livingart Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 they tried to ban palms as well, stirred up plant breeders so they backed off pet shops should be upset as this will slow down sales of related products the "experts" they used on the palms were cting studies done in hawaii to justify banning some species in nz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insect Direct Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 dunno what this "WILD" thing is about, IMO captive kept/bred arnt "wild", soo therfore are they fine to keep? lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
repto Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 and each palm tree had a jackson`s chameleon up it ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonka Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 *species not pests when in SECURE CONTAINMENT . Does that mean a containment facility ? , or securely contained in your home?, or securely contained in your 5 acre bush block ? , protected from intruders by a moat full of crocs , and trained attack WILD (thats wild as in friggen angry that their brothers & sisters got slaughtered) IGUANAS , with a few 'ohh there so cute and so furry' wild cats thrown in just to keep any NATIVE threats under control , all surrounded by a perimiter fence of goarse. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 yes it means a containment facility... about $5000 and you cant remove them once inside without permission... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidb Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 and to top this all off DoC have just declared they are $8 mill out of pocket, so they are getting rid of the majority of their biodiversity monitoring schemes (including volunteer based ones)... :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted May 22, 2008 Report Share Posted May 22, 2008 and to top this all off DoC have just declared they are $8 mill out of pocket, so they are getting rid of the majority of their biodiversity monitoring schemes (including volunteer based ones)... :roll: money gone to feed the beaurecrats ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varanophile Posted May 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 certainly not going into policy reviews.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 This is unbelievable, every day I see more reasons to leave this country!! Reptiles banned = ten of thousands of people are angry cats banned = 90% of the population will be in a uproar Cats don't need to be banned (neither do most reptiles!!), just regulated like dogs. They should have to be desexed (unless you're a certified breeder with a permit) and registered, and if they are found roaming at night they are returned to the owner after a fine is payed or destroyed. I wonder what will happen to the blue tongues at Jansens... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varanophile Posted May 23, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 This is unbelievable, every day I see more reasons to leave this country!! Cats don't need to be banned (neither do most reptiles!!), just regulated like dogs. They should have to be desexed (unless you're a certified breeder with a permit) and registered, and if they are found roaming at night they are returned to the owner after a fine is payed or destroyed. I wonder what will happen to the blue tongues at Jansens... even well fed domestic cats will slaughter skinks, gekos, birds. Making a rule that they need to be locked up at night will not do a thing. Certain areas of the country should ban the keeping of cats. Some areas in CHCH have done this, but they were new developments, and these areas have become havens. Your comment above is not practical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navarre Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Their money hasnt been used on food It was used to cover up how many birds they actually killed whilst tring to relocate 150 kakariki in the Auckland Harbour last week Pffft Naturalism to the exclusion of all else....NZ a work in progress Rediculous Nav Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Afrikan Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Cats are natural born killers... alot don't kill for the food they kill for the sake of killing.. the thrill of the chase... speaking from experience... I have an Ocicat who kills mice and rats because he loves the thrill, even tosses them up in the air and parades around with his trophy.. even his eyes dialate... he's not really a bird connoisseur... Alot of people go on about ferrets, cat's are just as bad in alot of cases... Hmmm not sure how NZ as a nation would take to keeping cats confined... a law like that just wouldn't work... I think MAF's issue over the BT's is a silly load of codswallop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 even well fed domestic cats will slaughter skinks, gekos, birds. Making a rule that they need to be locked up at night will not do a thing. Certain areas of the country should ban the keeping of cats. Some areas in CHCH have done this, but they were new developments, and these areas have become havens. Your comment above is not practical. So you would propose a blanket-ban on cats? I don't think that would ever happen, despite the fact that it would be a great thing for the native eco system (provided they could be eradicated). Call it a compromise, but it would certainly go a long way to reducing the cat population if you were required to have cats registered and had to buy from a licensed breeder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 Recent studies have actually show we might be worse off without cats because they keep populations of rats and mice in check. They still aren't good, but as per the Teara web site "It is difficult and expensive to rid the bush of cats. It took 128 people almost 400 days to remove 100 cats from Little Barrier Island. In some cases they can be seen as a lesser evil, as they prey on rats, which cause even more damage." One of the reason they were introduced was to control rabbits hahaha. In parts of Aussie, they have to be kept indoors, or on leads if taken outside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dixon1990 Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 In parts of Aussie, they have to be kept indoors, or on leads if taken outside I think this would work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted May 23, 2008 Report Share Posted May 23, 2008 less cats = more rats = more mustelids eating more natives as well less rats and cats = more natives preyed on by mustelids less cats, less mustelids, less rats = more natives Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varanophile Posted May 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 So you would propose a blanket-ban on cats? I don't think that would ever happen, despite the fact that it would be a great thing for the native eco system (provided they could be eradicated). Call it a compromise, but it would certainly go a long way to reducing the cat population if you were required to have cats registered and had to buy from a licensed breeder. O.K here we go...if...I won big W...I would start a community where no cats or dogs were allowed and have it fenced off. I would also trap/bait for rodents. I know that most people like cats, hell, I have 2 myself. But they are the number one killer when it comes to wildlife. Silly Itty Bitty Weany Meany Maffy Waffy laws banning the sale of certain reptiles do nothing but make you and I realise that part of our hard earned money is being spent on a big pile of poo. If we are going to pretend to be all green and biodiversity conscious then we at least need to be honest, nothing will make us clean and green like sterilising all cats. If you have one then fine, it needs to be sterilised/neutered/speyed. No breeding of cats allowed. And why not ban the sale of non native plants? Why does everyone pick on the people that like the cool pets Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Varanophile Posted May 26, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 less cats = more rats = more mustelids eating more natives as well less rats and cats = more natives preyed on by mustelids less cats, less mustelids, less rats = more natives More MAF = More Crap Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 can they be solf out of the auckland region or is it a blanket ban> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted May 26, 2008 Report Share Posted May 26, 2008 And why not ban the sale of non native plants? Because that would be even more stupid than banning reptiles! (and would put me out of a job) This whole warped sense of patriotism that has everyone planting "natives" is a load of poo, half the "natives" are nursery-grown hybrids, not actually native species. The nursery I work for is breeding some pretty rare plants that are endangered in habitat and very rare in cultivation, its a shame CITES, MAF and other borders and bureaucrats make it so hard to import/export plant material... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.