Spay/Neuter

[Kapohocat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ourdoc...
So to make you happy, F____ off, I love cats and will continue to see they are treated morally, if you wish not to it is your choice, I only hope you learn what karma is when it bites you in the ass.

---

Our doc, I agree with you in principle, but in practice it is much harder. But do you let them starve and suffer? People can only do so much and have so much funding to take care of a herd.

Although euthanasia is the lowest choice on the list, we do have to do it sometimes after exhausting all the other options:

1) Rainbow Friends - if they are not full they will take the cats. But for quite awhile they have been full.

2) TNR - but the Nueter program takes some real research - 10 phone calls and finally i got the voice mail for the person coordinating it and then it was two weeks out. Not every Friday like it used to be.

3) Trap and take to KHS for euthanasia

4) do nothing and have them spray everything, get into trash and just wreck havoc, and fight with our pets - dog included.

[dragon2k]

http://www.rainbowfriends.org/News.php

flyer for the next spay/neuter event in Leilani

[Bullwinkle]

new data - it appears the current approach just displaces the spayed or neutered animal from the gene pool - but does not impact the ability of the colony to keep expanding - by leaving the males intact - by doing vasectomy - the dominant males shooting blanks - keeps the others from breeding

makes lots of sense - good balanced read on the issue

http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...3109.story

[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.

><(((*> ~~~~ ><(("> ~~~~ ><'> ~~~~ >(>

[OpenD]

23 posts in, and lots of references to TNR, but nobody has explained what TNR is.

[?]

[dragon2k]

Trap
Neuter
Release

If applied universally, it should work. However, it only takes a few careless owners to screw it up...

[MarkP]

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.

[ericlp]

I'd never give my hard earned money to a program that DOES NOT WORK.

The Humane Society However does work. When you get a cat it is Neutered / Spayed and 98% guaranteed not to reproduce (I factored in 2% for human error).

This debate has come up at least 3-5 times a year. Feeding Feral cats just prolongs the suffering and is borderline animal cruelty.

I wish people would stop the BS stereotyping mainlanders for these programs. My hawaiian neighbor has 30 yes... 30+ FRIGGEN cats. And I don't want to piss her off but I always see them in my yard and on my deck and paw prints on my car window. I don't even own a cat. I don't want to piss her off by killing them. So... I will wait till I get a dog. I know she is the type that can't stand to see anything get killed ... She is a nice lady but trying to save every homeless cat is NOT the answer.

[Lee M-S]

Perhaps you're right; maybe TNR proponets actually see themselves as creating "terminator" cats programmed to defend the colony.

But that doesn't change my point; if there is enough food to feed 1000 cats, there will be 1000 cats. If you remove half of them, 500 more cats will appear; either through breeding or through incursions from cats outside the original colony. You would see an immediate reduction in the cat population, but it would eventually increase to the sustainable amount. Also, every sterilized cat will eventually die and be replaced by some other cat.

Sterilzation would only work if 100% of the cats are neutered/spayed, including "owned" cats so you don't get animals wandering off or being dumped. I don't think that is possible, and if you did that, cats would go extinct. I like cats, and would prefer to keep them around.

The dump attracts cats because of all the food thrown away there. I've heard people also feed cats there. Increasing the food supply just means more cats. Reducing the food supply would mean fewer cats. Weaker cats would starve; I understand that pregnant females actually absorb the fetuses back into their bodies when there isn't enough food, so they wouldn't necessarily die.

Intellectually, I think feeding is a bad idea. Emotionally, I think "Oh, those poor kitties are starving!" I see both viewpoints, and I don't want to take a side.

Like I said, I like cats. I have two (both neutered, and I will not get two males again, they fight like brothers). I would love to come up with a solution where every cat has a loving home, but I don't know what that is.

Anybody is welcome to disagree with my statements and opinions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MarkP
Why don't you think the idea is that the TNR-ed animals will fight off the strays from outside?
{snip}
You have essentially argued for not feeding. I am certain that TNR proponents would disagree.

---

><(((*> ~~~~ ><(("> ~~~~ ><'> ~~~~ >(>

[Oregon Woodsmoke]

TNR is only going to work if 100% of the females are spayed. If cats migrate in from other areas, that indicates that other areas are still full of unspayed females.

The big problem I can see with TNR, is that feral cats are a huge nuisance. So what if released cats keep new cats from entering the area? The local resident cats are still killing birds, crapping in vegetable gardens, climbing all over cars, screaming at night, and spaying horrid smelling urine on decks and doorways.

Remove them and remove the next cats that move in and figure out how to get rid of the neighboring cats so there are no more cats to move in.

Cats are lovely domestic animals and it is wonderful when people have very loved cats and keep them inside where they can't kill wildlife or annoy the neighbors. Loose feral cats are a plague on Hawaii. They are a murderous invasive species and should be eliminated, except for the cats that have a loving home and are not allowed to be a problem because they don't wander loose.