What “science”? Two studies most often quoted to support holding feral cats responsible for the declinen in songbirds are the Churcher/Lawton study and “The Wisconsin Study” by John Coleman and Stanley Temple. Both studies are severely flawed in their methodology. Humans pose a much greater threat to wildlife in general. Look at the tragic wolf killing by helicopter going on in Alaska and the annual seal hunt on Nova Scotia’s Hay Island. Development causing habitat reduction and use of pesticides post a much greater threat to birds than feral cats.

Understanding Cats and Predation
From Alley Cat Allies website © 2000. Reprinted with permission.

While many studies have shown that cats do not have a detrimental impact on wildlife on continents, there are several who feel that cats are to blame for the depletion of songbirds and other animals. Two studies most often quoted are the Stanley Temple study and the Churcher /Lawton study. Some groups use these studies in misguided effort s to discredit our work to humanely control feral cats. Over sixty studies have been done on different continents all showing three very important points:

• Cats are opportunistic feeders, eating what is most easily available. Feral cats are scavengers, and many rely on garbage and hand-outs from people.

• Cats are rodent specialists. Birds make up a only small percentage of their diet when they rely solely on hunting for food.

• Cats may prey on a population without destroying it. If this weren’t so, we would no longer have any mice around.

Even though some cats can become efficient hunters and do kill birds, many international biologists agree that only on small islands do cats possibly pose a severe threat to the wildlife populations. They agree with biologist C.J. Mead that “Any bird populations on the continents that could not withstand these levels of predation from cats and other predators would have disappeared long ago…”

And finally, while many concentrate their efforts on blaming cats, the real culprit homo sapiens, goes free; continuing the destruction of habitat, hunting and killing, and using pesticides that endanger entire populations of wildlife, including millions of birds. The following is a collection of opinions from experts who have studied predation and who do not lay the blame on cats.

What are the citations for your “science” that TNR does not work? In what areas were the studies conducted? I firmly believe that one CAN be both a conservationist and a feral cat supporter. There are major successes in TNR in urban areas, with entire colonies being sterilized and stabilized, yet many arguments on bird kill are based in wildlife areas. Why not go after the people that abandon cats – it’s already against the law. Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

Sue and Cheryl, I am, of course referring to the peer-reviewed article recently published by Travis Longcore and his associates (Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. M. Sullivan. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap–neuter–return. Conservation Biology 23(4):887-894.), which reviews all of the reputable studies on the impact of TNR on feral cat populations worldwide. Combined with the other studies done over the years, which clearly show a massive impact on native wildlife, I do not believe that you can be both a conservationist and a feral cat supporter simultaneously. Cats will kill wildlife regardless of how well they are fed. In addition, new studies (yet to be published) by USGS (on the transmission to sea otters of toxoplasmosis from feral cat colonies in CA) and wildlife centers (on injuries to wildlife by feral cats), will, I predict, put an end to the idea that TNR is a win-win situation for wildlife and cats. Wildlife clearly loses, and that’s why The Wildlife Society, an organization representing over 9,000 wildlife professionals endorses strong efforts to control feral cat populations. One can respect individual cats’ welfare AND wildlife by employing live-trapping and euthanasia, a method touted by the AVMA and others as a caring and humane method of feral cat population management. Note also that keeping cats indoors is actually better for the cats! In a recent study, 42% of the diet of coyotes in the Tuscon, AZ region was made up of cats. It is also better for wildlife, such as mirgatory birds and small mammals, millions of which meet horrible deaths as the result of predation by feral cats every year. I find it inconceivable that one can call themselves an animal rights or welfare advocate and sit by and tolerate the carnage that feral cats perpetuate on our native wildlife each year. It is just one more human-caused stressor that wildlife must endure. Add that to habitat loss and fragmentation, pollutants, and climate change, and you have a recipe for disaster. I absolutely agree that we must educate cat owners and provide more legislation that limits pet cats going out of doors (which we do for dogs). While that would help, it is not going to solve the problem.

@Sheryl

Sheryl: please specify how the Coleman and Temple study is “flawed?”

IER: Yes, I’d like to know that as well. By the way, another devastating article has been published questioning the effectiveness of TNR and evaluating the impacts of feral cats on native wildlife. See Dauphine, N. and Cooper, R.J. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Proc. of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics: 205-219. This article contains ample evidence of the impacts that feral cats are having on wildlife. TNR’s days are numbered as the implication of these findings under the Migratory Bird Protection Act and Endangered Species Act will finally be considered. TNR is illegal under federal law and must be stopped.

Although TNR continues to be discredited, it continues to be implemented. The Erie County Humane Society, already having city codes changed within Sandusky, OH to allow free roaming cats, has moved on to “solve” the feral cat problem in Milan, OH using TNR. What has TNR done to the cat problem in Sandusky? May I see the data? How is it working? Where IS your data? The cat people don’t need any data. They know. That is why its so funny to always see and hear these cat people talk about “data” and say this study or that study was flawed. You ask them to defend their position or offer supporting evidence and they disappear from the discussion.

Ty: I suggest that you read the Dauphine and Cooper article I cited above. Here’s three powerful quotes:

“As it stands now, traditional animal control methods, including removing unclaimed, stray and feral animals from the environment, remain the most effective way to control populations of free-ranging domestic animals, including cats.”

“Unfortunately, neither the lack of quantitative evidence that TNR significantly reduces cat populations nor the adverse animal welfare impacts has dissuaded many TNR advocates.”

“As it is, TNR is being legalized and funded in a growing number of cities and counties in the United States, in part because numerous false claims are made by TNR advocates in the popular media and these claims are often not refuted.”

TWS is trying to address this issue on a national level, but it has also commented on the issue in local municipalities as well, including Washington, DC and Los Angeles, CA.

It’s not a wildlife issue, it’s not an animal welfare issue, it’s an envirnmental and human health issue.Relative to Human health, cats harbor both external and internal parasites. The proliferation of ticks and fleas in the area is the most obvious problem but there are others. Cats are carriers of numerous diseases including rabies and toxoplasmosis. In fact, research shows that 80 percent of cats puncture bites to humans result in serious bacterial infections. Additionally, cat scratch fever, hookworms, and roundworms may be transmitted to other animals and people through scratches. Also, potential exposure to toxoplasmosis occurs as cats defecate in beach sand, gardens, and flowerbeds again possibly spreading disease to animals in the area.
Nationwide cats accounted for 54 percent of domestic animals found with rabies in 2005, compared with dogs at 16 percent, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , which is support by North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services that in 2009, cats are the most commonly affected domestic animals.
TNR programs boosts about getting feral cats vaccinated for rabies; however, this process is ineffective for several reasons. Many of the cats in a colony are not caught, thereby, not treated and the majority of the cats that get vaccinated will more than likely have only one treatment. According to N.C. DHHS Public Health Veterinarians, one vaccination is not enough.

Rocky: Feral cats and TNR touches on all of those issues–welfare environment, wildlife and human health, and that’s precisely why we must make every effort to remove feral cats from the environment. I totally agree with your concerns about human health. They are real. Toxoplasmosis is also affecting sea otters off the California coast. Thanks for your comment. Much appreciated.

TNR drastically reduces the number of feral/stray cats by the thousands every year. It’s easy to figure out. For every male & female cat couple will come 12 kittens annually. Pregnancy occurs 3 times per year and each litter of kittens averages out to be 12 in number. TNR prevents the birth of these kittens, which are potentially the enemy of the songbird. With thousands of kittens not being born there are all those songbirds not being killed. If the songbirds are very low in numbers then you can always create a songbird sanctuary in anyones own backyard. And as far as the humans health risks go, they can wash their hands and use hand sanitizer.

Animal Control Agencies are dealing with dog attacks, deer accidents, hoarders, and backyard breeders. They do not have the time to remove feral and stray cats effectively.

Lesslie Gresh :
TNR drastically reduces the number of feral/stray cats by the thousands every year. It’s easy to figure out. For every male & female cat couple will come 12 kittens annually. Pregnancy occurs 3 times per year and each litter of kittens averages out to be 4 in number. TNR prevents the birth of these kittens, which are potentially the enemy of the songbird. With thousands of kittens not being born there are all those songbirds not being killed. If the songbirds are very low in numbers then you can always create a songbird sanctuary in anyones own backyard. And as far as the humans health risks go, they can wash their hands and use hand sanitizer.
Animal Control Agencies are dealing with dog attacks, deer accidents, hoarders, and backyard breeders. They do not have the time to remove feral and stray cats effectively.

Rocky;

The only real serious diseases that feral/stray cats spread are mostly towards each other. Feline Aids (FIV) and Feline Leukemia, both viruses, are sometimes spread throughout a feral cat colony. Rabies is so rare and is usually more common in wild life. All outdoor animals have parasites and once TNR is done and good nutrition is provided the cats really maintain a very healthy life.

As far as toxoplasmosis spreading to the sea otters in California is very unfortunate and if this is caused only by outdoor cats than TNR is an excellent answer, because the caretakers of those colonies can always implement a litter pan program in order to get rid of feline waste before the rain washes any of the waste into the water.

Have we forgotten the the cat was “wildlife” at some time in the past?
A “feral” cat of today is usually a cat that was abandoned by the owner. I see them everywhere-they come for awhile and then they disappear-then new ones come and they disappear and on it goes…all of them are scared,
malnourshed, starved and sick. I see them often dead on the road. I wonder how many are deliberately ran over and I wonder at the life span of a cat, 6 months? 1 year? probably about 2 to 3 months for the abandoned “ferals” that I have seen. As for any disease I might catch from a cat-I will take my chances. Many diseases are spread by people. The disease I don’t want to catch is the disease of APATHY, INDIFFERENCE, INTOLERANCE, DISLIKE, HOSTILITY, CRUELTY toward the animals -especially toward the cat.

I am only One-But I am One
I cannot do everything, But I can do something,
And what I can do, I ought to do,
and what I ought to do, By the Grace of God, I will do. (author unknown)

Diane: The domestic cat was NEVER native to North America. It is an invasive species that kills our native wildlife. I understand and respect your compassion towards these animals, but it is misplaced. You’re right–these animals do not do well in the absence of human care. Feral cats die cruel deaths from disease and parasites, severe weather, collisions with cars and trucks, starvation, and from predators, such as coyotes. That is precisely why they are better off being live-captured and humamely euthanized. Even PETA, among the most strident of animal rights organizations, agrees with this approach. When it comes to animals, sometimes it is better to hasten death, rather than to prolong life at all costs, especially when the animals are suffering. Keeping them alive may make you feel better, but it does nothing to help the animals. In addition, what about the cruel fate of all the individual native animals they kill?

Cats are not native to North America, but according to the USDA, they do not qualify as an \invasive species,\ and I do not understand condemning a species because it is carnivorous. Cats principally prey upon small mammals: in the U.S., many of these ARE invasive species. Please refer to the letter written to Mr. Chanda, Director of the New Jersey Fish and Wildlife Division by research analysts of Unique Research. http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/NJDFWChandaLetter.pdf

The Coleman, Temple, Craven estimate of bird predation by cats was never a published study. They wrote several articles where they extrapolated data from the study, but they themselves label the estimates as \guesses.\ Please refer to \Addressing the Wisconsin Study,\ available in the cat predation section of the Stray Pet Advocacy website.

As to the Dauphine and Cooper piece you recommend, their work as it relates to the presentation of the cumulative predation of cats on birds is sadly lacking in any science or scientific method. \Data\ and scientific studies are misrepresented, and the estimate of \one billion birds,\ is, in fact, another misrepresentation, as the citation they use is admittedly a guess by its author and is it not presented as \scientific\ by the author himself. Please refer to the piece \One Billion Birds: Disputing the guess of Rich Stallcup as presented by Nico Dauphine and Robert J. Cooper in their article included in the ‘Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.’\ http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/PIFResponse1BillionBirds.pdf

Laurie: Not sure what to say to people who do not believe that feral cats are an alien species and who also have a quasi-religious conviction that these efficient predators are not impacting our native wildlife, except to say that the articles I have cited are peer reviewed and published in respected scientific publications, whereas the piece you refer to is a non-peer reviewed advocacy piece promoted by a pro-feral cat group with an obvious agenda. While everyone has a right to their opinion, The Wildlife Society, representing over 9,000 wildlife professionals and students, does not formulate its policy statements lightly. All I can say is that when people are making up their minds about this controversial subject, I hope they consider the source. I also believe that mainstream conservation organizations, state and federal government wildlife agencies, and scientific and professional societies will unite in opposition to the illegal practice of TNR, which violates the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Endangered Species Act and other legislation intended to protect our native wildlife and public health.

Michael, I didn’t say cats aren’t an alien species. I pointed out that according to the USDA Invasive Species Advisory Committee (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf), although an introduced species, cats do not meet the criteria to be defined as an invasive species, an important distinction.

I am by trade a senior research analyst; my evaluation of cat predation is based on the work of scientists and biologists as published in respected scientific peer-review journals. It considers the body of work, not individual studies.

My entire point is that people should consider the source, a subject on which I heartily agree with you. The pieces to which I refer in my earlier response include 1) a review of the scientific literature addressing claims made by the USFWS, New Jersey Field Office regarding feral cats, and 2) a review of the cumulative impact of cat predation as presented by Dauphine and Cooper (2009), a piece to which you refer readers.

There are many actual peer review studies out there – unlike the Dauphine and Cooper 2009 piece which you mistakenly credit as having been published in a peer-review journal. It was not; it was a presentation included in conference proceedings. In fact, this is a review work that merits investigation of the source material. I encourage people to refer to the citations used in the article, as data and information from the studies cited in that article were taken out of context, and their discussion of the cumulative impact of cat predation was ultimately sourced on a non-scientific guesstimate by Richard Stallcup, whose stated intent of the column (which Dauphine and Cooper cited) is to write a non-scientific opinion piece.

And let’s be clear about the AVMA position. The AVMA “neither endorses nor opposes appropriately managed cat colony programs.” I do not propose that TNR be established everywhere as an end-all-be-all solution, nor do I propose the removal of feral cats and euthanization as the end-all-be-all solution when it comes to the issue of feral cats. It is the position that one or the other is the best methodology in every situation, in every environment, that I question.

It is not clear that the practice of TNR violates the Migratory Bird Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act, and it is exactly these sweeping generalizations, representations, and statements to which I take exception. In fact, removal of the feral cat in some cases has been devastating to native wildlife; it is not always the best course of action (Tidemann et al. 1994, Courchamp et al. 1999, Fan et al. 2005).

I, too, hope that when people are making up their minds about this controversial subject they consider the source. I further hope they investigate the citations of the sources especially if the articles are review pieces. I believe that mainstream conservation organizations are in a position to facilitate the dialogue between TNR advocates, animal control authorities, and local, state and federal government agencies if they so choose. But that would require being willing to work toward solutions that are appropriate to the individual communities and particular environments for the betterment of our wildlife and our domestic animals… and this would require actually considering the science rather than focusing on directing public sentiment.

I stand by all of my previous comments. TNR is not successful in reducing feral cat populations (see Longcore et al. in Conservation Biology)and if ANY migratory birds or endangered species are taken by these supplemented colonies (and we know that they most definately are) then they do violate provisions of the ESA and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Feral cats do not belong in North America and we must do everything that we can to remove them, while also educating the public about the need to keep pet cats indoors.

If the cats, in whole, are doing such damage to our wildlife, what happens when the mouse, rat, and rabbit populations explode? What happens when the red fox populations take off? Red fox are a primary predator of nesting birds and bird eggs.

Without understanding the complexity of the biology of any given area, or the extent to which migrating birds or threatened or endangered species have a presence in any given area, it makes no (scientific) sense to insist upon the removal of feral cats. As it is, it makes no sense to insist upon their removal until the impact of that removal is at least reasonably understood. The passion of the wildlife “scientists” in targeting cats as enemy number one is antithetical to any serious scientific method, just as it is hypocritical to ignore scientific method yet accuse feral cat advocates of “ignoring science.”

Laurie argues that feral cats do not meet the definition of invasive species. Nice try, but not quite. Even if you take this particular committee as gospel, feral cats meet the definition:

“Invasive species are those that are not native to the ecosystem under consideration and that cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health.”

Feral cats are not native to North America. Check.
Feral cats cause harm to human, animal or plant health. Check. If you disagree with this statement, you really haven’t read the full body of research on this subject as you claim.

In her other writings (http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/PDF/NJDFWChandaLetter.pdf), Laurie attempts to argue that feral cats are not invasive because they don’t show up on invasive.org. Wrong. See here: http://www.invasive.org/species/subject.cfm?sub=3877

Laurie ignores the global invasive species database of the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), which lists domestic cats as invasive species throughout the world. Not only that, domestic cats been nominated as one of the 100 worst invasive species globally. Read for yourself here: http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=24&fr=1&sts=sss&lang=EN

So let’s not kid ourselves. Just because you can write a “report” with footnotes doesn’t mean you have any clue about the science here. Don’t try to fool yourself that there is any disagreement about this among ecologists that feral cats are problem and that they should be controlled efficiently and rapidly.

Laurie: You obviously have made up your mind and have a different opinion than the vast majority of highly trained wildlife professionals, as well as many caring animal welfare advocates. In my opinion, the feral cat impact deniers are just as bad as evolution and climate change deniers. Good luck with it, as I believe that just the opposite conclusion can be derived from a real understanding of ecology, predator-prey interactions, and the impact of other non-native species on our native wildlife and ecosystems. There is plenty of evidence to show that TNR does not work to reduce feral cat populations and that these non-native predators are having a significant impact on our native wildlife, particularly migratory birds and small mammals. Combined with other stressors, these impacts are accentuated. And, from your point of view, an even stronger argument for keeping cats indoors is the short lifespan these animals have. Keeping cats outdoors, even in subsidized colonies, is cruel and irresponsible, and essentially a form of pet hoarding. You can rationalize all you want, but those are the facts. TWS and its members will continue to speak the truth about feral cats.

Ecology Professor:

It’s not that I accept this particular committee as gospel, but it is the Invasive Species Definitions Subcommittee of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and thus should affect policy decision-making. The White Paper was written specifically to clarify the earlier definition that you are using. According to the White Paper:

Executive Order 13122 defines an invasive species as ‘an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.’ In the Executive Summary of the National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) the term ‘invasive species’ is further clarified and defined as ‘a species that is non-native to the ecosystem under consideration and whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.’ To provide guidance for the development and implementation of the NISMP, the National Invasive Species Council (NISC) and the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) adopted a set of principles outlined in Appendix 6 of the NISMP. Guiding Principle #1 provides additional context for defining the term invasive species and states ‘many alien species are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life.’ However some alien species (non-native will be used in this white paper because it is more descriptive than alien), for example West Nile virus, are considered invasive and undesirable by virtually everyone. Other non-native species are not as easily characterized…. This white paper is intended to provide a non-regulatory policy interpretation of the term invasive species by identifying what is meant, and just as important what is not meant by the term.

The White Paper further states:

Complications concerning the concept of invasive species arise from differing human values and perspectives…Invasive species are those that are not native to the ecosystem under consideration and that cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health. Plant and animal species under domestication or cultivation and under human control are not invasive species. Furthermore, for policy purposes, to be considered invasive, the negative impacts caused by a non-native species will be deemed to outweigh the beneficial effects it provides. Finally, a non-native species might be considered invasive in one region but not another. Whether or not a species is considered an invasive species depends largely on human values.

(http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/docs/council/isacdef.pdf)

And apparently you read the letter to Director Chanda too quickly. I wrote:

“The Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystems Health (www.invasive.org) is one among many agencies and information centers: it does include the domestic cat on its list of Invasive and Exotic Species of North America.” I clearly state that cats are included in the http://www.invasive.org list.

I am familiar with the IUCN database and its ‘Top 100′ list; did you read through the entire section in your link? The impact of feral cats as outlined by the ISSG indicates problems particularly in island or fragmented environments. The primary discussion is of island habitats, and areas of New Zealand and Australia, where it is understood there are problems. In the Impact Information section of location-specific-impacts, the only U.S. impacts listed are in Hawaii.

As the USDA ISAC points out in its clarification, because something (like a goat) is invasive in one region (such as islands in the Gulf of Mexico or certain areas of Hawaii) does not mean it should be considered invasive in another region.

The science indicates the problem is much more complicated than many indicate. Removal of the feral cat when there are declining bird or native wildlife populations has not always improved the situation (some references previously cited). You see it as black and white; I cannot draw the same conclusion.

Ecology Professor, I am sorry you find the need to resort to personal attacks rather than remain focused on the topics of discussion. I do not claim to be a scientist, but I am an analyst. I am paid to gather and analyze information and provide an informed opinion. This research we conducted on our own. But we did not rely on abstracts for our response to the USFWS. The most technical studies are the mathematical models, and given my training those are not overly difficult to understand. I do not claim to always be right, but you have not presented anything that would cause me to re-evaluate my interpretation of the situation.

Just wanted to let everyone know that TNR went before the Council of Milan, OH (a town located partially within Erie County) last Wednesday. It was passed.
If anyone wants to take some local action to start solving the feral cat problem in Erie County, join:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Eriecountycats/
This group was formed to support the precise position statement of the Wildlife Society and will take specific, member-driven actions.

Jason: That is sad, but it only goes to show that local governments are not getting the correct information on feral cats and TNR, or that they just don’t care about our native wildlife. More likely, they’re just trying to avoid controversy by taking the easy way out. Misunderstanding and misrepresentation about this topic abounds, as evidenced from Laurie’s remarks above. Hang in there. Help is coming. TWS is trying to bring together scientists and science who are united on this topic and we won’t stop until our government takes this critical threat to the future of our native wildlife seriously. Laurie is right about one thing–this is all about values. I for one, value our native wildlife vastly more than I value outdoor feral cat colonies. We can’t have both!!

@Laurie

Laurie —

1. You are seriously misinformed if you think that any respectable biologist would think that domestic cats are not invasive. You’ve got a bunch of words in your response, but none of them change that fundamental fact. So let’s move on.

2. If you had a heart problem, would you want to go to a cardiologist, or an analyst who had read the literature on heart disease and thought that she/he understood it? Just because you think you understand the words that are used in ecology doesn’t mean that you actually understand the discipline or have the background to put what you read in context. Your comment about \fragmented environments\ in your response to me actually makes this point. The very places were feral cat colonies are maintained, by and large, are in fragmented environments, that is, in urban and suburban habitats. The problem is somewhat diminished in wildland environments on mainland areas because there are often larger predators that can keep cats in check (e.g., coyotes). So by saying that there are problems with feral cats in \fragmented environments,\ you have acknowledged that they are a problem in urban and suburban landscapes. To help understand this, you should know that there is a long history in conservation biology of looking at natural areas in \hostile\ landscapes (e.g., within cities) as being habitat \islands.\ So when you acknowledge that cats can be a problem on islands you are in fact also recognizing that they can cause localized extinction (also known as extirpation) in fragments of natural lands in cities. There is a famous study on the canyons of San Diego that shows this point exactly. Cats are associated with elimination of native bird species, while coyotes are associated with decreased cat activity and persistence of more bird species. This paper is a classic in conservation biology because of its illustration of the mesopredator release phenomenon.

3. You’ve made the point that sometimes elimination of cats can allow expansion of their prey populations (e.g., of rats). This only happens in very simple food webs (e.g., on oceanic islands) where two conditions are true: a. The cats are actually affecting the population size of the prey species and b. There is no replacement factor to keep the prey species in check if cats are removed. These conditions are not met on mainlands and especially in urban areas. There is conclusive evidence that cats do not affect the overall population size of rats in cities. Period. No need to consider whether there are even alternative predators because cats simply do not affect rat population sizes in any substantial way. They may take a few juveniles, but the breeding adult population is left unaffected. Now, people may think cats are effective at controlling rat populations because rats might be less visible when cats are around, but the effective population size remains essentially the same.

4. Yes, the ISSG species account is weak on North American examples, but it was written by someone from New Zealand so this is not surprising. Pointing this out is a classic tactic of feral cat impact denialists. They point to some absence of mention of something as evidence that there is no impact. Just because the ISSG species account doesn’t have a record of impacts in a particular location doesn’t mean that they aren’t occurring.

5. You previously criticized the proprietor of this blog for referring to the Dauphine and Cooper article as being peer reviewed. You claimed it was only published in a conference proceedings. What you may not know is that conference proceedings are often peer reviewed as well and get extensive input on the way to being published. It isn’t just a transcription of what was said at a conference. So the paper had to be reviewed to be accepted to the conference, and then subjected to editorial and probably peer review in the publication process. Until you’ve gone through this process in ecology/conservation yourself I’d refrain from disparaging this sort of paper as not having been adequately reviewed.

So Laurie, I might know what EBITA stands for, but I’m not going to try to analyze small cap companies for you. And just because you can write a report with footnotes and claim to understand the papers you read, doesn’t mean that you are qualified to do so. This isn’t a personal attack; it is just the way it is.

Laurie: Another one of your comments bothered me: “The science indicates the problem is much more complicated than many indicate. Removal of the feral cat when there are declining bird or native wildlife populations has not always improved the situation.” Yes, of course, that is because there are a lot of other factors affecting bird populations, in addition to feral cats, including loss and fragmentation of habitat, pollution, and climate change. Of course, having to cope with a non-native and efficient predator, such as feral cats, along with all of these other stressors just exacerbates the situation. Misinformed cat advocates seem to think that arguing that other factors are responsible for declines in bird populations somehow lets cats off the hook. No, in fact, just the opposite is true. It is the cumulative effect of all of these stressors–including feral cats–that have cut populations of even our most common birds in half over the past few decades.

Ecology Professor:

1. This is an issue of semantics. You refer to a technical definition. Fine – feral cats meet a biologist’s definition of invasive species. My point was that there is a broader definition, one that affects policy-making.

2a. If I needed a stent, I could certainly rely on an analyst’s review of the stents available, and I could discuss those options with my cardiologist.

2b. I understand that urbanization and suburban crawl have created fragmented environments; I do not maintain that the practice of TNR should be carried out anywhere. However I expect that if studied, there would be areas of Manhattan that could sustain feral cat colonies without threatening any endangered birds, though I would also expect that colonies should not be present in Central Park.

3. I would appreciate samples of research on the subject.

4. The fact is that there are relatively few mainland North American wildlife impact studies.

5. Thank you for that clarification. However, I was not disparaging the Dauphine and Cooper article for not being peer-reviewed. I was apparently mistaken in believing it was not, but my problem with the Dauphine and Cooper piece is that they present the estimate of one billion birds being depredated by cats as if it were an estimate based in some type of science, and it is not. I would hope that scientists do not appreciate bad science.

******************
I have made it clear numerous times that I do not believe TNR is appropriate everywhere, all the time. Let’s be clear: it is traditional trap-shelter-euthanize that brought us to where we are today so there is little motivation for municipalities to continue with failed policies.

Ecologists like yourselves or feral cat advocates may want to polarize what should be or could be productive dialogue between environmentalists and animal control, but at some point that dialogue-consensus-compromise – whatever it is going to be – is going to have to happen.

The bottom line is that we (our country, our states, our counties, and our communities) do not have the money or the will to kill them all, but we have volunteers to help sterilize them all. For our communities and our wildlife to benefit, it needs to be done right. To get the ferals out of people’s back yards where neighbors don’t want them, and to get them out of public lands where endangered species live and nest, TNR programs needs to be sponsored, structured, managed, require proper oversight, and need to be legal as part of an integrated campaign combining pet owner education and low-cost spay/neuter programs.

The dialogue needs to happen in Town Hall meetings and community centers so that areas where cats need to be removed can be identified, and areas where TNR can happen need to be identified. Community members need to work together to develop solutions. This can and has worked – see Felicia Nutter’s PhD dissertation (Nutter, 2005: North Carolina State Univ, Raleigh).

The general public, if they are going to get involved, will not likely be enrolled to trap cats to bring them in for euthanization. As I’m sure you’re aware, polls indicate that even among people who don’t particularly care for cats, most of them don’t want the “answer” to be killing the ferals. There certainly isn’t shelter space for them all – not even for all the strays that quickly re-socialize. Towns simply cannot afford to remove them all let alone kill them all. Our trained ecologists perform little service to the community by simply taking the stance that feral cats should be removed from the outdoors en masse, when they could be working to protect our wildlife with reasonable solutions that are practical to implement. Obviously you are not the ecologists to which our townships will be able to turn to obtain the information they need.

Laurie, you might be right. The public may not have the stomach to kill (humanely) millions of feral cats, even though our animal shelters dispatch millions of unwanted animals every year. Out of sight, out of mind, I guess. However, I think that the public also needs to be aware of the consequences of a failure to act before they make up their minds. Right now they’re erroneously being told that TNR reduces the numbers of cats and that cats aren’t having a big impact on our native wildlife. If I seriously thought that were the case, I’d probably support TNR too. What you’re telling me is that nobody wants to make the hard decisions necessary for successful conservation, and that misplaced compassion towards common pet species is more important than conserving our native wildlife. On that point, we totally disagree. Indeed, there are many other cases where feral domestic animals, such as goats, cattle, sheep, pigs, and dogs must be removed from the environment to save whole ecosystems, protect endangered species, or to ensure human safety. Why should feral cats be an exception? Just because the public believes something erroneous and bases their attitudes on misrepresentations, doesn’t mean that it is right. Many members of the public deny climate change and evolutionary theory too, but scientists that know better continue to push for further understanding and policy decisions based on the science. Unfortunately, the current science does not support your views. Even if there were some degree of uncertainty as you claim, when it comes to conservation, it is always best to be conservative and operate based on the worst case scenario. From that perspective, conservationists and the public who care about our native wildlife are better served by the removal of feral cats from any situation in which they will come into contact with native wildlife on which they will prey.

But cats are removed from environments where there is a clearly demonstrated impact on wildlife, just as you describe for goats, cattle, sheep, pigs and dogs. They’ve been trapped and removed, they’ve been infected with viruses, poisoned, and hunted. This brings us back around to my original point – is there a demonstrated need to remove all feral cats from every environment, everywhere? I know your answer. I continue to maintain there isn’t enough evidence to support that conclusion.

Different subject and a question for you, if you would be so kind. TNR advocates point to peer-review studies published on data collected on managed cat colonies over time. Just as I believe it is inappropriate to extrapolate cat predation on wildlife to nationwide numbers from small sample sizes, I believe it is inappropriate to extrapolate small size colony changes to the entire nation.

When measuring changes in wildlife populations, it seems roadkill measurements are fairly reliable sources of information. Would it be appropriate to measure changes in feral cat populations using roadkill data? If so, why? And if not, why?

Thanks.

Thanks, Michael and others for injecting some sanity into this discussion. OK, Laurie:

1 – There are actually a number of mainland North American wildlife impact studies that consider cats (Lepczyk et al. 2004, Crooks & Soule 1999, a master’s thesis by Carol Fiore that is available online, and many others). None of them seem to be conducted by TNR advocates, though – why is that, if you are so interested in the impacts of cats on wildlife (or lack thereof)? TNR advocates not only fail to conduct such research, not only fail to collect data in such a way that it can be used in serious research by others, but even go so far as to actively interfere with such research efforts. The motivation? I would venture to guess it’s because they know TNR does NOT work to reduce cat populations (see Foley et al. 2005, Castillo & Clarke 2003, and other studies). Usually studies by TNR advocates don’t even include measuring this in their objectives. However, TNR DOES seem to work to make a lot of people who like feeding cats feel better about themselves and that they have a mission in life – which unfortunately includes attacking any person or paper who opposes what they do.

Cats are opportunistic and indiscriminate predators that must consume 5-8% of their body mass in animal matter daily, with birds typically representing 20-33% of their diet. Considering that the number of pet cats alone in the US has tripled over the past 40 years, there is growing concern about their impact on native bird populations.

2 – TNR advocates are fond of trashing any paper (whether by Church & Lawton, Coleman & Temple, Dauphine & Cooper) that concludes that the impacts of cats on wildlife are negative, even though there is overwhelming evidence that they are. Your professed interest in science here seems simply disingenuous. TNR advocates repeatedly make false claims they say are supported by science that does not actually exist. Why? Because the motivation to promote TNR is emotional, not logical. TNR is fueled by the slaughter of huge numbers of animals – marine life, domestic chickens, etc – that are fed to cats that then in turn slaughter a huge number of more animals. And this is then called “no kill” – when in fact it results in immeasurable killing and makes exactly no sense!

3 – You express a lot of interest in the exact number of birds killed by cats. What is it exactly you are after? Is 500 million birds OK but 1 billion birds not OK? Is it OK if cats kill hundreds of millions or billions of less conspicuous animals, like native small mammals and herpetofauna? Is it OK if cats kill the birds your neighbor feeds and enjoys watching, or in public parks where people go birdwatching, or in national wildlife refuges? According to Alley Cat Allies and HSUS, who worked to block a bill that could have resulted in removing cats from national wildlife refuges, that seems to be OK, even if they are federally threatened species like Piping Plovers. Is it OK if they kill animals you never see, just because you don’t have to watch them suffer and die, and feeding cats makes you feel better about yourself?
Here is another estimate that includes at least one billion birds are killed annually in the US by cats: http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2008/03/cats-kill-over-1-billion-birds-each.html

It’s not peer-reviewed, but hey, neither is the critique of Dauphine & Cooper you posted on the web. For one thing, you state there that Jessup 2004 does not give an estimate for the number of feral cats in the US. He does, in the very first sentence of that paper. But I guess it was easier just to claim something was wrong than actually read the first sentence of a paper? Or maybe trying to dismember the above estimate and show how it’s wrong and “bad science”? Previously published estimates, such as those cited in the PIF paper, are based on a much smaller number of cats than currently exist in the US – but apparently none of that papers’ multiple reviewers, who are listed in the acknowledgements, felt those estimates were unreasonable. You can argue about the numbers all day or all year, and this is a favorite tactic of TNR advocates, whether or not they understand science and how it works. It’s successful to the degree it distracts from the main problem of how growing numbers of cats are affecting declining wildlife populations, and yes, individual animals.

Estimates are based on extrapolating from known numbers, because one of the basic problems in field ecology is that there will always be more animals than it is cost-effective to count. That’s why scientists make estimates based on known numbers, using math and statistics and stating their assumptions. People want an idea of the number despite uncertainty, and there will always be uncertainty. This is commonly acknowledged by scientists but not TNR advocates, and this is why TWS states in its cat position statement that arguing about the exact number of wildlife killed by cats is not productive. We know that this number is very large, we know that most US bird populations are in decline, and we know that cat predation is one of the top anthropogenic sources of bird mortality in the US.

4 – If you are really so interested in numbers and science, why don’t you try to show how TNR is reducing numbers of cats in a scientific way? Let me guess: because criticizing work by other people is a lot easier than doing such work yourself, especially when you know such work would not help your cause because TNR does not actually reduce numbers of cats in practice.

5 – “As I’m sure you’re aware, polls indicate that even among people who don’t particularly care for cats, most of them don’t want the “answer” to be killing the ferals.” Polls conducted by whom? You mean polls by Alley Cat Allies? That don’t use a random sample but oversample women over the age of 40 “because this is an important constituency for Alley Cat Allies”? Right – I can see how into serious science you are!

6 – “The bottom line is that we (our country, our states, our counties, and our communities) do not have the money or the will to kill them all, but we have volunteers to help sterilize them all.” Um, then why are so many TNR colonies full of unsterilized cats? Because many more people will feed cats than make the effort to trap and sterilize them. So you get ever-increasing numbers of cats, fed by ever-increasing amounts of cat food made of animals killed for these cats, who go on to kill ever-increasing numbers of wildlife.

7 – One of the many difficulties in policy decisions is that while conservationists often express a desire to compromise, cat people often will not compromise. And because organizations promoting TNR spend millions of dollars each year to advance their agenda, they usually win, whatever the costs to wildlife, the environment, or their neighbors: http://birdchaser.blogspot.com/2008/03/cat-people-win-birds-lose.html
Managing outdoor cats in densely human-populated areas is complicated because it entails both human dimensions and alternative management approaches; public debate about cat management may be highly contentious, and social factors often drive management decisions to a far greater extent than scientific research. The challenge is therefore how to effectively control outdoor cats for the protection of birds while addressing social considerations. So far, TNR advocates have been much more successful than scientists at convincing municipal decision makers of their viewpoints, even though they don’t offer a genuine solution but create an even bigger problem.

TWS members and others need to do more to work with public health officials to educate decision makers about the very real threats of disease and injury posed by rapidly proliferating feral cat colonies, since municipal governments are charged with protecting public health and safety and this is a much greater concern to most of them than cats or wildlife. I think this – and not getting distracted by pointless arguments about unknowable exact numbers and methods of estimating them – will be key to turning the tide.

Laurie,

A couple of points before we call it good with this exchange.

There are no instances where feral cats are good for the environment. We understand the mechanism of how cats impact native species and that they are associated with decreased native biodiversity (just read the Crooks and Soulé article in Nature). In the unique instances where cats are the only predators on islands with rats, cat eradication can be paired with rat control if there is reason to be concern about rat impacts on other species in the absence of cats, which is in fact the conclusion of the conservation scientists working on this issue.

We really do not need a bunch more studies of TNR colonies to figure out what is going on. You obviously are involved in TNR and know how it works in the real world. Laws that legalize TNR also make it very difficult to control feral cats on public or private properties, which then gives feral cats and TNR practitioners more rights than property owners or land managers. So it becomes impossible to remove cats, and colonies become dumping grounds for cats from other locations, shelters, etc. You have a bunch of people then “in charge” of controlling feral cat populations whose primary goal is not to reduce populations but to keep cats from being killed. No surprise there is no evidence that TNR has decreased feral cat populations on any reasonable geographic or temporal scale.

As for roadkill being a measure of wildlife abundance, it is clear you are asking about this because of the thread you are posting on over at change.org. The Merritt Clifton article from 1993 that you refer to there is so full of mistakes and easily falsifiable assumptions that it doesn’t even deserve the time to be debunked. Wildlife scientists have used roadkill as indicators of relative abundance WHEN THEY HAVE A STANDARDIZED METHODOLOGY, which is notably absent from the sources that Clifton cites. If you can show a published peer reviewed article in a conservation/ecology/wildlife journal that tracks roadkill of cats over time, that would be something to look at. But even then there is no way to separate out feral cats from owned cats, so the route is not promising for what you want to do.

There is here a bigger philosophical question. Regardless of the numbers, is it appropriate to allow a subsidized exotic predator to hunt and kill native wildlife? Why should cats get greater moral consideration than native species? It is incredibly hypocritical for all of you feral cat enthusiasts to claim that it is immoral to kill cats, but not to care about the lives of native species being needlessly killed by them and the incredible environmental damage done by the factory farms that churn out the chicken for cat food or the overexploitation of the oceans for fish. It really is a cult of the cat, where only cats get moral standing, and it comes at the price of the environment, and our ability as conservationists to manage backyard habitats, natural lands, parks, and open spaces for native diversity.

Thank you Ecology Professor!; I couldn’t have said it better myself. As far as I’m concerned, this conversation is over, as I think we have beat it into the ground. There is a reason that TWS and its members are opposed to TNR for feral cats. TNR for feral cats and conservation goals for native birds and other vulnerable species are clearly NOT compatible. I’ve blogged about another peer-reviewed article from Catalina Island, CA that argues against TNR management based on a study of the wide-ranging movements of cats from subsidized colonies. You can find my comments at http://wildlifeprofessional.org/blog/?p=1965.

I agree with Michael. It is ironic that the basic premise of population biology provides TNR advocates with their best excuse to ignore the case presented by wildlife scientists, and the easiest rationalization to dodge the true implications of TNR. It is just too easy for TNR advocates to dismiss a constituency whose mantra has been that individual animals don’t matter; only populations matter. To TNR advocates, the life of the individual animal IS the whole issue. In spite of the smokescreen claims that they are trying to control feral cat populations and reduce euthanasia rates, it all boils down to the consideration of one cat at a time. If you don’t embrace the notion that every possible step should be taken to save every single cat, you are just not to be taken seriously by the majority of these folks; or, worse yet, you are denounced as a heretic, anti-cat, anti-animal, indifferent to the welfare of animals, inhumane, or any of the other popular labels being hurled at those of us who vigorously oppose TNR.

Why do we let them get away with this? If they want to glorify individual animals, let’s level the playing field and talk about the individual wild animals that each and every feral or free-roaming owned cat will kill in its lifetime. If they want to focus on individual animals, I say let the debate begin.

I am the President of the Wildlife Center of Virginia, one of the leading veterinary teaching hospitals in the world. While we are a wildlife hospital, we practice and teach conservation medicine. We strongly believe that through the clinical care of individual animals we can gain unique insights regarding issues and threats that affect entire populations and species. One of the main threats about which we have gained great insight is the devastation that free-roaming cats(both feral cats and owned cats) inflict on wildlife. For the last 20 years, cat attack has been a leading cause of morbidity and mortality to a very broad range of wildlife species in our facility, and throughout the entire wildlife care community. And, unlike many others with opinions on this subject, we can document it, and we can prove it.

Almost one in five of our injured patients is a cat victim. That includes birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Unlike wild predators, cats are indiscriminate in their willingness to prey upon almost anything that moves. Of the large number of cat victims we treat annually, approximately 80% die from their injuries, or they have to be euthanized, even with medical attention. So, if TNR advocates want to predicate the discussion on the welfare of individual animals, and defend TNR based upon the worth of an individual cat….fine… just as long as they can show me why their beloved feral cat, which is NOT a part of any natural ecosystem, is more deserving of its life than is any one of the migratory birds, small mammals, or array of reptiles and amphibians that every single free-ranging cat will kill in its lifetime! Why is one cat, the alien invader in a natural system, more worthy of our concern than one rabbit, one chipmunk, one plover, one quail, one garter snake? And the scales must not just balanced against the life of the victim the cat will kill today, but the one it will kill tomorrow, the next day, and the day after that.

One cat can easily kill hundreds of wild victims annually. The fatal attack need not even be a devastating explosion of teeth and claws. It simply needs to be a curious swat that results in ANY break in the skin of its prey. In general, if a cat victim—even one with a seemingly minor wound–is not started on antibiotics within 8 hours, it has zero chance of survival, due to the infection that almost invariably follows a cat bite or scratch.

I don’t blame cat’s for the feral cat problem. It is not the cats’ fault that they are feral. But neither the consequence of their collective impact, or society’s collective responsibility for that impact can be dismissed or ignored simple because the body pile of wild victims is usually out of sight and out of mind for most TNR advocates and local policy makers. In my world, we see those victims every day. Those who care for individual wild animals in a professional clinical setting can attest to the impact of cats on wildlife, and we can quantify it. It makes no difference to the dead victims of human irresponsibility whether their lives are lost to pesticides, pollution, or feral cats. The victims are all still dead and the ecosystem diminished by their loss!! While feral cats may not be the only problem facing wildlife, or even the worst, it is one about which we can do something. This is certainly an opportunity for population biologists and wildlife care specialists to work together. Clearly, we share a common interest.

Ecol Professor, thanks for your input. Yes, the question comes from the discussion at change.org, where someone legitimately pointed out that colony studies do not address TNR at the population level.

Mr. Clarke, the reason almost one in five of your injured patients is a cat victim is because motorists rarely stop to bring in the bird, possum, skunk, raccoon, squirrel, chipmunk, or whatever they hit with their car if it wasn’t immediately killed.

Unfortunately, Laurie, you are not correct about the disparity between cat victims and car victims. One in five of our injured patients is a cat victim, but one in five is also a car victim. Together, these two hazards account for roughly 40% of our injured animals. Further, there is no basis for your implication that animals hit by cars are less likely to be brought in for care. If anything, the opposite is true. Roadways are traveled by lots of people, so even if the driver of the car causing the injury doesn’t stop, someone else is likely to. Also, cars don’t drag their victims off into the bushes to eat them. Since many feral cats are so averse to human contact, they are not likely to do their hunting, let alone deposit their victims in front potential rescuers. But what difference does it make, anyway? It doesn’t matter if our hospital gets a higher percentage of cat victims or car victims; cats kill countless numbers of wild animals, and the loss should not be tolerated. It is this kind of illogical and irrelevant deflection of hard questions, and flippant dismissal of information that contradicts your position that leads so many to doubt the credibility of TNR advocacy groups. On a daily basis, I see what cats do. My opinion is neither speculative nor theoretical. It was as a result of our statistical analysis of morbidity and mortality among our patients almost 20 years ago that led me to immediately turn all of my own cats into strictly indoor cats. Our continued documentation of this issue convinces me I was right to do so. I have seen literally thousands upon thousands of wild animals die because of outdoor cats, and it honestly does not matter if impact has a population level impact on a given species or not–again, an irrelevant arguement. The sheer volume is staggering. You avoided the question that is central to my position: “Why is the life of a feral cat more important that the lives of the potentially hundreds of native wild creatures it will kill in a single year?”

Ed: You are right to ask the question: “Why is the life of a feral cat more important that the lives of the potentially hundreds of native wild creatures it will kill in a single year?” This is, in fact, THE critical question that cat advocates need to answer. In fact, cat advocates have no legitimate response. Feral cats have no “right to life” that supercedes the lives of the many native animals that they prey on during the course of their existence. And they have even less so given the fact that are an exotic species and do not belong here. Rights advocates think only about the individual, whereas conservationists also value populations, species and ecosystems–the fundamental bases for the perpetuation of all life. Unfortunately, you often can’t have both. A failure to consider the big picture could mean the collapse of entire ecosystems and the permanent loss of many species. While conservationists value all life, we also know that hard decisions must be made if some semblence of nature is to survive in a world dominated by human influences. Feral cats, like pollution, habitat alteration and fragmentation, and other species invasions, are just one other scourge that humans have perpetuated upon our native wildlife and their habitats. It is time to begin correcting such mistakes!

Amen! It is not about being indifferent to the life of the cat. On the contrary, many of us are enthusiastic cat lovers and supporters of cat-rescue and adoption efforts. Even with feral cats, we encourage humane euthanasia. But when one small, but vocal, advocacy group translates its personal aversion to the necessary euthanasia of unwanted feral cats into public policy, and places their comfortable self-deception that they are doing a good thing over the inevitable destruction of countless wild creatures, things have gone too far. The fact that most wild victims of cats die out of public view does not diminish the suffering, pain and death of those countless victims. It just means that certain people can delude themselves into thinking there are no consequences to promoting the interest of cats above that of all other creatures. At least the euthanasia of feral cats is done in a humane and considerate way, to minimize their suffering. What happens to the victims of these cats is neither humane, nor without suffering. Itt is the apologists for perpetuating this deadly threat to native wildlife who must answer to the charge of being indifferent to the welfare of innocent creatures!

I really like the comment about Alley Cat Allies being made up of ladies over 40, almost all the tnr advocates are menopausal, and something else we should be looking at now is animal hoarding issues. Having feral colonies is simply animal hoarding.

Thanks Melanie. I totally agree. Many animal rights and TNR advocates are older women and it may simply be an expression of the maternal or grandmaternal “instinct”. We already know that our pets have been selectively bred to posess infantile or neotenic characteristics precisely so that they trigger this kind of response. That being said, it does present a tremendous educational challenge for those of us in wildlife conservation. It is very hard to combat irrationality and emotion with science and rationality. The problem is that if we do not base our wildlife management and conservation policies on science and rationality, we are going to lose a great deal. It will be our native wildlife and their habitats that suffer–and those that ignore the lessons and realities of ecology, including feral cat advocates, should be held responsible.

LOL! I’m a woman over 40…but my maternal instincts are pretty depleted, my son is 15. I had an unfortunate interaction with the TNR folks this past week, which caused me to write this, (long…) though I’m not sure what to do with it yet:

Hello, I am a neighbor,

Eleven years ago my husband and I decided to raise our family in the little town we grew up in, we bought a house on the same street as our parents, my mom lives on one end, his mom on the other, and send our children to the same schools we attended. My husband is a teacher, he teaches World Studies in the local middle school.

We moved from a town house development, and were thrilled at the variety of birds that come to our feeder, we had chipmunks, and snakes would sun on the rocks around our pool.

About 8 years ago some folks in the neighborhood acquired cats that they didn’t have spayed and neutered, the cat population began to grow. The cats continued to develop with no one taking action for about 4 or 5 years. Then another neighbor whose family we are very fond of, and whose mom taught piano to my husband’s sister, began to care for the cats. When a litter of kittens was born in the compost heap at another neighbors house, this neighbor and I decided to try and contact a TNR: Trap, Neuter, Release program. I created flyers about the growing feral population, indicating that we would be setting out humane traps, and to please have your pet cats collared, we then delivered the flyers to all the houses in the neighborhood. We also knocked on the door of the neighbor who had started feeding the cats to talk about TNR, since she was already caring for the cats we were hoping the colony could stay there, she was very open to the idea. She has spent quite a bit of her own finances and time caring for the cats.

Over the course of time the wildlife in my yard has disappeared, no chipmunks or snakes live here anymore, my children and I no longer find toads, which is heartbreaking for me because we enjoyed it so much. When I open my back door 3- 5 cats scatter from my garden and deck under my bird feeder. I moved the hosta which lined the walk in my garden under the feeder so the cats had less cover to stalk the birds. The cats have sprayed around my pool and once when the kids left the pool shed door open two cats got trapped inside and defecated on the furniture inside the building. My in-laws dogs from up the road started straying from their property, if I saw them I would always catch the the dogs and call my in-laws. These dogs were attracted to the cat colony and kept going over to threaten the cats, horribly, the largest dog killed one of the cats and I received a heart wrenching call about the attack from my neighbors, I immediately called my in-laws and informed them that this area of the community was very angry with his dog. My brother-in-law has since built a large fence to keep the dogs on his property.

I love animals. I have a dog the my dad and stepmom found wandering on interstate 81 in Virginia, starving, covered with fleas. We brought him home and had him fixed immediately. My mom on the upper side of our road has adopted two of the feral cats. My neighbor adopted a kitten from the litter in her compost heap and trapped and took “mama-cat”, (I still call her that when I see her) to be spayed.

I have been wondering how the cat population has been faring in my neighborhood, I miss the wildlife and would like to see it’s return. The other day I saw a woman at the feeding station next to my mom’s house, and stopped to talk to her. I asked her how many cats were left at that spot, she said 3, I told her my mom’s cat was from that group. I talked about the wildlife, my 10 year old daughter was sitting in the backseat of the mini-van so I talked about the toads, and recalled how my friend and I had gotten cages for trapping from her. I said I am not as merciful as they are about the cats, the truth is mostly I have been trying to be a good neighbor, we care a great deal for the peace on our street.

I got an agitated call from my neighbor who had received an e-mail about the conversation from the woman at the feeding station, she had sent it to all the folks who are part of TNR in our community. The woman’s recollection of the conversation is much different than mine. For the record the people involved in TNR in our community don’t need to “look out” for me.

I will say that I am concerned that there is no way for our community to monitor what is going on with the feeding of these animals. We live in a semi-agricultural area, so there are lots of farms, and animals are still a bit “looser” than down county. Families out here are not as accustomed to keeping animals indoors, especially on our side of the town, towards these farms.

After this week’s bit of drama I decided to research the TNR movement some more, and there’s some very convincing science that TNR doesn’t work. PETA , People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has this to say:

There are millions of feral cats in the United States. Feral cat population control is a difficult and emotional issue and has been a topic of heated debate for many years. PETA has in the past  trapped, neutered, returned, and monitored feral cats (and still does, in favorable situations) but not without hesitation and serious concerns. Our experiences include countless incidents in which cats suffered and died horrible deaths because they were forced to fend for themselves outdoors, whether “managed” or not, and have led us to question whether these programs are truly in the cats’ best interests.

also this:

Inform local residents about your activities. Attend town meetings, write to your local paper, and/or go door to door. Make yourself available and accessible if questions, problems, illnesses, or injuries arise. Discourage cats from using neighbors’ gardens and sandboxes by making your own giant litterbox with sand in a simple covered, wooden frame. Place the sandbox away from busy areas, the cats’ feeding station, and sleeping spots. Clean the sandbox daily.

*http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=120

I have tried to recollect as best I can our neighborhood history with the feral cats, and have tried to be forthright in my opinions. I am hoping for a dialogue and open discussion about the cat colonies, perhaps there needs to be a specific group that can be reached in our town.

I and everyone else in our town, and region, are by default, part of the TNR in my community. This activity affects us all. I have sacrificed not by feeding, but allowing a colony/pride to roam my property and hunt the other animals. I am now concerned that this activity will climb the ecosystem and affect the owls and hawks. I believe the TNR in our community should be described as a TNRM, Trap, Neuter, Release and Monitor, if this really works there should be lesser cat population than at the group’s beginning.

I am also hoping that though we disagree on many aspects of this community issue, we respect each other and have our neighbor’s interest, as well as our own, at heart. end.

I gave this letter to my neighbor and am waiting for her response, since it really concerns her cats. I am pretty upset by the hostile reaction of this group, especially since I have bent over backwards to do what I thought was right. Now I think I have been a fool, maybe I should have called animal control when it all started…

I got it back, she didn’t knock on my door to talk to me, it has numerous corrections on it,*sigh*, my facts are all wrong, she gave me some ally cat allies information. Suggested I help with the feeding costs. Disheartening.

Laurie: Your observations and experience are consistent with the peer-reviewed science. TNR and supplemental feeding does NOT reduce feral cat populations and eliminates any wildlife that the cats are big enough to kill. I believe that you have the right to trap any cat that wanders onto your property and send it to the local animal shelter. I suggest that you call both animal control and the state wildlife authorities and register your legitimate concerns about this unfortunate situation.

Laurie: I was told that in some jurisdictions you cannot trap cats on your own property, something that I find incredible, since cats kill wildlife and spread disease. Here’s further advice from our contacts at USDA Wildlife Services:

“Homeowners/private landowners can usually remove cats from their property in most locations. They would need to check to make sure there are no local or state trapping restrictions on this activity. Here is a link to feral cat management in the “Prevention and Control of Wildlife Damage Handbook”. While it is dated, the information is still relevant. I would suggest buying a cage trap rather than building one however. There are several good brands on the market at reasonable prices.
http://icwdm.org/handbook/carnivor/ca_c45.pdf

The homeowners could also contact a local Nuisance Wildlife Control Operator (NWCO) who could trap and dispose of the cats. Of course there is a fee for these services.”

Thank-you for your response Michael, it means a lot to me. I purchased a trap when this all started. My husband and I are discussing what we will pursue.

Laurie: I wish you the best of luck. It is too bad that feral cat advocates simply will not accept evidence for the significant damage that cats are doing to our native wildlife and the potential dangers to human and wildlife health. Perhaps stories like yours’ will get responsible authorities to sit up and take notice. The work of scientists who care deeply about our native wildlife is being ignored and/or questioned by non-scientists with what can only be described as religious fervor, with little regard for the facts. I would encourage others to come forward with their own stories about the failure of TNR to control feral cat populations, the loss of local wildlife, and examples of disease transmission, such as the recent outbreak of rabid cats biting people in Florida. Perhaps such stories will make a difference. TNR is portrayed as caring and humane practice, but in reality, it is far from it. These cats kill vast numbers of wild birds, small mammals, reptiles and other creatures annually, and are a potentially significant source of disease. And their numbers are growing-not getting smaller as TNR advocates would have you believe. You’ve seen it first hand and I suspect others out there have too.

Umm … let me see. So having cities and counties pay tiny groups of people catch and kill whatever free-roaming cats they can find will reduce cat overpopulation more effectively than allowing a veritable army of volunteers to sterilize all the cats they can realistically feed and monitor? And you also think that eventually, this will reduce the cat population so much that all of our wildlife will return, because cats are the main problem, not human related activities like habitat destruction/fragmentation, species displacement, air/water/soil pollution, genetic engineering, glass windows measurable in acres, etc. This sounds to me like just another case of terminal indignation, where the need to be RIGHT totally eclipses the purported goal. Once again, nothing paralyzes the human capacity for critical reasoning like good old-fashioned dogma.

@K.Lee
Give me a break. This “veritable army of volunteers” willing to do TNR has absolutely no training (or interest) in protecting the environment or public health. These people have only one goal and that is to ’save’ and feed cats, on other people’s property, both public and private. It is an affront to anyone who doesn’t want cats on their property and certainly an affront to anyone who would rather enjoy the wildlife. Part of the problem is that the people who push for TNR (notice that it is NEVER wildlife advocates pushing for TNR!) also oppose laws that prohibit cats from roaming (which would go a long way to solving this problem) and demand that cities and counties make it very difficult for people who don’t want cats on their properties to trap them and have them either adopted out or euthanized. Rather, once a cat is TNR’d it is returned to the volunteer or volunteer group who neutered it, in the same place. If the objecting property owner fights hard enough maybe he/she will win because the TNR people fret about “mean neighbors” and then relocate the cat(s) to someone else’s neighborhood or even wildlife areas, where they will be “safe” from said “mean neighbor.” Never mind that the wildlife will NOT be safe.