Australia, of course, is one of those fantastic examples of how to mess up ecosystems developed over tens of millions of years with just stupidity as a guide. As a continent, Australia was long isolated by continental drift and an amazingly unique flora and fauna evolved with minimal impact from species elsewhere. The marsupials underwent a diversification that resulted in those forms, kangeroos, marsupial wolf-like forms, etc., unique to Australia. Humans, entering perhaps 35,000 years ago (a saga unto itself) brought the dog and their hunting habits, but the native fauna and flora remained relatively intact until "civilization" met Australia. "Civilized folks," feral cats, rats, rabbits, deer, camels, sheep, and lots of other naon-native animals and plants has had a horrid impact on the once pristine continent. Of course, humans have managed to all but imperil virtually all the unique floras and faunas of Africa, Europe, North and South America, Asia, the Arctic and the Antarctic, as well as the ocean basins. Oh my, that's the whole world, isn't it.

So perhaps eating feral cats in Australia is not so extreme after all: the cats have a useful purpose. I recall reading that certain Hong Kong eating establishments serve feral rats on the menu and the dishes seem quite popular. Perhaps the answer to world hunger is to look toward all the wrong things we have done: exploding feral cat populations, rats, perhaps pigeons that plague our urban areas. Why, there is an untapped reservoir of protein everywhere.

I've read that something like 50,000,000 unwanted dogs and cats are 'put to sleep' by American animal shelters every year. They are then presumably buried in landfills with other trash. I've always wondered why we don't sell them to restaurants serving ethnic groups that consider dogmeat and catmeat delicacies, or export them to the pertinent countries. (As far as I know that's Korea for dogs, and parts of China and Africa for dogs and cats -- not to mention rats, snakes, and monkeys.) They're just as dead either way, so why waste good protein? As long as the meat is clearly labeled, so no one eats cat or dog unknowingly, what exactly would be the problem?

An interesting and challenging idea does center about who eats what and why. Whether "Fido" is table fare is of course cultural in origin. Our French friends seem to enjoy a tasty horse (with French or Freedom fries I know not), something that strikes us (Americans) now as not only horrid, but illegal, while feeding horsemeat to Fido was/is allowed, but eating Fido at our local BBQ is not. Similarly, rather than controlling feral pet numbers by destroying those caught, the notion of "packaging" the carcasses for food export is just not likely to happen--that too is cultural.

One might suggest that since cultural tastes vary, and we are not to be overly judgemental, many cultures, Native American (Chaco and elsewhere); Aztec, Mayan, various Oceanic cultures, African and Asian cultures, have valued and seemingly acquired a taste for human flesh. I guess the point is that although standards, tastes and customs vary in space and time, some set of rules seem to be inviolate. Thus, we do not eat other humans any more--I believe the last "leader" to confess to tasting human flesh was not an Aztec warrior, but Idi Amin. Most countries do not eat dogs any more even if they once did. Eating monkeys and apes is usually frowned upon now. We realize they are but a few genes away from being us and it just doesn't seem right. The last eating of apes seems to have been the origin of the AIDS epidemionc in humans so it is really a bad idea to eat chimps and gorillas.

Apart from the eating of "unusual" foods, there is the issue of threatened and endangered species. If one wants to eat Komodo Dragons (whether they taste like chicken or not), the impact on these animals can be disastrous goiven their rarity. The same applies to most if not all primates and most large mammals around the world. The greater good is to give up eating gorillas and saving them for the future, rather than giving in to habit.

"Humans, entering perhaps 35,000 years ago (a saga unto itself) brought the dog and their hunting habits, but the native fauna and flora remained relatively intact".
1) The dog was brought much later.
2) Early man in Australia seems to have killed off all the megafauna.

nah

"Pleistocene overkill" is a hypothesis that has largely killed itself off...

I thought that the consensus is that humans entered Australia 50 thousand years ago.

The "Pleistocene overkill" theory is still in robust health according to recent issues of "Australasian Science"