A large continent; but that does not mean there is enough room in it for all. Since the coming of the Europeans in 1788, the continent has a had a history of displacement: of Aboriginal people and of native species of plants and animals. Some creatures have thrived in the continent; others have been hounded to extinction or to small pockets of existence. Some of the native species have thrived in the new conditions. Red and grey kangaroos, which before 1788 had small habitats of open grasslands got larger ones. Cockatoos, galahs and corellas, which before 1788 had small habitats of large-seed grasslands, got larger ones. These native species thrived as Europeans felled the woodlands. And the Europeans brought cats, dogs, donkeys, rabbits, foxes, pigs, camels, goats, horses, starlings and blackbirds. They did not have predators and tore into the habitat of the existing native flora and fauna. Further, the Europeans took some native species, especially plants like Cootamundra wattle, elsewhere in the continent, where they thrived to the exclusion of existing species.
Now, Australians (mostly themselves introduced) seek to arrest the onslaught of the successful introduced species. They do so for a variety of reasons. They want to keep biodiversity and genetic stock because it might be useful one day. They want to stop extinction of species because each species has an intangible worth and because a land dominated by the introduced species would lose its Australian distinctiveness. Any argument about conservation of threatened species is bound to meet a certain amount of emotion as well as scientific argument. So, too, are the measures proposed to meet those aims.
This week the ACT Legislative Assembly’s committee on feral animals and invasive plants proposed measures to contain non-native species and some native species that are threatening biodiversity.
It recommended changes that are bound to meet resistance, especially those relating to cats. On their face they are quite radical recommendations. Cats should be registered and tagged (either with a collar or surgical implant of a microchip). A system of catching and impounding strays would be instituted. Owners would have to retrieve their cats from the pound upon payment of a fee.
It sounds radical, but it is little different from the system pertaining to dogs. The only difference is the purpose of the exercise. With dogs, control is to prevent the savaging of humans. With cats, control is to prevent the savaging of native fauna, either directly by domestic cats or indirectly when uncontrolled domestic cats go feral.
Various statistics have been bandied about. It is fairly certain that there are at least 30,000 cats in the ACT. Precisely how many native birds, mammals and reptiles they kill a year is anyone’s guess. Estimates vary. But even at an average of half the best estimates, the toll is horrific. Cats are doing what comes naturally to them. They have to be controlled if a fair balance is to be maintained between native and introduced species.
The committee has not recommended the impossible. It has not gone on an ideological warfare against introduced species. Rather it has sought a balance between the preservation of native species and introduced species. It has quite sensibly no argued for eradication of all introduced animals and plants. The cost would be prohibitive and the success of the venture always in doubt. Rather it has sought a managed response. It has sought control of the most intrusive species. The control is severalfold. Through education and through steps to control reproduction and absolute numbers.
With cats it recognised that present practices give the cat (both feral and domestic) an unfair advantage. Australians living in this continent, and more particularly in this bush capital, have a responsibility to ensure cats they own do not inflict an unnecessarily catastrophic burden upon native species. This will mean a change in present practices if native species are to survive. It will mean more containment and more de-sexing.
In making its recommendations about cats and other species the committee was mindful of the present state of species. For example, to eradicate rabbits means foxes will turn to other prey and some native birds will lose a source of prey.
The committee recognises a balance must be struck and that elimination of all introduced species (including the most predatory of them all, homo sapiens) might not be desirable. None the less, it has recognised that some changes to current practices are necessary if many native species are to survive.
As intelligent residents on this continent, humans are ethically bound to take reasonable steps to ensure native species are not exterminated. That said, we should ensure that introduced species which present a threat are not somehow regarded as criminal and beyond the bounds of compassion. In dealing with the explosion of rabbit, rat, cat, dog, goat, camel, donkey, pig, horse, starling and carp populations, humans must act humanely without unnecessary cruelty. To do otherwise is self-defeating of the general cause of promoting a bio-diverse animal and plant kingdom.
The pursuit of bio-diversity against mono-cultures of successful introduced species (which have no natural predators) is a worthy one. In pursuing that, humans are behaving a bit like a biological Trade Practices Commission. They are ensuring that some species are not abusing their position to become monopolies. They are promoting diversity and quelling unfair competition. In doing that, suburban cat owners must expect a certain amount of curtailment of the by-day cute pet which by night becomes an uncontrolled killer.