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.
Email: admin (at) felinerights.org
What Is Antifelinism?
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.
03 April 2019
We are presently conducting a major update of our website which involves
adjusting the button menu at the top of each page, optimising our sourcecode,
splitting pages into more manageable sizes, and providing improved navigation via
new index pages. We are also adding a new section which documents crimes against
Felines over the past few years. We apologise for a lack of new material in recent
months. There have been numerous developments which we intend to cover in the near
Also, our webhosting service has been changing to a new platform and while
they have been upgrading we have been unable to access the site administrators area.
Now we have access we trust we will shortly be all set for the future and we intend
to play cat-ch up on the latest developments. While we upgrade, some internal links
may not work as they should until everything is in place. Thank you for your
patience while we complete this important work.
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.
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
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
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
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:
What can we do about all of this?
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.
How The Corporatist Tail Wags The Allegedly 'Democratic' Dog
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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 -
* 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
* 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
* 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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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.
About The Author
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,
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
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
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.
The Arbitrary Term "Pest Cats"
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
This is a code of welfare issued under the Animal Welfare Act 1999.
On page 10 of the Code is section 1.8, the glossary, which defines the three
types of Cats as follows:
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
Failure Of Microchips
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
* Totally reject the usage of the inhumane Cat poison PAPP in the Greater
* 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?
08 March 2018
Auckland Council Regional Pest Management Plan Proposal
An Expensive Exercise In Genocide At Ratepayers Expense
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
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
Usage Of Arbitrary Terminology In Service Of Death
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
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
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.
Official 'Smoke And Mirrors', Convenient Omissions,
Obfuscation Of Public Access To Documentation And Meetings
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'
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.
Auckland Council Proposed Regional 'Pest' Management Plan - Documentation
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
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
To quote Matt Maitland:
"WE DO NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DOMESTIC, STRAY OR FERAL"
"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".
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.
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:
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.