Killing off feral cats

[marino760]

Originally Posted by James Bond 007

Isn't there something in Australia that might prey on the cats? Dingoes, maybe?

Dingoes are actually an interesting analogy. They aren't actually indigenous to Australia but became naturalized thousands of years ago. Undoubtedly their introduction wreaked havoc on some native species, some of which perhaps have since gone extinct or severely reduced in numbers, but the ecosystems seem to have adjusted to them. Would the same thing eventually happen with feral cats? I suspect it will.

Once the feral cats have eaten almost all what's available such as native small animals they'll eventually start starving to death. Then there will be a balance but not until several more species become extinct. Dying from starvation isn't a very pleasant way to die either. That's the natural way it's going to happen.

[Parnassia]

Originally Posted by marino760

Once the feral cats have eaten almost all what's available such as native small animals they'll eventually start starving to death. Then there will be a balance but not until several more species become extinct. Dying from starvation isn't a very pleasant way to die either. That's the natural way it's going to happen.

Unfortunately, by that time the endemic native species they were trying to protect in the first place would be gone; and for good. Natural diversity is a bad thing to lose...for everyone. Some individual animals could certainly be and are being captured and warehoused in captivity until the cats die off, but that has it's obvious risks too. Too small a gene pool to re-generate a new wild population, not enough success captive breeding or holding some of those species long term, risk of diseases and harmful genetic traits being magnified among captive refugia populations, little to no applied history or experience with what it will take to reintroduce captive produced animals back to their native habitats, not to mention the costs and needs for space, native foods, vet care, etc. And, if you think they can simply collect DNA and clone or regenerate animals decades from now you are dreaming.

When you think about the international network of zoos and how few successes they have with iconic endangered species you'll see how risky this is. Also, the habitat these species are so meticulously adapted to will have changed in their absence (we are talking multiple generations, not a few years). Many species maintain their habitat just by existing in them. By the time many of these animals could be safely reintroduced the habitat may no longer support them. If the species continues to be present in its native habitat it is more likely to be able to adapt to habitat change over time. We all should understand that habitat shifts with climate alone whether the predatory cats are there or not.

I don't like the idea of killing off anything on a massive scale either, but we are talking last ditch efforts before the last remnants of unique species disappear forever. Which has more ecological value here? The cats or the endemics? Time plays into this. If they have a species-specific toxin that does the job quickly without prolonged misery more power to them. There are also ways to "present" or lure a specific predator to a poison that minimizes damage to non-target species. Get it over with, don't prolong the suffering of anything.

[senecat]

After hundreds of years these non-native animals have become part of the evolving ecosystems and humans have changed the land too much to go back in time. Australia and New Zealand can kill all the cats, possums, foxes, rabbits, horses, camels they want they will never be the pristine wonderland they want. It's reprehensible no matter how you want to sugar coat it