Another of the endless articles posted at that premier outlet of anti-Cat propaganda, the opinion column of the Dominion Post.
Karen Fifield is the chief executive of the Wellington Zoo, member of the Wellington Conservation Board, NZ International Union for Conservation Of Nature, NZ Animal Behaviour and Welfare Consultative Committee, amongst other organizations.
She appears to be yet another of the unelected intellectuals who are under the illusion they can dictate the direction New Zealand culture is heading. From the day we first saw the WCC 'Box Of Birds' promotion in Bond Street and the posters started appearing advertising Wellington Zoo's 'Meet the Locals Precinct' we've been observing and wondering how soon it would be before someone from the Zoo was directed to address the public on the anti-Cat bandwagon.
"for the past nine years we have been asking our visitors to think about how they can be responsible 'pet' 'owners' through two simple requests – keeping their Cats in at night, and keeping their dogs on a lead"
Well, we think nine years is a little optimistic, how about three and a half years? Starting around the time Gareth Morgan went public with his campaign of hate against the Felines.
"Adopting change is sometimes hard and requires a holistic approach; involving different organisations around the city, not just the council"
Yes,and who would these other organisations you speak of be? The Morgan Foundation perchance? Polhill Restoration Group? The other amateur 'conservation' groups that have sprung up like poisonous mushrooms perhaps? How about Dr Linklater, Dr Kikillus and the rest of the faculty at Center for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology at Victoria University?
Karen Fifield, then cites the little blue penguins and how the present Animal Bylaw proposal which would allow dogs off leash on beaches between 7pm and 10am presents a threat to the penguins, but not a word on the proposed Wellington Airport runway extension which would destroy penguin habitat areas.
On the matter of Cats, Karen Fifield advocates desexing, which we agree with wholeheartedly, but then she goes on to advocate night curfews on Cats and compulsory microchipping of Cats.
She writes: "Microchipping Cats helps to make sure that Cats get the love and care that they deserve"
What a load of rubbish! What she is saying is if you do not microchip the Cats in your care, then you do not love them or care about them. This is pure propaganda designed to slip the idea of 'microchipping = good' across the threshold into the subconscious minds of gullible readers and to charge it with the power of guilt.
"A good 'owner' will take steps to make sure that it's easy to reunite with their 'pet' in the event that their Cat is injured or goes missing"
Again, another attempt to invoke guilt, what she is saying is if an individual does not have their Cats microchipped then they are a bad 'owner'. We know why you people want to have Cats microchipped, you want this so you can conduct mass extermination of all Cats who do not have ID. Wise up folks, Cats do not have 'owners' Cats have staff.
"It also differentiates a 'pet' Cat that has strayed from a 'feral' Cat"
"To euthanise 'feral' Cat populations to reduce their impact is taking a humane approach to population management. But we need to know the Cats are feral before any such step is taken, which means we must microchip our 'pet' Cats"
The entire ideology being expounded in this article reeks of the doctrine of the Morgan cult.
With the sugar coating stripped away, what Karen Fifield is saying is poison:
If your Cat is not microchipped and has gone missing, fair chance it will have been executed by either by WCC/GWRC 'Pest' Control or cruel people who work for one of the amateur 'conservation' groups. We'll expand upon this possibility in our forthcoming article on Geoff Simmons.
To quote from our written submission to the public consultation for the proposed bylaws
The proposal for compulsory identification via microchip is a proposal with the core intent of circumventing the definition of stray Cats as written into law in the Animal Welfare Act 1999, thus leaving only two categories of Cats:
'Owned' Cats and 'Feral' Cats
'Feral' then being defined under the proposed bylaw as any Cat that does not have identification, and thus a target for execution in the Council's plan to follow the Morgan Foundation's directive, run roughshod over the Animal Welfare Act, and conduct a mass extermination of all Cats who do not have identification.
Karen Fifield, regarding the idea of night curfews on Cats, we direct your attention to page 148 of theWCC Environment Committee Agenda 17 March 2016 where you will read that the idea of night curfews on Cats has been deemed to be unenforceable, and that "education has been deemed to be the best approach". The idea is dead in the water, just like the precious penguins will be if the airport runway extension is approved.
At least do your research properly before spouting this bilge.
We were doing some other online research we found this page over at the Zealandia website. Now, if you have been following what the Cat-haters at the city council and their mouthpieces like Karen Fifield over at Wellington Zoo have been advocating regarding the idea of curfews, they have been advocating a night curfew, which we understand the council have decided is unenforceable, however in this article on the Zealandia website, Zealandia are advocating citizens keep their Cats indoors during daylight hours. Here's a screenshot from their site...
So who is correct? The nutcase Greens at the council and Zoo? Or the rabid restoration ecologists at Zealandia? If these two different divisions of Cat-haters cannot agree on something this basic, it tells us both factions are wrong. As we have pointed out in an entire section in our submission to the Animal Bylaw Review, Cats are not actually catching the precious native birds, if they were, we would not have such a proliferation of native birds now, prior to any of the accursed proposed 'Cat control' measures being implemented.
It's clear the eco-nuts have no idea of the basics of what they are trying to do. They cannot even agree amongst themselves.
After posting the commentary above, we found this brief article at the NewsTalkZB website and it is an object lesson in how the media matrix operates to direct public opinion. The article states: "Wellington Zoo is throwing its support behind plans to microchip all the Capital's Cats" What it doesn't say is Wellington Zoo is owned by Wellington City Council. In the larger picture Council pays the salary of every staff member of Wellington Zoo, including CEO Karen Fifield.
We also note the Trust Board of the Zoo includes Councillor Sarah Free (Green). If you have been reading the news page on our site you will have noted it was Councillor Sarah Free who seconded the motion moved by Mayor Wade-Brown to proceed with the Animal Bylaw Review proposal on 26 November 2015.
So support for the idea has not grown at all as the headline of this article says it has. Karen Fifield as CEO of Wellington Zoo is essentially an employee of the Council, and the chances are that in making a statement to the media she is following a directive from her employers, the nutcase Greens presently in office at the Council.
Karen Fifield is quoted as stating "in some Australian areas, Cats that aren't micro-chipped are immediately put down"
This is not going to happen in New Zealand. It beggars belief the Australians have not taken a stand against such a law.
Once more we witness the death-fetish that seems so prevalent in the minds of these people who call themselves 'conservationists'. Compare this idea with Dr Wayne Linklater's suggestion that a mass killing of the reintroduced Kaka parrot could be made into a 'cultural' event and the mindset of these individuals is clear.
There's clearly something wrong with people like this. Normal healthy people simply do not think in these terms.
It seems they get some form of emotional gratification from the idea of killing.
In our view that suggests each of them are unsuitable for the offices of power they hold, and the ideal for each of them is they resign or be removed from office. Until they are dismissed, each of the institutions they represent stand in total disrepute.
Then on 8th July 2016 the Zoo released this little gem.
We're not about to take senior veterinarian and avian medicine expert Dr Baukje Lenting to task for her hard work, and we sure hope the Kakariki healed. However, given the timing of this press release and Dr Lenting's statement "The community can help protect our native birds like the Kakariki by keeping their cats inside at night and making sure your cat is desexed" it's clear this is not so much about the injured bird as it is anti-Cat propaganda on behald of the council.
So, Dr Lenting, do Kakariki fly around at night? We have Kakariki visit our garden sometimes during the day, but we've never seen one here at night. We also keep Cats and we've never has a single bird capture at all. This whole business of keeping Cats in at night, or indeed the idea of night curfews on Cats which the council decided is unenforceable for now, is one that is questioned by experts.
Also, we note the brief comment from a reader who identifies himself as Willy who wrote:
"Justin Lester can’t come fast enough for Wellington’s kakariki. Death to all cats! LOL".
Take note of this comment Sarah Free, Karen Fifeld, Dr Lenting, and anyone else involved. When you demonize the Cats, all you are really doing is encouraging animal cruelty. We hope you totalitarian antifelinists are feeling satisfied with the results of your propaganda efforts.
Sounds great on the surface. Did it include a module to indoctrinate participants into the antifelinist mindset? We don't know, but given the Zoo's other efforts to denigrate our Cats, we would not be at all surprised if antifelinism was part of the menu.