Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

General question: what about non-native animals introduced to Morth America that we now consider "normal," such as night crawlers, house mice, and honey bees?

Oh, and don't forget apple trees... Johnny Appleseed was an Eco-disaster in pants...

[anunitu]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Might mention snails..I was really surprised to learn that they are not native to NA,and in fact migrated from the east coast to the west coast in about 100 years(Garden snails) Pretty good for the pace of a snail.
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/...rden_snail.htm


Kinda interesting that they were imported to California for a food,but now are a major pest in farming...

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Might mention snails..I was really surprised to learn that they are not native to NA,and in fact migrated from the east coast to the west coast in about 100 years(Garden snails) Pretty good for the pace of a snail.

Also horses. They were introduced, quickly incorporated into the lives & culture of Native Americans to such an extent that attempts to remove feral horses from the environment have, at times, been viewed as direct attacks on N.A.s.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Do you advocate "humane" treatment of ALL invasive species, or just the cute ones? Cane toads, giant snails, rats, pigs, gobys, etc.?

All ones. Including spiders, snakes, toxic frogs. As "ugly" as they may be, they too deserve a chance to live - in some cases they are merely repopulating ancestral ground now lost to cities.

A few years ago (possibly last year, if I can find that link) there was a certain brazilian town that got invaded by huge spiders. They literally build a huge web over the town. There is no reason to kill an animal just because it is considered "scary" or "ugly". In fact some people consider those species fascinating (even beautiful - though I would never understand how a spider could be such thing I respect the belief) and I am sure if spiders do invade again they could lend a hand to relocate them. They are animals too after all, not monsters from outer space.

But take for example mosquitoes. They are an invasive with global reach - definitely a plague far greater in scope than cats or dogs. No matter how many you kill more will come, and my point is that they will continue to come because they thrive in the urban environment perfectly. Even an engineered plague will not kill all of them. The best - and most humane - solution is to re-check how our environment works and make sure mosquitoes have no places left to breed. The mosquito population will then drop naturally.

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

General question: what about non-native animals introduced to Morth America that we now consider "normal," such as night crawlers, house mice, and honey bees?

Oh, and don't forget apple trees... Johnny Appleseed was an Eco-disaster in pants...

Not all introduced species are ecologically damaging. There are a number of natrualized species that (more or less, when taken on average--individual ecosystems may vary) that fill an ecological niche that is not already occupied (no two species can occupy the same niche without one going extinct in that location...which is fine when it occurs as a result of evoultion, and tends to decrease biodiversity when its caused by people). Niches can overlap in some areas, but not entirely--when the edges overlap, both species tend to adapt over time by narrowing or shifting their niche in such a way that they minimize the overlap...the ecosystem as a whole sort reaches a new equilibrium. But...when a species completely obliterates the niche of other species, and overwhelms them, they ecosystem goes out of whack and there is no system of checks and balances to hem the species into a manageable level. I think most of us can agree that more biodiversity=good, less biodiversity=bad. Horses, in particular, are able to occupy the niche left open when white people massacared the buffalo (and on the outer banks islands of the Atlantic coast, where there was no such niche being filled).

Here in the 7 citites, in particular, (going back to the cats) we have lots of greenspace, lots of waterways, lots of riparian zones, lots of wetlands---even in the urban areas. Feral cats don't just mean less rats, mice, etc (one arguement I see for keeping them on occasion), they also mean less bunnies, shrews, and voles, less amphibians and small reptiles (predation), less owls and osprey and hawks and eagles and falcons (competition for those rats, mice, etc), they mean less insects (especially those native pollinators), and less birds in general (predation)--particulary shorebirds and songbirds. Their only predator is coyotes...and we don't have urban coyotes like some communities.

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

All ones. Including spiders, snakes, toxic frogs. As "ugly" as they may be, they too deserve a chance to live - in some cases they are merely repopulating ancestral ground now lost to cities.

If they are repopulating ancestral ground, they aren't an invasive species.

An invasive species is a NON-NATIVE, INTRODUCED species that threatens the population of NATIVE AND NATURALIZED species and reduces the biodiversity of the ecosystem.


What you are advocating is the reduction of biodiversity. While the numbers vary, outdoor cats kill billions of animals (about 70% by feral cats), most of which is native wildlife.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

If they are repopulating ancestral ground, they aren't an invasive species.

Except in cases where we would not consider that ground their "home" anymore. Like a human city. My intention was not to say "it is okay for them to return" but to say "we should do our best to find them a new home".

An invasive species is a NON-NATIVE, INTRODUCED species that threatens the population of NATIVE AND NATURALIZED species and reduces the biodiversity of the ecosystem.

That statement only holds true if we adhere to a static view of the ecosystem however - and human-affected ecosystems are rarely static. Changes when humans are involved are far more pervasive than simply "pollution and destruction".

What you are advocating is the reduction of biodiversity.

Not at all. What I am saying is the following: If you keep society as-is, more cats will take their place. Or dogs, or rabbits, or whatever pet comes en vogue and is then discarded. If you foster a throw-away culture (as a "kill them all" procedure does) you will only get more plagues in time. Thus all your efforts no matter how originally effective will have been in vain because no lasting change has been made and new plagues arrive.

While the numbers vary, outdoor cats kill billions of animals (about 70% by feral cats), most of which is native wildlife.

Surprisingly enough, according to some sources birds die more often to windows than to feral cats.

But that is beside the point. I am not saying feral cats are not a problem. I am saying you should aim at lasting change. Treating animals like objects no matter what they are is one of the reasons those animals end up becoming plagues in the first place: Because no one cares about them. Or more properly, because no one cares about the environment in which they themselves live in. Killing the cats is merely a quick answer to something bigger, not a solution to an actual problem. It is like patching a wound instead of treating it.

Teach people to stop treating pets as disposable objects and prevent people from getting pets if they are not going to treat them appropriatedly. Close down breeding centers, specially when we have so many of a certain animal. Then when neutered age will run it's course claiming the cats and nothing will replace them. Otherwise, it is a vicious cycle.

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Except in cases where we would not consider that ground their "home" anymore. Like a human city. My intention was not to say "it is okay for them to return" but to say "we should do our best to find them a new home".

Its still not an invasive species.

That statement only holds true if we adhere to a static view of the ecosystem however - and human-affected ecosystems are rarely static.

No, its just the very definition of what an invasive species is. You may not like the definition. You may not agree with it

Changes when humans are involved are far more pervasive than simply "pollution and destruction".

Of course they are. No one is saying it is not.

Not at all. What I am saying is the following: If you keep society as-is, more cats will take their place. Or dogs, or rabbits, or whatever pet comes en vogue and is then discarded. If you foster a throw-away culture (as a "kill them all" procedure does) you will only get more plagues in time. Thus all your efforts no matter how originally effective will have been in vain because no lasting change has been made and new plagues arrive.

Le sigh. No one is saying that we will ever be able to kill them all. Even if a new animals were never put on the street, you could never TNR all of them, the population would never go away. There would always be enough of a breeding population that escapes TNR, all you can hope to do is to slow it down for long enough for the native populations to adjust and adapt...and baring that, cat control becomes a permanent part of reconciliation ecology.

Surprisingly enough, according to some sources birds die more often to windows than to feral cats.

Birds are one only type of animal involved here (and there are things that can be done to windows to prevent this). And amphibians are more decimated by habitat loss and pesticide use. What is your point?

Your comment is like saying more pedestrians are hit by drivers using a cellphone than drivers that are drunk, so we shouldn't bother eliminating drunk driving.

But that is beside the point. I am not saying feral cats are not a problem. I am saying you should aim at lasting change.

You can have lasting change OR you can have an ecosystem that is always in flux, you can't have both.

By the way, I like the ecosystem that is relatively stable, but still in flux...not sure how much you know about disturbance regimes (usually talked about in the context of the role of fires in the ecosystem), but it comes down to there being a certain amount of stability AND a certain amount of change in the environment that actually makes it healthier (IE, supporting greater biodiversity).

Treating animals like objects no matter what they are is one of the reasons those animals end up becoming plagues in the first place: Because no one cares about them. Or more properly, because no one cares about the environment in which they themselves live in. Killing the cats is merely a quick answer to something bigger, not a solution to an actual problem. It is like patching a wound instead of treating it.

Teach people to stop treating pets as disposable objects and prevent people from getting pets if they are not going to treat them appropriatedly.

No one is saying this isn't the case.

Killing them is not a quick or easy answer. Its a pragmatic answer that people hate. But its the only one that makes sense given the magnitude of the problem.

And there really is no lasting answer to the problem of invasive species, other than to let it go and see what happens to the detriment of thousands of species...species that are already stressed because of all of the other problems having to do with what is ultimately one big problem of habitat degradation.

Close down breeding centers, specially when we have so many of a certain animal.

I'm okay with this ...but its not the solution either. In addition, I think cats should have leash laws just like dogs do. And I support spay/neuter legislation.

Then when neutered age will run it's course claiming the cats and nothing will replace them. Otherwise, it is a vicious cycle.

Its a vicious cycle anyhow because your solution is never going to happen...its not realistic. Idealism is great, except when it gets in the way of actually achieving results. Meanwhile, feral cats will keep having crappy short lives and devastating the ecosystem while we wait for people to become responsible....




By the way, I like animals. I believe in being a responsible pet owner. But I also live in an area with a huge feral cat problem and robust TNR programs, (and very active no-kill shelters that seek to rehome feral kitties after intense socialization...which doesn't always work) They don't work...not just because people dump new cats, but because you can't catch them all. These cats have no natural predators, their only natural predator is us, when we do the responsible thing.

[Kiesha'ra]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Ok, not getting into this tiff about invasive or non invasive but just posting my opinion as someone who lives on a farm and has delt with feral cats for years to answer the OP.

I agree with catch and release. Spay and neuter then release... On one condition. Euthanize the sick, injured and FIV/Feluek positive cats. Not all ferals are worth saving nor are their litters. We have two resident barn cats that keeps pests out of the stables but there have been many strays that wander in for a warm shelter and free food. Those we catch fix and release if healthy. We have them tested for common virals, if positive we put them down, even full litters of kittens if positive for FIV or Feleuk. Our two barn cats are fixed and vaccinated, and when given the chance are serial human eaters if not sedated at the vet but perfect angels in the stable. That is the line we personally have drawn to be humane but objective to the stray feline populace.

[NeoPlatonic]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Its still not an invasive species.



No, its just the very definition of what an invasive species is. You may not like the definition. You may not agree with it.

Semantics. My point is that humans would not co-habitate with those animals. They would consider them a nuisance and many would seek to exterminate them. The fact that those animals "were there first" or "were introduced" is irrelevant to how you treat them - killing them is still killing them, and a throwaway culture fostes killing and dumping of all kinds of animals not just domestic ones.

Le sigh. No one is saying that we will ever be able to kill them all. Even if a new animals were never put on the street, you could never TNR all of them, the population would never go away. There would always be enough of a breeding population that escapes TNR, all you can hope to do is to slow it down for long enough for the native populations to adjust and adapt...and baring that, cat control becomes a permanent part of reconciliation ecology.

Actually, it is definitely possible to eliminate a certain population of animal. I may not have studies in biology, but history shows us that when a focused effort is made to remove a certain animal from a certain place, more often than not it succeeds.

Would it be costly? Perhaps. But it would be worth it. My point is simply that if the effort can be made to kill all cats, then the same could be done to neutering and spraying them while spreading information about the problem

Birds are one only type of animal involved here (and there are things that can be done to windows to prevent this). And amphibians are more decimated by habitat loss and pesticide use. What is your point?

Your comment is like saying more pedestrians are hit by drivers using a cellphone than drivers that are drunk, so we shouldn't bother eliminating drunk driving.

Actually, my point is that numbers themselves are irrelevant. Cats kill less birds than windows, so if we follow this logic of "kill them all" windows are higher on the priority list than cats as far as birds are concerned, so we ought to break all windows first.

Or, we could follow the smarter choice and take steps to reduce bird mortality. And we could take the smarter choice of education, capture and prevention versus simply killing the cats.

You can have lasting change OR you can have an ecosystem that is always in flux, you can't have both.

By the way, I like the ecosystem that is relatively stable, but still in flux...not sure how much you know about disturbance regimes (usually talked about in the context of the role of fires in the ecosystem), but it comes down to there being a certain amount of stability AND a certain amount of change in the environment that actually makes it healthier (IE, supporting greater biodiversity).

That is nice and all but it is missing my point. What I am aiming at is "keeping nature out and keeping domestic creatures in". We should not let creatures adapted to natural environments to wander into urban zones because it is to their detriment. And we should not let domestic animals out in the wild because it is to the detriment of the environment (and the animals themselves too).

But these things have already happened. We have wild animals into urban zones and we have domestic animals turned feral. My point is, there is always a better method of handling the problem than simply cutting the head off the things that move.

Killing them is not a quick or easy answer. Its a pragmatic answer that people hate. But its the only one that makes sense given the magnitude of the problem.

Except the same logic applied to killing is the same applied to capture. In fact, even resources used are almost the same. Stray and feral cats would be captured and then euthanized, and even if you legalize shooting cats only one or two people will actually do it. Shooting will not make a difference and the killing rate is the same as the capture rate.

And there really is no lasting answer to the problem of invasive species, other than to let it go and see what happens to the detriment of thousands of species...species that are already stressed because of all of the other problems having to do with what is ultimately one big problem of habitat degradation.

There is a difference between "letting go" and "letting go after sprayed, neutered, and the human population is informed". The later will gradually result in a decline of the cat population, so even if their presence is negative it would not be permanent.

I'm okay with this ...but its not the solution either. In addition, I think cats should have leash laws just like dogs do. And I support spay/neuter legislation.

I agree. But it is definitely a step in the right direction which if combined with other steps would provide good results.

Its a vicious cycle anyhow because your solution is never going to happen...its not realistic. Idealism is great, except when it gets in the way of actually achieving results. Meanwhile, feral cats will keep having crappy short lives and devastating the ecosystem while we wait for people to become responsible....

Well, killing them without teaching people anything will not achieve results either. Someone will come by, dump a litter of dogs, and then in few years you will have a dog plague. Or if you just use current resources you will have not enough people killing the cats.

By the way, I like animals. I believe in being a responsible pet owner. But I also live in an area with a huge feral cat problem and robust TNR programs, (and very active no-kill shelters that seek to rehome feral kitties after intense socialization...which doesn't always work) They don't work...not just because people dump new cats, but because you can't catch them all. These cats have no natural predators, their only natural predator is us, when we do the responsible thing.

I am not saying the current methods are perfect. What I am saying is that if we can muster the manpower and assets to eradicate an entire population, the same resources could be mustered for a more humane reason. It is definitely doable as money is not a problem for governments (I am certain by now this is an issue that local authorities should involve themselves in or even higher ones) and there is no lack of manpower either.

I should clarify do not believe in idealistic solutions - that would be more along the lines of "finding a home for all feral cats". What I am saying is that if all shelters in your area switched to a kill method it still would not solve the issue because they would still be attacking a symptom, not the disease itself.

What I believe in is in comprehensive solutions. The answer to the problem should be complete in scope, as should it's outcome. Otherwise you will never achieve any effective results, regardless of the chosen method.

[thalassa]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

I agree with catch and release. Spay and neuter then release... On one condition. Euthanize the sick, injured and FIV/Feluek positive cats. Not all ferals are worth saving nor are their litters. We have two resident barn cats that keeps pests out of the stables but there have been many strays that wander in for a warm shelter and free food. Those we catch fix and release if healthy. We have them tested for common virals, if positive we put them down, even full litters of kittens if positive for FIV or Feleuk. Our two barn cats are fixed and vaccinated, and when given the chance are serial human eaters if not sedated at the vet but perfect angels in the stable. That is the line we personally have drawn to be humane but objective to the stray feline populace.

The thing is, Rae'ya is right--in some areas TNR works. In other areas, it does not. I live in one of the areas where it does not work. In places where it does not work, they need to be killed.

[Willow]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

I love cats, I could never harm one.

That being said, I would much rather see a cat be humanely euthanized than watch it die slowly from starvation when there are too many predators and not a big enough food supply.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

I think it depends on the area. In sensitive ecosystems with a lot of local species under protection, kill might be the best solution.

However, in places like Berlin, local wildlife is pretty minimal and the biggest animal populations seem to be in the rat/mouse/pigeon category. Keeping feral cats around actually helps control these pests, and I suspect this is the case for a lot of Europe (it's why we first started keeping cats in the first place!) In Berlin's case, I'd say neither neuter nor kill, as there aren't all that many feral cats running around and there are a LOT of rats and pigeons.

EDIT: in less urban areas than here (again, it is a BIG city, wildlife is minimal) I'd say at least neuter, because one of the biggest issues with outdoor cats here is that they interbreed with European wildcats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wildcat), which helps to further push down their numbers. There are also a lot of threatened bird species in this part of the world and more outdoor cats don't really help their numbers.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, due to the wildcat issue, kill efforts near forested areas need to be done very, very carefully. People often kill feral cats themselves, but wildcats look really similar to regular cats, so I don't think population control should be left to the public. It's also important not to use poisoned bait or anything like that, as wildcats will go after the same food as feral cats will. Trapping and neutering feral cats in these areas is probably easier and safer than killing them.

[Serria]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

My state's Animal Rescue League has certain times of the year where they will capture a couple hundred feral cats, spay or neuter them, and then rerelease them.

[Watchful Wanderer]

Re: Feral cats. Neuter or kill?

Surely there are more ethical ways of sterilization than neutering and spaying, such as vasectomies and tubal ligation. But until our species undergoes a mass sterilization to lower our population and until we stop our urban expansionism, we probably shouldn't be one to talk of deciding who lives or dies, or who reproduces or not. After all, humans are invasive species ourselves.

Sorry if this may seem harsh, but its necessary at the end of the day, we have to be consistent.