mf197421 wrote:

I’m sorry, but it isn’t really believable that a single species could
possibly have as monumental an effect on the environment as the one you
describe.

I think this is where a great deal more education is needed so we can *all*
understand biological systems better. You'd be surprised at the devastation
*any* 'single species' can cause on an unprotected population. The only way to
really know is to watch the animals, write down the numbers and do the maths.
It's pretty convincing when you've done the counting yourself! Ask anyone in
charge of a wildlife preserve - they'll tell you!

I believe the clearest evidence is that of stomach contents taken from trapped
and subsequently 'euthanased' feral cats. I think any Parks and Wildlife officer
would be willing to share recent data with you - and I believe the data would
speak for themselves! If you examine enough cats whose entire stomach contents
consist of native fauna, I think it's fair to draw a pretty dismal conclusion,
don't you?

A friend just came back from a visit to Israel where the
majority of cats are actually feral and she didn’t notice any extensive
destruction of the wildlife and the landscape (which, mind you, is
mostly man-created and therefore quite sensitive).

Yes, I can understand how you'd draw a comparison between Oz and Israel
(although, sadly, I've never travelled there myself). The climate regimes seem
similar, the landforms and habitat zones could well appear similar too. I
believe there've even been extensive plantings of eucalypts there, which would
intensify the appearance of similarity to Australian landscapes!

Mind you, though, it's not always OK to assume similarities! There are also lots
of differences! The Middle East is quite, quite different from Australia at the
ecological niche level as well as in its biodiversity. For example, Israel is
smack in the middle of the area where cats first evolved! The fauna of that area
'grew up' with a selection of predators, including cats, weasels, wolves,
raptors and man. They have long exposure to such predators and, if you accept
the theory of natural selection, they are adapted perfectly to avoid becoming
someone else's lunch!

The 'man made' aspect of Israel's environment might or might not be relevant - I
don't know! If there was hardly any native avifauna there to begin with, well
then the feral cats *can't* have had much effect, now, can they? If there have
been other, more efficient predators at large, then maybe they've one-upped the
cats and stolen their show, so to speak? I only know about Australia and so I
can only speak about that.

Here in Australia, we have some rather notable deficiencies in our biodiversity.
For example, we have no (native) hoofed animals! This is why our soil, our grass
and our landscape are so very susceptible to degradation by cattle and sheep:
they're just not adapted to suffer continual trampling *along with* regular
moisture deprivation *along with* periodic burning *along with* hot, dusty winds
*along with* periodic flooding by unseasonal rains.

We have no extant large mammalian predators either. This is why our fauna is
*not* adapted to cope with wide scale predation by *any* species! The handful of
predators we do have are either birds (which are highly territorial and
therefore cannot exist in any great numbers in a given area) or tiny and
nocturnal! Notable exceptions to this are/were the Tasmanian Devil, the
Thylacine (extinct) and Thylacoleo, the marsupial 'lion' (also extinct). In the
absence of many predators, our fauna has none of the adaptations found elsewhere
in the world that enable prey species to survive.

Probably the most sensitive species to cats would be our small passerine
(sparrow-like) birds - or 'songbirds'. They nest in the places which are most
available to cats: lower branches in trees or shrubs; holes in the ground;
directly *on* the ground; in grass thickets and so on. I'm sure you can see that
any bird nesting in such a situation is going to be fair prey to a hunting cat?
As I said, you only have to look at figures for stomach contents and the proof
is there. The worry is that irresponsible owners have allowed their cats to roam
at large, not only killing wildlife, but also breeding indiscriminately. This
gives the cats an unfair advantage against the wildlife and many of us can see
the balance tipping so far that the outlook for wildlife seems dim indeed!
Especially when you project into the future and imagine numbers dwindling at
ever-increasing rates!

The justification of your right to regularly kill cats on the grounds
that they are predatory is even less convincing (I guess you consider
death by injection or gas of millions of cats a “prettier sight” than a
cat catching birds to eat.)

No. I don't believe that. I'm afraid I'm enough of a nutter to believe in the
sanctity of life, whatever form it takes. I hate the idea of killing cats or
*any* living creature!

BUT...

Sometimes, it becomes necessary to cull or remove some creatures when they're at
risk of doing unconscionable damage. We *had* to do something about rabbits,
didn't we? Surely everyone can remember the films taken in the 1930s? I think
myxomatosis was a *horrible* expedient, but at that time in history, it had to
be released! There was no workable alternative.

Then!

Today, we have other means. Technologies that stem from molecular biology and
genetics is giving us practical and possible means of diminishing the numbers of
animal pests in a relatively humane way. Biological control seems to be proving
effective in controlling some pests. Chemical control seems not to be as
effective as it was once considered to be. We have a great deal to learn! The
thing is, most of us agree that our wildlife in Australia is unique and
wondrous. I'm afraid it's far more wondrous than the domestic cat is! Like it or
not, cats *are* a dime a dozen and why d'you think *that* is? It's because
they're such an efficient, effective predator in a place which was never
equipped to keep their numbers in check by natural means. So, *un*natural means
have to be used to reduce the number of cats we have in Oz!

Apart from that, there isn’t much in your posting explaining why it’s
necessary to systematically kill cats, much less why this does not
raise moral or humanitarian questions.

Good point! I think most of us assume that killing is the only way to approach
the problem. Who knows, though? There could well be a more effective, but
longer-term alternative (eg. mass chemical sterilisation - of the cats, that
is!) which might prove more palatable to all of us!? Mind you, in *my* mind, I'm
thinking of uncontrollable *feral* cat populations - I have no more wish to kill
your pet than you do!

I *do* think that pet cats ought to be kept caged just as a pet tiger or ferret
or wolf would be... for reasons I hope I've made clear above.

snip

As for your question whether we must let them live just because they
are alive, the answer is simply yes unless there is a serious reason
forcing us to do otherwise. According to our values (at least the
Judeo-Christian ones) all life is sacred and one must have good reasons
to take it away. (For instance, with the Cane Toad to answer your
question, I might have no other option if it threatens me and my
family. There is no such danger from stray cats.)
Anyways, one must realize that a decision to kill is a serious matter.
I didn’t see any such seriousness in the message to which I originally
replied.

Yes. I agree with you in principle about there needing to be a serious reason
before one elects to take any life. However, you and I are looking from one
point of view and there are many others, just as valid as ours. I'm afraid, in
my household, the danger to my family from toxoplasmosis or hydatid cysts from
the cat box is far greater than any danger from Cane Toad poisoning! It's all
relative, I s'pose. Also, we need to make a strong distinction between 'domestic
pet' cats, 'stray' cats and 'feral' cats. Each has its own effect on the
environment and each needs a different solution. I hope, though, that you can
also see the view that allowing your cat to roam is signing the death warrant to
a significant number of native birds? Holding the view of Life that you mention
above, surely it seems contradictory that you might allow your cat the freedom
to kill other creatures (especially when you presumably provide its food)?

I suspect that all there is behind your arguments is that you just hate
cats and that you are afraid of anything not completely under your
control in your property and its surroundings. That’s fine but from
that to trying systematically to eliminate stray cats is a big step.

I hear what you're saying! The whole point about 'stray' cats, though, is that
by definition, nobody wants them! They belong to no one! No one takes
responsibility for them. No one controls them. No one feeds them or heals their
illnesses. No one prevents them from turning, in a single generation, into feral
cats which breed at an alarming rate! Sadly, there *is* no place in this country
for feral cats - they're murder!

In any case, you might want to try to find out why your emotions on
this issue are so intense. I don’t think the topic warrants such
intensity.

Mmmm... but some of us do!

Once upon a time, I could drive up the New England Highway and see a Kestrel or
Brown Falcon or Black-Shouldered Kite on every second telegraph pole. Today, if
I see one of these birds, I have to stop the car, get out and take a photo!
They're no longer as common as they were ten years ago! That's because of DDT
(thins their eggshells so the hatchlings aren't hardy enough to survive). I feel
*really* passionate about that! If only we'd known what an awful effect DDT
would have on so many aspects of our Australian life, we would have done
something about it long ago! Too late now!

Many of us can see at first hand that increasing and uncontrolled cat numbers
*are* having a definite effect on bird, reptile and small mammal populations. It
makes us *ill* to think of many, many more of our wonderful, unique species
being put at risk, simply because cat owners *just won't* cooperate and help by
confining and desexing their pets.

Have you been out bird-watching and *seen* the feral cats hunting? I have! I've
seen a feral cat big enough to stalk and kill a large male hare (that was a
*big* cat and he was *ferocious* - you should've heard the hare screaming!
Wasn't pretty!) I've seen a domestic cat catch and nearly kill a little Marsh
Snake (I managed to save that and kept it for a while in a terrarium before
releasing it - it was *so* cute!) I've collected bucketsful of dead migratory
waders, all killed by a handful of 'dumped kittens' (they grew up!) in a
mangrove swamp, of all places! I've rescued more Blue Tongue lizards from cats
than I could possibly count!

Could you do some research of your own? Make some phone calls to Parks and
Wildlife or WIRES or even your local vet. Ask if they can give you figures to
disprove the idea that cats are a dangerous predator. I'd be more than
interested in any information you could post here!

For the record, I have two pet cats, both dumped at my place by some charming
soul who felt that was a fine thing to do. I keep these cats indoors, but one of
them escapes from time to time. She has brought her prey home to me on occasion
and it has consisted of birds and lizards, mostly. She *used* to catch mice, but
since we've had a Black Snake living under the house, mice haven't been a
problem, thank heavens! Snakes are *much* better mousers than cats!


--
Trish {|:-}
Newcastle, NSW, Australia