Posts: 134
Threads: 2
Joined: Apr 2013
quote:
Originally posted by ericlp
yeah this so called "WAR" is pretty sad.... These are the same problems that Oahu had. I personally know one of the "feeders" in Waianae.
Personally these people aren't doing any favors by feeding the cats. They are full of ticks and fleas. Plus they have no one to care for their well being. If they get a wound or broken leg or some other problem, then that will certainly spell suffering for the rest of the animals life. That's no way to live being covered with ticks and fleas and no one to take the animal to a vet for regular checkups including shots etc...etc....
So should we head out into the wilds of places like Africa and start killing all the cats with ticks and fleas??
Its part of life, they bother US more than they do the cats
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
I like cats but I feel sorry for feral cats. I do agree that neutering is better than killing.
Putting something in their food to make them sterile is a fantastic idea. It would be very effective
if people didn't keep dumping their pets.
Posts: 7,731
Threads: 685
Joined: Jun 2011
quote:
Originally posted by jackson
Paul, I understand that you don't like the cats. We humans caused the problem and it's up to us to humanely resolve it. Murder is not humane.
How do you think the native birds killed by these feral animals feel? Humans aren't the only species capable of murder. I've seen cats kill "for fun".
Posts: 2,481
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
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......
Posts: 5,640
Threads: 101
Joined: Dec 2008
MarkP, one of the reasons I think TNR is better than killing is because of the ferocious opposition to the latter (as can be seen even on this thread).
Going purely on rationality, I agree that killing is the best way. But it won't work in the real world, in my opinion.
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
My offer still stands.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 378
Threads: 7
Joined: Oct 2011
If we are going to kill species that are destructive to the environment, I think we should start with number one - humans. Offer still stand, Oink? We created this problem and should be able to handle it with compassion. Killing is too easy for us and getting easier all the time.
Posts: 3,188
Threads: 216
Joined: Sep 2007
feed the healthy animals with a food laced with hormones during breeding season. re locate those animals that are a threat to the ne ne (Hilo Harbor Break water rocks come to mind - grin)
euthanize those animals with diseases or painful disabilities
does the county even have a vector control office in the department of health? Feral cats can spread some diseases that can jump to humans as well
seems to be the most humane way to go
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
@Jackson
There may be some logic in your suggestion. However, I'm not suicidal and I recognize the superiority and dominance of homo sapiens over that of other species. I also recognize our responsibilty to manage this world environment that we already so profoundly effect. I do recognize your right to remove yourself from evolutationary competition.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 771
Threads: 37
Joined: Feb 2006
Just put hormones in the water supply!!
