Sunday, January 27, 2013

Give Environmentalists An Inch And They'll Take.....Your Cat!

By, Chris Rossini
Email | Twitter

Give environmentalists the guns of The State and the sky's the limit on how crazy things could get. Here's a good example from HuffPo:
In an interview that appeared in the Atlantic on Thursday, prominent economist and environmentalist Gareth Morgan said that he hopes residents in his native New Zealand will not only neuter their pet kitties but will also start turning over strays to local authorities for euthanization.

As the New York Times noted earlier this week, Morgan has ignited a controversy in New Zealand and elsewhere with his suggestion that cats should be gradually eradicated from his country. Morgan claims that the feline is a "friendly neighborhood serial killer" that poses a serious threat to New Zealand's native birds and other animal species.
Once you give these dictators the green light on treating the world as their own game of SimCity, they'll come up with lots of ideas on how to manipulate the pieces (which includes you and everything you do) to fit their visions.

And they come with the bazooka known as The State to enforce their crazy ideas (my emphasis).
He also says that people should keep their cats indoors and that registration of them should be made mandatory.

...Morgan took an even more extreme stance, saying that citizens should set up "cage-traps" on their properties to catch wandering cats. He added that these animals should then be turned over to a local authority, which would euthanize the animals if they were found to be unregistered.

Morgan also said that the government should "offer free disposal of cats," as vets can be "prohibitively expensive." Neutering, he insisted, is simply not enough.
This genius, who thinks the world is his chessboard, also needs a lesson in economics. Who cares about economics though when you're "saving" the world.

Over in the U.S., Obama has said that "climate change" is high on his list in the second term. Fortunately, politicians are BS artists who says lots of things. It doesn't necessary have to turn into results.

If he gets a foothold though, we can expect lots of bans, fines, taxes, licenses, registrations, prohibitions, followed by even more bans.

Don't give an inch to these dictators.


  1. Chris, cool it dude! Do you understand the concept of invasive species? Cats are an invasive species in New Zealand. How would you like it if I bring cane toads, asian carps, or water hyacinths to your neighborhood?

    If you were my neighbor in NZ, and your cat went out of the premises of your private premises and into mine, I'd kill it. How about that? Problem solved without the government.

    1. Well, Humans are an invasive species to the New World. You wanna be the first to eradicate yerself? (just a rhetorical question, not a threat, I'm not a violent guy).

    2. Capn Mike, the concept you're talking about exists too. They are called nature reserves or wildlife sanctuaries. Unauthorized humans in these areas will be eradicated. And no, I don't exempt myself from that rule.

    3. If someone's cat just happened to wander onto your property you'd freaking kill? Not shoo it away? Not call your neighbor and say, "Please keep your cat on your property"? But immediately kill it?

      My apologies if I'm misinterpreting you, but you come across as an unreasonable and altogether vile individual. And I'm glad you're not my neighbor.

    4. "If someone's cat just happened to wander onto your property you'd freaking kill?"

      Yes, if I happened to stay in New Zealand, and my neighbor wrote the article that we are all commenting on. Do you see the connection?

      So, it appears that you have read the article that we are all commenting on, and yet I come across as "an unreasonable and altogether vile individual". Wonderful.

    5. @ Muggins

      Your viewpoints are confusing. Were you being sarcastic initially or not?

      If not, then yes, you are an unreasonable and vile individual.

    6. There is no such thing as an "invasive species" among animals, as animals know no such thing as "property rights".

    7. @Muggins It is immaterial that the "you" you were referring to was Chris Rossini. You clearly and simply said that 1.) "invasive species" are a problem in New Zealand); and 2.) that if you lived in New Zealand and your neighbor's cat (in this case, Rossini's hypothetical kitty) came onto your property, you would immediately kill it, apparently without even attempting a non-violent social solution (like say, peaceful interaction with your neighbor). "How about that?" you added mockingly, obviously intending to rankle the cat-lovers present. There's no real "connection" to "see" beyond this.

      And if you meant to say something else other than (or in addition to) this, then you need to strive for more precision in your language. When you sound like a trollish dick, most people are just going to assume that you *are* a trollish dick; and they're not going to waste overmuch time straining to see the dimly implied or unimplied "connections" in your writing.

    8. @Tony

      You're such an unreasonable and vile individual! And pretty daft too, given that you find my comments confusing. (I can play the ad hominem game just as easily as you chumps.)

      'There is no such thing as an "invasive species" among animals'

      What I, and the biologists, consider to be 'invasive species' need not be your concern. I might just as well discuss plate tectonics with the Kalahari bushmen. As a libertarian, I hope you understand this: Your cat. My premises. Barbecue.

      If you want me to show any consideration for the species you're interested in (like cats or dogs), you better start showing consideration for the species I'm interested in.

    9. Yep, trollish dick.

    10. Dear trollish dicks,
      Too bad went ahead and got yourselves cerebral aneurysms already. I haven't killed your kitties yet. Chris Rossini and your fellow trolls denied that invasive species were a problem. Chris called it "their crazy ideas", and ended with "Don't give an inch to these dictators."

      Do you then expect me to give an inch to your whims and fancies?

      Let's see now, "apparently without even attempting a non-violent social solution"
      I'm talking about the issue with you. I'm not hunting down your cats as we speak. How is this violent? If you folks talk in an extreme manner, I'm trollish enough to talk just like you. Years of "experience" on the internet has taught me that this is the best way to deal with idiots.

      "intending to rankle the cat-lovers present"
      Yeah... and the "lovers" of endangered species eaten by your predatory pets are not supposed to get rankled, right? If you get a cerebral hemorrhage right away, you have only yourself to blame.

    11. Total trollish dick.

    12. @Muggins: You offered a solution to a hypothetical property invasion by a cat whose owner is known to the offended party. And your solution was itself extreme in that it represented an immediate (and unnecessary) embrace of violence and a rejection of social cooperation. Property rights may be absolute, but in the interests of social lubrication and common decency one must sometimes exercise a degree of temperance and circumspection when asserting them. For instance, if Farmer John's cattle escape his fence and enter your garden, it might be a good idea to talk the matter over with Farmer John---including the question of damages, etc.---before you give in to your passions and summarily destroy the offending stock, even though you may be well within your rights if you do so. Likewise, if Chris Rossini's cat escapes his premises and enters yours, wouldn't the decent and socially intelligent course of action be to first inform Rossini of this trespass and ask him to contain his cat in the future? To resort to immediate "barbeque" (as you so trollishly and dickishly put it) would be both indecent and socially counterproductive. And a person who thus deals with his neighbors soon finds himself an outcast.

    13. Correction: Total trollish dicks.

    14. @Anonymous January 28, 2013 at 12:03 PM

      I agree entirely that peaceful means are better than extreme measures. Please note that I was responding to the tone of Chris' post and that of many others here. Explaining peaceful means to me is nice, but I assure you, quite unnecessary.

      Gareth Morgan, the guy Chris has written about has made a polite, information-rich website:

      Most assertions of Gareth are linked to peer-reviewed journal articles:
      This means that most readers can visit their local library and find out the details of the methods used to back these assertions. If they find the methods lacking, they can perform their own research and publish their own findings to oppose that.

      And yet, Chris ignores all that, as do most others here, mocks all efforts to conserve native species, and takes the "don't give an inch" route. I do not see any trace of decency or intelligence there.

      Coming to my extreme example of barbecuing, the person who does that may or may not find themselves an outcast, depending on how much the other neighbors care about the issue too. In fact, the cat owners who let their cats reign free might find themselves social outcasts.

  2. Don't these environmental freaks realize that all this stuff is "part" of the earth? If cats are a threat to birds, etc., then they're SUPPOSED to be a threat.

    They also don't realize what a mess hygiene was in past centuries, until the development of waste disposal, antiseptics, etc.

    Humans are on this planet and we create waste, like every other living thing. Somehow, this makes us a particularly dangerous threat. We used to piss and sh*t in the streets, now it is treated and neutralized. Yet they try to create the impression that 3rd world countries are more cleanly.

    Life is already difficult enough, these people would like to take away everything, creating moronic automatons who don't really value anything important; least of all the well-being and happiness of other people.

  3. Cats in NZ mainly kill mice, rats, rabbits, hares and weasels. Not native birds - which are mainly killed by rats.

    Perhaps Gareth Morgan is actually a weasel? That could explain things...

  4. Oddly, Gareth Morgan is not (or at least wasn't last time I heard of him) an envioromentalist, he was an econometrician usually noted for encouraging cutting rules and reducing bureaucracy, as well as being an odd looking dude. He struck it rich when a company owned by his son sold for lot and like a lot of newly rich people especially in a small pond can indulge any crazy fantasy and make a big splash. Anyway judging from experience, kiwi cats are too fat and lazy to do much damage to native fauna.

  5. Besides the political and individual rights arguments that the anti-cat argument in New Zealand (and Australia too), there is also a specialist debate amongst conservation biologists that has opened up on this issue.

    See this recent article. Sone biologists are starting to question "the war on invasive species.";jsessionid=58FFEC8B2F0907EEDCB245B21B007F86?single=1

  6. First the cats, then the old people, then the sick, then the rest of us. The ideas of people like Paul Ehrlich are poison. This "environmentalist" has made a career out of Malthusian doom saying and has a catalogue of failed predictions.
    Scratch an environmentalist and youll find the fascist beneath the skin.