Science/Environment Culling of Wild Animals

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Posts
11,359
Likes
12,341
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
I've seen some flimsy rationalisations for genocide but this is up there with Adolf. You should be on some sort of watchlist.
What if he isn't culling a particular group of people?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

SaltPeter

"I’m a professional bullshitter"
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Posts
4,059
Likes
4,468
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
The government has already embarked on an eradication of buffalo in the NT in an effort to rid cattle herds and domesticated buffalo herds from tuberculosis and brucellosis during the 80's and 90's.

Largely this was done to protect Australia's export meat market
 

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,193
Likes
9,729
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't really get the cat thing. My cat kills shit loads of grasshoppers, moths etc, along with the odd mouse/bird - but why would I care? Can someone explain why it matters enough to want to rid the country of all cats?
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,063
Likes
13,645
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
I don't really get the cat thing. My cat kills shit loads of grasshoppers, moths etc, along with the odd mouse/bird - but why would I care? Can someone explain why it matters enough to want to rid the country of all cats?
Yes.

It is the cumulative impact. There is an estimated 20 million (estimates vary) feral cats in Australia. Nobody is feeding them Wiskas each night, they are fending for themselves by hunting. Start calculating how many small birds/marsupials etc each cat needs daily to survive, and then multiply that to get a yearly figure. That figure looks huge, and is bound to have an impact on the survival prospects for a few endagered Aussie critters.

The feral population needs to be controlled and reduced. Where the banning of domestic cats comes in is that they form the feeder population to replenish the feral population because irresponsible owners release their unwanted animals into the bush (unsterilised of course) rather than put them down or have them sterilised. It's all well and good reducing the feral population but something has to be done to stop people form replenishing their numbers.
 

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,193
Likes
9,729
AFL Club
Geelong
Yes.

It is the cumulative impact. There is an estimated 20 million (estimates vary) feral cats in Australia. Nobody is feeding them Wiskas each night, they are fending for themselves by hunting. Start calculating how many small birds/marsupials etc each cat needs daily to survive, and then multiply that to get a yearly figure. That figure looks huge, and is bound to have an impact on the survival prospects for a few endagered Aussie critters.
Is there any proof of this? I.e. that certain critters are or are at risk of becoming extinct, and that feral cats play a significant role? I mean, I guess it makes sense logically, but have there been any studies into the impact cats are having?

Also, and this is more to the point I was making, does it matter if any of these critters go extinct? Who's going to miss the grasshoppers, for example? Or am I not thinking broadly enough here - is it more the flow on effect you're worried about, i.e. grasshoppers go extinct; then whatever was eating the grasshoppers has less food so they might go extinct; then whatever is eating the things that were eating the grasshoppers have less food and so on; is that the issue?

Animals kill each other in the wild all the time, I guess I'm just wondering why it's different for cats.

The feral population needs to be controlled and reduced. Where the banning of domestic cats comes in is that they form the feeder population to replenish the feral population because irresponsible owners release their unwanted animals into the bush (unsterilised of course) rather than put them down or have them sterilised. It's all well and good reducing the feral population but something has to be done to stop people form replenishing their numbers.
Yeah, I see your point there and I'm sure it does happen, but I'm not convinced that it is an overly significant issue. What percentage of domesticated cats end up being released unwanted into the wild? The vast minority would be my guess, though admittedly I have exactly 0 in the way of data to back that up.

What if all feral cats were eradicated today - how long do you think it would take to replenish their numbers with formerly domesticated cats, or at least replenish them enough to be a problem? And could that be addressed with better education and more strict rules regarding cat ownership (and disownment), rather than banning them outright?

I'm happy to concede that I'm definitely coming from a selfish point of view here (as Jim Jeffries might say - "**** you, don't take my cats!"), but I'm still not yet convinced that we need to be banning domesticated cats.
 
Last edited:

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,063
Likes
13,645
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Is there any proof of this? I.e. that certain critters are or are at risk of becoming extinct, and that feral cats play a significant role? I mean, I guess it makes sense logically, but have there been any studies into the impact cats are having?

Also, and this is more to the point I was making, does it matter if any of these critters go extinct? Who's going to miss the grasshoppers, for example? Or am I not thinking broadly enough here - is it more the flow on effect you're worried about, i.e. grasshoppers go extinct; then whatever was eating the grasshoppers has less food so they might go extinct; then whatever is eating the things that were eating the grasshoppers have less food and so on; is that the issue?

Animals kill each other in the wild all the time, I guess I'm just wondering why it's different for cats.



Yeah, I see your point there and I'm sure it does happen, but I'm not convinced that it is an overly significant issue. What percentage of domesticated cats end up being released unwanted into the wild? The vast minority would be my guess, though admittedly I have exactly 0 in the way of data to back that up.

What if all feral cats were eradicated today - how long do you think it would take to replenish their numbers with formerly domesticated cats, or at least replenish them enough to be a problem? And could that be addressed with better education and more strict rules regarding cat ownership (and disownment), rather than banning them outright?

I'm happy to concede that I'm definitely coming from a selfish point of view here (as Jim Jeffries might say - "**** you, don't take my cats!"), but I'm still not yet convinced that we need to be banning domesticated cats.

As far as I know, this has been well documented and accepted as scientific orthodoxy that feral cats cause extinctions of native species. Whether this matters or not is a philosophical question and not open to one correct answer.

Cats reach breeding age at 1 year. Then they can have 2 litters per year, with up to 4 kittens each litter. So you're talking serious exponential growth.
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
5,288
Likes
7,935
AFL Club
Collingwood
Valid points by the anti-catters, but a full ban of domestic cats is unrealistic and punishes the majority of owners who are responsible.

A law compelling breeders to have all kittens microchipped is a start, as then cats caught in the wild can be tracked back to their registered owner, who can be fined for releasing them.

Owners (who are not registered as breeders) can be fined also for not desexing their cat by x months old.
 

Admiral Byng

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 3, 2009
Posts
18,063
Likes
13,645
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Perth Scorchers
Valid points by the anti-catters, but a full ban of domestic cats is unrealistic and punishes the majority of owners who are responsible.

A law compelling breeders to have all kittens microchipped is a start, as then cats caught in the wild can be tracked back to their registered owner, who can be fined for releasing them.

Owners (who are not registered as breeders) can be fined also for not desexing their cat by x months old.
I guess we possess that technology now, it is an option.

I'm not convinced on a complete ban either, but such is the way of things that a blanket arbitrary law is often the cheapest and least complicated way of implementing things. I am a former cat owner myself and was rather fond of my diabolical little hunting machine.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
7,884
Likes
5,935
AFL Club
GWS
The government has already embarked on an eradication of buffalo in the NT in an effort to rid cattle herds and domesticated buffalo herds from tuberculosis and brucellosis during the 80's and 90's.

Largely this was done to protect Australia's export meat market
Hardly the first feral species that we've tried to eradicatd. We've done everything we can with rabbits as well. A lot if work has gone into feral pigs as well.
 

Thrawn

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Posts
31,676
Likes
22,188
Location
Melbourne, Australia.
AFL Club
Carlton
Feck off.

Don't want psychopaths pretending to be "conservationists " just so they have an excuse to burn or torture an animal alive. Even on this forum, there are people with the attitude of "anything goes" which includes some really gruesome and unnecessary things.

The very reason why I detest this line is because some people will use to justify their own sadism. If you need to kill an animal, you do it quickly. You do not torture it. Thus, "any means" is invalid once you start picking it apart. Remember, humans are the root cause of animal and ecological issues, animals don't ask to be born what they are.
 

_Wildcard_

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Posts
3,151
Likes
3,319
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
I've seen some flimsy rationalisations for genocide but this is up there with Adolf. You should be on some sort of watchlist.
You do know what the definition of Genocide is, don't you? The word doesn't really seem to fit in this instance. I mean you can put me on watch list if you like, but all you're going to see is a guy with no authority or responsibilities sitting around all day eating and jacking off to porn. Oh, and by the way - look up the word "facetious" while you're at it.

There are too many people in the world, and with every passing year there are more. Except the Western economies, who rely upon the baby factories of the third world to replenish their stocks of young people so they can keep their economies at pace with, or ahead of, the rest of the world. The most ridiculous thing is that with wealth and comfort, the population begins to decrease naturally, but we can't even let it do that because if we do, we lose the wealth and comfort. Catch-22.

Every government in the world is aware of population pressure, but only one has had the balls to even attempt a remedy - China. And they gave it up as soon as it started to hit them in the all-important hip pocket. Half the reason they want control of the South China Sea is to get control of the last remaining fish stocks before it is destroyed as a reliable food source.

I can't think of too many world problems which wouldn't be significantly relieved by population reduction. Water, energy, resources. Global warming. Pollution. Stability and war. Cut the population, you alleviate all of those issues significantly. But no one has the balls to do it - rational thinkers and governments know it'll hurt their economies (and we can't have that), and the proles are all tied up in sentiment and the "value of human life" paradigm.

Australia has one of the worst extinction rate of native animals in the world.
Future generations will curse the current ones for not doing something about it when they had the chance. And we won't even be able to use the excuse that we didn't know any better, because we did know - we were just too ******* stupid and selfish to care.

But you hold onto your comfort kittens, and tell yourself how valuable every human life is, every night.
You'll be dead by the time anyone has cause to curse you.
 
Last edited:

_Wildcard_

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Posts
3,151
Likes
3,319
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
There is no real way to know if that is why cats play with prey.

When you see dogs going after every rabbit or rat in a field and killing them, that must be some sort of fun for them.
Likewise cats hunting because that's what they do...catch , play , kill
All play is training and practise for life. This is why our kids toys are dolls, trucks, lego and meccano, those sorts of things. Or... were.

It probably is fun for a cat to play with its prey, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.
 

FireKraquora

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Posts
5,288
Likes
7,935
AFL Club
Collingwood
You do know what the definition of Genocide is, don't you? The word doesn't really seem to fit in this instance. I mean you can put me on watch list if you like, but all you're going to see is a guy with no authority or responsibilities sitting around all day eating and jacking off to porn. Oh, and by the way - look up the word "facetious" while you're at it.

There are too many people in the world, and with every passing year there are more. Except the Western economies, who rely upon the baby factories of the third world to replenish their stocks of young people so they can keep their economies at pace with, or ahead of, the rest of the world. The most ridiculous thing is that with wealth and comfort, the population begins to decrease naturally, but we can't even let it do that because if we do, we lose the wealth and comfort. Catch-22.

Every government in the world is aware of population pressure, but only one has had the balls to even attempt a remedy - China. And they gave it up as soon as it started to hit them in the all-important hip pocket. Half the reason they want control of the South China Sea is to get control of the last remaining fish stocks before it is destroyed as a reliable food source.

I can't think of too many world problems which wouldn't be significantly relieved by population reduction. Water, energy, resources. Global warming. Pollution. Stability and war. Cut the population, you alleviate all of those issues significantly. But no one has the balls to do it - rational thinkers and governments know it'll hurt their economies (and we can't have that), and the proles are all tied up in sentiment and the "value of human life" paradigm.

Australia has one of the worst extinction rate of native animals in the world.
Future generations will curse the current ones for not doing something about it when they had the chance. And we won't even be able to use the excuse that we didn't know any better, because we did know - we were just too ******* stupid and selfish to care.

But you hold onto your comfort kittens, and tell yourself how valuable every human life is, every night.
You'll be dead by the time anyone has cause to curse you.
My mum used to argue that curing all diseases is a bad thing, due to the over-population argument. She changed her tune pretty quickly when my sister was diagnosed with cancer and needed modern chemo to survive. I think most people who are cool with a great war or disease taking human numbers down would change their mind immediately if it were going to affect them or their loved ones.

Infinite growth is unsustainable, but we can cater for the foreseeable future with technological advances. For example, growing meat is an environmental disaster. Clearing huge amounts of land to grow livestock, epic methane emissions, etc. This could be largely rectified with "lab grown meats". If juicy steaks can be pumped out of a factory with little carbon footprint, it would be a complete game changer. We'll probably have nanobots zipping around eating up pollutants in the future, and god knows what else.

Don't be so cynical m8.
 

CheapCharlie

Premiership Player
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Posts
3,928
Likes
4,206
AFL Club
Sydney
All play is training and practise for life. This is why our kids toys are dolls, trucks, lego and meccano, those sorts of things. Or... were.

It probably is fun for a cat to play with its prey, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a purpose.
A cat chasing a laser pen for hours on end. Example of training?
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Posts
7,884
Likes
5,935
AFL Club
GWS
Yes not saying that we CAN'T grow things like cotton and wheat.
Not the same thing.

Cotton has pretty much destroyed the Darling river. Now one in 50 year droughts are the norm in terms if water flow.

Have a look at where the Darling runs, in it's lower reaches it is the only permanent water source for large area, and is 20 million years old.

Thank **** a proposal to grow cotton on Coopers creek was canned. Largely for logistical reasons though as the water source isn't permanent.
 

Hawk Dork

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Posts
24,777
Likes
19,540
Location
on the road to nowhere
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Hawks
Not the same thing.

Cotton has pretty much destroyed the Darling river. Now one in 50 year droughts are the norm in terms if water flow.

Have a look at where the Darling runs, in it's lower reaches it is the only permanent water source for large area, and is 20 million years old.

Thank **** a proposal to grow cotton on Coopers creek was canned. Largely for logistical reasons though as the water source isn't permanent.
Cotton destroys the soil too
 

quotemokc

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Posts
11,359
Likes
12,341
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Atlanta Falcons/Winnipeg Jets
Top Bottom