Free-roaming cats may be visually appealing animals (when properly cared for), but they completely mash the delete button on native biodiversity when allowed to roam free. While not the actual fault of felines, there is no scientific basis for holding that which cats deserve above the needs of vulnerable wildlife.
Cats that harm wildlife are an instrument of careless humans. The creation of the species felis domesticus, the resources directed to cat food production, and their introduction to habitats on every continent are human acts. Destroyed native animal populations are the consequence.
It is frequently claimed that sterilizing cats is a substitute for having to euthanize un-owned, at-large roaming cats to reduce their number. However, to agree to this practice would constitute an acceptance that our fragmented wild outdoor spaces be re-purposed as sacrifice zones. How does one agree that the cat population should be reduced after deciding that harboring cats outside is acceptable? Even one cat can do tremendous damage. Where can we see an environmental impact statement to tell us where these outdoor cat advocates discern the difference between one cat or thousands, sterile or intact, successfully vaccinated or at-risk for rabies? They are kitten lovers who want to be in charge of supposedly halting kitten production.
Government is responsible for upholding basic principles of environmental stewardship. The cat issue also has untold impacts on public health, the welfare of animal species in general, and property rights. For people who attempt to create backyard habitats, the reality of the devastation is inescapable. The resources of the food supply chain also need to be directed away from ownerless cats. Allowing the cat population to shrink means putting mature professionals in charge of municipal animal control departments. They must be allowed to do their job even if it means an increase in euthanasia numbers. This is what is needed to bring about an actual reduction of animal suffering.
