Did an interview with Radio Canada International about Cat Crazed – RCI is the CBC’s shortwave international service.
Host began by asking me whether I was a cat or bird person – he couldn’t tell from the film! I took that as a compliment because trying very hard to advance the conversation about the needs of both cats and birds, not attacking either, and asking humans ultimately to take responsibility for our own behavior when it comes to welfare of all animals.
But we humans can be especially passionate about our kitties – and so it is with considerable trepidation that some cat folks await the airing of this doc, convinced I’m going to come down hard on our feline friends. Evidence of this in a National Post column thread. All I can say is: watch the film, then decide.
If you want to know more about either perspective, I’ll point you to a few websites.
Go to Alley Cat Allies to see why this group supports trap neuter return. TNR Reality Check delivers studies that oppose this view.
Also, if you’d like more info on cat bird predation, read this article from the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference.
And if you’d like more info on the no kill movement, check out No Kill Nation.
Here’s what Larry Evans of PetLynx pet recovery had to say:
“We had the privilege of reviewing this film…and feel that it will be very valuable in terms of bringing various cat conversations together in 2011. We are thrilled this documentary premiers at the same time the industry launches the Care for Cats public education campaign. We invite you to watch this film and become involved in the conversations to improve the lives of our feline friends.”
Let’s talk more about this after you’ve all had a chance to watch the film, tomorrow night (Thurs Jan 6) 9pm – Cat Crazed on CBC’s Doc Zone
Pat Fish
I just had a major Facebook explosion and stalker episode due to this situation. We went from being the best of friends (she even FB-proposed to me last week) to having to put up with all kinds of malicious attacks online.
The sad thing is that we’re both animal rights vegans. And even we can’t agree that cats should be kept indoors.
Bountiful Films
This is certainly an emotionally charged and polarized issue – hence our film’s search for a solution that the humans can agree on, one that will see all cats loved and none abandoned.
Peter J. Wolf
While I appreciate your attempt to be “balanced” here, I’d like to point out that TNR Reality Check is not the place to go if you’re interested in studies about feral cats and/or their impacts on wildlife and the environment. Nor is the Partners in Flight site (or American Bird Conservancy, for that matter).
In both cases, you’ll find inflated predation numbers, extrapolated from one habitat to another (even from island environments to continents). What you won’t find is any mention of the studies that show rather convincingly that birds killed by cats tend to be unhealthy compared to those killed by building collisions, say. Even high predation rates do not equate to population declines—as many scientists have noted.
I invite readers to visit my blog, Vox Felina (http://www.voxfelina.com), and become part of this important debate, armed with a fuller understanding of the issues.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Catbird
Peter Wolf, having no biological training, apparently spends quite a bit of time criticizing just about every reputable, peer-reviewed research on this topic if he does not like the results or what is revealed. Unlike Mr. Wolf, scientists do not discourage people from examining the research on both sides of the debate. Now, I am not a scientist, so maybe I’ll try out Mr.Wolf’s approach.
Hey Folks, go visit this link and work your way through the comments. Then decide whether you want your information from sources like the American Bird Conservancy, The Wildlife Society, and others IN the field, or voxfelina.
http://magblog.audubon.org/feral-cat-predation-birds-costs-billions-dollars-year
And if you would like to see what research the TNR folks rely on – that is available at the link below.
http://tnrrealitycheck.com/studies.asp
Peter J. Wolf
At the risk of highjacking this discussion, I feel compelled to respond to Catbird. Four brief examples will, I think, help illustrate my point:
1. Churcher and Lawton’s “English Village” study is often cited as evidence that cats decimate bird populations. Less often cited, however, is a subsequent comment made by Churcher himself: “I’d be very wary about extrapolating our results even for the rest of Britain, let alone America. I don’t really go along with the idea of cats being a threat to wildlife. If the cats weren’t there, something else would be killing the sparrows or otherwise preventing them from breeding.”
2. The “Wisconsin Study” is another often-cited paper, largely due to its astronomical estimates (“…free-ranging rural cats may be killing up to 219 million birds in the state”). But their authors’ numbers are flawed in many ways. They assume all cats hunt, for example, despite a lack of evidence to this effect. Their “intermediate” estimate is based on the predatory habits of ONE cat, and their high estimates are unsupported entirely! And then there’s the admission from co-author Stanley Temple (in a 1994 interview with The Sonoma County Independent) that their figures “aren’t actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be.”
3. Regarding the issue of compensatory vs. additive predation, there is a rather involved discussion (including citations) here: http://www.voxfelina.com/2010/05/the-work-speaks-part-3-predatory-blending/
4. And finally, there’s this comment from B.M. Fitzgerald (one of the world’s foremost experts on the diets of cats) and Dennis Turner (from the 2000 edition of “The Domestic Cat: The Biology of Its Behaviour”): “We consider that we do not have enough information yet to attempt to estimate on average how many birds a cat kills each year. And there are few, if any studies apart from island ones that actually demonstrate that cats have reduced bird populations.”
Now, why is it that NONE of this information can be found through the American Bird Conservancy, The Wildlife Society, the Urban Wildlands Group, TNR Reality Check, etc.? Presumably, they have the training necessary—and are, as you note, “in the field.”
To suggest that it somehow requires training in biology and/or wildlife conservation/management to dig into this topic is simply an attempt to deflect the conversation.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Catbird
1. There may be some legitimate criticism to this study in the sense that they only studied one village in all of England. Had they subdivided England and studied a few more that would have strengthened their results. However, what is interesting is that they got almost every owned cat in the village to participate (I believe 70 out of 72).
297 birds were brought back to the owners of 70 cats in one year, which was 35% of all animals brought back. This is just one village and is likely happening in most environments. There is reason to act and not wait for bird and other wildlife populations to become seriously threatened.
As for the comment you say was made by Churcher – you do not provide a citation, however, apparently this is from a 1995 issue of Catnip (a publication by Tufts University) and seems that only back issues from as far back as 2007 are available.
2. So does this mean that the lower estimate of 8 million is an acceptable number of animals to die by cats? What about the fact that in some parts of the state, free-roaming cat densities reach 114 cats per square mile? Heck – every cat does not have to hunt! Having that many cats in one area means that is not an area that can support native wildlife. A single cat CAN extirpate native fauna from a given site – and if that particular feline is present in some colony – well, so much for the surrounding fauna.
3. Where cats cause documented extinctions and extirpations, cat predation is additive (e.g., Hawkins 1998, Crooks and SouIe 1999, Nogales et al. 2004). Researchers are interested in knowing if some cat predation is compensatory (that is, killing animals that would die anyway) (Beckerman et aL 2007, Baker et al. 2008, van Heezik et al. 2010). The purported evidence of compensatory predation is a study showing that cat-killed birds have larger spleens (indicating that they are less healthy) than birds killed by other sources (e.g., windows) (Moller and Erritzoe 2000). Other researchers found that birds killed by cats had less fat reserves and lower muscle mass than those killed in collisions (Baker et al. 2008), but warned against assuming that this corresponded with lower fitness of these individuals. In neither instance is it possible to conclude that individuals killed by cats would have died otherwise.
4. See this is where qualifications and training do come into play. Any undergraduate in conservation biology, landscape ecology, biogeography, or wildlife management would know that isolated habitats surrounded by a hostile matrix are conceptualized and known as “habitat islands.” The dynamics of species on islands (MacArthur and Wilson 1967) are used to understand local extinction (extirpation) and colonization processes in mainland habitats (e.g., Davis and Glick 1978, Faeth and Kane 1978, Soule et aL 1988, Walter 1998). The conditions that make feral cats such efficient predators on islands, causing the extinction of mammals, birds, and reptiles (Nogales et al. 2004), are also found on the mainland where habitats isolated either by fragmentation from human development or accidents of geography make the populations of native wildlife within them vulnerable to extirpation.
Vicky Smith
I wouldn’t consider TNR Reality Check an unbiased source of information. It represents a wildlife organization I believe (please correct me if I am wrong). When I am looking for information, I try to find unbiased sources, such as reading the scientific studies, and then coming to my own conclusions. When the scientific studies are done by those affiliated with groups with a vested interest, though, I keep that in mind as I read…
I don’t think I’ll be trusting the wildlife societies, and those scientists affiliated with them, any time soon after reading this:
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/pdf/Lepczyk-2010-Conservation%20Biology.pdf
(“What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.”) (Looks like scientists don’t like people promoting religion in schools, only the Darwin theory. There’s open-mindedness for you. Your 1st amendment rights must only apply to you folks?)
Yes, folks, please do read the Comments section of the Audubon blog, and read how cat caretakers and other feral cat advocates are belittled, denigrated. That kind of manipulation isn’t helpful. It was quite interesting to read the debate and get some idea how people think, though.
I am a feral/stray cat caretaker in Prince Edward Island. Yes, I am biased. I don’t believe in killing animals just because some people want quick solutions.
Catbird
“I am a feral/stray cat caretaker in Prince Edward Island. Yes, I am biased. I don’t believe in killing animals just because some people want quick solutions.”
Then why would you EVER re-release a cat to predate on wildlife so long as that feline shall live?
Vicky Smith
Every colony cat under my care is spayed and neutered – some paid for by me, and the others by the charity Cat Action Team of PEI.
Yes, I support releasing spayed/neutered cats and kittens back to where they came from (providing that location is safe for them). I also support trying to find homes for sociable cats and kittens. These cats aren’t just “dumped” somewhere – they are usually returned to a colony that is under the supervision of a caretaker. If interested, contact the Cat Action Team to enquire as to what was done with all of the cats and kittens they have had spayed or neutered (currently over 6,000).
You asked, “Then why would you EVER re-release a cat to predate on wildlife so long as that feline shall live?” Cats generally go after easy prey, quite often mice and the like. They can help keep nature in balance. If it is determined that there is too much predation (not just by cats), or other “things” are causing too much of a depletion, then all things needs to be addressed.
When the anti-feral (or free-roaming) cat folks are on their cat-killing, or “kill the cats”, crusades, do they (you?) also expend at least as much energy tackling the other causes of bird (or wildlife) deaths?
I do not agree with the killing of healthy cats. I do believe in trying to find humane solutions to lessen the feral cat population, along with a rigorous campaign to get people to stop dumping cats and kittens, and to spay and neuter their pet cats. I do believe in relocating cats away from those areas conservationists indicate have threatened species in them, and the cats are one of the concerns (although a cat may end up going back to its “home”). I do not believe any cat that sets its paws on protected ground, or someone’s property, should be killed. It should be humanely trapped and if it seems to be feral, it should be handed over to a cat rescue group to deal with. If local humane societies or animal control still routinely kill feral or unsociable cats, they should not be sent there – unless they will hand over these cats to a rescue group.
I consider the use of lethal methods on healthy, free-roaming, cats abuse in its worst form.
Jim
Hi. I am looking forward to this film. I hear and see so many people yap about this issue. And quite frankly, they all have some points. But the problem is. No one is taking bold decisive action. I aim to see if that can change. I am heading up operation trun around in a central alberta community.
We will know withing 12 months if we had a positive effect.
We are trying to live capture 100 non owned cats in 100 days starting in late feb.
we will alter and foster all the adoptable ones. then place them in forever homes.
It is not legal to realese the rest so they will be put down.
but they will not suffer.
Jim
Heather
Whatr? The ones to be put down will be killed but they will not suffer??? You are going to kill them just because they have no home?
Vicky Smith
You say that “no one is taking bold decisive action.” What is it that “no one” is doing? What is the purpose of your group trying to trap 100 cats in 100 days?
Are you permitted to release the non-adoptable cats to feral cat colonies or sanctuaries? How much time are you going to give these cats/kittens before deciding whether they are adoptable or not? (It is difficult to determine if a cat is truly feral or just a very scared pet or stray.)
If it is not legal for you to release the cats after trapping, then don’t trap any of them.
I gather it doesn’t bother you to kill a cat or kitten. I don’t understand why it wouldn’t bother you, or others, to kill.
Catbird
“If it is not legal for you to release the cats after trapping, then don’t trap any of them.”
Purr-fect example of cats first, cats last, cats only and always.
Vicky Smith
No, it means trying to protect an animal from unwarranted death.
Catbird
@Vicky
And what about the unwarranted deaths of birds and other wildlife by the cats you release?
You wrote in your earlier post:
“Cats generally go after easy prey, quite often mice and the like. They can help keep nature in balance.”
You so do not have a clue I do not know where to begin. Cats are indiscriminate, prolific hunters. They hunt birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians, threatened or endangered, rare or common or species of special concern. There is no ecological balance between a non-native invasive predator species and native prey. Cats do not add to biodiversity – they deplete it. It is clear from your writing that despite what numerous scientific experts have shown, proven, or concluded from various research in the fields of wildlife management, ecology, wildlife biology and the like – you will believe that cats are not the serious threat that they are. You do not even view them as what they are – which is not a natural part of any North American habitat.
You wrote this:
“When the anti-feral (or free-roaming) cat folks are on their cat-killing, or “kill the cats”, crusades, do they (you?) also expend at least as much energy tackling the other causes of bird (or wildlife) deaths?”
1. You are falling right into the stereotype of the typical TNR advocate – you peg people against the METHOD of TNR as anti-cat. Anti-TNR does NOT mean anti-cat. Funny, we never seem to see folks who are anti-TNR saying that the TNR folks are anti-bird (or bird haters for that matter – but all too often anti-TNR gets labeled as cat hater).
2. Why does it matter how we spend our time? People focus on what is important to them or where they see a need. Given the fact that there are so many wildlife organizations working on preserving land, climate change, and the many anthropogenic causes of wildlife mortality (by-catch, collisions into structures including buildings, towers, wind mills, and power lines, as well as oil spills and pesticides), there is a need to address invasive species as well. ABC focuses on every single one of these causes. After habitat loss, cat predation and window/building strikes are the next two biggest factors contributing to the deaths of birds. Seems that TNR advocates can focus on everything else BUT cats, and we never seem to hear them contest the literature and research in those other areas. We have to address all causes of death – even the cute, furry ones.
You do not believe in the killing of healthy cats but you apparently think it is ok if cats you release kill healthy wildlife – even if the wild animal is a native mouse or a bird here and there. Why is the life of that cat more important than the wild animal it kills, whose true home and only possible home IS outdoors?
If euthanasia is unacceptable to you, then take the cat home – provide sanctuary for the animal or try to tame her/him for adoption or fence or enclose the cat on your own private property and not inflict it on the environment and others.
You will never get people to stop dumping felines because the message conveyed through TNR is that outdoor lives and deaths are perfectly acceptable for our feline friends. TNR enables abandonment.
You wrote:
“I consider the use of lethal methods on healthy, free-roaming, cats abuse in its worst form.”
Interesting. That is exactly how I feel about TNR. Re-abandonment, self-indulgent, and animal abuse. When cats are sent back out to more than likely die from the smack of a vehicle, or a disease for which they are left untreated (because the animals wonder off or are too difficult to re-catch), or the jaws of a coyote or pack of dogs, or the tip of an arrow or some poison by people who see them as pests, these animals are not meeting their end in any humane manner whatsoever, all courtesy of the person who put them back out.
Peter J. Wolf
Just listened to the interview…
Aren’t documentary filmmakers supposed to do rigorous research? Palmer needs to do her homework!
For example, her claim that “117–150 million feral and domestic cats roaming the North American landscape” comes from a 2009 paper plagued with bias—and, more to the point, bogus estimates. In terms of both the number of cats in the environment, and the birds killed by cats (the “one billion” figure cited by Palmer).
And those 33 extinctions she refers to (in the “scientific literature,” as she claims)? She ought to clarify that these are island environments—very different from continents! And even here, the picture is far more complex than Palmer suggests.
Something else Palmer gets wrong: predation—even at high levels—does not automatically lead to population declines. In fact, some studies have shown that birds killed by cats are significantly less healthy than those killed through non-predatory events (e.g., collisions with buildings). In other words, these birds probably weren’t going to live long enough to contribute to the overall population numbers.
While documentaries can be very effective at digging into a particular issue—getting beyond the sound bites—unfortunately, Palmer has used hers to broadcast the same sound bites to a larger audience.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Bountiful Films
Did you see the documentary?
Peter J. Wolf
Not yet—only listened to the interview with Maureen Palmer.
Catbird
“some studies have shown that birds killed by cats are significantly less healthy than those killed through non-predatory events (e.g., collisions with buildings)”
How about providing some citations for these?
BTW, view video 118 at the link below, look at the comments and note the level of predation by cats, and tell us why you think these mockingbird babies and the mom were any less healthy than the average mockingbird?
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/ordwaylab/stracey/video.html
YTKarashinsky
Over 70 million birds killed annually by Lawn Chemicals (hear that, Scott’s??)
Over 7 million birds killed annually by collisions with plate glass windows and windshields.
Hawks, Eagels, Fox, Dogs, Kids with BB guns (illegal!!), Fireworks (did you see the news about those bids dropping out of the sky recently?) kill birds.
The worst CAT that kills birds is the CATerpillar Bulldozer that TOTALLY DESTROYS habitat by knocing down trees, displacing birds AND wildlife.
NO feline could ever cause this much damage!!!!
Catbird
Actually one billion annually killed by windows/building strikes. Does not make the wildlife mortality by cats through both predation and disease transmission any less tragic.
Hawks, eagles etc. are native birds – not a good comparison to an invasive non native predator whose numbers are more than all native predators combined.
ginarino@ymail.com
Thanks for the facts. TNR is the only way. Feral cat populations are needed on urban areas. TNR Feral cats, that is : )
elle (Vancouver)
It’s not just about birds. There is a larger issue at play here. Your documentary only mentions it in passing, which is unfortunate because it could have been a good way to educate people. The feral cat population is caused by a bigger, more underlying problem… the IRRESPONSIBLE PET OWNER. These people should be spaying/neutering their cats by 5 months, and if they cannot care for their cats anymore, they need to look for other options and NOT dump or abandon their cats on the street. These are horrible, horrible people, and they do not deserve to be loved, let alone take care of an animal!”
Heather
I am disappointed in the films portrayal of cat owners. An extremely small percentage of cat owners belong to the CFA, and an even smaller percentage dress their cats up. Yet that is how you chose to portray us.
I also found it interesting that quite a bit of time was spent on the birds in the bog area, discussing the feral cat colony, and predation on the birds, however you glossed over how the building of condos right on the edge (or maybe even on it) of the bog effected the habitat of the birds.
This film could have been a starting point for a discussion on why pets are not disposable, the importance of spay & neuter, and the benefits of keeping cats indoors. Instead you portrayed cat owners as whack jobs and cats as trampy villians that kill cute little song birds.
Shame
Vicky Smith
I enjoyed your documentary.
As you’re likely to find out, the debate about what to do about feral/stray cats is a very heated one! It’s a matter of life or death, actually.
Lynne Scott
I am still reeling at the highly inflamatory content of Cat Crazed. As the founder of an organization fighting desperately to humanely manage feral cat populations, I am exceedingly disappointed that the CBC aired a “documentary” so biased in content. Not a single scholarly source was consulted or cited in the production of this program. There is a very large, and growing, pile of rigorously controlled studies that prove the benefits of humane feral cat management, yet the producers used only anecdotes from questionable sources. Very poorly done, indeed.
Catbird
“…pile of rigorously controlled studies that prove the benefits of humane feral cat management,”
Name them.
Lynne Scott
@ Catbird: Here are 6 of them:
Levy, J.K., Gale, D.W. and Gale, L.A. (2003), Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population, Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 222: 42-46.
When the study began in 1991, there were 155 cats roaming the University of Central Florida’s campus. By 2002, when the study ended, the population had been reduced to 23, equalling an 85% decline
******
Mendes-de-Almeida, F., et al. (2006), The impact of hysterectomy in an urban colony of domestic cats, International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine 4:134-141.
Female feral cats in a colony at the zoological garden of the city of Rio de Janeiro were sterilized, resulting in a stable cat population and a trend towards decreasing overall numbers.
******
Reece, J.F., S.K. Chawla (2006), Control of rabies in Jaipur, India, by the sterilization and vaccination of neighbourhood dogs, The Veterinary Record 159: 379-383.
Over a period of ten years, the sterilization and vaccination of 65% of female street dogs and 6% of male street dogs in the target area resulted in a population decline of 28% as well as zero human rabies cases during the last two years of the study.
******
Stoskopf, M., Nutter, F. (2004), Analyzing approaches to feral cat management – one size does not fit all, Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 225: 1361-1364.
After two years, six sterilized feral cat colonies decreased in size an average of 36% while three unsterilized control colonies increased in size an average of 47%
******
Hughes, K.L., Slater, M.R. and Haller, L. (2002), The effects of implementing a feral cat spay/neuter program in a Florida county animal control service, Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 5: 285-298.
The study of a six-year TNR program in Orange County, Florida, showed significant savings when the cost per cat to the county of TNR was compared to the cost of trap and euthanize.
******
Levy, J.K., Crawford, P.C. (2004), Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations, Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 225: 1354-1360.
Includes a comprehensive discussion of TNR vs. other methods. Concludes 82% of kittens born in the United States originate from feral cats. Also examines the removal of feral cats from a park in Chico, CA, which provided habitat for a rare ground-nesting bird. The removal effort started in 1996 with approximately a dozen cats. The high visibility of the project led to increased abandonment and 633 more cats were removed over next seven years. 77% of the removed cats were adopted while the rest were maintained for life in sanctuary.
Catbird
Right. Those would be the ones referred to by Alley Cat Allies and/or Neighborhood Cats. So you may want to read some comments about those studies you cited. Scroll down here:
http://tnrrealitycheck.com/studies.asp
Peter J. Wolf
While I stand behind my previous comments regarding the figures Maureen Palmer cites during her interview, I need to apologize for any criticisms I made of her film—a film I’ve yet to see. I don’t like it when people criticize my work without giving it an honest look, and I’ve no business doing that to anybody else’s work. It was both unprofessional and unproductive.
So, my sincere apologies to all of the filmmakers involved with this project—most especially to Maureen Palmer.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
Lynne Scott
Peter, you needn’t apologize. Your comments were absolutely on target. The producers did not do their homework. I was contacted by Bountiful before the program aired, and asked to promote it. After watching the trailer I was concerned and asked for a list of sources consulted. It was not provided. Instead, I was sent a list of organizations interviewed during production. Based on this I refused to promote the program, and I am very glad that I did. Cat Crazed is the very worst sort of yellow journalism, intended to incite controversy. Cats will suffer because of it.
Wendy Ross
Couldn’t have said it better myself Lynne. The controversy brings attention to the film…which is the ultimate goal of any film maker. Controversy is Bountiful’s bread & butter, perfect for today’s dumbed down audiences. The “crazy cat lady” depictions are old and utterly boring though.
Here’s the thing – for those of you who have not yet lost interest in this film. The SINGLE largest factor in the decline of bird populations is habitat loss….caused by humans. The numbers of birds killed by free-roaming cats pales in comparison. Ironicaly, man is also responsible for the vast homeless cat population (failure to spay/neuter), but hey…let’s pass the buck and scapegoat the cats!
Outdoor cats do kill birds and other animals, but having a caregiver who regularly feeds the cats and knows their habits can significantly reduce their impact on the environment. Most importantly, even where cats might be observed hunting, killing the cats FAILS to address this issue because trap and kill does not set its sights on the long-term goal – ending the homeless cat crisis. What is so hard to comprehend about this?
Catbird
“Outdoor cats do kill birds and other animals, but having a caregiver who regularly feeds the cats and knows their habits can significantly reduce their impact on the environment.”
Nice anecdote. Now where is the scientific support for your claim? Their HABIT is to hunt, well-fed or not, and that has been scientifically proven. Most often cited is Adamec 1976.
Vicky Smith
@Catbird RE: Catbird Jan 11, 2011 at 10:28 am #
@Vicky
Shooting the cats between the eyes or in the heart/lungs (or in the stomach!); using leg-hold traps, “squeeze” traps (or whatever the correct name is), gassing, poisoning, or lethal injection (the latter when used on the healthy) are not what I consider humane (that’s putting it mildly), so how to reduce the feral/stray cat population? I chose spaying and neutering the cats.
Some people/organizations don’t want feral and stray cats fed by people, nor feral/stray cats eating wildlife. What do you expect the cats to eat? Dead cats don’t need to eat, is that it?
“If euthanasia is unacceptable to you, then take the cat home – provide sanctuary for the animal or try to tame her/him for adoption or fence or enclose the cat on your own private property and not inflict it on the environment and others.”
Some of the cats now live in my house. No house cat (pet, feral,stray) is allowed outside. Secondly, the remainder of the colony is confined to my property. Many times a day, I stare into the eyes of these feral/stray cats. Now, I look into their eyes and wonder how some people can want them dead. This is a personal matter to me, not some scientific study.
TNR is only part of the solution (to reduce the population as much as possible and keep it in check; not total elimination – that’s impossible, even for cat-killers). Laws can be enacted to reduce pet cats in the environment. Pet cats have homes and properties to be confined to, whereas feral/stray cats usually do not. (You want sanctuaries constructed for all feral/stray cats? Get to it then.) Offer incentives to spay and neuter pets, rather than make it mandatory. Instead of requiring cats and dogs be licensed, they should have a microchip (or tattoo). Providing this service at low, or no, cost, would help with compliance. Collars and tags can be removed, but the microchip would remain. You’re more apt to find the pet’s owner (and can then investigate if pet had been lost or abandoned). That microchip may help to reduce abandonment. WHY do people dump unwanted animals instead of turning them over to an animal shelter? If the motivations for abandonment can be determined, it may help with ways to reduce this behaviour even further. Harsh penalties for those found guilty of abandoning (or abusing) an animal.
You said, “You are falling right into the stereotype of the typical TNR advocate – you peg people against the METHOD of TNR as anti-cat. Anti-TNR does NOT mean anti-cat.”
What is recommended for the cats by those who are anti-TNR? Could it be that most of those who are anti-TNR are recommending some form of kill-the-cat? This is the impression I am getting from a number of the studies, reports and articles I have read to date. If I am sounding like the TNR advocates, it may be that we have read the same, or similar, studies/reports/articles and are coming to the same conclusions. Pushing for laws that forbid TNR, that forbid feeding the cats – and then recommending killing the cats instead – doesn’t leave one thinking these are signs of affection for the cats. So if it is not hate, what is it? Lacking a soul? What?
If you were a cat, Catbird, would you think humans were doing you a kindness by killing you? Or would you rather live? If you were a really ill cat, then, yes, you might appreciate being hastened to your death.
We, as a society, OWE these cats. Some members of our society are at fault for creating the situation these cats are in. So, how do some other members of our society repay, or wish to repay, the debt we owe to these cats? They kill, or seek to kill, them – the ultimate injustice.
Catbird
I am not advocating shooting or any inhumane method. I see no problem regarding lethal injection – as PETA has mentioned – a far kinder and more compassionate fate than what awaits these cats outdoors. And no, not sanctuaries for ALL the cats. We cannot do that for all, or TNR them all, or euthanize them all. That is not the point.
The problem is that TNR is not just spay and neuter. You release and feed indefinitely. No one wants to see an animal starve. The cats need to be removed.
If the cats are truly confined to your property, no problem! But that is not typically TNR – which tends to make problems for neighboring properties.
I don’t see TNR as part of the solution – I see TNR as part of the problem.
Incentives to spay and neuter pets might be fine, but enough people still do not, even when there is low cost fixing available. So, why not mandatory spay and neuter? Some people are just lazy and need the incentive of a law.
Not hate. Not lacking a soul. There are so many people who are against this method and have cats of their own – they love cats. That is precisely why they could never in good conscience release a feral cat to live and die outdoors.
If I were a cat, I would be a sentient being, but not have the capabilities to rationalize the way you are suggesting. But, if you want to go that route, then if you were a robin, and you just spent three weeks from dawn til dusk tirelessly feeding your three babies, and you just watched the first fledge to the ground, and then watched the neighbor’s free-roaming or TNR’d cat hop the fence and pounce on the baby, and then swat the baby a few times, and then rip out her guts, but not bother to eat her, or maybe just break the baby’s leg and then tire of the ‘fun’ and leave her wounded, well, how would you feel?
The problem is, you are borrowing from our natural resources to pay that debt.
Vicky Smith
@Catbird
You wrote, “I see no problem regarding lethal injection – as PETA has mentioned – a far kinder and more compassionate fate than what awaits these cats outdoors.”
I don’t know what PETA has to say, on anything. I do not look to them for information.
You stated, “No one wants to see an animal starve. The cats need to be removed.”
Instead of using “removed”, why don’t you, and the others who use this, not use “killed” instead? Some members of the public may think you are relocating the cats, when in actuality you are sending these cats off to their deaths.
I do not think it is doing most of the cats a kindness to kill them. I do not believe most of these cats are better off dead. If I felt that these animals were suffering, I would support lethal injection. Would the cats be better off with a roof over their heads and regular meals? Yes! Unfortunately, that isn’t likely to happen for most of them. Those that are taken care of in a cat colony, though, do get regular meals, and may get shelter, and may get medical care (depends on where the colony is, resources of the caretaker…). Whether the cats continue to get care will depend, too, on whether legislation has been passed forbidding caring for the cats, and if the caretaker was carted off to jail for disobeying the law…
What are the majority of animal welfare agencies recommending for feral/stray cats (euthanasia or TNR)? As to those professionals who are advocating cat-killing, are the majority of these affiliated with wildlife groups?
I sure wish they had low cost spaying and neutering in this province! In regards to mandatory spaying/neutering, I would be concerned that doing this may cause people to dump even more cats and kittens. That’s why I suggested incentives of some kind to encourage people to get their pets spayed and neutered. (I would also like to see an animal abuse registry set up. Anyone who abuses an animal, including dumping it, would find themselves listed on this registry, so anyone with a conscience wouldn’t give/sell an animal to them.)
If I were a robin, I hope I would be able to find the proper habitat to build my nest in (“thanks” to the humans encroaching everywhere); and I would hope that other birds didn’t take off with my offspring (that’s providing they hatched since they may have been exposed to pesticides or other man-made junk). Yes, I may see a cat kill my offspring, or I may get killed by the cat as well.
Catbird, you and other wildlife professionals, should not alienate a large segment of the population. It would be much better if we could find common ground and go from there. Most people who are helping cats care very much for all living things, including “your” wildlife.
Catbird
Because removal does not necessarily mean euthanasia and is not necessarily what is being advocated. The majority of truly feral cats will wind up euthanized. But, many that are considered feral are not so feral after all. Further, these cats for the most part do tame down. There are some sanctuaries, but there is an option for people to enclose or fence in the cats on private property.
Killing is synonymous to violence. Euthanasia is a humane death. Violently is how most of these cats wind up dead when living outdoors. Is the idea that an animal MAY get shelter good enough for our own pet cats? No. Then why so for feral cats? And MAY get medical care? Good enough for pet cats? No. Then why so for feral cats? TNR sets up two standards of care for the same species of animal. That has professional, ethical and even legal concerns. This is why I feel TNR is abuse. We would never condone a one time vet visit for our pets or a one time rabies vaccine or straw in a doghouse during harsh winters or food and water maybe once a day (hard to see that everyone eats and drinks daily in a large colony).
PETA favors euthanasia. Delta Rescue favors sanctuary. Most wildlife groups favor removal. There are domestic animal advocates who are opposed to TNR, but many do not speak up.
If you were a robin, you’d likely be in a backyard, and unfortunately, so are many cats.
Not MY wildlife, but OUR natural resources. Common ground is fine, but the only way for that truly to happen – a real compromise, if one side is opposed to TNR and the other is opposed to euthanasia – is to tame and adopt out these cats or to provide some sort of sanctuary, fencing or enclosure for them.
Vicky Smith
“Because removal does not necessarily mean euthanasia and is not necessarily what is being advocated.”
Is there a study/report/article put forth by wildlife advocates that does NOT recommend killing the feral and stray cats? I haven’t read one yet. There was even a recent study done to try to determine how receptive the public would be to killing these cats:
Influence of Demographics, Experience and Value Orientations on Preferences for Lethal Management of Feral Cats. Kerrie Anne T. Loyd, Craig A. Miller. Published in Human Dimensions of Wildlife, Volume 15, Issue 4 July 2010, pages 262 – 273
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2010.491846
You folks sure are determined to kill the cats. Are they going to conduct these surveys every other year to see if the time is “right” to commence with the mass killings?
“The majority of truly feral cats will wind up euthanized. But, many that are considered feral are not so feral after all. Further, these cats for the most part do tame down.”
(How casually you, and other like-minded people, can discuss killing cats and kittens. One would think you were discussing something inane such as the weather.)
Who is going to give these trapped cats time to determine if feral or scared stray? Or even give the feral cat time to become tame? Most of these cats would be destroyed if turned in to a Humane Society or similar type of shelter (those that don’t have a “no kill” policy). You’re right in that a lot of these cats can be tamed, to varying degrees – given time.
“Is the idea that an animal MAY get shelter good enough for our own pet cats? No. Then why so for feral cats? And MAY get medical care? Good enough for pet cats? No. Then why so for feral cats? TNR sets up two standards of care for the same species of animal. That has professional, ethical and even legal concerns. This is why I feel TNR is abuse.”
Pet cats are tame, usually live indoors and are owned by individuals. Feral cats are wild, live outdoors and are society’s responsibility. You can not apply the same standard to both due to their different circumstances. Since there hasn’t been much of an effort on society’s part to help with feeding, sheltering and TNR-ing these cats, it’s left up to rescue groups and caretakers to do what they can with what resources they have. Society is letting these cats down by not providing food, shelter, medical care, spaying and neutering… TNR is a humane solution to reduce their numbers, and is certainly not abuse.
“Common ground is fine, but the only way for that truly to happen – a real compromise, if one side is opposed to TNR and the other is opposed to euthanasia – is to tame and adopt out these cats or to provide some sort of sanctuary, fencing or enclosure for them.”
You are probably quite aware that those who TNR feral/stray cats will attempt to find homes for as many of these cats and kittens as is possible. It isn’t practical or possible to enclose all of the cats.
It would be most helpful if all those who are concerned with the feral and stray cats situation would get together to discuss, and then implement, various means to HELP these cats. (Keep euthanasia off the agenda so that people can spend a lot less time arguing for or against killing, and, instead, try to get something constructive put into place to help the feral and stray cats.)
The feral and stray cats have a right to live. They, also, had the right to be cared for, and not dumped somewhere. They shouldn’t pay the ultimate price for the faults of society. Find constructive – non-lethal – methods to help the cats and kittens, and to mitigate their impact on the environment.
BIRD CAT
CAT BIRD Sherril, G ,,use your real name !
Catbird
Who is Sherril G? Presumptuous, are you not?
Jen
“Catbird Jan 9, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Wendy Ross said: “Outdoor cats do kill birds and other animals, but having a caregiver who regularly feeds the cats and knows their habits can significantly reduce their impact on the environment.”
Catbird said: “Nice anecdote. Now where is the scientific support for your claim? Their HABIT is to hunt, well-fed or not, and that has been scientifically proven. Most often cited is Adamec 1976.”
**********
Here’s some support for Wendy Ross’s claim from a study by Conservation Biologists where they tried to figure out why their study found cats had no impact on prey around an Albany, New York nature preserve:
“Although there is little empirical data, we hypothesise that the more
care a cat receives from humans the less likely it is to affect prey populations through hunting because it is less driven by hunger (Fig. 7; Fitzgerald & Turner, 2000).
Kays and DeWan, 2004. Ecological impact of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve. Animal Conservation (2004) 7, 1–11, The Zoological Society of London.
BIRD CAT
Fuge?are U NOT?
Jen
Also, I just read Adamec 1976 and I am quite surprised if it is true what Catbird says that it is frequently cited to show it is the HABIT of cats to hunt whether well fed or not. That experiment involved anything but a “well-fed” cat. They were highly stressed cats in a laboratory cage setting, repeatedly starved over 2-day cycles, and on the 48th hour of each starvation cycle they were presented with food and, 45 seconds later, a rat with no means of escape. Is a cat considered “well-fed” 45 seconds into their first meal in 47 hours and before going back on their next two-day starvation cycle? The cats almost all killed the rat before finishing their binge on the prepared food. In that highly unnatural situation, he concludes, “These data suggest that eating is not a terminal ‘consummatory’ component of preying as a food-getting response. Hunger may be seen as a potentiator of a predatory tendency which takes precedence over food consumption…the precedence of preying over eating may have the functional value of increasing food input by multiple kills if the opportunity arises” (Adamec (1976). I think he’s trying to say is, if you are forced into repeated starvation, your eyes will be bigger than your stomach. I suspect any complex predator placed in that situation would kill the rat too, and Adamec says right in that paper that that numerous carnivores, if given the opportunity, will engage in “excessive killing” and that repeated excessive killing will not lead maladaptively to prey species extinction because the conditions for its occurrence rarely arise.
In real life, where rats can hide, birds can fly, and importantly, where that type of stress is taken off feral cats by regular feeding, I really don’t think Adamec is very useful.
Also, feral cats are as much scavengers as hunters; it’s part of why they domesticated, isn’t it?
Jen
Or rather, Adamec is useful, but not for the purported use it is erroneously being put to the anti-TNR brigade as it is not a study about well-fed cats. Adamec was not dealing with well-fed cats but starving cats. Adamec would seem to support feeding feral cats.
Catbird
The Adamec paper illustrates that hunger and hunting instincts are decoupled in the cat brain. The cat will hunt even if it has adequate food already available.
Another study measured predation by cats at a farmstead when being fed and not fed and found predation levels did not change (Davis 1957).
Davis, D. E. 1957. The use of food as a buffer in a predator-prey system. Journal of Mammalogy 38:466–472.
Adamec is just one of many papers that talks about hunting and hunger. The point here is that there is a whole set of literature, not just one study, that shows that fed cats hunt.
BIRD CAT
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/20/hundreds-of-dead-birds-in_n_811709.html
Catbird
These were 200 European Starlings – a non-native invasive species to North America.
Vicky Smith
@Catbird
I gather it is okay for people to kill birds, but not okay for cats…
http://newroadsdaily.com/bye-bye-blackbird-usda-acknowledges-a-hand-in-one-mass-bird-death-p1620-1.htm
Catbird
No, and in the article you posted, Butcher from National Audubon conveys his concerns. The starlings, as I stated earlier, are non-native and invasive, and also ecologically damaging. However, the other birds are native, and species like the Rusty blackbird could be adversely affected from depredation.
This does not change the argument that domestic cats are a serious threat to the health of our environment and need to be removed.
Vicky Smith
Perhaps there should be a debate about whether something has a right to exist, whether it is in what man deems is its own environment or considered non-native, invasive.
Catbird
Interesting, but not too insightful.
1. Mr. Wolf thinks that an ornithology textbook is going to give him the depth of knowledge he needs to understand cat predation, which of course it is not.
2. He doesn’t understand that habitat fragments function in a manner analogous to islands, and that this concept is fundamental to conservation planning.
3. He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of hyperpredation at all.