[vacri]

I always think it's funny when citydwellers in Australia make this complaint. Somehow cats killing the native wildlife is a reason not to have them in suburbia, but no-one bats an eye at all the McMansions and asphalt everywhere destroying the previously native flora and fauna.

Also, the last house I lived in had a bloody wattlebird nearby. I'd much rather a cat eat it and wake up to silence than wake up to that thing at 4am every morning...

[brokenmachine]

There is wildlife in suburbia. Also cats released in suburbia quickly make it into the bush. They don't stay in the suburbs.

[vacri]

Well, so does urban sprawl. Sure, you should still get your cats desexed, but seriously, cats have had less impact on native fauna than humans have (after all, even if nothing else in terms of our own impact, we brought cats... and cane toads... and foxes... and pigs... and rats... and and and...)

[brokenmachine]

So what's your point? Cats are less destructive than humans? Are you suggesting that we ignore anything that is less destructive than humans? Or that people should live in smaller houses to lower their impact?

Sounds like a pointless statement to me.

We should do something about the low-hanging fruit of cat owners not being responsible for their "pets".

I put pets in quotes because if you have no control over it and just let it roam everywhere killing native fauna, can you really call it your pet? Just because it comes to eat your food sometimes?