06-17-2013, 03:58 PM
The benefit of the policy of trap, neuter, and release is limited to mitigating the damage done by feeding. I can't count the number of times I have read how TNR is the only method proven to reduce feral cat numbers. This is otherwise completely unsubstantiated. You can say it all you want and many people will believe you but that doesn't make it true. In fact the population of cat colonies tend to increase which is completely consistent with the stance of feral cat caretakers who have assigned themselves the task of maintaining the cats as long as you accept a very generous definition of "maintaining", given that heaving the cats back into the wild to be run over by cars and attacked by dogs wouldn't fit the standard definition of maintainance. It is particularly telling that advocates of TNR have as a cornerstone of their dogma something called the "vacuum effect". The theory goes that if you remove a cat from the colony another will just take its place, whereas the colony cats, maintained in place, would exclude those "other" cats. I have even heard from some of the more fervent supplicants at the altar of feral catdom that TWO more cats would take their place. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it is a clear admission of the belief on the part of TNR advocates that the cats they minister to are actually the minority and that furthermore they create and enforce a situation where there are kitty "haves" and "have nots" and that they actively promote a struggle to the death over finite resources such as food and care.
Actually I don't think that TNR advocates recognize that this is what they are saying, just as I don't think that they recognize the true implications of what they are doing. The point is that the whole TNR argument is tragically flawed and yet there are legions of supporters who will repeat even such obviously flawed arguments as though they were proof of the highest order.
Do you know how tough a rat is? They are survivors that will eat anything. Now if you were a cat, which would you go after first, a rat or a nene gosling? The cats are part of the problem, not part of any solution. Every problem has factors that must be addressed, with the proper priority placed on each. Now it is true that irresponsible people are at the root of this whole problem but I see no point in even mentioning them because there is no mechanism to improve that part of the problem. I do however see that focusing on that part of the problem when nothing can be done about it IS part of the problem. Now no one has yet said that people are the most invasive species. This would be true but irrelevant unless a method of getting rid of people is offered as part of the deal. Please, let us not go there. Variations on the theme that "It's not the cat's fault" have been offered. This argument is also irrelevant unless the objective is to promote the welfare of the cats in the absence of any consideration of the impact this policy has on anything or anyone else.
If people want to trap the cats and care for them until they die, by all means do so. Take them home. Feed them and take them to the vet as needed. The problem with this scenario is that it would quickly become clear just how expensive this would be to do as well as how ineffective it would be at curbing the feral cat population. With a TNR colony there are always cats coming and going so it masks how much attrition there is, plus the caretakers are not usually there to see exactly how these cats finally meet their ends. This requires reading between the lines. If it is five years on and there are more cats than ever, but none of the original cats, that means it's not working.
Finally I would suggest that if there can even be such a person as your typical "crazy cat lady" that lives with a hundred cats that crap everywhere in her house, with dead and dying cats that she doesn't even know about, and with more dead cats that she DOES know about based on the fact that they are in her freezer, if such people exist with enough frequency that they have become a cliche, then it behooves us all to examine ourselves for similar compulsive behavior since it is clearly a part of human nature. If you look around and see lots of cats, well......
Actually I don't think that TNR advocates recognize that this is what they are saying, just as I don't think that they recognize the true implications of what they are doing. The point is that the whole TNR argument is tragically flawed and yet there are legions of supporters who will repeat even such obviously flawed arguments as though they were proof of the highest order.
Do you know how tough a rat is? They are survivors that will eat anything. Now if you were a cat, which would you go after first, a rat or a nene gosling? The cats are part of the problem, not part of any solution. Every problem has factors that must be addressed, with the proper priority placed on each. Now it is true that irresponsible people are at the root of this whole problem but I see no point in even mentioning them because there is no mechanism to improve that part of the problem. I do however see that focusing on that part of the problem when nothing can be done about it IS part of the problem. Now no one has yet said that people are the most invasive species. This would be true but irrelevant unless a method of getting rid of people is offered as part of the deal. Please, let us not go there. Variations on the theme that "It's not the cat's fault" have been offered. This argument is also irrelevant unless the objective is to promote the welfare of the cats in the absence of any consideration of the impact this policy has on anything or anyone else.
If people want to trap the cats and care for them until they die, by all means do so. Take them home. Feed them and take them to the vet as needed. The problem with this scenario is that it would quickly become clear just how expensive this would be to do as well as how ineffective it would be at curbing the feral cat population. With a TNR colony there are always cats coming and going so it masks how much attrition there is, plus the caretakers are not usually there to see exactly how these cats finally meet their ends. This requires reading between the lines. If it is five years on and there are more cats than ever, but none of the original cats, that means it's not working.
Finally I would suggest that if there can even be such a person as your typical "crazy cat lady" that lives with a hundred cats that crap everywhere in her house, with dead and dying cats that she doesn't even know about, and with more dead cats that she DOES know about based on the fact that they are in her freezer, if such people exist with enough frequency that they have become a cliche, then it behooves us all to examine ourselves for similar compulsive behavior since it is clearly a part of human nature. If you look around and see lots of cats, well......