effects they have on mainlands and other areas. They say that despite data [showing large numbers of animals killed by cats on mainlands], it has been difficult to prove that this has actually reduced the populations of their prey. Crespin et al reply that cats are a serious threat on islands, and that mainlands are metaphorically like islands. They also say that cats kill large numbers of animals on mainlands, and that predation can theoretically drive prey species to extinction. Notice that none of that contradicts Lynn et al.
I have access to Lynn et al 2020 and am happy to email you a copy if you would like, though I do not think it adds much to the discussion. The section on scientific evidence mainly reiterates points they made in 2019, while the section on ethics is unfortunately about ethics. It could perhaps be useful as a clarification and summary of their previous position.
But separate from the question of which makes more convincing arguments, we must also assess the reliability of these sources for use on Wikipedia. You raise a good point about the relative qualifications of the authors. We should balance this against the reliability of the journal it is published in, which specializes in conservation biology and should catch blatant errors of fact in that area. As for being an opinion piece, that does not disqualify it from being reliable. Since this is obviously a highly controversial subject, I would like to add a section to the article discussing the controversy. This is common in articles where different people have highly different opinions. I consider Lynn et al to be reliable for the purposes of a controversy section, usable with caution as a secondary source interpreting primary sources (edit: consensus is against this), and not reliable on its own for specific points of fact within conservation biology (though, I don't see any not cited to other sources). Iamnotabunny (talk) 15:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, I got yelled at for responding in too much depth. So, I will keep this very brief: these material covered above is nothing appoximating the total source material in this field; it's just a very narrow spat between two groups of academics, one group of them heavily allied with "animal welfare" organizations, with weak credentials in any relevant scientific field, and grossly commingling policy/socio-political stances with science as if they are the same thing; the other group largely consisting of well-cited ecologists and related specialists. The Lynn et al (2019) piece being a ranty op-ed absolutely does make it an unreliable source on the science, per WP:PRIMARY. It is a reliable source for WP:ABOUTSELF matters like the the opinions of it authors, and presumably also a reliable source for the general arguments brought by their "camp" (i.e. what those arguments are, and on what bases, not evidence that these arguments are correct, which would be circular "the Bible is true because it says so in the Bible" pseudo-reasoning). But that material remains effectively nothing but a political statement. Whether each side in the academic foodfight detailed above do well enough at refuting every line item of their opponents' screeds is largely irrelevant, because few of them are pertinent to our article, and (to return to the main point) these are only a small fraction of the figures and publications involved in this field. Under no circumstance is the desire by Xhkvfq above and VV below to whitewash the issue of cat predation on wildlife justifiable by resort to Lynn and similar material. Socio-politicized, activistic "outrage" does not magically oughtweigh the actual preponderance of the scientific material, including more recent stuff going into the non-island death toll caused by free-ranging cats. I would actually be quite happy if it turned out that cats were nowhere near the problem the data shows them to be, but such a utopia simply is not supportable by the available evidence.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate the brevity. It is true that a couple papers are nowhere near the total source material; that is going to be true of pretty much any couple papers one cares to point at. Lynn et al 2019 currently has 42 citations, which is the answer to life, the universe, and everything is not a lot, but is also not nothing. It should be treated as a minority view. As for their arguments, someone saying something is indeed evidence (but not proof) that it is true, and is in fact the only type of evidence that Wikipedia accepts. Math finds truth by logical derivation, science from studying the world, Wikipedia from reports by others.
A secondary source is a source that analyzes and interprets primary sources. The difference is not defined by genre nor by accuracy, and the same source can be primary in some parts and secondary in others. For example, they are being a primary source when they say "we argue the merchants-of-doubt analogy is fatally weak", because this is presenting their own opinion. Later, when they say "Examples include notable downward revisions of wild cat numbers in Australia (Legge et al 2017; Doherty et al 2019)" that is providing secondary interpretation of primary sources.
I am concerned by some of the language being used here, "whitewash the issue" above and "watering down or discrediting the modern viewpoint" by GG below. It is not Wikipedia's job to avoid whitewashing or watering down one point of view; Wikipedia is not an advocacy website. It is Wikipedia's job to cover the topic in a neutral manner. If doing so makes the problem sound 10% smaller or 10% larger than what the article currently sounds like, so be it. Iamnotabunny (talk) 00:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Iamnotabunny since you're in favor of using fringe opinion pieces as sources, I assume you're also in favor of using this source [24] to write about how cat advocacy groups are engaging in science denial akin to the tobacco and fossil fuels lobbies to deny that cats have an impact on the environment. After all, this is the piece that that Lynn et al. commentary you are advocating for is a reply to, and Loss and Marra represent the scientific majority (and apparent scientific consensus) here. The article does not include any of this content about science denialism by cat advocates, because it uses peer reviewed papers instead of opinion pieces from the journals. But if we lower the sourcing the standards to let in Lynn, then we would need to increase the coverage of this sort of thing to maintain NPOV. Geogene (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Geogene While we can and should reference Loss & Marra 2018 when discussing the controversy itself, it would be a violation of WP:FRINGE/QS to use it as the basis for saying in wikivoice that cat advocacy groups actually are engaging in science denial akin to the tobacco and fossil fuels lobbies, an equally fringe view to the one they are criticizing (with even fewer cites). Iamnotabunny (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Iamnotabunny: Per FRINGE/QS, I see no evidence that this one column by Lynn represents "a substantial following," nor do I see evidence that "a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists". The doubt merchanting/science denialism will have to be discussed in the article. Geogene (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
There is considerable academic debate.[25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35] Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Are those the open source journal papers by the Best Friends Animal Society cat blogger, who has no academic background in biology? Geogene (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Iamnotabunny: I just clicked one of your links at random [36]. It says in the abstract that, llowing companion cats to roam away from home can have negative impacts on native wildlife and cat welfare. A more contained cat lifestyle can limit the detrimental impacts of roaming; however, this continues to be an uncommon choice for cat owners in many countries. so how is this evidence of "an academic debate"? It's evidence of scientific consensus. Geogene (talk) 17:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Second sentence of that, "With this popularity has come growing concern about their (and their stray and feral counterparts') impacts on wildlife, with the practice of allowing a companion cat to have unrestricted outdoor access being the focal point of many debates between advocates on different sides of this issue (Crowley et al., 2022; Loss & Marra, 2018; Lynn et al., 2019)." Even [37] says there is debate. "These diverse roles and values of concerned stakeholders (e.g. cat owners, animal welfare activists and wildlife enthusiasts) have led to substantial controversy around cats, their impacts on wildlife and methods to manage their populations (Crowley et al., 2019; Gow et al., 2021; Wald & Peterson, 2020)." Iamnotabunny (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, debates between advocates. Not debates between scientists. No evidence of scientific controversy in that paper, it asserts directly as a point of fact that being outdoors is bad for both cats and wildlife. Your own sources are evidence of scientific consensus. Geogene (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
You are again making up things that I never said. Iamnotabunny (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
No. I am interpreting those sources you quoted for you. Contrary to what you said above, they don't reflect any debate or controversy about the science. They are describing controversy between cat owners and cat activists and the scientific view, ie, the cat owners have different values. They value letting their cats have "freedom" in the outdoors, and don't value wildlife. That is what these papers we're discussing are about. You are incorrect in saying that they are about some kind of controversy in science. Geogene (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Geogene: If you did more than pick one of your links at random, in fact if you followed the very first link provided by Iamnotabunny, you might have found a perfectly reputable paper in BioScience by a group of researchers apparently mostly from CONICET on Systematic and persistent bias against introduced species. I don't have access to the full text of that, but the argument that the "bias ... raises questions about the validity of the claims made about [the introduced species]" appears relevant to the debate concerning the role of cats in global extinctions.
You seem to be saying the "scientific view" amounts to "valuing wildlife". Can science really value anything? Does it not merely follow the scientific process?
As to the sentence Allowing companion cats to roam away from home can have negative impacts on native wildlife and cat welfare, it is so vague that it is effectively meaningless. That something can be true does not tell us under what conditions it actually will be. VampaVampa (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Lynn and Animal Personhood

While doing a quick skim of things Lynn has published, I found this commentary that Lynn [38] co-wrote. Apparently Lynn subscribes to a philosophical viewpoint that calls itself "compassionate conservation", that asserts that all individual animals have personhood and so you can't ethically harm invasive predators to protect native species, all animals of all species are of equal value. This seems to be pretty obviously a fringe viewpoint. Geogene (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the claim of feline personhood is fringe. I also don't see how it's relevant to this article; I don't think Lynn is an ethicist or philosopher, and so their opinions on those fields (well outside their area of expertise) is not germane to their qualifications as a scientist. After all, Tim Hunt's statements on women does not invalidate his medical reliability.
That said, I agree that I haven't seen convincing work from Lynn yet; an opinion piece isn't something for use in establishing fact. @Iamnotabunny, I like that you're presenting sources, but I do notice that quite a few of those are marked "Opinion" or "Perspective". Several others don't seem to mention wildlife populations at all, and so don't provide much evidence of legitimate scientific dissent on that topic.
Conversely, Geogene, I'm worried that you're using "fringe" in a way not consistent with the policy. A viewpoint is fringe if it has little or no scientific backing. It's circular to dismiss scientific sources for a viewpoint by claiming that there are few if any holders of that viewpoint. If, for example, a literature review published in a reputable journal can be found that identifies dissent, that would seem to indicate that the view is minority, not fringe. Of course, we'd need to see such sources to conclude it's not fringe, which I think is what you've been getting at: sources of sufficient quality have not yet been presented. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cat_predation_on_wildlife/Archive_1&oldid=1261220097"