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.