03-30-2009, 08:03 PM
It may be that effective alternatives to TNR programs have too much emotional and political baggage to ever get off the ground as public policy. On that front I concede defeat. TNR programs may be more effective than doing nothing if you focus on limited areas. What sticks in my craw is being expected to participate in a denial fest when it comes to the nuts and bolts of how TNR is supposed to work. Mainly TNR compels people to not feed feral cats in an irresponsible manner. Organizations that support TNR usually urge people not to feed ferals outside of an organized TNR program. That is their main contribution.
The vacuum effect is true for small areas and it is true precisely because there is a very high population of cats outside the study area. TNR therefor does not break the cycle of reproduction or lower cat populations when you consider the entire population of cats. It can not. If it did then the fundamental condition necessary for the vacuum effect to occur would not be present. It is inherent in the theory that regardless of how many cats you sterilize there are more out there, that cats are territorial, and that the cats that are fed are holding places in the ecosystem that would quickly be taken if those cats were removed. It is inherent in the theory that only some cats get the good treatment and there are more cats out there whose population is being held in check only by lack of resources.
The general public is not ready to support the removal of cats at the rate required to really get the job done and TNR is much easier to sell as a policy that is humane at least on the surface. It primarily addresses destructive behavior on the part of people although it leaves the cats in place with only minor control of their destructive behavior. I agree with that. Don't try to sell it as anything else. The arguments don't hold water and you will lose me. I have already stated in other threads dealing with illicit drugs that I believe in harm reduction. TNR is harm reduction. It is not a solution.
The vacuum effect is true for small areas and it is true precisely because there is a very high population of cats outside the study area. TNR therefor does not break the cycle of reproduction or lower cat populations when you consider the entire population of cats. It can not. If it did then the fundamental condition necessary for the vacuum effect to occur would not be present. It is inherent in the theory that regardless of how many cats you sterilize there are more out there, that cats are territorial, and that the cats that are fed are holding places in the ecosystem that would quickly be taken if those cats were removed. It is inherent in the theory that only some cats get the good treatment and there are more cats out there whose population is being held in check only by lack of resources.
The general public is not ready to support the removal of cats at the rate required to really get the job done and TNR is much easier to sell as a policy that is humane at least on the surface. It primarily addresses destructive behavior on the part of people although it leaves the cats in place with only minor control of their destructive behavior. I agree with that. Don't try to sell it as anything else. The arguments don't hold water and you will lose me. I have already stated in other threads dealing with illicit drugs that I believe in harm reduction. TNR is harm reduction. It is not a solution.