Dogs are certainly better at looking intelligent. I think dogs, being a more social animal, are more eager to please, and so are willing to be trained.
Cats can vary wildly. One of my cats seems dumb as a box of rocks and haven't even grasped the idea of object permanence. If she's tracking a laser, and I move it around a corner, she can't figure out where it went. She goes from intense staring and tracking to standing up and looking around, confused. When I bring the laser back around the corner, she's instantly back to squatting and tracking it.
Our dog remembers the location of toys at the park over long periods of time, though being able to sniff them out probably helps. He also expresses genuine surprise and suspicion when he sees novel objects (e.g. the large Christmas tree that was put up in the park, a horse and rider), because he knows they're not usually there. He doesn't like fat people, which is embarrassing, but I also knew a dog as a teenager that freaked out anytime it saw someone who wasn't Asian. Just given the amount of back and forth communication that happens between most owners and their dogs, they're very clever. Cats are some of the best hunters in the animal kingdom, but I've never felt that they're there in the way that dogs are.
> Cats can vary wildly. One of my cats seems dumb as a box of rocks and haven't even grasped the idea of object permanence
Similarly I've seen cats have one of two reactions to a mirror: ignoring it entirely or actually using it by e.g. looking me in the eyes and meowing at me through it. While I've not witnessed it personally on the internet there's also tons of videos of cats freaking out and trying to fight the other cat in the mirror.
This supports the idea that the gamut of intelligence in cats is quite wide.
I had a cat once who didn’t grasp the idea of a box having an inside. I used a cardboard box as a laundry basket and when folding laundry, I would ball pairs of socks and toss them inside the box. He always ran behind the box and couldn’t figure out where the socks went.
I had a cat for a while that seemed surprisingly capable when he was motivated. The most interesting thing I saw him pull off was pushing a heavy bag of cat food off the top of a refrigerator to split it open.
Occasionally, he'd demonstrate the ability to plan too. When he started to get territorial and start fights with neighborhood cats, we started keeping him inside. Naturally, this didn't sit right with him. After watching someone enter the house every day in the evening, eventually, he would perch next to the door in the evening waiting to bolt out the moment the door opened.
Dogs and cats have different modalities for intelligence.
Dogs are social animals that have evolved to be human companions a long time ago. This is why they are "trainable" and, therefore, seem more intelligent.
Cats are not; they are extremely good hunters that by and large tolerate humans in exchange for easy access to food and water. You can't really train them, but they will find hiding spots you didn't even know existed and you will NEVER have problems with mice with one around.
I'll echo Sohcahtoa's sibling comment to yours, but with a different pair of species: horses and donkeys (mules count as donkeys for this one).
Donkeys have a reputation for being stupid and stubborn because they're smarter than horses. Too independent for easy training, and will refuse an idiotic command.
I don't really understand this. Isn't it about as surgically invasive as getting a pet spayed?
Does the scent gland do anything more than just stinking? For a cat, removing the claws literally removes bones from them. It limits their mobility and hurts like hell.
(Not that I want a pet skunk. Just curious as to why it's unethical)
>Does the scent gland do anything more than just stinking?
It's part of their communication system. There's no direct corollary in human qualia, but you might say it's akin to permanently destroying your ability to flirt or tell other people that something belongs to you. You would still experience the impulse, but not have the cognitive equipment to do so any longer. Removing scent glands destroys the physiological equipment, of course.
That's a wildly stretched metaphor. Spraying a threat with a chemical weapon so powerful it will deter a hungry predator is not akin to winking at a cute girl or boy.
And if the scent gland is "part of their communication system", then a loaded 45 is part of a (domesticated, modern) human's.
Skunks use their anal scent glands as a defensive weapon, yes, and it's thought that this is their primary use. However, until recently, it was also thought that skunks didn't scent mark at all. It turns out that they do, through body-rubbing, like cats. It stands to reason then that we might also be wrong about the functions of their anal glands, and that (as with most carnivores) they serve some sort of less-extreme communication function in addition to the last-resort defense. But threat displays are also part of a human's communication system, yes.
In any case, there are differing accounts as to whether removal affects the animal, and also whether it's even necessary to prevent spray incidents.
I mean, you're removing part of a living animal for human convenience. If the ethical issue isn't obvious I don't know what to tell you.
The practice has been banned in the UK for almost 20 years, under the exact same laws as ban declawing cats. It's unnecessary mutilation with no medical justification.
We neuter male cats so they don’t spray piss everywhere and spay female cats so they don’t go into heat and scream incessantly to be let outside.
Both procedures seem slightly more invasive than removing a scent gland in a skunk, given that it removes the sex organs that secrete hormones and changes their behavior for the rest of their life.
It’s possible that a skunk gets anxious when it tries to spray and nothing comes out, I can’t say I’m an expert in skunk behavior, it just seems less invasive than spaying or neutering to me.
We do a lot of bad things to animals for human convenience. Including forced breeding and raising them to be slaughtered.
The ethics is murky to me because I assume the procedure doesn't cause lasting pain and allows the animals to be pampered pets. The alternative is they are kept wild.
There are plenty of quite happy non-descented skunks out there.
They don’t just go around spraying. It’s a defense mechanism - pretty much their only one as a matter of fact. Tame pets are very unlikely to spray anyone not trying to hurt them.
