What's Better: Dogs or Cats? Or something else?

[frank]

I personally like dogs better. Dogs will be your friend and stay by your side. Cats will be your masters and run off for weeks for their own selfish needs (ie getting pregnant and coming back to raise them in your yard).

What does everyone think?

[Firestryke31]

Cats are easier to take care of IMO. Just get them fixed, keep them fed and watered, and take them to the vet every now and then. They help keep the pest population down. If your cat leaves for weeks then you're doing something wrong. My cats (all 7 of them) are free to enter and leave my house, and have stuck around since birth (6 of them are feral but raised since birth). Getting the cats fixed was a good idea since it keeps them healthy. They don't have to eat for both themselves and their kittens, and so are stronger, and so can better keep potentially diseased strays away.

Now a fox, that's like a cross between a cat (hunts rodents, slit pupils instead of round) and a dog (technically a kind of canine). The only downsides are that they smell bad and in most places it's illegal to keep one as a pet.

[JackScott]

I can't wait until I own a big property in the outback and can have pet Kangaroos.

Dogs++;

[madeofstaples]

I saved my dog a couple years ago, though I'd take care of a cat too if my dog wouldn't try to eat it (I tried training him to walk without a leash last summer, which went well for a while, then two unlucky skunks met their maker).

I've decided that if I ever get a cat, I specifically want one with cerebellar hypoplasia.

[Firestryke31]

My cats are all rather weird in some way. The majority of them were born in 2 separate litters from the same mother before we could catch her and get her fixed. Speckle (a.k.a. large spotted cat), one of the feral girls, is just the sweetest thing ever. She puts up with so much from us, and has only acted like she was going to swat at us a couple times (don't mess with a scared cat). Her sister, Gherkin, is rather paranoid, and will let you pet her quickly if she doesn't see you reach for her. If she does see you don't even bother trying or you'll get the "ninja paws." Splotches (a.k.a. small spotted cat), the smallest of the feral girls (probablt the runt of the second litter) has the biggest voice, and is how we found her litter. The only feral boy from the litters we managed to get to stick around, Oscar, used to growl at all of the other cats when eating, even ones twice his size. Now he just gets in the way when you're cooking. Miss Kitty, who we think is feral but was not born with the others, is so easy to agitate you can do it simply by being near her on a bad day. Pat, who is not feral, is the only cat we have that has any real interest in catnip. He got into a bag of it once, and just sat there staring at the fire for hours. Mr. Swirlypants McFuzzyBritches (or as I call him, "orange spotted cat") is the only feral that will not come inside. He did once and the door blew closed and scared him and he didn't know how to work the cat door and so now he just refuses to come inside. We don't know who his parents are, and he's the only one that will go off for weeks due to other people putting out better food.

Sorry this post turned into a ramble about my cats...

[earlz]

I don't like any animals in my house, but if I was to have a pet, it would be a cat. They are independent, so I don't have to worry much about them, and they seem smarter than dogs, which is always a good thing. And cats are fun to pet lol

[madeofstaples]

...and [cats] seem smarter than dogs...

This is a popular misconception caused by how we perceive cats' species-typical behavior, the opposite is actually true.

[Brynet-Inc]

Cats > Dogs.

[piranha]

This is a popular misconception caused by how we perceive cats' species-typical behavior, the opposite is actually true.

This is a popular misconception caused by how we perceive dogs' species-typical behavior...

Yeah. I have to disagree, I have yet to see a smart dog, I have seen at least 30 smart cats.

I don't think that there is really any way to define what species is smarter than others, because we have no real great definition for intelligence to begin with. Cats are smarter than dogs in some ways, dogs are smart than cats in other. Simple.

I vote for cats. They are highly awesome.

-JL

[pcmattman]

I can't wait until I own a big property in the outback and can have pet Kangaroos.

And for now we just settle on crocodiles in the backyard.

EDIT:

Cats will be your masters and run off for weeks for their own selfish needs (ie getting pregnant and coming back to raise them in your yard).

Sounds like modern teenagers

[JackScott]

You might up there, it's more koala country down this way.

[madeofstaples]

Yeah. I have to disagree, I have yet to see a smart dog, I have seen at least 30 smart cats.

I'm certain you can find specific dogs that are dumber than specific cats, but that is hardly objective, and certainly not scientific.

I don't think that there is really any way to define what species is smarter than others, because we have no real great definition for intelligence to begin with. Cats are smarter than dogs in some ways, dogs are smart than cats in other. Simple.

The study asses causal understanding as defined by Seed et al. 2006, and Visalberghi and Tomasello 1998 using Piget (1954)'s model of animal cognition. The test is a standard that, from the published research article:

Rhesus Monkeys (Shepherd 1911), chimpanzees (Köhler 1927;Povinelli 2000), baboons (Bolwig 1963), gibbons (Beck 1967), and cotton-top tamarins (Hauser et al. 1999) all succeeded in string-pulling tasks. Many species of birds have also been tested using vertical rather than horizontal strings. Although this requires more complex string manipulation, yellow-crowned parakeets (Funk 2002), keas (Werdenich and Huber 2006), ravens (Heinrich 2000; Heinrich and Bugnyar 2005), grey parrots (Pepperberg 2004), goldfnches and siskins (Seibt and Wickler 2006) have all succeeded.

It would be silly to think a scientific study on animal intelligence would not (or could not) define "what species is smarter than others," or consider other research on congition, intelligence, etc (on all of which we, in fact, do have a great deal of research).

The conclusion of the article suggests that dogs may need a greater understanding of causal relationships because of the fact that they hunt in packs, it is imperative that dogs are endowed with the mental capacity to " coordinate their behavior with others, whilst at the same time keeping track of a fleeing animal." Whereas cats use a stealthier approach that only requires a mental representation of their prey, but until this research it wasn't clear if they actually understood cause-and-effect, or have simply developed complex reactions for executing an attack.

Whitt E, Douglas M, Osthaus B, Hocking I.; Domestic cats (Felis catus) do not show causal understanding in a string-pulling task. Animal Cognition, Ahead of Print, May 2009

[piranha]

Quote.....etc....end quote

Right, so the cats were shown the task, and the cat said "**** you, I don't want to. I'd prefer to do my own thing." Thats seems fairly intelligent to me. I mean, if some guy in a lab coat comes up to you, and told you to pull on a string, would you be cool with that? I'd walk away too. The cats were like, hellz to the know, I'm hungry. That wins over string.

Btw, maybe that cat was an idiot. I've seen my cat mess with string all day long. Hell, I mess string if I get bored enough. I think that all the animals that passed that "test" were just bored. But that cat knew how to entertain himself.

It would be silly to think a scientific study on animal intelligence would not (or could not) define "what species is smarter than others," or consider other research on congition, intelligence, etc (on all of which we, in fact, do have a great deal of research).

Research doesn't mean that we know what it means. So, whats smarter? An animal that logically deduces that it can acquire food by means of process X, or an animal that can create social interaction to acquire food from the first animal that got the food by process X?

Just because an animal didn't pull on a string, or show (key word. appearances mean close to nothing) logical thinking doesn't mean its stupid.

I'm certain you can find specific dogs that are dumber than specific cats, but that is hardly objective, and certainly not scientific.

Whatever. It makes sense to me. I've seen cats work together in ways that dogs never do. If thats not smart, then I don't know what is.

-JL

[bewing]

I have a friend who is a dog breeder. She insists that most dog breeds are specifically bred for stupidity, so that they will be easier to control. We exclude border collies from this group, of course.

And anyway -- a dog wants only to be your slave. A cat wants you to be its slave. C'mon, isn't it objectively obvious which is smarter?

If you interact with cats a lot, you will see that they have vivid imaginations, and like to pretend things a lot. Pretend to be hunting, pretend to be scared, pretend to not know they are about to be attacked and tickled, pretend to be oblivious, pretend to not know you are there ... And you can see with utter clarity that they KNOW they are pretending. Have any of you ever seen a dog "pretend" ANYTHING?

And the loudness of dogs bugs me. And every other neighbor for 500 yards.

Cats++

[madeofstaples]

...

This appears to be a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method.

I'm certain you can find specific dogs that are dumber than specific cats, but that is hardly objective, and certainly not scientific.

Whatever. It makes sense to me. I've seen cats work together in ways that dogs never do. If thats not smart, then I don't know what is.

Exactly, I suspect you are not any sort of cognitive psychologist or studying anything related.

edit:

And anyway -- a dog wants only to be your slave. A cat wants you to be its slave. C'mon, isn't it objectively obvious which is smarter?

I know this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek (or at least that's how I read it), but it very much illustrates that our perception of dogs' and cats' respective species-typical behaviors lead us to make false conclusions about their intelligence.

And the loudness of dogs bugs me. And every other neighbor for 500 yards.

My dog almost never barks; the exception is when something is "wrong" (someone enters my apartment in the middle of the night while I'm asleep, for example), or when I'm trying to get him excited enough to bark.

edit again:

If you interact with cats a lot, you will see that they have vivid imaginations, and like to pretend things a lot. Pretend to be hunting, pretend to be scared, pretend to not know they are about to be attacked and tickled, pretend to be oblivious, pretend to not know you are there ... And you can see with utter clarity that they KNOW they are pretending. Have any of you ever seen a dog "pretend" ANYTHING?

I'd hate to break this to you, but the implications of the research I posted are just that: they are not really pretending; they cannot comprehend cause-and-effect and therefore cannot make the associations you are assuming that they do.