Didn’t North America used to have plenty of bobcats and lynxes? Why would domestic cats be more destructive of wildlife than the native cats?
There are ~86 million pet cats in the United States. That’s pet. Now add ~50-60 million ferals and strays - this number will overlap with the pet population a bit as “stray” vs. “free-roaming pet” can be hard to determine. Still 100-140 million million domestic cats seems a reasonable guesstimate. Many are house pets only, but many more are not.
Meanwhile there are fewer than 1 million bobcats in North America. They’re doing okay, but are hardly as ubiquitous as the even more successful racoons.
Then add in the fact that smaller domestic cats prefer smaller prey - i.e. small birds will make up a higher proportion of their diet/hunting preferences. So you get an unnaturally very dense predator population preying on animals that are usually not adapted to that kind of intense predation ( by contrast despite every attempt by domestic cats to stamp them out, house mice are doing just fine thank you ). It’s a matter of dispute just how much damage domestic cats actually cause, but that some level of more-than-normal levels of predation is inflicted seems pretty likely.
I don’t know much about this, but I suspect bobcats and lynxes didn’t have a diet mainly consisting of songbirds. I suspect they mainly went after larger prey.
At least we have some protection against the plague.
Because there’s no control. People always think it’s the worst thing ever to humanely put down stray cats…but it’s not like we’re running out. And then tons and tons and tons of people don’t get their cats spayed or neutered, because they need to make more, or why not?
It’s out of control. But show people a kitten and they go mental.
Tamerlane has a great post on the numbers.
Actually, several new programs are having success by not putting down feral cats, sterilizing them, instead.
Cats are fairly territorial and a removed cat (through physical removal or death) will soon be replaced by a stray pushed out of a nearby location. A sterile cat will tend to defend its locale, reducing the number of cats bred in the neighborhood by failing to breed.
Also, nobody believes there is a problem. “Oh, the poor little kitties, I’ll put some food out on my back porch.”
Argh.
I have heard what t & d said in several different places of late.
I too go mental over baby anythings but I’ll still put them down if it is indicated.
( Don’t get me started on the human population. )
It’s not just feral cats that are a problem. Any pet cat that is allowed to roam outside is part of the problem.
In addition to the points made about types of prey and humans tolerating feral cats (and not bobcats), a female bobcat can have 1-2 litters per year with 2-4 kittens, while a feral cat can have 2-3 litters per year with 3-5 kittens. That may not seem like a big difference, but multiply that by the number of them already out there, and it is not hard to see the problem.
I for one, welcome our feral cat overlords.
It’s also that “feral,” in this context, does equal “wild.” OP seems to equate the two terms.