We tender this submission to the RPMP proposal consultation in two forms, as a pdf file with support documentation emailed direct to the consultation address, the CEO, Chair and Councillors and an online version which includes links to references. We encourage those with an interest to access the online version and view each of the references which support our position. We also suggest viewing the coverage we published on 04 October 2018 covering the RPMP proposal.
New Zealand is presently suffering from a form of mass psychosis, this has occurred due to a deliberate social engineering process intended to indoctrinate New Zealanders into a thoroughly extremist form of environmentalism. No sane person can deny that an ideology with killing as one of it's core beliefs is an abberation from the norm. Players in this ongoing social engineering campaign include both Local and Central Government, Local Government New Zealand, Department of Conservation along with various private organisations, for example Forest and Bird, the Morgan Foundation, the Next Foundation, Predator Free New Zealand and others which includes the complicit mainstream media.
Of particular concern to us is the ongoing unjustified demonisation of Cats and those who are guardians of Cats. This in particular has been ongoing and incessant. We've coined the terms antifelinism and antifelinist to cover those within the community who harbor a burning hatred of Cats and those of us who keep Cats in the interest of making the connection between the discrimination directed against Jewish people which occurred in Germany under National Socialist rule. The Jewish people were valuable contributors to society, yet they were demonised and summarily dealt with. The National Socialists went so far as to compare persons of Jewish heritage to rats, subjected them to curfews, required compulsory identification and ultimately consigned millions of individuals to death. Sounds familiar? You bet it does!
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.
While one may write off our opinion on this point with the assumption that we are arguing on a matter of semantics alone, we all must query the usage of the incorrect species name 'Felix Catus' within the consultation documentation. As the council's 'biodiversity' staff have failed to use the correct term for the Feline species, which is of course 'Felis Catus', we must question the objectivity of the staff and question if they are at all qualified to be in a position where they are attempting to subvert the customary rights of all New Zealanders who are guardians of companion animals by making life and death based proposals.
The fact that the name 'Felix Catus' appears on pages 80, 91 and 92 of the 'Proposal for the Regional Pest Management Plan for Southland' document, page 71 of the 'Pest Plan Cost Benefit Analysis - Part A' document and page 199 of the 'Biosecurity Strategy Cost Benefit Analysis', suggests the usage of the incorrect scientific species name is no typographical error.
If Environment Southland 'biodiversity' staff cannot even get the scientific species name correct, that suggests to us they lack the objectivity, attention to detail and indeed the qualifications to have compiled the proposal at all. The responsibility for this obvious institutional incompetence can only be laid at the feet of the individual entasked with hiring staff, yes we are talking about none other than council CEO Rob Phillips. To paraphrase one of the cold hearted statments council staff made to the media with regard to our beloved Cats, we encourage the Chair and Councillors to not replace him once he dies.
Breed Specific Discrimination Targeting Bengal Cats28 January 2009 - Bengal Cat Rule Claimed Unfair
We are saddened to note the council has chosen to engage in breed specific discrimination directed at Bengal Cats. Our research has determined this is not new and we have documented the demonisation of the Bengal breed by Environment Southland as far back as 2009 under the direction of biosecurity officer Sherman Smith who erroneously assumed Bengals may interbreed with allegedly 'feral' Cats resulting in "super-sized Felines" that would in his view be a danger to birdlife.
The consultation document claims "research suggests they have the potential to breed with the existing wild population of 'feral' Cats to create a more efficient predator", yet the document provides no references to this supposed research. As the council has not provided actual references to the alleged research, our view is this claim regarding 'research' amounts to a propaganda statement and nothing more.
All of this seems to be based around assumption, however the fact is a Bengal kitten comes at a high financial cost. Presently one may expect to pay anything between $1000 to $2000 for a Bengal kitten, which would arrive desexed by default and a considerably larger cost should an individual wish to obtain a kitten for breeding purposes which would only be sold to a responsible registered breeder.
Given the significant investment involved in obtaining a Bengal we would expect the human guardians to protect their investment and not allow their Bengals to roam. Additionally, registered breeders do keep their Cats contained so they only mate with those pure breed Cats the breeder selects. Because of these facts, our view is the risk of a fully equipped Bengal mating with allegedly 'feral' Cats is extremely unlikely. We feel this discrimination against the Bengal breed is unjustified and amounts to either ignorance on the part of 'biodiversity' staff or more likely it amounts to deliberate scaremongering.
Habitat Loss - The Number One Threat To Native Species
On page 84 of the 'Proposal for the Regional Pest Management Plan for Southland' document we note the statement "Feral cats have been branded as 'the ultimate predators' in New Zealand and have been nominated as amongst the '100 World's Worst' invaders". Really? References to these statements please! As references have not been provided, these unsubstantiated statements amount to nothing more than propaganda from the conservation fanatics within your own midst.
On page 85 we note the statement "Although habitat loss and modification remains a threat to native biodiversity, a more equally serious threat is from invasive introduced species". It beggars belief the proposal document attempts to minimise habitat loss in the interest of promoting the 'pest' control industry. In the recent LGNZ publication entitled Biodiversity Offsetting Under The Resource Management Act it states "Recent research shows that between 1996 and 2012 a total of 71,000 hectares of indigenous land cover was lost through clearance, conversion and development".
We'd suggest to the elected representatives if we really want to engage ourselves in effective conservation, addressing habitat loss is far more important than executing Cats and denying citizens of their customary right to keep Cats.
The Arbitrary Term "Pest Cats"
We will now take a look at the term 'pest Cats' which has been used in the RPMP proposal. This is an arbitrary term fabricated by antifelinist 'conservation' extremists such as Gareth Morgan of the Morgan Foundation and his daughter Jessi Morgan, the spokesperson for Predator Free NZ. It has no basis under New Zealand law. New Zealand officially acknowledges three classifications of Cats: Companion Cats, Stray Cats and Feral Cats. The definitions of the three types of Cats from a legal perspective is covered in the Ministry of Primary Industries Companion Cats - Animal Welfare (Companion Cats) Code of Welfare 2007, henceforth referred to as The Code.
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 cat population.
Feral Cat - For the purposes of this code, means a cat which is not a stray cat and which has none of its needs provided by humans. Feral cats generally do not live around centres of human habitation. Feral cat population size fluctuates largely independently of humans, is self-sustaining and is not dependent on input from the companion cat population.
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.
The Alleged Scourge of Toxoplasmosis Gondii
Toxoplasmosis Gondii is often cited by antifelinists as a fair reason to eradicate all Cats. This single celled parasite has been cited so often by the Cat haters of New Zealand in innumerable informal advertorials advocating politicised 'conservation' published in the compromised mainstream media, it has been likened to listening to a stuck record.
However, toxoplasmosis is not as bad as it is made out to be. Yes, Cats are part of the life cycle of the parasite and if one does not follow sensible hygiene protocol it is possible to become infected with the parasite or many other diseases
The US Centre for Disease Control in Atlanta had this to say about toxoplasmosis in humans: "While the parasite is found throughout the world, more than 60 million people in the United States may be infected with the Toxoplasma parasite. Of those who are infected, very few have symptoms because a healthy person’s immune system usually keeps the parasite from causing illness. However, pregnant women and individuals who have compromised immune systems should be cautious".
So it's very common worldwide, rarely has any symptoms at all and most healthy people's immune systems tend to keep the parasite in check. CDC lists the following main sources of infection with toxoplasmosis as:
* Eating undercooked, contaminated meat (especially pork, lamb, and venison).
* Accidental ingestion of undercooked, contaminated meat after handling it and not washing hands thoroughly (Toxoplasma cannot be absorbed through intact skin).
* Eating food that was contaminated by knives, utensils, cutting boards and other foods that have had contact with raw, contaminated meat.
* Drinking water contaminated with Toxoplasma gondii.
* Accidentally swallowing the parasite through contact with cat feces that contain Toxoplasma.
The bottom line is providing one engages in commonsense hygeine protocol, one is much more likely to be infected with the parasite via contaminated food and water than from a Cat.
As counterpoint, we would add the very birds the council seeks to protect via it's draconian antifelinst proposals come with their own array of transmissible diseases.
MBIE's Health and Safety Advice states:
"Bird droppings, especially in large concentrations, present a risk of disease to humans. Bird droppings are likely to be found during the following types of work which access nesting sites such as ledges, eaves and lofts: Construction work, maintenance work, working in roof spaces and demolition work. The most serious risks arise from organisms that thrive in droppings, nesting materials and feathers. These include:
* Bacterial: e-coli, salmonella, listeriosis, campylobacter, psittacosis
* Fungal: histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, candidiasis
* Viral: meningitis, Newcastle disease
* Parasitic/Protozoal: toxoplasmosis, trichomoniasis
There you have it, according to MBIE, the birds themselves are one of the vectors for transmission of toxoplasmosis. Should we dispose of all of the birds to deal with the supposed scourge of toxoplasmosis? Of course not, and neither should toxoplasmosis be used as an excuse to dispatch Cats and deny NZ citizens of their customary right to keep Cats in the name of the engineered environmental psychosis which presently infects the collective psyche of the nation.
Omaui - A Test Case For The Rest Of Aotearoa?
While John Collins, the leader of Omaui Landcare Trust is on record with the unsubstantiated claim that "native birds had been ripped to pieces by Cats on his front lawn", we obtained the image above of tui enjoying nectar from the feeding station at his Omaui home. It appears the birds of Omaui are doing just fine without the ban on Cats both he and Environment Southland would like to see.
John is on record as stating "we're not Cat haters". Yes, we've all heard statements like that before, for example "I'm not a racist, but..." The entire idea of getting rid of the Cats and the birds will prosper is very similar to the views of some amongst the far right who erroneously assume the nation's housing crisis and unemployment issues can be resolved by the simplistic act of purging the country of immigrants. Apologies to the far right, to the environmentalist psychotics and to the councils, once one engages one's brain and has a fair think about it, one concludes it just isn't that simple.
Our view is Omaui is a test case for protocol the organised groups of 'conservation' fanatics would like to see rolled out throughout New Zealand. We remind the council and all councils that truly democratic governance involves assessing the views of all citizens, applying a fair amount of common sense and ensuring their decisions are the right ones which will ensure healthy integrated communities. The well known Maori proverb sums this all up succinctly:
"He aha te mea nui o te ao He tangata, he tangata, he tangata"
"What is the most important thing in the world? It is the people, it is the people, it is the people".
The information we have obtained suggests the possibility of council 'biosecurity officers' forcing entry into the homes of residents, uplifting their beloved Feline family members and taking them away for execution. This constitutes a level of pure fascism unheard of since the days of Adolph Hitler himself. This we cannot and will not allow to occur.
A vote in favour of the genuinely fascist RPMP will undoubtedly seal the fate of elected representatives and all who vote for it can expect to be voted out of office at the next local body elections. Additionally, while we strongly oppose such action, there is the prospect of illegal protest action and indeed the prospect of utu (revenge). We understand Auckland Council staff have been subject to death threats because of their position on Cats in their RPMP proposal.
This sort of thing occurs because our Cats are family members, they are like children to us. It is well known the sort of vigilante action which can occur when one's children are being exposed to a clear and present threat such as a pedophile being paroled and directed to live in a particular area. Once parents get wind of such an occurrence what happens it the primal instinct to protect one's young kicks in and then there is potential for real community unrest. It is quite clear to us, those behind the draconian RPMP proposal are not smart enough to get a handle on the truly enormous 'can of worms' they open.
Therefore we encourage elected representatives to tender a 'no' vote to the RPMP proposal in the interest of supporting the ideal of integrated communities where all residents get along with one and other, support one and other and do just fine.
Failure Of Microchips
There is a belief microchips are an infallible method of providing identification. However some veterinarians disagree. Dr Alan Probert, a senior vet at Miramar Vet Hospital is on record as having noticed some microchips failing to scan. He expressed concern that "people are living with a false sense of security about the microchip's ability to track and find their 'pet' if it goes missing" and "My concern and I think it's probably every vet's worst nightmare would be that a dog or a Cat might be inadvertently euthanised, even though it's microchipped". Alan Probert also stated "the problem is occurring across a range of chip makers".
In our second example, Dr Roger Barnard of Kerikeri Veterinary Clinic has provided the following statement about microchips to our colleagues at Northland Cats In Balance:
"To whom it may concern, microchips placed into animals can be useful for identification but there have been failures that have occurred. On occasions some expel from the animal soon after insertion, some fail to be read at some later date because of manufacturing failure and movement of microchip to other parts of the body".
The third example provides total proof that microchips are not an infallible method of identifying companion animals. In January 2018, Virbac NZ issued a recall of some 15,000 microchips which they determined are prone to failure. We append the product recall notification from Virbac NZ. We feel this is proof enough microchips can and do fail and thus microchips should not be used to determine who lives and who dies in the name of profit and environmental mass hysteria.
While we have already seen protest action in Auckland, thankfully the protests there have so far been peaceful events. Go down the path of using the microchip ID to determine who lives and who dies and sooner or later companion Cats will be killed and once citizens become aware of it there is no telling what enraged citizens may do. The media will have a field day with it, those elected representatives who voted for it will not escape with their political careers unscathed and social unrest will be an inevitable consequence.
Potential Adverse Ecological Consequenses Of Removing Cats
The Mesopredator Release EffectModelling The Mesopredator Release Effect (PDF 360kb)
In truth, Cats as the apex predator are valuable assets who contribute to the control of rodents, rabbits and mustelids. Remove the apex predator from an ecosystem and this results in what is known as the mesopredator release effect. We append a paper from the Journal of Animal Ecology entitled 'Cats Protecting Birds: Monitoring the Mesopredator Release Effect' which covers the scientific perspective in detail. In New Zealand there are documented instances where the removal of Cats from a locality has resulted in a explosion of the rat population which in turn has had a marked adverse impact on birdlife. In 2013 in Raglan, persons known to be native bird enthusiasts took it upon themselves to kill all Cats they could find in Raglan West. One resident had six of her Cats murdered for the cause of 'conservation'. The local vet clinic documented a total of 16 missing Cats over a period of 12 months in Raglan West.
Within three months, local ecological consultant Adrienne Livingston is on record in the media stating: "I am now observing the effect the marked absence of Cats is having on this suburban ecosystem". She expressed concern about the number of half-eaten eggs and dead chicks appearing, all killed by rodents the Cats would have dealt with were they still around to do their job.
During winter 2016 DOC put the idea of a predator proof fence for Rakiura/Stewart Island on hold and decided they would first go after Cats. Media reports at the time suggested the Morgan Foundation and Predator Free Rakiura were involved in funding the mass execution of Cats on Rakiura/Stewart Island.
Multiple Cat killer Phillip Smith claimed "Getting rid of all the wild Cats would change the dynamics of the island".
Eight months after 'conservationists' began engaging in the Feline holocaust on Rakiura/Stewart Island, Phillip Smith was proven correct. The ecological dynamics of the island had indeed changed, but not in the way intended. The following column written by experienced trampers details their experiences on the Rakiura track and elsewhere on the island. They stated they "found large rats were everywhere, not only around huts and campsites but on all parts of the tracks". DOC staff confirmed a much higher rat count than seen for many years. While two successive rimu mast years and inadequate 'pest' control are cited as the causes, we have no doubt the wholesale execution of the islands Cats is a more likely cause of the sudden increase in the rat population on Rakiura/Stewart Island.
Documentation provided by the environmentalist movement claims it is "estimated that feral, stray and 'pet' cats kill up to 100 million birds in New Zealand each year". Estimate is the key word here, we have seen zero evidence based scientific research to support this claim. The bottom line is this figure is likely a huge overestimate provided by private environmental extremist and antifelinist groups such as Morgan Foundation, Forest and Bird and Predator Free NZ. Well known animal advocate Bob Kerridge's recent opinion piece published in the NZ Herald covered the matter of 'research' designed to demonise Cats in the interest of furthering the primary aim of the antifelinists which is the total eradication of all Cats.
Many of the misconceptions of the alleged impact of Cats on 'native biodiversity' and the suggestions on what may be done about it provided by the environmental extremist movement have been thoroughly refuted by competent common sense ecologists such as wildlife ecologist John Innes of Landcare Research:
Consultant ecologist Mark Bellingham, who at one point was North Island Conservation Manager for Forest and Bird stated: "at night cats are actually really good at getting rid of rats and mice. That's the bulk of what they take."
The Vacuum EffectThe Vacuum Effect - Why Catch And Kill Doesn't Work (PDF 550kb)
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.
* Totally reject the prospect of total bans on companion Cats anywhere within the region.
* Totally reject the idea of compulsory microchipping and registration because microchips are proven to be prone to failure. Additionally, compulsory microchipping would be impossible to fully enforce and unenforceable legislation is viewed as being legally 'unreasonable' by the courts thus it is is prone to being overturned via the process of judicial review.
* Remove all entries of the term 'pest Cats' from the RPMP proposal and abide by the classifications of Cats as defined under the Code. Failure to do so will inevitably result in legal challenge.
* Biodiversity staff need to purge themselves of the 'kill them all' approach, because by going down that path they may do more harm to an ecosystem than good. Remove the Cats and a plague of rats who will do more damage to bird life than any number of Cats is a certain consequence.
* Do not waste ratepayer funds hiring private pest control operatives, to deal with the alleged problem with Cats. These people are professional killers who delight in dispensing death and are highly unlikely to engage themselves in ethical live capture activity.
* Totally reject the usage of the inhumane Cat poison PAPP.
Remember: A vote for the RPMP proposal in it's current form is a vote for the Feline holocaust.
Do you really want the blood of these beautiful highly sentient beings on your hands?