08-17-2013, 08:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Lee M-S
Any population of animals will expand to match the food supply.
I think that's the idea of TNR; the existing animals--who now can't breed--will eat the food supply of potential pregnant females and kittens, so the in-place population doesn't increase. I don't think the idea is that the TNR-ed animals will fight off strays from outside the colony. Once any animal is removed from the group, through adoption, euthanasia, or some other kind of death, the food it would have eaten is now available to support one new animal, either incomer or kitten.
But if you don't change the food supply, the population remains the same, one way or another.
><(((*> ~~~~ ><(("> ~~~~ ><'> ~~~~ >(>
Why don't you think the idea is that the TNR-ed animals will fight off the strays from outside? It is literally what has been said every time TNR is proposed. The TNR cats are alleged to keep the other cats out. Feral cats need human help or they will starve if cat caretakers are to be believed. Starving creatures will fight to survive. There has to be fighting and there have to be losers according to this paradigm. Besides keeping some cats alive regardless of the consequences it is the only justification for returning the cats. I think the whole concept is nonsense but as for what the TNR folks say this particular point is stated very clearly again and again and it would be hugely disingenuous to suggest otherwise.
In your post you have essentially stated that the mechanism by which the cat population is controlled is by starvation of the most vulnerable members, the pregnant mothers and kittens. I think that this is what happens. I think that practically speaking sterilization and removal are equally effective at curbing reproduction as long as trapping is the first step in each case. Neither is perfect because you can't catch all the cats. If you are in it for the reduction of feral cats then removal wins because it directly reduces the numbers and also there are other methods in addition to trapping. If you are in it to "save" cats then there is an incentive to go with the least effective method as far as removal is concerned and in fact the question of what your goal really is must be addressed. The way I read your post you suggest that TNR programs regulate the amount of food such that there is enough for the colony cats but not enough for any newcomers, such that the newcomers and litters of kittens starve. You have essentially argued for not feeding. I am certain that TNR proponents would disagree.
If one insists on saying that there is another cat out there that will take the place of each cat removed, then when you sterilize 100% of the cats coming to your feeding station, you have only sterilized 50% of the cats that are really out there and you should trap the original cat and the cat that takes its place and you're done. If you claim that a third cat will come then the best sterilization rate you can hope for drops to 33% and you should still remove all 3 cats. The significance of all this is that the most often quoted estimate of sterilization rates needed to even notice a difference is 70% to 90%. When the TNR crowd says there are more cats out there that aren't getting trapped because the colony cats are keeping them away such that each cat removed woould be replaced on a one for one basis with a fertile cat they themselves have made it clear that sterilization is hopeless.