"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
Loss, S., Will, T. & Marra, P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4, 1396 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
There. Do I have to do all you peoples’ thinking for you?
If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then you do the opposite of thinking for others - you provide your sources so your audience can review and then think for themselves based on the data. Otherwise you’re just expecting people to take your word for it, which means you would be doing all of the thinking for the people who don’t question which, based on your comment, is not what you want.
This study is about the immense magnitude of cat predation, and your takeaway is that we shouldn’t limit owned cat predation simply because un-owned cat predation is higher…
We estimate that cats in the contiguous United States annually kill between 1.3 and 4.0 billion birds (median=2.4 billion) (Fig. 1a), with ∼69% of this mortality caused by un-owned cats. The predation estimate for un-owned cats was higher primarily due to predation rates by this group averaging three times greater than rates for owned cats.
This study estimates that annual bird deaths by owned cat predation in the US is around a 750 million median figure, and you’re just fine with that?
If you quote an authority source you are obligated to cite it. It is not other’s job to backwards full-text-search a quote to determine who your were referencing. Pretty common academia stuff, but as you said you’re an ecologist and for sure know that, so you must have omitted it purposefully
How is it not?
"The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds and 6.3–22.3 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality."
You keep posting this without citing a source, which doesn’t help your argument. Please provide a source for this quote.
Loss, S., Will, T. & Marra, P. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nat Commun 4, 1396 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380
There. Do I have to do all you peoples’ thinking for you?
If you want anyone to take your argument seriously, then you do the opposite of thinking for others - you provide your sources so your audience can review and then think for themselves based on the data. Otherwise you’re just expecting people to take your word for it, which means you would be doing all of the thinking for the people who don’t question which, based on your comment, is not what you want.
Thank you for providing the source.
This study is about the immense magnitude of cat predation, and your takeaway is that we shouldn’t limit owned cat predation simply because un-owned cat predation is higher…
This study estimates that annual bird deaths by owned cat predation in the US is around a 750 million median figure, and you’re just fine with that?
If you quote an authority source you are obligated to cite it. It is not other’s job to backwards full-text-search a quote to determine who your were referencing. Pretty common academia stuff, but as you said you’re an ecologist and for sure know that, so you must have omitted it purposefully