TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › USFWS official position on the cat
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

USFWS official position on the cat

post #1 of 35
7/23/11 at 3:22pm
Thread Starter 
I didn't want to take the indoor/outdoor cat thread off-topic, but wanted to address this statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
The USFWS is the definition of official, since it is the position of the US government.

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/lawenforc...er%202009.html
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nonga...cat/index.html
http://www.fws.gov/nationalkeydeer/p...sFactsheet.pdf
http://www.fws.gov/northeast/pipingp...df/catseat.pdf

I certainly don't blame the cats, they are just doing what is natural, but I do hold caretakers responsible for what their pets do unsupervised outdoors, and support that humans and human satellites (mice/rats/cats/dogs/rabbits/etc) should be kept clear of nature preserves and measures taken in general to control their effect on habitats.

Ferals aside, there are approximately 93 million owned cats in the US, and it should be common sense that such a large number of little predators are going to have an impact if left to roam in large numbers wherever people are. IMO, its important to preserve our environment and bio-diversity for future generations.

Wesley and Buttercup ARE allowed to eat birds though... but only non-endangered chicken and duck!
I believe that our pet domestic cats belong indoors or in fenced yards or enclosures. I believe we are responsible for their health and welfare, and that we should do what we can to minimize their impact on the environment - just as we should do what we can to minimize our own impact on the environment.

That said, I do take issue with the concept that the USFWS reflects official government position on free roaming cats. It is a division of the Federal government - the Interior Department, and IT has no official position on free roaming cats. The NJ field office of USFWS is a division of the USFWS. It encouraged - illegally - the NJ Dept of Environmental Protection to support the NJ Fish & Game Council's Resolution on Free Roaming Domestic Cats and TNR. That position wanted to "outlaw" ALL free roaming cats (feral or otherwise), and caused the NJ Endangered & Nongame Species Committee to consider reclassifying domestic cats as an "exotic" animal (as a non-native species). This would have enabled cats to be hunted.

Does the NJ F&WS speak for the USFWS?
Is all information provided by our government correct?
The USFWS is like any conservation/wildlife society - they have an agenda.

Here is USFWS information from the Migratory Bird Program: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/Ne...ngbrd.html#Cat

Quote:
Cat Predation

Americans keep an estimated 60 million cats as pets. Let's say each cat kills only one bird a year. That would mean that cats kill over 60 million birds (minimum) each year - more wildlife than any oil spill. Laurie adds: Hardly scientific. Not based in any kind of science.

Scientific studies actually show that each year, cats kill hundreds of millions of migratory songbirds. In 1990, researchers estimated that "outdoor" house cats and feral cats were responsible for killing nearly 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom. Laurie adds: They don't cite the study so we can't look at it, but the famous UK studies are Churcher & Lawton 1987 and Woods & McDonald 2003. Both study authors state that despite the rate of cat predation, the conclusion that they are impacting bird populations cannot be made.

University of Wisconsin ornithologist, Dr. Santley Temple estimates that 20-150 million songbirds are killed each year by rural cats in Wisconsin alone. Laurie adds: And this "study" is completely bunk, and everyone knows it now. I took it apart, my work was widely distributed, and not even ABC or TWS use it anymore. Here's information on the Coleman/Temple piece: http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/...onsinStudy.pdf

Feline predation is not "natural." Cats were domesticated by the ancient Egyptians and taken throughout the world by the Romans. Cats were brought to North America in the 1800's to control rats. The "tabby" that sits curled up on your couch is not a natural predator and has never been in the natural food chain in the Western Hemisphere. Laurie adds: And while this is true, the birds on our mainland evolved in the presence of predators.

Cats are a serious threat to fledglings, birds roosting at night and birds on a nest. Research shows that de-clawing cats and bell collars do not prevent them from killing birds and other small animals. For healthy cats and wild birds, cats should not be allowed to roam free. Laurie Adds: Cats can definitely be a threat to ground nesting birds.

Work with your local humane society, veterinarians and state wildlife agency to enact and enforce free-roaming cat regulations. For more information:

Free Roaming Cats. American Backyard Bird Society, PO Box 10046, Rockville, MD 20849.

Cats: A Heavy Toll on Songbirds. by Rich Stallcup. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 4990 Shoreline Hwy., Stinson Beach, CA 94924. THIS is a source of information? A guy who recommends shooting cats in your backyard with a BB gun? Here is the info about Rich Stallcup's Focus Articles for the PRBO: "In 1982 director Burr Heneman asked if I would write a bird piece for the PRBO newsletter. The idea was to present something for birders beside the scientific articles.
Now, 25 years and 75 Focus columns later we’re still knockin’ them out. http://www.prbo.org/cms/print.php?mid=530 and here's a link to his PDF article: http://www.prbo.org/cms/docs/observe...29cats1991.pdf This is reference material?????????????????


Is there a Killer in Your House? by George Harrison, National Wildlife Magazine (October/November 1992).

Beware of Well-Fed Felines. by Peter Churcher and John Lawton, Natural History Magazine (July 1989).
And if you want to take a look at the Florida Keys Program with a critical eye, here you go: http://www.voxfelina.com/2011/03/bes...lable-science/

...and just nit-picking, but the HSUS number for owned cats you cite is from 2008. The APPA's current number is 86.4 million owned pet kitties. http://www.americanpetproducts.org/p...strytrends.asp

I agree that cats impact the environment. I believe they should be kept indoors. But I will not accept the incredibly poor research, the biased science, and the incredibly poor work that gets quoted and published without question. And I do not accept that the USFWS is the final word on anything, or that our government always tells the truth. The USFWS, in fact, partially funded the work by Temple & Coleman. And they got shafted and it was a complete waste of taxpayer money.
Reply
post #2 of 35
7/23/11 at 5:19pm
Here is what I think,and by the way, I am by no means an Expert, have not studied the subject, have not worked with any of these matters, so the only experience I have is by owning cats, having lived in nature, spending a long time including in forests (yep, my mom lives in the forest, with tons of birds), observing both of these species and in general, considering myself to be not stupid.
Wit that stated, well.... my opinion is that this is the nature of the beast (cats ) and I can hardly believe that they will ever jeopardize the existence of birds and any natural life, for that matter.
Sorry, lets have some common sense - right off the bat, birds have a great advantage from cats: They FLY. As far as I know, cats don't
To me, this is simply nature - yep, cats will kill birds from time to time.... But by no means cats are on the top of the food chain. Nature is a well balanced machine. It is all part of a food chain, and in the end there is a balance. Besides, cats are killed for many, many other reasons too - millions and millions are killed, not by predators, but by humans themselves. No government, IMHO, should take the side of a global species - such as birds, and simply put the other into a lower category.
Birds have been around for millions of years - the ones that are going through extinction are not going through it because of cats - they are because of deforestation (for development), illegal animal traffic, pollution, etc., but not because of cats.
As I said, this is my opinion, and my opinion only, based on what I believe to be common sense....... to me, at least.
Reply
post #3 of 35
7/23/11 at 6:27pm
One thing I have found lately by following links that have been posted is that the information there does not verify what the poster has said. This is the second time in just a few weeks.

It is so important to do proper research before making blank statements and blindly accepting it as fact.

Laurie, you always find the facts and report them accurately. You get a lot of respect here. Thank you for looking into those issues for those of us who don't have the knowledge and often don't have the desire to do the research for ourselves.
Reply
post #4 of 35
7/23/11 at 7:15pm
By the way Laurie, I am not sure if you know this, you probably do... But in Los Angeles the Voice for the Animals Foundation has a wonderful program called "Working Cats", with Feral Cats - which is a perfect example of how feral cats can also impact the environment, in a positive manner.
The Working Cats Program is a GREEN program that relocates sterilized and vaccinated feral cats who would otherwise have been euthanized at the shelter to places that have problems with rats.
The LAPD had such an extreme problem with rats, that they were eating the criminal files - the feral kitties were brought in, and the problem was virtually eliminated.
The Flower Market had a horrible problem since the early 1900's - the ferals quickly took care of the problem!
Here is more information about it:
http://www.vftafoundation.org/programs/working-cats
and here too:
http://myjoyofliving.com/tag/tnr/
Reply
post #5 of 35
7/23/11 at 7:36pm
Thread Starter 
I do know about this program, Carolina, but thank you for reminding me about it!

And Linda, thank you. When I was putting up the Stray Pet Advocacy site, I kept finding references to studies, and the same studies get quoted over and over. But so few people take the time to READ the studies. It turns out the anti-cat crowd loves to take data out of context - or use data that isn't really data at all. And the USFWS is NO DIFFERENT. In other places, the USFWS claims that cats kill one billion birds a year (in the US). Turns out, the number ALWAYS tracks back to that Stallcup piece. And his number is based on NOTHING - no studies, no research - NOTHING. Sometimes you have to weave through the list of references to get there - but it always comes back to Stallcup. And it's not anything based in any reality. But someone writing a piece that got published in a peer review journal used his number - so now it's "real." So it became a focus of mine to read the work these people use - and read the sources they use. And read the sources THEY use. Etc. People tend to think, "Oh, it was published in a peer review journal, it must be legitimate." But my mind REELS at what gets published.

For anyone interested in the "science" of much of the widely quoted cat predation research used to support the anti-cat crusades (and they are out there!!!!), most of it doesn't stand up, and none of it indicates there is an actual impact of cats on bird populations EXCEPT in exceptional environments, like ISLANDS or shorelands (where birds are ground nesting and are threatened species because of DEVELOPMENT), the Vox Felina blog has done an amazing job: http://www.voxfelina.com
Reply
post #6 of 35
7/24/11 at 1:31pm
A common problem is an all or nothing mentality. If out of control cat populations are not 100% to blame, then they are blameless. As is mentioned in all of the government studies, there are always numerous factors that combine to create a problem, and sadly everyone wants to point the finger at someone else as being more of a contributor to the mess. You can argue the extent to which the feline population is affecting species, but not the fact that they are, and keeping the tens of millions of owned cats indoors is a very simple step in the right direction, even if you disagree on how many million of various species are impacted by those cats every year.

Carolina, yes, you are correct that most birds can fly, but you must have also surely noticed that birds can not fly all day. They come down to sleep, to mate, to eat, and to lay eggs and roost. Cats are ambush predators, that are very good at sneaking up and pouncing on prey before they have time to react. And there are few places that a determined cat cannot gain access:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfozbcrMpGs
http://www.break.com/index/parkour-c...a-bird-2054076

The idea btw of fixing one introduced pest species with another species is folly, and there is no better example of this than Australia where animal after animal has been introduced to try and deal with problems created by the former. Recreating an ecosystem from scratch is something that is both beyond our capability, and ultimately still destroys biodiversity in the attempt. What is typically more effective in the long-term, since rats and mice can reproduce so readily, is to eliminate the food source by changes in habits of waste management around restaurants and the like, else a single pair can re-infest an area practically overnight. Birds in particular often form symbiotic relationships with native flora, clearly seen with various specifically adapted flowers/fruits and beaks, and so when you lose those birds you often lose the plant as well. The links provided, if you would also read them, also highlight that it is not just birds that are at risk but other native rodents, rabbits, and their predators.
Reply
post #7 of 35
7/24/11 at 1:49pm
Thread Starter 
To reiterate

Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
I agree that cats impact the environment. I believe they should be kept indoors. But I will not accept the incredibly poor research, the biased science, and the incredibly poor work that gets quoted and published without question. And I do not accept that the USFWS is the final word on anything, or that our government always tells the truth.
I don't understand your reply Ducman. I don't disagree. I do take issue with the USFWS information being treated as if it were gospel. The information on cats is usually biased, and often based on flawed research - if they utilize or reference research at all.
Reply
post #8 of 35
7/24/11 at 3:07pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
A common problem is an all or nothing mentality. If out of control cat populations are not 100% to blame, then they are blameless.
Actually, it is only organizations such as The Wildlife Society, ABC Birds, The Urban Wildlands Group & others in that vein that have completely polarized the issue. The Wildlife Society published a spring special: Outdoor Cats or Conservation: Pick One.

The goal of TNR advocates is to END the homeless cat problem. We keep our cats indoors, we help relocate cats that are in areas where there are endangered species, and we TNR to stop the breeding. We rescue kittens and strays to be rehomed.

Where we disagree with the conservation groups is on HOW to manage the unowned cat population. Their answer is to enact laws banning feeding. Having asked various groups in various places REPEATEDLY for how to get rid of the cats from the outdoors, the bottom line is that they have no actual plan beyond leash laws and feeding bans.

So the "all or none" is (generally) one-sided. And, I might add, unnecessary and unproductive. In fact, there are no US-continental studies that indicate cats are decimating bird populations. The largest US-based cat predation study was (a highly flawed study) conducted by Carol Fiore (2000) for her MS thesis at University of KS-Wichita with just 41 cats. The median rate of bird depredation by cats, if you include the scat analysis, was just two per year. John Fitzpatrick (the director of Cornell’s ornithology lab) is quoted in an article saying, “And even though there are all these studies, they won’t change their minds.†(Referring to people who are pro-TNR).

We all read the same research, but we draw different conclusions. But the pro-TNR people are not alone in their interpretation of the science. Europeans aren’t nearly as “non-native species†xenophobic as many in the conservation community in the United States. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/garden...ddeclines.aspx) position is that

Quote:
Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds. We also know that of the millions of baby birds hatched every year, most will die before they reach breeding age. This is also quite natural, and each pair needs only to rear two young that survive to breeding age to replace themselves and maintain the population.
The U.S.-based wildlife/bird advocates like to decry (even villify) the cat as a non-native, invasive species, thus, as they like to say, cat predation of birds is “not natural.†But the domestic cat has been present in the U.S. for at least four centuries, and our birds evolved in the presence of predators.

So yes, we need to minimize their impact on the environment because of the impact of human development on the habitat of birds and other wildlife.

But while I dispute much of the science used to support the notion that cats are decimating bird populations, I - and many others that are pro-TNR - do not employ an "all or nothing mentality." We are fighting it, and that includes our communication with the USFWS.
Reply
post #9 of 35
7/24/11 at 4:04pm
The original context of my post was in another thread discussing keeping owned pets outdoors, so lets not create an argument where none exists.

Are you arguing though that reducing food source for any species has not been shown without question to reduce population sizes, no matter the creature in question?

It has been successfully adopted around the world in a new strategy against pest animals (not necessarily cats) via a new strategy called "integrated pest management". With rodents in major cities for example, in the past there were ever escalating attempts with poisons, traps, bait, and the like, but the fact is that even if you wipe out 90% of the population, when you have a species that is able to very rapidly reproduce then the numbers almost instantly bounce back.

Integrated pest management does not eliminate traditional methods, but it has been far more successful as it integrates preventative measures primarily by minimizing the available food source and breeding grounds. For the rodents this has been done by cleaning efforts of high-population centers and revamped code enforcement for waste management to ensure that foodstuffs are not available to them.

Cats are also a species that are able to very rapidly reproduce, and so artificially increasing the food supply is not going to be an effective means of minimizing the population, as only a tiny portion of the population can reproduce up to the point of exhausting their food supply. Conservationists are not solely targeting cats, it just may seem so to a cat activist that reads a specific article that is directly addressing the specific topic of controlling non-native predators in and around nature preserves. And surely you aren't arguing that a few hundred years even amounts to the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms to consider cats native to the North American ecosystem. Although evolutionary science accepts that changes can occur in rapid bursts, we are still talking about a timeframe of tens to hundreds of thousands of years at minimum. Gene mutation and natural adaptation cannot occur faster than this in nature, and thus there is a multi-pronged effort to slow the current mass extinction event of which feline control is only one of many simultaneous efforts toward that agenda.

The USFWS is not a bird organization and goes to great lengths to protect ALL native threatened species in domestic lands, including cats, such as the ocelots right here in Texas for example. They put in a lot of effort to tag, monitor, install ocelot culverts on highways, raise awareness, etc. If they could stop habitat destruction, that would obviously be number one on the agenda, but people keep having more and more babies and they need a place to live which takes precedence over conservation so they do what they can.
Reply
post #10 of 35
7/24/11 at 4:33pm
I have two cats. One is primarily an indoor cat that goes out on occasion and hasn't learned to climb fences - Squeaky. My other cat is primarily an outdoor cat that comes in to eat but prefers to live in the backyard - Dusty. Squeaky has chased lizards around the yard, but hasn't really caught one yet. Dusty killed a lizard a few days ago, but apparently didn't like the taste. We have lots of lizards in our neighborhood. Dusty did kill and eat a bird about a week ago. This was her first bird kill in maybe 3 years. She was so proud, and she ate the entire thing!

I think God knew what he was doing when he designed the planet and instituted a balance of nature. And I think that every time man tries to mess with it, it results in disaster.

Cats are not going to have an impact on the bird population, and unfortunately not on the mice/rat population either. Chill.
Reply
post #11 of 35
7/24/11 at 4:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I think God knew what he was doing when he designed the planet and instituted a balance of nature. And I think that every time man tries to mess with it, it results in disaster.
Like the introduction of cows, horses, pigs, cats, dogs, rats, and africanized honey bees? Unless their introduction was divinely inspired, I'm pretty sure that was not part of the balance of nature in the North American ecosystem.
Reply
post #12 of 35
7/24/11 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Like the introduction of cows, horses, pigs, cats, dogs, rats, and africanized honey bees? Unless their introduction was divinely inspired, I'm pretty sure that was not part of the balance of nature in the North American ecosystem.
None of which has resulted in disaster. Despite anything "we" do, the planet is pretty resilient. I'm not worried.
Reply
post #13 of 35
7/24/11 at 6:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
None of which has resulted in disaster. Despite anything "we" do, the planet is pretty resilient. I'm not worried.
The planet has survived five mass extinctions to date, however, fossil records indicate that the advent of modern man is responsible for another, with the rate massively increasing since the industrial period. The planet and life will surely go on, but at the current rate estimates are that 22% of species alive now will be gone.

Every year research is finding new uses for organic compounds in rare species of plant and animal, and further understanding of how they are all tied together. A lack of biodiversity also harms the health of the environment, and that has a direct impact on the quality of life for humanity.

For example, the mass loss of potato and corn crops were due to rampant disease created by a lack of biodiversity, and the Irish know well how that loss affected their quality of life as around 25% of the population died from starvation.
Reply
post #14 of 35
7/24/11 at 6:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
The planet has survived five mass extinctions to date, however, fossil records indicate that the advent of modern man is responsible for another, with the rate massively increasing since the industrial period. The planet and life will surely go on, but at the current rate estimates are that 22% of species alive now will be gone.

Every year research is finding new uses for organic compounds in rare species of plant and animal, and further understanding of how they are all tied together. A lack of biodiversity also harms the health of the environment, and that has a direct impact on the quality of life for humanity.

For example, the mass loss of potato and corn crops were due to rampant disease created by a lack of biodiversity, and the Irish know well how that loss affected their quality of life as around 25% of the population died from starvation.
Surely humans have an impact in biodiversity, and this impacts directly our quality of life. Nature is a chain of events and we can't turn a blind eye to that...
Now, going back to the original topic, aside from Islands, can you give one example where cats were responsible for threatening the existence of a Bird?
Moreover, what do you suggest to solve this "problem" (provided that the "problem" exists)? Opening a hunting season against cats? Because the problem will continue - TNR IS still the best solution IMHO.
Reply
post #15 of 35
7/24/11 at 7:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Now, going back to the original topic, aside from Islands, can you give one example where cats were responsible for threatening the existence of a Bird?
I can cite studies that estimate how many birds in general are consumed by domestic and feral cats, but not about the responsibility for the extinction of any species as they are not solely responsible, habitat destruction is certainly the largest issue... the cats simply eat some of the endangered animals and thus pose an additional stress factor on maintaining their population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Moreover, what do you suggest to solve this "problem" (provided that the "problem" exists)? Opening a hunting season against cats? Because the problem will continue - TNR IS still the best solution IMHO.
In the original thread, I said absolutely nothing of TNR.

The question was whether or not it was better to keep domesticated cats indoors. Considering there are tens of millions of owned cats in North America, I believe that keeping them indoors would have a positive impact for the environment.

Regarding TNR, I support TNR, although I don't believe in releasing cats anywhere near nature reserves or permanently feeding colonies unless they are fenced sanctuaries.
Reply
post #16 of 35
7/24/11 at 7:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I can cite studies that estimate how many birds in general are consumed by domestic and feral cats, but not about the responsibility for the extinction of any species as they are not solely responsible, habitat destruction is certainly the largest issue... the cats simply eat some of the endangered animals and thus pose an additional stress factor on maintaining their population.
Well, there - you just answered my question by not answering. Of course cats will eat birds from time to time. BUT they are not responsible by far, for the endangerment of any bird species. IMHO, the blame here is totally being put on the wrong "Class" - cats. I don't know why then there is even an issue here.
In the original thread, I said absolutely nothing of TNR.

The question was whether or not it was better to keep domesticated cats indoors. Considering there are tens of millions of owned cats in North America, I believe that keeping them indoors would have a positive impact for the environment. How can you scientifically demonstrate/prove that? If there are no profs that cats are responsible for the endangerment of any species, how is it that keeping them inside would have a positive impact on the environment? You are citing America - can you give me facts on how cats on the streets negatively impacts the environment in America? The ecosystem? How keeping them inside would benefit nature in America? Can you give examples?

Regarding TNR, I support TNR, although I don't believe in releasing cats anywhere near nature reserves or permanently feeding colonies unless they are fenced sanctuaries.
When cats are TNR'd, they are not reproducing, and that colony will not grow, therefore at some point those cats will die and the colony number will reduce until naturally it disappears. That is basic... TNR reduces the number of feral cats - naturally. It doesn't mean you necessarily just leave them to fend for themselves. IMHO, as long as they are TNR'd, there is nothing wrong in feeding a colony. Now - if they are not fixed, then yes, it is a problem as they will reproduce, growing the colony.
Reply
post #17 of 35
7/24/11 at 7:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
[color=Red]When cats are TNR'd, they are not reproducing, and that colony will not grow, therefore at some point those cats will die and the colony number will reduce until naturally it disappears.
This has proven to be patently false. Studies indicate that you have to reach at a very minimum of 90% sterilization in an entire geographic area before TNR can reduce a feline population beyond what the available food supply can support.

The reason is quite simple, as a single pair of cats and their kittens can produce as many as 420000 kittens in just 7 years. When you feed a TNR colony, you are not feeding TNR cats, you are feeding all cats in the geographic area and hoping to trap a sufficient number to reach the required sterilization rate. I have never heard of any locality that has been able to achieve this to date.

TNR programs have been in operation for around 20 years, which is beyond the life expectancy of ferals in the program, and yet the colonies are not disappearing, as plenty of the non TNR'ed cats are simply there to fill any vacuum left. So while TNR is great, it cannot succeed in combination with widespread feeding in eliminating feral cats from an area.

The most effective humane solution IMO is to TNR, adopt out the young, and return the remaining to fenced sanctuaries where they can be fed without widespread environmental impact or concern of feeding non-sterilized cats or if not possible then just release and allow them to fend for themselves like all other animals, and then work on eliminating breeding grounds and updating local sanitation to ensure that cats aren't gaining access to refuse and the like as food supplies. Animal control is able to catch possum and other such animals in baited traps without having to feed mass population of them to attract them.
Reply
post #18 of 35
7/24/11 at 7:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
This has proven to be patently false. Studies indicate that you have to reach at a very minimum of 90% sterilization in an entire geographic area before TNR can reduce a feline population beyond what the available food supply can support.

The reason is quite simple, as a single pair of cats and their kittens can produce as many as 420000 kittens in just 7 years. When you feed a TNR colony, you are not feeding TNR cats, you are feeding all cats in the geographic area and hoping to trap a sufficient number to reach the required sterilization rate. I have never heard of any locality that has been able to achieve this to date..
And who is talking about a whole geographical area? I was talking about a TNR's Colony. IMHO I stand correct. If the colony keeper continues the TNR work, I stand correct. I do not agree that a colony keeper feeds an entire geographic area - not the keepers that I am aware - not the ones that do the keeping and continued TNR work.
Reply
post #19 of 35
7/24/11 at 8:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

The most effective humane solution IMO is to TNR, adopt out the young, and return the remaining to fenced sanctuaries where they can be fed without widespread environmental impact or concern of feeding non-sterilized cats or if not possible then just release and allow them to fend for themselves like all other animals, and then work on eliminating breeding grounds and updating local sanitation to ensure that cats aren't gaining access to refuse and the like as food supplies. Animal control is able to catch possum and other such animals in baited traps without having to feed mass population of them to attract them.
Sure.... And who do you propose to pay for all that? Our shelters are through the roof as is.... Sanctuaries? Where? WHERE? In a country facing a crisis that this country is facing.... how do you propose this miracle to be done? I can't see an answer besides magic. Because money, shelters, sanctuaries.... there isn't.
Reply
post #20 of 35
7/24/11 at 8:12pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
The original context of my post was in another thread discussing keeping owned pets outdoors, so lets not create an argument where none exists.
And I disputed the USFWS as being "official" and accurate. You said it was the US Government, so it is official, and you cite it frequently in posts to people, so I'm guessing you believe it's accurate. I still disagree on this point, and you haven't addressed it, and this has nothing to do with the context in any thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Are you arguing though that reducing food source for any species has not been shown without question to reduce population sizes, no matter the creature in question?
No, we're talking about the cat. At least I was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
It has been successfully adopted around the world in a new strategy against pest animals (not necessarily cats) via a new strategy called "integrated pest management".
Are you arguing that feeding bans would reduce the cat population? The whole point is that cats breed prolifically, hunt, scavange - and survive whether we feed them or not. How does not feeding them reduce the population? Hasn't worked on islands where there aren't people to feed them. In fact - that's where they cause the most problems. (I advocate not feeding cats if you're not going to TNR them, but feeding bans = no TNR). Banning feeding merely sends people practicing TNR underground and reduces the effectiveness of any programs. In fact, banning feeding is a method used by townships to stop TNR programs.

And as you point out, cats are a species that reproduces quickly. In fact, they're one of the few species that is a carnivorous predator with the fecundity of a prey species. So people arguing that cats negatively impact the environment with their hunting as competition for other carnivores or raptors fail to account for the fact that kittens function as another prey species for those very same animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Cats are also a species that are able to very rapidly reproduce, and so artificially increasing the food supply is not going to be an effective means of minimizing the population, as only a tiny portion of the population can reproduce up to the point of exhausting their food supply.
Addressed above. The issue is a feeding ban means no TNR. TNR means no breeding. This does minimize the population. Simply not feeding them does nothing to address the population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
Conservationists are not solely targeting cats
Of course not. But they put a big bullseye on them, and several (including the USFWS) villify them as enemy #1 since we can't stop human habitat destruction.

Mother Jones: Faster Pussycat Kill! Kill! Are cats bad for the environment? How feral felines (and their human friends) pounce on the planet.

The American Bird Conservancy has developed a series of new educational brochures arguing for keeping pet housecats indoors and against Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) management for feral cats. "These could be helpful for professional wildlife managers and conservationists fighting to reverse such destructive practices and countering the misleading propaganda being disseminated by feral cat advocacy groups, such as Alley Cat Allies and HSUS."

The Wildlife Society: More nonesense on feral cats

The Wildlife Society: Feral cat issue getting more attention

TWS Special Edition: Pick One: Outdoor Cats or Conservation?
&etc. from The Wildlife Society

At Audubon: Feral cat predation on birds costs billions of dollars a year (I examine this here: http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/17reasons.pdf)

At Discover magazine: Cute but deadly

Smithsonian: Alarming number of fledgling, suburban catbirds fall prey to domestic cats, study finds. A rather alarming headline, no? The introduction reads, "There comes a time in life for every bird to spread its wings and leave the nest, but for gray catbirds, that might be the beginning of the end. Smithsonian scientists report fledgling catbirds in suburban habitats are at their most vulnerable stage of life, with almost 80 percent killed by predators before they reach adulthood. Almost half of the deaths were connected to domestic cats." WOW. Read the study. 42 of 69 fledglings studied died. 33 were deemed death by predation. Cats were responsible for six deaths. Great example of how numbers get massaged. (And noteably, according to the Bird Breeding Survey, grey catbirds are thriving and their population has grown since 1986. This, despite population growth and an increase in the cat population).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
And surely you aren't arguing that a few hundred years even amounts to the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms to consider cats native to the North American ecosystem.
No, not making this argument. They're non-native. But does non-native mean they're harming the environment? Honey bees are non-native (not just the africanized bees). Dandelions are non-native. In fact, there is growing body of ecologists that are calling for a rethinking our desire to manage non-native (and "invasive") species and change the "what do we kill next" attitude to invasive-species management:

Don't Judge Species on their Origins (Nature) http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/474153a.html

Ecologists: Time to End Invasive-Species Persecution (Wired) http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...s-persecution/

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
The USFWS is not a bird organization and goes to great lengths to protect ALL native threatened species in domestic lands, including cats, such as the ocelots right here in Texas for example.
What do ocelots have to do with domestic cats?

And if you think that the USFWS isn't specifically targeting domestic cats using twisted science, think again. Although it was canceled (interestingly, it was billed for June 8, and Nico Dauphine, whose work the presenter relies upon heavily, was arrested for attempted animal cruelty (poisoning cats with antifreeze and rat poison) just a few weeks earlier in May), the USFWS planned a webinar, "Impacts of Free-Roaming Cats on Wildlife." This is how it was billed:

Quote:
A rapidly growing feral and unrestrained domestic cat population kills an average of at least 1.5 million birds in the U.S. every day—and even greater numbers of small mammals and herptiles.

Every small songbird species is vulnerable at some stage of its life cycle. Despite ample peer-reviewed science documenting the failure of trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs to reduce cat populations or address wildlife depredation, TNR and outdoor cat feeding colonies continue to be marketed to city councils, county boards, and state legislatures as a viable option. As a result, TNR feeding colonies are proliferating across the landscape at such an alarming rate that wildlife conservation programs intended to create source habitat are being rendered ineffectual in many areas.

In this presentation, I briefly review the science on the effects of outdoor cats on wildlife and the ineffectiveness of TNR programs. Then, examples of the decision making process leading to community endorsement of TNR provide some insight into the roadblocks to effective conservation action.

Finally, I offer a suite of strategic conservation actions at national agency, community, and home scales whereby the Service and its partners might work effectively to reduce the negative effects of irresponsible civic TNR decisions on wildlife trust resources.
Unfortunately we don't know what "science" was going to be presented. But the rhetoric is pretty scary. The presentation was going to be given by Tom Will. Tom Will is among those Nico Dauphine thanks “for helpful information, advice, ideas, and discussion in researching this subject†in her 2009 Partners In Flight conference paper, Impacts of Free Ranging Cats on Birds in the U.S.: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pif/pubs/Mc...ne_1_PIF09.pdf

In his 2010 presentation, Tom Will promotes the cats-kill one billion birds annually number. This claim is from Dauphine's piece (link above). Here's how that one works: "One Billion Birds:" Disputing the guess of Rich Stallcup as presented by Nico Dauphiné and Robert J. Cooper in their article included in the "Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics."

OK. I'm willing to concede the USFWS may be "official." But their position reflects that of their department, not the Department of the Interior - much like the Resolution (against) Free Roaming Cats and TNR reflected the position of the NJ Fish & Game Council, but NOT the NJ Dept of Environmental Protection or the State of New Jersey. But the USFWS information on the impact of free-roaming cats is just as biased as any other wildlife organization that has decided to villify the cat.

And yes, many conservation groups do a lot of good. But that doesn't detract from the fact that when it comes to cats and the environment, their science often isn't science, and their claims aren't truth.
Reply
post #21 of 35
7/24/11 at 8:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
And who is talking about a whole geographical area? I was talking about a TNR's Colony. IMHO I stand correct. If the colony keeper continues the TNR work, I stand correct. I do not agree that a colony keeper feeds an entire geographic area - not the keepers that I am aware - not the ones that do the keeping and continued TNR work.
Name a single town where a TNR colony was started, and no longer exists after the last member died. You can't and its because of the vacuum effect, as there are still enough cats that are not sterilized to easily maintain numbers in balance with the available food supply.

So absolutely I agree that TNR is helpful and necessary (and big props for the effort), and is obviously more humane than euthanization, but it can't be effective unless the food supply is restricted.

Farmers have learned full well that the best mousers for example are not hungry cats, but well fed energetic cats as a cat will generally hunt for sport even if it is not hungry.
Reply
post #22 of 35
7/24/11 at 8:21pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
This has proven to be patently false. Studies indicate that you have to reach at a very minimum of 90% sterilization in an entire geographic area before TNR can reduce a feline population beyond what the available food supply can support.
Please provide the citation. The research published by Felicia Nutter (2004) indicated the number to be achieved is 70%, and that's without removal of strays and kittens from colonies for adoption, which drastically and sometimes rapidly reduces the numbers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
The reason is quite simple, as a single pair of cats and their kittens can produce as many as 420000 kittens in just 7 years.
Again, please provide a citation. I believe this is the old HSUS number that was removed from their website eight years ago. It's not a real life model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
When you feed a TNR colony, you are not feeding TNR cats, you are feeding all cats in the geographic area and hoping to trap a sufficient number to reach the required sterilization rate. I have never heard of any locality that has been able to achieve this to date.
It's late, but I'll provide links tomorrow. There are many examples. Mine is one colony. Right now I'm at a 100% sterlization rate. 32 cats in two years. No kittens this year. I won't know until Winter how many are left alive in the colony. And without looking it up I don't remember how many have been removed to be rehomed. 15? 16? But there are between 6 and 10 cats currently in the colony.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
TNR programs have been in operation for around 20 years, which is beyond the life expectancy of ferals in the program, and yet the colonies are not disappearing, as plenty of the non TNR'ed cats are simply there to fill any vacuum left. So while TNR is great, it cannot succeed in combination with widespread feeding in eliminating feral cats from an area.
You mean TNR was introduced to the US about 20 years ago. It has only started to be widely practiced within the last 5-6 years. San Diego has one of the oldest programs, and it's about 10 years old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69
The most effective humane solution IMO is to TNR, adopt out the young, and return the remaining to fenced sanctuaries where they can be fed without widespread environmental impact or concern of feeding non-sterilized cats or if not possible then just release and allow them to fend for themselves like all other animals, and then work on eliminating breeding grounds and updating local sanitation to ensure that cats aren't gaining access to refuse and the like as food supplies. Animal control is able to catch possum and other such animals in baited traps without having to feed mass population of them to attract them.
The problem with sanctuaries is the cost of their maintenance. It's not a practical or feasible option for most communities.
Reply
post #23 of 35
7/24/11 at 8:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
Are you arguing that feeding bans would reduce the cat population? The whole point is that cats breed prolifically, hunt, scavange - and survive whether we feed them or not. How does not feeding them reduce the population? Hasn't worked on islands where there aren't people to feed them. In fact - that's where they cause the most problems. (I advocate not feeding cats if you're not going to TNR them, but feeding bans = no TNR). Banning feeding merely sends people practicing TNR underground and reduces the effectiveness of any programs. In fact, banning feeding is a method used by townships to stop TNR programs.
Yes, I strongly believe that you shouldn't feed any animals that are arguably at higher than healthy population levels, be it cats, pigeons, deer, etc. We certainly don't put food out for non-adorable animals like rats and expect their populations to decline. Regarding islands, do you imagine that cat predation would be higher or lower if the cats were all well fed and a certain percentage neutered? Common sense should dictate that neutering + minimizing available food would have a more significant impact on reducing numbers IMO.

Here in Houston for example, there are a huge number of feral cats in the city, and yet very few in the forests and residential areas as they have very little food available for them there, compared to the trash available in the city (which they can not only eat the trash directly, but feed on rats and mice that feed off that food supply as well). An integrated solution of TNR along with improving sanitation and blocking access to the trash and the rodents access to it and food left out at restaurants and grocery stores and gas stations and the like would be ideal IMO. The competition for limited resources would naturally reduce population sizes, along with part of the population being infertile.

I also don't understand why cats could not be caught without feeding cat populations at large. We don't do that when attempting to catch other wild animals.
Reply
post #24 of 35
7/24/11 at 9:10pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Name a single town where a TNR colony was started, and no longer exists after the last member died. You can't and its because of the vacuum effect, as there are still enough cats that are not sterilized to easily maintain numbers in balance with the available food supply.
I don't know of a single group that maintains that TNR by itself will eliminate stray and feral cats. It is only one method in what needs to be a multi-pronged approach, including low-cost spay/neuter programs, community education, microchipping programs, leash laws that do not prevent TNR, &etc. Until people spay & neuter their pets, keep them indoors or confined to their property, and don't dump their animals, no method of animal will bring the population to 0.

The most common measurements of the effectiveness of TNR are shelter admittance, shelter euthanisia rates, or cat nuisance call complaints.

http://tricountytnr.giving.officeliv...R_Programs.pdf

Newburyport, MA [Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society] - 300 cats in 1992, 6 currently

http://www.bestfriends.org/allthegoo.../ferals2_3.cfm
Stanford Cat Network: The number of homeless cats on campus has declined from an estimated 1,500 at the program inception in 1989 to approximately 200 cats currently living on campus.

http://216.147.127.171/results.html The feral population of the Boardwalk cats in Atlantic City was reduced by 70% in 3 years.

http://www.edboks.com/uploads/Analys..._Solutions.pdf
Reply
post #25 of 35
7/24/11 at 9:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I also don't understand why cats could not be caught without feeding cat populations at large. We don't do that when attempting to catch other wild animals.
Because cats have a larger range of territory than possums or raccoons. Not all cats will be eating at the local garbage dump. And unlike possums or raccoons, you want to be attracting them to an area so you can trap as many as possible to sterilize as many as possible. With nuisance wildlife, you're attempting to manage a few animals.
Reply
post #26 of 35
7/24/11 at 11:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
I can cite studies that estimate how many birds in general are consumed by domestic and feral cats
But does consumption mean there's an impact on the population? Are the cats scavenging dead animals? Are they depredating sick animals? And what about their predation of other non-native unquestionably invasive species like sparrows, starlings, brown and black rats and the house mouse? In Fiore's (2000) study, starlings were 26% of the cats' bird predation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
Name a single town where a TNR colony was started, and no longer exists after the last member died. You can't...
I can. Here is more up-to-date information on the Newburyport cats:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=228789898751 "Last remaining cat of Newburyport, MA waterfront colony - once 300 strong - dies."
Reply
post #27 of 35
7/24/11 at 11:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
I can. Here is more up-to-date information on the Newburyport cats:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=228789898751 "Last remaining cat of Newburyport, MA waterfront colony - once 300 strong - dies."
That is excellent news, but were they trapping, fixing, and releasing as suggested or feeding them as well? I don't see any details on the program.

The one thing I can find though is that the claim is that they reached 100% sterilization rate of the entire cat population. I haven't heard efforts elsewhere exceeding even half of the population, and so there are always replacements as long as food and shelter is available to them. Any ideas on what they were doing differently that can be copied?
Reply
post #28 of 35
7/25/11 at 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post
That is excellent news, but were they trapping, fixing, and releasing as suggested or feeding them as well? I don't see any details on the program.

The one thing I can find though is that the claim is that they reached 100% sterilization rate of the entire cat population. I haven't heard efforts elsewhere exceeding even half of the population, and so there are always replacements as long as food and shelter is available to them. Any ideas on what they were doing differently that can be copied?
Yes, they fed - which goes against your claim that if you feed you are defeating the purpose of TNR - you can see more details, easily found through Google, here: http://acaweb.alleycat.org/large_doc...g2010final.pdf
Quote:
The relationship between Zorro and his
caregivers began in the early nineties when a
handful of concerned citizens organized the
Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society (MRFRS)
to coordinate a Trap-Neuter-Return program for
the 300-plus cats in the community.
Over time, the colony naturally dwindled until
Zorro was the sole remaining member. The
colony once required 14 feeding stations, but
Zorro needed just two. Despite the decrease,
almost 30 volunteers continued to be involved in
his life. Some of them had been caregiving since
1992 and simply weren’t willing to stop when the
need decreased.
Never say "Always" or "Never" these are strong statements, as proved here
Reply
post #29 of 35
7/25/11 at 7:25am
Thread Starter 
Ducman, you may be interested in reading Stoskopf & Nutter, "Analyzing approaches to feral cat management - one size does not fit all," published in the special focus publication of JAVMA (Animal Welfare Forum: Management of Abandoned and Feral Cats) Vol 225, No 9, November 1, 2004. http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/...225_9_1361.pdf

The article published in JAVMA is a summary of her thesis, which is available here: http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bi...3891/1/etd.pdf

The findings:

Trapping efficiency. "In 1 study, we trapped 107 cats from 9 colonies with 98% trapping efficiency and 98% of the cats were captured in < 9 trap nights/cat, with no statistical or practical difference between the percentage of cats captured per colony..."

Management of Colonies and Population Dynamics. "In pilot studies for a longer-term study in progress, we have been looking at 9 and now 12 colonies of feral cats being managed for maximum potential growth. All colonies receive food and water daily, have shelter available, are treated with an antihelminthic annually, and were vaccinated against rabies and common feline viral diseases when enrolled in the study." "What have we learned so far?"

*TNR programs can stabilize colonies and cause population declines over time when compared to control colonies in which cats are not neutered. All 6 surgically sterilized feral cat colonies initially enrolled in our studies have decreased in population during the first 2 years of study (mean decrease of 36%) and continue to decline. During the same 2 years, the mean change in population for the 3 control colonies was a 47% increase.

*Though the mean population change for all 3 control colonies during the first 2 years was a gain of 47%, looking at means can give an incomplete picture. In reality, population shifts for individual colonies during the first two years of the study were 31%, 127%, and 283% of the original colony size, respectively.

*All 6 TNR colonies decreased in size relatively uniformly (range 30% to 89% of original size) during the same time period.

*Can TNR take a feral colony to extinction and how long does it take for a TNR colony to extinguish itself? To date, one of our experimental colonies has already gone extinct and another is approaching extinction. Others have reached relatively low numbers of cats but seem to have stabilized as what might be termed "microcolonies." As we continue our work, it wouldn't be totally unexpected if immigration pushed the population of a TNR colony up again, though this has yet to happen. ... TNR programs can, under circumstances similar to those we are studying, can bring a feral cat colony to extinction. We have observed that happen. But as to how long will it take, the best answer we can provide at this time is somewhere between 4 or 5 years and more than a decade.

Please note: the study findings were based solely on sterilization of the cats. It was not a study of TNR programs as generally practiced, with kittens being removed from the colonies for adoption.

As to the reproductive capacity of cats, the HSUS mathematical exercise you cite (one pair of breeding cats can produce 420,000 kittens in 7 years) is no longer used by most people (other than a few conservation groups or individuals that want to use scare tactics). Here are Nutter's real-life findings: http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/...225_9_1399.pdf (Nutter et. al, "Reproductive capacity of free-roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate," JAVMA 225:9 1399-1402).

Results: Pregnant cats were observed in all months of the year, but the percentage of cats found to be pregnant was highest in March, April, and May. Cats produced a mean of 1.4 litters/year, with a median of 3 kittens/litter (range, 1 to 6). Overall, 127 of 169 (75%) kittens died or disappeared before 6 months of age. Trauma was the most common cause of death.
Reply
post #30 of 35
7/25/11 at 8:12am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolina View Post
Yes, they fed - which goes against your claim that if you feed you are defeating the purpose of TNR - you can see more details, easily found through Google, here: http://acaweb.alleycat.org/large_doc...g2010final.pdf

Never say "Always" or "Never" these are strong statements, as proved here
They also provide more information on their website. As I keep pointing out, TNR is not meant to function in a vacuum, but as one tool in a suite of measures. http://www.mrfrs.org/about.php

Quote:
MRFRS was founded in 1992 in response to growth in the feral or homeless cat population along the Merrimack River in Newburyport. The MRFRS began a trap, neuter, and return (TNR) program for these cats in 1992 with feeding stations where the cats are fed twice a day. In 2009 the Zorro, last feral cat from the colony, passed away. In 2010 we assisted cats in need in over 100 towns in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. In our service area towns(Salisbury, Newburyport, Amesbury, Newbury, Byfield, West Newbury, Merrimac, and Rowley, MA) we operate in a "kitten-free" zone and therefore we assist other communities in need of assistance with placing kittens. We are an open admission, no kill facility for our service area towns for kittens and adult cats.

These are our programs:

*Two no kill adoption centers in Salisbury, MA and PetSmart in Danvers, MA.
*A feral trap, vaccinate, neuter, and release program
*A spay/neuter program for ferals
*A low cost spay/neuter program operated by the Catmobile
*A foster home program for healthy and special needs cats and kittens
*A barn program for feral relocation
*Low cost vaccines, and veterinary care
*The Captain Courageous Fund which assists injured cats
*The Bridge Program to assist those that need emergency boarding for their cats.
*The Spay Mass Hotline to assist pet owners access to low cost spay/neuter services for cats and dogs in Massachusetts

Since our inception we have placed 17,000 cats and kittens into homes, spayed or neutered over 10,000 feral cats and spayed or neutered over 10,000 owned cats. Thus totaling over 37,000 cats helped. Since we started our our Spaymass hotline we have handled 25,000 calls for assistance.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › USFWS official position on the cat