GLOBAL WAR ON CATS: Study Says New Laws Needed to Protect Mice from Cats

cat-mouse

via: catster.com

In what appears to be a bit of fortuitous timing for Gareth Morgan and his Cat Eradication campaign, a US study was released a few days ago with the practical title: The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States.

Published in the prestigeous publication Nature, the abstract states  

Anthropogenic threats, such as collisions with man-made structures, vehicles, poisoning and predation by domestic pets, combine to kill billions of wildlife annually. Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on islands. The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States. We estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds and 6.9–20.7 billion mammals annually. Un-owned cats, as opposed to owned pets, cause the majority of this mortality. Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention is needed to reduce this impact.

David Stein has a pretty good go at the loonies

Yesterday, I wrote a satirical post about “Anthropogenicists,” the pseudo-scientists who believe that humans are the cause of all earthly problems, from weather and climate anomalies to earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and species extinction. To an Anthropogenicist, humans are the sole root of all evil. Because nothing bad – no earthquakes, no floods, no volcanic eruptions, and no species extinction ever happened before man arrived on the earth. Anthropogenicism is a religion of the left, proof that when humans reject traditional religious beliefs, they merely go on to create some other faith-based schema to believe in.

I was inspired to write yesterday’s post by recent attempts in New Zealand to ban domestic cats, because humans, by owning cats, are committing “genocide” against rodents and birds. And even though I don’t claim to be psychic (except when I’m doing my “mind-reading” magic tricks while trying to pick up young ladies in a bar), I must say, I was oddly prescient in this instance. Because this morning, the Huffington Post’s “green” section called for U.S. “policy intervention” to deal with the “anthropogenic” menace of domestic cats.

The people specifically calling for this “policy intervention” (why can’t they just come out and say “government intervention?”) are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Department of the Interior bureaucrat Tom Will, Smithsonian Institute/University of Minnesota loon Scott Loss, and Smithsonian Institute/University of Washington crackpot Peter Marra.

I think the only way to grasp the sheer idiocy of their proposal is to quote it directly. So let’s do that:

Anthropogenic threats, such as collisions with man-made structures, vehicles, poisoning and predation by domestic pets, combine to kill billions of wildlife annually. Free-ranging domestic cats have been introduced globally and have contributed to multiple wildlife extinctions on islands. The magnitude of mortality they cause in mainland areas remains speculative, with large-scale estimates based on non-systematic analyses and little consideration of scientific data. Here we conduct a systematic review and quantitatively estimate mortality caused by cats in the United States….Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention is needed to reduce this impact.

I love how he lets rip. Let’s enjoy

It’s the “guns kill people” idiocy, but now applied by leftist pseudoscientists to the animal kingdom. It’s the fallacy, “humans own cats, and therefore ‘cause’ rodent and bird deaths,” ignoring the reality, that cats, being natural predators by virtue of inborn traits, become of value to humans.

What we’re witnessing is a religious cult, the Anthropogenicists, doing exactly what superstitious crazies in Europe did hundreds of years ago, when cats were killed en masse because they were “witches,” which led to rats, now unthreatened by their natural predator, spreading the Black Plague that wiped out over a third of Europe’s population. And if you think I’m claiming that Anthropogenicists are as bad as old-time witch-hunters, you’re wrong. I’m saying they’re worse. Because mankind in the 1300s could be excused a certain amount of ignorance. But today, such stupidity is unforgivable.

I’ll confess that I hope the Anthropogenicists continue their anti-cat crusade, because, in the end, the left always overplays its hand. There are too many leftist cat-lovers, and I don’t exactly mind them getting schooled in the concept of how nanny-statism will eventually target something you don’t want to give up.


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

As much at home writing editorials as being the subject of them, Cam has won awards, including the Canon Media Award for his work on the Len Brown/Bevan Chuang story. When he’s not creating the news, he tends to be in it, with protagonists using the courts, media and social media to deliver financial as well as death threats.

They say that news is something that someone, somewhere, wants kept quiet. Cam Slater doesn’t do quiet and, as a result, he is a polarising, controversial but highly effective journalist who takes no prisoners.

He is fearless in his pursuit of a story.

Love him or loathe him, you can’t ignore him.

39%