Posts by Amanda Wreckonwith
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: Branding a Post-Predator…, in reply to Bart Janssen,
That equation is also complicated...
From my own perspective, the farm I live on had no pet cats prior to me buying it. We were surrounded by surprising amount of bird life. 3 years later a stray cat (probably dumped) turned up and became part of the family. The bird life disappeared in the space of 6 months. Dead birds were a regular addition to the veranda. The rat and mouse population was still as numerous as before.
Upon its demise, said cat was not replaced. -
Envirologue: Branding a Post-Predator…, in reply to izogi,
Not sure what Halo are up to. It's not difficult to target stoats and weasels. DOC 200 or 250 are highly unlikely to get a cat. The Goodnature gas traps are also safe around pet cats as far as I know. Trapping mustelids is rather tricky so good luck!
-
Envirologue: Branding a Post-Predator…, in reply to izogi,
Do the traps basically kill stuff, or are there alternatives?
From a rural perspective, live trapping is problematic. Feral cats are very nasty critters indeed. Live capture leaves you with a spitfire of fur, teeth and claws that bears no resemblance to Tibbles in a cat basket.
With the tabby tornado trapped in a wire cage you are faced with the decision of what to do next. A 2 hour round trip to the SPCA hoping that they will take said intern (they are not happy to be presented with feral cats)? A similar trip to the local vet for euthanasia (with not insubstantial costs incurred)? Or dispatch the offender yourself?
Killing a cat in a cage is a horrible task - a .22 will do the trick but its not a simple thing to do. Some have told me that they dunk the cat cage and contents underwater to drown the cat (inhumane and likely illegal). Others have suggested using car exhaust carbon monoxide - somehow cooling the gasses before they are administered (again - likely illegal).
So we are back to kill traps - which are also not infallible in their actions - I've found mangled cats in traps that bled to death rather than being cleanly dispatched. Setting a trap is a skilled job.Sorting out the feral cat issue in NZ will be a long and expensive process. I favour the approach of regulation of breeding, keeping and sale of cats.
1. All pet cats must be neutered and microchipped.
2. Cats can only be sold by licensed breeders
3. All cats for sale must be neutered, microchipped and new owners placed on a register.
4. Any cat trapped that is not microchipped should be euthanised (unless the cat owning community can organise a fund that pays for the cats to be desexed/microchipped/rehoused) -
Hard News: Dirty Politics, in reply to Alfie,
Guernsey??
One of these things is not like the others...
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Ian Dalziel,
Ian
In an ideal resource management environment everyone at every step from grower through to consumer would be responsible for best practice and minimising, if not eliminating, waste. Each absorbing and reflecting any and all consequential costs.
Then surely this ideal is what we should work towards - isn't that the honest way to proceed?
The present government policy has given farmers a free pass on its emissions. This has to be addressed.
But please... lets not avoid the fact that the rest of NZ is also horrendously profligate in its emissions profile. Our politics is not the only thing about us that is dirty.
I'm hoping for the day when we appreciate the GHG emission implications of every personal purchase decision - rather than the real estate value of every house in our neighbourhood. -
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to st ephen,
Amanda – not my field of expertise so I shouldn’t really pass on half-remembered anecdote. Maybe start your Google search here.
Thanks st ephen . Always good to have a starting point.
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Dave Hansford,
I’m saying that producers should be entirely liable for the pollution they cause in the prosecution of their business
I've no problem with producers being liable for their emissions. You previously seemed to propose that they shouldn't be allowed to pass on these costs to the consumer. Does the meat or dairy consumer have no personal responsibility for the GHG emission?
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Dave Hansford,
I wouldn’t be surprised to see them simply externalise any extra costs/liabilities upon domestic consumers in exactly the same way, assuming of course that they’re ever forced to start accounting for their own climate pollution.
I’m a bit confused here.
So you are saying that the farmer is entirely liable for the carbon emissions involved in the production of the steak that you are about to eat…? And the farmer shouldn’t be able to externalise the cost onto you, the consumer? So the steak costs more to produce but the public shouldn’t pay any extra for the environmental benefit of the farmer reducing their stocking rate? And you as the meat eater has no responsibility for any carbon emitted by virtue of your choice of diet?
How can this approach be expected to produce the behavioural change needed to address climate change? Is your plan that we should reduce meat and dairy consumption by bankrupting the farmer?
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to st ephen,
Hi st ephen
There is a feeling that the estimated GWP grossly over-estimates methane’s contribution to damaging climate change (a view held by more than just dairy farmers and climate change deniers).
What makes you think this? Anywhere I can reference it?
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Andre,
Hi Andre
The dairy farmers and manufacturers have a monopoly that extends to retail, FMCG etc. Now cattle and sheep farmers want a monopoly too.
It's not a monopoly - more a co-operative. Gets you better bargaining power. Think of it like a trade union but with more excrement.