Gonzo
The Living Force
This thread has certainly provoked considerable brain activity on my part.
Although there certainly is a difference between wild, feral domestic, outdoor domestic and indoor domestic cats, I think we're talking about degrees of risk and not an "either/or" situation.
Although wild cats will have an evolutionary advantage, carrying immunities and beneficial bacteria that their domestic cousins lack, within the various forms of domestic cats (feral, outdoor, indoor) there are degrees of protection with increased exposure, with feral cats having the greatest protection of the three, outdoors cats less and indoor cats the least.
As well, the cat's ancestry with respect to whether it's foreparents were wild or the various forms of domestic can play a significant role.
Domestic cats have historically eaten both wild food and food provided by their human owners, with the exception of cats owned by the wealth class until modern times (most likely with the demise of the feudal system, when cat owners could actually afford to feed their cats table scraps or prepared foods).
I'm not suggesting their is no risk in letting domestic cats eat wild, but it is important to keep it in perspective to the degrees of risk associated with exposure and historic diet.
A cat that has been hunting since infancy and survived into adulthood has developed immunities and beneficial bacteria to better help it withstand many of the biological hazards related to hunting; even more so if they come from a long line of domestic hunting cats.
If this weren't true, we wouldn't see barn cats living as long as they do.
It could even be argued that modern cat food is more dangerous to long term health than eating wild, depending on the cat's earlier exposure to wild food.
I think cats suffer from the same problems humans do, in that our traditional diet has been replaced with toxic substitutes.
So, while I agree that domestic cats are at an increased risk of disease from hunting wild, it's the degrees of risk that need to be considered, especially when their prepared food vary in quality and toxicity, depending on the knowledge and income of their human handlers.
The dangers of zoonotic effects of animal diseases, their ability to transfer to humans is certainly an area of concern and should always be part of the consideration as well.
Finally, while thinking about the point of human responsibility to domesticated animals, while I agree the human "owner" has a specific responsibility to ensure the health, safety and happiness of their animal charges, transferring that responsibility to all if humanity becomes more complex (not that anyone was suggesting it).
I don't know how much we owe to the effects of our ancestor's actions. I think about the damage we have, as a species, done to all life on this planet, be it plant, animal or human, and I am at a loss to know where our responsibilities begin and end.
I have a conflict between the concept of our karmic debt to other life forms and the free will of all life, not just conscious free will, but free will at the spiritual or soul level.
Perhaps animals, like humans, have come into this life to have specific experiences to learn and their relationship with humans is part of their incarnation path toward becoming human.
Although it would appear that an animal raised in a kitten or puppy mill has no choice in how and where it was born or who may purchase it as a pet, I'm not so certain this is true on all levels.
And exercising the choice to hunt could be more than an instinctual expression, even if it means illness or death to the body. Perhaps such tragedy is a way of balancing energies of the past, perhaps it's a way of adding awareness to it's soul/soul group as it evolves.
As it is with all things, nothing is simple, as much as I sometimes wish it were.
Just a few thoughts that this thread invoked, fwiw.
Gonzo
Although there certainly is a difference between wild, feral domestic, outdoor domestic and indoor domestic cats, I think we're talking about degrees of risk and not an "either/or" situation.
Although wild cats will have an evolutionary advantage, carrying immunities and beneficial bacteria that their domestic cousins lack, within the various forms of domestic cats (feral, outdoor, indoor) there are degrees of protection with increased exposure, with feral cats having the greatest protection of the three, outdoors cats less and indoor cats the least.
As well, the cat's ancestry with respect to whether it's foreparents were wild or the various forms of domestic can play a significant role.
Domestic cats have historically eaten both wild food and food provided by their human owners, with the exception of cats owned by the wealth class until modern times (most likely with the demise of the feudal system, when cat owners could actually afford to feed their cats table scraps or prepared foods).
I'm not suggesting their is no risk in letting domestic cats eat wild, but it is important to keep it in perspective to the degrees of risk associated with exposure and historic diet.
A cat that has been hunting since infancy and survived into adulthood has developed immunities and beneficial bacteria to better help it withstand many of the biological hazards related to hunting; even more so if they come from a long line of domestic hunting cats.
If this weren't true, we wouldn't see barn cats living as long as they do.
It could even be argued that modern cat food is more dangerous to long term health than eating wild, depending on the cat's earlier exposure to wild food.
I think cats suffer from the same problems humans do, in that our traditional diet has been replaced with toxic substitutes.
So, while I agree that domestic cats are at an increased risk of disease from hunting wild, it's the degrees of risk that need to be considered, especially when their prepared food vary in quality and toxicity, depending on the knowledge and income of their human handlers.
The dangers of zoonotic effects of animal diseases, their ability to transfer to humans is certainly an area of concern and should always be part of the consideration as well.
Finally, while thinking about the point of human responsibility to domesticated animals, while I agree the human "owner" has a specific responsibility to ensure the health, safety and happiness of their animal charges, transferring that responsibility to all if humanity becomes more complex (not that anyone was suggesting it).
I don't know how much we owe to the effects of our ancestor's actions. I think about the damage we have, as a species, done to all life on this planet, be it plant, animal or human, and I am at a loss to know where our responsibilities begin and end.
I have a conflict between the concept of our karmic debt to other life forms and the free will of all life, not just conscious free will, but free will at the spiritual or soul level.
Perhaps animals, like humans, have come into this life to have specific experiences to learn and their relationship with humans is part of their incarnation path toward becoming human.
Although it would appear that an animal raised in a kitten or puppy mill has no choice in how and where it was born or who may purchase it as a pet, I'm not so certain this is true on all levels.
And exercising the choice to hunt could be more than an instinctual expression, even if it means illness or death to the body. Perhaps such tragedy is a way of balancing energies of the past, perhaps it's a way of adding awareness to it's soul/soul group as it evolves.
As it is with all things, nothing is simple, as much as I sometimes wish it were.
Just a few thoughts that this thread invoked, fwiw.
Gonzo
