• Rutty@sh.itjust.worksOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      No. Just no. Even prisoners are allowed outdoor privileges.

      They’re interested, it’s a contained area, they are supervised. No.

        • Nekomancer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          If it takes unethical practices to provide for an animal, it’s unethical to have the animal.

          That being said, supervised outside team seems like a reasonable choice.

      • Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        Contained? Sure. Letting them run wild in areas where they’re not native makes them have the same effect as an invasive species.

    • Rednax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Cats that don’t know any better can live inside just fine. But I adopted a cat from the shelter that was only allowed to go to a place where he can go outside. And he REALLY wanted to go outside. Usually you have to keep them inside for at least 6 weeks to accomodate before you allow them outside. He escaped through a tiny bathroom window after 2 weeks. And he came back the next morning wondering why I was stressed out. Since then I let him outside. Since then, he also became a lot more chill inside. No whirlstorm on my bed at 4 in the morning, no attacking my feet out of boredom, and he generally seems a lot calmer. Keeping him inside would drive both him and me crazy. So do we have to euthanise all cats like him? Cause locking them up inside is just cruel.