If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil P." wrote in message ...
"Steve G" wrote in message om... (...) no reliable statistics that detail the longevity of indoor and outdoor cats. Sure there are! There have been several major studies spanning almost 50 years, conducted in different parts of the country, published in peer-reviewed veterinary medical and behavior journals and texts, (...) Feel free toprovide a cite to prove me wrong though... "A cite"? How about three? Before I deal with (two of) these, bear in mind the issue at hand, re. my statement '[there are] no reliable statistics that detail the longevity of indoor and outdoor cats.' And now, to the grindstone: Kolata RJ, Kraut NH, Johnston DE, Patterns of trauma in urban dogs and cats: a study of 1,000 cases. J Am Vet Med Assoc 1974 Mar 1;164(5):499-502 Precis: Kolata et al. categorised the injuries sustained to 1000 dogs+cats (129 cats, 871 dogs) admitted to the University of Pennsylvania Vet Hospital, during a one year period. (There were 7,803 admissions during the period studied, of which 1,000 were admissions due to trauma). First point - the authors make *no statement whatsoever about the relative longevities of indoor versus outdoor cats*, and provide *no data whotsoever concerning the overall risk of trauma in outdoor cats*. They cannot (could not) do so because they cite no statistics on the number of cats *not* taken to the vet hospital (i.e., baseline cat ownership data). The data they supply simply provide an aetiology of traumatic events. Note also that cats were relatively under-represented (cf. dogs) in traumatic events, although this difference was not tested statistically. Also, of the 129 cats considered, ZERO were damaged by a weapon, and 1 showed evidence of abuse. Falls, vehicles and other animals accounted for nearly half of the traumatic events. Of the injured animals, approximately one in six died from their injuries. The animals admitted tended to be young (median 1.3ys for the cats). This is all moderately interesting, but without a knowledge of the proportion of cats actually admitted, we simply do not know the proportionate risk of injury for the indoor-outdoor cat. We might reasonably suggest that young animals are disproportionately at risk. Childs JE, Ross L, Urban cats: characteristics and estimation of mortality due to motor vehicles. Am J Vet Res 1986 Jul;47(7):1643-8) The Childs et al. study is very similar to that of Kolata et al., except that the former took place within the city limits of Baltimore, with the number of dead cats collected by animal control being logged over a 3-year period. Of the dead cats, the authors estimate that c. 20% were once owned (although they had no way of knowing if these cats were lost, or whether their owners had turned them out onto the streets on purpose). 90% of the cats were not neutered. The authors do provide a rather crude (as they themselves admit) guesstimate of the mortality probability in owned, free-ranging cats. The figure they suggest is 8.7% (this implies a mortality probability of less than 1% of neutered, owned cats). Once again, note that the paper provides no clear data on the longevity of indoor versus outdoor cats. To add some non-UScentric data, Rochlitz (2003a,b; Vet Rec 153: 549-553, 585-588) did more of the same, albeit in the UK, and with more sophisticated methodology. In the studies, it was found that age was by far the best predictor of RTA injury, with gender and pedigree status following close behind. Basically, young, male, non-pedigree cats were at greatest risk (proportionately - these statistics take into account the a priori probabilities of being in each respective category). Note that better than 40% of the owned cats surveyed were 10 years of age or older. Hardly seems that the cats were kicking the bucket at the 3-5 years the indoor-advocates often suggest. Indeed, the median age of surveyed, owned cats was 7 years. I wonder how this compares to the US? And some grist for the mill on the purebred debate (Rochlitz 2003a, pp. 552). Regarding why pedigree cats are relatively underrepresented in RTA statistics: 'Pedigree cats may have behavioural characteristics that reduce their risk of being in a road accident. (...) Turner (2000) found that their owners interacted for longer periods with the pedigree cats , and that the pedigree cats spent more time close to their owners.' Just for fun, y'understand. Keep in mind, urbanization with more people living in cities with their cats, and the number of motor vehicles have increased dramatically since 1956, 1974, and 1986. Therefore, these studies grossly underestimate the current mortality rate and overestimate the life expectancy of outdoor cats in the 21st century --- and they will only get *worse*. Lest you think I'm dismissing RTAs entirely, I absolutely accept that road traffic is a risk for outdoor-access cats, and this risk may well be too great to justify outdoor-access in some areas. "Free ranging cats in the United States have an average lifespan in the general population of only 3 to 5 years; indoor cats have an average lifespan of 12 years and frequently live longer than 20 years " Karen L. Overall, M.A., V.M.D., Ph.D. And does Karen L. Overall have a cite for this contention, or is it just bit of airy handwaving? Does she speak of owned, indoor-outdoor cats? Does she include strays in her 'statistic'? Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behavior Department of Clinical Studies School of Veterinary Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, In: Epidemiology; Chap 2, pg 5, Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals; 1997, Mosby ISBN 0-8016-6820-4. (Dr. Overall's statement is also supported by the above cited studies) It absolutely is *not*. I suggest you read the papers before making contentions that are not supported by them. Neither of the papers above provide any estimates of lifespan, and the data could not support such estimates. The only way you could extract that 3-5year 'statistic' would involve smoke, mirrors, and sacrificing a goat or three. "The average lifespan of an indoor cat is around twelve to fourteen years, .while outdoor cats are lucky to reach double digits." (Excerpted from The Cat Who Cried For Help, Dodman N, Bantam Books, New York). That's ****in' scientific, too. Any cites, Mr Dodman? (...) Q.E.D. Not if one actually reads the papers cited. I suggest you try it. Steve. |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary" wrote in message ...
"Alison" wrote in message ... (...) No need to apologize for your opinions. I notice that Steve did not answer my question, meaning of course that Steve, ....does not live with a permanent Usenet link thru' his spine. Patience! who does indeed live in Chapel Hill (near where I live) allows his cats to roam. You may assume what you like. I shall make no statements one way or the other regarding my cats. It's much more amusing to watch people project, and you do it so vehemently. It's quaint, almost. Well, they're his cats, but, once again, I don't want to hear about it when one of them gets hit by a car, ripped open by a dog, or poisoned by an insane neighbor. Which car, which dog, which neighbour? (...) Whatever. Steve lives in the US in an urban area. That's what worries me. Again, you make assumptions based on minimal data. Incidentally, of the cats I am familiar with here, the majority do indeed have outdoor access. My neighbours cat previous cat lived to c.20 years old with free access to the Great Outdoors. (...) Anyone who has to be warned that allowing their cats to roam means opening them up to ANYTHING that comes their way A truism. Outdoor access cats are exposed to the outdoors. are truly and irrevokably stupid. You love them or you don't. You keep them safe or you don't. It's your choice. A life in black and white, indeed. However, most of us think in full colour and nuance. (...) What really upsets me is seeing posts on forums from people who react to their cats natural behaviour like scratching and jumping on surfaces by shouting at them , spraying them with water and/or vinegar, throwing things at them , picking them up and shaking them, hissing in their faces tapping their noses, using shock/IV collars on them and matter of factly talking about disciplining them and finding these methods totally acceptable without even bothering to find or use kinder and better ways. So let's see. It's okay to allow them out and unprotected, but not to yell at them. Interesting. Or to: squirt them, hit them, shake 'em, shock 'em,...? Steve. |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
"Mary" wrote in message ...
"Alison" wrote in message ... (...) No need to apologize for your opinions. I notice that Steve did not answer my question, meaning of course that Steve, ....does not live with a permanent Usenet link thru' his spine. Patience! who does indeed live in Chapel Hill (near where I live) allows his cats to roam. You may assume what you like. I shall make no statements one way or the other regarding my cats. It's much more amusing to watch people project, and you do it so vehemently. It's quaint, almost. Well, they're his cats, but, once again, I don't want to hear about it when one of them gets hit by a car, ripped open by a dog, or poisoned by an insane neighbor. Which car, which dog, which neighbour? (...) Whatever. Steve lives in the US in an urban area. That's what worries me. Again, you make assumptions based on minimal data. Incidentally, of the cats I am familiar with here, the majority do indeed have outdoor access. My neighbours cat previous cat lived to c.20 years old with free access to the Great Outdoors. (...) Anyone who has to be warned that allowing their cats to roam means opening them up to ANYTHING that comes their way A truism. Outdoor access cats are exposed to the outdoors. are truly and irrevokably stupid. You love them or you don't. You keep them safe or you don't. It's your choice. A life in black and white, indeed. However, most of us think in full colour and nuance. (...) What really upsets me is seeing posts on forums from people who react to their cats natural behaviour like scratching and jumping on surfaces by shouting at them , spraying them with water and/or vinegar, throwing things at them , picking them up and shaking them, hissing in their faces tapping their noses, using shock/IV collars on them and matter of factly talking about disciplining them and finding these methods totally acceptable without even bothering to find or use kinder and better ways. So let's see. It's okay to allow them out and unprotected, but not to yell at them. Interesting. Or to: squirt them, hit them, shake 'em, shock 'em,...? Steve. |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve G" wrote: who does indeed live in Chapel Hill (near where I live) allows his cats to roam. You may assume what you like. I shall make no statements one way or the other regarding my cats. It's much more amusing to watch people project, and you do it so vehemently. It's quaint, almost. I thought so. They're your cats. It's your decision and you will live with the consequences. Well, they're his cats, but, once again, I don't want to hear about it when one of them gets hit by a car, ripped open by a dog, or poisoned by an insane neighbor. Which car, which dog, which neighbour? Does it matter? (...) Whatever. Steve lives in the US in an urban area. That's what worries me. Again, you make assumptions based on minimal data. Incidentally, of the cats I am familiar with here, the majority do indeed have outdoor access. My neighbours cat previous cat lived to c.20 years old with free access to the Great Outdoors. Your neighbor was a gambler, and it looks like you are too. (...) Anyone who has to be warned that allowing their cats to roam means opening them up to ANYTHING that comes their way A truism. Outdoor access cats are exposed to the outdoors. And anything it happens to hold. are truly and irrevokably stupid. You love them or you don't. You keep them safe or you don't. It's your choice. A life in black and white, indeed. However, most of us think in full colour and nuance. What is true is true. When you let them roam you leave them exposed to danger. Black and white? There is such a thing as objective truth. The most obstinate relativists are usually those who are struggling to justify their behavior. It's a clear sign that you know you are wrong and engage in a behavior anyway. What's quaint about you: you imagine yourself somehow made immune to the truth by your superior attitude, the hallmark of which is your seemingly nonchalant detachedness. What you are is as transparent as teenagers seem to you. Don't do the right thing. Do what you want. Because you can. It got the British Empire pretty far. |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
"Steve G" wrote: who does indeed live in Chapel Hill (near where I live) allows his cats to roam. You may assume what you like. I shall make no statements one way or the other regarding my cats. It's much more amusing to watch people project, and you do it so vehemently. It's quaint, almost. I thought so. They're your cats. It's your decision and you will live with the consequences. Well, they're his cats, but, once again, I don't want to hear about it when one of them gets hit by a car, ripped open by a dog, or poisoned by an insane neighbor. Which car, which dog, which neighbour? Does it matter? (...) Whatever. Steve lives in the US in an urban area. That's what worries me. Again, you make assumptions based on minimal data. Incidentally, of the cats I am familiar with here, the majority do indeed have outdoor access. My neighbours cat previous cat lived to c.20 years old with free access to the Great Outdoors. Your neighbor was a gambler, and it looks like you are too. (...) Anyone who has to be warned that allowing their cats to roam means opening them up to ANYTHING that comes their way A truism. Outdoor access cats are exposed to the outdoors. And anything it happens to hold. are truly and irrevokably stupid. You love them or you don't. You keep them safe or you don't. It's your choice. A life in black and white, indeed. However, most of us think in full colour and nuance. What is true is true. When you let them roam you leave them exposed to danger. Black and white? There is such a thing as objective truth. The most obstinate relativists are usually those who are struggling to justify their behavior. It's a clear sign that you know you are wrong and engage in a behavior anyway. What's quaint about you: you imagine yourself somehow made immune to the truth by your superior attitude, the hallmark of which is your seemingly nonchalant detachedness. What you are is as transparent as teenagers seem to you. Don't do the right thing. Do what you want. Because you can. It got the British Empire pretty far. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Real Life gets in the way | Tanada | Cat anecdotes | 54 | November 1st 04 06:41 PM |