PREDATION BY CATS
While feral cats are frequently blamed for large-scale changes
in the abundance of native animals, there is no convincing
evidence to support this claim for mainland Australia. 1
It may come as a shock to those who have an anti-cat mindset, but
the wildlife threat issue looks threadbare when subjected to close
scrutiny.
At UAM3 in Sydney, Nattrass argued that stricter control of
urban cats would not arrest major extinctions of wildlife. 2
He went on to say:
For cat management to be acceptable and effective in the
long-term, it should be based on the real issues and not on
issues which might be perceived as more morally appealing.
Nattrass was not arguing against cat management as such, but
rather, against the notion that wildlife predation should be an
argument for it.
For the purposes of this book we are talking about urban,
suburban and urban-peripheral areas. We are talking about land
areas that have already been severely compromised in an ecological
sense by the presence and activity of people. While greenish in
parts, such places are anything but natural. The question ëDo
cats impact on wildlife?í can be answered very easily: ëOf
course they do.í But so do motorcars, lawnmowers, residential
developments and a thousand other things. History clearly shows
that wherever there are humans and human activity, that is where
wildlife is most at risk. (See: Quantifying
the impact of cats)
A more relevant question that could be asked about cat
predation is: ëIs the impact significant compared with other
impacts?í
Habitat destruction appears to be
a much greater threat to wildlife than cats. The lack of
adequate research prevents a
more definite conclusion being reached. Meanwhile, we can't help
wondering why cats have been given so much of the blame in the
absence of real proof. They
certainly aren't the only wildlife
predators.
Based on the information we have, we conclude that:
ï all types of cats On the question of significant
negative impact on wildlife from all types of cats, the jury is
still out but the guilty verdict looks in doubt because there is
too little evidence to support the other case.
ï pet cats in particular On the question of
significant negative impact on wildlife from pet cats, the
guilty verdict is most unlikely. They may on the whole be doing
more good than harm. Barratt undertook a similar analysis of the
predation impact of house-based domestic cats and came to very
much the same conclusions. 3
(See: Barratt on predation by cats in the
suburbs)
But in the absence of good research data, we canít be 100%
sure. The biggest trouble of all is that the worst of the bad guys
are probably the ones on two legsÖ and theyíre the ones who
are running the whole show.
1.
Wilson G, Dexter N, O'Brien P, Bomford M. 1992. Feral cat (Felis catus). In: Pest Animals in Australia: a survey of introduced wild mammals. Canberra: Bureau of Rural Resources: 55-57.
2.
Nattrass R. 1993. A model for cat control. In: Paxton DW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Second National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Penrith NSW, 1993). Sydney: AVA: 30-37.
3.
Barratt D. 1994. Using theory and scientific experience to assess the impact of house-based cats Felis catus (L.) on prey populations and prey community structure. In: Paxton DW, editor. Urban Animal Management: proceedings of the Third National Conference on Urban Animal Management in Australia (Canberra, 1994). Sydney: AVA: 147-156.
|