Feral cat advocates are now arguing that cats are a “green”, non-toxic way to rid ourselves of rats and mice.  This ridiculous idea is right out of the Middle Ages–a time before modern traps, targeted toxins and refuse and food containers (that keep rodents from gaining access to human garbage, grain stores and other edibles) were far more useful as effective control agents than cats ever were.

Of course, cat advocates also do not mention that feral cats in the United States–even well fed ones– kill and eat millions of other native animals besides introduced rats and mice, including most notably migratory birds and various other small animals, some of which are threatened or endangered with extinction.  They don’t mention that rats and mice multiply far faster than cats can keep up with them, even if the cats were to focus their attention exclusively on rodents, which they don’t.

Feral cats are about as environmentally friendly as a major oil spill.  In fact, conservationists have lamented the loss of thousands of birds, including brown pelicans, to the Gulf oil spill, but feral cats are responsible for killing millions of native birds annually–an impact many times larger than that of the spill.  The cats are “green” movement is therefore another attempt by feral cat advocates to snooker the public into believing that the presence of these animals is beneficial to nature and humankind, when, in fact, if biodiversity conservation is our goal, then nothing could be further from the truth.

Perhaps even more incredible is their claim that cats–because they occasionally eat rodents–are protecting people against diseases carried by rodents, such as Hantavirus.  What they do not mention, however, is that feral cats themselves are carriers of serious diseases, such as rabies, toxoplasmosis, and feline leukemia, some of which can infect both humans and wildlife, such as sea otters and Florida panthers.

But my favorite quote from the above link from Green Cats is that “the feral cat provides a humane and environmentally friendly method of rodent control.”  Humane?  Humane for the cat, perhaps, but have these people ever watched a feral or domestic cat play with and kill its prey?  Guess not, because if they did, they would hardly classify it as humane.  Environmentally friendly?–Not with the skeletons of millions of dead birds and other small mammals killed by feral cats littering our parks and suburban neighborhoods.  Not with wildlife, such as sea otters, suffering from toxoplasmosis.

Michael Hutchins Environmental ethics, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife disease, Wildlife management, feral cats

Little Brown Bat with White Nose Syndrome, Greeley Mine (Credit: US Fish & Wildlife Service)

Research continues into the potential causes and remedies for White-Nose Syndrome, a dangerous and highly virulent infection afflicting bat species across the United States and Canada. The disease, which some scientists have speculated may be caused by Geomyces fungi, can be diagnosed by the presence of a characteristic white fungal growth on bats’ faces, legs, wings, or backs.

The disease was first discovered in February 2006 by cavers at Howe Cavern – a site about 34 miles west of Albany, New York – and spread quickly throughout the northeastern U.S. and Canada. By 2009, it had been identified in more than 9 states and two Canadian provinces with a mortality count of more than 1 million bats.

White-Nose Syndrome, which has exhibited up to 100% mortality in bat populations, is known to be spread by bat and human movements between caves; to limit transmission, hundreds of caving sites have been closed across the U.S., and cavers are being asked to disinfect all gear between every site visit. (Learn more about the new caving protocols from the National Speleological Society’s WNS website here.)

Understanding White-Nose Syndrome

White-Nose Syndrome strikes bat species indiscriminately, but has thus far has had the greatest effect on populations of the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), once among the most populous bat species in the U.S. Scientists now fear that Myotis could face extinction within the next 15 years if current trends in WNS spread continue.

The genus of fungus thought to be at the heart of WNS, Geomyces, is endemic to caves in western Europe, but recent research has demonstrated that it exhibits low mortality rates on the continent. This suggests that European bats may have an established a physiological or behavioral immunity to the fungus not yet present in American populations. (See the full CDC report here.)

Bats infected with WNS manifest few symptoms for up to 24 months; high rates of mortality appear in the 3^rd and 4^th years of affliction. Reports of cave floors “littered with dead bats” began in 2006, indicating that the fungus may have been introduced as early as 2004.

Precautions & Regulations

Amid concerns that cavers may inadvertently spread WNS, the US Fish & Wildlife Society has presented new caving protocols through the National Speleological Society. These can be found and downloaded here.

Learn More

To learn more about WNS, its spread, and how to help:

• U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Fact Sheet
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service WNS Fact Sheet
• Bat Conservation International’s WNS website, including a map of the disease spread.

Urgent Update: Cave Sites Closed in Rocky Mountain Region as WNS Spreads Westward

An emergency order issued by the US Forest Service on 27 July 2010 initiates a one-year closure of all caves and abandoned mine sites throughout National Forests & Grasslands in the Rocky Mountain Region of the US Forest Service. The temporary order, issued by Regional Deputy Forester Tony Dixon, has been made in response to the discovery of White-nose Syndrome in bat populations within 300 miles of the Pike and San Isobel National Forests in Colorado. Read the full text of the USFS Press Release here.

Alexandra Sutton US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wildlife disease, wildlife conservation bats, disease, white-nose syndrome, wildlife conservation

The Los Angeles Times and Baltimore Sun both ran stories about the possible connection between toxoplasmosis, a disease spread by feral and pet cats, and the development of schizophrenia in humans.  Of course, the connection between toxoplamosis, spontaneous abortion and birth defects in pregnant women is well known, but the connection with schizophrenia is a new twist.

Since feral cat advocates, such as HSUS and Alley Cat Allies, and pet cat owners don’t apprear to be swayed by the massive literature documenting the impact that cats have on our native wildlife, or by the many threats that these animals face when they venture outdoors (e.g. collisions with vehicles, predation by coyotes, and disease), perhaps they will be convinced by the serious health threat that cats can pose to their families, to themselves, and to their neighbors.  As carriers of both  rabies and toxoplasmosis, cats, particularly feral cats, may be looming as a major public health threat–one that CDC and other public health agencies need to pay far more attention to.

Michael Hutchins Wildlife disease, feral cats

In a recent editorial on his personal website/blog (Vox Felina), Peter Wolf spends an inordinate amount of time penning a long letter to me about feral cat management.  He takes issue with the fact that feral cats are a menace to wildlife and, although he is not a biologist himself, he also takes issue with the extensive and growing peer-reviewed literature on this topic that clearly indicates that they are.  He even questions the veracity of the peer review process.

I thought long and hard about writing a detailed response, but frankly decided I have many more important things to do, some of which may have a direct bearing on wildlife conservation. I’m going to let other wildlife professionals respond to his letter through this blog and just simply state the following:

Dear Peter:

(1) Please do not continue to attack the science in your personal blog. Anyone can say anything they want on the Internet, whether it is valid or not, but most people know that the source of information matters. If you feel strongly that you have valid data that contradicts that of the peer-reviewed literature on feral cats, then submit it for publication where it can be evaluated by experts in the field. I note that the Society for Conservation Biology’s editors apparently rejected one of your submissions, likely due to a lack of any scientific support for its conclusions. You can continue to suggest that you are the victim of some sort of conspiracy, but we all know that is not true.

(2) You point out some of the rare problems with the peer review process. All I can say is that cases of scientific misbehavior are very rare and dealt with in the most severe manner possible. The goal of science is to seek objective truth. Scientists have strong ethical guidelines on which to model their behavior; those who cheat will likely never work in the field or be taken seriously again. That is one reason that science is among the most self-correcting of all human endeavors. Charles Darwin once said: “Great is the power of steady misrepresentation. but the history of science shows how, fortunately, this power does not long endure.” Feral cat advocates should pay particular attention to the wisdom of Darwin’s statement.

(3) There is a reason why numerous highly-regarded professional and scientific societies and conservation organizations, including The Wildlife Society, the American Society of Mammalogists, the Wildlife Disease Association, Audubon, American Bird Conservancy, and many others (even including  PeTA, one of the most radical of animal rights groups) reject TNR management due to: (a) the well-documented impact of non-native feral cats on native wildlife, (b) the dangerous diseases they can spead to both humans and wildlife,  and (c) the fact that the lives of free roaming cats are substantially shorter than cats kept indoors under human care.

(4) Professional biologists, ecologists and conservationists do not hate cats, as you and some other cat advocates try to portray. In fact, we have great respect for life and nature and have dedicated our entire lives and careers to ensuring a future for native wildlife and their habitats in a world dominated by human influences. We recognize that feral cats are one of those negative influences that must be addressed if our native wildlife, including many endangered species,  are to have a future. TNR has not been effective in reducing the number of cats or their impact on wildlife, and it is clearly time for things to change.

Michael Hutchins Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife disease, feral cats, invasive species, wildlife conservation

A coalition of scientific societies, including The Wildlife Society, American Fisheries Society, Society for Conservation Biology, and Society of Wetland Scientists, wrote a letter to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar to comment on the recent Inspector General’s (IG’s) report regarding the lack of a scientific integrity policy at the Department of the Interior (DOI). The letter addresses the importance of having an official scientific integrity policy in order to maintain the credibility of the scientific enterprise at DOI.

The IG report, released on 28 April 2010, said that the DOI never has had, and continues to operate without, a scientific integrity policy, despite the fact that science is key to the DOI mission of conserving our nation’s natural resources. The IG report noted that DOI has already found itself in situations in which there has been a need for a scientific integrity policy, but because it lacked such a policy, was unable to handle those situations properly and consequently garnered intense media and congressional scrutiny.

“The oil spilling daily into the Gulf of Mexico is stark testimony to the fact that the Interior Department needs all the help it can get in ensuring the integrity of the science on which it relies,” said John Fitzgerald, Policy Director of the Society for Conservation Biology. “The steps that we and the Inspector General recommend, when completed, will be steps toward a government we can trust. We hope we can help.”

Without a transparent and ethical process for dealing with scientific research and scientific conduct, the science that is performed at DOI may be called into question. This will not only harm the reputation of DOI, but will threaten the conservation of the nation’s treasured natural resources. To ensure that science is being used properly to implement natural resource decisions, science should not be suppressed, scientific misconduct should be punished, and scientists who report suppression or other scientific misconduct should be afforded whistleblower protections. Additionally, the science that informs natural resource decisions must be clear, transparent, and subject to independent peer review.

“Good science must be the basis for our decisions regarding natural resource management, or at the very least, it must inform us about the potential consequences of our actions should we choose to go in another direction,” says Michael Hutchins, Executive Director and CEO of The Wildlife Society. “Because the wise and sustainable management of our natural resources is critical for the future of humankind, scientific integrity is therefore something that our government should take very seriously.”

The coalition letter supports the recommendations provided in the IG report, including developing a DOI-wide scientific integrity policy and delegating a responsible official to guide the implementation and development of such a policy across various bureaus within the agency. The coalition also recommends creation of a DOI-wide policy that specifically addresses the need for independent peer review, and that the DOI use a transparent process to inform the public when disagreements between science and preferred natural resource policies exist. Finally, the coalition recommends that such a policy be developed with the participation of DOI science advisors, ethics officers, scientists, and the general counsel within DOI, and that a draft be available within the next several months for public comment.

jenna_jadin Deer Management, Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Wildlife disease, hunting

A press release by The American Bird Conservancy recounts several recent instances of Florida residents being bitten by rabid feral cats.  According to a local news broadcast on WFTV, “The health department’s theory is the disease could be spreading at feeding areas. People have put up shelters to feed cat colonies, but raccoons will finish off the food and spread rabies to the cats.”  TWS developed a technical report on the baiting and feeding of wildlife in 2006, and identified increased risks of disease transmission as one of the drawbacks of feeding stations.  Feeding stations artificially concentrate animals, thus increasing the risks of disease transmission. That’s apparently what’s happening with cat colonies managed under Trap-Neuter-Release or TNR.  ABC President, George Fenwick said: “feral cat colonies present an ongoing hazard to human health in communities where they are established as well as birds and other native wildlife.”  Of course, rabies is not the only disease potentially transmittable to humans–there’s also toxoplasmosis, cat scratch fever, and a variety of other maladies. 

If TNR advocates aren’t concerned about the future of our native wildlife, then perhaps human health concerns will get their attention–especially when feral cat colony managers themselves start getting bitten. Given their propensity to reject science and conservation in their short-sighted focus on the “rights” of individual cats, I tend to doubt it. However, federal and state agencies, and municipalities need to take notice of this growing human health concern.  Government has a responsibility to not only protect native wildlife, but also to protect their citizens. Just another one of many legitimate arguments against TNR management of feral cats.

Michael Hutchins Human Dimensions of Wildlife Management and Conservation, Uncategorized, Wildlife disease, invasive species

The Galapagos Islands (Ecuador) are one of the natural wonders of the world. Made famous by Charles Darwin, this enchanted archipelago, located 600 miles off Ecuador’s Pacific coast,  is home to some of the world’s most unique wildlife, including giant tortoises, marine iguanas, and flightless cormorants. 

For decades, the island’s native wildlife has been threatened by a hoard of non-native interlopers, including rats, cats, dogs, and goats.  Recent efforts to radicate these destructive exotics have been very successful in reestablishing native flora and fauna. But a new and dangerous threat is emerging: exotic diseases carried by introduced mosquitos.   

There is great concern that the southern house mosquito could spread throughout the Archipelago, bringing with it diseases, such as West Nile virus, avian malaria and avian pox.  New research has shown that this mosquito species frequently travels to and between the islands on planes and boats.  Introduction of this same species has had devastating effects on Hawaii’s avifauna, so there is cause for concern. 

Much of the airline and boat traffic is a result of the tourist industry, which is currently growing at about 14% per year. The Ecuadorian government recently established a requirement for insect spraying to occur on all airlines flying into the Galapagos, but scientists have pointed out that the scheme is not monitored for effectiveness and the rule does not apply to cargo ships.  This has increased the risk of future introductions. 

Emerging diseases and their vectors are a major risk to native wildlife in our contemporary world, where both people and animals can travel virtually anywhere on the planet within a few days.  It is certainly an issue that wildlife veterinarians and biologists, and the travel industry need to pay more attention to.

Michael Hutchins Wildlife disease, endangered species, invasive species

Resources on White-Nose Syndrome:

To see the joint oversight hearing on “White-Nose Syndrome: What’s Killing Bats in the Northeast?” held June 4th by The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, go to http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=27&extmode=view&extid=259 and click on Archived Video.

To see a video about White-Nose Syndrome created by Ravenswood Media for the US Forest Service and USFWS, go to http://www.vimeo.com/4894773.

In H.R. 2966, the House Committee recommends that USFWS use a portion of the $295,127,000 desginated for ecological services to work with USGS to research White-Nose Syndrome.  For full bill, go to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.2996:

shannon Policy, Wildlife disease, Wildlife films appropriations, white-nose syndrome

A new study by the Wildlife Conservation Society and reported  in The Guardian suggests that not only humans are threatened by cancer; wildlife can be affected too.  There has been increasing interest in the new field of conservation medicine and the results suggest that the monitoring of disease processes in wildlife populations will be a critical component of future conservation efforts. 

Entire species of wildlife can be threatened by cancer, as evidenced from the recent outbreaks of facial tumor disease in Tasmanian devils, the largest extant marsupial carnivore.  This contagious form is likely caused by viruses that are spread through physical contact, as occurs in fighting.  Others are induced by cancer-causing chemical pollution. Beluga whales in the St. Lawrence River system, for example,  have a high rate of intestinal cancer, thought be related to their exposure to polycyclic aromatic compounds, a well-known human carcinogen.

Michael Hutchins Wildlife disease, endangered species, wildlife conservation

One of the most important functions of professional and scientific societies, like The Wildlife Society (TWS), is to recognize excellence in the wildlife profession.  The Northest Section of TWS recently honored the West Virginia Department of Natural Resources’ Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Response Team for their work in monitoring and controlling spread of the disease in the state’s deer population.  DNR assistant chief Paul Johansen called the award “prestigious, and even more meaningful because it comes from peers.”  It is gratifying to know that both state and federal wildlife and natural resources agencies view recognition by TWS in such a positive light.  It clearly reflects the close and supportive  relationship that exists between TWS and state, provincial and federal agency personnel.  It also reflects TWS’ efforts to embrace the whole of the wildlife profession, including those that work on both game and non-game species.   Such efforts are highly interrelated and interdependent, as the future of both endangered and common wildlife species both depend on habitat.

Michael Hutchins Deer Management, Wildlife disease, Wildlife management, wildlife conservation