-Gene pool?

In article ,
ospam enlightened us with...
Plus, this is just from what I've seen in documentaries and such, but
for some reason it seems that feral cats are all shorthaired. I wonder
if this is because the long hair mats badly and interferes with movement
(as I've seen on that animal rescue show) and thus the cat cannot hunt
properly...

But how much hunting do urban ferals really do? I think I read a study
somewhere that analyzed the contents of the stomachs of feral cats, and the
majority of what they were living on was garbage, not rodents or birds.


Oh, I'm sure, but AFAIK, there are many, many more stray, feral, and
"unattended" cats in non-urban areas than urban ones.
This is just what I was thinking, since I know of so many farms with
tons of "barn cats". Not to mention the fact that urban areas are few
and far between if you consider the world as a whole and purebreds only
make up like ~5% of the total world population of cats (best guess on
several totals from the net).
I was thinking basically what would happen if cats tried to go back to
nature, so to speak, and didn't live where humans were. There was a
documentary on Animal Planet about these cats that live in some other
country (somewhere in Africa, I think) and they're totally wild. They
live in the desert off of lizards and stuff and the local people, who
are hunter/gatherer types, even hunt the cats and eat them.
The cats in that area all descended from domesticated, "normal" cats and
the special showed several that looked like any grey tabby you'd see in
the shelter.
The really interesting thing is that those cats, unlike our feral
colonies, were solitary for the most part. They did not gather in
groups. Could be because they had to range for food...

--
--
~kaeli~
Is it true that cannibals don't eat clowns because they
taste funny?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

In article ,
ospam enlightened us with...
Strays may end up inbreeding too. If a tom owns an area long enough,
he might end up mating with his own daughters.

Actually ferals probably inbreed far more than do purebred cats, since a
knowledgeable breeder will avoid inbreeding. Even among owned indoor/outdoor
cats, I have to say that in our neighborhood since hardly anyone spays/neuters,
most of the cats are closely related to each other. They may be more vulnerable
to diseases but they live long enough to reproduce a number of times.


Our urban ferals do, because they live in colonies, but if you look at
real wild cats (bobcats, servals, even lions), there is almost never any
inbreeding. Nature doesn't like inbreeding and wild species tend to have
evolved things that prevent it. Lions, who live in groups, kick out the
adult males. AFAIK, no other cat lives in groups. Other cats have other
ways about them (migration, territory, etc) that tend to discourage
inbreeding.

In my other post, I mentioned a special I saw on TV that showed real
wild cats, who lived in another country, far from any urban areas. Their
ancestors were domestic cats, but they had gone totally wild. Those cats
did NOT live in groups.
It makes me wonder if our ferals live in groups because the food tends
to be in the same area, or for some other reason. The cats in the
special HAD to hunt. They ranged for food. So, they had no social
groups.

--
--
~kaeli~
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

In article ,
ospam enlightened us with...
Strays may end up inbreeding too. If a tom owns an area long enough,
he might end up mating with his own daughters.

Actually ferals probably inbreed far more than do purebred cats, since a
knowledgeable breeder will avoid inbreeding. Even among owned indoor/outdoor
cats, I have to say that in our neighborhood since hardly anyone spays/neuters,
most of the cats are closely related to each other. They may be more vulnerable
to diseases but they live long enough to reproduce a number of times.


Our urban ferals do, because they live in colonies, but if you look at
real wild cats (bobcats, servals, even lions), there is almost never any
inbreeding. Nature doesn't like inbreeding and wild species tend to have
evolved things that prevent it. Lions, who live in groups, kick out the
adult males. AFAIK, no other cat lives in groups. Other cats have other
ways about them (migration, territory, etc) that tend to discourage
inbreeding.

In my other post, I mentioned a special I saw on TV that showed real
wild cats, who lived in another country, far from any urban areas. Their
ancestors were domestic cats, but they had gone totally wild. Those cats
did NOT live in groups.
It makes me wonder if our ferals live in groups because the food tends
to be in the same area, or for some other reason. The cats in the
special HAD to hunt. They ranged for food. So, they had no social
groups.

--
--
~kaeli~
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace

Mary" wrote:

The gene pool will grow stronger. It thrives on diversity. When cats
are selectively bred illnesses and genetic defects are bred in.

Does this happen even when cats are selectively bred to reduce or eliminate
illnesses and genetic defects?

Mary" wrote:

The gene pool will grow stronger. It thrives on diversity. When cats
are selectively bred illnesses and genetic defects are bred in.

Does this happen even when cats are selectively bred to reduce or eliminate
illnesses and genetic defects?

kaeli wrote:

I was thinking basically what would happen if cats tried to go back to
nature, so to speak, and didn't live where humans were. There was a
documentary on Animal Planet about these cats that live in some other
country (somewhere in Africa, I think) and they're totally wild.

I assume you mean feral, not wild. Wild cats would be a native species, not
derived from the domestic cat itself.

They
live in the desert off of lizards and stuff and the local people, who
are hunter/gatherer types, even hunt the cats and eat them.

If it's the program I saw, that's Australia.

The cats in that area all descended from domesticated, "normal" cats and
the special showed several that looked like any grey tabby you'd see in
the shelter.
The really interesting thing is that those cats, unlike our feral
colonies, were solitary for the most part. They did not gather in
groups. Could be because they had to range for food...

The ancestor of the domestic cat, the African wild cat, is a solitary species.
Studies of the territorial ranges of domestic cats do show that the
availability of food is the main determination of how many cats are willing to
live in a given area. I don't know whether there are more feral cats in rural
areas than in urban settings. It seems to me that the availability of food, and
food that they don't have to hunt for either, would be greater in urban areas,
thus allowing a greater concentration of ferals. Whether that is true in fact,
I don't know.

kaeli wrote:

I was thinking basically what would happen if cats tried to go back to
nature, so to speak, and didn't live where humans were. There was a
documentary on Animal Planet about these cats that live in some other
country (somewhere in Africa, I think) and they're totally wild.

I assume you mean feral, not wild. Wild cats would be a native species, not
derived from the domestic cat itself.

They
live in the desert off of lizards and stuff and the local people, who
are hunter/gatherer types, even hunt the cats and eat them.

If it's the program I saw, that's Australia.

The cats in that area all descended from domesticated, "normal" cats and
the special showed several that looked like any grey tabby you'd see in
the shelter.
The really interesting thing is that those cats, unlike our feral
colonies, were solitary for the most part. They did not gather in
groups. Could be because they had to range for food...

The ancestor of the domestic cat, the African wild cat, is a solitary species.
Studies of the territorial ranges of domestic cats do show that the
availability of food is the main determination of how many cats are willing to
live in a given area. I don't know whether there are more feral cats in rural
areas than in urban settings. It seems to me that the availability of food, and
food that they don't have to hunt for either, would be greater in urban areas,
thus allowing a greater concentration of ferals. Whether that is true in fact,
I don't know.

kaeli wrote:

Our urban ferals do, because they live in colonies, but if you look at
real wild cats (bobcats, servals, even lions), there is almost never any
inbreeding.

True, but these are not the same species as the domestic cat. I think the
question was about what would happen if domestic cats only bred by accident.
True wild cats also are not nearly as reproductively prolific as domestic cats.


Nature doesn't like inbreeding and wild species tend to have
evolved things that prevent it. Lions, who live in groups, kick out the
adult males. AFAIK, no other cat lives in groups. Other cats have other
ways about them (migration, territory, etc) that tend to discourage
inbreeding.

In my other post, I mentioned a special I saw on TV that showed real
wild cats, who lived in another country, far from any urban areas. Their
ancestors were domestic cats, but they had gone totally wild. Those cats
did NOT live in groups.
It makes me wonder if our ferals live in groups because the food tends
to be in the same area, or for some other reason. The cats in the
special HAD to hunt. They ranged for food. So, they had no social
groups.

Yes, that's what I basically said when responding to your other post.
Availability of food determines cats' territories.

If the OP's question is what would happen if there were no purposely-bred
domestic cats, however, I'm not sure what happens among feral cat populations
living in wilderness areas can be used as a model.

kaeli wrote:

Our urban ferals do, because they live in colonies, but if you look at
real wild cats (bobcats, servals, even lions), there is almost never any
inbreeding.

True, but these are not the same species as the domestic cat. I think the
question was about what would happen if domestic cats only bred by accident.
True wild cats also are not nearly as reproductively prolific as domestic cats.


Nature doesn't like inbreeding and wild species tend to have
evolved things that prevent it. Lions, who live in groups, kick out the
adult males. AFAIK, no other cat lives in groups. Other cats have other
ways about them (migration, territory, etc) that tend to discourage
inbreeding.

In my other post, I mentioned a special I saw on TV that showed real
wild cats, who lived in another country, far from any urban areas. Their
ancestors were domestic cats, but they had gone totally wild. Those cats
did NOT live in groups.
It makes me wonder if our ferals live in groups because the food tends
to be in the same area, or for some other reason. The cats in the
special HAD to hunt. They ranged for food. So, they had no social
groups.

Yes, that's what I basically said when responding to your other post.
Availability of food determines cats' territories.

If the OP's question is what would happen if there were no purposely-bred
domestic cats, however, I'm not sure what happens among feral cat populations
living in wilderness areas can be used as a model.

"Yngver" wrote in message
...
Mary" wrote:

The gene pool will grow stronger. It thrives on diversity. When
cats
are selectively bred illnesses and genetic defects are bred in.

Does this happen even when cats are selectively bred to reduce or
eliminate
illnesses and genetic defects?

Probaby not, but that is not usually what they are bred for. Are you a
breeder?