Feral Cats And Unintended Consequences

One of the few consistencies that we see with environmentalist wackos is unintended consequences.  This blog is chock full of examples if you care to explore a bit, but here's yet another one:

It seemed like a good idea at the time: Remove all the feral cats from a famous Australian island to save the native seabirds.

But the decision to eradicate the felines from Macquarie island allowed the rabbit population to explode and, in turn, destroy much of its fragile vegetation that birds depend on for cover, researchers said Tuesday.

Removing the cats from Macquarie "caused environmental devastation" that will cost authorities 24 million Australian dollars ($16.2 million) to remedy, Dana Bergstrom of the Australian Antarctic Division and her colleagues wrote in the British Ecological Society's Journal of Applied Ecology.

"Our study shows that between 2000 and 2007, there has been widespread ecosystem devastation and decades of conservation effort compromised," Bergstrom said in a statement.

The unintended consequences of the cat-removal project show the dangers of meddling with an ecosystem — even with the best of intentions — without thinking long and hard, the study said.

That's terrific!  Cats threaten birds, so to get rid of them these animal lovers embarked upon an animal extermination campaign which then caused massive environmental carnage, thus endangering the birds they were 'protecting'.

Classic liberal results!

Instead of learning from their first attempt at meddling, though, what do you suppose those cold-blooded conservationists believe was their biggest mistake?

Several conservation groups including the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Birds Australia said the problem was not the original eradication effort itself — but that it didn't go far enough. They said the project should have taken aim at all the invasive mammals on the island at once.

"What was wrong was that the rabbits were not eradicated at the same time as the cats," University of Auckland Prof. Mick Clout, who also is a member of the Union's invasive species specialist group. "It would have been ideal if the cats and rabbits were eradicated at the same time, or the rabbits first and the cats subsequently."

That's right, there was not enough killing of the wildlife!

Don't worry, though, that won't happen again:

Now, the parks service has a new plan to finish the job, using technology and poisons that weren't available a decade ago.

Wren said plans to eradicate both rabbits as well as rats and mice from the island will begin in 2010. Helicopters using global positioning systems will drop poisonous bait that targets all three pests. Later, teams will shoot, fumigate and trap the remaining rabbits, she said.

Why do the bird lovers get their way here?  How is that 'fair'?!  Apparently, there isn't an advocacy group for Feral Cats or Australian Bunnies.  Too bad for them.

But what if there was?  What if the Cat/Bunny people came in and threw a tantrum about how the Bird people were murdering these innocent creatures?  Who would win the fight?  It would be fun to watch, I'm sure.

And here's the thing...what happens if this new campaign of death succeeds?  Do they know how the complete removal of rabbits, rats, and mice from this ecosystem will effect what's left?  What happens to the parts of the ecosystem upon which those rodents fed?  What happens to the larger predators -- including birds! -- that feed on those small rodents?  These people are assuming that simply by removing the artificially introduced animals everything will go back to hunky-dory normal, but what if it doesn't?  I guess they can just begin another extermination campaign when the time comes.

Regardless, can't you just picture an army of environmentalists trekking through the wilderness with high-powered rifles and chemical weapons, wreaking havoc on thousands of poor, furry little creatures for the sake of 'conserving nature'?

It doesn't get much more liberal than that.

There's my two cents.