It would be interesting to know some facts about enforcement of the current rules for protection of the ACT environment generally. How many people have been served with infringement notices
(or summonses) for such offences as riding trail bikes in Parks; dogs off leash in Parks; dumping litter; illegal removal of firewood, building bike tracks in parks; breaching cat containment laws in designated suburbs etc etc.
My suspicion is that the answer would be very very few. In part this is based on comments by a former Canberra Nature Park staffer that people didn't receive training in how to do this
and it was a Police responsibility. In turn, the Police gave it priority zero. I am aware that some notices have been issued for dumping at Jerrabomberra Wetlands but that is the only example I have heard of.
On Tue, 9 Apr 2019 at 06:33, Con Boekel <> wrote:
Chris
I agree.
Enforcement is one of the keys.
Has here been any at all?
I suggest that the comparisons include in-suburb and in adjacent reserves, looks at seasonal differences including comparative breeding success, and includes ground dwellers such as lizards.
Perhaps people who are making submissions of support in the link provided by Jenny could stress the need for both immediate action as a precaution and research to validate the precaution?
regards
Con
On 4/8/2019 10:42 PM, Chris Davey wrote:
Thanks Con. What I would like to know concerns the enforcement issue. Is the law working or has the cat containment issue gained legs because it feels like a good thing to do. I suspect that those suburbs that have cat containment
are more likely to attract residents that agree with the idea but we still need information to compare the number of cats wandering around with those suburbs that have no restriction. If no difference in cat numbers then there is a law enforcement issue. If
there is a difference and some measure of bird diversity/abundance shows no different, then cat containment is a waste of time.
Chris
Chris, David
I agree that we need data and we need science.
Ideally the ACT would have invested in this long ago.
But it has not.
We have some data on what happens when cats are eradicated from islands and it is reasonably clear from that data that cats do suppress wildlife up to, and including, forcing extinctions.
In relation to cats in urban locations and cats adjacent to nature reserves, the need for data and the need for science have been known for decades.
My view is that we need to act now as a precaution instead of waiting to get some data and waiting to get some science.
As noted below, 20,000 dwellings are being constructed in the Molongolo Valley and will mostly likely add around 7000 cats to the Valley.
Given that the Valley is known to be habitat for several of the ACT's threatened species it makes little sense allowing around 7000 cats a free run while data is being gathered and the science is being done.
If it subsequently turns out that 7000 cats would not materially impact wildlife, then containment might reasonably be reconsidered.
I therefore continue to urge people to support the Draft Cat Plan.
regards
Con
On 4/8/2019 9:17 PM, Chris Davey wrote:
David, although I am for cat containment I agree with you that it is about time some data were put on the table. A few suburbs have been cat contained for a while now so some facts on the efficacy of cat containment and of compliance should
be gathered and made available.
Chris
From: David Rees
Sent: Monday, April 8, 2019 5:48 PM
To: Con Boekel
Cc: canberrabirds chatline
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Draft Cat Management Plan
Con
As I have said before the 'precautionary principle' is not good enough, Australia is not allowed in international law to use it for dealing with new/potential biosecurity/ exotic pest incursions in trade for example. The proper way is
management based on 'risk assessment', for that you need data
They had and still have the chance to get plenty of data, with the pilot suburbs already cat contained, yet the ACT Government seems to have chosen to do nothing to date with data collection to see if containment has any measurable effect
on fauna. Are the streets/gardens of Forde crawling with skinks, with the legal cats contained, if so, we need to know and add that data to the argument... There are plenty in my yard, mind you I could stop that with 'astroturf' as too many people locally
do, rather than my mostly native garden with complex cover.
I would support this proposal if there was decent data which demonstrated it had a useful effect, 'till then lets concentrate on conservation matters we know actually do something, like preserving, making and managing habitat. Making a
big section of the population do something that will cost them money on a maybe (aka 'precautionary principle') without good data that shows a demonstrable benefit is a potentially dangerous activity politically. Could do the conservation effort locally
a lot of harm, that effort is good by national standards, credit where its due. Trust in Governments various is not good right now, lets not blow it.
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:52 PM Con Boekel <> wrote:
Hi everyone
IMO the key is not more research.
We know enough to act on the basis of the precautionary principle.
We know that domestic cat density is much higher than 'natural' feral
cat densities.
Australia-wide there is (very) roughly a cat per every two-three households.
We know that domestic cats on the loose kill large numbers of everything
that is smaller than cats.
We know that cats travel extensively.
Exactly how many species and how many individuals of species cats kill
might be interesting to know but it is not necessary to know this in
order to apply the precautionary principle.
If you build a suburb and add a cat for every second or third house
along a reserve boundary, and cats commonly travel up to a kilometer a
night, then you are adding massive predation pressure to all the other
edge effects already degrading reserves.
We know that cats do not discriminate between common species and
endangered species. They kill anything.
And it not just birds. When our last Jacky died the neighbours' cats
moved in for a feast.
Within a short period of time they had eliminated skinks completely from
our garden.
Cats are an important part of our society: they provide interest, a
hobby, and very important companionship to many members of our society.
But cat ownership is a privilege and that privilege does not extend to
reducing neighborhood amenity with nocturnal yowling or killing valuable
wildlife.
IMO, the key is not more research.
Educating cat owners is a useful marginal activity but is just that:
marginal because many cat owners either don't want to know or don't care
what their cats kill.
The key is more action based on the precautionary principle.
And the key to this action is mandatory containment.
This allows for cat owners to exercise their privilege properly and with
the best regard to the needs and best health of the cats.
And, once containment areas are legally-mandated, then beyond the
contained areas, all cat management becomes feral cat management.
Finally, it is not enough to have a Plan. It needs to be implemented,
monitored and reported on once it is in place.
One bit of action we can all take is to ensure the ACT Government
receives a voice of support from each one of us for the Draft Plan.
regards
Con
*******************************************************************************************************
This is the email announcement and discussion list of the Canberra Ornithologists Group.
Emails posted to the list that exceed 200 kB in size, including attachments, will be rejected.
All emails distributed via the list are archived at
http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/archives/html/canberrabirds. It is a condition of list membership that you agree to your contributions being archived.
When subscribing or unsubscribing, please insert the word 'Subscribe' or 'Unsubscribe', as applicable, in the email's subject line.
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>
List-Subscribe: <>
List manager: David McDonald, email <>
|
