Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

>Your citations contradict your claim.

It appears you did not read the claim. Again:

Preservation plans - when they even mention cats - put them dead last on the list of reasons.

>[2], p. 30: "Predation by nonnative and/or nuisance species

YES, dead last, right after:

- Systematic and regular grading on a large scale destroys prime foraging and nesting habitat

- Insufficient high-quality foraging habitat

- Insufficient mowing during the breeding season to maintain nesting habitat

- Disturbance by vehicles going off-road, leading to erosion (of habitat)

- Formal and informal trails and unofficial roads in owl habitat

Notice anything common with al of the above?

>The City policy of removing cats and foxes has been effective and beneficial for the burrowing owls

Yeah, the city thinks it's doing a god job as the population went down to zero. Also, notice the foxes. Also, notice that these were not the neutered cats in Google's TNR program that were potentially dangerous. Also...

[3]: Great, evidence of one owl being mauled by a cat. Again, notice that this is the last thing mentioned.

[5]: Oh, so this is different. Just like feral, un-neutered cats roaming the city are different from neutered cats fed by Google's TNR proram. Anyway, again, cats aren't called out.

[9]: "does not call out cats specifically" - isn't that what I said?



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: