Kiwi Cats: An Endangered Species?

Some people in New Zealand, and no doubt in other places, would like to exterminate the domestic pussycat because of its environmental impact, specifically on native wildlife. But the double standards applied here condemn the people advocating them way more than the objects of their condemnation.

Humans somehow have this ingrained idea that they can best manage the natural environment that Mother Nature created and evolved over billions of years before mankind was ever thought up in anyone’s philosophy. The end result of human management has been an unmitigated and ever ongoing environmental disaster. The latest in a long, long, long line of ‘humans know best’ has been a proposal to eliminate the domestic pussycat.

In early January 2013, the idea was floated in New Zealand that the domestic moggy, the dear old and much loved companion animal the pussycat, be phased out. All cats should be de-sexed and no further cats be obtained upon the natural death of existing moggies. Therefore, within 15 to 20 years, New Zealand would be pussycat free, and native wildlife, especially flightless birds, would be eternally grateful, because pussy cats like to eat little native flightless birds and other native wildlife too. Needless to say, the claws are out and fur is flying over the issue.

From the various online debates and commentaries I’ve seen, there seem to be three equally divided points of view. Point One: kill them all – the cats that is – or more humanely let them go extinct through natural attrition by neutering them all. Point Two, sharp and to the point, all jaws, paws and claws out and firing, touch my cats and you die. Companion animals are good for human well being, and besides cats catch mice and rats and other undesirable vermin*. Point Three is probably the most relevant – it’s a variation on the pot calling the kettle black; the all too frequent human double standard.

If you take the argument to its logical conclusion, perhaps one should exterminate spiders because they kill native flies; exterminate birds that eat pretty native butterflies; kill the lions that eat native zebras; or for that matter eliminate anything that kills and feeds off of anything else native. Sorry, the fundamental principle in nature, tooth and claw, is the relationship between prey and predator; eat or be eaten. Cats are just one of millions of species that kill to eat. It’s hardwired into their brains. If they kill and eat a native flightless bird, it’s not their fault. Puppy dogs hunt and kill too, but I don’t hear any equivalent about killing them off humanely or otherwise despite the fact that some dogs, pet dogs, have maimed and killed humans; the same cannot be said about the domestic moggy. And no doubt some native species hunt and kill for food other native species. Where do you draw the line in this quest to save native species? And just who self-anointed human beings to be judge, jury and executioner?

Prey animals, flightless birds or otherwise, have presumably over millions of years evolved natural abilities to avoid most predators most of the time; otherwise they wouldn’t be around for us to talk about them. That’s the natural way of things – a natural evolutionary arms race. Prey evolves ways and means to avoid predators; predators evolve better ways and means of catching prey. Failure results in extinction, and that too is nature’s way. Most species that have ever existed are now extinct.

While we don’t wish to see native wildlife hunted down and killed, the hardcore truth of the matter is that this is nature’s way, and if you have a problem with that, take it up with God – it’s His master plan. If you don’t accept a deity, blame Mother Nature. In any event, that’s the way it is and you can’t do anything to change that fundamental fact of life. Cats kill; dogs kill; spiders kill; lions kill; birds kill; sharks kill; and guess what – humans kill too. That’s part of the pot and kettle side of things. But humans don’t kill animals just for the need to put food on the table. Humans kill for the pure pleasure of killing things, just for fun, from hunting as a so-called ‘sport’, often with a semi-automatic rifle, and often in enclosed wildlife parks for that purpose where the animals can’t escape, to squashing ants who are outside in their own natural environment and bothering no one.

As for that other common reason given to cull the moggie – the neighbour’s cat uses my garden as a litter box. If that’s the most pressing problem this person has, well I’d like to be that person! Seriously, you get free fertilizer that’s 100% biodegradable and while the cat is around, it’s helping to keep your property free of mice and rats. I’ve been on the receiving end of both gifts and that doesn’t bother me at all. In any event, as a problem, personal or environmental, cat poo in the garden pales compared to doggie poo on the sidewalk.

There are several of the newer suburbs in Canberra (Australia) bordering on native grasslands and in these suburbs cat owners are legally required to confine their cats to their own property, say by using outdoor cat runs or keeping them indoors. I have no problem with that. The cat owners are happy (or should be); the cats should be happy too; and naïve wildlife can relax and worry about other things – like humans and humans who will probably build an ever newer suburb as the population expands, on that very native grassland. 

Confining your cat to your own property helps keep the cat safe too from other humans and traffic. You wouldn’t want your companion animal to end up as road kill.

Legally required or otherwise, human owners are morally responsible for the actions or their companion animals, and it is up to the owners of pets to ensure that other valued animals and people are not in harms way through the actions of animals under their control. That moral requirement exists because you cannot expect cats (hardwired to act in certain ways) to conform to human standards in the same way that you can teach a child.

Australia has declared war on the Cane Toad, the Common Indian Myna Bird, the Rabbit, Carp, the European Wasp, etc. in order to save native species and native habitats on which they depend. Yet every day hundreds of native Australian animals are killed by the motor car, deliberately shot, poisoned, trapped, etc. The Australian Capital Territory government routinely culls thousands of native Kangaroos because there are, allegedly, too many of them, allegedly, destroying native grasslands. Humans reek of the double standard!

Now IMHO, if ever there was a species that needed culling because of their environmental impact, including the extermination, intentional or otherwise, of native wildlife, its dear old Homo sapiens.  The pot has indeed called the kettle black. For some unfathomable reason, it’s A-OK for humans to condemn any and all non-human species for doing what comes naturally, yet when do humans point the finger at humans?  Those who advocate such extreme measures or controls on cats would never ever dream of applying that same logic to themselves and their fellow human companions. De-sex the moggies? That’s all fine and well and I agree on the grounds of animal welfare, but on the other foot, I’ve seen more than one news story or item about these mega-families where a couple revel in having literally offspring cheaper by the two dozen, all products from their own privates and private interactions.  Talk about your environmental impact! Even four of more kids is too many.

Kids or no kids, any one human being in any advanced first world country (New Zealand, Australia, Canada, USA, Europe, Japan, etc.) has a vastly greater detrimental environmental impact per day than any cat has had over the cat’s entire lifetime.

And don’t talk back to me about how cats torture small animals – that absolutely pales in significance with comparison to the daily tortures humans infest on animals, examples way, way too numerous to mention, though in very recent times we’ve seen some very graphic livestock cases of barbaric cruelty in Indonesia, Pakistan and even Israel. And what would the world come to without children pulling the wings off of flies, or as one disgusting co-worker of mine did, throwing live grubs onto a red hot barbeque just for ‘fun’.

When it comes to cats vs. humans, well, you don’t see cats driving 4WD gas-guzzlers on the freeway, one cat per car. You don’t see cats requiring vacations and holiday days off. You don’t see cats shopping down at the mall. You don’t see cats peddling drugs. Cats don’t litter. You don’t see cats going hunting with semi-automatic rifles shooting anything that moves; everything in sight. You don’t see cats maxing out their credit cards and going bankrupt. I’ve yet to see cats invent, build and test an atomic bomb. Cats have way too much sense to believe in deities, they don’t even deify their human ‘masters’.

Cats ask for nothing more than the basic necessities of life, and all their waste products are 100% biodegradable and recycled. Can humans make the same claim?

There is already at least one place that bans pussy cats to protect native wildlife – Lord Howe Island, off the coast of New South Wales, Australia. I imagine there are some similar small islands set aside as wildlife refuges that ban cats and dogs and other predators. I have no problem with that. Of course keeping them out from the get-go is not quite the same issue as eliminating or exterminating them once established, and when it comes to New Zealand, you can hardly claim the entire country as a native wildlife refuge, and cats are already well established there playing the role of companion animal and making lots of people happy.

Ultimately the New Zealand scenario is not going to happen – there are too many cat and companion animal lovers who vote. Then there’s the cat industry from veterinarians to the producers and manufacturers of cat food, kitty litter and litter boxes, cat collars, food bowls, etc. All of this and more means cats are a major employer as it were, given the number of moggies in residence not only in New Zealand but around the world. Human self-interest will ensure that cats will be with us for generations to come. 

*In fact that’s why the cat was accepted into human company in the first place. Back in the days of primarily rural settlements, agricultural-based communities and farms, cats kept in check the mice and rats and daresay the birds that would otherwise feed on the grains, etc. the farmers were trying to grow. There was no question back then what side the cat sided on with respect to human tolerance.

God’s Population and Environmental Policy: Genesis 1: 28

One part of the Bible that people like and take seriously is that God commands people to have sex – with the opposite sex of course, even if only for the purpose of producing more people who will grow up and eventually have sex, etc. Humans tend to be very good at this, regardless of race, IQ, occupation, status, income, overall health or even disabilities. Unfortunately, the consequences have been less than a utopian paradise or heavenly.

Most would agree that humans have had less than a perfect record when it comes to observing and keeping the Ten Commandments. But there is one other commandment that predates the Big Ten that humans have taken to heart and have had no trouble at all obeying. But instead of leading to positive results, this commandment has led humanity into turning our home, Planet Earth, into a cesspool of filth and suffering even death on a massive scale, not just for us but also for the innocents that had no say in the matter as well. The root cause is God’s population and environmental policies.

Though God’s population and environmental policy isn’t confined to just this one Biblical chapter and verse, that specific chapter and verse, Genesis 1: 28, is probably the most destructive statement in all of recorded history. Genesis 1: 28 is God’s population and environmental policy for mankind. It basically amounts to breed, like, well like rabbits! Further, there’s a subclause that suggests we speak loudly and carry a big stick and let Mother Nature know in no uncertain terms who is King of the Mountain. 

God's policy on population growth is flawed. God's not a Greenie or an environmentalist! We all know the passage from Genesis 1: 28 (King James Version) - It goes something like this: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

In fact, it doesn’t seem to matter if you’re starving, are poverty stricken, have little if any access to basic amenities, the need to obey Genesis 1: 28 is so strong that little else matters. We’ve all seen horrendous images of the greatest of the great unwashed living in filth and poverty with children not much more than living skeletons, and dying like flies. Fast forward a generation and it is déjà vu all over again, only it’s now twice the number of the greatest of the great unwashed. Despite living in the most appalling of conditions, you can count on the universal – sex. And of course the poorer you are the more you will take dominion over resources in order to survive. A poverty-stricken man would gladly kill the last surviving member of an entire animal species if it brings in enough money to get him and his family through another single day.      

It’s normally Mother Nature’s way to keep population growth under checks and balances, except, thanks to God, humans prove the disastrous exception to the rule. When human populations suffer to the extent that death on a massive scale starts to transpire, other humans provide assistance to get them over the hump. Thus, the next time disaster strikes and people start dying off, you have a situation where they are even more in need of assistance since those who would have died the previous time lived instead to breed more - the next generation, now under the gun. Human compassion, or morality or ethics – presumably also a gift from God – always lauded, ultimately can lead to even greater need for compassion. It’s a vicious cycle.

Of course when it comes to non-human species, humans are not quite so compassionate, moral or ethical. It’s that “subdue” and “dominion” bit. Humans don’t wait for Mother Nature to take charge, rather assume responsibility themselves, as a logical extrapolation of Genesis 1: 28.  Here in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), the ACT government authorises yearly the culling (i.e. – shoot to kill) of multi-thousands of kangaroos because these animals allegedly have a detrimental effect on the native environment of the ACT (i.e. – they get in the way of humans). Never mind the fact that the animal is a native (not an invasive species) to the area and their presence predates human settlement by millions of years. Also, never mind that humans outnumber kangaroos by thousands to one. Even locally, humans vastly outnumber the kangaroo. Guess which of the two species has the higher impact on the natural environment. The example of the kangaroo can be retold in other contexts thousands of times over – the American buffalo for example. That's quite apart from humans killing animals for 'sport'; not for food or clothing, but just for a hell of it; because it makes the brave hunters feel big – king of the mountain in fact. Genesis 1: 28 strikes again, and again and again.  

Now Genesis 1: 28 is ultimately a Biblical impossibility because it is unsustainable, as should already be bleeding obvious to blind Freddy, and should have been obvious to God Himself. But God is selfish. God wants worshipers and the more the better. God may well want more and more and more humans to bow and scrape to Him, but at what ultimate cost to the Earth He allegedly created; all those plants and animals He allegedly created; and His ultimate alleged creation, humanity?

Apart from mice and rats (which have a low ecological footprint), there's probably no wild mammalian species still in existence that outnumbers us anymore. There's something seriously wrong when there's threatened and endangered species, some  that now only total 500 to maybe (if lucky) 5000 individuals left, when humans are seven billion strong and ever accelerating in numbers, especially in Africa. What hope is there for God's animal creations? We've living in an era of mass extinction right now, and we're the cause. What lifestyle for humans when there's no more fit air to breathe; no fit water to drink; all natural resources depleted; disease and hunger rampant.

God may enjoy all those billions of humans here and now with billions more to come worshiping and praying to Him, but those "fish of the sea" are a fraction of what once was; ditto the "fowl of the air" and ditto, ditto "every living thing" - well, maybe not cockroaches, not yet at least (until they become a human food source of last resort and you'd eat them if it were down to a choice of that or starvation - besides they're rich in protein). The Book of Revelation maybe impossible nonsense, though the ‘End of Days’ (for humans) might not be, thanks to Genesis 1:28. It would be rather ironic if God just barely spared mankind via Noah’s Ark, only to have mankind go kaput because of that other extract from Genesis.

Of all of God’s crimes against humanity, which have been numerous (like the Genesis Flood), this apparently innocent statement contained in Genesis 1: 28 in the long term will be the one with the most implications, and ultimately the worst one of all, and God made it, and an all-knowing God should have known better. Of course that’s if you place any credibility in Biblical quotations. But that’s another topic.