Cat Prohibitionism And The COVID Moral Panic

As I reflected on yesterday's post about the deliberations in the UK over rounding up everyone's pet cat, it suddenly occurred to me that cat prohibitionism isn't a new phenomenon. There's been a long-term movement in the UK that insists that pet cats kill songbirds, which is thought to be something that must be curbed if not halted entirely, but more recently, a body of literature has grown in the US that insists that pet cats are an environmental hazard. At the link,

Free-ranging domestic cats Felis catus, from owned pets to feral cats, impact biodiversity through predation, fear effects, competition, disease and hybridization. Scientific knowledge regarding these impacts has recently increased, making it timely to assess the role of nature conservation legislation in this connection.

. . . Many national authorities around the world are currently required, under international law, to adopt and implement policies aimed at preventing, reducing or eliminating the biodiversity impacts of free-ranging domestic cats, in particular by (a) removing feral and other unowned cats from the landscape to the greatest extent possible and (b) restricting the outdoor access of owned cats.

Factors that can influence or impair the application of these obligations include considerations of feasibility, scientific uncertainty, the interests of cat owners and the (perceived) interests of domestic cats themselves. Even if such factors may to some extent explain why many authorities have hitherto failed to take effective action to address the threats posed by free-ranging domestic cats, from a legal perspective these factors provide little ground for justifying non-compliance with international wildlife law.

Although this particular link dates from February 2020, just as the COVID panic was starting, this link from 2015 says,

Free-ranging domestic cats are an environmental disaster. They may be the most destructive invasive species, the “single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for U.S. birds and mammals” according to a study (pdf) co-authored by scientists at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These authors found that domestic cats annually kill from 1.4-3.7 billion birds and 6.9-20.7 billion mammals in the U.S.

For radical environmentalists, a world without domestic cats would be a big improvement, the only obstacle to which would be legions of cat ladies that would make an effective solution unfeasible, at least in the short term. But enlightened public policy, just as it can eliminate environmental hazards like SUVs and gas stoves, requires only deliberation and fortitude in its implementation.

Yesterday we saw the testimony of Lord Bethell, a former deputy health minister in Her Majesty's government, that it was at least briefly considered that all pet cats in the UK be rounded up, ostensibly because they might carry COVID, but it's hard to avoid thinking that, COVID or not, it would be a good idea just because. After all, feral cats are an invasive species, but the problem isn't just feral cats, because not all pet cats are indoors-only, not all pet cats are spayed or neutered, and pet cats can create feral cats just like that. So round up all the cats. Check with your local animal control office for the day you must turn yours in, or we'll come for her. Past that date, harboring a cat wird schwer bestraft.

The problem is that cats aren't the only species that thrives around humans, and not just pets. Raccoons. rats, and possums thrive on human trash, as do crows and ravens in suburban areas. Lots of bird species eat seeds and fruit from lawns, gardens, and fields. Mice live in barns. And from a radical environmentalist standpoint, humans themselves are an invasive species. and even if we can't exterminate them all, the theory is that the planet has already far exceeded its capacity. An effective solution to that problem is unfeasible in the short term.

But hey, getting rid of all the cats is a good start. If the authorities can stir up a good panic, the short-term feasibility barrier might be overcome. After all, even the cat ladies are huddled in their homes in fear of the virus, right? This Ed Morrissey piece at Hot Air is a pretty good status check on the current phase of the morning after phase of the COVID moral panic, and it concludes,

The government and the media establishment weren’t interested in science. They were interested in compliance. And they imposed on us exactly what Thompson correctly identifies as an anti-science regime in which priors are never re-evaluated, conclusions never questioned, and the higher functionaries are protected from any criticism or dissent. That isn’t science; it’s a religious cult with white lab coats. And all of these institutions that are supposed to serve the people turned into its enforcement arm instead, a mass of corruption that the media still won’t address.

In some ways, the whole COVID episode was an experiment in feasibility. It sounds as though in the UK, certain feasibilities were entertained that might piggyback on the manufactured COVID crisis, but at least for now, however close the call may have been, they were quietly dropped. I very much doubt that the people who wanted those things done will drop them for good, though.