From Brian Tagg
Sidney Holt is “disappointed” with New Scientist for joining the
“unscientific anti-cat campaign”
(26 May, p 61).
But the logic he uses is flawed.
He suggests in the cats’ defence that “the birds killed by cats in suburban
gardens are . . . above natural numbers, having been fed by humans”. Firstly,
this ignores the slaughter of some 6 million reptiles and amphibians, few of
whom are fed by humans. But more interestingly, by extrapolation, one could
imply that any such population of creatures sustained by human kindness is a
legitimate target for slaughter. How then could he defend his beloved cats from
a similar treatment?
If any New Scientist readers could suggest an appropriate and legal
pet that would kill a few million cats per year, then Holt, myself (and the
birds, reptiles and amphibians) could all be happy.
Taunton, Somerset
