|
June 19 editorial "Pussyfootin' around feral cats" |
|
|
|
|
Written by Albert G. Nigrin
|
|
Tuesday, 26 June 2007 |
Published in Home News & Tribune - Central Jersey
Click here for link to published letter
I found the June 19 editorial "Pussyfootin' around feral cats" to be inaccurate, absurd and mean-spirited.
A trap-neuter-return, or TNR, program is the most effective way to help reduce the number of homeless feral cats in both urban and suburban areas. This, in turn, reduces the threat of rabies or any other communicable diseases to humans.
TNR is the process of trapping feral cats in humane traps, having them altered and vaccinated and returning them to their original location. In a TNR program, a feral-cat-colony caretaker, who is usually a volunteer rescue worker, feeds the cats on a regular basis and brings the cats to a veterinarian if they require medical assistance. The resultant group of cats, including any new cats entering the caretaker's sphere, is known as a managed feral cat colony.
Some locales have passed, or are trying to pass, ordinances that will cause the suffering and death of homeless cats by eradicating TNR.
According to officials in Hamilton, township health department statistics show that TNR has helped reduce the number of homeless cats killed. In 2002, the number killed was less than 20 percent of the 571 cats put to death in 1997. Numbers also indicate that fewer strays are brought to the shelter each year. Township spokesperson Rich McClellan attributed the decreasing number of cats killed in shelters to the work of TNR caregivers.
Gwyn Sondike, who served on a state task force to examine animal welfare, stated a few years ago, "It's actually more expensive to have animal-control officers go out and find these cats and have them euthanized than it is to have members of these (cat welfare) groups trap, neuter and release them."
According to Lucinda Tucker, who operates the TNR plan in Hamilton, trapping and killing a cat can cost a township between $75 and $125, while TNR costs about $50 and is paid for by volunteer organizations.
Traditional, agency-run attempts to trap and kill cats have historically resulted in greater numbers — and greater suffering for that reason alone — of stray animals, than have well-planned systems to trap, neuter, and return cats. TNR, in conjunction with public education and low-cost spay/neuter clinics, stabilizes numbers and facilitates the eventual elimination of colonies of homeless cats. Moreover, there is great public resistance to the killing of homeless animals. Compassionate people actively interfere with efforts to harm cats. Costly trap-and-kill attempts cannot work without public support.
It is acknowledged that outdoor cats do occasionally kill birds and other wildlife, but the main cause of this decline in birds is habitat loss, which is caused by humans, not cats. National Geographic News reports that the declining bird populations reflect growing threats to many bird species resulting from habitat loss and fragmentation caused by development and other human activities. Moreover, conservation groups and government biologists estimate that communications towers kill from 4 million to 50 million birds a year — and at least 50 species are threatened or endangered by towers. And a 2005 study predicts that reducing cat populations would actually cause more harm to birds due to a resulting increase in rat populations.
A Columbia University study found that reducing cats' effect on the ecosystem may actually have a negative impact upon some native species. The study also recommended that we confront the cat population problem with a combination of methods: "Enlist the trap-neuter-return style of feral management and combine it with incentives for owners to sterilize their pet cats."
Wildlife biologist Roger Tabor, who is considered by his peers to be one of the world's leading experts on cats and has studied feral cats for more than 30 years, is quoted as saying: "The clear leading animal that's really putting wildlife at risk is the human population. We just don't like to acknowledge that it is our fault. It's not a case of the cat being the worst offender. It isn't even remotely the worst offender. It's us."
A study conducted by Stanford University's Department of Environmental Health and Safety, or EHS, found virtually no risk to humans from feral cats and diseases associated with cats. EHS also concluded, after consultation with the Santa Clara County Health Department and Stanford's Department of Comparative Medicine, that there was a general consensus that feral cats pose virtually no health and safety risk to individuals. |
|
Last Updated ( Saturday, 28 July 2007 )
|
