Brett wrote:north-north-west wrote:The big difference is that, in this country, rabbits, foxes and cats are feral, rather than native. There are plenty of places in the world where rabbits, foxes and cats don't endanger the native wildlife or native ecosystems. Here, they do.
Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the fewer of them the better.
Ditto feral camels, horses, goats, pigs, cattle, dogs, blackbirds, starlings, Indian *&%$#! mynahs, canetoads etc etc etc.
Um? People

Yeah, the fewer of them the better, too.
I've never understood those people who are more concerned over the well-being of a mangy, flea-bitten, worm-riddled feral than the native birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians these ferals displace or hunt.
If you own an animal, its behaviour and well-being are both your responsibility. If it gets out and about and then gets run over, or eats a poisoned bait, that's the owner's fault. And if it harms a native animal that, also, is the owner's fault. And if it stays wild and breeds, or stays mostly domestic and breeds with a feral, then the resulting offspring and their activities are also the owner's fault.
But punishing the owners, or ex-owners, of the animals that are doing the damage doesn't help much. The only way to stop the damage being done is to remove the animals. Which is the responsibility of all of us. And getting all gooey about 'some poor little poppet's pet pussy' doesn't help. The cat shouldn't be out. At all.