The trouble with 'banning cats' and reintroducing lynx and wolves

“We have absolutely no intention of banning cats,” said the First Minister recently. Looking exasperated that he even had to utter those words, John Swinney’s quick intervention killed the story that had the potential to engulf the Scottish Government after being picked up by UK news channels and going viral across social media.

And yet the story was no premature April Fool prank. It had come about because the Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC), established by the Scottish Government to give it advice on such matters, had produced a report on the impact of domestic and feral cats on wildlife. One of the options to restrict domestic cats from exercising their predatory instincts it suggested was that they be banned from being allowed outdoors or from being kept in new housing developments.

Neither of these options was actually recommended by the Commission. Instead, it called for “ministers to consider commissioning further work on the impact of cats on wildlife in specific, vulnerable areas and whether there is evidence for containment measures, among other issues such as microchipping”.

Talk of reintroducing the lynx to Scotland appears at odds with ideas about banning domestic cats (Picture: Jeff J Mitchell) | Getty Images

Entirely believable

The fact the “cat ban” story gained traction says more about perceptions of the unseriousness and detachment of power-addicted Holyrood than politicians will care to admit. It was, frankly, entirely believable.

And yet there on our television screens on the morning of the kerfuffle was the press officer of the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (generally known as Peta) suggesting the confinement of cats, or indeed a cat-ownership ban, could be a good thing and should be treated seriously.

This did leave me a little puzzled. I could understand the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) supporting cats being banned, or maybe similar defenders of the lives of mice and rats (the Royal Society for the Protection of Vermin – the RSPV?) but why should Peta take sides between moggies on the loose and their potential victims? Is it an ethical issue?

No, the answer is far simpler than that. Peta actually seems to be against ownership of pets, apparently preferring we forego any human relationships with animals. For, you see, animals can’t be owned. Condemning our feline friends to house arrest until the practice stops would be one way of starting the process of ending pet ownership – in effect, turning all domestic cats into the feral variety.

The obvious result would be an explosion in the feral cat population, yet more birds being preyed upon and yes, cats being run over. I know this to be true, having lived in a rural habitat where such a problem occurred.

Baseless claims about autism

Scratch the surface of Peta and you will find suggestions it is also against dogs being used as sensory guides for the blind or hard of hearing. That’s exploitation of animals you see. Astonishingly, Peta has even compared farms to Holocaust concentration camps, a description that was widely condemned by Jewish and human rights groups.

It also spreads baseless fake science such as the claim that there was a link between children drinking dairy milk and autism. Last week, I noticed it even suggested that drinking beer was better for you than drinking milk. The brewers and Peta on the same side? Only if it is vegan beer, probably.

In the US, Peta had to pay £40,000 in damages after kidnapping and putting down a child’s pet dog. Peta claimed it had “rescued” an unattended dog, but it broke local by-laws by putting down the animal within a day of it being taken.

Peta runs no animal rescue centres or cat and dog sanctuaries. It prefers protests and outlandish claims instead. Me, I’d rather support rescue centres and finding new homes, but that would mean pet ownership.

Lynx and wild boar

I think we are going to see a lot more militancy from groups saying they are defending animals. An aspect of this can be seen in the recent spate of incidents involving extinct species being reintroduced to the British mainland.

Four lynx were let loose in the Cairngorms just recently and had to be rescued. One died but the other three survived. Within a month, 20 wild boar were also released in the same area. The problem of militant rewilding shows a callous disregard for the animals people profess to defend, for they inevitably are unable to exist in the wild and die, and can also have an impact on other animals if they do happen to survive.

The Cairngorms Crofters and Farmers Group said the boars, which became extinct in Scotland before Robert the Bruce won the throne, could pose a significant disease risk to livestock, native wildlife and even humans. It claimed “diseases such as bovine tuberculosis, foot-and-mouth disease, and leptospirosis could have devastating consequences for Scotland's farming community”.

Message to Scottish Government ministers, rewilding is not universally accepted.

Farmers protecting their sheep

To emphasise how divisive rewilding can become, farmers in the Netherlands are calling on their government to allow qualified hunters to shoot wolves that are literally decimating their sheep and killing cattle, often without even eating their prey.

In a rare unwinding of an EU law, the European Commission has relaxed the EU-wide protection of wolves that had been reintroduced to European countries and given the responsibility back to member states. Dutch farmers see this as their chance to fight back against the wolf which, they claim, is making farming even more difficult in these hard times.

People wishing to reintroduce the wolf into Scotland will find similar concerns being raised. It does appear to be a paradox that predatory species that have no concerns about the morals or ethics of ripping out another animal’s throat should be protected. If it’s natural for them to kill, is it not justifiable for a farmer to defend the defenceless sheep?

Does John Swinney have a view? He should maybe form one – but please, don’t commission any more research from those who don't understand how their words can be distorted and misused.

Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and an advisor to PetaWatch.com