This document, for example, tries to summarise the science:
http://secure.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/pubs/impacts-feral-cats.pdf
>From the executive summary;
"In Australia, in contrast to other parts of the world, feral cats are not
recorded to have impacted on any species of reptiles, amphibians, fish or
invertebrates"
But again I raise the issue of a fallacy of ignorance. Because there isn't
much evidence, it's difficult to say that cats do or do not have an impact.
We know in some specific cases an impact can be seen, and we know in some
specific cases we weren't able to find an impact. We don't know what the
general consequences are.
Jeremy
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jeremy O'Wheel <> wrote:
> I said there wasn't good evidence in general, and then specifically said
> there were some individual exceptions. It's easy to say in some specific
> circumstances cats are a problem, but it's much more difficult to say that
> they are a problem everywhere, or even in the majority of places.
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Chris Sanderson <
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I disagree with the premise that science hasn't proven the cat to be a
>> problem. There are some good island ecology papers that directly implicate
>> cats with extinctions (which the Age author casually dismisses), and of
>> course the highly anecdotal story about the lighthouse keeper's cat and
>> the
>> Stephens Island Wren in New Zealand (where "Tibbles" allegedly
>> singlehandedly wiped the entire species off the face of the earth, though
>> it turns out he had some help from feral cats).
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephens_Island_Wren
>>
>> Other than that direct evidence, there is a suite of exclusion experiments
>> (such as island arks and predator free sanctuaries) where, in the absence
>> of introduced carnivores, native animals have begun to thrive again. This
>> in my mind constitutes evidence of an at least partially causal
>> relationship between introduced carnivores and loss of species. You could
>> also include the success of various baiting programs as evidence.
>>
>> And then there is this:
>>
>> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/feral-cats-wreak-havoc-in-raid-on-enclosed-refuge-for-endangered-bilbies/story-e6freoof-1226429359126
>> .
>> The population of Bilby in Currawinya NP massacred by cats.
>>
>> Most damning though is a recent experiment run by the AWC in the Northern
>> Territory:
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/animals/jury-is-in-on-feral-cats-caught-redpawed-in-rat-bloodbath-20121228-2bz4t.html
>> .
>> A simple experiment to be sure, but highly effective in proving the point.
>>
>> Personally I think that qualifies as ample evidence that feral cats (and
>> foxes) are very harmful to our native animals. Arguing the science
>> doesn't
>> exist doesn't cut it for me.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Chris
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jeremy O'Wheel <> wrote:
>>
>> > I think this article is falling for the fallacy of argument from
>> ignorance.
>> > There haven't been very good studies on the impact of feral cats on the
>> > mainland of Australia, so from the scientific evidence it's difficult to
>> > claim that they don't have an impact, or that they do have an impact.
>> >
>> > I have heard a carnivore ecologist suggest that they could be doing good
>> > though, because in large parts of Australia all of the former main
>> > predators are extinct or functionally extinct (such as Tasmania), so
>> > animals like cats and foxes may have moved in to fill the niche, while
>> > animals threatened by cats and foxes mainly already went extinct in the
>> > second wave of human facilitated mass extinctions in Australia. There
>> are
>> > some individual exceptions to this I believe, but I guess the case being
>> > made to me was that in general the impact of cats isn't severe. I have
>> my
>> > doubts about the case for cats though.
>> >
>> > Anyway until some robust science is done that looks at more than
>> > just casualties (since predators are important part of ecosystems and
>> > everything dies, so the fact that predators eat particular animals
>> doesn't
>> > necessarily mean they're doing damage), I think claims that cats are
>> good,
>> > bad or neutral for the environment should be viewed with some caution.
>> >
>> > Jeremy
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Andrew Thelander <
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Adrian Franklin also develops this argument in his book, Animal Nation
>> > > (UNSW Press, 2006) in which he cites others who have drawn this
>> > > metaphorical parallel between attitudes to feral animals and human
>> > > immigrants. He seems to like Tim Low's book, The New Nature, saying
>> "the
>> > > implication from Tim Low is that if we let go of the idea of a proper,
>> > > perfectible nature and concentrate on *possible* natures and how we
>> can
>> > > assist them into being, then all manner of beautiful, interesting and
>> > > life-affirming things can happen that are truly Australian, reflecting
>> > our
>> > > true history and natural history. This is the enigma of hybrid
>> > > environments, hybrid lives and human-animal relations." [p.235]
>> > > Aside from the question whether automatic loathing of feral animals
>> is a
>> > > form of "eco-nationalism", I assume Franklin thinks we can't
>> practically
>> > > eradicate feral cats (look at how the Brits at an early stage poured
>> > money
>> > > into eradicating Nth American stoats but failed) but that we can
>> "assist
>> > > into being" some kind of hybrid balance between the old and the new
>> that
>> > > doesn't involve actual extinction. This may not be as silly as it
>> sounds
>> > > given recent publicity about how protecting dingos in some areas keeps
>> > > foxes and cats down and allows small mammals to maintain numbers.
>> > > Does Franklin have a point or should we just repeat the call made in
>> 1996
>> > > by the WA Liberal MP, Richard Evans, who wanted all cats - feral or
>> > > otherwise - eradicated from Australia by 2020? Good old King Canute??
>> > >
>> > > On 08/01/2013, at 11:51 AM, Andrew Stafford wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > To put it impolitely, this might be the biggest load of crap this
>> side
>> > > of a dysentery epidemic:
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/hatred-of-feral-cats-hides-a-sinister-truth-20130107-2ccqu.html
>> > > >
>> > > > ===============================
>> > > >
>> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> > > > send the message:
>> > > > unsubscribe
>> > > > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> > > > to:
>> > > >
>> > > > http://birding-aus.org
>> > > > ===============================
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ===============================
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> > > send the message:
>> > > unsubscribe
>> > > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> > > to:
>> > >
>> > > http://birding-aus.org
>> > > ===============================
>> > >
>> > ===============================
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> > send the message:
>> > unsubscribe
>> > (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> > to:
>> >
>> > http://birding-aus.org
>> > ===============================
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Check out our site: http://www.bird-o.com
>> Follow us on Facebook (Bird-O) and Twitter
>> ===============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to:
>>
>> http://birding-aus.org
>> ===============================
>>
>
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
