
We need to stop talking about cats and actually do something
Right now, the Department of Conservation is asking for feedback on the Predator Free 2050 strategy. The biggest question: should feral cats be added alongside rats, ferrets, stoats, weasels and possums? Allison Hess argues it's a no-brainer.
Gareth Morgan kicked things off with his infamous Cats to Go campaign in 2013.
He said things people didn't want to hear. Cats, he said, were 'serial killers' and 'nature's only sadists'. People absolutely lost the plot. He was immediately labelled a radical, a cat-hating Bond villain.
When the Predator Free 2050 target species were chosen in 2016, feral cats were off the list, due to the fears of public backlash. The public wasn't ready, and the SPCA opposed it at the time.
But a decade on, Morgan's once spicy take is looking… less radical.
His campaign was inspired by the destruction cats were causing on Rakiura (Stewart Island) wildlife. Feral cats were the reason kākāpō were urgently translocated off the island in the 80s. It has been a constant battle to keep their numbers in check to protect the remaining wildlife on the island. Today the pukunui (southern NZ dotterel) is close to the brink, with only 105 birds remaining.
The cat conversation Morgan dragged hissing and clawing into the public arena never went away. Journalists have nudged it along, sitting the public down for 'the talk' periodically. To name just a few stories, there have been Are there too many cats in NZ? (Stuff, 2016); Our love affair with cats (NZ Geographic, 2021); We need to talk about cats and wildlife (The Spinoff, 2022); We need to talk about cats (Newsroom, 2022) and Paddy Gower Has Issues: Feral cats are killing native birds, bats and even dolphins – so why are Kiwis so mad when we cull them? (Stuff, 2023).
We've read story after story: cats eating 28 lizards in one go, destroying 87 black-fronted tern nests and wiping out robin populations.
Today, the mood has shifted, and the conversation has matured. It's not cat lovers vs cat haters. The public has had a decade to digest what was once too controversial. Even the SPCA has changed its tune, admitting emotions clouded its decision-making back then, and it now supports the humane killing of feral cats.
In a 2023 leaders' debate, Luxon and Hipkins both said feral cats should be included in the Predator Free 2050 strategy.
And public opinion? A 2024 survey commissioned by the Predator Free NZ Trust found that 64% of New Zealanders thought we should actively reduce feral cat populations on public conservation land. Nearly 60% supported national legislation for microchipping and desexing of pet cats.
Cats are a legal grey zone
While all cats are hunters, companion cats are beloved members of households. Feral cats, on the other hand, live entirely independently of humans, with no home, no vet, no food bowl. They hunt to survive and breed freely. They're everywhere, from farmland to bush, even crossing the Southern Alps. They're here because we haven't had proper rules to prevent their existence in the first place.
After the Cats to Go dustup settled down, it actually became clear that the interests of wildlife and cat welfare weren't so far apart. In a real enemies-to-lovers story line, the SPCA, Vets Association, Morgan Foundation and Companion Animals NZ shacked up to work together, forming the National Cat Management Group. The Predator Free NZ Trust later joined.
But their attempts to introduce basic rules like nationwide desexing, registration and microchipping of pet cats have been batted away for years. These basics would help reduce kitten dumping, help return lost pets and slow the growth of stray and feral colonies, which are booming (in New Zealand there are an estimated 2.4 million feral cats, compared to 1.2 million pet cats).
Unlike dogs, there is no law governing cat ownership and control. There is a hodgepodge of council bylaws, but cats have free rein of the country, are allowed to wander onto other people's property, and their owners aren't responsible for any damage they cause.
The cross-sector group got close to something happening in 2023 when the environment select committee recommended creating a law. The current government said, 'Nah, not a priority.'
So here we are again
But now there's another opening to do something about cats.
The Department of Conservation is asking if feral cats should be added to the Predator Free 2050 target species list.
Feral cats are being controlled, but it's piecemeal. There's no national standard, no shared funding, no clear guidelines, limited research and poor outcomes for both cats and wildlife. When nothing happens at a national level, people take matters into their own hands, like the farmers in Canterbury who made international headlines with their feral cat culling competition.
Leaving feral cats off the list undermines the whole Predator Free 2050 goal. If we leave out feral cats, we ignore one of the deadliest predators, and their control remains disjointed. Adding them to the list means setting national standards, investing in research and ensuring their removal is more humane, coordinated and effective.
Feral cats shouldn't remain in the too-hard basket. We've had the conversation; it's time to do something with it.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
![Choose Clean Water - Latest News [Page 1]](/_next/image?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.scoop.co.nz%2Fstories%2Fimages%2F1908%2Fscoop_image.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
![Choose Clean Water - Latest News [Page 1]](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic-mobile-files.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com%2Fscoop.png&w=48&q=75)
Scoop
6 hours ago
- Scoop
Choose Clean Water - Latest News [Page 1]
Changes To Fish & Game Continue Coalition's Handover Of Power To Polluters Choose Clean Water spokesperson Tom Kay says the changes announced today are clearly designed to remove Fish & Game's ability to advocate for the health of rivers. More >> 'Don't Be Fooled': Govt's Freshwater Reforms Means More Pollution In Your Water & Commercial Control Of Public Resources Friday, 30 May 2025, 7:30 pm | Choose Clean Water Choose Clean Water says it's important for the public to make submissions on the changes (these can be made until 27 July 2025) but it's just as important for the public to contact MPs and Ministers directly to voice their opposition. More >> National Direction Changes Expected To Advance Dangerous ACT Ideology At Expense Of The Health Of NZers And Environment Monday, 26 May 2025, 3:04 pm | Choose Clean Water Choose Clean Water says the cabinet paper's prioritising of 'the enjoyment of private property rights' in public policy is straight out of an extreme libertarian ideology and becomes incoherent and dangerous when applied to communities' needs ... More >> Farm Model Weakness Proves Strength Of Input Controls To Save Rivers Wednesday, 11 August 2021, 4:57 pm | Choose Clean Water Freshwater campaigners say the independent review of farm modelling tool, 'Overseer', released today has found profound weaknesses with the tool and in doing so has proved the strength of Government and regional councils turning to greater control of inputs ... More >> Government Must Stand Strong On Freshwater Reform For All New Zealanders Wednesday, 14 July 2021, 1:52 pm | Choose Clean Water Campaigners say the Government must stand strong against pressure from some in the agricultural sector to weaken freshwater reforms, following the release today of the Government's consultation document on freshwater farm plans and fencing rules. ... More >> Wairarapa Water Ltd.'s Bad Science And Poor Process A Warning Bell For All Monday, 21 December 2020, 1:31 pm | Choose Clean Water Freshwater campaigners say Wairarapa iwi Rangitāne o Wairarapa statement released today highlighting their concerns around Wairarapa Water Ltd's 'rushed time frames and incorrect information' is an important warning bell for the public and politicians. ... More >> Fish & Game Endangers Its Vital Public Role By Moving Closer To Federated Farmers Friday, 27 November 2020, 3:49 pm | Choose Clean Water Freshwater Campaigners Say The NZ Fish And Game Council Is Endangering Its Vital Public Role In The Protection Of Rivers And Lakes If It Moves Closer To Federated Farmers, Following Today's Announcement On The Two Organisations' Intention To ... More >> Water Campaigners Welcome Greens' Focus On Nitrogen Pollution Saturday, 12 September 2020, 12:16 pm | Choose Clean Water Water campaigners are welcoming the Greens' focus on nitrogen pollution in the party's 'Farming for the future' policy released today. 'Excessive nitrogen in our waterways is impacting the health of people, rivers and lakes, and wildlife ... More >> Water Storage Should Not Be Prioritised Over Waste & Drinking Water Infrastructure Thursday, 11 June 2020, 5:03 pm | Choose Clean Water The Government should be putting public health first in its post-Covid spending, freshwater campaigners say, prioritising waste and drinking water infrastructure over water storage Campaigners from Choose Clean Water were disappointed to learn ... More >> Crucial Policy Missing From Government's Water Announcement, Say Campaigners Thursday, 28 May 2020, 12:16 pm | Choose Clean Water Freshwater campaigners are frustrated the Government has delayed a crucial decision on nitrogen pollution for a further 12 months until after the election. 'We have urged the Government many times to put in place clear and unequivocal limits for ... More >> Strong Water Rules Essential As New Report Shows Most NZ Rivers Polluted Thursday, 16 April 2020, 12:39 pm | Choose Clean Water A government report released today shows most New Zealand rivers are polluted, highlighting why strong water rules are urgently needed, say freshwater campaigners. The report shows most of our waterways are under stress and many are severely impacted. In our ... More >> Industry Lobbyists And Politicians – Don't Exploit Covid-19 Crisis To Push Long-held Agendas Monday, 23 March 2020, 11:18 am | Choose Clean Water It is irresponsible and dishonest for agricultural industry lobbyists and opportunistic politicians to exploit the Covid-19 crisis for their unrelated political agendas, say freshwater campaign group Choose Clean Water. Federated Farmers have called for ... More >> 'Don't Fail Us On Water, PM': Togs, Towels And A Serious Message At Parliament Today Monday, 2 March 2020, 7:38 am | Choose Clean Water A group of young freshwater campaigners are getting their togs on, grabbing a towel and heading to parliament at rush hour this morning with a message to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern; 'Don't fail us on water.' The group, from the student-established ... More >> 'Strong Water Rules Now': Campaigners Remind PM Of Clean River Promises Outside Parliament Today Tuesday, 11 February 2020, 6:59 am | Choose Clean Water Freshwater campaigners will be outside parliament today with large banners reminding the Prime Minister of her party's 2017 pre-election promises to clean up the country's rivers. The group from Choose Clean Water, a student-established campaign to strengthen ... More >> Stats NZ shows urban & rural NZers agree on water pollution Wednesday, 2 October 2019, 3:00 pm | Choose Clean Water Results of the General Social Survey highlighted today by Stats NZ today show that urban and rural New Zealanders agree on freshwater pollution, say freshwater campaigners. 'Information on the General Social Survey 2018 released today by Stats NZ today ... More >> Freshwater policy holds potential if Gov resists pressure Thursday, 5 September 2019, 11:03 am | Choose Clean Water Freshwater campaigners welcome the release of Action for healthy waterways policy discussion documents today saying they hold great potential to deliver on the Government's election promise. However, it is clear there is intense pressure from dairy lobbyists ... More >> Dairy-led water accords do nothing to stop intensification Monday, 2 September 2019, 4:22 pm | Choose Clean Water Dairy industry-led water accords have done nothing to stop intensification over the last decades, which has led to the decline of the health of the country's rivers and lakes, say freshwater campaigners. And there is no commitment from dairy leaders ... More >> An 'action plan' with no action and a fatal flaw Tuesday, 5 June 2018, 4:20 pm | Choose Clean Water An 'action plan' with no action and a fatal flaw: Why agricultural leaders continue to fail New Zealand's rivers and their industry For immediate use 4pm Tuesday, 5 June 2018 Choose Clean Water NZ The Good Farming Practice: Action Plan for Water ... More >>


NZ Herald
8 hours ago
- NZ Herald
Te Pāti Māori haka sanctions debate continues in Parliament today
The debate on whether Te Pāti Māori co-leaders will face the toughest Parliamentary sanctions ever dished out continues today after it was abruptly adjourned last month to give way to the Budget. The debate is set to begin around 3pm. It will be livestreamed at the top of this article. ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW Labour and the Greens MPs are expected to push fiercely for a weaker punishment while National is not expected to budge. Parliament's Privileges Committee has recommended suspending Te Pāti Māori co-leaders Rawiri Waititi and Debbie Ngarewa-Packer for 21 days and MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke for seven days after a controversial haka in the House last year. The longest suspension in Parliament's 171-year history is three sitting days. The committee's recommendations will be put to the House for debate and likely pass. Labour's shadow leader of the House Kieran McAnulty said Labour believed Te Pāti Māori had overstepped and that they should be sanctioned but that 21 days was disproportionate. 'Our contributions to the debate will be focused on that and not trying to defend their actions.' National minister and Leader of the House Chris Bishop said he was keen to get the matter sorted. Last month, Bishop had unexpectedly called for the debate to be adjourned. Bishop's justification was that if the Te Pāti Māori MPs were suspended from Parliament that particular week, they would miss the debate on the Budget. He also believed delaying the debate would bring the temperature 'down a notch' after recent heated commentary. 'My strong preference would be for Parliament to deal with it, deal with it once, have a big debate about it and then finish it,' he told reporters on Wednesday. 'It's before Parliament, we've had the report, frankly New Zealanders expect us to get on with the business of governing. This is a distraction from the major issues as to why we were elected to this Parliament.' The haka at the centre of the matter happened during the first reading of the controversial Treaty Principles Bill, which was eventually voted down at second reading. The haka has since gone viral globally, amassing hundreds of millions of views on social media. Maipi-Clarke, Parliament's youngest MP, brought Parliament to a standstill when she began the haka while ripping up a copy of the Treaty Principles Bill, a proposal from Act leader David Seymour to replace the many Treaty principles developed over time by experts and the court with three new ones. Many perceived the bill as a threat to Māori and detrimental to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It was a catalyst of the massive hīkoi protest to Parliament in November last year. Waititi and Ngarewa-Packer stood up and joined Maipi-Clarke in the haka, moving from their seats towards the Act party benches. Labour's Peeni Henare also moved away from his seat to perform. Henare later apologised to the Judith Collins-led Privileges Committee for knowingly breaking the rules by stepping away from his seat, but said he stood by his haka and would do it again. The trio from Te Pāti Māori were referred to the Privileges Committee but ignored the initial summons to appear in person, arguing they had been denied legal representation and the ability to appear together. At the time, they promised to hold a separate 'independent' hearing. Te Pāti Māori have been defiant in their defence of the haka. Waititi told reporters on Wednesday afternoon it was not clear exactly what the trio were being punished for. 'Some of the House found it intimidating, some of the House found it exhilarating because half of House stood up. We don't know what the reasons are for the 21 days sanctions.' Waititi spoke with The Hui soon after the committee's unprecedented recommendations were released. He said he was thinking about the people who had entrusted him to 'represent them the best way I know'. 'And that is to be unapologetic, that is to be authentic and honest and respectful of who we are. We should be able to do that without fear or favour and be able to do that without being ashamed of being Māori,' Waititi told The Hui host Julian Wilcox. 'What I feel is that we are being punished for being Māori. The country loves my haka, the world loves my haka, but it feels like they don't love me.'


The Spinoff
10 hours ago
- The Spinoff
How were the alleged actions of the PM's press secretary not illegal?
The case of a senior Beehive staffer who resigned over allegations that police said didn't meet the threshold for prosecution highlights the limits of existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. The sudden resignation this week of one of prime minister Christopher Luxon's senior press secretaries was politically embarrassing, but also raises questions about how New Zealand law operates in such cases. A Stuff investigation revealed the Beehive staffer allegedly recorded audio of sessions with sex workers, and whose phone contained images and video of women at the gym, supermarket shopping, and filmed through a window while getting dressed. The man at the centre of the allegations has reportedly apologised and said he had sought professional help for his behaviour last year. The police have said the case did not meet the threshold for prosecution. And this highlights the difficulties surrounding existing laws when it comes to non-consensual recording, harassment and image-based harm. Describing his 'shock' at the allegations against his former staffer, the prime minister said he was 'open to revisiting' the laws around intimate audio recordings without consent. If that happens, there are several key areas to consider. Are covert audio recordings illegal? New Zealand law prohibits the non-consensual creation, possession and distribution of intimate visual recordings under sections 216H to 216J of the Crimes Act 1961. These provisions aim to protect individuals' privacy and bodily autonomy in situations where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. The definition of 'intimate visual recording' under these sections is limited to visual material, such as photographs, video or digital images, and does not extend to audio-only recordings. As a result, covert audio recordings of sex workers engaged in sexual activity would fall outside the scope of these offences, even though the harm caused is similar. If such audio or video recordings were ever shared with others or posted online, that may be a criminal offence under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 – if it can be proved this was done with the intention to cause serious emotional distress. What about covert filming of women in public places? Covert recording of women working out or walking down a road, including extreme closeups of clothed bodies parts, would unlikely meet the definition of 'intimate visual recording'. That is because they do not typically involve nudity, undergarments or private bodily activities, and they often occur in public places where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even extreme closeups may not meet the threshold unless they are taken from beneath or through clothing in a way that targets the genitals, buttocks or breasts. While they are invasive and degrading, they may remain lawful. By contrast, it is more likely that covert filming of women dressing or undressing through a window would satisfy the definition, depending on where the women were. For example, were they in a place where they would have a reasonable expectation of privacy? If the non-consensual recording captures a person in a state of undress, then the creation of such images or videos could be considered a crime. Are any of these behaviours 'harassment'? Under the Harassment Act 1997, 'harassment' is defined as a pattern of behaviour directed at a person that involves at least two specified acts within a 12-month period, or a single continuing act. These acts can include following, watching, or any conduct that causes the person to fear for their safety. Although covert filming or audio recording is not expressly referenced, the acts of following and watching within alleged voyeuristic behaviour, if repeated, could fall within the definition. But harassment is only a crime where it is done with the intent or knowledge that the behaviour will likely cause a person to fear for their safety. This is a threshold that might be difficult to prove in voyeurism or similar cases. Covert recording of women's bodies, whether audio or visual, is part of a broader pattern of gender-based violence facilitated by technology. Feminist legal scholars have framed this as 'image-based sexual abuse'. The term captures how non-consensual creation, recording, sharing or threatening to share intimate content violates sexual autonomy and dignity. This form of harm disproportionately affects women and often reflects gender power imbalances rooted in misogyny, surveillance and control. The concept has become more mainstream and is referenced by law and policymakers in Australia and the United Kingdom. Has New Zealand law kept up? Some forms of image-based sexual abuse are criminalised in New Zealand, but others are not. What we know of this case suggests some key gaps remain – largely because law reform has been piecemeal and reactive. For example, the intimate visual recording offences in the Crimes Act were introduced in 2006 when wider access to digital cameras led to an upswing in covert filming (of women showering or 'upskirting', for example). Therefore, the definition is limited to these behaviours. But the law was drafted before later advances in smartphone technology, now owned by many more people than in 2006. Generally, laws are thought of as 'living documents', able to be read in line with the development of new or advanced technology. But when the legislation itself is drafted with certain technology or behaviours in mind, it is not necessarily future-proofed. Where to now? There is a risk to simply adding more offences to plug the gaps (and New Zealand is not alone in having to deal with this challenge). Amending the Crimes Act to include intimate audio recordings might address one issue. But new or advanced technologies will inevitably raise others. Rather than responding to each new form of abuse as it arises, it would be better to take a step back and develop a more principled, future-focused criminal law framework. That would mean defining offences in a technology-neutral way. Grounded in core values such as privacy, autonomy and consent, they would be more capable of adapting to new contexts and tools. Only then can the law provide meaningful protection against the evolving forms of gendered harm facilitated by digital technologies.