This. People in suburban and urban areas should be banned from having outdoor cats, period.
As if the problem is the loss of birds in Manhattan or Queens, and not the loss of birds in millions of acres of rural USA (where cats are not really the problem), for example...
Responsible people don't let their dogs roam the streets as they can be a threat to strangers, children etc.
why should we treat cat's any differently especially when cats kill far more.
I understand the argument and it’s reasonable, but in the case if each activity under consideration, they have to be assessed relative to the total harm to the environment, not to directly against each other individually. But there could be a hierarchy of comparison.
Still, as I said this is the inverse case to the one I was replying to, which I still think is completely unreasonable.
Sorry, what point were you trying to make?
Essentially, it's hypocritical to talk about environmental dangers on one activity when performing a much more environmentally destructive activity.
I do not support a cat ban, but that argument is not a good one.