# Savannah cats banned



## Carpetcleaner (Aug 3, 2008)

*Thinking back to the recent debate I thought some people may be interested in this little tidbit of news posted on NineMSN this morning...*


*Environment Minister Peter Garrett has banned savannah cats from Australia, saying they pose an extreme risk to native animals and the environment.*
Fairfax says that after receiving more than 500 submissions on the issue, Mr Garrett said he would change the legal definition of "domestic cat" to rule out cats with the genes of the African wildcat, the serval.
That means no savannah cats, Fairfax says.
"On all the evidence that I have seen, the risks associated with allowing this cross-bred cat into the country, when we already have up to 12 million feral cats wreaking havoc on native fauna, are simply too great," Mr Garrett said.
"That is why I have banned the import of these cats immediately."
An assessment commissioned by the government found that the savannah cat posed an extreme threat to native wildlife, with a likelihood that each generation would retain the more efficient hunting traits of the wild African serval.
Mr Garrett said he would "not hesitate" to use his powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to prevent the live import of any species or breed that poses a significant risk to the environment or wildlife.
"My role as federal Environment Minister is to make decisions based on the best possible outcome for the Australian environment," Mr Garrett said.


----------



## ambah (Aug 3, 2008)

Well at least the government is doing something right


----------



## TELDAC (Aug 3, 2008)

bumma!


----------



## dunno103 (Aug 3, 2008)

Great news, lets hope that anybody found with them get automatic gaol time and the animal destroyed.


----------



## slim6y (Aug 3, 2008)

What I find amazing, and this is a good outcome, but the people that have been 'disadvantaged' by this decision actually thought they're doing no wrong. And I bet they still would argue that these cats are fine to come into the country... 

Well, a positive decision made.


----------



## ambah (Aug 3, 2008)

Maybe just have the cat under lock and key.. i dont know about destroying it.. seems a bit harsh when the animal isnt at fault.


----------



## callith (Aug 3, 2008)

YAY!!! Only good thing this Government's done


----------



## bump73 (Aug 3, 2008)

Thats great....But what about the ones already here??? Doesn't say anything about what happens to them only says you can't import any more..

Ben


----------



## Jungletrans (Aug 3, 2008)

They have banned importing them , what about the animals already here . l know someone that has one [ not desexed ] and plans to breed and sell .


----------



## Carpetcleaner (Aug 3, 2008)

bump73 I was wondering the same thing myself. I know that there is a breeder in Queensland and I think another in Victoria. I wonder what will happen to their existing breeding program they have spent vast amounts of money importing into the country already? Do they get put down or exported? Makes you wonder doesn't it?


----------



## i_LoVe_AnImAlS (Aug 3, 2008)

yay there doing something good for a change but the killing idea dunno103............................................i don't think so i think that would be a little to harsh


----------



## jessb (Aug 3, 2008)

What a great outcome! It's good to see that grassroots action can really achieve something!

Are the ones that are already here definitely Savannahs? I know there are a couple of other types of wildcat cross who have previously been allowed in to Australia. I though this legislation was to decide whether Savannahs could be imported or not - it seems odd that there was this much fanfare around it, if they had previously been imported anyway...


----------



## thepythonpit (Aug 3, 2008)

well done to all that made there voices heard..
a pat on the back for us all..


----------



## ally_pup (Aug 3, 2008)

Yay


----------



## Drazzy (Aug 3, 2008)

noooooooooooooooooooooooo............


----------



## Tatelina (Aug 3, 2008)

Interesting... His site hasn't been updated. All it says is that there will be a review....
http://www.petergarrett.com.au/560.aspx

Hope they actually HAVE been banned.


----------



## FNQ_Snake (Aug 3, 2008)

Whoo hoo. The people have had a win.

At long last the Federal Government has finally heard the people.


----------



## Fuscus (Aug 3, 2008)

The big question is, of course, why any cats are allowed to be imported!


----------



## tooninoz (Aug 3, 2008)

Tatelina said:


> Interesting... His site hasn't been updated. All it says is that there will be a review....
> http://www.petergarrett.com.au/560.aspx
> 
> Hope they actually HAVE been banned.



Hey Tatelina, my guess is that as he only made the announcement yesterday, it wont appear until tomorrow.
I tried to get in touch with Tony Peacock about it, but cant get a hold of him.

As for the cats already being here? I dont think thats correct? There are Bengals? There is only A1 Savannahs in the US, and Sav Cats Aust had an exclusive agreement in place with them. The Melb breeders someone mentioned had a secondary agreement with Savannah Cats Aust.

But yeah. It's a great victory! I only found out just before lunch from an article on Eco Radio on local station 4ZZZ. The announcer said "the impetus came from a collective of reptile-lovers on an Australian snake website..." Which site would that be? 
From all of us, snakerescue.com, Tony Peacock and Rick Shine to the thousands of people who joined in, it's a great thing.

Of course, now it will be protracted legal action etc etc....:lol:


----------



## tooninoz (Aug 3, 2008)

Oh, and for those that reckoned these creatures didnt pose a threat due to the fact they cost over $5000...think again;

http://www.umdps.umd.edu/feline.cfm

:|


----------



## mebebrian (Aug 3, 2008)

Yay for people power!


----------



## LullabyLizard (Aug 3, 2008)

YAY! The government did something right


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 3, 2008)

*Great outcome*

Thanks herpe people for all the help on the Savannah cat issue. Peter Garrett has exercised his powers under the EPBC Act and banned them by changing the definition of domestic cat. This is what we hoped for.

DEWHA received 549 submissions, 526 of them against the importation of these cats.

They aren't meant to be any here. I hope those above refer to Bengals, or "Toygers". If they have come in, they are illegal. In Queensland, they are a Class 1 pest and will be conviscated and destroyed. Other States wouldn't want them, but they may not be able to act as quickly as Queensland, which has really clear legislation and the wildlife people are well briefed.

If someone does happento have one (or worse two), it should be followed up.

I think the push this site and its members gave the issue from the day we found out about this thing was crucial in raising public awareness.

I don't think the ban has gone as far as all hybrids, but the Minister's press release says he wouldn't hesistate to use his powers in the future. That effectively means anyone that tried to bring wolf dogs or the like in will fail.

Great result.


----------



## Dipcdame (Aug 3, 2008)

I would imagine that those who already have these cats would be required to desex them, lets hope so, if they're banned, they're BANNED, how can anyone sell the darned things if they're a banned species???


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

Another one of our civil liberties and rights taken away.


----------



## tooninoz (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Another one of our civil liberties and rights taken away.



Another way of thinking of it could possibly be 'liberties and rights of Australian flora and fauna at least given one more chance'.
Or, wenkers that have too much money to spend and are tiring of the Porsche SUV, yet craving another status symbol...._*just to be BETTER than the person next door.*..
_If you want a Savannah, leave now for the US. You still have that right.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

I am reminded of a very old quote.

*They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.*


----------



## Dipcdame (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Another one of our civil liberties and rights taken away.



............but the rights of our native animals who would have otherwise been depleted by yet ANOTHER predator has remained intact.................which is more important, the wants of some selfish people who want something because it's considered fashionable, which, once the novelty has worn off will in large numbers become strays and feral, the same as the cats around now, or the lives of our native animals already here?


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

What about responsible owners who would keep there cat confined?


----------



## Adzo (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> I am reminded of a very old quote.
> 
> *They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.*


Remind us again, what is essential about owning a cat?

And a quote for you; *An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.*


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

Its your basic right that is being taken away.


----------



## Dipcdame (Aug 3, 2008)

It's unfortunate that genuine people always have to suffer because of those who aren't, or are irresponsible enough to cause a negative situation, not only with this, but there are many things that must be done without, because of those who aren't so bothered. That's why we have laws for many things, driving is just one example, we all must abide by rules set to help to try and curb the idiots on the roads!!!!!
In an ideal world, people would be able to do virtually what they want, but because there are those who don't observe the boundaries, we must be told how to conduct most of our day to day lives.

Unfortunate, but it's just the way it is. There will always be the few that spoil it for the majority, and so, as you succinctly put it, our "rights" are curbed.


----------



## cris (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> I am reminded of a very old quote.
> 
> *They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.*



I agree, keeping wild cat hybrids that have a potentially nasty ecological impact is most definately an essential liberty by anyones standard. Our government has given up this essential liberty to give itself temporary safety from a couple academics and a petition on the internet, oh the danger  For now they have saved themselves from an attack of scientific papers and internet petition signings, but they dont deserve this safety or liberty IMO.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

I dont agree with that point of view.

People sometimes dont see the harm they are doing when they agree with laws or allow the government to crush our freedoms. 

Bottom line is we have far less freedoms than we did 50 years ago.

Imagine what it will be like in another 50 years. 

People need to realise that decisions like this only further take away what little liberties we have now.


----------



## cement (Aug 3, 2008)

TonyPeacock said:


> Thanks herpe people for all the help on the Savannah cat issue. Peter Garrett has exercised his powers under the EPBC Act and banned them by changing the definition of domestic cat. This is what we hoped for.
> 
> DEWHA received 549 submissions, 526 of them against the importation of these cats.
> 
> ...


 
Halleyewwwah!!!!!!!!!!!!

"yet another liberty taken away" Wake up.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

History has shown that civil freedoms are lost little by little bit at a time, not usually in one big hit.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

520+ people is nothing in the scale of things. 

I am sure if all of Australia knew about this issue of cats the majority would favour them being allowed in. The same as the majority of people in this country would like many other imported animals.


----------



## cement (Aug 3, 2008)

Hey Aussie 1, did you want a savanah cat?

I'm sure that there are large percentages of the population that just don't care about our native fauna, and the mammalian extinction rate that cats play a large part of.

It is the history of the cat that has now been recognised.


----------



## Adzo (Aug 3, 2008)

*Is the government right to ban savannah cats?*

yes 23432
no 6033
This result was taken from a poll on ninemsn.com.au. I'm sure they have broader and less biased audience than APS.


> 520+ people is nothing in the scale of things.


Not 500 people, but 500 submissions. Some of which had thousands of names on them.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

I was not interested in getting one i have enough cats.

Those ninemsn polls are rigged and can be distorted by people voting hundreds of times.


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 3, 2008)

*No one is losing any rights*



aussie1 said:


> Its your basic right that is being taken away.


 
What basic right is removed? Any Australian that wants a cat can have a cat. We euthanase 50,000 plus unwanted cats a year.

I don't think there is any fundamental human right to own a "Savannah" cat. 

It's not a right that a government has taken away from any Australian - no one has one of these cats now. 

They didn't even exist until 22 years ago when someone thought it would be a good idea to mate two completely different species. So fundamental rights now arise when someone invents a new product? Sounds like my kids wanting the newest version of Halo.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

The right to choose is now gone. 

People should have right to choose whether they want a domesticated cat or a savannah cat.

People should have the right to 

Choose what pets they want freely


Taking away freedom of choice is taking aways one civil liberties thats a FACT


----------



## Hetty (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> The right to choose is now gone.
> 
> People should have right to choose whether they want a domesticated cat or a savannah cat.
> 
> ...



You clearly have no idea. You don't understand the environmental impact these animals could (and would if they were allowed in) cause, it's not a matter of human rights. Think cane toads, foxes, rabbits.. and, of course, feral cats.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

I do understand the environmental impacts.

However

That does not negate the fact that banning them is taking away freedom of choice and to ban freedom of choice is to take away's one civil liberties. 

Surely all of you opposed must acknowledge this fact.


----------



## lez1971 (Aug 3, 2008)

I really dont think we have to much to complain about

"Saudi Arabia's religious police have banned selling pet cats and dogs and walking them in public places in the country's capital Riyadh to preserve public morals, the Al-Hayat newspaper said Thursday."

Now that is taking peoples liberties


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 3, 2008)

Saudi Arabia is a fundamentalist Muslim country so your comparison is not an accurate one. 

Perhaps we should compare ourselves to the USA the place where you can buy bearded dragons and other Australian animals over the counter with no licence.


----------



## Nagraj (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> That does not negate the fact that banning them is taking away freedom of choice and to ban freedom of choice is to take away's one civil liberties.
> 
> Surely all of you opposed must acknowledge this fact.




Nope. Your percieved injustice would impugn my right to look out the kitchen window and see a native bird in ten years time. Why should your viewpoint be more valuable than mine?


----------



## inthegrass (Aug 3, 2008)

i believe we should have the right to carry firearms in order to take out all felines in this great country.
not sure we have a native cat?.
cheers


----------



## Hetty (Aug 3, 2008)

Well, you can't say no to that inthegrass. That would be taking away your right to shoot cats.

While we're at it, let's campaign for the right to shoot idiots. Surely we should be allowed that right? :lol:


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 3, 2008)

You can also buy Giant Pouched Gambian Rats over the counter in the USA. 

Or if you don't want to pay for one, go and catch one in Florida, where they are causing havoc. At least having a local wild population means they aren't pulling them direct from Africa anymore. One of those imported suckers cost the Center for Disease Control millions and millions coming in carrying monkey pox. Over 400 human cases.

Hmmm. I don't think the USA is the ideal jurisdiction to look to for guidance on this issue. 

Australia has the highest rate of endemism and the highest rate of mammalian species extinction - it gives us a special responsibility to avoid new invasive species. Something we haven't done too well to date. 

Peter Garrett has made the right decision here - and a vast majority of Australians agree with him.


----------



## Nagraj (Aug 3, 2008)

lez1971 said:


> "Saudi Arabia's religious police have banned selling pet cats and dogs and walking them in public places in the country's capital Riyadh to preserve public morals, the Al-Hayat newspaper said Thursday."




That's a bit disingenuous. It's not an environmental issue driving that agenda.


----------



## inthegrass (Aug 3, 2008)

Hetty said:


> Well, you can't say no to that inthegrass. That would be taking away your right to shoot cats.
> 
> While we're at it, let's campaign for the right to shoot idiots. Surely we should be allowed that right? :lol:



on second thoughts maybe you should have the right to shoot idiots. it would reduce population?.
suicide?:lol:


----------



## jessb (Aug 3, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> The right to choose is now gone.
> 
> People should have right to choose whether they want a domesticated cat or a savannah cat.
> 
> ...


 
What a load of ignorant rubbish. Civil liberties deal with basic human rights - equality, freedom from racial and sexual discrimination, freedom from torture, the right to democratically choose one's government, the right to protest, the right to live safely. Don't demean the concept of civil liberties and take the use of the word to imply that it applies to the "right" to own a PET!!! 

We can't "choose" to own a tiger. We can't "choose" to keep a monkey as a pet (despite what petlink would have us believe :lol Civil liberties are about responsibilities as well as rights. And as the current caretakers of this nation, our _responsiblity _to the fauna of this land is far more important than your _right_ to own a hybrid, exotic killer which will, in all likelihood, decimate our native populations.

In order to live in a civilised society, we have to live within a certain set of rules. If you don't like the rules, you should have used your protected right to protest and written a letter to the minister to make your view felt. Sounds like you are a sore loser who is desperately trying to come up with an excuse for why a vast majority of the population who had an interest in this case chose to support the ban on these animals. 

Get over it.


----------



## =bECS= (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> The right to choose is now gone.
> 
> People should have right to choose whether they want a domesticated cat or a savannah cat.
> 
> ...



Hmmmmmm, people have the *right to remain silent*, pity sometimes they ignore it! :twisted:

Congrats to everyone who signed the petition.
Now if APS has that kind of people power, how about using it to change a few other things, petrol excise for one  :lol:


----------



## chilli (Aug 4, 2008)

TonyPeacock said:


> Peter Garrett has made the right decision here - and a vast majority of Australians agree with him.



just because an announcement has been made means nothing, especially from the hon. Peter Garrett. the schedule "Part 1 – Live specimens not requiring an import permit" of the _Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_ was updated on 24 June 2008 and as no change in the definition of "domestic cat" has even been proposed, and as "domestic cat" appears on that schedule, it is still absolutely legal to import Savannah Cats into Australia, with no requirement to apply for an import permit under the Act as they currently fall within the definition.

Rarely, will this government back up an announcement with action, let alone a P.Garrett announcement. This sort of announcement is made to appease the protesters, but mark my words, these cats will arrive, and there will be some blaming the previous government for allowing the loop-hole in the definition, which will not be amended in time to stop them being imported.

Don't let up on your protests until it is legislated, an announcement is worthless and useless without the follow through of legislative changes.


----------



## Wench (Aug 4, 2008)

i agree with the having a firearm for feline shooting.  i go near them and i nearly die. dammmn allergies.

good on them banning the savannah cats tho, i used to live near someone who had one that was always killing heaps of birds in the park and they didn't bother to keep it inside or anything. i reckon if dogs have to be registered/kept on leashes/not allowed to bark coz it annoys ya neighbours, then there should be some stoppers put on what a cat can do.


----------



## Jungletrans (Aug 4, 2008)

Who cares about Savannas l want a Tiger .


----------



## Fireflyshuffle (Aug 4, 2008)

hahahahahahahahahaha gotta laugh at dunno103 on the first page.AN AUTOMATIC JAIL TIME??? pffft hahaha dont make me wet myself.. ive never heard of anyone getting jailed for somthing so little! hahahaha were do people gorw to think like that? people are out there that have stolen cars, abused animals, bashed partners etc and not gone to jail and you hope someone goes to jail for a cat???hahahaha im still lughing.. and then to say "have the animal destroyed" i wish it was that easy for people like you


----------



## cris (Aug 4, 2008)

shnakey said:


> hahahahahahahahahaha gotta laugh at dunno103 on the first page.AN AUTOMATIC JAIL TIME??? pffft hahaha dont make me wet myself.. ive never heard of anyone getting jailed for somthing so little! hahahaha were do people gorw to think like that? people are out there that have stolen cars, abused animals, bashed partners etc and not gone to jail and you hope someone goes to jail for a cat???hahahaha im still lughing.. and then to say "have the animal destroyed" i wish it was that easy for people like you



You obviously dont understand the nature of the issue, or you wouldnt be comparing it to trivial crimes like assualt or car theft. Great maturity in wishing someone dead because they have a strong(well justified) view point.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

The only thing i agree with that's been posted is the right to own guns. I think we all should have the right to own firearms and as many as we choose.

What gets me astonished with people like most of you who have said oh we need to save the environment, is you are all hypocrites.

I am sure most of you if not all of you use cars and pollute the air each day driving them
I am sure most of you purchase products that are not environmentally friendly
I am sure some of you live on farms that probably cut down dozens of trees and wiped out numerous native fauna.
I am sure most of you have big energy bills contributing to green house gas.


Lets keep this in perspective.

Yes the cats if released would cause damage.

However all of you are damaging the environment in some way.

If people want to purchase one of these cats they should be allowed to.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

[Sounds like you are a sore loser who is desperately trying to come up with an excuse for why a vast majority of the population who had an interest in this case chose to support the ban on these animals. 

Get over it.[/quote]

 
Very mature response. 

This forum continues to show that rather than debate or discussion people who don't like ones point of view resort to insults or attempt to be witty.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Oh and do all of you really believe the government and past governments of this country care about the environment???

If you do you are all deluded.


----------



## cris (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> What gets me astonished with people like most of you who have said oh we need to save the environment, is you are all hypocrites.
> 
> I am sure most of you if not all of you use cars and pollute the air each day driving them
> I am sure most of you purchase products that are not environmentally friendly
> ...



This is the most irrational logic. You are not alone though, many seem to follow this wierd(and disturbing) idea that since humans often have a negative impact on the environment any attempt to minimise it is somehow a waste of time or hypocritical...

If someone helps to rehabilitate some native rainforest and then farts does that make rehabilitaing the rainforest a waste of time? Surely its hypocritical and pointless to save the forest and then cause greenhouse gas pollution 

As for all the stuff about freedoms etc. there will never be true freedom while there are laws, all laws(that i can think of) restrict freedoms. There needs to be balance for example we can buy guns if licenced, but are not allowed to have nuclear weapons for private use. To me this seems logical but to you not being able to have nuclear weapons would be a loss of civil liberty or something?


----------



## Chimera (Aug 4, 2008)

Interesting, perhaps aussie1 you have inadvertently highlighted another issue about current society. You have presented the all too flagrantly ignorant point of view that the rights of the individual should outweigh the benefit of the collective. The development of this attitude is why the government needs to legislate such things as pet ownership.

The arguments against the banning of Savannah cats are nothing more then an ignorant smoke screen designed to confuse the real issue. The all or nothing attitude of "we all currently have an impact on the environment, so why should we take action on this" is probably the most ridiculous.

aussie1, I won't attempt to be witty. I wholeheartedly feel that your arguments are half baked at best and feel that you are the one offering criticism to others for not agreeing with your point of view.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Governments will continue to legislate as long as people (like many of you here) allow them to do so. 

I am reminded of another famous old quote.


“*To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon*, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality.”


People need to see the whole picture not just the issue of the savannah cat. 

Regardless of why or how the law was passed and all the pros and cons the bottom line is it is depriving us of our civil liberties.

FACT

Everything else on this issue is an opinion and what's the saying ? opinions are like *** HOLES everyone has them.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Lets have a country without a government, hey we can be the next Zimbawe.

We can kill and rape just for fun, we no Consequences that will be so good.

We can have Burmese pythons and when we're bored with them, we'll just let them in the local national park, where they can control populations of the endagered black wallaby.

Why not, lets do it for fun. Then we can do whatever we want, the world will be so good.


----------



## jessb (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Regardless of why or how the law was passed and all the pros and cons the bottom line is it is depriving us of our civil liberties.


 
So anarchy is the logical solution???


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

The picture here is the Cat plain and simple you are an idiot that should be in Byron Bay smoking pot because you believe there is some conspiracy of the government to control every moment of our lives because they have nothing better to do.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Zimbabwe has a government, and look at how its run.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Im rather proud of my left wing marxist beliefs.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Exactly that will be paradise compared to here if there is no government.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Ah the good old argument we need government to protect us.

Do you really believe that?


----------



## Chimera (Aug 4, 2008)

chilli said:


> just because an announcement has been made means nothing, especially from the hon. Peter Garrett. the schedule "Part 1 – Live specimens not requiring an import permit" of the _Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999_ was updated on 24 June 2008 and as no change in the definition of "domestic cat" has even been proposed, and as "domestic cat" appears on that schedule, it is still absolutely legal to import Savannah Cats into Australia, with no requirement to apply for an import permit under the Act as they currently fall within the definition.
> 
> Rarely, will this government back up an announcement with action, let alone a P.Garrett announcement. This sort of announcement is made to appease the protesters, but mark my words, these cats will arrive, and there will be some blaming the previous government for allowing the loop-hole in the definition, which will not be amended in time to stop them being imported.
> 
> Don't let up on your protests until it is legislated, an announcement is worthless and useless without the follow through of legislative changes.



Given that this has been the most relevant post on the topic, I thought I'd quote it. All those reading this thread interested should take note and realise that this is only the first step. Let's not see this turn into a hollow promise.

It is a real shame that other members bloat out a relevant thread like this confusing the topic with socio-political hogwash. I guess it's the empty can that rattles the most


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

I bet you believe in UFO's to.


----------



## Adzo (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Zimbabwe has a government, and look at how its run.


Its true, banning the importation of a hybrid cat is just one step away persecuting people for their political beliefs and/or race.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

And one more away from saying homosexuality causes earthquakes.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

gillsy said:


> I bet you believe in UFO's to.


 

Maybe i do lol


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Taking aside the fact they have banned this breed of cat, lets take a look at what imported animals you can purchase and own.

??

??

??

Oh thats right NONE


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 4, 2008)

we cant import and own any animals?


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Lets take a look at what animals have been brought here and are now pests.

Rats
Cats
Dogs
Rabbits
Ferretts
Toads
Ants
Corn Snakes
Foxes
Camels
Horses
Gambusia
Koi
Goldfish
Trout
Carp
japanese Starfish


I'm sure people can add more


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Taking aside the fact they have banned this breed of cat, lets take a look at what imported animals you can purchase and own.
> 
> ??
> 
> ...


 
You can import some of the below

Cats
Dogs
Horses
Aquarium Fish


----------



## Chimera (Aug 4, 2008)

Florida Everglades


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Then you have aquatic plants
Elodea
Water Hyacthin (spelling)
water cabbage
salvinia
there are heaps more i cant' think of the names of though.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Oh then we have Tilapia and redfin


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

then we have natives like the white cockatoo, mouth almighty, budgies, corella'sthat are native but now a pests in non native areas.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Im not going to deny that many of those species you have listed have caused problems. 

However 

That doesnt change the fact i should have the right to import 

TURTLES
SNAKES
LIZARDS
PRIMATES
CATS
FROGS

Actually basically anything as long as i ensure it is cared for properly.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 4, 2008)

who would make sure you cared for it properly?


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Why so that some idiot in 5 years time when the price drops to a level where anyone can buy it then gets bored with it and lets it go. 

I give up I think your as thick as the wall i'm looking at, and you are so arrogant and naive that you think any more animals that are brought it will end up the same way as every other animal brought into the country.


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 4, 2008)

btw you can import cats


----------



## grimbeny (Aug 4, 2008)

I just love it how you claim to be a marxist, do you actually understand the marx system its not a law free society. Normally its the capatalists who demand the myth of freedom.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

grimbeny said:


> who would make sure you cared for it properly?


 

No one, because he lives in a fairy land where there is no government.

If you want all these animals go to a country where there are no laws, Japan you can buy a jackal, if you don't like something stop complaining and move.


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 4, 2008)

Damn tooting, (I have always wanted to say that) All this means is I had my Bow restrung for nothing.....


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

No matter what the issue is there will always be people who do good and some bad.

Pets is a perfect example of this, there are some owners who take great care of there pets and others who don't. 

It is not logical to ban every person from owning savannah cats or imported animals because of a few. 

If we follow that line of thinking then

We should ban cars, because some people drive stupidly and kill people
We should ban kitchen knives because some people use them to stab others
We should ban alcohol because some people get drunk and get violent
We should ban computers because some people use them for terrorism

So what's the difference ??? NONE

The PROBLEM REACTION SOLUTION format that the government always use is dangerous. And will continue to deprive us of our freedoms and rights.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> We should ban cars, because some people drive stupidly and kill people
> We should ban kitchen knives because some people use them to stab others
> We should ban alcohol because some people get drunk and get violent
> We should ban computers because some people use them for terrorism


 

Or the GOVERNMENT punish those people that do those things, which in future deter others from doing it. 

Or we ban products/animals that people have not had access to to ensure that those who would do unacceptable things don't have a chance to.


----------



## Chimera (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> No matter what the issue is there will always be people who do good and some bad.
> 
> Pets is a perfect example of this, there are some owners who take great care of there pets and others who don't.
> 
> ...



You got beaten up as a kid didn't you


----------



## herpkeeper (Aug 4, 2008)

*some people*

have a close read of this post people, it's not hard to see who's sitting on thier brains :evil: if these vermon where to be brought into this country, the only REPTILES you would see in 10 years time would be in private collections & Zoo's ect:, not to mention what other native species these VERMON would wipe out by the truck load:evil: if like a cpl of you have stated : you know of idiots with these killing machines, FOR CHRIST SAKE REPORT THE IRRESPONSABLE IDIOTS :evil:SOME PEOPLEWhen I'm driving, I'll swerve to miss a dog, BUT I'll SWERVE TO HIT A CAT:evil: ONLY GOOD CAT IS A DEAD ONE:evil::evil::evil:


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Herpkeeper your just as bad, there is no reason you should cause any other animal inhumane treatment.


----------



## jessb (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Taking aside the fact they have banned this breed of cat, lets take a look at what imported animals you can purchase and own.
> 
> ??
> 
> ...


 

Mate, just take a look at Gillsy's post - you clearly have no idea what you are spouting off about!


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

gillsy said:


> Or the GOVERNMENT punish those people that do those things, which in future deter others from doing it.
> 
> Or we ban products/animals that people have not had access to to ensure that those who would do unacceptable things don't have a chance to.


 


So we punish all people for crimes they have not committed for the greater good is that correct Gillsy?


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Unfortunately it is the way of history a few spoil it for everyone, but i'd rather spoil it for the very very very few that have even heard of the Savannah cat than in 10 years time be fighting to save the last of our native marsupials.


----------



## jessb (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> So we punish all people for crimes they have not committed for the greater good is that correct Gillsy?


 
Nobody is being "punished" but yes, laws are put in place to prevent accidents which will affect others. Same reason 8 year olds aren't allowed to drive, drunk people aren't allowed to fly aeroplanes and we can't play with TNT in our backyards...


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

There will be very little if anything left in this country in 30 years time anyway with or without savannah cats.

Thanks to not savannah cats but humans and habitat destruction.


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

Except a few species of fish, name any animal not brought here for pet reasons that has not gone feral.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Look at the Coorong now and Savannah cats never did that, humans did!


But you have all been brainwashed into believing this decision to stop the cats was made for "the good of the environment"

The government doesn't give a rats *** about the environment.


----------



## jessb (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Look at the Coorong now and Savannah cats never did that, humans did!
> 
> 
> But you have all been brainwashed into believing this decision to stop the cats was made for "the good of the environment"
> ...


 

So what is in it for them then?


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Look at the Coorong now and Savannah cats never did that, humans did!
> 
> 
> But you have all been brainwashed into believing this decision to stop the cats was made for "the good of the environment"
> ...


 

And from the sounds of it your Captain Planet.


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 4, 2008)

*Strange debating style*



aussie1 said:


> Taking aside the fact they have banned this breed of cat, lets take a look at what imported animals you can purchase and own.
> 
> ??
> 
> ...


 
Aussie1, you keep saying you are the only one putting facts on the table.
You then ignore the facts and reassert your opinion.

You say you can't import animals into Australia. Well, you are _*wrong. *_Over 12,000 aquarium fish are legally imported every *week *into Australia. Yes, some species, like Piranha are banned, for environmental purposes. No prizes for guessing your response...... 

Your *opinion *is that your civil liberties are infringed. The *fact* is animals are imported into this country every day, provided they pass quarantine and risk assessment.


As for your claim that if Australian's knew about the issue, they'd be in favour of importing these cats...

The MSN poll was 36,000 to 9,000 against the cats,
the Gopetition was 8,500 against while 500 for them,
the submissions to the government were 526 against and 23 for them,
This was a widely publicised issue with nothing stopping your "majority" of Australians expressing their opinion or making their case.

Your debating style is straight out of Monty Python, not Aussie Python.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Control of us the people


----------



## jessb (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Control of us the people


 

:lol: I think you forgot to take your meds...


----------



## gillsy (Aug 4, 2008)

And there are plenty of cat clubs, forums, societies who are against these murderers to.


----------



## herpkeeper (Aug 4, 2008)

*some people are mentally constipated*

I take it some of you have never seen any Doco's of what domestic / turned feral cats have done and are doing to our native faunna already, like I said SOME of you are sitting on your brains. I thought this site was about herps & the people who love them, not the VERMON that are wipping out our native wildlife ??? how many times have you been witness to a cat running off with a lizard or a bird ??? NOT YOUR CAT, HEY ??? stand up and clear your mind:evil::evil::evil:


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 4, 2008)

*Cat damage*

Herpekeeper is right that the wider debate needs to be about containing cats in general.

If you filled trucks with one year's diet of feral cats in Australia, the line would run from Sydney to Canberra and back again. It's an incredible toll.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

If the government was serious about protecting its native fauna why has it not undertaken a giant program to destroy all wild cats and vermin?


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Why does the government not go and destroy all wild cats in Australia?

Why do they not pass laws to make people keep there cats confined 24 hours a day?


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

Because the government doesnt CARE

It just sucks people like most of you in to believe that it cares.


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 4, 2008)

The government is spending millions trying to develop ways of getting rid of cats from the environment - they don't take baits very well and there are lots of non-target issues. The Australia, NZ, Victorian and Western Australian government have had a research group working on it for over a decade. The fact is, it's hard to do. That why it is so important not to make the problem worse.

There are maybe 12-18 million feral cats and it would be impossible to wipe them out with current technology.


Laws are starting to get passed to contain cats - but it is a long process of education and adjustment. If you live in Forde or Bonner in the ACT now, you must keep cats contained. Its not legal to have a cat on Lord Howe Island any more. 

The Tasmanian and Australian governments eradicated cats on Macquarie Island. These things are expensive and slow - but that doesn't mean you throw the doors open to everything.


----------



## herpkeeper (Aug 4, 2008)

Aussie 1, one of my favourate doco's I ever seen was on the Army sharp shooters (goverment funded mind you) out west plugging these VERMON out of tree's. there needs to be more programs introduced by the goverment like this to help wipe these things out ! maybe you should be complaining to the cat lovers club, not to people who know 1st hand what these vermon/ killing machines are doing to our native animals ! This is another introduced ecological nightmare just like the rest of of our introduced ecological nightmare's. Pigs, Goats, Cane toads, Tilapia, Rabbits and so on and so on !!!! like I've stated not hard to see where some peoples brains are hey ???


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

I have a friend in the army and they often see wild cats at the training bases they are used as target practice lol.

I think the government should get of its **** and pay people to shoot wild cats.

The simplest solution to this is to make it law that feral cats should be shot on sight.

They also need to make it easier to purchase guns preferable without a licence.


----------



## aussie1 (Aug 4, 2008)

And they need to make it law that all pet cats are confined 24 hours a day and for the entire life.


----------



## caustichumor (Aug 4, 2008)

Wow Aussie1, you just solved the feral problem in Australia, Give yourself a pat on the back and start work on the drought situation....


----------



## Jackrabbit (Aug 4, 2008)

Carpetcleaner said:


> bump73 I was wondering the same thing myself. I know that there is a breeder in Queensland and I think another in Victoria. I wonder what will happen to their existing breeding program they have spent vast amounts of money importing into the country already? Do they get put down or exported? Makes you wonder doesn't it?


 
I think they are all still in quarantine. that should mean that they should either be sent back or destroyed.

Desexing them will only help long term doesn't help the local fauna if they get out now. just protects them in 10-15 years time. Imgaine what one of these animals could do in that time. effectively wipe out a psecies in its local area.

Good riddance I say. We have enough animals people don't want to look after without bringing in more dangerous ones.

JMO


----------



## Veredus (Aug 4, 2008)

aussie1 said:


> Im rather proud of my left wing marxist beliefs.


 
Marxist beliefs advocate the existence of a government (not anarchy) that will manage society to the purpose of equality for all. That would be a government even more restrictive than the ones you are currently whinging about.


----------



## herpkeeper (Aug 4, 2008)

Aussie 1 that's a bit of a contradiction to some of your previous messages, but I'm glad you are starting to see the logic in what some of us are on about ! And yes, Cat's should be contained 24/7


----------



## TonyPeacock (Aug 4, 2008)

*Where are the Savannahs*



Jackrabbit said:


> I think they are all still in quarantine. that should mean that they should either be sent back or destroyed.
> 
> Desexing them will only help long term doesn't help the local fauna if they get out now. just protects them in 10-15 years time. Imgaine what one of these animals could do in that time. effectively wipe out a psecies in its local area.
> 
> ...


 
I'm pretty sure they are in quarantine in the USA. The USA breeder is quoted in the media today, saying what's he going to do with them? I think that means they are still at his place - which is in Oklahoma I think.

Presumably they'll get sold in the States.


----------

