TulsaPets Magazine March 2021

16 TulsaPets • March/April 2021 Outdoor feeding promotes the artificial concentration of wildlife, such as skunks, raccoons, rats and opossums, to share food with the unowned cats and in doing so share their feces, saliva and possibly blood—a situation that can lead to the transmission of diseases among animals and eventually humans. Cat colonies are nearly impossible to close out and end up existing perpetually as feeding draws in more cats, and knowledge of the colony leads to thoughtless abandonment of cats unwant- ed by their owners. Population demographic modeling studies suggest that 71 to 94% (at a minimum) of cats need to be sterilized to reduce populations, a percentage that cannot be achieved in large areas, such as cities the size of Tulsa and surrounding communities. Due to prolific reproduction, just one unsterilized cat can result in hundreds upon hundreds of kittens. The well-meaning efforts of TNR proponents end up perpetuating a failed approach that compounds the overpopulation of unowned cats. We need to be realistic about the fact that TNR is only a finger in the dike. It unfortunately gives the false impression that it helps resolve the problem of overpopulation and that these animals have good, quality lives while not addressing TNR-caused problems. Some argue cats control snakes and rodents. Scientific study shows that cats do not control rats but do exact a devastating toll on our other local native wildlife. Studies show that outdoor cats primarily kill small birds, amphibians and young rabbits. Research studies show that outdoor cats kill well over 1 billion native birds a year in the United States alone and are a major factor in the cause of bird extinctions world- wide. Touting a non-native predator as a control factor for wildlife is irresponsible. How do TNR advocates reconcile their argument that these non-native predators take precedence over wildlife to the neighbor across the street who has planted their property to benefit and attract native birds and other wildlife? It’s time to reconsider an approach that isn’t working and causes harm. An approach that results in cats left with- out treatment when they are seriously ill, have painful diseases or other health issues common to cats, is not in the best welfare interest of the cats. An approach that leaves cats to roam and risk death by vehicle trauma, predation and poison- ing where they suffer terribly and die violently, is not in their best interest. An approach that is proven to result in greater animal abandonment is not a solution to the problem of unowned cats. An approach that disregards the lives of native birds and small wildlife is not a solution to the unowned cat problem. An approach that disregards human health risks of cats that carry disease defecating and urinating in children’s sandboxes, play areas and flower beds is not a solution to the unowned cat problem. An approach that invites discord among neighbors who actively plant their properties to benefit and attract native birds and other wildlife is not a solution to the unowned cat problem. An approach that results in attracting skunks, raccoons, rats and opossums to feeding areas to swap diseases amongst themselves and unowned cat colonies is not a solution. There are better approaches to unowned cat management that do not have such a wide range of negative consequences and that actually are effective in reducing populations. This starts with a widespread education campaign to help the public understand responsible pet manage- ment, being honest about the harsh realities of TNR and supporting preferable truly humane alternative solutions. These include increased adoption efforts and promotion of enclosed cat sanctuaries, “catios” and other enclosures where cats are safe and can be monitored for disease or illness. These approaches keep native birds and wildlife safe from the natural predatory instincts of feral cats, and, importantly, do not put human health at risk. Lastly, existing spay/neuter and pet-roam- ing ordinances need to be enforced, with real consequences in the nature of fines for citizens who violate these ordinances. Just some of the ways unowned cat populations are “controlled”—predation and vehicular trauma. An unowned, semi-feral cat’s life often ends violently, illustrating that methods like TNR, which keep cats outdoors, are not good for animal welfare. Selected references for further reading: • American Bird Conservancy (2019). The evidence against trap, neuter, release. www.abcbirds.org • Schmidt, P. M., Swannack,T. M., Lopez, R. P., Slater, M. R., (2009). Evaluation of euthanasia and trap-neuter-return programs in managing free-roaming cat populations. Wildlife Research 36, 117-125. • Levy, J. K., Crawford, P. C., (2004). Humane strat- egies for controlling feral cat populations. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAVMA) 225, 1354-1360. • Foley, P., Foley, J. E., Levy, J. K., Paik,T., (2005) Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return programs on the populations of feral cats. JAVMA 227, 1775-1781. • Levy, J. k., Gale, D.W., Gale, L. A., (2003) Evalua- tion of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-re- turn and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. JAVMA 222, 42-46. • Frey, N., (2015) Stray cats in your neighborhood. Utah State University Extension , Featured Animal September 2015 • Longcore,T., Rich, C., Sullivan, L. M., (2009) Criti- cal assessment of claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return. Conservation Biology 23(4), 887-894 • Winter, L., (2004)Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts. JAVMA 225, 1369-1376. • Roebling, A. D., Johnson, D., Blanton, J. D., Levin, M., Slate, D., Fenwick, G., Rupprecht, C. E., (2014) Rabies prevention management of cats in con- text of trap, neuter, vaccinate, release programs. Zoonoses Public Health 61(4), 290-296. • Dabritz, H. A., Atwill, R., Gardner, I. A., Miller, M. A., Conrad, P. A., (2006) Outdoor fecal deposition by freeroaming cats and attitudes of cat owners and nonowners toward stray pets, wildlife, and water pollution. JAVMA 229, 74-81 • Wallace, G., Ellis, J., (2003) Impacts of feral and free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife in Florida. Issue Assessment-Florida Fish andWildlife Conservation Commission. • Doherty,T. S., Glen, A. S., Nimmo, D. G., Ritchie, E. G., Dickman, C. R., (2016) Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (40), 11261-11265 • Loss, S. R.,Will,T., Marra, P. P., (2013)The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2380 • Jessup, D. A., (2004)The welfare of feral cats and wildlife. JAVMA 225 (9), 1377-1383 • Nachminovitch, D., (2017)TNR is dangerous both to cats and to other animals. Voices for Wildlife , March 8, 2017