Video: Cats Get Shot With Water By A Motion Sensing Hose(vidergy.com)
vidergy.com
Video: Cats Get Shot With Water By A Motion Sensing Hose
http://vidergy.com/2011/05/cats-get-shot-with-water-by-a-motion-sensing-hose/
1 comments
Oh please. The water wasn't strong enough to knock over the wind-up giraffe. There's no way the cats are getting hurt by this. It's set up to startle them, so that they stop peeing all over his car.
Notice that zero cats who are kept under control by their owners appeared in this video.
Notice that zero cats who are kept under control by their owners appeared in this video.
why the humans think they have rights to punish or keep under control? This planet isn't exclusive property of humans. Humans are only guests here, vicious, polluting, killing everything they could. Cats are much happier than they roam free. Don't like your car being pissed on? Get a garage, moron.
Note that the country that this was filmed in was Australia. Cats do a lot of damage to local wildlife. Wildlife that is unique to Australia. Keeping your pet cat under control in Australia and preventing them from roaming around is exactly the right thing to do.
what a bunch of rubbish.
>Cats do a lot of damage to local wildlife.
even if they were doing it, the damage by cats would be incomparably lesser than damage by humans that live in the same village, town, ranch, etc...
Actually, cats are protectors of the wildlife. Whenever cats are removed (it happened on more than one occasion that such idea got implemented by the stupid human race), the wildlife gets significantly damaged by rats, rabbits, etc... (the rats what humans bring with them as a little bonus as if all the other damage wasn't enough)
>Keeping your pet cat under control in Australia and preventing them from roaming around is exactly the right thing to do.
yep. Otherwise the pets would damage the wildlife which is happily roams around where people live. Are you kidding? Or just too lazy to think?
>Cats do a lot of damage to local wildlife.
even if they were doing it, the damage by cats would be incomparably lesser than damage by humans that live in the same village, town, ranch, etc...
Actually, cats are protectors of the wildlife. Whenever cats are removed (it happened on more than one occasion that such idea got implemented by the stupid human race), the wildlife gets significantly damaged by rats, rabbits, etc... (the rats what humans bring with them as a little bonus as if all the other damage wasn't enough)
>Keeping your pet cat under control in Australia and preventing them from roaming around is exactly the right thing to do.
yep. Otherwise the pets would damage the wildlife which is happily roams around where people live. Are you kidding? Or just too lazy to think?
http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/144/paper/WR98092.htm
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Feral_cat
Cats definitely kill native wildlife. There is no doubt that this happens.
You are correct that they may control other introduced species. But that is not an excuse to let introduced species run around uncontrolled. Also this is not a sure thing. If you are in Sydney, there are no rabbits running around suburbs and the rats do well to stay out of sight. Are you suggesting that the local cats will search out rabbits and rats instead of try and hunt the local birds (which I have seen cats do)?
All the introduced species need to be controlled, even if they can help with other introduced species.
Cats definitely kill native wildlife. There is no doubt that this happens.
You are correct that they may control other introduced species. But that is not an excuse to let introduced species run around uncontrolled. Also this is not a sure thing. If you are in Sydney, there are no rabbits running around suburbs and the rats do well to stay out of sight. Are you suggesting that the local cats will search out rabbits and rats instead of try and hunt the local birds (which I have seen cats do)?
All the introduced species need to be controlled, even if they can help with other introduced species.
>If you are in Sydney, there are no rabbits running around suburbs and the rats do well to stay out of sight. Are you suggesting that the local cats will search out rabbits and rats instead of try and hunt the local birds (which I have seen cats do)?
The rats are there. Humans can't without them. Cats, like all other predators go for the easy target first and do overwhelmingly hunt rats/mice ("small vertebrates" :), insects. And if a cat would catch an ill or stupid bird - it is a favor for the bird's species that some predator is required to perform, and due to the human presence the natural predators are unavailable. For example, about who is damaging the bird population - here in the Bay Area in the few small spots without development i regularly see Asian people gathering wild birds eggs. They just clean it up, taking it all. The local newspapers, of course, are from time to time actively discussing how cats are damaging the birds population. To try to "help" the birds, at one park here they even eliminated the ferals - and were surprised that [the morons should have read history of the other such cases before doing it], the immediately grown population of rats destroyed the rest of the eggs that humans hadn't, and the bird population was completely decimated.
For thousands of years free roaming cats protected humans from rats and everybody around humans from humans' rats. That is the evolutionary machinery that brought a cat to live with humans - the easy availability of a fat rat. And by the way, nutritional value wise the rats/mice are much better than birds. Have you seen "Living with Wolves" btw?
>All the introduced species need to be controlled
yep. The most damaging introduced species - humans - needs to be controlled for other species to have a chance for survival. Until that happens, the poor cats and wolves and the others will be scapegoated for human stupidity, greed, hypocrisy...
The article you linked forgot to mention that in natural steady conditions, without human intervention, the presence of foxes and cats never eliminates the "small mammals" population - instead due to natural predator/prey relationship (which exhibit well known cyclic patterns through the years - which includes described in the article cycle step of increasing prey population with decreasing predator population (which in turn leads to increased predator population, which in turn leads to decreased prey population which in turn leads to decreased predator and so on... ) the "small mammals" population is kept healthy and naturally evolves ... well, until human intervene
The rats are there. Humans can't without them. Cats, like all other predators go for the easy target first and do overwhelmingly hunt rats/mice ("small vertebrates" :), insects. And if a cat would catch an ill or stupid bird - it is a favor for the bird's species that some predator is required to perform, and due to the human presence the natural predators are unavailable. For example, about who is damaging the bird population - here in the Bay Area in the few small spots without development i regularly see Asian people gathering wild birds eggs. They just clean it up, taking it all. The local newspapers, of course, are from time to time actively discussing how cats are damaging the birds population. To try to "help" the birds, at one park here they even eliminated the ferals - and were surprised that [the morons should have read history of the other such cases before doing it], the immediately grown population of rats destroyed the rest of the eggs that humans hadn't, and the bird population was completely decimated.
For thousands of years free roaming cats protected humans from rats and everybody around humans from humans' rats. That is the evolutionary machinery that brought a cat to live with humans - the easy availability of a fat rat. And by the way, nutritional value wise the rats/mice are much better than birds. Have you seen "Living with Wolves" btw?
>All the introduced species need to be controlled
yep. The most damaging introduced species - humans - needs to be controlled for other species to have a chance for survival. Until that happens, the poor cats and wolves and the others will be scapegoated for human stupidity, greed, hypocrisy...
The article you linked forgot to mention that in natural steady conditions, without human intervention, the presence of foxes and cats never eliminates the "small mammals" population - instead due to natural predator/prey relationship (which exhibit well known cyclic patterns through the years - which includes described in the article cycle step of increasing prey population with decreasing predator population (which in turn leads to increased predator population, which in turn leads to decreased prey population which in turn leads to decreased predator and so on... ) the "small mammals" population is kept healthy and naturally evolves ... well, until human intervene
I'll be over shortly to piss on your car.
Does that make any sense to you? The cat's happiness cannot come at the expense of damage to someone else's property.
Does that make any sense to you? The cat's happiness cannot come at the expense of damage to someone else's property.
Left the mark - got water shot, attacked an ill elk - got lead shot (the fate of Montana wolves what Obama administration allowed to kill)
There are other ways to manage the situation, yet it is the human nature that it always choose the way of violence. Redneck shooting a wolf experiences the same pleasure as a geek shooting water into cat.