[trhway]

>What evidence do you have that the birds killed by cats are mainly old or ill?

it is well established pattern of predation in the Nature. Again, you specified the total number without providing the old/ill number. The relation of those numbers can completely change the conclusion, and i can only wonder why you didn't provide the old/ill number.

>Cats being an invasive species in most places on earth

What planet "earth" you're talking about? On the 3rd planet from Sun the wild cats are practically everywhere. And in the places where there are no cats, there are still similar predators - ferrets, foxes, etc.

>And yes, birds hitting man made structures is a major problem. There can be two bad things at once.

No 2 bad things here. Predation by cats is natural, and thus mostly good, in the Nature-way, for the species being predated upon. The man made structures are really bad as i described in my previous comment. Yet somehow you want to tackle the first and not the second.

[rescripting]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

I claimed billions of birds are killed each year by cats and provided a source (and there exist many more).

> Again, you specified the total number without providing the old/ill number. The relation of those numbers can completely change the conclusion, and i can only wonder why you didn't provide the old/ill number.

You claimed they kill mainly the sick and old birds but provide no sources for this claim, then attack my source for not containing the proof you failed to provide.

> On the 3rd planet from Sun the wild cats are practically everywhere.

So are rats. Would you call them a native species in places like Hawaii? No, neither are cats.

> somehow you want to tackle the first and not the second

Because this thread is about cats, not buildings. This is just changing the subject when your argument won’t stand up to scrutiny.

[trhway]

>The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

>I claimed billions of birds are killed each year by cats

you claimed it is a bad thing. Where is the proof for your claim?

>provided a source

Smithsonian with that felon convicted for animal cruelty toward cats.

>So are rats. Would you call them a native species in places like Hawaii? No, neither are cats

Hawaii take how much percent of Earth?

[jhide]

The word natural is doing a lot of lifting here. I think we are talking past each other because we don’t have the same framework for understanding how ecosystems work. Predation by an invasive species is not natural in the sense that the species did not coevolve. It seems we don’t agree that cats are an invasive species or even on the definition of an invasive species

[trhway]

There is very little natural in the unnatural environment of the human developed areas. That train has long left the station. That includes the natural predators. With those natural predators gone, cats are doing the job of those predators. Whether you call the cats invasive or not - the label doesn't matter in that situation, somebody has got to do the job.

And the main invasive species is humans. The humans invade and change the environment, and the cats are actually natural in that new environment.