-
Stresslesstravel 07/28/2011 1:30:00 AM
Are you seriously that callous and heartless when it comes to cats? I am an animal lover, and I am not so self-righteous to think that I have the right to decide which animals are more important than others. I had a dog in the past, and I currently have a cat. I don't let him out alone because I fear for his safety, and think it's better to take your pet out on a leash- be it a cat, a dog, or a ferret. I wouldn't kill any animal unless my life, or the life of my family (pets included), was being threatened. How can you truly advocate killing all cats on-site? What if a beloved pet escaped from his/her home, and the owner was frantically trying to find him/her? This happens with dogs as well. I personally think that all pets should be microchipped for identification in case of escape, and that they should all be neutered/spayed as we do not need more uncared for animals in our world. I also believe strongly that people need to stop having so many babies who are unwanted and uncared for. Live and let live. It is the fault of people that there are feral cats. They have become part of the environment and ecosystem. You'd probably advocate killing mountain lions and cougars as well because they are feline predators. The animal world involves predators and prey, as does the human world. The higher mind dictates that we care for all living things in a respectful manner, and not attempt to eradicate a problem by killing a living being who is only doing what nature intended it to do.
I think that it is a very sad world we live in when so many cats, dogs, and human children, are unwanted. We need to stop procreating until all existing creatures are adopted into loving homes. How can anyone have a baby, knowing that there are children in foster care wishing for a forever home? How can anyone purchase a "purebred" cat or dog, knowing that there are thousands in shelters and on the street, in need of love and care?
There are wonderful sanctuaries for cats, www.cathouseonthekings.com and www.caboodle.com are both great places where unadoptable cats are given a beautful forever home in a safe open environment. If I had the funding I would do the same.
Your posting is full of hate, and if theres' any karma in the universe you will have much misfortune in your future.
-
Larlarmm 07/12/2011 9:16:00 PM
People miss the point of TNR: By killing individuals, you create an opening (niche) for the surviving cats to fill with their offspring. but, if you trap, alter, and release, you block that hole (or, niche) from being filled by another intact cat, who would come in with reproductive capabilities. This method works better than complete eradication, because a handful of individuals will survive the mass extermination, no matter how good a mark everyone is, and we will face the problem once again.
However, feeding these cats is counter-productive, you attract any of the reproducing cats in and increase the limiting factor to population growth by increasing the amount of food available. More food = more cats surviving. TNR, then stop feeding them!
-
06/05/2011 10:06:00 PM
A quite hilarious posting by none-other than the demented leader of Vox Felina itself (found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-to-do-about-feral-cats/2011/05/26/AGEzjMEH_allComments.html?ctab=all_#weighIn ):
(Comments were closed there so I couldn't reveal this mentally-deficient basket-case for the fool that s/he really is.)
>GerdaLobo Writes:
>But I have a serious question regardless of where anyone stands on TNR. How would one go about euthanising tens of millions of outdoors cats?
You fool, that's what shotguns, rifles, and handguns are for. You know, the "SSS Cat Management Program" that's sweeping the world--"Shoot, Shovel, and Shut-up". Legal EVERYWHERE, and there's not one thing that you nor anyone else can do about it.
>On Marion it took 19 years, and a lot of money to kill a few thousand cats.
The population of Marion must be really bad shots. I alone already shot up-toward 100 of them all by myself. Just five more this week alone. You're telling me the population of a whole island is that lacking in motor-skills? Sounds more like someone was raping the tax-coffers for 19 years. What's a few thousand? 3,000-4,000? It could have been all done in one season with 30-40 people like myself, just for the cost of the ammo. 19 YEARS? Total idiots must live there. Must be, or they never would have let the problem get that bad to begin with.
> How long will it take to kill tens of millions, and who will pay for it?
Hmmm ... let's do the math ... I alone disposed of about 60 to 100 cats already, in just 2 seasons. It would have been less if the mentally deficient cat-lovers in the area wouldn't keep adopting more every month (because they believe in the psychotic "vacuum effect" and must replace any that disappear, no doubt). You'd think the local humane-society would ask them the simple question, "What did you do with the last dozen cats we gave you? Make stew?"
Anyway... let's take the topmost estimate of feral cats in the USA being about 60,000,000 (some estimate 150,000,000). Now, considering they are rather sparse here, population-density-wise, and difficult to spot when they do roam free in all the woodland underbrush (but they do no less damage), let's increase the average of cats shot-dead in more densely populated areas to 100 cats per person per season. This means only 600,000 people in the USA, the population of a very small city, will have to get their marksman skill up to do away with ALL of them in just one short season. Now if everyone in the cities would put all those gangs to work, they already have guns, redirecting their energies ... we could be rid of ALL OF THEM IN JUST ONE SEASON! What a great summer-employment project for all gang members!! And they'll get their need to shoot something out of their systems! (But please, outfit them with shovels too, to bury all these disease infested cats so the dead cats can't do even more damage to all humans and wildlife.)
Who will pay for it? Every person desperate to get rid of the disaster you created. And of course we'll all have to sue every member of Alley Cµnt Allies and every other feral-cat group out there for everything they are worth before they are all thrown in prisons for their crimes against humanity and nature. That should buy at least a few more rifles and boxes of bullets. As well as stop them from destroying any more species and environments and spreading deadly diseases to all. A box of 100-rounds of .22's costs about $8 (less in bulk, I have many thousands of rounds sitting here from a deal too good to pass up). How much does it cost you to deal with just ONE cat? It costs a rifle-owner only $0.08 per cat. Total expense, no further costs incurred after that. $0.08 X 60,000,000 = $4,800,000. Total one-time expense. The price of about 20 average homes. And that's for the highest estimate of how many need to be shot. Could be as low as 20,000,000 feral cats, 1/3rd the costs. Even better, those close-out deal bulk .22s I bought were only $15 for 5,000 rounds. That's only 0.3 CENT per cat! 3 dead cats per penny! It doesn't get more economical than that. With costs like those it would only cost $180,000 to get rid of 60,000,000 cats, less than the price of an average home. Solving ONE WHOLE CONTINENT of cat problems -- PERMANENTLY.
>Who will pay for the truckload of legal cases that will invariably arise when pet cats get mistaken for ferals?
What legal cases? If a cat is not inside someone's home it deserves to die. Clear-cut case. Simple. If they don't care about the well-being of their cats and that of everyone else's wildlife, nobody else should give one concern about their cats either. Or should everyone send you a bill to rent out their land for the use of YOUR cats? I charge $10,000 an acre per week per cat. Got the cash? The only legal case you need to be wondering about at this point is how you're going to have to defend yourselves against being charged with the crimes you've committed against all of nature and all of humanity.
>What are the unintended consequences we will need to prepare and budget for?
What budget? Getting rid of 60 to 100 cats here only cost 60 to 100 X $.08 (the cost of an average round for a .22). $4.80 to $8.00 for the mathematically challenged. Two cups of Starbucks coffee to get rid of 60-100 cats? These cat-solution costs seem highly economical to me, considering all the $BILLIONS in damage that cats cause every year. Not to mention all the costs in testing, spaying, neutering, transporting, and disposal of these useless wastes of flesh. (btw: Just so you know that I'm not hawking Starbucks here ... I tried Starbucks' brew once, spit it out and threw the cup in the trash, horrid stuff. I might as well have just torn up those dollars spent. Why would anyone drink that bilge-water more than one sip in their lives?)
>E.g. on Marion there now is a massive problem with an out of control mouse population - who eat bird eggs and kill chicks - and the South African government has indicated it does not have the millions of dollars it will cost to try and eradicate the mice.
I see, so your cats destroyed LESS birds than the mice did? Could you cite some proof in this matter? Got proof of mice eating birds eggs or killing their chicks? This I've GOT to see! "News at 11: Grain-eating mice mutate into MEAT EATING MONSTERS WITH JAWS BIG ENOUGH TO SWALLOW WHOLE EGGS!" LOL You must write articles for the National Enquirer no doubt. Mind if I rub your useless nose in a turkey, grouse, quail, or other ground-nesting bird's nest so you can see the REAL damage that cats do, up-close and personal? You psychotic lying cat-licking cµnt.
The solution? Breed as many resident native predators as they can, gray-foxes do wonders if they have them, they don't even eat farmers' poultry, or use a resident reptile or bird-of-prey that relishes mice as their primary food-source. It'll all eventually stabilize within a couple seasons. Are you telling me that the officials of this island are as brain-dead as you are? Probably. No, most assuredly.
>TNR is imperfect in many ways, and not feasible in many locations.
Not only imperfect, but a perfect waste of anyone's time and energy. Because you claim that 60,000,000 feral cats can't be killed on-sight even more easily. Just imagine the mountain of disaster that you have created with the meaningless few cats that you still let destroy all wildlife by setting them free again. You haven't even scratched the surface, yet you claim to have the solution. All of you are truly delusional. As they say colloquially, "You've got one oar out of the water." "You're spinning a wheel in the sand," "You're not firing on all cylinders." Not only is shooting them all a quicker, and a more cost-effective way, but it will actually solve ALL problems. Unlike your psychotic beliefs that perpetuate all problems on-ad-infinauseum.
>To posit something that is impossible to execute as an alternative to a flawed approach is either profoundly ignorant, or profoundly cynical.
Ah, about time that you looked at your TNR policies objectively.
>How about devoting resources to all the promising research aimed at developing non-invasive sterilization methods for feral and wild animals,
And how many years are we going to have to wait for this imaginary solution? Another two decades of failures, like TNR? Oh, and did you actually say that you want to sterilize WILD animals to protect your cats? You do realize don't you, every time that you use the word "feral" to describe a cat, you yourself are claiming and admitting that a cat is not a natural part of the environment of native animals.
>instead of pouring those resources into histrionic marketing campaigns predicting the Apocalypse Meow?
And this is going to solve the death and destruction of native wildlife by your disease-infested, invasive-species, killing-machines, how?
>Prophecies of the apocalypse have a very bad track record, and their prophets end up being ridiculed.
But you as a prophet for feral-cats won't be ridiculed, is that what you are saying?
Ahhhh.... now we get to the heart of the matter. Not only are you insane, you think you're a prophet. ROFLMAO!!!!!
-
05/11/2011 3:19:00 PM
Thousands of years ago, in Egypt, humans made a profound and binding compact with cats. We agreed to take them with us and protect them, while they agreed to provide an essential service for us by keeping under control rodents and other vermin that threatened our food sources, and, thus, in times when humans were much more vulnerable to starvation, our very lives. The cats have never wavered in honoring that contract ever since, despite the number of times, such as during the Middle Ages, that we have let them down and turned on them with a viciousness peculiar to our species. Now that we’ve found other ways, via pesticides, to protect our food sources, some people have decided once again, to turn on our loyal companions, pretending either through arrogance or ignorance that the compact we made with them never existed.
We have never had such a long-lasting and significant arrangement with birds, with whom we have often been in direct competition for food and on whom humans continue to prey for food, every day, to a far greater extent than cats ever have. Yet, now, some base, treacherous humans, based on their self-indulgent and sentimental fascination with particular types of birds they have chosen to privilege are attacking cats once again, simultaneously abrogating our bond with them and scapegoating them for the fates of various bird species, blaming them unjustly for the results of human behavior. Spilling lies and fashionable pseudoscience from their mouths as they talk about “policy,” these people spit on honor and loyalty, while pretending to be acting for the greater good.
I, for one, will not join this vile, vicious, and faithless betrayal of those who have been our loyal friends for millennia, and I utterly condemn those people who participate in and perpetrate this treachery. Instead, I reaffirm and renew our bond with our ancient allies and declare my intention to stand by them and protect them from their enemies.
-
05/11/2011 1:23:00 PM
No, Dan, it's not "your problem." It does not belong to you. It's not your business to decide what form of life is a "problem" and what species is more deserving of life on this planet than any other. "Your problem" is one you're blind to: your own arrogance.
-
05/11/2011 1:14:00 PM
Lisa,
Exactly right. This whole issue reeks to high heaven of scapegoating and the arrogant, totalitarian desire of some to force the world to conform to the way they think things should be. It would be nice if these myopic control freaks could recognize that it's precisely attitudes like theirs that have resulted in massive environmental destruction around the world.
I mean, have you seen a cat driving a bulldozer recently?
-
05/11/2011 12:58:00 PM
Victor,
I am truly sick of and enraged by comments such as yours in terms of their misappropriation of terms like "exotic" and "non-native." It would be nice if you and others like you would simply admit that you're grasping at the latest intellectual fad as a cheap justification for your real agenda: attempting to force the natural world to conform to your own sentimental concept of what it should be.
Fact: the history of life on this planet is a history of change. Innumerable species have ended up in places where they did not originally evolve. It's been good for some, bad for others. Human concepts of "fairness" referenced by your comment about "unnecessary burdens" are foreign to the ways in which the natural world works. They don't apply. Nature doesn't care whether you like this or not. Nature doesn't care if a species has "had enough to deal with."
Fact: cats have been in North America for at least 400 years.
Fact: a non-sentimental evolutionary biologist will tell you that predation, in the end, makes the prey species stronger and smarter. And if one species goes extinct, another generally comes along to fill the niche. That's not good or bad; it just is.
And who are you to dictate what forms of life on this planet are more valuable than others? Who are you to say where a form of life does or does not belong? The sheer arrogance involved in making the sort of statements that you and others like you make deserved to be spotlighted and exposed for what it is.
But I'm sure that you'll persist in your fantasy of thinking that you should be the one in charge -- at least until the next big earthquake, tsunami, tornado, or hurricane comes along to show you precisely how irrelevant your desire is for the natural order to conform to your wishes.
-
05/10/2011 11:54:00 PM
Also, today, I attended a university seminar on conflicts between "Cat Caregivers" and "Bird Conservation Professionals," and the grad students in Wildlife Management had done a study of the attitudes of both groups. They found one striking difference: survey results showed that advocates for homeless cats tended to have an open attitude towards working with bird conservationists to reach mutually acceptable solutions. Bird conservationists were much more likely to be unwilling to cooperate and to insist that their solutions were the only right ones. The students said that they thought that the "cat people" would be the extremists, but it turned out that the opposite was true.
Thus, though I didn't expect it, I was handed statistical evidence that what Woodman 001 says is completely wrong in his characterizations. Cat advocates indicated that they were open to and optimistic about resolving conflicts. Bird enthusiasts indicated that their thinking was rigid and polarized -- as Woodsman 001 clearly demonstrates.
-
05/10/2011 11:06:00 PM
Where do you live, Woodsman? I expect that you're too much of a coward to tell me.
-
Woodsman 05/10/2011 9:45:00 PM
As I said, never argue with some ignorant cat-loving cµnt. Just do what needs to be done.
And if you don't live in an area where a firearm can be discharged legally, then I offer another valuable and humane method to counter the myriad problems that all disrespectful and inconsiderate cat-lovers cause for everyone else and all wildlife.
Anytime you see a cat off of an owner's property, use a pot-modded laser on it. Google for: pot mod laser. You get them for about 5$-$10 off of ebay from Hong Kong and China suppliers and easily increase their output to 100mw or more. I find that filing a small hole in the side of the barrel makes it easier to reach the potentiometer than disassembly and risking ruining it.
If you blind a cat in one eye they'll lose their depth perception and won't be able to hunt as effectively. If you blind them in both eyes they'll stay home near their food dish. This is instant and painless. It's even far more humane than declawing. It is also anonymous. In daytime nobody will even know it happened or who did it--for those of you who don't want to deal with or confront the ignorant and inconsiderate cat-lovers. I find that the blue lasers are more powerful and effective than the green ones after being pot-modded, lighting a match much more quickly. You don't even have to blacken the match with a black "sharpie" to get it to light with a pot-modded blue laser. I keep one of each in my pocket for those cats that are too difficult to shoot cleanly with a .22. I don't like to see any animal suffer. If I can't get a clean shot then they get blinded in one or both eyes.
The drastic problems that cat-lovers have created by their blatant disrespect and lack of consideration for their environment, all other humans, and all other animals now requires drastic actions by all those who actually care.
-
05/10/2011 3:55:00 PM
Woodsman is obviously just another psychopathological shill for the pseudoscience circulated by the American Bird Conservancy, which has been cited by various independent analysts for complete reliance on small, dubious studies conducted by people with little or no standing in their fields. Of course, where is he directing your attention? To the American Bird Conservancy's website. And do I need to point out that this individual obviously loathes cats AND anyone who doesn't share his hatred? That's one thing I've seen over and over again in this debate: people who want to help cats have nothing against birds, while people who claim to be on the side of birds frequently confess quite openly to despising cats, to the point of bragging about how much they enjoy killing them. See Woodsman's text for proof.
Remember how many churches have rolled in the contributions by claiming that gay people were out to Destroy the Family. This is the same sort of utterly cynical lying for the sake of fundraising. For example, "A well-fed cats kills more animals than a starving one?" Sorry, if there's one thing I can say with confidence about cats, it's that they are lazy. A well-fed cat sleeps.
As for the owls, several recent studies by real scientists have shown that both hawks and owls are generally doing very well, aided by the open spaces that humans create. Where I live, grey foxes are on the increase, but there are far fewer rabbits than there used to be.
-
Woodsman 001 05/07/2011 5:40:00 PM
TNR programs are a dismal failure. Don't let anyone try to convince you otherwise.
For just two of the dozens of sites online that present the truth:
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/tnr.html
http://www.tnrrealitycheck.com/
Those cats that are released will still be decimating the native food-chain for all manner of animals larger than themselves, as well as destroying all the smaller animals that feed the larger ones. And if you feed a TNR cat colony they kill even more wildlife. A well-fed cat kills more animals than a starving one. They don't stop killing other animals just because they're no longer hungry. The healthier they are the more they kill. It's what they do, it's what they are. Lousy little killing machines, nothing more.
And don't fall for the song and dance about cat-lovers being animal-lovers, they are anything but that. They don't give one damn about any other animals nor even other humans.
The problem is just not the loss of bird populations either. Feral cats and neighboring farmers that let theirs roam free have decimated the food-chain in my woods. The resident foxes, owls, and other predatory animals no longer had a food source, the feral cats destroyed all the smaller animals that all the larger ones depend on. The native species all starved to death. That's what cats do to ALL native animals.
I found out that where I live it is perfectly legal to defend your own property and animals from destruction by others' animals. I lost count after dispatching over 20 of the lousy piece-of-sh!t vermin with a good .22, outfitted with a laser-sight and good zoom rifle-scope. I didn't have to waste even one bullet, making this solution highly economical as well. Just think of how many dollars and hours of your lives that you have spent trapping, transporting, calling, complaining, restoring damaged property, et.al. ... and still all the problems that these useless cat-lovers have caused remains.
It's time to give cats and cat-lovers the same consideration and respect that they have for all other humans and all other wildlife--that means NONE. Don't bother wasting your time arguing with disrespectful, inconsiderate, and ignorant cat-lovers either, as I stupidly tried to do too many times in the past. Just do what needs to be done and there'll be nothing to argue about.
This year owls and foxes have returned to my woods. The lousy cats are finally gone, but I'll shoot again on first-sight the first chance I get. The rewards for ridding your land of ALL cats is far too great.
-
05/05/2011 10:01:00 PM
Let's take a step back to consider what's really going on here. It's interesting to me that basically the same article is appearing with different authors' names all around the country. When students of mine all start writing the same thing, it's usually because they've all found the same source. In this case, it's the American Bird Conservancy. They want to get people up in arms about birds for one reason: self-promotion. They want visibility and contributions. And they've found out that a great way to do this is to stir up controversy by scapegoating cats. They like to claim that cats are birds' #1 enemy, which is so ridiculous that it doesn't even deserve a response. Obviously, humans, via habitat destruction, pesticides, herbicides, etc..., are, by an overwhelming margin, birds' #1 enemy, but the ABC has found that being hostile to people and their appetites doesn't get them the donations they want, so they have found an alternative approach: they scapegoat cats in order to get bird lovers riled up, thus loosening their purse strings. As far as I can tell, "Matt Smith" is just one more shill for the ABC's standard anti-cat propaganda strategy (and they do have an explicit campaign strategy; check their website). The ABC will cite "scientific studies" that turn out to be full of figures pulled out of thin air to support their thesis. They're like conservative groups that pay "scientists" to conclude that global warming is a myth. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I blundered into this controversy wondering "Where is all this coming from?" A little digging around quickly revealed the source.
-
nf 04/13/2011 4:02:00 PM
Good for you I admire what you are doing. I wish there were more people like you out there.
So many of these poor cats either lost their way or were abandoned by some selfish pet owner that had no business having an animal in the first place. Especially, a cat. People just assume that cats can survive outside by themselves. And this is so not true. I rescue cats myself and I have two feral males - they're my best pets. They're absolutely amazing and loyal loving guys.
And to think they lived on their own outside for several years just brings tears to my eyes.
They deserve a chance too.
nf
-
Evan 04/12/2011 10:15:00 PM
I have spent over 600 hours in the past 5 years feeding, socializing and observing one feral cat colony. In all that time I have never found a dead bird. I have found 3 dead mice, all by the same cats, but not one bird. Though feral cats are often blamed for the decline in bird populations, there is no proof of this.
Cats in feral colonies do not behave as top predators. They are on guard and focused on their own protection. They do not behave as recreational hunters. Feral cats do not behave in the same way as backyard cats. That's been my observation, and the colony is in a wooded area full of birds. I was surprised to discover this myself. I don't believe there have been any serious studies of feral cat behaviors in their environments. Just a lot of accusations. I'm not saying that they don't ever kill birds, just that it may be far less than is commonly believed. Also as the cats in the colonies age, they become less adept at hunting.
So TNR is effective, as even the article pointed out in the last three paragraphs, and allows the cats to live out their lives. Is it a perfect solution to a problem caused by careless human pet owners? I don't know, but it values the lives of these beings who are in a difficult situation through no fault of their own. Evan
-
quest 04/07/2011 5:38:00 PM
Feral cats are part of the natural balance and they do alot of great things for our enviroment. It is not their fought they are feral it is ours because of alot of selfish people like you. And people like you want to take the lazy and inhumane route. People that love animals unlike you- do have their priorities straight. You must have a personality as cold as ice. Run cats there is a true wacko on the lose.
-
quest 04/07/2011 2:49:00 PM
And worse than that, are people like you. No telling what you do................
-
nf 04/07/2011 2:42:00 PM
I am not sure in touch with reality - but, your right on one thing - cats were introduce into this country.
Cats do kill some birds, because like you they have to eat to survive.....However, an outdoor cat usually eats rodents.
Yes and humans are more destructive that feral cats. Over in Europe feral cats are used constructively - they are worshipped - loved and well taken care of. You do not want to harm a cat over there.
No, cat people are NOT increasing a problem, they are caring human beings and they are just trying to help and protect these creatures. Just because you are a cat hater - you should not even be allowed to post. We are here to try and fix the problem not attack.
Yes, ignorant people are responsible for the over population of feral cats. And this is very sad for the cats in the US. There are many humane ways to take care of feral cats without killing
them. How would you like it if one these cats just turned the gun on you!!!
But of course too, your probably one of the writers and are trying to keep your blog going.
nf
-
Lisa 04/07/2011 5:58:00 AM
Dan, are you going to argue with me here about the fact that humans in this city are less destructive than feral cats are or ever will be? Go for it. Prove me wrong. I know the exact kind of people who are bothered by the fact that I feed my ferals. Territorial a** holes. No , no, I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone, honestly, but there was a few... That's my subjective opinion and I will stick with it. Some people just simply hate cats. Well, I simply hate the way some people look, smell, talk, eat their lunch or talk to their wife on the phone. Yet, I'm not going around getting rid of them or banning them from my block, criticizing them on Yelp, etc., right? Native birds are destroyed by all the trash thanks to humans like you. Sorry, the population of ferals are much smaller as oppose to human ratio in this city. Who is doing more harm - you do the math. As long as you don't get stabbed by a feral cat while riding SF MUNI, you really should just go on with your life. "Feral cat people" are just a very easy target in this situation.
-
quest 04/07/2011 1:52:00 AM
Your truly sick. You know what they say about people that do not care for animals.......
-
nila 04/07/2011 1:46:00 AM
I also failed to mention in my post, that it is extremely important for the Veterinarians and all the Animal shelters and Adoption Agencies in your City and ALL Cities seriously reccomend to keep your cats inside. So many people just assume if they have a cat they can and should let the cat outside. And this is so far from the truth. Do you know what the life expectancy of an outdoor cat is, not very long - especially if it has not been spayed or nuetered. They are more prone to getting killed,
run off and getting deseases- you do not want them to get. As far as I am concerned you don't deserve to have a cat if you do this to them. They are very loving, sweet loyal and intelligent animals and they do not deserve to be put in harmsway.....It is so heartwrenching when I see these signs up along the streets about a missing pet(cat). Sometimes they get them back, but most of the time they have been some foxes or coyotes lunch! Please keep your cats in. This will help....
-
Nadine May 04/07/2011 1:03:00 AM
Dan, I don't think you bothered to read my response to the original article or my response to Victor. You're directing your anger at the people who are solving the problem. If I feed a feral cat and do nothing about fixing that cat, then, yes, I am contributing to the problem, and there are unfortunately people who are like that. But WE, the "feral people" -- who spend our time and energy and money to do Trap-Neuter-Return, in addition to providing food and vet care if necessary -- we are not only feeding the cats, but are taking the next logical step -- to spay/neuter them so that feral cats do not keep multiplying.
IF your intention is to kill all feral cats, then you'll have to figure out a way to do that YOURSELF -- we are not going to ever trap and kill healthy animals; we trap them only to do TNR, unless, of course, they're very sick and suffering. And don't forget that even if you get rid of all feral cats (!!!) you would then have to convince all the people who have tame cats and who let them go outdoors to keep them indoors. After all, you're talking about ALL cats, right? I do my best to convince people to keep cats indoors (mine are, certainly) because there are lots of dangers out there -- predators, cars, evil people, diseases they can get from other cats, parasites, etc. and they're an awful lot better off staying at home -- unless you have an enclosed backyard, for example. But guess what -- most people who let their cats go outdoors are not going to change! So you would still have the problem.
Feral cats do not usually have the option of being indoors. So here's an idea: what if every single person who cares about birds (let's start with Audubon Society members -- millions, right?) goes out and adopts a feral cat -- or two? Many ferals, it is true, will never get used to being indoors, but many would. They may take years to get socialized, or they may never get socialized, but a lot of them would adapt to being indoors eventually -- if provided with food, water, shelter and kindness -- even if you can never pet them. I've done my part -- both my cats were rescued from the street, so they're not outdoors anymore. So start another movement -- Adopt a Feral Cat!!
Bottom line: feral cat people are not causing or increasing the problem, they're FIXING it!! Now you try!
-
nila 04/06/2011 7:38:00 PM
Maybe your not promoting the spay, nueter program enough.... Also, alot of the feral cats are not really true ferals. They either got out of a previous owners house or wandered off and got lost. And then alot of them join these packs for survival. But some of them might be considered a feral- because it has always lived outdoors and had to fend for itself. Their mothers are sometimes a domestic cat that is allowed outside. My point is, the so called ferals make great pets.......... I rescue cats and I have two previous ferals and they are the best cats I have. They are incredibly loving and they don't fight with the other cats. It's amazing. So, don't give up on feral cats!
nila
-
dan 04/06/2011 5:52:00 PM
Lisa, your ignorance must be bliss. How can you justify the feral cat problem by pointing out that humans are more destructive. Do you really not see the backwards logic of that statement? I'm sorry for being negative about this, but the fact that cat people refuse to acknowledge that they are increasing a problem is very frustrating to those of us who clearly see the huge problem that feral cats and their guardians cause. And yes, this IS my problem. But YOU are causing it. So in the end we must BOTH deal with it.
Facts:
Cats are NON-native introduced predators in the ecosystem
Cats kill millions of native birds every year.
Humans are responsible for the feral cats
Connect the dots.
-
04/06/2011 5:49:00 PM
No, spending money on cats is the best possible use of our money. There are literally hundreds of millions, if not billions of birds and the larger ones are predators both to other birds and other animals. Feeding and fixing cats is the second best solution, the first is finding good homes for cats. Killing them is not a solution.
-
Paula Kotakis 04/06/2011 5:14:00 AM
We showed Matt Smith two of my feeding stations located in industrial zones (and approved by the property owners) that I custom built in order to prevent raccoons from getting the food. Cats can enter through smallish holes cut in the sides, but raccoons can't fit through them. I assume he didn't want to include mention of these structures because it would have contradicted his misleading "Feeding raccoons and skunks, it appears, makes up a notable part of a TNR practitioner's work." Poppycock, Matt Smith!
--Paula Kotakis
-
Lisa 04/06/2011 5:00:00 AM
I feed 4 ferals on my street. They are all fixed. And I feel like it should not be any one's business to criticize me or stop me from feeding hungry creatures of any kind. I'd rather feed the animals that depend on me for food, than give a buck to a crackhead that will NOT spent on a meal. Yet, we all spare some change... "Feral cats destroy native bird population", yeah, and people don't. Ever been to the Ocean Beach after a sunny day? It's a mine field of bird carcases. Yup, army of SF's feral cats come out the beach, kill birds, leave trash around and a whole bunch of empty PBR cans... I don't think so. All you cat haters need to mind your own stuff. If you have a problem with feral cats being fed, remember, it is your problem, not mine, so deal with it.
-
Nadine May 04/05/2011 10:59:00 PM
In response to Victor, just curious -- just who is going to trap and kill millions of feral cats? Animal shelters have seen their funding cut to the bone, which means that animal control officers ONLY have the time to trap injured or very sick animals. Bird people? - I really doubt it. We "feral cat" volunteers are the only ones who seem to be willing to commit the time and money and energy to do TNR and care for feral cats -- and we would NEVER trap healthy ferals to be killed. And by the way, euthanasia is NOT cheaper than TNR -- any more than the death penalty is cheaper than keeping convicted murderers in prison for life. Instead, why not work to help the millions of birds who are killed by pesticides and habitat loss? That seems far more constructive to me!
-
Nadine May 04/05/2011 10:47:00 PM
As one of the people interviewed for the recent article on feral cats, I would like to correct at least some of the untruths and misleading statements therein.
First, a glaring omission: why is there no explanation of HOW the feral cats get out there in the first place? [A hint: it’s not feral cat people!]
1. It’s people who DON’T bother to spay or neuter their cats but DO allow them to go outside; when the females get pregnant or the males start spraying, they abandon them. The cats “go feral” and any kittens born become feral unless we can trap them when they’re still kittens.
2. It’s people who MOVE and simply abandon their cats, or people who decide they just don’t want their cats anymore, and dump them on the street or near a feral cat colony. I have found countless tame cats dumped at my feeding sites, but they don’t stay there, because I make sure those cats get fixed AND adopted to a good indoor-only home.
Last summer someone drove a whole family of tame house cats - 4 adults and 6 kittens - to the middle of Golden Gate Park and left them to fend for themselves near a coyote den. Two of us, who both work full-time jobs, spent dozens of hours, late at night, catching those cats. All were adopted to good homes. If we hadn’t done that, there might be a colony of 30 cats by now.
The article talks about feral cats “in the park, on the beach, and in other wild areas” – yet another misleading statement. The vast majority of feral cats are NOT in parks or on other public lands – they are in backyards in residential neighborhoods!! When cats show up and kittens are born, that gets attention – and that’s when the SPCA gets calls asking for help. And they get it – we volunteers help trap the cats, take them to the spay/neuter clinic and then give the cats several days post-surgical recovery time – in our own homes. Then we release them back to the person’s backyard, AFTER getting a commitment from the homeowner or tenant to feed and monitor the cats thereafter.
WILDLIFE FEEDING: As we told Smith, most feral cat people do NOT feed wildlife, intentionally or unintentionally. If possible, we feed ferals during the day when raccoons and coyotes and skunks are not around. If that is not possible, we put out food for the cats and wait to ensure that the CATS get the food, not other creatures.
ABANDONMENT: A critic says that after TNR, feral cats are “abandoned” by us feral people. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know many people who have been feeding their colonies for 10, 15 years – day in, day out. If they take a day off, they make sure someone else feeds their colony cats. Many of the colonies have teams of caregivers, thus ensuring that no one person assumes the entire financial and/or physical burden of feeding every day. When we trap in a new location, the first thing we do is make sure that someone in the neighborhood will commit to feeding the cat(s) after TNR. If no one is willing to do that, well, we take on the responsibility of feeding the cats ourselves.
It’s HIGHLY ironic that Yeager accuses other feral people of abandoning cats, because that would APPEAR to be what he did when he moved to Oakland: he gave the San Francisco SPCA little notice that he was going to stop feeding all of his feral colonies, and then he did just that. The feral cat community stepped up to the plate and a group was formed to take responsibility for feeding at every single one of his colonies; they continue to do so, rain or shine.
HUMANE EUTHANASIA: Yeager thinks that feral cat people would have regarded as “heresy” his decision to euthanize a suffering feral cat -- when the exact opposite is true! Neither ACC nor the SPCA would knowingly release a sick or suffering animal, and I do not know a single “feral person” who would allow a cat to suffer – feral or not. As a vegan, I have never and would never let an animal suffer. On the contrary, like most feral feeders, I take sick ferals to my own vet to be treated, and pay the bills out of my own pocket. Last year I trapped five cats who were suffering – three from non-operable skin cancer, one from severe intestinal disease, and one from advanced lymphoma. I took each cat to my vet, where it was humanely euthanized while I held it and talked quietly to it as it passed away.
I DO wonder about the 20 cats Yeager has had killed by a vet. Were those cats suffering? or were they simply cats that he thought didn’t deserve to live because they didn’t have the best possible “quality of life?” What gives him, or PETA, or anyone else, the right to make life or death decisions about healthy feral cats – or any healthy animal, for that matter?
Smith takes great pains to point out that Paula “seems the epitome of normal.” In fact, the “feral people” I know include: an airline pilot, nurses, teachers, librarians, restaurant and office and bank managers, legal secretaries, bartenders, students, senior citizens, sales reps, policewomen – we are, in fact, “the epitome of normal”.
As for the “bird lovers v. cat lovers” enmity that Smith is trying so hard to encourage, I am not even going to bother responding, because people who have commented online have done an excellent job of putting into doubt or quite simply debunking the “scientific” studies Smith quotes. As a vegan, I respect the lives of ALL sentient creatures, whether they be cats, birds, squirrels or ants; I am also a lifelong environmentalist, and I see no contradiction in that. I had suggested that Smith look into Project Bay Cat, just one example of a successful collaboration between “cat people” and “bird people” (supported by Homeless Cat Network, the City of Foster City and Sequoia Audubon Society), which was established to humanely deal with feral cats while at the same time protecting native birds. He obviously never bothered to do that – and in reading the article, it’s very clear why he didn’t. He simply wasn’t interested in a solution that works!
Of course, the beauty of being a "feral person" and participating in TNR is that you spend a considerable amount of scheduled time outdoors observing the seasons and patterns of all the animals particular to an area. On the other hand, the quoted local “environmentalists” seem to spend most of their time at desks, comparing notes!
Just a note on genderism: it's curious that Smith comments (inaccurately) on Paula's clothing, and mine, while nothing is said about the age or appearance or clothing of any of the men interviewed -- I really thought we had moved past all that! (By the way, I don't own or wear "sweats" -- but it's true, I don't wear formal attire to go trapping!)
The articles implies that we who do TNR are the problem – on the contrary, we’re the SOLUTION (as opposed to the people who simply FEED feral cats without doing TNR, who are contributing to the problem). It’s a win-win situation: we do the work, and S.F. residents get a stable colony of fixed, healthy cats; zero population growth; few or no resident rodents; and a quieter neighborhood. No TNR = population explosion!
I also want to point out that Paula and I, along with 99% of “feral people,” would much rather be doing other things than trapping – in my case, I’d LOVE to have more time to walk in the park, read, go to more movies, hang out with friends, and spend more time at home with my husband and our two cats. So if you’re going to tell us to “get a life,” well – guess what – we’d love to! Instead, day in, day out, we’re out there feeding, trapping or planning our next trapping expedition! Why?? Well, who else is going to do it? YOU? Great!! – please contact the SPCA Feral Cat program, because the cats can sure use your help!
In closing, a quote from a Golden Gate Park gardener: “The cats didn't bother with the birds but kept down the rodent population which actually did more harm to the quail.” Amazing, but true, and confirmed by what I saw while walking in Golden Gate Park on a sunny day: several feet off the trail, a very contented, well-fed cat, very clearly ear-tipped and thus TNR’d, lay in the sun; a few feet away several quail pecked around in the dirt. Neither showed the slightest interest in or fear of the other. Would that we could all get along so well.
Nadine May
-
Eli 04/05/2011 6:49:00 PM
rat and mice supporter. Spread the the diease word
-
Victor 04/05/2011 2:41:00 AM
There are ways to know hoe many cats there are. Look up Capture-Mark-Recapture surveys. Also, the rat and mouse populations 1) held support native animals, and 2) could be kept from being artificially high with better sanitation
-
Victor 04/05/2011 2:23:00 AM
To sue, cats do count in the scheme of life, but domestic cats are an exotic predator in an ecosystem that they do not belong. Bird and small mammal populations have enough to deal with in the form of habitat loss and fragmentation. 60 million feral cats is just an unnecessary burden on many endangered species of birds. Euthanasia may not be pleasant, but it is the cheapest and most responsible method to deal with the problem... because don't you think the money spent spaying, neutering, and providing supplemental feeding to feral cats is better spent on other problems?
-
Briansays 04/05/2011 1:10:00 AM
far bigger problem
feral humans
-
Sue 04/04/2011 9:17:00 PM
Most of the feral cats that my husband feeds are actually abandoned cats who have never been spayed or neutered. He spends time & money to do TNR and these cats become loving,
neutered, beautiful animals. Because these cats are abandoned by irresponsible people then we should just euthanize them because they may kill a bird or two? Even a true feral cat can lead a halfway decent life because of all of the volunteers doing TNR. Because these people care about cats they are considered "wackos"? Shame on you environmentalists. Cats count also in the scheme of life.
-
Sf_deb 04/04/2011 7:12:00 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake, I do wish Matt Smith would get a grip and get a clue and try for some actual, you know, journalistic balance. Of course, the pure one-sided bigotry on the cover alone pretty much sums up why neither Smith nor this publication can be taken seriously.
We've been part of TNR programs in two counties for over twelve years. Read my lips, darlings: a feral cat that is being fed regularly is much less inclined to hunt. Hunting requires energy and puts the hunter at risk. If your belly is full, do you run out looking for food you have to chase down? Of course you don't.
Point: NEITHER DO CATS.
I realise that won't carry any weight with the irrational cat-haters out there, but that's fine, because this isn't debatable. Animals who don't have to hunt for their supper generally don't. We've watched the park cats and the local mouse population eating from the same pile. And yes, I said "watched". We're actually out there, every night.
It would be nice if some of the people bleating about the terrible evil cats eating all the pretty birds would actually get off their bottoms and try being part of some of the programs they're dissing. Because until they do, they have zero cred.
And that's me, with a dozen years of cred on the subject thanks to working in those particular trenches, rolling my eyes and letting my friends know that SF Weekly, and Matt Smith, aren't worth their time.
-
04/04/2011 5:40:00 PM
Good article. Are there more cat ladies than bird lovers, or does the Audubon Society just have larger, er, fish to fry?
-
Flemingrandolph 04/04/2011 12:01:00 AM
"Wha!.. Woo , hoo , hoo... Blah , woo , woo , bluh , bluh , blah! grindl." ...Crazy Cat Lady ; the Simpsons
-
Paula Kotakis 04/03/2011 6:12:00 PM
Please see my earlier response to the OCD issue. The author of the article got my symptoms mixed up. Trapping and colony management are NOT compulsions for me. Caring for feral cats brings me a lot of happiness and satisfaction in contributing towards reducing feral cat populations by humane methods. I love interacting with all the cats and their individual personalities. As anyone who knows something about OCD, compulsions (rituals) are not enjoyable activities in any way. I hope that Matt Smith and others who may want to learn more about the common disorder of OCD will visit http://ocfoundation.org
It's a shame that the article didn't focus on the hundreds of us who do this work in San Francisco. While I may be at one end of the spectrum time-wise (by choice, not disorder), there are plenty of good folks who sterilize and care for feral cats in neighborhood backyards. Most of us do this work quietly, without the glare of media attention. I won't be talking to any reporters in the future, I can assure you.
I tip my hat to all who remain committed to finding humane solutions to animal overpopulation and combating human negligence.
--Paula Kotakis
-
MillionTrees 04/03/2011 1:57:00 PM
Those who advocate for killing cats engage in hyperbole and fabrication of "facts." Another example is a recent “study” by the University of Nebraska which concludes that feral cats kill $17 Billion worth of birds annually. A local native plant advocate uncritically repeated this ridiculous figure in his “nature newsletter.”
Matt Smith has been allied with the local native plant movement for over 10 years. He writes vicious attacks on any criticism of their destructive projects at every opportunity. In this article he engages in character assasination of the cat caregiver, than contradicts himself at the end of a 10-page article by acknowledging that the caregiver has, in fact, managed to nearly eliminate a population of cats in GG Park.
We have analyzed the University of Nebraska "study": http://milliontrees.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/estimates-of-economic-impact-of-invasive-species-fail-smell-test-2/
Here’s a brief quote from our post which is focused on the Nebraska study’s estimate of birds killed by feral cats:
“[The Nebraska study claims that] Feral cats kill an estimated 480 million birds per year, based on an assumption that there are 60 million feral cats and that each cat is estimated to kill 8 birds per year. [This} estimate of the number of birds each feral cat kills is based on one study done in Australia in 1996. As native plant advocates are quick to tell you when they are advocating for the destruction of eucalyptus (which are native to Australia), Australia is a very different place. Many questions would have to be asked and answered before we could assume that feral cats kill the same number of birds in Australia and the US. For example: (1) Is the ratio of birds to cats the same in Australia and the US? (2) Are there the same percentages of ground-dwelling and nesting birds in both countries? (3) Are there similar quantities of alternate food sources available to cats in both countries? Etc. In fact, since the answers to these questions also vary within the US, we don’t think it is justifiable to use the same “bird-kill-rates” for all locations within the US, let alone from another country.”
Our post also analyzes other aspects of the Nebraska study, including the qualifications of its authors. We conclude that the study is not based on science, but is rather a rhetorical tool used to justify the killing of cats, much like Mr. Smith's nasty article.
-
Goobbue 04/03/2011 5:18:00 AM
Bea, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read in my life.
-
Bea Hatch 04/03/2011 5:00:00 AM
Cats don't have to kill birds. They just have to scare them enough to keep them form nesting. Cats are biologically programmed to stalk and kill. Therefore they are inherently harmful to wild life.
-
Bea Hatch 04/03/2011 4:58:00 AM
The only thing worse than flea bag feral cats are the maladjusted wackos that "care" for them. Cat people? yuck!
-
Owen Murphy 04/03/2011 12:33:00 AM
Once again blaming the cats, how small of you Matt Smith.
I grew up with dogs and birds now have cats. The first 2 I got when they were 9- because the owner could not care for them. Had they been dumpted- I doubt they would have had any idea how to survive because they were so domesticated.
The one I have now I got from a shelter. She was there because the owners were having a baby and did not want her anymore. She was only 6 mos. She was ear mite and flea infested when they brought her in. But at least they did- instead of dumping the cats that I've adopted the owners did the smart thing. Or they would have been dumped- not survived or in the case of the kitten become feral and reproduced.
Why doesn't Matt Smith spend some time researching the people that dump the cats in the first place- the ones that decide not to spay or neuter them or bring them to a shelter?
There is no way to track how many birds are killed by cats- or know how many feral cats there are. Birds die for many reasons- mostly to do with what we are doing-they die from pesticides including the rat poison put out, and are also killed by other preditory birds- not just because there are feral cats trying to survive.
I thank all the feral cats that come into the abandoned empty lot next to my apartment-outside of my bedroom window- at night that do help to keep the rat and mouse population down-
And I thank all of these people that put the time and effort into trying to solve this problem- instead of just blaming them- jerk.
-
MillionTrees 04/02/2011 10:42:00 PM
We have also analyzed a recent “study” by the University of Nebraska which concludes that feral cats kill $17 Billion worth of birds annually. We were inspired to publish this critique after a local native plant advocate uncritically repeated this ridiculous figure in his “nature newsletter.” Matt Smith has been allied with the local native plant movement for over 10 years. He writes vicious attacks on any criticism of their destructive projects at every opportunity.
Please visit our post: http://milliontrees.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/estimates-of-economic-impact-of-invasive-species-fail-smell-test-2/
Here’s a brief quote from our post which is focused on the Nebraska study’s estimate of birds killed by feral cats:
“[The Nebraska study claims that] Feral cats kill an estimated 480 million birds per year, based on an assumption that there are 60 million feral cats and that each cat is estimated to kill 8 birds per year. [This} estimate of the number of birds each feral cat kills is based on one study done in Australia in 1996. As native plant advocates are quick to tell you when they are advocating for the destruction of eucalyptus (which are native to Australia), Australia is a very different place. Many questions would have to be asked and answered before we could assume that feral cats kill the same number of birds in Australia and the US. For example: (1) Is the ratio of birds to cats the same in Australia and the US? (2) Are there the same percentages of ground-dwelling and nesting birds in both countries? (3) Are there similar quantities of alternate food sources available to cats in both countries? Etc. In fact, since the answers to these questions also vary within the US, we don’t think it is justifiable to use the same “bird-kill-rates” for all locations within the US, let alone from another country.”
Our post also analyzes other aspects of the Nebraska study, including the qualifications of its authors. We conclude that the study is not based on science, but is rather a rhetorical tool used to justify the killing of cats.
-
h. brown 04/02/2011 5:32:00 PM
Anne,
Smith was the best writer in town. I read every writer in town so I know (I'm a retired teacher of English). Now, (scared for his job I'd guess - the Guardian has 2 more printed pages on the street in each of the last 2 weeks) ... now, Matt seeks to inflate his readership with stories such as this.
It really is that simple. Matt's always been a weird bird at best and a barely contained nut job at worst.
Giants lose first one outta gate ... Belt was awesome!
h.
-
04/02/2011 4:21:00 PM
If we are going to have cats in Golden Gate Park they should be Savannah cats.
http://www.google.com/images?q=savannah+cat&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&sa=X&ei=aEyXTe7rF-fTiAKuoKCdCQ&ved=0CDYQsAQ
-
Protonix 04/02/2011 12:54:00 PM
I have a solution for the overgrowing cat population. Lets catch them and move them to South Korea. There are plenty of people who would love to eat them, me being one of them. There good on a stick with a side of BBQ sauce!
-
Paula Kotakis 04/02/2011 7:15:00 AM
-
04/02/2011 4:54:00 AM
"Poorly understood by the public" is right—in no small part due the tireless efforts of the American Bird Conservancy, The Wildlife Society, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and others, who've gone to great lengths to misinform the public. The Special Issue of The Wildlife Professional mentioned here is just the latest effort.
For a critique of that effort, please visit http://www.voxfelina.com/2011/03/its-not-the-media-its-the-message/
-
04/01/2011 11:11:00 PM
pwn'ed? 'Gamer' triumphalism even while addressing feral cats problem. A little context clarification here , may be in order. Turn that damn thing off for awhile!
-
04/01/2011 7:53:00 PM
When you say "balance," are you referring to a pre-European North America (which was itself hardly as pristine as people would like to think)? And if so, how do you propose to get there?
-
Mattcmc 04/01/2011 5:59:00 PM
We should restore balance by educating the human population that muddle up the environment, have lost a sense of compassion, and abandon not only their cats but their souls.
-
L-Danyielle 04/01/2011 5:14:00 PM
Matt Smith came to the feral cat caretakers saying a positive article would be written. So frustrating that these writers cannot ever be trusted. Your comment is 100% correct on the facts. TNR is scientifically proven and the only humane solution to a feral cat overpopulation. Thanks.
-
Catlady on Peninsula 04/01/2011 5:15:00 AM
Wow -- what a biased, controversial article. I wonder if Ms. Kotakis and her friend knew that Matt Smith was going to do a hatchet job on them and what they do when they so graciously took him around with them - I would guess not. So how did you present yourself to them, Matt Smith? I too doubt that many people are going to focus on your comment at the end of the article that TNR does work - I'm sure you made certain they would come away with the opinion you wanted them to have - crazy cat people are harming the world and the cats they are trying to help. TNR does work --there are many statistics to prove that if you'd care to look for them. And I too am a cat lady who does TNR but I DON'T have OCD or any disease - I do it because I love the cats and what our world does to ALL of the animals in it sickens me. What I wonder is, why don't these people (like Matt Smith) ever try going up against the big developers who develop land that destroys more bird habitat than any feral cat could eat in a lifetime? The reason, my guess would be, is that developers have lots of money and power and can fight back -- not so much us cat lovers who are trying to humanely fix a problem that WE (society) have caused. Shame on you Matt Smith - unfortunately I doubt you have the ability to see yourself and what you've done clearly. By the way, there is word for people like Yeager also -- killers. Hopefully your "friend" Matt Smith has alerted Oakland and they will find you.
-
04/01/2011 1:28:00 AM
The article’s main shortcoming is that criticism of TNR was easily accepted, but there was no questioning or challenge to the misinformation presented by the anti-TNR groups. Peter Wolf, a research scientist of Vox Felina blog, debunks a lot of the misinformation about cats killing birds. A link for him is http://www.voxfelina.com/2010/12/american-bird-con/
To address some of the misinformation in this article:
People who do TNR work are both environmentalists and wildlife advocates. The article speaks as though anti-TNR contingents are the only environmentalists and wildlife advocates, which is simply not true. We don’t see animal welfare ethics and classic environmental ethics as exclusive of one another.
The idea that cats are the main killer of birds is nonsense. Besides many other potential predators in the environment, Humans are the main cause because of our destruction of habitat, pesticides, tall buildings, etc., etc., etc.
Quail populations have declined mainly because of habitat destruction and predation from other animals, not cats, in San Francisco parks.
Feral cats are not responsible for the decline in the sea otter population. It is now believed that toxoplasmosis isn’t an issue in the cause of their decline.
Feral cats are not disease spreaders. It’s scientifically proven that feral cats carry no more disease then indoor cats.
The feral cat colonies are fed and monitored seven days a week. When the cats are sick it is typical for a caretaker to take them to a veterinarian for treatment.
Stereotypes presented by anti-TNR people are like broken records. They have no solution, except killing, which solves nothing in the long run. Any solution must be humane and not just killing as they espouse.
TNR is scientifically proven, humane and effective. Stating that the main function of TNR is to feed cats is preposterous. The main function is to reduce the cat population in a humane and responsible manner. In San Francisco many colonies have been reduced to zero because of TNR. Throughout Golden Gate Park the feral cat population has been reduced by over 95%.
The vacuum effect is presented inaccurately in this article. This effect is well known in the wildlife community, not just with feral cat advocates. When animals are removed from a territory others that they kept out can then move in. Breeding starts again; removal has solved nothing. Also the vacuum effect has nothing to do with leaving food. If there are no cats, food is not left.
J.R. Yeager continues to this day to have no credibility. Yeager abandoned at least 10 colonies in San Francisco. The SF/SPCA stepped in, as they always do, and found caretakers for all of these cats. Yeager was asked to leave the SF/SPCA’s program. His uncompromising belief that killing cats made their lives better was intolerable.
Abandonment of feral cat colonies by their caretakers is rare. If it happens others step up to help. There are many tireless feral cat caretakers all over the world.
Thanks to feral cat advocates like Paula Kotakis and many others the feral cat population in San Francisco is being humanely and successfully reduced.
L-Danyielle Yacobucci and Martha Hoffman
-
L-Danyielle, Martha Hoffman 04/01/2011 12:59:00 AM
The article’s main shortcoming is that criticism of TNR was easily accepted but there was no questioning or challenge to the misinformation presented by the anti-TNR groups. Peter Wolf, a research scientist of Vox Felina blog, debunks a lot of the misinformation about cats killing birds. A link for him is http://www.voxfelina.com/2010/12/american-bird-con/
To address some of the misinformation in this article:
People who do TNR work are both environmentalists and wildlife advocates. The article speaks as though anti-TNR contingents are the only environmentalists and wildlife advocates which is simply not true. We don’t see animal welfare ethics and classic environmental ethics as exclusive of one another.
The idea that cats are the main killer of birds is nonsense. Besides many other potential predators in the environment, Humans are the main cause because of our destruction of habitat, pesticides, tall buildings, etc, etc, etc.
Quail populations have declined mainly because of habitat destruction and predation from other animals, not cats, in San Francisco parks.
Feral cats are absolutely not responsible for the reduction in the sea otter population. It is now believed that Toxoplasmosis isn’t an issue in the cause of their decline.
Feral cats are not disease spreaders. It’s scientifically proven that feral cats carry no more disease then indoor cats.
The feral cat colonies are fed and monitored 7 days a week. When the cats are sick it is typical for a caretaker to take them to a Veterinarian for treatment.
Stereo types presented by anti-TNR people are like broken records. They have no solution, except killing, which solves nothing in the long run. Any solution must be humane and not just killing as they espouse.
TNR is scientifically proven, humane and effective. Stating that the main function of TNR is to feed cats is preposterous. The main function is to reduce the cat population in a humane and responsible manner. In San Francisco many colonies have been reduced to zero because of TNR. Throughout Golden Gate Park the feral cat population has been reduced by over 95%.
The vacuum effect is presented inaccurately in this article. This effect is well known in the wildlife community, not just with feral cat advocates. When animals are removed from a territory others that they kept out can then move in. Breeding starts again; removal has solved nothing. Also the vacuum effect has nothing to do with leaving food. If there are no cats, food is not left.
JR Yeager continues to this day to have no credibility. Yeager abandoned at least 10 colonies in San Francisco. The SFSPCA stepped in, as they always do, and found caretakers for all of these cats. Yeager was asked to leave the SFSPCA’s program. His uncompromising belief that killing cats made their lives better was intolerable.
Abandonment of feral cat colonies by their caretakers is rare. If it happens others step up to help. There are many tireless feral cat caretakers all over the World.
Thanks to feral cat advocates like Paula Kotakis, and many others, the feral cat population in San Francisco is being humanely and successfully reduced.
-
Down Payment 03/31/2011 11:29:00 PM
HAHA pwned you!
-
Deva54 03/31/2011 10:13:00 PM
What's it to you, jerk? If they want to care for pets that irresponsible humans left behind, more power to them. Let's euthanize insensitive jerks like you!
-
Bill Hamilton 03/31/2011 10:06:00 PM
The article is mostly one-sided but does end somewhat positively:
"If I hadn't witnessed Kotakis at work, I might have never believed that tens of thousands of volunteer hours could reduce the number of cats in Golden Gate Park. But when she points out the hollows and hills, now mostly empty, where dozens of cats used to live, I find her credible. In her tiny bit of territory in the eastern parts of the park, her method and dedication might just have created a tipping point that has produced a humane ideal of fewer feral cats."
Unfortunately, most people probably won't read that far, and they probably won't come away from the rambling, contradictory article with the same conclusion.
I do wish Ms. Kotakis had not credited her heroic concern for helpless animals to her OCD diagnosis, which the author, Mr. Smith, seemed overly concerned with, even quoting the opinion of a professional who apparently hasn't even met Ms. Kotakis. Some readers may conclude that ALL cat feeders are similarly afflicted, even though it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
Bottom line, the article and its inflammatory cover art just try to stir up the pot of bird lovers vs. cat lovers to increase newpaper circulation and thus please advertisers. The author and the SF Weekly editoral department obviously couldn't care less about the negative fallout for free-roaming cats, birds or any other animals.
By the way, Animal Care and Control is across Alabama Street from the SF/SPCA, not Harrison Street.
-
03/31/2011 9:23:00 PM
A better image would be 'the cat lady' on The Simpsons.
-
Down Payment 03/31/2011 8:58:00 PM
Domestic cats should be sterilized. Feral cats should be euthanized. Restore balance to our natural environment.
And these feral cat wackos really need to set their priorities straight.
-
Anne from SF 03/31/2011 8:52:00 PM
Author of this article clearly is biased in favor of the birders. TNR works and is humane. For Yeager to trap in a colony of cats and kill them is cruel. Pick 'em off. Nice. And btw, why are the "cat ladies" clothing described - why not Yeager's? Oh, yeah, cat ladies are crazy. They wear muddy shoes and sweat pants. Bird watchers are refined and educated.
-
Klwarner 03/31/2011 7:20:00 PM
I know that the journalistic expectations of a weekly free paper aren't very high, but this read like a D+ 11th grade thesis paper. So many of the points that the writer took so much time to twist contradict each other entirely! So the feral colonies are eating all the songbirds, but if the people that feed them stop feeding them they'll starve to death? Okay. What? The enormous slant of this article in the opposition of TNR is astonishing, as you'll learn in Journalism 101, if you're going to write "news", you gotta balance it. Even the tiniest bit. So you're upset that the government is helping these programs. Welp, if the government didn't keep cutting funding to the shelters, maybe they could expand and wouldn't have to be kill shelters. So there's that. And pointing out these large blocks of land that used to house huge ferile colonies now only hold 2 or 3 adorably named old kitties basically erases most of the points being made.
If it didn't work, there would still be huge colonies there, right? Oh, cool.
-
03/31/2011 7:19:00 PM
You are full of hot air. Climate change is hotly disputed, there is far from unanimous agreement here. There are no flat earthers so that is an intellectually discredited smear
and nonsequitur on your part. I don't agree with creationists as an atheist but there are plenty of problems with Darwin's theory too.
See The Politically Incorrect Guide To Science by Tom Bethel and on environmentalism, which is simply the new form of communism-socialism, see Capitalism by George Reisman, an Atlas sized book by a professional economist, that would be 2,000 pages in a regularly sized book.
Sorry Lefty Libs, no pictures in it !
People like you fit to a T the definition of folks who ignore what they don't want to hear.
-
03/31/2011 7:11:00 PM
Arthur Feinstein has long been a fanatical cat hater. In spring 1995 I stumbled across a large colony of abandoned cats across from MacArthur BART And I called PETA for advice. They
told me to have the Oakland cops euthanize the colony. I euthanized my PETA membership
instead and with a cat rescuer rescued ten cats over the next few months, found homes for five and kept five. The last one, Michelle, died in late December, she was almost 17. I have also rescued cats at Lake Merritt.
I much prefer all cats to get homes rather than be released but releasing is much better than killing. I don't know where the fantastic figure for killed birds is validated but there are no
We really need many more loving people to adopt homeless cats, most ferals were abandoned or the offspring of abandoned cats and most can be brought around with the right care.
Maybe cat farms for the unadoptable would be one solution.
-
Lerda 03/31/2011 5:48:00 AM
http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=325
It's humans, not cats, that are killing magnificent birds. This article is both misinformed and ignorant.
-
03/31/2011 5:17:00 AM
Regarding the "solid scientific evidence," could you be more specific? As I posted in response to another similar comment, the evidence is not nearly as solid as you might think (or expect from an article of this nature).
You might also be interested in reading Sea Green's comments on the subject.
-
Clinton Cleveland 03/31/2011 4:40:00 AM
Thank you for an excellent and timely article. The only troubling thing is that the issue is being framed as a dispute between advocacy groups: feral cat people vs. environmentalists. Although environmental groups play an important role in public education, they are not the ones generating the argument against neuter and release programs. There is solid scientific evidence (as the article mentions) that domestic cats are harming wildlife. There is consensus amoung scientists and wildlife management professionals that this is a serious issue. The debate is not between advocacy groups but between science and those who choose to ignore what they don't want to hear. Climate science deniers, creationists and flat-earthers come to mind. The feral cat people are clearly motivated by the best of intentions, but this is not the basis for sound policy. Evidence is.
-
catguy 03/31/2011 4:21:00 AM
Cats rule!
-
03/31/2011 3:27:00 AM
I’ve spent the better part of a year blogging about the numerous flaws in the scientific claims so often made by TNR opponents (voxfelina[dot]com). So, two quick points (with citations):
1. Regarding “scientific studies that… show that feral cats do account for high avian mortality”:
* The figure most often cited by USFWS—39 million birds killed annually by rural cats in Wisconsin alone [1, 2]—was actually derived from a study of FOUR urban cats and ONE rural cat in Virginia. [3, 4] As science, it’s garbage (and for reasons beyond its sample size of one).
Sadly, this is not unusual. It’s an interesting twist on science—and one common among TNR opponents: instead of striving for increased certainty, the goal is to create an enormous—but essentially meaningless—“estimate.” In other words, this isn’t about science, but about marketing
* Something I alluded to in an earlier comment: even high predation numbers don’t automatically lead to population impacts. Møller and Erritzøe compared the average spleen mass of birds killed by cats to that of birds killed in collisions with windows. The authors found that “small passerine birds falling prey to cats had spleens that were significantly smaller than those of conspecifics that died for other reasons,” concluding that the birds killed by cats “often have a poor health status.” [5] In other words, the birds that are caught by cats tend to be among what is sometimes called the “doomed surplus.”
* Finally, we have this from Mike Fitzgerald, one of the world’s foremost experts on the subject: “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.” [6]
2. About TNR success stories:
* Stoskopf and Nutter observed a mean decrease of 36 percent (range: 30–89 percent) in the six TNR colonies they studied over two years. By contrast, the three control colonies increased in size an average of 47 percent. [7]
* Natoli et l. reported a 16–32 percent decrease in population size over a 10-year period across 103 colonies in Rome—despite a 21 percent rate of “cat immigration.” [8]
* As of 2004, ORCAT, run by the Ocean Reef Community Association (in the Florida Keys), had reduced its “overall population from approximately 2,000 cats to 500 cats.” [9] According to the ORCAT Website, (orcareef[dot]com) the population today is approximately 350, of which only about 250 are free-roaming.
I invite readers to visit my blog, and become part of this important debate, armed with a fuller understanding of the issues.
Peter J. Wolf
voxfelina[dot]com
Literature Cited
1. USFWS, Migratory Bird Mortality. 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Arlington, VA.
2. USFWS, Perils Past and Present: Major Threats to Birds Over Time. 2003, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Arlington, VA.
3. Mitchell, J.C. and Beck, R.A., "Free-Ranging Domestic Cat Predation on Native Vertebrates in Rural and Urban Virginia." Virginia Journal of Science. 1992. 43(1B): p. 197–207.
4. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., How Many Birds Do Cats Kill?, in Wildlife Control Technology. 1995. p. 44.
5. Møller, A.P. and Erritzøe, J., "Predation against birds with low immunocompetence." Oecologia. 2000. 122(4): p. 500–504.
6. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.
7. Stoskopf, M.K. and Nutter, F.B., "Analyzing approaches to feral cat management—one size does not fit all." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1361–1364.
8. Natoli, E., et al., "Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy)." Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2006. 77(3-4): p. 180-185.
9. Levy, J.K. and Crawford, P.C., "Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1354–1360.
-
ssssssss 03/31/2011 1:04:00 AM
Have you contacted the Academy of Sciences about the number of birds their uber-clear german glass walls kill? I did the pre-opening volunteer training and it was part of the training. When you were with a group and a bird crashed into the glass, died before your eyes, you were supposed to say, Oh, look over there! (point in opposite direction & move quickly away), and over here we have....just sayin.
-
03/31/2011 12:36:00 AM
Sea Green’s exactly right about Longcore’s "study"—it’s not a study at all, but a review of the literature. And a very selective one. For a comprehensive critique of Longcore’s paper, please visit voxfelina[dot]com[backslash]resources.
-
03/31/2011 12:23:00 AM
I’d like to clarify a few points, beginning with the number of outdoor cats suggested in this article. That 150 million figure is one that the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has been promoting for the past year or so. It’s flawed in two ways. First, the estimate for feral cats is a wild guess, with no basis in science at all. Then, the number of free-roaming pet cats is inflated, ignoring the results of multiple surveys of pet owners.
This, I’m afraid, is another example of ABC (on whose board Jonathan Franzen sits) putting marketing ahead of science.
Regarding the study published recently in the Journal of Ornithology, the media accounts are highly misleading. The researchers witnessed just six catbird deaths due to predation by cats. Six of 42 total mortalities. They then attributed three more to cats on the basis of decapitated remains because, as they explain, “we are unaware of any other native or non-native predator that regularly decapitates birds while leaving the body uneaten.”
In fact, it’s rather widely known that such predatory behavior is not at all uncommon with owls, grackles, jays, magpies, and even raccoons.
Even if the Smithsonian’s Pete Marra and his colleagues are correct about the three additional kills, the title of “primary predators of young catbirds” goes not to the cats, but to the “unknown predators” (with 14 kills). Seven kills were attributed to rats or chipmunks.
But again, this is about headlines, not science.
Travis Longcore’s paper in Conservation Biology was not a study, but a review of the literature—and a very selective one. Among the important work he conveniently ignores are the studies showing that birds caught by cats are, on average, not as healthy as those killed by collisions with buildings, cars, and the like. Not that this is news; this, after all, is typical of prey-predator interactions.
Longcore, ABC, and other TNR opponents like to throw around predation estimates, but fail to acknowledge just how flimsy they are. These figures can typically be traced to small—often flawed—studies, the results of which are subsequently extrapolated from one habitat to another, conflating island populations (where the presence of cats can have dire consequences) and those on continents, combining common and rare bird species, and so forth.
In the end, such “estimates” of annual predation rates are utterly meaningless—useful only as a sensational talking point “sold” to a mainstream media and public generally unfamiliar with the larger context. And so, the shameless witch hunt continues.
So what is the solution? TNR opponents have surprisingly little to say on the subject. Trap-and-kill hasn’t worked; that much should be readily apparent by now. It is, as Mark Kumpf, former president of the National Animal Control Association, has described it, like “bailing the ocean with a thimble.”
Moreover, real-world experience suggests that we can’t kill our way out of the “feral cat problem,” even if we wanted to. Consider what was done on Marion Island, for example, where—despite being only 115-square-miles in size, barren, and uninhabited—it took 19 years to eradicate something like 2,200 cats. Using disease (feline distemper), poisoning, intensive hunting and trapping, and dogs. The cost, I’m sure, was astronomical.
TNR is not ideal solution, but in many situations, it’s the best option we’ve got.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
-
Arose4muse 03/30/2011 11:38:00 PM
Why do humans always have to have the 'us' vs 'them' mentality? And why are issues that are deeply connected viewed as competing rather than mutually intertwined? The humane treatment of one animal does not nullify the humane treatment of another. Felines are not 'the one and only problem here -- and the riddance of them does not make a 'paradise' (ask anyone who knows about the plague!). Habitat destruction (by humans), food accessibility (impacted by humans) and competition with other birds are far more damaging and destructive in bird comunities than the villified cat! Consider this -- 10 yrs ago there was a very 'notorious' intervention of removing cats from an area that was a great breeding/nesting ground for Black Crowned Night Heron and Snowy Egrets. Their nests were in the tree canapy which was great for the birds -- but would not support a cat's weight. People were up in arms about the 'potential' danger from the cats to the birds during nesting season -- so we trapped all the cats and removed them. The people who lived/worked in the area had 'never' seen a cat up in the trees -- nor harrass the birds on the ground (knowing how skilled egrets and herons are with their beaks!). The first two years after the cats were removed -- there was a noticible and significant decline in hatchlings surviving -- by the third year the egrets and herons moved the rookery to another location. The first two years after the cats were removed there was an 'explosion' of rats and mice -- and while the cats were too heavy to get into the trees to bother the birds -- the rats were not. And people living/working in the area reported seeing the rats go up and knock the eggs out of the nest and then feeding on them on the ground. And those same humans were complaining LOUDLY about the influx of rats! Again -- my point is that there are other animals (man right at the top) that are equally and, at times, far more destructive and actively contribute to the demise of other species. ITS NOT ONLY THE CATS! And anyone with an interest in nature/balance should be seeking to join together in to help create a more harmonious/balance for nature -- not trying to villify one aspect of it!
-
Athenstraveler03 03/30/2011 11:35:00 PM
Oh I would LOVE to get the contact info of this Yeager person. What this jerk is doing is horrible and cruel and I want to make sure people know what a heartless disgusting human being this a$$ is. Hmmm, off to do a little research of my own!
-
Starry Skies 03/30/2011 11:31:00 PM
The study in the Journal of Ornithology that is cited presumably to show that cats are the chief menace to birds was a very small study (69 subjects) conducted on only one species of bird (Gray Catbird) in a small area of suburban Maryland. The data has also been massaged somewhat to obscure the fact that of the 69 birds studied, only 9 (13%) bird deaths were clearly attributable to cats. This figure is not terribly persuasive evidence that cats are the menace to birds that this article attempts to portray them as.
And as to the anti-TNR slant of this piece: I have witnessed the effectiveness of TNR. It works. I live in an Oakland neighborhood, home to a feral cat colony that started out numbering about twenty. Two dedicated ladies and one gentleman (none of whom resemble the caricature of neurotic cat lover portrayed in this article) conscientiously care for this cat colony by feeding the cats, doing TNR, and doing plain trapping as needed to get cats who are ill to a local vet. (Not to have them euthanized as J.R.Yeager does; they take them to the vet to have them made well.) The number of cats in that colony has visibly dropped in a few years, in line with what Paula Kotakis asserts regarding the cat colonies that she cares for. I have gotten to know "cat caregivers" through the years. This article hints that although TNR may sometimes work, one of its failings may be a lack of dedication or perseverance by those who care for cat colonies in continuing to do so. On the contrary; caregivers who I have known have a heartfelt dedication to the animals that they care for and would never walk away from the responsibility they have taken on. The profiles in this article of those who care for cats, of people such as Paula, underscore the dedication of these caregivers who in fact make TNR work.
-
Sea Green 03/30/2011 10:09:00 PM
The story quotes Jonathan Franzen as saying "With songbird populations falling all across North America, I think it's time for a movement to keep cats indoors." This is bias directed logic, because if all the feral cats were eliminated and all the domestic cats kept indoors, songbirds would continue to decline because the major cause of bird decline is habitat destruction not cats. Habitat destruction continues unabated.
The story describes a Journal of Ornithology study "Researchers from the Smithsonian Institution put radio transmitters on young catbirds and found that 79 percent of deaths were caused by predators, nearly half of which were cats." Sounds bad, until you look at the actual numbers. The authors of the study, inflated the number of birds killed by cats(without proof cats killed them), then reduced the numbers of deaths by predators, from 33 to 19 by including only those "predation assignable deaths". Data manipulation to get the results you want. Of note, the radio transmitters were attached to the birds by elastic harnesses that were not removed when the study was over. There were 27 surving birds with harnesses intact, no doubt they died a lingering death as the elastic harness cut into their bodies. Cats kill 6, researchers kill 27.
The story says "Toxoplasma gondii, shed in cat feces, that threatens endangered sea otters and other marine mammals." The research shows that the majority of sea otters were infected by Type X Toxoplasma found only in Mountain Lions and Bob Cats, not domestic cats. Since many of the deaths surround densely populated bays, it's speculated that the sewage and pollution in the bays are contributing to cause of marine animal deaths....habitat destruction.
Your story says "A study published two years ago in the journal Conservation Biology determined that TNR and its years of regular feeding causes "hyperpredation," in which well-fed cats continue to prey on bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian populations, even after these animals become so scarce they can no longer sustain natural predators." The link to this article takes me to a comparative literature search, more or less an essay against TNR, there was no study done.
-
Loon95 03/30/2011 9:34:00 PM
ResearcherRob, will you please provide the citations for the following assertions in your comment: 1) "in the years before TNR existed, feral cat populations swelled"; 2) "[TNR] is working very well in many locations around the country"; 3) "TNR is the most effective and humane way to help both cats and birds. I sincerely urge you to publish your research, as the only scientific studies that I have been able to locate appear to show that feral cats do account for high avian mortality and that neuter programs are only effective if 90-95% of the closed population are treated.
Thanks!
-
Tfender 03/30/2011 9:20:00 PM
"It's a very rare cat that can catch a bird." Really? I had a cat for 17 years that regularly feasted on birds, rabbits, baby squirrels, and even small snakes. I was a kid, so I didn't care, but now I'm aware of the destruction my cat reaped on the animal community. Cats are known hunters and damn good ones too.
-
OCLocal 03/30/2011 8:03:00 PM
My mom used to feed feral cats. She always got them spayed and neutered but continued to feed them. I think TNR is a good thing.
-
ResearcherRob 03/30/2011 7:40:00 PM
As a research scientist who loves both birds and cats, and who is actively involved with helping both, I did the research myself about this issue a few years ago and found that TNR is the most effective and humane way to help both cats and birds. The idea behind TNR (and providing care to the sterilized colonies of cats) is to ultimately reduce the number of feral cats, and it's working very well in many locations around the country and around the world. If bird advocates really want to save birds, they should volunteer their time to TNR feral cats so that future generations of feral kittens aren't born and the population growth of feral cats can be curbed humanely.
The authors of this story missed a crucial point: in the years before TNR existed, feral cat populations swelled. The authors of this story and bird advocates seem to be suggesting that we should ban TNR and feeding feral cats, but they are ignoring the fact that it wasn't that long ago that TNR didn't exist in this country and things were not better for cats or birds back then. If lawsuits, city policies or legislation forbids people from doing TNR and caring for feral cats, feral cat populations would only swell again and no one wants that. In places where TNR has been employed, the populations of feral cats has been reduced (such as Jacksonville, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco), so it seems like a no-brainer to use TNR to control feral cat populations.
By the way, since I do research for a living, I decided to check the predation data in this story; I was interested in learning about the researchers' methodology. It was surprised to find that the predation claims in this story are unsubstantiated. The predation data is based on estimates from a sample size that's too small for scientific substantiation (the equivalent of which would be like seeing three people at a table of four eating brussel sprouts and then say that 75% of Americans like brussel sprouts.)
It's too bad that this story is so clearly biased against feral cats and TNR and that the authors didn't check the facts.
-
Loveit 03/30/2011 6:11:00 PM
Slightly gruesome but great cap(t)tion ~ what can I say-I love birds and I love cats and I hope for the best.
Did not realize 'mother nature' had so many devoted assistants who are committed to the care and welfare of Gods little creatures.
A great big thank you to everyone involved including SF Weekly for bringing this to my attention.
-
03/30/2011 6:03:00 PM
As far as I know, only one study (reported in a 2003 paper by Castillo and Clarke) has documented predation by “colony cats.” Over the course of approximately 300 hours of observation (this, in addition to “several months identifying, describing, and photographing each of the cats living in the colonies” prior to beginning their research), Castillo and Clarke “saw cats kill a juvenile common yellowthroat and a blue jay. Cats also caught and ate green anoles [lizards], bark anoles, and brown anoles. In addition, we found the carcasses of a gray catbird and a juvenile opossum in the feeding area.”
This, from nearly 100 cats (about 26 at one site, and 65 at another). As I mentioned in my general comment to this story, most of the claims made by TNR opponents have little basis in science—and fail to hold up to scrutiny. This debate is less about wildlife conservation than it is about perpetuating the shameless witch hunt against feral cats.
-
03/30/2011 5:19:00 PM
I’d like to clarify a few points, beginning with the number of outdoor cats suggested in this article. That 150 million figure is one that the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has been promoting for the past year or so. It’s flawed in two ways. First, the estimate for feral cats is a wild guess, with no basis in science at all. Then, the number of free-roaming pet cats is inflated, ignoring the results of multiple surveys of pet owners.
This, I’m afraid, is another example of ABC (on whose board Jonathan Franzen sits) putting marketing ahead of science.
Regarding the study published recently in the Journal of Ornithology, the media accounts are highly misleading. The researchers witnessed just six catbird deaths due to predation by cats. Six of 42 total mortalities. They then attributed three more to cats on the basis of decapitated remains because, as they explain, “we are unaware of any other native or non-native predator that regularly decapitates birds while leaving the body uneaten.”
In fact, it’s rather widely known that such predatory behavior is not at all uncommon with owls, grackles, jays, magpies, and even raccoons.
Even if the Smithsonian’s Pete Marra and his colleagues are correct about the three additional kills, the title of “primary predators of young catbirds” goes not to the cats, but to the “unknown predators” (with 14 kills). Seven kills were attributed to rats or chipmunks.
But again, this is about headlines, not science.
Travis Longcore’s paper in Conservation Biology was not a study, but a review of the literature—and a very selective one. (For a comprehensive critique, please visit http://www.voxfelina.com/resources/.) Among the important work he conveniently ignores are the studies showing that birds caught by cats are, on average, not as healthy as those killed by collisions with buildings, cars, and the like. Not that this is news; this, after all, is typical of prey-predator interactions.
Longcore, ABC, and other TNR opponents like to throw around predation estimates, but fail to acknowledge just how flimsy they are. These figures can typically be traced to small—often flawed—studies, the results of which are subsequently extrapolated from one habitat to another, conflating island populations (where the presence of cats can have dire consequences) and those on continents, combining common and rare bird species, and so forth.
In the end, such “estimates” of annual predation rates are utterly meaningless—useful only as a sensational talking point “sold” to a mainstream media and public generally unfamiliar with the larger context. And so, the shameless witch hunt continues.
So what is the solution? TNR opponents have surprisingly little to say on the subject. Trap-and-kill hasn’t worked; that much should be readily apparent by now. It is, as Mark Kumpf, former president of the National Animal Control Association, has described it, like “bailing the ocean with a thimble.”
Moreover, real-world experience suggests that we can’t kill our way out of the “feral cat problem,” even if we wanted to. Consider what was done on Marion Island, for example, where—despite being only 115-square-miles in size, barren, and uninhabited—it took 19 years to eradicate something like 2,200 cats. Using disease (feline distemper), poisoning, intensive hunting and trapping, and dogs. The cost, I’m sure, was astronomical.
TNR is not ideal solution, but in many situations, it’s the best option we’ve got.
Peter J. Wolf
http://www.voxfelina.com
-
Briankirchoff 03/30/2011 3:25:00 PM
its called darwin
the faster and smarter birds live
but in sf you only care about the others
birds and 2 legged
-
Michael 03/30/2011 1:32:00 PM
I'm happy to see that ineffective TNR management for feral cats finally being questioned. The impact of feral cats on wildlife and human and wildlife health is poorly understood by the public. The propaganda being spread by feral cat advocates is endangering our native willdife and human health. Please see this series of articles recently published by the Willdife Society, an organization representing more than 10,000 willdife experts: http://issuu.com/the-wildlife-professional/docs/feralcats.
-
h. brown 03/30/2011 5:51:00 AM
Wow, that guy Yeager kills them?
I worked doing TNR at Clemson University for several years and we did over 350 cats (students would move and leave em) and got the environment back into balance. These are great programs. Virtually every cat got adopted. We also did just over 100 dogs and they ALL were adopted.
And, the birders are full of crap. It's a very rare cat that can catch a bird. I've watched in amazement as families of blue jays lead cats away from their feeders while the others eat the food. For years.
Go Giants!
h.
-
e. chan 03/30/2011 3:56:00 AM
ok, they kill a few birds, but as far as feral animals go, feral cats are awesome. i don't even like cats, but sacrificing a few birds is cool with me as long as the cats keep the rodent population in check. of course, also, i'd be delighted if the cats ate some of those horrible scrub jays that infest my yard and torment my dog. and while i think it's great that you decided to investigated this interesting topic, you ignored the best and most overlooked feral cat colony of them all - the one at the sutro forest entrance at the southern end of stanyan. there are so many cats there that it's truly astounding
-
03/30/2011 3:52:00 AM
TNR is not the solution:
http://tnrrealitycheck.com/
-
03/30/2011 2:38:00 AM
feral cats do NOT take many birds at all. BUT, they do take rats and mice. So do ya wanna upgrade your complaint about the ferals?
I didn't think so.