A couple of good news articles on TNR

TNR Programs Underway
Panora, Iowa
The trap/neuter/return program launched by Panora P.E.T.S. and embraced by city officials is off to a good start.

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=231738&rfi=6

Yreka, California
Armed with a $2,000 grant, people from several local organizations are undertaking a trap/neuter/return program for the communityâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s feral cats.


Also Feral Colony at Best Friends Conference:

http://www.bestfriends.org/news/nslt...NMHPconf2.html

Also...I would encourage people to post their comments in their comments on this article:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?n...d=231738&rfi=6

Because the ABC has already made a statement.

Name: Pamela Jo Hatley
Date: Apr, 15 2004
Trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs work in theory but not in practice. A study conducted by master's student, Daniel Castillo, on two feral cat colonies in Miami, Florida showed that the populations did not reduce in number over time because people continued to dump their unwanted pets in the area, some of which were not neutered. See http://www.fiu.edu/~clarkea/students/castillo/ for information on this study. TNR encourages irresponsible pet owners to dump their unwanted pets rather than take the pets to a shelter that may euthanize them. As a result, the feral cat population continues to increase. Not all the cats can be captured, so not all get neutered or vaccinated. Also, cats have very negative impacts on native wildlife populations, including threatened and endangered species. Even if cats are fed, studies show they will continue to hunt and kill prey instinctively. Cats also facilitate the spread of disease. Castillo's study found that raccoons and other wildlife routinely ate leftover cat food. Rabies can be spread between cats and wildlife. Humans are susceptible to toxoplasmosis and rabies from cats. Finally, feral cats do not fair well in the wild, and are not cared for like domestic animals should be cared for. They are subject to being injured by wild animals, automobiles, and cruel humans. The only true solution to the feral cat problem is to stem the flow of cats into the wild. Humans created this problem and humans must solve it by keeping their cats indoors. In the meantime, hoarding large numbers of cats in the wild serves only to harm the cats and deplete native wildlife. For more information, please see the American Bird Conservancy's Cats Indoors! campaign at http://www.abcbirds.org/cats/.

Someone already posted there; here's my reply. I don't want to attach my name at the moment, but anyone is welcome to take my logic as their own and post. Please be sure to proof it for factual errors if you do.

Trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs work in theory but not in practice. A study conducted by master's student, Daniel Castillo, on two feral cat colonies in Miami, Florida showed that the populations did not reduce in number over time because people continued to dump their unwanted pets in the area, some of which were not neutered. See http://www.fiu.edu/~clarkea/students/castillo/ for information on this study.

Click to expand...

For starters, Castillo's study seems to try only to debunk TNR theories and finds fault with implementation at times, not ideology. He also links back to American Bird Conservancy as well as Alley Cat Allies, so it seems he's more than well aware of the politics involved. I'm not sure what that has to do with science, unless he's on a mission to prove a thesis for or against TNR (and it's clearly against TNR).

Also, he's specifically dealing with the issue of cats being a "nuisance" at certain public parks, which is hardly representative of all TNR activities across the United States. A colony can be hundreds of individuals or it can be five. Obviously, there will be different impacts on the environment for each.

"TNR encourages irresponsible pet owners to dump their unwanted pets rather than take the pets to a shelter that may euthanize them. As a result, the feral cat population continues to increase."

Click to expand...

Actually, TNR encourages responsible pet ownership by being a strong advocate for the spaying and neutering of all pets and feral cats. The cat population may have increased at the test site from "dumping," but logic dictates that if a similar number of animals were simply abandoned, then they would be creating numerous independent colonies elsewhere. Irresponsible people are irresponsible. There's no evidence that TNR suddenly makes them more irresponsible than they already would have been.

Logic dictates that by dumping the cats into a managed colony, these people are increasing the chances that the animals will be spayed and neutered, therefore, stopping their reproductive cycle in its tracks. If these people dumped the animals elsewhere, they would simply reproduce uncontrolled in new colonies. New colonies = more cats.

Not all the cats can be captured, so not all get neutered or vaccinated.

Click to expand...

If the cats can't be captured to be neutered and vaccinated, it's not likely that they're going to be captured to be euthanized. (Duh)

In my personal experience - the majority of cats will be captured, when you're dealing with individuals -- like TNR proponents -- who are passionate about spending the time and money to actually see it happen. TNR proponents don't want to see more cats: they want to stop the reproductive cycle of ferals through management and they want to see current populations treated fairly and humanely.

Also, cats have very negative impacts on native wildlife populations, including threatened and endangered species. Even if cats are fed, studies show they will continue to hunt and kill prey instinctively.

Click to expand...

The following animals eat other animals: birds, fish, raccoons, bears, snakes, fox, coyotes, muskrats, alligators, crabs, lobsters, and, of course, humans. I'm sure I could list plenty more.

It doesn't take brain surgery to think that any predator (including man) should be managed when dealing with an area of endangered species. The study that says that cats will continue to hunt if fed (Wisconsin, if not mistaken) I believe showed that the average cat captured relatively few animals in a given year -- the number becomes significant when hypothetically extrapolated with guesstimates, which, in the words of our esteemed president, is "fuzzy math."

Cats also facilitate the spread of disease.

Click to expand...

Any animal can be a vector for disease. TNR advocates are proponents for vaccinations which (in theory) should decrease the rate of disease. I don't know of any TNR advocate that would want to see a animal loose that was actively threatening any other animal or human's health.

Castillo's study found that raccoons and other wildlife routinely ate leftover cat food.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think that more effective strategies need to be put in place to avoid these scenarios (daytime feedings, etc...) That's implementation issues; not a fundamental flaw of TNR.

Rabies can be spread between cats and wildlife.

Click to expand...

TNR advocates are responsible for the mass vaccination of thousands of cats (or more) against rabies.

Humans are susceptible to toxoplasmosis and rabies from cats.

Click to expand...

This seems to be a feces issue, no? If you're dealing with a severe concentration of cats...ok...but how often has this ever been an issue?

Finally, feral cats do not fair well in the wild, and are not cared for like domestic animals should be cared for. They are subject to being injured by wild animals, automobiles, and cruel humans.

Click to expand...

The first challenge that's cited is an unavoidable fact of nature, and the last two are the fault of humans. How about putting those "cruel humans" away with laws that say any act of cruelty against animals is a felony crime instead of a midemeanor?

The only true solution to the feral cat problem is to stem the flow of cats into the wild.

Click to expand...

TNR advocates agree. But that doesn't seem to be the writer's point. The writer seems to be calling for an eradication campaign for feral cats without actually using the words.

Humans created this problem and humans must solve it by keeping their cats indoors.

Click to expand...

Sure. But keeping cats indoors doesn't have anything to do with TNR of existing colonies.

In the meantime, hoarding large numbers of cats in the wild serves only to harm the cats and deplete native wildlife.

Click to expand...

Who is "hoarding cats?" TNR advocates are trying to reduce the number of cats by spaying, neutering, caring for and vaccinating pre-existing populations.

For more information, please see the American Bird Conservancy's Cats Indoors! campaign at http://www.abcbirds.org/cats/.

Click to expand...

Wow, these people are on some mission...

Scott....I agree with you..and while we are at it..I have never understood why ABC is soooo antiferal in the first place. We are after the same end are we not?? Reducing in the number of outdoor only cats. I wish ABC could concentrate their efforts on getting more people to be responsible pet owners and to encourage cats indoors for cats adopted from the shelter sysyem. They could even help us by promoting spay/neuter of domesticated cats. That would allow us to concentrate our efforts on stabilizing the number of ferals.

Katie

P.S. I don't think feral numbers are on the rise...I think it is actually the contrary...I think our efforts are working.

P.P.S. I still only see ONE post which was the lady from ABC...I sent a comment...I don't think it's up yet.

The idea that TNR increases feral populations is ludicrous. From my own readings, it seems like thousands of cats are being sterilized, which decreases populations. Our own colony had (8) kittens go into adoption programs and another 8-10 get sterilized. It's not brain science to know that if TNR people didn't get involved, we'd have a 3x as many cats here now. None of this came at the taxpayer's expense. Not a dime. And about 5 families now have loving pets as a result.

Any statistic will tell you that cats reproduce exponentially. TNR advocates are capturing any and all cats they can to spay and neuter them.

The American Bird Conservancy has two choices to achieve this zero-cat goal they seem to have: support complete eradication campaigns which (we all know) won't be effective because you're not going to suddenly implement a feral cat Holocaust with mass public backing...also, there's no evidence that (if they killed 1 million cats) that they'd be any more effective than TNR groups at reducing cat populations.

Or, they could support TNR which has a stated purpose of reducing cat populations and advocating responsible pet ownership. Unlike the aforementioned "kill cats" campaign, TNR has a pretty good chance of gaining public support from animal lovers who would be passionate about implementing an animal-friendly, "do good," "let's-get-them-all-spayed-and-vaccinated" campaign. Imagine if we all spent the same money and same energy at getting all of these cats sterilized.

But instead, we're wasting our time and money hitting our heads against the wall and fighting the cat-haters. We could be spending that same time and money catching cats and having them fixed.

Personally, I think for all practical purposes, these people are fighting against their own interests.

Agreed...it's such a waste and I think this sums it up best:

Common sense, not statistics or hard-line arguments, could have pointed the way, as it did as early as 1949 when then-Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, vetoed a bill to restrain cats: “We are all interested in protecting certain varieties of birds. That cats destroy some birds, I well know, but I believe this legislation would further but little the worthy cause to which its proponents give such unselfish effort. The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.†So why, 50 years later, is Mr. Wildlife Degree still belaboring the point?

Here is the whole of Nathan's post:

Subject: Countering the predation issue
Question from Cathy:
I know you have addressed the wildlife predation issue before, but I was wondering if you could give your top arguments of what you would say when people bring up this discussion? The reason I ask is that our group is working on developing a TNR program but we have one guy with a wildlife degree who always quotes these studies about the decimation on the wildlife population by these non-indigenous cats and how they must be removed. Some people give him credibility because of his degree, and I'd like to have some short, well thought out responses.

Response from Nathan:
One of the golden rules of advocacy is to tailor your response to your audience. You do not want to sound like an encyclopedia, nor do you have to get overly detailed, nor do you have to know the intimates about every study. Don't lose sight of the forest for the trees. You are, in the end, an advocate. Respond succinctly, in a straightforward and thoughtful manner.

My favorite strategy is to write a detailed, scientific position paper, which is sent out to people in the community – the media, commissions, city council, friends, allies, other groups, VIPS, caretakers, whoever your target audience is. But when I make speeches, when you actually go before the commission, or council, or are interviewed by a reporter, I make a different argument – one of compassion, and lifesaving. That two-pronged approach (scientific analysis on paper to rebut the claims of Mr. Wildlife Degree in your community, and a broad message of showing kindness to cats in person) is effective.

I always start with the efficacy of TNR for all the reasons I won't repeat here, how it works, how it reduces impounds and deaths in shelters, how it protects public health. I always end with the humane argument, how the cats are out there through not fault of their own and how we can choose kindness over killing. In the middle are the nuts and bolts:

1. The starting point of any analysis in assessing wildlife predation is a two fold inquiry:

a) does the species exhibit predatory behavior?

b) how much? In other words, does the predatory behavior adversely affect the prey populations? “In biological systems it is insufficient merely to have found one animal will eat another, that is what predators do. The more important question is whether that is predation within normal limits.†(Tabor, The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat, Arrow Books, 1983.) In short, is there evidence that cats actually negatively impact the prey populations?

Paul Errington identifies the problem: “Preying upon a species is not necessary synonymous with controlling it or even influencing its numbers to any perceptible degree. Predation which merely removed an exposed prey surplus that is naturally doomed is entirely different from predation the weight of which is instrumental in forcing down prey populations or in holding them at given approximate levels.†(See Ellen Berkeley, Maverick Cats: Encounters with Feral Cats, New England Press, 1992.)

2. The studies cited by Mr. Wildlife Degree not only utterly fail to address the impact of cat predation, but they are severely flawed in their methodology. (I SAY THIS WITH A FAIR DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE, BECAUSE EVERYONE ON THE ANTI-CAT CITE USES CHURCHER'S STUDY IN ENGLAND AND THEN COLEMAN'S STUDY IN WISCONSIN FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT CATS ARE DECIMATING BIRDS).

Churcher looks at what kind of prey cats were bringing home in an English Village. He then extrapolated from that to come up with how many cats were killing birds across Great Britain. So, for example, if 10 cats bring in 100 birds, then 1,000 cats kill 10,000 birds, and so on. By guessing as to how many cats were in Great Britain, Churcher concluded with an astronomical number of killed birds. But is science really that simple? For one, how did the birds die? did the cats kill them? were they road kill? were they fledglings who would have died anyway? was there any indication of disease in the prey? was the catch freshly killed or were they dead for days? Being scavengers more than predators, few cats would pass up injured or dead birds? In fact, Churcher has no qualitative information whatsoever. All of this missing information could have been supplied with little additional effort.

For example, two French researchers Moller & Eritzoe examined birds killed by cats vs. those that met accidental deaths by crashing into windows. They examined the birds for various factors, the most significant of which was the health of the bird. They found that while windows were non-discriminating and killed healthy and sickly birds equally, the birds cats killed were significantly sicklier than those who crashed into windows, with 70% of them slow movers and fledglings!

But more importantly, Churcher ignores that several hundred birds in his village must die each year to maintain a stable population, that the highest number of birds brought home were at the time of the first broods (lots of already doomed fledglings), and that the village's bird density was 9 x higher than the rest of Britain?

So taken together, what does Churcher actually prove? “Taken together, these elements suggest another interpretation: cats are simply weeding out birds from an overcrowded population. Nor are they apparently catching healthy birds at their peak of winged life; wintertime is most stressful on birds that are old or sick, and fledglings tumbling down from nests could account for the high count in early summer. And with only 130 dead sparrows recorded by Churcher, the cats kill – or find – less than half the numbers that must be annually culled to sustain their populations.†(J. Elliott, “Of Cats and Birds and Science: A Critique of the Churcher Study,†1994.)

Two years after that original “study,†all pretensions of scientific objectivity disappear. In his second paper, he describes cats as “ruthless killersâ€, predation as “the slaughterâ€, while prey is a “luckless mouseâ€, or a “very frightened baby rabbitâ€. Is this science?

Coleman in Wisconsin is even worse. In his paper, “Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemmaâ€, Coleman states that “Recent research suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each yearâ€, citing footnote 10. And what is footnote 10? An article in Wisconsin Natural Resources written by HIMSELF. Coleman cites himself. So let's look at the article. What does it say? “Here are our best GUESSES at low, intermediate and high ESTIMATES of the number of birds killed by rural cats in Wisconsin†BASED ON THE SAME OVERSIMPLIFIED, HGH SCHOOL LEVEL FORMULA THOROUGHLY DISCREDITED IN THE CHURCHER STUDY. For one, it is not RESEARCH. It is a GUESS. Second, there is no basis for the number of cats he GUESSES live in Wisconsin. Third, is a range from 8 to 217 million a statistically valid range? Absolutely not. It shows a shockingly low level of scientific rigor and confidence. Finally to get at his low and high estimates, he ASSUMES cats kill rate is 20% on the LOW end and 30% on the HIGH end. Is this fair? Studies in nine states had the range as “Few†on the Low end to 3% and 20% on the high end. If you eliminated the Few and the 20% which are off the curve, it would be a 3% range to 14% on the high end for percentage of total prey being birds. A New Zealand study had it pegged at 5% by scat analysis, in Australia it was 5.2%, and another study in New Zealand had it at 4.5% in only 12% of the cats! Colemanâ€[emoji]8482[/emoji]s numbers are off the charts and over inflate his “findingsâ€. But even then, he is making assumptions that aren't valid: he assumes millions of cats, he assumes they are all allowed outdoors, he assumes they are all young and agile and able to hunt equally, and he assumes each one is regularly killing birds despite the fact that as many as 50% of people do not let their cats outdoors, that American cats are getting fatter and less agile, that American cats are living longer and cannot hunt as well as they get older, and that some cats are just lazy or lousy hunters.

Coleman is a guess, not a study. It is, worse, a bad overly inflated guess. In an interview with a reporter in 1994, even Coleman admitted as much: “The media has had a field day with this since we started. Those figures were from our proposal. THEY AREN'T ACTUAL DATA; that was just our projection to show had bad it might be.†But that hasn't stopped anti-cat groups from using the stuff as if it was handed down from Mt. Sinai.

3. There is a large body of scientific literature that is ignored by Mr. Wildlife Degree, precisely because it contradicts his conclusions.

Roger Tabor found that cats have low success as bird hunters and that the bulk of their diet is garbage, plants, insects, and other scavenger material. In short, cats are not impacting bird populations on continents. Fitzgerald & Karl found that “cats suppress populations of more dangerous predators such as rats and thus allow denser populations of birds than would exist without themâ€. Robert Berg found that cats were not impacting quail population in San Francisco even though quail nest on the ground. Mead found no evidence that cats are impacting overall bird populations. Colemand & Brunner concluded that, “The common belief that feral cats are serious predators of birds is apparently without basis.†A Worldwatch Institute 1994 Study found that birds are in decline due to drought, habitat loss, over trapping, and water pollution. Cats are noticeably absent as factors. A 1988 study by the University of Georgia blamed forest fragmentation across Southern U.S. for decimating songbirds. A Colorado Wildlife Dept. study in 1994 blamed drought. National Geographic lined declines to poisons in environment, particularly lawn care products.

4. TNR actually helps meet the goals of Mr. Wildlife Degree because... (Here I would note all the reasons I mentioned in past posts, which I won't repeat here, about the alternative being do nothing, meaning cats are breeding, roaming and foraging for food, I would note that neutering significantly reduces roaming which means less contact with wildlife, and I would note that even if the cats were killed, other cats would move in to fill their territorial void left by cats). Less cats, controlled feeding, means less hunting. Here, you might also note that many studies have found that upwards of 75% of birds killed by cats are non-native starlings which compete with native birds for habitat, so that the net effect of cat predation may actually be complementing the goals of native species advocates.

5. Where does it end? If we must kill cats because they kill birds, where do we draw the line? (Some think this argument is silly, but I have found it very useful, as the media tend to like it a lot.) A lot has been written about the supposed controversy surrounding feral cats, much of it of dubious value. Common sense, not statistics or hard-line arguments, could have pointed the way, as it did as early as 1949 when then-Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois, vetoed a bill to restrain cats: “We are all interested in protecting certain varieties of birds. That cats destroy some birds, I well know, but I believe this legislation would further but little the worthy cause to which its proponents give such unselfish effort. The problem of cat versus bird is as old as time. If we attempt to resolve it by legislation who knows but what we may be called upon to take sides as well in the age old problems of dog versus cat, bird versus bird, or even bird versus worm. In my opinion, the State of Illinois and its local governing bodies already have enough to do without trying to control feline delinquency.†So why, 50 years later, is Mr. Wildlife Degree still belaboring the point?

6. Indigenous vs. non-native wildlife. Mr. Wildlife Degree's proposal to round up and kill cats because they are “non-native†is based on a troubling belief: value comes from lineage, and worth as a species stems from being here first. The belief that some species of animals are worth more than others because they were here first is backward thinking and shortsighted. But it is hardly surprising. The call for extermination of animals in the name of protecting others deemed more worthy by some arbitrary standard is not new. “Cats kill birds, so we must kill cats.†This is the banner under which Mr. Wildlife Degree and other native species advocates have long rallied to label cats as “pests†of our cities and “invasive non-native†intruders in our parks and countryside.

But cats aren't the only ones to be targeted for slaughter in the name of protecting other species or preserving “native†habitats. They have been joined at different times and in different places by red foxes, gulls, cowbirds, elk, sea lions, coyote, mountain lions, ravens, skunks, raccoons, wild horses... the list goes on. Referred to as “garbage animalsâ€,“alien†species, “weedsâ€, and “verminâ€, these creatures have become scapegoats for the massive habitat destruction, environmental degradation, and species extinction causes by one species and one species alone: humans.

For nativists, the point is clear: the lives of these animals don't count, and therefore they can and should be eliminated to protect more important species and to preserve “natural†environments. Had we honored and preserved life, had we treated all animals – cats, birds, and every other creature who shares our planet – with the respect they each deserve, we might have spared many of the species now lost forever.

To us, there are no “garbage†animals and slaughter and death aren't the tools we need to preserve life. To do that – to preserve the life of all animals – we believe we must honor and preserve the life of each.

I hope that is a helpful starting point.

And I can't believe any campaign that says a reason to forgo TNR in favor of killing cats is the chance that cats will be abused by cat-haters.

Take a severe stance against the abusers instead of fighting fellow animal lovers.

By suggesting that the answer for feral cats is death through euthanization (the implicit result of Animal Control "management"), these campaigns only reinforce the beliefs of cat-haters. They support the idea that cats are a "nuisance" instead of living creatures that deserve some fair treatment.

And they're worried about cats facing abuse from cruel humans?

Just for the sake of argument, maybe there should be a "Birds of Prey Indoors!" campaign decrying the threats of falcons, eagles, etc..., to other birds. I mean this only for perspective, but say you launched a campaign....

http://www2.ucsc.edu/scpbrg/Student/raptor.htm

Q: How much food does a peregrine falcon eat in a day?

A: A peregrine eats the equivalent of one quail-sized bird per day. We have documented the remains of more than 200 different species of prey in peregrine falcon nests. On a given day peregrine falcon might eat most of a pigeon, or part of a duck or two or more sparrow sized birds to meet its nutritional needs.

Click to expand...

And then, of course, it's important to protect them from cruel humans:

A: As recently as twenty years ago it was very common for golden eagles to be shot because ranchers thought they often killed lambs. Through education and awareness the practice of indiscriminately shooting eagles has largely been abandoned. However, poison baits intended for other predators kill many eagles every year incidentally. (In 1996 the U. S. Department of Agriculture Wildlife Services program, spent $20 million to kill 80,000 coyotes, 7,000 foxes, 1700 bobcats, 300 black bears, and 250 mountain lions in the 17 western states.

Click to expand...

Using the ABC methodology, peregrine falcons ALONE numbered about 180-200 breeding pairs in the late 90s. If each falcon just eats one bird per day, that means 150,000 to 300,000 birds are being eaten every year by peregrine falcons!!! Studies show that more than 200 different species of prey in peregrine falcon nests!!!

(Brought to you by the Falcons Indoors! campaign)

Anyway -- I love falcons, but it just goes to show how you can extrapolate information to any creature's detriment if you want to.

LOL. I like that Scott!!

Katie

Scott, Bravo! (And, thanks for both all of the hard work writing up counters to the ABC idiocy, and for the good humor of your Birds of Prey indoors concept!) I'll go check out the thread alluded to in THIS thread, now, and see if I can do some good there.

Hey, you know, I feed birds. I've participated in Bird Counts. I love seeing new species. One of the reasons why I do TNR, actually, is because doing TNR allows me to help birds AND to help cats -- nonlethally, effectively, and safely. I love TCS, but, it's occurred to me a few times now -- there are bird forums and there are "pest" forums there (often, mostly about those pesky squirrels -- which most people are not rounding up and "euthanizing" even so). There is a common ground that should be explored. I've been heckled off of active participation helping other birders find ways to avoid cat problems on one bird forum; that's a real shame, IMHO. Shouldn't there be somewhere safe for us nature-lovers who are not myopic?

Hey Linda...I love birds...in fact, my grandmother was a huge birdwatcher. I don't think you have to choose between cats and birds...and I think that a campaign along the lines of ABC's lends itself to domestic cats...but is unfortunately misguided when speaking about ferals. I always encourage people who adopt kittens or cats to keep them indoors...I think it is a movement that is catching on...but in the meantime, we still need to work humanely with the cats who can't live indoors. If they would join us in the campaign to spay/neuter it would help tremendously.

Katie