On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:08:46 +1100, Trish Brown wrote:

Bumblebee wrote:

Unfortunately the majority of birds flying over our homes in suburbia
are sparrows, mynas and pigeons. We have quite a few Eucalypts in our
suburb however and Magpies pay us a visit for up to a week at a time.
During their stay listening to their song is a delight.

Is it just me, or are other suburban dwellers noticing more and more native
birds coming back??? Especially the parrots?

I think so, we *do* have a small variety of Parrots and sometimes a
flock of Sulphur Crested Cockatoos will arrive and spend a few hours
with us. In our area it wouldn't have happened a few years back, we
feel it is due to cleaning up what use to be known as "Newport Tip".

My hope is that councils will come to understand the benefits of redressing the
'bad' stuff we've done to our localities and try to gradually put it right. I
think the informed decision to limit the influence of cats, dogs and other
domestic pet animals on wildlife is a step in the right direction.

Newport Quarry, later known as the Newport Tip is within a few
kilometres of where I live. Our Council cleaned up the area a bit.
Perhaps I may be under stating what they have achieved vbg
http://home.vicnet.net.au/~fonl/history/dreamtime.html

Mind you, I'm
not saying get *rid* of such animals! I'm simply asking that people think hard
about the effects they can have and try to keep their companion animals in such
a way as to minimise their damage. That sounded really A-bout-face, but y'know
what I mean?

Councils in our area are trying to educate people regarding their
responsibility in owning a dog or cat. They encourage microchip
implants so if a dog or cat is found wandering it can be returned to
its owner, although with an appropriate fine.
--

Chris Bee

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. 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).
The justification of *our* 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.)
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. All you do is just try to give a sense of why you don’t find cats cute. You don’t need to give any justification for that.
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.

I suspect that the main idea behind your arguments is that you just don’t like 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.

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.

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. 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).
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.)
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. All you do is just try to give a sense of why you don’t find cats cute. You don’t need to give any justification for that.
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.

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.

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.

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. 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)

Okay, I can recommend that you actually make an attempt to educate
yourself and not display such gross ignorance of basic ecological
matters.

Basic ecological lesson; As Australia is an island, cats are not a part
of the natural environment in Australia, so the australian wildlife has
not adpated to cats. So when cats were introduced, they literally
decimated certain species and exterminated others.

Now, Israel is located in the pathway between Africa and the rest of the
world. so whether cats evolved in Africa and spread to the rest of the
world, or whatever, Israel has/had it fair share of cats. Cats have been
there fore X hundreds of thousands years. So the wildlife that is left
has adapted to/learnt to survive with cats, or they are extinct. Of
course, in reality, Israel has bugger all wildlife, especially when
compared to Australia.


Why do I think cats are to blame: I glad you asked that question. {:-).
Because, cats are everywhere in australia, even the deserts. In the
1950's they brought in what they thought was the last wandering
aborigines from the country. In the 1980's, they found a bunch that
didn't want to be found before. When asked what they had lived on, the
answer was "cats". They had a documentary recently on ABC/SBS (?) and
the old girls (60+) calmly demonstrated how they ran down cats, then
cooked and ate them. there are no foxes in the desert and a great many
other places.

The foxes gets the bad PR, but the cats are responsible. Go out spot
light hunting and you can be overrun with cats every night, but only see
a fox once a month.

I have a lot of "galahs" and "grass parrots" in my yard that I feed with
peach face mix.
I also have eucalypts and other natives...

Regards,
Mitch.


"Trish Brown" wrote in message
...
Bumblebee wrote:

Unfortunately the majority of birds flying over our homes in suburbia
are sparrows, mynas and pigeons. We have quite a few Eucalypts in our
suburb however and Magpies pay us a visit for up to a week at a time.
During their stay listening to their song is a delight.
--

Chris Bee

Y'know, the people living in our area seem to have gone *mad* planting
native
trees! Maybe because of the drought, maybe not. Anyway, I've noticed an
amazing
increase in the numbers of native birds visiting this pretty dreary
suburban
area over the past five years or so. From the ho-hum sparrows and pigeons,
we've
now got about ten different honeyeaters (including Noisy Friarbirds),
pardalotes, flycatchers and more recently (yay!) a pair of Little Falcons!
We've
even had a Channel Billed Cuckoo and a White Tailed Black Cockatoo
squawking
along overhead!

Is it just me, or are other suburban dwellers noticing more and more
native
birds coming back??? Especially the parrots?

My hope is that councils will come to understand the benefits of
redressing the
'bad' stuff we've done to our localities and try to gradually put it
right. I
think the informed decision to limit the influence of cats, dogs and other
domestic pet animals on wildlife is a step in the right direction. Mind
you, I'm
not saying get *rid* of such animals! I'm simply asking that people think
hard
about the effects they can have and try to keep their companion animals in
such
a way as to minimise their damage. That sounded really A-bout-face, but
y'know
what I mean?

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

"mf197421" wrote in message
...

Im sorry, but it isnt really believable that a single species could
possibly have as monumental an effect on the environment as the one you
describe.

No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this point. If you would like to get in
contact
with ANY Parks & Wildlife people here in Australia, they could give you
chapter and verse about the destruction cats cause.

A friend just came back from a visit to Israel where the
majority of cats are actually feral and she didnt notice any extensive
destruction of the wildlife and the landscape (which, mind you, is
mostly man-created and therefore quite sensitive).

The assumption that because feral cats dont have an effect on
the environment in Israel (Something I would seriously question) THERFORE
they wont have a devastating effect on the Australian fauna is a very flawed
assumption to make. Completely different evolutionary paths for each
ecology.

It's a bit like saying 'My dog is black, therefore all dogs are black'. Not
very smart....

There is a large section of land that has been fenced off in Western
Australia to safe-keep the last breeding population of one of the small
marsupials (One of the Pademelons, or Bettongs??), and the main purpose of
that fence is to keep feral cats out. There are Native fauna people who
patrol that fenced area daily to ensure cats are not entering the breeding
area, and any cat seen in the area is shot on sight. Those people (who work
for one of the environmental agencies in Australia) see cats as THAT big a
threat to the success of the breeding program.
If you want to read one of Douglas Adams's books; 'Last Chance to see', and
in particular the section about the Kakapo parrot in New Zealand. These
(now-flightless) parrots had no predators for most of their evolution(and so
lost their need to fly), and their method of defence in encountering a cat
is to lie still on the ground. They simply dont know what to do, and can no
longer fly to escape. The only way of keeping this animal off the extinct
list was to transport a breeding population to an island, and ruthlessly
kill every introduced predator that might come near them. This included
cats, rats,
and I think one other type of introduced predator. These beautiful parrots
are a hairs-breadth away from being gone, and it is only due to the
dedication of a team of conservationists involved in this project that the
Kakapos are likely to survive.
Would you like more examples??? Nearly every country in the world has a
similar project, with the same preparedness to kill introduced animals to
protect
an endangered species.

My point in my previous post was that your view about life being sacred
doesnt
work when you introduce an animal (like the cat) into an environment that
has
evolved without a similar type of predator. Nearly all of the land-based
predators
that evolved in Australia (The dingo was introduced some many thousands of
years
ago, and its impact is still hard to assess) are marsupial, and have quite
low birth
rates compared to cats. The cat was introduced, and not only can it
out-breed any
of the native predators, but it is capable of eating quite a few of them as
well. The
effect is a huge reduction in the native populations of some very exotic
marsupials,
birds and even some types of frogs. This then starts to cause an effect all
the way
through the ecosystem.

The justification of *our* 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.)

Sorry??? I dont recall suggesting we go on a cat-slaughtering rampage and
kill every moggy on earth! What I was trying to get across was the killing
of the few cats we do catch was a very small sacrifice to keep our precious
wildlife we have here in Australia. I havent once suggested that killing a
cat was by any stretch of the imagination a 'prettier sight' than anything.
I do agree with you that killing ANY living animal shouldnt be an action
that is done without thought, but we here live in an environment where the
cat is a problem. Simply wishing the problem away wont halt the loss of our
native wildlife.
A live Rainbow bee-eater perched in a tree IS a much prettier sight than a
cat raiding their breeding burrows in an earthern bank. They are one of the
many animals that do suffer from predation by cats.

Apart from that, there isnt much in your posting explaining why its
necessary to systematically kill cats, much less why this does not
raise moral or humanitarian questions. All you do is just try to give a
sense of why you dont find cats cute. You dont need to give any
justification for that.
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.)

I'm not even going to touch the whole religous values thing; too many
thorns there.
As far as the Cane Toad is concerned, I am glad you are not in charge of
halting the spread of these insidious creatures across mainland Australia.

Anyways, one must realize that a decision to kill is a serious matter.
I didnt see any such seriousness in the message to which I originally
replied.

Yes, but my reading of the same posting was the OP was simply being
pragmatic about an act that occurs frequently enough for them to be familiar
with what to do. I didnt read anything that suggested they were
thoughtless, callous or making light of it. If they had suggested they were
torturing the animal, or causing it unnecessarry pain or suffering, I would
think otherwise. From what I read, they were doing exactly what our Parks &
Wildlife service would dearly love most people in Australia to do.


I suspect that the main idea behind your arguments is that you just
dont like cats and that you are afraid of anything not completely
under your control in your property and its surroundings. Thats fine
but from that to trying systematically to eliminate stray cats is a big
step.

I hate to break it to you, but MOST of the animals in my life seem to run
their own show, and I'm just comic relief for quite a few of them. As I
stated previously, I dont hate cats at all. However, I hate what they do to
our environment when loose. As far as the 'big step', simply talk to any
expert on Australian fauna, and ask them how much effect do they think feral
cats have had. I'd love to be there to hear the reply...


In any case, you might want to try to find out why your emotions on
this issue are so intense. I dont think the topic warrants such
intensity.

Ahhh, but you do! You thought the OP was thoughtless and callous when it
came to taking the life of a wandering cat. You felt they had demonstrated a
disturbing lack of consideration for the animals welfare.
Lets face it; your values dont translate over here. You expressed concern
about an Australian poster in an Australian news group, and yet you know
little about the country you wish to force your beliefs on.

I prefer to live in my cat-free environment, where the notorious bum-patting
Toiletto Frogoli terrorises people attending the outside loo. Where the
Red-Tailed Black Cockatoos spend most of their days citicising our laundry
hanging on the line, and where the Rainbow Bee-Eaters cavort overhead in the
mornings. Where a visit to the laundry is under the intense gaze of a
resting
Tawny Frog-Mouth Owl. Where the night-time floodlights are populated by
countless
Broad-Banded Sand Swimmers, and where a (supposedly diurnal) Shingle-back
lizard can chase his tail (he was trying to catch a grasshopper sitting on
it) in peace. Where the Willy-Wag-Tail can raise endless broods of chicks,
and where heavy rain is punctuated by the yapping of burrowing frogs
desparately
seeking a single female with view to wild sex and no commitment...

If I have to kill a few cats to keep these things, then so be it...

Cheers,

Rod.....Out back.

In article ,
"Rod Out back" wrote:


Thanks Chris, and also thankyou for pointing out it is an AUS group. I
forgot to mention this in my verbal outpouring. I'd like to think
Australians are a bit more pragmatic about feral animal control.
I wonder if this person will love and cherish every Cane Toad they
encounter...

Probably. A friend of mine (also in suburban Sydney) noticed rats in her
neighbour's back yard, and spoke to him about baiting. He was horrified at
the thought of anyone murdering the poor little ratties -- his preferred
control method was to catch them in live traps and release them into Georges
River National Park! My friend had toddlers. She was not impressed. (The
reason for the high rat population was poorly-stored chook food.)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

"mf197421" wrote in message
...

Im sorry, but it isnt really believable that a single species could
possibly have as monumental an effect on the environment as the one you
describe.

No, I'm sorry, but you are wrong on this point. If you would like to get in
contact
with ANY Parks & Wildlife people here in Australia, they could give you
chapter and verse about the destruction cats cause.

A friend just came back from a visit to Israel where the
majority of cats are actually feral and she didnt notice any extensive
destruction of the wildlife and the landscape (which, mind you, is
mostly man-created and therefore quite sensitive).

The assumption that because feral cats dont have an effect on
the environment in Israel (Something I would seriously question) THERFORE
they wont have a devastating effect on the Australian fauna is a very flawed
assumption to make. Completely different evolutionary paths for each
ecology.

It's a bit like saying 'My dog is black, therefore all dogs are black'. Not
very smart....

There is a large section of land that has been fenced off in Western
Australia to safe-keep the last breeding population of one of the small
marsupials (One of the Pademelons, or Bettongs??), and the main purpose of
that fence is to keep feral cats out. There are Native fauna people who
patrol that fenced area daily to ensure cats are not entering the breeding
area, and any cat seen in the area is shot on sight. Those people (who work
for one of the environmental agencies in Australia) see cats as THAT big a
threat to the success of the breeding program.
If you want to read one of Douglas Adams's books; 'Last Chance to see', and
in particular the section about the Kakapo parrot in New Zealand. These
(now-flightless) parrots had no predators for most of their evolution(and so
lost their need to fly), and their method of defence in encountering a cat
is to lie still on the ground. They simply dont know what to do, and can no
longer fly to escape. The only way of keeping this animal off the extinct
list was to transport a breeding population to an island, and ruthlessly
kill every introduced predator that might come near them. This included
cats, rats,
and I think one other type of introduced predator. These beautiful parrots
are a hairs-breadth away from being gone, and it is only due to the
dedication of a team of conservationists involved in this project that the
Kakapos are likely to survive.
Would you like more examples??? Nearly every country in the world has a
similar project, with the same preparedness to kill introduced animals to
protect
an endangered species.

My point in my previous post was that your view about life being sacred
doesnt
work when you introduce an animal (like the cat) into an environment that
has
evolved without a similar type of predator. Nearly all of the land-based
predators
that evolved in Australia (The dingo was introduced some many thousands of
years
ago, and its impact is still hard to assess) are marsupial, and have quite
low birth
rates compared to cats. The cat was introduced, and not only can it
out-breed any
of the native predators, but it is capable of eating quite a few of them as
well. The
effect is a huge reduction in the native populations of some very exotic
marsupials,
birds and even some types of frogs. This then starts to cause an effect all
the way
through the ecosystem.

The justification of *our* 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.)

Sorry??? I dont recall suggesting we go on a cat-slaughtering rampage and
kill every moggy on earth! What I was trying to get across was the killing
of the few cats we do catch was a very small sacrifice to keep our precious
wildlife we have here in Australia. I havent once suggested that killing a
cat was by any stretch of the imagination a 'prettier sight' than anything.
I do agree with you that killing ANY living animal shouldnt be an action
that is done without thought, but we here live in an environment where the
cat is a problem. Simply wishing the problem away wont halt the loss of our
native wildlife.
A live Rainbow bee-eater perched in a tree IS a much prettier sight than a
cat raiding their breeding burrows in an earthern bank. They are one of the
many animals that do suffer from predation by cats.

Apart from that, there isnt much in your posting explaining why its
necessary to systematically kill cats, much less why this does not
raise moral or humanitarian questions. All you do is just try to give a
sense of why you dont find cats cute. You dont need to give any
justification for that.
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.)

I'm not even going to touch the whole religous values thing; too many
thorns there.
As far as the Cane Toad is concerned, I am glad you are not in charge of
halting the spread of these insidious creatures across mainland Australia.

Anyways, one must realize that a decision to kill is a serious matter.
I didnt see any such seriousness in the message to which I originally
replied.

Yes, but my reading of the same posting was the OP was simply being
pragmatic about an act that occurs frequently enough for them to be familiar
with what to do. I didnt read anything that suggested they were
thoughtless, callous or making light of it. If they had suggested they were
torturing the animal, or causing it unnecessarry pain or suffering, I would
think otherwise. From what I read, they were doing exactly what our Parks &
Wildlife service would dearly love most people in Australia to do.


I suspect that the main idea behind your arguments is that you just
dont like cats and that you are afraid of anything not completely
under your control in your property and its surroundings. Thats fine
but from that to trying systematically to eliminate stray cats is a big
step.

I hate to break it to you, but MOST of the animals in my life seem to run
their own show, and I'm just comic relief for quite a few of them. As I
stated previously, I dont hate cats at all. However, I hate what they do to
our environment when loose. As far as the 'big step', simply talk to any
expert on Australian fauna, and ask them how much effect do they think feral
cats have had. I'd love to be there to hear the reply...


In any case, you might want to try to find out why your emotions on
this issue are so intense. I dont think the topic warrants such
intensity.

Ahhh, but you do! You thought the OP was thoughtless and callous when it
came to taking the life of a wandering cat. You felt they had demonstrated a
disturbing lack of consideration for the animals welfare.
Lets face it; your values dont translate over here. You expressed concern
about an Australian poster in an Australian news group, and yet you know
little about the country you wish to force your beliefs on.

I prefer to live in my cat-free environment, where the notorious bum-patting
Toiletto Frogoli terrorises people attending the outside loo. Where the
Red-Tailed Black Cockatoos spend most of their days citicising our laundry
hanging on the line, and where the Rainbow Bee-Eaters cavort overhead in the
mornings. Where a visit to the laundry is under the intense gaze of a
resting
Tawny Frog-Mouth Owl. Where the night-time floodlights are populated by
countless
Broad-Banded Sand Swimmers, and where a (supposedly diurnal) Shingle-back
lizard can chase his tail (he was trying to catch a grasshopper sitting on
it) in peace. Where the Willy-Wag-Tail can raise endless broods of chicks,
and where heavy rain is punctuated by the yapping of burrowing frogs
desparately
seeking a single female with view to wild sex and no commitment...

If I have to kill a few cats to keep these things, then so be it...

Cheers,

Rod.....Out back.

In article ,
"Rod Out back" wrote:


Thanks Chris, and also thankyou for pointing out it is an AUS group. I
forgot to mention this in my verbal outpouring. I'd like to think
Australians are a bit more pragmatic about feral animal control.
I wonder if this person will love and cherish every Cane Toad they
encounter...

Probably. A friend of mine (also in suburban Sydney) noticed rats in her
neighbour's back yard, and spoke to him about baiting. He was horrified at
the thought of anyone murdering the poor little ratties -- his preferred
control method was to catch them in live traps and release them into Georges
River National Park! My friend had toddlers. She was not impressed. (The
reason for the high rat population was poorly-stored chook food.)

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Jeez; if only those Ancient Greek storytellers had known about the astonishing
creature that is the *Usenet hydra*: you cut off one head, and *a stupider one*
grows back..." -- MJ, cam.misc

Terry Collins wrote:

snip

The foxes gets the bad PR, but the cats are responsible. Go out spot
light hunting and you can be overrun with cats every night, but only see
a fox once a month.

I *have* to tell this story!

Years ago, my sister and I had a very skinny horse. In an attempt to help him
put weight on, we would give him a hot mash (with molasses) each morning.
Nothing happened! He stayed skinny (but ate - well - like a horse!) One morning,
after delivering the hot mash, we went back to retrieve a forgotten bucket.
Imagine our surprise when a big (fat) dog-fox jumped *out of the trough*, in
which he had been sharing with the horse!

We began to watch this fox and even got a reasonable photo of him. He would wait
until we had plonked the mash in the horse's trough and then, quick-as-a-wink,
hop in alongside the munching horse's head. He would eat for five minutes or so
and then hop out again. With a whisk of his tail, he'd be gone off up the creek
to parts unkown!

The *really* strange thing is that this horse was *notoriously* 'thingy' about
his tucker! If you hung around too long after putting his feed in the trough,
his ears would go back and he'd snake his neck out and bite you on the nearest
hunk of yourself he could reach. For some inexplicable reason, he took utterly
no notice of Mr Fox hopping in his trough and scoffing off half his breakfast!
In the end, a hefty dose of worming paste and an evening mash got the weight on
the horse and he did much better. We lost track of Mr Fox, but whenever I see a
fox pup on the Minmi Road, I wonder if it's one of his descendants!

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

Terry Collins wrote:

snip

The foxes gets the bad PR, but the cats are responsible. Go out spot
light hunting and you can be overrun with cats every night, but only see
a fox once a month.

I *have* to tell this story!

Years ago, my sister and I had a very skinny horse. In an attempt to help him
put weight on, we would give him a hot mash (with molasses) each morning.
Nothing happened! He stayed skinny (but ate - well - like a horse!) One morning,
after delivering the hot mash, we went back to retrieve a forgotten bucket.
Imagine our surprise when a big (fat) dog-fox jumped *out of the trough*, in
which he had been sharing with the horse!

We began to watch this fox and even got a reasonable photo of him. He would wait
until we had plonked the mash in the horse's trough and then, quick-as-a-wink,
hop in alongside the munching horse's head. He would eat for five minutes or so
and then hop out again. With a whisk of his tail, he'd be gone off up the creek
to parts unkown!

The *really* strange thing is that this horse was *notoriously* 'thingy' about
his tucker! If you hung around too long after putting his feed in the trough,
his ears would go back and he'd snake his neck out and bite you on the nearest
hunk of yourself he could reach. For some inexplicable reason, he took utterly
no notice of Mr Fox hopping in his trough and scoffing off half his breakfast!
In the end, a hefty dose of worming paste and an evening mash got the weight on
the horse and he did much better. We lost track of Mr Fox, but whenever I see a
fox pup on the Minmi Road, I wonder if it's one of his descendants!

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

Terry Collins wrote:

snip

The foxes gets the bad PR, but the cats are responsible. Go out spot
light hunting and you can be overrun with cats every night, but only see
a fox once a month.

I *have* to tell this story!

Years ago, my sister and I had a very skinny horse. In an attempt to help him
put weight on, we would give him a hot mash (with molasses) each morning.
Nothing happened! He stayed skinny (but ate - well - like a horse!) One morning,
after delivering the hot mash, we went back to retrieve a forgotten bucket.
Imagine our surprise when a big (fat) dog-fox jumped *out of the trough*, in
which he had been sharing with the horse!

We began to watch this fox and even got a reasonable photo of him. He would wait
until we had plonked the mash in the horse's trough and then, quick-as-a-wink,
hop in alongside the munching horse's head. He would eat for five minutes or so
and then hop out again. With a whisk of his tail, he'd be gone off up the creek
to parts unkown!

The *really* strange thing is that this horse was *notoriously* 'thingy' about
his tucker! If you hung around too long after putting his feed in the trough,
his ears would go back and he'd snake his neck out and bite you on the nearest
hunk of yourself he could reach. For some inexplicable reason, he took utterly
no notice of Mr Fox hopping in his trough and scoffing off half his breakfast!
In the end, a hefty dose of worming paste and an evening mash got the weight on
the horse and he did much better. We lost track of Mr Fox, but whenever I see a
fox pup on the Minmi Road, I wonder if it's one of his descendants!

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

snip invalid ecological argument

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.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check this link re toxoplasmosis :
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasi...oplasmosis.htm
The summary - it's a lot like glandular fever, unless you are
pregnant. In this case, there is a high chance of miscarriage, still
birth or massive birth defects. The disease is spread only via cat
faeces. Most commonly, the cat dumps in a garden bed and people then
contract it while gardening.
My wife contracted this when we thought she might be pregnant. There
is a wait of 1-2 weeks for all the tests, and let's just say that this
isn't a fun time in your life. While we were speaking with the doctor
about options, he mentioned that they had recently had a still born
baby in our area caused by a toxo. infection
We don't own any cats, but there are 3 'community' cats that use our
yard as a litter box.
My neighbour is currently pregnant and we have several friends
expecting and so any cat that we catch on our property meets a fairly
rapid end.

This isn't such a problem in the US, as most people already carry the
disease ( once you've had it you are immune to future infections ). In
Australia, it's relatively rare and therfore a much higher risk.

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.
Agreed. My reasons are the same as killing rats - the cats are a pest
that spread disease.

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 don't _like_ cats, that's why I don't own one.
But, I don't hate cats. The same as I don't hate rats or mice.
Most of these problems would be solved if cat owners kept their pet on
their own property. Less chance of them contracting & spreading
disease, as well as less annoyance for others in the area.

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.

snip invalid ecological argument

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.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check this link re toxoplasmosis :
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasi...oplasmosis.htm
The summary - it's a lot like glandular fever, unless you are
pregnant. In this case, there is a high chance of miscarriage, still
birth or massive birth defects. The disease is spread only via cat
faeces. Most commonly, the cat dumps in a garden bed and people then
contract it while gardening.
My wife contracted this when we thought she might be pregnant. There
is a wait of 1-2 weeks for all the tests, and let's just say that this
isn't a fun time in your life. While we were speaking with the doctor
about options, he mentioned that they had recently had a still born
baby in our area caused by a toxo. infection
We don't own any cats, but there are 3 'community' cats that use our
yard as a litter box.
My neighbour is currently pregnant and we have several friends
expecting and so any cat that we catch on our property meets a fairly
rapid end.

This isn't such a problem in the US, as most people already carry the
disease ( once you've had it you are immune to future infections ). In
Australia, it's relatively rare and therfore a much higher risk.

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.
Agreed. My reasons are the same as killing rats - the cats are a pest
that spread disease.

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 don't _like_ cats, that's why I don't own one.
But, I don't hate cats. The same as I don't hate rats or mice.
Most of these problems would be solved if cat owners kept their pet on
their own property. Less chance of them contracting & spreading
disease, as well as less annoyance for others in the area.

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.

[quote]Originally posted by Adam
[b]snip invalid ecological argument

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.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Check this link re toxoplasmosis :
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasi...oplasmosis.htm
The summary - it's a lot like glandular fever, unless you are
pregnant. In this case, there is a high chance of miscarriage, still
birth or massive birth defects. The disease is spread only via cat
faeces. Most commonly, the cat dumps in a garden bed and people then
contract it while gardening.
My wife contracted this when we thought she might be pregnant. There
is a wait of 1-2 weeks for all the tests, and let's just say that this
isn't a fun time in your life. While we were speaking with the doctor
about options, he mentioned that they had recently had a still born
baby in our area caused by a toxo. infection
We don't own any cats, but there are 3 'community' cats that use our
yard as a litter box.
My neighbour is currently pregnant and we have several friends
expecting and so any cat that we catch on our property meets a fairly
rapid end.


In your position I wouldn’t spread the story about your wife. At least in the US, you guys would be in danger of being taken your children away for failing to follow the very minimal hygienic precautions necessary to avoid such diseases. Common sense should be enough but if you want them spelled out, read the home page you yourself quote:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dpd/parasi...oplasmosis.htm
It’s not enough to recommend it to others you must READ IT YOURSELF (completely not “summarizing” it in your preferred way) and follow the fairly obvious advice on hygiene it contains. Otherwise, even if you exterminate all animals in your vicinity you’re bound to catch all sorts of diseases from other people, from food, from plants, etc. etc.
Also, you should be careful about the “fairly rapid end” met by strays in your property. I hope it is not less rapid than a phone call to the local Animal Control authority. I don’t know the Australian law but I do know that Australia is not Afghanistan-under-the-Talibans and I expect that anything else than proper euthanasia is illegal. Avoiding a ride to the local animal authority does not make you a heroic defender of your family. It only makes you lazy, at best, and inhumane, at worst.