Trap-Neuter-Return as a method of controlling and caring for feral cat populations continues to undergo explosive growth in popularity. More and more communities see TNR as a way out of their hopelessly overcrowded shelters and the increasing number of calls to animal control about stray and feral cats. Stopping the birth of cats on the streets through TNR means lower stray intake rates for shelters, less competition for homes for healthy, adoptable cats already in the system, less euthanasia for all cats and cost savings for animal control. While still not fully recognized as such, TNR is one of the no-kill movement's most powerful tools.
Yet for all its well-documented advantages (see "The Proof Is In - TNR Works!"), opposition to TNR exists and is making its voice ever louder. Among the main opposition groups are organizations who claim to represent the interests of wildlife. They place the blame for the decimation of native species squarely at the paws of feral cats, whether it's the massive killing of birds, the threatening of endangered rodent species, or the poisoning of sea otters from cat feces running off into the ocean. According to these organizations, TNR should be outlawed because it perpetuates and encourages feral cat colonies and thereby increases predation and other ills.
For example, the alleged impact of ferals on wildlife is the cornerstone of the American Bird Conservancy's "Cats Indoors!" campaign. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocates killing feral cats in large part because of wildlife predation. The New Jersey Audobon Society opposes emerging local TNR programs based on its estimate that feral cats kill 42 million birds a year in the state. Whatever their accuracy, these arguments cannot be taken lightly. The fight against feral cats by wildlife organizations led to the recent ban of TNR and feral cat colonies on most public lands by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission. A similar ban was recently proposed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, but fortunately was defeated.
So far, feral cat advocates have tried to counter the wildlife predation argument primarily by engaging in a kind of point-counterpoint. We argue feral cats are being made into scapegoats because there are multiple other, more substantial causes for wildlife loss, such as habitat destruction by humans, glass windows, cell towers, etc. We discredit the studies faulting the cats for wildlife loss and advance those studies which are more favorable to our position. Basically, what's evolved is a "cats vs. birds" fight and, in any given instance, whoever has more power or can generate more public support wins.
It is true there are many causes for wildlife loss more destructive than feral cats and studies which claim bird losses in the tens, even hundreds of millions are usually scientifically flawed and based on dubious assumptions. But making these points with the public is an uphill battle, because it's natural for people to believe cats kill birds and mice and to simply accept the wildlife groups' numbers. Engaging in point-counterpoint also misses the most persuasive argument that TNR has, which is it doesn't really matter whether the wildlife groups are right or not!
Let's go them one better. Let's assume feral cats annually kill 100 million birds in New Jersey, poisoned all the otters along the California coast and are about to wipe out every endangered species west of Africa. If we theoretically agree with the wildlife advocates, then the question becomes, what are you going to do about it? What's the solution for the growing feral population? How are we going to stop there from being so many feral cats who supposedly kill so much wildlife? Here's the big secret - the wildlife groups don't have a realistic answer.
When pressed, which they aren't often enough, the wildlife people will argue for some variation of trap and remove as the way to end wildlife predation by ferals. When you ask what we're supposed to do with all the removed ferals, some like PETA will come right out and say kill them, while others dance around the issue and say kill them, tame them, stick them in sanctuaries, whatever you do, just get rid of them. A good example is the recent article in Best Friends magazine in which Linda Winter, director of the "Cats Indoors!" campaign, is quoted as saying the ferals can be adopted, euthanized or set up in sanctuaries on private property, empty suburban lots or abandoned places. ("Living in the Gray Zone," Best Friends (Nov/Dec 2003), p. 15.)
The notion that a substantial portion of the tens of millions of feral cats in this country can somehow be removed from the environment is patently absurd. If we know anything for certain by now, it's that trap and remove doesn't work on a community-wide basis to reduce feral numbers. There are too many feral cats, too few animal control officers, and almost no volunteers who will give their time to catch cats so they can be killed. Even if the resources were available for large-scale removal, feral population dynamics and the constant abandonment of domestic cats usually result in removed cats being quickly replaced by new ones, anyway. Trap and remove, the traditional approach to feral cat control for decades, has resulted in the current dilemma. It's a complete and total failure and the wildlife organizations are backing a proven loser.
TNR, on the other hand, has an excellent track record in reducing feral populations when implemented on a large scale. While it leaves feral cat colonies in places where some wildlife may be killed, fewer cats over time means less predation. Most significantly, nothing else works! When it comes to effective feral population control, TNR is the only game in town. Ironically, and sadly, by throwing up obstacles to TNR, the wildlife groups are trying to take away the only effective technique available to lower the cats' population, which means there will be more ferals and more wildlife killed.
As feral cat advocates, we need to get straight to the heart of the matter and not settle for disputing studies or arguing others are more to blame when it comes to wildlife loss. We need to point out, again and again, that ultimately the wildlife and TNR organizations want the same thing - fewer feral cats. The wildlife groups have no realistic way to get there. We do.
http://www.neighborhoodcats.org/
Katie
Yet for all its well-documented advantages (see "The Proof Is In - TNR Works!"), opposition to TNR exists and is making its voice ever louder. Among the main opposition groups are organizations who claim to represent the interests of wildlife. They place the blame for the decimation of native species squarely at the paws of feral cats, whether it's the massive killing of birds, the threatening of endangered rodent species, or the poisoning of sea otters from cat feces running off into the ocean. According to these organizations, TNR should be outlawed because it perpetuates and encourages feral cat colonies and thereby increases predation and other ills.
For example, the alleged impact of ferals on wildlife is the cornerstone of the American Bird Conservancy's "Cats Indoors!" campaign. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) advocates killing feral cats in large part because of wildlife predation. The New Jersey Audobon Society opposes emerging local TNR programs based on its estimate that feral cats kill 42 million birds a year in the state. Whatever their accuracy, these arguments cannot be taken lightly. The fight against feral cats by wildlife organizations led to the recent ban of TNR and feral cat colonies on most public lands by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Commission. A similar ban was recently proposed by the Pennsylvania Game Commission, but fortunately was defeated.
So far, feral cat advocates have tried to counter the wildlife predation argument primarily by engaging in a kind of point-counterpoint. We argue feral cats are being made into scapegoats because there are multiple other, more substantial causes for wildlife loss, such as habitat destruction by humans, glass windows, cell towers, etc. We discredit the studies faulting the cats for wildlife loss and advance those studies which are more favorable to our position. Basically, what's evolved is a "cats vs. birds" fight and, in any given instance, whoever has more power or can generate more public support wins.
It is true there are many causes for wildlife loss more destructive than feral cats and studies which claim bird losses in the tens, even hundreds of millions are usually scientifically flawed and based on dubious assumptions. But making these points with the public is an uphill battle, because it's natural for people to believe cats kill birds and mice and to simply accept the wildlife groups' numbers. Engaging in point-counterpoint also misses the most persuasive argument that TNR has, which is it doesn't really matter whether the wildlife groups are right or not!
Let's go them one better. Let's assume feral cats annually kill 100 million birds in New Jersey, poisoned all the otters along the California coast and are about to wipe out every endangered species west of Africa. If we theoretically agree with the wildlife advocates, then the question becomes, what are you going to do about it? What's the solution for the growing feral population? How are we going to stop there from being so many feral cats who supposedly kill so much wildlife? Here's the big secret - the wildlife groups don't have a realistic answer.
When pressed, which they aren't often enough, the wildlife people will argue for some variation of trap and remove as the way to end wildlife predation by ferals. When you ask what we're supposed to do with all the removed ferals, some like PETA will come right out and say kill them, while others dance around the issue and say kill them, tame them, stick them in sanctuaries, whatever you do, just get rid of them. A good example is the recent article in Best Friends magazine in which Linda Winter, director of the "Cats Indoors!" campaign, is quoted as saying the ferals can be adopted, euthanized or set up in sanctuaries on private property, empty suburban lots or abandoned places. ("Living in the Gray Zone," Best Friends (Nov/Dec 2003), p. 15.)
The notion that a substantial portion of the tens of millions of feral cats in this country can somehow be removed from the environment is patently absurd. If we know anything for certain by now, it's that trap and remove doesn't work on a community-wide basis to reduce feral numbers. There are too many feral cats, too few animal control officers, and almost no volunteers who will give their time to catch cats so they can be killed. Even if the resources were available for large-scale removal, feral population dynamics and the constant abandonment of domestic cats usually result in removed cats being quickly replaced by new ones, anyway. Trap and remove, the traditional approach to feral cat control for decades, has resulted in the current dilemma. It's a complete and total failure and the wildlife organizations are backing a proven loser.
TNR, on the other hand, has an excellent track record in reducing feral populations when implemented on a large scale. While it leaves feral cat colonies in places where some wildlife may be killed, fewer cats over time means less predation. Most significantly, nothing else works! When it comes to effective feral population control, TNR is the only game in town. Ironically, and sadly, by throwing up obstacles to TNR, the wildlife groups are trying to take away the only effective technique available to lower the cats' population, which means there will be more ferals and more wildlife killed.
As feral cat advocates, we need to get straight to the heart of the matter and not settle for disputing studies or arguing others are more to blame when it comes to wildlife loss. We need to point out, again and again, that ultimately the wildlife and TNR organizations want the same thing - fewer feral cats. The wildlife groups have no realistic way to get there. We do.
http://www.neighborhoodcats.org/
Katie
