Yes I noticed that too. Maybe an editing error and half a paragraph was accidentally deleted, but where “rosella” fits in or why rosellas are important, is
strange. Don’t quote it as “Philip’s numbers”. It is not my doing. Even so such things should be correct or the case is severely weakened. To that extent it is not inconsequential. I also suspect Barrat’s estimates are way overdone. And yes I believe cats
are a real problem. Though their predation on native birds, native mammals, native reptiles and native frogs
is not likely to be greater than the predation by native raptors, currawongs, butcherbirds, kookaburras, herons, snakes, etc.
From: Ryu Callaway [
Sent: Monday, 8 April, 2019 1:58 PM
To: Martin Butterfield; Philip Veerman
Cc: COG Chat
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Draft ACT cat plan released for public comment
Note Phillip's numbers all add up to 99000, so I suspect the press release should have said 100000 animals. Where 'rosella' came from we may never know.
The press release that mentions rosellas is from the conservation council, and is a reflection of their interpretation of the plan. It bears no effect on the draft ACT Government
plan itself or the consultation, and I think the misleading figure is inconsequential.
The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering
takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely
a compilation of material sent by many people to the Canberra Ornithologists Group mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way.
If you wish to get material removed from the archive or
have other queries about the list contact David McDonald, list manager, phone (02) 6231 8904 or email
If you can not contact David McDonald e-mail
Andrew Taylor at this address: