# CSIRO investigates gene war strategy to rub out feral cats



## Flaviemys purvisi (May 26, 2018)

May 26, 2018






*By GREG BEARUP*



*Australian Wildlife Conservancy CEO Atticus Fleming on Newhaven station about 350km northwest of Alice Springs. Picture: Amos Aikman.*


In a move that has excited some conservationists, and horrified others, the CSIRO is to investigate the use of genetically modified cats to eradicate Australia’s marauding feral cat population.

The science body recently signed an agreement with conservation group Australian Wildlife Conservancy to begin research that could see gene-drive technology deployed on feral cats.

_“Feral cats are killing millions of native birds, millions of our reptiles and millions of mammals every single day,”_ said AWC chief executive Atticus Fleming.

_“This has to be the highest priority for conservation in Australia as nothing causes more damage to native fauna than feral cats.”_

Apart from fencing endangered mammals off in feral-free nature reserves, developing gene drive to combat feral cats “is the only glimmer of hope” many native mammals have in being saved from extinction, he said.

The theory behind the project is to genetically engineer cats that produce only male offspring.

These cats would be released across the continent and within a number of generations this gene would spread throughout the population and feral cats would breed themselves out of existence.

It would not affect domestic cats unless they bred with feral cats that had the gene.

The technology, if successful, could also be deployed on invasive pests such as cane toads, carp, rabbits and foxes.

Bill Gates has spent tens of millions of dollars on developing gene drive in mosquitoes in his bid to eradicate malaria.

It has been proven in laboratory conditions on the insects but has not been released in the environment.

Owain Edwards, the head of environmental and synthetic genomics at the CSIRO who will oversee the research, told _The Weekend Australian_ that work had already begun on developing the technology in rodents but it would be years before research was advanced enough to move on to cats.

Then there is the issue of regulatory approval and community acceptance.

There is great resistance among some to all things genetically modified and millions of cat lovers the world over would oppose its release.

Former Greens leader Bob Brown said while he was fully aware of the immense damage cats caused to our native species, he was urging caution. “When it comes to the CSIRO, aren’t they the folk who introduced the cane toads?” Dr Brown said.

_“Scientists don’t have any greater grasp on ethics than anybody else. Steady on, ladies and gentlemen — let’s have a public debate.”_

He said if the gene spread to the northern hemisphere and into its native cat populations, it could devastate those wild species. _“It would be a wonderful thing to be rid of feral cats and foxes,” _he said. _“But despite the huge prize that is dangling, we need to have the necessary safeguards in place.”_

Dr Edwards agreed there needed to be a rigorous public debate before genetically modified cats were released in the wild.

While research had begun on gene drive in rodents, it would be several years before they could even contemplate studying the technology in cats, he said.

_“It is very exciting,” _Dr Edwards said, _“but it is very much a long-term strategy … we’re not saying that this can happen quickly.”_

Under the agreement signed with AWC, the conservation organisation is required to rustle up the funding for the CSIRO to take the research from rodents to cats.

AWC is planning a major fundraising effort to get the community involved in the project.

_“We will be asking everyone from mums and dads to philanthropists to support this,” _Mr Fleming said.

_“We know that if they do, it will put pressure on the government to co-invest.”_


----------



## Bl69aze (May 26, 2018)

Using predators to hunt a predator which will then become the predator? Or am I missing something


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (May 26, 2018)

Bl69aze said:


> Using predators to hunt a predator which will then become the predator? Or am I missing something


NO predators, they want the invasive non native predators to breed themselves into extinction by genetically modifying them.


----------



## Bl69aze (May 26, 2018)

Flaviemys purvisi said:


> NO predators, they want the invasive non native predators to breed themselves into extinction by genetically modifying them.


I misread it, I thought it said they were going to use genetically modified cats to eradicate feral cats


----------



## cris (May 26, 2018)

It seems like a good idea, makes much more sense than spending money on killing 2 million cats or whatever the government did recently or having to resort to fencing everything. If Bob Brown is against it that is almost a 100% guarantee it is a good idea lol.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (May 26, 2018)

I personally think it's our ONLY real option.


----------



## Sdaji (May 26, 2018)

I've been wanting to see this used on cats, carp, toads, foxes etc for years. The only concern in species like cats, toads and carp is that it could somehow escape Australia and find its way into natural populations. All the other nonsense is just stupid noise people shouldn't give a minute of thought to. For this reason it would be completely inappropriate for bird species, and it's unfortunately too risky for rats and mice in my opinion. Rabbits are about as far as I'd be willing to go in terms of risk (extremely unlikely that a rabbit would somehow accidentally make its way from Australia all the way to Europe and find a local mate to breed with).

The good thing about it is that once released it quickly wipes the population and itself out, so risk of escape is minimal, unlike a virus/pathogen or predator, parasite etc which reduces the population as a management strategy. It's not realistically possible for the daughterless mutation to exist long term.

Anyone who tries to turn this into any sort of a debate beyond examining the risks of it getting into a natural (native) population is either far too ignorant to deserve a say (but still should be very much welcome to discuss it and learn) or deliberately trying to muddle the discussion for political motives.


----------



## Wally (May 26, 2018)

Sounds like a good idea.. .

What about all the other issues that are placing enormous pressure on ecosystems throughout our nation?

Land clearing for urban sprawl comes to mind.

Cats are bastards, but they aren't the only problem.


----------



## Sdaji (May 27, 2018)

Wally said:


> Sounds like a good idea.. .
> 
> What about all the other issues that are placing enormous pressure on ecosystems throughout our nation?
> 
> ...



If every time someone addressed a problem everyone just pointed out that it isn't the only problem in the world, no problem would ever be addressed.

This is a serious issue, something can be done about it, something should be done about it, people should support solutions not pretend the problem shouldn't be solved just because other problems exist.

It is possible in a world with billions of people for multiple problems to be addressed at the same time. No one whinged saying "Oh, but what about cancer?" when someone came up with the first successful heart transplant and they weren't whinging about liver failure while the technology was being developed. This thread is about directly addressing feral species. Land clearing is an important but separate issue.


----------



## Wally (May 27, 2018)

Unfortunately some of the other problems are far easier to address but we continue to look the other way.

Good luck to the CSIRO and the millions that will have been spent to get their genetically modified cats.


----------



## Sdaji (May 27, 2018)

Wally said:


> Unfortunately some of the other problems are far easier to address but we continue to look the other way.
> 
> Good luck to the CSIRO and the millions that will have been spent to get their genetically modified cats.



Actually, land clearing is not far easier to address than feral cats and would require a complete restructuring of the human population of the continent, including a complete cessation of net immigration and likely a forced deportation of a significant number of Australia's human inhabitants.

Without doing too much research on the subject, my knowledge of genetics (as a geneticist) tells me that genetically modifying cats to create a daughterless form is a lot easier and cheaper than a radical change on the human occupation of Australia. I may not have any formal qualifications or work experience relevant to human population management, but I am quite confident in my assessment as a layman!


----------



## cris (May 27, 2018)

Sdaji said:


> Actually, land clearing is not far easier to address than feral cats and would require a complete restructuring of the human population of the continent, including a complete cessation of net immigration and likely a forced deportation of a significant number of Australia's human inhabitants.



There are ways to increase habitat and reduce land clearing. The Qld government practically banned the use of 1.7 million ha of existing farmland without compensation. While comparable to the actions of a communist dictatorship (and poorly considered) it will increase habitat with very little effort or cost.

There are lots of people who want to stop net immigration and even some sort of deportation, it has more than just environmental benefits. The problem is politicians are to corrupt to touch the subject.


----------



## Sdaji (May 27, 2018)

I would also advocate a zero population increase policy for multiple reasons, but, I absolutely positively guarantee that making such a thing happen would be a far, far greater task than creating and releasing daughterless cats. It's not in Australia's economic best interests, it's politically incorrect, and it's outright unpopular, and even if you could change that or mitigate those issues, yep, you'd also need to deal with corruption. These are all insurmountable obstacles, while the cat project is actually completely plausible and achievable.

You can cherry pick habitat restoration cases, but in the big picture, we both know habitat is being destroyed and that can't change because of the above issues. You're just being obtuse. Habitat is being destroyed faster than it is being created. You know that. Changing that is almost impossible and you aren't going to kid yourself into thinking that in the foreseeable future we might see a net reversal of habitat loss any more than I am. You also won't kid yourself any more than I would about the gross amount of habitat restoration being more than a tiny percentage of total habitat loss.


----------



## cris (May 27, 2018)

I'm not being obtuse, I agree that the GM cat solution should be pushed ASAP and that these other things are much more difficult issues to deal with. I just don't think issues of Australian population and habitat protection are in the impossible category.

I can't find data on the amount of land being cleared for urban development in Qld, but I doubt it is close to 1.7 million ha. While many of the areas effectively stolen from farmers are typically not as valuable as coastal areas used for urban development it probably is still a considerable increase in habitat. This was very cheap and easy to do as practically nobody losing property rights voted Labor to start with.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 27, 2018)

There are now an estimated *2.7 million* domestic cats and over *18 million* feral cats in Australia. Australia’s human population is *24.7 million*.

Bob Brown is correct. This is not the simple, straightforward ‘silver bullet’ it may initially seems to be. It does require through looking at from all aspects (his suggestion of a public debate). Following are a few things that spring to my mind…

The gene is ultimately self-exterminating, but how long will it be around? Clearly, for the length of time it is present, it does need to be confined to Australia. Is that possible and practical to achieve? When you think about our northern coast line, is there any potential for illegal visitors to those shores taking the gene away with them to SA Asia and its population of moggies. And could this pose a realistic threat to the many small cat species found there?

How do you effectively exclude the gene from domestic populations given the number of cat owners and how many of them are very laissez-faire with their pets. Surely it would require 24/7 containment of all domestic cats? Given there are an estimated 2.7 million domesticated cats in a population of 24.7 million people, that will be a massive social change in itself. What about people moving overseas and wishing to take pet cats with them? Even if you ban emigrants taking cats with them, how much risk is there that those with money will find a fund a way to get around this? Given the potential for domestic cats to be dumped or escape, despite legislation, will this mean it will have to be a continuous process of releasing genetically altered Toms?

Populations of animals can become reduced in usual habitat and consequently temporarily isolated for varying amounts of time, depending the prevailing weather conditions. How are these potential seed populations to be discovered and dealt with?

How effective is it likely to be and how long will it take? Let’s assume that in a given release area, female cats are just as likely to mate with non-genetically altered males ®as they are with released genetically altered (GA) males. This would require the survival after release of the same number of GA males as normal toms in the area. One can expect the kittens produced from this to be 50% GA males, 25% normal males and 25% normal females i.e. 2:1 GA to Normal males. For the next generation the kittens produced would be expected to be 2:½ GA to normal males. Basically the number of normal males in the population is halved with each succeeding generation. So it goes 1 Þ ½ Þ ¼ Þ 1/8 Þ 1/16 Þ 1/32 Þ 1/64 Þ 1/128 Þ 1/256 Þ 1/512 Þ 1/1024. In other words, given that On feral cats have an average life expectancy of about 2 years, it would take 20 years to reduce the feral population to thousands instead of millions. However this would require the release of in excess of 5 million GA males Australia wide. On the positive side, the reduction of female numbers would affect recruitment and increase the rate of population decline. Realistically I would imagine you would be looking at a 50 year plus once it was implemented which may never be able to achieve 100% eradication Australia wide. Perhaps in conjunction with the current developing of baits such as EradicatÒ, CuriosityÒ and HisstoryÒ this may be possible.

No doubt there are plenty more things that need to be considered. Any ideas?

Edit: Corrected typo of Australia's popultion size


----------



## cris (May 28, 2018)

Bluetongue1 said:


> There are now an estimated *2.7 million* domestic cats and over *18 million* feral cats in Australia. Australia’s human population is 2.47 million.
> 
> Bob Brown is correct.
> No doubt there are plenty more things that need to be considered. Any ideas?



Bob Brown is not correct he is talking about emotional issues and asking for a public ethics debate. All that is required is a scientific debate. This is not a new idea anymore, as Sdaji points out the risks with some species are extremely low.

It is not the sort of thing where one cat is going to just wipe out all cats. It would be used in combination with other control and prevent the population from constantly bouncing back.

Outside of intentional human misuse the threat is practically non existent. What areas have the same species that is endangered and how will they get there? Why would someone take the cats there?

It doesn't matter how long it takes, complete elimination is not even required. It is a tool that would be highly effective in controlling cats.

The technical aspects of implementation are going to be complex. This is not suitable for a public ethics debate either.


----------



## saximus (May 28, 2018)

@Bluetongue1, I'm a little confused by some of your post; could you help me to understand?

You said the human population is 2.47M but that's an entire order of magnitude too low?

Also, your final numbers seem to be based on a Mendellian recessive mode of inheritance. Is that how these sort of things work? I'd have thought an animal modified in this way would only ever be capable of donating a Y chromosome, thus produce all males, all of the time, not increase the chances of producing them?


----------



## cris (May 28, 2018)

saximus said:


> @Bluetongue1, I'm a little confused by some of your post; could you help me to understand?
> 
> You said the human population is 2.47M but that's an entire order of magnitude too low?
> 
> Also, your final numbers seem to be based on a Mendellian recessive mode of inheritance. Is that how these sort of things work? I'd have thought an animal modified in this way would only ever be capable of donating a Y chromosome, thus produce all males, all of the time, not increase the chances of producing them?



The population is a simpletypo/mistake. The other part of the question really oversimplifies things and is the type of thing you can only start to model when the genetics of the cat is known. These days it should be possible to model with reasonable accuracy how the cats will function once introduced, it will not be something you can do on the back of an envelope.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 28, 2018)

Typos now corrected thanks guys. 

What I did with the figures was only meant to demonstrate this will be no quick fix. We don’t even know how the genetically altered (GA) genome for cats would be introduced. Simply releasing (GA) males may result in loss of most of them, as they have to compete with an established population that is familiar with that environment and know already how to survive in it. 

Female cats will mate with multiple males while in oestrus and that would serve to further dilute the input of GA males. They may capture females and mate them with only GA males and then release them once they are no longer receptive. That would be effective but a hell of a lot work. Who knows what they intend to do?

@saximus. GA males produce only GA male offspring. A normal male produces 50% normal male and 50% females. If there is an equal chance of mating with a normal male and with a GA male then the expected will 50% GA males and 25% normal males i.e. 2 to 1. In the second generation, there is 2/3 chance of mating with a GA male and a 1/3 chance of mating with a normal male. The male offspring expected from this would be 2/3 x 1 = 2/3 = 4/6 GA males and 1/3 x ½ = 1/6 normal males. So the ratio of GA to normal males now becomes 4 to 1. At each next generation the number of DA males doubles in relation to the number normal males. It is not determined using Mendel’s notion of Dominant and Recessive traits but it does make use of the expected ratios applied to whole chromosomes. So is it an example of Mendelian genetics? I'd say no but it is certainly based on Mendel's work.

As with humans, female cats have XX sex chromosomes and males have XY. I don’t know for certain but it seems logical to expect that the GA is carried on the Y chromosomes and has the effect of suppressing production of X chromosome gametes somehow.


----------



## cris (May 28, 2018)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Typos now corrected thanks guys.
> 
> What I did with the figures was only meant to demonstrate this will be no quick fix. We don’t even know how the genetically altered (GA) genome for cats would be introduced. Simply releasing (GA) males may result in loss of most of them, as they have to compete with an established population that is familiar with that environment and know already how to survive in it.
> 
> ...



I like that you are thinking about this. Your maths are back of an envelope level stuff and do not take into account the potential of modern GM cats, it is not likely to be accurate in the final solution.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 28, 2018)

cris said:


> I like that you are thinking about this. Your maths are back of an envelope level stuff and do not take into account the potential of modern GM cats, it is not likely to be accurate in the final solution.



I am going to do a Pauline Hanson here. Please explain what you mean by “_Your maths are back of an envelope level stuff and do not take into account the potential of modern GM cats_”.


----------



## cris (May 28, 2018)

Bluetongue1 said:


> I am going to do a Pauline Hanson here. Please explain what you mean by “_Your maths are back of an envelope level stuff and do not take into account the potential of modern GM cats_”.



There are lots of ways of doing this, it can target multiple genes. The simplistic idea of 50/50 is not required unless that is the best they can do.

I will post this guy to distract you


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 28, 2018)

@cris, you have avoided answering my question. By the way, I understand about GM plants (‘Roundup Ready’ soy, canola, cotton etc). How is that relevant to the current discussion involving animals?

The 50/50 refers to the ratio of GA males to normal males in the imaginary scenario I generated. This scenario was generated to illustrate/explain the point that I had made that this would “not be a quick fix”. I figured as I made that statement I should be able to back it up. The arithmetic is correct and there is nothing wrong with the maths behind it. It was never touted as a model of the population dynamics of feral cats, as you seem to have interpreted it being. That’s your mistake, not mine. So I don’t appreciate your deprecating comments.


----------



## cris (May 28, 2018)

redacted


----------



## Sdaji (May 29, 2018)

Assuming the mutation is on the Y chromosome and destroys all X chromosomes during meiosis, or otherwise makes X sperm non viable, all offspring from the modified males would be modified males.

I'm not sure how the mechanism could work to produce 50% modified males, 25% normal males and 25% normal females; sperm is haploid and males only have one version of their Y chromosome, so all offspring of mutant males should be mutant males. Females only produce X eggs - correct me if I'm wrong about this assumption.

If we assume the males will have equal virility and breeding success (which is highly likely and would be a requirement of bothering to do it), a single male added to a population of 100 would have no males capable of producing daughters within about 10 generations. If we wanted to start by adding multiple males it would happen more quickly. Even if some crazy freak wanted to catch one and take it out of Australia for some really weird reason, there is a fairly brief time between when the mutant males become common and when the population collapses. If they try to catch one early on it's probably just going to be a really nasty, feral cat which no sane person would want much to do with. The mutant males are in the minority of males until generation 7, and the populations ceases to exist at around generation 11, but they are becoming extremely difficult to find because they're so rare well before they go extinct with all remaining individuals being mutant males. And feral cats are pretty elusive at the best of times.

I made a spreadsheet to calculate, you can plug in any numbers of starting population size (number of normal males, introduced daughterless males and females) you want and it will give you the figures of mutant males, normal males and females for the next x generations. If anyone wants a copy by email you can shoot me a message.

Naturally we aren't going to be able to introduce mutant males to every single population/region in the country, but once the mutation is spreading and doing its job it will seed itself around very effectively with the assistance of strategic releases, and when a new population is discovered it can have a few mutant males added which should knock it over quickly. It may be difficult to completely erradicate cats from every remote region of Australia, but in terms of conservation 99% is about as good as 100% and once the vast majority are gone, managing the remaining ones should be easy. New populations will spring up from irresponsible owners releasing them, and they can be dealt with too. The vast majority of the cats would be cleaned up with minimal effort and managing the situation from there should be easy. New populations will primarily spring up around human occupied areas rather than remote areas, making them easy to detect and deal with.

Someone asked if it would affect domestic cats - sort of, and only in a good way. It's not a virus or anything so your actual pet cat won't be at any risk. If your pet cat is a male this changes nothing. If your pet cat is female and she has an accidental litter to an unknown father (which means you are a very irresponsible cat owner) and you're lucky enough for it to be a special male, it means the resulting kittens will all be males incapable of making females, which means if you give them to other people as pets and they're irresponsible they won't be having unexpected litters. No self respecting cat breeder in Australia should be using wild/random males produce more pet cats, and if they do, anything slowing them down is a good thing. Responsible breeders making kittens with deliberate pairings will be completely unaffected.

Unfortunately this virtual nobrainer will be seen as a 'debate' because people don't understand the situation and despite eating GMO foods every day they're scared of the term GMO (FTW I'm a geneticist and see some concerns with GMO foods but these cats are a totally different thing), and they'll irrationally think it means cats are going to suffer or it will harm their pet moggy or wipe out the few remaining wild tigers or something, and I'm guessing this will mean the research gets done, the product gets perfected, but the release never happens because of uninformed public opinion, and actual real Australian native animal extinctions will continue.


----------



## dragonlover1 (May 29, 2018)

Wally said:


> Unfortunately some of the other problems are far easier to address but we continue to look the other way.
> 
> Good luck to the CSIRO and the millions that will have been spent to get their genetically modified cats.


Hey Wally ,if we can get rid of the feral cats that will be a big step forward and then we can look to the next project.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 30, 2018)

@Sdaji , 
Your calculations of a total population collapse are based on are based on a 1% seeding rate of GM cats. (I checked the figures your way by hand just to be sure.) Given that the feral cat population in Australia is estimated to be 1.8 million, this would require release of some 18,000 GM moggies. That is an awful lot of cats. That of course ignores variations in population density and assumes a prorate release rate accordingly. Realistically the seeding rate will be likely be at least an order of magnitude less I would imagine. So one could probably add another couple of generations at least. Given the determined life expectancy of feral cats is 2 years, that’s probably around the 25 year mark. 

I see a huge potential in it so long as there is no chance of the modified genes getting into any other of the natural populations of small feline species. It also has to be kept out of the domestic cat populations of overseas countries or we might find ourselves in real strife. It is all very well to say it ain’t gunna happen, but it needs some serious looking at first.

It is also worth bearing in mind there are factors that may reduce its effectiveness somewhat. They cleaned out most of the foxes in large tracts of land in SW WA, released a bunch of critters such as numbats, and the cats moved in and cleaned them out. Hopefully the reverse won’t happen, or at least not to the same degree. The presence of rabbits are known to support higher populations of cats and foxes. I wonder if there will be an increase in them and what flow-on effect that might have? It surely could not be anyway near as bad as the cats.


----------



## cris (May 30, 2018)

Sdaji said:


> I'm not sure how the mechanism could work to produce 50% modified males, 25% normal males and 25% normal females; sperm is haploid and males only have one version of their Y chromosome, so all offspring of mutant males should be mutant males. Females only produce X eggs - correct me if I'm wrong about this assumption.



While this is mice I assume a similar mechanism could be possible with cats. Go to the link to see the figure or read the paper if interested, this alone does not give the full picture.




> Figure 1.
> Sry gene drive: to skew sex ratios in naturally breeding populations, the male determining
> gene (Sry), normally found on chromosome (Chr) Y, can be inserted into a naturally occurring gene
> drive element on Chr 17 called the t-complex. The t-complex is passed down to greater than 90%
> ...



from
Caroline M. Leitschuh, Dona Kanavy, Gregory A. Backus, Rene X. Valdez,
Megan Serr, Elizabeth A. Pitts, David Threadgill & John Godwin (2017): Developing gene drive
technologies to eradicate invasive rodents from islands, Journal of Responsible Innovation, DOI:
10.1080/23299460.2017.1365232
https://research.ncsu.edu/ges/files...s-eradicate-invasive-rodents-islands-2017.pdf


----------



## Sdaji (May 31, 2018)

Bluetongue1 said:


> @Sdaji ,
> Your calculations of a total population collapse are based on are based on a 1% seeding rate of GM cats. (I checked the figures your way by hand just to be sure.) Given that the feral cat population in Australia is estimated to be 1.8 million, this would require release of some 18,000 GM moggies. That is an awful lot of cats. That of course ignores variations in population density and assumes a prorate release rate accordingly. Realistically the seeding rate will be likely be at least an order of magnitude less I would imagine. So one could probably add another couple of generations at least. Given the determined life expectancy of feral cats is 2 years, that’s probably around the 25 year mark.



I played around with the numbers (it's very quick to do on a spreadsheet) for various population sizes and starting numbers of mutants. Obviously I was talking about an individual hypothetical population rather than the entire continent. As I said, total erradication from the entire continent may not ever be possible, but specifically targetted populations could be dealt with in that sort of ballpark timeframe, and the mutants would spread of their own accord. You can crunch the numbers on how quickly they would get up to 18,000 individuals when left to their own devices. Absolutely, it's not like we're talking about every last population of them being wiped out in the next 10-20 years. I think the iimportant thing is that it would work, and that it never stays common for a long time. As soon as it becomes common in a population, the population vanishes. ('as soon as' being within a small number of years/generations).



> I see a huge potential in it so long as there is no chance of the modified genes getting into any other of the natural populations of small feline species. It also has to be kept out of the domestic cat populations of overseas countries or we might find ourselves in real strife. It is all very well to say it ain’t gunna happen, but it needs some serious looking at first.



I agree, this is a concern. The one and only concern.



> It is also worth bearing in mind there are factors that may reduce its effectiveness somewhat. They cleaned out most of the foxes in large tracts of land in SW WA, released a bunch of critters such as numbats, and the cats moved in and cleaned them out. Hopefully the reverse won’t happen, or at least not to the same degree. The presence of rabbits are known to support higher populations of cats and foxes. I wonder if there will be an increase in them and what flow-on effect that might have? It surely could not be anyway near as bad as the cats.



I think that was really obviously short sighted, but even so, exterminating the foxes wasn't a problem, it was only a partial solution. People being stupid enough to feed numbats to cats doesn't mean wiping out the foxes was a bad thing. I would advocate doing a similar thing with foxes, which should have even less risk than with cats.
[doublepost=1527693613,1527693511][/doublepost]


cris said:


> While this is mice I assume a similar mechanism could be possible with cats. Go to the link to see the figure or read the paper if interested, this alone does not give the full picture.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for this information, much appreciated. If it's the same system in cats it would certainly be a much longer process. If they can use an X-destroying mechanism instead it would be much better.


----------



## Flaviemys purvisi (May 31, 2018)

RN Breakfast
By Stephanie Smail
Posted about 9 hours ago



*PHOTO: There are millions of feral cats across Australia, and that has been taking a heavy toll on native wildlife. (Supplied: Hugh McGregor, Arid Recovery.)*


*Gene drive technology considered in the fight to save native animals from feral cats*

Feral cats kill thousands of native animals every minute — now a controversial plan to use gene drive technology as a weapon against them is being considered by the Federal Government.

Conservation groups want cats that only produce male offspring to be released into the wild as a way to save native mammals, such as bilbies and bettongs, that are under attack.

The CSIRO is investigating the technology, which the Federal Government said could be a "powerful tool" subject to careful study.

But scientists acknowledge there are risks, particularly if genetically modified cats made it to other countries and wiped out native cats there.



*PHOTO: A feral animal caught on camera after catching and killing a native rodent. (Supplied: Dr Aaron Greenville)*


*Killing machines*
Unlike other feral predators, cats live in every habitat in Australia, from the rainforest to the desert, the east coast to the west.

They are hard to see, hard to trap and hard to bait because they prefer their prey live.

Atticus Fleming, chief executive of the Australian Wildlife Conservancy, said there were millions of feral cats across the country, and that has been taking a heavy toll on native wildlife.

_"Basically, every minute, across Australia, feral cats are killing … 2,000 native animals a minute," _he said.

He has been fuelling the push to develop so-called gene drive technology as a weapon against feral cats.

_"We are watching species go extinct before our eyes,"_ Mr Fleming said.

_"We need to act now and we need to put feral cats at the top of the list of priorities."_

Mr Fleming said while the large feral cat free zones were working to protect many native animals vulnerable to attack, there was no broader strategy.

He said gene drive technology offered the only glimmer of hope.

_"[There are] 30 mammals extinct [in Australia] since European settlement. In the US since their European settlement it's one, so we're off the charts,"_ he said.

*How does it work?*
The CSIRO agreed to work with the Australian Wildlife Conservancy on the idea, and their scientists have already begun work in the field.

The team genetically modified so-called "daughterless carp" so the fish only produced male offspring, but they were never released into the wild.

Andy Sheppard, research director at CSIRO Health and Biosecurity, said the method would not require the introduction of a vast number of genetically modified cats.

_"[This] technology allows all offspring of any coupling between a gene construct and a wild-type animal to all have the gene construct," _he said.



And this, he said, was what everybody is getting exciting about — whether or not the gene technology could be used to control a whole range of feral pests.

_"The primary focus globally at the moment is whether or not it would be an acceptable technology to manage mosquitos to try and rid the world of diseases like malaria,"_ Dr Sheppard said.

He said the technology would remove the need for baiting or trapping because the population would die out naturally — but he acknowledged there were risks.

*So, what's the catch?*
Dr Sheppard said the main risk was if the genetically modified animals somehow escaped into areas where cats were not a pest, it could endanger those cats which may be valued and might in fact be native.

_"There's a lot of movement of animals around the world, either legally or illegally, which raises the potential risk of those GM animals being moved around," _he said.



*PHOTO: Galahs are among the many native species being killed by feral cats. (Supplied: Mark Marathon)*

He said authorities would need to be sure before gene drive technology is rolled out.

_"Once you've released your genetic construct into the field, under that scenario, it's very, very hard to stop it,"_ he said.

_"So, you would be making a decision that may be hard to withdraw."_

Dr Sheppard said if it went ahead, it would be a world first.

He said work has not started, and would not without Federal Government approval.

*Professor John Woinarski speaks about feral cats in Australia*
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-04/cats-in-australia-kill-the-equivalent-of-more-than/9014922
*VIDEO: Cats in Australia kill the equivalent of more than one million birds a day (ABC News)*

If the decision was made to push forward, Dr Sheppard said the technology had huge potential for managing even the most elusive pests.

_"Managing invasive species, once they've established and become widespread and are causing harm, has been a huge challenge for society,"_ he said.

_"Pretty much the only technology we've had available to us up to now has been classical biological control, as exemplified by the rabbit biological control program in Australia over the last 60 years."_

He said for the first time they have a technology that could "potentially" eradicate some very harmful pests from the environment, such as rodents on islands where there is high biodiversity, without having to use poisons.

*The cat always wins*
Australia's feral cat population swings between about 1.5 million and 5.5 million, with more cats after heavy rain.

Native mammals do not stand a chance against that, said Sarah Legge from the Threatened Species Recovery Hub of the Federal Government's National Environmental Science Program.

_"Our mammals in particular are just not very good at being aware of cats and avoiding them,"_ she said.



*PHOTO: Dr Legge said gene drive technology could finally bring feral cats under control. (Landline: Prue Adams)*


_"On top of that, cats breed generally much more quickly than our native species, so they can out-breed their prey."_

She said gene drive technology could finally bring feral cats under control.

_"There are a heap of techniques available and that we use, but none of them are going to get rid of cats at the continental scale,"_ she said.

_"If it wasn't to get rid of cats altogether, it might be to reduce them to a point where they're not having such big impacts on native wildlife."_

But Dr Legge said there was still a long way to go before the idea became a reality.

_"I think we've got quite a long period in the lab before we get to the point of even thinking about letting it go outside of the lab,"_ she said.

_"In that time there needs to be a public conversation that hasn't even started yet as far as I'm aware, about the place of technology like that in our world and how comfortable we are with using it."_

In a statement, Minister for Environment and Energy Josh Frydenberg said gene editing technologies were not a panacea, but could be a powerful tool in fighting extinction, subject to further careful study.

He said his department and others had been in discussions with the CSIRO about the technology.


----------



## Wally (Jun 1, 2018)

dragonlover1 said:


> Hey Wally ,if we can get rid of the feral cats that will be a big step forward and then we can look to the next project.



Outlaw domestic cat keeping in this country first and we might have a chance.

Then again, it's one less feral I get to shoot.


----------



## cris (Jun 1, 2018)

Wally said:


> Outlaw domestic cat keeping in this country first and we might have a chance.
> 
> Then again, it's one less feral I get to shoot.



If they got this going you don't need to ban cats as pets. Humans are an important predator, always plenty of native animals to eat and skin.


----------

