"Should Cats be Culled to Stop Extinctions?"

[abrub]

That is a good point. We should definitely push for keeping natural spaces natural, even as we continue building our cities. I think alternating pockets of natural habitats (squares, plazas, etc) would help preserve the native birds as well and be easier to sell to goverments.
However, many of the areas feral cats are in abundance are not highly populated (think Australia, the place with the worst feral cat problem) and in places like cities and such feral cats may be fed primarily by people or garbage/roadkill. Of course they would also eat small vertebrates regardless of where they are. And even if you push for preserving habitats, if the cats invade those spaces they would keep endangering the birds. So I think we should tackle both issues at once, that way we maximize our chances of success.

Not entirely related but also helpful for the local fauna, but if you live in a house/have a yard you should consider planting native species or making small habitats for birds and other critters. Goverments should absolutely take responsability in preserving our native species, but until we can convince them, we should all try and pitch in to help!

[raymie]

Yes, I think letting a cat to roam beyond the owner’s own property should be illegal and I fully support shooting any cat that isn’t where it is supposed to be. They are killing populations of small mammals and bird worldwide. In fact I often wonder what is the point of restoring wildlife habitat if cats are there?

[mmmiller]

@bobby23

I think the reason why there is so much debate on this particular topic is because the subjects that would be killed are cats. Most humans really like cats, and there are a lot of interesting studies focused on why. But this is an explicit bias. If the article was on goats, rats, or yellow crazy ants, I don’t think people would be as upset about it.

Just a few days ago I photographed goldfish in the lake of a nearby nature center. I googled for more info and read they got a grant of $5,500 USD three years ago in an attempt to eradicate them.

From an April 2017 article:

“The first couple of years … we didn’t notice a lot of differences in the marsh,” she said. “But now it’s really very, very obvious how detrimental they’ve been.”

The goldfish multiplied and began to compete with native sunfish and minnows for food. They sucked food off the bottom of the lake, disrupting plant life and churning the water.

“The water used to be so clear,” she said. “They eat, they defecate, they eat, they defecate. … It’s just unpleasant all the way around.”

Each spring, the nature center hosts a class that studies the biodiversity of the marsh.

“We were used to getting 15 different organisms,” she said. “Now we’re just happy to find one or two or three.”

Shragg said the problem of invasive goldfish has only gotten worse since [last year.]
(http://www.startribune.com/officials-warn-don-t-flush-your-goldfish/365792231/)

Obviously, if I took a photo of a goldfish there last week, it hasn’t worked. And the water was, in fact, really murky.

There wouldn’t be many people who would bemoan the removal of those goldfish - feral descendants of someone’s pet - from the lake. Similar to conversations about when deliberately cultivated plants become (over time) feral populations and thereby ‘wild’ and uncultivated, one could discuss how, once an animal is let loose from human care and transitions from pet to feral, it becomes part of the ecosystem to be managed as an invasive species.