Owning Pets Is Anti-Mustachian

[ClassyCat]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

[partgypsy]

I do have guilt that our current cat is an indoor outdoor cat. She is tame to us, but not to other people (runs away). When we got our latest dog, other than to come in to eat, lived outside for 2 years even in the winter. When she hunted she preferred mice and voles. On the upside, she is 16 years old and due to pre existing issues down to her last 2, 3 teeth and seems content to watch wildlife rather than stalking it. I just noticed the other day her laying in the backyard while a squirrel literally gamboled in front of her, not noticing she was there (cats know the jedi mind trick).

If people were serious about preventing their cats from eating birds, etc, there is a collar type device (looks like those things you put on injured pets) that supposedly is quite effective at preventing successful wildlife attacks.  http://www.birdsbesafe.com/
There are even larger versions out there

[GuitarStv]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

[iris lily]

But domestic  cats are one of the most terrible predator I think they are responsible for killing millions of small animals just for the lulz and not for hungry needs. I've read somewhere that the environmental impact of the domestic cats is huge, so in a way they are not mustachian.
other pets are different. It is cats that are a problem.

Sent from my GT-S7582 using Tapatalk

That usually only applies to outdoor cats, and can easily be fixed by putting a bell around your cats neck to make other animals aware of it's presence.

One of our gardens has a skinny neighbor cat who hangs out there. Certainly he is keeping the rabbits away, but we think he is also discouraging the main predators, squirrels. The nasty beasts climb corn stalks and steal ears of corn, and now they are taking tomatoes, so,when the cats lays at the bottom of the plants, the squirrels don't run along the ground.

We've been talking about giving his owner a bag of cat food this winter to make sure kitty is well fed. But this summer--we want him lean and hunting.

[ClassyCat]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

[GuitarStv]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

[Slee_stack]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

Humans are the most invasive and destructive of all species.  What is your proposal for them?

[Cromacster]

Humans are the most invasive and destructive of all species.  What is your proposal for them?

Cats =/= humans.

[GuitarStv]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

Humans are the most invasive and destructive of all species.  What is your proposal for them?

Better education.



http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13

[ClassyCat]

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

I think it's kinda crappy to make assumptions about the reasoning behind my statements, but that's cool. My statements are about effective procedures for reducing feral populations. You're never going to entirely eliminate feral cats, because we have no mechanism for controlling people's pet cats and whether they're freely roaming outdoors and breeding. Therefore, we need to figure out how to lower the rate of breeding and aggression with feral cats - hence TNR. Like I said, it reduces the number of cats in an area while also preventing new cats from moving in to that area to start anew. Fewer resources are consumed by the cats at this point, including prey. And yes, I refer to small birds and rodents as prey in this case because that's what they are to many animals beyond cats. So overall, attempting to kill all feral cats would be painfully ineffective, in addition to cruel.

[GuitarStv]

Have you run across many feral cats?  Cats in the wild suffer.  I think I mentioned this already, but they are usually covered in parasites, don't have medical attention, often are nearly starving, can't handle cold temperatures very well, and regularly get badly hurt in fights with other animals.  I don't see why you think that putting a domestic animal into that situation is not cruel.  Could you elaborate?


If we want to talk about effectiveness, I'm afraid you've been misinformed.  Euthanizing is more cost effective at controlling feral cat populations, and works far better than TNR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23009077 and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art10/ and http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242278328_Evaluation_of_euthanasia_and_trap-neuter-return_%28TNR%29_programs_in_managing_free-roaming_cat_populations).  If run at very high percentage rates, TNR programs can work . . . but in the real world that doesn't happen - TNR programs across the US average less than 1/7th the needed rate to reduce cat populations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023314001841).

I know that killing a pet type animal is unpalatable, but in this case it's the only morally responsible thing to do.  If fewer pet owners were irresponsible this wouldn't be an issue . . . but if we can't make people take responsibility for their actions, we at least have a moral duty to try to limit the damage they're doing to the environment.  Even if it's hard.

[wenchsenior]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

Humans are the most invasive and destructive of all species.  What is your proposal for them?

Well, I propose we stop having kids. I didn't, for exactly this reason. Because I prefer this solution to my second choice, a random plague that takes out several billion of us. That would definitely suck...LOL.

[wenchsenior]

Have you run across many feral cats?  Cats in the wild suffer.  I think I mentioned this already, but they are usually covered in parasites, don't have medical attention, often are nearly starving, can't handle cold temperatures very well, and regularly get badly hurt in fights with other animals.  I don't see why you think that putting a domestic animal into that situation is not cruel.  Could you elaborate?


If we want to talk about effectiveness, I'm afraid you've been misinformed.  Euthanizing is more cost effective at controlling feral cat populations, and works far better than TNR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23009077 and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art10/ and http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242278328_Evaluation_of_euthanasia_and_trap-neuter-return_%28TNR%29_programs_in_managing_free-roaming_cat_populations).  If run at very high percentage rates, TNR programs can work . . . but in the real world that doesn't happen - TNR programs across the US average less than 1/7th the needed rate to reduce cat populations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023314001841).

I know that killing a pet type animal is unpalatable, but in this case it's the only morally responsible thing to do.  If fewer pet owners were irresponsible this wouldn't be an issue . . . but if we can't make people take responsibility for their actions, we at least have a moral duty to try to limit the damage they're doing to the environment.  Even if it's hard.

From a biological perspective, GuitarStv is totally correct. Most ferals live short and brutal lives. Just the other morning, we were enjoying a quiet cup of coffee in the backyard and heard hysterical barking and meowing from a couple doors down. Fenced back yard, house owner was out. Her yip yip poodles were tearing a tiny kitten apart. Eventually, my husband hand-climbed over her fence to get the kitten away. It was shocky, and we knew the local shelter was full. We knew we had rescued it so that we could give it a quick death rather than a miserable slow one of torture. Fun morning!

It is depressing, but the most practical, least painful, and most effective control is just shooting them, or trapping (with close trap attendance to minimize the cats' stress) followed by drug euthanasia. We have done that many times in our backyard when the neighborhood population gets overwhelming (one summer, I counted 18 different ferals coming and going in our yard, along with about a dozen pet-cats from the neighborhood). That is some insane assembled predatory intensity.

One thing that angers me is that there a lot of nasty people in the world who actively hate cats, and can be really cruel to them. The biologist community is not exempt...some of whom use the feral cat problem as an 'excuse' to be malicious.

Anyway, I have owned multiple cats my whole life, and we have made big efforts to take in and foster out young feral cats over the years. But when the numbers get too large (which is pretty much any number over a couple per year in our neighborhood because our no-kill shelter is always overrun), we kill them. We don't enjoy it, and it really ruins our day. But the wildlife species are in far greater trouble population-wise than cats will EVER be (for reasons several people mentioned).

There are a lot of emotions around this issue, and I understand that. From a biologist perspective, we have similar emotional conflicts over issues about mustangs (non native, problematic, most practical thing would be to eradicate them), situations where deer overpopulate and starve because (Don't Kill Bambi!), etc. It just sucks.

[Cassie]

TNR has worked really well to drop the feral cat population in our community. If a feral cat comes in our yard we certainly do not kill it. It makes me sick to read that some people do.

[wenchsenior]

TNR has worked really well to drop the feral cat population in our community. If a feral cat comes in our yard we certainly do not kill it. It makes me sick to read that some people do.

I understand, but it's one feral cat life versus potentially hundreds of native wild birds, reptiles, mammals, etc. That's no contest for me, no matter how unpleasant I find killing cats to be. Like I said, if all they did was kill invasive nonnative English sparrows, starlings, house mice, black rats, etc., I'd egg them on.  But I think that's the typical difference between an objective, biologist brain versus the subjective, emotional brain of the average person, who nearly always finds more 'value' in mammals versus birds or lizards, more value in 'cuddly' mammals versus mammals like bats, and has trouble viewing things through the lens of long-term health of populations and ecosystems versus individuals. It's a reasonable gap that many people struggle with. It's the reason conservation groups use really sexy species as their cover girls/boys and recruiting tools. People want to save whales, and don't give much of a shit about little bait fish, which is a problem from the perspective of 'good science'.

And boy, did we accidentally derail this thread huh?

[ClassyCat]

Have you run across many feral cats?  Cats in the wild suffer.  I think I mentioned this already, but they are usually covered in parasites, don't have medical attention, often are nearly starving, can't handle cold temperatures very well, and regularly get badly hurt in fights with other animals.  I don't see why you think that putting a domestic animal into that situation is not cruel.  Could you elaborate?

Sure. I agree that the life of ferals can be very bleak depending on their area's population, rate of disease, etc. However, this is where TNR comes in. By sterilizing and immunizing a cat, you're protecting them in several ways. One, there will be no more mating, so no more fights between toms that lead to severe injuries and potential spread of disease. You're also protecting other animals by ensuring that rabies will not spread via cats. Two, females will no longer be at risk for contracting common cancers and tumors that are a result of repeated pregnancies. Three, because TNR creates a colony of non-breeding cats, there is less of an issue with resource distribution, leading to less competition for food and shelter.

The description you give sounds more like that of a stray cat who has been thrown into the wild. It doesn't know how to hunt for itself or find shelter, and it doesn't last long. A feral cat is born and raised in the wild, has had little to no contact with humans, and has developed survival skills in the process. It knows how to hunt. It knows how to seek shelter when the weather is bad. Combine those skills with a TNR program, and this cat can have a lifespan that's roughly equal to the lifespan of a house cat because of decreased risk for disease or injury. Given these circumstances, I think it's more humane than pure catch and kill programs.

If we want to talk about effectiveness, I'm afraid you've been misinformed.  Euthanizing is more cost effective at controlling feral cat populations, and works far better than TNR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23009077 and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art10/ and http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242278328_Evaluation_of_euthanasia_and_trap-neuter-return_%28TNR%29_programs_in_managing_free-roaming_cat_populations).  If run at very high percentage rates, TNR programs can work . . . but in the real world that doesn't happen - TNR programs across the US average less than 1/7th the needed rate to reduce cat populations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023314001841).

Obviously trap-euthanize programs are going to have a bigger initial impact on population, as well as a bigger initial impact on wildlife. You're directly eliminating the cats. But the vacuum effect occurs at this point - ferals begin breeding more heavily and invading the area once again because you've done nothing to prevent them from doing so. Therefore, you have to begin the process all over again, catching and euthanizing again. It cycles. This is why sterilization is more effective long-term. Yes, the vacuum effect will occur in both cases, but to a much lesser extent with TNR because you have a maintained colony that is more healthy and less apt to quickly die off. I personally expected TNR to cost more because it provides more for the cats, but I would love to see the long-term costs with this taken into account.

I know that killing a pet type animal is unpalatable, but in this case it's the only morally responsible thing to do.  If fewer pet owners were irresponsible this wouldn't be an issue . . . but if we can't make people take responsibility for their actions, we at least have a moral duty to try to limit the damage they're doing to the environment.  Even if it's hard.

I disagree that it's the only morally responsible thing to do. However, what makes me angriest is how irresponsible people are with animals in general. High rates of relocation have led to increased pet abandonment, which helps drive this issue in the first place. I'd love it if the penalties for such a thing were more harsh, but I don't know how to effectively implement that.

[GuitarStv]

Have you run across many feral cats?  Cats in the wild suffer.  I think I mentioned this already, but they are usually covered in parasites, don't have medical attention, often are nearly starving, can't handle cold temperatures very well, and regularly get badly hurt in fights with other animals.  I don't see why you think that putting a domestic animal into that situation is not cruel.  Could you elaborate?

Sure. I agree that the life of ferals can be very bleak depending on their area's population, rate of disease, etc. However, this is where TNR comes in. By sterilizing and immunizing a cat, you're protecting them in several ways. One, there will be no more mating, so no more fights between toms that lead to severe injuries and potential spread of disease. You're also protecting other animals by ensuring that rabies will not spread via cats. Two, females will no longer be at risk for contracting common cancers and tumors that are a result of repeated pregnancies. Three, because TNR creates a colony of non-breeding cats, there is less of an issue with resource distribution, leading to less competition for food and shelter.

The description you give sounds more like that of a stray cat who has been thrown into the wild. It doesn't know how to hunt for itself or find shelter, and it doesn't last long. A feral cat is born and raised in the wild, has had little to no contact with humans, and has developed survival skills in the process. It knows how to hunt. It knows how to seek shelter when the weather is bad. Combine those skills with a TNR program, and this cat can have a lifespan that's roughly equal to the lifespan of a house cat because of decreased risk for disease or injury. Given these circumstances, I think it's more humane than pure catch and kill programs.

If we want to talk about effectiveness, I'm afraid you've been misinformed.  Euthanizing is more cost effective at controlling feral cat populations, and works far better than TNR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23009077 and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art10/ and http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242278328_Evaluation_of_euthanasia_and_trap-neuter-return_%28TNR%29_programs_in_managing_free-roaming_cat_populations).  If run at very high percentage rates, TNR programs can work . . . but in the real world that doesn't happen - TNR programs across the US average less than 1/7th the needed rate to reduce cat populations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023314001841).

Obviously trap-euthanize programs are going to have a bigger initial impact on population, as well as a bigger initial impact on wildlife. You're directly eliminating the cats. But the vacuum effect occurs at this point - ferals begin breeding more heavily and invading the area once again because you've done nothing to prevent them from doing so. Therefore, you have to begin the process all over again, catching and euthanizing again. It cycles. This is why sterilization is more effective long-term. Yes, the vacuum effect will occur in both cases, but to a much lesser extent with TNR because you have a maintained colony that is more healthy and less apt to quickly die off. I personally expected TNR to cost more because it provides more for the cats, but I would love to see the long-term costs with this taken into account.

I know that killing a pet type animal is unpalatable, but in this case it's the only morally responsible thing to do.  If fewer pet owners were irresponsible this wouldn't be an issue . . . but if we can't make people take responsibility for their actions, we at least have a moral duty to try to limit the damage they're doing to the environment.  Even if it's hard.

I disagree that it's the only morally responsible thing to do. However, what makes me angriest is how irresponsible people are with animals in general. High rates of relocation have led to increased pet abandonment, which helps drive this issue in the first place. I'd love it if the penalties for such a thing were more harsh, but I don't know how to effectively implement that.

I'm speaking directly of my experience when trapping feral cats.  Maybe it's possible that of the dozens of cats and kittens trapped they were all once someone's pet.  It seems unlikely though.  They showed absolutely no signs of domestication, and wouldn't approach a person.  As to your unfounded belief in the survival powers of feral cats though:

https://www.aspca.org/adopt/feral-cats-faq - Feral cats live an average of under two years from kittenhood.  They can live longer, but only if someone is feeding them and providing shelter/veterinary care.  This is something that many TNR programs often do, which extends the lifespan of the cats . . . to the detriment of all other animals in the area.  Remember when I was talking about favouring the cute animals?  Yet another example.  These actions make no sense.

If you read the studies posted, you'll notice that euthanizing isn't a short term solution.  It has a bigger long term impact than TNR.  As you mentioned, it's better for the environment and reduces the numbers of cats.  As shown in those studies, this 'vacuum effect' you keep mentioning doesn't matter.  A maintained colony does not prevent new intact stray cats from joining (http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/live/ec1781/build/ec1781.pdf), this is a mistaken assumption you are operating under.  All scientific evidence points to the fact that TNR programs as they currently exist do not work (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19245489).  People are going to keep throwing their unfixed cats out into the wild regardless of the method of control used, and they'll breed.  This happens when TNR is used and when they're euthanized.  In light of that, why not use the only proven effective control to limit damage?

Feral cats are one of the most invasive species in the world.  They kill between 1.4 to 3.7 billion birds alone each year http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/feral-cats-kill-billions-of-small-critters-each-year-7814590/?no-ist.  Were you to replace the word 'cat' with 'cockroach' or 'rat' or 'hog' there would be no question whatsoever as to the appropriate approach to control their population.  Maintaining feral cats simply because they're cute is absolutely morally wrong.

[Slee_stack]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

Humans are the most invasive and destructive of all species.  What is your proposal for them?

Better education.



http://www.earth-policy.org/data_highlights/2011/highlights13

Excellent.  I agree.  Now, how long until critical mass is reached via this method?  One day?  One week?  No?

Of course not.  This will take quite an extended period of time.

So why are you a proponent for taking a quick, in-human solution for Feral cats?

TNR will ultimately arrive at the same end state as your proposed euthanasia, but in a humane fashion.

[Slee_stack]

Have you run across many feral cats?  Cats in the wild suffer.  I think I mentioned this already, but they are usually covered in parasites, don't have medical attention, often are nearly starving, can't handle cold temperatures very well, and regularly get badly hurt in fights with other animals.  I don't see why you think that putting a domestic animal into that situation is not cruel.  Could you elaborate?


If we want to talk about effectiveness, I'm afraid you've been misinformed.  Euthanizing is more cost effective at controlling feral cat populations, and works far better than TNR (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23009077 and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art10/ and http://www.researchgate.net/publication/242278328_Evaluation_of_euthanasia_and_trap-neuter-return_%28TNR%29_programs_in_managing_free-roaming_cat_populations).  If run at very high percentage rates, TNR programs can work . . . but in the real world that doesn't happen - TNR programs across the US average less than 1/7th the needed rate to reduce cat populations (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090023314001841).

I know that killing a pet type animal is unpalatable, but in this case it's the only morally responsible thing to do.  If fewer pet owners were irresponsible this wouldn't be an issue . . . but if we can't make people take responsibility for their actions, we at least have a moral duty to try to limit the damage they're doing to the environment.  Even if it's hard.

You must recognize the absurdity of your argument.  You just volunteered education as the means to address environmental damage by humans, and then you directly counter with a statement suggesting pet owners cannot be educated (eg irresponsible).  If this is true, then there is little hope for ever educating the larger populace on a much greater issue.  At that point, feral cats are 'noise' as it relates to the destruction of the planet.

As an aside, I have a feral community in my urban neighborhood.  The entire block supports them, each in their small way.  The entire colony has been TNR.  When we started this program about 7 years ago, the colony was at 20-24 cats.   Today they stand at 6.  Some have had scrapes, a limp, etc., but all are (relatively) friendly and seem happy/relaxed spending time on various porches or backyards.  I know you may find this shocking, but the neighborhood sees them as a part of it and takes a certain amount of joy/satisfaction supporting them.  I probably would have missed out meeting a few neighbors if not for these cats. 

[Slee_stack]

TNR has worked really well to drop the feral cat population in our community. If a feral cat comes in our yard we certainly do not kill it. It makes me sick to read that some people do.

I understand, but it's one feral cat life versus potentially hundreds of native wild birds, reptiles, mammals, etc. That's no contest for me, no matter how unpleasant I find killing cats to be. Like I said, if all they did was kill invasive nonnative English sparrows, starlings, house mice, black rats, etc., I'd egg them on.  But I think that's the typical difference between an objective, biologist brain versus the subjective, emotional brain of the average person, who nearly always finds more 'value' in mammals versus birds or lizards, more value in 'cuddly' mammals versus mammals like bats, and has trouble viewing things through the lens of long-term health of populations and ecosystems versus individuals. It's a reasonable gap that many people struggle with. It's the reason conservation groups use really sexy species as their cover girls/boys and recruiting tools. People want to save whales, and don't give much of a shit about little bait fish, which is a problem from the perspective of 'good science'.

And boy, did we accidentally derail this thread huh?

No one is advocating the need to eliminate the feral cat population.  The huge difference is in method.  One is quick and inhumane (and easy).  The other method is slower, humane (and more resource intensive).

Everyone is more concerned about people over all the mice, birds, lizards, whatever.  Why?  What is wrong with the Biologists' brain in that scenario?

Oh yeah...that's us...we are allowed to be selfish.  But favoring any other species over another is taboo?

Feral cats are not ruining the world.  People are ruining the world.  Plain and simple.  But hey, the cats are EASY to kill....

[EricP]

The huge difference is in method.  One is quick and inhumane (and easy).  The other method is slower, humane (and more resource intensive).

The statemenent that TNR is more humane than euthanasia is debatable.  Feral Cats often live sick miserable lives and thus many believe euthanasia is more humane.

A definition of humane is as follows

inflicting the minimum of pain.

Euthanasia definitely inflicts the minimum amount of pain as opposed to releasing them back into the world.

[GuitarStv]

Excellent.  I agree.  Now, how long until critical mass is reached via this method?  One day?  One week?  No?

Of course not.  This will take quite an extended period of time.

So why are you a proponent for taking a quick, in-human solution for Feral cats?

TNR will ultimately arrive at the same end state as your proposed euthanasia, but in a humane fashion.

Your claim is demonstrably incorrect.  Read through the multiple studies that were posted.  TNR programs (as typically applied in the US at any rate) don't work to reduce large feline populations over long periods of time.  (It is more effective with very small populations.)  Euthanizing cats does.  Please read the research.

(As an aside, I'm glad that the TNR program in your neighbourhood was successful.  With very small populations of animals like you reported it is supposed to work better.  When they are regularly fed, these cats tend to live longer and have much better lives.  It's sad that thousands of birds and small animals over the years had to die so you could feel better about keeping a colony of invasive cats alive though.  But hey, you got to meet some neighbours, so I guess it all evens out?)

Your argument that it is more humane to let a domestic animal try to survive in an alien environment is at least debatable, given the hardships that domestic cats typically endure in the wild.  They don't live great lives . . . and they don't live for long (you would think that this would naturally solve the issue).  The problem is that they reproduce very quickly, and a huge number of cat owners don't look after their animals.

Regarding education of pet owners . . . I'm all for it.  I don't have high hopes though, as it has been tried.  Cat spay/neutering has been pushed since the 70s (remember Bob Barkers sign off from every episode of the Price Is Right?).  I don't think that people are unaware that they should do this, they just choose not to because it's more expensive.  The concept of keeping your cat indoors is one that many violently object to.  Feral cats are already a crisis, and given the failure of education to make any impact on the situation it is unreasonable to expect it to suddenly be a miracle cure in the future.

The problem of human overpopulation is largely unrelated to the issue of invasive cats.  That said, since you appear to be very set on claiming your opinion that the life of a cat is equivalent in value to the life of a person . . . in most of the developed world population growth is around or below replacement levels.  High growth is really going on predominantly in third world countries.  People don't typically respond well to government intervention in their ability to reproduce, which takes government action largely off the table.  Attacking or invading a third world country to try to euthanize children and enforce your own breeding program would likely set off a chain reaction of events (war) that would do more damage to the environment.  This is why this (unrelated to feral cats) problem requires a much different solution.

[GuitarStv]

I've often wondered if the wildly overprotective blowback and protectiveness aimed at cats (and only cats - other species don't deserve consideration) whenever this topic is brought up has to do with brain chemistry.  Toxoplasmosis and it's effects on human brains in relation to cats has some interesting implications.

[Slee_stack]

The huge difference is in method.  One is quick and inhumane (and easy).  The other method is slower, humane (and more resource intensive).

The statemenent that TNR is more humane than euthanasia is debatable.  Feral Cats often live sick miserable lives and thus many believe euthanasia is more humane.

A definition of humane is as follows

inflicting the minimum of pain.

Euthanasia definitely inflicts the minimum amount of pain as opposed to releasing them back into the world.

You appear to like definitions, so you may also be interested in what 'inflict' means.  Simply put, it means 'to cause' (something unpleasant or harmful).

If a feral animal lives a painful existence, is it the human 'inflicting' the pain?  Esoterically, we could blame human society as the ultimate cause (hint: it is), but we've created this mess, so is that enough reason to justify inflicting further, unnecessary pain?  (TNR, does cause temporary pain.)


So is euthanasia 'humane'?


Did you know that people in third world nations often live sick, miserable lives, and thus many believe euthanasia.....

Wait a minute!.  That's not the point you're trying to make is it?

If something might live in pain, its better to kill it now?  Scary.


How about we allow living things the opportunity to...you know...live? 

Let's lose the God complex.

[Le Poisson]

Well this has gone down an interesting road - yet another thread I wish had an unsubscribe button.

[GuitarStv]

If something might live in pain, its better to kill it now?  Scary.


How about we allow living things the opportunity to...you know...live? 

Let's lose the God complex.

You're presenting a false concept.

Prevention of pain for feral cats is not the sole reason for the need to euthanize them.  We know that a lot of feral cats do live painful miserable lives (some don't), and we know that they absolutely will kill native animals during their time (all do).

We're beyond a point where we can avoid killing anything.  Either we allow the native animals to be killed by our doing (releasing a non-native invasive species), or we kill the species we released.  There's going to be death both ways, and there's no 'everybody lives' option.

[EricP]

The huge difference is in method.  One is quick and inhumane (and easy).  The other method is slower, humane (and more resource intensive).

The statemenent that TNR is more humane than euthanasia is debatable.  Feral Cats often live sick miserable lives and thus many believe euthanasia is more humane.

A definition of humane is as follows

inflicting the minimum of pain.

Euthanasia definitely inflicts the minimum amount of pain as opposed to releasing them back into the world.

You appear to like definitions, so you may also be interested in what 'inflict' means.  Simply put, it means 'to cause' (something unpleasant or harmful).

If a feral animal lives a painful existence, is it the human 'inflicting' the pain?  Esoterically, we could blame human society as the ultimate cause (hint: it is), but we've created this mess, so is that enough reason to justify inflicting further, unnecessary pain?  (TNR, does cause temporary pain.)


So is euthanasia 'humane'?


Did you know that people in third world nations often live sick, miserable lives, and thus many believe euthanasia.....

Wait a minute!.  That's not the point you're trying to make is it?

If something might live in pain, its better to kill it now?  Scary.


How about we allow living things the opportunity to...you know...live? 

Let's lose the God complex.

God Complex?  I'm pretty sure we've already "played God" by creating domesticated cats, so why do you have to be so toxic?

I apply different moral codes to humans than I do to animals due to humans having much higher levels of sentience.  Call it a "God Complex" if you want, but last time I checked cats aren't building skyscrapers.

Yes, you're 100% right that humans have created feral cats, but where you got a little wonky is that by thinking that TNR only causes temporary pain.  It doesn't.  It continues to cause them pain their entire life because being a feral cat is a miserable existence.  I'm not killing 3rd world humans because I value human life intrinsically.  I don't value feral cats intrinsically.

I would appreciate if you didn't railroad the conversation and put words in my mouth. It would make it a whole lot better to actually accomplish something.

How about we allow living things the opportunity to...you know...live?

Except for, ya know, all the mice and birds and everything else that your TNR cats are killing.  Who gives a shit about them right? Fuck those animals, right?

[EricP]

Well this has gone down an interesting road - yet another thread I wish had an unsubscribe button.

Subscribe button?  What is this button and what will it do if I push it?  Does it provide any better utility than just looking at the threads I have posted to and seeing if there is a "NEW" next to them?

[Cassie]

This is one of those conversations where no one is going to change anyone's mind.  There are people that love animals on one side & people that don't.  There are people that firmly believe in TNR & people that oppose.  WE can argue until the cows come home but it won't change anyone's mind. 

[Slee_stack]

Yes Cassie you are correct.  Throughout my life, the people I've met who empathize for animals (any animals) have tended to be kinder souls.  I am only a fool to waste time on the mean spirited ones.

[EricP]

Yes Cassie you are correct.  Throughout my life, the people I've met who empathize for animals (any animals) have tended to be kinder souls.  I am only a fool to waste time on the mean spirited ones.

Yet you show no empathy for the birds that your TNR cats kill. I guess you're just one of the "mean spirited ones" just like us.

[GuitarStv]

Advocating for euthanizing an invasive species doesn't mean you hate cats (I don't BTW), any more than advocating for TNR means you hate birds.  Turning to ad hominem attacks of the other person in a debate when all the available evidence brought forth contradicts your view smacks somewhat of desperation though.

[Cassie]

Birds & mice, etc are natural prey for cats. that is just the way it is. I guess this will give everyone something new to argue about:))

[EricP]

Birds & mice, etc are natural prey for cats. that is just the way it is. I guess this will give everyone something new to argue about:))

Except that the cats are a non-native species.  They aren't supposed to be there.  They aren't supposed to be killing those birds and mice. Your use of "natural" makes it seem like that's the way nature intended it, but it didn't.  Humans did it.  I don't "hate cats" because I want to protect birds and mice and I don't want them to suffer in the wild when they should be taken care of by humans.

We can argue until the cows come home and it doesn't change the fact that you support the killing of animals and the continued suffering of feral cats.  I'm sorry that you have to view me as someone who "hates animals" for your position to make any sense.

[Cassie]

Most rescue groups & our local humane society all support TNR so I guess that makes them all wrong also.  Our feral cat population is way down because of this.

[EricP]

Most rescue groups & our local humane society all support TNR so I guess that makes them all wrong also.  Our feral cat population is way down because of this.

I think you're missing the point of why they "support" (by support, I assume you mean use) TNR.  TNR helps, agreed.  It helps less per dollar than euthanasia as the studies linked above show. 

However, your rescue groups and local humane society would probably have a lot less funds if it came out that they euthanized feral cats.  I know people like you and Slee_stack wouldn't be donating.  That's why they support TNR.  People that donate money to humane societies and rescue groups, by and large, don't care about birds and mice (like you).  They care about cute kitties and killing cute kitties is horrifying to them.  So the humane society has to use TNR because X dollars spent on TNR is better for the environment than 0 dollars spent on euthanasia.

And if that's the argument you want to make back to me on why TNR is better, go right ahead and I'll agree with you.

[wenchsenior]

Yes Cassie you are correct.  Throughout my life, the people I've met who empathize for animals (any animals) have tended to be kinder souls.  I am only a fool to waste time on the mean spirited ones.

Ok, I'm done with this sorry shit. I am sympathetic to your emotional reaction here, but you guys are arguing a straw man.

I got into wildlife biology because I love animals (including cats) and because people are destroying countless plant and animal species every damn day. It's a job that's wonderful, but depressing, because it's a losing battle most of the time. It's partly a losing battle because of attitudes like yours. 

I am sympathetic to your emotional response to killing feral cats. Truly. But that is some seriously feeble and infantile 'logic'. All you have done is SUBJECTIVELY determined that 'loving' animals means valuing the life of a single furry mammal that could hypothetically be a pet, that wouldn't naturally exist in its current numbers or environment, to be more important than the lives of countless other animals that actually BELONG in the natural environment and evolved to be there.

I understand this. Most people probably care more about [edit: cats than snakes and lizards]. But just own it, and don't try pretend you are occupying moral high ground, or that you 'love' animals more than do the people who devote their entire lives and careers to trying to understand and support survival of animals all over in the world, in the face of depressing odds.

Weak. Just fucking weak.

[3Mer]

I think a dog is cheaper than a significant other.

[wenchsenior]

And now, a lighter note: picture of my completely anti mustachian (my GOD she uses a lot of cat litter) 15+/80+ year-old biddy cat. Who, now that I think about it, really does represent a money suck with very little payback except for smug cute. And I just noticed she has cobwebs on her butt, so she must have been 'cleaning' under the bed, which I guess counts for something....

[Cassie]

Very cute!!  I don't know what I would do without pets-they really do make the world go around:))

[Rosy]

@wenchsenior - biddy cat's brother Wolfie lives with us:)

Jimbo is a striped and spotted tiger - smart, fierce, handsome and a great hunter - no rats on the property. Florida has a lot of so called fruit rats (they eat the oranges and grapefruits and your trash of course)
Flipped me out when he brought in a live 2 meter long black racer snake - couldn't get the two of them out of the house. Finally the snake took refuge under the fridge and with the help of a broom and Mr. R. (when he arrived home from work after my frantic phone call) we set it free in the garden. (The black racers are harmless and eat all sorts of vermin in the garden)

Cats are entertaining - chasing balls, leaping in the air, bringing in lizards galore and getting high on catnip:)

Still working on Wolfie ....
he brought in the biggest squirrel I ever saw and played with it under the bed (he'd killed it already and he's a much smaller, sweeter, gentler kitty then Jimbo - a killer nonetheless).
Stepped on no less than three wet frogs a week - in my bare feet:), when we had torrential rains. I now have a degree in frog removal - thanks, Wolfie.

Wolfie showed up in the yard one day, you could count his ribs. His coat so thin I was wondering if he was a hairless breed. Long story, but he had a clipped ear, indicating he was feral and had been fixed and immunized.
About nine months later he is now a happy, healthy furbaby and obviously another great hunter.

There is satisfaction in knowing you made a difference in the life of one critter like Wolfie. Jimbo we inherited from my son.

Of course there are vet bills - so what, it is like taxes - you own something you pay taxes on it:)

There is nothing like a little furry body snuggling up to you for a petting session - those purrs work better for relaxing a human than any anxiety or stress pill ever will.

[wenchsenior]

Well this has gone down an interesting road - yet another thread I wish had an unsubscribe button.

Me too, although, FWIW, I agree with the biologist. Good luck wenchsenior!

And just to leave on a happy note, here's my pack

The one on the left looks worried LOL.

[wenchsenior]

Got a better one, with the whole Crew of Worthless (including me, blowing off work to talk on the phone)...would have been better if we ALL had Santa hats.

[clarkfan1979]

It's been difficult to find a rental in Hawaii that will accept a dog. If we buy a place it doesn't matter. I think it depends on the situation. However, it's undeniable that dogs cost money (food and health care).

[Sibley]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

How about a compromise? TNR, with active management of the colony, including trapping sick/injured animals (for treatment or humane euthanasia) and feeding the ferals. If they're don't need to hunt for food, it will decrease the number of smaller animals killed. It won't eliminate it of course, but even a 25% decrease would help. If they're not reproducing, over time the population will decrease.

Then, crack down on people who don't spay/neuter their pets. Crack down on people who dump cats. Combine this with active TNR (see above), probably within a decade there would be no ferals. The feral population is really human's fault, so it's our responsibility to fix it.

We should get to a point where every single domestic cat and dog has a home where it's wanted and properly cared for. There should be no stray animals. The need for animal shelters should drop almost to 0.

[GuitarStv]

^ Thankfully there are TNR programs working to solve the feral issue as well. Everybody wins with it.

I don't like TNR.

Everyone wins.  Except the hundreds of small animals that each released cat kills every year.  It always cracks me up that people in favour of TNR say that they prefer it because there's less killing . . . but then turn a blind eye to the birds and small animals that each released invasive cat will kill.  I guess only the cute lives are important to some people?

We used to have a very large feral cat population.  I would regularly trap feral cats and bring them to a shelter that kills them.  It is a sad thing to have to do, but often a mercy.  The ferals I usually see are in bad shape . . . visible ribs, large patches of missing fur, missing eyes, scars all over, covered in parasites, missing limbs/tail (probably due to freezing in winter).  Cats aren't native to this area and don't belong in the wild.  TNR programs are cruel to the cats as well.

Fortunately we had several coyotes move into the area last year, which seems to be fixing the feral cat population naturally.

It has nothing to do with "cute lives" and everything to do with the dynamics of feline populations. As soon as you remove a feral cat from an area, you're signaling to nearby cats that it's safe to "move in" because there will be increased availability of turf and resources. This is why TNR workers will "tag" ferals - so people know that they've been spayed/neutered and that they should not be re-captured or relocated unless something else goes awry (rabies, severe injuries). You're not going to remove ferals 100% unless you simply kill them all, which is cruel.

The point is that TNR will sterilize cats to prevent breeding, lower aggression, and reduce the population of ferals over a period of time. If the cat is considered adoptable, then TNR programs will take them to a shelter, which typically encourages indoor-only cats. If the cat is severely injured or has major issues otherwise, then it will be humanely euthanized. The results are areas with low populations of ferals that are evenly spread to avoid over-consumption and over-breeding.

You absolutely are favouring cute lives with your statements.  All cats in the wild kill small animals (birds, snakes, turtles and rodents) regularly.  Either you get rid of the cats by killing them, or you allow all of these smaller creatures to be killed daily by the cats.  Which one is more cruel?  Your argument is that removing the non-native, human introduced threat to the ecosystem is more cruel somehow . . . and it can't be supported by logic.

TNR programs are a tremendous waste of money.  They're not good for the wildlife, they're not good for the cats (as I mentioned earlier, these are non-native species who aren't designed to live in the environments we've dumped them and often end up suffering).  The only reason that I can think to support the TNR is a knee-jerk "Cats are cute, we can't possibly kill them!" argument which often seems to win out over all logic.

How about a compromise? TNR, with active management of the colony, including trapping sick/injured animals (for treatment or humane euthanasia) and feeding the ferals. If they're don't need to hunt for food, it will decrease the number of smaller animals killed. It won't eliminate it of course, but even a 25% decrease would help. If they're not reproducing, over time the population will decrease.

Then, crack down on people who don't spay/neuter their pets. Crack down on people who dump cats. Combine this with active TNR (see above), probably within a decade there would be no ferals. The feral population is really human's fault, so it's our responsibility to fix it.

We should get to a point where every single domestic cat and dog has a home where it's wanted and properly cared for. There should be no stray animals. The need for animal shelters should drop almost to 0.

I'd love for this to be feasible, but there are a few problems with it:

- Years of attempts to get people to care for their cats have largely been useless.  Look at the fight you would have to try and get people to keep their cat indoors, let alone to stop abandoning them.  Cats breed very quickly, I don't see any way you could enforce any sort of crackdown without controlling all of the animal breeding and setting up licenses and tracking for each cat.  All of this would be very expensive.  When's the last time you heard someone supporting a new tax for something that would reduce their freedom?  This is a political impossibility.

- Given that realistically you can't get people to stop dumping their cats, or really punish them when they do . . .  we know that TNR programs don't work and are very expensive to run.  Again, you would have to justify the high costs of a program that doesn't work very well . . . and the only thing that you have to sell this to people is 'cats are cute'.

- Even well fed pet cats kept outdoors kill small animals all the time.  An average of 2.1 times per week actually (http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/blogs/outdoor-cats-are-prolific-killers-study-finds).  Reducing the need to kill for food is good, but why are we (in any way) going to support this needless damage to the ecosystem that we're directly responsible for?

[Sibley]

Nothing worthwhile is easy.

I have no idea how to get it to work, but that doesn't mean we can't try to improve the current situation.

[GuitarStv]

Nothing worthwhile is easy.

I have no idea how to get it to work, but that doesn't mean we can't try to improve the current situation.

I agree completely.  But until we have a realistic way to make it work, we shouldn't use a failed control method in preference to the more effective alternative.