|
|
|
.gif)
Q: Isn't sterilizing and dumping cats simply abandonment? A: Managing cat colonies responsibly via sterilization does not involve sterilizing and dumping cats. Managing cats by sterilization simply means giving non-pettable outdoor cats the same care as handleable outdoor pet cat, or an indoor-outdoor pet cat: veterinary care, shelter, and daily feeding. The majority of unhandleable (feral) cats in the United States are small colonies (2-25 cats) on private land. They are in fact, technically and legally, owned cats. Unfortunately, due to the publicity given a few very large colonies in federal, state, or local parks, images of a hundred cats in wildlife areas spring to the minds of critics. The fact is, most "colonies" are small populations of owned cats on private property, easily controlled by sterilization or removal. The method chosen depends upon what local services are available, and the desires of the landowner. No one would think it irresponsible if a dairy farmer invested in spaying, neutering, and rabies vaccinating his previously poorly cared for barn cats. But for some reason, if a woman in a residential neighborhood takes it upon herself to neuter the cats under her back porch because she's tired of dealing with finding homes for sick kittens from the neighborhood "strays", she is labeled a cat fanatic. A person who spays her petttable outdoor cats is "normal" but a woman who spays the unpettable cats is "unreasonable." It is clear the prejudices involved in such judgements have to do with how we view cats in relation to humans----not the biology and habits of the actual cats. A cat is a cat is a cat. The only thing that changes is the situation in which the particular cat resides. Responsible cat management or ownership requires veterinary attention, shelter, and feeding. Rabies vaccination is required by law and/or to protect the public. If a landowner doesn't want to kill cats, there is no law that says they should be responsible for killing every cat that is abandoned or wanders onto their property. If it is legal for them to keep an outdoor pettable cat, it is equally legal for them to keep an outdoor cat they cannot pet. There may, however, be local laws that require cats be confined indoors ("leash laws," "cat licensing"). In those areas, landowners may have to make the commitment to making ferals a "house feral" or finding them a home where free-roaming cats are not restricted, or risk complaints and a ticket.
A: Unfortunately, yes. We feel these instances are rare. In most states, spaying a cat (taking responsibility or ownership for the animal) then releasing it without care would be a criminal act. However, recent attacks against sterilization have pressured some cat advocacy groups to make it clear that responsible TNR requires food, shelter, and even accepting legal ownership. Recently, the Pennsylvania Game Commission attempted to shut down several municipal cat management programs in PA by insisting management via sterilization was "release to the wild" (and therefore illegal). At a public comment period, cat advocates streamed to the podium to insist that TNR meant taking responsibility for the cats on one's own land, or helping a neighbor on her land, and claiming ownership, providing the cats with veterinary attention, food, and shelter. They claimed that the PGC had no authority to govern how a property owner might care for his or her own cats, and that rescue organizations cannot be prohibited from helping them. Challenges of this sort will continue to force cat advocates to stress food, shelter, and ownership rather than only sterilization. Many groups have changed their language to state that cats are "returned to their owner" which more accurately reflects the majority of feral cat situations. When we personally manage via sterilization, the landowner must accept ownership of the cats, or in rare cases where we are feeding the cats daily ourselves, we have accepted ownership of the cats and are keeping them on the property of others with the landowner's permission.
A: Interestingly enough, the majority of feral cat rescuers who socialize and adopt out kittens, adopt into indoor-only homes, and have indoor-only pet cats (on-line poll, yahoogroups, feral_cat listserv). In other words, the majority of feral cat rescuers believe in indoor cats! Most have pet cats that stay indoors, and house ferals that are never permitted to set food outdoors again. However, when faced with an elderly neighbor who has 30 feral cats and kittens, and the problem needs attention now, and the neighbor will not consider euthanasia, how can you solve the problem immediately? The kittens can be homed, but how do we deal with those adults? Maybe someone will adopt one or two...but here are ten. It's all well and good to say "the best place for a cat is indoors," but reality does not always provide for this option. Sterilizing the remaining cats, providing warm shelters, and checking in with the elderly neighbor every couple of months to make sure no new cats or kitten have appeared, is sometimes the only option that will end the complaint of "too many cats."
A: The "once the cat is in the trap, it is silly to let it go again" comment is heard over and over again, especially from some wildlife conservationists. The key is that first phrase----"once the cat is in the trap." Who is getting the cats in the traps to begin with? In regions where cats are being sterilized by the hundreds and even thousands, it is the cat people who are getting the cats in traps, not wildlife conservationists. The national feral cat problem will not be solved by managing a cat here and there, removing 10 cats from a state park, 20 from an endangered species area (although certainly it may solve the problem on that single site) or by removing 20 cats from an apartment complex at $50 a cat, then not returning until the apartment complex manager calls because there are scads of cats again. The feral cat problem will only be solved by managing hundreds of thousands of cats yearly, with individuals who visit the site daily (caretakers and cat owners) to address new cats when they appear so that problems do not reoccur. In addition to WHO is getting the cat in the trap is the question of HOW the trapping is able to take place. Again, most cat colonies are on private land, and there are stakeholders involved---landowners, renters, college students, restaurant customers, staff, etc. We have managed several colonies by sterilization that we simply could not get access to when we offered only euthanasia of adults and adoption of kittens. We could not get permission to trap in some problem areas if any cats were going to be killed. When we suggested that the landowners could accept legal ownership of sterilized adult feral cats, and we would remove the kittens for adoption, and return for any new cats, we then received access to the colonies. If the person who controls the land demands a nonlethal option, the only way to get access to the cats is to offer one. When multiple properties are involved, it is likely that someone will object to euthanasia.
A: Ideally, yes. First, the mission of most parks stressing a "natural experience" or protection of wildlife, does not include supporting large populations of free-roaming cats. Second, in a few locations, there are legitimate concerns about feral cat predation on threatened species. Even if you have only one feral cat that has learned to molest the nests of ground nesting birds, that single cat could seriously threaten a bird population when there are only less than a hundred nests of that species. Any endangered species researcher who sees cat tracks leading away from a devastated nest is understandably going to have a catnip fit. Remember, these graduate students and researchers care for their species as much as a cat advocate cares for hers. A disturbed nest with dead fledglings is not much different from a dead cat. Both have humans attached who care about what happens to that animal. However, in most cases where cat advocates and wildlife conservationists or park managers come to a head...why were there cats there for the cat advocates to notice, anyway? If the park had been aggressively managing their feral cat population to protect their mission or endangered species all along, why were there 30 cats and kittens to draw the interest of park visitors, who then took it upon themselves to neuter and feed the cats? The awkward fact is, many land managers (not just park managers, but colleges, farms, industrial campuses, homeowners, etc.) simply ignore feral cats until some controversy requires them to act. Every now and then someone may go out with a trap and catch a few cats and take them to the shelter, but it's such an unpleasant experience, or so much hard work, that usually some cats remain to breed until complaints arise again. It's easy to ignore a shadow in the dark, but harder to ignore a blue car that appears every day with a woman, a bag of food, a cage trap, and eventually, a shelter. Once someone starts working on the colony, the land manager can't turn a blind eye. Now instead of just cats, he has a host of humans that he must go talk to. When he suggests they go away and just leave things as they were, he discovers the strangers have an argument to make. And now you have two sets of humans butting heads, both of them with legitimate concerns. So while yes, feral cats ought not be in wild or natural areas, the fact is, they are there already and have been there for decades. In every case where we have received a call about a conflict between park staff and cat advocates, cats have been unmanaged in the park for over 10 years, and likely would have gone on being unmanaged by any means if the cat advocate had not appeared to complicate the issue. Blaming the cat advocate for the problem is an error, because in fact if the cats were being legally removed all along by a vigilant land manager, there would have been no cat problem at all. When asked "What was your cat management protocol before these folks arrived" park staff have always answered "We didn't have one." Back in the 1980s, before TNR was well-known, we managed a very large colony via removal (kittens and friendly cats placed in homes, adult cats taken to a shelter for euthanasia). When TNR became popular in the late 90s, there were no cats for people to notice and therefore no one stood up to demand TNR. Monitoring was vigilant, and new cats were almost always abandoned tame cats that could be placed in homes. The rare feral cat could more easily be placed in a barn home because only one showed up every few years. Even if that one cat were euthanized, less out-cry was made, because so many others found homes and the euthanasia rate was now very low. However, if that colony had been ignored and still existed unmanaged today, it is quite likely that stakeholders would insist on TNR and would not tolerate euthanasia. The free euthanasia services that were available back in the 80s now no longer exist, and free spay/neuter is. Times and attitudes change. By ignoring a problem, one has to work within the new framework, and blaming those who now refuse to ignore the problem isn't an option. So while we agree that "cats do not belong in wild or natural areas" we also believe that "sterilization is better than doing nothing." If "nothing" is what was happening before a cat caretaker appeared on the scene, going back to nothing is not a logical, legal, or humane option. On the other hand, cat advocates must accept that the land they are is dedicated to a mission other than cat rescue. "Nonlethal cat control" may be appropriate-but a program that is 100% cat rescue is not. While sterilized cats might be tolerated for a short time, the aim should be zero cats, or a very low number of cats, as quickly as possible. This may require more aggressive placement of cats to alternative locations, in return for the cooperation of park staff. Compromise is a two-way street once such controversies arise. For more information, see "Issues to Consider with Cats on Public Lands" (not yet active).
A: We will be blunt. These organizations (The Wildlife Society, The Cats Indoors program of the American Bird Conservancy, and others) have legitimate concerns and are entitled to their beliefs. However, they offer absolutely no practical help in the incredible national problem of feral cat management. These organizations even refuse to use the work "kill" in their materials about feral cats. If the people who feel it is more humane to kill feral cats won't even say the word, how can we expect that the average American will look out their window at a stray cat and say "gosh, it's more humane for me to have that cat put down than to spay it and keep it as an outdoor cat." Feral cat advocates are aggressive about offering hands-on information on how to physically deal with a feral cat. Conservation organizations say "TNR is wrong" or "TNR doesn't work" or "if it's in the trap, put it down" but offer no physical options and seem to be entirely unaware of the legal risks of euthanizing free-roaming cats that could belong to someone (a lost pet). They seem unaware of the cost of maintaining a cat in a sanctuary. They offer no physical guidance other than to insist the animal care and control should kill feral cats or put them in sanctuaries. They do not fund domestic animal control research. They do not offer pamphlets on how to humanely trap and euthanize a cat, or how to build and finance a sanctuary. They offer no legal guidance on when it might be legal to kill a cat and when it is not. They say only "call your local shelter" when many areas have no local shelter, or the local shelter may in fact offer only TNR. They say "feral cats should be humanely removed" but don't mention this likely means euthanasia. When a citizen follows their advice and calls a shelter, they learn they have buy a trap, trap the cat, bring it to the shelter, and sign away its life. They are surprised ("Is that what 'humane removal' is?") and say "I'll think about it." It is likely they never call again. These are good, respected wildlife organizations, but they do not get out there and knock on the door of the elderly woman with 30 cats, or the farmer, or the park manager. A local traditional shelter that euthanizes cats, admits it, and bears the costs of managing cats, has the right to issue a policy statement against TNR if that is their belief. However, an organization that has nothing to do with feral cat management and will not even speak of killing while advocating the practice, does not, in our opinion. Their beliefs are acceptable, however, they are not offering actual solutions and ought not set themselves up as experts in feral cat management. Until they do, we do not consider their policy statements valid, reasonable, or informed. They do not reflect the physical options actually available to US citizens, nor do they support the creation of new future alternative options with actual research and actual funding. When they do, we will be happy to provide information on those options here. Feral cat policies that oppose TNR:
Feral cat policies that accept TNR, in a full or limited way: |
 |