bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 17
th, 2012 at 1:59pm:
... wrote on Feb 17
th, 2012 at 1:54pm:
bobbythefap1 wrote on Feb 17
th, 2012 at 1:50pm:
Here is my reasoning, especially in a nation like Australia.
It is ok for cat owners to let their cats go out and kill native animals so why is it wrong to kill a cat to prevent them killing native animals?
Isn’t it the same logic?
Its not like I want this to be the case tho, I would much rather cat owners take responsibility and lock up their cats so to not damage their environment and threaten the extinction of native animals.
There is no reason for cats to be wandering the streets, the argument that ‘they are wild and use to wander around before humans’ is bunk because so did dogs but we can’t let them out can we?
But if cat owners will not take responsibility why can I not use the same logic they do and stop their cat from killing other animals.
Ahh yes, another cat hater dressing his hatred up as concern for native wildlife. Where is your concern when clearing blocks for human habitation? By your rreasoning we shopuld be able to kill developers, or anyone who lives in rural areas. Afetr all, they do more damage to native wildlife than a million cats could.
Pets are seen as part of the family. Kill a member of ones family, and see the response you get.
I don’t hate cats; I hate pet owners who don’t take responsibility and proper care for their animals. Part of caring for any other animal on the planet is making sure it can’t hurt itself or other animals; why should cats be any different?
I have huge concern for clearing nature for human habituation if it’s not sustainable but that’s not the issue here.
There are ways that developers can do their work sustainably, just like a cat owner can lock up their cat. So a developer can be fined/jailed and cats can be culled.
So if I keep a pet lion that runs around killing people it’s ok cause its part of the family?
If it was part of the family you would keep it safe and make sure it’s not a danger to anything.
I've always shared my space with a cat, I've never owned one, though I pick up the tab for food and vet bills.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2781/2781-h/2781-h.htm#link2H_4_0011People have shared their space with cats for thousands of years. Now some freedom hating morons think they know better. But councils that have banned cats are getting overrun with rodents.
Cats are not 'great predators of marsupials', or birds. That's not to say they never kill them, but rodents are their niche market. A feral cat will charge a rabbit and take its head clean off in an awesome display of speed, skill and ferocity. It'll half heartedly hone its skills stalking a bird or a bilby. If the bird or bilby is sick or old they might be caught and that's the environmental benefit of cats. They might also catch a pidgeon or a twentyeight parrot which are so slow it's a wonder they've survived this long, but they do and well.
Note, the feral animals that compete with native animals for the same foods are the threat. Cats predate on rabbits and other rodents in preference to anything else. A pal of mine used to shoot out on the nullarbor plain. He had his quota of Kangaroos to cull and shot cats when he could. When the farmers noticed the dead cats (and the effect) he was told off roundly, "whaddya think keeps down the rabbits mate?"
Birds fly, cats don't. That's what makes a cat a very poor predator of birds. A good predator is another bird and Australia is full of excellent raptors. Butcher birds too are very ruthless killers of other birds. All small marsupials are much better at climbing than cats. Cats are slow and ponderass climbers. Possums scoff at cats. Cats climb to escape danger, not to pose a danger.
Cats have lived in Australia almost as long as dingoes. Cats are a totem animal of indigenous desert people who respect them very much. They established themselves here way earlier than Europeople settlement, (.
Environmentalism 101, the top predators are the most vulnerable part of the food chain.
For example, The east african savannah, perhaps the richest graceland on the planet, supports a wide range of animals. But it's wall to wall with wilderbeeste and zebra, not cats. The grazing animals are always on the move. When they have young they can run almost within the hour. Cats have young, they have to stay put for a year to raise them. Just as true for a moggie in the bush as it is for a cheetah.
So why has the cat got such a reputation in Australia? Classic scapegoating! Controlled burns of bush to reduce the risk of fire to human settlements takes place in Spring. When the bush is still a bit wet and wont burn too fiercely> That's the theory anyway. Mostly prescibed burns turn into raging fires. They try to do too much at once. Setting the fires by aerial bombing.
What they are trying to burn is the dead plant material on the forest floor. They call it 'fuel', you could call it mulch, you could call it food. If you extract timber and you extract the mulch and you don't fertilise, (which of course you don't because to fertilise the forest of Australia would use the worlds remaining phosphate reserves in a year), you continuously erode the forest capability to support itself and its critters. Apart from which if you burn in s