This document contains links to references on the internet. If you have received this document as hard copy or the pdf file, we recommend you access the online version published on our website which includes direct links to the online references which provide undeniable support for our view. The online version displays links to external references in blue text.
It is clear to us the public consultation on the RPMP proposal amounts to a fake consultation and Auckland Council intends to proceed with it's nefarious intentions regardless of public opposition to the council's plan to conduct the mass extermination of Cats throughout the Auckland region. Auckland Council have made every effort to obfuscate access to online documentation and claim the matter of Cats is but a small part of the regional pest management plan proposal. In January 2018, council staff stated the collated submissions from the earlier key stakeholder consultation would be made available to the public, however on the final day of the public consultation period, this has yet to occur.
All that has been provided is a summary of the submissions to the initial key stakeholder consultation. While this has provided us with some damning evidence, without having access to the collated submissions themselves we cannot respond directly to whatever allegations were made against Cats and the innumerable citizens who keep Cats by the antifelinists, 'conservation' extremists, and other subversives invited to participate in the initial key stakeholder consultation.
While we have no problem accessing the websites of every other regional and city council in New Zealand, due to poor website construction even the front page of the Auckland Council website returns an error message when attempting to access it via a desktop computer running the Microsoft Windows operating system. In the information age, Government has an obligation to ensure all citizens can access information online regardless of which device or software they use. Auckland Council has 100% failed on this count.
We will provide evidence of what appears to us to be deliberate obfuscation of access to documentation and the presence of dataprofiling script within the source code of the Auckland Council website which is clearly intended to track visitors every click. We will also provide evidence released under the LGOIMA which proves without a doubt Auckland Council is already engaging itself in the execution of beloved companion animals in the name of 'conservation' mass hysteria.
Collective Lobbying By Antifelinists and Environmental Extremists
The key stakeholder consultation summary is 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 collective 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.
Dataprofiling Of Website Visitors,
Given the council is engaged in advanced dataprofiling of visitors to the council website, 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, thus we must assume the coding for downloading documentation is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate public access to the files in question.
Usage Of Arbitrary Terminology
On the subject of the 'biodiversity focus areas' designated in blue on the maps provided by the council, what caught our attention is the legend which 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 thus designated as 'ecologically significant', the council may 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 council staff employed 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 en mass 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 follow the directives of both the Morgan Foundation and Predator Free NZ and utilise a completely new arbitrary 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' and any companion Cat who does not return a valid ID when scanned for a microchip as a 'pest Cat', we have absolutely no doubt Auckland Council are acting outside of the law.
Failure Of Microchips16 Nov 2017 - Auckland Council Cat Cull On Cards For 'Moggies' Found Without Microchips
In November 2017, Auckland Council announced via the media it's intention to execute any Cat they can catch which does not return an ID on a microchip scanner. Auckland Council has no intention of implementing a compulsory microchipping bylaw. They've just announced they intend to conduct mass genocide of these beautiful highly sentient animals in the name of 'conservation'. Essentially they have thumbed their noses at the guardians of Cats and said microchip them or else. Auckland councillor Daniel Newman stated council should be prepared for a backlash from Cat 'owners' and he is right on. Go down the path of using microchip ID to determine who lives and who dies and sooner or later more companion Cats will be killed. 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.
There appears to be quite a covert financial feedback loop happening with the organisations promoting compulsory microchipping, all of whom have representatives on the National Cat Management Strategy Group (NCMSG). NZ Taxpayers Union calculate there is about 112 million dollars to be made if all companion Cats in NZ were microchipped and registered with NZ Companion Animal Register (NZCAR), along with a further estimated 9 million dollars per annum for new Cats microchipped and registered.
The vets get their consultation fees, NZCAR as a non profit organisation feeds all funds gained from microchipping and registration back to NZ Companion Animal Council (NZCAC). NZCAC then pays Animal Register Limited to host and maintain the database. Animal Register Limited is a company owned by Nygllhuw Morris who is also the manager of NZCAR. Nygllhuw Morris and NZCAR have just taken over the petsonthenet website, it's now called lostpet.co.nz.
In our view, the takeover of petsonthenet by NZCAR represents yet another step in the process of centralisation, monopoly and total control over companion animals and their guardians sought by NZ Companion Animal Council and their associates for the purposes of both profit and mass genocide. NZCAC are also offering courses in microchipping companion animals for individuals with zero veterinary qualifications. It is clear certification of individuals who are neither veterinarians or vet nurses in the task of implanting microchips amounts to a disaster waiting to happen.
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.
Nazi Tactics In Use At 'Sanctuaries' and 'Buffer Zones'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. 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.
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 at the sanctuary itself, but also in the 'buffer zone' external to the not so 'pest' proof fence.
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".
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".
We obtained video footage of Imogen Bassett's presentation at one of the 'information' evenings where she states council would never engage in 'Cat control' without first notifying residents in the locality. This all sounds mighty caring of the council, but lets take a look at how council went about notifying residents near Shakespear Open Sanctuary in 2016. Flyers threatening resident's companion Cats with death via gunshot were distributed around the locality. Here are a couple of screenshots from the highly offensive flyers distributed by council staff to residents.
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 it appears the council plans to expand it's antifelinist activities beyond the sanctuaries and execute Cats anywhere they like across the entire Auckland region.
Cats Are An Asset - Cats Are Not 'Pests'
Feline Rights New Zealand strongly opposes the arbitrary designation of Cats as 'pests'. Cats as the apex predator are valuable assets who contribute to the control of both rodents 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 an explosion of the rodent population which in turn has had a marked adverse impact on birdlife.In 2013 in Raglan, persons known to be birdlife 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.
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.
Environmentalists have claimed 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've yet to see any truly 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."
Feline Rights NZ encourages councils to support public education on good Cat care and one of the main aspects of this is encouraging citizens to de-sex their Cats. We support council subsides for low income earners to have their Cats de-sexed. A de-sexed Cat is a happier healthier Cat. We encourage councils to support and provide funding for local Cat rescue organisations and those groups who serve Cat colonies. Well cared for Cat colonies are less likely to engage in predation on native wildlife and they will defend their territory and prevent the influx of further Cats. Engage in the removal of Cat colonies 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'.
While the minds of some citizens are ensnared by pest-free mass hysteria and others citizens are engaged in emotively defending their companion animals, what we have is a divide and rule scenario. Undoubtedly there is other business going on behind the scenes the hidden wannabe rulers of society are hoping we will not notice. It's the standard methodology of the stage conjurer utilised on a mass scale.
When one sees business terminology such as "private-public partnership" and "management strategy", etc used in a political context, that is a sure sign of the evolution of corporate power into a dangerous political form.
The present focus on environmental action at all costs is not about genuine conservation as such. It's a business model, albeit a thoroughly flawed one. Restoration of 'native biodiversity' = more tourism = more revenue, and if it takes a series of pogroms against any and all exotic species including our beloved Feline family members then so be it.
A culture that does not grasp the essential interplay between power and true moral values, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, and fails to understand that compassion and inclusiveness, not profit, is the measure of a civilization, condemns itself to death.
1 - Virbac NZ Product Recall Notification
2 - The Matt Maitland Letter
3 - Cats Protecting Birds: Monitoring the Mesopredator Release Effect
4 - The Vacuum Effect - Why Catch And Kill Doesn't Work