Urgent Alert!

Monica...I have to agree with Scott. ABC and the Audiboun Society have made it very clear that in their mind...ALL cats should either be in sanctuaries or indoors or euthanized. Estimates range on exactly how many feral cats there are living in the USA so I'm not even going to go there...but there certainly are NOT enough sanctuaries to place all the feral cats.

Katie

Katie... I'm sure the Audubon Society has made that their goal... But considering they are Bird Advocates, I think it's pretty clear why they have that stance and really for them to have any other stance would be hypocritical of them.

It's not reasonable or realistic to expect that one could accomplish their goal any time soon... but... to assess that it can't be done at all, will guarantee that it never will be done. Having Wildlife Parks dedicated to feral cats isn't such a bad idea... Though it's likely that if a person visited the park they wouldn't actually see a cat there. Darn shy ferals!

To suggest that the Audubon hasn't shown the world how to raise cash by the truckload to fund the upkeep of a sanctuary just isn't true. They have 68,000 members in my state alone. That's a minimum of $1,700,000.00 a year from the minimum $25/yr membership dues.

I don't think one shelter could raise that kind of cash. But I do think a network of shelters who combined their efforts for just for marketing and fundraising purposes could.

One thing you do which is great is promote other groups efforts... And I everytime I go to another website they link to another 3-4 websites that I haven't seen somewhere else... It'd be good to have a central site that links to local TNR groups in your state and links to good articles on the subject.

Monica...I think this will be an interesting read for you:

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.

To suggest that the Audubon hasn't shown the world how to raise cash by the truckload to fund the upkeep of a sanctuary just isn't true. They have 68,000 members in my state alone. That's a minimum of $1,700,000.00 a year from the minimum $25/yr membership dues.

Click to expand...

What Scott was saying..and I agree with him..is that they do not put their money where their mouth is...they have contributed ZERO to "feral cat" sanctuaries. They merely suggest that to be an option...but do nothing concrete as a sign of good faith that they want to be part of that solution. So what they want is for the cat people to set it up and for them to bless it...that is a rediculous stance..and one that hasn't gone very far. Certainly funds could be raised...but Alley Cat Allies and other feral cat groups...would rather use funds raised to neuter cats..I have to say..I agree with them.

Katie

Yes, this is what she says over on the Americancat site:

Conservation organizations say "TNR is wrong" or "TNR doesn't work" or "if it's in the trap, put it down" but offer no physical options and seem to be entirely unaware of the legal risks of euthanizing free-roaming cats that could belong to someone (a lost pet). They seem unaware of the cost of maintaining a cat in a sanctuary. They offer no physical guidance other than to insist the animal care and control should kill feral cats or put them in sanctuaries.

They do not fund domestic animal control research. They do not offer pamphlets on how to humanely trap and euthanize a cat, or how to build and finance a sanctuary. They offer no legal guidance on when it might be legal to kill a cat and when it is not. They say only "call your local shelter" when many areas have no local shelter, or the local shelter may in fact offer only TNR. They say "feral cats should be humanely removed" but don't mention this likely means euthanasia.

Click to expand...

She doesn't say that conservation groups don't know how to run "a" sanctuary. She says that they don't understand the cost of keeping a cat in a cat sanctuary...which makes sense. Her point (as Katie mentions) is that many of these groups -- particularly ABC -- say things like "we just want cats indoors," or "we just want them placed in a sanctuary." All of these simple, seemingly friendly "solutions."

But they're not solutions from a practical point of view. I might as well say, "yes, I love coyotes. I don't want to get rid of coyotes. I just believe all of the existing coyotes should be placed in sanctuaries or humanely removed."

Let's dispense with the euphemisms.

Humanely removed = killed.
Every single animal placed in sanctuaries = impossible or unlikely.

Unfortunately, with statistics claiming anywhere from 40-70 million feral cats (depending on who you quote), we're all very conscious that sanctuaries are not the solution. Even ABC knows that. But it's more politically friendly to say "humane" and "sanctuary" and "indoors" than to say "eradicate," and "kill" and "exterminate."

Which is the sum result of "removal."

So....let's look at this from the practical point of view. ABC and Conservation groups can be fairly certain that an entire movement isn't going to start to trap and house 40-70 million cats. Therefore, they aren't going to spend much energy in trying to make it happen. They already know it's not going to happen.

What they're proposing is what we already have: maintenance. Kill the obvious animals and shut down the TNR groups (who are the only grassroots groups truly doing something about feral cat population control).

Our area is a good example. Our Animal Control officer is part-time. Who is going to carry out the extermination campaign? No one. Does Animal Control respond to stray cat complaints? Rarely, if ever. There are no laws governing cats, and cat could simultaneously be considered "wildlife" or "domestic."

So who is doing anything about population control? You could argue that "maybe" some homeowners that dump strays and ferals on the shelter. But in the absence of their random drop-offs...the only people that are conscientiously working to solve the overpopulation problem are the TNR groups.

One thing you do which is great is promote other groups efforts... And I everytime I go to another website they link to another 3-4 websites that I haven't seen somewhere else... It'd be good to have a central site that links to local TNR groups in your state and links to good articles on the subject.

Click to expand...

Monica..agreed...I'm still working on that...problem is...many, many groups that deal with TNR don't have a website...it's all word of mouth. I've captured the ones in Virginia that do....but you are right...a resource that had EVERYTHING would be nice.

Katie

P.S. I really like that you are asking the tough questions. BTW...my grandmother was a huge birdwatcher..so I can respect bird advocates...but both TNR groups and bird advocates are after the same goal...fewer cats...we just need to also agree on more solutions than the few that they are willing to accept. A balance must be struck.

Originally Posted by Scott77777

I agree with the last half of this statement (hence, one reason why "kill" programs don't work - many property owners don't want to actively go out and have animals killed). But why are you conflicted in having him neutered?

Click to expand...

I have 0 conflicts about the neutering part... That's the part I'm certain I want done!

I live in a Townhouse that I rent. Our "neighborhood" is filled with a bunch of small single family houses that are kind of right on top of each other. My townhouse complex is really an oddity in this neighborhood. The alleycats website has a great document on how to start a feral community that isn't a nuicance to neighbors... but really... there is no place to put such a thing near me that isn't either dangerous for the cats because it's on the street... or a nuicance to multiple neighbors.

My concerns are more with the trapping and releasing. We have squirrels, skunks, raccoons, and sometimes (though I haven't seen one this year yet) opossums... and this one unspayed male. No one is feeding this cat... and though I'm not possitive, I think his attraction to my back yard is the indoor cat 3 doors down who may be an unspayed female. I haven't seen either of the two girls who live there to ask yet, but I think I heard her crying at the door Friday night when the boy was out there. It might have been Animal Planet though too... so I'm not positive on that yet.

My concern is attracting more skunks, raccoons, cats, etc. into my back yard in the process of trying to trap this guy. The skunks stunk up my neighborhood many a night last summer and I've seen them twice recently hanging out around my basement bulkhead! What if I end up trapping something other than the cat?

The cat wouldn't be an issue, except that at least one of my cats (Audrey weighing in at 16 lbs) is Extremely territorial. It's bizarre really... she's so friendly with my other cats to see her so aggressive towards another cat is just plain wierd. And when she can't kill that boy because the screen or glass is in her way... she goes after one of my other cats. Isabelle has a nice claw mark on her back and Zoey's gotta good scratch on her head right now and both are ultimately because this cat's been on my back stairs. I don't want my back yard to become this guys territory... as according to Audrey, it's her territory... Thankfully she can't see the cat 3 doors down, else it'd be trouble year round!
-

Well...the way that I see it...you have 1 male cat that you have seen...there may be others..and if he is the only outdoor cat in your neighborhood..then you are lucky. I think Scott can address the question about trapping other animals....with regards to attracting more cats...someone is obviously feeding him or he wouldn't be there..he'd move on. As far as I see it...trap and fix and return him now=no chance for him to cause unwanted litters. Don't trap him and you may risk there to be kittens.

Katie

My concern is attracting more skunks, raccoons, cats, etc. into my back yard in the process of trying to trap this guy. The skunks stunk up my neighborhood many a night last summer and I've seen them twice recently hanging out around my basement bulkhead! What if I end up trapping something other than the cat?

Click to expand...

If you can see one feral, then you probably have more. Let's put it this way: when I started this endeavor in my neighborhood, I had about 4-5 cats that I would see (a mother and kittens). Currently, we've trapped 22 cats and a neighboring TNR advocate has supposedly done 70 or more. They come out at night and you won't typically see them (even when searching for them).

Now...what's the answer? Certainly, starting the process is the best thing you can do. Maybe they're aren't five. Maybe it **is** one. Maybe it's more. But there is much to be said for moving things in a positive direction. If neighbors get annoyed by a spraying male, mating behaviors, or fighting, they'll simply resent the cats. That situation drives neighbors into two groups: the animal lovers and the people who just want to get rid of them. You can help avoid that situation by getting involved early. That's a good thing!

Are you going to catch "non-target" animals? Maybe, but that's unlikely if you're "good" about trapping: you should be trapping on a schedule. Most cats will return to the same place at the same time of day -- dawn or dusk. I would *not* leave a trap out overnight (and I never do). Of 22 cats, I've never caught anything BUT what I was trying to catch. And there are (0) new kittens this year in our colony.

Will the food attract other animals? Only if you leave it out all of the time or overnight. We have a neighbor who has been trapping animals on his property (well...let me rephrase that...technically, our complex property in an area that borders his). He lives on 1/10th acre that is mostly paved. Yet he has a problem with animals. Amazing, right? Well, it doesn't help that he leaves his traps set with food 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Surprise!

But if you know the cat comes around in the evening, then set the trap from 6pm - 10pm. You're unlikely to catch a skunk or raccoon at that time, and you should be monitoring the trap every hour or two anyway.

What if you do?

I would get a Tru-Catch or Tomahawk trap. The type with a rear release door (check the model description - these manufacturers offer a 1-door and 2-door model with the same trap):

http://www.animal-traps.com/36.htm

The rear release doors are opened VERY easily, and can release any animal that you don't want to catch. They'll probably run away pretty fast. The only issue is a skunk. You don't want to get sprayed. There are covers you can buy for certain traps or you can use a shower curtain ($1.99) or something to cover part of the trap while you release the animal (the Tru-Catch trap design has an easier rear-release door).

As stated, it's unlikely you'll be attracting those animals unless you're leaving the trap out all of the time, which you shouldn't be.

As for feeding: the best way of countering skunks if someone is feeding is to elevate the food. Skunks can't jump (that I know of). The best way to deal with raccoons is to restrict feeding to the daytime.

If neighbors are feeding or have unspayed animals, it doesn't hurt to go and nicely talk to them. You don't have to attack them...just be friendly and see what they have to say. If they're feeding and they absolutely insist on it or get defensive, try to compromise: see if they'll at least elevate the food or restrict feeding to a daytime schedule.

If they have an unspayed female, ask them if you can help them find a veterinarian that will do it inexpensively.

Originally Posted by TNR1

What Scott was saying..and I agree with him..is that they do not put their money where their mouth is...they have contributed ZERO to "feral cat" sanctuaries. They merely suggest that to be an option...but do nothing concrete as a sign of good faith that they want to be part of that solution. So what they want is for the cat people to set it up and for them to bless it...that is a rediculous stance..and one that hasn't gone very far. Certainly funds could be raised...but Alley Cat Allies and other feral cat groups...would rather use funds raised to neuter cats..I have to say..I agree with them.

Click to expand...

That's because their interest is in Birds, not cats. They and their members are not interested in being part of the solution. Their only interest in cats is to have them not be in the parks they spent money to have birds in. That is the extent of their obligation to the feral cat issue. This is up to the cat people. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for help from the bigger established wildlife organizations... they have their members they are beholden to.

And I completely agree that shelters should spend the majority of their resources on the cats... which is why in order to minimize costs these shelters need to work together and pool their resources. The more contributing member shelters... the less the cost per shelter. That's what the Audubon Society does... they have at least one chapter in each state that raises money under the umbrella of the Nationwide organization. It's also similar to the car dealership marketing scheme.... TV spots for car brands are paid for by local dealerships who pool their money to get the spots on the air. They get better spots that are spaced out better then they would if they individually bought uncoordinated spots.

Originally Posted by TNR1

Monica..agreed...I'm still working on that...problem is...many, many groups that deal with TNR don't have a website...it's all word of mouth. I've captured the ones in Virginia that do....but you are right...a resource that had EVERYTHING would be nice.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a job for Katie, Web Designer!!! I went back out to your site... you're doing a great job out there! I'm very excited for you!

Originally Posted by TNR1

P.S. I really like that you are asking the tough questions. BTW...my grandmother was a huge birdwatcher..so I can respect bird advocates...but both TNR groups and bird advocates are after the same goal...fewer cats...we just need to also agree on more solutions than the few that they are willing to accept. A balance must be struck.

Click to expand...

Yeah my parents are big bird watchers now too... but they had an indoor/outdoor declawed cat who brought some birds and other creatures home in his day! I think there are folks who fall on both sides of the fence simultaneously. And now there are more cat households than dog households.

And I can't help but ask tough questions... it's my nature. I have to know why for everything!

Originally Posted by TNR1

Well...the way that I see it...you have 1 male cat that you have seen...there may be others..and if he is the only outdoor cat in your neighborhood..then you are lucky. I think Scott can address the question about trapping other animals....with regards to attracting more cats...someone is obviously feeding him or he wouldn't be there..he'd move on. As far as I see it...trap and fix and return him now=no chance for him to cause unwanted litters. Don't trap him and you may risk there to be kittens.

Click to expand...

It didn't even occur to me to wonder why he keeps coming back here until Friday when I thought I heard my neighbors cat. I will definitely be asking more questions about their cat and if she's unspayed I'll ask her to get her spayed and if she complains I'll offer to throw her a few bucks to help out.... This cat's a real cutie btw. It's a pastel calico... I should take a picture sometime since it sits in the back window all day and night. The boy is a brown/grey striped tabby with white paws... he's kinda cute too really. Shy around people though. I think I made him feel threatened the first night I saw him though so now he sees me and leaves. (nice work eh? dumb dumb dumb!) But I don't think anyone is feeding him. I actually doubt anyone knows he's been around but me since he's been coming between 3-5am. The only reason I knew about him was because of Audrey's noisyness and some other cat screaches.

The skunks and raccoons are out anywhere between 8-10pm... I always seem to be coming home between these hours on Sundays and that seems to be wildlife time in my back yard. Though tonight they were all a no-show!

Yeah my parents are big bird watchers now too... but they had an indoor/outdoor declawed cat who brought some birds and other creatures home in his day! I think there are folks who fall on both sides of the fence simultaneously. And now there are more cat households than dog households.

Click to expand...

Ah...but there's the rub....see...mixing the issue with owned cats. Owned cats do kill birds...but we aren't talking about that...we are talking about unowned cats that are wild.

Most organizations in the USA promote indoor cat ownership.

And when you are talking about shelters pooling resources...I'm thinking you are again talking about owned cats...or people adopting cats.

Feral cats are a completely separate issue. Feral cats are more comparible with cougars in the sense that they provide for themselves and do not trust humans. Of course..even that comparison is a stretch because many ferals do rely on humans for feeding. My point was simply to say..they are not your domesticated tabby.

There are actually 3 subtype of cats:

Outdoor cats owned
Outdoor cats strays
Outdoor cats feral

Lumping them all together or saying they can be treated in the same manner is an inaccurate statement.

Also...due to the fact that there are 3 subtypes..and that ferals do a marvelous job of hiding from us...it is hard to gauge the actual number of ferals that there are....I choose not to say any figure because to me as a cat lover 40-70 million=cats that need fixing...to a bird lover that is 40-70 million=bird predators..and we simply do not know. Studies are also difficult to gauge as well....you never know from watching any one colony if those findings can be replicated elsewhere. What is true is that feral cats need our help...they need to be fixed...they need an advocate. They are trying to survive...just as their big counterparts are trying to do (cougars, lions etc.). When a group does TNR...they not only prevent the possibility of more ferals through litters...they also can provide good research. The controversy of how best to deal with feral cats will not end any time soon...but I can say this...I am grateful to all who do TNR work....because before the only option for a feral cat was death...and that really is no option at all.

Katie