Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Wild cats are a separate specie I think..Here in the east coast

Feral cats are members of the species F. catus. They were domesticated from either the European, Middle Eastern*, or African Wildcat (if you go by genetics, its probably the Middle Eastern Wildcat, if you go by morphology, European, if you go by development, African---in the old classification system)...current thinking trends towards Middle Eastern, but it used to be a African or European toss-up. The earliest indications of domestication date back about 9500 years from excavations at Cyprus, but (based on genetics) 12,000 years is also in contention. Either way, where dogs had a reason for being domesticated before farming, cats were domesticated because of farming. Something had to keep the rats out of the grain.


It used to be (when I specifically studied wild cats in an internship during my pre-Navy undergrad career) that the wildcat** was divided into three species--Felis lybica (African Wildcat), F. sylvestris and F. sylvestris sylvestris (the Middle Eastern Wildcat and its sub-species the European Wildcat), and F. bieti (Chinese or Asian Wildcat or Mountain Cat, depending on source), which were all divided into a number of subspecies...this division was on the basis of morphology and lifestyle/location. It was thought that these three species were descended from a common ancestor of F. margarita (Sand Cat) around the same time, but with F. biete branching off first, F. lybica next, and F. sylvestris branching off the ancestor of F. lybica (though this was always a fairly contentious limb of the Felid family tree).

Due to genetics and further palentological studies, this has shifted a bit...and it is still contentious--and how its divied up depends on the source. Felis sylvestris is the name of the wildcat species, with the exception of F. bieti (though some scientists do put it there as F. sylvestris bieti). It has 5 subspecies (per the IUCN)--F. sylvestris sylvestris (European wildcat), F. sylvestris lybica (African wildcat), F. sylvestris cafra (S. African wildcat), F. sylvestris ornata (Asian wildcat), and F. sylvestris bieti (Chinese mountain cat (or desert cat)) (see pic). Some sources still use the old idea though.



to explain, Clade I represents F. s. sylvestris, Clade 2 is F. s. cafra, Clade 3 is F. s. ornata, Clade 4 is F. s. lybica, Clade 5 is F. s. bieti (or F. biete), and Clade 6 is F. margarita... The pie charts represent the type of mitochondrial DNA. The funky thing going on in GB is possibly due to hybridization of feral cats in the wildcat population.



*The F. sylvestris=Middle Eastern wildcat idea has largely gone away due to genetic studies
**wild cat=any of the 41 (give or take a few for scientific disagreement) non-domesticated species in the family Felidae vs wildcat=specific grouping of feli

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Freeloaders? I find this really ironic coming from homosapians, the dead weight of the animal kingdom who either rarely amounts to anything good anymore and mostly nothing at all aside from bastardizing everything and everyone around them. Think on that, if you will.

I've thought on it, and decided that I disagree. I just can't enjoy self loathing as much as would be required.

Have a nice day.

[Bjorn]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

This seems like a pretty simple answer to me: if anything is a pest, kill it. I love cats. I don't want anything to happen to them, but as soon as a species of anything starts to threaten the preservation of an ecosystem or a permaculture, it's time for them to go.

We exterminate bugs that are pests and don't feel remorse. We exterminate people without much thought (I mean 'we' as a human species, not a cultural identity). Get ridda the cats that are ruining stuff.

Of course, we could always offer Feline Planned Parenthood to help keep stray and feral populations down in the first place, but I'll bet someone is already trying to defund that. :P

[Watchful Wanderer]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Hmmm,wondering where the angry came from there...fun is fun,but when someone gets an eye pokes out....well done..

Because of my difference of opinion, mostly(or rather, because I am not agreeing with everyone.)

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Discernment and decision making require the ability to acknowledge and overcome one's biases while assessing information and its biases. Otherwise its just wind whistling between flapping meat.

[Gleb]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Cats are awesome. Feral or not. If they become aggressive then I'm afraid there is no choice, unless there is a way to cure them. But as long as they don't touch anyone, I say keep them. So far they didn't hurt anyone.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Feral cats in my new digs are a real problem. They are decimating the wild bird population, killing endangered and at risk populations of mammals and removing the food sources of the snakes in the area.
I am not fond of the rattlesnakes but the Black snakes and the King snakes that keep the rattlesnake population under control are a big deal. My location is mostly farmland and the migratory birds use the land and water sources for breeding. The feral cats kill almost 80% of the hatchings according to the state game department and the WSU study. There is no niche in this area for them to fill that won't destroy the natural wildlife that is native to the area.
Poisoning is out of the question because it would affect the entire upper food chain. Live traps are used but they become ineffectual in short order. (cats get wise to the traps and teach their off-spring to avoid them)
i don't have any alternative other than killing them. I haven't been affected by feral cats and I haven't killed any but I know that some of the farmers have had problems with cats and their chickens. These feral cats are not your "house cat" in any way. They are opportunistic predators that prey on animals that have little defense against them. Feral cats are not cute and cuddly and it is very difficult to domesticate them. I have a friend that has tried several times to domesticate feral cats and although she has had some success with the kittens (after two years of indoctrination) the adults are wild animals who want nothing to do with people. We can't just let them breed and destroy the ecosystem. They must be removed to protect what is established. I know the fault lies with the people who dump their unwanted pets out in the country rather than take them to a facility that can place them in another home. Ideally we should stop the people and then remove the feral cats. There is no way to track the people or the cats. So what alternatives do we have?

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Ideally we should stop the people and then remove the feral cats. There is no way to track the people or the cats. So what alternatives do we have?

If you do cannot do both of those then you are doomed to have a cat problem. Killing them is just an easier way when compared to neutering, but it is definitely not going to solve anything by itself.

Problems like these require either coordinated and dedicated efforts or plagues. And plagues more often than not end up being a tremendous danger not just for their intended target but for everyone else.

[Watchful Wanderer]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Or, you know, the proper way - tranquilizing them and relocating them. Or are people really too lazy for that?

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

The problem with that is that cats are neither going to stay in just one place nor will they stop procreating. If you let things as they are now but relocate cats you will just move them from Place A to B.

Neuterizing them and taking additional steps (such as educating the population) hits the problem simultaneously through multiple fronts, gradually reducing cat population in an humane way without bloodshed and ensuring people do not bring in or release more cats to the wild.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Watchful Wanderer,
Where would they be relocated to? Where can you put a species that procreates fast (invasive) and feeds on the same food sources as the wild animals that have an established ecosystem in place.
No matter where you put them they are going to wreak havoc on local population by devastating population or devastating the food supply of other established predators.
There is no place on earth that is native to feral cats. It would be expensive and cruel to send them to Venus or Mars.

[Shahaku]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Or, you know, the proper way - tranquilizing them and relocating them. Or are people really too lazy for that?

We are talking about a feral cat population. They don't have a native homeland to be relocated to. Their relocation would be to shelters, the vast majority of whom are kill shelters that will put down all ferals and the majority of friendlies. Is not uncommon for them to put down entire litters of babies. And the cats that are in shelters can't find homes because there just isn't room because their population is even more out of control than the dog population is.

Once a species is domesticated it no longer belongs a niche in the environment that isn't created by humans. Feral cats are from domesticated cats that have been abandoned and have become wild. That doesn't mean they aren't a domesticated species anymore. It only means that they don't have the necessary socialization to learn how to interact with people.

You can't retain feral cats. Some people are lucky enough to be able to build a little trust and are okay with putting up with their bad habits, but that doesn't make them tame. So they never make good pets for your average family which makes them virtually unadoptable.

It's not an easy problem, and the soft hearted don't want to face the reality of the situation. But they, like many domesticated species are out of control in the wild and we need to deal with that in a substantial way.

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

If you love animals--ALL animals--and value biodiversity and ecosystem health, sometimes you have to make the shitty, hard choice. You shoot the feral pig, you dig up the garlic mustard, you wring the starlings neck. Over, and over and over. And over again. And while you are at it, you turn your yard into wildlife habitat, you stop using pesticides, you plant native plants, you stop buying disposable plastics, you advocate that they reroute that highway going through the local wetlands, you write your elected representatives when they reduce regulations or fail to fund the agencies that try to reduce the human impact on the environment (even though they aren't perfect), you buy things that are made from "natural" products or are recycled, you call customer service lines and tell them how disappointed you were on the amount of packaging in that thing you bought (or how glad you are when they eliminate it), you pick up trash you find at the beach, you volunteer with the organization that plants sea grass, and you donate whatever you can afford to the people that lobby on your behalf. Because the alternative is that you accept the status quo. Or you reject everything in favor of some ridiculously lofty ideal that will never, never be met...and in doing so you functionally accept the status quo.

Or, you know, the proper way - tranquilizing them and relocating them. Or are people really too lazy for that?

This:

Where would they be relocated to?
There is no place on earth that is native to feral cats. It would be expensive and cruel to send them to Venus or Mars.

WW, feral cats are DOMESTICATED cats. Feral cats are not There is no native ecosystem for them.

The problem with that is that cats are neither going to stay in just one place nor will they stop procreating. If you let things as they are now but relocate cats you will just move them from Place A to B.

Neuterizing them and taking additional steps (such as educating the population) hits the problem simultaneously through multiple fronts, gradually reducing cat population in an humane way without bloodshed and ensuring people do not bring in or release more cats to the wild.

Even if people never released more cats into the wild, unfixed cats would be able to hide more easily among the neutered cats. You have the same problems with TNR that you do with killing them. Its a numbers game. TNR does not reduce the numbers in cat colonies. I have a coworker that traps cats for TNR in a landfill colony...she's been doing it for years...its a small colony that is easily managed, mostly because they die fast in the landfill and because she's been able to get to most of the kittens soon enough to rehab them and find them a home, and fix the older ones. In some areas (Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa), where wildcat species are native (except for the problem of hybridization, which is a danger to the wildcat populations), feral cats likely have less of an impact on native wildlife...or in areas like the landfill where there's not much native wildlife to worry about (save the odd scavenger).

But there's a colony in the dunes on one of the beaches that has about 100-200 cats (there's a similar one on a local naval base). People see cats there, so they dump them. And people see cats there, so they feel bad for them, and feed them. Meanwhile, the cats kill shorebirds, crabs, shrews...and we are talking a protected environment in the case of the dunes. You can't go into the dunes to trap the cats, and there are always cats that are canny in escaping being trapped. They remain a breeding reservoir. For TNR to work, it needs to achieve a percentage (estimates vary between 70 and 80, even as high as 90% of breeding age females being fixed) that is similar in purpose to maintaining herd immunity for vaccination.

Yes, the better answer is that no one dumps a cat (or dog). Yes, the better answer is that we find all the feral kitties before they turn too old to realistically rehabilitate and find a new home. Yes, the better answer is that everyone fixes their cats. Yes, the better answer is that we establish feral feline refuges where they live in some cat jungle gym with no access to the outdoor ecosystems. Yes, there are better answers... But on a big scale, a millions of cats scale, they are unrealistic. And in the mean time, being "humane" to cats is being inhumane to other wildlife...and to the cats, who are more likely to die of disease, starvation or malnutrition, injury and infection, etc than not.

[Medusa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Or, you know, the proper way - tranquilizing them and relocating them. Or are people really too lazy for that?

This attitude is why you are getting the heat. It's not your opinion. You just have a real ugly way of just insulting people who don't think like you.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Or you reject everything in favor of some ridiculously lofty ideal that will never, never be met...and in doing so you functionally accept the status quo.

And here lies the problem with your argument: Individual actions never amount to lasting change, but collective actions do. Even if you did everything you said you would not make things better because by and large everyone else would be doing as usual so the end result would be the same.

Lasting change requires effort, and this applies to pretty much anything not just cat overpopulation. Going "green" when no-one else does just means that you are making sacrifices at your own expense for no gain at all. In fact, it can be argued even that it is an spectacular back-fire due to the fact that you just made more resources available for those who consume mindlessly who will do just that.

Even if people never released more cats into the wild, unfixed cats would be able to hide more easily among the neutered cats.

That assumes, of course, that checking whatever a cat is neutered or spayed is not possible when in fact it is quite easy to do. There are also many means to track and observe populations if needed which could also be used to monitor the state of local wildlife as well.

You have the same problems with TNR that you do with killing them. Its a numbers game.

And I never said it was not.

TNR does not reduce the numbers in cat colonies. I have a coworker that traps cats for TNR in a landfill colony...she's been doing it for years...its a small colony that is easily managed, mostly because they die fast in the landfill and because she's been able to get to most of the kittens soon enough to rehab them and find them a home, and fix the older ones. In some areas (Europe, Asia, the Middle East, Africa), where wildcat species are native (except for the problem of hybridization, which is a danger to the wildcat populations), feral cats likely have less of an impact on native wildlife...or in areas like the landfill where there's not much native wildlife to worry about (save the odd scavenger).

But there's a colony in the dunes on one of the beaches that has about 100-200 cats (there's a similar one on a local naval base). People see cats there, so they dump them. And people see cats there, so they feel bad for them, and feed them. Meanwhile, the cats kill shorebirds, crabs, shrews...and we are talking a protected environment in the case of the dunes. You can't go into the dunes to trap the cats, and there are always cats that are canny in escaping being trapped. They remain a breeding reservoir. For TNR to work, it needs to achieve a percentage (estimates vary between 70 and 80, even as high as 90% of breeding age females being fixed) that is similar in purpose to maintaining herd immunity for vaccination.

Your first paragraph mentions an individual effort. It does nothing to eradicate the colony because it is just one person. If a group went in and neutered and spayed all cats then the colony would die off in a few years. The environment would perhaps contribute to it, but fact is that without breeding they would be no more given time.

The second issue would require a large group of people to solve. The problem lies in that such an effort will likely not take place (at least not anytime soon), not that such a solution is impossible.

And in the mean time, being "humane" to cats is being inhumane to other wildlife...and to the cats, who are more likely to die of disease, starvation or malnutrition, injury and infection, etc than not.

If local wildlife is dying to cats and you simply kill some cats, chances are more are likely to take their place. And the wildlife will still die to the cats you cannot kill as well. You mentioned before that cats are cunning; well, the same applies to killing methods. If a cat falls before a shotgun, the others will learn from it. If a cat falls before poisoned food, others will learn from it too. Unless you are the Cat-Terminator and go on a localized massacre and kill every and each one of the cats somehow that idea is just as unfeasible as any other because only a handful of people will do it versus the vast majority. If your argument against multiple-layered solutions is that no-one will do them, then the same applies for single-layer solutions. I know it is nice to think "I'm doing my part!". But if only two or three people are doing their part, then it is as if no-one did.




On regards to ethics, the reason neutering and spaying is more humane is simple because it causes less suffering and is actually viable in the long term when coupled with other measures. Yes, the cats can still die naturally. Yes, they are still going to be a problem on the short term. It is the long term you should aim at: The end of the plague. Wildlife will gradually recover as cats gradually die off and everyone is happy. But all of this requires a concentrated effort, in fact even the killing solution requires a concentrated effort. The cats are going to die off anyways, it is just a matter of how. My opinion is just that if we are doing a concentrated effort, I prefer the more peaceful path.