Alert: Australia's Bolshevik Government Forbids Being Humane To Animals

[admin]

Both Jews and Gentiles are forbidden by Torah Law from cutting off body parts of animals. It's taking meat off of a living animal. That includes cutting reproductive organs off of male cats. Is that illegal in Australia too?

[Kiwi]

Desexing of animals is law and a must. The uncontrolled breeding of feral animals is distroying the land and wildlife.

Domestic animals are breed here many for money, to buy a pure breed cat you look at $500-2000 dollars, we are restricted to two cats two dogs per property. And they have rego's every year to paid to allow us to own animals.

$40 for a desexed cat $80 for a intacted cat solely for breeding with licence per year from 3 months old to the natural life span of the cat.

Same with dogs, but is $60 desexed dog $120 intacted dog unless used for breeding, from 3 months old to natural life span of that dog.

All animals have to be Mircochipped and logged on to a data base Australia wide. Costs $100 one off fee.

Dogs cost anywhere from $600 up

As you can see it attracts puppy and kitten farmers 

I strongly agree witrh desexing of both male and female animals due to the uncontrolled breeding and added health risks to the animal with still being intacted.

Australia has strict animal laws.

I have what they call a multi animal permit, which I am montored and pay heavy fees yearly to have.

[Kiwi]

NO they can have them as long as they are licenced breeders.

The desexing is done for a reason not a fashion.

There are some areas where you are not allowed to own domestic animals at all. Not even a gold fish.

[Kiwi]

Thing is unknown to many people Australia has heavy restrictions and laws, we are monitored 24 hours a day all year round.

We have big brother around all the time. But they thing is that in Australia its a way of life and not noticed. Freedom comes at a price, and in someways when people scream about the monitoring others scream theres not enough.

Australia in many ways is no different to an occupied land, only difference its our own people holding the keys to our golden cage.

I find if scary to know if I went to the USA or EU that I can travel without visas for 3 months without even being detected in those countries systems.

Its a trade off really. One at this point I am happy to make.

[Kiwi]

NO they can have them as long as they are licenced breeders.

The desexing is done for a reason not a fashion.

It's cruelty to animals.

I heard that it is permitted for Gentiles to do it to female animals though but Jews can't. But no one is allowed to do it to male animals. But some Jews say it is okay for everyone to do it to female animals.

I don't think Desexing of an animal when you have all the facts, it is cruel letting them have massive of litters and they are classed as feral pests where they are shoot and poisoned to try and control there numbers as they destory all native wild life.

[Kiwi]

It is cruel to kill them also. They should be left to be in nature if people don't want them. If there are environmental problems, then put them in a zoo or send them to other countries. Israel has a natural population of wild cats.

What The Torah says is cruel is what is cruel, not what a Bolshevik government says.

They are in introduced species in a land with the wild life has no defence against them.

Don't be so Naive in Geelong alone 5000 cats and 6000 dogs a year are cull because of uncontrolled breeding. And we are only the 11th biggest city. Imagine the others.

Your little belief is what gave rise to the cane toad population plague in Australia most of the humans on this planet i would even allow to have a Pet Rock they would even abuse that.

We have a problem we deal with it and control it. Australia is a christain country its not Jewish. These people have their own code own culture, we deal with that the best way we can for the welfare of ALL animals.

[Kiwi]

But The Noahide Laws apply to all humans, not just Jews. Newman is a an Australian Noahide. What if he wants to have a pet male cat? The government will violate his religious rights and obligations.

It doesn't work that way here at all. You are restricted in relgious practices.

The law of the land out strips any religious laws.

You also need to understand this country has a huge proportion of people that have no religion at all. So Noahide laws are not consider either.

This country is not a religious based one, even tho we are seen as christains, many have no idea what jews are or anything to do with the culture.

Trying to debate with a person that has no knowledge or wishes to seek it, is doomed to fail.

The law makers of this country don't follow any other laws but has been set by the ruling body.

And god has never struck me down with lightening when I have taken an animal to be desexed.

Yacov regardless of what is written, the welfare of the animals in my charge is foremost and before anything.

God gave me a gift to look after them I do so to the best of what I can possibly do.

You can't allow uncontrolled matings and breedings, if you want that I suggest you chose to live in the jungle with Tarzan.

The land needs to be protected as well as the animals, anything less fool hardy.

I am sorry thats my beleif and I sticking with it.

I want a world left for my children.

[Kiwi]

I have explained this to you, the welfare of all animals are taken into account, not just domestic ones.

Uncontrolled breeding, is not an answer to saving the planet. Australia requires stricter laws in the treatment of animals. Every thousands of unwanted litters have to be culled.

Its not a responsible action to have them breeding unchecked.

[Kiwi]

Then they should be put in zoos and reserves.

If this is not possible, then they can spay the females, but it is absolutely forbidden to "desex" the males. Why were these animals even brought to Australia in the first place if it was going to be a problem?

Hold your horses just one cotton picking minute. 

Desexing of both male and female is the answer. If anything a male can spread his seed around to hundreds of females, where one female is limited. Controlling any population is about controllling the male, not the female.

Health benefits to desexing your queen:

An entire female is at risk of developing the following conditions;

Breast cancer. Speaks for itself.

Pyometra. This is an infection of the uterus. At best, if caught early it can be treated. At worst, it can lead to death.

Tumours of the uterus & ovaries.

Stress caused by constant calling can weaken the cat's immune system.

Males are also at risk:

Testosterone is known to weaken a male's immune system.  Desexing your tom cat will reduce the level of testosterone in his system, thus strengthening his immune system.

He will be less territorial, and therefore not get into as many fights with other cats in the area. Less risk of injury.

Entire males are at risk of developing testicular cancer.

Both males & females permitted to breed at random are also at risk of contracting FIV or FeLV. Both  are caused by viruses, and once caught are fatal.

History of cats and dogs in Australia

The cats came on the first fleet as verman hunters which the ships brought rats as well.

Dogs are native to Australia and were always here hunting with the natives.

Like alot of things in this world, man thought it was a good idea at the time.

Now its about money, people breeding animals to make money.

[Kiwi]

Man and there let them go out in the wild attitude. Creates Feral animals.

Example one Goats.

Threat Abatement Plan for Competition and Land Degradation by Feral Goats

Biodiversity Group Environment Australia, 1999
ISBN 0 642 54634 7

Measures to Address the Key Threatening Process
Mustering
Trapping
Fencing
Shooting
Judas Goat
Fertility Control
Poisoning
Biological Control
Tax Incentives

Eradication of feral goats is an attractive prospect because, once achieved, it requires no further commitment of resources. To achieve eradication:
the mortality rate for feral goats must be greater than the replacement rate at all population densities;
there must be no immigration;
sufficient feral goats must be at risk from the control technique so that mortality from all causes results in a negative rate of population increase;
all feral goats must be detectable even at low densities;
a discounted benefit-cost analysis must favour eradication over control; and
there must be a suitable socio-political environment (Bomford and O'Brien, 1995).

Complete removal of feral goats from Australia is well beyond the capacity of available techniques and resources because the species is well established across a vast area. Eradication from an island, or of a localised or newly introduced population, may be feasible provided a sufficiently coordinated, well-funded and persistent campaign can be mounted.

Parkes et. al. (1996) reviewed current knowledge on techniques for suppressing feral goat populations. The review concluded that the main deficiencies with control programs are associated with decisions on whether to attempt local eradication or strategic management and, if the latter, deciding on the frequency of control activities and the target densities required. In comments on the draft plan, Agriculture Western Australia noted that a lack of resolve on the part of landowners and land managers is the single greatest obstacle to effective management of feral goats.
Mustering

Although mustering feral goats for slaughter or live sale is labour-intensive and limited to relatively flat terrain (Harrington, 1982), it is most efficient at high goat densities. The advantage of this technique in the context of harvesting is that the cost of control is either partly or fully offset by the sale of the goats. Two methods are used: aerial mustering, using helicopters or light aircraft to flush animals out of dense vegetation or inaccessible terrain, followed up by a ground team; and ground mustering on motor bikes or horseback usually with the help of dogs (Parkes et. al.1996).

The success of mustering in reducing the population can vary greatly from a low of 26 per cent reduction (Brill, pers. comm.) to a high of 80 per cent reduction (Henzell, 1984). In addition to density, effectiveness is also related to the value of a feral goat (Henzell, 1992a) with landholders intensifying efforts when goat prices are high. Parkes et. al. (1996) described a number of management strategies on pastoral land that involved mustering both alone and in combination with several other techniques. When mustering was combined with other techniques using higher levels of technology, progressively lower goat densities were achieved at an increasing cost.
Trapping

Trapping groups of goats around watering points can be an effective and efficient control technique (Harrington, 1982). It involves the construction of goat proof fences around water points with a number of one way entrances or jump down ramps to allow the goats access to the water, but prevent their leaving (Parkes et al, 1996). This technique is most effective during dry times when goats are obliged to find water and there is limited access to alternative water sources. Once captured, the goats may be sold to offset the costs of capture or they may be humanely destroyed.

Agriculture Western Australia has designed trap yards to efficiently manage livestock at water points and these are particularly suitable for trapping goats. These trap yards are permanent installations that all animals become accustomed to using and are robust enough to contain goats effectively (Geoff Elliot, pers comm). Western Australia has proposed a general strategy to require the installation of such trap yards throughout the feral goat range in that State to ensure a level of control of both feral and domesticated goats.

Some concerns have been expressed about the use of traps at water points and the potential deleterious impacts on non-target species and animal welfare. Some of these concerns can be addressed by providing larger traps to minimise stress and allow for more effective handling of stock. Non-target species may also be trapped and these animals must be drafted out as quickly as possible to avoid undue stress. Trap yards at natural water holes pose special problems as they may severely restrict access by native species. One option suggested by Agriculture Western Australia, is to temporarily close the water source with a fence and provide an alternative water source in a permanent trap yard nearby. An alternative is to design fences that selectively exclude certain species from water points. Knowledge of other species that may be locally at risk from inappropriately designed traps could be used to identify the most suitable trap design and usage.
Fencing

Fences will not permanently stop the movement of all goats and should, therefore, only be used as a tactical technique in a management program (Parkes, 1990). Fencing can:
create short-term manageable units during an eradication campaign (Baker and Reeser, 1972; as cited in Parkes et al, 1996);
limit recolonisation during sustained control (Parkes, 1990);
exclude goats from water points to encourage them to use other water points where they can be trapped;
constrain captured animals (Parkes et al, 1996);
create exclosures where vegetation can regenerate and create a seed bank; and
limit access to areas not infested with goats (Daly and Goriup, 1987).

Fencing can be expensive to establish. Lim et al, 1992 quoted a figure of $1500 per kilometre for upgrading an existing fence and $3000 per kilometre for construction of a new fence. Agriculture Western Australia have experimented with fence designs to enclose trained goats and these cost $670 per kilometre for material for a five wire electric fence plus approximately $800 per kilometre in construction costs. Six and seven wire fences have also been successfully used and these cost about $1600 per kilometre. Feral goats have been found to respect electric fences, particularly once they have encountered them. Where total exclusion of goats is required, adequate fences are likely to remain unacceptably expensive.

Points to be considered when deciding on fencing an area include the primary purpose of the fence, the area to be enclosed, cost and the position of watering points. To prevent animal welfare problems arising, due consideration must be given to the impact of goat proof fences on access to water by all animals as well as on the movement of native animals.
Shooting

Ground based shooting is not commonly used as a control strategy for feral goats in the pastoral areas of Australia due to its labour intensity and its variable efficiency dependent upon climatic conditions. A shooting operation in South Australia during a dry period yielded 3400 goats (an unknown proportion of the population) in seven days over 1000 kilometre square at a cost of $3 per goat not including labour (Dodd and Hartwig, 1992). A separate shooting operation conducted following heavy rains yielded only 119 goats in nine days at $774 per goat including labour (Edwards et. al. 1994).

Regardless of the inclusion of labour costs in the second operation, the congregation of goats around water holes during the dry period and their dispersal after rain would undoubtedly have influenced the cost efficiencies of the two operations. It could also be argued that if goats are congregating around water points, cost efficiency would be maximised through trapping and sale rather than shooting, provided water points were accessible to heavy vehicles.

Volunteer shooters have been successfully used to conduct ground shooting as part of the control methods within Bounceback 2000. The success with volunteer shooters in this case has been achieved by having well defined objectives and an effective system of coordinating their activities to maximise the level of control achieved.

Aerial shooting has been successfully used to control different pest animal species in Australia, including pigs (Saunders and Bryant, 1988; Hone, 1990), donkeys (Choquenot, 1988), water buffalo (Bayliss and Yeomans, 1989) and goats (Mahood, 1985; Naismith, 1992; Maas and Choquenot, 1995; Pople et. al. 1996). In pastoral areas this method is mostly used to control inaccessible populations, manage low density populations or remove survivors from other control campaigns (Parkes et al, 1996). It may also be the only technique to achieve broad scale reductions when goat prices are low (Clancy and Pople, pers. comm.). It generally involves using helicopters as a shooting platform with light aircraft occasionally acting as 'spotters'. This method is costly, but allows difficult terrain to be covered quickly and gives culling rates far in excess of other control methods (Lim et. al. 1992). The costs of this technique vary greatly, but tend to rise exponentially with decreasing goat density (Parkes, 1993b; Maas and Choquenot, 1995).
Judas goat

This technique involves attaching a radio collar to a feral goat and releasing it in the expectation that it will join up with other goats. The goat is then tracked down and the herd which it has joined is killed. Judas goats are generally used where there is a low density population; to locate survivors of other control campaigns (Parkes et. al. 1996); and to monitor areas thought to be free of goats (Taylor and Katahira, 1988).

The threat abatement plan for feral goats in Tasmania (developed by the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service) advocates this technique since feral goats in Tasmania occur in small isolated groups in difficult terrain (Gaffney and Atkinson, 1995). However, this technique is expensive as it requires costly equipment and skilled staff. It may be warranted only in areas where extremely low goat densities are identified as being necessary to protect conservation values or where eradication of goats is a feasible option.
Fertility control

Fertility control of wild animals is still at an experimental development stage. In practice, fertility control of wild vertebrates has been achieved on only a very limited scale using expensive, labour-intensive methods (Bomford, 1990). It has not been successfully applied to a free-ranging population of wild vertebrates over a large area. Nor has it been attempted as a method of reducing the impacts of land degradation or competition on an endangered or vulnerable species or ecological community.

Fertility control methods include hormone treatment and the use of abortifacients. The use of contraceptive control through hormone treatment is not considered a viable option for managing feral goat populations as there are no practical methods of ensuring effective treatment of unrestrained animals.

An alternative technique based on developing sterility through an auto-immune response to reproductive proteins or hormones (immunocontraception) has been proposed. This technique has the potential to provide a target specific form of fertility control which can be used on wild populations. Tyndale-Biscoe (1994) argued that if the immunocontraceptive technology can be made to work, it may provide a cheap, easily disseminated method for reducing fertility and populations of some pest species on a continental scale. Some scientists and wildlife managers remain sceptical about the likely success and effectiveness of this approach (Carter, 1995). The obstacles to achieving a workable method are formidable and include:
difficulty of isolating an infectious virus specific to the species concerned;
difficulty of developing a contraceptive vaccine;
difficulty of combining the two into a treatment that causes permanent sterility and no other significant disorders in an infected animal;
the possibility that in the field, natural selection and elements of the target animal's ecology may overcome or compensate for any attack on the species' reproductive capacity;
social concerns that the methods may not be controllable once released; and
the need to be cost-effective relative to other methods.

Major benefits of the development of immunocontraceptive techniques are that they can be made species specific and are humane. Broad scale control of goats using an immunocontraceptive vaccine, if one were developed, would depend on developing a suitable delivery mechanism for the vaccine and obtaining appropriate approvals to release the vaccine into the wild.

In those situations on pastoral properties where feral goats can be effectively trapped and mustered regularly, normal livestock management procedures involving mechanical and surgical sterilisation may be viable options to regulate breeding. Every effort should be taken to convert unmanaged feral herds into managed livestock and to remove animals from refuge areas where they are uncontrollable.
Poisoning

The only poison that has been trialed for feral goat control in Australia is 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate). The main risk with this technique is consumption of baits by non-target species. Eliminating the risk to native species relies on exploiting differences in the behaviour, ecology and tolerance of this poison between goats and other species (Daly and Goriup, 1987).

Three baiting techniques have been reported: pelletised grain bait (Forsyth and Parkes, 1995); foliage baiting (Parkes 1983); and poisoning of a water supply (Norbury, 1993). Pelletised baits are ineffective, due to feral goats' aversion to eating food off the ground (Forsyth and Parkes, 1995). Foliage baiting works well if only preferred food plants which are baited are accessible (Parkes, 1983). However, it is unsuitable in Australian conditions due to the lack of a highly preferred food plant and the high risk to non-target species (Parkes et. al. 1996). For these reasons it is illegal in all Australian States and Territories. The addition of 1080 to water supplies has been successful in trials conducted in Western Australia. The risk to non-target species was reduced by designing the trough to exclude birds and livestock, and poisoning between 8:00am and 12:00pm to circumvent consumption by macropods (Norbury, 1993). This technique is being used in experimental trials only in Western Australia by certified Agricultural Protection Board Officers under strict regulation.
Biological control

Control of feral goats using a pathogen may be theoretically possible, but currently none is known to be virulent, humane, specific to goats and not transferable to other species. The potential risks to both the domestic goat industry and other livestock industries from using a pathogen are too high to warrant any research on this approach. Another disadvantage is that animals are likely to develop resistance to the pathogen and such resistance will eventually spread through the species.

Feral goats do not generally occur where there are uncontrolled populations of dingoes (Parkes et. al. 1996). One feral goat population on an offshore island was successfully controlled by releasing dingoes onto the island (Allen and Lee, 1995). It is unlikely that dingoes would be acceptable as a 'biological control' in pastoral areas where most feral goats occur, as predation by dingoes is not a target specific control measure and other livestock would be at risk.
Tax incentives

Under the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 expenditure on preventing and treating land degradation is eligible for a rebate or a deduction. Subdivision 387-A allows for:
erecting a fence (including an extension, alteration or addition to a fence) primarily and principally to exclude animals such as feral goats from an area affected by land degradation;
to prevent or limit the land degradation extending or becoming worse; and
to help reclaim the area;
eradicating or exterminating pest animals such as feral goats from the land; and
extensions to the activities described above.

[Kiwi]

Next love them and let them to go freee and breed is RABBITS.

Threat Abatement Objectives and Actions

The aims of this plan are to promote the recovery of endangered or vulnerable native species and communities and prevent further species and communities from becoming endangered by reducing competition and land degradation caused by rabbits to non-threatening levels. These aims will be achieved by:
implementing currently available rabbit control techniques;
providing for improvements to existing control techniques or the development of new techniques;
collecting information to improve understanding of the impacts of rabbits on endangered or vulnerable native species and communities; and
promoting enhanced group action to control rabbits in areas to improve conservation of endangered species.

The key performance indicator will be the degree of security achieved for species or communities that are currently or potentially threatened by competition or land degradation caused by rabbits.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/rabbits/7.html

Click the link there much more there

[Kiwi]

Cane toads another great idea at the time

The biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus)

Advice to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee (TSSC) on Amendments to the List of Key Threatening Processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act)

12 April 2005
Contents
1. Name and description of the threatening process
2. How judged by TSSC in relation to the EPBC Act criteria Section 188(4) of the EPBC Act states
3. Threat Abatement Plan
4. Recommendations
Publications used to assess the nomination
1. Name and description of the threatening process

Name: 'The biological effects, including lethal toxic ingestion, caused by Cane Toads (Bufo marinus).'
Summary of the threatening process

Cane Toads are large ground dwelling amphibians with a dry warty skin. They have a bony head with bony ridges over their eyes, sit upright and move in short rapid hops. Their colour ranges from grey to olive brown and they have a pale belly with dark irregular spots. The average size of an adult is 10-15cm long but females have been recorded growing up to and over 23cm. They breed in still or slow-flowing water and can tolerate salinity levels up to 15%. Adult Cane Toads are active at night during the warm months of the year and can survive temperatures ranging from 5-40 degrees celsius. Cane Toad spawn occurs in long gelatinous strings with double rows of black eggs with females laying between 8-35 000 eggs at a time. Cane Toads have a life span of about five years, breed twice a year, and take between 6-18 months to reach sexual maturity.

Cane Toads can reach high densities in suitable habitat (over 2000 individuals per hectare). In recently colonised populations (less than two years old) they rapidly increase in number to levels far in excess of those in older established populations. Cane Toads move during the wet season, requiring access to water for rehydration and breeding, and during the dry season are known to seek refuge in damp areas near creeks.

The Cane Toad is a native of central and south America with a natural range extending from southern United States to tropical South America. Cane Toads have proven to be highly effective invaders of new ecosystems with their distribution now extending to over twenty new countries.

Cane Toads have been present in Australia for nearly seventy years. They were introduced to Australia in 1935, when approximately 100 individuals were imported from Hawaii in 1935. Around 3000 young toads were released at Gordonvale near Cairns, North Queensland, to control the sugar cane pests, French's Cane Beetle, and the Greyback Cane Beetle, Dermolepida albohirtum, whose larvae eat the roots of sugar cane and kill or stunt the plants. Cane Toads proved to be unsuccessful in controlling cane beetles.

Since its introduction to Australia, the Cane Toad has spread south and west across the continent and now occurs in Queensland, Northern Territory and New South Wales. From their introductory site near Cairns, the Cane Toad has spread throughout Queensland, being recorded in Brisbane in the 1940s, and was considered to occupy approximately 50% of the State by the late 1990s (Sutherst et al. 1995). During the early 1960s, the Cane Toad was recorded in north eastern New South Wales and is now considered to occur on the north coast of New South Wales as far south as the Clarence River/Yamba. The only confirmed breeding colony south of this area being at Lake Innes, near Port Macquarie.

Cane Toads crossed into the Northern Territory from Queensland in the 1980s, reached the southern end of Kakadu National Park in 2001, and have colonised Arnhem Land, the Gulf of Carpentaria lowlands and the Katherine River watershed.

Analysis of climatic variables and the adaptive abilities of the Cane Toad suggests that Cane Toads may eventually permanently inhabit the wet coastal areas of the eastern and northern parts of the continent at least as far south as Port Macquarie in the east of the continent and south to Broome in Western Australia. Temperature range analysis has indicated that Cane Toads, in warm years, could overwinter as far south as Bega near the Victorian border. Conversely, a drop of 2-2.5 degrees celsius in mean temperature would result in a shrinkage of the suitable overwintering area to the far north coast of NSW. It was estimated, based on this model, that Cane Toads will further increase their range primarily throughout coastal and near coastal regions of tropical Australia to encompass an area of approximately two million km2 (Sutherst et al. 1995). In addition, Cane Toads have now been recorded well inland, at least as far south as Dunmarra, Northern Territory.

Estimated rates of expansion vary from between 1-5 km per year in northern New South Wales to approximately 30 km per year in north western Queensland, and over 30 km per year in Kakadu National Park. One estimate in the Northern Territory, where Cane Toads are moving generally north west and downstream, is that the current rate of spread is about 60 km per year. Their advance has generally been rapid in the wet seasons and slower in the dry seasons

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/ktp/cane-toads.html
Click the link and enjoy.

[Kiwi]

Cats 

Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats

Biodiversity Group Environment Australia, 1999
0 642 2546339
Contents > Next
Introduction

Australia and Antarctica are the only continents without a native member of the cat family, Felidae. Felids are the most raptorial of mammals with body form, musculature, nervous coordination and senses highly specialised for stalking and capturing prey. Their nutrition and metabolism are such that they require large amounts of fresh animal protein, yet many felids can survive without drinking water. All species of wild cats prefer live prey and will rarely consume carrion except during droughts or when they are debilitated.

Cats (Felis catus) have a history of association with humankind dating back thousands of years. They have accompanied seafarers since the earliest times for vermin control, companionship and food (Jones 1989; Dickman 1996) and in this way the species has been distributed to virtually all inhabited parts of the globe as well as to many uninhabited islands. The species, which rarely exceeds eight kilograms in mass, is now the most widely distributed of all the world’s felids.

The first recorded instance of cats being brought to Australia is by English settlers in the 18th century. Cats may have arrived much earlier via trading routes from South-East Asia, shipwrecks or visits by European ships to the west coast (Baldwin 1980) but the available evidence for these origins is scant. Cats were deliberately released into the wild during the 19th century to control rabbits and mice (Rolls 1984) and feral cats are now found in all habitats, except some of the wettest rainforests, from the Torres Strait across the breadth of the mainland and Tasmania to sub-Antarctic Macquarie Island.

There is clear evidence that feral cats have caused the decline and extinction of native animals on islands through predation (Copley 1991; van Rensburg and Bester 1988). Dramatic recoveries of species on islands after the removal of feral cats is evidence of their impact (Dickman 1996). On the mainland, predation by feral cats is thought to threaten the continued survival of native species such as the eastern barred bandicoot in Victoria which currently persist in low numbers (Dickman 1996). Feral cats have been shown to thwart re-introduction programs for endangered species such as the numbat, golden bandicoot, burrowing bettong, mala and bilby in the arid and semi-arid zones of Western Australia and the Northern Territory (Johnson 1991; Gibson et. al. 1994; Dickman 1996). For these reasons predation by feral cats is listed as a Key Threatening Process under Schedule 3 of the Commonwealth Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 (the Act).

For each of the processes listed in Schedule 3 of the Act, a nationally coordinated threat abatement plan must be prepared and implemented. The Act prescribes the content of a threat abatement plan and the mechanisms by which plans are to be prepared, approved and published. Where a threatening process occurs in more than one jurisdiction, the Commonwealth must seek the cooperation of the relevant States and Territories in the joint preparation and implementation of a threat abatement plan.

Categories of Cats

In recent years the impact of cat predation on native Australian wildlife has become a prominent public issue with strongly polarised opinions, especially where domestic cats are implicated. Cats can be grouped into categories according to how and where they live. The definitions and categories used vary widely in the published literature and the following terms are used for the purposes of this plan:
Feral cats are those that live and reproduce in the wild, eg. forests, woodlands, grasslands and wetlands, and survive by hunting or scavenging. None of their needs are satisfied intentionally by people.
Stray cats are those found in and around cities, towns and rural properties. They may depend on some resources provided by humans, but are not owned.
Domestic cats are those owned by an individual, a household, a business or corporation. Most of their needs are supplied by their owners.

These categories of cats in effect reflect a continuum and there is evidence that individuals may move from one category to another (Moodie 1995; Newsome 1991). In a given situation, the category of cats that causes the most damage to wildlife needs to be identified. Management actions may differ according to the different categories of cats causing the damage. Where domestic cats are the primary cause, management is likely to concentrate on owners and consist of education and legislation to promote responsible ownership. For feral cats the requirement is to reduce numbers or inhibit predation using mechanical, chemical or biological methods. The management of stray cats often requires a combination of technical and social approaches.

Domestic Cats

Concern about predation on wildlife by domestic cats developed in Victoria during investigations into the decline of the eastern barred bandicoot (Brown 1989). It has since become a national issue among cat owners, veterinarians, conservationists and wildlife managers. Results published in 1990 suggested that domestic cats in South Australia killed an average of 26 animals per year, many of them native birds (Paton 1990). Subsequent surveys have both supported (Trueman 1991) and contradicted (Reark 1994) Paton's conclusions. In urban areas of Victoria, traumatised small mammals are reported as usually being victims of cat attack (Dowling et al. 1994).

The quality of data on predation by domestic cats is poor and does not provide information about the impact on populations of prey species (Barratt 1995). Data obtained by written or telephone questionnaire have a number of identified areas of potential bias (Manly 1992). Too much reliance is placed upon the memory of cat owners, their ability to identify prey animals and their willingness to participate fully in a survey. Also, it may not be justifiable to assume that any small animal brought home by a cat has been preyed upon by that cat. There are other possible causes of injury or debilitation to small animals in urban areas.

Management of cats in cities is primarily an issue of urban amenity or animal welfare rather than an issue of wildlife conservation. Animals which live in cities, whether native or introduced, are generally common, adaptable species. With few exceptions, rare or threatened species do not occur in or near cities and are not directly at risk from domestic cats. Nevertheless, domestic cats in cities occur in very high densities because their requirements are primarily met by their human owners. As a consequence, even if each individual cat is taking only a small number of prey, the sum of that predation may depress populations of desirable urban wildlife.

The responsibility for managing domestic cats ultimately rests with their owners. State, Territory and local governments are supporting initiatives aimed at encouraging responsible pet ownership, including developing appropriate legislation, education and awareness programs, and management plans to address local problems with domestic and stray cats. Victoria has enacted the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 which requires cat owners to register their animals and gives councils the power to set fees and take remedial action when landowners experience problems with wandering cats. New South Wales has initiated the development of legislation to promote responsible ownership and improved welfare of companion animals.

Moves by some State and local governments to control cats present a range of opportunities to measure the conservation benefits to be derived from managing urban cats (Tidemann, 1994). Answers to questions surrounding domestic cat management are likely to be gained through rigorous monitoring and analysis of various management regimes that are currently being put in place. Suitably designed experiments could determine whether the enacting and enforcement of laws to control domestic cats leads to desirable outcomes for urban and peri-urban wildlife. However, because of the specific nature of the listing of predation by feral cats, the management of domestic cats will not be addressed in this plan.

Stray Cats

Irresponsible cat owners, and those who feed unowned cats, play a major role in maintaining populations of stray cats in urban and rural areas. Encouraging changes in the behaviour of these people has the potential to significantly reduce the numbers of free-ranging stray cats where these are causing damage. Control of unowned cats in these areas is primarily being promoted by groups such as the RSPCA, in order to address significant animal welfare concerns.

Capturing, sterilising and releasing is seen as an effective approach to managing colonies of stray cats in urban Europe (Hammond 1981) and has been used in parts of Adelaide (Pierson 1994). This approach has been promoted to achieve goals of cat welfare and enhanced urban amenity. No benefits to wildlife are derived from this approach, as the number of predators remains unchanged. Any programs to manage stray cats in urban and peri-urban areas should be subject to rigorous review to determine their effectiveness in achieving wildlife conservation goals.

Feral Cats

There is clear evidence that feral cats have caused the decline and extinction of native animals on islands through predation (Copley 1991; van Rensburg and Bester 1988). Sound evidence that feral cats exert a significant effect on native wildlife throughout the mainland is lacking (Dickman 1996; Jones 1989; Wilson et al. 1992). Feral cats have occupied tropical Australia, Tasmania and Kangaroo Island for at least a century and yet these areas have had virtually no extinctions, or none that could be attributed directly to feral cat predation. Yet there are a number of vulnerable and endangered species which are susceptible to feral cat predation in these areas.

The nature and extent of the threat posed to native wildlife by feral cats nevertheless remains poorly understood and the evidence relating to their impacts is largely inferred. Feral cats are mobile, especially during periods of food shortage (Newsome 1991) and can disperse widely. The feral cat population is self-sustaining and may breed at any time of the year under favourable conditions. Feral cats occupy virtually all Australian environments and the damage they cause to wildlife is likely to vary widely across this spectrum of habitats.

A review of recovery plans approved under the Act, and others in draft form, has identified feral cats as a confirmed threat or a perceived threat to a large number of listed endangered and vulnerable (threatened) species (Table 1).

This threat abatement plan focuses primarily on managing the impact of feral cats. In general, listed species which are susceptible to cat predation are found in remote parts of the country from which domestic and stray cats are absent. It is generally accepted that improvements in the management of domestic and stray cats are necessary to reduce recruitment to the feral cat population (Copley 1991), but there is little research demonstrating that populations of feral cats are significantly bolstered by such recruitment. Feral cats have self-sustaining populations and there is no evidence that they need recruitment from other categories to maintain their numbers over the long term.

Feral cats occur on Commonwealth land such as Department of Defence properties and in Commonwealth-managed national parks. On a national scale, however, management of feral cats on Commonwealth land is only a small part of the larger picture of conserving endangered or vulnerable species threatened by cat predation. State and Territory wildlife agencies have a long history of practical on-ground management of feral cats and it is largely through their efforts, often supported by Commonwealth programs, that major technical and strategic advances have been made. More recently, private sector and community initiatives have also contributed to feral cat control activities.

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/cats/3.html

You know to click the link read the tables and figures

[Kiwi]

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/pig/index.html

Pigs

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/foxes/index.html

Foxes

Have I made my point about not a good idea to go allowing animals off lose in the Australian environment.

Why the government wants strict controls on animals because this does occur, can easy turn Australia into a waste land.

I have mentioned the camels, wild horses, water Buffalo yet. 

[newman]

But The Noahide Laws apply to all humans, not just Jews. Newman is a an Australian Noahide. What if he wants to have a pet male cat? The government will violate his religious rights and obligations.

Sorry Yacov, but I do have a male cat and he is desexed.....but not by me.

I would desex a male cat again. I am aware of the prohibition in Torah, but I understand that to apply to the oxen, rams, goats and other livestock in the time of Biblical israel. Part of Torah/Talmudic study is knowing when to break one law to obey a more important one. I know that a Jew WILL eat pork if it means saving his life for example.

With cats, an undesexed male cat pees EVERYWHERE, fights with other cats constantly and often dies from a saliva transmitted cat AIDS and breeds uncontrollably. NOBODY would keep an undesexed male cat. Given that undesexed male cats would be put to sleep wholesale or die from poisoning in the wild, desexing saves their lives. I believe a human can be castrated to save his life (testicular cancer for example).
Simply, desexing is kinder than not desexing. Kindness to animals is a mitzvah.


Unwanted cats have a devastating effect on Australia's native fauna. If cats wern't desexed, the uncontrolled breeding would devastate our native animal population. Good stuardship of the environment is also a mitzvah, I believe.

You cannot send cats overseas. Who'd want them? Asians? They'd EAT them!

There is also a case to be made for desexing male horses. Many cattlemen still use horses for herding cows in Australia. A Stallion will kill or injure the rider 9 times out of 10 because they are hard to controll.

BTW, was anasthetic invented in Biblucal times? I think not. Desexing under anasthetic cannot be considered cruel like straight desexing in biblical times.

[mord]

How about aborgines or whatever they are called can you desex them

[newman]

How about aborgines or whatever they are called can you desex them

No need. They kill themselves sniffing gasoline and drinking methylated spirits. No need to keep the numbers down.

[Ulli]

Desexing of animals is law and a must. The uncontrolled breeding of feral animals is distroying the land and wildlife.

Domestic animals are breed here many for money, to buy a pure breed cat you look at $500-2000 dollars, we are restricted to two cats two dogs per property. And they have rego's every year to paid to allow us to own animals.

$40 for a desexed cat $80 for a intacted cat solely for breeding with licence per year from 3 months old to the natural life span of the cat.

Same with dogs, but is $60 desexed dog $120 intacted dog unless used for breeding, from 3 months old to natural life span of that dog.

All animals have to be Mircochipped and logged on to a data base Australia wide. Costs $100 one off fee.

Dogs cost anywhere from $600 up

As you can see it attracts puppy and kitten farmers 

I strongly agree witrh desexing of both male and female animals due to the uncontrolled breeding and added health risks to the animal with still being intacted.

Australia has strict animal laws.

I have what they call a multi animal permit, which I am montored and pay heavy fees yearly to have.

I don't like this laws. I understand the reasons for this laws, but I don't think, that the gouvernment has the right to tell you to castrate your dogs or cats or to tell you that you not allowed to have three cats.

In Middle Europe we have never had problems with an outbreak of dogs and cats. Here you have to pay a dog-fee, because the dirt of the dogs make the streets smutty.

[newman]

Desexing of animals is law and a must. The uncontrolled breeding of feral animals is distroying the land and wildlife.

Domestic animals are breed here many for money, to buy a pure breed cat you look at $500-2000 dollars, we are restricted to two cats two dogs per property. And they have rego's every year to paid to allow us to own animals.

$40 for a desexed cat $80 for a intacted cat solely for breeding with licence per year from 3 months old to the natural life span of the cat.

Same with dogs, but is $60 desexed dog $120 intacted dog unless used for breeding, from 3 months old to natural life span of that dog.

All animals have to be Mircochipped and logged on to a data base Australia wide. Costs $100 one off fee.

Dogs cost anywhere from $600 up

As you can see it attracts puppy and kitten farmers 

I strongly agree witrh desexing of both male and female animals due to the uncontrolled breeding and added health risks to the animal with still being intacted.

Australia has strict animal laws.

I have what they call a multi animal permit, which I am montored and pay heavy fees yearly to have.

I don't like this laws. I understand the reasons for this laws, but I don't think, that the gouvernment has the right to tell you to castrate your dogs or cats or to tell you that you not allowed to have three cats.

In Middle Europe we have never had problems with an outbreak of dogs and cats. Here you have to pay a dog-fee, because the dirt of the dogs make the streets smutty.

Europe doesn't have Australia's climate, bush or fauna. Feral cats out here breed like crazy and after two or three generations they grow to 15 KG Plus and can rip a medium sized dog to bits.

[Kiwi]

 Golden Pheasant Europe has natural Predators, Australia doesn't thats why introduced animals run a muck theres no natural order here to deal with cats and dogs. 

We are an Island we must protect it in Europe animals can wondering around many countries here its different.

Take Italy for example in Rome its full of cats everywhere, not wild life.

We pride ourselves on the natural beauty of the country that includes all native birds and mammals.

The government is protecting the land for future generations to enjoy. People here would strip it bear for a buck if allowed too.

[Ulli]

Golden Pheasant Europe has natural Predators, Australia doesn't thats why introduced animals run a muck theres no natural order here to deal with cats and dogs. 

We are an Island we must protect it in Europe animals can wondering around many countries here its different.

Take Italy for example in Rome its full of cats everywhere, not wild life.

We pride ourselves on the natural beauty of the country that includes all native birds and mammals.

The government is protecting the land for future generations to enjoy. People here would strip it bear for a buck if allowed too.

Perhaps you are right Infidel and Newman. But I hate it, when the gouvernment tells me what to do and I don't like the idea of desexing animals. But perhaps Australia is a special case and you have to do it in order to avoid greater harm.

But there are two predators in Australia, that can eat cats:

[newman]

Golden Pheasant Europe has natural Predators, Australia doesn't thats why introduced animals run a muck theres no natural order here to deal with cats and dogs. 

We are an Island we must protect it in Europe animals can wondering around many countries here its different.

Take Italy for example in Rome its full of cats everywhere, not wild life.

We pride ourselves on the natural beauty of the country that includes all native birds and mammals.

The government is protecting the land for future generations to enjoy. People here would strip it bear for a buck if allowed too.

Perhaps you are right Infidel and Newman. But I hate it, when the gouvernment tells me what to do and I don't like the idea of desexing animals. But perhaps Australia is a special case and you have to do it in order to avoid greater harm.

But there are two predators in Australia, that can eat cats:

Both of them are ineffective at feral cat control. A dingo has little chance of catching a cat. A Tasmanian Devil has none.

[Ulli]

Perhaps could this predator catch cats, but he has die out.

[Kiwi]

Oh the poor Tassie Devils they have an illness in the wild stocks thats killing them off.

I am affraid they are going to be our next great loss, like the Tasmanian Tiger (which is the black and white pic)

[Ulli]

The Tassie Devils look dangerous. I heard they can bite through bones like through butter. But the cats can climb better and so the devil can't catch them.