"Independent Member for Sydney Alex Greenwich today [11th Sept.] introduced a bill to ensure that sponsored trap-neuter-return and management (TNR) programs are lawful.

TNR programs involve desexing animals in a specific group or colony of unowned stray animals and returning them to where they were found where they stop breeding, allowing the population to stabilise....
In New South Wales there are a number of successful volunteer run programs but they may not be lawful because returning a non-native animal to where it came from could constitute the ‘abandoning’ or liberating’ offences."

http://www.alexgreenwich.com/bill_to_manage_stray_cats_introduced#sthash.RtJvOJTA.dpuf

One wonders how neutered cats are to then survive in the wild, perhaps the far sighted Alex Greenwich has also arranged for them to be converted to vegetarianism or, better still, to become vegans.

I don't see the point of returning neutered cats to the bush Is Mise.
What purpose would that serve?

The 'feel good' factor for the clowns that thought up the idea, remember they want to do the same for rabbits and one presumes for wild dogs also.

CSIRO says there are more than 15 million feral cats in Australia that kill 75 million animals every night. Unabashed, this Sydney clown is going to catch and neuter them and release them to continue killing.

Then there is the question of who pays for this grand plan.

Someone please tell the member for Sydney that cats migrate. Cats do not recognise the city limits or post codes. There is always a high level of population turnover and plenty of randy transients.

Catch, neuter and release rabbits, foxes and wild pigs? Maybe catch and release Indian Mynah birds too? The possibilities are endless. Enormously expensive too and a complete waste of time. Oh, to be a veterinarian! New Mercedes, the biggest one, please.

For the member for Sydney,
Issue that red nose, rainbow wig and white greasepaint pronto. Over-sized shoes too. Clown make-up online,
http://www.mehron.com/Clown_Makeup_s/3.htm

It is unnecessary to mention I suppose given the silliness of the member for Sydney's grand plan, but euthanasia would be far less painful for the cat and avoids the vexed problem of over-use of antibiotics and likelihood of infection following surgery. Neutering operations are not without pain and risks.

Then there is also the problem of handling, housing and releasing feral cats that are already reservoirs of disease and parasites. Every single one would present health problems, from mange through to cancers. Treat and cure all of that as well? Maybe every veterinarian needs to buy the biggest Mercedes and a pad on the French Riviera. Yay!

We need a "Myxomatosis" for felines, one that at the very least sterilises them but preferably kills them.
Australia has no native cats to worry about, zoo felines could be immunised and household pets could just take their chances as far as I'm concerned, even little Timmykins kills natives at every opportunity.

We need a "Myxomatosis" for felines
G'day Bruce,
A Myxomatosis for Lefties would be of far greater benefit to Australia.

Hold on, let’s not condemn this idea. It is well established overseas and has a lot of support:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap-neuter-return

I guess it depends on the extent to which it is done as to how effective it is in controlling cat populations. You would think that if it can be done well, it could stabilise or reduce populations more effectively than just catching and culling cats.

Perhaps this would be due to fertile cats not being readily able to find a fertile mate if there are lots of sterile animals in the population, which presumably would still be wanting to try and mate. Hence a fair percentage of fertile females may not get to bear young, or not as often as they otherwise would… whereas if cats are just simply culled, then all that are left are fertile… and all the females will mate and bear offspring each year.

Putting sterile animals back into a population does have merit. But I should imagine that it would only really work with relatively small and discrete urban populations, and not with feral cats right out in the bush.

Ludwig,

Lets have a mite of commonsense and independent thought too. Even a much smaller island for instance Tasmania would not be the sort of 'restricted' place where it might have some effect.

Unless cats can be trained to observe boundaries and post codes.

Waste your donations if you wish, but there is no way most would support a law that foolishly returns trapped cats to the environment.

What about the ethics of returning cats that are diseased, injured, carry parasites? The cost of restoring the feral cats' teeth and fur to health, taken alone, would be high. Does anyone here know the cost of veterinary chemicals, treatment and hospitalisation?

Feral animals are highly stressed by trapping, transport and handling. Add to that the pain of treatment including neutering. It would be anaesthetics all of the way. Then being returned to the environment from whence they came to contract all of the diseases and parasites again. To roam people's gardens, the pre-school sandpits in built up areas and so on? Aren't Councils strongly encouraging responsible owners to keep their neutered cats indoors (responsible owners do neuter their companion cats)?

Research and interpretation of results is needed by independents who have no sponsorship or affiliations that could influence the results.

Good sense seems to have flown out of the window on this one.

Putting sterile animals back into a population does have merit.
ludwig ??,
Sterile animals still hunt & kill & if we want to weed them out out then why go through all that effort & cost of sterilising ? Sounds too much like a Labor/Green idea to me.

Beachy and Indi, if this approach works, then I’m all for it. That is; if feral populations are reduced and either kept at lower numbers or progressively lowered until they are wiped out.

If it doesn’t achieve this, then it is a waste of time and resources.

If it is more effective at dealing with feral cats than simply trapping and killing them, then good. If not, then bad.

I’m not particularly interested in the humane argument as it concerns feral cats, either way off in the backblocks or in urban areas. I’m interested in the effectiveness of dealing with them.

<< Sounds too much like a Labor/Green idea to me. >>

Well Indi, the important is thing whether it sounds like a viable idea or not.

Let’s face it; the ferals are winning. Some thinking outside the box is required here. So I would suggest applauding the bringing forth of ideas like this.

Let’s explore them rather than just condemn them because of the person / party that is putting them forward.

<< Sterile animals still hunt & kill & if we want to weed them out out then why go through all that effort & cost of sterilising ? >>

Because we want to significantly reduce the total population. And if putting sterile animals back into the population significantly reduces the fertility rate and hence the population in the somewhat longer term, moreso than just simply trapping and culling them, then its got to be a good idea.

Ludwig,

Hi.

It is far too easy for governments to oil squeaky wheels, but for that bucket of taxpayers' money it is the death of a thousand cuts (holes). As usual I am concerned about laws made on evidence and goals, transparency, robust measures of goal attainment and so on.

What really disappoints is that whereas government departments are required to go through a process to determine the cost/benefit and SAVINGS of proposed initiatives, all manner of lobbyists for private shows can get money without any of that. The clue seems to be to bid below a magic line and the money flows, a few votes presumably bought.

There are far too many outfits swinging from the guvvy teats (in fact those are taxpayer teats) an once attached, they seem to be able to suck forever.

I would like detail on how they reconcile the cruelty aspects, including releasing diseased, parasite infested (tape worm too), matted haired, rotting teethed animals back into the wild. There is no assessment of those negative consequences in the member's proposal or site.

Likewise there is no detail on the possible impacts on other policy areas, which a government agency would be required to do.

I will not bother to go into animal behavioural issues such as the silliness of imagining that a neutered male might mount a female and deny other 'complete' males, or even defend territory. Or the impossibility of a neutered female being responsive to a male. -The last mentioned will result in serious bites and scratches to the hindquarters of the neutered female, and most such injuries result in infection, likely serious.

Did you know that neutered cats live longer? Maybe not, where those neutered unresponsive females are concerned though. Not so kind is it?

All up it seems that some splinter groups are breaking laws and they want the law changed to suit themselves. I suspect there is also the thin edge of a large wedge in this too.

Sorry Luddy, it is a con job in my experience.

Yes it can work if whole but infertile males are in huge numbers, & still functioning males, like with fruit fly experiments.
However, if you look at horses & cattle, you will notice the castrated animals don't bother with the females, or the females with them. The limited number of whole males just serve the females on offer.

This would mean it could only work if the males were whole, but their sperm was infertile. Surely a long term contraceptive would be a better choice?

I am pretty sure this happens with dogs & cats too, however I have not had one whole male in a large population of fertile females to observe in these. In those I do have castrated males show no interest in the odd fertile female that appear occasionally.

As I say, a con job, probably promoted by feminists. {did you like that one].

As I recall, trap, neuter, and release was first used in Europe to reduce the spread of rabies in foxes. The reasoning was that the main check on the fox population is the lack of viable breeding territories. Killing all the foxes would be impossible and also undesirable in Europe where they are a native animal. If you kill a fox, another fox quickly moves into its territory. If you do this on a wide enough scale you get large-scale migration of foxes (and rabies). The foxes are highly territorial, so if you trap a fox, neuter and vaccinate it, and then release it again, it will continue to defend its territory against other foxes, preventing them from using its resources for breeding.

Most sources dealing with this strategy for feral cats say that it is a waste of time and money, essentially just a sop for people who don't like the idea of feral cats being killed. What we really need is a biological control for the feral cats, with vaccination available for domestic cats. Future problems could be prevented by requiring people to neuter their cats, except for licensed breeders, with the fertile cats kept confined.

Keeping all the cats indoors (except near wildlife sanctuaries) would be counterproductive, especially in an urban environment. Without predators, we would be knee deep in small animals. While the native predators can do the job in the wilderness or out in the countryside, most cannot tolerate close proximity to people. When we and some of our neighbours got cats, problems with rats, mice, and mynah birds were significantly reduced. Rats in the urban environment aren't exactly great for pre-schoolers either.

Ludwig,

Let's say we can get a thousand trappers out every night and that they average one cat each every night.

That's 365,000 cats per annum (disregard leap years), now 365.000 into 15,000,000 is a bit over 41 times; so let's say 40 years to trap and neuter 15 million cats.

In the meantime the whole males are tomcating to their hearts content every night and if the birthrate (at an absolutely ridiculously low figure) is considered to be 1,000 a night then the program would achieve Zero, that is mark time, however if the birthrate was 2,000/night then it would be going backwards.

The clown that raised this in the NSW Parliament is merely going through the motions of being seen to be doing something for his more stupid constituents, unfortunately even this costs taxpayers money and wastes time.

Common sense has been rendered neuter in the above.

Just to add that as well as infertility, neutering male cats appeals to cat owners because the neutered cat is NOT marking territory and defending it.

Unless of course these fools are going to have vets performing vasectomies and tubal ligations. However, fighting, wandering and spraying are arguments used to support TNR of ferals in built-up areas and why feral cats are euthanised.

Another politician chasing cheap headlines.

All good points in your last two posts, Beachy. You, Is Mise and Hazza are probably right.

But what irks me is that too many people are willing to just totally dismiss ideas like this straight away without giving them the sort of thought that you have here.

There are lots of things which might sound a bit whacky to start with but which may have some merit when you look at them a bit more closely.

We need to encourage the putting forward of all manner of ideas, and to not stifle them by simple up-front condemnation, thus putting people off expressing their ideas in the first place.

If we were to do that, we would be working towards supporting the narrow, entrenched and very largely ineffective ways of doing things.

Ludwig,

Thank you too for your very reasonable consideration of alternative views.

I sense that this politician is cruising, piggybacking on the superficial and populist hipster mantras of his predecessor, Ms Clover Moore. Politicians have very handsome remuneration and other benefits and the taxpayer should be requiring as a minimum, what they expect of a an executive in private industry.

I don't know why more people don't see the connection between continual dips into the bucket to placate interest groups (for precious little return in measurable outcomes) and compromised essential services (no money!), for instance. I have seen money saved by Councils doing very clever things to save dollars here and there, for example advertising on bus shelters paying for their upkeep and new shelters, but some fool of a Councillor then blows several hundred thousand dollars on idiotic 'traffic calming' concrete islands and speed humps that damage wheel alignment even at slow speed.

Politics really isn't a game and politicians should be held to account for their output and the quality of it.

The bucket of taxpayers $$ is limited and there are far too many buy-offs of noisy activists to win a hopeful percent of votes, or more likely to shut-up them up and the feckless tabloids media too.

This post reminds me of a famous local meeting of the Wild Dog Committee, attended by a lot of angry farmers because large numbers of sheep were getting killed by dogs coming out of the national park.

Some greenie from the city came and said they have a wonderful plan to neuter the dogs.

One old farmer said "Miss, you don't seem to understand. Those dogs aren't f.ucking our sheep, they're *eating* them."

* * *
And speaking of working for the betterment of native animals, one local was talking to a guy from L.A.O.K.O - "Look After Our Kosciusko Orphans" - a picture of wombat baby is their brand.

"So, what do you do with the wombats you save?" asked a local.

"Oh, we hug them, and love them, and cuddle them, and kiss them" said starry-eyed greenie.

"Oh yeah? And what about when they're grown up?"

"Then we release them into 'the wild'" said greenie, getting all moist.

"Into the wild eh?" said the local yokel. "Like, where in the wild?"

"Out at Dangelong." said the greenie.

"Out at Dangelong? Are you kidding? They shoot 'em out at Dangelong!" said the yokel.

"Shoot 'em? "But, but ..." sputtered the greenie "They're protected!"

"Well they might be protected, but they're not bullet-proof."

Thanks for the above post Rambo! How long did it take you to think up that load of fictional garbage, but it makes for a funny read. I particularly got a laugh from the joke about the dog, the sheep and the farmer, heard that one about 20 years ago, but the dog was a fox when I heard it. You can always spot a phony story when the teller can recount it all word for word JKJ, did you take it all down in shorthand, must have took notes!

On the subject, in New South Wales how much does it cost the tax payer to have Rambo shoot a rabbit? The answer...$7152.00, no I didn't put the decimal point in the wrong place, its a fact. The New South Wales taxpayers have just forked out $1,460,000 to have Rambo and his mates, aka "recreational shooters" run riot in the States national parks and shoot 198 feral animals, 70% of which were rabbits! To be fair they did shoot on old dear, and a fox. Naturally, these people who like to dress themselves up as Gomer Pyle before going on "the big hunt" could not be allowed unsupervised in our national parks, heaven forbid, picknickers, hikers, they would all be on the hit list! National Parks and Wildlife Service Officers had to be rostered to supervise these gun happy clowns during the big shoot.
The NSW taxpayer should be rightly outraged at this frivolous waste of their money. What brought on this outrage? None other than those two drongos sitting in the NSW LC representing The Shooters and Hooters Party, the 'Two Bobs' Borsak and Brown complicit with Boozy Barry O'Farrell and his Liberal/National, government. All to allow for the sell off, to Liberal cronies, of that very juicy plum known as the New South Wales electricity grid.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/7150-for-each-animal-killed-in-nsw-hunting-program-20140923-10kogt.html

Statistics based on part of one year?

Well done!

@Paul1405, Friday, 26 September 2014 7:14:19 AM

Easy to see why Julia Gillard who was forced into a partnership with the treacherous, headline-hunting Greens, described the Greens as simply a 'protest party'.

Of course Gillard was talking about the best of the Greens at the time and not the lunar NSW 'Watermelon Greens'.

Is Mise, @ $7152.00 per rabbit, the poor New South Wales taxpayer can't afford a whole year! How much do they charge to shoot feral wombats? There are a couple of the useless creatures with their snouts in the public trough sitting in Macquarie Street at the moment. They can't miss, they are of porky proportions anyway.
This must be a sick joke, perpetrated on the taxpayers of NSW. Boozy Barry must have agreed to it after downing a couple of bottles of his favorite Penfolds plonk, how else can you explain it? Lets hope the people take all this into account when they cast their vote in the NSW election next March.

Beach, is that the best you can come up with in regards to this outrages waste of public money in NSW? The Greens led by our animal welfare spokesperson Dr Mehreen Faruqi, all alone in the parliament have maintained there is no justification for allowing these "nutters" into national parks to shoot anything, even themselves! Again The Greens have been proven right. We think millions of dollars of public money might be better spent on schools, hospitals, transport, housing etc etc rather than pandering to the wishes of the lunatic fringe represented by The Shooter Party.
You cynically asked me once, what do The Greens achieve in parliament? The answer is obvious, often it is left to The Greens to articulate the alternative, giving a voice to the voiceless, when you find the big two acting in tandem on issues, with little regard to the wishes of the people. The above, a point in question!

Paul1405,

The Greens Senators have produced nothing in the federal parliament. Yet they put their hands out for handsome CEO remuneration and benefits.

The NSW 'Watermelon' Greens were a constant embarrassment to previous Greens leader, Bob Brown and remain a splinter group to the current leadership. One of the common elements seems to be Lee Rhiannon, a buddy and confidant of yours you say?

Beach, how about giving your parties view on this, does Jim have a view? You seem to know it all about The Greens, did our Bob Brown tell you that, or was it your Bob Brown.
Always amazing how those from the ultra right like to present themselves as the "moderates" and tell us how they present the "balance view". Beach, here is your opportunity to present that "balanced view" of yours on 'Working for the betterment of native animals' in 350 words or less.

Paul,

Statistics based on a minuscule sample are meaningless, there is a partial solution however, removing the NP overseers will save some cash.

Is Mise, you can't be serious, are you proposing Parks and Wildlife Officers should not be overseeing the action of this lunatic fringe? Akin to putting the crazies in charge of the asylum!

Beach, this tread was inactive for a week, then the story broke in the SMH a couple of days ago about the "shooting trial" in NSW National Parks and the absurdity of it all. All relevant to this topic. I make a post about it, a bit colorful, but on topic, no sooner have I posted, than you chime in with something about Gillard and The Greens, noting to do with the subject at hand. I asked you to come up with something better, but what did you come back with an attack on The Greens Federal Senators, again nothing what so ever to do with the topic.
If I didn't know better I would think you are stalking me on this forum, and acting like a troll, much in the same way you acted towards Belly. If you are, then all I can say is "welcome aboard" follow me where you will, post whatever you like.
And just to help you out, to answer your last question. Yes.

Paul,

Of course I'm serious, these hunters are allowed to hunt unsupervised on private land and in State forests, why are National Parks any different?

The only difference that I can see is that NPs have more feral animals due to years of mismanagement.

Reference to the Greens is quite relevant as they are the main ones who keep raising the issue of banning hunting, which is racist and culturally insensitive.

Paul1405,

The NSW 'Watermelon' Greens are frivolous, superficial headline hunters. That is evidenced by your support for NSW Parks and Wildlife officers to control feral animals. What would be the cost of that and where is the sense and ethics in extending the aircraft drops of 1080 poison?

http://tinyurl.com/1080-poison

1080 should be the treatment of last resort, in very difficult terrain.

Of course it makes sense for NSW to draw upon the specially trained, certified, licensed and government directed recreational marksmen (they are certified) to cull and use as many feral animals as possible. Venison for the table is one deer culled and not left to die in agony in the bush somewhere, left to rot for the wild dogs and to breed flies.

Of course Julia Gillard who had been in the very best (worst for her and Labor?!) situation to talk about the Greens was right to say that the Greens is just headline grabbing protest party. Hurling criticism of the major parties is easy where the Greens don't feel at all obliged to come up with workable, coherent, integrated policies to cover all of government as is required of the major parties.

Is Mise, you say <<why are National Parks any different?>>

I say "A fox hunter has been accidentally shot by a friend on a property north of Albury in NSW, near the Victorian border." SMH.

I say "the program in South Australia has been suspended because a man was shot in the ankle during a supervised cull of feral goats earlier this month." ABC News

I say "A teenager was shot dead when his friend mistook him for a deer while on a hunting trip in Victoria's north late yesterday afternoon." The Age

I don't want to read "A bush-walker was accidentally shot dead in a New South Wales national park when a nutter of a shooter, who thought he was Rambo, mistook him for a Wooly Mammoth."

No way should the 98% of the community, pander to the perverse wants of the 2% of crazy shooters

Paul1405

Your second report appears to be a duplicate of the first.

In fact your appeal to emotion is purely hysteria. The numbers prove the very opposite of what you intend. Few reports it seems and a very safe sport considering the number of people with licences.

Would it were that the Greens consumption of wine had a similar enviable safety record, eh? Or those MaryJ stooges!

Paul,

"No way should the 98% of the community, pander to the perverse wants of the 2% of crazy shooters"

To be in any way statistically significant you need to give the actual number of shooters then the percentage of them that are crazy so that we may calculate what 2% represents.
One also wonders what percentage of GDP your post represents.