The recently released study on the number of birds and small mammals killed by cats in the United States has been widely reported in the mass media. The authors of the study took care to share the difficulty of coming up with a reliable estimate but even at the low end of their estimate the number of birds and mammals killed by cats is in the billions. So, of course, the crazy cat people are doing their best to sow doubt about the study, especially that paragon of lies and propaganda, Alley Cat Allies, which have so far put out two news releases trying to discredit the study and change the subject:
A biased study on cats and wildlife published this week in Nature Communications is just another veiled promotion by bird advocates to ramp up the mass killing of outdoor cats…
“This so called ‘survey of research’ seems just another misguided attempt to draw attention to the decline of wildlife by manufacturing a fake debate. The study conveniently sidestepped the primary culprit of decline of wildlife populations which, of course, is human activity including habitat destruction. The authors also neglect to mention that their proposed ‘solution’ really endorses continuing the same failed policies of the last century which call for the mass killing of cats. Tens of millions of healthy cats have already been killed in animal pounds and shelters, at great taxpayer expense, without achieving anything. A policy of just more killing can never be the right answer,” said Becky Robinson, president and co-founder of Alley Cat Allies.
Notice that even Alley Cat Allies doesn’t dispute the fact that outdoor cats kill wildlife. Of course, the sheer number of outdoor cats means that lots of wildlife is being killed. That is indisputable. That an organization exists that encourages and supports the existence of outdoor cats means that organization is supporting the deaths of untold billions of wild animals.
This begs the question – When will Alley Cat Allies and all similar organizations be shut down for endangering native wildlife?
Back in time 10 or 15 years the outside cat was a problem… But todays wildlife situation has changed dramatically and the cat is not the likely culprit today.
I saw many many feral cats out in the field years ago, I would see kittens and misguided people would put food out for them, there WAS a large population of cats living wild.but this has changed dramatically,,,,,
Today the feral cat has not survived… it is astonishing really how tables have turned (northeast), I see none. Perhaps due
to resurgent hawk, falcon and owl poplations, the starving coyote the lack of prey… .. there are redtails in my area that are huge and the cat is easy target.
In the backyard these days the neighborhood cat might still be about but then the BIRD FEEDER draws large numbers of birds squirrels and chipmunks, ALONG with the hawk, the owl and the emaciated (I saw a starving one recently) coyote. And these are problematic for wildlife survival..Also, hawks and owls eat the fledglings of survivors in surburb.
the losses of “billions” will continue until people realize that it is feeding of wildlife a huge problem for survival.
@Emma R: There are still large numbers of feral cats and they still kill billions of small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. I am not sure what you are talking about because I live in New York and see feral cats all over the New York City, Long Island, New Jersey, and downstate New York.
It is remarkable that all Alley Cat Allies can say that there are bigger problems for songbirds and small critters than cats.
That may be true. But I’ve never seen a thief get away by telling the judge about the murderers that still walk free.
@Emma – There’s a massive feral cat colony near where I live in Raleigh too, kept active by good-intentioned people who feed them. I’m not sure what reality you’re living in if you think this is no longer the case.
I live in the suburbs in upstate NY and, though I don’t see feral cats, I have neighbors near and not so near that let their cats out. All their killing is just for the fun of it before they go home to their food dish and warm beds. THAT is was really bothers me. I’ve had to do a number of things to try to keep them from having much success in my yard. In this situations, it ALL a people problem and can’t be blamed on the cats. These cats aren’t necessarily spayed or neutered, either. I love cats. I have two of my own and I’d never consider letting them out. It’s often a death sentence for them, too. People being responsible for their own pets would be a good start.
I’m a wild bird rehabilitator. As such, I can attest to the large number of cat victims that are brought to me. And these are the ones who have lived through the cat attack. Many of the survivors have minor wounds but will sucumb within a few days to infections specific to cats.
I’ll know that the cat problem is solved when I see the numbers of cat mauled birds decline. So far this has not happened here or in any other rehabilitation facility anywhere.
Pure and simple, we are responsible for introducing these alien predators and we must be accontable for the damage done to all native species.
Actually we didn’t really “introduce these alien predators”, cats have lived alongside humans for 10000 years. Cats domesticated themselves as humans developed agriculture which gave rodents easy access to grain and cats, being the opportunistic feeders they are, took advantage of easy access to rodents.
The biggest threats to wildlife isn’t a pet cat (or dog) but a human – the pollution, habitat destruction, and deforestation is much more of a problem than the feral cat population.
Until we can truly work together, to advocate for TNR, low cost spay-neuter, education as to the significantly great life span of an indoor cat vs outdoor cat, understanding of an appropriate diet and lifestyle for an indoor cat, then there won’t be progress. The shouting and name calling isn’t productive.
My (neutered) cats enjoy wildlife on tv or through the windows because I want them with me for as long as I can have them. I don’t want them eaten by the coyotes or hit by a car or mauled by a dog. However, I support the local feral cat organization with my time and dollars. I believe that the feral cat population has as much right to life as the rest of the native populace (and if they catch the rats around the dumpsters, more power to them!)
HollyAnne, as I have responded to similar comments in the past:
You know, I think a big part of the problem is that people know and can identify with cats, and when there is talk of killing them, can picture a cat they know dying. They don’t have the same feeling for a bird usually. Maybe one way we could help tip the scales towards protecting the birds and wildlife is to find ways to make people see the bird as a distinct personality, with a life to live, the way they automatically can see a cat.
Not sure just how, but maybe more stories put out into the media, and into any other communication stream, about individual cases. Tell people about a cat killing some bird you had known for some time, or wiping out a nest you were watching–make them get a sense of real creatures suffering at the claws of a cat. Even stories of narrow escapes would work.
We need more emotion on the side of the birds, not just on the side of the cats.
Patricia Wood
Maryland
It seems like killing feral hogs who are incredibly destructive to the environment is okay, right?
But killing feral cats who are incredibly destructive to the environment is not?
Why is this? Both are invasive species. Both are highly destructive to native species.
Is it because one is cute and fluffy and the other rolls in mud? Is it because we have childhood memories of feline friends? Is it mature to attribute those same characteristics to feral cats who would bite, claw, hiss and spit at you if you got close? Who continue to eat and kill birds no matter how much they’re fed by feral cat supporters?
ACA tries to sell cats as a “natural” part of the ecosystem, but they’re no more natural than black rats, horses, and night crawlers (Lumbricus terrestris) in the US. That alone should destroy their credibility. It was “natural” before cats, and sure, it was natural before us too, but those who argue that killing a cat is the same as killing a person must hate slaughterhouses and certainly must break into tears whenever they kill a mosquito or cockroach. Cats are much more easier to manage than people, and people can make the choice to do or not do something, whereas cats work mostly on instinct.
Cats are not native, they are not natural to the United States, they are here because of Europeans having them as pets and using them as mousers about their boats on the way over. That’s recorded history and fact. To say otherwise is to lie.
They may not be the highest cause of bird deaths, but they are a still a huge impact on birds that can be controlled easily if people get over their emotional attachment to an invasive species. To list all the things that impact birds except for cats, well, you’re clearly refusing to look at the whole picture then. What else is someone like that refusing to look at?
Let us remember that cats also impact anything else they think they can eat, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and insects as well as birds, or anything else they think they can kill as a toy. Cats don’t have to be hungry to attack something, they do it because to them it’s instinctual training left from their ancestors.
My cats in the past have claimed plenty of birds, lizards, insects, snakes, squirrels, mice, rats, etc, and I simply accepted it back then. After reading scientific studies about how much of an impact cats are, I keep my cats indoors and I believe that yes, feral cats need to be removed. I support spaying/neutering, but so far that hasn’t shown to be effective, despite what ACA preaches, because cat populations aren’t getting any smaller because cats roam (the population would probably get smaller if people stop feeding feral cats, lord knows many “natural” animals don’t get fed and they do FINE).
So the question is, do we want feral cats, or do we want all these other animals? ACA has their house cats. Why do they need feral cats too? What benefit do feral cats provide? They have no predator other than perhaps the occasional bird of prey. Anything that would have kept the cats in check, such as wolves, bears, and panthers, have been pretty much removed. Coyotes? People shoot coyotes because they eat cats! The bottom line is that feral cats do not provide any benefit to the natural balance of our ecosystems, the only thing they provide are the warm feelings feral cat advocates get when they feel that they have responsibility over some poor, needy animal that in fact does not need them to flourish at all.
I think the bird watching community and the public in general have a significant misconception of what happens in the peer-review process. In addition to going through this process myself, I’ve heard from several researchers who describe very clear ideological pressure from reviewers to “not go too easy on feral cats,” etc.
Every bird watcher should have reacted to the Smithsonian Study with the same healthy curiosity/skepticism as when a bird is reported in a very unexpected location. It doesn’t mean the ID is wrong, it means we should ask hard questions of the observer (and I’m someone who has been on that hot seat many times, for both correct IDs and incorrect IDs).
What does is say about bird populations / mortality in general to argue that up to 3.7 billion birds (conservatively!) may be killed by cats annually in just the contiguous 48 states? Have we significantly underestimated the number of birds? Have we underestimated mortality rates? Have we overestimated mortality by other causes? What other major, long-standing assumptions about birds do we have to discard to make room for this new study, and what is the impact on bird conservation of tossing out those assumptions?
This would be an rational, science-driven reaction to the study. However, there is something about feral cats that can make the most objective, analytical bird watcher want to jump right to using a bold headline as an ideological weapon with which to bludgeon cat advocates. It simply isn’t a good long-term approach for birds.
Regarding Patricia Woods comment, I think it is dead on, but I think the proposed remedy ignores that people really do feel differently about cats than they do about birds. As an active bird watcher who also likes cats (we keep our pets indoors but also ran a very successful neighborhood sterilize and return program), I can assure you bird watchers love birds just as much as cat caretakers love cats, but not in the same way.
A good way to illustrate that is to think about how we react when we see a bird taken by a native predator. I have never seen a bird watcher grieve for the taken bird – it is part of nature. That reflects a love for the natural system, not a direct connection with the animal that was taken.
Think about how we record bird observations during surveys or in eBird. It is all about numbers. Yes, we photograph some individual birds, but how often do we give them names? Do we really think that individual birds demonstrate the same personality differences as cats? Aside from a unique feature, like a deformed bill or worn or missing feathers, how many of us could look at one House Finch in a flock of 50 and say, that is the same House Finch I just saw a 1/2 hour ago, so I wont count that one again?
The point here isn’t to say that cat advocates should have more rights than bird advocates. It is to say that trying to out-compassion cat advocates is not a winning strategy and it will ultimately undermine key tenets of wildlife conservation. When I went to see Kirtland’s Warbler in Michigan many years ago, they were collecting and killing Brown-headed Cowbirds, a native species, in order to protect the threatened warblers. This is the kind of utilitarian decision that wildlife conservation sometimes entails. Greater value is placed on rarer species not because their capacity for suffering is any greater, but just because they have more value from a biodiversity standpoint.
Obviously, there is much greater affinity within the general public for cats than there is for cowbirds. Conservationists don’t have to agree with that sentiment and they can work to change it, but if policies aren’t taking it into account, then they aren’t going to work as expected in the real world. As I’ve said elsewhere, it is like arguing that only abstinence should be taught in schools since that is indisputably the best method for avoiding pregnancy and transmission of STDs. It ignores an element of human behavior, which is a part of science.
The first thing we need is for people like Ted Williams and Michael Hutchins to stop inflaming the discussion. Then we need to all take a breath, define what we want in terms of conservation metrics, and establish science-driven (not ideology driven) strategies to achieve those metrics. We should be advocating for more accountability of all control programs.
Walter Lamb
I appreciate your ability to write well concise arguments with detail. It is not always a bad thing to want more data than from one or a handful of studies, and I think we can all agree that we don’t really know how many birds are out there, or how many are actually eaten by cats. While I believe that it’s very likely that cats are eating millions or more birds a year, knowing that in the past my cat alone would easily take a bird or two that I knew about (leading to the possibility of more when I wasn’t looking) I would like to see more studies myself.
However, can you honestly say it was Ted Williams who inflamed the discussion when it was ACA who brought the gasoline? Their reaction was vitriolic and childish. ACA did not enter the scene with facts and well thought out statements, they used words of hate and fear. Without looking at everything available to them they rallied loyal and blind idiots who didn’t question the ACA, they sent out mass emails utilizing outdated data, and so forth. As it has been said time and time again, Ted Williams did mention Tylenol as a cat poison, but he never told people to go out and do it. ACA’s fear was solely on the fact that someone might go do it.
If anything, I could argue that ACA’s campaign only helped to spread the awareness of the concept that Tylenol could be used to poison cats. I wasn’t aware at all of that specific property of Tylenol until the issue between Audubon and ACA caught my attention.
And no, I’m not going to poison cats with Tylenol now that I armed with this new information. But I wouldn’t stop someone from shooting feral cats either. I personally see them as a destructive invasive species, that aren’t naturally occurring, and don’t need our help anymore than rats or feral hogs do. At the same time, I’m not going to go driving over cats I see on the road, or telling people they need to shoot cats, either. I won’t make a decision about any kind of action until I’ve seen more information- And I think it’s a shame ACA didn’t have the same mentality, to wait and see before they attempted to ruin someone’s lifelong career for one comment, and that’s why I think they need to be discredited and ignored.
ACA is all ideology. I just can’t see them turning around and trying to work things out with anyone, if one comment is going to cause them to arch back and hiss.