Reducing feral cat numbers should be painstakingly precise and patient work

This is a boring and ubiquitous problem: how to reduce the numbers of feral cats in any one place. It is a perennial problem for thousands of local authorities who want to protect wildlife. They are eager to do it but sometimes they use blunt instruments in their panic and desperation to get a result quickly.

The only way to remove feral cats from areas which are considered important in terms of conservation is to do it painstakingly and precisely. There are no alternatives because you simply must distinguish between domestic and feral cat. And all the cats in between those extremities. There are, after all, many semi-domesticated cats outside.

Feral cats. Photo in public domain.

If your plan is to trap and kill cats roaming around the landscape on the premise that they are all feral you are mistaken. You may be liable for compensation and you may be engaging in a criminal act in killing someone's pet. It can be very hard to distinguish between domestic and feral cat. That is why the process has to be painstaking and precise.

All the methods that I have seen thus far are too blunt. To cite one in Australia where they have invented a machine which sprays poison onto animals that pass by. How can it be safe for owned cats? Perhaps they can make it as safe as possible but it can never be 100% secure. The problem once again is distinguishing between domestic and feral. The machine can't do it. Neither can it distinguish between a cat and another animal.

I've just written about Taranaki, a beautiful area in New Zealand dominated by Mount Taranaki. They have wildlife there which needs to be protected from freeroaming cats some of whom are feral and some aren't. Some are dumped by irresponsible owners. The suggestion is that all cats roaming around this area should be balled together and described as pests and vermin. Domestic cats are not pests or vermin. They are someone's domestic cat or were and they've been dumped. You can't kill these cats because they are still owned technically by the person who dumped them.

There has to be accountability. Cat owners acting this irresponsibly should be tackled and punished. They should be monitored. There should be standards preventing this kind of behaviour. Once again, I realise this is very difficult to manage. It is a challenge to improve cat ownership standards and force changes in habits which are against domestic cat welfare and conservation. I'm referring to abandonment in the countryside.

The conclusion is that dealing with feral cats has to be done humanely and in order to do that you have to be precise and painstaking: TNR comes to mind + enforceable laws governing cat ownership.

Sainsbury's expansion versus hedgehog conservation

Sainsbury's, in Guildford, Surrey, UK, want to expand their facilities because they need to expand their online presence having discovered that Britain is moving towards an online purchasing world. Online purchasing has been spurred on by the coronavirus pandemic as we probably all realise by now. 

Sainsbury's Guildford surrounded by hedgehogs where there are hedgehogs. Map: Google Maps.

In order to accommodate a vastly increased online delivery service, Sainsbury's have placed an application with the local authority to demolish 67 trees in a designated green space next to its superstore. The place where these trees live is important for hedgehog conservation. And as the UK hedgehog population has fallen from 1.5 million in 1995 to 500,000 in 2018 there is added pressure on conservationist to protect this much love species of wild animal.

One of those people is Brian May, the Queen guitarist. He has accused Sainsbury's of chasing profits at the expense of wildlife conservation. Their plan includes tripling their capacity for online orders and groceries. Brian May said that the site was home to threatened hedgehogs, bats, bird species and insects. He argues that Sainsbury's have made enough profits during the pandemic and to approve such a planning application would have a devastating impact upon wildlife in the area. The supermarket chain is prosperous, surely they can find an alternative place to expand in to? That is part of Brian May's submission. Also, when Sainsbury's built the superstore at Guildford their planning application contained a mitigating argument that they would leave the woodland secure. Presumably they knocked down some of the woodland in order to build the superstore. This historical aspect of the application must go against them in their fresh application.

Andy Clapham, chairman of the local Burpham Community Association said that the area was one of the few locally where hedgehogs are often seen. And the land helps to shield houses from the superstore and its car park. Sainsbury's promised to replace the 67 trees with 300 plants and install stacked timber for wildlife to hibernate and supply bird-nesting and roosting boxes. They have commissioned a comprehensive ecological appraisal and taken steps to mitigate the wildlife damage that would be incurred if their application were approved. They argue that the application benefits the local community.

Comment: I have to comment. If you take this planning application in context of a world issue with respect to deforestation and the destruction of wildlife habitat by businesses across the planet, you have to be against Sainsbury's' application. As Brian May asks, why can't they find somewhere else? Okay, it will be less convenient but businesses will have to start accepting inconvenience in the interests of wildlife conservation and creating a better world for people to live in. There's going to be mass inconvenience by businesses going forward for the next hundred years if we are to curb global warming and take genuine steps and show genuine commitment towards the conservation of wild species. It is time that businesses took a far more ethical and sustainable approach when focusing on profits. Profits should not be at the expense of the natural world. Businesses should work with the natural world because there is money to be made from that attitude.

Conservation is about protecting communities of wild animals and their habitat

Sir (double Sir by the way as he has 2 knighthoods) David Attenborough explains some fundamentals of wildlife conservation. He explains too that the world leaders must work together otherwise we are sunk. Conservation is about commitment by world leaders and international cooperation. Fortunately the young are pressurising the middle-aged leaders of the world. Sir David Attenborough supports the World Land Trust because if you're going to protect wildlife you have to protect the land on which they live as a community. He explains this in this five minute video. Please watch it if you want to learn a bit more about conservation.

China has got wildlife conservation by the balls

OPINION: Wildlife conservation has become too expensive. I'm not referring to the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars and pounds on protecting the wild species. I'm referring to the consequences of global trade and the economies of the major countries in trying to protect wildlife.

According to data published by the United Nations Statistics Division, China accounted for 28% of global manufacturing output in 2018. In 2019, China accounted for approximately 21% of the global retail market. The second largest share after the United States.

For 15 years American taxpayers’ money purchased cats 

from Chinese wet markets for medical research.

China is in Africa in a big way. They are there to mine for precious metals to support their manufacturing industry. Africa is the home of the greatest iconic wild species on the planet. The forests in Africa are being torn down to make way for plantations and mining. African nations have sold out to China. They are being tricked and to be frank they're not the best stewards of wildlife. We know that without being overly critical because the lion population in Africa has dropped in just two decades by 43%. It is estimated that as few as 23,000 remain today. The same story more or less applies to the other species.

This is not all down to China. The population in Africa is the fastest-growing in the world. Humankind is taking up the lion's habitat. But China is the big player in wildlife conservation without actually being a player. They're simply a barrier because if you tried to stop mining in Africa to protect the African golden cat which lives in the forests of central and west Africa, you would upset the Chinese government and in doing that they would stop buying your products and they'd stop manufacturing your products and therefore they've got wildlife conservation by the balls.

And if you wanted to genuinely protect the Bengal tiger, you would do something about traditional Chinese medicine because tiger body parts go into it. When and if a country did something about the propensity for rich Chinese in China to eat tiger body parts and drink tiger wine made from the bones of tigers or lions or whatever other big animal they can kill and stew and drink, they'd suffer economically by Chinese retaliation.

President Xi, has vocally supported traditional Chinese medicine. There is no chance that the West can force the Chinese to change their minds about the killing of wild species to supply Chinese medicine because if they do the Chinese will retaliate with a trade war and they will win because the West is hooked on cheap goods and the West like a bloody drug and is dependent on selling their goods in China. The average citizen living in the West is not tuned in to wildlife conservation but it tuned in to cheap goods. They'd revolt is they became more expensive because of conservation efforts.

It's too expensive to run an effective conservation programme. It's too expensive in terms of how China will react which would damage the economies of those countries trying to save the wild species. Sir David Attenborough said it's not too late to change course and protect the planet. I agree but I'm not hopeful.

I hate going on about the Chinese but they have a disregard for animal welfare. It is part of their culture and their attitude. It's the cause of the coronavirus pandemic - wet markets. The pandemic itself is a huge setback to wildlife conservation because there will be a dearth of money to spend on animal welfare because it's all been spent on protecting people and jacking up failing economies because of extensive lockdown.

I am one of those people who suspect that China deliberately created the coronavirus pandemic because it benefits them. They had a head start once the virus was released which allowed them to minimise damage to their economy and get ahead of the other world economies. It benefits them. I have an incredibly negative and pessimistic attitude currently about wildlife conservation because the big blocker at its core is bloody China.

Children should be encouraged to explore the natural world in the interests of wildlife conservation

I agree with two children's authors, Sir Michael Morpurgo and Julia Donaldson, when they say that children should be encouraged to explore the natural world on their own and take risks. They should not be crowded out by regulations but exposed to the countryside.

"People tell them to love the planet, but if you don't actually know what the planet is, and love things about it, why would you? You need to get dirty." - Julia Donaldson.

They should get dirty. They should scratch their knees and talk to trees. They need to smell the earth and cut grass. They need to feel the wind in their face. Silently falling rain should please them.

They should listen to the landscape, look up at the sky and admire the clouds. See them scuffling against a blue-grey backdrop and learn how to read the weather.

They should love to watch squirrels and birds feeding. The sound of the fox at night should not disturb them but make them smile. All these things will give them an understanding of nature. Through that understanding they will be more sensitive to the needs of wildlife.

And through their sensitive they will wish to protect wildlife rather than abuse it, use it and trash it as it is so commonplace nowadays.

And when they understand wild species better they will also understand and respect their domestic cat companions. In the domestic cat they have a miniature wild animal in their home. The traits of a wild cat are in the domestic version.

It is a great pleasure to have such a special relationship with our domestic cats. Two completely different species getting on beautifully. One is almost wild and the other is us, full of baggage and contradictions. They are innocently pure. Such a joy to experience it.

Woman who hunts to eat says vegans and shooters have common ground

Rachel Carrie. Photo: her FB account.

Rachel Carrie says that hunters can eat meat without guilt because they have no problems of animal welfare. She is a woman who has currently hit the headlines and is a former vegetarian and a mum. She says that she has fed her family for a year on 125 pigeons, 80 pheasants and partridges and 40 ducks and 4 deer.

"Vegetarians and vegans, shooters and hunters need to be educated. We are not the enemy. We have common ground."

Rachel comes from Yorkshire, UK. As a girl she was a vegetarian because she was upset by factory farming. She remained a vegetarian for five years from the age of seven. She changed her views when her father acquired a hawk. He took her out rabbiting. She says that she was okay about eating something where she had seen where it had lived. She said that she hopes that makes sense. It doesn't to me.

She says that she feels no guilt or qualms abour shooting deer. She believes that it is not an act of cruelty.

"You place a clean shot straight through the heart and that animal never knew you were there."

She believes that the animals don't suffer when they are shot and that they are not scared. The animal is not transported miles and miles to an abattoir.

Further, she says that when you shoot an animal dead to eat it you don't waste the food as people do when they buy food at a supermarket.

She firmly believes that she does not have the animal welfare issues surrounding the usual livestock farming and killing in abattoirs.

She likes to pose for photographs of the animals that she has killed. Judging by the photographs she does not only kill animals in the UK.

Comment: her argument is based upon the fact that she always makes a clean kill straight to the heart. Can she guarantee to do that every time? I don't think so. It's a very poor argument. Looking at her face in the photographs I get the distinct impression that she enjoys killing animals. I wonder whether she is making an excuse for the enjoyment of killing animals. Is she justifying it? Is she finding a reason why she kills animals and masking the true reason: entertainment.

I have heard this argument before namely that when hunters kill animals to eat then what they do is justified. Another justification that they wheel out is that it is good for conservation. I simply don't get it. There has to be some cruelty involved because you cannot guarantee killing an animal instantly without any pain with a rifle.

I get the argument about animal welfare issues with respect to farming and abattoir. There are definitely big animal welfare issues in farming which drives people to be vegans or vegetarians. But the answer is not in hunting and pretending this is good for conservation or animal welfare.

This woman likes to kill, she likes to take photographs of herself and present them online on social media. She is all over social media. If she was genuinely concerned about feeding herself why should she publicise the whole thing so energetically? Why should she embrace social media? Why can't she just get on with it quietly? To me she enjoys the celebrity. The news media has picked up on this. She is a good-looking woman. You put her face with a dead animal and it turns some people on. It turns on the hunters and shooters who are normally macho type men in America.

It's all a lot of nonsense in my opinion. I am tired of hearing these false justifications for shooting animals. There is no need for it today and a lot more needs to be done to improve animal welfare in respect of livestock. One area would be halal meat. In the UK the authorities are far too soft with respect to how halal meat. They allow it out of political correctness. I disagree with this attitude.

Is the African Wild Cat Endangered?

According to the 'experts', the African wildcat is not endangered. The conservation status of this small wild cat species is "Least Concern" with a declining population. As the population is decreasing then no doubt in the future the status will become more precarious, heading gradually towards endangerment in the long term.

African wildcat - photo in public domain

 One complication about writing this post is that the group of experts charged with assessing the conservation status of species of animals and plants, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, ball together several subspecies of wild cat (Felis Sylvestris) and do not distinguish between the African wildcat which itself could be divided between the North African and South African wild cat or the Scottish wild cat as far as I can tell (they do refer to the Chinese mountain cat separately). And therefore when I mention above that the classification is "Least Concern" I'm referring to a group of subspecies of wild cat. Note: there is an ongoing discussion about the classification of the wildcat.

And don't forget that I'm discussing a particular species are wild cat. Another complication is the name of this cat. It is the same name given to all wild cats including the tiger and lion. But the "wild cat" or "wildcat" is a definitive species and in the same bracket or family of cats as the domestic cat.

To conclude, the African wildcat is not endangered but in due course no doubt it will be. Incidentally, the full range of classifications regarding conservation of species is: extinct (fully extinct both in the wild and otherwise), extinct in the wild, critically endangered, endangered, vulnerable, near threatened, least concern.

You can see therefore that the African wildcat is at the very end of the range of conservation statuses: the best and where the assessment is that the cat is not under pressure or under a conservation threat. An interesting aspect about this species of wild cat is that there has been a lot of hybridization due to breeding with domestic cats and therefore it may be the case that there are very few purebred African wildcats in Africa or Asia.

Canada: Two Cougars Killed Because They Killed Two Domestic Cats

I'm not sure that this is ethically correct. This is a story from British Columbia, Canada. Just over the border from the USA is a town called Cranbrook. The map shows you where it is.

Last Friday, a couple of days ago, a resident of the town, Karen King, found two dead cats outside her home. She telephoned the conservation officers who had a look at the dead cats. The conservation officers confirmed that cougars were involved in killing the domestic cats.

"We confirmed that, yes, cougars were involved with killing domestic cats," said Jared Connatty, one of the COs

It seems that the way they worked out that two cougars were involved in the killing of these cats was because they carried out an investigation by asking questions of local residents and the residents confirmed that two cougars had been hanging around the area for a few weeks before there were notified.

So what they did was to deploy tracking hounds who picked up the scent of the cougars at the last known location which led them to two juvenile cougars of around 10 months of age where they were killed (I presume shot). The hounds did not pick up the scent of the mother.

The conservation officers were a bit surprised that the mother was not present because cougar cubs don't leave the mother until about 16 to 18 months of age.

To recap: conservation officers who have a duty to conserve nature meaning wildlife decided that the only course of action was to kill two young mountain lions because two domestic cats that were wandering outside had been killed by them on their estimation. Might it not have been a better idea to have told the people living in the area to keep their domestic cat inside for a while and then to track the cougars. Once they had discovered where they were, to then capture them and relocate them. Perhaps that is impractical, I don't know but I do know that it makes more sense to me because I don't think the actions of these conservation officers was proportionate to the “crime" committed by the mountain lions.

I know it is extremely upsetting if one has lost one's cat companion. However, that might be a risk that one takes when living in Canada knowing full well that there are quite possibly mountain lions in the area. Knowing that, a cat owner therefore puts their cat companion in risk if they let them go outside wandering.

There is no information as to whether the two domestic cats were in fact domestic cats, strays or feral cats. There appears to be no complaint by a cat owner. It would seem that the reason why the conservation officers killed the mountain lions was because whenever a mountain lion wanders into a residential area they are killed on the basis that they are a potential hazard to residents. Once again I find that a poor way of dealing with the situation. If people build residential areas within the distribution of mountain lions then they are knowingly taking the possible risk of a mountain lion walking around their urban environment. On that basis, surely they can devise some method of dealing with mounted lives more humanely so that humans and wild cat can live harmoniously together?

These were young mountain lions and therefore relatively small in size and I will thought unable to genuinely harm people. They could have been dealt with more humanely. That is the point I'm making.

Not Enough! $80m To Save the World's Wild Cats

A global alliance of environmental philanthropists from China, the United Arab Emirates, the US and India have joined together to try and do something about saving the wild cat species, which is entirely admirable but their agreement to provide funding of US$80,000,000 is nowhere near enough.  When set against the profits made from the business of trading and trafficking internationally wild cat species and their body parts, $80,000,000 as a pittance and don't forget you have to complete and beat very devious and very clever businessmen who know how to corrupt officials and politicians in order to get their hands on those precious tiger body parts.

When you think of the wealth of the countries involved their combined funding towards conservation of the wild cat species truly is a very small sum of money.  There are many billionaires living in any one of these countries who could write a cheque for $80,000,000 right now without blinking. It would be like me writing a cheque for £100.

They have guaranteed a 10 year commitment to wild cat conservation so the $80,000,000 funding is spread over 10 years.  That also, I regret to say, is not good enough because species like the tiger have arguably 20 years left in the wild in India before they become extinct in that country in the wild.  Therefore, there is an immediate requirement for substantial funds to resolve the problem.

In addition, the conservation of the Bengal tiger goes well beyond simple funding.  It's about the reserves, which are too small and not managed well enough. There is no point throwing millions of dollars towards the conservation of the Bengal tiger without tackling corruption and management at the same time.  Otherwise all the money will simply go down the drain, the drain of corruption and bad management. Note: it is impossible to stop corruption - too many vested interests and too entrenched.

I almost think that this is a PR exercise but I'll try not to be too cynical.  The objective of the fund is to reduce poaching and international trade, reduce retaliatory killings due to human-animal conflict, reduce the hunting of the prey of the wild cats and try and resolve the unresolvable problem of the loss and fragmentation of the habitat of these cats.  How can anyone resolve the problem of fragmentation of habitat? It is impossible to turn the clock back and create a habitat for a wild cat species that is complete and whole because people are living in parts of this habitat with their farms.  It would mean relocating tens of thousands of people, wouldn't it?

The funding is being channelled through an organisation called Panthera.  The Alliance is called the Panthera Global Alliance. Good luck. I wish I was more optimistic.

Ohio Restrictions on Private Captive Wildlife Programs

Ohian legislators have responded to the horrifying carnage of wild animals, including large wild cats, at Zanesville, Ohio. It is referred to as the Zanesville massacre. It occurred on October 19, 2011. It was the classic, private zoo disaster waiting to happen and it could happen again. Neither do I believe it was a freak event.

The silver lining to come out of this very sad story is that legislation backed by HSUS was introduced into Ohio's state legislature and has been passed and become law. It was a speedy bit of law making prompted by the shock of the event.

Of course, keepers of exotic cats etc. were against it. It is one more piece of legislation that erodes the freedoms of Americans to indulge their passion for interacting with exotic animals. The trouble is that ultimately it is an indulgent hobby (it does not pay). And to be brutally honest I don't think it does anything or hardly anything for conservation although the benefits to conservation is the argument used by keepers of exotic animals for doing it. Personally, I don't go with that argument which is why I support more legislation that restricts people's freedoms. This is unfortunate but sadly people do need to be managed to a certain extent because not everyone acts responsibly.

Since the 1980s there has been an explosion in wildlife breeding. That is one reason why it became a risk to both public and the animals. Ohio had some of the weakest laws on the keeping of exotic 'pets'. This is how some so called 'conservationists' relate to their dangerous wild animals.

What sort of restrictions will soon be in place? And how will this impact privately owned captive wildlife programs?

Legislation

I will summarize because people involved in keeping captive wildlife will read the legislation carefully, while those outside it don't want boring legal details.

The new restrictions appear to be concerned with 'dangerous exotic animals'. People who already keep them can still do so. But they will have to apply for a permit by January 1st 2014 and their application is not going to be a walkover. The cost of permits range from $250-$1,000. Insurance cover might have to be in the region of a quarter of a million dollars to one million with the premiums that that brings to the owner.

On September 3rd 2012, when the law comes into effect, the trade in exotic animals will be banned with a few exceptions. Approximately 640 species are wild animal fall under the new law.

Wild animals classified as dangerous include: lions, tigers, jaguars and cheetahs. There are exemptions for genuine sanctuaries, zoos and research institutions for instance.

Impact

I'll have to refer to what Lynn Culver the Executive Director of the Feline Conservation Federation (FCF) says, which is that privately owned captive wildlife in Ohio will be extremely rare in the future. People who want to get into wildlife ownership and breeding will now be critically scrutinised, or should be, by the USDA. They will need proven skills and knowledge. The FCF run courses that will help. There is no doubt that the laissez-faire days of letting people buy lions for peanuts are over. People should consider applying for ZAA (Zoological Association of America)  accreditation as they register breeders and apparently they have an exemption.

People's energies and love of wild cats etc. should be channeled into true wildlife conservation in the wild as practiced by people like Jim Sanderson PhD (Andean Mountain Cat and other species) and the Snow Leopard Trust. They both run fantastic conservation programmes.

Goa Mining Destroying Rainforest

I am afraid China is at it again in league with corrupt officials in Goa. Their wealth and insatiable demand for iron ore that is required for their manufacturing industry is resulting in corruption in Goa which in turn leads to mining in prohited areas of rainforest and the forced eviction of homeowners. The forests of Goa are within the distribution of the leopard cat, a small wildcat that is the wild cat ancestor of the very popular Bengal domestic cat.

Mining is an example of a major threat to forests. Another similar example is the forests of sub-Saharan Africa where they are being cleared not for mining but palm oil plantations. The forest of sub-Saharan Africa is the home of the African golden cat.

There you have it. I guess it is nothing new to report as this sort of thing happens all the time especially where there is corruption in government.

As mentioned it is not just wildlife that is losing its habitat and home, people are too. They are being threatened with rape and iron bars. They are forced out so the big mining corporations cashing in on the China boom can mine their properties for minerals.

Wild Cats as Pets

Personally I am against wild cats as pets. But I have no right to be judgmental about people who think differently.

I don't think that the words "wild cat" go with the word "pet". Either a cat is a wild cat or a cat is a pet, meaning domesticated. An individual cat cannot be both. If it can be both it will not be good at either.

A wild cat that is truly wild is a magnificent creature. We admire the courage and fighting ability of the big cats. We admire their wild character and independence.

We love our domestic cats. The are wonderful companions. They are mellow in character unless the "owner" has screwed up.

So why try and merge the two and lose both atributes?

It goes further than that. The idea that you can keep a wild cat as a pet is not good in the long term for the conservation of wildcats.

On a simplistic level it encourages local people who live side by side with the small wildcats to poach them, take them out of their habitat and sell them to people who want a wild cat as a pet. That in itself is bad for conservation. Believe me the wild cats need protecting and they need conserving because as a whole they are endangered by the excesses of humankind.

Another thing troubles me about the idea that we should keep wild cats as pets. It encourages the idea that wild cats should or can be captive. It encourages the idea that wildcats are best captive and not wild. It encourages the culture of man's dominion over animals which leads to abuse of nature. It does not encourage conservation as some commentators claim.

A lot of people don't care about all that. They don't know about and don't care about wild cats. They just want the pleasure of owning one. Fair enough. But that attitude is detrimental to the planet.

We should focus on how to leave in harmony with the wildcats in their natural habitat rather than possessing them as captive animals. Wildcats do badly in captivity.

Is world demand for palm oil endangering the African golden cat?

The big international companies are moving into Africa for the land and the minerals. China is all over Africa for metals to supply their massive manufacturing industry that supplies the world with cheap consumer goods. Electronic goods need precious metals.

Palm oil is grown in equatorial Africa by small holding farmers. That is natural and obviously good for the local economy at that kind of scale. But when all the forests have been logged in Malaysia to make room for palm oil plantations the multinational companies have to move elsewhere to find virgin landscapes. There is still a lot of that in Africa. This why the African golden cat can survive in deep forest environments. Until now.

The forests of equatorial Africa, the territory of the African golden cat are being cut down to make way for palm oil plantations. This mirrors the destruction of virgin forest in Borneo for paper manufacture. The Bay cat lives in the Borneo forests.

It is not only the African golden cat that will suffer and gradually become extinct, I predict, in the wild. The local people will also suffer loss - financial loss.

The governments of Africa must think long term. They are leasing large areas of land to big business for instant profit. In the long term what will be the consequences?

Protecting the Endangered Fishing Cat

Three Asian fishing cats were born at the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium in Ohio recently. That is nice to see. They claim that this is "part of a program aimed at protecting endangered species". But is it? How will this help?

These births help the survival of the fishing cat in captivity but not in the wild as I understand it.

Wildcats don't do well in zoos, partly because there are not enough of them so they are inbred. This makes them endangered in zoos. It is difficult to maintain a population of wildcats in zoos. Bizarre though that might sound.

We seem to be simply extending the endangerment from the wild to the captive.

I don't think the zoo is rewilding these cats, meaning put them back into the wild and I don't think that that is part of the program either.

So, what is the program? It seems to me that the only advantage is to boost the population of fishing cats in captivity for commercial reasons (more visitors).

How inbred are these cats? If they are males, are they fertile? Inbreeding is detrimental to sperm quality.

If someone can leave an enlightening comment it would help. No one will, however!

Wildlife Conservationists Can't Do It Alone

It is perhaps obvious but little discussed. Wildlife conservationists can't preserve wildlife on their own. They can't work in isolation, which sometimes seems to be the case.

There are two "ends" to the wildlife conservation problem and it is a problem as wildlife is being hounded off the planet by increased human activity.

At one end is the conservationists, the people who wrestle with symptoms of ever increasing human activity that destroys habitat and destroys wildlife directly as it frankly gets in the way of human activity. Most human activity is commercial activity.

The conservationists are the equivalent of the veterinarians, they try and cure the illness. But despite huge efforts they are weak compared to the "illness" and, in fact, effectively powerless. They certainly are not curing the problem, just sticking a plaster over it.

This is because the illness is not being tackled at source by the other party to wildlife conservation; the businesses.

Some businesses are concerned with wildlife and help to conserve it but generally wildlife and wildlife habitat just gets in the way and it is an overhead to business that is best cleared out of the way.

So the other end of the problem is business, human activity. This is far bigger than conservationism. Nothing is being done about human population growth. Little if anything is being done about world pollution damaging the planet and wildlife habitats.

Forests are continually chopped down for pristine white paper - it is madness of course but nothing changes because the model of "economic growth" remains supreme and unchallenged.

We need to think again about the ideal model upon which we are to govern activity on this planet. Economic growth cannot go on increasing without massive investment in protecting the planet. Better still it must slow and cease. We must get used to zero economic growth and find a way to make that work.

Then we must shrink the world population and rejig everything. Then and only then will the tiger and all the animals below it be safe.



From to Home Page