The Issue: Researchers said trap-neuter-release programs alone are ineffective in controlling wild feline populations.Our Opinion: Since these animals can carry disease, it is important to get a handle on their growing numbers.Researches from the University of Nebraska have released a study that could change the way some municipalities and some animal shelters view the growing problem of feral cats, and it is not likely to sit well with millions of people nationwide who see nothing wrong with setting out some food and water for felines that roam free.According to the study, predation by feral cats on birds in the United States costs $17 billion, based on the amount of money people spend to feed wild birds, the amount hunters spend for licenses and the amount bird breeders spend to raise birds.In addition researches Aaron M. Hildreth, Stephen M. Vantassel and Scott E. Hygnstrom said trap-neuter-release programs, which many have said will control cat populations in the wild, have not reduced the feral cat population, which was estimated to be more than 60 million and growing.One reference to success from a trap-neuter-release program claimed that one cat colony numbered 920 cats before officials attempted to capture and sterilize the animals and 678 felines after the program was in place, the study noted. However, when migrations and births were factored in, the colony had actually increased in size to 983 cats.In their extensive research, Hildreth, Vantassel and Hygnstrom said they were unable to find a single real-world example of a trap-neuter-release program succeeding in eliminating a feral cat colony.Also, the study revealed the most important reasons for municipalities across the country to control populations of feral cats: They carry disease that could present a danger to people.”Feral cats can transmit several diseases to humans and other cats, including cat scratch fever, plague, rabies, ringworm, salmonellosis and toxoplasmosis,” the study said. “In fact cats are the most important species in the life cycle of the parasite responsible for toxoplasmosis.”The report cited three previous studies that revealed a majority of feral cats – between 62 percent and 80 percent – tested positive for toxoplasmosis.Part of the problem in controlling the population of wild cats is the number of people who feed them, the study said. People in 9 percent to 15 percent of all households in the United States put food out for feral felines, but only a handful of those people consider themselves to be the owners or the caretakers of the animals they are feeding.Some people have argued that feral cats serve a useful purpose by killing mice, rats and other pests, but the study indicated that they are not effective in controlling such populations because the rodents have adapted to living in close association with people.Finally, the study indicated that well-fed feral cats maintain their predatory instincts and still kill songbirds and other animals.The study suggested a variety of control methods should be used in addition to trap-neuter-release, including some that will upset cat lovers, such as trapping and killing or shooting the felines.This is an issue that is becoming a problem. Officials could start by banning the practice of feeding wild cats while they study which other methods they need to consider to manage the population of feral cats.
I have received many angry emails about this editorial which I’m sure the Reading Eagle has and will receive angry letters over this piece.
First, I have to question why someone from the editorial department has taken an interest in this topic. This topic has been broached in city council meetings as a possible new ordinance for “owners” or “managers” of feral cat colonies to pay a fee for helping these cats. Coincidence…you decide.
Now, to the article..This study began as a report in an undergraduate wildlife management class at the University of Nebraska Lincoln Extension (UNL). The students’ professors and other UNL researchers then compiled the report.
Major areas pointed out in this study- Feral/stray cats (“their” term- these are two types of cats) kill birds that cost the US $17 billion per year. How did they arrive at that figure? The broken down version is that 40 cents is spent on each bird observed- hunters spend $216 per bird shot and bird beeders spend $800.00 per bird . Make sense? Please explain it to me.
This information was provided by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) which has lauded the report. The ABC is a strong opponent of Trap-Neuter-Release. The study reported by the UNL has also said TNR does not work in reducing the number of feral cats. According to the ABC, 532 million birds are killed annually by outdoor cats. Have cats killed birds? Yes……..but 532 million? And how do they substantiate this gargantuan number?
So TNR doesn’t work according to this unscientific study….then what is the solution? According to three pages in this report, they want feral cats killed. The report will describe how to shoot a cat between the eyes, using padded jaw fronthold jaw and foothold traps, carbon dioxide asphyxiation and chemical injection.
Let’s see…….if I shot my dog between the eyes, I could be arrested and charged with animal cruelty…most likely a felony. But it’s okay to shoot a cat between the eyes. We’re not talking about humane methods of killing. This is inhumane and would be considered animal cruelty by anyone’s standards. This is simply preposterous!
The report also states that feral cats carry diseases that could present a danger to people. Some of the diseases listed are cat scratch fever, plague, rabies and ringworm. The last case of rabies transmission from a cat to a human was in 1975.
Veterinarian and Director of well-being studies for Best Friends Animal Society, Dr. Frank McMillan has come out against this study and has stated that the authors of this six-page circular is biased and thinly veiled advocacy and instruction manual for the total extermination of unowned cats.
All animal advocates as well as TNR proponents are speaking loudly against this largely unsubstantiated report, in my opinion. To read more about TNR from Nathan Winorgrad, click here.
Back to my original question- why has the author of this editorial decided to write about this now in our local paper? He states that officials would have to start to practice banning the feeding of wild cats while they study other means to rid the area of feral cats. What officials to whom is he referring?
The Animal Rescue League would be the organization that would be in charge of this banning. But, wait, the ARL opens up their surgery center to two organizations – No Nonsense Neutering and the Fairchild Foundation – to offer low-cost spaying and neutering for feral cats on Sundays.
Wouldn’t that be a conflict of interest to ban feeding feral cats but offering this low-cost spaying/neutering service for ferals? You tell me.
Your thoughts? Do you think TNR is effective or should we start to shoot feral cats? And what about the irresponsible owners who dump and abandon their cats into the wild? Should we mandate that all pets be spayed and neutered? You tell me.