Weird article. The article finishes up complaining that humans are the prime agents of reducing biodiversity and are hence morally obligated to fix it... but apparently not by animal management. Somehow we are morally obligated to fix the damage we have done, but not by reducing the numbers of cats (or foxes, toads, pigs, rabbits, camels...). The proposed alternatives are merely links to sites that don't give clear paths of action - the first is a link to a book talking about ways to live near wild animals (ie: not wide-ranging maintenance of biodiversity) and the second is a puff site.

> Out of respect for cats and the people who care for them, we should give preference to nonlethal alternatives in management first and foremost.

Ah, the "this animal is pretty" problem. What a bizarre argument that the article makes; that humans are the actual scumbags that are the real cause of the problem... but at the same time, we shouldn't engage in a cull because it will upset some humans.

In any case, it's something a self-correcting problem - if there really aren't 20M fetal cats in Australia, then the proposed cull won't get 2M of them.