As an advocate of trap-neuter-return working for one of that nation’s leading animal welfare organizations, Best Friends Animal Society—and somebody quite familiar with the science surrounding TNR and free-roaming cats in general—I feel compelled to respond to R. Scott Nolen’s recent article (“Cats may be greater threat to wildlife than first thought,” JAVMA News, April 1, 2013) about the paper published earlier this year by the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Careful scrutiny reveals a number of flaws in the work, and challenges Nolen’s suggestion that that the researchers involved “took a rigorous and conservative approach” when developing their headline-grabbing predation estimates. Although a detailed critique is beyond the scope of this letter, a brief overview of the more glaring weaknesses will, I think, make the point.

The 1.4–3.7 billion annual bird mortalities reported by Scott Loss, Tom Will, and Peter Marra (which they describe throughout their paper as a conservative estimate [1]) represent an astonishing 29–76 percent of the estimated 4.7 billion land birds in all of North America, [2] a “contribution” that would very likely have led to the extinction of numerous bird species long ago. Even if, as some have suggested, “the total [population of land birds] could be 2 to 3 times higher in some regions,” [3] the implied impact due to predation by cats is simply not supported by existing data. Indeed, 57 of the 58 native bird species Loss et al. claim are targeted by cats have been given a “Least Concern” conservation status by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). [4] The one exception, the Northern Bobwhite, is considered “Near Threatened” due largely to “widespread habitat fragmentation” and extensive hunting. [5] Moreover, the populations of at least 23 of those 58 species are, as indicated by nearly 45 years of North America Breeding Bird Survey data, [6] stable or increasing.

Among the factors contributing to the authors’ inflated estimates is their assumption that 40–70 percent of owned cats are not only allowed to go outdoors, but are, as far as their model is concerned, outside 24/7. [1] In fact, surveys suggest that approximately 60 percent of these cats are indoor-only, and that those allowed outdoors are outside for no more than three hours each day. [7, 8].

This error is, in turn, compounded by the “correction factor to account for owned cats not returning all prey to owners” [1] used by Loss et al. The low-end of the range they used in their model (2.0–3.3) can be traced to a misreading of a 1974 paper published in The Wilson Bulletin, [9] while the upper-end was derived from observations of 12 cats successfully capturing “small mammals” rather than birds (which were observed to avoid capture). [10] The two errors alone inflate the predation rate attributed to pet cats by a factor of 10–20.

The claim made by Loss et al that about 69 percent of cat-killed birds and 89 percent of cat-killed mammals in the U.S. are killed by unowned cats is similarly flawed. Five of the eight studies the authors included in their analysis were conducted in the 1930s and 1950s, when it wasn’t unusual for researchers studying the diet of cats to simply shoot whatever cats could be found hunting along roadsides (or picked up dead, having been killed by a passing vehicle). [11] Setting aside the obvious ethical objections, such methods are, at best, useful for determining what the cats were hunting, but tell us very little about the frequency of their hunting efforts—and nothing whatsoever about any impact on prey populations.

And the estimate by Loss et al. that 80–100 percent of unowned cats kill wildlife relies exclusively on studies of rural cats. Research conducted in more densely populated areas, or areas where unowned cats aren’t entirely reliant on prey for their meals, reveals predation rates far lower than 80 percent, [12] especially for birds. [13] Again, one flaw is compounded by another, resulting in grossly inflated predation estimates.

Especially puzzling is the authors’ assertion that “projects to manage free-ranging cats, such as Trap-Neuter-Return colonies, are potentially harmful to wildlife populations.” [1] Not only do Loss et al. provide no evidence to support such a claim, they overlook an often-cited study that has documented predation by colony cats. Over the course of approximately 300 hours of observation (this, in addition to what the researchers describe as “several months identifying, describing, and photographing each of the cats living in the colonies” prior to beginning their research) in two Miami-Dade County (FL) parks, Castillo and Clarke “saw cats kill a juvenile common yellowthroat and a blue jay. Cats also caught and ate green anoles, bark anoles, and brown anoles… [and the researchers] found the carcasses of a gray catbird and a juvenile opossum in the feeding area.” [14] There were, at any one time, 85–95 cats across the two study sites—more than enough opportunity for documenting the kind of extensive predation suggested by Loss et al.

While it’s true, as Nolen suggests, that the IUCN “lists the domestic cat among the world’s 100 worst invasive alien species,” it’s important to point out that this designation has mostly to do with their impact on wildlife native to oceanic islands. [15] And as researchers Dennis Turner and Mike Fitzgerald explained 13 years ago, “there are few, if any studies apart from island ones, that actually demonstrate that cats have reduced bird populations.” [16] As Louise Holton, president and founder of Alley Cat Rescue, points out in the article, cats—like all predators—tend to prey on the young, the old, the weak and unhealthy. At least two studies have investigated this in great detail, revealing that birds killed by cats are, on average, significantly less healthy than birds killed through non-predatory events (e.g., collisions with windows or cars). [17, 18] “Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide,” notes the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds on its website. “It is likely that most of the birds killed by cats would have died anyway from other causes before the next breeding season, so cats are unlikely to have a major impact on populations.” [19]

Last year, Loss et al. published a paper in which they pointed out that “national mortality estimates are often based on extrapolation from a limited sample of small-scale studies, and estimates of uncertainty are ignored or only superficially assessed.” [20] Ironically, the authors include some of these very studies in their more recent analysis. And by pooling studies from various contexts, attempting to “correct” for different methods, and so forth, they actually add to the uncertainty they lamented previously.

Also ironic is the fact that two of the three authors have advocated publicly for restrictions or outright bans on TNR, [21, 22] despite compelling evidence demonstrating its effectiveness. [23–30] Such policies would, it’s virtually guaranteed, actually increase the risk to the wildlife we all want to protect.

The real story here has little to do with conservation; it’s about how such shoddy science is funded by U.S. taxpayers, published, sold to the public, and used as rationale for policy decisions [31, 32] that would likely result in the deaths of millions of domestic cats. It’s disappointing and troubling to see the AVMA—whose mission is “to advance the science and art of veterinary medicine”—effectively endorse the Smithsonian/USFWS paper, giving it undeserved credibility.

Peter J. Wolf
Cat Initiatives Analyst
Community Programs and Services
National Programs
Best Friends Animal Society

Literature Cited

1. Loss, S.R., Will, T., and Marra, P.P., “The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States.” Nature Communications. 2013. 4. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n1/full/ncomms2380.html

2. Rich, T.D., et al., Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. 2004, Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Ithaca, NY. www.partnersinflight.org/cont_plan/

3. Blancher, P.J., K. V. Rosenberg, A. O. Panjabi, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, G. S. Butcher, D. Demarest, R. Dettmers, E. H. Dunn, W. Easton, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, T. C. Will, Guide to the Partners in Flight Population Estimates Database. Version: North American Landbird Conservation Plan 2004, in Partners in Flight Technical Series No 5. 2007. http://www.partnersinflight.org/

4. IUCN. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2012 [cited 2013 May 5]. 2012.2:[http://www.iucnredlist.org/.

5. n.a. (2012) Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus. IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/speciesfactsheet.php?id=30131 Accessed May 5, 2013.

6. Sauer, J.R., et al. (2012) The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966–2011. Version 12.13.2011

7. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541–1545. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1541

8. Lord, L.K., “Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008. 232(8): p. 1159–1167. http://www.avma.org/avmacollections/feral_cats/javma_232_8_1159.pdf

9. George, W., “Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey.” The Wilson Bulletin. 1974. 86(4): p. 384–396. http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v086n04/p0384-p0396.pdf

10. Kays, R.W. and DeWan, A.A., “Ecological impact of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve.” Animal Conservation. 2004. 7(3): p. 273–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1367943004001489

www.nysm.nysed.gov/staffpubs/docs/15128.pdf

11. Errington, P.L., “Notes on Food Habits of Southwestern Wisconsin House Cats.” Journal of Mammalogy. 1936. 17(1): p. 64–65. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1374554

12. Calhoon, R.E. and Haspel, C., “Urban Cat Populations Compared by Season, Subhabitat and Supplemental Feeding.” Journal of Animal Ecology. 1989. 58(1): p. 321–328. http://www.jstor.org/pss/5003

13. Hawkins, C.C., Impact of a subsidized exotic predator on native biota: Effect of house cats (Felis catus) on California birds and rodents. 1998, Texas A&M University.

14. Castillo, D. and Clarke, A.L., “Trap/Neuter/Release Methods Ineffective in Controlling Domestic Cat “Colonies” on Public Lands.” Natural Areas Journal. 2003. 23: p. 247–253.

15. n.a. (2010) Felis catus (mammal). The Global Invasive Species Database http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=24&fr=1&sts=&lang=EN

16. 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.

17. Møller, A.P. and Erritzøe, J., “Predation against birds with low immunocompetence.” Oecologia. 2000. 122(4): p. 500–504. http://www.springerlink.com/content/ghnny9mcv016ljd8/

18. Baker, P.J., et al., “Cats about town: Is predation by free-ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations?“ Ibis. 2008. 150: p. 86–99. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ibi/2008/00000150/A00101s1/art00008

19. RSPB (2011) Are cats causing bird declines? http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Accessed October 26, 2011.

20. Loss, S.R., Will, T., and Marra, P.P., “Direct human-caused mortality of birds: improving quantification of magnitude and assessment of population impact.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2012. 10(7): p. 357–364. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1890/110251

21. Marra, P. (2011, March 18). No good for the birds, but also no good for the cats (Opinion). The Washington Post, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-good-for-the-birds-but-also-no-good-for-the-cats/2011/03/17/ABLGkvr_story.html

22. Will, T., What Can Federal Agencies Do? Policy Options to Address Cat Impacts to Birds and Their Habitats, in Bird Conservation Alliance Teleconference. 2010. http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Pets/PetCare/Cats/ABC%20Cats-TNR-Policy%20Will%2028Jan10.pdf

23. Levy, J.K., Gale, D.W., and Gale, L.A., “Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(1): p. 42–46. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.42

24. Nutter, F.B., Evaluation of a Trap-Neuter-Return Management Program for Feral Cat Colonies: Population Dynamics, Home Ranges, and Potentially Zoonotic Diseases, in Comparative Biomedical Department. 2005, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC. p. 224. http://www.carnivoreconservation.org/files/thesis/nutter_2005_phd.pdf

25. 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. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TBK-4M33VSW-1/2/0abfc80f245ab50e602f93060f88e6f9

www.kiccc.org.au/pics/FeralCatsRome2006.pdf

26. Tennent, J., Downs, C.T., and Bodasing, M., “Management Recommendations for Feral Cat (Felis catus) Populations Within an Urban Conservancy in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.” South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 2009. 39(2): p. 137–142. http://dx.doi.org/10.3957/056.039.0211

27. Mendes-de-Almeida, F., et al., “The Impact of Hysterectomy in an Urban Colony of Domestic Cats (Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758).” International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine. 2006. 4(2): p. 134–141. www.jarvm.com/articles/Vol4Iss2/Mendes.pdf

28. Mendes-de-Almeida, F., et al., “Reduction of feral cat (Felis catus Linnaeus 1758) colony size following hysterectomy of adult female cats.” Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery. 2011.

29. Robertson, S.A., “A review of feral cat control.” Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery. 2008. 10(4): p. 366–375.

30. Donlan, A.E. (1996, June 30). North Shore cat-lovers go… Where the wild things are. Boston Herald,

31. Fenwick, G.H. (2013, February 25). House cats: The destructive invasive species purring on your lap. The Baltimore Sun, from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-cats-20130225,0,6415585.story

32. Lynes, M. (2013, February 4). No. 1 bird killer is outdoor cats. San Francisco Chronicle, from http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/No-1-bird-killer-is-outdoor-cats-4250692.php

The definition of insanity, it’s often said, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. As it happens, this isn’t actually the definition of insanity. And it’s unlikely that the pithy quote actually originates with Albert Einstein, Benjamin Franklin, or Mark Twain, though it’s often attributed to one of the three.

Legal and historical quibbles aside, the central point is a valid one: repeating a behavior or action that’s yielded one result in the hopes of achieving a different result… well, it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

And yet, this is exactly what’s going on in Hernando County, Florida, where county commissioners recently voted 4-to-1 “to retain the 23-year policy of loaning out cat traps to catch feral felines.” [1] This is no TNR program; cats caught—especially those that aren’t socialized—will, more than likely, be killed by Hernando County Animal Services.*

And, according to Commissioner Diane Rowden, who cast the sole dissenting vote, the policy isn’t working out well for the community, either. “We’ve been doing this over, and over and over for years and years and years and it doesn’t seem to be really accomplishing anything,” she told Hernando Today. “They just keep multiplying out there.”

“Lisa Centonze, managing veterinarian of animal services, has called the process of lending out traps ‘inefficient, costly and inhumane.’” [1]

Twenty-three years. Let that sink in for a moment.

The changes to animal sheltering—and companion animal welfare in general—in this country over the past 23 years have been nothing short of revolutionary. Attitudes about stray, abandoned, and feral cats have undergone a radical shift as well. Indeed, it was 1990 when, as an article in the January/February issue of Best Friends magazine (from which the illustration above is borrowed) explains, Alley Cat Allies “[gave] voice to feral cats on a national stage and introduces trap/neuter/return as the most humane and practical method for relating to community cats.” [2] (Just one year earlier, reports Nathan Winograd in Redemption: The myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America, “the first battle flag of the No Kill revolution was symbolically being raised” at the San Francisco SPCA. [3])

Meanwhile, in Hernando County, the budget for Animal Services has been slashed 45 percent over the past three years, and the number full-time employees cut nearly in half since 2011. [4] None of which bodes well for the cats in its shelter system—“some 280” of them last year, according to the story in Hernando Today, the majority of which never made it out alive. [1]

In fact, the statistics are probably far worse. In nearby Hillsborough County, for example, Animal Services impounded 10,635 cats in 2012; only about 20 percent made it out the front door. Granted, the human population of Hillsborough is about seven times that of Hernando County, but that doesn’t explain intake numbers 38 times greater. Perhaps “some 280 cats” were brought in via loaned traps. Unfortunately, Hernando County Animal Services doesn’t post such data online (another sign of an agency in need of reform).

Whether we’re talking about 280 cats—or, as I suspect, maybe 10 times that many—it’s troubling to see Hernando County continue, for 23 years now, its endorsement of lethal (non) control methods. As Rowden points out, they don’t seem to be accomplishing anything.

Maybe it’s not insanity, exactly—but it still doesn’t make any sense.

* As stated in Article III Section 6-41 of Hernando County Code of Ordinances: “The animal shelter may adopt out or release impounded cats after three (3) days and may euthanize impounded cats after five (5) days, measured from the date of impoundment. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the county veterinarian or his/her designee may euthanize an impounded cat if such animal is in imminent danger of death from disease or trauma or is determined to be feral. Euthanasia of cats to prevent overcrowding will be conducted using the following priorities, to be determined by the county veterinarian or his/her designee: (1) Sick, diseased, or injured; (2) Feral; (3) Unadoptable.”

Literature Cited

1. Bates, M.D. (2013, May 7). Cat traps here to stay. Hernando Today, from http://www.hernandotoday.com/he/list/news/cat-traps-here-to-stay-b82488676z1

2. n.a., “A brief history of the no-kill movement.” Best Friends 2013. January/February. p. 16–17.

3. Winograd, N.J., Redemption: The myth of pet overpopulation and the no kill revolution in America. 2007: Almaden Books.

4. n.a., Hernando County, Florida, Fiscal 2013 Approved Budget. 2012, Office of Management and Budget: Brooksville. http://www.co.hernando.fl.us/bocc/budget/budget2013/Approved%202013%20Budget%20Book.pdf

Impact.

In the end, my decision to join Best Friends Animal Society (which became official last week) came down to that one factor: impact. As a member of their National Programs team, I’ll have the opportunity to improve the lives of stray, abandoned, and feral cats on a scale I could only dream of three years ago when I launched Vox Felina.

My position—Cat Initiatives Analyst—includes a broad range of responsibilities, but most of my attention will be focused on the intersection of science, policy, and communications. In other words, using the relevant science to strengthen Best Friends’ legislative and outreach efforts on behalf of the country’s community cats.

Clearly, this is a job made for the “feral cat nerd.”

And, in a way, it’s also the culmination of a journey that began with Best Friends. As regular readers will recall, it was my involvement five-and-a-half years ago with the Great Kitty Rescue that introduced me to feral cat management and TNR. And set in motion a series of events that led to the creation of this blog.

Speaking of which: What happens to Vox Felina now?

From our very first conversation about joining the team, the people at Best Friends have made it clear that they admire, and see a need for, what I’m doing with Vox Felina—and that they want me to continue that work. I, therefore, don’t envision any substantive changes at all.

As I say, it’s all about impact.

I’m incredibly excited to begin this next chapter, and enormously grateful to Best Friends for the opportunity. Grateful, too, for the community of Vox Felina supporters; without your encouragement and engagement, the opportunity may never have come my way.

Thank you.

Peter
May 2013
Phoenix, AZ

Have you seen the just-launched Common Sense for Cats website yet? It’s an Alley Cat Allies initiative that the organization describes as “an online resource to educate about outdoor cats and Trap-Neuter-Return, the only humane and effective program to stabilize—and reduce—outdoor cat populations.”

The site serves as a useful primer—courtesy of some very nice visuals—for those not already familiar with TNR and the larger “cat debate.” It’s easy to share via Facebook and Twitter, and there’s even a petition you can sign “to help ensure that humane policies for cats are a major take-home message for local policymakers across the country.” Signatures will be presented “at the upcoming meetings for the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors to let them know that Americans want humane policies for cats in their communities.” (Just last week, Alley Cat Allies delivered more than 55,000 signatures to the Smithsonian Institution in response to the publication earlier this year of agenda-driven junk science produced by researchers at the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute.)

Thank you, Alley Cat Allies!

This morning Hillsborough County commissioners voted 6-to-1 in favor of Hillsborough County Animal Services’ recently announced TNR pilot program—part of director Ian Hallett’s proposal for reducing shelter killing (PDF).

This is a huge victory for TNR supporters (who, as I understand it, packed today’s meeting), especially in light of the no-holds-barred campaign waged by opponents from the Hillsborough County Veterinary Medical Society and Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation. In the end, it seems, all the misinformation and scare-mongering—and their lack of a feasible alternative to TNR—failed to impress county commissioners. (One wonders what sort of impression the campaign made on their clients.)

As I understand it, HCAS’s program would be modeled on the successful Feral Freedom programs underway in Jacksonville, FL, or San José, CA. However, it’s clear from people already involved with TNR in Hillsborough County that some key aspects of the program still need to be worked out.

•     •     •

To my friends and colleagues in Hillsborough County, whose tireless efforts made this victory possible, congratulations! And thank you for all you’re doing on behalf of your community’s stray, abandoned, and feral cats!

Among the agenda items to be addressed when the Hillsborough County (FL) Board of Commissioners meets Wednesday morning: “approve the Animal Services Department’s Plan to Increase Live Outcomes in order to lower the euthanasia rate at the County’s animal shelter.” A no-brainer, right? I mean, who could object to something like that?

Although regular readers undoubtedly know where this is going, I’ll bet there are plenty of Hillsborough County residents who are puzzled by the opposition from the Hillsborough County Veterinary Medical Society and Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation. Earlier this month, Don Thompson and his wife, Dr. Katie Thompson, owners of the Veterinary Center at Fishhawk, issued an e-blast warning of “Thousands of cats dumped on our streets.” “Sound [sic] impossible,” the e-mail continued, “but that is exactly what our new Animal Services Director is planning.” (Katie Thompson is an HCVMS member and sits on the county’s Animal Advisory Committee; Don Thompson is the executive director of HAHF, and recently spoke on behalf of the Florida Veterinary Medical Association in opposition to HB 1127.)

What the Thompsons were referring to is, as the recently released proposal Be the Way Home: The Plan to Increase Live Outcomes (PDF) explains, a “community cat program for 2,000 cats.” [1] As I understand it, this would be a two-year pilot program modeled on the successful Feral Freedom programs underway in Jacksonville, FL, or San José, CA.

Apparently the TNR aspect of the proposal created a great deal of controversy during last week’s Animal Advisory Committee meeting, when HCAS director Ian Hallett unveiled the plan. I imagine Wednesday’s meeting will be no different.

I’ll get into the details of the HCAS proposal in a future post, as I’ve only glanced at the final version. For now, I want to focus on the proposal HCVMS and HAHF are offering as an alternative.

Which, it turns out, isn’t much of a proposal at all. And, as even a cursory reading reveals, it offers no feasible alternative to TNR. This might explain why, despite the Thompsons’ suggestion that the plan has broad support from the veterinary community, only one other vet—HCVMS president Christy Layton—has formally signed on.

(Unfortunately, the point was lost on the editorial staff at the Tampa Tribune, which published an editorial on Wednesday declaring: “recycling feral cats… back into the community is not an appropriate public policy.” Like HCVMS and HAHF, the paper offered nothing in the way of solutions—or, in fact, any substantive contribution to the larger discussion.)

AWAKE!

I discussed an earlier version of the HCVMS/HAHF plan last September, as part of a five-part series criticizing HAHF’s campaign against all things TNR. The most recent iteration (PDF), issued late last month, is mostly unchanged. Which is to say: there’s still very little to like about it.

Indeed, the proposal’s awkward and ill-conceived name—AWAKE! (Animal Welfare, Adoption, Kids, and Education)—is a harbinger of the awkward and ill-conceived content to come.

TNR

Given their no-holds-barred opposition to TNR, it’s no surprise that HCVMS and HAHF are using the AWAKE! plan to further that agenda.

“Under this plan new colonies would NOT be allowed once registration of existing colonies is complete. These limitations would be strictly enforced and the colonies closely monitored for compliance.” [2, emphasis theirs]

And what about those existing colonies? According to the plan, “uncontained, managed care colony requirements include:

1. All cats must test negative for FIV and Feline leukemia.
2. All cats must be sterilized.
3. All cats must be vaccinated for Rabies as required by F.S. 828.30, and be kept current as required by F.S. 828.30.
4. All cats must be micro-chipped and registered to an owner or rescue.
5. All cats must be treated annually for internal parasites that pose a zoonotic risk to humans, domestic animals and wildlife.
6. Feral cat colonies sanctioned by the County cannot be maintained within 8,000 feet of schools, human food sources (groceries, restaurants, etc), daycare centers or hospitals; nor maintained within 8,000 feet of public parklands or environmentally sensitive areas.
7. Thorough monitoring of managed colonies is absolutely vital. No new cats can be allowed to migrate into existing colonies, and colonies must be aggressively cared for to ensure full compliance with all measures. Any kittens and newcomers shall be immediately removed and adopted/fostered/contained. Consistent monitoring will allow progress evaluations and ensure the cats are in good condition and safe
8. All feeding must be completed while the caregiver is present, and then ALL food removed, along with all visible fecal matter and food remains.
9. All managed colonies shall be appropriately licensed, new colony establishment is strictly forbidden, and the managed colony program shall be phased out over a 5-year period of time.
10. All managed colonies shall have the permission of all adjacent land owners, and any property owners within 1,000 feet of the colony location.” [2]

Sound reasonable?

Why not just come right out and say that TNR will be prohibited? That’s certainly the practical effect of what’s being proposed—and, of course, it’s the intent of HCVMS and HAHF.

Do they really think the county commissioners and their constituents can’t see that?

Sanctuaries

“The AWAKE! sanctuary program,” explain the authors of the plan, “is the penultimate intersection of responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, and will stand as testament to the importance of pet ownership and humane animal care. It is the only solution that addresses the issues of all stakeholders without compromising the most important concerns of each party involved.” [2]

But the sanctuaries have nothing to do with pet cats, as the authors themselves explain: the sanctuaries are intended to be “an alternative to those animals unable to be adopted for whatever reason.” [2]

And whether or not they’ll provide humane care is a matter of some debate.

The proposal suggests that 12’ x 8’ “garden sheds” would be used to house 10–25 cats each. Imagine 25 cats—each of whom is “unable to be adopted for whatever reason”—in a very small bedroom. Without much light, and no air-conditioning—as, according to the plan, “electricity would likely not be required.” [2]

Thirty such sheds would be built (by volunteers, of course) on a “2–5 acre compound,” bringing the total number of cats housed at each of the two “sanctuaries” to 750. The “optimum,” suggest HCVMS and HAHF, would be one such facility in the northern part of the county and one in the south.

In a nutshell, then: “the penultimate intersection of responsible pet ownership and animal welfare” consists of a team of just one DVM and two CVTs providing daytime-only care for up to 1,500 cats—most of them fractious—housed at opposite ends of a county that’s 36 miles north-to-south. Suffice it to say, this does compromise the most important concerns of some stakeholders.

In addition to those housed at the two county-supported sanctuaries, many unadoptable cats would, according to the AWAKE! plan, be kept in “single-residence sanctuaries”—fenced yards and “catios.” The idea, apparently, is for caregivers to relocate their colony cats to their (newly) enclosed patios or backyards. While it may be true that, as HCVMS and HAHF claim, “tens of thousands of cat owners are already doing backyard ‘sanctuaries,’” [2] such enclosures are typically used as fresh-air extensions of their indoor space.

It’s curious that the authors—who profess throughout the proposal their concern for the welfare of these cats—are willing to hand over so much responsibility to people who, generally speaking, have no formal training whatsoever in veterinary medicine. It’s entirely possible that the scenario HCVMS and HAHF describe would, in practice, actually lead to health conditions far worse than anything these cats face on the streets.

Further evidence, were any necessary at this point, that this is not about the welfare of the cats.

Costs

HCVMS and HAHF suggest that “the cost per cat in sanctuary space will be $200/year including all operational costs”—“not cheap,” they note (“but Responsible Pet Ownership is not cheap” [2]). In fact, $200/cat/year would be quite a bargain. Best Friends (cited by the authors of the AWAKE! plan as one of the “many informed organizations and individuals [that] provide cat sanctuary facilities around the country”) puts that figure at something just shy of $2,500.

Each sanctuary (“a 2–5 acre compound with 30 outdoor shelters housing between 10–25 cats each” [2]) is estimated to cost no more than $200,000 if land is donated by the county and volunteers are used to reduce or eliminate costs wherever possible. An additional $120,000/year would be needed to cover “employee cost, including benefits.” [2] (It’s not clear whether this includes the two certified veterinary technicians mentioned in the proposal, or just the veterinarian.)

Also on the payroll: the sanctuary director, who would more than likely be an HCAS employee, though “a non-governmental organization could undertake the program with county support.” [2] It’s difficult to imagine HCAS adding a position given the trend over the past few years: full-time HCAS staffing dropped from 88 employees in Fiscal Year 2010 to 78 in FY 2012, and an additional position was eliminated in the recommended FY 2013 budget. [3])

No Good Deed Unpunished

Nowhere is the tone-deaf—insulting—nature of the AWAKE! plan more evident than in its heavy reliance on volunteers and donors.*

“Currently,” explain the plan’s authors, “hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of people are providing care (to some extent) for feral and stray cats around our county.” [2] True enough, but HCVMS and HAHF betray their ignorance when they suggest that these people (or, indeed, the community at large) will support a program that effectively outlaws TNR and lays the groundwork for the killing of many thousands of cats.

“The real power in this plan,” proclaim the authors, “turns on the recognition and utilization of so much that is already being done on behalf of feral cats.” [2] But the volunteers and donors upon which the success of AWAKE! hinges will, I suspect, find other outlets for their charitable giving—organizations with the cats’ best interest in mind.

•     •     •

The fact that the AWAKE! plan alienates the very people who are doing the most to reduce shelter intake numbers and increase live-release rates is, although troubling, hardly surprising. The proposal’s underlying philosophy is a familiar one: there’s no problem we can’t kill our way out of.

“It is impossible to expect the community at large to understand the importance of Responsible Pet Ownership,” argue the plan’s authors, “if the county animal control response to cat overpopulation is to simply dump them outside.” [2] The implication, of course, is that a large-scale campaign of killing is what’s really needed. Maybe if we kill enough cats, these people will finally shape up.

Never mind the fact that generations of lethal control have done nothing to solve the “feral cat problem.”

It’s bad enough when the conservation community endorses such misguided, costly, ineffective, and unpalatable practices—but these are veterinarians. Well, at least for the time being they are. Alienating a significant portion of their client base, as HCVMS and HAHF members are doing here, can’t be good for business.

* For a close second, there’s this: “Hillsborough County has always led the nation in animal control best practices, and the issue of cat overpopulation should be no different.” Despite years of improvement, only 58 percent of dogs and 20 percent of cats made it out of HCAS alive last year. What’s “best practice” about that?

Literature Cited

1. n.a., Be the Way Home: The Plan to Increase Live Outcomes. 2013, Hillsborough County Animal Services. http://agenda.hillsboroughcounty.org/cache/00003/355/B-2.PDF

2. Layton, C. and Thompson, D., AWAKE! Feral/Stray Cat Management Plan for Hillsborough County, Florida. 2013, Hillsborough County Veterinary Medical Society and Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation.

3. n.a., County Administrator’s Recommended Budget for FY 13 2012, Hillsborough County Florida: Tampa, FL. http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/DocumentCenter/Home/View/4036

Given the events of this week, it seems almost inappropriate to celebrate the three-year anniversary of my modest little blog.

On the other hand, it seems like an excellent time to express my sincere gratitude to the many Vox Felina supporters. You make the long (often tedious) hours of work worthwhile, and—more important—are making a real difference for the stray, abandoned, and feral cats in your communities.

Thank you.

Peter

It was a disappointing session for those of interested in saving the lives of companion animals—one made worse by the kind of lazy, irresponsible media coverage that only serves to misinform the public. (It does appear, however, that SB 674, which would require shelters and animal control agencies to maintain—and make available to the public—intake and disposition records, is receiving broad approval.)

I was, not surprisingly, watching HB 1121 more closely than the others—but when a helpful reader pointed out that discussion of HB 1127 in the Local and Federal Affairs Committee on April 4th was broadcast online, I had to take a look. Especially when she told me who was speaking out in opposition to the bill.

Democracy in Action: Do Whatever It Takes

Among the highlights of the committee hearing was longtime National Rifle Association lobbyist Marion Hammer (who addresses the committee about sixty-five minutes into the broadcast) who had, earlier in the day, been called out by PolitiFact for her bogus claim (made while speaking in support of SB 674) that rabies strains found in other parts of the county “are entirely different from Florida’s, and our vaccines and serums don’t affect those other strains of rabies.”

But Hammer was undeterred—there, she explained, “working to protect hunting dogs, cattle dogs, police dogs, rescue dogs, seeing-eye dogs—all working dogs—as well as our pets.”

“They are in jeopardy from diseases being brought into Florida by unwanted animals that are being dumped in our state from other states and countries… truckloads of unwanted pets from other states are still flowing into Florida. If this bill passes, Florida could become the pet welfare capital of the nation.”

When Hammer was questioned by Rep. José Javier Rodríguez about where all these “unwanted animals” are coming from—and ending up—she didn’t have much of an answer for him. (“Eighteen-wheelers come in here once a month [from Gulfport, Mississippi], we’ve been told.”)

While Hammer claimed she was there to protect working dogs, Pat Mixon, lobbyist for the Florida Veterinary Medical Association, claimed she was there before the committee to protect working people. But, like Hammer, Mixon struggled to find a coherent argument for her organization’s opposition. (The FVMA, regular readers will recall, also opposed HB 1121; Mixon’s turn at the podium begins at 57:25).

On the one hand, she argued that “not a one of us in this room would vote no to” a millage increase of 0.1079 mills for the kinds of programs spelled out in HB 1127; on the other hand: “the taxpayers in south Florida are so burdened already.” (Note: Only property owners would be affected—and on a property assessed at $200,000, the additional tax burden would be roughly $20 each year.)

The performance of the day, though, went to Don Thompson, executive director of the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation, who was, inexplicably, also speaking on behalf of the FVMA. This is, of course, the same Don Thompson who’s been fighting TNR in Hillsborough County, so it was no surprise that he used the same tactics (e.g., misleading statements, scaremongering, etc.) during his trip to Tallahassee.

I’ve compiled most of his comments (which begin at 52:30 on the House broadcast), along with my response in the following video:

Please share generously—especially with family, friends, and colleagues in Florida (some of whom are no doubt clients of FVMA-member veterinarians).

If you missed this week’s Animal Wise Radio show, when I discussed the recent Ted Williams/Audubon incident—and how this fits into the ongoing TNR debate nationwide—with hosts Mike Fry and Beth Nelson, you can check the complete show in podcast format). An MP3 file (9.6 MB) of our conversation (approximately 21 minutes) is available here.

As always, many thanks to Mike and Beth—and everybody else who helps pull the show together—for having me on!

Well, it’s been quite a week—the response to the Feral Cat Mafia prints, t-shirts, hoodies, and totes has been overwhelmingly positive! And, as promised, the design is now available for black printing on light backgrounds.

To visit the online shop, click here.

Unfortunately, distinguishing the black version from the white one can be a little tricky. Once you select the particular product you’re interested in, double-check to make sure the product name reads The Feral Cat Mafia (BLACK printing on light background).

(Note: For art prints, either version will print black on white.)

As with the previous version, all proceeds will be donated to FixNation, one of the country’s most highly regarded TNR/low-cost spay/neuter clinics (upon whose board I proudly serve).

Your ongoing support is greatly appreciated!