And they've been dying in some horrific ways during that time. Now there's also a lot of extra, human caused dangers. A responsible pet owner wouldn't subject their pet to such dangers.

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Please elaborate your claims about past and present dangers for pets, I'm curious about specifics.

Also how are you mitigating the risk of “such dangers” for pets and children?

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Well you might have heard of cars, highways and other such human created things that haven't existed during all that time.

Here's one study where they examined the welfare concerns over unrestricted/unsupervised outdoor access (and other concerns). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7070728/#sec5-animals-10-00258

Also how are you mitigating the risk of “such dangers” for pets and children?

I wouldn't allow a cat or a small child to roam around unrestricted. It just seems due to the inherent threats pretty irresponsible.

[–] hessenjunge@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

The study weighs the pros and cons of outdoor and indoor keeping. It also offers some ideas how to mitigate the cons. It’s an interesting study, you should ask someone to explain it to you.

The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 0 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

If you read the conclusion it does say it would be better to keep your cats indoors because of all the associated risks. You just seem to be in denial about the whole thing and I don't blame you, it's a really emotional topic for some reason.

I mean study after study gives the obvious conclusion that of course it comes with increased risk and of course you wouldn't be there to help them, it's unsupervised and unrestricted roaming, so duh. And of course it negatively affects the surrounding wildlife, you're introducing lots of cats to places that had a lot less if any cats.

But there's such a strong emotional aspect to it that I just can't understand that makes people pretend stupid or just refuse to accept the obvious conclusion.

The study mentions that risk factors of outdoor keeping vary by location. There is no mention of historic risk and therefore no assessment how these may have evolved.

You really need a study to say to you that thousands of years ago cars weren't as much of a risk?