Ok PETA, Animal Lovers and Environmentalists Everywhere, Cat Got Your Tongue?

Well... are the birds anywhere near extinction or do we think that they could easily go to extinction due to the cat attacks? Animal eating Animal is all a part of the circle of life. It's nature right? Lion hunts this. This hunts that. That hunts the other thing. The other thing hunts this. Etc. etc. etc. Eventually all creatures are killed by something or other. This is natural. Unless the birds are close to extinction... I don't think it's really something to worry about. Otherwise...if the Birds natural habitat is NOT in NJ than why not move them? I'm not an animal rights activist or a human rights activist though so what do I know really.

I am no fan of Animal Rights activism like PETA by any means. I deplore putting animals and humans in the same category, as if there is no difference, and I think that man should put human concerns first, within reason. I have no problem with moving animals around for their protection, or to suit human needs, as long as we aren't cruel to the animals. It's ok to tamper with nature. We're humans. It's what we have the ability to do. In this case, we should tamper with nature to protect a species. PS: I think the PETA argument would be that, because humans introduced cats to the habitat, albeit centuries ago, humans need to make sure the cats are under control.

I am an animal lover but I am also a realist as well. There isn't much that can be done, being it's just nature running it's course. So yes I am in favor of letting survival of the species carry out if there is no other logical answer.

Hmm, well I am by no means an animal rights person, though I can see logically why cats wouldn't be seen as a threat by some. Humans are very destructive whether they intend to be or not. Because of our ability to change the world around us to suit our own purposes (like destroying forests to create agricultural land, or filling up miles of plains with homes and businesses), we have the ability to quickly demolish habitats of animals. This of course, can be harmful for those animals who can't adapt quickly enough. In a way, we almost have an unfair advantage over other animals in that, not only can we destroy the animals themselves, we can destroy their homes, breeding grounds, and main feeding areas. Cats, on the other hand, are lesser predators. They can destroy the animals, of course, but they can't build buildings and destroy numerous nesting grounds which apparently result in less procreation. Humans are the one's building along the coast lines and destroying nesting grounds, not cats. In other words, when it comes to preserving another species, cats are a lesser evil than humans only because they do much less damage. This, in my opinion, would be the logic of an environmentalist who sees no problem with the cat/bird situation. Whether or not they'd side with the cats or birds, I don't know. Personally, I'd step back and let nature take it's course. The birds have a much better chance of survival as long as they actually have the ability to keep reproducing.

Very Good Point. Any way I am not in a position to answer your question. I am not an animal lover. But I am not against envionmentalists also. I am Staying in Bangalore which is known as the Silicon city of India. Here the stray dogs are a threat to human life. But I never heard an enviornmentalist arguing for the safety of human beings. When the authorities start to take action, the so called animal lovers made all hue and cry. I believe that most of this animal lovers' hue and cry is to get the publicity. I can assure you no enviornmentalist will be ready to put their money for this purpose.