Have you registered yet for Best Friends’ No More Homeless Pets National Conference? Vox Felina readers can save an additional $25 off the early-bird rate of $275!

Simply visit the conference website, and click on “Register Now.” When asked for payment information, enter the discount code “Wolf.”

Among this year’s speakers are Becky Robinson, co-founder and president of Alley Cat Allies, Christi Metropole, founder and executive director of Stray Cat Alliance, and Ellen Jefferson, executive director of Austin Pets Alive!.

Oh, and yours truly.

Laura Nirenberg, legislative analyst for Best Friends’ Cat Initiatives, and I will be presenting Taking It to the Street (Cats): Grassroots Advocacy for Community Cats Sunday morning.

Hope to see you there!

When: October 25–28, 2012
Where: Rio All-Suites Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas
Cost: $275 early-bird rate ($325 after September 19)

For updates and additional information, check out the conference Facebook page. Questions? conferences@bestfriends.org.

Dead cats pose a threat to our national bird.

That’s the kind of headline I expected to see coming out of the American Bird Conservancy or The Wildlife Society last week, following the resolution of a Department of Justice investigation into the near-fatal poisoning of eight bald eagles last year in Wisconsin.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the raptors, which were rehabilitated last spring by the Raptor Education Group, “had been feeding on cats euthanized by the Vilas County Humane Society. The pentobarbital that killed the cats quickly ravaged the eagles.” [1]

Jennifer Primich, director of the Humane Society of Vilas County, apparently failed to notify operators of a local dump of the “delivery.” Rules put in place following a similar incident 10 years ago require that animals put down by HSVC be buried at the dump.

Primich, explains Journal Sentinel reporter John Diedrich, “will be required to perform community outreach over the next year. She must speak to shelters about properly disposing of euthanized animals. It is not a criminal matter. If Primich performs the service, she will have no record.” [1]

It’s not like ABC or TWS to overlook an opportunity to further vilify cats. (Both jumped on the news, reported in April, that coyotes had been spotted in Lower Manhattan. ABC used the opportunity to grossly misrepresent results of a 2005–06 study, claiming (falsely) “that outdoor cats make up 13-45 percent of coyote diets.”)

That both ABC and TWS chose to pass on this one (so far, anyhow) has, I suspect, little to do with the fact that the cats in question were in no way responsible for the eagles’ poisoning. Such details seldom factor into their media communications.

Then again, I don’t imagine either organization is eager to bring up the topic of secondary poisoning—a risk that’s bound to increase significantly if they have their way and tens of millions of cats are euthanized killed across the country.

Literature Cited
1. Diedrich, J. (2012, May 7). Bald eagles recover from eating euthanized cats. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, from http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/bald-eagles-recover-from-eating-euthanized-cats-ns5ah7v-150542725.html

If you’re in the Phoenix area, please join me on Thursday, May 17th when Cat Daddy Jackson Galaxy will be here for two special events promoting his new book Cat Daddy: What the World’s Most Incorrigible Cat Taught Me About Life, Love and Coming Clean.

Lunch with Jackson: Special Fundraiser for Spay/Neuter Hotline’s TNR Program
Duck & Decanter (1651 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix, AZ) is hosting a lunch (vegetarian and vegan options) from noon until 2:00 pm. Tickets are $50 per person (includes lunch and a copy of Cat Daddy). The event will be held in a private area and limited to just 60 attendees. Jackson will be signing books and greeting guests.

Jackson is a huge supporter of TNR, and was impressed by how many other supporters he met during his February visit. So, a portion of each ticket sale will be donated to the Spay/Neuter Hotline’s TNR program. Last year, this program—one of the largest in the country—sterilized more than 10,000 community cats, and it’s on track for 12,000 this year. Since its founding in 2009, the Spay/Neuter Hotline has sterilized more than 30,000 of the area’s free-roaming cats.

Reserve your tickets now by calling Duck & Decanter at 602-274-5429. This event is sponsored by Changing Hands Bookstore, Duck & Decanter, and Vox Felina.

Book Signing at Changing Hands Bookstore in Tempe
Thursday evening, Jackson will be at Changing Hands Bookstore in Tempe for a book signing. Anyone who purchases a copy of Cat Daddy from Changing Hands (pre-order online) will be issued two tickets for the book signing. Doors open at 6:00 pm for people with tickets. At 6:45, any remaining seats (don’t count on it!) will be open for general seating. The event starts at 7:00.

The book signing is sponsored by Changing Hands Bookstore, Tarcher/Penguin Books, and Moderncat.

Pre-order Cat Daddy and help shelter cats
Only one day left! Order your copy of Cat Daddy before May 10th, and Tarcher/Penguin will donate $1.00 to the cause of saving shelter cats. To make your pre-order count, simply e-mail a photo or scan of your receipt to: CatDaddyBook@gmail.com.

Donations will go to Best Friends Animal Society, Stray Cat Alliance, and Neighborhood Cats.

Also:
• Read my review of Cat Daddy for Moderncat.
• Cat Daddy book tour details.
• Cat Daddy audio book info.

Preview of Wild Things, produced by the Natural Resources Defense Council, to be released early this summer. (Video not displaying properly? Click here.

Yesterday The Sacramento Bee ran the third and final story in its series investigating Wildlife Services, a little-known (until now) agency under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

In Part 1, two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner and Bee reporter Tom Knudson focused on Wildlife Services’ controversial practices and secrecy; Part 2 looked at the environmental consequences of the agency’s activities. For Part 3, Knudson spoke with a range of stakeholders demanding changes at Wildlife Services.

“Ideas for reform include more nonlethal control, curtailing aerial gunning, a ban on traps, snares and cyanide poison and pouring more resources into controlling invasive species. Some critics are calling for an investigation of Wildlife Services’ trapping practices and perhaps eliminating the agency altogether.” [1]

Four points stood out for me:

Lack of Accountability
“There needs to be an investigation of this agency. It is literally out of control,” Brooks Fahy, executive director of Predator Defense, an Oregon-based advocacy organization, told Knudson.

The group “is now urging Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) and [Rep. John] Campbell (R-CA) to conduct a congressional oversight hearing on Wildlife Services. ‘It answers to nobody,’ Fahy said.” [1]

“Environmentalists and wildlife groups are calling for major overhauls, including more spending on non-lethal control and greater transparency in the reporting of non-target species killed. Early this summer, the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the largest green groups in the county, is expected to release Wild Things, a 30-minute documentary about the agency. (See the trailer and other videos here.)” [1]

Not surprisingly, Wildlife Services has its supporters. The surprising part is that some of the “buy-in” is more than philosophical, as Knudson notes:

“The agency augments its budget with funds from farmers, ranchers and other ‘cooperators’—financial relationships that critics say should be re-examined, perhaps even ended, because they are often aimed at killing native wildlife.” [1]

“‘It’s an inherent conflict of interest to have private organizations and individuals funding a federal agency,’ Fahy told Knudson. ‘They are buying influence. They are buying a federal agency.’” [1]

Inside Information
Some of the harshest criticism of Wildlife Services comes from the agency’s former employees. Among them: Carter Niemeyer, former district supervisor, and author of Wolfer, a memoir in which, according to Amazon.com, Niemeyer “reveals the wild and bumpy ride that turned a trapper—a killer—into a champion of wolves”

“‘Federal trappers like to think they’re good at what they do, and most of the time they are—but only when it comes to killing,’ Niemeyer wrote in the book.

When it comes to conserving—being careful not to leave a wolf in a trap too long, not letting it drown because the trap was set near water, learning how to mix immobilizing drugs properly, accidentally shooting the wrong ones because they can’t tell a pup from an adult—that’s where the agency is woefully, willfully sloppy.’” [1]

“Recently, Niemeyer traveled to Washington, DC,” explains Knudson, “to share his concerns with agency managers. Asked what he would do if he were in charge, Niemeyer replied with a long email calling for better training and education in wildlife management, ethics and the humane treatment of animals.”

“‘I would phase in college-trained wildlife personnel,’ he wrote. ‘Many (trappers) have a basic high school education … and only district supervisors like myself receive some specialized training while trappers were seldom considered.’” [1]

While I appreciate Niemeyer’s confidence in our system of higher education, I’m far less optimistic about the potential of “college-trained wildlife personnel” to turn around Wildlife Services (or any other agency for that matter). I’ve spent more hours than I care to count over the past few years debunking the bogus claims, exposing the sloppy scholarship, and challenging the professional integrity, of many such individuals.

Of course, it doesn’t help matters that some of the worst offenders teach. Or write textbooks.

The Success of Non-lethal Methods
No doubt for some readers, the article’s greatest revelation won’t be Wildlife Services’ grim track record (e.g., something like 3,400 non-target animals killed with spring-loaded sodium-cyanide cartridges since 2006), but the fact that non-lethal methods are proving to be quite successful.

Who knew, right?

“Our company has a dual mission: to produce the world’s best grass-fed lamb and achieve conservation at a landscape scale,” Mike Stevens, president of the 24,000-acre Lava Lake Lamb ranch, explained to Knudson. “For us, landscape scale implies having all the big animals roaming the landscape, and that includes predators.”

Among the non-lethal methods Stevens has employed: “portable corrals, electric fencing rigged with distractive flagging, all-night vigils by herders armed with rubber bullets and Great Pyrenees guard dogs.”

“‘We found that that we were able to radically reduce our losses down to one or two scattered animals,’ Stevens said. ‘It can happen. It takes a lot of work and management time. It takes a commitment at all levels of the company.’” [1]

Such methods are hardly unknown to Wildlife Services.

“Most of the effective nonlethal methods out there have been developed by Wildlife Services or tested by Wildlife Services,” Deputy Administrator William Clay told Knudson. Including “bird repellents such as anthraquinone and methyl anthranilate, birth control for white-tailed deer, and electronic siren and strobe devices to scare off predators.” [1]

But Suzanne Stone, Defenders of Wildlife’s Northern Rockies Representative, told Knudson that non-lethal methods are rarely used in the field.

“‘Their researchers are some of the top non-lethal specialists in the world. They are developing and testing a lot of tools. But those tools are more often than not ridiculed by their field agents. They promote using lethal control almost always.’” [1]

Shifting Focus to Invasive Species
A surprising theme to emerge in Knudson’s final installment was the increased emphasis being placed on “invasive species.” Just as surprising, then, under the circumstances: domestic cats are never mentioned in the story.

“Although Wildlife Services does some work to control nonnative species,” explains Knudson, “such as wild pigs and nutria—Deputy Administrator William Clay would like to do more.”

And Clay’s not the only one.

“We believe that current science does not support much of Wildlife Services’ lethal control of native mammals, that it is wasteful and often counterproductive,” wrote Michael Mares, president of the American Society of Mammalogists (which opposes TNR), in a letter to Clay this March. “Perhaps the primary emphasis … should be to control invasive, exotic species, a rapidly worsening threat to rare native species and ecosystems.”

But if Wildlife Services hasn’t been able to “control” any non-invasive species, there’s little reason to think the agency will have better luck with invasives (assuming a consensus can be reached about which animals “belong” here and which ones don’t—no trivial matter).

It’s also not clear what the real threat is here.

Regular readers will recall the absurd $17 billion “economic impact” of free-roaming cats on birds that was promoted by the authors of Feral Cats and Their Management, and subsequently endorsed by the National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy. Unfortunately, I expect we’ve not seen the last of this or other similarly indefensible “estimates” used to target domestic cats.

Efforts paid for, whenever possible, with taxpayer dollars, of course.

•     •     •

My sincere thanks to Tom Knudson and The Sacramento Bee for running this series. Now what about digging into the activities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—which shares Wildlife Services’ penchant for lethal methods, sketchy science, cover-your-ass politics, and secrecy?

Literature Cited
1. Knudson, T. (2012, May 6). Suggestions in changing Wildlife Services range from new practices to outright bans. The Sacramento Bee, from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/06/4469067/suggestions-in-changing-wildlife.html

In the second part of The Sacramento Bee’s three-part series investigating Wildlife Services, published Tuesday, reporter Tom Knudson sheds some light on the dubious rationale behind the agency’s methods. [I discussed the first installment in my previous post.]

“For decades,” writes Knudson, “Wildlife Services, part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, has specialized in trapping, poisoning and shooting predators in large numbers, largely to protect livestock and, more recently, big game.”

“Now such killing is coming under fire from scientists, former employees and others who say it often doesn’t work and can set off a chain reaction of unintended, often negative consequences.” [1]

(Many readers will recall that I made a similar argument in my February 2011 letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—no “relation” to Wildlife Services, though they seem to share the same penchant for lethal control methods and secrecy—regarding their ill-conceived Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Complex Integrated Predator Management Plan.)

“With rifles, snares and aerial gunning,” writes Knudson, “employees have killed 967 coyotes and 45 mountain lions at a cost of about $550,000. But like a mirage, the dream of protecting deer by killing predators has not materialized.” [1]

This despite a significant increase in the killing.

Citing reports from the Wildlife Services website, Knudson notes that “about 560,000 predators were killed across America from 2006 to 2011, an average of 256 a day.”

“While fewer bobcats are killed today, the numbers of three other major predators shot, trapped and snared by the agency have risen. In 1970, agency employees killed 73,100 coyotes, 400 black bears, 120 mountain lions. By 2011, the tally had climbed to 83,200 coyotes (up 14 percent), 565 black bears (up 41 percent) and 400 mountain lions (up 230 percent).” [1]

Much of Knudson’s reporting focuses on the effect—much of it unintended, and even unacknowledged—of Wildlife Services’ ongoing coyote killing.

“Kill too many coyotes,” he explains, “and you open a Pandora’s box of disease-carrying rodents, meadow-munching rabbits, bird-eating feral cats, and, over time, smarter, more abundant coyotes… In California, researchers have found that having coyotes in the neighborhood can be good for quail, towhees and other birds. The reason? They eat skunks, house cats and raccoons that feast on birds.” [1]

Here, Knudson simply failed to dig into the story deeply enough.

The researchers he’s referring to are, I’m sure, Kevin Crooks and Michael Soulé, who, during the 1990s, investigated the relationship between the presence of coyotes and the presence of cats in San Diego canyon country. “It appears,” they concluded, “that the decline and disappearance of the coyote, in conjunction with the effects of habitat fragmentation, affect the distribution and abundance of smaller carnivores and the persistence of their avian prey.” [2]

Ah, but appearances can be deceiving; the study—often cited by TNR opponents—raises many more questions than it answers.

Indeed, the very premise of Crooks and Soulé’s research—that coyote populations are on the decline—is refuted by several scientists with whom Knudson spoke. “After several decades of intense federal hunting,” he reports, “there are more coyotes in more places than ever.”

“In Nevada, scientists found that when Wildlife Services began killing coyotes to protect deer south of Ely in 2004, the average coyote litter size jumped from one pup to 3.5. In 2007, one coyote killed by a Wildlife Services hunter in Nevada had 13 fetuses in its uterus.” [1]

Sound familiar?

Animal People’s Merritt Clifton made a similar observation nine years ago, referring to impact of Wildlife Services’ (the agency was called Animal Damage Control at the time) “coyote-killing campaigns of the 1950s through the 1970s”:

“…biologists found that the average coyote litter size in Texas grew from four pups to seven. This occurred because the intense ADC hunting pressure on coyotes shifted the odds of pup survival from favoring the pups who got the most maternal care to favoring the offspring of the coyote mothers who could produce the greatest abundance of pups, among whom some might elude the killers.” [3]

For Clifton, the parallel between coyotes and feral cats is striking: “Responding to the intensified mortality,” he argues, “Felis catus now bears an average litter of four. Nearly seven centuries of killing cats doubled the fecundity of the species.” [3]

But back to Wildlife Services…

Despite the compelling evidence that the agency’s efforts are largely ineffective—not to mention the often brutal, indiscriminate nature of their methods—the killing continues. Like USFWS, Wildlife Services has simply been able to get away with it.

Until now, anyhow.

On Tuesday, The Washington Post reported that Wildlife Services is being sued by WildEarth Guardians.

“‘We want the court to ban its poisons, silence its guns, and pull up its traps because it’s a horrendous misuse of our tax dollars to slaughter the nation’s bears, wolves, coyotes, and myriad other species,’ said Wendy Keefover, the group’s director of carnivore protection.”

Among those other species, of course, are domestic cats—1,277 of them in FY 2011 alone.

Literature Cited
1. Knudson, T. (2012, May 1). Wildlife Services’ deadly force brings environmental problems. The Sacramento Bee, from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/01/4455512/wildlife-services-deadly-force.html

2. Crooks, K.R. and Soulé, M.E., “Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.” Nature. 1999. 400(6744): p. 563–566. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v400/n6744/abs/400563a0.html

3. Clifton, M. (2003, June). Where cats belong—and where they don’t. Animal People, from http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/6/wherecatsBelong6.03.html

According to its website, the mission of Wildlife Services “is to provide Federal leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife.”

“WS recognizes that wildlife is an important public resource greatly valued by the American people. By its very nature, however, wildlife is a highly dynamic and mobile resource that can damage agricultural and industrial resources, pose risks to human health and safety, and affect other natural resources. The WS program carries out the Federal responsibility for helping to solve problems that occur when human activity and wildlife are in conflict with one another. The WS program strives to develop and use wildlife damage management strategies that are biologically sound, environmentally safe, and socially acceptable.”

A three-part investigative series in The Sacramento Bee this week promises to challenge each of the three points from that last sentence, exposing the controversial and secretive practices of Wildlife Services. Indeed, the first installment, which ran Sunday, suggests that the agency, a little-known part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Inspection Service, is often the source of human-wildlife conflict.

Wildlife Services, reports The Bee’s Tom Knudson, “has long specialized in killing animals that are deemed a threat to agriculture, the public and—more recently—the environment.”

“Since 2000, its employees have killed nearly a million coyotes, mostly in the West. They have destroyed millions of birds, from nonnative starlings to migratory shorebirds, along with a colorful menagerie of more than 300 other species, including black bears, beavers, porcupines, river otters, mountain lions and wolves.

And in most cases, they have officially revealed little or no detail about where the creatures were killed, or why. But a Bee investigation has found the agency’s practices to be indiscriminate, at odds with science, inhumane and sometimes illegal.” [1]

Hired Guns
Among the more dramatic revelations is a 2009 Inyo County, CA, incident in which “a Wildlife Services hunter shot a female mountain lion with kittens.” [1] The California Department of Fish and Game contracts with the agency to protect the endangered Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in the area.

The kittens “got left to starve, waiting for mom to come back,” says Becky Pierce, a mountain lion biologist with the state. “I’m not saying we don’t sometimes have to remove lions if they are (preying) on sheep. But everything should be done in a humane manner. And that isn’t humane.” [1]

“Tom Stephenson, who directs the sheep recovery effort for Fish and Game, declined to comment. But Andrew Hughan, a department spokesman, said the kittens may have survived.

‘To say that a female lion was taken and her cubs left to die is completely subjective. They are resourceful creatures,’ Hughan said.

Pierce, who has studied lions for two decades, disagreed. ‘They were relying on the mother for milk. It would be a miracle if any of them survived,’ she said.

In March 2011, two more mountain lion kittens, just days old, were mauled to death in the Sierra when a Wildlife Services hunter’s dogs raced out of control and pounced on them. Their mother was then shot, too.

‘We all want to see bighorn sheep protected,’ said Karen Schambach, California field director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. ‘What gives me the greatest angst is how inhumane some of this stuff is. For Wildlife Services to allow dogs to go tear newborn kittens apart is outrageous.’” [1]

According to Wildlife Services’ latest Animals Dispersed/Killed or Euthanized/Freed report (PDF), the agency killed 402 mountain lions in 11 states during FY 2011, only four unintentionally.

But Wildlife Services doesn’t limit its “management” activities to wildlife. Over the same period, 1,268 “feral/free-ranging” cats were killed intentionally, with another nine killed unintentionally. In addition, 806 were “freed/released/relocated.” (Somehow, I don’t imagine Wildlife Services staff are involved in TNR, so I don’t know what’s meant by this classification. Nor can I explain the 239 cats that were freed/released/relocated unintentionally.)

During FY 2011, 405 “feral, free-ranging and hybrid” dogs were killed.

Publicly Funded, Privately Operated
Although reports (the accuracy of which is questioned by some interviewed for The Bee series) can be found easily enough online, few details are available. “Wildlife Services prefers to operate in the shadows,” notes Knudson.

“And while even the military allows the media into the field, Wildlife Services does not. ‘If we accommodated your request, we would have to accommodate all requests,’ wrote Mark Jensen, director of Wildlife Services in Nevada, turning down a request by The Bee to observe its hunters and trappers in action.” [1]

Knudson obtained what information he could from the agency through Freedom of Information Act requests.

Mary Lou Simms, reporting on Wildlife Services’ widespread (and lucrative, it turns out) roundups (followed by gassing) of Canada geese for the McClatchy-Tribune Wire last year (PDF), was also forced to go the FOIA route just to obtain basic budget figures. [2]

Simms describes Wildlife Services as “a $126.5 million program that exterminates more than 4 million wild animals annually.” The Bee suggests a much lower “$72.5 million for wildlife damage management; $18 million for methods development.”

In the larger context, the $126.5 million annual budget Simms is pretty modest, especially for a federal agency. Even more so if The Bee’s figure is correct: “$72.5 million for wildlife damage management; $18 million for methods development.” [1]

Still, it’s difficult to imagine a great deal of public support for such a program, especially at a time of across-the-board (or nearly so) belt-tightening. Which might explain the flood of reader comments—209 and counting, just 24 hours after the story went online.

One wonders what the response would have been had The Bee launched the series a few weeks earlier—the same time readers were rushing to complete their income tax returns.

Literature Cited
1. Knudson, T. (2012, April 28). The killing agency: Wildlife Services’ brutal methods leave a trail of animal death. Sacramento Bee, from http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/28/4450678/the-killing-agency-wildlife-services.html

2. Simms, M.L. (2011, August 10). Taxpayers subsidizing wild life extermination program, probe shows. McClatchy-Tribune Wire Special Sections, from http://www.predatordefense.org/docs/USDA_article_KansasCityStar_Taxpayers_subsidizing_wildlife_extermination_08-18-2011.pdf

Where were you two years ago today?

I was, as I am now, typing away on my laptop well into the night—compelled, as I wrote on the blog’s About page, to speak out on behalf of stray, abandoned, and feral cats. Two years—and 147 posts—later, it’s clear that people are listening.

In the past year alone, 213 additional readers have become subscribers, bringing the total to 370. And the Vox Felina Facebook page is up to 1,239 “Likes,” double what it was on the one-year anniversary.

And word continues to spread.

Over the past 12 months, Vox Felina has been mentioned in Animal People, Conservation magazine and The Washingtonian. In addition, I’ve been profiled in Best Friends magazine, interviewed on Animal Wise Radio, and invited to speak at the 2011 Animal Grantmakers conference.

And the next year is already shaping up to be at least as busy, with, for example, speaking commitments at the No Kill Conference in August and the No More Homeless Pets National Conference in October.

Although there’s already plenty on my to-do list, I’m always interested in hearing from Vox Felina readers. What can I do to help you advocate for stray, abandoned, and feral cats? Send me a note: peter[at]voxfelina.com. (Please be patient—none of my “assistants” has opposable thumbs.)

And, as always, thank you for your support—and for all that you’re doing on behalf of our community cats!

Peter

In the current issue of The Washingtonian, senior writer Luke Mullins provides the most comprehensive profile yet of former Smithsonian researcher Nico Dauphiné, convicted last October of attempted animal cruelty. Most telling are his conversations with her unwavering supporters, who—in spite of the evidence, her well-documented history, and her miserable performance on the stand—continue to make excuses for her.

In the five months since she was convicted of attempted animal cruelty, former Smithsonian researcher Nico Dauphiné has enjoyed a respite from the largely unflattering media spotlight. All that changed in the past few weeks, though—first with Conservation magazine’s “Cat Fight,” and now with a 6,100-word feature in the April issue of The Washingtonian.

In “Apocalypse Now,” senior writer Luke Mullins digs into Dauphiné’s DC court case, as well as her previous “community service” in Athens, GA. The Nico Dauphiné that emerges is a far cry from the sympathetic character portrayed in “Cat Fight”—where, for example, writer John Carey laments: “Unfortunately, the strange case of the accused cat poisoner didn’t end well.” [1]

Although Mullins was unable to speak with Dauphiné for the piece, his conversations with people close to Dauphiné—as well as many who observed her mistreatment of cats—are illuminating.

The Truth Will Set You Free
In an August 2011 post, I suggested that Dauphiné’s trapping efforts in and around Athens led the Athens Area Humane Society to cancel its contract with the city, [2] which in turn prompted the Athens-Clarke Commission—left with no other option for feral cats—to vote 9–1 in favor of TNR. [3]

Mullins’ reporting reveals some of the particulars related to the trapping, which Dauphiné conducted during her days as a PhD student in the University of Georgia’s Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, and its impact on AAHS, where, he explains, she “was a familiar face.”

“She trapped and brought to the shelter seven cats in 2005, 15 in 2006, and 36 in 2007, according to Humane Society records,” writes Mullins. In 2008, having “expanded her footprint by trapping on privately owned land without permission, according to the Humane Society,” Dauphiné’s contribution to the shelter’s intake was up to 64.

“The shelter couldn’t find homes for all of the cats Dauphiné brought in and had to euthanize most of them. Seeing so many cats put down demoralized the staff, [AAHS shelter manager Lindsay] Porter says: ‘We became a facility that euthanizes cats, not a Humane Society.’”

According to AAHS records obtained by Mullins, 78 of the 122 cats Dauphiné turned over were killed. “At some point, I have no doubt that we euthanized someone’s pet cat,” Porter told Mullins.

On one occasion, AAHS asked veterinarian William Mangham to examine eight cats brought in by Dauphiné. “Mangham noticed that most had dried feces on their fur,” writes Mullins.

“‘Cats are never soiled unless they are sick or confined in their own waste,’ Mangham says. ‘None of these cats appeared sick.’ Feral cats behave more like wild animals than pets. But these eight cats were calm and easily handled. ‘My impression was that these were all pet cats, and my concern was: Will they be returned to their owners?’ Mangham says.”

Among the others Mullins spoke with in Athens was Tim Rose, “an amateur birder [who] met Dauphiné through the local Audubon Society.”

“After Dauphiné explained the dangers of cat predation, Rose began trapping with her. ‘She enlightened me,’ Rose says. ‘I knew cats were a problem, but I didn’t know the scope.’”

Rose’s story was rather different back in 2008, when he testified on Dauphiné’s behalf in Athens-Clarke County court. When the judge magistrate asked if he knew Dauphiné “set traps,” Rose responded: “I do know that she sets traps.”

“Dauphiné never demonized cats, which she insisted were only following their instincts to hunt, Rose says. Instead, she blamed pet owners who allowed their cats outdoors and the people who fed feral cats.”

Among those she blamed were Allison Dunn and Eric Jenkins, whose cat, Cosmos, was among the eight examined by Mangham. Cosmos had been missing for 16 days when Dauphiné brought him into AAHS—rhinestone collar and all. (A subsequent civil dispute between Dunn and Dauphiné prompted Dauphiné to press charges. I recounted their resulting appearance before a judge magistrate in “Community Service.”)

But it was Roger Keeney, a former neighbor of Dauphiné’s, who, probably more than anybody else, felt her wrath.

The first time Lily disappeared, Keeney, who is blind, was able to free her from Dauphiné’s trap with the help of his children. When Lily—a Siamese cat who, as Mullins notes, was able to “alert [Keeney] when someone was at the door or when he’d accidentally left the stove on”—disappeared a second time, though, Keeney never saw her again. He was, explains Mullins, “wrecked.”

“‘It was like a death of a family member,’ says Kim Keeney, his wife. ‘I can’t tell you how hard it was for him to even get out of bed. He had lost his best friend.’ Although Roger Keeney has no evidence, he believes Dauphiné is responsible for Lily’s disappearance.”

Keeney also holds Dauphiné responsible for “leash law” fines he was forced to pay when his cats escaped the house, the continuing threat of which forced the family to give up Jake, a kitten loved dearly by his children. (I included a letter from Keeney’s daughter, Alexis, to the Washington Humane Society in my September 19, 2011 post.)

Support for Nico Dauphiné
On December 14th, the day Dauphiné was convicted, The Washington Post reported: “Senior Judge Truman A. Morrison III said it was the video, along with Dauphine’s testimony, that led him to believe she had ‘motive and opportunity.’”

“He specifically pointed to her repeated denials of her writings. ‘Her inability and unwillingness to own up to her own professional writings as her own undermined her credibility,’ Morrison said.” [4]

In “Apocalypse Now,” Mullins provides details of one such instance: “Under cross-examination, [U.S. Attorney Kevin] Chambers asked Dauphiné about an article she had published in the journal the Wildlife Professional titled “Pick One: Outdoor Cats or Conservation.”

Chambers: And in talking about that issue, cat predation, do you remember writing, Where is the outrage over such slaughter?
Dauphiné: That’s—yeah, those were the editor’s words, not mine.

Chambers: Those are not your words?
Dauphiné: Definitely not.

Chambers: Okay, I’d like to read to you, in the same article, the final paragraph, and tell me if these are not your words. More of us in the wildlife profession need to stand up and add our voices to the cause. We need strong leadership coupled with proactive policies and well-enforced laws that recognize cats as invasive species, impose fines on owners who . . . refuse to control their pets, require mandatory sterilizations of pets, prohibit feral-cat colonies and feeding stations, especially on public land, and acknowledge the legitimate role of euthanasia when necessary. Such measures will go a long way towards protecting the native wildlife we cherish so much. Are those your words?
Dauphiné: It’s interesting [what] you keep picking. I wrote—I would say I wrote the majority of that article, but you keep picking the things that the editor inserted at the last minute.

There is, contrary to her repeated assertions to the contrary, no mystery whatsoever when it comes to Dauphiné’s position on the issue of free-roaming cats and TNR. Her infamous “Apocalypse Meow” presentation—which, I think we can safely assume was not edited—echoes both the content and tone of her various writings. (If, as Mullins suggests, “Dauphiné became an expert on cat predation,” then how to explain the numerous errors and misrepresentations that plague her presentation? Either she’s not an expert after all, or she’s lying. Either way, she had no business at the podium.)

Covering Dauphiné’s sentencing, CNN reported that Judge Morrison III “said he had received a number of letters from people who know Dauphine.”

“He said such letters usually try to make a case that the verdict was in error, but in this case, the judge said, no one quarreled with the guilty verdict… Morrison said it was clear from letters written by Dauphine’s colleagues that ‘her career, if not over, it’s in grave jeopardy.’ The judge said that was already partial punishment for her actions.” [5]

But, according to Mullins, “Colleagues in the conservation community didn’t believe the allegations. ‘It’s not the kind of person she is,’ says Christopher Lepczyk, a wildlife ecologist and friend of Dauphiné’s.”

I wonder: Does Lepczyk also believe she’s “not the kind of person” to trap and turn over to AAHS 122 cats in the span of 33 months—knowing that most would be killed?

Still, the most interesting response by far came from Pamela Jo Hatley, a Florida attorney and long-time TNR opponent. (Since at least 2003, she’s been suggesting that TNR is a violation of the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. [6])

“Hatley,” writes Mullins, “who collaborated on an anti-TNR paper with Dauphiné says feral-cat activists may have conspired against Dauphiné.”

I’ll come to the conspiracy theory in a moment. First, a few words about that “anti-TNR paper,” a 2010 letter published in Conservation Biology. In “What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return,” Dauphiné and Hatley—along with eight others, including Lepczyk and Peter Marra, who would later become Dauphiné’s advisor at the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center—“applaud the recent essay by Longcore et al. [7] in raising the awareness about trap-neuter-return (TNR) to the conservation community.”

Among the “actions [that] should be encouraged” is “legal action against colonies and colony managers, particularly in areas that provide habitat for migratory birds or endangered species.” As rationale, the authors cite a 2003 newsletter article by Linda Winter, former director of the American Bird Conservancy’s Cats Indoors! program, who writes:

“In, Feral Cat Colonies in Florida: The Fur and Feathers Are Flying, author Pamela Jo Hatley determined that releasing cats into the wild and supporting feral cat colonies is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, as well as laws prohibiting animal abandonment.” [8, her emphasis, not mine]

Well, this is getting awkward, isn’t it? I mean, why didn’t Hatley and her co-authors simply cite Hatley’s paper directly?

Well, Winter’s version is far more useful—because it misrepresents what Hatley actually claims in Feral Cat Colonies in Florida, a report she submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service when she was a student in the University of Florida’s Levin College of Law and part of UF’s Conservation Clinic.

Citing three cases having nothing to do with cats (or any other predators), Hatley argues that such “cases raise the question of whether a person violates the MBTA when that person releases a cat into the wild, and that cat kills a migratory bird.”

“If an accidental chemical leak, aerial application of a pesticide, or failure to install equipment to protect birds from power lines can result in a person being charged with violation of the MBTA, why not release of cats into the environment? It does not take a great stretch of the imagination to conclude that a cat’s impact on birds can be as lethal as any poison.” [6]

It’s an interesting argument, but hardly a determination, as Winter—and, by extension, Hatley and her nine co-authors, seven years later—claim. Hatley and Dauphiné, it seems, have more than that 2010 paper—and their vehement opposition to TNR—in common: both of them seems perfectly willing to disown their work when it seems advantageous to do so.

But, back to the conspiracy that Hatley suggests led to Dauphiné’s arrest and conviction. With 6,000+ words to work with, I wish Mullins would have made room for some details. Who exactly was involved? Dunn and Jenkins? Keeney? Did AAHS kill those 78 cats just to tarnish Dauphiné’s reputation in the community?

And what about Frances Sterling, the caretaker who discovered the rat poison in the food outside the Park Square apartments, and whose call to the Washington Human Society launched the investigation that eventually led to Dauphiné’s arrest? Just because she’s lived in the building for more than 10 years doesn’t mean Sterling’s not a plant, a member of the Powerful Cat Lobby.

Crazy talk, obviously. But it’s not entirely my invention, either—especially that last bit, about the Powerful Cat Lobby. Consider this, from last Spring’s issue of The Wildlife Professional:

“The promotion of TNR is big business, with such large amounts of money in play that conservation scientists opposing TNR can’t begin to compete.” [9]

The author? Nico Dauphiné. Unless, of course, this was something “the editor inserted at the last minute.” (Contrary to what the article’s title, “Follow the Money,” suggests, Dauphiné was unable or unwilling to accurately present publicly available financial information.)

On the Front Lines of the Apocalypse
Among the other TNR opponents quoted in “Apocalypse Meow” is Michael Hutchins, Executive Director and CEO of The Wildlife Society. “We save the life of one cat, and it kills 200 birds during its lifetime,” Hutchins told Mullins. “Did those birds suffer? Darn right they did. Did they lose their lives? Darn right they did.”

Forget the 200 birds/cat for a moment—what caught my attention was the unexpectedly animal rights-y tone of Hutchins’ comments. Suffering?

That’s hardly the talking point I expect from TWS, an enthusiastic supporter of hunting (“an appropriate means of managing wildlife populations” [10]) and trapping (“an important component of the lifestyle of many people” [11]). And, although TWS acknowledges the risks to “reptiles, birds, and mammals [digesting] spent ammunition and lost fishing tackle … potentially leading to population-level consequences in some species (e.g., waterfowl, eagles, condors, mourning doves, and loons),” [12] their position statement on the subject is anemic.

So, will TWS be revising their position statements in the near future to more closely reflect Hutchins’ concern for the suffering of non-human animals? That’s about as likely as TWS correcting the various errors and misrepresentations in their position statement concerning free-roaming cats, or their TNR and rabies “fact sheets.”

Unlike Hutchins, Ed Clark, president and co-founder of the Wildlife Center of Virginia, delivered the lines we’ve come to expect from him. “Eighty percent of cat-attack victims admitted to the center die,” writes Mullins.

“One in five injured animals admitted to the center is a cat victim, Clark says. From 2000 to 2008, cat attacks accounted for 55 percent of the center’s injured chipmunks, 22 percent of its injured flying squirrels, and 14 percent of its injured birds. The data reflects only ‘confirmed’ cat attacks, in which the injured animal was actually seen in a cat’s mouth or paws.”

There’s an irony to Clark’s complaint that “outdoor cats have the same effect as a biological pollutant.” It’s been demonstrated—though Clark and his colleagues won’t acknowledge it—that cats (like all predators) tend to prey on the young, the old, the weak and unhealthy. At least two studies have investigated this in great detail, revealing that birds killed by cats are, on average, significantly less healthy that birds killed through non-predatory events (e.g., collisions with windows or cars) [13, 14].

As the UK’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds notes: “It is likely that most of the birds killed by cats would have died anyway from other causes before the next breeding season, so cats are unlikely to have a major impact on populations.” [15]

For Clark, though, it seems attributing kills—to cats, anyhow—is a remarkably straightforward process. Worse, though, is his suggestion that Wildlife Center intakes are some kind of indication of population-level impacts (an absurd claim that, unfortunately, has been repeated recently by Bob Sallinger, conservation director of the Audubon Society of Portland).

Clark, writes Mullins, “says feral-cat advocates are blinded by their emotional response to cats. ‘They’re flat-earth people,’ Clark says. ‘These people have walled themselves off and deliberately avoid anything that may contradict their worldview.’”

Oh, the irony.

If anybody is suffering from a lack of perspective—and denying the ample evidence that challenges their worldview—it’s Clark. Indeed, Animal People editor Merritt Clifton took Clark to task on this very issue in 2003. “Clark,” he argues, “missed the obvious.”

“The … birds he sees are among the few who are rescued by humans, typically because the humans intervene to break off the cat attack. That changes the predator/prey dynamic. The cat has no opportunity to finish the kill because of the human intervention. Otherwise, the injuries he described would impair flight, and would lead to a cat meal. These are not failures of predation, but successes, interrupted, comparable to what happens when a hyena chases a cheetah off a half-dead gazelle and appropriates the meal for himself.

“The true failures of predation rise into the air and get away unscathed. The Clark hypothesis that large numbers of birds are dying in the wild of cat-inflicted injuries and infections is simply not supported by evidence,­­ whereas roadkilled birds and the remains of birds who collide with windows, transmission towers, and power lines, as well as those who succumb to pesticides, have all been collected and studied by researchers in bucketloads.” [16]

Nine years later, Clark is still missing the obvious.

Sins of Omission
It’s a shame Mullins refers to ABC (“It’s impossible to know exactly how many birds are killed each year by cats in the U.S., but the American Bird Conservancy says 500 million is a conservative estimate.”) and Feral Cats and Their Management, the infamous University of Nebraska-Lincoln paper (“60 million feral cats in U.S.”) as if these were credible sources. Neither one deserves the air of legitimacy implied by their inclusion in his article.

If I have any criticism of Mullins’ work, though, it’s not so much about what was included, but what was left out.

For example: what happened to all of Dauphine’s supporters (e.g., TWS, ABC, USFWS, etc.) since her arrest and conviction? The individuals and organizations that were so quick to cite her sloppy work when it suited their purpose have remained—at least publicly—silent over the past several months.

Despite their silence, though, the message is coming through loud and clear: Dauphine’s professional work on the subject of free-roaming cats is as indefensible as the actions that landed her in DC Superior Court.

And finally, where’s the alternative to TNR?

Granted, this wasn’t the focus of “Apocalypse Meow,” but I suspect that many readers will come away with the impression that TNR opponents actually have a plan. Which, as I’ve pointed out previously, is simply not the case.

“Scientific research,” writes Mullins, “suggests that population stabilization—as opposed to elimination—is often the best-case scenario with TNR.”

And what’s the best-case scenario with trap-and-kill?

Simply put, if it worked, we wouldn’t even be having the current conversation about how best to manage the country’s stray, abandoned, and feral cats. Years of trap-and-kill policy—inhumane, costly, and ineffective—have gotten us nowhere. Indeed, there’s ample evidence to demonstrate that we’re not going to kill our way out of the “feral cat problem.”

“TNR is opposed by a large coalition of organizations,” writes Mullins.

“TNR supporters ‘are not trying to reduce feral cat populations—they are trying to stop euthanasia of feral cats,’ says Travis Longcore, science director of the Urban Wildlands Group. ‘They’ve co-opted the word humane.’”

Longcore, who spearheaded the 2009 effort to end city-funded TNR in Los Angeles—has yet to explain exactly how prohibiting TNR will reduce feral cat populations. Indeed, if Longcore had his way, there would be no TNR at all, and no feeding of outdoor cats. If, as he suggests, allowing cats to live outdoors is inhumane, then how are anti-TNR policies—which invariably permit the population of free-roaming cats to increase—considered humane?

It’s an easier argument to make when the real proposal—the mass killing of this country’s most popular companion animal—is presented as an act of kindness. If anybody’s guilty of co-opting language, it’s Longcore and his colleagues—including PETA’s Teresa Chagrin, also interviewed by Mullins—who continue to sell killing as euthanasia. Only rarely are these cats “lead[ing] lives of great suffering,” as Chagrin claims.

Of course, Longcore and his anti-TNR colleagues go much further—co-opting the word science in their tireless efforts to vilify free-roaming cats. For years now, they’ve used their credentials and organizational imprimatur to mislead policymakers and the public not only about the “threats” posed by free-roaming cats, but with their suggestion—nothing more than a vague implication, of course—that they have a feasible alternative.

Yet, these same people—who, ironically, claim to have the “best available science” on their side—either can not or will not describe or discuss what exactly they’ve got in mind for a solution to the “feral cat problem.”

•     •     •

So what’s next for Nico Dauphiné?

She’s “left the Washington area,” writes Mullins, “but has told friends not to disclose her whereabouts, out of concern for her safety.” But she may be back, at least temporarily—having appealed the guilty verdict earlier this year.

And her career? As Judge Morrison suggested when he sentenced Dauphiné, it may very well be finished. Then again, who knows.

Marra told Mullins that the postdoctoral fellowship Dauphiné landed with the Migratory Bird Center was, to use Mullins’ words, “one of the world’s most selective fellowship programs” and that “Dauphiné was the admissions committee’s top choice.”

At the time, of course, her position on free-roaming cats was well-documented. Nevertheless, Dauphiné was put in a position where she could make a living investigating the hunting habits of suburban house cats—behavior she clearly found intolerable. We can only imagine what “findings” she would have come up with had she stayed on at the Migratory Bird Center.

The fact that she was ever seriously considered for the Smithsonian fellowship in the first place, never mind hired—combined with the continued, unwavering support from so many of her colleagues—suggests that, contrary to Carey’s assessment, “the strange case of the accused cat poisoner” hasn’t come to an end just yet.

Literature Cited
1. Carey, J., “Cat Fight.” Conservation. 2012. March. http://www.conservationmagazine.org/2012/03/cat-fight/

2. Aued, B. (2009, March 28). Feral feline problem now life-or-death issue. Athens Banner-Herald, from http://onlineathens.com/stories/032809/new_415448061.shtml

3. Aued, B. (2010, March 3). TNR approved in 9-1 vote. Athens Banner-Herald, from http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/030310/new_569880708.shtml

4.  Alexander, K.L. (2011). National Zoo employee found guilty of attempted animal cruelty. The Washington Post, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/national-zoo-employee-found-guilty-of-attempted-animal-cruelty/2011/10/31/gIQAIUNWaM_story.html

5. Cratty, C. (2011, December 15). Ex-National Zoo employee sentenced in attempted feral cat poisoning. CNN, from http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/14/justice/dc-cat-poisoning/index.html

6. Hatley, P.J., Feral Cat Colonies in Florida: The Fur and the Feathers Are Flying. 2003, University of Florida Conservation Clinic: Gainesville, FL. http://www.animallaw.info/articles/arus18jlanduseenvtll441.htm

www.law.ufl.edu/conservation/pdf/feralcat.pdf

7. Longcore, T., Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.M., “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return.” Conservation Biology. 2009. 23(4): p. 887–894. http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/pdf/Management_claims_feral_cats.pdf

8. Winter, L., “Popoki and Hawai’i’s Native Birds.” ‘Elepaio: Journal of the Hawaii Audubon Society. 2003. 63(6).

9. Dauphine, N., “Follow the Money: The Economics of TNR Advocacy.” The Wildlife Professional. 2011. 5(1): p. 54.

10. n.a., Final Position Statement: Hunting. 2010, The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/07-Hunting.pdf

11. n.a., Final Position Statement: Traps, Trapping, and Furbearer Management. 2010, The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/09-Trapping.pdf

12. n.a., Final Position Statement: Lead in Ammunition and Fishing Tackle. 2009, The Wildlife Society: Bethesda, MD. http://joomla.wildlife.org/documents/positionstatements/Lead_final_2009.pdf

13. Møller, A.P. and Erritzøe, J., “Predation against birds with low immunocompetence.” Oecologia. 2000. 122(4): p. 500–504. http://www.springerlink.com/content/ghnny9mcv016ljd8/

14. Baker, P.J., et al., “Cats about town: Is predation by free-ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations?“ Ibis. 2008. 150: p. 86–99. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ibi/2008/00000150/A00101s1/art00008

15. n.a. (2011) Are cats causing bird declines? http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Accessed October 26, 2011.

16. Clifton, M. (2003, June). Where cats belong—and where they don’t. Animal People, from http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/6/wherecatsBelong6.03.html

For more than two weeks now, those of us who are outraged by the trapping of cats on the Loews Orlando properties have been able to express ourselves solely through virtual means—blogging, Facebook and Twitter, and an online petition.

Yesterday afternoon, however, many local advocates took to the streets, participating in a protest organized by Alley Cat Allies. According to an ACA press release:

Sixty-eight people raised their voices—and their signs—against the Loews Royal Pacific, Loews Portofino, and Hard Rock Hotel at Universal Orlando Resorts after management made the decision to trap and remove the 23 feral cats who have lived peacefully on the properties for years.

Many of us—myself included—were unable to attend, but were there in spirit (and watching the whole thing unfold via social media). Thank you to all that made it possible!

For additional updates on the Loews cats:

• Save Loews Cats Facebook page
• Alley Cat Allies

Note: Alley Cat Allies has provided high-resolution photos of the event for the media here.

Photos courtesy of Alley Cat Allies.

Photos courtesy of Dorian Wagner/Save Loews Cats.

Not surprisingly, the focus is on the alleged public health threats posed by these sterilized, vaccinated, carefully monitored cats. The memo does not explain what prompted the recent policy reversal—again, no surprise.

What is a little surprising is what’s included in the Rationale section:

You might enjoy getting to know your furry friend but your neighbors might not, and may take action to eliminate the “pests.” Animals that become used to close interaction with humans become easy targets for people who do not respect wildlife and would hurt them intentionally. Also, there are many people who are afraid of wildlife and may injure an animal in an attempt to defend themselves against a mistaken “attack.”

Is Loews really suggesting that these cats are being removed for their own good? Recent events certainly suggest otherwise—indeed, that very little consideration has been given to the treatment and care of the cats that have been trapped. And it’s been nearly two weeks since the remaining cats (six or so, by my count) have been fed.

It’s clear at this point that the greatest threat to these cats is Loews management.

Date:         March 27, 2012
To:             LHUO Subcontractors, Vendors, Tenants and/or Business Partners
From:         Shawn German, Regional Director of Human Resources
Subject:      Animal Feeding and Handling Policy

Whether you are a subcontractor, vendor, tenant and/or business partner of Loews Hotels at Universal Orlando (LHUO) you are considered to be members of our “campus community”. As such, we urge you to please review the attached policy and ensure that all of your employees understand and follow this new policy. The health and safety of our guests, team members, vendors and visitors must be a priority.

We have completed a thorough and objective assessment of the feral, free-roaming cats on hotel property and are working closely with Orange County Animal Services, where the cats will be taken. There are many challenges that arise from maintaining free-roaming, feral cats in our hotel environment. Specifically, when the feral cats get into guest contact areas, it creates safety issues for both guests and team members, as well as health Issues. The outdoor feeding of animals attracts other wild and feral species, which can facilitate the spread of disease from rabies vectors such as raccoons. While our hotels are pet-friendly, there are important distinctions between owned pets and feral, undomesticated animals.

The Florida Department of Health’s position states: “The concept of managing free-roaming, feral domestic cats is not tenable on public health grounds because of the persistent threat posed to communities from injury and disease. While the risk for disease transmission from cats to people is generally low when these animals are maintained indoors and routinely cared for, free-roaming cats pose a continuous concern to communities.”

It is important for you to know that we have researched and evaluated all aspects of this issue and believe we must take these steps in the interest of the health and safety of our guests, team members and members of our “campus community”. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact your respective Hotel General Manager or the Regional Executive Offices for LHUO.

MANAGER POLICY MANUAL

POLICY# 7225

SUBJECT: ANIMAL FEEDING & HANDLING POLICY

Policy:

I. INTRODUCTION
The ability to control the feral and undomesticated wild animal population on our campus property is always a concern and priority for us at Loews Hotels at Universal Orlando (LHUO). In an effort to reduce the community’s health risk from contact with these animals, the following policy has been adopted. Feral and undomesticated wild animals are potential carriers of rabies and other diseases, which may infect a person if bitten and/or scratched. This policy intends to raise awareness and reduce conflict with feral and undomesticated wild animals; therefore reducing the risk of contracting animal borne diseases. LHUO team members, vendors, contractors, suppliers and business partners are prohibited from leaving food or water on campus grounds for the purpose of feeding animals. The practice of leaving food stuff outdoors creates attraction of undesirable wild and feral species, which in turn creates the health risk. Any food found outside on LHUO grounds will be promptly removed and disposed of. The person(s) identified as feeding the animals will be informed of the “No Feeding Policy”, and may result in disciplinary action.

All trash dumpsters, in which food may potentially be disposed of, are to be kept clean and covered at all times.

In addition to our “No Feeding Policy” it is also a violation of this policy for any LHUO team member to handle or engage in any physical contact with any feral and undomesticated wild animals found on LHUO grounds. The “No Handling” aspect of this policy is equally important to ensure that no members of our “campus community” are injured by coming into contact with these animals and to rely on experts who are trained and best capable in handling these animals in a safe and humane manner. *

All members of the LHUO “campus community” are required to comply with all aspects of these policies and are responsible for reporting incidences of non-compliance. Any guests that are found to be feeding and/or handling these animals should be asked to comply with this policy as well.

Any incident involving a feral undomesticated wild animal should be reported to the Safety/Security Department. The handling and/or removal of these animals will be handled by the following:

Safety/Security and Engineering personnel, Orange County Animal Control, Florida Fish and Wildlife and/or other representatives designated by LHUO Management.

II. PURPOSE
The purpose of this animal feeding and handling policy is to:

• reduce the risk of injury to LHUO guests, team members, visitors and members of our “campus community”
• reduce and/or eliminate contact with these animals which either annoy or endanger the comfort, health or safety of LHUO staff and/or these animals;
• avoid potential health hazards;
• and to prevent damage to LHUO buildings and grounds.

This policy applies to all LHUO staff.

III. DEFINITIONS

Wild Animal – A feral animal that is wild by nature and is not normally considered domesticated includes, but is not limited to, the following: squirrels, ducks, pigeons, raccoons, possums, snakes, birds, alligators, rats, and stray cats and dogs.

Feed – Any material that can be utilized for consumption by wild animals.

Feeding – The feeding, spreading, casting, laying, depositing, throwing, placing, leaving or dumping of food.

LHUO Campus Community – This includes LHUO team members, vendors, suppliers, contractors, business partners, guests and visitors of LHUO.

IV. POLICY
Feral and/or undomesticated wild animals are prohibited in any LHUO building. This includes, but is not limited to, administrative offices, hotels, tents, food & beverage outlets, and all on-campus structures.

Owned pets may be brought onto campus, but shall be appropriately restrained and/or contained at all times by the responsible owner.

Dogs must be on a leash or chain that does not exceed 6 feet in length and that is in the hands of a responsible owner/custodian.

Other pets may also be allowed on campus, but only in an appropriate cage, carrier, crate, or kennel.

Animals may not be tethered unattended, or abandoned on LHUO property.

Animals may not be left unattended in any vehicle parked on LHUO property.

Animals brought on campus must be appropriately inoculated for rabies, with the burden of proof on the responsible owner/custodian.

When animals are brought on LHUO property, the responsible owner/custodian shall be responsible for feeding and cleaning up after the animal. This includes any fecal material deposited by the animal while on campus.

LHUO, in its sole discretion, reserves the right to request that any animal(s) creating a nuisance be removed from campus property and further reserves the right to prohibit animals from any Hotel/Resort event.

LHUO is not responsible for any animal brought onto LHUO property.

The feeding and/or handling of feral and undomesticated wild animals on or around LHUO grounds is not permitted because:

• It establishes a potential risk of injury to our Team Members, members of our “campus community”, LHUO guests and visitors;
• creates or fosters a congregation or congestion of wildlife;
• establishes the potential conflict with domesticated pets staying with registered guests of LHUO;
• creates an accumulation of droppings on surrounding properties;
• causes actual or potential property damage or disfigurement, or degrades scenic attractiveness;
• has the possibility to attract rodents and other vermin;
• interferes with the enjoyment of LHUO facilities;
• is potentially unhealthy for the particular species, or causes undue distress or conflict for the animal being fed;
• and it increases the likelihood of diseases being spread from animals to other animals and to humans.

In addition, no LHUO team member shall knowingly leave or store any feed in a manner that would constitute a lure, an attraction or an enticement of feral and undomesticated wild animals.

V. PENALTY
Any LHUO team member that engages in the feeding or handling of feral undomesticated wild animals will be subject to disciplinary action.

VI. RATIONALE

OVERPOPULATION An abundance of food can lead to a population increase that the natural food supply cannot support. This can then lead to starvation and disease.

LOSS OF FEAR OF HUMANS Nuisance wildlife problems are often caused by those animals that have lost their natural fear of humans. Property damage and unwanted “houseguests” are often the result. You might enjoy getting to know your furry friend but your neighbors might not, and may take action to eliminate the “pests.” Animals that become used to close interaction with humans become easy targets for people who do not respect wildlife and would hurt them intentionally. Also, there are many people who are afraid of wildlife and may injure an animal in an attempt to defend themselves against a mistaken “attack.”

DISEASE Stress from competition for food, and an inadequate diet can increase the susceptibility of individual animals to diseases and parasites. Some wildlife diseases can be transmitted to other animals and humans.

INJURY RISK Wild animals do not understand that you are trying to be their friend by feeding them. They may misinterpret your actions and injure you. There is no guarantee that a wild animal knows where the food stops and your fingers begin. Bites can also cause substantial injury, trauma and disease.

UNNATURAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN WILDLIFE Feeding can cause injuries and harmful interactions between wildlife species that would normally forage separately, by often bringing incompatible, competitive or even natural enemies together.

LHUO recognizes it is our responsibility to provide a safe environment for our guests, team members and visitors and to seek assistance to have any feral undomesticated wild animals removed from LHUO property when necessary.

* Sections of this policy may not apply to designated personnel as determined by the management of LHUO)

Issued: 3/28/2012 Revised: 3/27/2012