User Tag List

View Poll Results: Should cats be killed to protect bird species?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 35.29%
  • No

    11 64.71%
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Do you agree that cats should be killed to protect endangered bird species?468 days old

  1. #11
    Established Member
    Master procrastinator JaM's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-30
    Posts
    4,827
    Location
    East Doggerland
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Doggerlandic
    Ethnicity
    South Norse
    Phenotype
    Kostenkioid
    Politics
    Relativism
    Religion
    None
    Denmark Viking Finland Spain Castile

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voron View Post
    Could someone explain the concept of preserving diversity at all cost? I understand that from the point of view of ecological balance a certain ratio of predators to herbivores or birds to insects is important, to make sure that no one population of anything gets out of control. Like in North America when wolves were exterminated and buffalos (or was it elk?) stopped migrating and turned huge areas into almost deserts. I understand that. What I do not understand is preserving species where only 10 units are remaining and they have to be saved at all costs just for the sake of preserving the species. What is the point? Same with humans, for some reason there are huge efforts being made to preserve some obscure backward tribes in some Amazon forest, would not it be better if they were brought into mainstream civilization instead? The world would be objectively a better place if everyone spoke English and ate hamburgers instead of stoning women to death for some retarded reasons. Those cultures deserve to be eradicated, if you ask me. Also, I would feel safer going into the woods knowing I would not get bitten by a tick and get Lyme disease. Or get eaten by a polar bear.
    It seems to me you suggest that those issues are somehow part of the same scenario, and it seems you insinuate that Amazonian tribes are like endangered animals and that's is the reason why they should be allowed to remain in the Amazon. It seems to me that because of this postulate, you insinuate that if "preserving" peoples has no real meaning or consequence, then it is also the case with "preserving rare biodiversity" in general (?).

    It is, however, a different issue with Amazon tribes, because it is a matter of human rights, UN charter and the right of peopleS to self-determination, and a question of who their areas really belong to. In the Amazon, there are areas where the so called Brazilian representatives (or whatever country it may be) have never even been, so how can this land be part of Brazil (or whatever) at all? The land belongs to someone else, and it hasn't even been physically conquered! It's a pretty unresolvable problem, and has nothing to do with the biodiversity issue, and surely is a matter of POV.

    On the other hand, there's a strong correlation with removal of peoples from areas of wild amazon forest (whether legally or not) and general habitat/forest destruction.

    However, invasive species, which is what cats are, are destroying biodiversity. Not just endangered species. You can always argue that this or that species of whatever doesn't matter, but they always do. You can say this about every single species they don't matter, and if they take them one by one, they still don't matter, but the accumulated species loss, which consist of those individual insignificant species, who are all interconnected in their environment, does matter. It's always unpredictable and the people who brought destructive species to their destination obviously knew nothing about what would happen. We now do know a lot about the consequences of invasive species, because we have seen a small scale scenario on islands, which has been completely destroyed by invasive species like cats, goats, sheep, rats, mice and in rare cases, even cows.

    That said, there are cases where species has become so rare that they have no function anymore - but in many cases, the rare species are just a symptom of a much more serious issue of environmental destruction. For example, it is possible to protect a large portion of land with a great biodiversity just by protecting some specific "popular" but rare animals, when creating reserves and other protected areas for them to live in, which would never be realized without public support mainly based on a few popular animals. The vast majority of threatened animals are threatened because of habitat loss. Whatever part they may have played in the system as a whole is still there. Obviously change always happens naturally, but if it's just free for all on a global scale, then nothing will remain anywhere, and the world will become a desert. Many examples from the past shows this, and often it is related with loss of biodiversity in a place. Remember, many of those rare species are only rare because we have made them rare, they would not be rare naturally. If provided with a reasonable environment they would become common again.

    A recent example of unpredictable consequences is the current wild expansion of the European golden jackal. This spread is also spreading some diseases via some ticks (I can't remember all the details) which has negative consequences for some types of wildlife in the areas the migrate to. The reason they migrate in the first place has been determined, it is the removal of wolves in large parts of Europe. The wolf is dominant and cannot tolerate golden jackals, so golden jackals generally only live in environments without wolves, or in specific niches where wolves do not fourage. Because of wolf culling of the past, it has allowed the golden jackal to spread westward in Europe, as well as inland. It is not just the direct culling of wolves in the past, but the destruction of the environment where wolves can live in numbers, but where the (much smaller) Jackal now can survive fine, so it can spread along corridors of sub-optimal environments for wolves (or something like that).
    When wolves were reintroduced in many places, this was not known at all. It was just far too late, and didn't solve the problem with the jackals ability to live undetected in places wolves would avoid.

  2. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JaM For This Useful Post:

    Acquisitorz (2018-05-08), An Shigao (2018-07-03), EliasAlucard (2018-05-09), voron (2018-05-08)

  3. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  4. #12
    Wiki Editor
    Established Member
    Most Hated Member DragonRouge's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-02-08
    Posts
    8,106
    Location
    K’jipuktuk
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    Male relatives J1c3
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Metaethnos
    Métis-Souriquois
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Politics
    Shawinigan Handshake
    Religion
    Atheist
    Canada Canada Acadia Canada Quebec Basque Faroe Islands Viking

    Default

    No, they should be trapped and spayed/neutered and if able to be socialized, adopted out to homes as pets.

    And people need to learn to be responsible pet owners.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to DragonRouge For This Useful Post:

    rhiannon (2018-05-08)

  6. #13
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Rugevit's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 15:11
    Join Date
    2013-12-04
    Posts
    2,994
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Belarusian
    Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by An Shigao View Post
    https://www.smh.com.au/national/war-...14-gucp4o.html

    Recently, the Australian government has decided to finance a group to slaughter feral cats. Outdoor cats are responsible for the deaths of at least 500 million birds per year, including many endangered species. This new book goes into great depth about that.

    https://www.amazon.com/Cat-Wars-Deva.../dp/0691167419

    Do you agree with the approach of culling cats? I personally do not. Cats still suffer, and it's largely the responsibility of human beings, who bred them, that they grew to this number. I think breeding cats should become illegal, and people should be encouraged to capture, spay or neuter wild cats instead of killing them.
    Most marsupials are born small. Once they grow up a little they look as mice. Feral cats catch and kill them. Foxes are also responsible. Similar problem exists with native birds in NZ. Kiwis cannot fly and their chicks are easy targets.

    Take a look at the size of kangaroo during birth. It's an embryo continue the development in mother's pouch.


    I'd vote yes





    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by DragonRouge View Post
    No, they should be trapped and spayed/neutered and if able to be socialized, adopted out to homes as pets.

    And people need to learn to be responsible pet owners.
    There are so many feral cats living in wild. It's not feasible catching cats. They also multiply quickly.

  7. #14
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Rugevit's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 15:11
    Join Date
    2013-12-04
    Posts
    2,994
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Belarusian
    Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    The estimate number of feral cats in Australian outback

    ---

    From the analysis and modelling, we estimated that the average population density of feral cats in Australia is about 0.27 cats per square kilometre, and hence the total population of feral cats in largely natural environments in Australia is ‘normally’ about 2.1 million, with this figure fluctuating between 1.4 during dry periods to 5.6 million after extensive rainfall events.
    http://www.nespthreatenedspecies.edu.../how-many-cats

    ---

    Try to catch 2-3 mln cats in wilderness of Australia.

  8. #15
    Established Member
    Conspiracy Realist
    Last Online
    2019-06-13 @ 23:50
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    1,595
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a1
    mtDNA
    H1
    Ethnicity
    Russian
    Russia

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    It seems to me you suggest that those issues are somehow part of the same scenario, and it seems you insinuate that Amazonian tribes are like endangered animals and that's is the reason why they should be allowed to remain in the Amazon. It seems to me that because of this postulate, you insinuate that if "preserving" peoples has no real meaning or consequence, then it is also the case with "preserving rare biodiversity" in general (?).

    It is, however, a different issue with Amazon tribes, because it is a matter of human rights, UN charter and the right of peopleS to self-determination, and a question of who their areas really belong to. In the Amazon, there are areas where the so called Brazilian representatives (or whatever country it may be) have never even been, so how can this land be part of Brazil (or whatever) at all? The land belongs to someone else, and it hasn't even been physically conquered! It's a pretty unresolvable problem, and has nothing to do with the biodiversity issue, and surely is a matter of POV.

    On the other hand, there's a strong correlation with removal of peoples from areas of wild amazon forest (whether legally or not) and general habitat/forest destruction.
    Maybe it was the wrong context to talk about human diversity, it is just there was a thread recently about Western Eurasians destroying global human diversity, as if diversity in itself is some higher virtue that should be preserved. I just honestly do not see it that way. A more superior culture and values should win, as there are all kinds of really backward cultures and traditions along with the mediocre ones. And I am not talking about race. I believe all races can be brought into mainstream Western culture, it is just a matter of establishing proper social institutions. IQ issues can be fixed with some soft form of eugenics and now maybe even genetic engineering. One could argue that it is the Western culture that is the problem, with ingenious peoples being an example of how it is possible to live in harmony with the nature and so on, but I do not subscribe to that notion and it is another topic altogether.

    However, invasive species, which is what cats are, are destroying biodiversity. Not just endangered species. You can always argue that this or that species of whatever doesn't matter, but they always do. You can say this about every single species they don't matter, and if they take them one by one, they still don't matter, but the accumulated species loss, which consist of those individual insignificant species, who are all interconnected in their environment, does matter. It's always unpredictable and the people who brought destructive species to their destination obviously knew nothing about what would happen. We now do know a lot about the consequences of invasive species, because we have seen a small scale scenario on islands, which has been completely destroyed by invasive species like cats, goats, sheep, rats, mice and in rare cases, even cows.

    That said, there are cases where species has become so rare that they have no function anymore - but in many cases, the rare species are just a symptom of a much more serious issue of environmental destruction. For example, it is possible to protect a large portion of land with a great biodiversity just by protecting some specific "popular" but rare animals, when creating reserves and other protected areas for them to live in, which would never be realized without public support mainly based on a few popular animals. The vast majority of threatened animals are threatened because of habitat loss. Whatever part they may have played in the system as a whole is still there. Obviously change always happens naturally, but if it's just free for all on a global scale, then nothing will remain anywhere, and the world will become a desert. Many examples from the past shows this, and often it is related with loss of biodiversity in a place. Remember, many of those rare species are only rare because we have made them rare, they would not be rare naturally. If provided with a reasonable environment they would become common again.

    A recent example of unpredictable consequences is the current wild expansion of the European golden jackal. This spread is also spreading some diseases via some ticks (I can't remember all the details) which has negative consequences for some types of wildlife in the areas the migrate to. The reason they migrate in the first place has been determined, it is the removal of wolves in large parts of Europe. The wolf is dominant and cannot tolerate golden jackals, so golden jackals generally only live in environments without wolves, or in specific niches where wolves do not fourage. Because of wolf culling of the past, it has allowed the golden jackal to spread westward in Europe, as well as inland. It is not just the direct culling of wolves in the past, but the destruction of the environment where wolves can live in numbers, but where the (much smaller) Jackal now can survive fine, so it can spread along corridors of sub-optimal environments for wolves (or something like that).
    When wolves were reintroduced in many places, this was not known at all. It was just far too late, and didn't solve the problem with the jackals ability to live undetected in places wolves would avoid.
    Perhaps you are right. Still, I'd not object if things like encephalitic ticks, mosquitoes, venomous snakes and many others were eliminated completely, even if it meant the disruption of ecological chains. Yes, it would take time for the system to rebalance, maybe a lot of time, but I think it is worth it in the long run. I do not place value in nature in itself. I only value it from the human point of view - how it can serve me, does it make me comfortable to live in, does it provide joy for me to look at. It takes a human observer to appreciate nature. Without an observer, glorious snowy mountain peaks are just rocks with white stuff on them. A beautiful sunset over the ocean is just some star shining on a huge amount of dihydrogen monoxide. You get the idea. And since I am the judge and the ultimate observer, I should be able to choose what surrounds me.

  9. #16
    Established Member
    Master procrastinator JaM's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2009-10-30
    Posts
    4,827
    Location
    East Doggerland
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Doggerlandic
    Ethnicity
    South Norse
    Phenotype
    Kostenkioid
    Politics
    Relativism
    Religion
    None
    Denmark Viking Finland Spain Castile

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voron View Post
    Maybe it was the wrong context to talk about human diversity, it is just there was a thread recently about Western Eurasians destroying global human diversity, as if diversity in itself is some higher virtue that should be preserved. I just honestly do not see it that way. A more superior culture and values should win, as there are all kinds of really backward cultures and traditions along with the mediocre ones. And I am not talking about race. I believe all races can be brought into mainstream Western culture, it is just a matter of establishing proper social institutions. IQ issues can be fixed with some soft form of eugenics and now maybe even genetic engineering. One could argue that it is the Western culture that is the problem, with ingenious peoples being an example of how it is possible to live in harmony with the nature and so on, but I do not subscribe to that notion and it is another topic altogether.



    Perhaps you are right. Still, I'd not object if things like encephalitic ticks, mosquitoes, venomous snakes and many others were eliminated completely, even if it meant the disruption of ecological chains. Yes, it would take time for the system to rebalance, maybe a lot of time, but I think it is worth it in the long run. I do not place value in nature in itself. I only value it from the human point of view - how it can serve me, does it make me comfortable to live in, does it provide joy for me to look at. It takes a human observer to appreciate nature. Without an observer, glorious snowy mountain peaks are just rocks with white stuff on them. A beautiful sunset over the ocean is just some star shining on a huge amount of dihydrogen monoxide. You get the idea. And since I am the judge and the ultimate observer, I should be able to choose what surrounds me.
    You say you do not value nature in itself, that's just your personal opinion and there are seven billion people or more on earth, and some of them just happen to disagree with you. How much money do you think Indonesia makes by keeping the Komodo dragons alive? They are a species which would naturally go extinct if just a little disturbance happened (not too unlikely in that volcanic area) and they are only part of a local environment. However, nobody would ever pay dough to go to those islands if not for the dragons, without the dragons they would be irrelevant for anyone and their environment would not be protected, as nobody would care. The people who go there value their existence, they do value that part of nature as an experience, and for them your opinion hardly matters. It is not the main reason to preserve a viable wild nature, though.

    The problem with erasing mosquitoes, which is a large number of species, is that they serve as food in the whole earthly ecosystem. Perhaps some of the disease carrying species could be eradicated (if that is possible) but not mosquitoes as a whole. It is exactly for the benefit of ourselves that wilderness and nature should be preserved, and not just for people who like to take a stroll in the forest, but to preserve biodiversity to ensure our longer term survival. Humans may seem advanced, but we're still directly depending on weather for crops and food in general, as well as oxygene, obviously.

    In any case, whether we like it or not, we are still part of the system as a whole. We cannot survive in a sterile environment. We do not have the ability to control our environment to a degree that we can exist only among the animals and plants we can eat or otherwise exploit. We don't even know the consequences of disturbing the environment the way we do now.


    One of the problems IMO is techno-optimism.
    We had a lot of techno-optimism originating in the late 19th century, where people believed that just about anything was possible, it was just a matter of time, and this idea has been repeated around the time when space travel started - an intense naivistic positivism where people believed there was no limit to our abilities, and that the mundane quest for survival as well as earth itself became irrelevant eventually - but that's just one big illusion, not much different from a religious belief. It kind of culminated with the concept of the "high frontier", the idea that we could easily colonize space itself - but has anything like that happened? Nope, basically nothing has happened since the moon landings, we struggle to send small probes to Mars or Jupiter. We do still depend 100% on Earth - the earthly environment and the stability of nature, which is still our main resource for everything. We'll have to see about the supposed colonisation of Mars, for example. Will it even be possible at all, to create a long term colony which is independent from earth? If we can't even keep a decent environment on earth, the how can anyone expect us to create a viable environment on Mars, where all resources has to be brought from Earth? How can we bring them if Earth own environment is destroyed? We have to have something to bring. Earth is already viable, Mars is definitely not.

    This belief of tecno-optimism is based on the idea of unlimited technological developments, that over time itself, human technology will become ever more advanced and the advancement will increase exponentially. It could be the case, but it is in a belief, not a fact. It is not based on anything else but a continuation of previous recent advancements, which is a new unprecedented development in humanity. It basically means there's no real data to create a reliable continuation from. We ignore the hundred thousand years of almost no development. People say thing go in cycles, but that's not true, we have no evidence that there's ever been a situation like the present ever before in Earth history, so it's not easy to predict what will happen in the future.

    This unpredictability, especially when it comes to our environment and the consequences of our manipulation, means that we better keep the earth alive as much as possible, or we may lose "bigly" eventually.
    Last edited by JaM; 2018-05-09 at 11:22.

  10. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to JaM For This Useful Post:

    An Shigao (2018-07-03), EliasAlucard (2018-05-09), voron (2018-08-04)

  11. #17
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Rugevit's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 15:11
    Join Date
    2013-12-04
    Posts
    2,994
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Belarusian
    Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    I have a suspicion the majority of general Australian public would vote to cull feral cats, rabbits , wild camels and European carp. AFAIK it's illegal to release European carp to Murray river after catching it. Rabbits, feral cats and European carps are doing most damage.

    The society is quite protective of Australian natural environment. Try to bring non-native animals to Australia. Many animals are banned such as hamsters. Customs will take away all seeds that you bring in the country.
    Last edited by Rugevit; 2018-05-10 at 08:49.

  12. #18
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Rugevit's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 15:11
    Join Date
    2013-12-04
    Posts
    2,994
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Belarusian
    Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    This is from the government website of NSW (Sydney is the capital of the state).



    Poisons

    Poisoning is most effective during the non breeding season (when rabbits are less territorial and less tied to warrens) and feed is scarce. The best time is usually during mid to late summer.

    1080 and Pindone are toxins registered for the control of rabbits. Both are covered by product labels and Pest Control Orders (PCO) issued by the NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA).

    The objective of poisoning is to remove 90% or more of rabbits, which will prevent the population from quickly recovering, allowing time to implement follow up control. Carrots are the preferred feed material for rabbits, but oats and pellets may be used.
    Poisoning with 1080

    Rabbit poisoning with 1080 in NSW is regulated by the Pesticides Act 1999 and can be carried out only under the conditions set down in the Pesticide Control (1080 Liquid Concentrate and Bait products) Order 2010 (1080 PCO).

    Poisoning with 1080 is a cost effective method to reduce medium and high density rabbit numbers to a manageable level. To conduct a 1080 poisoning program, contact your Local Land Services. All 1080 users must have chemical risk management training at Australian Qualifications Framework level 3 (AQF3).

    A minimum of three 'free' feeds (without toxin) are required prior to laying 1080 poison bait except where an Authorised Control Officer recommends otherwise. Using carrots, 3 free feeds at 2 to 3 day intervals are best.

    Dogs are highly susceptible to 1080 poison and will readily eat carrots, pellet baits and carcasses of dead rabbits. Keep working dogs well fed and chained when not at work and muzzle them if working in or near a baited area. Do not dog, trap, shoot or otherwise disturb the rabbits in an area for several weeks before starting a baiting program.
    Poisoning with Pindone

    Pindone is an anticoagulant poison that requires at least two 'free' feeds (without toxin) followed by a minimum of three Pindone feeds to kill a high proportion of rabbits. Pindone has an antidote (vitamin K1) and is safer to use in closer settled areas. To conduct a Pindone poisoning program, contact your Local Land Services.
    https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/biosecuri...rabbit-control

  13. #19
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist Rugevit's Avatar
    Last Online
    Today @ 15:11
    Join Date
    2013-12-04
    Posts
    2,994
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Belarusian
    Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JaM View Post
    You say you do not value nature in itself, that's just your personal opinion and there are seven billion people or more on earth, and some of them just happen to disagree with you.
    @voron is Russian and Russians, in general, value nature including their president. Vladimir Putin established a protection fund of Amur (Siberian) tigers. Few of them left in the wild. A dead tiger cost a lot of money on black Chinese market, where tiger's body is used in traditional Chinese medicine. Critically endangered is Amur (Siberian) leopard. If I am not mistaken around 30 of them left in wild.

    I don't think there're many Russian who would not care if Amur tigers disappear, such is popular the animal.

  14. #20
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist ~Elizabeth~'s Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2012-03-07
    Posts
    5,285
    Gender
    mtDNA
    H1c12
    Politics
    Trump 2020
    United States

    Default

    Australia Is Building A Wall — To Save Native Species From Feral Cats
    http://dailycaller.com/2018/05/25/au...ing-wall-cats/

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Dogs or cats?
    By Janos in forum Zoology
    Replies: 159
    Last Post: 2016-04-02, 21:47
  2. Tuxedo Cats
    By An Shigao in forum Race & Ethnicity in Society
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2015-12-10, 07:47
  3. Is your language endangered?
    By Ioke in forum Linguistics
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 2011-05-25, 20:43
  4. Guess and Classify this bird
    By Kyte in forum Classification Requests
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 2010-09-22, 14:53
  5. Guess Bird and Bride Groom
    By Bahri_Negassi in forum Horn of Africa Tribune
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2010-06-01, 02:20

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<