But the island’s 400 residents, particuarly cat owners, aren’t so sure.

Stewart Island’s birds, beaches and bush are ignored by all but the most determined of tourists.

Now Mr Morgan has hatched a plan he says will to have them visiting in droves. He wants to make the entire island predator-free.

“If we achieve this, that island will get UNESCO world heritage status,” says Mr Morgan. “Just if we look at bird watchers alone, 3 million bird watchers tour the world with those big lenses, looking at birds. So just to tap that market for Stewart Island would be a bonanza.”

It’s not a new concept. Others have tried but lacked funding to carry it out.

Mr Morgan estimates to rid the entire island of possums, rats and feral cats would cost between $40 million and $60 million.

“What we’ll do is appeal to the heritage conservation trusts around the world,” says Mr Morgan.

The post Gareth Morgan: make Stewart Island pest-free appeared first on Gareths World.

Housing is cannibalising the rest of the New Zealand economy, no disagreement there. In fact I’ve been going on about this for years. There are policies that can stop this stupidity, but Bill English’s bag of tricks isn’t up to the job. The key ingredient – tax neutrality for housing – is missing and what is there, with few exceptions, is mutton dressed up as lamb.

I’m not going to focus on the decision to support non-government, not-for-profits, supplying community housing. This is good in principle but where will the new funds and therefore significant growth in supply come from? Nor am I going to delve into the decision to allow the fast-tracking of resource consents for new subdivisions. What does this say about the quality of urban living for all residents and community-based democracy? But I am going to address the Reserve Bank’s new prudential tools.

I’ve repeatedly gone on record in the past saying that the Reserve Bank’s prudential policy was creating a housing monster – the policy rewarded banks for lending to housing as opposed to other sectors. The policy effectively meant housing loans were cheaper to supply for the banks than other loans because they had to keep relatively fewer financial assets to back them up. This approach was wrong, and the economy as a whole has paid the price. The housing market en masse is a big risk for the economy – simply because so much money is invested in it – and this ‘systemic’ risk should have been reflected in the costs the banks faced when they made housing loans. It wasn’t.

As an aside, it would be nice to think that bankers would be able to see and factor in these systemic risks at the time they make loans, leading them out of self-interest to pull back from lending that  jeopardises the system and therefore their own bank. But in this respect it seems that bankers, despite with their fancy qualifications and fat salaries, are no different to any other business people or traders and are incapable of incorporating systemic risk into their business decisions.

One piece of positive feedback I have about the Reserve Bank’s new prudential rules is ‘Hurray, at last we face the possibility that the favourable prudential treatment of housing might be removed’. Another positive is that it seems likely automatic stabilisers in the system might be enhanced with banks being required to put aside more capital into reserves during good times (limiting their ability to make new loans then but gaining gunpowder for tough times) than they might otherwise have done. This goes someway to addressing the lemming tendencies of bankers. However that’s about where the good news ends.

There is a definite impression that the Reserve Bank will be using these tools to dip in and out of the lending markets, depending on how hot they view the housing market. In technical jargon, the RBNZ has the capacity to use these tools ‘counter-cyclically’, just as it does with the OCR which directly impacts on interest rates. How else to interpret the Reserve Bank’s own description of what it will be able to do:

“The Reserve Bank’s aim would be to apply the restrictions at times when…lending was judged to be posing a significant risk to financial system stability.

What nobody seems to be saying, and this is surely a puzzle, is that New Zealand has been down this track before and failed spectacularly. In the post-war period until 1984 the Reserve Bank used direct tools similar to those being proposed now. The RBNZ had tools that they could apply at will to alter the costs to banks of loans depending on the sector which received the loan, and the state of the business cycle. This facility is now being granted to the RBNZ. The RBNZ also had tools to influence growth in the different types of loans banks made (eg low equity loans) – snap again. As well, then the rules applied only to the banks, not other lenders (like solicitors) – again, this is the case today.

Of course, many things were different in the 1970s. For example, then the government could also force banks to lend to it by requiring them to buy its bonds, and there was no fiscal discipline. Bureaucrats picking winners and politicians forcing banks to fund government largesse was a big part of New Zealand becoming economically unsustainable in the 1970s and 1980s. Back to that future will be suicide.

But the one constant between then and now is that the RBNZ now has tools available to it to influence the allocation of bank loans depending on officials’ views about the business cycle. That’s really dangerous. It simply isn’t possible for officials to know accurately when in the cycle they should intervene. Getting it wrong with these sorts of weapons at their disposal has serious consequences. It’s bad enough with interest rate levers – and the RBNZ is careful to give long lead-ins to changes there – but prudential tools used for counter-cyclical purposes are a different fish altogether.

Another lesson, duly acknowledged by the RBNZ and behind some of the fine-tuning they are currently considering, is that leaving any lender out of the new regime gives that lender a competitive advantage (as solicitors’ mortgage trusts once had).  You would no longer have a level playing field, and worse yet, the ones who would do well would be out of view of the regulators. This clearly increases risk in the system, it doesn’t reduce it. And don’t forget the added costs policies like this impose on the economy too – new bank compliance costs that will give a step jump in interest costs and higher tax-funded expenses for the RBNZ.

Finally, a key lesson from earlier regimes is that central bank prudential policy cannot do all the work. We know (as was true in the 1970s) if appropriate supporting policies are missing, relying on  prudential policy will at best delay inevitable adjustments and invariably introduce imbalances elsewhere in the economy.

In the current case, investment in housing is eating into the structural strength of the New Zealand economy. This is because it has favourable tax status as well as favoured status with the RBNZ prudential guidelines. Making prudential policy a discretionary cyclical tool is really high risk and the housing tax break hasn’t been touched.

The signalled path ahead for grappling with the overheated housing market will be ugly to watch and ultimately unsuccessful.

The post Response to housing problem limp-wristed #nzbudget appeared first on Gareths World.

The post Cats debate – 7 Days appeared first on Gareths World.

In late January, Morgan launched the Web site Cats to Go, outlining a plan that would eventually lead to a cat-free country. Some scientists said he was, in fact, understating the threat posed by little Fluffy, while others argued that the ecosystem was far more complex than he was allowing for.

The mere suggestion of a feline-free nation is raising the dander of cat lovers of every stripe, with everyone from the prime minister to animal-welfare activists calling Morgan a kitty hater of the worst sort.

Writing on the opposition group Cats to Stay’s Facebook page, which has more than 6,000 “likes,” Jeremy Chang said of Morgan: “making the capital pest-free? then he should stay away from Wellington.”

This is a nation with an uneasy relationshi with pests. Because of its geographic isolation, the country has become home to an exotic bird life that evolved in the absence of any native mammals, save three species of bats. Many birds, including the kiwi — the country’s national symbol — became flightless.

Rats, opossums, short-tailed weasels — these have long been maligned here as wholly unwelcome interlopers wreaking havoc on the native bird life and landscape made famous by the “Lord of the Rings” films. The Conservation Department spent two years and more than $500,000 eradicating three short-tailed weasels on nearby Kapiti Island, for example.

But cats? New Zealanders love their felines, with one study estimating that they have the highest rate of cat ownership in the world.

“We have got a concerted effort on opossums, rats, mice, mustelids, but the one that stands out is cats. Everybody is too bloody PC and scared to take on cats. So I thought, I can handle that,” said Morgan, one of this city’s best-known figures.

Undeterred by the hate mail in his inbox — much of it from Americans, Morgan says — the businessman took his message to New Zealand’s third-largest island last week in a campaign to make it pest-free, meaning cleared of feral cats, rats and other pests. He also wants the 400 residents to contain their free-roaming domestic cats.

New Zealand has cleared more than 80 of its 220 offshore islands of invasive species. But Morgan’s target, Stewart Island, is 15 times larger than any other that has been made pest-free, so the effort would be closely watched by conservationists around the world.

Morgan insists he is not anti-cat, just anti-wandering-cat. He wants domestic cats registered, as dogs are, and neutered, kept indoors at all times or taken out on a leash, and not replaced when they die.

The furor has renewed a broader debate about the possibility — however far-fetched — of a New Zealand free of pests. Why not chuck the whole lot? The idea gained steam in early 2012 after Paul Callaghan, a celebrated scientist who died later that year, said the concept could be New Zealand’s equivalent of the Apollo space program.

The notion of a pest-free New Zealand is not without huge challenges, including a massive price tag: A recent report by Landcare Research, a government research arm, said such an undertaking would exceed $20 billion.

Still, scientists here talk dreamily about their 50-year vision of a country with no pest or invasive species. Cows and sheep could stay, but opossums, rats, weasels, ferrets and mice would have to go. And cats?

“Cats are the major sticking point to a pest-free New Zealand,” said James Russell, an ecologist at the University of Auckland.

Cats may be cuddly companions, but they are predators, too: A study this year by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the Fish and Wildlife Service found that cats kill a median of 2.4 billion birds in the United States each year, substantially more than previously thought.

It’s hard to overstate just how much New Zealanders love birds, perhaps because theirs are unlike any others on the planet. Their dollar bills are festooned with birds. Radio New Zealandplays a bird call before the morning news. There is a multimillion-dollar bird sanctuary just minutes from downtown Wellington. (Morgan calls it “the most expensive cat food factory in the country.”)

But there are competing views on the impact cats have in a complex ecosystem and whether birds would be worse off in the absence of cats, who prey on bird-killing rats. “The jury is out,” said Andrea Byrom, an ecologist at Landcare Research.

Morgan helps fuel the debate by taking a few playful swipes at his critics.

Take, for instance, his exchange with Prime Minister John Key after Key said his cat, Moonbeam, would never hurt a bird.

Why not perform an autopsy on Moonbeam, Morgan recalled suggesting. “And I said, ‘If there isn’t any feathers, I’ll buy you a new one.’ ”

The post Cat war breaks out in New Zealand appeared first on Gareths World.

New Zealand fared relatively well in one sense through all this – output contracted and unemployment went up, but not the extent it did in other countries. However because of our success, unlike other countries, we failed to shake the excess out of our house prices. Partly prompted by the devastating damage caused by the earthquake in Christchurch, house prices haven’t fallen by much in New Zealand and, if recent new loan approvals are anything to go on, debt-funded investors are at it again.

The RBNZ is worried, saying last week that “housing pressures are an increasing risk to the financial system.” They say their concerns are shared by the IMF and the OECD. The Reserve Bank has responded by penalising banks for providing loans that are high relative to the borrowers equity – a useful measure but powerless against wealthy, equity-rich investors looking to own more than one property.

The risks are there for all to see. Median house prices are far higher relative to median incomes than they have been for decades. A Treasury report from July last year spells it out (see the chart). Borrowers are surviving because average monthly mortgage payments are relatively modest, and that’s because interest rates are low. When, not if, interest rates increase this illusion that housing is ‘affordable’ will burst. There is no magic formula to boosting income – especially when the rest of the world is in recession – so that means only one thing – house prices will adjust. It’s an adjustment the rest of the world has had, and is overdue in New Zealand.

House prices and debt servicing relative to gross annual income

The over-investment in housing in New Zealand has been sponsored by irresponsible tax and monetary policies and it has come at a high price: diversion of capital away from deployment in industry and income and employment generation.

The policy failings have historically been twofold:

* Turning a blind eye in tax policy to the benefits owners get from housing. While rental properties and farm are taxed as a business, the capital gains they receive are not considered taxable income. Equally important, the rental equivalent of the shelter provided to owner occupiers and the capital gains they receive are not taxed either.

* A directive to banks from our Reserve Bank to favour lending on mortgage to other forms of lending – this is effected by the lower risk weightings it deems residential mortgages deserve compared to other lending types. The Reserve Bank is tweeking around the edges with this policy – through their higher capital requirements for low equity loans – but it’s not going to get very far without support from a radical rethink on taxing housing.

But the disease remains the same; we have discriminated against productive investment in favour of property speculation. That has intensified the morbid dependency on commodity sales to sustain our incomes. If those hadn’t risen we would be another Spain already.

Why would you continue to gamble on being a one-trick pony? We have an opportunity as the economy picks itself up this time, to remove the policies that discriminate in favour of housing speculation. Why wouldn’t we do that and bring affordability within reach of many more families, like it used to be?

Or should I go out and buy another three houses now and just wait for the rest of you to bid the prices up?

The post Policy at the root of housing problem in NZ appeared first on Gareths World.

Call us what you like. Just not a think tank.

For many decades now I have commented publicly on issues to do with economics and finance. I’m still interested in that stuff – which is why I continue to comment on monetary policy, housing, tax, welfare policy, inequality, and investing to name just a few. But over the last few years I’ve broadened my subject range a bit to cover the environment and society at large, including:

• Climate Change
• The performance of New Zealand’s health system and opportunities for improvement
• The state of the world’s fisheries and the future for sustainable fishing
• The issues facing Our Far South (Antarctica, Southern Ocean and subantarctic islands)
• The expansion of dairying in New Zealand and environmental consequences of focussing on quantity rather than value of milk products
• The opportunities and threats to monetising our natural capital – particularly the role of wandering cats in causing local extinctions of native species

This year we have new projects including:

• Predator Free New Zealand – making Sir Paul Callaghan’s vision a reality
• Enhancing the halo around Wellington’s biodiversity hotspots and ensuring Wellington is NZ’s natural capital-
• Agitating for cleaner rivers in New Zealand – advocating polluters pay for the privilege
• Evaluating the impact of food on our health
• Examining the future of institutionalised biculturalism. Where to now for the Treaty of Waitangi?

Some of these new topics have taken people by surprise. It may look like a big list, but to me it is all the bread and butter work of economists. We’re forever assessing costs and benefits, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats – these are the focus of economic analysis. The reason I became interested in the environment is because I see it as part of New Zealand’s unique selling point to the world. In other words there is an economic dividend (jobs and incomes) to protecting this ‘natural capital’. I’m interested in issues like the Treaty of Waitangi and the health system because enhancing our collective wellbeing is the objective of economics.

Being obsessively curious and never too old to learn new things is a trait common to many people. I’m in the fortunate position of being able to call in experts on various topics, have the evidence presented, assess the issues and publish the findings. This way of starting conversations is simply fun. I also believe that democracy works better when people are informed, my experience is that the public is astoundingly rational when it is presented with all the evidence in a digestible fashion, so when I learn something new I should share it.

In many ways I am in a privileged position. Thanks to my investments and the sales of my businesses I can pursue what interests me full time. As well as contracting out to the relevant experts on a topic I also employ some cool analysts in the Morgan Foundation to research topics and help get the findings out.

What Floats my Boat

As you will see from the above list we cover a wide variety of topics at the Morgan Foundation. There are more than another 100 that did not make the cut this year. A typical enquiry or project we take on at the Morgan Foundation will tend to:

• Be in the public interest – it will potentially add value to society. Chances are it will not be covered in the media because it is either too confusing, too controversial or because the popular press is preoccupied running another feature on readers’ cutest pets, road accidents, murders,  gossip and speculation. Such must be the priority when financing tomorrow’s fish and chip paper.
• Have tangible results – it will offer the opportunity to achieve real change whether it be in policy or behaviour.
• Be quick to deliver – we will be able to deliver results quickly. We work fast here because we don’t have any political constraints that might slow us, make us resistant to change. We can be neutral, speak to the point and say what we think, report on what we find.
• Be fun! – Often this goes hand in hand with being controversial.

It doesn’t always go our way;

For example, following our book on fishing (Hook Line and Blinkers) we scoped a campaign on marine issues. This took about a month and was looking really exciting. However, as part of the project I wanted to show Kiwis a map of possible marine reserves. To do a decent job I had to get data from right across government, which turned out to be a nightmare. So I had to chuck the project in – a real shame. If the bureaucrats ever get their act together we would love to return to it.

Our Approach

Without appreciating both sides of the argument, how can you form an objective opinion? This is why I often put us through the intense process of writing a book. It forces our team to research everything and come up with an opinion that we can all buy into. Believe me that is not always easy, but at least this means we reach an opinion that is informed and balanced.

We rely on the expertise of others – and often it often turns out that the world’s top experts are Kiwis. We talk to the experts, and review the latest peer-reviewed research (this is important because it shows it has been quality-assured by others). Being lay people ourselves, we work really hard to translate the technical knowledge of experts into words that the rest of the population can understand. This takes time – and sometimes the scientists themselves get fed up because we have to simplify things a lot to make the issues digestible.

The other unique contribution we can make is to focus on the important stuff. A lot of experts get really close to their subjects and can’t see the wood for the trees. As economists we are experts at sniffing out the best bang for the buck – finding the ideas that will benefit New Zealand the most. So when I raise an idea you can be sure that I haven’t just made it up.

A good example of this in action is when we wrote our book on climate change – Poles Apart. I wanted to know whether climate change was truly happening, so I engaged top scientists from both sides of the debate – the alarmists and the deniers – and set them against each other. John McCrystal and I sat in the middle and tried to make sense of it all. Like most science there is not a 100% proof answer, but on the balance of evidence we were convinced that anthropogenic (human-made) climate change is real.

What Can You Do?

Speak Up! – I don’t care if you disagree with what we’re saying – that’s fine – but bring us the facts. Challenge me. Inform me. Let’s get into a meaningful debate. But don’t expect us to respond to an emotional rant. Bring evidence to the table, and we will be listening.

When I started the cat campaign, we had gathered a lot of peer-reviewed research to back up our position. No expert will question that cats kill, even if they are well fed. Yet still people (including the SPCA!) claimed that because cats are cute and cuddly they wouldn’t possibly kill native birds. Grow up people, open your eyes and take responsibility for your actions.

Don’t Expect Funding – a lot of people see me talking about an issue and get excited because they think I will fund their pet project. That’s not the approach we take here. New Zealand is a first world country. We have plenty for everyone if we just run things right. Most of our money goes overseas to the people that really have nothing: see the Morgan Foundation site for details.

What Do You Think We Should Research? – If you know of an issue that could benefit from a fresh look, get in touch! Tell us a story why we should study that area, get us inspired. If you would like you can tell your story in the comments below.

The post How the Morgan Foundation Works appeared first on Gareths World.

In 2008 in response to constant enquiry, DOC carried out a preliminary assessment of making Stewart Island/Rakiura predator-free. There are three predators there – possums, feral cats and rats. The 170,000 ha island is home to Rakiura National Park, contains large tracts of primary forest, and is the site of the township of Oban, with resident population of 420. Making Stewart Island/Rakiura predator-free will be a world first in terms of the size of the project and the fact it includes a permanent community. A project of such a scale is likely to achieve UNESCO World Heritage accreditation.

In 2012 the Morgan Foundation and Department of Conservation agreed to re-invigorate the evaluation process by updating the scoping work and engaging the local community to confirm support for the concept. That second report is now available, its findings include:

• The project is best considered as two projects, one of the area extending from Halfmoon Bay to the Rakiura Track (about 5,000 ha) and then the rest of the island. The two projects would be separated by a 12km predator proof fence possibly running from Maori Bay to North Arm.
•  It is considered that carrying out the Halfmoon Bay eradication first is preferable for a number of reasons:

1.  The technology for the large scale eradication needs further development. The largest island eradication to date is Campbell Island at 11,000 ha, the big Stewart Island/Rakiura project is an altogether different order of magnitude and a quick one-off eradication isn’t deemed feasible. Rather, alternatives such as a zone-by-zone approach are being considered, but the technology for low maintenance trap-line defences to protect a zone from re-invasion have yet to be developed.
2. While the ecological benefit is greatest from the large project the economic and social benefits for the island can in significant part be achieved from completion of the Halfmoon Bay project. The eradication techniques applicable to this project are all known and tested.
3. Completion of the Halfmoon Bay project will enable the practice of ongoing border biosecurity to be developed and perfected without threatening the gains from the eradication of the larger project.

The benefits from the Stewart Island/Rakiura Treasure project are considered to include:

• Significant economic gains from tourist visitation, particularly from special interest groups focussed around biodiversity assets – the benefit of being a global visit destination for such communities of interest as ornithologists, ecologists, biologists as well as trampers is significant given that combined global tourism numbers from these special interest communities exceed 3 million per annum.
• Social benefits for the community of Oban as its population starts to grow, along with its school roll and the viability of services such as health and electricity.
• An enhancement of New Zealand’s reputation for pristine environments and with that economic benefits in the form of tourism, immigration of talent and price premiums for products made in New Zealand.
• A substantial ecological dividend from enhancing the natural capital of Stewart Island /Rakiura is promised – with so much primary forest and native species the island is a treasure of indigenous species. Unique forest, shrubland, alpine, grassland, coastal and wetland ecosystems cover the islands of the Stewart Island/Rakiura region. Threatened species within the islands include the Stewart Island fernbird, yellow-crowned parakeet, kereru, kaka, Stewart Island weka and Stewart Island robin. Yellow-eyed penguin, red-crowned parakeet, Southern New Zealand dotterel, South Island saddleback  and Stewart Island brown kiwi are also in residence. Invertebrate species unique to the island also exist. Post eradication there would also be opportunities to reintroduce threatened species to the island, such as kakapo.

Next Steps

The immediate plan is to now establish a Governance Group for the project that with comprise the local community, businesses and landowners, councils, DOC, and funders who will be responsible for progressing the project from here. The Governance Group’s first task will be to work through the details of the predator proof fence and the manner of the eradication for the Halfmoon Bay project – as yet no decisions have been made. The Governance Group is expected to form a number of Working Teams which will include relevant specialists to progress all technical and social matters relevant to achievement of the goal.

Eliminating Predators From Stewart Island New Zealand

The post Predator Free Stewart Island – Update appeared first on Gareths World.

The PR Shop – Employed to say stray cat colonies are a good idea

The Paihia stray cat colony just refuses to be shut down. The latest twist is that the SPCA Cat Coalition has decided it will use SPCA donations to hire the ‘PR Shop’ in an effort to overturn the Council decision to ban the colony. Having lost the argument on the grounds of common sense and evidence, the SPCA is trying to reopen the issue in an emotive trial-by-media.

You wonder whether the New Zealand public realise what their SPCA donations are being put to these days. It’s all about this mad Bob Kerridge-driven campaign to fund stray cats. Spending $80 of donors money on each stray cat they neuter and release is bad enough, but diverting donations to fund a PR campaign to defend the rights of wandering cats to kill wildlife is nothing less than appropriating money from the public under false pretences.  The public donate to the SPCA thinking they are preventing cruelty to all animals. These days it’s more about funding cats to kill wildlife and spread disease.

The SPCA’s situation is so mad you have to wonder how the clutch of local luminaries around the country who serve on the local Boards of this organisation have allowed themselves to become sponsors of such vile, offensive assaults on New Zealand’s conservation heritage?

You guessed it. It’s all about the money. The SPCA gets some pretty heavy donations from legacy funds left by rich cat nutters who naively believed that feeding a few stray pussies is somehow a lasting signature of their human kindness. And today’s SPCA has become a slave to that ignorance and the legacy funding that goes with it. The SPCA leadership simply lacks the guts or moral compass to mend its ways. We have, by any measure a group of community stalwarts governing the SPCA who are in essence too dumb to see their organisation is an environmental offender of the worst kind. The authorities need to bring charges against the SPCA under the Wildlife Act, the Animal Welfare Act and the Biosecurity Act to stop this madness.

The abrogation by local councils of their responsibility to deal to wandering cats lies at the heart of the domestic cat problem in New Zealand. Unlike the universal commitment across councils to deal to the damage dogs cause, the vacuum of control around wandering cats has been filled by an SPCA led by animal rights activists. The reasons we as the New Zealand public should care include

(a)   Ratepayers and taxpayers invest millions each year in trying to restore our wildlife heritage

(b)   It is offensive that the owners of wandering domestic cats are immune from prosecution for their animals invading neighbours’ properties

(c)    Cats spread disease, toxoplasmosis which in humans leads to brain damage – some might say that our  ‘mad cat’ brigade are the leading victim, but it is less than funny when a child playing in their own property can be infected from the faeces of a wandering cat

(d)   Toxoplasmosis is a growing environmental blight – the latest research shows the vulnerability of our rare Hector and Maui dolphins to toxoplasmosis contained in freshwater runoff into our coastal waters.

The post Where your SPCA Donations are now going appeared first on Gareths World.

Notice how there are no lizards or birds on this SPCA logo?

There was a historic vote last week, one that has finally let people come out of the closet.

In this instance we are not talking about marriage equality, but that people can come out loudly and proudly as bird lovers. Kiwis now have the ‘right to choose’ our native fauna over wandering cats.

I would like to congratulate the people of Paihia and Far North District Council for their decision to shut down the stray cat colony that exists on a Council reserve in the town. Like all first victories this was bitter and hard fought. But it is a victory for all Kiwis who value our native wildlife. I have been told by local people that the Cats to Go campaign has let them ‘come out of the closet’.

There have always been stray cats, but in 2010 the SPCA launched an ill-informed campaign encouraging people to Trap, Neuter and Release (TNR) cats instead of euthanizing them. Volunteers were then recruited to manage and feed these colonies. One such colony was set up on Council land in Paihia. The SPCA claimed they are not responsible for these colonies, but in effect they are hiding behind volunteers.

This SPCA campaign was based on research from the United States that has long since been discredited. TNR doesn’t work, which is why the Australian SPCA rejected this approach. Sadly our SPCA is dominated by people that think that rights to life for cats are paramount over all. That is why they so wilfully turn a blind eye to the evidence that wandering cats kill our native wildlife.

So for the past few years the SPCA has been fiddling while our native wildlife burns. Meanwhile the Bay Bush Action has been working hard trapping pests in the Opua Forest around Paihia. The wildlife is benefitting; Paihia is a flocking site for NZ dotterel, and there are kiwi coming back. Sadly the one pest that they have not been allowed to control is wandering cats.

But on Wednesday the Far North District Council agreed that their land can no longer be used to feed and house the stray cat colony. The stray cats are in effect trespassing on public land. This opens the possibility for the colony to be shut down and the cats either rehomed or euthanized. This is a massive victory for those that value our wildlife, and should serve as a talisman for similar campaigns against stray cat colonies around the country.

Currently if you live in an area where the SPCA operates TNR, there is very little you can do about stray cats in your area. The SPCA will only neuter the cats and return them, which does little to quell their appetite for native wildlife. That is why we have created a map of roaming cat colonies on the Cats to Go website, so Kiwis can see how big a problem this is and advocate for this abhorrent practice to stop in your area. If you know of a stray cat colony visit http://garethsworld.com/catstogo to log it.

With this victory in the Far North, we all now need to turn our attention on our local areas. Aucklanders should lobby their Council to remove the well-known cat colony in the Parnell gardens, which is the flagship of the SPCA TNR campaign. Likewise, Wellingtonians with the colony in Strathmore.

There are other things that you can do to help. The SPCA does TNR because well-meaning cat lovers give them money to do it. So the way to change them is to hit them in the pocket until they recover their senses and stop doing it nationwide.

However, ultimately this is an issue that can only be resolved by Councils. They have relinquished their responsibility for stray cats to the SPCA, and it is time to take it back. The City Pound should be the only authorised repository for wandering cats. Cats could then be managed just like dogs are now. Any wandering cats could be live-trapped: those with a microchip would be returned to their owners and those without would be humanely euthanized. The SPCA could then return to their core business of preventing cruelty.

Kiwis invest millions of dollars and hours of volunteer labour nurturing our native wildlife only for it to be slaughtered by wandering cats. I congratulate the Council and people of Paihia for standing up against the SPCA and their assault on our native wildlife. To me a confined cat is a pet, a wandering cat is a pest. These stray cats in Paihia have no owner, they are nobody’s pet. The SPCA have encouraged these stray cat colonies to protect the so-called right to life of these cats, but we can see quite clearly in Paihia these cats are to the detriment of the native birds and lizards that the Bush Bay Action are working so hard to bring back. Wednesday’s decision is a sign that sanity will prevail, but it is only the start. Local councils need to start reinstating the City Pound as the only authorised repository for wandering cats and take the SPCA out of the loop.

The post SPCA Put Down in Paihia appeared first on Gareths World.

Grab a book or bear from the Our Far South tour

All proceeds go to the Million Dollar Mouse Fund

The post Watch the Our Far South Antarctica Documentary online appeared first on Gareths World.