Do we really need a 'policy intervention' to prevent cats from chasing mice?

You can't make stuff like this up. The Huffington Post reports that a new study, led by Scott Loss of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, is calling attention to the baneful problem of domesticated cats chasing mice, birds, and other prey to kill and eat them. Oh, the horror.

Our findings suggest that free-ranging cats cause substantially greater wildlife mortality than previously thought and are likely the single greatest source of anthropogenic mortality for US birds and mammals. Scientifically sound conservation and policy intervention is needed to reduce this impact.

So, the all-knowing scientific masters of the universe plan to "intervene" and reduce the horrifying carnage. You see, anthropogenic mortality (man-caused) must be evil. If humans have chaged anything, that is a negative change.

David Stein of Republican Party Animals calls people with this perspective:

"Anthropogenicists," the pseudo-scientists who believe that humans are the cause of all earthly problems, from weather and climate anomalies to earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and species extinction. To an Anthropogenicist, humans are the sole root of all evil. Because nothing bad - no earthquakes, no floods, no volcanic eruptions, and no species extinction ever happened before man arrived on the earth. Anthropogenicism is a religion of the left, proof that when humans reject traditional religious beliefs, they merely go on to create some other faith-based schema to believe in.

He is absolutely right. The fervor of the left is because they are practicing a redemptive religion, atoning for the collective sin of being human.

The hubris involved is substantial. Preventing cats from chasing mice is precisely the sort of problem no government can solve.

Hat tip: Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit. The picture he uses to illustrate his blog is well worth the click over.

If you experience technical problems, please write to