HPH -Free Spay & Neuter for Feral Cats

[JWFITZ]

Hell, with the pressure cooker and the rocket stove you'd never taste the hair.

See, I can be funny. LOL

[PaulW]

"No credible conservation group that isn't explicitly pro-cat to the exclusion of all else sees it otherwise."

As I mentioned above, both the Humane Society and the ASPCA support TNR.
Are they explicitly pro-cat? News to me. They have a lot more credibility than PETA.

So, you have no evidence about this supposed van, and you don't expect you ever will.
I see.

I understand, feral cats attack your chickens. That's terrible. But killing cats
will not help decrease the feral cat population in the long run as efficiently
as TNR will. Killing the cats is the current policy. Obviously it doesn't work.

[JWFITZ]

Please provide some credible evidence of a peer reviewed study that backs your contention, other than the 2 studies from San Diego.

[PaulW]

Please provide some credible evidence of peer reviewed studies that back *your* contention.
And when you do, maybe I'll discount the first two simply because of the location.

[MarkP]

Merely stating that the birds are thriving begs the question of which birds. Bulbuls, myna birds, doves, and pidgeons would probably do well in just about any circumstances. On the mainland starlings have defied all efforts to eradicate them. None of these birds are what you want in Hawaii. The birds we do want in Hawaii, indiginous and endemic Hawaiian birds, unfortunately are in dire straits. Please see the story below about endangered hawaiian birds at Moomomi Beach only making a comeback after predators were removed, cats among them. This is a real life documented example where birds were not doing well because of cats and where removing cats was the option that finally worked.

You have to be specific about the challanges that each endangered species faces because each species will have their own needs. For some it will be habitat destruction. For others it will be an inability to deal with the large and disorienting amount of light that human development puts out at night, and still others will be unable to deal with specific pests. Personally I don't think habitat destruction lets cats off the hook one bit. In fact, if a species is on the brink due to a myriad of factors it becomes totally indefensible to allow an identifiable and manageable destructive force (cats for example) to remain because well they're not really the "main" cause of the problem.

I have been an engineer for my entire adult life. Engineers add stuff up and see if it makes sense. I just spent 3 hours methodically troubleshooting an industrial air drier that had been unsuccessfully troubleshot already by two other intelligent highly trained people. I succeeded where they didn't not because I am smarter but because I laboriously applied logic without jumping to any conclusions. I am not dumb. The hypothesis that a policy of systematically nurturing selected cats in an environment will result in less predation than a policy of systematically removing cats from that environment does not add up or make sense. It sounds as though impartial researchers agree with me. So who is it that thinks otherwise? It is not my intent to start a fight or hurt anyones feelings but the first three words of this thread were "Aloha Animal Lovers". By the way I too am an animal lover. I have a dog and my brother has one dog, two cats, and a handful of pet rats, two of whom are HAIRLESS. Boy, ya gotta be a believer to love those ugly little fellas. My point is that this breaks down along emotional lines and if people are biased and unwilling to see that for what it is then little progress can be made.

Please note I said systematically nurturing, systematically removing, and selected cats. It is essential to compare apples to apples. Cat caretakers are quite dedicated to nurturing their charges. I contend that if equal dedication was brought to bear on removing the cats you would see real results. If you only do periodic removals and then say "see, the cats (Which cats? The non-favored cats pushed to the fringes by the favored cats) reproduce and build the numbers back up", well, yea, you're right. The removal efforts would have to be consistant and meet a minimum threshhold level to be effective. We wage continuous war on rats, don't we? The difference? We are biased against rats and in favor of cats. Heck, I am WAY biased in favor of my personal pets. Cat collectors with 100 cats breeding in every corner of their house are WAY, WAY, WAY biased in favor of their, um, pets. I know I am biased and can make an impartial decision when I have to, they don't and can't.

http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.det...00052.html

[PaulW]

I admit catch and kill sounds like a better idea than trap-neuter-release (TNR).
But, catch and kill is the current policy and it doesn't work. If it did, we
wouldn't have a problem.

Whether TNR would work in Hawaii is as yet unproven, but I think it's worth a try.
Unless there was an extensive culling program, the reproductive abilities of
the feral cats will easily replenish their numbers within months.

A TNR effort would also have to be considerable to have much of an effect.
This is precisely where TNR has an advantage. Cat lovers actively solicit funds
and volunteer their time to help TNR projects.

Even if TNR was less effective than catch-and-kill, it would still have
the advantage of being able to attract more support and funding, and
thereby be able to have a better chance of decreasing the feral cat
population, which is what we all want!

[mella l]

Be careful what one wishes for, an Australian island freed of cats well........

It took 15 years, a half-million Australian dollars and countless rounds of ammunition (the cats were mostly shot to death), but by 2000 Macquarie Island was deemed to be “cat free.”

Unfortunately, the rabbit disease didn’t reach the same level of finality as the cat hunt (the bunnies are becoming increasingly immune to myxomatosis), and there are now an estimated 130,000 rabbits that are wreaking havoc on the island’s vegetation. Rats and mice are also celebrating their new-found freedom by destroying flowers to get at the seeds.

The disappearance of the fauna and other ‘megaherb’ vegetation now has environmentalists concerned about the Royal Penguins, which are now more vulnerable to predators thanks to their evaporating cover.

Now, scientists and biologists have reached the conclusion that the removal of the cats may have been a bad idea.......




http://www.examiner.com/x-662-Strange-Ne...00-rabbits



mella l

[PaulW]

Thanks for the article, that case was already posted in this thread.
I never knew cats ate rabbits!

It doesn't really apply to Hawaii because total eradication
of cats would be all but impossible. And we don't have many
rabbits.

The rat population may increase, but that's no excuse for
not trying to cut the cat numbers.

[MarkP]

That is a poor comparison for anywhere besides a very remote islet without people and with penguins. If there were rabbits, rats, and mice present they should have known from the get-go that they were part of the problem. A much better example for Hawaii is the link I gave above, where removing the predators worked. My point is that a profound pro-cat bias pervades the whole controversy.

You can walk through Waikiki and see those black bait stations for rat poison tucked here and there. There is no attempt to hide them. A maintenance worker setting them out would not draw a second glance. No one cares about the rats and so society is free to deal with the problem in whatever means works best. Contrast this with cats that have a status as pets. Look at how people sometimes allow their pets to cause problems for others by letting their cat hunt under the neighbor's bird feeder or crap in the neighbor's yard (dogs too), then consider how much worse that problem becomes when people adopt feral cats as pseudo-pets for a couple of hours a day but take no responsibility for the animal the rest of the time, all because of the sacred status of cats as companion animals. This would never be tolerated for any pest species. A maintenance worker setting out poison bait stations for cats would probably be lynched. It is necessary for traps to be used so that people think the animal is going to the humane society to be adopted, whereas the reality is that for countless cats it is a one-way trip.

Removal can work, as the link above shows. What does it say about the controversy that an example from here in Hawaii is ignored in favor of an example from another part of the world that has penguins? I'll agree, we won't lose any penguins to feral cats.

TNR programs deal with the problem of perception and draw a lot of volunteer manpower. That is true. However I can not be convinced that TNR has any positive impact overall. It is touted as humane but it relies on competition between the colony cats and those other cats "out there" that TNR proponents agree exist. This is the crux of the situation for me. If there are that many cats in the environment, and I think that there are, then TNR is just playing favorites for the pleasure of the participants. I see the benefit of TNR programs as mitigating the harm that uncontrolled cat feeding would otherwise cause, because half of the problem is compulsive human behavior.

[Lin W]

1. The Waipili person who started this thread certainly created a firestorm and disappeared - they need to get back on here and defend their position.

2. I believe in TNRM Trap-Neuter-Return(Manage). AdvoCATS is doing a fantastic job Kona side. East side organizations are just getting started and have yet to prove themselves, but the basic premise is sound. Are you aware of the vacuum effect? See below.

The Vacuum Effect

The fact is trap-and-remove doesn’t work. “Trap-and-remove” is a euphemism for capturing and killing feral cats, which is Animal Control’s traditional approach to feral cats. Trap-and-remove attempts may temporarily reduce the number of feral cats in a given area, but two things happen: one, unsterilized survivors continue to breed prolifically and, two, other cats move into the now-available territory. This is known as the vacuum effect.

New cats will move in. Feral cats establish territories based on the availability of food sources and shelter. When the cats are removed from this environment, other cats move in to take advantage of whatever sources of food and shelter are available and continue to breed.

The vacuum effect has been documented worldwide.

If you stop feeding feral cats, they won’t simply go away. A feeding ban will not make the cats go away and is, in any case, arbitrarily enforced. Why? Cats bond to their territory and are opportunistic scavengers that can, if necessary, survive on garbage. Under a feeding ban, the cats suffer as they search for new sources of food.

There is a solution. Trap, neuter, and return (TNR) lowers cat populations.

Here’s how it works. Colony cats are humanely trapped, sterilized, and vaccinated. Strays and young kittens are removed from the colony and adopted into homes. Adult feral cats are ear-tipped for identification and returned to their outdoor homes where their numbers gradually go down through attrition. It’s simple.

TNR breaks the cycle of reproduction and lowers cat populations. TNR is cost effective. TNR, which enlists community volunteers in a comprehensive program, costs one-third to one-half as much as trap-and-remove efforts. Why? Trap-and-remove endeavors require continuous trapping and killing, are not supported by the community, and are an unending budget expense.

To learn more or to find tools to help you educate people in your area, go to alleycat.org.

Reprinted with permission of:
Alley Cat Allies
alleycat@alleycat.org
© 2007, Alley Cat Allies