I agree that most non-veg people will think it's too radical a matter to even consider. However, my gut feeling is that many (if not most) omnis are not particularly interested in really thinking about animal-treatment issues. They generally think ANY serious consideration of this is "loony". One (vegan) member over at VeggieBoards commented in a thread about this (I'm quoting from memory, which isn't perfect): "Nobody is saying that animals don't suffer and die in nature, or that this suffering doesn't matter. They do and it does. But what are you suggesting be done about this?".........
The one area I disagree with you Nobody is how we handle questions about wild animal suffering when debating the ethics of meat eating with omnivores. If you say “yes, we should control wild animals” the average omnivore will just think you are a loony and not take you seriously after that, and so it will damage your argument. It is just too radical a position for the majority of omnivores. It also allows them to divert the discussion away from their own meat eating. I think the better response is to say that lions are irrelevant when you are standing in the supermarket choosing whether to buy a steak or a veggie burger. You have to debate strategically at times.
I think the non-anthropogenic bad things that happen to animals should matter to someone who cares about animals, but when someone brings this up, it usually appears to be an excuse not to make any real effort in that area at all: "Nature is at least as cruel as humans, so we just shouldn't get all hot-and-bothered about slaughterhouses, etc".