# 185 kilometre feral cat fence to protect native wildlife.



## Scutellatus (May 17, 2018)

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-17/feral-cat-proof-fence-to-be-built-in-australia/9766830


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (May 17, 2018)

Good. At last someone is taking proactive action to protect wildlife and a fairly significant project too.
Time to stop allowing any cats to wander free and then a price on every pelt brought in.


----------



## cris (May 17, 2018)

Pauls_Pythons said:


> Good. At last someone is taking proactive action to protect wildlife and a fairly significant project too.
> Time to stop allowing any cats to wander free and then a price on every pelt brought in.



They could ban cats, then introduce every known pathogen. Apart from cats being a pest, I think people who like them as pets are creepy too.
[doublepost=1526546561,1526546062][/doublepost]The smarter option would be to farm species that will go extinct without crazy interventions. Marsupial meat production is the best option for sustainable agriculture.


----------



## Scutellatus (May 17, 2018)

Can we stick the topic at hand and not have side discussions on peoples likes and dislikes of cats.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (May 17, 2018)

Scutellatus said:


> Can we stick the topic at hand and not have side discussions on peoples likes and dislikes of cats.



Agreed. Every time the cat subject comes up you do this. You like them, you keep them & good luck.


----------



## cris (May 17, 2018)

Scutellatus said:


> Can we stick the topic at hand and not have side discussions on peoples likes and dislikes of cats.



I like cats, in my sight with a projectile being sent at 3-4 thousand feet per second, it is called conservation.


----------



## Sdaji (May 17, 2018)

cris said:


> They could ban cats, then introduce every known pathogen. Apart from cats being a pest, I think people who like them as pets are creepy too.
> [doublepost=1526546561,1526546062][/doublepost]The smarter option would be to farm species that will go extinct without crazy interventions. Marsupial meat production is the best option for sustainable agriculture.



Other than a few common species of macropod, this wouldn't really work. Yes, absolutely 200%, they should be farming macropods in Australia and it's ridiculous to be farming cattle in most cases, but it's not really a direct way to save marsupials. Most of the extinctions are of small species being killed by foxes and cats and stuff. We're not exactly going to be farming rat-sized marsupials for people to eat, for various reasons.

I'm pretty amused to see a herper making that comment about cat keepers! If you ever want to see a human freak show, a herp expo is your ideal destination! Not for a moment saying I don't fit the mould in that respect! I've been to cat expos and yep, cat people are typically hy

per bitchy, jealous women who hate each other and are extremely narcissistic. Herpers have a more complex and varied demographic, but they're no less weird.



cris said:


> I like cats, in my sight with a projectile being sent at 3-4 thousand feet per second, it is called conservation.



This is the type of comment herpers get sooky and whingy and angry about when it is made against them. 'The only good snake...', brags about kills, etc. Both ethically and diplomatically, this statement of yours is really bad. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for killing any cat which is outside unsupervised and I've sent plenty of cats to Heaven myself, but if people want to keep cats contained indoors that's fine, we don't need to go insulting them, and they outnumber us numerically and politically. There's no point hypocritically legitimising their hatred of snakes and desire to kill them. Most people in this world still prefer snakes to be dead than to remain alive around them. Snakes do genuinely kill people, in fact, more people are killed by snakes than any other animal. It's a tough battle to change the public attitude, and contextless comments about enjoying killing cats, perhaps the world's most loved animal, won't win us friends, and will set out efforts backwards in terms of reasonable cat legislations (no cat in Australia should ever be allowed outdoors unsupervised for example, but acting in an extreme, provocative way by being completely nasty and unreasonable makes them dig their heels in a turn people on the fence offside).

Good news about the fence. Let's hope it's effective


----------



## cris (May 18, 2018)

Sdaji said:


> I'm pretty amused to see a herper making that comment about cat keepers! If you ever want to see a human freak show,
> 
> 
> This is the type of comment herpers get sooky and whingy and angry about when it is made against them. 'The only good snake...', brags about kills, etc. Both ethically and diplomatically, this statement of yours is really bad.



Herper wierdos are often interesting people, many have a good dark sense of humour. I don't think you can say that about crazy cat women.

As for cat shooting, I'm not a diplomat, and I don't kill peoples pets. If people find shooting feral cats offensive or even legal killing of dangerous snakes, I don't care. It seems we both agree that we should be eating cute fluffy native animals to a greater extent, that is extremely offensive to some people too. I have no interest in pandering to some sort of vegan cat woman agenda. Rats are friendlier than cats and are make far superrior pets, I kill lots of them too.


----------



## Sdaji (May 18, 2018)

cris said:


> Herper wierdos are often interesting people, many have a good dark sense of humour. I don't think you can say that about crazy cat women.
> 
> As for cat shooting, I'm not a diplomat, and I don't kill peoples pets. If people find shooting feral cats offensive or even legal killing of dangerous snakes, I don't care. It seems we both agree that we should be eating cute fluffy native animals to a greater extent, that is extremely offensive to some people too. I have no interest in pandering to some sort of vegan cat woman agenda. Rats are friendlier than cats and are make far superrior pets, I kill lots of them too.



Haha, you know, I agree wholeheartedly about the cat vs. herp folks! The cat people are pretty consistently horrible bitchy women, while the herpers are mostly crazy freaks, but with great diversity, ranging from messed up whackjobs to nasty, terrible people, to crazy but wonderful eccentric characters to passionate-obsessive people you can't help but to admire, to name just a few. You'll certainly find more diamonds in the rough at a herp show, good point!

Having said that, most cat owners aren't crazy cat ladies at shows, they're just regular people who have a pet cat at home, and most of them are good people. It's probably something like half the population who will be alienated and put off side by talking like you are, and make no mistake, there's a big crossover between current day herpers and cat people (this wasn't the case 20 years ago, but the herp scene has moved heavily in the direction of lovey dovey shmoopy woopy pet owners, ridiculous as it is.

You may not be a diplomat, and neither am I really, but you're still harming your own cause, which means you either don't care about helping the situation or you're ignorant. The fact that you don't care doesn't mean no one else cares or that you're not causing harm. I am well known among the herp community as not caring for diplomacy, but if even I see an issue with a failure of diplomacy you can be sure it's not a good look.

You're absolutely right, we have the same goals, we're basically on the same page, I'm just pointing out that if you piss people off and get them to oppose you, you are working against your own goals.


----------



## cris (May 18, 2018)

Sdaji said:


> You may not be a diplomat, and neither am I really, but you're still harming your own cause, which means you either don't care about helping the situation or you're ignorant. The fact that you don't care doesn't mean no one else cares or that you're not causing harm. I am well known among the herp community as not caring for diplomacy, but if even I see an issue with a failure of diplomacy you can be sure it's not a good look.



I don't have the intellect to deal with overly emotional idiots. I like to think if a rational person is 'triggered' by something I say, they might think about it and look for the truth. I have no idea if it works, but it might. I also find it amusing, especially after a few drinks.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 18, 2018)

cris said:


> They could ban cats, then introduce every known pathogen. Apart from cats being a pest, I think people who like them as pets are creepy too.
> The smarter option would be to farm species that will go extinct without crazy interventions. Marsupial meat production is the best option for sustainable agriculture.


My initial perception was that you were not being serious but looking for a reaction. Perhaps I am wrong? Irrespective, for the sake of anyone reading this who might put stock in what you have said above…

Banning something is no solution, even if you could. Have a read about the banning of alcohol in the 1920’s (prohibition). Keeping exotic reptiles is banned. That is a totally impractical suggestion for numerous and there of no worth.

As for introducing pathogens - they would if they could. Domestic pets could be immunised, as was done with Calicivirus and rabbits. They simply do not have a cat specific pathogen that will exterminate cats. This is yet another reason why it is pointless to even attempt to ban cats.

You demonstrate little understanding of the marsupial species they are trying to protect. I can enlarge on this if you wish.

We currently utilise kangaroos for human consumption. So why hasn’t kangaroo meat replaced chicken, lamb/mutton, pork and beef? Even if you restrict the conversation to rangeland agriculture, and only beef cattle, you would be expecting people to do without over sixty plus cuts of meat (https://static.businessinsider.com/image/542dc0d9ecad043c198e9c35-1200/image.jpg). Again, a superficially nice idea, but just ‘pie in the sky’ in the real world.


----------



## cris (May 18, 2018)

Bluetongue1 said:


> My initial perception was that you were not being serious but looking for a reaction. Perhaps I am wrong? Irrespective, for the sake of anyone reading this who might put stock in what you have said above…
> 
> Banning something is no solution, even if you could. Have a read about the banning of alcohol in the 1920’s (prohibition). Keeping exotic reptiles is banned. That is a totally impractical suggestion for numerous and there of no worth.
> 
> ...



I do not think it is realistic to ban cats, nor would it actually solve the real problem of feral animals outside urban areas. I have not looked at the possible pathogens, because that won't happen anyway.

Prohibtion of exotic species works to some extent. That said I think many exotic species have been useful too.

There are problems with the roo industry, most are due to people being stupid in one way or another. Others are related to competition from much stronger lobby groups and the complexity of transfer of profits back to property managers. The fact that the native harvest industry is highly restricted does not help either. Even if there was a free market, that would not always result in the best outcome.

Building a cat fence is basically farming them IMO. It is like a large conservation zoo/farm, smaller than many grazing properties. I would be happy to eat them or keep them as pets if they start to over populate their enclosure. That said I have little knowledge of this species and their pet/food potential.

I had had a few before my comments last night, but I don't think I said anything wrong anyway.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 18, 2018)

You have posted while I writing this, so I will post this then comment below…


cris said:


> I don't have the intellect to deal with overly emotional idiots. I like to think if a rational person is 'triggered' by something I say, they might think about it and look for the truth. I have no idea if it works, but it might. I also find it amusing, especially after a few drinks.


Denigrating aother's character (intellect in this case) does not become you.

I am sure most readers don’t mind being ‘triggered’ to think about things by comments, but they should have at least some merit in order to do so. Inappropriate or incorrect information only tends to elicit annoyance and similar negative reactions and responses, or a correction of what has been offered up to purportedly “think about”.

On a personal note, I would add that it is becoming increasing evident that your notion of what constitutes humour and my own concept have very little in common. And for someone capable of worthwhile contributions and insights, you are at times well wide of that mark. Makes me wonder about the “especially after a few drinks” remark.

Predator-proof fencing for establishing conservation sanctuaries is not so new. A remarkable man named John Wamsley, a self-made millionaire who left school early and later gained a PhD in mathematics, established his first sanctuary (Warrawong) in 1969. Wamsey was able to demonstrate the value of doing so and provided a much more environmentally sound option to attempts at captive breeding in zoos. Someone well worth reading about.
------
I am not sure how you arrive at the “_the fact that the native harvest industry is highly restricted_” when the number culled each year exceeds one million (1.5 million in 2015). The allowable quotas, especially in Qld, are several times that. Most graziers, especially in the wheat-sheep areas, are glad to see them reduced as they eat their crops and their fodder, reducing their income. The problems that I am aware of relate to operators not adhering to human food handing standards e.g. using rusty hooks to hang carcasses, gutting animals on the spot and then carrying their carcasses in the back of normal trucks for a day or more. What was OK for collecting pet meat is not the same for meat destined for human consumption. You may well be right about the conflicting financial interests with graziers and domesticated grazing animals destined for the table.

Your honesty in the last post is appreciated.


----------



## Sdaji (May 19, 2018)

Bluetongue1 said:


> Banning something is no solution, even if you could. Have a read about the banning of alcohol in the 1920’s (prohibition). Keeping exotic reptiles is banned. That is a totally impractical suggestion for numerous and there of no worth.
> 
> We currently utilise kangaroos for human consumption. So why hasn’t kangaroo meat replaced chicken, lamb/mutton, pork and beef? Even if you restrict the conversation to rangeland agriculture, and only beef cattle, you would be expecting people to do without over sixty plus cuts of meat (https://static.businessinsider.com/image/542dc0d9ecad043c198e9c35-1200/image.jpg). Again, a superficially nice idea, but just ‘pie in the sky’ in the real world.



The banning of alcohol is often misused as an example, as you are doing here. Yes, absolutely, it was an example of a failure, but it's absurd to cherry pick one failure and say all attempts at banning anything will failed because of it. Also, banning doesn't have to be 100% effective to 'work' and be worthwhile. We have a ban on murder, rape, and many other obvious examples, which while not being appropriate to apply to everything, it would make more sense than using your alcohol example.

The ban on exotic reptiles is highly effective. The goal is to limit the risk of an invasive species outbreak. We know without doubt that if they were legalised, numbers kept would massively increase, probably at least one or two orders of magnitude. Escapees and deliberate releases would increase even more than proportionally. Sure, the ban is not 100% effective, but it is far, far, far, far, far better than the alternative and there is no reasonable, logic-based argument against this.

I think if kangaroo was marketted differently and priced as a cheap alternative to beef and chicken rather than as a gourmet, expensive alternative, it would increase in popularity. It's pathetic that it is being kept this way. I'm sure the beef industry is using political sway to keep it that way.



cris said:


> I don't have the intellect to deal with overly emotional idiots. I like to think if a rational person is 'triggered' by something I say, they might think about it and look for the truth. I have no idea if it works, but it might. I also find it amusing, especially after a few drinks.



I also find it really amusing when people are triggered. It's pathetic of them and fun to laugh at them, and absurd that it is given any sort of sympathy and pandering, but the reality is, people do get triggered, people do pander to it, irrational emotions are what drive most people, and if we don't take that into account we harm our own cause. I really wish people were more logical and intelligent, less hysterical and more level headed, but the world is not as I wish it was, it is as it is, and we won't serve our purposes well if we fail to act accordingly.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (May 19, 2018)

@Sdaji. 
The last paragraph comments makes no sense in relation to the post above them. The post says a “rational person” being triggered to “think about it and look for the truth. You find that pathetic and laughable, driven by irrational emotions and top it off by wishing more logical and intelligent. Perhaps you need to reread the post when you are stone cold sober?

I had actually written a detailed paragraph on why banning would not work. However the post was getting far too big so I pruned that section back to a core statement with one example. The essence of it is twofold. Firstly, even if they were able to get rid of all domestic cats, it is not going to have any perceptible effect on the feral population. Secondly, when people are used to having something on a widespread basis and you try and take it away from, they don’t like it (the point of the prohibition example). You have only to look at the recent draft legislation to restrict breeding of pets. This was very quickly dropped by the minister due to the public backlash. In the light of that, what show do you reckon they’d have of trying to legislate against keeping?

Another point I would have made is that cat keeping is currently so common and widespread, a ban would mostly generate a huge black market network of keepers and suppliers. An aspect I paralleled with the prohibition example. In support of that I made the point that even things that have always been banned, such as recreational drugs or exotic reptiles etc. have an established black market. So how much more likely for something a huge section of the population have been used to having.

I don’t and didn’t disagree with the notion that beef suppliers/grazier apply pressure so that kangaroo meat is not competitively priced.


----------



## Pauls_Pythons (May 19, 2018)

Sdaji said:


> I think if kangaroo was marketted differently and priced as a cheap alternative to beef and chicken rather than as a gourmet, expensive alternative, it would increase in popularity. It's pathetic that it is being kept this way. I'm sure the beef industry is using political sway to keep it that way.



I think you are making an assumption here that people in their masses want to eat roo meat but can't afford it.
Roo as you know is nothing like, beef, lamb or chicken so it really isn't an alternative.
Many of you will happily eat roo meat regardless of price yet I can assure you that we wouldn't buy it if it was 10c a kilo.


----------



## Ramsayi (May 19, 2018)

Skippy shouldn't be eaten.
On the other hand anyone for a cat kebab? Might save the need for a fence


----------

