Dogged Blog

So you think they can't make people hate cats?

There's an ugly war being fought over the American love for cats right now... and the cats are losing.

Yes, most of us love cats, are intrigued by cats, watch cat videos, and in ever-growing numbers share our homes with cats. But if you'd had your ear to the ground of the last few years, you'd realize there's a force out there trying to change that.

It began with a series of high-profile headlines about how cats are murderous beasts. It was sustained by junk science and "alternative facts" about how many birds outdoor cats kill each year. And it was given credibility by the academic credentials of the virulent cat-haters behind this propaganda war, one of whom actually said in his book Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer that felines should be removed from the landscape "by any means necessary."

(Which to the best of my knowledge is the first and only time a cat hater has quoted Malcom X to support his case. But I digress.)

You might accuse me of over-reacting, and I hope I am. But these guys are playing a long game here, slowly getting the media to pay attention to their anti-cat message and, more frighteningly, attempting to supplant the reality of the cats in our laps with the demonic image of a killing machine with an unquenchable appetite for endangered songbird. They're presenting to veterinary organizations and at science conferences. They're writing articles and books, and doing propaganda-filled book tours. They're courting the media. They're supporting hyped up media coverage of the risks of toxoplasmosis and rabies.

And what are we in animal welfare doing about it?

Good question.

Sometimes it seems we're all so engrossed in our own cat-positive worlds, doing TNR and helping shelters increase their feline lifesaving and singing the praises of community cats, warehouse cats, and barn cats that we're almost oblivious to the propaganda taking hold all around us.

When we do pay attention, we seem to think that cats will be spared by the irony of the fact that, by opposing TNR, these idiots are themselves the greatest barrier to reducing the number of unowned, free-roaming cats. 

We need to wake up. We need to write op-eds, write our own books, go on local radio programs, put our best and most articulate spokespeople forward, fund research, and stop burying our heads in the kitty litter. These guys are trying to eradicate cats from America unless they're safely locked in a high-security indoor environment -- which means they want to kill more than half the cats currently alive in this country.

And they're frustratingly, hypocritically doing it in the name of saving birds... birds who themselves have been responsible for more human and wildlife deaths than any other type of living creatures bigger than a pathogen.

And we're letting them.

How bigstockphoto.com and Shutterstock are screwing their customers

Last month, without any warning, the stock photo service I've used for at least 10 years made a small, nearly-unnoticeable change that very efficiently sucks money out of their customers' accounts.

They offer stock images in a variety of file sizes. Because I purchase them almost exclusively for use on the web, I have always bought the smallest and least expensive file size. For as long as I can recall, that was the size that was set as the default when I'd go to purchase an image.

Sometime in September, that changed. I noticed that an image I was using on a blog post for a client was taking a really long time to upload. No wonder -- it was huge. I went and looked at my download history at bigstockphoto.com, and saw that every image I'd purchased for the previous two weeks was much larger - and four times more expensive - than the images I'd always purchased before, and intended to purchase each time.

Every time I go to purchase an image, the default is set on this four-times-costlier option. It's a hard habit to break to move that default setting, and twice I forgot and ended up with a huge, expensive image I didn't want.

Sure, you can say that's my problem now that I'm aware of what they're doing. But you and I both know it's deceptive and unethical to make this change knowing that many customers won't notice at first, new and occasional customers might never question the default setting at all, and plenty of customers like me who noticed will nonetheless forget to move that check mark at least now and then.

In short, they implemented a change that will make them money by ripping off their customers.

Unable to find anywhere to control the default  setting, I emailed support to ask if it was possible, and complain about the change. I heard back the next day; my complaint was ignored, and my query about setting my own default was all he addressed:

At this time there is not a way to set the default download size of images on our site as it is up to our customers to always ensure when downloading images that they make sure they are selecting the size they require.

I will make sure that you feedback is received by management as we always want to hear from our customers on how we can improve our site to better fit the needs of our customers.

Please let us know if there is anything else we can do for you.

Best regards,

Joseph T.
Customer Care Advocate
Bigstock
350 Fifth Avenue, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10118a

So if you use Bigstock (which, by the way, is owned by Shutterstock), check the download history and see if you got caught by this. If not, be sure you don't. And consider switching to a different stock photo service. It's not like their aren't plenty of them out there.

Save