Foxy,
Yes, releasing them into the wild would likely have a devastating effect but I think desexing and attrition would be the way to go, not release.

Arjay,
<<Pets are often substitute children>>
I think you're dead right on that one.
You see it in the names people give their dogs these days.
It used to be Rover and Fido.
I've heard Jeremy and Lily lately, not to mention darling and sweetie.
I have a theory that young couples who delay having children while they save for their house have pets as substitute children but of course I can't substantiate this.
My brother-in-law was beside himself with grief when he backed his 4wd over the poodle.
He couldn't bring himself to go to work for a week.

Pynchme,
<<Research shows that people who have pets live longer>>
This is equivalent to an overpopulation effect, another argument for getting rid of pets.

Fester,
<<succumb to an illness spread by a blue tongued lizard or a kookaburra (aren't they noisy?)>>
Hmmm, haven't heard of blue tongued lizards spreading disease and I adore the sound of kookaburras.
What I have trouble with is seeing owners kissing their dogs with open mouths.
There was a picture in the paper once and you could actually see the strand of saliva going from the dog's mouth to the owner's mouth.
I saw my sister doing it to her dog once (not french kissing).
Yuk!

Gee KMB, miserable much?.

KMB.Pets being substitute children is a sign of a society with serious problems in my view.I have witnessed it in very affluent relatives of mine who want for nothing,yet this mother who wanted a daughter said to her two sons recently,care for your sister and the bitch was a Droodle.My wife and I were gob smacked.

KMB and Arjay - I'm pretty sure neither of you will lose any sleep over it, but I won't be inviting you to visit. I don't think my youngest son, Arnold James, would be happy in your company. You might make fun of his height (about 10 inches) or convey to him the notion that you think he has no right to be alive - 14 year olds can be so sensitive.

KMB - I bet you're the life of every party.

Pynchme,We have to get real.Many yrs ago I visited my cousin on a remote sheep station of 80,000 acres and we travelled around his property with his three dogs for a day.One of those dogs had three legs which did not get in the jeep in time for the return journey of 12 kms.Hours later it came home panting and was given food and water.I leant down to pat his dog,Tony,"Don't pat the dog you'll spoil him,he's a working dog!" We city folk just don't get it.For some it really is about survival and for many,pets are just an indulgence.

It's ok Arjay; I was just stirring a bit:) I'm a bushie myself and I do understand the working dog ethos. Never owned one though so I don't know how necessary it is to act so distant from them.

I am fair dink about my little old foxie though. He's a great comfort and companion. My (actual) son grew up side by side with Arnold's mother; she passed away at age 17; when my son was 17. Many happy memories there; they were so cute and funny together.

I just can't grasp the idea that we can or should just disregard the wonderful quality of life that creatures bring to us.

As fellow creatures on the planet too, I also think they have a right to be here and since we have dominion, that it's our obligation to ensure their right to exist is protected. If we'd consider working towards eliminating animals with which we have a symbiotic relationship then there is no justification for protecting any other living thing on the planet. What's a spotted owl, tiger, panda or elephant do for me? They just foul up the environment with more crap... noise... might as well do away with them as well.