NTSOG wrote:G'day,
I found this presentation today:
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... vi-AAV7w4M
There is a graphic [at 2:00] that compares the two species of predators that I found interesting. It's clear that cats are far more harmful than foxes, though the distribution of both species where they co-exist is about one animal to 4 km squared. [This suggests to me that I am not seeing cats that are in areas in which I hunt because the blighters are smarter and more covert than foxes, but are still there.] Overall there are many more feral cats [to which number must be added so-called domestic cats] than foxes.
Jim
NTSOG wrote:on_one_wheel: "I read another article that showed [cats] had now evolved to survive in areas where water is not available."
I saw that article too. Apparently cats can get enough moisture from the blood and guts of animals they kill, whereas foxes need water as well.
Jim
animalpest wrote:Cats are a desert animal whereas foxes came from the UK. It's like comparing camels to cattle.
It can be a bit misleading to compare the numbers of animals killed from foxes vs feral cats. Cats primary prey is animals smaller than foxes.
Die Judicii wrote:Just recently I shot this mongrel thing in the house paddock.
It was big framed, but must've been riddled with worms and was as poor as,, and had been getting in to the bin and ripping garbage bags open
in a quest for food.
On close inspection it never ever had a tail,,,,
So I wonder if the greenies would classify it as being rare,,,,,, and therefore needing protection.
Uh Ohhhh,,,,,,,,,, too late.
on_one_wheel wrote:
No trace of a tail whatsoever? That's interesting... you should add that one to the "cat page"
There are a few cat breeds that have mutations which shorten the tails to the point they appear to have little to no tail... I'd be out with the pocket knife for a closer look.