03-29-2009, 05:54 PM
Merely stating that the birds are thriving begs the question of which birds. Bulbuls, myna birds, doves, and pidgeons would probably do well in just about any circumstances. On the mainland starlings have defied all efforts to eradicate them. None of these birds are what you want in Hawaii. The birds we do want in Hawaii, indiginous and endemic Hawaiian birds, unfortunately are in dire straits. Please see the story below about endangered hawaiian birds at Moomomi Beach only making a comeback after predators were removed, cats among them. This is a real life documented example where birds were not doing well because of cats and where removing cats was the option that finally worked.
You have to be specific about the challanges that each endangered species faces because each species will have their own needs. For some it will be habitat destruction. For others it will be an inability to deal with the large and disorienting amount of light that human development puts out at night, and still others will be unable to deal with specific pests. Personally I don't think habitat destruction lets cats off the hook one bit. In fact, if a species is on the brink due to a myriad of factors it becomes totally indefensible to allow an identifiable and manageable destructive force (cats for example) to remain because well they're not really the "main" cause of the problem.
I have been an engineer for my entire adult life. Engineers add stuff up and see if it makes sense. I just spent 3 hours methodically troubleshooting an industrial air drier that had been unsuccessfully troubleshot already by two other intelligent highly trained people. I succeeded where they didn't not because I am smarter but because I laboriously applied logic without jumping to any conclusions. I am not dumb. The hypothesis that a policy of systematically nurturing selected cats in an environment will result in less predation than a policy of systematically removing cats from that environment does not add up or make sense. It sounds as though impartial researchers agree with me. So who is it that thinks otherwise? It is not my intent to start a fight or hurt anyones feelings but the first three words of this thread were "Aloha Animal Lovers". By the way I too am an animal lover. I have a dog and my brother has one dog, two cats, and a handful of pet rats, two of whom are HAIRLESS. Boy, ya gotta be a believer to love those ugly little fellas. My point is that this breaks down along emotional lines and if people are biased and unwilling to see that for what it is then little progress can be made.
Please note I said systematically nurturing, systematically removing, and selected cats. It is essential to compare apples to apples. Cat caretakers are quite dedicated to nurturing their charges. I contend that if equal dedication was brought to bear on removing the cats you would see real results. If you only do periodic removals and then say "see, the cats (Which cats? The non-favored cats pushed to the fringes by the favored cats) reproduce and build the numbers back up", well, yea, you're right. The removal efforts would have to be consistant and meet a minimum threshhold level to be effective. We wage continuous war on rats, don't we? The difference? We are biased against rats and in favor of cats. Heck, I am WAY biased in favor of my personal pets. Cat collectors with 100 cats breeding in every corner of their house are WAY, WAY, WAY biased in favor of their, um, pets. I know I am biased and can make an impartial decision when I have to, they don't and can't.
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.det...00052.html
You have to be specific about the challanges that each endangered species faces because each species will have their own needs. For some it will be habitat destruction. For others it will be an inability to deal with the large and disorienting amount of light that human development puts out at night, and still others will be unable to deal with specific pests. Personally I don't think habitat destruction lets cats off the hook one bit. In fact, if a species is on the brink due to a myriad of factors it becomes totally indefensible to allow an identifiable and manageable destructive force (cats for example) to remain because well they're not really the "main" cause of the problem.
I have been an engineer for my entire adult life. Engineers add stuff up and see if it makes sense. I just spent 3 hours methodically troubleshooting an industrial air drier that had been unsuccessfully troubleshot already by two other intelligent highly trained people. I succeeded where they didn't not because I am smarter but because I laboriously applied logic without jumping to any conclusions. I am not dumb. The hypothesis that a policy of systematically nurturing selected cats in an environment will result in less predation than a policy of systematically removing cats from that environment does not add up or make sense. It sounds as though impartial researchers agree with me. So who is it that thinks otherwise? It is not my intent to start a fight or hurt anyones feelings but the first three words of this thread were "Aloha Animal Lovers". By the way I too am an animal lover. I have a dog and my brother has one dog, two cats, and a handful of pet rats, two of whom are HAIRLESS. Boy, ya gotta be a believer to love those ugly little fellas. My point is that this breaks down along emotional lines and if people are biased and unwilling to see that for what it is then little progress can be made.
Please note I said systematically nurturing, systematically removing, and selected cats. It is essential to compare apples to apples. Cat caretakers are quite dedicated to nurturing their charges. I contend that if equal dedication was brought to bear on removing the cats you would see real results. If you only do periodic removals and then say "see, the cats (Which cats? The non-favored cats pushed to the fringes by the favored cats) reproduce and build the numbers back up", well, yea, you're right. The removal efforts would have to be consistant and meet a minimum threshhold level to be effective. We wage continuous war on rats, don't we? The difference? We are biased against rats and in favor of cats. Heck, I am WAY biased in favor of my personal pets. Cat collectors with 100 cats breeding in every corner of their house are WAY, WAY, WAY biased in favor of their, um, pets. I know I am biased and can make an impartial decision when I have to, they don't and can't.
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.det...00052.html