Today is Saturday, August 02, 2014rss RSS feed

Humane Society of Erie County Ignores Science, Chooses Feral Cats Over Native Wildlife

The Wildlife Society

The Wildlife Society

Erie County, PA --(AmmoLand.com)- The Humane Society of Erie County, like many municipalities, has adopted Trap, Neuter and Release as a method for managing feral cats, even though science tells us that TNR is ineffective in reducing feral cat populations, exceptionally cruel for the cats in question and that such programs take a tremendous toll on native wildlife, including migratory birds and small mammals (see Langhorn, T., Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.W. 2009. Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23: 887-894).

When are municipalities and their local humane societies going to get a clue?

When will they have the courage to make the hard decisions?

When are state and federal wildlife agencies responsible for conserving our native wildlife going to take municipalities to court under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Migratory Bird Act and other federal legislation protecting native wildlife? Predation by managed feral cat colonies on protected species should be considered a “take” under the ESA and other legislation. From this perspective, what cat colony mangers are doing is illegal and should not be tolerated.

When are conservationists going to take action against this ill-advised practice, which has shown to be ineffective in reducing the numbers of feral cats?

The Human Society of Erie and the Humane Society of the United States (that also supports TNR) should be ashamed of themselves for promoting a failed policy which, although it may make them feel good about themselves (and helps them raise money from unsuspecting donors who also want to feel good about themselves), is an unmitigated disaster for our native wildlife. TNR is a policy that helps people avoid the hard decisions regarding feral cats, but in the end, is actually less compassionate and less humane than the alternative.

Conservation organizations and individuals who truely care about the future of life on this planet must come together to oppose TNR as anti-conservation and inhumane. Feral cats are non-native predators which exact a tremendous toll on native wildlife. Combined with other factors, such as habitat loss and pollution, they have the potential to push many species to the brink of extinction.

About:
The Wildlife Society (TWS), founded in 1937, is an international non-profit scientific and educational association dedicated to excellence in wildlife stewardship through science and education.

Our mission is to represent and serve the professional community of scientists, managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and its habitats worldwide.

  • 23 User comments to “Humane Society Ignores Science Chooses The Failed Policy of TNR”

    1. Luke Thomas on November 11, 2009 at 11:49 PM said:

      Cats multiply faster than animal control can kill them. Most people will not turn in stray and feral cats because they KNOW they will get killed in the pound-most do not want to kill cats so they leave them be. Though I’m not crazy about the notion of Trap-Neuter-Release, regardless whether or not you agree with it, STRAYS AND FERALS WILL BE THERE. If you tell people bring in your strays and ferals to be sterilized with the promise they WILL be returned unharmed, I guarantee a lot more people are going to be turning in cats. So instead of having BREEDING FERTILE CATS roaming about, you will have sterile cats roaming about. Which would you prefer?
      That is how TNR works and THAT is EXACTLY why it should be a part of every county. Because those strays and ferals are not going away. I guarantee the problem will be reduced if you promise to return them unharmed.

      Each State should have a low cost_free spay/neuter law that collects a surcharge of $5 per animal cruelty and animal ordinance violation to fund low cost and free spay/neutering. ALSO a voluntary check mark on renewing driver’s license to donate a dollar toward free spay/neutering. To have this bill proposed in your State simply sign this Petition to automatically email your State law maker of this brilliant bill, which will be filed in January 2010 in Florida, can be for YOUR state too!

      http://animalrights.change.org/actions/view/affordable_spayneuter_bill_for_cats_and_dogs

    2. Luke Thomas on November 11, 2009 at 11:52 PM said:

      PS-it’s so convenient that cats are always blamed for the demise of birds when cats have been around even during the Ancient Egyptian times and strange birds were unaffected. We have industrialized POLLUTION and humans rape the land for development. Birds are VERY sensitive to the environment and that has absolutely everything to do with the decrease in bird populations. In China there are simply NO song birds anywhere-the pollution killed them all. THAT IS A FACT (and the cat population is low because Chinese eat cats and that is a fact).

    3. Michael Hutchins on November 12, 2009 at 1:06 AM said:

      Feral cat apologists are simply wrong. Sure there are many other factors that may cause a decline in bird populations, such as pollution, habitat loss, and unsustainable use. However, it is the COMBINED IMPACTS of these factors along with introduced predators and competitors, like feral cats and invasive bird species, that we should be worried about. We know that feral cats kill vast numbers of birds and other animals, including threatened and endangered species. Furthermore, we also know that these deaths are often painful and cruel, so why should feral cats be tolerated? As a conservationist, I’m going to continue to educate people about the ecological tragedy of feral cats. Who will speak for our native wildlife and their right to exist?

      There are no song birds in China because the Chinese eat them, use them for medicinal purposes (been to a Chinese market lately?) capture them for pets (been to a bird market?), and destroy their habitats (seen the level of development and disregard for environmental issues there?). The fact that they also eat cats is irrelevant. There weren’t any birds around for the feral cats to eat anyway. If we don’t start dealing with the combined impacts of introduced species, unsustainable use, habitat loss and fragmentation, climate change, and pollution, the United States can be just like China–totally devoid of its native birds. I, for one, don’t want that to happen.

    4. Cats have been around for thousands of years, but the population explosion has only been in the last 3 or 4 decades – and in that same time frame, songbirds have declined precipitously.

      And get a load of this: a black bear from West Milford NJ died from toxoplasmosis recently. Now the town of West Milford is getting ready to legalize TNR! How clueless is that!

      For more info on the black bear and toxo visit the link and click on Failure in Point Pleasant Beach.

    5. Michael Hutchins on November 12, 2009 at 10:07 AM said:

      Sorry, but the science does not support your erroneous claims that TNR reduces the size of feral cat populations. Control of feral cats is going to take a mix of sterilization, neutering, owner education, and lethal control.

      Please read Langhorne, T, Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.M. (2009) Critical assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23 (4): 887-894. Its review of studies that have been conducted on TNR managed cat colonies clearly indicate that TNR is unsuccessful at reducing the number of feral cats.

      Its time to explode the myth that TNR is a successful management tool–it is not. Quit relying on anecdotal arguments and look at the facts.

      Cats are non-native, invasive predators and they must be controlled on our landscapes. Our native wildlife will thank you for it. Even PETA, among the most vociferous of all animal rights groups, is now arguing for live trapping and euthanasia as a method to control feral cat populations. Their arguments are based on animal welfare, not conservation concerns, in that they believe that feral cats would be better off dead (suffer less) in the absence of human care.

      By the way, euthanasia is a widely accepted (by the AVMA and others) and humane way to help deal with this problem. Its already done to millions of unwanted dogs and cats in the U.S. annually, so why not feral cats? Sad though it is, this problem is caused by irresponsible humans, including those who think that letting cats and dogs run free is preferable to euthanasia.

      But its not, especially given the toll it takes on our native wildlife and the fact that feral dogs and cats have short, miserable lives. Let’s start using some commonsense, science, and rationality here.

    6. Trap-neuter-return is the only proven method that over time will result in a substantial decline in feral cat populations through the natural process of attrition. See e.g. Levy, Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program, 222 J.Am.Vet. Med. Assn. 42 (2003).


      This commenter has read the report wrong: Results—In both counties, results of analyses did not indicate a consistent reduction in per capita growth, the population multiplier, or the proportion of female cats that were pregnant. – AmmoLand.com

      Trap and kill has been proven NOT to result in long-term reductions of feral cat populations because the surviving cats will simply rebound to fill the vacuum left by the exterminated cats.

      Moreover, cats are not to blame for the decline in songbird populations. Another animal is to blame, and that animal is us humans. We have destroyed the winter and summer habitats of birds, we have fouled the water, air, and earth with pollution and pesticide, we have built wind turbines and glass skyscrapers, and we have as a result decimated the population of songbirds.

      Cats have little if any impact on their numbers. Don’t blame the cats. Blame yourself. Let’s indeed use commonsense and rationality here. Anyone with an ounce of gray matter can see where the true blame lies.

      It’s a matter of admitting it, that’s all, and those who would point the finger of blame at, of all things, a cat truly have their heads in the sand.

      Until we own up to our own responsiblity for the approaching extinction of thousands of bird and animal species in the not too distant future, we don’t stand a chance of truly reforming public policy to prevent the devastation of this planet and protect the birds and animals who share it with us.

    7. Jim Smith on November 12, 2009 at 8:30 PM said:

      Step 1: remove all food left outdoors for feral cats. Outdoor food should only be provided during the course of trapping them. Enforce penalties for feeding animals that are not yours.
      * This is because, without artificial food bonanzas, feral cat populations would not explode. Control efforts would stand a chance.

      Step 2: trap cats and euthanize those that do not turn out to be someone’s pet (who would get a fine). Allow citizens to trap feral cats (as with other invasive, alien species) and allow animal control officers to respond to citizen complaints to try and trap all strays possible.

      Step 3: legalize cat “varmint” hunting in rural areas. Feral housecats are some of the worst predators there are for Bobwhite Quail. Bad news for Clapper Rail chicks too. Allow state game agencies to regulate “cat varmint depredation” on public and private game lands – just like Coyotes, Armadillos, feral pigs, etc.

    8. Michael Hutchins on November 12, 2009 at 11:39 PM said:

      Once again, please read the article in Conservation Biology that I referred to. It reviews all of the current studies on TNR’s purported effectiveness in reducing feral cat populations. The evidence that TNR reduces the number of feral cats is simply not there! That is why The Wildlife Society–an organization representing nearly 9,000 wildlife professionals–has a very strong policy on the control of feral cat populations. I never argued that live capture and euthanisia of feral cats should be the only method employed; tackling this problem will involve using all of the tools in our toolbox, including both lethal and non-lethal methods, as well as public education. I agree that human activities are the culprit when it comes to the loss of our native birds–and one of these detrimental activities has been the introduction of non-native predators, such as feral cats. We must begin to correct this situation.

      Have you ever watched a feral cat kill its prey? I observed one killing a chipmunk in my neighborhood a couple of summers ago. (I have also seen feral cats preying on threatened and endangered species in the Galapagos Islands and Australia). The cat bit the hapless rodent on the back or neck, which paralyzed its rear legs. The poor rodent desperately attempted to escape by climbing a tree using just its forelegs; its rear legs were dangling helplessly behind. The cat played with its suffering prey for at least 20 minutes. Where is the concern for the welfare of the millions of birds and small mammals killed by feral cats annually? Who will speak for them?

    9. Vsmith where is the proof for this statement?

      “Trap and kill has been proven NOT to result in long-term reductions of feral cat populations because the surviving cats will simply rebound to fill the vacuum left by the exterminated cats.”

      The reality is that if the food source is removed and the cats – the problem is solved – no vacuum effect. See Winter 2004.

      As for the paper you cited from 2003, reductions in individual colonies do not indicate anything about the overall population within an area (i.e. municipality, county, etc.). Further, campus settings are unique and unlike typical urban, suburban or rural areas.

      Levy et al. (2003) surveyed cat colonies in a TNR program combined with intensive removal efforts on a Florida university campus between 1996 and 2002, reporting a decline from 68 to 23 cats. In this case, 47% of the cats were permanently removed rather than returned to the site. Removal efforts and deaths and disappearances of cats were partially offset by new immigration, and the authors noted that: “free-roaming cats do not appear to have sufficient territorial activity to prevent new arrivals from permanently joining colonies.”

      You listed many different anthropogenic causes of wildife mortality – and cats are included in that. They are near the top of the list!

      Humans are the problem – and when a HUMAN allows his/her pet to roam, or dumps one, or releases one through TNR, that HUMAN is further degrading habitat.

    10. Christine Claybourne on November 17, 2009 at 1:30 AM said:

      Whether you love or loathe cats, TNR does work…..I know it is a difficult concept for many to wrap their heads around and some would rather hold onto their cat-hatred as an excuse to justify repeated eradication. The truth is, killing them just doesn’t work. That is why municipalities are approving TNR over and over across the country…….because when you really look at both methods, TNR simply makes sense and is more effective at reducing cat numbers in communities. It is interesting that so many bird lovers oppose TNR, because if you truly wanted to see fewer birds killed then you should endorse TNR.

    11. Christine:

      Once again you are just repeating the same old falsehoods.

      Where is your proof that TNR works?

      There seems to be none, but on the other hand science has proven that TNR is not working and you are actually causing more pain and suffering for the cats you say you wish to protect.

      Why don’t TNR groups have real science done to prove their claims? All I can guess is they can not face the truths or know that it can not be proven.

      TNR is a failed policy that hurts everyone involved especially the cats.

    12. Christine, the concept of TNR is not difficult. TNR sounds good on the surface, but the reality is that TNR does not work. TNR takes place in an open system. Further, opposing a method does not mean one opposes the cats. I am opposed to TNR – I do not hate cats.

      FYI, the reason some municipalities are approving TNR are as follows:
      -ignorance
      -the perception of cost savings
      -political image – don’t want to be the town that ‘kills the kitties’

      They are not approving it because ‘it works’ – reduced rates of euthanasia or less nuisance phone calls to the town (which are simply re-directed to cat caregivers) do not mean TNR has done a darn thing to reduce the outdoor population of ferals.

      If TNR resulted in the reduction of millions of cats rather than just a drop in the bucket – then we’d all be for it. It does not. It most certainly does not help wildlife – it is the scourge of nature.

      How in the world can you expect TNR to help birds when cats hunt regardless of hunger and when cats are always present cause these colonies are perpetually maintained?

      Sheer ridiculousness. Bass ackwards.

    13. Science proves TNR works and that it is more effective than the alternative trap and kill. The evidence, taken as a whole, is favorable to TNR. “Success” is defined as reducing the feral cat population. Yes, cats kill birds. But humans (most of which who are also not native to this country might I remind you) kill a LOT MORE birds… for innumerable reasons and sometimes to extinction (let us not forget the passenger pigeon). TNR is a pretty damn good compromise which should be applauded embraced as such. But no, you sit there (not coming up with compromises), fold your arms and piss and moan about how it is such an atrocity for these cats to be allowed to live out the remainder of their LIFE… Some people!

      Levy, J.K., and P.C. Crawford. 2004. Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 225(9): 1354-1360.

      The University of Florida program (TNR with adoptions) reduced cat populations from 155 to 23 over an 11-year time period. The program began in 1991, and no new kittens were born after 1995. Each of the 11 TNR colonies decreased in size, and three became extinct.

      Centonze, L.A., and J.K. Levy. 2002. Characteristics of free-roaming cats and their caretakers. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 220(11): 1627-1633.

      Although detractors point out that the numbers of cats in this study do not add up appropriately, if one reads the discussion, the authors note that cat caretakers may have reported cats twice, once as original cats in the colonies, and a second time as new kittens or as immigrants. Ultimately, the study notes that cat populations decreased 27% over a 9-month time period.

      Foley, P., J.E. Foley, J.K. Levy, and T. Paik. 2005. Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return programs on populations of feral cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 227(11): 1775-1781.

      In this large-scale study, the authors note that resources were diluted too much and a desired sterilization rate of 75-90% was therefore unobtainable. Therefore, in the two counties studied, county-level cat populations showed no decrease. However, they note that TNR may be effective in smaller, localized areas, where higher percentages of cats can be sterilized, and where immigration into colonies can be controlled. Thus, as a tool (from a larger set of tools) it can be effective in well-defined areas.

      Hughes, K.L., and M.R. Slater. 2002. Implementation of a feral cat management program on a university campus. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science. 5(1): 15-28.

      Although it could not be stated definitively that the total number of cat on the Texas A&M University campus decreased over a 2-year time period, 158 cats were trapped, 32 of these were adopted, and 101 were returned to campus. Significantly fewer kittens were caught in the second year. The effort was not designed as a scientific study (much to the dismay of the detractors), because the program’s goal was to neuter and spay as many cats as possible and to get the tamable cats adopted. As with most grass-roots efforts, the process began with an immediate reaction to a problem, and those involved did not design their program as a research study that used mark-recapture or visual identification methods to completely determine populations levels prior to acting on the problem.

      Levy, J.K., D.W. Gale, and L.A. Gale. 2003. Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 222(1): 42-46.

      A comprehensive program of neutering, followed by adoption and return of cats can reduce free-roaming cat populations in urban areas. The population in this study decreased 66% from 1998-2002, and no new kittens were found after 1995. Most cats were observed in the colonies for over six years.

      Natoli, E., L. Maragliano, G. Cariola, A. Faini, R. Bonanni, S. Cafazzo, and C. Fantini. 2006. Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy). Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 77: 180-185.

      TNR programs with adoptions resulted in a general decrease in cat populations (16-32%, from 3 to 6 years, respectively). Immigration (from reproduction of house cats) from the dumping of cats was noted as a problem.

      Neville, P.F., and J. Remfry. 1984. Effect of neutering on two groups of feral cats. The Veterinary Record. 114: 447-450.

      TNR used in two colonies of feral cats was deemed satisfactory with regard to both humane treatment and effectiveness as a means of control of populations.

      Stoskopf, M.K., and F.B. Nuttier. 2004. Analyzing approaches to feral cat management – one size does not fit all. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 225(9): 1361-1364.

      This study showed a 36% decrease in cat populations over a 2-year time period. The control population (not managed by TNR methods) increased 47%.

      Wallace, J.L., and J.K. Levy. 2006. Population characteristics of feral cats admitted to seven trap-neuter-return programs in the United States. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery. 8: 279-284.

      Over 100,000 cats from seven TNR programs covering the period 1993-2004 were evaluated. They authors found that it was feasible to safely sterilize large numbers of free-roaming cats.

    14. BTW AmmoLand- you might want to read the study: Levy, Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program, 222 J.Am.Vet. Med. Assn. 42 (2003) again (or for the first time). Vsmith was not wrong- YOU are. Did you even read it? Or did you just cut and paste from the abstract linked to Vsmith’s comment?

      Actually, Dr. Levy concluded that, “A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat populations in urban areas.”

    15. Silent Majority on December 8, 2009 at 10:44 AM said:

      MGallo:

      You are typical of a true believer in the Failed policy of TNR. Your long winded argument acknowledges all the flaws of TNR and the problems with making it work and yet you still try and argue your way out of it?

      Lets review , you just agreed that:

      Feral Cats Kill Large Numbers of Birds
      Feral Cats are Non Native to the Environment
      TNR is a Compromise in place of what we know works
      TNR only is successful when combined with adoption and Leash Laws
      TNR caretakers are amateurs and unreliable
      None of the studies you quote can “stated definitively” their results are accurate or reliable
      Cats suffered for extended periods of time under TNR

      Why would we not trap, adopt out, euthanize or remove by some other means all cats that can be caught?

    16. No, you are incorrect about what I have conceded so I will review:

      I agree cats kill birds. I do not agree cats kill birds in ‘large’ numbers if we are going to define ‘large’ numbers as substantially impacting the bird population. I further submit that there are no studies based on the scientific method that conclude that cats are one of the main threats to the bird population.

      Feral cats are non-native to the environment. So are most humans. How far are we going back here? 200 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 1,000,000 years? Where have you drawn your arbitrary line? If we go back far enough the word ‘native’ loses its meaning. At what point in time did we reach the utopia you are trying to get us back to?

      TNR is not only a compromise but it is the best solution on both sides of the equation. Overall the evidence strongly favors the notion that TNR is more effective at reducing the feral cat population than catch and kill. But let me break it down for you:

      The environment is capable of supporting only x-number of cats; the others die from predation, starvation, exposure, and other (mostly) natural causes.

      Let’s give this a hypothetical number so that we can work with it, let’s say ‘Feral town is capable of supporting 10 feral cats.’

      Right now there are 12 cats (all capable of reproducing), so naturally 2 will die. That’s nature! But let’s say animal control officer traps and kills one of the 12 cats. Now there are only 11 cats, Feral Town can support 10 so only one will die instead of two and we are left right where we started; 10 cats capable of reproducing!

      Now let’s go to TNR-Town. TNR Town is also capable of supporting 10 cats and right now there are 12 cats. Animal control officer traps, neuters, and returns one of the cats. 2 cats will still die but statistically, it will not be our neutered cat. Now we are left with 9 cats capable of reproducing and 1 cat not capable of reproducing. We should all be able to agree that TNR-town is going to be more successful in the long run managing their feral cat population than Feral Town will be.

      This is a highly simplified explanation of the science behind TNR but it s a good illustration of how it works and why it is the most effective option. Furthermore, if you perform a vasectomy on a male cat (basically its one step further than neutering) who then tries to reproduce with an un-spayed female, the female becomes undesirable to other male cats. (This equals fewer kittens!)

      TNR can be more successful when combined with adoptions but they are not vital to the equation. (Think of the example above). And perhaps we are misunderstanding each other but Leash Laws for cats are in contradiction with TNR.

      Caretakers are irrelevant. Yes, they can help but they are not vital to the equation. (Although I will note that some people who believe that feral cats should somehow be exempt from the laws of nature would argue that caretakers are necessary to ensure the wellbeing of the feral cat colonies. It is not my intention to take a position on this point)

      The studies conducted do indeed state that they are reliable; I suggest re-reading the studies (not the abstracts), if you want to cheat a little you can skip to the results and conclusions sections; let me know if you need help finding them.

      Feral cats are wild animals. They suffer no greater a fate than a raccoon or a squirrel or a (gasp) BIRD! Nature is not kind to every creature and cats are not somehow excluded from this. If you are suggesting that they should be and you have a fascinatingly moving argument I might be compelled to discuss the idea, but at the moment I find it so unpersuasive a notion that it hardly is deserving of mention. Moreover, is not a chance at life better than certain immediate death?

    17. Scott Schoemann on December 10, 2009 at 9:04 PM said:

      Unbelievable…
      Fact, Cats are the ONLY predator that kills for fun (other than man).
      Fact Studies HAVE been done in urban areas as to the affect of domesticated and feral feline populations on songbird populations and have shown that they are affecting songbird numbers in a dangerous manner (google Wisconsin on this).
      FACT cat owners are far more irresponsible in keeping their pets under control than any other pet owners (sorry responsible cat owners, you are far out numbered by the irresponsible).
      FACT feral cats can not be domesticated once they learn to hunt (typically age 4 to 5 month is too late).

      Stop arguing this and do something about it, something needs to be done, one way or another. Words are not an answer, actions are.

    18. Dear Scott, you are confused about the definition of what a ‘fact’ is. (Hint: a fact is not an opinion nor is it something that you make up because it sounds good). Your Wisconsin study that you mentioned has been widely critisized for its use of non-scientific, unpublished data; it has not been subject to peer-review and is not respected as a meaningful contribution to the debate on the subject at hand. Maybe YOU should look it up again because I thought this was common knowledge among people taking a stance on the issue.

      Does anyone on here do actual research before asserting their positions?

      Stop using the cat as a scapegoat for the real culprit: HOMO-SAPIENS! Otherwise be prepared to be very unsuccesful in your mission to save the birds- cats or no cats.

    19. The Facts is: Cats are a non native, invasive species that is damaging the environment.

      They should be removed from the wild juts like Pythons in Florida or Feral Pigs in Texas or Zebra Mussels in Lake Michigan.

      Just because an animal lives in the wild some other place on earth does not make it Ok to be left in the wild in the USA.

      People maybe be the cause of this problem but people can also resolve the problem though persistent trap and remove programs.

      Just leave out the release part and are on your way solving the problem and at the same time telling the animal rights extremist that you won’t buy into their naive No Kill Policy’s.

    20. Bottom line is people need to be held accountable for there free roaming domesticated cats,only way this will happen is if we unite as a whole, we must have national/state laws to hold cat owners responsible for there cats, cat owners who are not held accountable (because no laws) is why we have the feral/free roaming cat issue in the first place. it is in the best interest of humans-cats and wildlifes health and safety to have laws for cats. No laws for cats= anarchy within communitys.

    21. We have laws that protect songbirds-but no laws for holding cat owners accountable for there cats,this makes no sense, then we shouldint have laws to protect wildlife if we dont protect wildlife from cats.

    22. There is a big diffrence between a birder and a cat lover-birders want what is in the best interst of the cat-wildlife and humans, TNR (cat lovers) are one sided not showing empathy for wildlife and humans. I have 2 cats I am responsible for.My cats have always been supervised in the house, It is common sense and right to supervise and care for your cats health and safety is priority,not allowing my cats to roam. I am being a considerate respectful within my community, keeping peace with my neighbors. I value. Just because we have no laws state or national for cats. it doesint make it right to take advantage of your communitys and neighbors and you do so when you willingly know your cat is at risk and your neighbors/wildlife. My next door neighbors have 2 cats that they take no responsibility for. allow the cats to roam. wildlife and cats and humans health and safety at risk, This has been going on for 4 years now- When I spoke to my neighbors I got ~there is no laws for my cats- 4 years later I am still babysitting my property from cats that are not mine, I have spent thousands of dollars on cat detrents-fenceing- everything -nothing works. I am mentally and emotionally drained, why is it okay for this to continue within communitys and amongst neighbors it is lawlessness. TNR is a aid it does not fix the root of the problem- when TNR returns a cat band back into the community it is being done without thinking of the welfare of the cat itself-wildlife and humans, sure neuter/spaying is great. should have been done by responsible cat owners ( if we had laws for cats we wouldint have a need for TNR) it is just irresponsible to drop a cat back off in a community to run a muck, TNR are enablers and are the problem when they can not see the whole picture of everyone involved concerning cats wildlife and humans.This mentality is hindered and i question the mental status of this way of thinking.The culprit is the citizens and our goverments lack of concern and empathy, we must speak up and make a diffrence for EVERYONE by taking the inititive to have cat laws holding people accountable for there cats is the soultion. Wheather or not cat owners agree with it or not,it is right and just for the health and safety of everyone.We dont live by what we feel- we live by what we know to do is right, my motives and my intent are for good. I have seen TNR state cats control the population of rodents,more like diminishing the population, rodents have a natural predator that was created to control songbirds and rodents, it is the owl and hawks-not a cat. A domesticated cat kills for sport, tortures and watches a law protected song bird suffer, then walks away from it while it lay dying,this is humaine? when it can be prevented.(with laws for cats) natural predators eat the bird and rodents to survive there life depends on it,the hawk will kill the sick/weaker birds-weaning out the weak ones.Everytime a cat kills wildlife.it is diminishing wildlife unbalancing our eco system, as well as the cat itself could get a disease and die or be poisoned by a rat that ate rat poison. Cats stomaches are not designed to fight off these type of parasites, the hawks and owls immune system can fight off diseases that rodents and birds carry. this is because they are natural predators-cats are not. I am concerned about cat owners mental status as well as TNR when they know the cat they love so much is at risk. How about TNR join together on a national level and fight for what is in the best interest of humans wildlife and cats- called cat owner accountability law.

    23. You have failed to rebut any of my arguments while I have consistently addressed yours. Repeating yourself over and over does not somehow make your argument more persuasive; quite the opposite is seems you have so few facts to argue that repetition is all you have.

      If you are indeed interested in furthering your argument please respond to the following two issues which I mentioned above, I would be very interested in what you have to say. Please don’t bother though if all you have to add are opinions and personal beliefs; however studies (reputable), facts and logic will be appreciated:

      1. TNR is more effective at reducing the feral cat population than catch and kill:

      The environment is capable of supporting only x-number of cats; the others die from predation, starvation, exposure, and other (mostly) natural causes.

      Let’s give this a hypothetical number so that we can work with it, let’s say ‘Feral town is capable of supporting 10 feral cats.’

      Right now there are 12 cats (all capable of reproducing), so naturally 2 will die. That’s nature! But let’s say animal control officer traps and kills one of the 12 cats. Now there are only 11 cats, Feral Town can support 10 so only one will die instead of two and we are left right where we started; 10 cats capable of reproducing!

      Now let’s go to TNR-Town. TNR Town is also capable of supporting 10 cats and right now there are 12 cats. Animal control officer traps, neuters, and returns one of the cats. 2 cats will still die but statistically, it will not be our neutered cat. Now we are left with 9 cats capable of reproducing and 1 cat not capable of reproducing. We should all be able to agree that TNR-town is going to be more successful in the long run managing their feral cat population than Feral Town will be.

      This is a highly simplified explanation of the science behind TNR but it s a good illustration of how it works and why it is the most effective option. Furthermore, if you perform a vasectomy on a male cat (basically its one step further than neutering) who then tries to reproduce with an un-spayed female, the female becomes undesirable to other male cats. (This equals fewer kittens!)

      —AND—

      2. Everything is ‘non-native’ to the environment if we go back far enough so how far are we going back here? 200 years? 1000 years? 10,000 years? 1,000,000 years? Where have you drawn your arbitrary line? If we go back far enough the word ‘native’ loses its meaning. At what point in time did we reach the utopia you are trying to get us back to?

    • Sign up Ammoland for your Inbox

      Daily Digest

      Monthly Newsletter

    • Recent Comments

      • David: San Antonio: “Boobs”…show ing boobs. Move along people…TRUST me…there is...
      • David: San Antonio: Harry Reid…almost, but not quite as smart as Gabby Giffords.
      • dachu3: While not advocating for abortion, the docs now want to safe kids by destroying 2A. Why don’t you move...
      • askeptic: When putting yourself into a situation that may result in your arrest and detainment, wear your best...
      • Chris: Not surprised they had problems, when you have stupid union thugs making guns you’re going to have...
    • Social Activity

    • Most Popular Posts

      • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
    Copyright 2014 AmmoLand.com Shooting Sports News | Sitemap | Μολὼν λαβέ

    Win a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle

    Subscribe and receive our emails , the drawing will be August 15, 2014 maybe you will be the lucky shooter receiving a Daniel Defense DDM4v9 Rifle. For more information visit the Daniel Defense promotional page.
    Monthly email subscription from Ammoland
    13871272
    14469080