First, if you actually want to make an impact here, you shouldn't start off by antagonizing the people you're ostensibly trying to reach. As it stands, your message is probably most helpful to pet industries, since it allows pet owners to dismiss good arguments about the environmental objections to pet ownership by painting them with the anger your post evokes.
So here are some details, if you're interested... your post irrelevant to the topic. You're conflating issues of feral animals with pets. Of course these are related, but you need to work through that if you want to make a cogent point. Using phrases like "like blindly their toy pets" undermines anything else you might say. It hurts any chance you have to make a sincere point since it's indistinguishable from trolling.
But the only thing more pathetic that a spendthrift foolishly wasting their inheritance is a miser making themselves miserable grasping at every cent.
[1]: https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...
But a pet is equivalent to 2 4x4 cars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_food#cite_note-8 so it can't hurt to start with that, or with anything else that would reduce pollution basically, at any scale. The problem is the accumulation, if most people reduce their environmental footprint by a half, the effect is very significant, it's like twice less humans
Why would you argue that pets specifically are something that people should give up? People have needs that go beyond food, water, and shelter (e.g. play, love, stimulation, etc.) that will have to be factored into any plan to reduce carbon emissions. It seems to me that pets are an excellent value in terms of degree to which they provide for their needs versus associated carbon cost.
The sources show how significant pets impact is (1/5th of the world meat+fish production, think about the processing, transport, and all intermediate materials required for this and the pollution that generates, and finally the ecosystem damages via outdoors and feral ones)
I eat meat, fly often, race cars, like taking long roadtrips, own an SUV, and have 2 cats.
But I also reuse, recycle, use a tankless hot water heater, carpool in an EV, have solar on my roof, don't have A/C at home, live in a temperate climate, and don't have any toy humans.
That's quite a bit removed from pets in countries that control strays, have dog wardens and such. Dogs need no commercial pet food, mainly waste from the huge industrial food globals today -- they will almost certainly do better on traditional feeds -- leftovers, bones, etc, without added oils, colour and sugars.
We are the environment, we're part of it, we're also the solution if we want to be. A better place to start might be to try and figure out how to control a feral dog population of a billion...
I don't know about the population of feral 'pets', it can makes sense that it's even larger
Anyway both are significantly damaging for different reasons (feral: ecosystem damages and native species reduction, domestic: they are part of the (over)consumerism system, so they virtually increase the human population)
How to cut down both of them? first starting with domestic pets which is the source of the problem, over-consumerism in general
There are going to be a dozen more urgent sources of emissions, environmental damage etc before we start restricting pets. Humans in the developed world are emitting vastly more than their pet -- first discourage the humans over breeding, outlaw religious edicts that make a stand against common sense contraception, etc. Constrain fossil fuel use, consumerism, capitalism.
Thus far it looks like there is little to no chance of any of that happening, so a campaign about pets, carrier bags or drinking straws is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
Your other links don’t hold up much better. The cat ones advocate for keeping domesticated cats indoors. The dog article isn’t about pets either, but roaming packs of strays. I doubt you have to try very hard to convince anyone that stray dogs are a problem.
People do the things they do and consume the things they do in order to meet some need (stimulation, entertainment, pleasure, etc.). Although, I don't think it's unreasonable to advocate for some austerity, to a significant degree people are going to need alternatives that meet the needs that were formerly met by the things they are giving up.
It seems to me that environmentalists tend to fail to provide a vision for what those alternatives could be.