I mean, he doesn’t have to say it, your comment and the sources did a good job suggesting you only did a cursory read yourself.
The first paper states that birds are less sensitive to pyrethroid based pesticides, which makes your broad statements about pesticides sketchy at best.
Simple logic doesn’t work in science specifically because it’s simple and is subject to internal biases. You can’t make an assumption and appeal to intuitive reasoning without some evidence to draw that link.
Your second paper doesn’t back up your claim. It states that bird population loss is a multifaceted problem. Yes, pesticide use is called out as a factor, but so too is habitat loss through urbanisation and unregulated harvesting practices, which kind of answers your point 4.
These are all American sources. As a result, very little of this is applicable to the Australian biosphere beyond the most broad strokes since they dont take into account differences in local food webs, urban planning, environmental legislation etc.
TLDR, someone is using irrelevant sources and their dislike of pesticides to justify keeping their cats outside
"There’s a possibility that some other factor may play a part in offsetting one of the negative impacts of free-range cats… therefore, all other positives of containing pets may be completely ignored"
Riftinducer@aussie.zone 1 month ago
I mean, he doesn’t have to say it, your comment and the sources did a good job suggesting you only did a cursory read yourself.
The first paper states that birds are less sensitive to pyrethroid based pesticides, which makes your broad statements about pesticides sketchy at best.
Simple logic doesn’t work in science specifically because it’s simple and is subject to internal biases. You can’t make an assumption and appeal to intuitive reasoning without some evidence to draw that link.
Your second paper doesn’t back up your claim. It states that bird population loss is a multifaceted problem. Yes, pesticide use is called out as a factor, but so too is habitat loss through urbanisation and unregulated harvesting practices, which kind of answers your point 4.
These are all American sources. As a result, very little of this is applicable to the Australian biosphere beyond the most broad strokes since they dont take into account differences in local food webs, urban planning, environmental legislation etc.
TLDR, someone is using irrelevant sources and their dislike of pesticides to justify keeping their cats outside
kbin_space_program@kbin.run 1 month ago
No it absolutely doesnt.
It absolutely states that birds are considersbly more at risk, and that we dont know how by how much. Try reading more than the intro next time.
I said that cats arent the problem, they're a symptom of it. That is a definition of a multifacted problem. That paper absolutely says the same thing.
The reality is that you could keep every housecat inside and it would not stop the decline.
trk@aussie.zone 1 month ago
"There’s a possibility that some other factor may play a part in offsetting one of the negative impacts of free-range cats… therefore, all other positives of containing pets may be completely ignored"