Feline Rights New Zealand is a response to ongoing anti-Cat propaganda in the mainstream media being spread by eco-extremist organisations including The Morgan Foundation, Forest and Bird, Wellington City Council, Polhill Restoration Group, and others soon to be named on this site. Our mission is to seek out and counteract the ongoing propaganda intended to demonize Cats, provide an alternative to educate citizens and counteract the lies being spread about Cats by eco-extremists and the complicit factions of the mainstream media in New Zealand.

We also seek to keep the public informed of the plans to place restrictions on Cats and restrictions on citizens who keep Cats by Local Government and the New Zealand Government, and actively oppose what they are trying to do. Together we will create a network amongst those of us who love Cats, share ideas, co-ordinate political strategy and tactics to defeat the eco-extremists who's ultimate aim is to deny citizens of their right to keep Cats and put as many Cats to death as they can.

Right now, the intention is to get the basic information Cat lovers need to know out on the web, and bring Cat lovers together to actively oppose the eco-extremism which now is a clear and present threat to us and our families.

What is antifelinism? It's similar to antisemitism. In the case of antifelinism they are not out to eradicate a section of society on the basis of race and faith. Antifelinism is about eradicating an entire species, the most noble of species, the Cat.

With their plans for compulsory identification, curfews and mass exterminations, the comparison to antisemitism is crystal clear. All good New Zealanders of moral fortitude must make every effort to oppose what these extremist individuals are attempting to do, as sure as our forefathers made every effort to oppose the National Socialist regime in World War 2.

Having completed adjusting our sourcecode and adjusting the content of our site into more manageable sections we have been occupying ourselves with documenting crimes committed against Cats in New Zealand. Due to the number of incidents this is a herculean task and sadly it is, for now at least, an ongoing one. Our current crime page may be viewed here:

We are presently awaiting responses from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on the matter of Connovation's withdrawal of it's application for a reduction of notification area for the mass execution of Cats via the dedicated Cat poison known as PAPP. We also are awaiting a response from Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) regarding their position on the National Cat Management Strategy Group's political lobbying paper which to our eye appears to have been wholeheartedly embraced by MPI as an official document intended to guide local and central government in the process of indoctrinating citizens into blind acceptance of the mass execution of New Zealand's Cats.

04 October 2018

Environment Southland Regional 'Pest' Management Proposal

Consultation 28 August 2018 - 23 October 2018

28 August 2018 - Environment Southland Proposes New Cat Ban

ONCE A CAT DIES THE 'OWNER' WILL NOT BE ALLOWED A NEW ONE!

Environment Southland biosecurity operations manager Ali Meade said in a statement to RadioLIVE:

"After that point there will be no new Cats. Once your Cat dies you won't be able to replace them" and "I think gradually we'll see people recognise that having wildlife thrive will mean having Cats inside - and when your Cat dies, then potentially not replacing it".

Between the 28th and 31st August 2018 the media broke the news that regional council Environment Southland is proposing a total Cat ban in the village of Omaui as part of their Regional 'Pest' Management Plan (RPMP) proposal. Additionally the proposal seeks compulsory microchipping and registration with Environment Southland of all Cats. Newshub was first to report on the matter, then those purveyors of one sided 'conservation' propaganda, Stuff and the NZ Herald followed suit.

28 August 2018 - Southland Plan Proposes To Register Cats

28 August 2018 - Cat 'Owners' In Omaui, Southland Face Ban To Protect 'Biodiversity'

Breed Specific Discrimination Targeting Bengal Cats

28 January 2009 - Bengal Cat Rule Claimed Unfair

Environment Southland is also engaging in breed specific discrimination by proposing a "progressive containment programme" for Bengal Cats who they wish to list as an "exclusion pest". The discrimination against Bengal Cats by the council is nothing new, Environment Southland has had Bengals in their sights since at least 2009.

The news of the total Cat ban proposal went viral and was picked up by the international media. We've documented many instances of international media coverage, the next three links are an example of how this matter was covered overseas:

The commonsense residents and guardians of Cats in Omaui were quite rightly incensed by the prospect of the extremist conservation minority in association with the regional council walking roughshod across the customary rights of local residents who keep Cats. While some have described the proposal as having 'police state' ramifications, we feel a more accurate definition is akin to National Socialism in action, though in truth what we are confronted with now is Globalist Socialism.

Omaui resident Nico Jarvis cited the rat problem in the area and how the local Cats are valuable working Cats who keep the rodent population in check. She is correct on this count, remove the Cats and an explosion in the rodent population is a certainty. In ecology this is called the meso-predator release effect. This has been demonstrated and well documented in Raglan, Rakiura/Stewart Island and Macquarie Island and elsewhere following the efforts of fanatical fundamentalist conservationists engaging in attempts to micromanage nature, which includes the mass execution of Cats.

Following the media frenzy and also the meeting with Auckland councillors detailed in our earlier report, Feline Rights and our friends and supporters who engage in social media work have been approached by many people who have asked:

We'd suggest a fair place to start is actively engaging in the consultation process with local government. The Environment Southland RPMP proposal is presently open for consultation. In this article we'll provide some suggestions for making your own submission. As the Morgan Foundation is well known for engaging in collective lobbying via the use of online templates published on both websites and at social media outlets such as facebook, it's very important that supporters of Cats make the effort to make submissions. We need the numbers and original submissions are way better than submissions conducted via pro forma online templates. Let's make a start by first downloading all of the consultation documents.

Environment Southland also provide forms for making submissions to their RPMP proposal. However experience demonstrates these are often deliberately designed to inhibit the input citizens contribute to the consultation process.

Additionally, it is common practice for councillors to not actually view submissions received from citizens and organisations. What happens is council staff review and condense the content of individual submissions into a single document, often in the form of a spreadsheet which is then presented to councillors when proposals go before the council for vote.

This all comes down to the Local Government Act 2002 which requires the regulatory function of councils to be separated from the operational function. In fact, the only real powers that Mayor or Chair and councillors appear to have in this, the corporatist era, are to set the rates, borrow money, enact bylaws and approve the Long Term Plan. It's 'democracy' if they say it is and the majority of citizens buy into the lie, but it's certainly not real democracy as we know it and expect it to be.

Councillors may ask questions of hired staff but may not give hired staff orders. Councillors and Mayor, or in the case of regional councils, the Chair, really only have a 'yes' or 'no' vote on an entire proposal and they do not have a whole lot of input options when it comes to the details. Under the present corporatised system, council staff are hired and fired by the CEO. While the CEO is hired by the elected representatives, council staff do not have to answer to elected representatives or citizens, so the real power actually lies with the CEO who is always going to be an overpayed individual of the management caste.

It's called 'privatisation', which is a palatable term for corporate fascism and corporate dictatorship. Italian dictator and leader of the Italian Fascist Party Benito Mussolini put it like this: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power". Our view is vice versa applies in Aotearoa at present.

We suggest downloading and closely reading the documentation on the RPMP proposal we've linked to above then writing your own submissions and not only delivering them to the consultation address but also sending them directly to the chairman, councillors and the CEO. While it may not make a whole lot of difference to that which has apparently already been signed off prior to the public consultation opening, it will certainly ruffle a few of the elected representative's feathers and let them know there is strong opposition to their draconian antifelinist proposals.

We have three weeks. Let's all do this, pull no punches and do it right!

Now, lets take a closer look at some of the antifelinists of the Southland region and who is pulling their strings. Some of what follows will be decidedly unpleasant, but unless each of us is prepared to look directly in the face of our adversaries and what it is they do, there is not a vast prospect of victory over these immoral and unethical individuals who seek nothing less than the total destruction of the customary rights and core values of average animal loving New Zealanders nationwide.

Cat Haters and 'Conservation' Fanatics

John Collins is a relatively recent arrival in Omaui, he moved there in 2011. Within two years, with the full support of NZ Landcare Trust he began to flex his muscle and engage in killing for 'conservation'. We have collected a fair amount of intelligence on John Collins and Omaui Landcare Trust including some which suggests John himself is not exactly the most endearing individual when it comes to his interactions with those who do not support his position as a self appointed 'environmental' hero. Much of this amounts to anecdotes only at this point, but we can assure John and his conservation soldiers once we have obtained sworn affidavits as firm evidence, we'll certainly publish that which we already know.

John Collins and crew have been making a name for themselves in the media for quite some time, this next article published at Stuff in March 2016 makes some very interesting connections. Environment Southland, Department of Conservation, Invercargill City Council and SPCA who due to their connection with the subversive National Cat Management Strategy Group are without a doubt complicit in the ongoing demonisation of New Zealand's Cats. But wait, there's more!

Omaui Landcare Trust in association with Environment Southland released a video promoting the doctrine of antifelinism which was produced by none other than the Morgan Foundation! So there you have it, Omaui Landcare Trust and Environment Southland are working closely with New Zealand's number one Cat hater, Gareth Morgan himself. We have no doubt the proposed total Cat ban at Omaui is intended as a test to see if they can get away with it there in the interest or rolling out total Cat bans throughout the nation. This is why it is important for all guardians of Cats everywhere to strongly oppose it. Do you live outside of New Zealand? No problem, you can still make a submission to the consultation in favour of New Zealand's Cats.

Do you doubt the possibility of banning citizens from keeping Cats throughout the nation? Then check out this next report published over at the TVNZ site. Scroll down to the bottom of the embedded video and view the small print just below it:

While all of our computers refuse to play stupid streaming video obfuscated within an array of script hosted on brightcove, we'll quote the text in full and make it a little more obvious for all to read:

"PREDATOR FREE NZ IS ASKING NEW ZEALANDERS TO CONSIDER
WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE 'PETS' AT ALL"

NZ Landcare Trust - A Crown Funded Allegedly 'Independent NGO'

NZ Landcare Trust is the larger organisation overseeing the Omaui group and they have another similar group of 'conservation' fanatics in Otatara. We'll get back to occurrences in Otatara shortly, but first lets take a brief look at NZ Landcare Trust. Established in 1996 they claim to be an independent non-governmental organisation (NGO), yet many of their projects are funded by the Crown. NZ Landcare Trust receives funding from the Ministry of Primary Industries 'Sustainable Farming Fund', Ministry for the Environment's 'Community Environment Fund' and Department of Conservation.

We also note that Forest and Bird cult CEO Kevin Hague is a member of the NZ Landcare Trust board. It appears they are working with all forms of hands-on environmental work via divisions around the entire nation with a focus on 'native biodiversity' über alles (as they put it back in the era of National Socialism). Thus, they have a strong focus on indoctrinating local communities to engage in the mass execution of alleged 'pests' and one could look nowhere better than their own 'Pest' Control Guidelines document to get handle on their position when it comes to Cats.

While on the cover it states the guide is for Northland, NZ Landcare Trust recommends it on their website as a guide for community groups engaging in 'pest' control across the nation as a guide to how one might go about eradication of all non-indigenous life forms in the name of the indigenous fundamentalist ideology which infects each of their members minds.

Once you have downloaded it, go to pages 16 though to 18 where they expound in detail both their warped views covering what Cats allegedly prey on, which for the record in their view includes koura (freshwater crayfish) and eels! Here they also detail the methods one may utilise to execute Cats en mass. The methods suggested include various forms of kill traps, shooting and Connovation's dedicated Cat poison PAPP (Para-aminopropiophenone).

Next, let's take a look at one of NZ Landcare Trust's other groups in Southland, Otatara Landcare Trust. The following article published at Stuff will leave readers both speechless and in no doubt that the people involved with any one of NZ Landcare Trust's community 'environmental' groups are likely to be nothing more than cold blooded killers.

More Than Just The Average Neighborhood Psychopaths

07 September 2018 - Southland Man Says He's Killed 170 Cats And Buried Them Under Vegetable Garden

Given a cursory reading of the article dated 7th September 2018 one might be forgiven for assuming Ian Gamble is the standard neighborhood psychopath. In posts to the Environment Southland social media pages, Gamble made the claim he has killed 170 Cats and has them buried in his vegetable garden. When approached by the media he stated he made the posts to "rark up the Cat ladies of Otatara" and also claimed "I don't hate Cats".

His affirmation of the outdated stereotype of 'Cat ladies' coupled with his statement that he wishes to upset women who are guardians of Cats suggests it is likely he has some deep seated issues with women in general. If he actually has killed 170 Cats and then claims he does not hate Cats, that suggests a considerable amount of denial within his own psyche. The article states a complaint was made to Invercargill SPCA and they stated they were aware of the claim and conducting an investigation.

Two weeks later the media followed up with SPCA and asked how their investigation was proceeding. SPCA declined to comment about the investigation. If a prosecution was pending, that would be a good enough reason to decline comment, yet we have received information that from SPCA's perspective the case is now closed. If this is the case we do wonder why SPCA have declined to comment. In our view, a citizen who has claimed to have killed 170 Cats and has stated exactly where he has placed their remains should at the very least be subject to a full forensic investigation. SPCA do have animal welfare investigators who are trained in forensics so there is no excuse for SPCA to place the matter in the 'too difficult' basket. We'll be following up on the matter with SPCA and will update this article once we are clear exactly what is going on.

We decided to investigate Ian Gamble further. He and his wife Jenny operate an eco-tourism bed and breakfast lodge named Bushy Point Fernbirds. Going by their website it all looks like a pristine place to retreat for a few days, but for the fact that it's a house of horror where the Feline holocaust has been conducted with impunity. We wonder how many people would chose to stay there if they but knew the truth of the horrors covertly conducted in this place of iniquity.

Further investigation revealed Ian Gamble is not the run of the mill psychopathic loner, he's a member of the environmental extremist Otatara Landcare Group. Download the PDF file from the next link and go to page four. In the fourth paragraph on page four it states: "The Bushy Point pest control team of Ian Gamble, the Dustons, the Kennedys and Darren May are doing a great job of keeping 90 hectares free of pests". Clearly Gamble is not the head case he first appears to be, undoubtedly he is yet another fanatical conservationist and antifelinist.

While you have the Otatara Landcare Group's newsletter open in your PDF viewer, scroll down to page seven, here you can find a full bio on Environment Southland biosecurity operations manager Ali Meade.

Who is ES Biosecurity Operations Manager Ali Meade?

Along with her position as biosecurity operations manager for Environment Southland, Ali Meade is also on the Southland branch committee of the Forest and Bird cult. In our view this demonstrates a clear case of conflict of interest and infiltration by Forest and Bird into a local government body. As she is involved with Forest and Bird, a group well known for incessant promotion of the doctrine of antifelinism nationwide, it comes as no surprise that Environment Southland now seeks the mandate to implement 'Cat free' zones on behalf of a small minority of environmentalist fanatics.

If Environment Southland wishes to appear impartial on the matter of Cats they would do well to hire someone else for the role of biosecurity operations manager and conduct a complete lustration of all staff who have an association with Forest and Bird and other fundamentalist environmental groups.

Ali Meade is also biodiversity Southland coordinator for Southland Ecological Restoration Network (SERN), She was once employed by Auckland Council as a senior conservation ranger, no doubt working right alongside the antifelinist and Sanctuaries New Zealand chairman Matt Maitland.

She is also on record as having made a submission to the recent Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) consultation supporting NZ poison manufacturer Connovation who requested a reduction in the notification area from 3km to 500m for the usage of the dedicated Cat poison PAPP. Her submission filed on behalf of Environment Southland may be downloaded here:

In this article have presented considerable evidence of both major conspiracy and infiltration of Environment Southland by environmental fanatics. We've joined some dots and demonstrated the connections between some of the key players in this nefarious charade. If you love Cats and common sense, we encourage everyone to make the effort to compile and file a submission to the consultation. If we do not make a stand now on behalf of Southland's Cats and those who serve them, there is a fair chance wherever you live in New Zealand, in the future you will not be allowed to keep a Cat at all.

25 September 2018

Administrators Message

It has come to our attention that some advocates of Cats have tendered death threats to staff members of Auckland Council.

17 September 2018 - Plan To Classify Unchipped Cats As Pests Results In Death Threats

31 October 2018 - Death Threats Sent To Auckland Council Over Cat Culling Plan

We have been warning from the outset that social unrest is an inevitable consequence of antifelinism, so this comes as no large surprise to us. In the interest of clarifying of our position, we thoroughly disapprove of illegal forms of protest action. We request members of both the pro-Cat lobby who have threatened council staff and those amongst the conservation movement who have directly threatened the lives of the Cats we keep via posts on Twitter cease and desist from all forms of threats.

Either you are a good citizen who obeys the law or you are an outlaw, there is no half measure on this count.

Under section 306 of the Crimes Act 1961, threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. Illegal protest actions bring our movement into disrepute with both the public and the media and thus they are counterproductive to our cause. Presently our challenge is a political challenge and one of the most basic rules of good politics is to oppose bad policy itself rather than directly opposing the individuals who are promoting bad policy.

We encourage all involved to engage in the practice of good politics and keep any protest action on the right side of the law.

Take notice Feline Rights will share intelligence on any illegal protest activities we hear about from both the pro-Cat lobby and the environmentalist faction with the New Zealand Police at first instance.

Auckland Council Meeting - Monday 17 September 2018

From Auckland Correspondent Julie Clayton-West

In no uncertain terms those of us that attended Monday’s meeting on behalf of all Cat lovers/owners and those Cats who through no fault of their own have no owner, advised Auckland Council and their representatives; Penny Hulse, Councillor of Waitakere and Chair of Environment and Community, Cathy Casey, Councillor of Albert-Eden-Roskill and Dr Imogen Bassett, Biosecurity Principal Advisor to Auckland Council that we were there to stop Cats being put into a pest category and why. That our stance on this is totally non-negotiable and if Auckland Council insists on proceeding with this we will fight them all the way.

Councillor Cathy Casey was there to support us as Cathy is an animal lover/owner and is also concerned about various aspects of the Council’s "Pest Management Plan". Thank you Cathy.

We greatly appreciated Penny Hulse allocating us a two hour meeting because to be very honest she didn’t have to do that but she did. So, credit where it's due to her. Thank you Penny.

* Cats cannot be put into the 'pests' category. The current three categories of Cats are 1 - Companion, 2 - Stray (including colony Cats that those of us who are group or individual animal rescuers pay to feed/desex/rehome etc) and 3 - Feral.

* Microchipping is recommended by all of us but the lack of a microchip shouldn't result in a life/death situation.

* Ian Robertson QC and legal representative for Paw Justice advised that he doesn't believe that Auckland Council has the mandate to change the three categories of Cats and that they will be challenged in a judicial review.

* We are very concerned regarding the stray/Cat colony situation as it was worryingly obvious that Auckland Council is confused on this issue and had conflicting and vague responses to our concerns.

* We are also concerned at how feral Cats will be killed. Our stance is that it must be humane. An instant death and not a torturous one that some rangers/contractors who work for Auckland Council seem to think are acceptable.

* Dr Imogen Bassett didn't engage with us at all and that really is a concern because she has a lot of power with her position within Auckland Council and frankly, it was extremely disappointing that she wouldn't respond to questions. I did ask her what are the nine native birds that are now extinct that she said were due to Cats were... Moa? Huia? She refused to answer or give scientific evidence of same.

* We must get the specific ecological areas confirmed as that is so confusing and again they were very vague on these themselves. We are not clear about their stance on our Cats on reserves in urban areas and neither are they. Penny Hulse said one thing and yet their Auckland Council "Pest Management Plan" says another.

* It was very encouraging and frankly a huge relief to finally hear the SPCA Auckland stand up and support our Cats and to confirm that they are very concerned about the infiltration of self-appointed groups going into schools and teaching children how to kill 'pests'. There is much more to be said on this subject but that will come from the SPCA Auckland either at the end of this year or beginning of next year.

We won't accept Monday's meeting being the one and only time our voice is heard for all of you. We will continue to work behind the scenes to do all we can and will update you when appropriate. Please share this post where you feel it will be relevant. Our Cats need us to fight for them.

30 August 2018

Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Aotearoa

Opinion - Bob Kerridge - Animal Welfarist

The average peace-loving New Zealander may not be aware of it but, apparently, we are at war. If you find this difficult to comprehend, and a little frightening, for verification you need go no further than listen to the war-like rhetoric emanating from the people at Predator Free-2050.

This new, but generously funded, movement has a clear mission: To be rid of all predators, (whatever or whoever they may be), by the year 2050, with its website calling us to arms urging us to 'unite to fight'. The dialogue from command headquarters tells us that the 'threat of invasion is here' but that "we have an army of tens of thousands of New Zealanders' to undertake 'a military campaign to push the invaders back, just as we did in the last two world wars'.

This disturbing talk exemplifies a dangerous path down which we are being led which could result in an ecological disaster because of this new-found obsession to become predator free. In a recently published paper two eminent ecologists, Professor Wayne Linklater and Dr Jamie Steer, are critical of the methodology being employed: 'While Predator Free-2050 is well intentioned', they concluded, 'New Zealand's future conservation policies need to be less bombastic, and better informed by the environmental, ecological and social sciences'. In a separate interview Linklater went further when he stated that New Zealanders would regard being 'cruelty free' a far greater goal than 'predator free', an aspiration with which I totally concur.

Not surprisingly the troops being deployed to free us of all these predators is the Department of Conservation, (DoC), who of course are willing and able to do the job. In my naivety I used to believe that conservation meant preserving our special and unique biodiversity, until I heard the previous Minister, Maggie Barry, proudly proclaiming for all to hear that 'my guys at Doc are incredibly good at killing things'. Given there are many dedicated individuals employed by DoC who labour long and hard to preserve the lives of many of our endangered species, and more power to them, this was a foolish and heartless statement to make. It is little wonder that a number of previously employed high-ranking scientists are describing the current atmosphere at DoC as 'toxic' with a 'culture of war and a lot of discontent'.

Dr Arian Wallach of the University of Technology, Sydney, and Fellow of the Charles Darwin University, described the essence of conservation succinctly when she stated: 'The aim of conservation is not to generate an ever increasing (dead) body count, but to guide human behaviours to enable the rest of the earth’s species to flourish'.

The major weapon in DoC’s vast armoury, and akin to the H-bomb, is sodium fluoroacetate, (1080), a cheap and particularly nasty pesticide which is as indiscriminate in whom it targets as it is efficient in killing them. Registered as the most toxic pesticide by the World Health Organisation it was the only chemical weapon reportedly found in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal. 1080 is outlawed in a large number of countries, but to our absolute shame New Zealand has been using it since it was first trialled here in 1954. Despite growing public abhorrence, we are now purchasing 80% of the total supply, making us by far the largest user in the world.

The evils of 1080 are well documented including its permanent effect on our flora and fauna, destroying micro-organisms and insects, (the diet of many birds), the contamination of our waterways, human health risks, the slow and agonising death of untargeted animals, (both large and small), and also, ironically, many of the native birds it's meant to be protecting. And yet, despite this history I am told that last year 350 million poison baits were dropped on our little country, thus perpetuating what can only be described as a national disgrace.

So just who are these invaders that, as Predator Free-2050 advocates, need this military effort to defeat 'because it is a very insidious war they have waged against us'? The irony is that these so-called invading species have no ability or desire to declare war, or any concept of what is being plotted against them, or why, neither have they the ability to protect themselves or fight back. In fact it’s a bit of a one-sided war, rather more a premeditated annihilation I would suggest.

In reality the selection of predators that need to be killed is at the behest of the greatest predator of them all, humans, either because we just don’t like them, or they are introduced species and not native to our shores, or we have the mistaken belief that if we exterminate them our biodiversity will be rescued from certain peril. In general the reasons are unscientific and immoral, as are the weapons used against them.

Unbelievably cats are the latest animal to be selected as a targeted predator which will astound and horrify most people, but will delight rats, and Gareth Morgan. In an incredulous move the current Minister of Conservation, Eugenie Sage, wants to see kiwi wandering the urban gardens of Wellington, which would not exactly be their choice of where they would wish to reside given the human dangers associated with urban living, and their lack of natural bush protection to which they are accustomed. The Minister noted that to achieve this urban dream cats would have to go, parroting the demands of the insidious 'cats to go' campaign, requiring 'having cats inside, and when your cat dies then not replacing it'. So it's cats or kiwis.

Local and Regional Councils throughout New Zealand, who have never before shown any interest in cats, are now wanting to illegally label them as 'pest cats' so they can be destroyed without question, again acceding to Morgan’s dictate that 'any cat that is free to range should be a dead cat'.

That constitutes another declaration of war, and of course weapons of mass destruction exist, especially for cats. This one comes in the form of the unpronounceable para-aminopropiophenone, or PAPP as it is generally known, currently and unashamedly being trialled by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council. PAPP is as hideous as 1080 coming in the form of a paste which, once ingested, starts a process of dying which is inhumane and painfully slow, with death averaging an horrendous 3 hours and 51 seconds to occur. During the process signs of toxicosis occur, (head nodding, lethargy, uncontrolled movement and lack of balance), eventually advancing to unresponsiveness and collapse but fully conscious and aware, with final unconsciousness occurring only moments before death.

The persecution of cats, the country’s most popular and adored companion animal, is as unfathomable as it is without foundation. Ecologist Gary J Patonec, (USA), commented: 'What I find inconsistent in an otherwise scientific debate about biodiversity is how the indictment of cats has been pursued in spite of the evidence'.

I have to question, just what is the motivation that drives people to hate so vehemently that they are quite content to subject cats and other sentient beings to such extremes of torture before killing them? But remember we are, apparently, at war and the conservation soldiers are waging war to make the world a better place being totally oblivious to the probable ecological consequences of their extermination practices. The slaughter of one species on the pretext of saving another for the greater good in the name of conservation is reprehensible.

Predator Free-2050 claims to have an 'army of tens of thousands of New Zealanders', many of them recruited from children whose schools have received money and complimentary traps if they accede to the terms and conditions of war. Others are equally innocent urban families where the aim is to have 'a trap in every fifth backyard across New Zealand' which is creating a generation who, and I am quoting 'find killing animals weirdly addictive'.

Such a trend is deeply disturbing and I wonder where is the public outrage? Because these activities are often introduced under stealth perhaps people are not aware of where this war is leading us, what weapons of mass destruction are being used, or what the consequences will be. And where are the mechanisms in place that will protect animals from such abuse, or are there none? Are we just going to sit back and watch New Zealanders fall into moral decay?

French ornithologist Jean Dorst conveys some sobering and relevant words of wisdom: 'Whatever the metaphysical position is adopted and whatever place is given to the human species, man has no right to destroy a species of plant of animal on the pretext that it is useless. We have no right to exterminate what we have not created'.

I have no hesitation in adding my heartfelt support to that sentiment, as my dream for our country has always been that we respect and love all life, and that humans, animals and the environment can coexist in harmony, in addition to a belief that we can, if it is our will, realise that dream. Keep believing.

Bob Kerridge has had a long and distinguished professional career in animal welfare, during which time he has been responsible for many creative and innovative initiatives that have enhanced the status and welfare of animals in the New Zealand community. He has recently established a Fellowship to seek positive and harmonious solutions for animals, humans and the environment. He resides in Havelock North, Hawke’s Bay.

During his tenure of 32 years with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, (SPCA), Bob Kerridge assumed many roles including Chief Executive, Executive Director and member of the Board. He was a National Councillor with the Royal NZ SPCA, eventually becoming its National President, and was also a Director of the World Society for the Protection of Animals, (WSPA). He was made a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2004 and promoted to Officer of the Order for services to animal welfare and governance in the Queen’s Birthday honours in 2018.

26 July 2018

Submission To Greater Wellington Regional Council
Regional Pest Management Plan Proposal Consultation

Introducton

New Zealand is presently suffering from a form of mass psychosis, this has occurred due to a deliberate social engineering process intended to indoctrinate New Zealanders into a thoroughly extremist form of environmentalism. No sane person can deny that an ideology with killing as one of it's core beliefs is an abberation from the norm. Players in this ongoing social engineering campaign include both Local and Central Government, Local Government New Zealand, Department of Conservation along with various private organisations, for example Forest and Bird, the Morgan Foundation, the Next Foundation, Predator Free New Zealand and others which includes the complicit mainstream media.

Of particular concern to us is the ongoing unjustified demonisation of Cats and those who are guardians of Cats. This in particular has been ongoing and incessant. We've coined the terms antifelinism and antifelinist to cover those within the community who harbor a burning hatred of Cats and those of us who keep Cats in the interest of making the connection between the discrimination directed against Jewish people which occurred in Germany under National Socialist rule. The Jewish people were valuable contributors to society, yet they were demonised and summarily dealt with. The National Socialists went so far as to compare persons of Jewish heritage to rats, subjected them to curfews, required compulsory identification and ultimately consigned millions of individuals to death.

The comparison between what was done in National Socialist Germany and what is now being done in New Zealand is quite clear for those who have eyes to see and are not in total denial of it. Let's be clear, speciesism is a very similar abberation to racism, thus we feel the term antifelinism is an accurate representation of what is presently being conducted in New Zealand.

Let us begin with the term 'pest Cats' which has been used in the RPMP proposal. This is an arbitrary term fabricated by antifelinist 'conservation' extremists such as Gareth Morgan of the Morgan Foundation and his daughter Jessi Morgan, the spokesperson for Predator Free NZ. It has no basis under New Zealand law. New Zealand officially acknowledges three classifications of Cats: Companion Cats, Stray Cats and Feral Cats. The definitions of the three types of Cats from a legal perspective is covered in the Ministry of Primary Industries Companion Cats - Animal Welfare (Companion Cats) Code of Welfare 2007, henceforth referred to as The Code.

Companion Cat - Common domestic cat (including a kitten unless otherwise stated) that lives with humans as a companion and is dependent on humans for its welfare. For the purposes of this code, will be referred to as 'cat'.

Stray Cat - For the purposes of this code, means a companion cat which is lost or abandoned and which is living as an individual or in a group (colony). Stray cats have many of their needs indirectly supplied by humans, and live around centres of human habitation. Stray cats are likely to interbreed with the unneutered companion cat population.

Feral Cat - For the purposes of this code, means a cat which is not a stray cat and which has none of its needs provided by humans. Feral cats generally do not live around centres of human habitation. Feral cat population size fluctuates largely independently of humans, is self-sustaining and is not dependent on input from the companion cat population.

Our view is Greater Wellington Regional Council has chosen to willfully ignore the classification of Cats as defined under the Code and now attempts to collapse the legal definition of New Zealand's stray Cats so that stray Cats are informally classified as 'pest Cats', thus providing a fabricated loophole which GWRC erroneously believes will grant them license to conduct mass executions of Cats in the name of politicised 'conservation'.

The legal opinion we have obtained is quite clear that local government has no power to define a particular species as a 'pest'. This is the role of the Governor General acting on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation under the Wildlife Act 1953. By attempting to collapse the legally defined categories of 'stray' and 'feral' into a single informal category of 'pest Cat' the council acts outside of it's mandate. This approach is totally unacceptable to us and leaves the council wide open to legal challenge should the RPMP proposal as it stands be approved by council when the matter goes to vote.

We will next document some of the senior staff involved with 'biodiversity' and 'biosecurity' at Greater Wellington Regional Council so all citizens are aware of who is who in these departments. On 03 July 2018 two articles appeared in the media covering the RPMP proposal, the first, a press release from GWRC published at Wellington Scoop, the second a media report published in the environment section at Stuff.

Smothering, Strangling And Killing - GWRC Press Release - Featuring Wayne O'Donnell

Wellington's Most 'Unwanted': GWRC Releases 'Pest' Hit List - Featuring Davor Bejakovich

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Let's begin with Jamie Steer, in our view he is one of the good guys. From his thesis entitled 'The Reconciliation of Introduced Species in New Zealand' through various media articles and interviews on national radio, he has tirelessly acted as an advocate for introduced species and for a common sense approach to ecology and conservation. He recently co-wrote a paper questioning the logic behind the idea of Predator Free 2050 with Dr Wayne Linklater, Associate Professor of Conservation Science and Director of the Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology at Victoria University which is an eye opener to say the least. While we are not a great fan of Dr Linklater because of the numerous antifelinist articles he has published online via his sciblogs site, we raise our hat to Jamie and Wayne for their stance on Predator Free 2050 which they describe as a flawed conservation policy which displaces higher priorities and better, evidence-based alternatives.

GWRC general manager (biodiversity) Wayne O'Donnell was one of the Local Government NZ representatives who participated in the National Cat Management Strategy Group (NCMSG), along with the likes of Morgan Foundation general manager Geoff Simmons. NCMSG is a private organisation which advocates the mass execution of Cats via "a blow to the head with a solid object", "a head shot with a firearm", usage of a "captive bolt tool" and that "all methods should be followed by a secondary method, a throat cut to ensure that the animal dies from blood loss". Their entire 'strategic implementation consultation document' may be downloaded here:

See page 44 of this document for their recommended methods of executing Cats. See also page 52 where you may read about the "pervasive, intense and continuing campaign to 'educate' the public about the impacts of cats on wildlife and human health and the resulting need for culling", something no one can deny has been occurring across the boards on a weekly basis in the NZ media since at least 2013 when self styled übermensch Gareth Morgan began his accursed 'Cats To Go' campaign.

In a media article dated 13 May 2016 published in the environment section at Stuff, Wayne O'Donnell said his council strongly supported limiting cats to three per household, and even fewer in areas that were rich in wildlife. He is quoted as stating "Making companion Cats identifiable will assist with the control of unwanted Cats in wildlife sensitive areas. But unfortunately, many of the companion Cats are predators themselves". Whichever way we look at it, Wayne O'Donnell is no friend of Cats or their guardians and because he was instrumental in planning the Feline holocaust we encourage Wayne to immediately resign from his position at GWRC.

As to GWRC Biosecurity Manager Davor Bejakovich, his comments in the Stuff article dated 03 July 2018 we have linked to above speak volumes and are worthy of close attention. The RPMP apparently designates some $85,000 of ratepayer funds per annum to deal with the alleged problem of 'pest Cats' which the article states are "classified as not microchipped in an area where microchipping was compulsory; free living, unowned and unsocialised, and with little or no relationship with, or dependence on, humans.

Compare that description with the classification of Cats as defined under the Code and it's quite clear GWRC takes the Wellington regions Feline guardians as fools and attempt to fudge the law.

Davor Bejakovich is quoted in the article as stating: "It's very unlikely we will be trapping cats in the Wellington urban area but it would give us an ability around areas like Zealandia, to live-trap cats." If we take a look at the following image of Zealandia sanctuary it's obvious the sanctuary is surrounded on three sides by residential areas. If GWRC, it's private partners or commercial pest control operatives were permitted to trap Cats around the sanctuary, it is inevitable that much loved companion Cats will be captured and executed simply for being Cats.

Davor Bejakovich stated "If they're chipped then they would be returned, if they're not owned they would be passed on to a rescue organisation or killed." Alright, that clarifies things somewhat, he's happy to kill Cats if that's what he thinks is required.

Even if live captured and the Cats they catch return a positive identification via a microchip scanner, the Cat is still likely to suffer lasting trauma from being trapped and then mishandled by disrespectful cruel people who do not know how to handle Cats. Additionally, a trapped Cat will tend to revert to instinctual mode and display all of the characteristics of a feral Cat making it next to impossible for anyone to get a reading on a microchip scanner. Because of this we believe what is likely to occur is Cats they capture will be designated as feral and summarily executed in the name of politicised 'conservation'.

To the east of the sanctuary separated by a residential area is the Polhill Reserve. It is an area subject to intensive ecological 'restoration' and forms part of the arbitrarily designated 'halo' or 'buffer zone' around the sanctuary itself. This area was embodied into the town belt via the Wellington Town Belt Act 2016 during the watch of the rabid environmentalist Mayor Celia Wade-Brown.

The term 'halo' is one coined by the antifelinist Gareth Morgan and this 'buffer zone' was imposed on citizens who reside in the area without reasonable notice or consultation. The Polhill restoration project is funded by GWRC, WCC and the Morgan Foundation, it is home turf for the Polhill Protectors environmental extremist group lead by one Paul Stanley Ward, an antifelinist who once wrote an article which described keeping Cats as "a perversely self-destructive act, like smoking or eating only deep fried Mars bars". Joseph Goebbels himself would buy Polhill Paul a bottle of schnapps for such a grand effort in the propaganda stakes unequaled since the days of the Der Stürmer tabloid itself.

What happened is the native birds started setting up shop beyond the sanctuary on their own accord and the area was then defined as a Key Native Ecosystem (KNE). While GWRC has a page on their website which covers KNE areas, we are quite unclear exactly what administrative and political processes used to designate a KNE and we have yet to view any documentation which accurately describes scientific research methodology that is used to justify the KNE designation.

Because of this we are forced to the conclude a KNE in Wellington is similar to the "ecologically significant site" designation used by Auckland Council in that it's "not a specific technical term, but rather wording developed in collaboration with council's media team to communicate complex technical information to the public". In other words it's very likely to be a purely arbitrary term fabricated by the council's propaganda office which may be applied at whim by council biodiversity staff to any area of reserve land for any reason whatsoever if it suits them to do so including a burning desire to execute our Cats.

The Wellington City Council planning office describes reserve land as follows: "Our formal definition of reserve land is public land set aside for recreational, ecological, landscape, cultural and/or historic purposes and generally managed under a reserve management plan prepared under Section 41 of the Reserves Act 1977. There is approximately 4000 hectares of land managed as reserve. Road frontage is often called "road" reserve but is not reserve as defined above."

So, it's clear enough what GWRC's intentions are, any tiny area of reserve land where a single gecko lizard or fantail is spotted may be designated as a KNE if it suits them, and they hope that in itself will grant them a license to kill en mass.

We had not heard mention of Davor Bejakovich so we did what we do and and conducted an investigation and you will never guess what we found. Davor the Devious has been consulting with the Environment Protection Authority advocating the reduction of notification area for the dedicated Cat poison known as PAPP (Para-Aminopropiophenone) in the form of a formal submission from GWRC in support of the Cat poison manufacturer Connovation. GWRC would not have their own biosecurity manager filing a formal submission in support of this heinous poison if they were not intending to use it, so we'd better take a look at what PAPP is, how it works and what it does.

GWRC Submission To the Environment Protection Agency In Support Of PAPP by Davor Bejakovich

PAPP (Para-Aminopropiophenone) - The Zyklon-B Of Predator Free

Marketed by NZ company Connovation as Predastop, PAPP kills via hypoxia, coma, and death due to the inhibition of cellular respiration. Connovation's brochure states "The onset of symptoms is rapid and stoats and Cats are usually unconscious within 45 minutes", however the information we have received suggests it is a terrible inhumane poison:

Quote:

After a cat has ingested a bait containing PAPP there is a lag period before signs of toxicosis such as head nodding, lethargy, ataxia (uncoordinated movement and difficulty maintaining balance), salivation and sometimes vomiting are observed. As the toxicoses progresses, cats collapse and cannot move voluntarily. They appear unresponsive, but still show signs of awareness until they become unconscious for a short period just before death. The duration of the lag phase, duration and severity of symptoms and time to death can be highly variable.

In a pen study of 31 feral cats that ingested 78mg PAPP baits, the average time from bait consumption until signs of poisoning was 3 hours 51 minutes (range 43 minutes to 15 hours). The average time from onset of symptoms to collapse was 72 mins (range zero to around 5½ hours) and the average time from collapse to death was 107 minutes (range 30 minutes to around 8 hours). So this bait can go either relatively well, or terribly for the animal involved. Feeling deathly ill, to actual death, can range from 43 minutes to 15 hours. The period from collapse to insensibility which is identified as a time where an animal is conscious and aware, but unable to defend itself or move voluntarily, can be anything from 30 minutes to 8 hours. A poison which leaves an animal immobilised, but conscious and slowly dying for anything up to 8 hours is anything but 'humane'.

Suffering: The lag period is likely to be associated with minimal suffering, however after the onset of clinical signs when cats cannot coordinate body movements it is likely that they will experience some distress, confusion and anxiety as they cannot perform normal behaviours (e.g. standing, moving, feeding, drinking, defensive and escape behaviours). Lethargy and weakness are also potential sources of distress. In addition—during the later phase of toxicosis when cats are unable to move but are still conscious—if they were not able to seek appropriate shelter prior to becoming incapacitated, they are at increased risk of predation (e.g. from crows, other predators), aggression (e.g. from dogs) and environmental exposure, which could lead to further distress and suffering.

End Quote:

When sufficient beloved companion Cats have been killed by Connovation's Cat poison that the public become aware of it, social unrest will be an inevitable consequence. This could conceivably involve outraged citizens interfering with bait stations and the associated risks of such action if PAPP were to be deployed in urban and residential areas.

We here at Feline Rights strongly discourage such action and would be the first to notify the authorities if we had intelligence on citizens planning to break the law. However, we cannot monitor the entire nation and there is no telling what some outraged citizens may do when they feel their family members are under a clear and present threat from Connovation's Cat poison being deployed in their locality.

Before we cover the matter of failure of microchips it is important to note that the current Wellington City Council animal bylaw was created via an illegal process. The bylaw was essentially back engineered and we have a considerable amount of evidence obtained via LGOIMA request in the form of emails shared between WCC councillors and staff which demonstrates this is so. Also, WCC first created the animal bylaw, then a year later consulted on animal policy. This is not the way of good democratic governance. If WCC were truly playing by the standard rules they would have first consulted on policy then created the bylaw. The fact WCC did the opposite and created the bylaw prior to consulting on policy would likely be frowned upon by the court and could easily result in the court declaring the bylaw ultra vires.

There is a belief microchips are an infallible method of providing identification. However some veterinarians disagree. Dr Alan Probert, a senior vet at Miramar Vet Hospital is on record as having noticed some microchips failing to scan. He expressed concern that "people are living with a false sense of security about the microchip's ability to track and find their 'pet' if it goes missing" and "My concern and I think it's probably every vet's worst nightmare would be that a dog or a Cat might be inadvertently euthanised, even though it's microchipped". Alan Probert also stated "the problem is occurring across a range of chip makers".

In our second example, Dr Roger Barnard of Kerikeri Veterinary Clinic has provided the following statement about microchips to our colleagues at Northland Cats In Balance:

"To whom it may concern, microchips placed into animals can be useful for identification but there have been failures that have occurred. On occasions some expel from the animal soon after insertion, some fail to be read at some later date because of manufacturing failure and movement of microchip to other parts of the body".

The third example provides total proof that microchips are not an infallible method of identifying companion animals. In January 2018, Virbac NZ issued a recall of some 15,000 microchips which they determined are prone to failure. We append the product recall notification from Virbac NZ. We feel this is proof enough microchips can and do fail and thus microchips should not be used to determine who lives and who dies in the name of profit and environmental mass hysteria.

While we have already seen protest action in Auckland, thankfully the protests there have so far been peaceful events. Go down the path of using the microchip ID to determine who lives and who dies and sooner or later companion Cats will be killed and once citizens become aware of it there is no telling what enraged citizens may do. The media will have a field day with it, those elected representatives who voted for it will not escape with their political careers unscathed and social unrest will be an inevitable consequence.

Potential Adverse Ecological Consequenses Of Removing Cats

The Mesopredator Release Effect

Modelling The Mesopredator Release Effect (PDF 360kb)

In truth, Cats as the apex predator are valuable assets who contribute to the control of rodents, rabbits and mustelids. Remove the apex predator from an ecosystem and this results in what is known as the mesopredator release effect. We append a paper from the Journal of Animal Ecology entitled 'Cats Protecting Birds: Monitoring the Mesopredator Release Effect' which covers the scientific perspective in detail. In New Zealand there are documented instances where the removal of Cats from a locality has resulted in a explosion of the rat population which in turn has had a marked adverse impact on birdlife. In 2013 in Raglan, persons known to be native bird enthusiasts took it upon themselves to kill all Cats they could find in Raglan West. One resident had six of her Cats murdered for the cause of 'conservation'. The local vet clinic documented a total of 16 missing Cats over a period of 12 months in Raglan West.

9 September 2013 - Raglan Cat Lover Wants Out As Killings Continue

Within three months, local ecological consultant Adrienne Livingston is on record in the media stating: "I am now observing the effect the marked absence of Cats is having on this suburban ecosystem". She expressed concern about the number of half-eaten eggs and dead chicks appearing, all killed by rodents the Cats would have dealt with were they still around to do their job.

During winter 2016 DOC put the idea of a predator proof fence for Rakiura/Stewart Island on hold and decided they would first go after Cats. Media reports at the time suggested the Morgan Foundation and Predator Free Rakiura were involved in funding the mass execution of Cats on Rakiura/Stewart Island.

Multiple Cat killer Phillip Smith claimed "Getting rid of all the wild Cats would change the dynamics of the island".

Eight months after 'conservationists' began engaging in the Feline holocaust on Rakiura/Stewart Island, Phillip Smith was proven correct. The ecological dynamics of the island had indeed changed, but not in the way intended. The following column written by experienced trampers details their experiences on the Rakiura track and elsewhere on the island. They stated they "found large rats were everywhere, not only around huts and campsites but on all parts of the tracks". DOC staff confirmed a much higher rat count than seen for many years. While two successive rimu mast years and inadequate 'pest' control are cited as the causes, we have no doubt the wholesale execution of the islands Cats is a more likely cause of the sudden increase in the rat population on Rakiura/Stewart Island.

Documentation provided by the environmentalist movement claims it is "estimated that feral, stray and 'pet' cats kill up to 100 million birds in New Zealand each year". Estimate is the key word here, we have seen zero evidence based scientific research to support this claim. The bottom line is this figure is likely a huge overestimate provided by private environmental extremist and antifelinist groups such as Morgan Foundation, Forest and Bird and Predator Free NZ. Well known animal advocate Bob Kerridge's recent opinion piece published in the NZ Herald covered the matter of 'research' designed to demonise Cats in the interest of furthering the primary aim of the antifelinists which is the total eradication of all Cats.

Many of the misconceptions of the alleged impact of Cats on 'native biodiversity' and the suggestions on what may be done about it provided by the environmental extremist movement have been thoroughly refuted by competent common sense ecologists such as wildlife ecologist John Innes of Landcare Research:

Consultant ecologist Mark Bellingham, who at one point was North Island Conservation Manager for Forest and Bird stated: "at night cats are actually really good at getting rid of rats and mice. That's the bulk of what they take."

Engage in the removal of Cats from a locality and one is confronted by what is known as the 'vacuum effect'. What this means is more Cats will move in to where the initial colony once was. We append a document by Alley Cat Allies which covers the matter of the 'vacuum effect', and an article from Science Alert which demonstrates the vacuum effect in action in Tasmania.

* Remove all entries of the term 'pest Cats' from the RPMP proposal and abide by the classifications of Cats as defined under the Code. Failure to do so will inevitably result in legal challenge.

* Biodiversity staff need to purge themselves of the 'kill them all' approach, because by going down that path they may do more harm to an ecosystem than good. Remove the Cats and a plague of rats who will do more damage to bird life than any number of Cats is a certain consequence.

* Do not waste ratepayer funds hiring private pest control operatives, to deal with the alleged problem with Cats. These people are professional killers who delight in dispensing death and are highly unlikely to engage themselves in ethical live capture activity.

* Totally reject the usage of the inhumane Cat poison PAPP in the Greater Wellington region.

* Responsibility for the attempt to flout the law by including the arbitrary term 'pest Cats' must ultimately be laid at the feet of GWRC general manager of biodiversity, Wayne O'Donnell. He got that inconceivably wrong and we believe this was a deliberate act on his part in support of environmental extemism and antifelinism. Therefore he should either do the right thing and immediately resign from his position or alternatively the council must recognise he has miserably failed in his duties and thus should be immediately dismissed.

Remember: A vote for the RPMP proposal in it's current form which includes the arbitrary term 'pest Cats' is a vote for the Feline holocaust. Do you really want the blood of these beautiful highly sentient beings on your hands?

Auckland Council intends to spend $307 million dollars over a period of 10 years to fund their environmental extremist pogrom against introduced species. That's $30.7 million dollars per annum of ratepayers money. While the likes of Lou Sanson, the Director General of Department of Conservation and William McCook, CEO of state owned enterprise Orillion, the manufacturers of the poisons 1080 (Sodium Fluoroacetate) and Brodifacoum will no doubt be fair rubbing their hands together in glee at the thought of the profit to be made from this exercise in death, if you happen to own property in Auckland or rent a property in Auckland, one way or another it is you, the ratepayer who will be paying for it and more importantly it is quite clear they are coming to kill your Cats en mass in the name of 'conservation'.

ALL CATS WHO DO NOT HAVE A FUNCTIONAL MICROCHIP WILL BE EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF POLITICISED 'ENVIRONMENTALISM'

Consultation Period: 28 February 2018 to 28 March 2018

Left: 'Information Evenings' invitation. Right: RPMP proposal map - Red areas: "sites being managed for threatened species recovery. Any 'owner' of any Cat must ensure their Cat does not enter these sites". Blue areas: "indicative of 'biodiversity focus areas' that may be subject to 'Cat management' as part of multi species management at the site. Indicative only, sites my be subject to change over the lifetime of the plan".

A larger image of the map and 'information' evenings flyer may be viewed here

On the subject of the 'biodiversity focus areas' designated in blue in the map above, the key point to be aware of is the legend states "Indicative only, sites my be subject to change over the lifetime of the plan". Undoubtedly the council wants this to be open ended so they may decide at a whim were they will next go about engaging in the planned Feline holocaust.

In practice we could see situations where property developers apply for a resource consent but the location has some lizards, so the developer agrees to engage private 'biodiversity' consultants to re-locate the lizards. The council suggests parkland right next to a residential area as suitable for relocation of the lizards, then designates the area the lizards are relocated to as an 'ecologically significant site' without even asking what the nearby residents think about the idea. If an area is designated as 'ecologically significant', the council will then go about executing everyone's Cats to protect the precious lizards who have been evicted from their home in the interest of both profit for the developers and to occupy the nutcases they employ at ratepayers expense to conduct environmental micromanagement.

Next, lets take a look at the term 'ecologically significant site', which the council has used in statements to the media. Late last year, one of our colleagues filed a LGOIMA request with Auckland Council requesting the definition of an 'ecologically significant site', The documents that describe the administrative and political processes used to designate an 'ecologically significant site' and the documents that describe the scientific research methodology that is used to justify the 'ecologically significant' designation.

The council's response to our colleague's LGOIMA request was an eye opener to say the least:

Read that again with care folks. Quote: "The term 'ecologically significant site' is not a specific technical term, but rather wording developed in collaboration with council's media team to communicate complex technical information to the public". In other words it's a purely arbitrary term fabricated by the council's propaganda office, pardon us we mean 'media team'. Chances are much of the other terminology the council is using, for example 'biodiversity focus areas' also amount to little more than propaganda intended to entrain the minds of the public into the mindset of politicised environmental extremism. Whichever way we look at it, it's clear to us this all amounts to deliberate fabrication of an open ended gray area intended to grant the council license to kill whenever and wherever it chooses.

Now, lets take a look at the most offensive of all of the arbitrary terms excreted by the council's propaganda office, the term 'pest Cats'.

The first media disclosure covering the nefarious intentions embodied in Auckland Council's regional 'pest' management plan proposal was published on 24 August 2017 in a media outlet well known for dispensing antifelinist propaganda, the Rodney Times. The article states: "Auckland Council is looking to broaden its definition of 'pest Cats' as it reviews its Regional Pest Management Plan".

As we have shared in several previous articles, the correct definitions of the three types of Cats from a legal perspective is covered in the Ministry of Primary Industries Companion Cats - Animal Welfare (Companion Cats) Code of Welfare 2007. This is a code of welfare issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.

The article continues, stating: "According to the council, the nationally accepted definition of 'feral' Cats are those that have none of their needs provided by humans, and the 'feral' Cat population size fluctuates largely independently of humans" and "But most unowned Cats in the Auckland region are classed as stray rather than feral due to passive interactions with humans". Thus it is quite clear Auckland Council is well aware of the legal definitions of Cats under the Code, yet the council has decided to come up with a completely arbitrary new term 'pest Cats' to replace the accepted definition of stray Cats under New Zealand law. Auckland Council has no mandate to redefine stray Cats as 'pest Cats', only central government can do that. By attempting to redefine stray Cats as 'pest Cats', we have absolutely no doubt Auckland Council are acting outside of the law.

Auckland Council appear to have made every effort to make it difficult for citizens to participate in the five information evenings and access documentation on their regional 'pest' management plan proposal. The information evenings were by invitation only, some of our supporters phoned Auckland Council and call center staff claimed no knowledge of the information evenings. One of our supporters shared this next report of experiences when attending three of the 'information' evenings:

Our supporter's statement that Imogen Bassett denied all knowledge of faulty microchips during the information evenings was surprising and we confirm we have already notified her about this issue in an email dated 26th January 2018, we appended a copy of the following recall message from Virbac NZ detailing the recall of some 15,000 faulty microchips used for identification of companion animals. Either Imogen Bassett has not bothered to read our message and view the supplied documentation, has a very short memory, or she was simply was not being truthful to citizens who attended the 'information' evenings. Whatever the real truth of the matter, it is clear this amounts to very poor performance on the part of Auckland Council's senior 'biodiversity' staff.

As we were about to publish this article another supporter presented us with the following letter sent to Mayor Phil Goff dated 30th November 2017. It appears the mayor was to busy to respond himself and delegated the council's response to, you guessed it, Imogen Bassett. In our view Dr Bassett's response amounts to yet another instance of official 'smoke and mirrors'. It appears to us the council has made up it's mind on what it plans to do prior to the consultation period and the operational directive is to fob off citizens concerns via official 'smoke and mirrors' in the hope citizens will look the other way while they proceed with the mass execution of Auckland's Cats.

As to online access to documentation we found none of the web links worked. We investigated by viewing the sourcecode on their download page and were surprised by what we found. A line of code which says 'RedirectToInvalidFileName.aspx' and the links to each of the pdf files have the suffix '*$' appended directly after the file extension. Thus none of these files can be downloaded via this code. We took a screen capture of a section of the sourcecode so everyone who is technically inclined can see for themselves.

We do not for one moment believe the IT staff at Auckland Council could be so incompetent that they are challenged to link a pdf file correctly so that it can be downloaded, so we suspect this coding is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate public access to the files in question.

We've corrected the links so they work as they should, you may download these files via the links below.

04 Sept 2017 - Growing Constraints On Cats

The second media report appeared in the 'Local Matters' community news publication on 4th September 2017. The article states: "The role of Cats, including the domestic 'moggy', as killers of native wildlife is increasingly an issue raised with Auckland Council, resulting in new proposals for managing them in areas of high biodiversity".

This is an interesting statement indeed. Feline Rights emailed Auckland Council biosecurity manager Phil Brown and informally requested copies of the submissions to the initial consultation with key stakeholders. Phil Brown delegated the response to our request to Dr Imogen Bassett. The report in Local Matters states Dr Bassett is the council's environmental advisory manager, however at the bottom of her email response to us it states she is 'biosecurity principal adviser'. As Dr Bassett appears to be the person behind the five 'information evenings' and is the one fielding inquiries from stakeholders, it seems she is the one who has drawn the short straw of being the public face of the regional pest management plan proposal. When we last checked her profile at the University of Auckland it states her specialty is 'invasive species' but strangely her profile has recently mysteriously vanished from the University of Auckland website.

In the article, Imogen Bassett is quoted as stating "Cat control is already undertaken within Shakespear Open Sanctuary's 'pest proof' fence" and that "it's possible this could be extended to other areas such as Eave’s Bush in Orewa and the Weiti River shellbanks". We conducted an investigation of occurrences at Shakespear Open Sanctuary following the cold blooded execution of a companion Cat named Teddy in 2015. As part of our investigation we communicated via email with both the sanctuary and Matt Maitland, senior park ranger for Auckland Council. Matt Maitland's letter dated 4th August 2017 details how they deal with Cats not only the sanctuary itself, but also in the 'buffer zone' external to the not so 'pest' proof fence.

To quote Matt Maitland:

"Yes the cat had a microchip. A microchip does not confer any additional protection to the animal bearing it. It is a mechanism to assist identification of owner, assuming they take the step to register the chip and cat on the Companion Animal Database. Our policy is clear that any cats (or other invasive pests) found inside the fenced sanctuary will be killed to protect sanctuary values. Those in the buffer zone of parkland between pest proof fence and urban neighbours receive a 'one strike' warning if their pet cat is captured".

"To manage the biodiversity values of the open sanctuary we do not differentiate between domestic, stray or feral. All pose threat to the native fauna we seek to protect and enhance. In the case of any cat caught as first strike in our buffer zone we apply this only if they have some clear identification feature such as microchip or named collar".

End Quote:

It is clear what the council is presently doing at Shakespear amounts to nothing less than Nazi tactics and regardless of what the council has stated, by summarily executing companion Cats their actions are unquestionably immoral, unethical and quite possibly illegal. Now the council plans to expand it's antifelinist activities beyond the sanctuaries and execute Cats anywhere they like across the entire Auckland region.

04 August 2017 - The Matt Maitland Letter(PDF - 70kb)

17 March 2015 - Auckland Park Rangers Trap And Kill 'Pet'

Teddy the Cat had a microchip and collar, but was cage trapped then shot by park rangers in March 2015. He was first tracked via camera, and trapped in a cage trap some 800 meters inside the sanctuary's allegedly 'pest proof fence'. The following image of the 'pest proof' fence at Shakespear was captured at low tide and it clearly demonstrates the fence is in no way 'pest proof'. Any creature can just walk on in at low tide. The sanctuary website confirms this fact with the statement: "there is a constant risk of re-invasion around the ends of the fence or through the fence due to the open public access".

Morgan Foundation Collective Lobbying

Dr Bassett was kind enough to respond to us in her official capacity and provided a copy of the consultation summary document. While the council has not at this stage released the full text of submissions received to the initial key stakeholder consultation, she has assured us all submissions will be available to the public as part of the public consultation process between 28th February and 28 March 2018. One week into the consultation process and these still have not been released for the public to download and view. The consultation summary itself was an eye opener in that 140 of the total of 200 submissions received which mentioned Cats were collective lobbying from the antifelinists of Gareth Morgan's hate group, the Morgan Foundation. It appears to us the council has based it's position on Cats embodied in the RPMP proposal entirely around the lobbying of the antifelinists at the Morgan Foundation.

It is not a smart move for the council to be referencing the collective opinion of a small group of extremists which happens to have a burning hatred of Cats as one of the cornerstones of it's policy and it is particularly disturbing to see the submissions from the Morgan Foundation are listed as 'pro forma'. This suggests to us the Morgan Foundation were permitted to run an online form on their own website as they did for the Wellington City Council Animal Bylaw Review 2016. Probably all of the submissions were sent from the same email address: shannon(at)morganfoundation.org.nz.

New Zealand Extremists: Spot The Difference If You Can

Feline Rights NZ strongly disapproves of the council allowing the Morgan Foundation to run a template on their own website in relation to Cats. It is the equivalent of allowing Bishop Brian Tamaki to run a template on the Destiny Church website for a consultation on gender diversity and LGBTQ rights, or allowing the White Nationalist movement to run a template on their website for a consultation about race relations and the value of multiculturalism. While in the interest of upholding the democratic process, every citizen and private group in Aotearoa has the right to share their opinion with government, we'd suggest a limitation of one submission per organisation and if supporters of an organisation wish to add their voice, any further submissions should only be accepted if tendered from the individual supporters own email address.

Auckland Council biosecurity manager Phil Brown's statement "it's not a reactive programme" says it all. As this is not a reactive program where the council reacts when it becomes aware of specific instances where it is actually proven beyond a doubt there are Cats predating on protected species in a particular location, it is quite clear the council intends to run an active program where it seeks out and kills every Cat it can locate. The real proof of the intentions of the council is contained in the Matt Maitland letter, where Matt states "we do not differentiate between domestic, stray or feral. All pose threat to the native fauna we seek to protect and enhance". The council intends to kill all Cats regardless of legal classification.

In this report, Phil Brown uses every argument in the environmental extremist's book to demonise Cats in any way he can, at this point we are uncertain if this is because he is deluded by the opinions of the fundamentalist 'conservationists' or if he is simply a Cat hater engaged in a futile attempt to justify his position. He is also on record spouting the tired old line of 'keeping Cats in at night', an idea thoroughly refuted by competent common sense ecologists such as wildlife ecologist John Innes of Landcare Research,(1) (2) and consultant ecologist Mark Bellingham, who at one point was North Island Conservation Manager for Forest and Bird (3) .

Phil Brown claims Cats as carriers of toxoplasmosis are a threat to Hector's dolphins. We've read the scientific paper he's referencing on that count and the evidence of this allegation against Cats is very slim. There is no real evidence Cats pose a threat to the dolphins due to toxoplasmosis and every Cat in New Zealand would need to be eradicated if one wanted to truly eliminate this alleged threat to the dolphins. Members of the Auckland pro-Cat lobby took Phil Brown to task about the supposed threat to Hectors's dolphins and he is on record as having backed off from this allegation against the Cats.

The article states "Cats without microchips found roaming in 'sensitive environments' will be killed under Auckland Council's new pest eradication programme". This was published over three months ago. Either the media are incorrect with that statement or it actually reflects the intentions of Auckland Council. As Auckland Council has not applied to Fairfax Media to have the article corrected, we can only assume the media statement accurately reflects the council's intentions.

In the previous article, Councillor Daniel Newman warned the council should be prepared for backlash from we who are guardians of Cats and Councillor Newman is correct. The next day, NZ Cat Foundation president Anne Batley-Burton was on RadioLIVE speaking out against the antifelinists who have infiltrated the council. She stated her organisation intends to fight the council on the issue. For the record, Feline Rights will also take the council to task for their grossly unethical intentions.

Before the day was over the council went into damage control mode and Phil Brown claimed the proposed approach did not involve controlling non-microchipped cats in urban areas. Brown stated the plan "represents the continuation of current practice". Well, if you have taken the time to read the Matt Maitland letter in it's entirety you will be clear on what this means. No Cat anywhere be it a truly 'feral' Cat, stray Cat or companion Cat will be safe from the scourges of antifelinism and environmental mass hysteria. Phil Brown stated "We would never start 'pest' cat control at a new site without letting the community know first". We assume this means the council intends to emulate what they have been doing at residences surrounding Shakespear Open Sanctuary. This amounted to a flyer drop in mailboxes intended to intimidate residents into containing their Cats or face the prospect of having their Cats shot by environmental fascists employed by the council.

Shakespear Open Sanctuary
Nazi Tactics Against Cats And Residents Who Keep Cats

Shakespear Open Sanctuary Cat 'Owners' 'Information' Flyer (PDF - 524kb)

In our opinion this amounts to nothing more than threatening residents and their families into compliance with the wishes of the environmental extremists who have infiltrated the council. The council flyer delivered to residents states:

"If a cat or any large predator is identified inside the sanctuary beyond the pest-proof fence, it will be shot in order to protect the native wildlife in the sanctuary". "This summer we will continue to apply a 'one strike' policy for domestic cats found in the buffer zone, the area located just before the pest proof fence line. If we sight or capture a cat in this buffer zone we will make reasonable attempts to identify its owner so it can be returned, but with a warning that if it happens again the cat will be shot. Regrettably, if the owner cannot be located, the cat will have to be shot". Nazi tactics pure and simple, no doubt about it.

Highest Ethics Vs Mainstream Media Immorality

25 Feb 2018 - Cat Lady Bares Her Claws In Fight Against Council Plan To Kill Unchipped 'Moggies'

Two articles were published in the Sunday Star Times on 25 February 2018. The first covered the position of the pro-Cat lobby featuring Anne Batley Burton of NZ Cat Foundation and Craig Dunn of Paw Justice. Anne and her team of volunteers run a Cat sanctuary and have rescued innumerable stray Cats in the Auckland region. The image on the front page of the print edition was a paste up of an image of Anne along with the antifelinist Gareth Morgan. We query why the press constantly references Morgan on the subject of Cats, he's an opinionated abrasive old sod and has zero hands on experience with Feline welfare work, thus is totally unqualified to pass comment on Cats. At any rate it was refreshing to see an article in the mainstream media covering the position of the pro-Cat lobby for once, but disappointing to see the media chose to compromise the article by including coverage of Morgan and the accursed National Cat Management Strategy Group.

Thanks Anne and Craig for your tireless efforts on behalf of our four pawed friends.

The second article was a highly offensive opinion column by journalist Alison Mau. Those of us who are educated in the language of the ancient Egyptians will be aware the term 'Mau' in Egyptian translates as 'Cat' and having read this article we feel Alison would do well to change her second name to something else. But enough of taking a personal swipe at one who is clearly nothing more than a presstitute, let's take a brief look at exactly why we who serve Cats find her opinion column so offensive and also take a look under the hood at how the mainstream media spun these two articles side by side in favour of the environmental fundamentalists and antifelinists within our midst.

Both articles are dated 0500hrs, so the articles were prepared earlier and published online as first task once staff began work. Keep this in mind because it's a very important point. The Alison Mau opinion piece cites the article covering Anne and Craig's position before it was even published, so she has had that copy pass across her desk before the other article made it into print. While some may call this 'balanced journalism', we'd call it debunking as an internal process of the first order.

Alison's opinion piece opens with one of the standard techniques of propaganda, a cute furry animal story. The intention behind the opening lines is to trick readers into dropping their shields and opening their heart chakras to make them vulnerable to the assault which follows. In this case the opening lines cover the Cats she keeps and how one of them decided there was a better place live. Cats will do this if they feel they are not respected, if service is not up to standard or if the humans of the house treat them as cuddly toys. We figure when it comes to Cat care Alison would do well to up her game.

The article then suggests the guardians of Cats are "self deluding" and that members of both the pro-Cat lobby and the predator free advocates are "extremists". Well, we were just doing our thing and taking care of our Cats and any other Cats in need who present to us, then we were confronted by the incessant orchestrated libelous propaganda campaign against the Cats in the mainstream media. The antifelinists became a clear and present threat to our families and now when folks speak out about this huge problem, we are designated as extremists. We are not extremists, we are standing up for our families. the antifelinists are the extremists. Alison directly accuses Anne Batley Burton of "indulging in a form of speciesism", which is the best example of the pot calling the kettle black we have seen in a long time.

Readers, ask yourselves: Who are the real extremists who are indulging in speciesism?

The deranged environmental nutcases who are working ceaselessly via a thoroughly organised and ongoing campaign in the mainstream media to demonise all non indigenous life forms, engaging themselves in trapping everything they can catch and openly stating they find the art of killing creatures is 'addictive', not to mention indoctrinating children to follow in their footsteps and kill on a massive scale. Or the good citizens who are in fear of the lives of their Feline family members due to the ceaseless anti-Cat propaganda and now have no choice but to speak out about it?

We'll end this article with a couple of links to very well written articles by one of New Zealand's best known animal advocates, Bob Kerridge. These speak for themselves, if you have not checked out any of the other links we have shared in this article we recommend everyone read these, Bob is really on the ball.