Fetal cats play the role of invasive predator species in every ecosystem they have ever plagued. Australia is just the first to try to do something about it as the loses of native species mounts due to cats. Continental sized Islands, or continents its the same niche. Some ecosystems still have native feline predators, but their populations are dwarfed, and even outcompetrd by feral cats. Where feral cats wreak the most havoc is where most other felines are absent.

It wouldn't be that tough. Contractors airway exist in every state that their daily job is dispatching nucense wildlife. Government agencies as well, USDA wildlife services. Moot point there. Again using emotional language.

Laws already regulate humans' pollution and destruction of the ecosystem, and need to increase and be stronger. The same should go to controlling feral cats which get a 100% free pass to cause harm due to that human bias.

Anthropmorphizing animals gives them human-like qualities. Dogs and cats top the list. You are biased towards cats over the wildlife losses you don't bat an eye at.

Both methods are not well backed by studies but TNR is not well supported in reducing ecological harm.

What's your solution?

So if the study isn't in Pennsylvania, it isn't valid? You're finding any way to discredit things. How can you study something in Pennsylvania when people like you would call such a study to dispatch feral cats sociopaths? For like the third time, you're treating animals unequally for some reason and just anthropomorphsizing cats as if they deserve more humane treatment than other species. It's like trying to study Marijuana, you can't really find out I'd it's harmful or beneficial for something, because of the legal limitations to study it because people for so many decades thought Marijuana was the most evil thing on Earth.

The second two studies basically show that TNR is useless when it comes to reducing harm cats cause to other species, claim by claim.

There is another study in the references of the third one about removing friendly cats to shelters and to euthanize the ones that will harm people if picked up, was effective in reducing the cat population and thus harm to other species.

The problem is, you haven't suggested a solution.

Lol um...okay

Scroll back in the conversation? Someone else provided examples, too. When did I advocate for citizens to do this? Please answer one of my questions instead of you asking them and ignoring my answers.

In conclusion, I've identified the problem, given solutions, provided evidence, provided examples of this happening with controlling other species. And all you've done is called me a sociopath on numerous occasions and ignored everything I've provided you with and still don't even recognize this major ecological problem.

Please evaluate whatever problems you may have and try to be a better person who cares about animals as a whole. Look at the big picture. You can't be cruel to animals just because you like one species in particular. Humans caused this suffering to animals and we must better manage it.

And here are more links to emphasize the problem and show your bias towards ignoring it and deflecting the problem and also offering 0 effective solutions to the problem.

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2380#:~:text=We%20estimate%20that%20free%2Dranging,the%20majority%20of%20this%20mortality.

https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pan3.10073

https://www.npr.org/2020/04/18/820953617/the-killer-at-home-house-cats-have-more-impact-on-local-wildlife-than-wild-preda

I'm doing what you've been doing this entire time! Lol

But here are some resources https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.agriculture.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-tackling-feral-cats-and-their-impacts-faqs.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiduZTA8Lz7AhWKD1kFHXxDDtsQFnoECC0QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1s1TdX1X-LBpLIiG8340kQ

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=feral+cat+removal+wildlife&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1668951509842&u=%23p%3D580qqhxZU2MJ

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C39&q=feral+cat+removal+wildlife&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1668951619566&u=%23p%3Dtkq-0FMZkRUJ

Okay I'll stoop. You sound like a sociopath who loves watching wildlife become endangered and our environment suffer because an odd obsession with one species over all others.

What hasn't solved the issue? I'm not sure what you're specifically referring to. I've mentioned quite a few things. We definitely do attribute human characteristics to cats and dogs over many other species.

And to answer your question, do a thought experiment. Let's say you have 50 feral cats that kill and eat 1000 wild animals a year. If you spay or neuter them and re-release them, you still have 50 cats eating 1000 wild animals a year. They aren't breeding and thus aren't increasing, but it's not DECREASING their negative impact. Plus, new cats are continuously introduced, so the overall number of wildlife losses keeps increasing.

That's the problem. They don't do in shelters, they are a disaster to wildlife, so we anthropomorsize them over all the other wildlife that are being harmed by them. The problem only gets worse because we consider it cruel to remove the cats. Getting them spayed and neutered hasn't solved the issue as they still kill wildlife and new feral cats constantly show up. It's not cruel, it's a real situation unfolding every day. We put blinders on under the guise of being "humane" but only to cats and not to the native wildlife suffering from our lack of action.

Fine anyone who let's theirs outside unsupervised, fine anyone who feeds feral cats and isn't taking them in to shelters, make it legal for dispatching wild ones that are unfriendly and couldn't be adopted without attacking someone.

Now make it illegal to let your cats outside unsupervised and make feral cats illegal.

I don't get the title of this one.