This is not a big deal in the United States as far as I'm aware. At least, nowhere I've ever lived (9 states so far) had anything like a cat curfew. Animal control mostly ignores them and focuses on dogs. If nothing else, Australia's ecosystems are inherently more fragile than those of the Americas and Eurasia just because of the relative isolation. Americas are also relatively more isolated and fragile than Eurasia (big part of why natives were easy to conquer - no horses and very little disease resistance), but not as much as Australia.
That said, even though introduction of cats everywhere but Eurasia was also human action, the contribution of domestic cats to wildlife endangerment is minuscule next to everything else humans do. Habitat loss from cities, monoculture farming, and building roads everywhere does way more destruction than cats can ever do. Cats are arguably even critical to urban rodent control, which is probably why we started keeping them as pets in the first place (aside from being so damn cute). Feeding off our stray trash would put rats and racoons and what not totally out of control if nothing was preying on them.
By the time the European colonies on the east side of North America had established themselves and sorted out things like independence and were ready to start expanding west around 95% of the Native population to the west had died off due to pandemics of non-native diseases.
The Native tribes had had extensive trade networks that spanned the continent, which unfortunately for them inadvertently also spread those non-native diseases and so the massive die off reached nearly everywhere--even places that European explorers has never come anywhere near.
I don't see how it removes agency from Native Americans to note that after suffering what was in effect nearly an extinction level event it was not hard for European invaders to conquer the survivors.
Comments
This is not a big deal in the United States as far as I'm aware. At least, nowhere I've ever lived (9 states so far) had anything like a cat curfew. Animal control mostly ignores them and focuses on dogs. If nothing else, Australia's ecosystems are inherently more fragile than those of the Americas and Eurasia just because of the relative isolation. Americas are also relatively more isolated and fragile than Eurasia (big part of why natives were easy to conquer - no horses and very little disease resistance), but not as much as Australia.
That said, even though introduction of cats everywhere but Eurasia was also human action, the contribution of domestic cats to wildlife endangerment is minuscule next to everything else humans do. Habitat loss from cities, monoculture farming, and building roads everywhere does way more destruction than cats can ever do. Cats are arguably even critical to urban rodent control, which is probably why we started keeping them as pets in the first place (aside from being so damn cute). Feeding off our stray trash would put rats and racoons and what not totally out of control if nothing was preying on them.
From what I read, this is an oversimplification to the point where it removes agency from Native Americans and make the whole topic inherently biased.
By the time the European colonies on the east side of North America had established themselves and sorted out things like independence and were ready to start expanding west around 95% of the Native population to the west had died off due to pandemics of non-native diseases.
The Native tribes had had extensive trade networks that spanned the continent, which unfortunately for them inadvertently also spread those non-native diseases and so the massive die off reached nearly everywhere--even places that European explorers has never come anywhere near.
I don't see how it removes agency from Native Americans to note that after suffering what was in effect nearly an extinction level event it was not hard for European invaders to conquer the survivors.