I am deeply opposed to cat ownership on ecological grounds. They cause massive damage when introduced to a country like Australia. Most cat owners are very irresponsible and allow their animals to roam but strenuously resist any moves to regulate their fluffy little predators.

Dog owners are required to tag and register their animals and face fines if their animals roam which is reasonable for the protection of stock or people from wild dogs. My takeaway is that dog owners are more reasonable and less selfish. I blame it on toxoplasmosis.

I am a cat owner and I agree that they shouldn't be able to roam and kill wildlife.

I wasn't aware of any proposed regulation though.

Unfortunately, feral dogs are a thing in my country, and in Australia too - look up Dingoes "The dingo is suspected to have caused the extinction of the thylacine, the Tasmanian devil and the Tasmanian nativehen from mainland Australia".

So, irresponsible pet owners are a problem, both for dogs and cats. I do agree that cats are more problematic since they're more independant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dingo#Ecological_impact_of_the...

Dogs can get after the wildlife too, although they aren't quite as relentless and psychopathic.

My cattle dog was moling yesterday - I looked up from my lawn chair to hear frantic chittering and see the poor varmint whipped high in the sky.

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...

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

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...)

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?

Here in New Zealand feral cats are also the wrong animal in the wrong place. They decimate the local birds and fauna. We spend quite a bit of time trying to trap them though they are extraordinarily wily and hard to catch.

Dogs are even more destructive but they don't go feral, so you won't find them in remote places but always somewhere around their neglectful owners or feeders.