What does today’s face of the day and this cat have in common?
You cat lovers can breath a sigh of relief – it’s in Australia. For now.
The Australian government announced plans to cull up to 2 million feral cats by 2020 in a bid to preserve dozens of native species that authorities claim face extinction because of the cats’ predatory behavior.
Speaking to a national radio station, Gregory Andrews, the country’s first threatened-species Commissioner, said Australian Environment Minister Greg Hunt “is declaring war on feral cats, and he’s asked me to take charge of that program.”
Hunt unveiled the five-year plan at a Melbourne zoo on Thursday, vowing to protect Australia’s native mammal and bird populations.
“We are drawing a line in the sand today which says, ‘On our watch, in our time, no more species extinction,'” Hunt said.
A line in the Australian sand. No. More. Cats.
In fact, 2 million less of them. Read more »
I don’t normally agree with Gareth Morgan on anything…except the killing of feral cats. Today he has a piece in the NBR about the ballsed up flag referendum process.
The debacle over the incompetence of the Flag Consideration Panel is spurring ever-growing ramifications for the politicians. The latest demonstration of petty mindedness from a political quarter comes from Andrew Little who, when faced with the question of whether Labour would support the government in adding a fifth entry to the first referendum, couldn’t resist petty point scoring.
He stated he’d would support a fifth flag, but only if the PM moved the question about whether New Zealanders want a flag change to the first referendum. That’s the response of a political brat, rather than someone concerned with getting the outcome New Zealanders want.
Andrew Little is a political brat…and a numpty. He was comprehensively out played by John Key…and Key isn’t that good really.
When the flag consideration process was first announced, I remember publishing stuff on why a flag change would be beneficial. The orchestrated response from the media – without exception – was that 88% of New Zealanders didn’t want change and hence I should naff off. No research underpinned that reaction, it was purely a cantankerous, talkback-type allergy to an idea.
Now look at it. Latest polls suggest 50% are open to change – so long as real choice is provided. That’s what educative processes do – and once the public gets full information it is incredibly rational. As the public learns more about this, the polls will continue to move – they are certainly not stable yet. It’s this process that Andrew Little – a supporter of change – now seeks to shut down for political gain. He doesn’t care if the public doesn’t get to make an informed decision, he’d rather have the political brownie points from being the person that made the government change the process.
The science supports Maggie Barry’s death to cats policy.
It is not often that I agree with Gareth Morgan, but he has a blog post about how farmers can pay for their own irrigation without bludging off the taxpayers or ratepayers.
Irrigation New Zealand and Federated Farmers are calling for public subsidies for irrigation projects. In their view, this year’s drought, and the prospect of more in the future given a changing climate, has underlined the need for increased water storage. In their view it is no different from building roads and other infrastructure, which benefits everyone. Do they have a point? Who should pay for water storage and irrigation in this country?
The short answer is yes and no. They do have a point, but only so long as water users and polluters paid for the costs of the water they access and the environmental damage they wreak. This consistency – which is purely the logic of the industry lobbyists extended – would yield enough money to improve water infrastructure. But no way should Average Joe and Jo Kiwi pay a cent for someone else’s pipes and dams – which seems where the lobbyists are bludging for handouts.
The Ruataniwha scheme is a classic case of bludging. The HBRC is promoting a scheme which all ratepayers will have to cough up for, it will poison a river, and provide water to just 200 farmers. At the same time they are prosecuting another council for pumping sewage into the same river they are happy to poison with their dam. Read more »
Gareth Morgan wants cats dead…so do I…especially feral cats.
His latest call though is already being done with an outcry recently in Auckland about cats being dispatched after trespassing in a wildlife reserve on Whangaparaoa peninsula.
Lock up your moggies if you live near a sensitive wildlife area, or they could be put down – that’s the latest suggestion from Gareth Morgan’s environmental group in its bid to stop cats harming native birds.
Geoff Simmons from the Morgan Foundation made the suggestion in a submission on Wellington City Council’s biodiversity management strategy.
He said the strategy’s plan to manage predators that had an impact on native wildlife was for the most part “fantastic”.
However, there was a “glaring omission” around the issue of cats.
Mr Simmons suggested any cats found wandering around sensitive wildlife areas, where birds would breed, should be humanely trapped and returned to their owners.
If the cat was not microchipped, it would be dropped off to the SPCA where it would be re-homed or euthanised. Read more »
The other day Don Brash and Gareth Morgan fronted at Orewa. Contrary to the media reports it wasn’t actually the Orewa Rotary Club but only its premises that was used.
The media reported extensively the nonsense that Gareth Morgan spouted but barely mentioned what Don Brash had to say.
So I called up Don and asked if I could publish his speech.
NOTES FOR REPLYING TO GARETH MORGAN, 4 FEBRUARY 2015
Thanks for inviting me here today, and for the opportunity to comment on what Gareth has said. I didn’t see the speech in advance of course, so these comments are just immediate reactions based partly on what Gareth said a few days ago in a speech to a Ngapuhi audience.
Let me say first that there are some of Gareth’s views with which I agree. He said in his Ngapuhi speech that he is opposed to separate Maori electorates, Maori wards (and by implication the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland) and quotas for Maori in educational institutions. Granting any group special rights is contrary to Article 3 of the Treaty he said, and I totally agree with that.
It’s also patronising, and implies that Maori aren’t quite competent enough to have their voices heard in the political arena without a special leg up. Of course that is nonsense: when I was in Parliament, there were 21 Maori in Parliament – roughly the same percentage of Members of Parliament as Maori are in the wider population – only seven of them elected in the Maori electorates. The other 14 were elected in general constituencies or were placed in a winnable position on a party’s list.
Similarly in Auckland: the first election of councillors after the super-city was established in 2010 saw three people of Maori descent elected – not in Maori wards but on their own merits – and again three Maori out of a total of 20 councillors meant that Maori on the Council were in roughly the same proportion as Maori in the general population.
But as explained in his Ngapuhi speech his basic position seems to be that –
“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:
- Treaty of Waitangi
- Te Tiriti O Waitangi
- Principles of the Treaty
- Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”
Gareth Morgan has been banging on for weeks about his ‘solutions’ to race relations in this country.
After slagging off Don Brash publicly he fronted up at Orewa yesterday and just 19 others bothered to come listen to the old fool…there were more media than there were Rotary Club members.
The views that propelled the National Party close to government a decade ago were “harsh and intolerant,” philanthropist Dr Gareth Morgan told a small audience in Orewa today.
The man who gave those views – Dr Don Brash – sat in the audience to hear his famous 2004 speech described as being a “harsh and intolerant view that is intolerant of anyone who is different”.
“We still have a faction in our midst who see admitting culpability… is giving Maori the upper hand. This section of the community is clearly filled with fear.”
As Treaty of Waitangi celebrations began in the North, the two Pakeha men attempted to solve the problems of the past 175 years in front of small audience of people largely in the same age range. A total of 19 people gathered to hear the pair speak -and almost the same number of media representatives.
The problem with moaning liberal elite luvvies and socialist “entrepreneurs” is that they like to hear the sound of their own voice.
Last week it was Eleanor Catton bleating on about how un-loved she is and assisting us all to now why.
This week we have Gareth Morgan having another rant.
Of course he’d never want to test his never-ending opinions on almost everything with the voting public would he?
Gareth Morgan is heading to Orewa to confront what he calls the “ignorance of Brash-think”.
The venue and name are a nod to former National Party leader Don Brash, whose 2004 speech in the town led to a heated period of debate about the Treaty of Waitangi.
Dr Morgan is stepping into those uncertain waters tomorrow when he speaks to the Orewa Rotary Club.
He said he had deliberately chosen to speak at Orewa because it was where Dr Brash gave “one of the most damaging speeches ever made in terms of Treaty relations”.
“It’s exactly the cohort I’ve been talking about as having a high level of ignorance on Treaty matters.”
He says there was a hotbed of ignorance which needed to be confronted because of the need for an ongoing relationship with Maori after all Treaty of Waitangi settlements are finished.
“There are still large tracts of people who indulge in Brash-think on this topic. I want to expose that.”
Gareth is all excited at the departure of Russel Norman. Can he finally have a Green Party made in his own image?
Millionaire philanthropist and political commentator Gareth Morgan says Russel Norman’s resignation as co-leader gives an opportunity for the Green Party to reposition itself as a genuinely environmental movement.
Dr Morgan said he had spoken to Dr Norman several times about what he calls the misuse of the Green Party’s environmental reputation as a front to push a left wing agenda.
Dr Morgan engaged in public debates about this issue, saying the Green Party’s reputation as an environmental guardian was a kind of “Trojan Horse for far left policies”.
Dr Morgan said Dr Norman’s departure created an opportunity for this to change, but he thinks it might be difficult because of what he calls the party’s other co-leader Metria Turei’s “very left wing views”.
I rarely agree with cat-killer-Morgan, except when he wants to kill cats and when he wants to destroy the Green Taliban. Read more »