Vrye Weekblad's (editor and founder Max du Preez) Anneliese Burgess' article about "Cape Town's kitty killers (sic)" once again reflects academic scientists' and media's near obsession with domestic cats and their alleged kills. They don't write about other pets, or wildlife kills of the ubiquitous moto vehiculum and that of urban development, eg the River Club site that even the city's own environmental impact study advised against developing.
The academic paper in Global Ecology & Conservation Burgess cites as evidence of alleged cat kills of small wildlife, along with others, is based on UCT's Dr Rob Simmons' student Frances Morling's Master's thesis (listed as co-author) Cape Town’s Cats: Reassessing Predation Through Kitty-cams. I gather she is the third master's student he supervised, others Sharon George in 2010 and one Koebraa Peters, who all studied cat kills through small surveys; nothing new to say but repeat what's been done before.
These student studies all have the same problem though: tiny, statistically insignificant sample sizes that only served to confirm the observers' bias. Morling: “I estimated the average number of domestic cats per 100 households from my surveys and then multiplied this by the total number of households in Newlands to provide a population size estimate for domestic cats in this suburb. I then divided this value by the total area estimate for Newlands suburb of 350 hectares to derive a density estimate (p26)”.
Morling's initial sample size was 100 whittled down to 14, George 78 and Peters between that. For an estimated city cat population of 300,000 (no one knows how many cats there are but with feral, it's likely to be much higher). For a confidence level of 95%, the sample size ought to have been about 400, not 100, and definitely not an insignificant 14!
Morling's et al results cannot be relied upon. Also, they relied upon the results of blind questionnaires ie no direct contact with the human owner subjects, and had no direct contact with the sample cats' or their alleged kills, all a problem for scientific veracity.
And like George, her sample is skewed to one area, Newlands, that’s immediately adjacent a park where one expects a higher density of wildlife and potentially higher kills, i.e. sample bias.
So Newlands is not reflective of the city, most of which is urbanised - the type of cat prey, if and when kills happen, is not identical to those found outside the mountain chain.
The other problem was they conducted no independent field studies to corroborate as any decent study must but relied on owner questionnaires that Morling et al obtained third hand via participating vets in the area (proper scientific studies are firsthand observations).
As such, the paper in Global never ought to have been accepted by what's supposed to be a reputable journal. (For my urban studies master's with Beaufort West the subject, I conducted interviews of 70 town individuals representing households and personally corroborated the interviewees' remarks about town conditions where possible. The town's population then was 37,600 and households 9,500. Source Beaufort West Municipality.)
The students' exact sampling methodology is unclear but Morling gives the impression that only, or predominantly, cats that predated were chosen. "The data from questionnaires were collated and a total of 14 domestic cats were selected for the behaviour and predation components of the study. Seven domestic cats were chosen from the urban edge, i.e. households with no barrier to movement into Table Mountain National Park; and seven domestic cats were chosen from deep urban areas, i.e. households in built up areas greater than 500 m from the edge of TMNP and/or impeded by a four lane highway.”
That is, cats who owner questionnaires stated did not or infrequently caught prey were probably excluded: the study was only interested in one type of cat - those that killed, choosing the facts to suit the conclusion.
This is a serious problem because any cat person knows not all cats are alike. They are individuals with unique personalities. Some cats hunt, others don't or seldom do. Then there is the fact some cats are too young, old, infirm, house or flat confined to hunt or that the hunting area, like most of any city, offers few predation opportunities. That is why stray and feral cats (and dogs) are malnourished and starving. If they caught the number of prey Simmons and his students (students, mind, not experienced scientists; it takes at least 10 years of training to be considered an expert) claim, they'd all be fat.
All this is relevant because Morling, Simmons et al extrapolated, from a sample of 100 or less, 14 cats that actually caught prey, to the astonishing conclusion that all of the city's estimated 300,000 cats each killed 100 small prey each a year. From a statistically negligible 14 cats, there was a lot of multiplying and dividing to reach a determined city-wide outcome with zero established fact.
In 2020 Daily Maverick ran an article about the Global paper. I emailed DM and Simmons (I'd emailed him in 2010 after George's master's report - Cape Argus covered it - to which he replied) with my reservations as above. I told them my nine cats seldom killed, perhaps two or three birds a year if that, and only two or three of the nine hunt. At the time I had an elderly, infirm Siamese (she died soon after) that hardly went outside. We have three bird feeders visited by dozens of birds a day and abundant geckos and insects merrily reproducing. According to Simmons et al, these are cat prey.
DM ran a follow-up piece a week later. The writer, Tiara Walters, quoted Simmons saying they knew of a person who had nine cats (ie me) who together killed almost 800 small wildlife a year. What he said was factually incorrect and a lie - he and DM ignored what I'd told them to insert their own anti-cat narrative and was defamatory. I responded to Simmons personally and DM, which did not provide me with a right of reply. Simmons was silent.
Simmons and UCT's zoologists are perpetually up in arms against cats but they were silent about, for example, the Western Cape Government's and CapeNature's disgraceful 2010-12 "Bredell Cull" which authorised the killing of up to 900 000 predators including apex predator Cape Leopard. I know for a fact (I obtained the evidence) that c2011 CapeNature euthanized a healthy leopard at the behest of a Ceres farmer which CN’s acting CEO, Dr Kas Hamman, lied to the public about.
(I provided the evidence to conservationist Dr Bool Smuts who took WCG and CN to court over the unlawful kill. With then Premier Helen Zille’s tacit or explicit approval, WCG pressured CN to implement a pro-farmer hunting policy after farmers, DA donors, pressured them. Note farmers are reluctant to adopt pro-predator farming policies like using mountain dogs to protect herds. Woolworths had a project that sponsored these dogs as part of its good environmental journey. But according to the project manager, WW's farmer suppliers “lied” on environmental audits. WW discontinued the project.)
Simmons is a research associate of Cape Nature.
And, I doubt if Simmon studied the loss of wildlife and biodiversity as a result of the city’s carte blanche urban development.
I’m not minimising the impact cats have on wildlife; they’re effective predators. But unless and until a real survey of their numbers, including feral cats, and a credible study is done, it’s all guessing.
Simmons et al support reductions in domestic cat numbers by the city without stating how it's to be done. Australia has a culling programme of two million feral cats by shooting, trapping and poisoning which sections of the public and government enthusiastically and violently support. New Zealand’s cities have a similar programme. Even children are participants in cat cull days - NZ is training their young to be psychopaths.
I doubt, though, such a cull plan would be permitted here under South Africa’s laws. But sensational approaches like UCT’s and media reporting to alleged cat damage, and not in context of damage to wildlife by other causes, creates an anti-cat climate. We’re already a very violent country. Let’s not be responsible for adding to it.
Might I suggest researchers’ and the sensational, uncritical media's energy (apparently in their coverage of the Global paper, only MNET's Carte Blanche obtained comments from opposing expert views which neither DM, Vrye Weekblad or other media did) would be better spent at animal welfare clinics where they can see first hand the cruelty that’s systemic to and reflects our violent society. And they should ask why the nanny-state City of Cape Town and WCG are not enforcing sterilisation and subsidising vaccinations (seven cases of rabies in the metro) or giving money to the welfare organisations.
Comments
Post a Comment