Though one would think that the recent decision by a Los Angeles Superior Court judge banning the city of Los Angeles “from subsidizing or promoting the trap-neuter-release program until environmental studies are completed” would have at least temporarily stopped the animosity between those who think domestic animals belong outside and those who think nature should be for wild animals, it appears that this is not the case. Just take a look at the angry comments (not backed up by anything but anecdotes) on this Los Angeles Times article from those who think the judge was wrong.
Trap-neuter-release does not work and those who support it are advocating for the death of wild animals, birds included.
Corey is a New Yorker who lived most of his life in upstate New York but has lived in Queens since 2008. He's only been birding since 2005 but has garnered a respectable life list by birding whenever he wasn't working as a union representative or spending time with his family. He lives in Forest Hills with Daisy and Desmond Shearwater. His bird photographs have appeared on the Today Show, in Birding, Living Bird Magazine, Bird Watcher's Digest, and many other fine publications. He is also the author of the American Birding Association Field Guide to the Birds of New York.
From the article:
Dodge [a TNR group founder] even suggested that these bird groups are “extremists” who “need to be marginalized” just like “Islamic jihadists.”
That is an incredible statement – effectively calling us terrorists. How do you possibly have a productive conversation with somebody who says that?
I’m a little surprised to read that TNR programs don’t work. There’s ample scientific study which shows the opposite. Though I’m loath to promote Wikipedia as an expert, you might check their page on it as it links to several such studies and summarizes the findings. I also know of at least five I could link to, including one from Texas A&M University–all of which showing they stop breeding and reduce the existing cat populations.
Keep in mind I’m not at all promoting having domestic cats running around outside (or wild dogs for that matter). It’s bad for the cats and it’s bad for wildlife. But I’m also an adamant believer in not doing harm unless no other choice exists, and in this case I have to admit the science seems to show TNR works.
@jason: Sure, T-N-R may work to reduce populations of feral cats when it is run by trained biologists doing a study and 75-80% or more of the cats are caught and neutered and the colonies are carefully managed but does that ever happen outside of a scientific study? Has a feral cat colony ever actually been wiped out?
Also, the Texas A&M study said that most of the cats involved died from “trauma” which I don’t think is what the folks against euthanizing are looking for as an outcome.
It looks like we’re talking about different studies, Corey. The A&M study I’m looking at says of 101 released: “Six cats were known to have died. Four died as the result of trauma; 1 from disease; and the sixth from unknown cause.” The study is here: http://www.psyeta.org/jaaws/full_articles/5.1/hughes.pdf
Also, I was including the results from long-term observational studies, not controlled experiments. Sorry for the confusion on that. These are cases where researchers basically count cats where TNR has been implemented. I wholeheartedly agree that controlled studies skew the data.
I think no matter which implementation (or other approach) you favor, people will keep dumping animals and cats will always move into unoccupied territory. For those reasons alone, neither approach has ever proved effective in permanently eradicating feral cats. The cats are a symptom, not the disease.
I know it’s an emotional issue for many. What I was speaking to was the idea that TNR is ineffective. It’s as ineffective as euthanasia in that neither will get rid of all the felines, but it’s as effective as euthanasia in that it controls the population and stops breeding. I think the real solution to the issue, though, has little to do with the cats.
TNR does work in reducing the population!
An avid backyard birder, I’ve personally worked with 2 feral colonies. Cats simply don’t breed anymore, this is the crux of it. If they are totally eliminated, it is only to create a vacuum effect where more cats will fill the void.
@Jason: I was referring to this study:
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11302005-195423/unrestricted/etd.pdf
But I did misquote…it actually says that the “two most common outcomes for indivisual cats were disappearance from the colony or death, most often due to trauma.”
Jason, the study you reference is about a campus-based program, and over a third of those cats captured were either killed or adopted, and the colony was still extant at the end of the study period. I agree wholeheartedly when you say this “I think no matter which implementation (or other approach) you favor, people will keep dumping animals and cats will always move into unoccupied territory. For those reasons alone, neither approach has ever proved effective in permanently eradicating feral cats. The cats are a symptom, not the disease.”
Beth, it sounds like you are saying that even in the best of T-N-R programs there will always be feral cats. Considering the expense of these programs how is that a positive?
I would also ask folks to read this for more info:
http://audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0909.html
This is a very interesting subject. I whole-heartedly support the side of wildlife conservation in this debate, but as the owner of a house cat, I can understand where the T-N-R supporters are coming from. Unfortunately T-N-R does not really limit the impact of feral cat populations on wildlife because the cats are being released. Inhibiting an organism’s ability to reproduce does not limit their ability to prey on wildlife or transmit disease.
Not sure anyone is still checking these comments…but…
Everyone needs to remember that TNR involves the continual (365 day /year) feeding of cats. These are cats that include some untrapped, unneutered individuals. A fed cat can produce more offspring than an unfed cat. These fed, unneutered cats produce enough offspring to negate the effects of neutering a few. It doesn’t work for the cat population (on a whole) but no doubt affects the lives and reproductive output of the trapped ones. So…if this is being sold as a measure to reduce the feral cat population of a town….it’s just not going to work, if it is being sold as a method to reduce the number of cats in a colony it may work…but it will not reduce the colony to 0 and by continued feeding you are attracting more cats (unneutered ones) that again, negate the affect of neutering the few. It’s an endless cycle best broke by required microchipping (to prevent continued abandonment), mandatory spay/neuter, and yes, trap & removal of cats for those landowners that simply do not want them on their property for a myriad of reasons.