There is no easy answer to the feral cat problem

Local

Home

Written by Melissa Burden

Monday, 10 October 2011 10:06

Susan Swain, of Moline, is an animal lover, but that love can only go so far.

Like many homeowners across the country, the Swains are being visited and sometimes harassed by the dozen or so feral cats that have taken up residence in her neighborhood – some in her back yard.

“They spray our cars, around our yard, dig up our plants, and they have attacked our dog,” Swain said. “They carry disease and we fear for our health and that of our dog. We don't want to have to live with this.”

Both animal lovers, Swain and her husband David have been actively involved with greyhound rescue groups for years. At one point, they owned six of the sight hounds.

“I know this is a big problem across the country,” Swain said. “People don’t like to see them trapped, but it is not right that we have to put up with the damage and health issues.”

Swain said she blames irresponsible owners for the overpopulation of cats. She added that since the housing foreclosure crisis and the economic downturn, the numbers of feral cats has been escalating.

“Many people in our neighborhood have seen people just drop the cats off on the street,” Swain said. “We have lots of foreclosures in the area so the cats have plenty of places to go and live. We don’t use fertilizers or pesticide so they seem to like our yard.”

Most of the cats that have been abandoned over the last couple of years have gone wild, Swain said.

“They come out at night only,” she said. “They disappear in a heartbeat. There is no way to keep them away from you. No one wants to do anything about it. People don’t think about the problem it causes with other people.”

The problem became such an issue that Swain contacted the Wood County Humane Society, Planned Pethood, the Wood County Health Department and the Lake Township Trustees.

“We have been unable to get any assistance from any agency,” Swain said. “There's no way to keep them off our property. The shelters don't have room and since they're wild, they can’t be adopted.”

Catch and sterilize
Swain said she does not agree with the Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) program being offered through the Wood County Humane Society and Humane Ohio, a 501(c)3 organization.

The program aims to bring the feral cat population down humanely by offering financial assistance to those who bring the cats in for sterilization.

“”The agencies want you to get a trap, bait it, catch the cat, and bring it in. Then they want you to pay to have it sterilized. We can’t afford that,” Swain said. “Then, they want you to bring the cat back to where it was. What is that going to do?”

Erin McKibben, shelter manager for the Wood County Humane Society, said she and her staff see both sides of the feral/stray cat issue.

“I wish there was more we could do to help people. I just hope people will try the TNR program before they write the animals off,” McKibben said.

McKibben said the WCHS is working with Humane Ohio for the TNR program. The WCHS has applied for grants which, McKibben hopes, will allow the organization to help spay and neuter more cats.

“We are hoping to help residents in villages and townships with getting the cats fixed,” McKibben said. “As long as the people agree to provide food, shelter and water for animals.”

The WCHS and Humane Ohio offer food assistance programs as well, McKibben said.

“We recommend trap, neuter and release, because the cat is familiar with the area and the colony. To move it can be very hard on the animal,” she said.

Free roaming in Lucas County
John Dinon, executive director of the Toledo Area Humane Society, said Lucas County has been dealing with an exploding cat population for years. The agency tends to use the tag “free roaming cats” instead of “feral cats” to describe the feline colonies.

“Many cities, like Toledo, have cat ordinances that are not being enforced. Maumee is the only place right now that has cat control,” Dinon said.

There is no strategy right now to deal with the cats other than the catch-neuter-and release programs, he said.

“If you feed a free roaming cat, then get it spayed or neutered,” Dinon said. “If you are going to manage an outdoor colony, then get the cats spayed or neutered.”

Dinon added that he would also like to see cat owners keep their cats inside and not roaming the streets.

To help stem the cat overpopulation problem, Humane Ohio has announced that it will begin offering free spaying and neutering of feral and owned cats in East Toledo.

According to Jill Borkowski, marketing manager for Humane Ohio, the organization began offering to fix what the agency calls free roaming cats in the 43609 zip code, which encompasses Toledo’s old south end, in April 2010.

The agency is now, for a limited time, offering to fix free roaming and owned cats in the 43605 zip code at no cost.

“We’ve fixed over 1,700 cats in 43609 since April 2010 and placed 160 friendly cats and kittens into Planned Pethood’s adoption program,” Borkowski said. “The reason we chose the 09 zip code, and are getting ready to expand it to include 05 is because statistics from local animal shelters and rescue groups show that most cats surrendered to them come from these two zip codes.”

For more information on the TNR program through the Wood County Humane Society, call 419-352-7339.

Lucas County residents who cannot afford Humane Ohio’s low-cost spay/neuter price can call Planned Pethood at 419-826-FIXX to request a voucher that will cover the spay/neuter cost at Humane Ohio – available for free-roaming cats and owned pets, while vouchers last.

Humane Ohio also offers low-cost vaccinations for owned pets and free-roaming cats at the time of the spay/neuter only, Borkowski said.

Bookmark

Email this

Comments (61) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

The cats should be removed and impounded
posted by banTNR, October 10, 2011

TNR is ineffective, risky for public health, a danger to natural resources, not humane for cats, and an infringement on the rights of property owners. Want the facts? Here you go:

http://joomla.wildlife.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=845&Itemid=183

We can't kill our way out of the problem
posted by Laurie, October 10, 2011

Unfortunately, the information provided by The Wildlife Society in the above link is biased and based on poor (and twisted) science. Published studies and the experience of hundreds of cities and townships around the country indicate TNR is effective at reducing the homeless cat population. Further, sterilizing cats reduces aggression and territoriality (spraying), which WOULD help the Swain family. Stray and feral cats are not a risk to public health, especially once TNRd, and published studies indicate that stray and feral cats do not carry diseases at a rate above that of our pet cat population.

The fact of the matter is that we can't kill our way out of the problem. Take the examples of Marion and Ascension Islands. On Marion Island (115 square miles in total area, barren, and uninhabited), located in the South Indian Ocean, it took 19 years to eradicate approximately 2,200 cats, using disease (feline distemper), poisoning, and intensive hunting & trapping. Those are not options for the continental US. On Ascension Island, just 34 square miles with a population of less than 1,000 people, eradication efforts resulted in 635 cats killed in 27 months, at a cost of approximately $1.1 million.

Irresponsible pet owners are the source of the problem. But funds for TNR whether by rescue groups or townships are well spent.

Removal is needed.
posted by banTNR, October 10, 2011

Are you a wildlife biologist Laurie? I prefer to seek out the guidelines of professionals in the fields of conservation and ecology, their published relevant work, and their experiences – not anecdotes from the world of cat feeders and feel-good nonsense from public officials who probably did not know much about the issue in the first place, and then swallowed the TNR propaganda – you know, the method that ‘makes sense’ and ‘sounds good’, but in reality is not effective and is taking away the rights of property owners.

Look, you say we can’t ‘kill our way’ out of this problem. What makes you think we can TNR our way out of this problem? Do you really think there are that many volunteers? Do you really think there are that many property owners who will tolerate living next to dozens and dozens of cats for decades? Do you really think that TNR will make people become responsible for their pets?

I am sure this is not the first time I have seen the ‘island’ example used as some reason why removal won’t work. I am not talking about some remote island. I am talking about the backyards of homeowners who should not have to be forced to do TNR or live next to TNR colonies. It is in cities and suburbs where cats are out of control and in these places TNR is being promoted as ‘the ONLY humane and effective’ solution.

You lose all credibility when you definitely state that ‘stray and feral cats are not a risk to public health’. There is no scientific support indicating that TNR does anything to reduce the spread of diseases (viral, bacterial, fungal, parasitic). Likely, the high concentration of cats (many of which are not fixed), the attraction of rabies-vector wildlife, and the food source are contributing to the spread of diseases – not reducing those risks.

So there are options on islands that may not be suited to the Continental US… okay, so what? There is still the option of trapping in a humane box trap for removal – until of course groups like Alley Cat Alllies and Best Friends succeed in getting shelters not to accept feral cats and take away the rights of property owners. Welcome to the world of ‘no kill’ – or as I like to call it – “Don’t like TNR? Too bad, shut up, and put up with it!” Signed, The Cat Mafia.

...
posted by David Swain, October 11, 2011

As I thought would happen, people have missed the point.
TNR does not eliminate the destruction the feral cats do. It also does not eliminate the carrying and transfer of ticks, fleas, and mites that they carry. It does not stop the wanton killing of the birds, rabbits and other creatures that these wild cats do, whether fed by people or not.
These are not " free roaming" cats. These are feral cats. Some are third and fourth generation, born in the wild animals.
Why should anyone have to put up with the destruction of gardens, and other planted areas, so they can make a litter box of a persons yard.
I have first hand knowledge of the greyhound that was attacked. He almost had his eye ripped out by a large, male feral cat. In my world, no cat is worth a greyhound being injured. Nor any other well kept pet for that matter.
I also don't see why I should have to pay out to have the cats fixed, and then take on the expense of feeding, and sheltering the animals. I sure don't wish to be the legal owner. Which the law would consider me. And that was acknowledged by several legal inquires that were made.
Nor will the TNR eliminate the spraying. It tones down the smell a bit, but that is it.
Would you wish to have your brand new car covered in this? And then have to drive 25 miles to work with this smell in the car?
Would you like to have the permanent discolored area in the paint, as long as you owned the car?

People have rights too. I have the right to maintain my property in the manner I choose. I have the right not to own or have on my land any animal not of my choosing. I have a right to protect the animals I own on my land.

So I have no intention of fretting over the well being of a feral cat.
They should be eliminated. Not a well liked method. But one that has been used throughout history to rid communities of varmints causing destruction and health problems.

Want to "Lose All Credibility"? Cite The Wildlife Society As the Source of Your "Facts"
posted by Peter J. Wolf, October 11, 2011

banTNR,

Laurie is actually being kind when she refers to TWS’s “facts” about feral cats as “biased and based on poor (and twisted) science.” In fact, a good deal of it is just plain wrong. Take their assertion (in the recently updated TWS “fact sheet” on TNR) that Akron’s trap-and-kill approach costs taxpayers just over $10/cat. As I’ve pointed out on my blog, this claim overlooks a number of well-documented factors that drive the cost up well past $10/cat.

Take the $80K spent for a “cattery” at Summit County Animal Control, for example, built to accommodate the roundup. (This soon proved insufficient.) Or the fact that Akron, like many communities, “save[s] on overhead costs on employee salaries and benefits, maintaining a fleet of vehicles, and the boarding of animals” by contracting with SCAC (this according to a 2005 report from the Ohio Auditor of State.

Or the fact that the original figures upon which TWS bases its claim can be traced to what the Akron Beacon Journal described as “a record-keeping system so poor that it’s impossible to determine what happened to dozens of animals.” (A review by the National Animal Control Association revealed a laundry list of serious problems.)

TWS’ rabies “fact sheet” completely misrepresents rabies data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, overstating the cost of post-exposure treatment by a factor of seven.

These are “the guidelines of professionals in the fields of conservation and ecology” you hold in such high esteem.

Now, if you’re really interested in “relevant work” and “experiences,” you might be interested in what Mark Kumpf, former president of NACA, had to say about trap-and-kill: “there’s no department that I’m aware of that has enough money in their budget to simply practice the old capture-and-euthanize policy; nature just keeps having more kittens.” Traditional control methods, argues Kumpf, are akin to “bailing the ocean with a thimble.”

(And, contrary to what TWS suggests, bailing the ocean with a thimble isn’t cheap.)

And finally, to your point about options on islands that may not be suited to the Continental US. So what? Island eradications are remarkably straightforward compared to feral cat management elsewhere—especially when the islands are uninhabited. Are you suggesting that “trapping in a humane box trap for removal” will have any meaningful effect on the overall population of feral cats? Where has that proven effective? If this did the trick, then why did Marion Island require such extreme measures?

TNR may not be an ideal solution, but it most situations, it’s the best option we’ve got.

Peter J. Wolf
voxfelina[dot]com

While you're at it, David, why not refuse to pay for police, fire, schools, libraries, etc.?
posted by Peter J. Wolf, October 11, 2011

David, I have never once called on the fire department, yet I pay for it. I have no children, yet I pay for the schools. Etc. You ARE paying for the (mis)management of feral cats in your area. The question is: how is the current approach working out for you?

You suggest that eradication "has been used throughout history to rid communities of varmints causing destruction and health problems." Could we trouble you for an example? Laurie already outlined what's been done on islands—-and the fact that scaling this up to continents is a fool's errand (and a costly one). Perhaps you know of other "success stories" of which we--and the whole scientific community--are unaware?

Peter J. Wolf
voxfelina[dot]com

Do you think I'd cite you? What are your credentials?
posted by banTNR, October 11, 2011

Like I said, I seek out the recommendations of reputable professionals and organizations in the field. That does not include Peter Wolf, although he may beg to differ.

Mr. Wolf is not a scientist, but a staunch supporter of TNR/blogger who seems to spend the greater part of his day providing HIS unsolicited, unskilled, and untrained opinions and criticisms of every reputable free-roaming cat related paper out there that is critical of cat predation and/or TNR.

The bottom line is this: The Swains do not want the cats in their yard. That does not mean they dislike the cats. Their concerns are valid and their rights should be protected. TNR ignores both.

More than $10 cat? How about a few hundred thousand dollars FROM the government in Palm Springs? How about the millions that have been expended across the country to TNR and feed cats? Hundreds of thousands of dollars from groups like PetSmart, Maddie’s Fund, the ASPCA and others – and has THAT made a difference? No. In fact, TNR has so not worked that the goal went from ‘eliminate colonies’ to ‘stabilize colonies’ to gee, 'why not just put friendly cats back, too?' Last one, courtesy of Best Friends and their new 22-page guide of how to inflict TNR on people across the country.

No method is going to get rid of all the cats. TNR REDEFINES cats as "not a problem" which leaves people with cat problems with no recourse. TNR is a tool for avoiding euthanasia.

Offer animal services, charge for those services if you must. Just leave people with the rights to rid their properties of cats if they so choose and stop condemning them for it.

...
posted by David Swain, October 11, 2011

When I referred to past methods of varmint removal, I was not talking science, I was talking history.
I was pointing to various bounty systems used not only in this country, but elsewhere too.
China at one time required couples wanting to marry, to turn in so many dead rats.
Wolves and mountain lions were almost eliminated by the bounty system. The grizzly at one time was on a bounty list.
I've seen deer herds slaughtered, and their only crime was eating the plants and bushes of the upper class homes.
Basic control of undesirable and unsafe animal populations does not require science. It just requires the will to get it done.
I can't and won't "keep" a cat colony around. My neighbors don't want the problem either. Fire, police? What is that about? They protect health and lives of the community. I'll pay to save a human life. But I won't fork out my meager cash to save destructive animals.
And as far as the pathogen science. Cats or dogs using a veggie garden as a crap box is extremely dangerous. The various pathogens, E-coli for one, can be absorbed and passed on to the gardener. And this is a well known warning in the gardening world. Non composted animal waste is dangerous.
My property is not a cat retirement home.

...
posted by Laurie, October 11, 2011

Mr. Swain, I had no particular love of cats. My husband hated them. So when feral cats became a nuisance, messing with people's garbage, the gardens, spraying, we called the State Police because we could find no listing for animal control. We live in a rural area, and as it turns out there is no animal control. There’s no one to respond to nuisance complaints for any animal, unless it is suspected to be rabid. Then you call the State Police to report it, and then you find a pest control animal trapper and pay several hundred dollars out of pocket to have them trap the animal and remove it. So we called the shelters. They don't help with feral cats and were full anyway, so no help if any were strays, and they don’t take feral kittens. Most were rather rude and told us to get “our” cats sterilized. We then started researching how best to solve the problem.

You’ll please note that trap-and-kill is the policy that allowed the homeless cat population to grow as it has. We researched solutions and took action. We spent our own time and money on it. We would have had to pay out of pocket to trap and kill them via pest control trappers; we would have had to pay out of pocket to TNR them. We had no vested interest in either when we determined which course of action to take. The research we read did not convince us that if the cats were released they would decimate the local wildlife population (our bluebird population was doing just fine despite so many cats about), and the research did not convince us that if we spent the money to have them killed it would solve the problem. We decided to stop the breeding, and to go to the source – the farmers around here with barn cats that weren’t having them spayed/neutered. Some of them helped pay for the sterilization, others didn’t. I don’t want to pay for a problem I had no hand in creating. But we wanted a solution. TNR worked for us and this area, and we chose it as an option not because it was “the humane” solution, but because it was first and foremost (in our opinion, after reading the research) the most likely to be the effective solution.

@banTNR, no I’m not a wildlife biologist. But I am an analyst. Anyone is capable of reading the published research. You don’t have to conduct it yourself. As there was such conflicting information on what to do about feral cats, we went to the published studies, not the opinion pieces. And the more we read, the greater the problems we had with what seemed more and more to be the “wildlife propaganda.” The issues of health and predation certainly are not nearly as clear cut as many would have us believe.

To Mr. Swain and banTNR: I don’t know if you’ve read the published research yourselves or not. Not the "feral fact sheets," the research itself. Either way, wildlife conservation groups in the U.S. do not seem to come to the same conclusion as wildlife conservation groups in Europe. For instance, the position of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) comes to quite a different conclusion. “ http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/...lines.aspx So I may not be a wildlife biologist, but here’s an example of a wildlife conservation group that comes to a radically different conclusion than some here in the U.S. They're reading the same research those in the U.S. are. Interestingly, the research conducted in the U.S. is even less compelling for making cat predation-is-having-an-impact claims than that conducted in the U.K.

Finally, we wash our hands after gardening, we wash our vegetables, and we don’t eat the compost. We also took a feral cat rescuer’s advice, and went to a local hair salon, took their hair sweepings, and put them in our garden. The cats stopped using it.

Mr. Swain, as you're unwilling to do anything about the cats based on best practices of the National Animal Control Association and supported by animal control in many states and communities (which, notably, in many states/communities is under the purview of Health & Human Services), I don't know what to suggest. Perhaps some of the "cat deterrent" suggestions of the RSPB will help.

...
posted by banTNR, October 12, 2011

“You’ll please note that trap-and-kill is the policy that allowed the homeless cat population to grow as it has.” And what is there to substantiate this? The mantra used by TNR advocates saying, ‘we did trap and kill for years, and look where we are now’. Not quite. Cats have not been handled the same as dogs. Dogs were removed and controlled. There has been required licensure. For the most part, the US took care of the dog problem. Then don’t forget the attitudes people have had (still have) about cats ‘being able to fend for themselves’, not being valued the same as ‘man’s best friend’ and letting them roam freely and breed uncontrollably. The problem stems from irresponsible pet owners.

Of course anyone is capable of reading the published research (and rendering an opinion), but the ability to understand, analyze, and apply what one is reading comes from years of coursework and training in the field. So you say things are not as clear-cut. Okay. So why do you feel there is wildlife propaganda? What benefit would come to them? For those on the TNR side, seems to me quite obvious – most will do and say anything to make sure the cats are kept alive no matter what. I don’t understand what you feel the motivation would be for reputable organizations and those scientists to be creating propaganda.

I am not a scientist either and yes I have read much of the relevant research. And I am aware that the Brits don’t view this issue the way people here do. But, there seems to be absolutely no tradition of keeping cat indoors in the UK in the first place. As for the RSPB link, towards the bottom there is this:

“Gardens may provide a breeding habitat for at least 20% of the UK populations of house sparrows, starlings, greenfinches, blackbirds and song thrushes four of which are declining across the UK. For this reason it would be prudent to try to reduce cat predation, as, although it is not causing the declines, some of these species are already under pressure.”

Further, if we are focusing on published work across the pond, there is Beckerman et al, 2007 (Urban bird declines and the fear of cats) indicating that just the presence of cats can affect bird behavior and thus reproductive success.

That seems important enough to me to remove cats, not to put them back. And if we talk about the US, we have conclusive evidence that cats contribute to native bird declines in fragmented habitats (Crooks and Soulé, 1999).

As for the health issues, seems to me you are just hand-waving those away. There is more to this than washing your fruits and vegetables, and if we look at The Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control they don’t say to TNR stray cats, they say to remove them, as well as dogs and ferrets. And rabies is not the only disease to worry about. To suggest that maintaining outdoor free-roaming cat colonies is somehow healthier for humans and animals than not having them there is absurd. No cats. No cat poop. No cats. No fleas from cats. Get my drift?

...
posted by Laurie, October 12, 2011

banTNR, you ask “So why do you feel there is wildlife propaganda? What benefit would come to them? …I don’t understand what you feel the motivation would be for reputable organizations and those scientists to be creating propaganda.” Yet in the same post you write,“ And I am aware that the Brits don’t view this issue the way people here do. But, there seems to be absolutely no tradition of keeping cat indoors in the UK in the first place.” You state that sentiment about cats colors interpretation of the science, and thus answer your own question.

But IMO all of this discussion is missing the point. I don’t believe cats should be outdoors. The argument as to whether feral cats are bad for the environment isn’t the issue, as the goal of “cat advocates” and “wildlife advocates” is the same: no more free-roaming / community / homeless cats. No, the relevant question is, what is the most effective means to get to the goal? Can the means be evaluated on your concept of ideal (the quickest way to get there)? Or do we have to account for the practical realities of cost to communities? What plan do you propose and how do you propose it is funded and executed?

...
posted by critter, October 12, 2011

There are NO studies on TNR that demonstrate it is necessary to ‘Return’ cats in order to achieve population stabilization or reduction. There are none that compare it to Trap and Remove (TR) or that TNR is as or more effective. Someone recently tried to do such a study and TNR advocates got in their way.
The studies that the major advocates (like ACA, Alley Cat Allies) cite actually demonstrate that immigration still occurs and that regular monitoring and ongoing management are needed. Those same studies do not describe TNR as a method to eliminate populations of feral cats. Rather, it is meant to manage and possibly stabilize the population.
Vacuum effect (VE)= put out food for cats, cats come if they are around! Fed and altered cats don’t necessarily defend an abundant food supply. Why bother? Also, if the VE were true, feral cat distribution would be much more even and widespread. Rather, there tends to be more feral cats in the presence of certain human populations.

Predation still occurs with TNR. Whatever level it is, it still happens! TNR is not actually a ‘no-kill’ solution. It is just a no-kill-cat solution. Let’s be honest about that.

The quality of life of a feral cat is debatable. There are many, many cat owners that wouldn’t (and don’t) treat their pet cats that way. If they are thriving so well outside, then why bother feeding and providing shelters for them?

There is no way it is cheaper to feed and vet a cat over its lifetime, be it 3 or 10 or 20 years than it is to euthanize it. People who utilize TNR are always looking for monetary assistance and discounts.

Trap and remove has not been the policy that allowed the feral population to grow as much as it has. It has been people abandoning pets, feeding strays, and not doing much else. People who utilize TNR tend to also utilize trap and remove quite liberally (provided the cats get adopted).

So what should we do about the problem?
Ban outdoor feeding of cats.
Allow trapping and removal of cats. Let people take feral cats to animal control. Don’t vilify those people.
Enforce leash laws and abandonment laws. Perhaps require micro-chipping.
Require spaying and neutering.

Management of dogs has more closely resembled these methods (though not entirely yet). As banTNR pointed out, the dog population is generally under control. TNR was not part of this.

TNR advocates: let’s be honest that the only real reason to ‘return’ the cats is because you like having them around. That is fine. But, keep them on your own property. Feral cats are much more adaptable than many of their advocates give them credit for. They can learn to live in a new place. They can learn to live in a confined space. Plus this makes it a whole lot safer for them and easier for you to keep up with their shots and parasite control.

There IS an easy answer!
posted by Woodsman, October 12, 2011

TNR programs and their advocates are making absolute fools out of each and every one of you that they con with their nonsense. Not only are they causing untold damage to ALL native wildlife (directly and indirectly) and further spread of deadly diseases to all animals and humans, but are also doing *ABSOLUTELY* *NOTHING* to curtail cats' breeding rates. On top of that, they are doing all of this while violating all invasive-species laws in existence. (Cats being listed in the TOP 100 WORST invasive-species OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database".)

If you do the research, as I did using data from the most "successful" TNR programs, you'll easily find that no TNR program has EVER trapped more than 0.4% of existing cats in any one area for over a decade now. They simply cannot trap them faster than they breed out of control, no matter what they do. And those cats that learn to evade traps go on to produce offspring that now also know how to evade any trapping method used. This is why, due to TNR-Advocates' insistence that they have "the answer", that their feral-cat population has now climbed to an ecologically-deadly 150 MILLION feral-cats across the USA. Soon to turn into 1.5 BILLION cats within the year if you apply cats' breeding rates to previous population numbers.

Find whatever way that you can to destroy all feral and stray cats on-sight. Avoid using traps if at all possible because trapping is what slowed everything down to where cat populations have now sky-rocketed out of control. TNR advocates are at least right about one thing; trap and kill doesn't work either because it is based on the very same flawed method that they use -- slow, random-chance, inefficient, easily outfoxed traps. There's a reason the phrase "hunted to extinction" is so well-known in all cultures across all lands. It is the *ONLY* method that is faster than a species can out-breed and adapt to.

On advice of the local sheriff where I live I used a .22 equipped with a good illuminated-scope and a laser-sight for use when they are most active, dusk to dawn; as well as to afford precision aim for a humane kill. I shot every last one of them on my property to restore all the native wildlife to proper balance. Mission accomplished! 100% total success! This is even a more humane method than terrorizing trapping and animal-shelter methods; and why it is the preferred feral-cat management policy in so many areas today. One moment the cats are happily stalking defenseless animals to cruelly torture again, the next they are dead and don't even know what happened. Making your land 100% cat-free is something that cat advocates haven't been able to solve nation-wide for 30-40 years. On my land only 1 person in only 2 seasons was able to accomplish what they couldn't attain in decades. Why is that? The cost per cat was also only 0.3 CENT, 3 cats PER PENNY, a ONE-TIME expense (5000 rounds on sale for only $15). All cats gone for the price of a few cups of coffee. And contrary to another famous TNR-Advocate's bald-faced "vacuum effect" LIE ... NO CATS REPLACED THEM. The NATIVE predators and their required NATIVE prey that WAS here and BELONGS here is what replaced their lousy invasive-species cats that had destroyed the entire native food-chain.

May you have as much success as I did, and so quickly and inexpensively too.

Uphold Invasive Species Laws!
posted by Woodsman, October 12, 2011

Some further information to help you do the RIGHT thing. ALL the required laws that you need to deal with this problem are already in place and have been for decades most everywhere.

Cats listed in THE TOP 100 WORST INVASIVE-SPECIES OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database": http://www.issg.org/database/s...=1&sts=sss

Cats are _NOT_ exempt from invasive-species laws.

IT IS YOUR CIVIC AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DESTROY ANY INVASIVE-SPECIES WHEN FOUND AWAY FROM SAFE CONFINEMENT AND OUT IN A NON-NATIVE HABITAT. In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-site. Since cats are genetically engineered through selective-breeding and no longer have ANY native habitat ANYWHERE on earth, these laws include cats. This is precisely how they are dealt with on my own land, destroyed by using any and all humane methods** (see note).

For an example of how invasive-species laws are properly followed and enforced: It is highly illegal for a person to transport an African Cichlid fish species to just the other side the road if you catch one in the canals of the Everglades when fishing. THEY MUST BE DESTROYED ON-SITE. Yet Cichlids are often kept as pets, that's how they wrongly got into the canals to begin with. There are hefty fines in place for anyone found transporting these invasive-species alive if caught in the wild. (Interestingly, these Cichlids are FAR FAR LESS damaging to the environment and all other native wildlife than ANY cat.)

All of this much to the dismay of criminally irresponsible and psychotic cat-lovers who are desperately trying to raise these invasive-species cats to some absurd level of "Community Cats". If they do that then I'll just raise "Community Pet Piranha" and release them in all your lakes and pools, or "Community Pet Black-Mambas" and release them in all your backyards and parks, then claim the exact same protections for them as cat-advocates want for their invasive-species cats. It'd only be fair! Are you starting to see just how absurd and ludicrous these cat-advocates are yet?

** (Though to be perfectly honest, considering how cats cruelly torture and destroy all other animals by ripping the skins off of live animals or disemboweling them for slowly dying and twitching cats' play-toys (not even using them for food), I'm not sure why cats should be given the privilege of a humane death. I've been drawn to many animal screams in my woods to find their cats shredding another animal to death; which I had to then quickly put that animal out of its misery, torment, and suffering caused by that cat. Lucky for those I found so fast from their screams. Other wildlife that I'd find days later had died a slow and agonizing death from wounds after being shredded by their cats. I guess I'm just more humane than all cat-lovers and their cats, that's why their cats get shot and die instantly instead of equitably and justifiably tortured to death. If cat-advocates want REAL justice for their cats then any cat found outdoors would have to be cruelly tortured to death the same way their cats cruelly torture all other animals -- something that I couldn't do. Maybe that's why TNR-advocates don't mind that their cats slowly die of "attrition" -- by disease, attacks, exposure, starvation, road-kill, etc., on ad-infinauseum.)

...
posted by banTNR, October 12, 2011

Laurie, I don’t understand your point in the first paragraph. Culture may influence interpretation. But, that is still interpretation – not the deliberate spreading of false ideas/statements. I took another look at the RSPB link and other than mentioning ‘figures’ from the Mammal Society, there is no literature cited. Why make disparaging remarks about TWS Fact Sheets? They listed 4 to 16 references for each document and the Cat Package has plenty of scientific references. The fact of the matter is, if the science were really so conflicting and not clear cut, the TNR folks would not have to rely on a blogger and an analyst not in the field to right this so-called wrong.

If you truly believe that cats should not be outdoors, you’d remove them and not put any of them back – there is no way around that one. Further, to say that the argument as to whether feral cats are bad for the environment isn’t the issue I say hogwash and what a convenient way to skirt such an important consideration of the method chosen. If we are discussing ‘effective means’ then by all means one has to consider the consequences of the method. TNR means putting cats back outside. Enter another mantra from the TNR crowd – ‘but the cats were already there’. Yes and no. The cats being put back are now healthier and may live longer while ‘cared for’ in these colonies – and they are better equipped to hunt. Their continued presence (as mentioned before) can have an affect on bird behavior. The number of cats may increase due to relocation, immigration, abandonment, and hard to catch cats that are still being fed. Wildlife is getting the short end of the stick having colonies of cats that never completely die off and are always there – that amounts to loss of habitat. The area becomes a cat ranch, not a haven for wildlife. And, as Critter pointed out in stating the real reason cats are returned, I think what you say about ‘no more cats’ is a stated goal and not the true goal of TNR advocates.

As for cost to communities, TNR is massively subsidized by private foundations. Government is there to provide services that protect the community, like fire, police, trash pickup, water quality monitoring, etc. Animal control should be considered one of those services. And if communities need to charge a little extra for those services there are well-established mechanisms to do so. One very easy and logical way to generate revenue is to require cat licensing. The TNR people completely oppose such measures. TNR advocates want to take away the rights of removal, which is completely counterproductive in terms of overall cat numbers, and unfairly burdens property owners who don't want cats on their properties.

National Feral Cat Day
posted by Esteban Pajaro, October 13, 2011

Yes, there is one, and it's this Sunday. So, do like I do every year. Trap at least one feral cat and bring it to a shelter. Yes, it may get euthanized, but it will most assuredly NOT die from being run over, eaten by a coyote, ravaged by parasites or disease, or any other myriad of ways to go MUCH worse than lethal injection. And, for Peter Wolf, why don't YOU celebrate by doing the work that the University actually PAYS you to do and not waste the state's salary on, this, your pet project. Perhaps you just have too much time on your hands. Perhaps you need a boyfriend? Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Why make disparaging remarks about The Wildlife Society Fact Sheets?
posted by Laurie, October 13, 2011

TNR folks aren’t relying on “a blogger and an analyst not in the field,” we just happen to be here commenting. I don’t work with any organization and don’t represent any. They all have plenty of their own fact sheets.

But in answer to your question, “why make disparaging remarks about TWS fact sheets?” all I can say is you obviously haven’t tracked back through the citations used in those references. Do you want to start at the beginning or with the most egregious problem with The Wildlife Society fact sheets?

We can start with the very first citation in the very first “fact sheet.” The first piece is called “General Facts about Domestic Cats.” The first claim is that are between 148 and 188 million individuals.” (Meaning cats in the US). The citation is Dauphine N. and Cooper R.J. 2009, “Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations.” Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics, p 205-219. Dauphine and Cooper cite the American Pet Manufacturing Products Association (APPA) for the number of pet cats (88 million), a reliable source. They cite Jessup 2004 for the 60-100 million feral cats. David Jessup provides no citation for his numbers, nor does he provide a methodology for arriving at the range. While it is a widely cited range, it is not a number based in science, it is based on nothing. In fact, I challenge you to find its source.

There are other feral cat population estimates that are equally “credible,” if not more so, because they’re based on something at least semi-scientific, generally surveys. Gary Patronek published a report in JAVMA (1998) that said “Currently, reliable estimates of the feral or free-roaming cat population in the US are not available because of problems in definition and a lack of data,” (which hasn’t changed), but he goes on to discuss the method used (based on survey and feeding data) that produces a range of 25-60 million feral cats. Slater (2005) estimated the number of stray and feral cats to be one-third to one-half of the owned population. The HSUS (1993) conducted a survey of people feeding stray and feral cats, and estimated a population of 32.7 million. Clifton (2003, updated 2009) actually has one of the most credible numbers, being based on a cross-comparison of survey data, shelter intake data, and the trend in the population confirmed by road kill data. His estimates are 13 million breeding cats “at the low end of the production cycle,” (the depths of winter), and a summer peak at approximately 24 million.

Of course, not ONE of these is actually a peer-review piece. Two (Jessup and Patronek) are published in a peer-review journal, JAVMA, but neither piece underwent the peer review process because they were special reports. So what makes 60-100 million “the” number? Why not qualify it? No, it’s presented via citation in a peer-review piece (Dauphine & Cooper), and thus is misrepresented as a credible number. I don’t know why. (Continued)

Why make disparaging remarks about TWS "fact sheets," continued
posted by Laurie, October 13, 2011

The fourth sentence of that first “fact sheet” reads, “In addition, native prey species often have no evolved defenses against this exotic predator, making the domestic cat a potential threat wherever it is introduced.” True, it can be a threat. But the birds of the continental US evolved in the presence of predators, whether year-round or migratory residents.

The “Predatory Behavior” paragraph is notable for what’s missing: the Liberg (1984) study that found that feral cats optimize their hunting strategy given prey availability, or that according to one of the world’s foremost authorities on cat behavior and feral cats, Roger Tabor (interestingly, he is both the Chairman of the British Naturalists’ Association and an advisor to Alley Cat Allies), cats are first and foremost scavengers/opportunistic feeders, and many simply don’t hunt (confirmed by Liberg’s work; 31% of the cats in his study had no vertebrate remains in their scat – a study conducted over 3 years). Also missing is the fact that cats are rodent specialists (Paul Leyhausen, German Biologist/Ethologist, “Cat Behavior: The Predatory and Social Behavior of Domestic and Wild Cats;” 1st ed. 1979). Also notably missing is that cats, as opportunistic feeders, scavenge/hunt what is most easily available. When it comes to birds, Fiore’s thesis (2000) found that house sparrows and starlings (both non-native, invasive species in the US, and among the most populous birds in the US according to any birding association) represented 26% of bird depredation.

But the most egregious “fact” (in my opinion) in the The Wildlife Society “fact sheets” is the “Ecological Impacts of Feral Cats” “fact sheet” where The Wildlife Society again cites Dauphine and Cooper in the claim that “A 2009 study estimated the number of birds killed by cats every year in the United States at one billion, conservatively.” It’s true, the Dauphine and Cooper piece DO state this, and in their work the number is cited, twice. It is cited to Stallcup (1991) and Gill (1995). As presented in the Dauphine & Cooper piece, it appears that Stallcup and Gill independently arrive at these estimates. But Gill’s textbook, “Ornithology,” simply cites Stallcup. But the Stallcup estimate is not from a peer-review study. It’s not from a study at all. It is in a column he wrote for the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, an opinion piece. Stallcup does not claim his estimate is in any way scientific, and the numbers he uses are not from published studies. He starts with 55 million house cats, and assumes that 10% don’t go outside. (Three separate peer-review published studies indicate the number is closer to 65% that don’t roam freely outside). He also whittles off another 10% for cats that are too old or too slow to catch anything (a good point that no other free-roaming cat studies take into consideration when extrapolating estimates). He arrives at a number of 44 million hunting house cats, and says “it is impossible to know how many of those actively hunting animals catch how many birds…to be very conservative, say that only one in ten of those cats kills only one bird a day.”

Well, even at the time he published the article there were dozens of cat predation studies, and since the publication of that article, there have been dozens more. Examining just studies of cat predation on continents, not islands (as those studies aren’t relevant to the continental US), we know that far fewer cats roam than he assumes; we know that approximately 30% of feral and roaming house cats don’t hunt anything at all (ranges from 8.6% to 74%) (Liberg 1984, Churcher & Lawton 1987, Paton 1991, REARK 1994, Perry 1999, Fiore 2000, Baker 2005, van Heezik 2010); we know that not all cats hunt birds (the percent of hunting cats that do not hunt birds ranges from 17% to 92.5%) (Coman & Brunner 1972, Liberg 1984, Paton 1991, Fiore 2000, Lepczyk 2003, Woods 2003, van Heezik 2008); and we know that there isn’t a single study that indicates any cat depredates a bird a day. Not even close. (Continued)

Why make disparaging remarks about TWS "fact sheets," continued
posted by Laurie, October 13, 2011

If looking at the average number of birds depredated per year, again using only studies conducted on continents, the number ranges from 1 bird per cat per year to Crooks & Soule’s (1999) study in the California fragment, that found an average of 15 per year, though the average is grouped around 4 per year (Churcher & Lawton 1987, Paton 1991, REARK 1994, Barratt 1998, Fiore 2000, Woods 2003, van Heezik 2010). We also know that according to Barratt (1998) that when extrapolating study results to population-level impacts, averages overstate the impact and median numbers are more appropriate for deriving such estimates. In the same studies, the highest median annual depredation rate of ALL mammals, not just birds, (because most studies don’t break them out) is 13 (and that’s in Crook’s & Soule’s fragment study. If looking at the more appropriate continental studies, the highest reported median is 6 – again, all mammals, not just birds).

Of course, not a single one of those studies attempts to determine what percentage of the birds or mammals depredated was compensatory, not additive (scavenged dead birds or consumption of injured or sick birds). But the extent to which bird or mammal remains are scavenged as opposed to hunted should be an important consideration to biologists / environmentalists.

So why would The Wildlife Society, which claims to use “the best available science,” promote a number that isn’t based in any science? Again, I can’t answer that. Why not ask them? I have. They simply tell me I’m not published in a peer review journal, so I wouldn’t understand. Sadly, it doesn’t address the question.

The Woodsman might be disappointed to know that Stallcup, in the same article, recommends discouraging cats in your back yard by shooting them – but he doesn’t recommend a .22, he recommends a B-B or pellet gun.

...
posted by Laurie, October 13, 2011

Oh, and you might be interested to know that Dauphine, upon whom TWS relies (relied) so heavily for “the best available science,” (also responsible for The Wildlife Society’s Spring Special: "Pick One: Outdoor Cats or Conservation") was arrested in May of this year for attempted animal cruelty. She's on video apparently poisoning feral cats with rat poison and antifreeze in Washington, D.C. Her trial date is the 24th of this month.

...
posted by Esteban Pajaro, October 13, 2011

Laurie,

How many birds is too many? How many cats killed by poisoning are too many? If your answer to the second question is one, and I'm assuming it is, why is your answer to the first question also not one? Both are unnatural events resulting from the effects of man.

...
posted by Laurie, October 13, 2011

It doesn't matter whether or not I think one bird is too many. The cats are out there, and the discussion relevent to communities is how best to reduce their numbers.

Killing domestic animals (and it is The Wildlife Society that points out that even feral cats are a domesticated animal) by poisoning is defined as animal creulty by law.

...
posted by Louise Holton, October 13, 2011

Faced with their worst budget crises since the Great Depression, states and cities have resorted to increasingly desperate measures to cut costs. For instance the City Council of Topeka, Kansas are debating an ordinance banning domestic violence because some say the cost of prosecuting those cases is just too high. So my question to those who want to catch and kill all feral cats is: Who is going to do this? When towns already have budget shortfalls? Just from an economic standpoint it makes sense to allow over 1,000 feral cat groups in the country to continue with TNR, as they have been doing for many years, with their own money. Plus those thousands of ordinary citizens who are also implementing TNR out of their own pockets. No charge to cities, towns or taxpayers.

...
posted by Esteban Pajaro, October 13, 2011

Louise,

If that was all it was about, sure, let TNR groups waste their money on a system that will not reduce OVERALL cat population numbers. BUT, TNR groups are also very active in dismantling traditional animal control operations leaving homeowners with no recourse to remove unwanted domestic cats from their properties. TNR groups are also successful in getting some of those scarce public funds to continue their operations. Operations that achieve no purpose but to make the practitioners feel good about themselves.

Laurie, it does matter. Because you and Peter Wolf take TWS and others to task for getting the numbers wrong in your opinion. My counter to that is; why do the numbers matter? You tout TNR because cats lives are saved. So why is one cat's life more important than X number of birds/mammals/herps lives?

Look, if I thought TNR would reduce cat populations, I'd be all for it. If we could get numbers down in say 5 years, then yes, overall the number of birds killed would decrease. BUT, TNR (even with a budget of $60-100,000 per year (ORCAT) couldn't reduce the population to

...
posted by Laurie, October 13, 2011

I'm not taking TWS to task for getting the numbers wrong. I'm taking them to task for presenting ficticious "facts" as science - or representing other people's ficticious "facts" as science. They're the ones claiming they use the best available science. I'm calling them liars.

Have you not read my comments? I don't tout TNR because cats lives are saved. TNR happens to be both effective and humane, but I CONDUCT TNR because it works. There may be only one widely publicized colony that's dropped to zero, but there are plenty of examples where the number of cats has been reduced dramatically. But again TNR does not work in a vacuum. Just like shooting cats, trapping them and killing them, or any other lethal method, you do have to stop animals being allowed to roam (especially unsterilized) or abandoned. Which is why whatever method is used must be continuous.

And where has TNR "dismantled" traditional animal control operations? Shelters and foster networks are an important component of TNR, as removal of adoptable cats (being kittens and strays) is an essential component of TNR programs. So what are you talking about?

...
posted by critter, October 14, 2011

Laurie,
In many communities where TNR is legalized, animal control stops taking in un-adoptable feral cats. This is the "dismantling" that occurs. Homeowners are left with no place to take unwanted feral cats.
Many of those opposed to TNR would be far less concerned about it if those who utilized it weren't trying to infringe upon others' property rights.
We don't allow feral dogs to roam. Why do cats get special treatment? There is no ecological reason to return a cat once it has been captured.

...
posted by banTNR, October 14, 2011

Happen to be here? Seriously? I know Mr. Wolf has his blog and comments quite frequently on news items. I don’t think that is happenstance. And I believe I have seen a Laurie on some of those same threads spouting the same nonsense and criticisms about the published work in these fields. Can’t say though that I see scientists making the same disparaging remarks as you and Mr. Wolf. Once (can’t remember where) Dr. Levy made an appearance on a thread, but like I said, if the published work is so questionable (to the point of calling the folks at these organizations LIARS), then why are there seemingly no Ph.D.s who advocate TNR or scientists IN the field detailing this ‘twisted science’ of which you speak? I certainly am not seeing published work counter to what is currently the best available science…

Laurie, please do not presume what I have and have not done. Just because I do not arrive at the same conclusions as you, does not mean I have not ‘tracked back’, consulted, read, analyzed, or questioned to the best of my ability – I just think you don’t know what you are talking about.

As for the 60 to 100 million figure for feral cats, I see that same figure from ABC, but I also see the figure listed in writing from the SPCA of Texas, and a few places (including Neighborhood Cats) cite Alley Cat Allies (Tracking our Success, 2005). So, Laurie my question to you is… have you registered a formal complaint over at ACA or NC or at the SPCA of Texas for using ‘a number based on nothing’ or ‘not based in science’? Please!! The number is not misrepresented, but a widely accepted estimate – by both wildlife and TNR advocates. What does seem to be the case is that when a situation makes TNR look like the answer to everyone’s problem, the number of feral cats gets inflated, but when advocates want to downplay a crisis, the number of feral cats drops.

And as for surveys, they are often not all they are cracked up to be. You want to discuss credibility and misrepresentation? Fine. Take the Harris Interactive poll from ACA in 2007.

“An overwhelming majority of Americans believes that leaving a stray cat outside to live out his life is more humane than having him caught now and put down, according to a nationally representative survey conducted for Alley Cat Allies by Harris Interactive in April and May 2007.”

The actual question asked of those who participated in the survey was this:

If you saw a stray cat in your community and could only choose between two courses of action – leaving the cat where it is outside or having the cat caught and then put down – which would you consider to be the more humane option for the cat?

81% chose Leave the cat where it is
14% chose Have the cat put down
5% chose Don’t know/refused

So what does this tell us?

“Leaving the cat where it is outside” obviously has no relevance to the method of Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) that ACA promotes. “Leaving the cat where it is” indicates no intervention whatsoever – no trapping, no altering, no releasing, and certainly no feeding. Quite possibly, that may be the attitude of most Americans should a stray cat appear in the community.

The survey does NOT tell us that folks want managed cat colonies taking place in their communities. Yet, ACA uses the results of this survey to push and promote TNR as if that is what was asked, and as if that is what people want. Surveys can also have leading questions.

Another example is the one by Lord in 2008 that described TNR in such a way that may have guided people to accept TNR as the only option, and certainly painted a rosier picture of the method than seems to be the case (the word ‘colony’ was not even mentioned in the survey).

As for road kill data I do not believe that is a reliable source for estimating a population of domestic animals given that their movements and behaviors are very much dependent upon humans.

Oh, by the way, did you know that the number of feral cats is actually exactly 87,495,250? At least according to Best Friends Animal Society – my word, the way you came down on TWS for their ESTIMATE! I imagine a strongly worded letter is in order for BF. The above figure comes from the methodology used in their ‘feral cat calculator’ which is a joke, but that is beside the point. In any case, BF states that, “While the number of feral cats is difficult to calculate, the feral cat population in the United States roughly equals the number of pet cats”. And then cites ACA… Sources of Cats in U.S. Households, Alley Cat Allies, 2009.

To conclude, for now (don’t you worry – I have more to say), cause I really do not have the time nor the desire to go through this point by point, my feeling is that the general public and officials, in making informed decisions about which methods to employ, will consult experts in the field – those that have the credentials, have published relevant work, and not individuals promoting a self-serving agenda.

...
posted by Esteban Pajaro, October 14, 2011

Beginning September 1, 2008, the Humane League adopted a "trap-neuter-return"[4] policy and will no longer accept feral cats for euthanasia. Instead, interested parties are asked to schedule an appointment to have the cat spayed or neutered for a minimal fee. Traps are available for rental from the League. A trapped cat may be brought to the scheduled appointment, picked up post surgery and returned to the wild.

...
posted by Laurie, October 14, 2011

@critter, it would be the community that made it legal and instead of enabling TNR along with traditional animal control decided to stop taking in ferals for euthanization: it would be the community’s decision to make it “either/or” instead of concurrent. There are ways of protecting property owners’ rights when enacting laws supportive of TNR. One community required all neighbors within 300 feet of a proposed colony to sign a release.

@Esteban, there are many “Humane Leagues,” but it would appear you’re referring to a private, non-profit organization, not a town or county animal control agency.

...
posted by Laurie, October 14, 2011

@banTNR, yes, TNR and cat predation are subjects in which I’m interested. Of course I’ve posted elsewhere. Just as Peter has, and just as many that are anti-TNR (like the Woodsman) do.

Personally, I wouldn’t expect PhDs to bother posting in comments to blogs or newspaper articles LOL.

And yes, I have a problem with anyone using the 60-100 million range without qualification that it’s completely speculative, and have voiced my thoughts on the subject. Again, I challenge anyone to find the science supporting the number. And at least BF qualifies the number they used and includes the reasoning behind the number. But yes, it is just as arbitrary!

And you are right about surveys. That said, the Harris Interactive poll does indicate an overwhelming majority of US citizens would rather cats not be killed. It’s part of the reason why TNR needs to be viewed in the context of “what is practical” when discussing effective policies for animal control.

And road kill data is not used to estimate wildlife populations. It is used to measure trends. Apparently you weren’t paying attention. It wasn’t used to estimate of the feral cat population, merely to confirm the apparent declining trend.

...
posted by Esteban Pajaro, October 14, 2011

Celebrating feral cat day early. Caught one in the yard last night. bringing it to county animal control. I just saved many lives (wildlife).

...
posted by banTNR, October 14, 2011

Okay Laurie, so you have an interest. My pont is that I posted my (at the time) short opinion and a resource/fact sheet from a reputable organization. You did not post a resource say from ACA or BF, thus providing another point of view, but apparently felt you were qualified enough to disparage the work of TWS in a nit-picked way by (for example) fixating on an estimate that is used by both wildlife and TNR advocates, yet I have never seen you ‘voice your thoughts’ in a similar manner about ACA using this figure or other large/national groups. Why don’t you go challenge ACA to ‘find the science’? While you are doing that, ask them to fact check this: "Feral cats do not spread rabies" (Alley Cat Allies, 2011).

And in your original post, you ignore a pretty important component to the article – the property owners do not want the cats on their property!

It is not practical to inflict TNR on communities just because a person or persons in the community may prefer to leave a cat alone should one pass through the yard. The results of that poll are used to push TNR.

You stated Clifton’s estimate was based (in part) on the trend, hence my comment.

Also, about your comment (Humane Leagues) to Esteban - the trend is for municipalities to turn over shelter operation to nonprofit groups as "cost cutting" measures, and then immediately stop accepting and euthanizing feral cats. All part of the "no kill" plan.

The ONLY Time To Celebrate Feral-Cat Day
posted by Woodsman, October 15, 2011

I'll celebrate Feral-Cat Day this year because every last one of them is gone from my land, and NONE have returned. Much to the chagrin of those fools who bought into the manipulative TNR-LIE of the "vacuum effect". NATIVE predators and NATIVE wildlife returns once you rid your land of disease-infested invasive-species predator cats. You really can't celebrate until you've accomplished getting rid of every last feral-cat. Otherwise there's nothing to celebrate. All wildlife on my land is now returning to normal. Predators no longer starving to death due to cats destroying their only food sources, no prey animals being tortured to death for disemboweled twitching play-toys for cats. No longer are cats spreading their deadly diseases to all animals and humans. There's much to celebrate. On advice of the sheriff I managed to do this by shooting every last one with a good .22 outfitted with a laser-sight and good illuminated scope for precision aim. This method is as humane as it gets. One moment they are intently stalking some more defenseless animals to torture and rip their skins off of them for play-toys, the next the cats are dead and don't even know what happened. They don't even have enough time to know they've been shot or even make a sound. I urge everyone to rid their land of this devastating invasive-species this way. It's the only way that can catch up to cats' breeding rates. If not, you'll be trapping them for an eternity as they continue to breed faster than your reach, plus the next generations will have learned to evade traps and won't even be able to be trapped.

Don't celebrate until you actually have accomplished getting rid of them all. Otherwise you're just a fool jumping around being glad that you've accomplished absolutely nothing.

BRAIN-DEAD Cat-Advocates?
posted by Woodsman, October 16, 2011

HOLY-CR*P! Is what I read (from http://www.daytondailynews.com...local-news ) ...

"Weltge calculated the approximate number of stray and feral cats in Montgomery County by taking the county’s human population and dividing it by six. This is the same formula used by the The Humane Society of the United States, according to Nancy Peterson, cat programs manager for the national organization. "

... actually TRUE? Are these people this amazingly stupid and ignorant?

I've shot HUNDREDS of them on my land, and the human population density here is less than 6 people per square MILE!

Is this the kind of glaring ignorance and stupidity that everyone is up against in stopping these terminally moronic cretins from putting cats everywhere? If being stupid was a crime these people would be locked up for life!

more in response to Laurie
posted by banTNR, October 16, 2011

You said:

“But the birds of the continental US evolved in the presence of predators, whether year-round or migratory residents.”

Yes, evolved alongside native predators – predators whose populations have for the most part been kept in check by the availability of natural food sources. The domestic cat is a drop in the evolutionary bucket, an exotic species, overabundant, and subsidized – not getting your point here.

Regarding Liberg:

“31% of the cats in his study had no vertebrate remains in their scat – a study conducted over 3 years”

Okay, can’t remember if I have read that one, but according to what you wrote that means they did not HUNT? Surely you are aware that cats don’t necessarily eat when they kill and that animals may be caught temporarily and appear to escape unscathed, but die later.

And if cats are ‘rodent specialists’ should we not be concerned that they are killing so many native rodents each year – especially those that serve as prey for native predators?

“and we know that there isn’t a single study that indicates any cat depredates a bird a day. Not even close.”

Lepczyk et al 2004 found an average of a bird a week killed by cats. But the issue is that we have so many outdoor cats in the US that even if the average killed per cat is low, the total number of birds killed is high. Scientists don't know the exact impact of any single factor that may affect bird populations,including cats -- but they do know that many bird populations are declining and there are many possible causes. Two of the biggest – habitat loss and exotic predators.

And to echo what someone else has said – if one billion birds per year is outrageous to you, then what is acceptable? We can debate one billion birds per year or 500 million or less – but the most conservative estimates, to me, are NOT acceptable. And if we are to do anything about changing whatever number that is, we need two things – for people to change their behavior about free-roaming cats, and a method that does not come at the expense of wildlife. TNR provides neither.

The debate of the exact number should not be the central focus, but what we do know is that in the US, cats are estimated to be one of the largest single sources of direct anthropogenic mortality to birds.

But maybe you can tell me why does every single cat deserve moral consideration, while only POPULATIONS of birds matter? Especially since it is exceedingly clear that TNR does not have a population level effect for reducing the number of cats!

Even ONE Native Animal Killed By A Cat It Is TOO MANY
posted by Woodsman, October 17, 2011

Cat-lovers evading their criminally irresponsible behavior by trying to discuss the numbers of wildlife killed, or their perceived monetary value is nothing but a ludicrous red-herring argument. Because ...

IF EVEN _ONE_ NATIVE ANIMAL IS KILLED BY AN INVASIVE-SPECIES CAT THEN IT IS ONE NATIVE ANIMAL TOO MANY.

If only one waterway in N. America is clogged by Zebra Mussels, should we let them be because, after-all, it's only ONE waterway?

If only one lake is destroyed by Eurasian Watermilfoil should we let it be and allow it to spread everywhere? Because, after-all, it is only ONE lake. Right?

If only 1 acre of property in N. America is overtaken by the Brazilian Pepper-Plant we shouldn't care at all. Because, after-all, the value of that 1 acre of land isn't worth very much. Right?

If only ONE school of piranha are found in your local lake or stream we shouldn't even bother because it's ONLY one small school of piranha, right? Only one small stream. They only killed just a few of the native fish so far. What harm could they do by being there?

If Black Mamba snakes are found in your park and bit only one child we shouldn't remove them. They only killed one child after-all. What's the harm in that?

If only ONE Australian Funnel-Web Spider is found in your North American or Eurasian apartment and kills a human we shouldn't remove it. After-all, there's 7 billion humans. Surely we can spare a few to invasive-species funnel-web spiders, right? Those funnel-web spiders have just as much right to infest every apartment in your city as any cat has the right to infest every foot of land. Right?

CATS ARE AN INVASIVE-SPECIES. AN ANIMAL GENETICALLY ENGINEERED THROUGH SELECTIVE BREEDING. IT HAS NO MORE RIGHT TO BE OUT IN NATURE ON ITS OWN THAN A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED INSECT, THAT IF RELEASED OUT INTO NATURE, WOULD DESTROY THE VERY FABRIC OF THE FOOD-CHAIN ITSELF -- JUST AS CATS DO. DOMESTICATED CATS NEEDS TO BE DESTROYED EVERYWHERE THEY ARE FOUND AWAY FROM SAFE AND SUPERVISED CONFINEMENT. THERE IS NO OTHER SOLUTION. NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE. END OF ARGUMENT.

Unless of course there are people so brain-dead that they think there is only 1 feral-cat for every 6 people in any area. You know, like the head of the Humane Society. (See a previous post above for proof of this.) Then by all means, keep arguing about how your INVASIVE SPECIES CAT should be allowed to DESTROY NATIVE WILDLIFE because it hasn't destroyed enough of them yet. Keep showing the world what an ignorant moron that you are.

If ONLY there was a legal cure for "stupid"!

This whole thing is so amusing
posted by Gina, October 24, 2011

Please don't cite my "credentials" because I have none, other than I am a responsible pet owner. But as far as the Swains go, raccoon, possums, skunks, rabbits, mice, squirrels, and insects (which you carefully mentioned you don't treat your yard for) all cause damage to property, gardens, stink, and carry diseases. All of these feral cats prey upon. If the cats were gone, it would just create an opening for other wildlife to ruin your life. Ever saw what a raccoon can do to a dog? I can tell you that it's not very pretty. Also, as it gets colder, said wild animals will start climbing all over your car when it's warm to get warm and scratch your paint job up. And Mr. Woodsman, I have two cats, both fixed, have their shots, are treated monthly for fleas, and live indoors... However, they have gotten out on occasion. If someone were to shoot my cats because they accidentally wandered into their yard, there would be hell to pay. I think saying feral cats destroy the "very fabric of the food chain itself" is not only a melodramatic statement, but completely ridiculous. Also, the term "genetically engineered" means to modify through modern DNA technology. Selective breeding is not genetic engineering. I love that humans have the innate need to control everything, including animal population. There's Americans that are living outside and not eating for days... maybe we could focus on that instead of having to smell a little cat piss and some birdies getting eaten....

Wildlife Enriches - Cats Impoverish
posted by Woodsman, October 25, 2011

Gina, what's amusing is the depth of your ignorance and inexperience with animals and especially wild animals. About 15 years ago when feral-cats started to greatly annihilate the native food-chain here, a mother raccoon, so starving to death that she couldn't even make milk for her pups (CAUSED BY CATS DESTROYING ALL THEIR FOOD SOURCES), dragged herself to my door in the middle of the day. I nursed her and her two surviving pups back to health. Thus started a decade long venture in trying to repopulate my land with native predators and the food sources they required. In the hopes that they would take care of the cat problem for me. During this decade, I have helped foxes, skunks, opossum, and raccoons. Sometimes the area around my home having up to SIXTY of them each evening (assorted species all at the same time). I would literally have to carefully step over and around them so as not to step on one of them when refilling their plates. And yet, NOT ONE OF THEM in all these years has EVER tried to damage any property here. Not even a torn window-screen. Commonly opposing species will even feed out of the same plate some nights. (I have video to prove this because it goes against everything I've ever learned from books and documentaries. One video especially amazing, as a fox ate out of a plate that a rabbit was feeding from at the same time. I surmise, with the non-existent native food-chain here, destroyed by CATS, they are treating this area as an emergency food-station and giving all fellow-animals that arrive here their due respect. They all came here because there was nowhere else to go.)

These are the most respectful and well-mannered animals I have ever known in my life. They don't even flinch when I put food in their plates, treating me even better than one of their own (which they'll growl at an annoying sibling). The mothers trusting me so much that they'll even take a much needed nap alongside me while I watch over their offspring for them. They don't even defecate by the house. I've not found any feces from any of these animals in all the years I have been helping them. Surprising, considering the numbers of them towards the latter years of this project. They have even worn paths in the forest-floor because this place has become so well known to them. If only the abused and neglected dogs that I used to help out were as non-destructive and respectful as these wild animals have been all these years, I would have been amazed.

So don't go telling me how universally destructive wildlife is. I have a life of living with them in harmony that proves you DEAD WRONG.

Unfortunately, while I managed to increase their populations safely, I found they wouldn't even go after the cats. Whenever a cat would enter the yard area the wild animals would only run from the cat. I even tried putting dead cats in their plates, hoping that for ONCE these cats could actually give back to the food-chain that they had destroyed. The moment the wildlife saw the dead-cat, again the wildlife would run from the yard. I finally figured it out one night. The cats' bold coloring patterns warned wildlife that the cats are dangerous. A universal symbol in nature. Which surprised me, because at times a skunk and raccoon and opossum would all sometimes eat out of the same plate. I suspect now that the wild animals know what a skunk is and know its body language well enough to trust it when needed. Having evolved alongside each other for millennia they know each other. Not so a cat, they know nothing about them -- being AN INVASIVE SPECIES. So they take that bold pattern to heart. And each time its a different pattern so they don't know what to make of them. It's the ONLY thing they can understand about a cat.

This is when I realized that I would have to take out ALL the cats by myself because the predators here were too wary of the cats to do anything about them. This was confirmed later online by people who saw even coyotes running from cats. THEY HAVE NO NATURAL PREDATORS TO KEEP THEIR POPULATIONS IN CHECK. Any predation on cats by native wildlife is only incidental.

Cats Are Going To Pay - And It's YOUR FAULT
posted by Woodsman, October 25, 2011

As far as your claim of someone shooting your cat and there'd be "hell to pay" ... dream on you self-deluded fool.

The general rule-of-thumb in the USA is that if your land is in an area zoned for livestock (if you can keep chickens or goats, etc.), then it is perfectly fine to destroy any animal, someone’s pet or not, that is threatening the well-being and safety of your own animals. The only animals exempt from you taking immediate action, legally, are those listed on endangered or threatened species lists. Even then variances can be given should there be sufficient problem but this requires further study by authorities. Since cats are listed in the top 100 WORST invasive-species of the world in the “Global Invasive Species Database”, this means they have no protection whatsoever from being shot on sight. And in fact, if your area enforces and obeys invasive-species laws — as they should — then it is against the law to NOT destroy any cat on sight, someone’s pet or not. It is your civic and moral responsibility to destroy any invasive-species that is found away from safe confinement and roaming freely in a non-native habitat.

A cat-owner that releases their cat in an area zoned for any form of livestock has no legal grounds to sue anyone if their cat is shot. Even if the shooter walks up to the door of the ex-cat-owner and hands their dead cat back to them, saying, “I shot your cat, here it is. Better luck next time.” Though local law-enforcement frowns on this because the disrespectful and criminally-irresponsible cat-owner will just raise a stink with law-enforcement, wasting their time when they have more important things to do than explain to and coddle an irresponsible ex-cat-owning idiot. Hence the popular “SSS Cat Management Program” (Shoot, Shovel, & Shut-Up) method to save your gendarmes the further hassle that would be caused by the criminally-irresponsible ex-cat-owning trouble-makers.

As for your claim that you are "a responsible pet owner", don't make us all laugh. If you let an invasive-species cat roam free you are a CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE pet-owner. If you're not smart enough to outsmart a cat to keep it confined, then you're not smart enough to be allowed to own one. And go get a basic education in genetics, biology, and ecology before you make a fool of yourself again about what is and is not genetic engineering.

lol
posted by Gina, October 25, 2011

I wasn't talking about suing someone or calling the police when I said there would be hell to pay.

As I stated, my cats live indoors. I have small children so mistakes happen and my cats have gotten out... twice in 3 years. I guess I should tell those kids they have to be smarter and faster than the cats.

Raccoon and Possum around here eat out of garbage cans that they tip over and strew the contents all over yards and alleys. Nothing like waking up to dirty diapers and rotting food spread all over your yard. That's nice and sanitary. The squirrels have chewed holes in my neighbors' roofs and nested in there causing extensive damage. Mice, well if you don't know how quickly they can infest a house, well, I just can't can't help you. Let alone if you are a farmer. If you want to see how damaging rabbits can be, try growing a garden. I'm not saying cats aren't destructive, I'm saying all animals can do damage to human property as they are animals. Unfortunately, not everyone can have your Disney-like description of interactions with wild animals. Here's an article where you can read about a raccoon attacking a pet dog. There a TON of other ones if you care to look. http://www.fieldandstream.com/...ons-attack

Your name calling doesn't add credibility to your argument; it just makes you look like an ass. It's a good thing animals seem to like you because your people skills are leaving something to be desired.

Here's a quick biology lesson for you... I'll try really hard not to make myself look like a fool in the future. Thanks for your concern.

Definition of GENETIC ENGINEERING noun
: the group of applied techniques of genetics and biotechnology used to cut up and join together genetic material and especially DNA from one or more species of organism and to introduce the result into an organism in order to change one or more of its characteristics ~ Merriam-Webster

Sigh ... educating the ineducable
posted by Woodsman, October 25, 2011

If you live in an area where you KNOW there are wild animals that can break into your garbage cans, and you aren't smart enough to secure your garbage against that, again, that's YOUR FAULT. You don't hear of people living in bear-country complaining about how a bear got past their last defense, do you? No. They're not some namby-pamby, Bambi-Cartoon-educated, "it's the animal's fault" idiot. They know that if they are going to live around those animals then it is THEIR responsibility to defend themselves from anything they are capable of doing. Even I had bears show up a few times. But I still managed to feed all the other animals while dissuading the bears from making this one of their favorite pit-stops. Without so much as even lighting off a fire-cracker. Just by using body-language and knowing animal behavior that well. (I've some hilarious stories about how all the raccoons and foxes would scatter when they heard a loud sound in the woods, leaving me standing there with a plate of critter-chow. Some raccoons learning from this. They'd act as if they heard a bear to scare all the others. Then they'd stay behind to eat at leisure with all the scared animals now gone. Crafty little buggers, I give them props.)

As far as animal attacks go, would you like me to post a LENGTHY list of links to feral-cat attacks on humans? Like a more recent one where a woman lost her hand due to the infections the attack caused. Take off your biased-blinders.

As for the definition of genetic engineering, just what definition do you think was used before gene-splicing was even known?

Tighten those blinders a little more. They haven't left a deep enough scar on your pointy little head yet. Enjoying your immense bliss of self-inflicted ignorance, are you?

And thanks for bringing up the issue about mice. Here's a surprising finding about them.

Now that all the feral-cats are gone I no longer have a mouse problem in the house. They started to show up when the feral-cats were starting to become a problem. (It was from these mice that got into the house from which I raised more of them to help repopulate the land which was sorely lacking from the roaming cats. To try to restore balance to the land and feed the starving wildlife.) Until feral-cats were everywhere I had never had a mouse in the house. Then I found out why when I went online to help others rid their lands of cats.

Any rodents infected with the cats' parasite Toxoplasma gondii lose their fear of cats and are actually attracted to cat urine. This cat-parasites' strange life cycle is meant to infect rodents to speed up the cycle between its asexual and sexual reproduction phase in its primary host-animal, cats.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070403-cats-rats.html
So even the often proclaimed use for cats to control rodents is now false. Cats actually attract rodents to your home, with their whole slew of flea-borne and other diseases. (A little scary when you consider that cats have now been found to be spreading the plague in the USA too. Attracting the very animals' fleas that harbor this disease.)

Lesson learned: If you want rodents in your home keep cats outside.

Don't be fooled 1
posted by Barbara Ellis, November 01, 2011

Speaking as a feral cat colony keeper - and having a statistical background, I have to refute Woodsman's manipulation of the statistics he uses to justify his poor stewardship of the cats on his property. I also suspect that Woodsman still has only eliminated the most visible part of his colony (ferals who behave like strays). A true feral cat is Speaking as a feral cat colony keeper - and having a statistical background, I have to refute Woodsman's manipulation of the statistics he uses to justify his poor stewardship of the cats on his property. I also suspect that Woodsman still has feral cats having only eliminated the most visible part of his colony (ferals who behave like strays). A true feral cat is quite difficult to glimpse much less shoot. If your property happens to be a feral friendly habitat, any cats removed will indeed be replaced with a new influx – of that I can personally attest.

Let's start with Woodsman's claim/scare tactic that his feral cats (supposedly infected with Toxoplasmosis) caused his "mice" problem. First of all, the largest spreader of Toxoplasmosis is (surprise!) humans. World Health Organization (WHO) and Center for Disease Control (CDC) put the human infection rate of Toxoplasmosis as high as 88 percent in France and 25 to 50 percent in the US. The culprit? Eating undercooked meat and human to human transmission. NOT CATS. Although the second highest cause is, indeed, cat feces, the threat is much higher to indoor cat owners handling feces than feral cat keepers. But the true danger of any exposure is much smaller than implied. Primarily due to the life cycle of that particular parasite. Here's a hint on how not to contract any parasite – wash you hands after digging in the garden. I might also add that Woodsman's claim that this parasite was in his mice population is not very likely and definitely opinion, not a fact. At best, Woodsman catered to yet another slow news day submission.

Don't be fooled 2
posted by Barbara Ellis, November 01, 2011

If Woodsman had any number of ferals (four plus by my estimate) – the cats would have eliminated that rodent population just from their supposedly “extraneous” hunting. Although I have yet to see a feral kill an animal it did not consume. It has been determined that cats “play” with their prey because it increases insulin levels making prey taste sweeter to the cat. Not because a cat “cruelly” enjoys toying. Woodman's judgmental observation of food chain basics alone is a big clue that he truly doesn't like cats and enjoys killing them.

Feral cats have become an epidemic more from the nationwide housing crisis than from people caring for them in the wild. The US has had largest housing migrations from homes to apartments – often not allowing animals - in several decades. It is unfortunate that people release their house cat(s) into the wild to fend for themselves after discovering that shelters are full and unable to accept them. It is much more unfortunate that people never altered their pets to begin with. And thus the local feral cat cycle begins as an unaltered house cat is released to propagate and starve. Make no mistake, these animals suffer.

Don't be fooled 3
posted by BE2011, November 01, 2011

Trap-Neuter-Return works well when done properly. Emphasis on “properly.” A common misconception is that simply feeding strays and catching an occasional one for alteration is TNR. It is not. A well maintained colony has a regular food source while spay, neuter, deworming and vaccination is performed on every cat in the colony. This allows the colony to stabilize and reduces environmental stress as the cats need to hunt less. In addition, proper management requires finding homes for the inevitable stray house cat that will join the colony because they have been abandoned. The biggest colony keeper mistake is to leave unconsumed cat food out which then attracts raccoons, skunks and possums who become a nuisance.

Done the right way and utilizing humane society resources, a colony of seven (yes, seven including our visiting house cat) costs me about $40 a month and four hours a week to maintain. After the initial six month learning curve on the best way to feed, vaccinate, deworm, trap and handle them, that is. Does that seem like a lot to you? Not to me. Once implemented, TNR is actually cheaper and less time consuming than repairing all the damage from an overpopulation of digging moles, rabbits and squirrels. My feral cats earn their keep. But, just as with indoor animals, problems arise from mismanagement.

One “trouble” cat in the colony was a sprayer and a fellow cat biter. But surprise, surprise, I found a collar and determined that he was a neighbor's UNALTERED house cat visiting my colony regularly. Once neutered 80 percent of cats stop scenting and being aggressive within six months. With the biter, neutering took two weeks to end any unwanted behavior. Mind you I have seen a true feral or two late at night, but the presence of my seen colony appears to keep them away from my property.

Don't be fooled 4
posted by BE2011, November 01, 2011

Not to present anecdotal evidence as the universal truth as Woodsman has, but my feral colony is stable and a boon to my property. I no longer have mice, river rats, moles, rabbits and squirrels destroying my garden and fruit trees. Please try and remember, that man BROUGHT this species to the new world with them because they are beneficial properly handled. And I defend TNR, as someone who did not previously own cats, mostly being a dog person. It can work for you and well if you're willing to make the effort to even learn it – as Woodsman (obviously) did not.

I question Woodsman's claim that he “returned his property back to its normal balance.” Really? What was that exactly? And how does he know? Most of his commentary and fact s has led me to believe that his “research” is after the fact window dressing - Woodsman likes to kill. He freely contends that his first and only solution to his feral cat “problem” was to shoot them. In the face of all the backlash, his premise is “no other valid options.” Please do not be fooled, you can humanely deal with your feral cats in a manner that will benefit both you and them.

TNR is just LIES upon LIES upon LIES
posted by Woodsman, November 06, 2011

Here is an interesting post from someone who believed in all the lies she was told about TNR programs, found at http://blogs.smithsonianmag.co...eral-cats/

"I have been battling a feral cat population explosion on my farmette for 7 years. TNR does not work, as the trapped and neutered cats do not keep new cats from moving in and adding kittens. I have trapped over 25 kittens, tamed them, and found homes for them, but every spring there are dozens more. I have spent countless dollars neutering females and males, but they just keep coming! I have few wild birds now, fewer snakes, and there are bunny parts all over my property (cats must not particularly like the back feet). I wish there was a birth-control feed available, since many of these feral cats don’t come near the traps even when hungry. I wish every pet owner would neuter their cats so that these colonies weren’t added to.
These are not happy feral cats, they frequently have infected eyes, worms, and are skinny and mangey. I don’t know what the answer is, but even in the country, a feral cat doesn’t live a secure, comfortable life.

Comment by Dawn Hawes — June 21, 2011 @ 9:38 am"

And YOU TOO can have a financially-distressed life ruled by diseased and nature-destroying cats JUST like this if you also believe in all their TNR LIES.

...
posted by Woodsman, November 06, 2011

I could EASILY post FACTS that disprove every last one of BE's comments. But suffice to say, even their silly comment about T. gondii being as pervasive as they claim is false. Infection rate in the USA hovers around 9-11%. Though it is true that about 70% of feral-cat handlers are infected.

Why do you fools always lie so much and so often, when you KNOW that every last one of your lies are easily revealed. Is this all that you ave are LIES?

PROOF OF HOW TNR IS AN ABSOLUTE FAILURE AND LIE
posted by Woodsman, November 06, 2011

here's a copy of a post I gave to the idiots in Oregon when they posted about TNR'ing their 50,000th cat....

What a phenomenal success!!

Estimated Cat Population of Oregon
Estimated Number of Cats 1,860,650
Estimated Number of Free-Roaming Cats 1,023,350
Estimated Cost of TNR in Oregon Per Cat $170

(data taken direct from TNR-advocates' OWN resources)

50,000 is 4.9% of the 1,023,350 feral cats in Oregon.

That's the highest rate I've ever recorded! It usually averages less than 0.4% everywhere else. This means that 95.1% of your feral-cats are are still breeding out of control! Good going!

Now let's do a 1-year population growth projection on those 95.1% that you need to sterilize yet, shall we?

(Running complex recursive calculus population-growth calculations ....)

Wow! You'll only have 14,125,739 cats to sterilize this year if you hope to catch up to their breeding rate. Which means you'll have only trapped A WHOPPING 0.35% of them by year's end! YAH-HOO! You'll only have to trap 38,700.7 cats PER DAY (if you start today that is, and attain that rate every day, 7 days a week, into perpetuity). How many have you sterilized per year to finally reach that 50,000? Sorry, that's not good enough, you have to do almost that many PER DAY to make a dent in the problem by just catching up to their breeding rates. Oh? You can't trap that many per day? But it'll only cost you $6,579,119.00 PER DAY. That's chump change! A mere $2,401,378,435.00. Look at that! Only 2.4 $BILLION per year! YEARLY. Into perpetuity! Surely you can afford that. And this is ONLY if you can catch-up to that breeding rate TODAY, not a month from now.

What a fantastic use of your time and resources! You've accomplished SO MUCH, haven't you! (you've accomplished absolutely NOTHING, you brainless idiots)

I got rid of ALL the cats on my land for 0.3 CENTS PER CAT in less than ONE YEAR. A one-time expense per cat with no further costs involved. That's the cost of .22 shells on sale. And guess what? NOT ONE CAT REPLACED THEM! That's because NATIVE predators and NATIVE wildlife that WAS HERE AND BELONGS HERE replaced these invasive-species cats. They've also not infected any more animals nor humans with their diseases and they've not destroyed even one more bird, lizard, insect, or mammal. Can you claim that kind of success? No? Tsk tsk. My way has yours beat all to hell.

Oh? And didn't you know that by re-releasing cats out into nature that you are in DIRECT VIOLATION OF EVERY INVASIVE-SPECIES LAW IN EXISTENCE? You could ALL be thrown in prisons for a long long time for what you are doing.

Cats listed in THE TOP 100 WORST INVASIVE-SPECIES OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database": http://www.issg.org/database/s...=1&sts=sss

Cats are _NOT_ exempt from invasive-species laws.

IT IS YOUR CIVIC AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DESTROY ANY INVASIVE-SPECIES WHEN FOUND AWAY FROM SAFE CONFINEMENT AND OUT IN A NON-NATIVE HABITAT. In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-sight. Since cats are genetically engineered through selective-breeding and no longer have ANY native habitat ANYWHERE on earth, these laws include cats. This is precisely how they are dealt with on my own land.

MORONS

Another fun read to prove that TNR IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE
posted by Woodsman, November 06, 2011

Here's a fun read to PROVE how effective TNR programs are.

"In NYC there are currently 465 registered TNR colonies. When TNR began in these colonies, 6047 cats were present – today, there are 4523 cats present, a decline of approximately 25 percent." (Quoted from an Alley Cünt Allies member who was SO proud of this.)

Of those 6,047 cats they've only REDUCED the total by 1,524 cats, about 127 PER YEAR. That's only 0.08% of the 1,806,310 feral-cats within the city's limits. (data taken direct from TNR-advocates' own resources)

Guess how many have been born IN JUST THE LAST 6 MONTHS (hoping like hell that they're not breeding every 4 months). Let's do the math...

(1/2 total = females) 903,155 X 5 (avg. number in a litter) = 4,515,775 NEW CATS. Which lowers the number of them that have been reduced by TNR idiots to only 0.03%. THEY ARE GOING BACKWARD.

Guess how many will be born in another 6 months? (4,515,775 / 2) X 5 = 11,289,438.

Remember. the first 903,155 females are still breeding. For another 4,515,775. Add in the pre-existing 1,806,310, bringing the grand total in just ONE YEAR to 17,611,523 CATS. NEARLY EIGHTEEN MILLION. Which means that TNR groups have only reduced the cat-population by 0.008% of them. That's not even ONE ONE-HUNDREDTH of ONE-PERCENT.

1,806,310 cats become nearly EIGHTEEN MILLION CATS ... IN JUST *ONE* YEAR. Keep in mind too, these are the numbers in JUST ONE CITY.

Catching on yet to how TNR people are just spinning wheels in the sand while sliding backward off the mountain and accomplishing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING?

Well, they are managing to torture cats and torture or starve-to-death all native wildlife, annihilating the whole native food-chain with an INVASIVE-SPECIES, and spreading deadly or lifelong illnesses to all manner of animals and even humans while doing all this. I guess that's accomplishing something. Including even spreading the plague today.

http://outbreaknews.com/2011/07/29/colorado-stray-cat-tests-positive-plague/

So much for that oft spewed urban myth that cats would have saved everyone from the plague in Europe. If the cats infect the rodents with Toxoplasma gondii, then cats even attract the plague right to your door since the toxo-infected rodents are now attracted to cat-urine. Cats would have only made the plague even more intensive and an even larger disaster. As they will this time around.

[Note: this recursive calculation problem actually requires advanced calculus with many more variables and will result in differing numbers; some higher, some lower, depending on how many years you do the population-growth projection when using both methods; but the results are just as astoundingly large no matter which method you use. I only include the dumbed-down version here so those of you with at least half a brain can comprehend and do the math yourself. Besides, it doesn't matter how many feral-cats are roaming free. If even ONE invasive-species cat is roaming free and has destroyed even ONE native animal, then that invasive-species cat must be destroyed. These numbers are only important to alert all others to how many cats must be destroyed and if they'll ever have the financial resources to do so by using their preferred method. In most cases, every municipality must allocate anywhere from 1/10th to 1/2 $BILLION PER YEAR if employing TNR costs just to catch-up to their breeding rates -- sustaining that expense YEARLY into perpetuity. Whereas shooting them results in costs substantially lower, in the range of $2,000 to $75,000 for 1 year. Which ends up being a ONE-TIME-EXPENSE. Something that is attainable by the tax-base in most every area.]

Another BE2011 LIE REVEALED
posted by Woodsman, November 06, 2011

I could do this all night, but this one struck me as hilariously funny and self-evident from the very posts on this blog.

"He freely contends that his first and only solution to his feral cat “problem” was to shoot them."

You didn't read the part where I spent a decade increasing the populations of the few remaining native predators to try to displace or predate all the feral cats before I was finally convinced BY THE SHERIFF to just shoot them all?

WHY DO YOU LIE SO MUCH? Or are you just experiencing pervasive and persistent brain damage? Got T. gondii cysts in your brain, have you? Is that the reason? It's either that or you're just a perpetual liar. Which is it?

...
posted by Barbara Ellis, November 08, 2011

FYI - I read the original discussion. It's delusional and hypocritical to feed several different species of wild animals for a DECADE that being "foxes, skunks, opossum, and raccoons" - SIXTY at a time sometimes and then claim your property has somehow been returned to its "natural balance" by shooting your feral cats. You, yourself, have disrupted the balance of all species through indiscriminate feeding but pick on feral cats - that's hard to excuse. Especially in light of all the other factors that could have greater impact on thee species than competition from feral cats.

Did it ever occur to you that your mouse population came as much from feeding their other predators (so they don't hunt) and leaving food out to attract mice, rats and moles? Of course not - blame the feral cats using some obscure fact about a very common parasite.

I could just as easily point out that your local Department of Natural Resources should get involved with YOU for feeding raccoons. Our local DNR wants racoons destroyed because of the public danger from their spreading RABIES. Hmmm, seems your pet (pun intended) theories don't work everywhere, do they? Yet here you are, trying to dictate your extreme opinions as gospel And calling ALL feral cat advocates liars. While your "logical" arguments are at best, bogus.

Frankly, having taken the time to real ALL of your posts I can honestly point out that you've done a better of discrediting yourself with your "facts" than I did. I merely gave an example of someone who has successfully (and most importantly HUMANELY) managed a feral cat population through TNR lending balance to the whole discussion. That's "it." That's all.

So go ahead, continue to be a horrible steward of the wildlife on YOUR property but don't expect anyone but the most disturbed of individuals to follow your delusional and inhumane directives.

And BTW - "convinced by the Sheriff to just shoot them all?" That's stunning ecological research isn't it? Obviously you didn't even try and alter any feral cats.

FYI - one can be assured that the basis of an argument is truly non existent when they result to name calling and derogatory comments..

How I keep my feral colony FYI
posted by BE2100, November 08, 2011

It IS possible to economically care for a feral cat colony and have them be healthy, happy and disease free - it's true. I live on a river, 1200 feet from a marina, which brings in plenty of feral and stray cats. Yet, contrary to other reports, has only had one extra (abandoned) house cat join my colony in the last year.

My cats are flea free, worm free, mange free and vaccinated. It costs me approximately $40 a month to accomplish this.

I will be developing a website WITH PICTURES of how I trap, care for, worm, vaccinate and alter the cats in this feral colony. Watch for a post here well before spring hits.

This may not necessarily work everywhere as each situation is different but here's some direction for those who are interested.

Trapping - use a drop trap, designs available on the web. Mine took approximately $30 and two hours to construct. You'll still need standard traps to haul them in for altering, but proper use makes trapping pretty fast and efficient, but those can often be borrowed from your local humane society.

Worming - Mix FOOD GRADE diatomaceous earth into canned food mixed with dry food once daily (DE cost ~$50 for 50 POUNDS). Not only will they learn eat this mix - they love it and come knocking. Deworms and knocks down their appetite, which equals less hunting overall.

Defleaing - there's always a few that allow you to get near them. Hartz onespot (3 doses for about $6) in addition to a couple of teaspoons of cider vinegar in their wet food will pretty much take care of fleas. The cider vinegar also discourages mites and hence mange. I found that Hartz onespot also cured mite mange on my visiting housecat who was horribly infected.

Spaying/Neutering/Vaccinations - Local programs here let you get a feral altered plus rabies vaccination for $10 at special events and $20 - $25 during regular drop off.

All of which is cheaper, less time consuming and better ecologically than burying poison peanuts everywhere in a vain effort to control moles. (Couldn't walk across my property without nearly breaking an ankle from all of the tunnels before the ferals went to work.) I won't go into the number of apple trees the rabbits have girdled and chewed to a nub, the number of pears the squirrels have eaten or the damage, disease and general mess that comes from a river rat population - which is why the marina doesn't discourage feral cats.

Since one female mouse can lead to 15,000 more mice within a year - elimination of all feral cats will likely cause other, less desirable populations to get out of control - moles, rats, mice, etc. Having had an overpopulation of moles, I have to say, feral cats are much better to deal with - IMHO.

The Economics of Caring for my Feral Cat Colony
posted by BE2011, November 08, 2011

30 13 oz cans Paws & Claws (Tractor Supply Company) $0.69 = $20.70
1 36 lb bags Paw & Claws Delicious Mix (TSC) = $19.99

So...feed costs approximately $41 a month without sales tax.
They hunt more in the warm months so they eat less whereas winter they eat a little more.

I don't really count the cider vinegar, I keep it on hand anyway and using one teaspoon in the wet food mix every day means a $6 gallon go a long way.

Same with the Food Grade Diatomaceous Earth – I use this for different things around my property, usually I put about 1 teaspoon per cat in their wet food. So the cost on this
is negligible also maybe $10 a year. I do add water rinsing out
the cat food can to make sure its a wet mix.

Since the cider vinegar generally works I only use the Hartz onespot a couple of times a year (spring and fall) – so that's possibly $20 -$30 a year tops for the three cats that allow me to touch them. I suppose I could trap to treat but I find that treating half the colony has worked so far.

After that, it's the time it takes to feed them every morning (dry with fresh water) and late afternoon (wet mix). And remembering to pick up any uneaten food before dark (I made that rookie mistake and now have a couple of the healthiest and happiest raccoons and possums in the neighborhood. They actually still come by every night to lick the dishes after I've removed the food to get the residual DE.)

This is much less cost and work than trying to personally control tunneling moles, rats, mice, squirrels and rabbits while digging up and replanting trees, filling tunnels and replacing mulch.

A local humane group supplied their winter houses for free at a feral cat event so I can't count that cost – but it took 3 hours of time one Sunday – TNR training is another 3 hours.

Watching the cats zip around my property while I'm NOT injuring myself stepping in mole tunnels, cutting down, digging up and replacing trees, hauling and shoveling mulch and dirt while vainly trying to prevent rodent damage: PRICELESS.

Human Territorial Behavior By Expendable Proxy
posted by Woodsman, November 08, 2011

Here's a little information to help you understand the behaviors of "cat-lovers" and their cats. Something I discovered when local "cat-lovers" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) were using cats to overtake my land and woods, eventually even by moving my property markers when using their cats had failed -- failed because I got the legal go-ahead to shoot them all on my land. (An expensive many $1000s lesson for these property-thieves, surveyors are not cheap.) I often wondered why they kept releasing new cats onto my land even long AFTER they already knew that all their cats were being shot to death, they were told this is what was going to happen, and was happening. They didn't care about cats AT ALL! Clearly something else was motivating these people. How many so-called "cat-lovers" do you know that keep releasing cats and letting them roam free even after seeing many of them become road-kill, harmed by cat and animal attacks, die of diseases, killed by poisonous plants or animals they encounter outdoors, etc.? (Like every last TNR-advocate for starters.) They don't care about cats AT ALL, not in the least!

Now you'll know exactly why cat-lovers do what they do. It really has nothing at all to do with their concern for cats, nor even the lives of anyone nor anything else, quite the opposite.

Human Territorial Behavior By Expendable Proxy

I have come to the inexorable conclusion that the vast majority of "cat-lovers" and cat-owners that let their destructive invasive-species roam free, and especially those that defend the rights of feral cats to overtake private and public property and wildlife areas, are only (cowardly) using cats as a proxy for their OWN territorial behavior. Not unlike uneducated inner-city youth that will disrespectfully and inconsiderately use loud music to stake-out a territory for themselves. Whether this behavior is done consciously or subconsciously, the underlying motive is the same. As long as they can have one of their cats defecate in another's yard or destroy their property, animals, and wildlife; and the land-owner not have any recourse; the cat-owner/caretaker owns that territory. It's time to put a stop to them using their "cute kitty" excuse for usurping and stealing others' property. If they want territory they can damn well buy it just like anyone else. Instead they're using underhanded, disrespectful, and manipulative means. By putting (and sacrificing) live animals in the path of their envy and greed. "Cat-lovers" only really want your yard, garden, or forest while making all others and all other animals suffer for what they can't have nor own. Bottom line--they want to control you and your property. That's _ALL_ that "cat-lovers" are really after. It's why they don't care at all if their cat nor any other animals, nor even other humans, get harmed by their goals and (lack of) values in life.

To all property owners: Start charging "Cat-Recreation Land-Use Fees" to all cat-owners that use your land. I suggest a fee of $10,000 per day per cat. You have the right to charge any amount you want for someone using your land for any purpose of theirs. If they can't pay, then you get to legally own their property from debts incurred, just like they have stolen your property illegally with their cats all these years.

There's an interesting news report about a community in Florida recently where cat-advocates are trying to get a court to allow them to even use their local shopping-center as a place where they can keep their cats. We can now add "Shopping Centers" to the kinds of property that they want to steal from the owners and control. It never ends with them! Until you destroy every last one of their cats that is.

Moral Of The Story
posted by Woodsman, November 08, 2011

Moral of the Story:

I wasted 15 YEARS of my life arguing with demented cat-lovers. During which time THEIR _INVASIVE_SPECIES_ CATS DESTROYED ALL NATIVE WILDLIFE ON MY LAND. All native prey became tortured cats' play-toys, native predators STARVED TO DEATH. Those that became neither died of cats' diseases they spread everywhere (which not only includes the potentially deadly and mind-altering Toxoplasma gondii parasite, but rabies, hookworm, the plague, flea-borne typhus, and now tularemia; they are nothing but 4-legged bags of deadly infestation today).

It wasn't until I STOPPED arguing and on advice of the sheriff finally did what needed to be done -- SHOOT ALL CATS -- that my land, all the wildlife on my land, and my life itself started to return to normal. I no longer have to go out twice a day on cat-patrol to shoot more cats nor waste more time and energy burying them to protect wildlife from the diseases they carry. Much to the chagrin of manipulative TNR LIARS that spew their psychotic "vacuum effect" bullsh**. NO CATS have replaced them. The native predators and all other native wildlife THAT BELONGS HERE replaced them!

Learn from this. You can argue with the Toxoplasmosis parasites in the cat-lovers' brains until you are blue in the face and your whole planet is destroyed by their cats, but it'll never get rid of the cats that have destroyed your life and all wildlife.

JUST DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE -- DESTROY THEM.

Cats listed in The TOP 100 WORST INVASIVE-SPECIES OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database":
http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?si=24&fr=1&sts=sss

Cats are _NOT_ exempt from invasive-species laws!

IT IS YOUR CIVIC AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DESTROY ANY INVASIVE-SPECIES WHEN FOUND AWAY FROM SAFE CONFINEMENT IN A NON-NATIVE HABITAT.

In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-sight. Since cats are genetically engineered through selective-breeding and no longer have ANY native habitat ANYWHERE on earth these laws include cats. Much to the dismay of all criminally irresponsible and psychotic cat-lovers who are desperately trying to raise them to some absurd level of "Community Cats". If they do that then just raise "Community Pet Piranha" and release them in all your lakes and pools, or "Community Pet Black-Mambas" and release them in all your backyards and parks, then claim the exact same protections for them as cat-advocates want for THEIR INVASIVE-SPECIES CATS. It'd only be fair! (Are you starting to see just how absurd and ludicrous these cat-people are yet?)

Only later, AFTER your land and life are 100% free of these invasive-species cats, can you have fun trying to educate the ineducable. Use the time you got back from their invasive-species taking over your life to share the best ways to destroy all cats -- without harming any other wildlife or humans. Then if you want, make YOUR life THEIR problem. Just as they made THEIR cats YOUR problem for all these many years. It's only fair! Because that's what it's really all about, isn't it. It's not about cats at all. They only want to control your life with their cats. You can put a stop to that immediately by destroying their cats. And there's NOT ONE THING they can do about it if you do it right. They'll no longer have any part of your life.

Another TNR LIE Dispelled
posted by Woodsman, November 08, 2011

TNR-Advocates "Vacuum Effect" is an absolute 100% LIE.

There's an interesting study done by the Texas A&M University on TNR practices. They started out with about 12 sterilized cats. At the end of 9 months they had over 30. An increase of more than 200%, all moved in of their own volition. This isn't due to any mythical "vacuum effect" that cat-advocates spread and lie about so often. For that to have happened you would have had to remove cats to create a vacuum for others to replace them. The exact opposite happened in this study.

Simple reason being: CATS ATTRACT CATS

Cat scents attract cats. This is why they spray everything, to attract mates and rivals and mark territory. Cat sounds attract cats. Mewing kittens will even attract stray toms who will kill the kittens if they are not their own (basic feline behavior of any cat species). I even put this to good use to shoot the most wary of them on my land, to attract them close enough to shoot. By using an MP3 player and battery-powered pocket-speakers to make an inexpensive and effective "cat call". Loaded up with mewing kitten and cats in heat sounds, freely available everywhere online from cat-lovers' sites. (It's true! Curiosity DOES kill the cat. But only if you have a gun pointed to where they are being curious.)

If you want more cats, keep some around. More will find you. Get rid of them all and there's no reason for other cats to come to that area. I proved this myself by getting rid of every last cat on my own land. ZERO cats moved in to replace them. When you get rid of an invasive-species predator (cats), then all the original native species predators move back in, as it was before cats destroyed all their food-sources and displaced them. (The original source of all these cats? A demented cat-lover that was releasing them all in the area.)

Another interesting finding about how TNR practices are so counterproductive to their psychotically proclaimed advantages ... sterilized cats do not defend their territory. Any new cats see this as easy-pickings and move in to take over. If that cat-colony is being fed, then non-sterilized cats will actually overtake the sterilized colony because they are not as docile and complacent -- taking over the sterilized cats' food sources.

Here's another fun kicker. The common Toxoplasma gondii parasite that cats spread everywhere through their feces is actually meant to infect rodents. This cat-parasite alters the mind of any animal it infests (including humans). Any rodents infected with this cat-parasite lose their fear of cats and are actually attracted to cat urine. So not only do cats attract more cats, but they also attract more rodents to the area with their whole slew of flea-borne and other rodent diseases. If cats eat rodents, then they contract those rodent diseases to spread those diseases to humans. The attractor equation is not just CATS = CATS + CATS, it's actually CATS = CATS + CATS + RODENTS + DISEASES.

TNR IS 100% FAILURE -- no matter which way you try to spin that sorry hole-filled story.

...
posted by BE2011, November 09, 2011

All right "Woodsman". Recursively integrate this - one female field mouse can lead to 15,000 additional mice within one year.

Go right ahead. Remove a primary predator. One man has lived with successfully for ten thousand years.

Then see to whom all those flea ridden rodents will bring the plague to. Not the cat. Humans. All of your "logic" ignores the fact that cats do, indeed, keep rodents down. Here's the real point of that article – a cat got the plague – NOT a human.

Even more disturbing "facts" from you. Was your property REALLY "hunted out" by feral cats? If so, how is it then, that you had mice problems? Which is it? It's not lost on any of us that you spout contradictory evidence.

OK, so you had mice Why weren't your “other” predators eating them? If they had T. Gondii, it should have been easy, huh? Why weren't your ferals eating them? If mice existed, your property could not have been hunted out, huh? So, who's the liar?

As for your claim that racoons and possums were starving from the competition - most of us know - yep WITHOUT looking it up -food sources between cats, racoons and possums are not the same. Racoons and possums are omnivores who primarily eat vegetation, worms and insects while cats are carnivores. None of those starving competitors you listed eat the same thing as cats - except possibly foxes, although foxes are technically omnivores also. So who's the liar?

However, I can testify that my feral cats have definitely been a food source for: dogs, red tailed hawks, eagles and wolverines. Not to mention, the common accounts of feral cats, including mine, actually sharing their food bowl with possums, raccoons and skunks - some competition, huh? So who's the liar?

You tried to "compensate for all the feral cat destruction" before killing them. Really. Without altering one feral cat? Not one? Really. So who's the liar?

So if you can't do it – humanely control a feral cat population, then it can't be done, huh? So who's the liar?

At best, all this fuss you're making is a sad attempt to justify willfully slaying cats. Window dressing meant to distract from the very pathetic picture you've painted. Guilt, apparently, is too much to hope for from such a "woodsman”.

So – many people find redeeming value in a species where you don't? So what? It's a free country. Ten thousand years of co-habitation with cats pretty much proves that the current situation can't be as dire as alarmists such as you make it out to be. There's been feral cats before this. Granted there are short term issues, here. But I'm sure we've been here before without the ecological world grinding to a halt.

Hopefully you come realize that no one, with a brain anyway, is buying what you're trying to sell.

But you HAVE done a phenomenal job of displaying what you truly are.

Thank you!

Shooting is MORE HUNANE than TNR
posted by Woodsman, November 09, 2011

Shooting is one of the most humane methods available. One moment the cats are intent on stalking some defenseless animal to cruelly rip apart again, the next moment they are dead and don't even know it. ALL the cats I shot didn't even have enough time to make a sound. That's how fast they die. This is FAR FAR kinder than trapping, terrorizing them with cages for days, being handled by humans, then being locked into a state of paralyzed torment with drugs until animal-shelter euthanizing methods finally take effect. They are suffering and in torment for DAYS using animal-shelter methods.

So you're going to tell me that letting a TNR'ed cat die from being hit by a car; attacked by cats or other animals; dying of disease; dying of cold or heat; dying from starvation or thirst; dying from chewing on poisonous plants, amphibians, or chemicals they find in their environment; being bit by a poisonous snake; and suffering to death for days, weeks, and months is MORE humane?

Just because you don't see that TNR'ed cat die of "attrition" by gasping for breath for days as it hides beneath some structure or shrubs because it was hit by a car or it lapped up some anti-freeze under someone's car, means that it doesn't die INhumanely? Just because YOU didn't see it die? Is that how it works with you self-blinding TNR fools? Even killing a cat with poison is a more humane method than them dying of your candy-coating feel-good term of "attrition". IN FACT, dying from poison falls directly under the definition of "attrition".

ALL TNR-advocates need to be rotting in prison for life for all the cruelty to animals they have caused all these years. Not only for how they cruelly torture and kill cats, but for how they allow their cats to cruelly destroy all wildlife. Go buy some canaries and hamsters at your pet-store then throw them at your cats to tear apart in your INHUMAN (note no 'e' on the end) need to perpetuate suffering of animals. It would be NO DIFFERENT.

All these FACTS make anything you just typed a totally meaningless point. They make your whole life a meaningless point.

p.s. Educate yourself and you find out that CATS SPREAD THE PLAGUE BY THEMSELVES, THEY ARE CARRIERS OF THIS DISEASE AND CAN TRANSMIT IT TO HUMANS, THEY DON'T PREVENT IT. Reported in Colorado this year. Add in the cats' parasite T. gondii and they actually attract the plague right to you door.

If only trying to educate morons wasn't an endless task ... sigh.

Cat-Attractor Equation / Vaccum-Effect-Lie -- Update
posted by Woodsman, November 09, 2011

ANY cat -- stray, feral, sterilized, or fertile -- is just a magnetic "seed cat". No matter how they are there or in what state of reproductive-viability that they are in, you'll attract and grow more of them. Even worse, then you attract cat-advocates that want to turn your life into a living hell too. They're all part of the same life-destroying equation.

The FULL cat-attractor equation is actually: CATS = CATS + CATS + RODENTS + DISEASES + LIFE-DESTROYING CAT-ADVOCATES.

This is why you MUST destroy all cats on your land. So cat-advocates will never be able to control or rule your life ever again. It's THAT simple.

I did it on my land. Now it's YOUR turn! :-)

The only point made here...
posted by BE2011, November 09, 2011

By "Woodsman" himself-

He took no time and research whatsoever to figure out what goes on with the animals on his property. In fact, he has no idea what most of them eat - by his account for FIFTEEN years.

He has no idea what TNR is or how to apply it

He had no intention of agreeing with anything that gets in the way of what he really likes to do

Shoot cats and pat himself on the back for being such a "humanitarian."

I would bet if "Woodsman" has seen a cat die from being hit by a car, then it's because he personally and intentionally ran it over.

And he expects us to believe that EACH AND EVERY cat he's shot - at long range, mind you, died instantly.

Who's the liar?

Hi,
posted by Bernie, February 17, 2012

‘WOODSMAN’ has posted this exact same text HUNDREDS OF TIMES AROUND THE NET. Who expends that kind of time? Yes, you are a landowner who feels he needs to be able to shoot cats with impunity. But all of your arguments are exaggerated or fabrication. For example, the 25% number you found for TNR are represent BELOW what euthanization accomplishes as killing them is already a policy in these areas. If TNR brought a 25% reduction that means it helped. TNR may not stop the problem yet, but you’re not accounting for the fact that scientific advances will eventually bring much greater sterilization methods into the equation. These “cat lovers” you hate so much actually have the same goal as you. They just realize we can’t let every person in the world start shooting their gun every time they see a cat they don’t like. I mean, perhaps we should just kill ALL wild animals since they are inconvenient and not profitable. For most normal people, animals are independent beings that deserve to live their lives. Anyway, many of these cats do end up domesticated and make great pets and bring a lot of happiness to their owners. There’s a lot of youtube videos of happy endings with for feral cats… An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0c3shTi-A.