Feral Cat Predation on Birds Costs Billions of Dollars a Year
Categories:
12/03/2010
Feral cats—domestic cats that live outdoors and are ownerless—account for $17 billion in economic loss from predation on birds in the U.S. every year, a new, peer-reviewed paper by University of Nebraska-Lincoln researchers finds.
“Feral cats are opportunistic hunters, taking any small animal available, such as pheasants, native quail, grouse, turkeys, waterfowl, and endangered piping plovers,” write Aaron Hildreth, Stephen Vantassel, and Scott Hygnstrom in the paper, Feral Cats and Their Management (click here for a pdf). “The estimated economic impact of cat damage to birds does not include losses to small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.”
(The estimated cost per bird is $30, based on literature citing that bird watchers spend $.40 per bird observed, hunters spend $216 per bird shot, and bird rearers spend $800 per bird released.)
There are an estimated 60 million feral cats in the U.S., and as many or more kitties kept as pets. The study reports that cats are responsible for the extinction of at least 33 avian species worldwide, and the felines kill an estimated 480 million birds a year. Besides predation, feral cats also carry and transmit diseases such as cat scratch fever, plague, rabies, and toxoplasmosis. (States require pet cats to be vaccinated).
“The ‘multitudes’ of feral cats that blight America hasten the extinction process,” writes Audubon Incite columnist Ted Williams in “Feline Fatal” (Sept-Oct 2009).
From the story:
From the story:
| “On Hawaii’s Big Island, for example, they depredate about one of every ten nests of the palila—an endangered honeycreeper (see “Last Chance,” Incite, May-June 2009). Ten thousand feet up on Mauna Loa, cats are snatching endangered Hawaiian petrels from their burrows. The single chick can’t fly for 15 weeks, and adults don’t breed until they’re at least five. On Kauai threatened Newell’s shearwaters get disoriented by lights and crash. Usually they’re unhurt, but because they can’t take off from land people pick them up and deposit them in large ‘mail boxes’ at fire stations from which they’re collected and returned to the sea. But feral cats have learned to congregate under the lights, and, increasingly, they’re killing the birds before they can be rescued.” |
Many feral cat advocates support trap, neuter, and release (TNR, or TNVR—‘v’ is for vaccinate) programs, and have successfully gotten city ordinances passed that allow for maintaining feral cat colonies. Cook County's 2007 ordinance, for example, permits residents to manage colonies as long as they neuter, spay, and vaccinate the animals against rabies and give them microchip implants.
But the report authors don’t think TNR alone will reduce the impact on birds. “No real-world example of eliminating a colony through TNVR exists, and evidence of large-scale colony reduction is anecdotal,” they write. “Furthermore, TNVR can cost over $100 per cat (including trapping, spaying/neutering, vaccination, and transport), and the cats are still able to prey on native birds and mammals.”
“This report is a must read for any community or government official thinking about what to do about feral cats. It encapsulates the extensive research on this subject and draws conclusions based on that data. Not surprisingly, the report validates everything American Bird Conservancy has been saying about the feral cat issue for many years, namely TNR doesn’t work in controlling feral cat populations,” said Darin Schroeder, Vice President for Conservation Advocacy for American Bird Conservancy, the nation’s leading bird conservation organization.
An integrated pest management system is the best way to control feral cat populations, the authors conclude. They recommend habitat modifications (reducing availability of food, water, and shelter for feral cats); exclusion (e.g., fencing in gardens); devices to frighten the animals away; trapping and live-capture with removal; and fertility control.
To protect pets, they recommend owners use passive integrated transporter (PIT) tags—small microchips that are injected under the skin and identify the cat.
In addition for calling for new city and state legislation to clarify the legal status of feral cats, the authors also stress the importance of public support. Simply put, don’t feed feral cats, and if you own a cat, keep it on your property.
 Photo: Kittywalk Systems |
Cat owners can purchase a solution in the form of a ‘catio’—an outdoor, fully fenced patio just for kitties. The study authors don’t mention catios, but they’re becoming something of a trend, as we’ve previously reported.
Click here to read about catios, and share your thoughts on cats and birds in the Comment section below. As always, be considerate—no vicious fighting like, well, cats and dogs, please.
View all Animals, Backyard/Garden, Birds, Endangered Species, Wildlife | Alisa Opar's blog | 
| Email This | Print
| Email This | Print 
I am a bird lover and work
I am a bird lover and work in a field that monitors riparian bird species.
Any suggestions for approaching a cranky cat-loving grandmother that lives in another state and feeds at least 10 un-fixed feral cats that have kittens every year? I would send her money to get the cats fixed, but she needs the money more than the cats do and I don't think she'd bother with trapping and fixing--she's old.
There are groups all over
There are groups all over the country willing to help with this kind of project. You might even be able to find a group that would charge next to nothing - AND do the trapping and transporting. I used to work with a group who did this, and we were more than happy to work with the seniors. And they were very grateful for the help. A little bit of googling might find you exactly what you need to remedy this situation.
Why don't you go for a visit
Why don't you go for a visit and trap the cats for her?
Alisa, You’re doing your
Alisa,
You’re doing your readers a disservice by referring to the paper from UNL as if it were valid research. Though the motives of the report’s authors aren’t entirely clear to me, there’s no doubt whatsoever that they have little understanding of the key issues surrounding TNR—never mind the relevant science. Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom misread, misinterpret, and/or misrepresent nearly every bit of research they reference. And, some of what they include isn’t valid research to begin with.
Perhaps a few examples will help…
Diet
In their report, Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom write: “The diets of well-fed house-based cats in Sweden consisted of 15 percent to 90 percent native prey, depending on availability.” But the authors completely misunderstand the figures they cite—and have replaced natural with native, completely misrepresenting the work of Olof Liberg.
What Liberg is actually describing here is merely the range of prey brought in by all of the cats in the study, 80–85 percent of which were “well-fed house-based.” On average, wildlife made up just 25–30 percent of the diet of these cats—and birds comprised only about 2 or 3 percent of prey. In fact, 31 percent of scat analyzed contained no vertebrate remains.
It’s important to point out, too, that Liberg did not differentiate between native and non-native prey, as the authors suggest. In fact, he refers to “natural prey” only as a way of distinguishing between food provided by humans and any wildlife that cats might consume.
And finally, Liberg is quite clear about the fact that the predation he observed did not result in declining population of any of the cats’ prey.
Sampling
According to Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom, “In California, 67 percent of rodents, 95 percent of birds, and 100 percent of lizards brought home by cats were native species, and native birds were twice as likely to be seen in areas without cats.”
Here’s how the original study (a 1999 paper by Kevin Crooks and Michael Soulé) reads: “Identification of 68 prey items returned by cats bordering the fragments indicated that 67 percent of 26 rodents, 95 percent of 21 birds and 100 percent of 11 lizards were native species.” By “scrubbing” the original text of just a few figures, Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom paint a picture far bleaker than is justified by the study’s findings.
Also, Crooks and Soulé asked residents to recall what kind of prey their cats returned annually, a technique shown to overestimate predation levels by a factor of 2 or more. Because no kills were actually collected, it’s impossible to be certain about which species were brought home by cats.
Toxoplasmosis
In “Feral Cats and Their Management,” the authors point out—correctly, in this case—that “most feral cats (62 percent to 80 percent) tested positive for toxoplasmosis.” But the rate of cats testing positive is not a useful measure of their ability to infect other animals or people.
“Testing positive,” in this case, is nothing more than the detection of antibodies resulting from what’s called seroconversion (the same process that takes place in humans after receiving a flu shot), the biological response to a cat’s exposure to the Toxoplasma gondii parasite.
Once again, Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom leave out critical information, thereby suggesting a health threat (to humans and animals) well beyond what the science indicates.
Wisconsin Study
The authors of the report refer to the infamous Wisconsin Study as if it were an actual study. In fact, no predation data were ever published. In a 1994 interview, Stanley Temple, one of the paper’s co-authors, admitted, “Those figures were from our proposal. They aren’t actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be.” Yet, years later, the myth lives on (Ted Williams tried to make “actual data” out of this “not actual data” last year by citing the Wisconsin Study in “Feline Fatales”).
Economics
And finally there’s the bizarre economics Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom propose. Even setting aside the indefensible $17 billion figure for the moment, there’s the equally indefensible per-bird price tag: “$30, based on literature citing that bird watchers spend $0.40 per bird observed, hunters spend $216 per bird shot, and bird rearers spend $800 per bird released.”
One can make the argument—following the authors’ line of reasoning—that hunters value an individual bird more than 500 times as much as a birdwatcher does. Suggesting, it seems, that dead birds are far more valuable than live birds.
So, how’s “Feral Cats and Their Management” looking now?
The release of this paper adds nothing of value to the debate about feral cat management. On the contrary, the report is little more than a call for the open hunting of feral cats—dressed up (though not very well) as research—and its publication was irresponsible in the extreme.
There are legitimate issues to be debated concerning feral cats (e.g., regarding the efficacy, environmental impact, and morality of TNR). But attempts at an honest, productive debate are hampered, if not derailed entirely, by researchers—including Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom—who put their personal agenda ahead of professional integrity.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Reshaping the feral cat/TNR debate.
I agree with Wolf. Hildreth,
I agree with Wolf. Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom's so-called review of the research is shameful. What an example of manipulating statistics and over-generalizing strictly qualified numbers to show what you want to show! The peer reviewers definitely did not do their jobs in this case!
Understandably, people who
Understandably, people who love and enjoy birds are searching for an easy solution to the perceived decline in bird populations. We should all be cautious, however, about embracing recommendations from the University of Nebraska Lincoln Extension report which consist of flagrantly exaggerated conclusions lacking any scientific foundation.
What is most interesting about this report is the repeated concern for feeding feral cats and the resulting harm alleged when large numbers of animals congregate in any given location. This concern is quite ironic given that the authors apparently have no qualms whatsoever about the congregating and feeding of birds. In fact, despite the obvious likelihood of disease transmission that results from birds congregating around feeders and bird baths, the report actually encourages feeding …provided feeders are located “at least 10 feet from foliage or objects where cats can hide.”
There is no disputing that some cats kill birds. To my knowledge, however, there have been no determinative findings to support that cats are killing healthy birds. In fact, given the predator/prey relationship, the likelihood of cats preying upon healthy birds is quite slim.
As is the case with all predators other than humans, prey is targeted because it is sick, injured, young or very old. Cats are opportunistic by nature and may capitalize on birds that have been injured, ill or compromised. Cats that prey on the diseased, however, are providing an invaluable service to the remaining population by removing any threat of exposure to other birds.
Caution must be taken with regard to the word euthanasia. Despite its political correctness, this term is often used to support methodologies that are neither quick nor painless. For instance, one of the authors of the report has publicly supported the injection of acetone/dimethyl-ketone (a/k/a nail polish remover) into the lung cavities of skunks (http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=i...), casually referring to this brutal act as euthanasia.
A gunshot to the head is another questionable form of euthanasia given there is a high likelihood of error. Even for those individuals who possess proficient shooting skills, how can they be certain that the cat is going to hold still for the shot?
Body-gripping traps, notorious for their indiscriminate nature, have been shown to be incapable of killing animals instantly, despite the repeated assertions from trappers claiming otherwise, yet this too has been recommended by the authors of the report as an acceptable form of "euthanasia."
Additional reason for concern surrounding the validity of the Nebraska report stems from the authors' unavoidable bias. Wildlife damage operators, “pest” specialists, and those who possess a natural resource background profit financially and/or recreationally from killing animals. Obviously, this creates a huge conflict with objectivity.
Lethal control has proven repeatedly to be ineffective, cost-prohibitive and publicly unpalatable. The negative ramifications to this knee-jerk, ‘get-your-gun’ approach are not remedied simply because it is being recommended by an extension office.
Towns and municipalities across the country are embracing TNR ordinances, not because they are moved by the animal welfare aspect, but because this approach is effective, saves money and protects public health.
Please see the following website for additional information -- http://www.prweb.com/pdfdownload/8016498.pdf
I am so glad I didn't renew
I am so glad I didn't renew my Audubon membership. I want nothing to do with an organization that uses an invalid report full of misinformation and spreads the misinformation. Too bad the author didn't do ANY research and quoted that report as if it was valid research. Feral cats exist because of careless owners who abandon and don't spay or neuter their cats. It is not the cats fault, any more than the damage done by Canada geese to golf courses is their fault. Shame on you Audubon!
Feral cats do exist due to
Feral cats do exist due to careless owners. And as long as we condone outdoor lives and deaths in 'managed' cat colonies, they will continue to exist. We will never convince the public to be responsible for their pets through 'programs' that re-abandon domestic animals.
You are right Melanie. The cats are not to blame - humans are. They are at fault any time they allow cats to roam, dump them, or release them through TNR.
TNR isn't a program aimed at
TNR isn't a program aimed at teaching pet owners how to care for their cats. It is a program to help manage feral cats who already exsist and reduce the feral cat population through s/n. Feral cats cannot be taken to or kept in animal shelters because they are wild. Yes, some can be tamed, but not always. It sounds like you put owners who dump pets and people who TNR in the same category. There is a huge difference. In a managed colony the cats are cared for, not abandoned.
You are missing the point.
You are missing the point. The message sent to the public through TNR is that life and death outside are ok for domestic cats. There is no incentive for people to fix cats and keep them under their control.
Yep. Pretty much same category in my book. Good intentions do not necessarily lead to good outcomes. TNR is hoarding without walls.
Sorry, but you persist in
Sorry, but you persist in implying a cause and effect that just don't exist. Given my current reply to your similar statement is now on page one, despite having accidentally posted the reply twice, I'm going to repeat myself. Should we eliminate drug rehab centers because they send the message that using illegal drugs is OK? They provide no incentive for people not to use drugs again because the facility exists to help them repeatedly recover from addiction.
If TNR is hoarding without walls, then trap and kill is serial killing.
Well, we'll have to agree to
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on that one, because I believe they do exist.
As someone who worked a few years in a drug rehabilitation facility I do not see this as an accurate parallel. Drug rehab centers are there to help folks recover. TNR colonies are not there (at least not supposed to be there) as a convenient way to dump animals (but that is the outcome).
A drug rehab facility usually has a multidisciplinary team (administrative caseworkers, psychiartrists, medical doctors, social workers/therapists) to address not just the drug use, but other factors that may keep a person stuck in that lifestyle. There definitely is incentive - this can be the link to a better (and sober) life for these folks and their families.
Relapse is part of recovery. Repeated relapse may be a different story. I just do not see how you can compare something that is rooted in chemical dependence to people who abandon their pets.
I have also heard that the support of TNR could be thought of like the support of a needle exchange program. Here is the problem. There are significant differences betweeen the two issues. The general public, legislators, and decision makers understand that drug use is not only not a good thing, but also not legal. Not so for TNR. So back to my point about vets and others being involved in this. That kind of validation or endorsement is not going to send the right message that outdoor lives and deaths for cats is just plain wrong.
In serial killing there is psychological gratification. You may disagree, but I do not know of any ACO, organization, or person who receives any gratification from trapping cats who more than likely will be euthanized. Sad outcome indeed, but not inhumane, even according to PETA. Hoarding, on the other hand, has a place in the animal world and to quote Dr. Jessup: How is the person who must save 25 to 30 cats in their home different from the person who sees themselves as the savior of 25 to 30 cats in a park?
But having 25-30 cats in and
But having 25-30 cats in and of itself does not make someone a hoarder. Are people who run shelters hoarders?
True. Someone may be able
True. Someone may be able to care for 20 cats in a home well and someone else can't care for 5 well. But my idea of well does not include what a TNR colony offers. As for shelters - generally speaking, no. However, there are shelters and impoundment facilities that I think would qualify because they are adament not to euthanize when they should. And then, what is the difference between that setting and a hoarder at home? The animals suffer, disease spreads. NO kill becomes slow kill.
"TNR is hoarding without
"TNR is hoarding without walls" gets my nomination for the most lunkheaded comment I have read this year. Likewise can I say "Skinny is just obesity without fat?"
What a load of BULL ! Why
What a load of BULL !
Why complain about a wild animal hunting for food ?
I Love Birds and feed them as well as stay animals. I wish cats did not eat birds but nature is nature. Watch the Nature Channel - Man it is a tough world
ANIMALS AND MAN ARE THE WORST
People hunt for sport and some eat what they kill. For those they eat what they kill I say fine. I am not for killing for JUST SPORT
...
Millions of wild animals die painful, lingering deaths in vicious traps every year. Not for food. I could go on and on but not worth it
Spend more time for A No Kill Animal Rescue
Odd no complaint when a cat catches a mouse?
Because feral cats are not
Because feral cats are not wild animals. They are domestic animals. They are not part of nature and have no native habitat in any North American ecosystem.
Cats do hunt for sport. They torture their prey. There is nothing humane about that.
What's humane about
What's humane about requiring an animal to act according to your set of morals? Cats have only been domesticated roughly 7,000 years--it takes a lot of time for those predatory instincts to die out, and they may never will. All animals--predatory or otherwise--are capable of harming and killing other animals whether or not for food. Chimpanzees eat each other, and horses have been documented to kill weak newborn foals. We can't expect nature to fit within our concept of good and bad, especially when humans ourselves can't agree amongt each other on the concept.
No one is requiring cats to
No one is requiring cats to act according to a set of morals - that is not possible. Cats hunt out of instinct and there is no reason to expect that to go away. They can fulfill that instinct by 'window hunting/stalking' or 'killing' their toys and/or pouncing on each other as many cats do during play. Indoor cats 'hunt' - there just is no real carnage as a result.
I won't get into everything
I won't get into everything that is wrong with Peter Wolf's comments above (yet). His comments are as biased and selective as he claims the Nebraska report is and he exhibits considerably less biological knowledge.
That said, everyone should recognize the Nebraska report for what it is, a compendium of literature that is geared toward animal damage control in Nebraska (within the political realities of a rural/agricultural state), not a peer-reviewed scientific study Although the report does not have a bibliography at the end, which is the source of the information. As a compendium, it perpetuates some of the myths put forward by TNR advocates, such as the "vacuum effect" and the ridiculous assertion that in seven years a pregnant cat and her offspring would number 400,000.
The source of the estimate that feral cats do $17 billion in damage each year is from an article in Ecological Economics in 2005 by Pimentel, Zuniga, and Morrison. The Nebraska report simply restates their conclusions. If Mr. Wolf has a problem with that number he should publish a paper in Ecological Economics explaining why it is flawed.
This Nebraska report has gotten folks riled up, but if you want to discuss the science, it should be about the underlying studies that they cite.
Travis, your complaint
Travis, your complaint regarding scientific publication is, as I’m sure you know, hardly new. Perhaps you’ve missed all the news this year about just how severely and often the peer-review process fails (see, for example, the interview with Daniel Carlat, author of Unhinged, or the story in last month’s issue of The Atlantic).
More to the point, though, your suggestion that we (I include myself among the folks who are “riled up”) should discuss “the underlying studies that they cite” is only partly correct (though, as you well know, I spend a good deal of time doing exactly that). How these studies have been misinterpreted and misrepresented is at least as important. The way the authors conveniently left out the sample size and relative quantities in their reference to Crooks and Soulé’s work, for instance. Are you telling us that such blatant deception is acceptable because their report (which, by the way does claim to be peer-reviewed) is “geared toward animal damage control in Nebraska (within the political realities of a rural/agricultural state)”? Sounds to me like something more appropriate for the political realities of Washington, DC. Or Wall Street, maybe.
The same can be said for their meaningless reference to feral cats “testing positive” for Toxoplasmosis, and their grossly inept interpretation of Liberg’s work. Etc.
To suggest that what these authors have done is at all legitimate is absurd and irresponsible. Protesting too much, as it were.
Peter J. Wolf
www.voxfelina.com
Pedro Lobo, you are way off
Pedro Lobo, you are way off base.
1. Whatever failings peer review may have in disciplines overrun by corporate money has little bearing on ecology or peer review as a whole. Anyone who has actually published in a real journal understands this. Science is self-correcting through the peer review process. Your alternative appears to be intellectual anarchy, where anyone with an internet connection and the ability to string together a few sentences gets to "dispute" science with a broad brush.
2. Yes, you spend a lot of time discussing the literature and I've got to hand it to you for two things. Your blog is well designed (aesthetically pleasing) and you are a good writer. But you absolutely lack the biological training to put into context and evaluate what you are reading. Your purported methodological criticisms usually fail to make a difference to the results you are critiquing. For example, you got your knickers in a twist over Lepczyk et al using a mean instead of a log-transformed mean for some data that were mildly skewed. If you go back and look at the uses of that mean, the results are far more dependent on the number of cats (their density on the landscape) than any differences that would result from transforming the data before taking the mean (those differences would be extremely small). You kind of miss the forest for the trees there.
3. The type of peer review that the Nebraska report underwent is not the same as publishing in a scientific journal, and a report of this type (with only a bibliography and no citations in the text) is obviously geared more toward the working professional and not the research scientist.
4. You aren't going to get any traction from actual scientists criticizing the Crooks and Soulé article. It is a respected classic in conservation biology and your problem with sample size is kind of desperate and funny.
I'm not going to argue the details of how the Nebraska review characterized other studies, but I will point out that you are consistently guilty of the very thing you accuse them of -- being biased and selective in your characterization of the research. You are a diligent nitpicker, but your site appears designed for a single purpose, to provide a rationale to avoid lethal control of feral cats, kind of like the climate change denialists try to nitpick the literature so they can argue that humans aren't affecting the climate. That's your right to do, but don't pretend you are contributing to scientific discourse. Now that would be absurd and irresponsible.
In his Dec. 4th comment,
In his Dec. 4th comment, Travis Longcore takes Peter Wolf to task for his protesting the lack of accurate information contained in the Audubon blog regarding the University of Nebraska Extension report, then strangely, turns around and trashes the report himself. Longcore correctly points out that the report is NOT a peer-reviewed scientific study as Alisa Opar describes it as.
Longcore points out the report does not have a bibliography, which to most scientists is a red flag. Longcore continues to discredit the report by saying it “perpetuates some of the myths put forward by TNR advocates…”. It appears Peter Wolf and Travis Longcore agree that the report is poorly written.
Which is not unexpected, considering one of the authors of the Nebraska report, Stephen Vantassel, holds a Doctorate in theology. His bibliography includes "Celibacy: The Forgotten Gift of the Holy Spirit".
My point is that no one
My point is that no one should be interpreting the Nebraska report as something it is not. It is a general summary, not new research. The report states that it is "peer reviewed" and extension offices usually have standards about having someone else other than the authors review publications, but it isn't what would be called peer reviewed scientific research. It DOES have a bibliography, it just doesn't have citations in the text to indicate the source of each idea. That indicates a different audience than the primary scientific research.
Peter Wolf has used this report and the coverage of it to put forth his usual critiques, which range from flawed to ridiculous, when applied to the underlying studies. The Nebraska report is just the latest opportunity for him to attempt to discredit anything that might cast an unfavorable light on feral cats. So I agree that a sensationalistic headline has been made out of the Nebraska report, and I'm not going to spend my time defending it. But I will defend against mischaracterization the actual underlying peer reviewed science that Mr. Wolf has made it his mission to criticize. Of course he has on his blog repeatedly accepted as accurate any statement from feral cat advocates that supports his position.
Travis, I’d be happy to go
Travis,
I’d be happy to go through these studies point-by-point with you, but I doubt it would be terribly productive. I would simply be rehashing what I’ve already presented on my blog, and you (I imagine) would point out that these studies are widely accepted in the scientific community. Or accuse me of nitpicking.
Let me just point out: this kind of scientific inquiry (as you well know) works rather precisely from the ground up: data, analysis, findings, and conclusions. Errors made during data collection (e.g., with regard to sampling) or analysis (e.g., mishandling of skewed distributions) lead invariably to erroneous findings and conclusions—sometimes minor, sometimes not. And so, when you argue that I miss the forest for the trees, my reaction is: without the trees, there is no forest.
Details matter—both in terms of the specific outcomes of a study, and as a reflection of the integrity of the people involved. Besides, solid research stands up very well to careful scrutiny (see, for example, climate change research).
That said, even the best research studies are prone to misrepresentation by others—as the UNL report (and, not to put too fine a point on it, your paper from last year) demonstrates quite clearly.
I’d like to zoom out, though, for a minute—get back to a question very much at the heart of the UNL report: lethal control of feral cats. You’ve been very straightforward about your desire to see TNR and the feeding of feral cats outlawed. But then what?
I’ve yet to hear from you—or anybody on your side of the issue—spell it out. We all know the cats won’t disappear in the absence of TNR/feeding. We can argue about rates of population growth, carrying capacity, etc.—but let’s keep it simple here. Under your plan, there are these feral cats—an awful lot of them—that no longer have access to the assistance of humans (other than scavenging trash, say). OK, now what?
Would it be like what was done on Marion Island, where—despite being only 115-square-miles in size, barren, and uninhabited—it took something like 16 years to eradicate 2,500 cats? Using disease (feline distemper), poisoning, intensive hunting and trapping, and—if I’m not mistaken—dogs.
And, while we’re at it, who will pay for this unprecedented nightmare?
These are not rhetorical questions. As I say, I’ve heard plenty of arguments against TNR over the past year or so. I’ve yet to hear a single counter-proposal. Not one.
Trap-and-remove? That’s not a proposal—that’s a bromide. I want to hear about how all this would play out. And this seems like an appropriate forum, given the original topic and your role in the L.A. injunction.
So, Travis, what would you do?
Peter J. Wolf
www.voxfelina.com
Peter, at the risk of being
Peter, at the risk of being redundant, the alleged weaknesses that you point to on your blog do not amount to much. What you might not know is that scientists think about these things, like sampling and skewed data, and make decisions that make sense based on analyses that never see the printed page. We run numbers with and without transformations and see whether it makes a difference to the outcome. We run power analyses to see if samples are sufficient, and you'd be surprised how few measurements are necessary to quantify many phenomena within a reasonable range of error. These things are often not published, but editors and reviewers consider them during the review process, even if they do not make it into the final printed paper.
Just as an example, the ultimate results and conclusions in the Lepczyk paper are not changed if you transform the data to normalize them because they depend so much on the number of cats (although there is a very good reason to want to keep the outliers in this instance). Besides, those data are categorical and not very skewed in the first place. So no, a conversation with you about the details of the "critiques" on your blog, would not be useful but not because we have a "difference of opinion" but because you are obviously committed to a pre-determined conclusion. This endless discussion about whether or not feral cats cause a harm to the environment really is the same as arguing over whether anthropogenic climate change is happening.
So let's get on to the values judgments about what to do with feral cats.
I think your values judgment is that all euthanasia of cats is immoral and should be avoided at all cost. Everything you write points to that. I disagree; euthanasia was developed to avoid the inhumane killing of animals. Death can't be avoided in this scenario and you apparently don't mind killing as long as it is the cat that is doing the killing. "No Kill" is an illusion; it only means reducing the killing of cats, but it balances that equation on the back of wildlife. That's not acceptable to me, just as euthanizing cats is not acceptable to you. Furthermore, cat feeding (even at TNR colonies) inevitably increases the populations of "nuisance" wildlife species (skunks, raccoons, and opossum) that are then summarily captured and killed. I wonder if you given them any moral standing.
I have concluded from your blog that your judgment is that feral and stray cats have an equal right to live as native wildlife. I disagree; I value native wildlife more than exotic species. And I value their individual rights to existence as much as you value individual cats.
We obviously have profound disagreements about what is and is not acceptable, so what to do about feral cats.
Perhaps we do agree that reducing feral cats at the source is important. I support mandatory spay/neuter for cats and support investment in low-cost spay/neuter. But I notice that many TNR advocates oppose mandatory spay/neuter.
I support cat licensing so that cats are no longer treated as second class, disposable pets. Having a companion animal is a responsibility and cats should be licensed in the same manner as dogs. But I have noticed that many TNR advocates oppose cat licensing.
I support prohibitions on roaming, meaning that a cat owner should keep the cat on his or her property. Such restrictions can be enforced by complaint. TNR advocates generally oppose ordinances such as this. But it is better for the cat to be kept in a controlled environment.
My guess for the reason TNR advocates oppose common sense laws that would result in more responsible cat ownership is that they aren't actually interested in reducing feral cat numbers. TNR is something that they "sell" to their jurisdiction so that they are allowed to keep feeding "their" cats. These advocates even redeem feral cats from shelters and release them to "their" colonies, which are often on public land or other people's property. My observation of feral cat feeders and trappers is that they will do anything so that they can keep feeding "their" cats, and aren't actually too interested in policies that would stem the flow of feral cats. They appear to prefer that the problem persist so that they can validate their sense of self worth by being rescuers. Big business has a role in this as well; it is not an accident that PetSmart is a big TNR supporter. Feral cat feeders are a powerful market -- they'll spend their last dollar on cat food instead of food for themselves, and the big business that is the pet food industry knows and exploits that by promoting feral cat feeding through the guise of TNR.
Are you any different? Will you step up and support these measures (mandatory spay/neuter for cats, cat licensing, and a prohibition on roaming for cats) that would reduce the flow of feral cats into the environment? If you don't, than I would find it hard to believe that you are serious about wanting to reduce feral cat numbers.
It is incredibly disingenuous of you to dismiss lethal removal of cats as a "bromide" (placing all feral cats in enclosed warehouses, that is a bromide, as is TNR when you look at how ineffective it has been at the large scale, see e.g., San Diego County). Euthanasia has to be one of the tools available to reduce feral cats, combined with the measures I listed above. This is not a suggestion that animal control go round up all the cats everywhere, but TNR programs tend to give rights to cat feeders and "colony managers" over all other interests, and take away the ability of a property owner or land manager to remove feral cats. I think that a person should be able to maintain a cat-free yard if he or she desires and have the right to remove un-owned cats that stray into it. When someone is feeding 20 feral cats next door, neutered or not, you should have the right to remove the ones that come on your property. Our parks, public lands, and other places that were designed to protect wildlife should not be used as cat sanctuaries, because, despite your best efforts to convince people otherwise, that is actually bad for wildlife.
Travis, I appreciate your
Travis, I appreciate your considered reply. I do. (Though your suggestion that TNR advocates don't want to see the population of feral cats decline strikes me as almost delusional.)
However, you failed to answer the question posed. Let me rephrase it, then:
Throw in mandatory spay/neuter (if and only if adequate low/no-cost S/N is provided to the community—a rarity, as I'm sure you know), as you suggest. And let's say there are—again, just to simplify matters—no roaming pet cats. The problem remains: many, many feral cats.
And even if Animal Control had the resources to round up every one of them that triggers a complaint, it's a drop in the bucket. And once you've outlawed TNR, there's no way even one of these cats is going to be sterilized.
So, the next step here is what, exactly?
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
So you feel that the
So you feel that the suggestion that TNR advocates don’t want to see the population of feral cats decline is delusional? Why? Have you not been to any of these colonies or met any of these caretakers? The sole mission for most of them is to ‘save the cats’ at any and all costs. They do not want ‘their colonies’ to disappear. On the contrary, they want to maintain the cats, which usually involves feeding and little else, and remove the native raccoons eating the food at those colonies, and remove the native coyotes that are stalking ‘their cats’. How backwards is that? Get rid of what little native predators we have left and sustain a non-native, invasive species that will never go extinct.
They even add to their own colonies when a problem elsewhere happens!
If these folks truly wanted to reduce the numbers, they'd remove the cats, even if that resulted in euthanasia. They would not sustain these cats in open systems. Some of these colonies have existed for decades. I’d even go as far as to say that for some of these folks, the colony caregiving provides a sense of purpose and self-worth. But, you know what? That is pure self-indulgence. Cause not everyone wants to live next to a cat colony. Not everyone believes that wild birds can tolerate one more huge obstacle to their survival. And, not everyone wants to go vacation on a beach and find that his/her child has contracted hookworms from all the feral cats present, as happened recently in Miami.
These folks should take a few cats home and give them a place to live if euthanasia is unacceptable.
Oh, and as for a drop in the bucket – what do you think TNR is? A bandage to stop a gushing wound that only serves to undermine any attempt to promote responsible pet ownership.
You imply that you know
You imply that you know colony caregivers very well. If you did, you'd know that many, many of them have taken cats and kittens out of their colonies, providing them homes.
And your suggestion that TNR undermines responsible pet ownership? Not sure how you connect those two points—can you please elaborate?
You seem like you're quite engaged with this topic, so let me pose the same question I posed to Travis Longcore to you: Let's say there are no roaming pet cats, mandatory S/N, etc. What, precisely, do we do with all those feral cats? As you note, lots of people have no desire to live next to somebody feeding lots of cats.
The question remains unanswered: what do we do with all those cats?
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Let me clarify. Have them
Let me clarify. Have them take semi-feral and feral cats into their homes. I am not talking about fostering kittens and/or friendly adults for adoption. Sure those are present too at colonies, but I meant take in a feral or two rather than put them back.
To elaborate – undermines because feral cats are still domestic animals – they are not ‘wild’ cats. How do you expect to convince John Doe to take good care of his pet cat when the message being sent by supporting these colonies is that domestic animals can and should live and die outdoors? Feral or not, they are still domestic cats. People who no longer can keep their animals or simply do not want them any longer allay their guilt by dumping at colonies – someone will take care of the pet and inevitably, someone does. This is not a way to promote responsible pet ownership. This IS a way to enable bad behavior.
We cannot TNR all these cats. We can’t find homes for all of them. We cannot euthanize all of them, although I have heard from more than one vet that the solution IS mass euthanasia. And one of these vets, despite his beliefs, performs spays/neuters on feral cats. This is the double standard. This is why a town might sign on to TNR – not because they truly believe that this is an effective control method, but because of political pressure not to be ‘the city that kills the kitties’ and/or because of perceived cost savings.
As for wildlife, removal results in at least a temporary respite – possibly enough to make a difference for breeding or migratory birds. I understand the root cause of cat overpopulation is irresponsible pet ownership. I support cat licensing, anti-roaming laws, feeding bans, and I would like to see more resources for pet owners. I do not believe a change in reduction will occur until people become more responsible for their animals and cat laws are established and enforced similar to that of dogs.
If you had truly ever talked
If you had truly ever talked to someone supporting a cat colony you would know that EVERY single one wishes for the same thing: no more abandoned, feral cats. Yes, they enjoy taking care of the cats, but they also wish there weren't any cats that needed taking care of. When a cat colony is removed, all that happens is more cats come and form another colony. For some reason, that area supports feral cats. There will be feral cats there no matter what. When a colony is TNR, they stop producing kittens, are vaccinated against diseases, and yes, may live a long life. Just because cat colonies have been around for decades it doesn't mean that supporters want there to be feral cats.
"When a cat colony is
"When a cat colony is removed, all that happens is more cats come and form another colony."
Yes, the dreaded vacuum effect.
If there is such a thing as “the vacuum effect” why doesn’t that happen when colonies supposedly shrink from attrition? The answer isn’t that the colony cats are territorial and prevent new cats from joining since that has been disproved many times over. The vacuum effect doesn’t really exist, but is the term TNR advocates use to describe immigration, which can occur whether or not one is doing TNR. Roger Tabor came up with this “vacuum effect” idea in a book years ago, but it has never been shown scientifically. In fact, the most recent published paper mentioning this concludes: “In other words, regardless of the treatment type (i.e., lethal or non-lethal control), any population reduction below carrying capacity would result in open niches that would eventually be filled by immigrants” (Schmidt et al. 2009). So, the “vacuum effect” is not an argument against removal. The control of feral cats requires a reduction of “carrying capacity” (i.e., no feeding) combined with control of immigration through cat licensing and laws against free-roaming cats.
In a TNR colony, there still may be more breeding as not every cat may be trapped. Some TNR colonies vaccinate for rabies (once) and maybe FVRCP (once). What about all the other diseases?
On December 9th, 2010 Bird
On December 9th, 2010 Bird and Cat Lover (not verified) says:
Let me clarify. Have them take semi-feral and feral cats into their homes. I am not talking about fostering kittens and/or friendly adults for adoption. Sure those are present too at colonies, but I meant take in a feral or two rather than put them back.
To elaborate – undermines because feral cats are still domestic animals – they are not ‘wild’ cats. How do you expect to convince John Doe to take good care of his pet cat when the message being sent by supporting these colonies is that domestic animals can and should live and die outdoors? Feral or not, they are still domestic cats. People who no longer can keep their animals or simply do not want them any longer allay their guilt by dumping at colonies – someone will take care of the pet and inevitably, someone does. This is not a way to promote responsible pet ownership. This IS a way to enable bad behavior.
Most rescuers do adopt feral cats and have them as pets. All of our cats are indoor-only, feral rescues. I don't know of any rescuers that practice TNR that haven't adopted older ferals, and brought them indoors-only as pets. But shelters and foster networks have to focus on rescuing adoptable cats. It is for the same reason I believe trap and kill, like TNR, can only be a part of any overall cat management program: economics.
And I really don't understand how TNR can be blamed for irresponsible pet ownership. This is a frequent criticism. But cats are dumped and abandoned all the time - have been for decades. It's why we have this problem and even have a reason to debate about the best way to manage that problem. Especially during these difficult economic times, people lose their homes, and they just leave their cats and/or dogs behind. Some don't even have the good graces to PUT them outside, and the animals are found dead, starved to death. This is not the fault of TNR. Whether TNR or trap and kill, we're dealing with generations of irresponsible pet ownership that began long before TNR existed. Cat colonies may provide another perceived outlet as a place to dump - but it is not the CAUSE of irresponsible pet ownership.
On December 9th, 2010 Bird and Cat Lover (not verified) says:
Yes, the dreaded vacuum effect.
If there is such a thing as “the vacuum effect” why doesn’t that happen when colonies supposedly shrink from attrition?
It does. At least in our experience.
"Cat colonies may provide
"Cat colonies may provide another perceived outlet as a place to dump - but it is not the CAUSE of irresponsible pet ownership."
Colonies are not a perceived outlet - they ARE outlets. And if you do as much TNR as you say you do, you know this. Dumping is one of the reasons people try to have the colonies out of public view. The other reason is to attempt to protect the cats from those who will harm the animals because they do not want the cats there. Two good reasons not to do TNR.
People dump cats anywhere
People dump cats anywhere and everywhere. The leave them at shelters, they leave them on doorsteps of people who foster, they leave them behind when they move. They put them out and don't allow them back in. I live in a rural area - people dump them on farm properties. My point is that the lack of TNR colonies will not stop people from abandoning their animals, and will not change the rate at which people abandon their animals. It would merely affect where they abandon them. If they abandon them at a colony, at least they'll get spayed or neutered and not be able to procreate.
I am not saying that
I am not saying that abandonment will stop altogether. True - they may dump anywhere. They may kick the cat out the back door or leave the cat on the doorstep of someone he/she knows will care for the animal. But, shelters are not sending a message that this is ok. Farms may be, but that is another message (the 'working' cat) that IMO devalues the animal.
In TNR colonies, the message is clear. Take the fact that vets (professional people) are endorsing this by performing the surgeries knowing that the cats are being sent back outside. Take the fact that municipalities (people of authority) are endorsing this by legalizing the method/establishing a law. How can you know that this does not influence people or affect the rate of abandonment?
To follow your logic, then
To follow your logic, then drug rehab facilities enable drug users. Should we eliminate drug rehab because drugs are illegal?
(Ooops, sorry for the double
(Ooops, sorry for the double post! See below).
No. See above response.
No. See above response.
Oh...one more thing. "If
Oh...one more thing.
"If they abandon them at a colony, at least they'll get spayed or neutered and not be able to procreate."
Do you realize you just proved my point? Look at the message you just sent out to anyone readling this!
This is enabling pet abandonment.
Perhaps you want to place a sign at your nearest colony:
"Abandon here. Your cat will be fixed (and fed)".
To follow your logic, then
To follow your logic, then drug rehab facilities enable drug users. Should we eliminate drug rehab because drugs are illegal?
No. See above response.
No. See above response.
If you think that TNR
If you think that TNR advocates aren't first and foremost out to protect their colonies, I think you are choosing not to know how this is playing out on the ground.. I can't know what happens in your city, but in southern California the cat advocates are busy redeeming cats from shelters and putting them out into colonies and moving them around when they are threatened by a business owner, etc. These are all sterilized cats but the colony managers exhibit no interest in their colonies getting smaller. The refrain is, "Does anybody have room in their colony?" I understand that there is not 100% overlap between the feeders and the trappers but the feeders and many colony managers are using TNR as a way to protect their colonies. It is very clearly about avoiding euthanasia, not about reducing cat populations.
As for your other question, please see my response to Laurie.
By the way, I noticed that you, on your FB page, are currently calling me "a great purveyor of misrepresentations and bias." You seem to be trying to have a discussion with me on this blog and I'm trying to have one back that acknowledges that we have different fundamental beliefs about what is right. It is unfortunate that you feel compelled to call me names and to impugn both my integrity and that of scientists who work in this field.
To my knowledge, there have
To my knowledge, there have been no determinative findings to support that cats are killing healthy birds. Birds that strike glass, become roadside hazards, or are poisoned by pesticides may be brought home by cats, but this doesn’t mean the cat is what killed them.
Bird baths and feeders are routinely contaminated with droppings, algae, etc. If not cleaned regularly, each becomes a cesspool of germs that transmits disease to birds – making them more accessible to cats.
Bird feeders and the spilled seed underneath are engraved invitations to rodents and also increase the population of “nuisance” wildlife, yet you fault only the feeding of cats....and assert Mr. Wolf is the one with predetermined conclusions?.?.
The answer to your question
The answer to your question is literally on tape. Nest monitoring cameras document cats locating and destroying nests of birds in urban to rural situations. This includes eating the eggs and nestlings right out of the nest. These aren't "sick" eggs and nestlings as you suggest.
Predators do this ---
Predators do this --- agreed. In fact, birds do this to other birds as well. Should we now advocate for the killing of all those birds too?
One of the points I was attempting to stress was that tallying the numbr of dead birds cats bring home doesn't mean the cats killed them. The other point is that inadvertently, bird enthusiasts may be contributing to the problem.
You do not seem to
You do not seem to understand the complex relationship between native predators and their prey. If you did, you would not suggest killing wild birds of prey who are killing for survival.
Native predators fluctuate according to the availability of their food source. Cats are indiscriminate hunters hunting out of instinct - they may eat what they kill, they may not. And there are more cats in the wild than all native predators combined.
Dr. Longcore mentioned nest cams. Check out this video of a cat attack on a mockingbird nest. Then click on the other link and look at the graph showing just how much predation there is by cats on these nests compared to the native predators. Note also, all predation events on the birds by cats were at night except for one.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/stracey/video12.html
Click below for graph:
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/stracey/video.html
Thanks for posting the video
Thanks for posting the video links. I had no idea that mockingbirds place their nests so low to the ground – making them easily accessible to cats. And, as the website states, mockingbirds are doing fine. Although, as evidenced by the videos and the graph, bird predation by birds is quite common.....but, I'm certainly not advocating that these predators be killed.
You might like to take a look at those who are seriously harming other birds of prey – http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20101210/NEWS02/312100088/Feds+pu...
Predation by other birds is
Predation by other birds is necessary - that is the difference. And did you notice just how much predation by cats there is on the graph?
Of course you would not advocate killing those birds - they are federally protected and part of the ecosystem - cats are not.
The people that are opposed to TNR are not advocating only euthanasia.
As for the link you posted - absolutely horrible indeed - and happy the feds fined them. But not sure why you posted this?
It looks like some in the
It looks like some in the birding community are starting to use questionable research to put an end to feral cats and hunting. Cats and people both are natural hunters, and yet recently I'm seeing attempts to curb both. Trap, neuter, and release (TNR) does, in fact stop populations of feral cats from reproducing. In extremely sensitive areas, it may make sense to do something different regarding stray cats, but most places aren't so negatively affected. And the attack on hunters is ridiculous, too. Hunters fund a lot of bird habitat through Pittman-Robertson, and they can simply use different ammo already on the market that doesn't splatter, without pushing draconian political measures. This blanket call to kill off cats and stop hunting or make it so expensive that no one can afford it and that would kill off habitat funding both are unfounded.