Below is something I hastily finished putting together this afternoon, in time for midnight in Australia.
If anyone is interested, the Victorian Government is planning to class feral cats as pests, which would be catastrophic (pun SO intended) for innocent cats that roam on government land managed by the Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning (DELWP) or Parks Victoria.
This has largely been done under the radar with small token attempts at stakeholder engagement (because they are legally obliged to). The only reason cat rescues in Melbourne became aware was because of the diligence of our members.
We have requested meetings with the elected members responsible for Labor's Animal Welfare Action Plan but have probably been dismissed as crazy cat people (which is true) but nonetheless we are unarguably Subject Matter Experts on the elusive, the beautiful, the incorrigible felis catus. And we often pick up the slack of local councils when it comes to animal control.
So this awful proposal means that Departmental staff (and their extremely ominous "agents", most likely Shooters, Fishers and Farmers political party members) will be able to shoot cats.
Am I correct in identifying the only feral ones in this situation?
20 May 2018
Decoding the myth: an evidence-based alternative to culling cats
Dear Department of Environment,
Land Water and Planning.
There comes a time in every
policy-maker’s life where one is faced with the choice to embrace
evidence-based decision making with short-lived populism. Good decisions are
ones that are not only more effective in the long-term, but kinder to all
Australians.
We understand that this is your
purpose; it is ours, too.
This submission will illustrate
why this will reflect negatively on the Andrew’s Government. We will also
demonstrate the lack of evidence for the relationship between cat culling and
improved outcomes for wildlife, and we will present better alternatives to you
than the Feral Cats Declaration.
Summary points:
1. This will be unpopular in the Victorian community
2. Risk to stray and domesticated roaming cats
3. This is an open contradiction to the Victorian Government’s Animal Welfare Plan
4. A lack of evidence
5. This proposal is unsuitable for Victoria’s open environmental system
6. It is not possible to measure the success of this initiative, end-to-end
7. A waste of resources
8. Suggestions from the Cat Rescue Community
We suggest that research is done
on cat and wildlife numbers in kill and no-kill areas - instead of being
classed as a pest, wild cats are 'prohibited' from being in highly bio-diverse areas. We also strongly suggest the humane method of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR)
be introduced.
*We have referenced Alley Cats
Allies (https://www.alleycat.org/), a
non-profit organisation. We acknowledge the bias that may exist in this
organisation, however have used the academically-referenced parts of their material
and believe this to be an excellent resource, even though it is secondary
information.
*You will notice that we have
tried to avoid the term ‘feral’ cat and for our purposes, we prefer to use the
term ‘wild’ (cat who lives 3–5 kilometers from nearest human dwelling. Derives
no benefit of food or shelter from humans), which is also useful is differentiating
between stray cats (cat who derives some food or shelter from humans)
1. This will
be unpopular in the Victorian community
In 2015, 23.6% of Australians 14+
reported owning at least one cat (Roy Morgan Research 2016). Cats are companion
animals for many people and there is usually only a few generation’s difference
between wild* cats and their domestic counterparts. We at Cheltenham Cat Rescue
often see the impossible become possible; cats with little to no past human
contact can be socialised within months, with the right care. If you think that
there is a world of difference between a wild and a domesticated cat, you are
likely to be mistaken. Companion, wild and stray cats are all part of the same
species, felis catus.
More and more young people are making
ethical choices for animals in Victoria’s largest city. On April 28, 2018,
3,000 animal rights supporters marched in Melbourne (The Age 2018), preceding
Labor’s call to end Live Sheep Export on May 3 (ABC News 2018). It goes without
saying that this growing constituency would find the shooting of innocent cats
abhorrent, along with many other voters who are against cruelty to animals.
This is Labor’s opportunity to
show that it can increase its relevance for young people; many more of whom are
voting for the Greens in crucial inner-city seats.
It seems that because of the
disproportionate voice of the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers Party and misguided
environmentalists, this proposal is up for discussion – not to mention
happening under the radar. But it doesn’t have to be this way.
2. Risk to stray and domesticated roaming cats
This proposal implies that cats
will not be scanned for microchips before being culled. Imagine the Victorian community’s
response when their beloved, micro-chipped companion animals are shot and killed
for roaming outside.
Note that at our cat rescue we advocate for keeping cats indoors.
3. This is an open contradiction to the Victorian Government’s Animal Welfare Plan
You have highlighted the need for
a ‘modern Animal Welfare Act (Animal
Welfare Action Plan December 2017)’. You have invited our consultation, so
please entertain our insights on what exactly constitutes modern animal welfare
in the Victorian Community. Let us present to you our interpretation.
Your vision statement states that
you want ‘A Victoria that fosters the caring and respectful treatment of
animals.’ What is the point of a vision statement when the actions you take
with this plan openly contradict care, respect and even science.
Your purpose is ‘To ensure
Victoria continues to improve animal welfare and is well respected globally for
animal welfare practices.’ This proposal is and will be opposed by animal
rescue groups, who will be vocal and attract criticism to the Andrew’s
Government.
You aim to have ‘compliance and
enforcement that is efficient and effective.’ In our section on lack of
evidence below we will prove that repeated, global attempts at cat culling have
been ineffective. If something is ineffective it is not possible for it to be
efficient.
Your plan refers to
evidence-based decision making and the importance of science. ‘Science
demonstrates that animals are sentient. This means they experience feelings and
emotions such as pleasure, comfort, discomfort, fear and pain. Sentience is the
primary reason that animal welfare is so important.’ If it is sentience that is
most important to the Andrew’s Government then this proposal is a massive
contradiction of what you say outwardly, versus what is being proposed quietly.
Lastly, your own Agriculture Minister,
the Hon Jaala Pulford is pictured with her companion cat. This not only makes
the face of your organisation look hypocritical; it is offensive to the whole cat
species whom you are claiming to have compassion for.
Please note that we have been
attempting to secure a meeting with your Minister since 2017 and despite the
criticisms of your government we may state below, we would like nothing more
than a harmonious working relationship with your members.
4. A lack of evidence
No causal link exists between
culling wild cat populations and better outcomes for native wildlife.
Studies show that the
overwhelming cause of wildlife depletion is destruction of natural habitat due
to manmade structures, chemical pollution, pesticides and drought – not wild
cats. The United States government tracks how many birds, for example are
killed through anthropogenic causes (Erickson 2011) and cats do not make that
list.
There
is even groundbreaking evidence released in 2014 (Lazenby) that ‘Compared
with the average, the minimum number of feral cats known to be alive (MKTBA)
for feral cats during the pre- and post-culling surveys, cat numbers increased
by 211% and 75%, respectively, during the 13-month period of culling at the
Mount Field and Tasman Peninsula study sites.’
Studies prove that cats are not a significant threat, especially
when compared to the very real dangers from human activities, and that they play important roles
in balancing the local ecosystem. For example, they often step in to fill the
place of now extinct or greatly diminished small predators.
We note that the wildlife species used as justification for this proposal
are mostly birds.
You may be interested to know that wild cats are opportunistic feeders - they
will eat whatever food is easiest to find. For many wild cats, people’s garbage
is a main source of food. Just as cats 10,000 years ago were attracted to the
easy, consistent food source that the first human settlements provided, wild
cats today scavenge on the scraps that all human habitats inevitably produce. A
study of a feral cat colony in Brooklyn found that the cats depended more on
local garbage for food than on either prey or food provided by caregivers, and
that the neighborhood produced enough garbage to feed three times more cats
than actually lived in that area (Grayson et al 2007), (Alley Cat Allies 2018).
If cats hunt, they prefer rodents. The staunchest opponents of Trap-Neuter-Return
(TNR) would prefer having all outside cats be rounded up and killed instead of
allowed to continue their lives outdoors. They mislead the public.
Decades of studies prove that when cats do hunt, rodents and insects are
the prey they hunt and consume the most. Studies have shown cats to be far more
efficient hunters when they sit and wait for prey - outside a rodent burrow,
for example - than when they stalk and pounce, the way they approach birds. As
opportunistic feeders, cats are more likely to go for your garbage, eat bugs,
or sit and wait to catch rodents than take their chances chasing birds who can
easily spot them and fly away (Alley Cat Allies 2018).
The complexity of the Victorian ecosystem needs to be considered. If you
understand ecosystems, removing cats is worse for everyone. Opponents of TNR
often call for cats to be trapped and killed or relocated to protect wildlife.
Since there is no evidence that cats are a species-endangering threat to any of
our bird species, there’s no foundation for calls to remove and/or kill outdoor
cats from [our] landscape. Cats play a complex role in local ecosystems and
cannot simply be removed from any environment without consequences. The
scientific phenomena; compensatory predation, the mesopredator release effect and
the vacuum effect all illustrate why removing cats is harmful to the entire
habitat, and why TNR is truly the best approach (Grayson et al 2007), (Alley Cat
Allies 2018).
Compensatory Predation is also something to consider. Although cats do
occasionally prey on other animals, taking a bird here or there doesn’t
necessarily impact the survival of the species. Evidence suggests that cat
predation is often “compensatory predation” - preying on animals that would
likely have died anyway from disease or hunger. Studies show that the animals
caught by predators are generally weaker and more diseased than those killed by
manmade sources. One study found that ‘birds killed by cats had significantly
lower mass, fat scores, and pectoral muscle mass scores’ than birds of the same
species killed by cars or windows (Lepczyk 2009). These studies indicate that
cats are catching what some biologists refer to as the “doomed surplus”—animals
who would not have lived, and so whose death does not affect overall population
levels.
Maintaining ecological balance is far more complicated than cats versus
birds, predator versus prey. While cats sometimes might be the top predators in
their environments, some of the animals they prey on are also predators, like
rats. The predators who fall lower on the food chain are called mesopredators.
They prey on certain species - in the case of rats, small or fledgling birds
and bird eggs - while being prey to larger predators themselves (Prue et al
2009).
5. This proposal is unsuitable for Victoria’s open environmental system
According to a 2014 Tasmanian
study, Australia is an open system and eradication of wild or stray cats is
complicated by the greater diversity of non-target species and sheer space that
needs to be covered. These systems are also very vulnerable to re-invasion of
cats. Culling ‘may alleviate, but does not remove, the predation threat and
impact on prey species.’ (Lazenby 2014) Re-invasion is inevitable, making this
proposal a waste of taxpayer’s money.
The only documented “successful”
effort to remove a population of cats occurred in a cruel program on
uninhabited, sub-Antarctic Marion Island (Ratcliffe et al 2009). It took two
decades and ruthless methods that are impossible to replicate in areas
inhabited by people, including poisoning, hunting with guns, and introducing
disease to clear the island of cats. As scientists tried each method, they
noted “the recolonisation of preferred habitats, cleared of cats, from
neighbouring suboptimal areas…” In other words, like the mountain lions,
whenever they killed cats in the best habitats, the cats next door simply moved
in. Lazenby (2014) also backs this up: ‘The greatest reductions in cat populations,
including complete eradication, have been achieved on small islands where
refuges are limited and immigration is non-existent.’
The Victorian Government would be
more successful if it allocated resources to educating the community on
de-sexing stray and household cats, provided incentives to councils for
de-sexing programs and conducted trap-neuter-release on government land.
6. It is not possible to measure the success of this initiative, end-to-end
Monitoring the success of the
Feral Cats Declaration will be next to impossible due to the ‘cryptic and wary
behavior’ of cats. Lazenby (2014) states that ‘less invasive and humane
techniques for monitoring abundance are required’, such as collection of hair
samples, analysis of genetic markers and infrared cameras – all effective and
readily available with recent advances in technology. Lazenby also states that the results of the Tasmanian
study ‘highlight the need for monitoring effectiveness of any operations that
seek to reduce the impacts of feral cats.’
We do
not see this proposal as much more than an attempt to cater to the cruel and inhumane
hobby of shooting animals and killing them.
7. A waste of resources
Due to the lack of evidence for efficacy
of cat culling, this is a colossal and unscientific waste of taxpayer money.
In conclusion, nobody sums up our
argument better than Lazenby on his 2014 study in Tazmania:
‘The low-level culling effort we
used did not constitute a sustained, multi-faceted, long-term downward pressure
on our study populations, which may be required if culling is to be used in
programs of feral-cat control (Braysher 1993; Olsen 1998; Hone 2007; Dickman et
al. 2010). Rather, this study provides evidence that ad hoc culling of feral
cats may be not only ineffective, but has the potential to increase the impact
of feral cats in open populations. Even worse, the decline in numbers of cats
trapped over the 13-month cull could have led to erroneous conclusions that the
culling was effective if we had not been able to monitor the populations
independently.’
We at our cat rescue urge
you to reconsider this proposal as it would have catastrophic consequences for wild, stray and potentially domesticated cats,
as well as being a fiscally irresponsible, unpopular and unscientific action to
take.
There is a bibliography - but let's face it, no one will read it. I would be happy to send to anyone interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment