The Great Feral Cat Debate

You really make it seem so easy with your presentation but I find this topic to be really something which I think I would never understand. It seems too complicated and very broad for me. I am looking forward for your next post, I will try to get the hang of it!
voiture sans permis

These practices are not only unacceptably cruel, they are destroying our oceans and our environment... meanwhile an area the size of Delaware is destroyed each year for our expanding cities and burgeoning human population..virtuemart templates

Great article, thanks for sharing this post.
Nice way of explaining this subject, this line of content is very interesting.
Keep up the good work !
melhor idade

I admire the valuable information you offer in your articles. I will bookmark your blog and have my children check up here often. I am quite sure they will learn lots of new stuff here than anybody else!

Freia, there are many US states in which it is legal to shoot cats, and a well-placed bullet makes for as humane a death as any -- far more humane, I might add, than the lengthy games cat like to play with their prey. For decades, city folks have been dumping unwanted cats in the country, and country folks have been controlling their populations. That's how it worked whern I was growing up, but things are changing. The biggest change I see is that more and more people have no clue about nature, about wild animals -- even though this is what makes our city lives possible. The ignorance about basic ecological facts astounds and depresses me. One issue I would like an answer to from people who advocate TNR as humane is that, aside from the legions of small wild animals slaughered by cats, how humane is factory farming, and how humane are modern fishing techniques? Do fish and dophins and turtles and sea birds and chickens and pigs and cows not deserve any consideration as to whether their lives and deaths are humane? Because for all the talk about humane choices from the TNR advocates, I don't get the sense that animals besides cats matter to them -- not fish, not birds, not pigs, not anything... not even people who oppose what they do, for that matter. I read a great article on this -- I think it was in the Wall Street Journal? -- years ago that ended with the statement that TNR is pure, unadulterated self-indulgence. I have to agree.
It's not about compassion. It's about feeling good regardless of the consequences to other living things.

I must admit, webmaster of tests to pick up.

I care about both cats and birds but I spend far more time advocating for wildlife than for cats. When this issue made the news in Los Angeles I did extensive research, actually purchasing as many raw articles as I could, corresponding with their authors, etc. I am shocked that a supposedly scientific-based community could be so off target in their analysis of the available science. There is too much spin and too many sound bites from both sides of this discussion.

For instance, we've all been told that even cats that are well fed will hunt birds instinctively and several studies support this view. Why does no one seem interested in the question of whether well fed cats kill fewer birds? The same studies seem to suggest that is the case. They also suggest that up to a quarter of all cats don't kill birds instinctively. They also suggest that bird predation is much higher in rural areas than in urban areas like Los Angeles.

Another oft-quoted study is portrayed to show that trap and remove (euthanize) is 50% more efficient that TNR at reducing cat populations, but this interpretation makes a basic mathematical error in that it compares percentages of two different populations that decline differently over time.

In Los Angeles, when I question our lead Audubon architect of a law suit which prevented the city from discussing TNR with potential participants, he was not fluent in any of the studies and had to refer me to another group which refused to answer some very basic questions.

Williams points out that there are numerous, well-funded groups committed to neutering cats as part of TNR. How many groups are out there whose mission is trap and remove? In how many areas of the country is Williams' favored solution (rifle shots to the head) viable?

There is no question that TNR has limitations and cat advocates have a great deal to learn about the impacts on wildlife, but opponents of TNR have addressed this issue with 90% emotion and just enough out-of-context science sprinkled in to kid themselves that they are being rational.

Walter Lamb

I think that all of us who are taking the time to respond to this article are all acting from our hearts. Obviously if we had the perfect, ethical solution, we would all be acting in unison and would have hopes of some day soon finding an indoor home for every cat and that we would also continue to recruit allies to Audubon at the same time. Just like the health care issue, global warming concerns, rainforest destruction, and human world population growth...we do not live in a world with a magic solution. I am a feline practitioner...I ONLY treat cats, and although I love them dearly, I also love and respect ALL animals to be able to live the lives they were gifted with. We created domestic animals, and it is our responsiblity to find a humane means of making sure that every such creation is valued and can live a fulfilled life. This is unforseeable at this time in our society. That doesn't mean we should give up our human values of compassion for other lives that are marginalized because of our own ignorance and neglect. I don't believe that one solution will fit every situation, but as long as all those who have a common concern about feral domestic animals (wild horses, burros, dogs, and cats) as well as those protectors of native wildlife are willing to continue to work together I think we have the greatest hope of one day creating a better world for all of us. I don't know if it will come in my lifetime, but I would sorely regret to live in a future that built its societal mores on "simply disposing of the inconvenient" because it could not recognize the worth of other lives.

I have to admit that i was shocked by ted williams article in the sept issue. i always read his thought provoking essays. i am saddened by the idea that we must choose which species deserve our protection, the feline or the avian. I can't say i know the history of feral animals in hawaii. i do know the experience we have had in az. when we bought our home in a semi-rural area 14 years ago there were many cats, stray and feral dumped and gravitated to our area. very distressing were two youthful females. they had repeated litters many of which starved to death and 1 out of 4 survived the heat and lack of food and medical care. there was also a large male owned by a neighbor and unfixed. we partnered with a local tnr group and eventually spay and released ten animals and relocated a few more. the male who sprayed my kitchen window extensively decided he would stay home after he was fixed. the one cat that we could not catch had a final litter after which we had her spay and found homes for all the kittens we hand raised. we nursed and relocated several sick abandoned animals. one thing i have learned is that the remaining cats do not allow other cats into their tribe. the original colony has declined from 10 to three, WITH NO NEW ADDITIONS. we have no rats in our area, a big problem in the phx area called roof rats but rats just the same. we do have cat excrement in our field but not so much and no more than the wild bird, coyote and neighbors dogs. i wonder if mr. williams and his sympathizers could see their way clear to investigating a rigorous program of control and attrition combined with proper placement of stations.

I will not be renewing my Audubon membership. I will instead be sending the money to Alley Cat Allies and other feral cat organizations. I will be sure to campaign AGAINST the Audubon in my area as well. Thank you for letting me know of your murderous intent before I sent another dime to you.

Maybe I should "humanely" shoot the hawk who has his own idea about the purpose of the "bird feeders" in my back yard. After all, the raptors are doing their part to decrease the song bird population. I saw a male Coopers Hawk snatch a mourning dove right out of the air. Maybe I can suggest poisoning the peregrine falcons that have taken up residence in the downtown area. Have to make life safe for starlings, after all.

I don't see you campaigning against the possums, squirrels,skunks, foxes, coyotes, etc. that kill off songbirds.

To the editor:

Contrary to the picture painted by Ted Williams in his article, Felines Fatales, TNR advocates and conservationists are not at war. We share the same goal: no more feral cats. Aside from extremists, TNR proponents acknowledge the complexity of the problem but recognize that, for over a century, trap-and-kill and other lethal methods have failed to eradicate feral cat colonies. Williams' only solution to the feral cat problem is to continue on a path that he himself admits has never worked and will never work.

Williams provides no evidence to support his position that TNR does not work. Furthermore, he omits evidence in support of TNR. On Riker’s Island, for example, the feral population plummeted by over fifty percent in just five years. In Cape May, NJ, volunteers reduced a colony of 400 cats to less than 100 in ten years. There are several published studies that indicate TNR works in journals such as the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association and the International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine.

TNR is not a quick fix. It takes time to see results, which may not be a bad thing. It would be prudent to examine the collapse of an ecosystem on Australia’s island Macquarie following feral cat removal. The rabbit population subsequently swelled, which caused a significant decline in the fragile vegetation that birds relied on for cover.

In my article, Killer Kitties, published in the New York City Audubon newsletter (May/June 2008), I expressed my hope that cat enthusiasts and bird conservationists could unite to save the most lives of both cats and birds by embracing TNR. Williams succeeded in polarizing the issue, but sadly his article doesn't achieve much for the welfare of birds or cats. There is a myopic failure wherever the field of wildlife management forces a disconnect between individual animals and their species or ecosystem as a whole. For many of us who care about both, TNR provides the best solution to a difficult dilemma. I imagine this is likely a reason for the public support and funding that TNR groups enjoy and that Williams laments.

WTHR has a report on feral cats in Indianapolis. http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=11465924

One of the most chilling lines in the story: "Wills says hers is just one of the 2,500 managed cat colonies in the Indianapolis area that are growing as the recession continues."

I'm a staunch supporter of the American Bird Conservancy and advocate of keeping cats indoors only. How do people reconcile the fact that it's illegal to let my dogs roam free and kill animals, but it's perfectly fine to let cats be free-roaming? The laws need to catch up with reality and the increasing toll on birds and mammals.

Common ground and dialogue are important, but if euthanasia is unacceptable to TNR advocates and free-roaming cats are unacceptable to those concerned about the impact of cat predation on wildlife, then the only solution is to remove the cats for one of the following options: socialization for adoption, sanctuary placement (Chico Cat Coalition and D.E.L.T.A. Rescue are two examples), sanctuary within a home, or completely fence-in the colonies.

Educational campaigns are good, but here is the problem. The method of TNR requires that cats are free-roaming and condemns them to living and dying outdoors. TNR wholly undermines the idea of responsible pet ownership. TNR encourages abandonment because TNR IS essentially re-abandonment of a domestic companion animal. What veterinarian would tell his or her client that one-time vet care is acceptable and that roaming outside is beneficial to the health and longevity of the cat and that one rabies vaccine is good enough for the life of the cat and that the cat does not necessarily have to eat and drink daily and that a straw-filled doghouse is appropriate shelter? No qualified veterinarian that has the best interest of the cat in mind would do so IMO. Yet, this is the reality of TNR. In colonies that have dozens of cats, how can one be sure each cat is eating and drinking daily? How can folks tend to medical care for these animals when they develop an Upper Respiratory Infection or a painful and life-threatening urinary blockage or a gaping raw wound from flea dermatitis? Feral cats are hard to re-trap and cats may not be regularly observed.

Further, there are spay-neuter vans already operating in many parts of the country. But, TNR is a bandage for a gushing wound. The American Veterinary Medical Association has stated that any reduction through such programs is insignificant. Of course this is the case because there are an estimated 60 to 100 million feral cats roaming the country and not even one percent of them have gone through TNR. Freia stated that 80 to 90 percent of ‘city cats’ are fixed. A reference is needed and clarification as to what is meant by ‘city cats’ (owned, but permitted to roam or feral or both). Any cat has the potential to kill a bird. In cities and suburban areas, parks, cemeteries, and wooded lots, fragmented and isolated patches of habitat are crucial stopover sites for migratory birds. These areas can be suitable habitat spots for wildlife, but they often are also occupied by cats. Just the presence of cats can cause stress responses in birds that can affect breeding success and survival. There is predation, indirect mortality, and transmission of diseases from cats to wildlife, including toxoplasmosis. The only purpose TNR serves is to avoid euthanasia of a species that is already saturating nearly every urban, suburban and rural community.

As for the letters in the current issue of Audubon, here are a few points to consider. Binkly writes that Audubon says ‘you can love birds or cats, but not both’. Sure you can! Plenty of people love dogs, but that does not mean they want them free-roaming. But, this is not about love. This is about humans inflicting one non-native invasive predator species upon dozens if not hundreds of native species (birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates) that truly belong in the wild, many of which are in decline or worse.

As for the Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon, maybe they can tell us which ‘natural areas’ are un-important.

Mr. Salinger is correct in saying that ‘perpetually debating the merits of managed feral cat colonies’ will not achieve much protection for birds and cats. But, ordinances, actions, and cat and wildlife management decisions BASED on the science available regarding TNR, cat predation, cat removal, and disease transmission would achieve a lot. There is no scientific support that indicates that TNR will reduce the feral cat population through natural attrition or eliminate colonies. There have been numerous peer-reviewed publications indicating the magnitude of cat predation on wildlife or the failure or resultant problems of TNR or related documents about diseases. Find some of them here:

http://tnrrealitycheck.com/references.asp

This information needs to be heard by decision makers.

On the Audubon Society of Portland (ASP) website, there is the following:

“We have not advocated for either increased regulation restricting the rights of cat owners or large-scale roundups of free-roaming or feral cats. We believe that such approaches would be counterproductive and would lead to an increase in the already obscene numbers of cats dying in shelters”.

So, if three to four million cats dying in shelters is an obscene number, what about the hundreds of millions of wild birds and the billion other creatures that die from cat predation? Given that staggering figure on top of all the other anthropogenic hurdles faced by birds and other wildlife, is below a prudent position to take?

“In general, Portland Audubon has no objection to TNR as long as managed colonies are located away from designated wildlife areas and at-risk wildlife populations, and the program is coupled with a strong message that cats should be housed indoors”.

As stated earlier, that ‘cats indoors’ message is severely undermined by TNR. As for the rest, apparently the focus is only on ‘designated’ wildlife areas and ‘at-risk’ wildlife. Guess we better hope that those hummingbirds, flycatchers, thrush, jay, titmouse, warbler and the like that are at risk of becoming critically imperiled actually get to those designated areas! Unfortunately, they may first stopover in backyards and other areas near or next to managed cat colonies. As for the robin and other ‘common’ birds, do they not count?

Bottom line: TNR is inherently incompatible with wildlife conservation.

More information here:

http://tnrrealitycheck.com/

There is no compromising with the cat crowd. It's always the cats that take priority. I am an animal control officer who has been harrassed and threatened with bodily harm for suggesting cats that are creating a problem be removed. When told the cats are killing wildlife, the reply is "that's nature". But when coyotes start killing the cats, they always want the coyotes killed. And if their cats are being a nuisance to the neighbors, their reply is "tough". There is no scientific proof that TNR works. None what so ever. Yet groups like Alley Cat Allies and such keep repeating the mantra that TNR is the only answer. And the sad part is that people and politicians believe them without researching it further. Thank you Audubon for printing Ted Williams article. I just signed up to be a member.

I have posted a bunch of stuff in the other TNR blog, so don't want to duplicate, but here is the link
http://magblog.audubon.org/tnr-supporters-get-another-stronghold-new-jersey

I have tried to get the feral cat people and bird people to at least talk to each other but I am not having any luck in either community. We have the same goal to decrease the feral cat population but different means of achieving it. Just now Wisconsin arrested 15 teens for thrill killings of possums, cats, raccoons, etc. I can imagine what a mess it would be if an open season on cats law actually passed. After a few beers, they are already mistaking people for deer and cats are a lot smaller - not to mention that killing a domestic animal (yes the cat is feral, but is generally considered a pet) instills an unacceptable level of cruelty that can in time escalate to bigger crimes. I dont think that lethal control is a good option, especially if enforced by the general public. Perhaps Audubon should join the cat organizations in a massive education campaign. Literally have a truck with a mobile spay/neuter clinic go from farm to farm and fix right there on the spot. I have seen this implemented in some places. Most city cats are fixed, something like 80-90%. It's the rural population of cats that is feral or semi feral and reproducing and killing birds. These are the cats that need to be fixed and rehomed if tame.