Cats, Rats and Foxes

I think there is a big difference between feral cats and domestic cats. Domestic cats are hunting for fun, so they kill a lot of birds, they don't mind expending a lot of energy for the small return provided by a small bird. Feral cats have to manage their energy expenditure so go for larger, ground dwelling animals like rabbits and rodents, and small marsupials if they are available. For a feral to spend a lot of time stalking a small bird doesn't make sense, the payoff just isn't there for them. Also Australia's birds evolved with predators such as quolls, so they aren't entirely defenceless.

Foxes will take larger birds especially ducks but in my area their main diet is rabbits and fruit.

Lately I haven't seen any foxes or feral cats here but there are always lots of rats. Sometimes I see the native water rat which is a much more welcome creature.

If you start a thread on this topic , it will always end up with one result... the cat haters wanting to exterminate cats.  I was always under the impression that the forum frowned upon any topic that involves killing or harming cats or any other animal. I am not including feral cats in this but I assume that Woko is not differentiating with  his previous comments .

"However, both ferals & domestics predate native wildlife so from that perspective I see no need for a difference in approach."

Yes Lachlan, I appreciate that   ..... it could have been an interesting discussion about the rat problem, but people inevitably bring things back to the common denominator  ..... the dreaded cat hating discussion.  If it gets too heated or heading in a contentious direction you can always ask the admins to step in .

I for one , had never thought of the black rat being a real danger to our beautiful marsupials... I guess it is in the same category as the cane toad ..... without the toxic poison obviously,  but they have devastated our small native and amphibian populations , and sadly not only here in Queensland

Cheers

Birdie

It doesn't surprise me that rats are very disruptive to the environment, they are so successful and ubiquitous. They will eat pretty much anything and can survive extreme conditions. Australia used to have a very healthy population of native rodents, they were very important to the diet of the Aborigines. Now most people in SE Australia never see a native rodent, a lot of people would be surprised that rodents are native to Australia. The only native rodent on my place is the water rat, a lovely little creature. I'm sure much of the extinction of native roents was caused by introduced rats.

Feral cats do keep rats down, but also kill native mammals. I think many farms have ferals that live on the rats that eat the stockfeed in the silo, the cats do a good job for the farmer.

Other than culling larger feral animals around the top end eg water buffalo, pigs, wild horses and camels, physical barriers eg dog/rabbit fences, occasional bounties, the use of different viruses over the years to keep rabbits down, total eradication programs on small islands and private initiatives eg the Australian Wildlife Conservancy projects, there doesn't seem to be much development on a coordinated government/scientific front to rid this country of ferals.

I was hoping to see, in my lifetime, such progress with genetics that all or most of the ferals would be removed from our landscape. What happened to the "daughterless" cane toad research and similar genetic manipulation of european carp? Perhaps the scientific community is not being supported strongly enough by government and the community. I read in some place that the know-how is there, but the logistics are a problem ie money.

Maybe one day the feral problem will get some priority. Until there is an economic imperative eg the rabbit explosions of the forties and the prickly pear disaster, government is unlikely to take a big step. We will probably just have to wait. And wait some more.

I think, I can safely say (), people in government, and it makes no difference who is in government at the time, will only act or react if they are faced by the threat of loosing their job. This needs enough strong willed and minded people, (you and me?) brave enough to speak up.How else could you make a government listen?

Generally the funds are only available in urban areas, unfortunately the problems are mostly in rural areas. Most people are only concerned with things that affect themselves, and want to see immediate benefit for tax dollars spent. You shouldn't expect the people of Sydney, brisbane and Melbourne will want their dollars spent in Kakadu.

Or Canberra for that matter, that is why it would need to be Federally funded.

That's a good point Raven. Even on isolated islands the costs are very high. Which is why the answer may lie with science and genetics rather than physical measures. In the examples I used before, prickly pear was brought under control with just a few grubs, and the rabbit control measures were spread by the rabbits themselves. The daughterless cane toad concept, if introduced successfully, would be painless to the animals themselves. They would just completely disappear over time. Its a puzzle to me why cane toads are poisonous through all stages of their development and that the females lay thousands of eggs. Nature being what it is, in their home environment (South America?) they must have developed these powers over a long time in order to survive serious obstacles to their exitence, such as heavy predation or adverse environments. It makes one wonder just how hard our scientists have worked on finding out what those obstacles are. Back to money again.....

I didn't think you were, Lachlan Just venting on my pet peeve.

If you do try to get the government to do something, make sure they know what they are talking about

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/liberals-environment-spokeswoman-suggests-eradication-of-native-bird-species-20140214-32q74.html

One of the suprises that has emerged from our attempts in the erradication of rabbits is the resistence they built up over time, to the mixamotosis baits (1080) and later the caleesee (not sure how you spell it) virus.  Both worked well in the beginning but ended up non performers in the end.

I read in the paper the other day where the Cane Toad is ever adapting to expedite it's migration across Australia too, not good.  The spread of the Indian Mynah bird up the east coast of Australia, and points inland too is an amazing feat of adaptation by an imported pest.

Changes in climate conditions also swing the balance of nature, just look at the huge influx of Sacred Ibis into the Sydney metro area over the past 15 years or so, a bird previously confined to the rural areas, but driven to suburbia by drought.

We have a lot to thank our ancestors for...all in good intention at the time mind you.

Although numbers have increased, the Koel have been a Summer visitor for many, many years.

Perhaps they have increased numbers here because Sydney has sprawled out so far and taken up there habitat?

Spot on Greg, the Common Koel and Channel Bill Cuckoo have an abundance of hosts to choose from in Sydney, and now all points south it appears.  The Australian Raven, Australian Magpie and Pied Currawong populations are in epic proportions all over Sydney and thus provide more opportunity for the CBC and KC.

How about the Dollar Bird?  I seldom see them around here but friends in far northern coastal NSW say they are on the increase each summer?

The summer of 2013/2014 is one I will remember for above average sightings for the CBC's compared to previous years.  Just the other week I seen three CBC's circling the group of gum trees down the road.

Another observation in recent years is the reproduction results of the Raven, Magpie and Currawong, just last year our local Mrs Magpie had four, yes four little ones in tow (all survived too).  In the same year Mrs Raven had three young ones (all survived) and Mrs Currawong had three young until one got splattered by a car down the end of the road.

An abundance of food, ie being hand fed by humans in the Magpie case, scavenging on our rubbish left about in the Raven's situation, and increased fruit from figs and berries from other native trees (we are encouraged to plant these days) plus other sundries in the Currawongs case, have seen increased food sources ensure a better guarantee of chick survival?

Getting back to topic...Fox eradication has been on going in the Lane Cove National Park here, in the heart of suburbia, for the past decade.  They never seem to totally wipe them out for some reason, shooting and baiting happen around twice a year by NPWS.

Foxes are resourceful and I remember driving on Victoria Road about seven years ago in Ryde around 0130 in the morning when I stopped at lights near the huge shopping centre.  Out the corner of my eye I picked up some movement at the memorial fountain, and there was a fox on his hind legs drinkling from the fountain!

Just before Christmas 2013 my daughter seen two foxes run across the Hume Highway at Chullora and into the railway yards around 2200hrs on a busy Friday night!  Now that's inner Sydney and far from the bush or national parks...

Koels are now increasingly recorded in and around Melbourne, representing a significant range expansion. I suspect this is due to widespread planting of food plants such as Ficus macrophylla in the suburbs, and perhaps climate change has a role too. I do not know of any local breeding or formation of host relationships locally, though it's early days for them here as they were previously only a rare vagrant.  

True, Woko, the success of the Noisy Miner in the suburbs is I believe attributed to landscape change forming systems resembling their preferred habitat. They like a tall eucalypt canopy with minimum understorey vegetation, precisely what is found in most suburban parks and being aggressive and highly social they are now able to dominate and eliminate most competing species.  

Similarly, Pacific Gulls, once a near strictly coastal species, have adapted to human refuse disposal and now commute considerable distances inland locally to rubbish tips, I have seen flocks of ~300 resting on fields adjacent tips. 

The Brush Turkey has always been in Sydney, but until recenlty, the last decade, was hard to spot as they usually kept to the isolation of the national parks.  With large fox and feral dog/cat erradication having been performed by NPWS in the parks that skirt suburbia the Brush turkey has rebounded in population growth and thus more sightings.

The Pacific Gull is seldom seen on the beaches and city area of Sydney, you may be lucky to spot one or two but not in flocks like the Silver Gull.

The Noisy Miner has grown rapidly in population, a family/group orientated bird I quite like them, they are cheeky and very inquisitive and a good alert system, should a cat or dog be lurking near by their alarm call rallies all other in the area to do battle.   Our local Noisy's do a great job of moving on Indian Mynah's too, last year I witnessed six Noisy's literally attack a pair of Indian Mynah's who retreated quite rapidly!

Suburbia here has also been overtaken by huge flocks of Corella's and Sulphur Crested Cockatoo's also, surpassing the Pink Galah's.  The two former just mentioned were driven to the cities in the past 15 years by drought out in the bush, just like the Sacred Ibis.

Lachlan has kindly sent me some information about the daughterless cane toad program which seems to suggest is was a fizzer. Interestingly the work seems to have been done under the auspices of the Invasive Animals CRC (Cooperative Research Centre). I had never heard of it before but apparently it is a federal government initiative. I post a link here in case BIBY members are interested in subscribing to CRC newsletters.

http://www.invasiveanimals.com/media-centre/subscribe/

Too right Shorty, I'm worried he can't be stopped ???

He also said , talking about loggers:  < I see people who are the ultimate conservationists>

Yep. Today someone from the CFA came to assess our property. We got talking about burning in the State Park behind me. He told me that burning and bushfires save the lives of wildlife. His idea was, that wildlife finds refuge in the burned out areas when the next fire comes through. Any opinions on that theory??

O, and he kept using the phrase : those Greenies a lot.

Araminta, I was so enraged about our PM's speech that I overlooked your query on fires & wildlife conservation. Sorry.

There's quite a debate about the effects of bushfire on wildlife conservation. Fire has been a natural part of the Australian bush for quite a while. And in some parts of Australia aboriginal people have used fire to produce new flushes of growth which advantage animals which the aborigines depend or depended on for food.

Two experts I've spoken with have said that the bush reaches a stage where it becomes "senile" & it needs a fire to re-energise it. E.g., Acacia seeds which have been long dormant in the soil are cracked by the fire's heat & subsequently germinate to produce new plants when it next rains. Also, there are a number of Australian plant species which germinate in response to chemicals in bushfire smoke.

Acacias are colonisers & are often the first or among the first species to appear after a bushfire. Being legumes they put nitrogen into the soil & thereby pave the way for other plant species to thrive.

So, in this natural sense bushfires are, overall, advantageous for native animal & plant conservation in the long term.

However, with humans spreading like wildfire, so to speak, across the face of the nation they bring with them their feral weeds & their interferences such as trail bikes & bull dozers which disturb the soil & thereby encourage feral weeds, most of which are annuals & which provide a heavy fuel load, particularly in summer at the height of the fire danger season. And, of course, the more humans there are the more likely it is that there will be bush fires, especially when the increase in breakdown of boundaries to human behaviour is considered. This means that natural fire regimes have been thrown out of kilter as bush fires have increased in frequency. Add to that the extreme drying of the bush caused by climate change & we have quite a flammable situation rather different from pre-European times.

With the increase in bushfire frequency many native plants don't have the time to recover & produce seed from their last bushfires & so plant diversity is declining or is likely to decline. In turn, this means that wildlife numbers & diversity are declining or are likely to decline.

I'm not sure what the CFA man meant by refuges to save wildlife. I suppose some tree hollows might be created by fire but this is likely to be over quite a long period, perhaps 50 - 100 years of more but I seriously doubt sufficient numbers of hollows would be created short term to provide adequate refuge to "save" wildlife in the next bushfire. And surely the destruction of vegetation by bushfires would decrease wildlife refuges

But if by refuge the CFA man meant overall habitat then he's probably right in a natural sense. Unfortunately, in his stated rationale for the burns he doesn't seem to have accounted for the spread of humans & the presence of climate change on bush fire frequency. In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that his purpose, stated or unstated, is to ensure the spread of humans by making conditions conducive to this phenomenon. Controlled burns (which often become uncontrolled) are there ostensibly to protect humans not wildlife so I'd be inclined to take his rationale for the burns with a pinch of salt which won't do a lot to put out the burns, I'm afraid.

On the whole it would seem far better to halt, even contract the spread of humans in Australia, to combat climate change & allow natural fire regimes to return if we wish to preserve wildlife by providing them with refuges in an overall habitat sense. After all, our willdlife has adapted over millions of years to natural fire regimes, not fire regimes imposed on them by humans. It will take millions of years for them to adapt to human fire regimes, that is if there is any wildlife left.

Also interesting to see that New Zealand was only able to save the almost extinct Kakapo ground parrot  by removing them from the mainland , and at one stage they had to relocate them again in order to distribute rat poison  to ensure their future recovery

Not Australian and on a very small scale ( two islands at the bottom of NZ) but interesting

http://kakaporecovery.org.nz/predator-control/