Thought I might throw a little fuel into the mix on this one. After doing
a bit of reading, I smell rats rather than cats. I note that Penny Olsen
was involved with the 2007 risk assessment for the hybrid cat which seems
to raise the stakes a little from an ornithological angle. You can get
both the 2007 and 2008 reports from the "claimants" site,
My reading of the respective reports is that the 2007 report on which the
Parkers appear to be relying for evidence of approval does not come to
clear conclusions about risk potentials. Uncertainty of outcome is the end
line, and many of the details of both the 2007 and 2008 reports directly
contradict the claims being made to rather lazy journalists who do not
appear to be taking a
deeper interest in cross-checking the legal grounds of the compensation
whinge by these people.
And on another note, the story is gathering very strange, but completely
typical dimensions as the usual suspects and perpetrators of total
ignorance get on board to bash a change in government.
For instance, here is a quotation from the shooters party website which
asserts that the same "lies" used to "kill" "hunting"/shooting as a hobby
are being used to stop Savannah cat importation:
"The same tactics ie misinformation, questionable statics & flat out lies
used to kill your hobby are being used by the same people to kill the
introduction into Australia of this cat breed.
Make no mistakes, the people behind this agenda won't stop until everyone
is living in a cave & eating Alfalfa sprouts."
I recommend anyone interested in the details taking a look over the
petition site in support of this business venture, which is all it is in
spite of the posturing about "love" of animals being used to legitimate a
rather dodgy importation argument. Some of the comments attached to
Garrett as a Stalinist f****** **** commie are amusing; so are many from
poor people who support cat importation because of their
professed love of animals. Sad vapid creeps.
> Peter Shute wrote:
>> And perhaps if they manage to sue the government, it might discourage
>> government departments from giving approval for things that they
>> shouldn't, only to have the decision changed later. I'm sure these
>> people wouldn't have put any money into the idea if they didn't think
>> they had approval.
> Has anyone determined yet - approval from whom? and for what? Because
> it's one thing for Customs to say that's OK by us to import this animal,
> another for the Department of the Environment to allow or ban certain
> species (there is two departments there). For example Environment could
> add a species to the CITES list, which then makes import/export illegal
> where previously it wasn't.
> Frankly as a matter of policy I think the default position for importing
> any species, or cross-breed, into Australia should be "banned" until
> explicitly approved rather than the other way around.
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)