It seems that you are quite obsessed with statistics and a “mathematical approach.”

You are concentrating on the wrong numbers, though.

The number of documented rabies cases in cats relative to all cats in the US — probably not too important. Good that it is a small percentage, but not that relevant for rabies policy.

The probability of contracting rabies if interacting with a feral cat that might have rabies — also probably low, but irrelevant since rabies is usually fatal. The more important probability is whether you would get PEP treatment, which is 100%.

The most important thing from a public health perspective is what will minimize the probability that people will interact with animals that might be rabid. For many reasons, the answer to that question is not TNR.
1. TNR endorses feeding of feral cats in colonies, which maximizes the chance of interaction with wild animals that might be rabid.
2. When rabid animals are in an area and there are feral cat colonies, the feral cats become a point of contact through which humans could potentially become exposed. The actual risk of that exposure is not that important. Since rabies is fatal, we as a society don’t mess around with it.
3. TNR programs usually take away the right of cats to be lethally removed, which increases the total number of potential vectors out there.
4. TNR’d cats are almost never captured and administered rabies booster shots and records of vaccinations are almost never available in case of emergency, so if there is a possible rabies exposure, people are going to get PEP regardless of whether the cats were vaccinated or not.
5. Any pet animals that come into contact with feral cats that might themselves have been exposed to rabid animals are going to either have to have already had up to date rabies shots or be euthanized. That’s a horrible thing to happen to people’s pets. I don’t think that people care too much how small that risk is, it is a risk that shouldn’t be forced on people by feral cat enthusiasts.

This is why the CDC-endorsed Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control recommends that stray cats be “removed from the community.” This is what minimizes rabies risk, not TNR policies.

How do you think the math comes into play regarding Loews? The corporation decided the cats should be removed. Shouldn’t a property owner have that right? The cats were not euthanized but put somewhere else/relocated, and yet, so much drama from TNR advocates. How exactly does the math work here when people are bullied into TNR?

[Note to moderator's: Please delete my duplicate post above.]

Marcy – Yes, I do think statistics matter. There are many truly heartbreaking stories out there of individuals suffering from all kinds of diseases. Of course those afflicted with a specific disease and their loved ones will not be thinking in terms of statistics and we could use any one of those instances to make an emotional argument that we aren’t spending enough to address this particular disease or that particular disease. Statistics are an important tool to help us make more rational decisions when it comes to prioritizing how we allocate limited resources.

As for the peer-reviewed science, as I have said many times, there are indeed multiple instances that suggest that sterilize and return can be an effective way to reduce the number of outdoor cats (Longcore et al even lists them in their Conservation Biology paper). There are also many studies that highlight the limitations of that approach. While folks seem to scoff at the word anecdotal on this forum, these studies are indeed anecdotal in nature. They are useful in knocking down the absolutist claims that “TNR works” or “TNR doesn’t work” and they provide useful information about how and why it does or doesn’t work in a particular situation.

There are very few studies that attempts to compare the effectiveness of lethal control versus non-lethal control in a scientific manner (i.e. randomly selected areas, statistically significant data sets, etc.) and those support the notion that this is indeed a mathematical problem, dependent on trap rates and other factors, which is what I have argued on this forum. I have never said that sterilize and return is “the way to go.” Non-lethal control can fail just as lethal control can fail if insufficient trap or kill rates are achieved. I’ve been a broken record on that point.

Taking a mathematical approach to this problem would not only allow for sterilize and return in those instances where it clearly had an advantage over traditional animal control, it would also force cat advocacy organizations to be more accountable and to help public officials create more structured frameworks for measuring the success of a project rather than giving the “blank checks” that Michael and others have lamented.

Yes, we need to take rabies seriously and yes, we have systems and technologies in place that have drastically reduced the threat of rabies in the U.S.. You want to paint a picture in which all animal rescue groups are in direct conflict with public health agencies when the reality is that they very often work together to proactively address this threat. If you read the very article that you posted to begin this thread, you would see an example of that.

You aren’t happy with the statistics because it is hard to scare the public to adopt the irrational policies people like you and Woodsman favor when the current threat is relatively benign. You’d prefer to ignore those statistics and mislead every mother into thinking that her their children are in imminent danger from any cats that might be in the area. When one excludes facts that don’t support the desired narrative, one is engaging in PR, not science.

Because you like to twist my criticsims of your absolutist approach into opposite extremes of their own, I’ll stress again that a reasoned, objective discussion of rabies must be a part of the dialogue on feral cats. Ongoing evaluation of feeding practices, vaccination practices, rabies response protocol, and other aspects of the issue will make sure that we continue to minimize this threat. Non-fatal impacts, such as the cost of post-exposure treatment (approximately 16,000 – 20,000 people a year) should certainly be factored in to the analysis. And even small increases of rabies in feral cats such as Ralph has noted warrant investigation. The last thing we need, however, is to make public policy decisions based purely on moral outrage and with a complete disregard for any statistical analysis that can help put various threats into a larger, more meaningful context.

Honestly, if we have professional scientists villifying the use of statistics to inform policy, God help us all.

Does this really matter Walter? I don’t think that a person who is bitten or scratched by an unknown cat that cannot be immediately captured is going to deliberate much on whether he/she should receive PEP.

The practice is not sound because the practice is not sound. No one on this blog has arrived at this conclusion simply because the method is criticized – there are legitimate criticisms and they span the fields of wildlife conservation and public health. Property rights are a legitimate concern. The welfare of the cats is a legitimate concern. If all of these things are affected then after 20 or 30 years of this practice that supposedly has a never-ending supply of volunteers and grant money, why do we not see a difference in the overall population? Why do we not see peer-reviewed research that has been published indicating that despite all these legitimate concerns/criticisms, TNR is the way to go?

This proves they are wild and native!!