{"id":40562,"date":"2023-12-30T20:43:28","date_gmt":"2023-12-31T01:43:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/?p=40562"},"modified":"2023-12-30T20:43:34","modified_gmt":"2023-12-31T01:43:34","slug":"an-inconvenient-truth-targeted-tnr-enjoys-a-track-record-unmatched-by-lethal-methods-for-managing-free-roaming-cats","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/2023\/12\/30\/an-inconvenient-truth-targeted-tnr-enjoys-a-track-record-unmatched-by-lethal-methods-for-managing-free-roaming-cats\/","title":{"rendered":"An Inconvenient Truth: Targeted TNR Enjoys a Track Record Unmatched by Lethal Methods for Managing Free-Roaming Cats"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

OPINION ARTICLE by Peter J. Wolf and G. Robert Weedon<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Best Friends Animal Society, Kanab, UT, USA; Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs (Board of Directors), Humane Society of Polk County, Winter Haven, FL, USA historically,\u00a0 \u2018stray\u2019\u00a0 cats\u00a0 have\u00a0 made\u00a0 up\u00a0 a considerable share\u00a0 of\u00a0\u00a0 a\u00a0 shelter\u2019s\u00a0 feline\u00a0 intake,\u00a0 with\u00a0 some\u00a0 agencies reporting figures exceeding 95%. More recent data reflect\u00a0 a\u00a0 significant\u00a0 reduction.\u00a0 However, the\u00a0 majority of\u00a0 cats entering a shelter are still typically classified\u00a0 as\u00a0 \u2018stray\u2019.\u00a0 Although\u00a0 providing\u00a0 positive\u00a0 outcomes\u00a0 for\u00a0 these\u00a0 cats\u00a0 remains\u00a0 a\u00a0 challenge\u00a0 in\u00a0 some\u00a0 US\u00a0 communities,\u00a0 the\u00a0 shift\u00a0 toward\u00a0 targeted\u00a0 trap-neuter-return\u00a0 (TNR)\u00a0 pro-grams in recent decades has produced impressive results in others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless,  the  authors  of   a  recently  published  commentary  in  Biological  Invasions  argue  that  \u2018local,  state, and national government agencies must ban (with enforcement) outdoor cat feeding sites and end TNR as a purported population management tool\u2019s Lepczyk et al.  claim  that  this  step  is  critical  for  \u2018successfully  con-trolling  free-roaming  cat  populations\u2019,  although  they  provide no evidence that a TNR ban would achieve this objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to TNR from members of  the conservation community  is  nothing  new.  In  2010,  some  of   the  same  authors published a letter in Conservation Biology calling on members of  the \u2018wildlife and conservation communities … to challenge policies that are put forth to allow or promote feral cat colonies and TNR\u2019. Since the article\u2019s publication,  various  members  of   the  conservation  community  have  done  exactly  that,  on  at  least  one  occasion suggesting  publicly  that  people  should  take  matters  into  their own hands by poisoning cats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But even if  one sets aside for the moment the ethics of   killing  a  steady  influx  of   healthy  animals,10  its  well  documented  impact  on  shelter  staff, and  the  implications  for  policymakers  reliant  on  public  support, one struggles to imagine a feasible alternative to TNR. Put more bluntly: If not TNR, then what? The indiscriminate killing of  healthy cats has been the default \u2018management\u2019 approach for more than 100 years in the US despite  the  lack  of   any  evidence  that  it  has  been  effective.  During  1985  alone,  an  estimated  7.8\u201312.9  million  cats were killed in shelters. In fact, there is a growing body of empirical evidence suggesting that attempts to manage  free-roaming  domestic  cat  populations  using  lethal methods are often counterproductive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eradication campaigns<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Efforts to eradicate cats have proven successful only  on  relatively small oceanic islands, and even these have been known to backfire. This has been demonstrated with both mathematical  modeling  and  empirical  evidence.  On  uninhabited Marion Island, the largest island from which cats have been eradicated (290 km2), a 19-year campaign exterminated  an  estimated  2,100\u20133,400  cats,  using  feline  panleukopenia, poisoning, hunting, trapping, and dogs. Some seabird species rebounded quickly while others did not, due largely to a rapid increase in the island\u2019s population of mice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are now plans in place to eradicate the mice in 2024, some 50 years after the island\u2019s first cats were killed.  A  similar  scenario  played  out  on  Australia\u2019s  Macquarie Island (127 km2).25\u201327In  the  US,  eradication  campaigns  are  rarely  proposed  with any seriousness. However, Hawaii House Bill 1987, pro-posed during the 2022 legislative session, sought to empower the state\u2019s Department of  Land and Natural Resources and Invasive Species Council to: \u2018Eliminate the feral cat population on the islands of  Kauai, Maui, and Hawaii by December 31, 2025\u2019.f Following extensive testimony\u2014the vast majority of  which was in strong opposition\u2014HB 1987 failed to make it out of  its first committee hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Removal efforts<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Far  more  common  than  calls  for  complete  eradication  are calls for lethal removal, either as organized culling or, more  often,  the  indiscriminate  killing  of   cats  deemed  a  threat of  some kind (e.g. public health, nuisance). While HB  1987  aimed  to  exterminate  cats  from  three  of   the  Hawaiian  Islands,  its  intent  for  Oahu  was  more  modest:  a 50% population reduction by December 31, 2025. But lethal  removal  of   domestic  cats\u2014be  it  to  protect  public  health or wildlife, or in response to nuisance complaints\u2014has often proven ineffective, too. Researchers working in Tasmania, for example, found that \u2018low-level ad hoc culling of  feral cats\u2019 was ineffective at reducing their numbers and  might  actually  lead  to  population  increases  due  to  \u2018influxes  of   new  [adult]  individuals  after  dominant  resident  cats  were  removed\u2019.28  Research  into  more  intensive  removal  efforts,  on  New  Caledonia,  found  that  despite  the removal of  36 cats (44% of  the estimated population across  10.6  km2)  in  38  days,  \u2018no  meaningful  differences  in  the  relative  abundance  and  density  of   feral  cats  were  observed\u2019 just 3 months later. Although the removal of cats by  animal  services  agencies  (e.g.  in  response  to  nuisance complaints) is rarely, if  ever, accompanied by such detailed  follow-up  inquiries,  the  evidence  suggests  that  such efforts are no more successful at achieving meaningful population reductions. Indeed, in many cases, targeted sterilization  efforts  were  undertaken  in  response  to  the  failure of  long-standing removal policies and practices. In light of  the well-documented failures of  eradication and lethal removal efforts, it is not difficult to appreciate the benefits of  TNR; the bar is that low.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Opposition to TNR<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Obviously,  opposition  to  TNR  is  not  lethal  control  in  the same direct and immediate way that eradication campaigns  or  removal  efforts  are.  However, impeding  TNR  efforts or banning it outright does generally lead to lethal consequences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Recent   computer   modeling   suggests   that,   although   lethal  removal  \u2018offers  the  largest  and  fastest  reduction  in  [free-roaming  cat]  numbers,  if   consistently  performed  at  a  high  intensity,  its  cost-effectiveness  relies  on  killing  cats  rather  than  adopting  them,  and  doing  so  at  levels  higher  than those typically performed in communities\u2019. And, as the previous examples illustrate, lethal removal lacking the requisite intensity, and sustained over time, tends to be ineffective. TNR, by contrast, was shown in the modeling to be \u2018a viable and potentially more cost-effective approach if  performed at higher intensities over a sufficient duration\u2019. Empirical evidence has borne this out, with targeted TNR programs yielding impressive population reductions, in addition to equally impressive reductions in feline admissions  and  shelter  killing. And,  unlike  lethal  removal,  TNR enjoys broad public support. Moreover, by returning cats to the neighborhoods where they originated, TNR mitigates  some  of   the  inequities  common  to  traditional  sheltering practices\u2014especially in historically marginalized communities\u2014and recognizes the strong bond community cat caregivers have with the cats in their care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless,  opposition  to  TNR  persists  in  many  forms.  A  2008  lawsuit  against  the  City  of   Los  Angeles  resulted  in  an  injunction  (lifted  in  2020)  that  not  only  suspended  the  City\u2019s  TNR  program  but  prevented  any  City  employee  from  discussing  such  programs\u2014or  even  referring  residents  to  resources  available  through  local  non-profits.  In  2016,  the  New  York  Office  of   Parks,  Recreation  and  Historic  Preservation  settled  a  lawsuit  by  agreeing  to  remove  23  cats  who  had  been  part  of   a  long-running TNR program at Jones Beach State Park. We\u2019re  unaware  of   any  evidence  that  these  legal  disputes  accomplished  their  stated  objectives  of   protecting  birds  and other wildlife. Indeed, the available evidence suggests that this,  too,  likely  backfired.  Data  obtained  from  Los  Angeles Animal Services show that the agency\u2019s intake of  young kittens increased significantly while the injunction was in place, from 8,818 in 2010 to more 13,000 in 2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Undermining   TNR   funding   is   another   obvious   way  to  oppose  its  implementation.  In  2018,  Hawaii\u2019s  Department  of   Land  and  Natural  Resources  testified  in  opposition  to  Honolulu\u2019s  proposed  $300,000  budget  allocation for sterilizing \u2018feral\u2019 cats. In part because the agency offered no alternative, the funding was approved unanimously.  Others  have  taken  a  slightly  different  approach to \u2018defund\u2019 TNR efforts, by insisting that any such efforts include \u2018adaptive management based on rigorous  monitoring\u2019.  Although  regular  censuses  of   the  free-roaming cat population can provide invaluable data to  measure  a  program\u2019s  effectiveness,  animal  shelters  rarely have the necessary expertise or the funding to hire those  who  do.  (We  are  unaware  of   similar  demands  to  assess  the  effectiveness  of   lethal  removal,  which  raises  questions  about  how  serious  this  concern  for  tracking  program effectiveness really is.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Perhaps  the  most  common  way  to  undermine  TNR  efforts,  though,  is  through  feeding  bans,  policy  interventions  based  on  the  idea  that  the  cats  will  disperse  in  the  absence  of   resources.  As  with  eradication  and  removal  campaigns, though, the impacts are likely to be counter-productive since the regular feeding of  free-roaming cats is critical to the success of  TNR programs. It is far easier to trap cats living closer to humans\u2014and likely being fed, whether  intentionally  or  not\u2014than  cats  living  in  more  rural  or  less  disturbed  areas,  where  such  resources  are  likely  to  be  less  plentiful.  And  resource-rich  urban  areas are where an estimated 75% of  free-roaming cats in the US are found. In addition, feeding cats presumed to be stray is a common activity (10\u201326%, depending on the survey) across the US, making enforcement of  feeding bans a challenge. It is worth noting, too, the studies showing that regularly fed free-roaming cats are less likely to kill wildlife than their unfed conspecifics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion To  dismiss  TNR  as  an  \u2018ineffective,  but  politically  convenient,  policy  option\u2019,  as  Lepczyk  et  al.8  have  done,  is  no  doubt  easier  if   one  ignores  the  growing  body  of   avail-able evidence to the contrary. Indeed, even for them evidence  proved  difficult  to  ignore  entirely;  the  authors\u2019  only  example  of   effective  population  reduction  is  a  city-wide  TNR  program.  As  the  evidence  presented  here  makes  clear,  efforts  to  manage  free-roaming  cat  populations  using  lethal  methods  are  often  misguided  and  counterproductive\u2014as  are  efforts  to  undermine  TNR  programs. However inconvenient, it is nevertheless true. Obviously,  efforts  to  undermine  TNR  are  detrimental  to  the  welfare  of   cats,  very  likely  leading  to  a  significant  increase in the killing of  healthy cats as their population rises.  And,  given  the  available  evidence,  there\u2019s  little  reason to think such efforts would benefit wildlife or public health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the contrary, the available evidence quite clearly suggests that targeted TNR is often the only feasible option for improving cat welfare, reducing free-roaming   cat   populations\u2014and,   by   extension\u2014protecting   wildlife and public health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author credit statement Peter  J.  Wolf:  conceptualization  and  writing;  G.  Robert  Weedon: conceptualization and review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conflict of interest statement In  recognition  of   JSMCAH  policy  and  our  ethical  obligations as researchers, the authors acknowledge that one of   us  (PJW)  is  employed  by  a  national  animal  welfare  organization  that  promotes  TNR  and  RTF  programs.  The other (GRW) has worked extensively in high-quality, high-volume  spay\/neuter  (HQHVSN)  clinics,  and  trains  other  surgeons  in  HQHVSN  techniques,  mostly  in  support of  TNR and RTF programs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

OPINION ARTICLE by Peter J. Wolf and G. Robert Weedon Best Friends Animal Society, Kanab, UT, USA; Alliance for Contraception in Cats & Dogs (Board of Directors), Humane Society of… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":40563,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_seopress_robots_follow":"","_seopress_robots_imageindex":"","_seopress_robots_snippet":"","_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"27","_seopress_robots_breadcrumbs":"","_seopress_robots_freeze_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_custom_modified_date":"","_seopress_robots_canonical":"","_seopress_social_fb_title":"","_seopress_social_fb_desc":"","_seopress_social_fb_img":"","_seopress_social_fb_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_fb_img_height":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_title":"","_seopress_social_twitter_desc":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img":"","_seopress_social_twitter_img_attachment_id":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_width":0,"_seopress_social_twitter_img_height":0,"_seopress_redirections_value":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled":"","_seopress_redirections_enabled_regex":"","_seopress_redirections_logged_status":"","_seopress_redirections_param":"","_seopress_redirections_type":0,"_seopress_analysis_target_kw":"","inline_featured_image":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"wpai_generated_summary":"","footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"dois","default_image_id":71799,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40562","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-op-ed-and-opinion"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40562","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=40562"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40562\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/40563"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=40562"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=40562"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=40562"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}