Freedom of the Press (Release)

25 Jan 2011

Among the many news stories, research studies, and government reports brought to my attention last week was an article in Monday’s Toronto Star (thanks, once again, to the good folks at Alley Cat Rescue, who routinely put Google Alerts to shame!). What I find compelling about the article is not its central story (another community struggles with their “feral cat problem”), but the way it illustrates so much of what’s wrong with the free-roaming/feral cat/TNR debate.

In a nutshell, the story is about the town of Oakville changing its bylaws so that cats are no longer allowed to roam free. Wrong-headed policy, in my opinion—but more problematic is the case being made for this policy: what’s being said, how it’s being said, and by whom.

Déjà Vu
One doesn’t have to read further than the first line—“Sylvester and Tweety almost got it right”—to know that this is one of those stories. The kind of story that uses corny references to downplay the implications of a large-scale witch hunt. The kind of story that, frankly, makes it tough to feel much sympathy for a newspaper industry struggling for survival.

“In their cartoon world, the brainy yellow bird always outsmarts the puddy tat. In the real world, the cat kills the canary—and as many as one million birds daily in North America. This is causing a growing, sometimes violent, rift between animal lovers.”

Where that one-million-birds-per-day rate comes from is anybody’s guess, though it sounds awfully familiar—more than likely, one of American Bird Conservancy’s talking points. As for the “violent rift” reporters Mary Ormsby and Jim Wilkes refer to, that comes later.

“The crucial question: Should cats, which are natural hunters, be allowed to freely to roam the streets?”

It’s a fair question, but it’s not as if cats are the only natural hunters found in urban areas. In Chicago, for example, more than 60 coyotes are “roaming parks, alleys, yards and thoroughfares.” (The NPR story claims that coyotes kill area dogs and cats only “every so often,” but in light of Judith Webster’s 2007 paper “Missing Cats, Stray Coyotes: One Citizen’s Perspective,” I’m quite skeptical of such assertions.)

And then, of course, there are the raptors—birds of prey (which are attracted by, among other things, bird feeders—but I’ll get to that shortly).

All Sticks, No Carrots
Progressive animal service organizations have figured out that charging people to house their stray animals (i.e., the “traditional” approach) only hurts the animals and the community at large. Like mandatory spay-neuter laws, it’s great on paper but disastrous in practice.

Yet, this is precisely the direction (read: backwards) Oakville is taking.

“Owners whose loose cats repeatedly end up at the Oakville shelter can be fined $105, plus a $30 town surcharge, a return fee of $25 and $15 for each day the cat stays at the shelter.”

Such a policy virtually guarantees a dramatic increase in intakes—and killing.

“Johanne Golder, executive director of the Oakville and Milton Humane Society, which is contracted by Oakville to provide animal control services… said the mentality that cats are “disposable” pets (unwanted kittens are often abandoned or dumped at shelters) is to blame for the huge feline populations in urban centres.”

Again, a fair point—but I fail to see how the proposed “solution” will improve the situation. And it’s very likely to be a death sentence for the area’s feral cats.

Witch Hunt
Readers who might have similar misgivings are (presumably) set straight when Ormsby and Wilkes explain the threats posed by free-roaming cats:

“The more cats, the fewer birds, said McGill University avian expert David Bird. He said house pets are just as bloodthirsty as untamed ferals—homeless offspring of stray or abandoned cats raised without human contact. Bird (his surname and passion are coincidental, he chirped) estimated well-fed pets alone destroy upwards of a billion birds annually around the world. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) estimates hundreds of millions are killed in the United States by cats each year but says an exact figure is unclear.”

“Unclear” is right! Anybody even vaguely familiar with the subject would agree that “an exact figure is unclear.” But for Bird to suggest that it’s even possible—or meaningful—is ridiculous. And highly irresponsible. Are we talking about islands or continents? Which part of the world? Rare or common species? Healthy or unhealthy birds? Etc.

And what’s the impact of this predation?

This is ABC’s kind of science: one that strives not for an increased degree of certainty, but greater ambiguity—while at the same time painting a decidedly grim picture. There’s a name for this, of course: propaganda.

Which is precisely what Bird advocates for in “What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.” Along with his nine co-authors, Bird calls on conservation biologists to “begin speaking out” against TNR “at local meetings, through the news media, and at outreach events.” [1]

(Late last year, co-author Peter Marra earned his Propaganda Badge via a Washington Post article, though the research findings he cited there have since been removed from the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center’s website.)

Rhetoric
Just as important as Bird’s absurd claim, though, is the language used. Indeed, it was the word bloodthirsty that rankled Alley Cat Rescue founder Louise Holton. And there’s plenty more where that came from:

“Bird, the author of The Bird Almanac and Birds of Canada, said the cat-on-bird carnage is as common in quiet residential cul-de-sacs as it is in the countryside.

I’d created a killing field in my own backyard,” recalled the wildlife biology professor, who once spotted four neighbourhood cats stalking finches, woodpeckers, nuthatches, juncos, jays and cardinals nibbling at feeders around his west Montreal home.”

Really, a killing field? Somehow, I don’t think any birds were killed at all. Had any harm come to his birds, I have no doubt Bird would have let readers know in no uncertain terms. This sounds like a Winterism: the careful arrangement of true statements for the purpose of creating a false impression.

Then, too, stalking is not catching or killing, as Fitzgerald and Turner point out:

“Hunting for birds requires stalking, since many species of birds have an up to 360˚ field of view and can detect a cat approaching them from behind [2]… The ‘wait’ just before the pounce is a characteristic element of the cat’s hunting behaviour and many birds also fly away during this ‘wait’ without ever having noticed the cat. Because of these failures, many cats soon give up bird hunting altogether.” [3]

Us and Them
When Bird complains, “I didn’t think it was right for other people’s hobby interest, i.e., owning a pet cat, to impinge upon my interests on my own property,” he betrays his profoundly myopic world view as much as any property rights concern he might have. Cat ownership a hobby interest? Tell that to the 38.2 million U.S. households owning, collectively, something like 94 million cats (my apologies—I don’t have statistics for Canada), which are, increasingly, treated like members of the family.

Is it any wonder “bird people” and “cat people” (classifications I use with some hesitation) have such difficulties communicating?

Bird seems to imply that his bird feeders are inherently benign—but again, that’s from his point of view. “Feeding birds is,” according to the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s website, “a wonderful way to get to know your birds better! But, bird feeders can also be deadly.”

“Predators (cats, hawks, even dogs) can easily find birds at feeders, dirty feeders can spread disease, feeders can attract non-native, invasive species (house sparrows, brown-headed cow birds, and starlings for instance) which can be detrimental to native birds, and birds might fly away quickly and crash into nearby windows.”

How different is this from the “rationale” typically used to ban the feeding of feral cats? If feeding feral cats is in imposition on the community at large, then so are bird feeders. Should communities require people feeding birds to apply for permits, just as city officials in Yuma, AZ, want to require permits for those conducting TNR?

The way Ormsby and Wilkes tell it, though, birders are up against some kind of powerful cat lobby:

“Bird advocates like him are up against a multi-million-dollar cat-care industry in an animal rights fight that has been tested in U.S. courts, written about in a best-selling novel and spawned an outdoor furniture business to erect enclosed “catios” to give kitty a breath of fresh air.”

Had the reporters followed the money, they would have found a very different story on the advocacy front. According to the most recent data available from Charity Navigator, Alley Cat Allies’ net assets (as of July 2009) were about $2.8 million, compared to $3.7 million for ABC (December 2009). And the National Audubon Society holds in excess of $255 million (June 2009).

All of the sudden, that “multi-million-dollar” characterization doesn’t mean so much.

Cat Crazed
To further their case, Ormsby and Wilkes turn to Maureen Palmer, director of the recently released documentary Cat Crazed (currently unavailable for online streaming outside of Canada, though an audio interview with Palmer is available via the CBC).

“Palmer said one of the most ‘heartbreaking’ scenes during filming was at a volunteer spay-neuter clinic in Los Angeles that sterilized 80 ferals a day. She said most of the cats had infections that never healed, as well as broken bones, large abscesses around their teeth and mange.”

That does sound heartbreaking. But is it true?

I contacted Kim Senn, VP of Operations at FixNation, the clinic Palmer visited for the film. “We are fixing between 70–80 cats a day at FixNation,” she told me via e-mail, “and the overwhelming majority of them are healthy.”

“Less than 5 percent have any medical issues that prevent us from sterilizing them. The common, non-life-threatening issues we do see—like fleas, mange or an occasional abscess—are easily treatable while the cat is here at our clinic, and the cat is left better off than before TNR. And no longer reproducing, which is the best part.”

Immigration Status
Ormsby and Wilkes also touch on one of the most threadbare complaints against free-roaming and feral cats: their “status” as non-native. (Stay tuned for a follow-up story detailing (1) the exact date and time when North America was “pristine,” and (2) precisely how we might return to that mythical Eden.)

“Cats actually never roamed freely in North America until they were introduced by humans. The animals—rodent hunters in the wild—were first domesticated 7,000 years ago in the Middle East and Africa, according to researchers at the University of Nebraska. Those ancient cats evolved into a separate species called the domestic or house cat.”

Of all the possible sources the Toronto Star could consult about the history of the domestic cat, they turned to the authors of “Feral Cats and Their Management”? Isn’t that a bit like consulting Michael Vick about the history of the American Pit Bull Terrier?

“Since cats are not native predators in this part of the world, nesting North American birds have no natural defences against the agile tree climbers. Birds are already under stresses from habitat destruction, pollution, climate change and other animals, such as squirrels, who eat unattended eggs.”

Here, it seems, Ormsby and Wilkes have gone off the deep end, taking an argument used to explain the significant impact cats can have on island populations of birds and other animals—literally—to another level. As Fitzgerald and Turner write:

“Any bird populations on the continents that could not withstand these levels of predation from cats and other predators would have disappeared long ago, but populations of birds on oceanic islands have evolved in circumstances in which predation from mammalian predators was negligible and they, and other island vertebrates, are therefore particularly vulnerable to predation when cats have been introduced.” [3]

At the risk of stating the obvious: birds can fly—at least the ones found in trees can. That’s quite a defense against cats—less so against raptors, of course. Or buildings, pesticides, power lines, wind farms, etc.

Life Imitates Art
Ormsby and Wilkes quote Jonathan Franzen, whose latest novel, Freedom, touches rather directly on, as they put it, “the tension between cat people and bird people.”

“There are many ways for a house cat to die outdoors, including dismemberment by coyote and flattening by a car but when the Hoffbauer family’s beloved pet Bobby failed to come home one early-June evening, and no amount of calling Bobby’s name or searching the perimeter of Canterbridge Estates or walking up and down the county road or stapling Bobby’s Xeroxed image to local trees turned up any trace of him, it was widely assumed on Canterbridge Court that Bobby had been killed by Walter Berglund.”

Actually, Franzen is more of an insider than the reporters let on; Franzen, winner of the 2001 National Book Award and a Pulitzer Prize finalist the following year, sits on ABC’s board of directors, and he wrote the foreword to their recently released book, The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation (brilliant move: ABC has been publishing fiction for years now; at last, they have somebody on board who does it well). Franzen is also a fervent believer.

Ormsby and Wilkes end their article with a brief summary of a 2007 animal cruelty case that made headlines across the U.S. and beyond.

“In Texas five years ago, Jim Stevenson killed a cat. The Galveston ornithologist fatally shot a feral with a .22-calibre rifle, claiming the creature was killing piping plovers, an endangered shorebird species. Stevenson was charged with animal cruelty but walked free in 2007 when jurors failed to come to a decision and a mistrial was declared.”

Rather a dry telling of it, if you ask me. After hearing of bloodthirsty cats, backyard killing fields, and all the rest, aren’t readers entitled to a little more drama? Here, after all, is the only evidence of that “violent rift” Ormsby and Wilkes referred to early on—though, of course, it’s far more one-sided than the reporters suggested with their ominous foreshadowing.

That “feral,” by the way, was part of a colony cared for by John Newland, who, according to Assistant District Attorney Paige Santell, “had fed them, watered them, provided shelter for them, provided toys for them, provided vet care for some of them.”

“This animal suffered a great deal,” says Santell, during an interview with Alley Cat Allies. “That was another part of this case. I mean, this animal did not die right away. It took, you know, 30 to 45 minutes before it died. It was in a terrible amount of pain.”

It must be that Ormsby and Wilkes had hit their word limit already—it’s not as if they don’t like a good story.

The High Cost of a Free Press
Whether Ormsby and Wilkes were unable or unwilling to do this story justice I can’t say, but, as a piece of journalism, their finished product is astonishingly bad.

Not that they’re alone. On the contrary, they have plenty of company.

Last year around this time, when the Los Angeles Times ran a story about the injunction against city-funded TNR, reporter Kimi Yoshino invoked Sylvester and Tweety. And swallowed in one gulp the ridiculous claim by ABC’s Steve Holmer that “there are about . . . 160 million feral cats [nationwide].”

In December, several newspapers treated “Feral Cats and Their Management” as if it were legitimate research. Among the worst were Dale Bowman’s column in the Chicago Sun-Times (December 6), Scott Shalaway’s column (December 12) in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and an editorial (unsigned for good reason) in Lincoln’s Journal-Star (December 7).

And, it just keeps on coming.

Even as I was working on this post, somebody alerted me, via the Vox Felina Facebook page, to an opinion piece in the London Free Press (in which “expert” Theo Hofmann comes up short on both facts and logic: “Cats don’t eat the birds, they just kill them… So they really are causing a great deal of damage…”).

Do news accounts of cats killing a million birds a day turn ordinary citizens into Jim Stevensons? Or reports of 160 million feral cats (one for every two humans in this country!) provoke the kinds of horrors chronicled on the Cat Defender blog? Of course not.

On the other hand, the cumulative effect of such news coverage surely contributes to a misinformed public/electorate. Which, in turn, paves the way for misguided policy. (See, for example, Utah’s House Bill 210, sponsored by Republican Curtis Oda, which proposed to relax “provisions of the Utah Criminal Code relating to animal cruelty and animal torture,” in order to allow, among other things, “the humane shooting or killing of an animal if the person doing the shooting or killing has a reasonable belief that the animal is a feral animal.”)

Journalists have an obligation to approach any story with some healthy skepticism. They owe it to their readers to set aside, as much as possible, their own biases—and challenge those of their sources. To bring to the table some critical thinking and professional integrity.

When it comes to the subject of free-roaming/feral cats/TNR, however, the public rarely gets anything more substantive than a one-sided collection of talking points, sprinkled with cartoon references.

Literature Cited
1. Lepczyk, C.A., et al., “What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.” Conservation Biology. 2010. 24(2): p. 627–629. www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/pdf/Lepczyk-2010-Conservation%20Biology.pdf

2. Tabor, R., The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat. 1983, London: Arrow Books.

3. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.

On Invasion and Persuasion

22 Dec 2010

Smithsonian magazine is, according to its website, “created for modern, well-rounded individuals with diverse interests” and “chronicles the arts, history, sciences and popular culture of the times.” Jess Righthand’s recent article, “The World’s Worst Invasive Mammals,” seems—despite its inclusion in the online edition’s “Science & Nature” section—better suited for the pop culture category.

Indeed, the story has more to do with sensationalism than science.

Feral Cat Population
Righthand’s claim that “there are an estimated 60 million feral cats in the United States alone” is conservative compared to some other estimates. David Jessup, for example, suggested in 2004 that there were 60–100 million [1], while, more recently, The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation puts the figure at 60–120 million [2] (neither cites a source).

Still, Merritt Clifton of Animal People, an independent newspaper dedicated to animal protection issues, makes a compelling argument that the population of feral cats in the U.S. is much smaller than is often reported, and may very well be on the decline. [3]

Clifton’s estimates are derived not from surveys of homeowners feeding stray and feral cats, but from “information about the typical numbers of cats found in common habitat types, gleaned from a national survey of cat rescuers… cross-compared with animal shelter intake data.” [4] In 2003, Clifton suggested that “the winter feral cat population may now be as low as 13 million and the summer peak is probably no more than 24 million.” [4]

Predation on Birds
Righthand puts the figure for annual bird deaths attributed to feral cats at “around 480 million.” Nowhere near the “one billion birds” proposed by Nico Dauphine and Robert Cooper, [5] of course, but more than enough to get the attention of Smithsonian readers.

But, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, even high rates of predation do not equate to population declines (though, clearly, it’s easy to suggest as much). Many researchers have disputed the kind of broad, overreaching claims to which Righthand alludes. Biologist C.J. Mead, for example, reviewing the deaths of “ringed” (banded) birds reported by the British public, suggests that cats may be responsible for 6.2–31.3 percent of bird deaths. “Overall,” writes Mead, “it is clear that cat predation is a significant cause of death for most of the species examined.” Nevertheless, Mead concludes:

“there is no clear evidence of cats threatening to harm the overall population level of any particular species… Indeed, cats have been kept as pets for many years and hundreds of generations of birds breeding in suburban and rural areas have had to contend with their predatory intentions.” [6]

Mike Fitzgerald and Dennis Turner come to essentially the same conclusion: “We consider that we do not have enough information yet to attempt to estimate on average how many birds a cat kills each year. And there are few, if any studies apart from island ones that actually demonstrate that cats have reduced bird populations.” [7]

Then, too, there’s the critical distinction between compensatory and additive predation—again, a point I’ve made numerous times. Two very interesting studies have generated compelling evidence that birds killed by cats are, on average, significantly less healthy than those killed through non-predatory events (e.g., collisions with buildings). [8, 9] In other words, these birds probably weren’t going to live long enough to contribute to the overall population numbers; predation was compensatory rather than additive.

Public Health Threats
“When house cats are allowed free range outdoors by their owners,” argues Righthand, “or simply don’t have owners, they not only wreak havoc as opportunistic hunters, they can also spread disease. In addition to carrying rabies, 62 to 82 percent of cats in a recent study tested positive for toxoplasmosis.” Here, Righthand seems to be cribbing off of Hildreth, Vantassel, and Hygnstrom, of “Feral Cats and Their Management” fame—hardly a reputable source.

Rabies
Regarding rabies—a topic I’ll save for future posts—I think it’s important to put this into perspective. I happen to have data from Florida handy, and according to that state’s Department of Health, approximately 22,000 Florida residents have died of the flu or pneumonia since 2006 (actually, that figure accounts for only 24 of Florida’s 67 counties, so the total is surely much higher).

By way of comparison: from 2005 through mid-May of this year, there were 11 reported cases of rabies in humans across the entire country (though, I believe there were a handful of reported cases this summer as well).

In terms of public health, then, I think we’re all better off focusing on frequent hand washing, sneezing into our sleeves, and the like—as opposed to, say, exterminating this country’s most popular companion animal by the millions.

Toxoplasma gondii (I)
While it’s true that cats are the definitive host of Toxoplasma gondii, it’s important to note that “wild game can be a source of T. gondii infection in humans, cats, and other carnivores. Serologic data show that a significant number of feral pigs, bears, and cervids are exposed to T. gondii. [10]

“Humans,” write Elmore et al., “usually become infected through ingestion of oocyst-contaminated soil and water, tissue cysts in undercooked meat, or congenitally. Because of their fastidious nature, the passing of non-infective oocysts, and the short duration of oocyst shedding, direct contact with cats is not thought to be a primary risk for human infection.” [11]

But to Righthand’s point: the rate of cats testing positive—or seroprevalence—is, in any event, not a useful measure of their ability to infect other animals or people.

According to Dubey and Jones, “most cats seroconvert after they have shed oocysts. Thus, it is a reasonable assumption that most seropositive cats have already shed oocysts.” [12] “Testing positive,” in this case, is nothing more than the detection of antibodies resulting from seroconversion (the same process, by the way, that takes place in humans after receiving a flu shot).

So, what exactly is Righthand’s point? Did she simply not do her homework here, or is the idea to portray these cats as a threat far, far beyond what the scientific evidence supports? Both, I suspect.

Toxoplasma gondii (II)
T. gondii, Righthand continues, “has been shown to cause neurological damage to sea otters and other marine mammals that are exposed when heavy rainfall washes infected cat feces into the water.” Again, this is terrain I’ve covered previously. (Righthand, it seems, could do herself—and Smithsonian readers—a favor by subscribing to Vox Felina!)

Yes, T. gondii has been linked to the illness and death of marine life, primarily sea otters [13], prompting investigation into the possible role of free-roaming (both owned and feral) cats. [14, 15] It’s generally thought that oocysts (the mature, infective form of the parasite) are transferred from soil contaminated with infected feces to coastal waterways by way of freshwater run-off. [15]

However, one study found that 36 of 50 sea otters from coastal California were infected with the Type X strain of T. gondii [16], a type linked to wild felids (mountain lions and a bobcat, in this case), but not to domestic cats. [15] A recently published study from Germany seems to corroborate these findings. Herrmann et al. analyzed 18,259 fecal samples (all from pet cats) for T. gondii and found no Type X strain. (It’s interesting to note, too, that only 0.25% of the samples tested positive for T. gondii). [17]

Once again, we’re back to the question: What is Righthand trying to accomplish here?

Population Impacts
“Cats have,” writes Righthand, “also hurt populations of birds, reptiles and other creatures. The black stilt of New Zealand (a seabird), the Okinawa woodpecker and the Cayman Island ground iguana are just a few of the dozens of endangered species at risk due to the proliferation of feral cats.”

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, endangered species are—by definition—at risk due to the proliferation of all sorts of threats. That’s how they became endangered in the first place. To suggest, as Righthand does, that cats are the sole threat these animals face is both misleading and irresponsible.

Righthand (taking a cue, perhaps, from the authors of The ABC Guide?) also makes the common mistake of using island impacts (which are, themselves, more complex than often acknowledged) to imply impacts elsewhere (better yet: everywhere). Readers, it seems, are on their own in terms of doing any research on the topic.

Mission Failure
How much of the blame we can put on Righthand, I don’t know. According to Smithsonian’s website, she’s an intern with the magazine. Had the editors wanted a more thoroughly researched article, they could have demanded one. (This, some readers will recall, is not the first time I’ve been disappointed with the Smithsonian’s lack of rigor.)

According to its website, the mission of the Smithsonian is straightforward but ambitious: “the increase and diffusion of knowledge.” Righthand’s article—misleading at best—falls well short. It seems she’s still struggling with how to best express the organization’s proclaimed values—in this case, going overboard on the creativity at the expense of excellence and integrity.

Literature Cited
1. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.225.1377

2. Lebbin, D.J., Parr, M.J., and Fenwick, G.H., The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. 2010, London: University of Chicago Press.

3. Clifton, M. (2003) Roadkills of cats fall 90% in 10 years—are feral cats on their way out? http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/11/roadkills1103.html Accessed May 23, 2010.

4. Clifton, M. Where cats belong—and where they don’t. Animal People 2003 [cited 2009 December 24]. http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/6/wherecatsBelong6.03.html.

5. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219. www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pif/pubs/McAllenProc/articles/PIF09_Anthropogenic%20Impacts/Dauphine_1_PIF09.pdf

6. Mead, C.J., “Ringed birds killed by cats.” Mammal Review. 1982. 12(4): p. 183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1982.tb00014.x

7. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.

8. 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://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00836.x

9. 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/

10. Hill, D.E., Chirukandoth, S., and Dubey, J.P., “Biology and epidemiology of Toxoplasma gondii in man and animals.” Animal Health Research Reviews. 2005. 6(01): p. 41-61. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=775956&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1466252305000034

11. Elmore, S.A., et al., “Toxoplasma gondii: epidemiology, feline clinical aspects, and prevention.” Trends in Parasitology. 26(4): p. 190-196. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W7G-4YHFWNM-1/2/2a468a936eb06649fde0463deae4e92f

12. Dubey, J.P. and Jones, J.L., “Toxoplasma gondii infection in humans and animals in the United States.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2008. 38(11): p. 1257-1278. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4S85DPK-1/2/2a1f9e590e7c7ec35d1072e06b2fa99d

13. Jones, J.L. and Dubey, J.P., “Waterborne toxoplasmosis – Recent developments.” Experimental Parasitology. 124(1): p. 10-25. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WFH-4VXB8YT-2/2/8f9562f64497fe1a30513ba3f000c8dc

14. Dabritz, H.A., et al., “Outdoor fecal deposition by free-roaming cats and attitudes of cat owners and nonowners toward stray pets, wildlife, and water pollution.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2006. 229(1): p. 74-81. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.229.1.74

15. Miller, M.A., et al., “Type X Toxoplasma gondii in a wild mussel and terrestrial carnivores from coastal California: New linkages between terrestrial mammals, runoff and toxoplasmosis of sea otters.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2008. 38(11): p. 1319-1328. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4RXJYTT-2/2/32d387fa3048882d7bd91083e7566117

16. Conrad, P.A., et al., “Transmission of Toxoplasma: Clues from the study of sea otters as sentinels of Toxoplasma gondii flow into the marine environment.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2005. 35(11-12): p. 1155-1168. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4GWC8KV-2/2/2845abdbb0fd82c37b952f18ce9d0a5f

17. Herrmann, D.C., et al., “Atypical Toxoplasma gondii genotypes identified in oocysts shed by cats in Germany.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2010. 40(3): p. 285–292. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4X1J771-2/2/dc32f5bba34a6cce28041d144acf1e7c

American Bird Con

13 Dec 2010

For years now, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) has been promoting erroneous and misleading information in their tireless effort to vilify free-roaming cats. No organization has been more effective at working the anti-TNR pseudoscience into a message neatly packaged for the mainstream media, and eventual consumption by the general public. Speaking to the Wall Street Journal in 2002, Becky Robinson, co-founder and President of Alley Cat Allies, described ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign as “a new environmental witch hunt.” [1]

Book Cover: The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation

In their recently released book, The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation, ABC changes tack a bit—using what the authors call “conservative” estimates of the outdoor cat population and annual predation rates, for example, to arrive at their figure of “532 million birds killed annually by outdoor cats.” [2] At the same time, they include much of the same misinformation ABC’s been promoting all along. It’s a clever strategy, really: endorsing bogus claims as valid science without having to defend them as such.

In fact, one doesn’t need to get past the book’s preface before realizing the role that science plays—or, more to the point, doesn’t play—at ABC. “We see very few issues resolved through coming to consensus on the science,” writes President and CEO George Fenwick.

“More often, science divides us. So, though we continue to need excellent science, conservationists also need to learn how to better persuade, use media effectively, and connect birds to the human condition, spirituality and ethical values.” [2]

If its section on cats is any indication, The ABC Guide is the manifestation of Fenwick’s philosophy: more style than substance, more sales than science. The authors didn’t even bother with citations and references, suggesting to readers, perhaps, that The ABC Guide is the last word on the subject. Where free-roaming cats are concerned, though, ABC has precious few answers—in part because they (still) aren’t asking the right questions.

Outdoor Cats
Referring to unattributed 2007 data, the authors of The ABC Guide—Daniel Lebbin, Michael Parr, and George Fenwick—claim that 43 percent of pet cats “have access to the outdoors.” [2] But, according to American Pet Products Association (APPA) 2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 64 percent of cats are indoor-only during the daytime, and 69 percent are kept in at night [3].

Other surveys have yielded similar results, and also indicate that, of those cats that are allowed outdoors, approximately half were outside for three hours or less each day [4, 5]. For Lebbin et al., though, these part-timers are no different from their feral relatives. Of which, “there are 60–120 million,” according to the authors. [2]

Where this figure comes from is anybody’s guess. It’s substantially higher than any other estimates I’ve seen, with one notable exception—a statement made earlier this year by an ABC official (more on that in a moment).

Feral Cat Numbers
Very little exists in terms of credible population estimates for feral cats. There are, however, many unsubstantiated claims.

Among the most popular for those interested in big numbers is the first line from David Jessup’s ironically titled 2004 paper “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife” (ironic because his “concerns” for the welfare of these cats are so plainly disingenuous): “There are an estimated 60 to 100 million feral and abandoned cats in the United States.” [6] As to the origins of Jessup’s “estimate,” again, it’s anybody’s guess, as he offers no reference.

Based on the results of a 1999 telephone survey of Alachua County, Florida, residents, Levy et al. estimated that the population of free-roaming cats represented approximately 44 percent of the county’s total population of cats. [7] Other researchers have reported similar figures for nationwide estimates. [8] By way of comparison, ABC’s estimate represents 39–56 percent of the overall population of cats in the U.S. (based on APPA’s latest figures for pet cats).

On the other hand, Merritt Clifton of Animal People, an independent newspaper dedicated to animal protection issues, makes a compelling argument that the population of feral cats in the U.S. is much smaller than is often reported, and may very well be on the decline. [9] Clifton’s estimates are derived not from surveys of homeowners feeding stray and feral cats, but from “information about the typical numbers of cats found in common habitat types, gleaned from a national survey of cat rescuers… cross-compared with animal shelter intake data.” [10] In 2003, Clifton suggested that “the winter feral cat population may now be as low as 13 million and the summer peak is probably no more than 24 million.” [10]

Population Increase
Earlier this year, ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, Steve Holmer, told the Los Angeles Times, “The latest estimates are that there are about . . . 160 million feral cats [nationwide].” When pressed for details, Holmer referred me to Nico Dauphine and Robert Cooper’s 2009 Partners In Flight Conference paper. Which, as it turns out, leads right back to ABC and their Cats Indoors! campaign.

Dauphine and Cooper begin their adventure in creative accounting with Jessup’s unattributed 100 million, and add to it the number of owned cats they describe as “free-ranging outdoor cats for at least some portion of the day.” [11] For which they turn to Linda Winter, former director of Cats Indoors!, and her 2004 paper in which she reports the findings of a 1997 telephone survey (commissioned by ABC) of cat owners. According to Winter, “66 percent of cat owners let their cats outdoors some or all of the time.” [12]

In fact, the survey—as reported in ABC’s brochure “Human Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Cats”—indicated that “35 percent keep their cats indoors all of the time” and “31 percent keep them indoors mostly with some outside access.” [9] The difference in wording is subtle and hampered by imprecision (it all comes down to the meaning of some), but it’s difficult not to see this as deliberately misleading on Winter’s part.

In any case, results of other surveys (described previously) suggest quite convincingly that outdoor access for the vast majority of pet cats is really very limited. Nevertheless, Dauphine and Cooper persist, arriving at a staggering “117–157 million free-ranging cats.” [11] Holmer, in turn, rounds off the upper limit, “scrubs” the pet cats from the calculation by calling them all ferals, and gets the bogus figure printed in the Times. (Gold star for Holmer!)

Lebbin et al. don’t go that far, but their “most conservative estimate of outdoor and feral cats in the U.S.”—95 million—is, given its shaky origins, no more valid than Dauphine and Cooper’s.

Predation
According to The ABC Guide, “all outdoor cats hunt and kill birds (20–30 percent of cat prey) and other small animals.” [2] No study I’m aware of has demonstrated that all cats hunt. On the contrary, some research suggests that less than half of outdoor cats hunt. Figures as low as 36–56 percent have been reported by researchers in Australia, for example. [13]

In the UK, Baker, Bentley, Ansell, and Harris reported that 77 cats returned a total of 212 prey items to 52 Bristol households participating in their pilot study, but “in each sampling period, the majority of cats (51–74 percent) failed to return any prey.” [14] The subsequent 12-month study (this time involving 186 Bristol households, 275 cats, and 495 prey items) found a similar level of apparent non-hunters: roughly 61 percent. [15]

Woods, McDonald, and Harris, also working in the UK, found that, although 91 percent of cats returned at least one item, “approximately 20–30 percent of cats brought home either no birds or no mammals.” [16] And Churcher and Lawton’s yearlong “English Village” study (involving approximately 70 cats and 1,090 documented prey items) found that that 8.6 percent of cats brought home no prey [17] (though the authors don’t specify the percentage of cats that returned no birds).

And while it’s true that cats are unlikely to return home with all they prey they catch, it’s equally true that they will bring home items they didn’t kill. Very little is known about the extent of either phenomenon, however. (Carol Fiore’s [18] attempt to unravel this mystery is plagued by methodological missteps and obvious bias; William George’s [19] comments are often interpreted as suggesting that cats return only half of what they catch, though this is incorrect.)

The Diet of Cats
The idea that birds make up 20–30 percent of the diet of free-roaming cats is one that ABC has been promoting since 1997, when they launched Cats Indoors! But it’s no more valid now than it was then.

According to ABC’s brochure, “Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife” (downloadable from their website), “extensive studies of the feeding habits of domestic, free-roaming cats… show that approximately… 20 to 30 percent [of their diet] are birds.” Ellen Perry Berkeley carefully examined—and debunked—this claim in her book, TNR Past Present and Future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement, noting that ABC’s 20–30 percent figure wasn’t based on “extensive studies” at all. [10]

In fact, just three sources were used: the now-classic “English Village” study by Churcher and Lawton [11], the infamous “Wisconsin Study,” and researchers Mike Fitzgerald and Dennis Turner’s contribution to The Domestic Cat: The Biology of Its Behaviour. [12]

As Berkeley points out, combining or comparing data from these three sources is entirely inappropriate. Both the English Village and Wisconsin studies report the percentage of birds returned as a portion of the “total catch,” whereas Fitzgerald reports percentage by frequency (i.e., the occurrence of birds in the stomach contents or scats of free-roaming cats).

To put this into more familiar terms, consider coffee consumption. According to the 2009 National Coffee Drinking Trends Study, 54 percent of American adults drink coffee daily—54, then, is the percentage by frequency. To say that coffee makes up 54 percent of our dietary intake—essentially ABC’s interpretation—is obviously a gross exaggeration of consumption levels. (Neither measure says anything about the supply of coffee, of course.)

Nevertheless, 13 years after ABC first published its report—and six years after Berkeley exposed the error publicly in TNR—the myth persists. So much for ABC’s commitment, spelled out in the book’s section on threats, to “address all of the major threats responsible for killing large numbers of birds, using the best information and research available, while promoting further research and monitoring where it is most needed.” [2]

Which, in turn, raises serious questions about the integrity of ABC and the people running it.

Declawed Cats
Citing Fiore’s thesis research, Lebbin at al. conclude, “de-clawed cats kill as many birds as cats with claws.” [2] Fiore herself is equally confident:

“There were seven declawed cats in the study and all but one took birds (giving a figure of 86 percent); the top predator cat was declawed. Declawing cats appears to have no effect whatsoever on the ability to hunt birds.” [18]

But, both ABC and Fiore leave out some critical details. There were, after all, only 41 cats involved in the study—hardly the kind of sampling required to make such sweeping statements.

A closer look reveals that the declawed cats were apparently responsible for killing an average of 3.6 birds/cat/year while the cats with claws had an average of 3.0. Does this mean that the declawed cats are actually superior hunters compared to the other cats? Hardly.

In addition to the sampling issue, there’s the problem inherent in using the average to describe highly skewed distributions (many cats catching few prey, while few cats catch many prey). In such instances, it’s more appropriate to use median values, which better represent “average” hunting success. [20] Doing so yields estimates of 1 bird/cat/year for the declawed cats vs. 2 birds/cat/year for the cats with claws.

So, declawed cats kill only half as many birds as those with claws? I’ll leave such indefensible claims to others.

Now, to be clear: I’m no advocate of declawing. Nor do I think it’s in the best interest of pet cats to be outdoors—especially those without claws. My point here is merely to demonstrate the flaws in ABC’s deceptively straightforward assertion; once again, ABC is more interested in a good story than they are in good science. (Their comment about declawed cats is precisely the kind of sound-bite that is easily picked up by the media, and repeated so widely that it becomes nearly impossible to trace—never mind untangle.)

Cats and Birds
As evidence of the “variable predation rates by cats,” [2] The ABC Guide refers to just four studies. And, although no citations are included, people familiar with the literature will recognize the numbers and locations immediately.

From Christopher Lepczyk’s dissertation work, the authors somehow extract a figure of 35.5 birds/cat/year, near the low end of Lepczyk’s own estimate of “between 0.7 and 1.4 birds per week.” [21] But Lepczyk’s research suffers from a range of problems—both in terms of his methods and analysis—that inflate his estimated predation rates. (Interestingly, ABC’s Fenwick and Winter are among those Lepczyk thanks “for helpful and constructive reviews” in the Acknowledgements section.)
Another of the predation rates included in The ABC Guide is the more moderate 15 birds/cat/year from Crooks and Soulé’s 1999 paper [22]. But here, too, there are flaws that lead to bloated predation levels.Like Lepczyk, Crooks and Soulé asked residents to estimate annual levels of prey returned home by their cats (in contrast to some studies in which actual prey items are recorded and/or collected). But such guesswork becomes less accurate as estimates increase. David Barratt found that “predicted rates of predation greater than about ten prey per year generally over-estimated predation observed” [20]. At the levels reported by Crooks and Soulé—an average of 56 total prey items (including birds, mammals, etc.) per year—predicted rates were often twice actual predation rates.
Also, Crooks and Soulé seem (not enough detail is provided in their paper to be certain) to have used a simple average in their calculations, perhaps doubling true predation levels. Taken together, these factors suggest that actual predation levels might be just a quarter of those suggested by Crooks and Soulé.
The third study—easily the most rigorous of the four—with a predation rate of 9.6 birds/cat/year, comes from Woods et al. The researchers, having recruited study participants solely from The Mammal Society, allow that they “may have focused on predatory cats,” and ask that their results be “treated with requisite caution.” [16] They also make clear that their estimated predation rates “do not equate to an assessment of the impact of cats on wildlife populations” [16] (more on that shortly)
Finally, there is the—seemingly inevitable—reference to the Wisconsin Study, though for some reason (again, without explanation) Lebbin et al. have adjusted Coleman and Temple’s figures of 28–365 birds/cat/year downward: “between 5.6 and 109.5.” [2]In this case, the details hardly matter. The Wisconsin Study isn’t actually a study at all; no predation data or findings were ever published. Coleman and Temple’s “estimates”—widely circulated as valid research, thanks in part to ABC—were nothing more than back-of-the-envelope calculations. “Our best guesses,” as the authors themselves admit, “at low, intermediate and high estimates of the number of birds killed annually by rural cats in Wisconsin.” [23]
“Those figures were from our proposal,” Temple told The Sonoma County Independent. “They aren’t actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be.” [24]

Sixteen years later, though, ABC is still trying to make “actual data” out of “not actual data.” (Granted, they have backed off from Coleman and Temple’s high estimate, but no mathematical adjustments can transform these flawed, biased guesses into valid research findings.)

Cats as Hunters
Contrary to popular myth, evidence suggests that cats are not quite the hunters they’ve been made out to be. Fitzgerald and Turner suggest that the hunting behavior of cats leads to many “failures,” and, as a result, “many cats soon give up bird hunting altogether.” [25]

“Primarily, all cats hunt both birds and rodents with equal zeal,” observed German zoologist Paul Leyhausen, “and many obviously prefer eating birds.” But, argues Leyhausen (1916–1998), who spent the bulk of his career studying the behavior of cats, “they cannot catch them as easily, and for this reason with increasing experience may soon give up hunting birds.” [26]

“However, our town cats today are often compelled, because of the almost total absence of rodents in their territory to concentrate on chasing birds in order to discharge their pent-up hunting propensities. Even in these circumstances, however, cats are not capable of seriously endangering the songbird population of a substantial area. They almost always catch only old, sick or young specimens. But three quarters of the young birds must perish anyway, since the size of the population in an area remains fairly constant on an average over the years… During years in the field I have observed countless times how cats have caught a mouse or a rat and just as often how they have stalked a bird. But I never saw them catch a healthy songbird that was capable of flying. Certainly it does happen, but, as I have said, seldom. I should feel sorry for the average domestic cat that had to live solely on catching birds.” [26]

Although few predation studies have examined the hunting behavior of cats belonging to managed colonies, those that have are revealing. Reporting on their study of free-roaming cats in Brooklyn, Calhoon and Haspel write: “Although birds and small rodents are plentiful in the study area, only once in more than 180 [hours] of observations did we observe predation.” [27]

Castillo and Clarke, though highly critical of TNR (“This method is not an effective means to control the population of unwanted cats and confirms that the establishment of cat colonies on public lands encourages illegal dumping and creates an attractive nuisance.” [28]), documented little predation in the two Florida parks they used for their study (the focus of which was TNR efficacy, not predation). Over the course of approximately 300 hours of observation (this, in addition to “several months identifying, describing, and photographing each of the cats living in the colonies” [28] prior to beginning their research), Castillo and Clarke “saw cats kill a juvenile common yellowthroat and a blue jay.” [28]

“Cats also caught and ate green anoles, bark anoles, and brown anoles. In addition, we found the carcasses of a gray catbird and a juvenile opossum in the feeding area.” [28]

Another study conducted in a public park, this one in Alameda County, California, also reported low levels of apparent predation of birds (though researcher Cole Hawkins makes every attempt to suggest otherwise). Of 120 scat samples found by searching the “cat area” of Hawkins’ study site, “65 percent were found to contain rodent hair and 4 percent feathers.” [2] This finding comes toward the end of the study, when the cat population was at its greatest (22 were sighted)—and still, only 4 percent contained feathers. And this could easily represent one cat and one bird (and, strictly speaking, even this is not evidence of actual predation, as the bird(s) could have been scavenged).

Impact
To arrive at their figure of “532 million birds killed annually by outdoor cats,” Lebbin et al. multiply “the most conservative predation rate (5.6 birds per cats per year) by the most conservative estimate of outdoor and feral cats in the U.S. (95 million).” [2] They go on to suggest that “the actual number” is “likely… much higher,” [2] though, of course, they ignore or overlook all the errors and misrepresentations bound up in their basic calculation.

Even setting all that aside, the question remains: What impact does predation by cats have on bird populations?

Islands and Continents
Here, the authors focus mostly on the extinction of seabirds linked to the presence of feral cats on islands. I’m only vaguely familiar with the examples they cite, but if the case of the Stephens Island Wren is any indication, the stories are far more complex than ABC suggests. [see, for example, 29 and 30]

But, as Fitzgerald and Turner point out, “because the range of prey available on islands differs markedly from that on the continents the two groups, continents and islands, are treated separately.” [25]

And when it comes to the impact of cats on continental bird populations, ABC highlights rare and endangered species—but ignores entirely two key points. First, as was mentioned previously, even high rates of predation do not equate to population declines.

Referring to the estimated 30 percent of House Sparrow mortality attributed to cat predation in the English Village study, Gary Patronek emphasizes the importance of viewing such predation in the larger context. “When the birds were counted,” writes Patronek, former Director of the Center for Animals and Public Policy at the Cummings School, and one of the founders of the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium, “they represented the postwinter population prior to hatching of spring chicks. By the year’s end, the actual sparrow population in the village numbered in the thousands, and the 130 birds caught represented about 5 percent of that number.” [31]

Compensatory vs. Additive Predation
Then there is the critical distinction between compensatory and additive predation, something Churcher himself alluded to: “I don’t really go along with the idea of cats being a threat to wildlife. If the cats weren’t there, something else would be killing the sparrows or otherwise preventing them from breeding.” [32]

Two very interesting studies have generated compelling evidence that birds killed by cats are, on average, significantly less healthy than those killed through non-predatory events (e.g., collisions with buildings). [15, 33] In other words, these birds probably weren’t going to live long enough to contribute to the overall population numbers; predation was compensatory rather than additive. Relative to population impacts, then, the “accounting” of bird kills is far more complex than ABC suggests.

Additional Evidence
Many researchers have disputed the kind of broad, overreaching claims Lebbin et al. make about the impact of cats on bird population (and wildlife in general).

Biologist C.J. Mead, reviewing the deaths of “ringed” (banded) birds reported by the British public, suggests that cats may be responsible for 6.2–31.3 percent of bird deaths. “Overall,” writes Mead, “it is clear that cat predation is a significant cause of death for most of the species examined.” Nevertheless, Mead concludes:

“there is no clear evidence of cats threatening to harm the overall population level of any particular species… Indeed, cats have been kept as pets for many years and hundreds of generations of birds breeding in suburban and rural areas have had to contend with their predatory intentions.” [34]

In the context of TNR, however, focusing on such figures may be missing the point. “If the real objection to managed colonies is that it is unethical to put cats in a situation where they could potentially kill any wild creature,” writes Patronek, “then the ethical issue should be debated on its own merits without burdening the discussion with highly speculative numerical estimates for either wildlife mortality or cat predation.” [35]

“Whittling down guesses or extrapolations from limited observations by a factor of 10 or even 100 does not make these estimates any more credible, and the fact that they are the best available data is not sufficient to justify their use when the consequence may be extermination for cats… What I find inconsistent in an otherwise scientific debate about biodiversity is how indictment of cats has been pursued almost in spite of the evidence, and without regard to the differential effects of cats in carefully selected, managed colonies, versus that of free-roaming pets, owned farm cats, or truly feral animals. Assessment of well-being for any species is an imprecise and contentious process at best. Additional research is clearly needed concerning the welfare of these cats.” [35]

Trap-Neuter-Return
“Many well-intentioned but misguided people,” write Lebbin et al. “exacerbate feral cat problems through a technique called Trap, Neuter, Release (TNR), whereby colony cats are caught, spayed or neutered, and then returned to colonies to be fed by volunteers.” [2] Here, the authors trot out a classic verbal swipe, using the term Release instead of Return, implying a certain lack of planning, or even abandonment (with its legal implications).

They also imply that ABC is a resource for the “misguided.”

From The ABC Guide, the caption reads: “Managed feral cat colonies are a hazard to birds and attract the dumping of additional unwanted cats.” In fact, the photographer, Tina Lorien, tells me that these cats were photographed on the Island of Crete, where, it seems, even spayed/neutered pet cats are rather rare.

“Despite its apparent appeal,” Lebbin et al. continue, “few colonies managed under this system shrink, as the program takes more time than most volunteers are able to give, some cats are never caught, and the colonies often become dumping grounds for more unwanted cats.” [2]

Resources
Their claim that TNR programs are ineffective due to limited resources is unsubstantiated. More important, though, they ignore the fact that any feral cat management program is resource-intensive (as is any conservation effort, of course). Several successful TNR programs have been documented (see below), and countless more operate quietly, out of the spotlight.

It’s important to point out, too, that TNR is typically funded through private donations and the out-of-pocket purchases of volunteers. Trap-and-kill, on the other hand, is more likely to rely entirely on local tax dollars.

Sterilization
Their suggestion that all the cats need to be sterilized also lacks support. One often-cited population modeling study—included here more as a reference point than anything else—found that, in order to reduce colony population, approximately 75 percent of fertile cats would need to be sterilized. [36] However, this figure from Andersen, Martin, and Roemer takes into account no adoptions, though the authors point out that adoptions “are similar in effect to euthanasia because these cats are permanently removed from the free-roaming cat population.” [36]

Nor do Andersen et al. consider emigration between cat colonies, though they concede that “a substantial number of owned cats are reported to be adopted strays.” [36] “Substantial” is right—in 2003, Clifton suggested that “up to a third of all pet cats now appear to be recruited from the feral population.” [10]

TNR Successes
Though Lebbin et al. refuse to acknowledge it, TNR has had its share of successes. A 10-year TNR program in Rome, for example, yielded a “16–32 percent decrease on total cat number” across 103 managed colonies. [37] Detractors [38] like to focus on authors’ suggestion that “all these efforts without an effective education of people to control the reproduction of house cats (as a prevention for abandonment) are a waste of money, time and energy.” [37]

In fact, given the 21 percent rate of immigration “due to abandonment and spontaneous arrival,” [37] this colony reduction is quite remarkable. And, as Julie Levy, Maddie’s Professor of Shelter Medicine in the University of Florida’s College of Veterinary Medicine, points out, “such a decline is still beneficial to wildlife if no better alternative is available.” [39] (The “alternatives” ABC proposes—outlined below—are, at best, exactly that: no better.)

Levy, Gale, and Gale reported a 66 percent decline in the population of managed colonies on the University of Central Florida campus between 1991 and 2002, despite the arrival of stray or abandoned cats. [40] (In their paper, Levy et al. cite several other success stories.) And, in their telephone survey of 101 north-central Florida colony caretakers, Centonze and Levy reported “a 27 percent decrease in mean colony size within less than one year of beginning neutering.” [41]

One of the best-known TNR programs is ORCAT, run by the Ocean Reef Community Association, which, according to a 2004 paper, had reduced “overall population from approximately 2,000 cats to 500 cats.” [42] According to the ORCAT website, the population today is approximately 350, of which only about 250 are free-roaming.

Any TNR program contends with the unfortunate (and illegal) dumping of cats. But to suggest that TNR invites abandonment of cats is ridiculous. I’ve seen no research supporting such a claim. If people are determined to abandon their pet cat(s), I fail to see how the presence or absence of a nearby TNR program will affect that decision. On the other hand, cats dumped near a managed colony are far more likely to be adopted and/or sterilized—thereby mitigating their potential impact on the overall population of unowned cats.

Finally, it’s important to note that, although rapid decline—and eventual elimination through attrition—of managed colonies is the goal of TNR (and apparently the only acceptable outcome for the authors of The ABC Guide), reduced growth is not without its benefits. “Population stabilization,” writes Levy, is “a valid metric given that the status quo for unsterilized cats is rapid population growth.” [39]

Alternatives to TNR
Given their ongoing criticism of TNR, one might expect ABC to offer an alternative method of feral cat management—an approach against which to measure TNR (and against which TNR would, presumably, prove inferior). For the most part, though, ABC sidesteps the issue.

“Neutering and spaying pet cats,” write Lebbin et al., “is a humane method for reducing cat over-population.” True enough, but that doesn’t address the sizable population of unowned cats. Although The ABC Guide calls for readers to “make TNR and the feeding of cat colonies illegal,” [2] there’s no recommendation for what should be done with all of these cats.

I put this question to Lebbin and Parr during an ABC webinar celebrating the launch of the book earlier this month. “What we recommend,” said Parr, Vice President of ABC, “as an alternative to [TNR], is not abandoning cats in the first place.” Again, I don’t think there’s any disagreement on this point. Parr continued:

“Other options would be to house those cats in shelters or outdoor sanctuaries which could be managed. Clearly, it’s a huge problem, and the solutions to this are going be things we going to have to work together on for a long period of time, but certainly that would be my first reaction to that question.”

Really, we’re back to sanctuaries? Is this the best ABC has to offer? Almost.

Trap-and-Remove
In their book, Lebbin et al. point out, with obvious pride, that, “By 2004, feral cats had been successfully removed from at least 48 islands worldwide” (there’s another euphemism: removed). [2] A particular “success” is Ascension Island, where, the authors maintain, feral cats had reduced seabird numbers “by 98 percent, from 200 million to 400,000.” [2] As a result of “a multi-year eradication effort that began in 2001,” [2] birds have begun to return.

But, as is often the case, what’s left out of the story is far more interesting than what included.

Detailed accounts of feral cats eradication Marion Island provide a glimpse of the horrors involved. A 1992 paper reports 872 cats shot and 80 more trapped during 14,725 hours of hunting. “Present action” included “mass trapping and poisoning, and the possible use of trained dogs [was] being investigated.” [43] This was after the highly contagious feline panleucopenia virus (feline distemper) had been introduced to the island’s feral cat population, reducing the population by an average 29 percent annually between 1977 and 1982. [44]

On Macquarie Island successful eradication has had “dire” [45] consequences in the form of rapidly increasing rabbit and rodent populations. “In response, Federal and State governments in Australia have committed AU$24 million for an integrated rabbit, rat and mouse eradication programme.” [45]

Given the extent to which conservation efforts backfired on Macquarie Island—less than 50 square miles in size—one can only imagine the consequences and expense (to say nothing of the protests!) of a similar attempt in the continental U.S. But according to ABC, it seems to be either this or sanctuaries—for a population of feral cats they claim to be 60–120 million strong.

(To be fair, Lebbin et al. do offer this concession: “In some cases, invasive or overabundant species may not need to be eradicated, but simply reduced to levels such that they no longer pose a serious threat to native endangered species.” [2] Given their staunch opposition to TNR, however, I suspect this “offer”—which in any case would mean the killing of many millions of cats—does not apply to feral cats.)

The Current Approach
We do have some sense of how ineffective “traditional” feral cat management—a mix of trap-and-kill and inaction—has been. In an interview with Animal Sheltering magazine, Mark Kumpf, President of the National Animal Control Association President from 2007 to 2008, described this approach as “bailing the ocean with a thimble,” suggesting, too, that “the traditional methods that many communities use… are not necessarily the ones that communities are looking for today.” [46]

Clifton goes further, suggesting that trap-and-kill has actually backfired: “Regardless of motive,” writes Clifton, “the effect on the feral cat population replicates natural predation: the most frequent victims are the very young, the old, the disabled, and the ill. The healthiest animals usually escape to breed up to the carrying capacity of the habitat, if they can.” [10]

“Responding to the intensified mortality,” Clifton continues, “felis catus now bears an average litter of four. Nearly seven centuries of killing cats doubled the fecundity of the species.” [10]

Accountability
What Becky Robinson called a “new environmental witch hunt,” [1] I like to think of as a Trojan Horse. Disguised as good advice for responsible cat owners, ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign has, since 1997, been used more to combat TNR than anything else.

With the publication of The ABC Guide, the authors had a chance to right some past wrongs by coming clean about the research surrounding predation, wildlife impacts, and TNR, as well as the true implications of their call to “make TNR and the feeding of cat colonies illegal.” [2] Instead, they elected for business as usual.

Facts vs. Human Connection
In doing so, ABC missed a golden opportunity to use its enormous influence for moving the discussion forward. (More recently, ABC took another big step backwards by endorsing a deeply flawed and irresponsible paper released by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, once again sacrificing their integrity for some easy PR.)

But Fenwick, who’s been President and CEO since ABC’s founding in 1994, doesn’t seem to get it. “What have we learned about the opposition?” he asks rhetorically in the book’s preface.

“For one thing, every point of view has its own science and economics to support its contentions, whether it be pro- or anti- pesticide use, free-roaming cats, bird collisions with glass or towers, conflicts with fisheries, land conversion, wind energy, mining, timbering, climate change, or any other issue we consider in addressing bird conservation…” [2]

Fenwick seems to be suggesting that “the opposition” has its own science and economics, whereas ABC has, on its side: Science and Economics (a truly untenable position, in light of a recent ABC press release).

“Facts alone will not win these battles,” he continues, “but human connection might.”

Communication vs. Misinformation
I have to agree with Fenwick that facts alone are insufficient to engage the general public. It’s difficult, for instance, to convey the critical nature of climate change in terms of ocean temperatures rising a couple of degrees Celsius (a figure I use here only to make a point). Explain to people how deep the water may rise in their city or neighborhood, however, and you’re liable to get their attention.

But that’s not what ABC is doing. They have effectively dismissed any and all rigorous science, choosing instead to broadcast as loudly as possible their increasingly dire message—in spite of the science.

Fenwick’s analogy is not climate change, but human health and welfare:

“…no matter the issue, our opposition will unfailingly question our priorities. So, they ask, ‘Why are you blaming __________ when we know habitat loss is the real problem?’ when I am asked these questions, I reply first that we continue to add to our base of knowledge and thus improve decisions affecting bird populations; second, if winning the debate translates to financial gain for the debater, then that position cannot be truly unbiased; and third, isn’t it analogous that if heart disease is the greatest mortality factor in our species, then why do we spend so much money combating cancer and other diseases, poverty and hunger? Solving any single problem—for birds or humans—is insufficient for our cause. Thoughtful people understand that it is critical that we fight for birds and humans across the full, broad front of issues.” [2]

Fenwick’s medical research analogy is an interesting one, but not in the way he intended. Actually, I’m reminded of David Freedman’s profile of John Ioannidis, professor at the University of Ioannina medical school’s teaching hospital, which appeared in last month’s Atlantic. In the piece, Freedman describes a provocative 2005 article that garnered Ioannidis worldwide attention:

“The article spelled out his belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.” [47]

Obviously not the image Fenwick was trying to convey—but far more fitting.

Attacking “the full, broad front of issues” simultaneously makes perfect sense, but promoting erroneous and deceptive scientific claims in order to marshal the support necessary is unethical, plain and simple.

We’re not talking about cancer research distracting us from research into heart disease, to use Fenwick’s metaphor. No, what he and ABC are doing—in their relentless persecution of free-roaming cats, at least—is akin to funneling critical resources into the bottling and marketing of snake oil:

There’s no science behind it, and no remedy in its consumption—whatever the dosage.

Literature Cited
1. Sterba, J.P. (2002, October 11). Tooth and Claw: Kill Kitty? Wall Street Journal, p. A.1,

2. Lebbin, D.J., Parr, M.J., and Fenwick, G.H., The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. 2010, London: University of Chicago Press.

3. APPA, 2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. 2009, American Pet Products Association: Greenwich, CT.

4. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1541

5. Lord, L.K., “Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008. 232(8): p. 1159-1167. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.232.8.1159

6. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.225.1377

7. Levy, J.K., et al., “Number of unowned free-roaming cats in a college community in the southern United States and characteristics of community residents who feed them.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 223(2): p. 202-205. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.223.202

8. Patronek, G.J. and Rowan, A.N., “Editorial: Determining dog and cat numbers and population dynamics.” Anthrozoös. 1995. 8(4): p. 199–204.

9. Clifton, M. (2003) Roadkills of cats fall 90% in 10 years—are feral cats on their way out? http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/11/roadkills1103.html Accessed May 23, 2010.

10. Clifton, M. Where cats belong—and where they don’t. Animal People 2003 [cited 2009 December 24]. http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/6/wherecatsBelong6.03.html.

11. Dauphine, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219. http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pif/pubs/McAllenProc/articles/PIF09_Anthropogenic%20Impacts/Dauphine_1_PIF09.pdf

12. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.225.1369

13. Fougere, B. Cats and wildlife in the urban environment—A review. in Urban Animal Management Conference. 2000.

14. Baker, P.J., et al., “Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area.” Mammal Review. 2005. 35(3/4): p. 302-312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2005.00071.x

15. 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://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2008.00836.x

16. Woods, M., McDonald, R.A., and Harris, S., “Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain.” Mammal Review. 2003. 33(2): p. 174-188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2907.2003.00017.x

17. Churcher, P.B. and Lawton, J.H., “Predation by domestic cats in an English village.” Journal of Zoology. 1987. 212(3): p. 439-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02915.x

18. Fiore, C.A., The Ecological Implications of Urban Domestic Cat (Felis catus) Predation on Birds In the City of Wichita, Kansas, in College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. 2000, Wichita State University: Wichita, Kansas.

19. George, W., “Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey.” The Wilson Bulletin. 1974. 86(4): p. 384–396. http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v086n04/p0384-p0396.pdf

20. Barratt, D.G., “Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife.” Wildlife Research. 1998. 25(5): p. 475–487.

21. Lepczyk, C.A., Mertig, A.G., and Liu, J., “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.” Biological Conservation. 2003. 115(2): p. 191-201. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5X-48D39DN-5/2/d27bfff8454a44161f8dc1ad7cc585ea

22. Crooks, K.R. and Soule, 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

23. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., On the Prowl, in Wisconsin Natural Resources. 1996, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI. p. 4–8. http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/1996/dec96/cats.htm

24. Elliott, J. (1994, March 3–16). The Accused. The Sonoma County Independent, pp. 1, 10.

25. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.

26. Leyhausen, P., Cat behavior: The predatory and social behavior of domestic and wild cats. Garland series in ethology. 1979, New York: Garland STPM Press.

27. Calhoon, R.E. and Haspel, C., “Urban Cat Populations Compared by Season, Subhabitat and Supplemental Feeding.” Journal of Animal Ecology. 1989. 58(1): p. 321–328.

28. Castillo, D. and Clarke, A.L., “Trap/Neuter/Release Methods Ineffective in Controlling Domestic Cat “Colonies” on Public Lands.” Natural Areas Journal. 2003. 23: p. 247–253.

29. Galbreath, R., “The tale of the lighthouse-keeper’s cat: Discovery and extinction of the Stephens Island wren (Traversia lyalli).” Notornis. 2004. 51: p. 193–200.

30. Medway, D.G., “The land bird fauna of Stephens Island, New Zealand in the early 1890s, and the cause of its demise.” Notornis. 2004. 51: p. 201–211.

31. Patronek, G.J., “Free-roaming and feral cats—their impact on wildlife and human beings.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1998. 212(2): p. 218–226.

32. n.a., What the Cat Dragged In, in Catnip. 1995, Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine: Boston, MA. p. 4–6.

33. Møller, A.P. and Erritzøe, J., “Predation against birds with low immunocompetence.” Oecologia. 2000. 122(4): p. 500-504.

34. Mead, C.J., “Ringed birds killed by cats.” Mammal Review. 1982. 12(4): p. 183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1982.tb00014.x

35. Patronek, G.J., “Letter to Editor.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1996. 209(10): p. 1686–1687.

36. Andersen, M.C., Martin, B.J., and Roemer, G.W., “Use of matrix population models to estimate the efficacy of euthanasia versus trap-neuter-return for management of free-roaming cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(12): p. 1871-1876. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.225.1871

37. Natoli, E., et al., “Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy).” Preventive Veterinary Medicine. 2006. 77(3-4): p. 180-185. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6TBK-4M33VSW-1/2/0abfc80f245ab50e602f93060f88e6f9

38. 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.

39. Levy, J.K., Comments Re: “Critical Assessment”, Personal Communication. July 21, 2010.

40. Levy, J.K., Gale, D.W., and Gale, L.A., “Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(1): p. 42-46. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.42

41. Centonze, L.A. and Levy, J.K., “Characteristics of free-roaming cats and their caretakers.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2002. 220(11): p. 1627-1633. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2002.220.1627

42. Levy, J.K. and Crawford, P.C., “Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1354-1360. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2004.225.1354

43. Bloomer, J.P. and Bester, M.N., “Control of feral cats on sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Indian Ocean.” Biological Conservation. 1992. 60(3): p. 211-219. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V5X-48XKBM6-T0/2/06492dd3a022e4a4f9e437a943dd1d8b

44. Rensburg, P.J.J.v., Skinner, J.D., and van Aarde, R.J., “Effects of Feline Panleucopaenia on the Population Characteristics of Feral Cats on Marion Island.” Journal of Applied Ecology. 1987. 24: p. 63–73.

45. Bergstrom, D.M., et al., “Indirect effects of invasive species removal devastate World Heritage Island.” Journal of Applied Ecology. 2009. 46(1): p. 73-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2008.01601.x

46. Hettinger, J., Taking a Broader View of Cats in the Community, in Animal Sheltering. 2008. p. 8–9. http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/sep_oct_2008/broader_view_of_cats.pdf

47. Freedman, D.H., Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science, in The Atlantic. 2010: Boston. p. 76–86. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/

Adult Supervision Required

1 Dec 2010

“Have you seen this already? This is awful.”

That’s what somebody posted on the Vox Felina Facebook page late last night—along with a link to an MSNBC news story. The headline was an attention-getter, no doubt about it: “Report: Kill feral cats to control their colonies.”

But beyond that, MSNBC had practically no details. A little digging around, however, led me to New England Cable News (NECN), which has the complete story.

“The report began in an undergraduate wildlife management class, with students writing reports on feral cats based on existing research. The students’ professor and other [University of Nebraska] researchers then compiled the report from the students’ work.” [1]

“Feral Cats and Their Management” claims, straightforwardly enough, to provide “research-based information on the management of feral cats.” [2] Management, in this case, meaning—as is so often the case in such contexts—killing, extermination, eradication, and so forth. Detailed advice is provided (e.g., “Body-gripping traps and snares can be used to quickly kill feral cats”).

And research? In this case, nothing more than a cursory review of all of the usual suspects: Coleman and Temple, Pamela Jo Hatley, Cole Hawkins, The Wildlife Society, Linda Winter. In other words, lots of Kool-Aid drinking.

It’s Like Science, Only Different
Among the research misinterpreted and/or misrepresented (none of which is cited in the text):

“As instinctive hunters, feral cats pose a serious threat to native wildlife, particularly birds.”

It’s no surprise that the authors of the report offer no evidence to support such a sweeping claim. “There are few if any studies,” write Mike Fitzgerald and Dennis Turner in their contribution to The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, “apart from island ones that actually demonstrate that cats have reduced bird populations.” [3]

Biologist C.J. Mead, reviewing the deaths of “ringed” (banded) birds reported by the British public, suggests that cats may be responsible for 6.2–31.3% of bird deaths. “Overall,” writes Mead, “it is clear that cat predation is a significant cause of death for most of the species examined.” Nevertheless, Mead concludes, “there is no clear evidence of cats threatening to harm the overall population level of any particular species… Indeed, cats have been kept as pets for many years and hundreds of generations of birds breeding in suburban and rural areas have had to contend with their predatory intentions.” [4]

The German zoologist Paul Leyhausen (1916–1998), who spent the bulk of his career studying the behavior of cats, found that cats, frustrated by the difficulties of catching them, “may soon give up hunting birds.” [5]

“During years in the field,” wrote Leyhausen, “I have observed countless times how cats have caught a mouse or a rat and just as often how they have stalked a bird. But I never saw them catch a healthy songbird that was capable of flying. Certainly it does happen, but, as I have said, seldom. I should feel sorry for the average domestic cat that had to live solely on catching birds.” [5]

“Cats kill an estimated 480 million birds per year (assuming eight birds killed per feral cat per year).”

Fitzgerald and Turner (whose work is not referenced in the report) argue that “we do not have enough information yet to attempt to estimate on average how many birds a cat kills each year.” [3] Though, of course, many studies have tried to do exactly that—few, it should be said, involve feral cats.

Unfortunately—and as I have pointed out time and time again—such work typically suffers from a range of methodological and analytical problems (e.g., statistical errors, small sample sizes, and inappropriate/baseless assumptions).

And—as with the UNL report—obvious bias.

“Estimates from Wisconsin indicate that between 500,000 and 8 million birds are killed by rural cats each year in that state…”

How anybody could misquote the numbers from the Wisconsin Study—easily the most widely circulated work on the subject—is a mystery. (On the other hand, the figures were, as Stanley Temple has said, “not actual data” [6] in the first place, so I suppose that does allow for some rather liberal interpretation.)

“The diets of well-fed house-based cats in Sweden consisted of 15 percent to 90 percent native prey, depending on availability.”

How important is it that the prey of feral cats is native, versus non-native? That’s a point of some debate—but not in this case. See, what Liberg actually wrote was this: “Most cats (80-85%) were house-based and obtained from 15 to 90% of their food from natural prey, depending on abundance and availability of the latter.” [7, emphasis mine] He was merely drawing the distinction between food provided by humans and any prey that cats might eat as food.

Liberg goes on to point out that the predation he documented did not, “justify a conclusive assessment of the effects of cats on their prey populations, but… indicate[s] that cats by themselves were not limiting any of their prey.” [7] Even high rates of predation do not equate to population declines.

“In California, 67 percent of rodents, 95 percent of birds, and 100 percent of lizards brought home by cats were native species, and native birds were twice as likely to be seen in areas without cats.”

What looks to be truly damning evidence loses much of its impact when it’s seen in context. The reference to Crooks and Soulé’s 1999 paper, for example, omitted the sample size involved: “Identification of 68 prey items returned by cats bordering the fragments indicated that 67% of 26 rodents, 95% of 21 birds and 100% of 11 lizards were native species.” [8] It’s important to note, too, that these researchers asked residents to recall what kind of prey their cats returned—no prey items were collected—thereby raising questions about the accuracy of species attribution.

Furthermore, the cats involved with Crooks and Soulé’s study were all pet cats. How their habits compare with those of feral cats is an open question. Merritt Clifton of Animal People, an independent newspaper dedicated to animal protection issues, suggests, “feral cats appear to hunt no more, and perhaps less, than free-roaming pet cats. This is because, like other wild predators, they hunt not for sport but for food, and hunting more prey than they can eat is a pointless waste of energy.”

The second portion of the quote refers to Cole Hawkins’ PhD dissertation. Hawkins’ research methods and analysis are so problematic that the suggestion of a causal relationship between the presence of cats and the absence of birds (native or otherwise) is highly inappropriate (indeed, Hawkins scarcely investigates predation at all).

Among the key issues: Hawkins had no idea what the “cat” area of his study site was like before the cats were there; he merely assumes it was identical to the “no cat” area in terms of its fauna (though the two landscapes are actually quite different). It’s also interesting to note Hawkins’ emphasis on “the preference of ground feeding birds for the no-cat treatment” while downplaying the fact that five of the nine ground-feeding species included in the study showed no preference for either area. (For a more comprehensive analysis, please see my previous post on the subject.)

“…cats are the most important species in the life cycle of the parasite responsible for toxoplasmosis, and in 3 separate studies, most feral cats (62 percent to 80 percent) tested positive for toxoplasmosis.”

While cats are the “definitive host,” it’s important to note that “wild game can be a source of T. gondii infection in humans, cats, and other carnivores. Serologic data show that a significant number of feral pigs, bears, and cervids are exposed to T. gondii.” [9]

Toxoplasma gondii has been linked to the illness and death of marine life, primarily sea otters [11], prompting investigation into the possible role of free-roaming (both owned and feral) cats. [12, 13] It’s generally thought that oocysts (the mature, infective form of the parasite) are transferred from soil contaminated with infected feces to coastal waterways by way of freshwater run-off. [13]

However, a 2005 study found that 36 of 50 sea otters from coastal California were infected with the Type X strain of T. gondii [14], a type linked to wild felids (mountain lions and a bobcat, in this case), but not to domestic cats. [13] A recently published study from Germany seems to corroborate these findings. Herrmann et al. analyzed 18,259 fecal samples (all from pet cats) for T. gondii and found no Type X strain. (It’s interesting to note, too, that only 0.25% of the samples tested positive for T. gondii). [15]

[NOTE: Please see follow-up post for additional information about cats and T. gondii.]

“Predation by cats on birds has an economic impact of more than $17 billion dollars [sic] per year in the U.S. The estimated cost per bird is $30, based on literature citing that bird watchers spend $0.40 per bird observed, hunters spend $216 per bird shot, and bird rearers spend $800 per bird released.”

According to this bizarre form of accounting, hunters value an individual bird more than 500 times as much as a birdwatcher does—suggesting, it seems, that dead birds are far more valuable than live birds. This is the kind of estimate that can be developed only through university (or perhaps government) research efforts.

Public Indecency
“Stephen Vantassel, a wildlife damage project coordinator who worked on the study, said researchers were aware that some people would be ‘very offended that we offered any type of lethal control method.’ But he said the report was written for public consumption and wasn’t submitted to any science journals for publication.” [1]

For the record, Dr. Vantassel, I’m more offended by the way you’ve allowed such sloppy, grossly irresponsible work to pass for “research.” And the idea that such an undertaking is somehow acceptable because it’s meant for a mass audience is simply absurd!

Naturally, the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) embraced the report immediately, “with one official calling it ‘a must read for any community or government official thinking about what to do about feral cats.’” [1]

“‘Not surprisingly, the report validates everything American Bird Conservancy has been saying about the feral cat issue for many years—namely, TNR doesn’t work in controlling feral cat populations,’ Darin Schroeder, vice president of the Conservation Advocacy for American Bird Conservancy, said Tuesday.”

But validation requires far more than this report provides—beginning with a real interest in scientific inquiry and some basic critical thinking skills. And while we’re at it, a refresher in ethics wouldn’t hurt, either.

* * *

In my previous post, I’d indicated that my next post—this post—was going to focus on The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. Obviously, something came up. Anyhow, the book will keep for a few more days…

Literature Cited
1. n.a. (2010) Report: Kill feral cats to control their colonies. http://www.necn.com/11/30/10/Report-Kill-feral-cats-to-control-their-/landing_scitech.html?&blockID=3&apID=95afccc4d9564caf8e264f9d087f5732 Accessed December 1, 2010.

2. Hildreth, A.M., Vantassel, S.M., and Hygnstrom, S.E., Feral Cats and Their Managment. 2010, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension: Lincoln, NE. http://elkhorn.unl.edu/epublic/live/ec1781/build/ec1781.pdf

4. Mead, C.J., “Ringed birds killed by cats.” Mammal Review. 1982. 12(4): p. 183-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.1982.tb00014.x

5. Leyhausen, P., Cat behavior: The predatory and social behavior of domestic and wild cats. Garland series in ethology. 1979, New York: Garland STPM Press.

6. Elliott, J. (1994, March 3–16). The Accused. The Sonoma County Independent, pp. 1, 10

7. Liberg, O., “Food Habits and Prey Impact by Feral and House-Based Domestic Cats in a Rural Area in Southern Sweden.” Journal of Mammalogy. 1984. 65(3): p. 424-432. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1381089

8. Crooks, K.R. and Soule, M.E., “Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.” Nature. 1999. 400(6744): p. 563.

9. Hill, D.E., Chirukandoth, S., and Dubey, J.P., “Biology and epidemiology of Toxoplasma gondii in man and animals.” Animal Health Research Reviews. 2005. 6(01): p. 41-61. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=775956&fulltextType=RA&fileId=S1466252305000034

10. Elmore, S.A., et al., “Toxoplasma gondii: epidemiology, feline clinical aspects, and prevention.” Trends in Parasitology. 26(4): p. 190-196. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6W7G-4YHFWNM-1/2/2a468a936eb06649fde0463deae4e92f

11. Jones, J.L. and Dubey, J.P., “Waterborne toxoplasmosis – Recent developments.” Experimental Parasitology. 124(1): p. 10-25. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WFH-4VXB8YT-2/2/8f9562f64497fe1a30513ba3f000c8dc

12. Dabritz, H.A., et al., “Outdoor fecal deposition by free-roaming cats and attitudes of cat owners and nonowners toward stray pets, wildlife, and water pollution.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2006. 229(1): p. 74-81. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.229.1.74

13. Miller, M.A., et al., “Type X Toxoplasma gondii in a wild mussel and terrestrial carnivores from coastal California: New linkages between terrestrial mammals, runoff and toxoplasmosis of sea otters.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2008. 38(11): p. 1319-1328. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4RXJYTT-2/2/32d387fa3048882d7bd91083e7566117

14. Conrad, P.A., et al., “Transmission of Toxoplasma: Clues from the study of sea otters as sentinels of Toxoplasma gondii flow into the marine environment.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2005. 35(11-12): p. 1155-1168. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4GWC8KV-2/2/2845abdbb0fd82c37b952f18ce9d0a5f

15. Herrmann, D.C., et al., “Atypical Toxoplasma gondii genotypes identified in oocysts shed by cats in Germany.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2010. 40(3): p. 285–292. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6T7F-4X1J771-2/2/dc32f5bba34a6cce28041d144acf1e7c

Framed No. 2

29 Nov 2010

The second in the Framed series is from the recently released book, The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation.

The book’s authors actually have very little to say about TNR, assuming, I suppose, that the accompanying photos say it all. The caption for this one reads (somewhat incongruously, if you ask me): “Managed feral cat colonies are a hazard to birds and attract the dumping of additional unwanted cats.” [1]

Photographer Tina Lorien tells me that these cats were actually photographed on the Island of Crete, where, it seems, even spayed/neutered pet cats are rather rare (never mind managed colonies). Once again, ABC doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story (which pretty well summarizes the rest of the book’s section on cats—something I’ll get to in my next post).

* * *

On December 2, ABC is hosting a free webinar with book authors Daniel Lebbin, Michael Parr, and George Fenwick—plus novelist and essayist Jonathan Franzen, author of the book’s foreword. Registration is limited to 100 people.

Literature Cited
1. Lebbin, D.J., Parr, M.J., and Fenwick, G.H., Threats: Invasive and Overabundant Species, in The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. 2010, University of Chicago Press: London.

Framed No. 1

17 Nov 2010

That the ancient Egyptians worshiped cats as gods is, today, common knowledge. Just as their regal little bodies were preserved through mummification, their likenesses were preserved in tomb paintings.

But the cat’s image has not always been portrayed with such reverence. “To the medieval mind,” writes naturalist and biologist Roger Tabor, “there was a sinister side to cat magic, associated with demons and witchcraft. It led to the lowest ebb in the history of the cat.” [1] Naturally, that “sinister side” was depicted in both words and pictures.

Eighteenth century artwork, such as Hogarth’s The Four Stages of Cruelty, suggests that, as Tabor writes, “abuse and torture [of cats] were still widespread.” [1]

And today? Well, it’s a mixed bag. There are the wildly popular LOL Cats, of course, that routinely make their way around the Web. And an astonishing number of photos, illustrations, and videos. (Searching iStockphoto.com for “cats” turns up nearly 40,000 results.)

At the same time, less flattering images seem to be quite popular, too. (“People are rarely neutral about cats,” notes Tabor.) This is hardly surprising; beliefs and attitudes—whatever their origins—rarely change quickly. What is surprising, though, is how some of these images have been employed—at least in some cases—by sources one is expected to take seriously.

I’ve encountered several examples over the course of my research, and have begun “collecting” them for an occasional series of posts, of which this is the first.

Framed No. 1
I don’t recall exactly, but it’s entirely likely that this little gem—from AmmoLand.com, “the webs [sic] leading Shooting Sports News Service for the Ammunition, Firearms, Shooting, Hunting and Conservation communities,” was the one that sparked the idea for the Framed series. Celebrating the injunction earlier this year against publicly funded TNR in Los Angeles, it seems the AmmoLanders got a little carried away.

In addition to the poorly rendered dental implants, there’s the erroneous—and rather incomprehensible—caption: “Feral Cats Kill 10,000,000’s of Game Birds & Small Animals Every Month.”

A quick Google search reveals a previous use of the image: New England Birdhouse, a blog devoted to “backyard birding, bird watching, building bird feeders and bird houses, gardening, and New England living.”

The faux canines are gone, and blogger Bill Askenburg does a better job getting his apostrophes correctly placed. The content itself, though, is no better, as Askenburg has apparently been drinking too much of the American Bird Conservancy’s Kool-Aid.

Finally, a little more digging reveals the original source of the photo, thanks to John Blatchford, a zoology feature writer for Suite101.com, who properly credits Mark Marek Photography.

Literature Cited
1. Tabor, R., Cats—The Rise of the Cat. 1991, London: BBC Books.

Inside Job II

22 Oct 2010

Another study demonstrates that the majority of pet cats spend their time indoors.

In my previous post on the subject, I somehow overlooked Linda Lord’s paper, “Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.” [1] In it, Lord, Assistant Professor in Ohio State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, presents the results of an extensive 2007 telephone survey.

Fifty-nine percent of the 217 cat owners participating in the study reported that their cats were indoor-only. Nearly 20% more allowed their cats outdoors no more than three hours each day.

Lord’s results are very much in line with findings from the three studies I cited previously. [2–4] All of which contradict the bogus claims made recently by Washington Post columnist Adrian Higgins, and last year by Nico Dauphiné and Robert J. Cooper (download their Partners in Flight conference paper here). [5]

These findings also raise questions about a comment made by Pete Marra in the Post story. Referring to his recent investigation into the mortality of catbird fledglings, Marra suggests that the culprits “aren’t feral cats; they’re domestic cats allowed to go outside.” I’ll take a closer look at Marra’s study in my next post…

Literature Cited
1. Lord, L.K., “Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008. 232(8): p. 1159-1167.

2. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545.

3. ABC, Human Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Cats. 1997, American Bird Conservancy: Washington, DC. http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/attitudes.pdf

4. APPA, 2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. 2009, American Pet Products Association: Greenwich, CT.

Inside Job

26 Sep 2010

Results from the American Pet Products Association’s 2009–2010 National Pet Owners Survey suggest that cats in this country are spending more time indoors than ever before. Although the proportion of owners keeping their cats inside at night has remained relatively steady since 1998 (at approximately 66%), their has been a 14% increase in daytime confinement (from 56% to 64%) over the same period. [1]

It must be noted that owners were asked where they usually kept their cat(s), thereby raising some doubts about the accuracy of their responses. (There are actually two issues here: first is the level of truthfulness—did owners, intentionally or not, provide accurate information? But there is also the obvious ambiguity surrounding the term usually.) Nevertheless, these results correspond reasonably well with those of two earlier surveys: one commissioned by the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) in 1997, [2] the other conducted by Clancy et al. in 2001 [3] (the only other surveys I’ve found that investigated this issue specifically).

The ABC’s study (in which 250 cat owners participated in a telephone survey) indicated that “35% keep their cats indoors all of the time,” while “31% keep them indoors mostly with some outside access.” [2]

The 2001 survey included 168 cat owners, each of whom was part of the Feline Health Study, conducted at the Foster Hospital for Small Animals, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University. Sixty percent of these cats were “strictly indoor cats,” while 40% “had some level of outdoor access.” [3] Probing further, Clancy et al. discovered that nearly half of the cats with outdoor access were outside for two or fewer hours a day. And 29% of them were outdoors for less than an hour each day. [3]

Considering the differences in sampling (most notably the fact that participants in the 2001 survey were all clients of a veterinary hospital, whereas APPA survey results for 2000 indicate that 27% of cat owners did not visit the vet in the previous 12 months), and the inherent uncertainty surrounding the terms mostly, usually, and some, the results of these three surveys are remarkably similar.

Counting Cats
Such findings are critical for developing accurate estimates of the number of birds killed by cats (assuming a reasonable level of accuracy is achievable, given the complexity of the issue). Simply put, cats that don’t go outside can’t kill birds.

Recognizing this, some researchers have inflated their figures for cats allowed outdoors. [4–6]

Dauphiné and Cooper, [6] for instance, cite the APPA’s 2007–2008 survey when referring to the number of owned cats in the U.S., but either ignored or overlooked its findings about confinement: 63% of owners reported that they kept their cat(s) indoors during the day, 70% during the night. (It’s also possible that the authors consulted only the APPA’s online summary, which probably didn’t include this information.)

By contrast, Dauphiné and Cooper claim that 65% of pet cats “are free-ranging outdoor cats for at least some portion of the day,” [6] citing not the APPA survey, but Linda Winter’s 2004 paper, “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts” (which can be downloaded here). Indeed, Winter, the former director of the ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign, had suggested as much—misrepresenting the findings of a study commissioned by her own organization:

“A 1997 nationwide random telephone survey indicated that 66% of cat owners let their cats outdoors some or all of the time.” [7]

Double the proportion of cats allowed outdoors, and—just like that—the number of birds killed by pet cats doubles too. (Dauphiné and Cooper actually go much further, employing some grossly inflated predation rates as well.)

Counting Birds
Of course, such estimates do not necessarily relate directly to population impacts. The predation may be largely compensatory, for example; and there are source-sink dynamics to be considered as well.

Nevertheless, researchers persist—more often, it seems, in pursuit of staggering, media-friendly figures than a better understanding of what’s actually going on (e.g., Dauphiné and Cooper’s bumper-sticker-worthy “one billion birds”). As a result, the scientific literature is plagued with some rather spectacular failures where predation numbers are concerned (e.g., The Wisconsin Study, Christopher Lepczyk’s dissertation, Carol Fiore’s thesis, etc.).

* * *

The surprising level of agreement among the three “outdoor access” studies provides researchers a rare opportunity to agree among themselves. Which, in turn, could move us closer to an honest debate of the larger issues—arguing about which action is most appropriate, for instance, rather than about whose numbers are most valid.

Despite how results of these surveys have been—as recently as last year—overlooked, ignored, and misrepresented, I remain cautiously optimistic. As Patronek has suggested, “predation of songbirds tends to be noticed because it takes place during the day.” [8] It’s time predation research received the same kind of visibility. Sunlight, after all, is said to be the best of disinfectants.

Note: There is a an amendment to this post here.

Literature Cited
1. APPA, 2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. 2009, American Pet Products Association: Greenwich, CT.

2. ABC, Human Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Cats. 1997, American Bird Conservancy: Washington, DC. http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/attitudes.pdf

3. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545.

4. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., On the Prowl, in Wisconsin Natural Resources. 1996, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI. p. 4–8. http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/1996/dec96/cats.htm

5. Lepczyk, C.A., Mertig, A.G., and Liu, J., “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.” Biological Conservation. 2003. 115(2): p. 191-201.

6. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219.

7. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376.

8. Patronek, G.J., “Free-roaming and feral cats—their impact on wildlife and human beings.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1998. 212(2): p. 218–226.

The Scat Hits the Fan

8 Sep 2010

Relative to other studies of the domestic cat’s predatory habits, Carol Fiore’s 2000 thesis work is cited only occasionally in the literature. [1, 2] Indeed, it might easily go unnoticed were it not for its inclusion in the American Bird Conservancy’s brochure Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife, and the fact that Fiore posted a summary of the study on her website—making much of its content available to anybody interested in the topic.

Fiore’s “primary goal,” she writes, “was to estimate the number of cats in Wichita, the average number of birds killed per cat and the total number of birds killed by cats each year.” [3] In fact, there was more to it than that.

Fiore was also trying to quantify the number of birds killed by cats without their owners’ knowledge, thereby addressing a concern frequently expressed by researchers whose predation estimates rely on prey records kept by cat owners. [4–7] In other words, how many birds were being killed by cats, really?

Fiore’s thesis project was an ambitious undertaking—perhaps too ambitious. Although her goal was admirable, her small sample size, flawed analytical methods, and various confounding factors cast considerable doubt over her findings. In addition, Fiore’s thesis document is peppered with evidence of bias. Indeed, she raises questions about her motivation for the project (and underlying assumptions) when, early on, she refers uncritically to the ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign and the Wisconsin Study, and mischaracterizes the work of William George (see Note 1).

I’m afraid that, in the end, Fiore’s work does little to enhance our understanding of the domestic cat’s hunting behavior. In fact, because her conclusions tend to misrepresent the study’s findings, Fiore actually does more to perpetuate the mythology surrounding predation than the science.

The Study
Fiore’s research incorporated several methods, each intended to provide a key piece of the predation puzzle:

Twenty-eight Wichita, Kansas cat owners were recruited and asked to record the number and, when possible, also the species, of birds killed by their 41 cats over the period of approximately one year.
Some of these same participants were asked to collect scat samples, which were then analyzed for feathers. Detection of feathers was used to account for kills not reported by cat owners.
The behavior of eight participating cats was observed with the help of radio collars.
Cat density in the area was estimated by combining telephone survey results (regarding the proportion of area cats that received the rabies vaccine) with information from local veterinarians (regarding the yearly total of rabies vaccines administered to cats).
Using Christmas Bird Count data, the density of Northern Cardinals in the Wichita area was estimated.
The impact of free-roaming cats on the population of cardinals was then estimated by combining findings from each of the investigations described above (with the exception of the radio collar monitoring).
A second telephone survey was conducted, this time to learn about residents’ attitudes concerning possible cat regulations (e.g., leash laws, licensing, etc.).

Birds Brought Home by Cats
Twenty-nine (71%) of the cats were reported to have killed birds during the study period, while 12 (29%) were credited with no kills. (These figures would later be adjusted based on the results of the scat analysis, as described below.) However, multi-cat households posed a particular problem. “For owners with more than one cat,” writes Fiore, “kills were alternated between cats if the owner was unsure of the cat responsible.” [3]

As a result of her “alternating attribution” (my term, not Fiore’s) method, it’s possible that five cats were incorrectly included among the hunters (see Note 2 for details). If so, the proportion of hunters was not 71%, but 61%.

Other Studies
Either way, Fiore’s findings correspond reasonably well with those of a five-month survey of 618 British households, in which 986 cats brought home 14,370 prey items. This research revealed that, although 91% of cats returned at least one item, “approximately 20–30% of cats brought home either no birds or no mammals.” [5] Her results also seem to be in line with those published by Churcher and Lawton, whose yearlong “English Village” study (involving approximately 70 cats and 1,090 documented prey items) found that that 8.6% of cats brought home no prey [4] (though the authors don’t specify the percentage of cats that returned no birds).

On the other hand, it is not uncommon for such studies to find that more than half of the study cats returned no prey. In their pilot study of cat predation in Bristol (UK), for example, Baker et al. reported that 77 cats returned a total of 212 prey items to 52 participating households, but that “in each sampling period, the majority of cats (51–74%) failed to return any prey.” [6] Their subsequent 12-month study (this time involving 186 Bristol households, 275 cats, and 495 prey items) found a similar level of apparent non-hunters: roughly 61%. [7]

Any number of factors might contribute to these apparent differences, perhaps the most likely “culprits” being environmental (e.g., density of both birds and cats, habitat type and size, etc.) and sampling bias (as Baker et al. put it, “cat owners whose pets were killing lots of birds may have wished to hide the fact; alternatively, they may have been keen to show off their cat’s prowess.” [7])

Add It Up
Fiore began to quantify predation by calculating, based on the number of birds brought home by study cats, an average number of birds killed each year per cat. But, as I’ve discussed previously, using the average to describe predation rates (the distribution of which is highly skewed) overestimates the impact of cats on wildlife. Barratt offers a useful rule-of-thumb method (one echoed by Fitzgerald and Turner [8]) as an alternative:

“…median numbers of prey estimated or observed to be caught per year are approximately half the mean values, and are a better representation of the average predation by house cats based on these data.” [9]

Using the median—1.91 birds/cat/year—instead of the mean, cuts Fiore’s estimated predation rate of 3.44 nearly in half. (Among the more puzzling items I uncovered while reviewing Fiore’s thesis was her apparent miscalculation of the average predation rate—where Fiore comes up with 3.44 birds/cat/year, I get only 2.79. See Note 3 for a detailed explanation.)

In any case, what’s far more interesting is how Fiore adjusts her estimate based on the results of feathers discovered in scat.

Scat Analysis
Three of Fiore’s participants (who, together, owned six of the study cats) collected and bagged their cats’ scat for five consecutive days on a monthly basis. A fourth owner participated in this part of the study for just one month, and collected scat for three days.

Additional scat data was acquired via “litter box cleanups,” in which “a few volunteers were convinced to bag the entire contents of the litter box when it was cleaned.” [3] The results, according to Fiore, were rather dramatic:

“Out of 215 separate scat analyses, each of which could have composed several beakers of fecal material, feathers were found a total of 28 times. In only one instance, however, did the owner know that a bird had been killed and/or consumed.” [10]

Equally dramatic were the mathematical and statistical gymnastics Fiore employed to arrive at her conclusions. Her figure of 21%, for example, as “a mean value of the percentage of time a cat could be expected to ingest a bird with no owner knowledge,” [10] remains a mystery to me. Despite numerous attempts, I have been unable to sort out exactly how Fiore arrived at this figure.

Dividing 27 occurrences of “unexpected” feathers by 214 total analyses (subtracting in each case for the one instance of “expected” feathers) ought to get us close, it seems—but falls well short (12.6%).

Litter Box Cleanups
Of the 215 analyses, 24 were litter box cleanups, a data collection method plagued with problems. To begin with, only 11 owners (representing 19 cats) participated. Fiore acknowledges the limitations associated with this small sample size, but overlooks a thornier issue.

Fiore considered each cleanup—regardless of how many cats were using the litter box, or for how many days—a single data sample. If a feather was found during analysis (the details of which are described on Fiore’s website), then one additional kill was attributed to a single cat (again, alternating among cats in multi-cat households). While this is a conservative approach in one respect—no more than one bird could be recorded for any positive result—it fails to adequately account for the high number of negative results. A litter box containing the waste of three cats, accumulated over a period of five or more days (six of the 24 cleanups were of this type, and in only one case were feathers found), was treated no differently from one containing a single day’s waste from one cat.

This per-household approach allows a negative result in the first case to be offset by a positive result in the second—despite their very different implications.

On the other hand, at least two volunteers involved in the litter box cleanups also owned indoor cats, and it was impossible to determine whether it was their indoor or indoor/outdoor cats that were “contributing” to the study. This may have resulted in some false negatives.

Given all the uncertainty involved with Fiore’s litter box cleanups, it’s difficult to see how this aspect of her study contributes in any meaningful way to the overall findings. Better, I would say, not to include these results in any calculations—and perhaps disregard them entirely.

Monthly Collections
Fiore’s primary method (making up 191 of the 215 analyses) for scat analysis proved less problematic than the litter box cleanups—but was not without its own shortcomings.

Again, the sample size was quite small—only four participants in all (representing seven cats). And, once again, owners of multiple cats (two of the three long-term participants) were treated—from a statistical point of view—as if they each owned just one cat. A negative result in a three-cat household was weighted the same as an instance of feathers found in a single-cat household.

Worse, by alternating attributions of kills that could not linked to a specific cat in a multi-cat household, Fiore effectively makes hunters out of non-hunters (see Note 2 for a detailed explanation). In fact, given enough of these attributions—and it wouldn’t take many—all of the study cats would be categorized as killers.

Taking into account the number of cats in each household that participated in monthly collections (see Note 4), the number of scat analyses rises dramatically, from 215 to 354—and the average occurrence of feathers drops to just 7.6%.

Lucky 13
In the case of Cat 13—the study cat with the most “scat kills” (instances of feathers detected in scat when no birds were returned home) by far—feathers were found in 14 of 80 (17.5%) daily samples collected, prompting this reaction from Fiore:

“It is interesting to speculate as to the outcome of this study if all the volunteer owners had been as conscientious as this particular owner in collecting scat every month. Additionally this owner, who is retired, is very mindful of her cat’s whereabouts but still failed to find many kills.” [3]

But even Cat 13’s apparent penchant for secretive hunting yielded a frequency of found feathers well below Fiore’s suggested overall rate of 21%. And what about the other two long-term participants, whose 23 monthly samples (108 days’ worth—collected from five cats, not one, don’t forget) revealed just eight occurrences of feathers? Their frequency of secretive hunting was 7.4%—before accounting for the multiple cats involved (as described in Note 4), which would drop the rate to just 3%.

Was the owner of Cat 13 any more conscientious than the other two? Perhaps. Fiore notes that this woman, “appeared to be very serious about the study and never failed to turn in scat on a monthly basis; reminders were never required.” [3] Still, the other owners were hardly sitting on the sidelines—they turned in 108 samples between them. And it’s not clear what detrimental effect requiring a reminder might have had on the results; on the contrary, Fiore writes: “It is believed that scat volunteers conducted their collection correctly.” [3]

It’s difficult not to detect bias in Fiore’s praise for the diligence demonstrated by Cat 13’s owner—or, more to the point, her appreciation for the cat’s performance. Although this cat’s behavior is—as illustrated by Fiore’s own data—exceptional, Fiore seems to suggest that it’s the norm.

Corroboration and Disclaimers
Fiore is quick to point out various factors that would have allowed kills to go undetected by scat analysis. The condition of the birds recovered, for example, suggests that some cats don’t eat their prey, in which case scat would not have contained feathers. Nestlings, because they lack feathers, also would go undetected.

And even adult birds, suggests Fiore, may not have feathers to be discovered later. “Generally,” she writes, “cats pluck the feathers before consuming the bird.” [3] Although Fiore cites the work of other researchers on this point (work I’ve yet to chase down), her own findings seem to contradict this claim; plenty of feathers were found in scat. (Fiore’s claim also begs the question: If cats are expected to strip the feathers from the birds they kill, why use feathers found in scat as a measure of predation?)

Fiore is doubtful that “one of the study cats ate a bird it did not kill and that in turn feathers were detected in the scat,” [3] but Fitzgerald and Turner have suggested otherwise:

“Carrion is eaten, but is difficult to distinguish from animals killed by cats, unless it is from a large animal that a cat could not kill (e.g., sheep or kangaroo). Even the presence of maggots with the food is not a certain indicator, because cats may return later to prey they have killed and cached.” [8]

Although Fiore acknowledges the challenges inherent in her analysis method, she argues that they are outweighed by the benefits:

“Scat analysis is probably the most reliable estimate of bird kills, although it is a very conservative one. The results are hard to refute. When a feather is found it is proof that a kill was made or a carcass consumed… scat analysis is important because often cats do not bring their kills to the owner, and frequently the owner is not home to accept a kill should one be presented. Many of the owner volunteers reported not seeing their cat(s) for many days in a row (one owner did not see her cat for several months during the study). Collected kills were very conservative, and seemed to be based in part on the relationship of the owner with their cat(s). Unfortunately, absentee owners were the ones most unwilling to provide scat.” [3]

It seems Fiore wants to have it both ways: When it comes to defending the value of scat analysis, she’s quick to point out how much predatory activity the owners might be missing. When she’s emphasizing the conservative nature of prey tallies, though, Fiore cites a number of detailed firsthand accounts from cat owners—painting a rather different picture of owner involvement:

“There were numerous calls during the course of data collection about missing remains, cats seen eating birds but no remains could be found, cat running off with prey…”
“The wife of one of the volunteers admitted to seeing her cat drag a cardinal under the porch, but she would not retrieve it…”
“The owner of Cat 30 reported that she had seen… her cat eat an entire bird (even the head) and that there was no evidence left to give us.”

Her inconsistency raises questions not only about her findings, but also—far more unsettling ones—about her objectivity as a researcher.

Found Feathers
Despite results that are—at best—mixed, Fiore’s conclusions are imbued with certainty and drama. They also tend to misrepresent her research. Fiore’s claim that “scat analysis may indicate, as in this study, that a far greater number of birds are consumed than was previously thought” [3] is based on her misuse of means to characterize predation levels. Using medians instead, it becomes clear that—in terms of the distributions’ central tendency—there is no difference between her original data set and the one that includes scat kills.

More problematic, though, are Fiore’s claims about the secretive hunting habits of cats:

“Probably the most important information which can be gained from the scat analysis (coupled with owner bird collection) is that most cats do kill birds. And in all cases but one, when feathers were found in scat, the owner was unaware that the cat had eaten a bird. This and other data from this study would seem to refute Dr. Patronek’s claim that ‘cats tend to bring prey home.’” [3] (See Note 5 for details regarding Fiore’s apparent dispute with Patronek.)

Actually, Fiore’s own data indicate that cats do, in fact, “tend to bring prey home”—nearly four in five, if her mysterious 21% figure is to be believed. And her assertion about the surprising nature of kills revealed through scat analysis is—although technically true—highly misleading. She seems to be suggesting that scat collection was done randomly, in which case we would expect some collections to correspond with documented kills. Fiore’s reporting, however, indicates no such randomness. In fact, it’s entirely likely that participants (thinking such activity would at least be redundant, or worse, detrimental to the study) would have collected scat only when they were unaware of their cat(s) having killed a bird.

By framing her findings this way, Fiore effectively dismisses the vast majority of analyses (187 of 215, or 87%, using her analysis method; 326 of 354, or 92%, accounting for multi-cat households) in which no feathers were found.

When the ABC summarizes Fiore’s work in their brochure Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife, they only make matters worse by conflating different aspects of her research:

“In a study of cat predation in an urban area, 83% of the 41 study cats killed birds. In all but one case, when feathers were found in scat, the owner was unaware that their cat had ingested a bird. In fact, the majority of cat owners reported their cats did not bring prey to them. Instead, the owners observed the cats with the bird or found remains in the house or in other locations.” [11]

Reading the ABC’s version, one might easily get the impression that all 41 cats were involved in the scat analysis, or that the scat collections were done randomly. (Or that cats, in order to be considered cooperative participants in predation studies, are expected to deposit their prey in the laps of their owners, or some other pre-determined location.)

Connecting the Dots
Let’s set aside my (numerous) complaints regarding Fiore’s scat analysis, and my claim that she both miscalculated and misused the average predation rate. Assuming both figures are valid, Fiore’s use of that 21% figure to adjust the predation rate upward, from 3.44 to 4.2 birds/cat/year is also a problem. The scat analysis should (again, assuming it was done properly, included sufficient sample sizes, etc.) reveal something about the secretive hunting behavior of the study cats—in terms of (1) its frequency, and (2) its extent. Fiore’s misstep is in linking the frequency directly to predation levels.

Properly adjusting the estimated predation level would involve, first, correcting the proportion of cats that hunt to account for the frequency of secretive hunters. Using Fiore’s data to illustrate:

71% + [(100%-71%) x 21%] = 77%

Once we adjust for those cats that don’t bring prey home, we can multiply this figure by the number of outdoor cats (see Note 6). Again, using Fiore’s data (described in the Cat Density section below):

40,836 pet cats x 43% allowed outdoors = 17,559 hunting cats

Multiplying this result by the median predation rate (1.91), we get a total of 33,538 birds/year killed by pet cats in Wichita—less than half Fiore’s estimate of 73,750. (This figure might be refined further by considering separate predation levels: one for the secretive hunters, and another for those cats known to bring prey home. Unfortunately, Fiore’s sample size is too small to make such a comparison, but it’s not difficult to imagine different hunting behaviors resulting in different success rates.)

To reiterate, I’m using Fiore’s numbers here only to illustrate how I would connect the dots between scat analysis results and predation levels.

Two Key Points
Fiore’s goal of obtaining a more accurate tally of birds killed by cats was (and is) admirable. However, her use of scat analysis was largely unsuccessful in achieving that goal. In fact, Fiore’s analysis method actually added to the uncertainty in two important ways:

By alternating attributions of kills that can’t be linked to any one cat in a multi-cat household, Fiore essentially categorizes each one of them as a hunter.
By weighting multi-cat households no differently from single-cat households, Fiore ignores a great deal of evidence suggesting that most cats are not, in fact, hunting without their owners’ knowledge. Although the number of “scat kills” is conservative as a result, her analysis method gives greater importance to what is unknown than to what is known.

Radio Tracking
Among the many challenges Fiore ran into while trying to track study cats were owner objections, physical barriers (e.g., fences), and radio signal strength/continuity in an urban setting. As a result, she was able to study only eight cats for a total of 57 hours (almost all during daylight hours).

Given the limited value of Fiore’s tracking activities—and my focus on the aspects of her thesis that pertain more directly to predation—I’ll move on to her estimate for the number of cats in Wichita.

Cat Density
Fiore used two different methods to estimate the number of cats in Wichita. The first, which is rather clever, involved combining the results of two telephone surveys: the Pet Ownership Survey was used to (among other things) poll respondents about whether or not they had vaccinated their cat(s) against rabies; a survey of local veterinarians was used to estimate the annual total of such vaccinations in Wichita. “If 500 cats received vaccinations,” writes Fiore, “and respondents indicated that 50% of pet cats had been vaccinated, 1000 cats would be the expected density.” [10]

For the second method, Fiore multiplied the number of Wichita households by the estimated number of cats per household (1.52), as determined through a random telephone survey.

Results of the first method yielded an estimate of 35,737 pet cats in Wichita, whereas the second method produced an estimate of 40,836 pet cats. (The skewed nature of the cats/household distribution (many owners having one or two cats, and a few having many cats) will tend to push such estimates upward.)

In addition, Fiore estimates (in her original thesis document, but not in the summarized version that appears on her website) the number of stray and feral cats in the city, ultimately arriving at a figure of 124,537. Deriving such estimates is always dodgy work, as so little trustworthy information is available. Additional caution is in order when these figures are used to project predation levels of stray and feral cats, as Fiore has done (as described in the Christmas Bird Count section, below).

For one thing, there are some questionable assumptions wrapped up in her estimates—not the least of which is that the predation rates and patterns of stray and feral cats are similar to those of pet cats. Clifton has suggested that they are not:

“The feral cat toll on birds is unlikely to be more than half as high as the pet cat toll. First, there may be twice as many free-roaming pet cats as ferals old enough to hunt for a living. Second, ferals who hunt for a living tend to hunt mice by night, not birds, who are mostly not out at night. Third, feral cats appear to hunt no more, and perhaps less, than free-roaming pet cats. This is because, like other wild predators, they hunt not for sport but for food, and hunting more prey than they can eat is a pointless waste of energy… Finally, relatively few cats are even capable of successfully hunting birds.” [2]

Christmas Bird Count
Fiore used data from the Wichita Audubon Society’s “first area-wide bird count of Northern Cardinals,” [3] an event coinciding with the National Audubon Society’s 99th annual Christmas Bird Count. Combining this data with the number of households in the city, she estimated that there were 316,477–424,922 cardinals in Wichita at the time.

It’s important to remember, as is made clear on the North American Breeding Bird Survey website, that such surveys provide “an index of relative abundance, rather than a complete count of breeding bird populations.” Fiore admits, “a census of a single bird species effected [sic] by urban cats in Wichita is an estimate of population density within an accuracy of one order of magnitude,” [3] but persisted.

As a result, Fiore was able to compare estimates of the overall cardinal population with estimates of those killed by cats. However, her “accounting practices” suggest that she’s not exactly impartial on the subject of predation. Fiore states unequivocally, for example, “the mean of 2.98… cardinals seen per residence is high as very few surveys were returned by people who saw no cardinals.” [3] Sure that “people only reported when they saw cardinals, thus skewing the data towards high values,” Fiore discards the mean and uses frequency quantiles instead.

Among the possible sources of participant bias Fiore cites:

“…adding counts together rather than reporting total numbers seen at one time, counting birds on someone else’s property, estimating numbers by song alone, or sending in the forms with numbers that did not exist on December 19 but that the resident had seen on some previous occasion.” [3]

Perhaps she was correct in her assessment, but it’s peculiar that Fiore never expressed a similar concern for her obviously skewed distribution of birds killed by cats—and as a result, overestimated predation levels. In short, she seems determined to lower the estimate of birds in the area while at the same time raising the estimate of birds thought to be killed by Wichita’s cats. (In fact, her thesis is littered with such maneuvering; Fiore uses nearly every instance of uncertainty to imply an impact on wildlife greater than her research actually suggests.)

Fiore’s bird collection data indicated that 7% of the birds taken were Northern Cardinals. Combining this figure with her estimates of the populations of all outdoor cats and cardinals in Wichita, she concludes, “there are at least 43,035–50,285 Northern Cardinal deaths per year due to cat predation.” [3] This corresponds to roughly 15% of her estimated cardinal population—a figure Fiore describes as “extremely conservative.”

Impact of Free-roaming Cats
Considering the numerous limitations of her study (many of which she acknowledges), Fiore seems quite comfortable extrapolating her results—arguing, for example, that “over half a million birds meet their death each year in the city of Wichita because of a cat.” [3] Of course, this figure relies on dubious estimates of the number of outdoor cats, an exaggerated predation estimate, and other factors that cast serious doubt on its accuracy.

Fiore’s confidence may come, in part, from the fact that other researchers have reported similar findings. But, as I have gone to great lengths to emphasize over the past few months, such findings rarely hold up to careful scrutiny. And sometimes, results are simply misunderstood—as when Fiore misinterprets Fitzgerald’s work:

“…several studies have been done to access [sic] the importance of birds as a percentage of total diet, as in Fitzgerald [12] who estimates birds represented 21% of cat diets.” [3]

In fact, Fitzgerald was referring not to the percentage of dietary intake, but of how often birds were found in scat or stomach contents (a distinction I explain in detail here):

“On all continents, birds are usually much less important than mammals; birds were present on average at 21 per cent frequency of occurrence, and mammals at 68 per cent. Many species are represented by just one or two individuals.” [12]

Something else Fiore overlooks is that the type of predation observed by her participants may have been largely compensatory; that is, the birds killed were of sufficiently poor health that they were unlikely to survive anyhow. Two studies have reported such findings. [7, 13] If this were the case, even her inflated estimates—however dramatic sounding—would actually have little impact on the population of Wichita’s birds.

In any case, the cardinals in the area seem to be doing fine. Between 1970 and 2000, Wichita’s human population increased 24.5%, from 276,554 to 344,284. Such an increase—accompanied by various related development activities—is generally associated with habitat loss, fragmentation, pollution, and any number of other factors that adversely affect bird populations. Including more cats. Nevertheless, data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey suggests that the number of Northern Cardinals in the area was on the increase over this period.

Caption: BBS Data: Northern Cardinals for Three Wichita-area Survey Routes (adapted from North American Breeding Bird Survey website)

Cat Regulations
Fiore used a telephone survey of Wichita residents to inquire about a range of pet ownership issues, as well attitudes concerning possible regulations affecting cats/cat owners. Among the questions Fiore posed to Wichita pet owners:

“At the present time dogs have to be licensed and kept on leashes. How do you feel about having cats regulated so that they would have to be licensed and confined to the owner’s property?”

Thirty-one percent of cat owners were completely opposed, while 44% said they were at least somewhat in favor—“a surprisingly high figure,” as Fiore notes. Pet owners were then asked a follow-up question:

“If it were found that unregulated cats are killing too much wildlife, would you change your opinion?”

Survey results are always tricky to interpret, and two people can often draw very different conclusions from them. Rather than focus on the responses, then, I’d like to take just a moment to focus on the question—starting with the term unregulated. Is that even necessary? How about simply cats? And what do me mean by wildlife here? And how much is too much?

Nearly half of respondents said that they would not change their minds, and Fiore sounds downright exasperated with their explanations:

“Cat owners are in denial about what their cats are doing. They seem sad over the death of a cardinal, but they refuse to take responsibility for the cat by stating ‘There is nothing I can do’ or ‘…but that’s what cats do.’ The owner of study cat 14 wrote ‘Cats are part of nature same as birds. Species come and go. I don’t think nature should be artificially regulated.’” [3]

Fiore clearly disagrees. Indeed, she tipped her hand much earlier, when, in Chapter 1, she wrote:

“If a human killed any of these birds or was caught in possession of them without a valid permit, he or she would face penalties including fines, and depending on the severity and species, possible jail time. Cats across America and their owners face no punishment.”

* * *

A story in the April 18, 1998 edition of The Wichita Eagle explained Fiore’s proposed project this way:

“Fiore, a graduate student at Wichita State University, will spend a year counting Wichita cats and their feathered victims for her master’s thesis. As bird populations decline, Fiore thinks it’s important to know how far cats are sinking their teeth into the feathered world… She points out that even the cutest kitty can be a remarkable hunter, although skill varies from cat to cat. But Fiore doesn’t want people to think she’s anti-cat. ‘I’m out to study the problem.’” [14]

In the same piece, Fiore brings up the Wisconsin Study (referring to its “intermediate value” of 39 million birds), and it’s revealed that she’s the vice president of the Wichita Audubon Society. Nevertheless, Fiore assures readers of her objectivity: “We’re just scientists who want to see if there’s a problem.”

Fiore’s thesis dedication, too, suggests an air of integrity and goodwill:

“This thesis is dedicated to my cat owner volunteers who made this study possible and to cat lovers and bird lovers around the world in the hopes that we can all work together to preserve native wildlife.” [3]

Having spent weeks reviewing Fiore’s work, though, I’m not buying it. In fact, I can’t help but read in her dedication an inside joke of sorts: her invitation is to preserve native wildlife; domestic cats, as she makes clear elsewhere, are not native.

In a follow-up story for The Wichita Eagle, Fiore reported her results: Wichita cats kill anywhere from 542,000 to 645,000 each year. But, according to the Eagle’s Roy Wenzl, it wasn’t the results that got some residents worked up. “Fiore’s study upset people. Not what she found. But what she did, in raising the question.” [15]

“‘I didn’t understand that,’ said Bob Gress, a cat owner, a naturalist and the director of the Great Plains Nature Center, who helped her with her study. ‘All she was doing was collecting information. I don’t think any of us should ever be afraid of the truth,’ Gress said. ‘But some people saw this as an assault on cats. Even some veterinarians seemed to resent what she was doing.’” [15]

Gress’ comment got me thinking not just about Fiore’s thesis, but also about how it’s been used—primarily by the ABC. As much as we might like to believe otherwise, scientific inquiry doesn’t happen in a vacuum; there is always a context to consider. It’s clear from her document that Fiore was well aware of the debate surrounding free-roaming cats at the time—and must have a good idea, too, of the possible implications of her work (e.g., ammunition for those who oppose free-roaming cats and TNR, the possible wholesale extermination of stray and feral cats, etc.).

And then there’s the matter of just how much truth there is in Fiore’s findings—plagued as they are by her flawed analysis and obvious bias.

Which is not to say that she (or anybody else) should be discouraged from studying such complex, controversial issues. But there is a great responsibility that comes with such endeavors. Fiore, in her thesis work, simply didn’t live up to that responsibility.

Notes
1. Fiore writes: “A researcher in southern Illinois estimated that his three house cats, which he followed for 6 years, only brought home about 50% of killed prey.” [16] As I’ve pointed out previously, this is a surprisingly common misunderstanding of George’s work. In fact, George was merely adjusting predation levels based on the fact that the “delivery area” was not always monitored: “…the study registered 50 percent of the cats’ captures—a percentage roughly corresponding to: 1, the average amount of total time the delivery area was under observation for recording prey; and 2, the number of prey items logged in the same year when the delivery area was under continuous day-and-night scrutiny, compared to the number logged (during equivalent seasonal and hourly periods) when continuously scrutinized for lesser amounts of time.” [16]

2. Fiore provides little detail regarding the application of her alternating attribution method, requiring some speculation on my part. An example, however, may prove illustrative. Consider Cats 17 and 18, which lived in the same home. During the bird collection phase of the study, Cat 17 was credited with just two kills. Cat 18, on the other hand, brought home 17 birds—clearly the more successful hunter. The question is: Did Cat 17 really kill those two birds, or are these simply the result of kills that could not be attributed to either cat?

At any time during the yearlong study, kills that could not be connected directly to a particular cat were, as Fiore explains, “alternated between cats.” Imagine if, at the time Cat 17 had 15 known kills, another kill was discovered—but this time, it was unclear which cat was responsible. That kill, then, would be attributed to Cat 17, bringing its total to 16. The next such kill would be attributed to Cat 18—effectively shifting its status from non-hunter to hunter. Two more such instances would yield the results described by Fiore: two kills for Cat 17 and 17 for Cat 18—though it should be clear that just two “mystery kills” would, using Fiore’s analysis method, create the impression that both cats are hunters. (In fact, were it not for their random numbering—Cat 17 being credited with the first “mystery kill” only because of its lower ID number—such an impression would result from just one such kill.)

To be clear: the scenario described above is speculative. But, given the impact of Fiore’s alternating attributions—increasing rather dramatically the proportion of apparent hunters—careful scrutiny is warranted.

3. Calculating the mean should be quite straightforward, of course. Fiore first calculated a daily rate for each cat by dividing that cat’s catch by the number of days in which its owner participated in the study. She then averages that rate over all 41 cats (coming up with 0.0094, compare to my 0.0076), and multiplies the result by 365 days/year.

4. Using this analysis method, a five-day collection from a three-cat household would constitute not five, but 15 analyses. Now, there’s no way of knowing that all three cats contributed to the scat collection; conversely, there’s no reason to think that just one cat contributed, as Fiore assumes.

5. At times, Fiore’s thesis reads as if it was a rebuttal to Gary Patronek’s article, Free-roaming and feral cats—their impact on wildlife and human beings, which was published around the time Fiore was conducting her research. Interestingly, had Fiore read Patronek’s paper more closely, she might not have used the mean to estimate predation rates. “The small proportion of cats with a large number of kills,” writes Patronek, “indicate that the number of animals killed per cat has a skewed distribution, which would tend to bias the mean upward.” [17]

6. Fiore is skeptical of her Pet Ownership Survey results, which indicate that 43% of cat owners keep their cats indoors (“People who interpreted this question to mean that because the cat was inside ‘most of the time’ it was an indoor cat, would be incorrect for purposes of this study.” [10]). However, as Merritt Clifton points out, it’s likely that she actually overestimates the number of outdoor cats when she “decided, based on a survey of Wichita residents, that about half of all cat-keepers allow their cats to roam, and presumed that could be extrapolated to mean that half of all pet cats roam.” This, writes Clifton, contradicts Animal People findings “that cat-keepers whose cats do not roam have, on average, from two to three times more cats than those whose cats can roam.” [2] Further support comes from a 2003 survey that found 60% of cats were kept strictly indoors, and nearly half of those allowed outdoors were out for less than two hours each day. [18]

Literature Cited
1. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219.

2. Clifton, M. Where cats belong—and where they don’t. Animal People 2003 [cited 2009 December 24]. http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/03/6/wherecatsBelong6.03.html.

3. Fiore, C.A., The Ecological Implications of Urban Domestic Cat (Felis catus) Predation on Birds In the City of Wichita, Kansas, in College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. 2000, Wichita State University: Wichita, Kansas

4. Churcher, P.B. and Lawton, J.H., “Predation by domestic cats in an English village.” Journal of Zoology. 1987. 212(3): p. 439-455.

5. Woods, M., McDonald, R.A., and Harris, S., “Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain.” Mammal Review. 2003. 33(2): p. 174-188.

6. Baker, P.J., et al., “Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area.” Mammal Review. 2005. 35(3/4): p. 302-312.

7. 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.

8. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.

9. Barratt, D.G., “Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife.” Wildlife Research. 1998. 25(5): p. 475–487.

10. Fiore, C.A. and Sullivan, K.B. (2000) Domestic Cats (Felis catus) Predation of Birds in an Urban Environment. http://www.carolfiore.com/Article.html Accessed July 27, 2010.

11. ABC, Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife. n.d., American Bird Conservancy: The Plains, VA. www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf

12. Fitzgerald, B.M., Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 1988, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; New York. p. 123–147.

13. Møller, A.P. and Erritzøe, J., “Predation against birds with low immunocompetence.” Oecologia. 2000. 122(4): p. 500-504.

14. Potter, T., Counting Cats and Their Winged Prey, in Wichita Eagle, The (KS). 1998. p. 9A

15. Wenzl, R., Are You Harboring a Killer on Your Couch?, in Wichita Eagle, The (KS). 1999. p. 9A

16. George, W., “Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey.” The Wilson Bulletin. 1974. 86(4): p. 384–396.

17. Patronek, G.J., “Free-roaming and feral cats—their impact on wildlife and human beings.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1998. 212(2): p. 218–226.

18. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545.

Docs’ Docs

1 Sep 2010

The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) recently made available online (via downloadable PDFs) several of its articles related to free-roaming cats/TNR. Although abstracts have been online for some time, access to the full text for these papers has generally required either a subscription to the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association or access to a subscribing library.

Among the articles that make up this edition of AVMA Collections are several I’ve referred to over the past few months—including two I’ve been quite critical of: one by Linda Winter, former director of the American Bird Conservancy’s Cats Indoors! campaign, and another by David Jessup.

The AVMA and Free-roaming Cats
Although “the AVMA encourages and supports actions to eliminate the problem of free-roaming abandoned and feral cats,” its policy regarding Free-roaming Abandoned and Feral Cats is, it must be said, ambivalent at best. The organization “neither endorses nor opposes appropriately managed cat colony programs,” for example. When it comes to the “treatment” of cats not in managed colonies, however, the AVMA is quite clear—as is the likely fate of these cats (despite the policy’s euphemistic language):

“The AVMA strongly supports reducing the number of unowned free-roaming abandoned and feral cats through humane capture (with placement in homes where appropriate) by local health departments, humane societies, and animal control agencies. All free-roaming abandoned and feral cats that are not in managed colonies should be removed from their environment and treated in the same manner as other abandoned and stray animals in accord with local and state ordinances.”

Another worrisome aspect of the AVMA’s policy is its matter-of-fact assertion that “these free-roaming abandoned and feral cats also represent a significant factor in the mortality of hundreds of millions of birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish” (the wording of which matches almost exactly a claim made by the American Bird Conservancy).

* * *

As with all large, politically-minded organizations, policy change at the AVMA is likely to be a slow process. Perhaps, though, by making this collection of articles available to the general public, they have, knowingly or not, given that process a nudge. Regardless of its intent—which seems to consider only a veterinary professional readership—the AVMA’s move may help foster a better-informed, more engaged debate among those outside the profession.

Repeat After Me

3 Aug 2010

Listening to NPR’s On the Media this weekend, I was struck by a story (first broadcast in 2006) about how certain “sticky” numbers—however dubious—find their way into the media landscape and beyond, as On the Media co-host Brooke Gladstone noted:

“Four years ago, we delved into the mysterious number, said to be 50,000, of child predators online at any given time. It was cited by the NBC Dateline program “To Catch a Predator” and also by then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

But spokespersons for the FBI, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the Crimes against Children Research Center said it was not based on any research they were aware of. The A.G.’s office at the time, well, they said it came from Dateline.”

Wall Street Journal columnist Carl Bialik, who spoke to Gladstone for the story, described the process whereby such slippery figures gain traction:

“An interesting phenomenon of these numbers is that they’ll often be cited to an agency or some government body, and then a study will pick it up, and then the press will repeat it from that study. And then once it appears in the press, public officials will repeat it again, and now it’s become an official number.”

All of which sounds very familiar—Bialik could easily be describing the “official numbers” put out by so many TNR opponents. Among those that have gained the most currency are the predation estimates from the Wisconsin Study, the American Bird Conservancy’s figure for the proportion of birds in the diets of free-roaming cats, and Dauphiné and Cooper’s estimate of free-roaming cats in the U.S.

The Wisconsin Study
Despite its having been discredited long ago (see, for example, “Addressing the Wisconsin Study”), the Wisconsin Study continues to be cited as if its estimate of 8–219 million birds killed by the state’s rural cats [1] was credible. As recently as last year, Longcore et al. cited the work in their essay “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap–Neuter–Return.” [2]

This, despite the fact that—15 years earlier—co-author Stanley Temple told the press:

“The media has had a field day with this since we started. Those figures were from our proposal. They aren’t actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be.” [3]

It’s true: the media has had a field day. Among the major newspapers to cite the Wisconsin Study are the Wall Street Journal [4], the New York Times [5], and the Los Angeles Times [6]. However, as I’ve described previously, it’s been the wildlife conservationists and bird advocates who’ve really had a field day with the Wisconsin Study:

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) refers to the study, in its brochure Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife. And the ABC goes one step further, pointing out that Coleman and Temple’s estimate was for rural cats, and that “suburban and urban cats add to that toll.” [7]

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cites the study’s “intermediate” estimate of 39 million birds in its Migratory Bird Mortality Fact Sheet. [8]

A 2009 article in Audubon Magazine suggests “cats were annually knocking off somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 million birds just in rural Wisconsin.” [9] To the magazine’s credit, they used Coleman and Temple’s low estimate—but none of the numbers from the Wisconsin Study are scientifically sound.

Birds Represent 20–30% of the Diet of Free-roaming Cats
According to an ABC report (downloadable from their website), “extensive studies of the feeding habits of domestic, free-roaming cats… show that approximately… 20 to 30 percent [of their diet] are birds.”

This, apparently, is the same report that Ellen Perry Berkeley debunked in her book, TNR Past Present and Future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement, noting that the ABC’s 20–30% figure was not based on “extensive studies” at all. [10] In fact, just three sources were used: the now-classic “English Village” study by Churcher and Lawton [11], the Wisconsin Study (described above), and Mike Fitzgerald’s contribution to “The Domestic Cat: The Biology of Its Behaviour.” [12]

This gets a little complicated, so bear with me.

When Churcher and Lawton reported, “overall, birds comprised 35% of the total catch,” [11] they were referring to prey tallies recorded by study participants—not to the overall diets of the cats involved. Figures obtained through similar methods for the Wisconsin Study were 20–23%, [1, 13, 14] which the authors suggest—citing Fitzgerald’s comprehensive review of predation and dietary studies—are in line with other work:

“Extensive studies of the feeding habits of free-ranging domestic cats over 50 years and four continents [12] indicate that small mammals make up approximately 70% of these cats’ prey while birds make up about 20%.” [14]

But they’re comparing apples and oranges. Both the English Village and Wisconsin Studies report the percentage of birds returned as a portion of the “total catch,” whereas Fitzgerald reports percentage by frequency (i.e., the occurrence of birds in the stomach contents or scats of free-roaming cats), a point apparently lost on Coleman and Craven. The 21% figure [12] they refer to, then, is simply not comparable to their own (or that of the English Village study, a fact Churcher and Lawton acknowledge in their paper). As Berkeley notes, “this would put birds, as a portion of the diet of cats, at roughly 7 to 10.5 percent—nowhere near the ‘20 to 30 percent’ figures unleashed on the unscientific public by ABC!”

To put all of this into more familiar terms, it’s a bit like saying that coffee makes up 20–30% of the American diet versus saying that 20–30% of Americans drink coffee each day.

Nevertheless, 13 years after the ABC first published its report, the myth persists. The report—including the mistaken dietary figures—is still available. And the National Audubon Society has helped perpetuate the error, noting in its Resolution Regarding Control and Management of Feral and Free-Ranging Domestic Cats:

“…it has been estimated that birds represent 20–30% of the prey of feral and free-ranging domestic cats.”

Estimates of Free-roaming Cats
In January, Steve Holmer, the ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, told the Los Angeles Times, “The latest estimates are that there are about . . . 160 million feral cats [nationwide].” Sounds like an awful lot of cats—nearly one for every two humans in the country. So where does this figure come from?

The source is a paper by Nico Dauphiné and Robert Cooper (which can be downloaded via the ABC website), presented at the Fourth International Partners in Flight conference. In it, Dauphiné and Cooper use some remarkably creative accounting, beginning with an unsubstantiated estimate of unowned cats, to which they add an inflated number of owned cats that spend time outdoors. In the end, they conclude that there are “117–157 million free-ranging cats in the United States.” [15] (For a more thorough explanation, see my previous post on the subject.)

Estimating the number of free-roaming cats wasn’t even the point of their paper. As the title—“Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) On Birds In the United States: A Review of Recent Research with Conservation and Management Recommendations”—suggests, the primary purpose was to describe the cats’ impact on birds. The authors’ exaggerated figure was merely a convenient route to their estimate of birds killed annually by cats: “a minimum of one billion birds” [15] (which, it should be clear, has the potential to become a very sticky number).

Holmer goes a step further, using only the upper limit of the range published by Dauphiné and Cooper, and making the subtle—but important—shift from free-ranging to feral cats.

When I asked him about this, he explained that those figures were “based on an earlier version of Nico’s latest paper and are now being updated in our materials.” I don’t know that any such changes were made; and in any event, the bogus estimate has already been published in the L.A. Times—as if it were true.

* * *

TNR opponents will often point to the vast collection of research studies, government reports, news accounts, and the like, that support their assertions. Drill down a bit into that collection, though, and they all start to look alike: the same familiar sources, the same flawed studies—and the same bogus figures. These figures have become the kind of “official numbers” Bialik refers to: quantitative poseurs owing their popularity to tireless—and irresponsible—repetition more than anything else.

Literature Cited
1. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., On the Prowl, in Wisconsin Natural Resources. 1996, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI. p. 4–8. http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/1996/dec96/cats.htm

2. 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.

3. Elliott, J., The Accused, in The Sonoma County Independent. 1994. p. 1, 10.

4. Sterba, J.P., Tooth and Claw: Kill Kitty?, in Wall Street Journal. 2002: New York. p. A.1

5. Barcott, B., Kill the Cat That Kills the Bird?, in New York Times. 2007: New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/02/magazine/02cats-v–birds-t.html

6. Kennedy, J.M., Killer Among Us, in Los Angeles Times. 2003: Los Angeles. http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/23/news/os-cat23

7. ABC, Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife. n.d., American Bird Conservancy: The Plains, VA. www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf

8. FWS, Migratory Bird Mortality. 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Arlington, VA. www.fws.gov/birds/mortality-fact-sheet.pdf

9. Williams, T., Felines Fatale, in Audubon Magazine. 2009, National Audubon Society: New York, NY. http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0909.html

10. Berkeley, E.P., TNR Past present and future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement. 2004, Bethesda, MD: Alley Cat Allies.

11. Churcher, P.B. and Lawton, J.H., “Predation by domestic cats in an English village.” Journal of Zoology. 1987. 212(3): p. 439-455.

13. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., Effects of Free-Ranging Cats on Wildlife: A Progress Report, in Fourth Eastern Wildlife Damaage Control Conference. 1989: University of Nebraska—Lincoln. p. 8–12. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ewdcc4/7

14. Coleman, J.S., Temple, S.A., and Craven, S.R., Cats and Wildlife: A Conservation Dilemma. 1997, University of Wisconsin, Wildlife Extension. http://forestandwildlifeecology.wisc.edu/wl_extension/catfly3.htm

15. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219.

Sanctuary In Name Only

19 Jul 2010

Although Vox Felina was launched in April of this year, its origins can be traced back to 2007 and the town of Pahrump, Nevada. There, 748 cats were abandoned in the summer heat—left sick, starving, and dehydrated by the very people who claimed to be their rescuers. Were it not for the heroic efforts of Best Friends Animal Society and a tireless team of volunteers (local and from across the country), nearly all of those cats would have died.

Within the organization operating the Pahrump sanctuary—For the Love Of Cats and Kittens, or FLOCK—there was nothing but finger-pointing. Earlier this year, the case against FLOCK’s former board members was dismissed on a technicality—the result of the case having been badly botched from the outset by the Nye County District Attorney’s Office. Anybody familiar with the story knows of D.A. Robert Beckett’s incompetence and questionable judgment (e.g., in a six-hour period, Beckett once rolled two cars—one of which belonged to the county—resulting in a citation for DUI). Then, last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that Beckett’s under investigation for dipping into County funds.

All of this got me thinking—not of Beckett or the D.A.’s Office, but of FLOCK. The organization is still around (although I’m told the leadership has changed). And a few months ago there were reports—which I have been unable to confirm—that FLOCK might be establishing a new sanctuary, this time in neighboring Clark County.

Another FLOCK sanctuary would be a recipe for disaster, and not just because of that organization’s abysmal record. Many cat sanctuaries are overcrowded, underfunded, and—lacking any kind of contingency plan, as is often the case—prone to collapse. And they can be used to cover up institutional hoarding.

Sanctuaries as Alternatives to TNR?
Cat sanctuaries were among the topics discussed at the American Veterinary Medical Association’s 2004 Animal Welfare Forum, “Management of Abandoned and Feral Cats.” Among those suggesting that sanctuaries are a viable alternative to TNR were Linda Winter, former director of the ABC’s Cats Indoors! program:

“Cat sanctuaries, such as those run by Best Friends in Utah, Rikki’s Refuge in Virginia, the Humane Society of Ocean City in NJ, the CCC in California, the Delaware Humane Association in Delaware, and the Habitat for Cats Sanctuary in Massachusetts, keep cats sheltered, safe, and well fed; provide access to routine veterinary care; protect wildlife; and reduce health risks for cats and people. The ABC strongly supports sanctuaries for stray and feral cats as an alternative to TNR that is more humane to both cats and wildlife.” [1]

Former Chief of the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps, Paul Barrows, was another participant in favor of sanctuaries as an alternative to TNR:

“Whether adopted; placed in a confining sanctuary; judiciously used in research, training, or education; or euthanized, removal and not return seems to be the most responsible course of action.” [3]

David Jessup, Senior Wildlife Veterinarian with the California Department of Fish and Game, also weighed in with his own enthusiastic endorsement:

“Recently, another option has become available: enclosed sanctuaries where cats can live out their lives protected from weather and most injury. Large and well-known cat sanctuaries exist in Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, Virginia, and several places in California. Others are being built and operated by individuals and organizations on small and moderate scales similar to other sanctuaries, as described by Winter. This is happening simply because people sense it is the right thing to do. Hopefully, we can all agree this is one thing that truly serves the welfare of both cats and wildlife.” [2]

However, this is the same article in which Jessup alleges—without so much as a single reference to support him—that there are “60–100 million feral and abandoned cats in the United States.” [2] Clearly, there isn’t nearly enough sanctuary space for the number of cats; in fact, sanctuaries are “another option” for only a tiny fraction of the stray, abandoned, and feral cats out there (even when more accurate estimates are considered).

Indeed, in their contribution to AVMA’s 2004 Animal Welfare Forum, Julie Levy and Cynda Crawford suggest as much: “most sanctuary programs that permanently house feral cats are filled to capacity almost immediately after opening.” [5]

And yet, years later, sanctuaries are still being marketed as alternatives to TNR. The ABC, for example, echoes Winter’s 2004 comments in its brochure “Managed” Cat Colonies: The Wrong Solution to a Tragic Problem, and in its short film Trap, Neuter, and Release: Bad for Cats, Disaster for Birds. In the film, produced last year, Steve Holmer, the ABC’s Director of Public Relations, suggests:

“A better solution is to trap, neuter, and remove feral cats, and then relocate them to enclosed cat sanctuaries or shelters, or to adopt them out to safe and comfortable homes.”

Sanctuaries: The Realities and Impacts
Alley Cat Allies opposes sanctuaries for feral cats , citing as concerns the inherent economic and medical challenges, as well as the overall lack of capacity—factors that too often prove insurmountable:

“A number of sanctuaries are forced to close their doors every year due to insufficient funds or an inability to properly care for the cats in the existing confined space.”

FLOCK was a case study, demonstrating in horrific detail that the sanctuary option—even when it’s available—is not always in the best interest of the cats. As one of my Best Friends contacts who was involved in the FLOCK clean-up effort told me, “I’ve got one of the Pahrump cats… I would rather see that cat back on the streets of Vegas, looking for food in Dumpsters, than be where they were at FLOCK.”

Indeed, the FLOCK story is all too familiar to people involved in such large-scale rescue efforts. Consider some of the more dramatic—and therefore “story-worthy”—incidents in recent years:

Voice of the Animals Sanctuary (Blanchard, ID, 2006)
“Disaster responders from The HSUS, working alongside the Idaho Humane Society, found more than 400 cats, and a number of dogs, goats and chickens. Many were in extremely poor health and had to be euthanized.”

“The animals were housed in and around nine dilapidated mobile homes on the property, according to published reports. Inside the trailers, investigators found that the walls were soaked in urine and the floors caked with feces and filth. Veterinarian and IHS executive director Dr. Jeff Rosenthal described the cats as all being ‘infested with fleas and ear mites. The majority were also in an emaciated state and suffered with upper respiratory illnesses, chronic diarrhea and abscesses,’ among other ailments.” (source: www.Pet-Abuse.com)

Tiger Ranch (Tarentum, PA, 2008)
“All told, 380 living cats and 106 dead ones were discovered during a police raid at Tiger Ranch in Frazer Township, which owner and operator Linda Bruno billed as a pet adoption center and Hospice. Since then, many of the cats have died.”

“‘It’s a death camp,’ said [Howard] Nelson [director of the Philadelphia-based Pennsylvania SPCA, which orchestrated the raid], speaking by cell phone as he helped gather emaciated and diseased cats crammed into trailers and other outbuildings across the 30-acre property. ‘I see cats that can’t walk, and dead cats in litter boxes and lying by food bowls.’” (source: www.Pet-Abuse.com)

Cats with No Name (Pine Grove Township, PA, 2009)
“SPCA volunteer Beth Hall said the condition the 148 cats and 10 other animals were found in was unspeakable. ‘Our opinion is that it was heinous. In my opinion, it was like a kitty concentration camp,’ she said. ‘We just don’t understand.’ Mary Ellen Smith, president of the Steinert SPCA board, said the animals were subjected to ‘obvious cruelty and neglect.’”

In addition, the couple responsible was “accused of stockpiling donated cat food and reselling some of it at auctions to finance drug binges while leaving dozens of animals to go hungry.” (source: www.Pet-Abuse.com)

10th Life Sanctuary (LaBelle, FL, 2009)
“The final statistics tell a story of success and sadness. The closure of the 10th Life Sanctuary represents one of the largest cat rescues in US history. A total of 110 cats were euthanized in the first days of medical triage due to critical medical illnesses, including 17 that were euthanized immediately following the unannounced inspection. Of the remaining 485 cats, 75 of the ferals were euthanized when new placements could not be found for them. This 15% euthanasia rate for the savable cats is in stark contrast to the vast majority of large-scale feline cruelty impoundments in which mass euthanasia is the most common outcome.” (source: Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program, University of Florida)

* * *

To be clear, I’m not opposed to sanctuaries as such. Indeed, I’m a supporter of Best Friends and Shadow Cats Rescue. What I am opposed to is sanctuaries being oversold—generally to an audience that has no knowledge of such matters—as a viable alternative to TNR. To suggest anything of the sort is, at best, disingenuous. Sanctuaries are no more an alternative to TNR than zoos are to the protection of endangered species.

Literature Cited
1. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376.

2. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383.

3. Barrows, P.L., “Professional, ethical, and legal dilemmas of trap-neuter-release.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1365-1369.

4. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219

5. Levy, J.K. and Crawford, P.C., “Humane strategies for controlling feral cat populations.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1354-1360.

Learning Your ABC

18 Jun 2010

According to an AP story posted on MSNBC , city officials in Barre, VT, are considering a leash law for cats—effectively prohibiting them from roaming. Such stories tend to vary only in their specifics; quotes from embattled citizens, and feline references that are more dismissive than clever (e.g., in Barre, the debate “sparked a hissing match”) are pretty much a given. And, more often than not, there’s a statement from the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) about the threat free-roaming cats pose to wildlife. This story was no exception:

“Scientists estimate that free-roaming cats kill hundreds of millions of birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians each year,” the Virginia-based American Bird Conservancy, which runs a “Cats Indoors!” campaign, says on its website. “Cat predation is an added stress to wildlife populations already struggling to survive habitat loss, pollution, pesticides, and other human impacts.”

Although I don’t know anybody who would argue with ABC’s second point, that first one bears closer inspection.

I discussed a similar claim by ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, Steve Holmer, in one of my first Vox Felina posts. In January, Holmer told the Los Angeles Times:

“The latest estimates are that there are about . . . 160 million feral cats [nationwide] . . . It’s conservatively estimated that they kill about 500 million birds a year.”

Late last year, an article in Audubon Magazine had published nearly identical figures, citing ABC as its source. [1]

The feral cat estimate comes from a conference paper written by Nico Dauphiné and Robert J. Cooper, available for download via the ABC website. When I pressed Holmer about the authors’ “creative accounting,” he backed off, assuring me that ABC’s materials “should now say”:

There are currently 88 million pet cats in the U.S. according to a pet trade association, and that number is growing. In addition, it is estimated that there may be 60–100 million free-ranging feral cats in the U.S., and that these cats may collectively kill more than one million birds each day. Reducing this mortality even a small amount could potentially save millions of birds each year.

I never received a reply, though, to my inquiries about that “more than one million birds each day” claim. Such incidents are, unfortunately, not uncommon; when it comes to assertions about cat predation and its impact on wildlife, ABC has a rich—and rather shameful—history.

Cats Indoors!
Holmer’s comment to the L.A. Times is just one example of ABC’s concerted effort to use the (largely unquestioning) media in getting their message out. Last year, at a news conference about the “The U.S. State of the Birds” report, ABC’s Darin Schroeder told the press, “education is urgently needed to make the public aware of the toll of pet cats.” Which is precisely what ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign—launched in 1997—aims to do.

The question is, what kind of education is the public getting from ABC?

A 1997 report by ABC claimed, “extensive studies of the feeding habits of domestic, free-roaming cats… show that approximately… 20 to 30 percent [of their diet] are birds.” [cited in 2] In fact, as Ellen Perry Berkeley points out in her book, TNR Past Present and Future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement, the 20–30% figure was not based on “extensive studies” at all. [2]ABC’s Linda Winter, writing to Berkeley, cited just three sources. Two of them—the now-classic “English village” study by Peter Churcher and John Lawton, and the “Wisconsin Study” by John Coleman and Stanley Temple—have been widely discredited. [3–5] And the third, Mike Fitzgerald’s contribution to “Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations,” [6] was misinterpreted and/or misrepresented by ABC. (As Berkeley notes, Fitzgerald’s data “would put birds, as a portion of the diet of cats, at roughly 7 to 10.5 percent—nowhere near the ‘20 to 30 percent’ figures unleashed on the unscientific public by ABC!” [2])
Winter, director of Cats Indoors! (assuming she’s still at ABC; their website does not list her among the staff), and ABC president George Fenwick were among those thanked “for helpful and constructive reviews” in the Acknowledgements section of Christopher Lepczyk’s 2003 paper, “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.” As I detailed in my previous post, Lepczyk’s study is flawed both in terms of its method and analysis, and his predation estimates are highly inflated as a result. The fact that Winter and Fenwick were involved in such as study—at any level—raises questions about ABC’s credibility (and its possible influence on research outcomes).

In 2004, Winter misrepresented the results of a survey commissioned by ABC. In “Trap-neuter-release programs: The reality and the impacts,” published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, she suggested, “66% of cat owners let their cats outdoors some or all of the time.” [7]In fact, the survey indicated that “35% keep their cats indoors all of the time” and “31% keep them indoors mostly with some outside access.” [9] While Winter’s claim isn’t exactly untrue, it certainly paints a very different picture: rather than one-third, two-thirds of cats are free-roaming. Which, apparently, is exactly how Dauphiné and Cooper read it, combining this with an inflated figure for the number of feral cats to come up with their estimate of “117–157 million free-ranging cats in the United States.” [8] (It’s difficult not to see a certain coziness here: Dauphiné and Cooper citing Winter’s “interpretation” of her own survey results, and Holmer’s reliance on Dauphiné and Cooper’s conference paper.
To this day, ABC refers to the highly-criticized Wisconsin Study in its brochure Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife: “Researchers… estimated that rural free-roaming cats kill at least 7.8 million and perhaps as many as 217 million birds a year in Wisconsin. Suburban and urban cats add to that toll.” [9]And, despite Berkeley’s efforts to untangle their erroneous dietary figures, ABC has backed off only slightly: “In an ongoing, but unpublished, study of cat prey items including stomach contents, scat analysis, observations of kills, and prey remains, birds were 19.6% of 1,976 prey captured by 78 outdoor cats (Temple, S.A, Univ. of WI, personal communication, 1/22/04).”
[Note: Download Laurie D. Goldstein’s Addressing the Wisconsin Study for a comprehensive critique of this work.]

* * *

Don’t get me wrong; I’m all for keeping cats indoors. But what about the feral and stray cats out there—what happens to them? Here, ABC doesn’t seem to have a lot of answers. At least not any they’re willing to be up-front about.

In fact, by disseminating information that is at best misleading—and often, just plain wrong—ABC is doing whatever it can to shape policy in such a way that many of these cats will, one way or another, be killed. Intentional or not, Cats Indoors! has become a kind of Trojan horse for those determined to eliminate all free-roaming cats. Attention can very quickly shift from the impact of a proposed leash law, for example, to the “cat problem” in general.

Although it’s packaged as sound advice for cat owners, the Cats Indoors! campaign has probably had a far greater (deadly) impact on unowned cats than on pet cats.

References
1. Williams, T., Felines Fatale, in Audubon Magazine. 2009, National Audubon Society: New York, NY. http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0909.html

2. Berkeley, E.P., TNR Past present and future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement. 2004, Bethesda, MD: Alley Cat Allies.

3. Goldstein, L.D., O’Keefe, C.L., and Bickel, H.L. Addressing “The Wisconsin Study”. 2003. http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/wisconsin_study.html.

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

5. Patronek, G.J., “Free-roaming and feral cats—their impact on wildlife and human beings.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 1998. 212(2): p. 218–226.

6. Fitzgerald, B.M., Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 1988, Cambridge University Press. p. 123–147.

7. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376.

8. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2009. p. 205–219.

9. ABC, Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife. n.d., American Bird Conservancy: The Plains, VA. www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf

The Work Speaks—Part 6: Pain by Numbers

14 Jun 2010

In April, Conservation Biology published a comment authored by Christopher A. Lepczyk, Nico Dauphiné, David M. Bird, Sheila Conant, Robert J. Cooper, David C. Duffy, Pamela Jo Hatley, Peter P. Marra, Elizabeth Stone, and Stanley A. Temple. In it, the authors “applaud the recent essay by Longcore et al. (2009) in raising the awareness about trap-neuter-return (TNR) to the conservation community,” [1] and puzzle at the lack of TNR opposition among the larger scientific community:

“…it may be that conservation biologists and wildlife ecologists believe the issue of feral cats has already been studied enough and that the work speaks for itself, suggesting that no further research is needed.”

In fact, “the work”—taken as a whole—is neither as rigorous nor as conclusive as Lepczyk et al. suggest. And far too much of it is plagued by exaggeration, misrepresentations, errors, and obvious bias. In Part 5 of this series, I critiqued Cole Hawkins’ 1998 PhD dissertation. Here, I’m going to untangle some of Lepczyk’s own PhD work: Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes, published in 2003.

The Study
In this study, surveys were distributed across three southeastern Michigan landscapes (rural, suburban, and urban) corresponding to established breeding bird survey (BBS) routes. [2] Among the survey questions:

“If you or members of your household own cats that are allowed access to the outside, approximately how many dead or injured birds a week do all the cats bring in during the spring and summer months (April through August) (0, 1, 2–3, 4–5, 6–7, 8–9, 10–15, 16–20, more than 20)?”

Based on 968 surveys returned from 1654 private landowners (a decent response rate of 58.5%), Lepczyk et al. conclude:

“Across the three landscapes there were ~800 to ~3100 cats, which kill between ~16,000 and ~47,000 birds during the breeding season, resulting in a minimum of ~1 bird killed/km/day.”

Increasing Uncertainty
How do Lepczyk and his collaborators arrive at these figures? It’s not entirely clear, actually. Despite numerous attempts, I’ve been unable to follow all of their calculations. However, using their data, I developed my own estimate: 1,119 outdoor cats, 511 of which were reported to be successful hunters.

Using this figure, I then summed across all three landscapes the birds killed or injured, plus those killed or injured by non-respondents’ hunting cats (based on the ratio of hunters to outdoor cats owned by respondents, or about 50%). The resulting estimate is 15,856 birds killed over the 22-week breeding season—close to the low estimate suggested by Lepczyk et al., but just a third of their maximum.

So, why the discrepancy?

One reason is that, at least for some of their estimates, Lepczyk et al. assumed that every landowner who didn’t respond to the survey owned outdoor cats. This, despite their survey results, which indicated that only about one-third of landowners fell into this category.

But the authors go further, generating predation estimates based on pure speculation, specifically that “non-respondents have 150% the number of outdoor cats as respondents.” [2] It should be noted that Lepczyk et al. also ran another scenario in which non-respondents had half the outdoor cats as did respondents—but, again, in both cases they assume that every non-respondent owned outdoor cats.

As a result of this approach, the authors end up in some strange territory: the estimated number of cats owned by non-respondents (based on the assumptions described above) far exceeds the number owned by respondents—by more than a two-to-one margin, in some cases. If the greatest impacts are going to be attributable to non-respondents, then what’s the point of doing the survey in the first place? There are accepted methods by which one can manage uncertainty—statistical analysis, confidence intervals, and the like. What Lepczyk et al. have done serves just one purpose: to inflate apparent predation rates.

Skewed Distributions
In addition to the flaws described above, there are some fundamental errors in the way the authors handle their data. Like so many others, Lepczyk et al. ignore the fact that their data is not normally distributed:

Lepczyk et al. use the average number of birds killed/cat to calculate the total number of bids killed for each of the three landscapes. As I discussed previously), this is a highly positively skewed distribution—using a simple average, therefore, greatly overestimates the cats’ impact (by as much as a factor of two).
A similar error is made when the authors use an average to describe the number of outdoor cats owned by each landowner. Again, because this is a skewed distribution, their use of a simple average exaggerates the extent of predation.
The two inflated figures described in (1) and (2) are multiplied together, further inflating estimated predation rates.

Barratt has suggested that “median numbers of prey estimated or observed to be caught per year are approximately half the mean values, and are a better representation of the average predation by house cats based on these data.” [3] Accounting for the first point alone, then, my estimate is reduced to 8,000 birds killed over the 22-week breeding season.

Accounting for the second point is somewhat trickier. For one thing, we don’t know what constitutes an outdoor cat here—the survey simply asked respondents if they owned cats “that are allowed access to the outdoors.” [2] However, we do know the results of a 2003 survey, which indicated that nearly half of the cats with outdoor access were outside for two or fewer hours a day. And 29% were outdoors for less than an hour each day. [4] Although these figures almost certainly reflect owners in urban and suburban landscapes more than those in rural landscapes, it’s clear that a simple yes-or-no question on the subject is insufficient. Indeed, such a question will invariably overestimate the number of “outdoor cats”—which in turn overestimates predation rates.

This, coupled with the error inherent in using a simple average, pushes predation estimates lower. And the third point reduces those estimates further still. Taken together, these corrections could put my estimate closer to 4,000 birds. More important, the upper estimate proposed by Lepczyk et al.—47,000 birds—could easily be 10 times too high.

The Small Print
Despite their inflated figures, Lepczyk et al. suggest—rather absurdly, in light of the substantial flaws described above—that perhaps their estimates are actually too conservative:

“One caveat to our study is that landowners may have underestimated the number of cats they allow access to the outside. Such a result was found in a similar study of landowners in Wisconsin (Coleman and Temple, 1993).” [1] (Note: After reviewing “Rural Residents’ Free-Ranging Domestic Cats: A Survey,” [5] I’ve found no evidence of such a result.)

“… we found that a very common volunteered response among landowners that had no outdoor cats was that either their neighbors owned outdoor cats or that feral cats were present in the vicinity of their land… [suggesting] that at least some landowners under reported or chose not to report the number of outdoor cats they owned.”

But what about their reports of birds brought home killed or injured—how trustworthy were those? After all, the survey (mailed during the first week of October) asked respondents to recall the number of birds their cat(s) brought home April through August. Surely, there was a lot of guesswork involved. In fact, David Barratt found this kind of guesswork to overestimate predation rates. In a study published five years prior to “Landowners and Cat Predation,” Barratt concluded, “predicted rates of predation greater than about ten prey per year generally over-estimated predation observed.” [3]

The two studies cannot be compared directly for a number of reasons, but by way of comparison, the average predation rate used by Lepczyk et al. is approximately 31 birds/cat for the 22-week breeding season. Using Barratt’s work, in which the “heaviest” six continuous months correspond to about 58% of yearly prey totals, [6] I converted this to a yearly rate of 53 birds/cat/year. Barratt has shown that the actual predation rate, at this level, is less than half the rate predicted by cat owners. In other words, predictions of 50 birds/year generally correspond to catches closer to 25 birds/year.

While Lepczyk et al. emphasize the potential for under-estimating predation levels, they never consider the risk of over-estimating these levels—or their most obvious potential source of error: landowners’ recollections of birds killed. The authors question respondents’ reports of outdoor cats, but accept without question their reports of birds injured or killed over the previous six-month period. And, as Barratt indicated, such reports can be inflated by a factor of two or more!

Something else I find troubling comes, of all places, from the Acknowledgements section. Among those thanked “for helpful and constructive reviews” are American Bird Conservancy (ABC) president George Fenwick and Linda Winter, director of ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign. It’s not clear how Fenwick and Winter contributed to the final paper, but their involvement on any level raises questions about possible bias. Certainly, Winter has credibility issues when it comes to “research” about the impact of free-roaming cats on birds, as I’ve already described (see also pp. 18–24 of TNR Past present and future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement [7]).

* * *

The same year Lepczyk’s paper was published, the American Veterinary Medicine Association held an Animal Welfare Forum “devoted to the management of abandoned and feral cats.” [8] In attendance were more than 200 veterinarians, animal control officials, wildlife conservationists, and animal advocates—each with a different perspective on feral cats in general and TNR in particular.

In welcoming this diverse group, then-President-Elect Bonnie Beaver recognized the range of contentious issues before them:

“Feral cats evoke hot debates about ecological issues, individual cat welfare, human responsibilities, intercat disease transmission, humaneness, zoonosis control, and management and dissolution of unowned cats.” [8]

Amidst the “hot debate,” though, Beaver was optimistic:

“We will not always agree, but we will come away with increased knowledge and a renewed commitment to work for the welfare of all the animals with which we share the earth” [8]

While I tend to share Beaver’s optimism, I think the debate is hurt—if not derailed entirely—by the publication of research aimed not at increasing our collective knowledge, but rather at supporting a particular position. Like Cole Hawkins’ dissertation, “Landowners and Cat Predation” is, at best, an interesting pilot study for subsequent work. And yet, it’s widely—and uncritically—cited in the feral cat/TNR literature. Longcore et al., for example, refer to it as “evidence [indicating] that cats can play an important role in fluctuations of bird populations,” [9] despite the fact that Lepczyk et al. don’t actually address the issue of bird populations at all. More recently, Dauphiné and Cooper use the inflated predation rate suggested by Lepczyk et al. (along with rates proposed by other researchers) to arrive at their “billion birds” figure. [10]

The method employed in “Landowners and Cat Predation”—asking owners of cats to recall the number and species of birds over the previous six-month period—invites overestimation from the very outset. Lepczyk et al. then inflate these numbers through both careless (e.g., using averages to describe skewed data) and deliberate (e.g., assuming all non-respondents owned cats—perhaps 50% more than respondents did) means. Rather than getting us any closer to the truth about cat predation, this study only obscured it further.

Worse, it’s been packaged and sold—and subsequently “bought”—as rigorous science, thereby giving it an undeserved legitimacy. Such efforts are impediments to knowledge and understanding—and therefore, to progress.

References
1. Lepczyk, C.A., et al., “What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.” Conservation Biology. 2010. 24(2): p. 627-629.

2. Lepczyk, C.A., Mertig, A.G., and Liu, J., “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.” Biological Conservation. 2003. 115(2): p. 191-201.

3. Barratt, D.G., “Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife.” Wildlife Research. 1998. 25(5): p. 475–487.

5. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., “Rural Residents’ Free-Ranging Domestic Cats: A Survey.” Wildlife Society Bulletin. 1993. 21(4): p. 381–390.

6. Barratt, D.G., “Predation by House Cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. I. Prey Composition and Preference.” Wildlife Research. 1997. 24(3): p. 263–277.

7. Berkeley, E.P., TNR Past present and future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement. 2004, Bethesda, MD: Alley Cat Allies.

8. Kuehn, B.M. and Kahler, S.C. The Cat Debate. JAVMA Online 2004 November 27, 2009 [accessed 2009 December 24]. http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jan04/040115a.asp.

9. 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.

10. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2010. p. 205–219.

The Work Speaks—Part 4: Mean Spirited

4 Jun 2010

“…it may be that conservation biologists and wildlife ecologists believe the issue of feral cats has already been studied enough and that the work speaks for itself, suggesting that no further research is needed.”

In fact, “the work”—taken as a whole—is neither as rigorous nor as conclusive as Lepczyk et al. suggest. And far too much of it is plagued by exaggeration, misrepresentations, errors, and obvious bias. In Part 3 of this series, I discussed the distinction between compensatory and additive predation. Here, I’ll focus on how feral cat/TNR researchers often misuse averages to characterize skewed distributions, and how that error overestimates the impact of free-roaming cats on wildlife.

Something’s Askew
When a data set is skewed, it is inappropriate to use the mean, or average, as a measure of central tendency. The mean should be used only when the data set can be considered normal—the familiar bell curve. As Woods et al put it:

“the simple average number of animals brought home is not a useful measure of central tendency because of the skewed frequency distribution of the numbers of prey items brought home…” [2]

Studies of cat predation routinely reveal a positively skewed distribution; a few cats are responsible for many kills, while many of the cats kill few, if any, prey. So when researchers use the mean to calculate the total number of prey killed by cats in a particular area, they overestimate the cats’ impact.

How common is this? Very [see, for example, 3-9]. Of the many cat predation studies I’ve read, only a few [2, 10, 11] properly account for the skewed nature of this distribution. And others [12-17] often take these inflated figures at face value—as evidence of the impact cats have on wildlife. Published repeatedly, the erroneous estimates take on an undeserved legitimacy.

The proper method for handling skewed distributions involves data transformations, the details of which I won’t go into here. The important point is this: in the case of a positively skewed distribution, the back-transformed mean will always be less than the simple mean of the same data set.

Big Deal
Depending on the particular distribution, the difference between the simple mean and the back-transformed mean can be considerable. Let’s use the 2003 study by Woods et al. [2] to illustrate. In the case of mammals killed and returned home by pet cats, the back-transformed mean was 28.3% less than the simple mean. Or, put another way, the simple mean would have overestimated the number of mammals killed by 39.5%. Similarly, when all prey items were totaled (as depicted in the illustration above), the simple mean would have overestimated the total number off all prey (mammals, birds, herpetofauna, and “others”) by 46.9%.

On the other hand, the figures for birds appear to break the rule mentioned above. In this case, the back-transformed mean (4.1) is actually a bit higher than the simple mean (4.0). How can this be? In order to log-transform the data set, Woods et al. had to first eliminate all the instances where cats returned home no prey—you can’t take the logarithm of 0. So, they were actually working with two data sets. Now, the second data set—which includes only those cats that returned at least one prey item—is also highly positively skewed. As a point of reference, its simple mean was approximately 5.6 birds/cat, which, compared to the back-transformed mean, is an overestimation of 37.5%.

By now, it should be apparent that log-transformed means have another important advantage over simple means: because you have to eliminate those zeros from the data set, you are forced to focus only on the cats that returned prey home—which, of course, is the whole point of such studies! And in the case of this study, Woods et al. found that 20–30% of cats brought home either no birds or no mammals. And 8.6% of the cats brought home no prey at all over the course of the study.

Transforming a data set (and then back-transforming its mean) is simpler than it sounds, but Barratt offers a useful alternative, rule-of-thumb method (one echoed by Fitzgerald and Turner [18]):

“…median numbers of prey estimated or observed to be caught per year are approximately half the mean values, and are a better representation of the average predation by house cats based on these data.” [10]

So, whereas Dauphiné and Cooper (and others) suggest increasing such estimates by factors of two and three (“predation rates measured through prey returns may represent one half to less than one third of what pet cats actually kill…” [14]), they should, in fact, be reducing them by half.

Cat Ownership
There are other instances in which simple averages are used to describe similarly skewed distributions—with similar results. That is, they overestimate a particular characteristic—and not in the cats’ favor.

Cat ownership, for example, is not a normal distribution. Many people own one or two cats; a few people own many cats. This is precisely what Lepczyk et al. found in their 2003 study:

“The total number of free-ranging cats across all landscapes was 656, ranging from 1 to 30 per landowner…” [6]

In fact, about 113 (I’m estimating from the histogram printed in the report) of those landowners owned just one cat apiece. About 70 of them owned two cats. Only one—maybe two—owned 30 cats. And yet, Lepczyk et al. calculate an average of 2.59 cats/landowner (i.e., 656 cats/253 landowners who allow their cats outdoors), thereby substantially overestimating cat ownership—and, in turn, predation rates (which calculations are based upon the average number of cats/landowner).

Lepczyk et al. are not the only ones to make this mistake; several other researchers have done the same. [4, 5, 7-9]

Outdoor Access
The amount of time cats spend outdoors is also highly positively skewed, as is apparent from the 2003 survey conducted by Clancy, Moore, and Bertone. [19] Their work showed that nearly half of the cats with outdoor access were outside for two or fewer hours a day. And 29% were outdoors for less than an hour each day.

Among those researchers to overlook the skewed nature of this distribution are Kays and DeWan, who calculate an average of 8.35 hours/day. This greatly overestimates potential predation, and leads them to conclude—erroneously—that the actual number of prey killed by cats was “3.3 times greater than the rate estimated from prey brought home,” [9] as was discussed previously.

Compound Errors
Clearly, these errors are substantial—in some cases, doubling the apparent impact of cats on wildlife. Of course the errors are even more significant when one inflated figure is multiplied by another—as when Lepczyk et al. [6] multiply the average number of prey items returned by the average number of outdoor cats per owner. The resulting predation figures may well be four times greater than they should be! (Actually, there are additional problems with the authors’ predation estimates, which I’ll address in a future post).

* * *

The fact that such a fundamental mistake—one a student couldn’t get away with in a basic statistics course—is made so often is shocking. The fact that such errors slip past journal reviewers is inexcusable.

References
1. Lepczyk, C.A., et al., “What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.” Conservation Biology. 2010. 24(2): p. 627-629.

2. Woods, M., McDonald, R.A., and Harris, S., “Predation of wildlife by domestic cats Felis catus in Great Britain.” Mammal Review. 2003. 33(2): p. 174-188.

3. Coleman, J.S. and Temple, S.A., On the Prowl, in Wisconsin Natural Resources. 1996, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI. p. 4–8. http://dnr.wi.gov/wnrmag/html/stories/1996/dec96/cats.htm

4. Baker, P.J., et al., “Impact of predation by domestic cats Felis catus in an urban area.” Mammal Review. 2005. 35(3/4): p. 302-312.

5. 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.

6. Lepczyk, C.A., Mertig, A.G., and Liu, J., “Landowners and cat predation across rural-to-urban landscapes.” Biological Conservation. 2003. 115(2): p. 191-201.

7. Crooks, K.R., et al., “Exploratory Use of Track and Camera Surveys of Mammalian Carnivores in the Peloncillo and Chiricahua Mountains of Southeastern Arizona.” The Southwestern Naturalist. 2009. 53(4): p. 510-517.

8. van Heezik, Y., et al., “Do domestic cats impose an unsustainable harvest on urban bird populations?“ Biological Conservation. 143(1): p. 121-130.

9. Kays, R.W. and DeWan, A.A., “Ecological impact of inside/outside house cats around a suburban nature preserve.” Animal Conservation. 2004. 7(3): p. 273-283.

10. Barratt, D.G., “Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife.” Wildlife Research. 1998. 25(5): p. 475–487.

11. Barratt, D.G., “Predation by House Cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. I. Prey Composition and Preference.” Wildlife Research. 1997. 24(3): p. 263–277.

12. May, R.M., “Control of feline delinquency.” Nature. 1988. 332(March): p. 392-393.

13. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383.

14. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2010. p. 205–219

15. 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.

16. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376.

17. Clarke, A.L. and Pacin, T., “Domestic cat “colonies” in natural areas: a growing species threat.” Natural Areas Journal. 2002. 22: p. 154–159.

18. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.

19. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545.

The Work Speaks—Part 1: Lost in Translation

24 May 2010

“…it may be that conservation biologists and wildlife ecologists believe the issue of feral cats has already been studied enough and that the work speaks for itself, suggesting that no further research is needed.”

In fact, “the work”—taken as a whole—is neither as rigorous nor as conclusive as Lepczyk et al. suggest. And far too much of it is plagued by exaggerations, misrepresentations, errors, and obvious bias. For the next few posts, I’m going to present a sampling of its more serious flaws, beginning with how some researchers “reinterpret” work of others to suit their own purposes.

Tell It Like It Is
Studies of cat predation frequently cite the work of William G. George, who, in 1974, published a paper documenting his meticulous observations of the hunting behavior of three cats on his southern Illinois farm. “The results,” wrote George, “established a basis for examining the possibility that cat predation may result in depleted winter populations of microtine rodents and other prey of Red-tailed Hawks, Marsh Hawks, and American Kestrels.” [2]

Thirty years later, David A. Jessup interpreted things rather differently, giving George’s work an additional—and unwarranted—degree of certainty. Gone are the doubts that George expressed—first, regarding the impact of cat predation on rodent and other prey populations; second, regarding the relationship between these populations and the raptors that feed on them. For Jessup—who offers no additional evidence—it’s all very straightforward: “Feral cats also indirectly kill native predators by removing their food base.” [3]

More recently, Guttilla and Stapp seem to prefer Jessup’s take: “Human-subsidized cats… can spill over into less densely populated wildland areas where they reduce prey for native predators (George 1974).” [4]

If any additional work has been done on the subject (surely there are more cats in the area these days; how are the voles and raptors faring?), it seems to have gone unnoticed. Instead, Jessup, Guttilla, and Stapp (and others, too, no doubt) have simply rewritten George’s conclusion to suit their own purposes. Perhaps their version makes for a better story, but it’s rather poor science.

Credit Where Little/None Is Due
When the Lancet recently retracted a 1998 paper linking vaccinations to autism in children—“research” that sparked the ongoing backlash against vaccinations—it was headline news. The move prompted this criticism from one member of the British Parliament: “The Lancet article should never have been published, and its peer review system failed. The article should now be expunged from the academic record…”

At the risk of drawing too many parallels between the two papers, I think the same can be said for Coleman and Temple’s infamous “Wisconsin Study.” (On the other hand, it does serve a useful purpose as a red flag.) Actually, as Goldstein et al. point out, Coleman and Temple’s paper was never peer-reviewed (not necessarily a deal-breaker in my book, but such publications do warrant additional scrutiny), but achieved its mythical status by being cited ad nauseam in peer-reviewed journals, as well as the mainstream media.

Does anybody actually believe the numbers suggested by Coleman and Temple? Stanley Temple (one of the co-authors of the recent anti-feral cat/TNR comment in Conservation Biology) himself admitted their published figures “aren’t actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be.” [5]

I don’t think Longcore et al. [6] or the editors at Conservation Biology put much stock in the Wisconsin Study—so why continue to publish “projections” that have been so thoroughly discredited? Because doing so strengthens their case, at least among those who don’t know any better—especially people outside the scientific community, including many journalists, policy makers, judges, and the general public.

In their recent comment, Lepczyk et al. suggest that conservation biologists and wildlife ecologists “look to the evolutionary biology community” [1] for an example of how to influence policy:

“When local policies or regulations are put forth that promote the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, the evolutionary biologists have responded in force from across the nation and world.” [1]

Let’s set aside for the moment all the baggage associated with their analogy. My question is this: Is the evolutionary biology community still publishing bogus “projections” from 13 years ago? I doubt it.

Check Your Premises
In their recent paper (available for download via the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) website), Dauphiné and Cooper arrive at their absurd figure of “117–157 million free-ranging cats in the United States,” [7] in part, by way of Jessup’s “estimated 60 to 100 million feral and abandoned cats in the United States.” [3]

So where does Jessup’s figure come from? We have no idea—there’s no citation. And Jessup is no authority on the subject—having conducted no studies or reviews of studies that quantify the feral cat population. What’s more, his “estimation” is among the highest figures published. Yet this is the shaky foundation upon which Dauphiné and Cooper attempt to build their subsequent argument.

The authors then add to the (dubious) number of feral cats the proportion of pet cats allowed outdoors. They refer to a 2004 paper by Linda Winter, director of ABC’s Cats Indoors! campaign, in which it was reported, “A 1997 nationwide random telephone survey indicated that 66% of cat owners let their cats outdoors some or all of the time.” [8]

That’s an interesting way to put it—Winter makes it sound like two-thirds of pet cats are essentially outdoor cats. But the survey—commissioned by ABC!—actually indicates that “35% keep their cats indoors all of the time” and “31% keep them indoors mostly with some outside access.” [9] The difference in wording is subtle, and hampered by imprecision—it all comes down to the meaning of some.

Winter’s 2004 paper implies that there are twice as many outdoor pet cats as was indicated in the original survey—an interpretation Dauphiné and Cooper seem to embrace. Had they looked further—and to a less biased source—they might have been able to get a better handle on the degree of outdoor access. For example: a 2003 survey conducted by Clancy, Moore, and Bertone [10] revealing that nearly half of the cats with outdoor access were outside for two or fewer hours a day. And 29% were outdoors for less than an hour each day.

Do these “part-timers” have the same impact on wildlife as feral cats? Dauphiné and Cooper would have us believe they do.

[Note: For a closer look at the flaws in Dauphiné and Cooper’s paper, download “One Billion Birds,” by Laurie D. Goldstein.]

The lesson? Credible research begins with a solid foundation; a weak foundation—one plagued with unsubstantiated claims—on the other hand, leads to pseudoscience.

Or worse. ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, Steve Holmer, cited Dauphiné and Cooper’s bogus numbers when he spoke to the Los Angeles Times about his organization’s involvement with the legal battle against TNR. It’s like the Wisconsin Study all over again.

When All Else Fails, Look It Up
Though this would seem to be utterly obvious, it apparently bears repeating: Don’t cite work you haven’t actually read.

Isn’t this emphasized in all graduate (indeed, undergraduate, too) programs? What grad student isn’t, at one time or another, tempted to take the easy way out—ride the coattails of somebody else who’s (presumably) done the real work? In addition to the ethical implications, such shortcuts tend to invite more immediate troubles, too. Again, George’s work (described above) provides an excellent case study. Below are some examples of how his work has been referenced in the cat predation literature:

“It is very unlikely that cats bring home all of the prey that they capture. What proportion they bring home has been little studied. George (1974) on a farm in Illinois USA found that three house cats, all adequately fed, brought home about 50% of the prey that they killed.” [11]

“George found that about 50% of prey were indeed brought home, with the other 50% being eaten, scavenged by other animals or simply not found.” [12]

“These approximations are probably underestimates, assuming that cats do not bring back all the prey that they kill.” [13]

Trouble is, George never said these things; what he said was:

“… the cats never ate or deposited prey where caught but instead carried it into a ‘delivery area,’ consisting of the house and lawn. The exclusive use of this delivery area was verified in 18 to 70 mammal captures per cat, as witnessed between early 1967 and 1971.” [2]

In 2000, Fitzgerald and Turner pointed out the fact that George’s work was being misrepresented, noting that the erroneous 50% figure “has been reported widely, though it is unfounded.” [14] Nevertheless, the myth persists—even in 2010.

“In Illinois, George (1974) found that only about half of animals killed by cats were provided to their owners, and in upstate New York, Kays and DeWan (2004) found that observed cat predation rates were 3.3 times higher than predation rates measured through prey returns to owners. Thus, predation rates measured through prey returns may represent one half to less than one third of what pet cats actually kill…” [7]

As Dauphiné and Cooper demonstrate, the “reinterpreted” version of George’s work makes for a very convenient multiplier—suddenly, every kill reported is doubled (or tripled, if Kays and DeWan are to be believed—and they’re not, but that’s a topic for another post). Never mind the fact that it has no basis in actual fact.

Getting a copy of George’s study isn’t difficult, especially with the inter-library loan services available today. To reference it—to use George’s work so that your own appears more credible—without ever having actually read it, is simply inexcusable. But citing it blindly suggests more than laziness—it points to a certain coziness that has no place in scientific discourse. Too much Kool-Aid drinking, and not enough honest research.

* * *

Scientists can (and do) look at identical results and come to very different conclusions. But misinterpreting, misrepresenting, or dismissing the conclusions of others, is something else altogether. As the above examples (and there are many, many more!) illustrate, this happens far too often in the feral cat/TNR literature. And if we can’t believe what researchers are saying about the work of others, why would we believe what they say about their own work?

Next, I’ll focus on some of the major flaws in the feral cat/TNR literature—beginning with small sample sizes…

References
1. Lepczyk, C.A., et al., “What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.” Conservation Biology. 2010. 24(2): p. 627-629.

2. George, W., “Domestic cats as predators and factors in winter shortages of raptor prey.” The Wilson Bulletin. 1974. 86(4): p. 384–396.

3. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383.

4. Guttilla, D.A. and Stapp, P., “Effects of sterilization on movements of feral cats at a wildland-urban interface.” Journal of Mammalogy. 2010. 91(2): p. 482-489.

5. Elliott, J., The Accused, in The Sonoma County Independent. 1994. p. 1, 10

6. 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.

7. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2010. p. 205–219

8. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376.

9. ABC, Human Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Cats. 1997, American Bird Conservancy: Washington, DC. http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/attitude.pdf

10. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545.

11. Churcher, P.B. and Lawton, J.H., “Predation by domestic cats in an English village.” Journal of Zoology. 1987. 212(3): p. 439-455.

12. May, R.M., “Control of feline delinquency.” Nature. 1988. 332(March): p. 392-393.

13. Crooks, K.R. and Soule, M.E., “Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.” Nature. 1999. 400(6744): p. 563.

14. Fitzgerald, B.M. and Turner, D.C., Hunting Behaviour of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.; New York. p. 151–175.

A Critical Assessment of “Critical Assessment”—Part 2

5 May 2010

The second in a series of posts that breaks down my critique of the essay “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return” (Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 4, 887–894) by Travis Longcore, Catherine Rich, and Lauren M. Sullivan.

Like so many others interested in blaming cats for declining bird populations, Longcore et al. refer to a 1996 article in Wisconsin Natural Resources magazine [1], in which the authors estimate that 8–219 million birds are killed annually by “free-ranging rural cats” in the state. More than any other work, the “Wisconsin Study” (which is actually a series of articles, the first being published in 1993 [2]) has been used as “evidence” against advocates for free-roaming cats in general, and TNR in particular.

In my previous post, I referred only briefly to Coleman and Temple’s work; in fact, careful scrutiny is in order. Among the study’s more notable flaws:

Its “estimate that 23 percent of [cats’] diet consists of birds” is well above the 7–10.5% figure suggested by Fitzgerald, [3] one of the world’s foremost experts on the subject (for a detailed account, see Ellen Perry Berkeley’s 2004 book, TNR Past present and future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement [4]). In fact, Coleman and Temple cite Fitzgerald’s work, making the error all the more egregious.
Coleman and Temple assume that all cats hunt; in fact, it has been suggested that only 35–56% of cats are hunters. [5,6]
Their figures for cat density, too, have been challenged. [7]

For a more complete critique of the Wisconsin Study, download the 2003 report by Laurie D. Goldstein, Christine L. O’Keefe, and Heidi L. Bickel at Stray Pet Advocacy.

Now 14 years old, the Wisconsin Study has achieved mythical status—but not in a good way. I suppose it’s because the numbers are so impressive. Forget the fact that they’re essentially fictitious—they’re simply too tempting for people who see cats as the primary reason for declining bird populations. James Tantillo, a Lecturer in the Department of Natural Resources at Cornell University’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, is right on the money when he refers to Coleman and Temple’s estimate as an example of a “‘mutant statistic’ whose origins and genesis have been greatly lost to the people who cite it.” [8]

* * *

Among those who cite it are, of course, Longcore et al. But they failed to cite an important follow-up comment by one of the authors of the Wisconsin Study. In a 1994 interview, an “exasperated” Temple told The Sonoma County Independent:

The media has had a field day with this since we started. Those figures were from our proposal. They aren’t actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be. [9]

More than the media, however, it’s been the wildlife conservationists and bird advocates who have had a field day with the Wisconsin Study. Here are just a few examples:

The American Bird Conservancy refers to the study in its brochure Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife. But ABC goes one step further, pointing out that Coleman and Temple’s estimate was for rural cats, and that “suburban and urban cats add to that toll.” [10]
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cites the study’s “intermediate” estimate of 39 million birds in its Migratory Bird Mortality Fact Sheet.
A recent article in Audubon Magazine suggests “cats were annually knocking off somewhere in the neighborhood of 8 million birds just in rural Wisconsin.” [11] To the magazine’s credit, they used Coleman and Temple’s low estimate (a surprise given the overall tone of the piece). Still, none of the numbers from the Wisconsin Study are scientifically sound (indeed, one can make a strong argument that none of the work constitutes actual research).

For Longcore et al. to cite the Wisconsin Study without even a mention of its numerous flaws, or the rather public admission by one of its authors that their estimates “aren’t actual data,” casts serious doubt on the entire paper. Either they didn’t know how flimsy Coleman and Temple’s work was, or they knew and ignored the facts. Neither approach makes for good science, of course.

* * *

Estimating the number of birds killed by cats is difficult enough; demonstrating that their predation is the cause of declining bird populations is an even greater challenge. Nevertheless, Longcore et al. suggest the evidence is both plentiful and compelling. I’ll lay out an argument to the contrary in my next post…

References
1. Coleman, J. S., & Temple, S. A. (1996). On the Prowl. Wisconsin Natural Resources, 20, 4–8. http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/wnrmag/html/stories/1996/dec96/cats.htm

2. Coleman, J. S., & Temple, S. A. (1993). Rural Residents’ Free-Ranging Domestic Cats: A Survey. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 21(4), 381–390.

3. Fitzgerald, B. M. (1988). Diet of domestic cats and their impact on prey populations. In D. C. Turner & P. P. G. Bateson (Eds.), The Domestic cat: The biology of its behaviour (1st ed., pp. 123–147). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.

4. Berkeley, E. P. (2004). TNR Past present and future: A history of the trap-neuter-return movement. Bethesda, MD: Alley Cat Allies.

5. Baker, P. J., Molony, S. E., Stone, E., Cuthill, I. C., & Harris, S. (2008). Cats about town: is predation by free-ranging pet cats Felis catus likely to affect urban bird populations? Ibis, 150, 86-99.

6. Goldstein, L. D., O’Keefe, C. L., & Bickel, H. L. (2003). Addressing “The Wisconsin Study.” http://www.straypetadvocacy.org/html/wisconsin_study.html

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

8. Tantillo, J. A. (2006). Killing Cats and Killing Birds: Philosophical issues pertaining to feral cats. In J. R. August (Ed.), Consultations in Feline Internal Medicine Volume 5 (5th ed., pp. 701–708). St. Louis, MO: Elsevier Saunders.

9. Elliott, J. (1994, March 3–16). The Accused. The Sonoma County Independent, pp. 1, 10.

10. American Bird Conservancy (undated). Domestic Cat Predation on Birds and Other Wildlife. The Plains, VA. www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/predation.pdf

11. Williams, T. (2009). Felines Fatale. Audubon Magazine. http://www.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0909.html

The Things People Say (or Don’t)—Part 3

30 Apr 2010

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) is among the most visible organizations to oppose TNR—and put PR ahead of the relevant science (which ABC has been doing for years now).

ABC was one (along with the L.A. Audubon Society and Urban Wildlands Group) of several petitioners in the case that eventually led to an injunction against publicly supported TNR in Los Angeles. Following the court’s decision, ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, Steve Holmer, told the Los Angeles Times:

The latest estimates are that there are about . . . 160 million feral cats [nationwide]… It’s conservatively estimated that they kill about 500 million birds a year.

Days later, I sent Holmer an e-mail, asking for details about his figure of 160 million feral cats (the number of birds killed could, I assumed, be addressed later). To his credit—and unlike the people I tried to contact at the Urban Wildlands Group and L.A. Audubon Society—Holmer actually replied, leading to a cordial but brief correspondence in which he directed me to the work of Nico Dauphiné and Robert J. Cooper.

Sure enough, just two pages into Dauphiné and Cooper’s article [1] (available for download via the ABC website):

There is therefore an estimated total of 117–157 million free-ranging cats in the United States.

But there are a number of significant problems with their estimate—which is calculated by combining an estimated number of feral cats with an estimated number of owned cats having outdoor access. Here, in a nutshell, is a breakdown of their calculation:

Dauphiné and Cooper start with 60–100 million “stray and feral (unsocialized) cats, nearly all of which range freely outdoors” a figure taken from a 2004 paper by David Jessup [2]. But, because Jessup didn’t cite his source(s), this is actually no estimate at all. At best, it’s a guess—and one intended to paint as stark a picture as possible.

Then, citing a 2004 paper (which in turn cites a study commissioned by ABC—the results of which are summarized here) by ABC’s Linda Winter [3], Dauphiné and Cooper suggest that “approximately 65%” of pet cats “are free-ranging outdoor cats for at least some portion of the day.” Taking 65% of 88 million—the number of pets cats estimated by the American Pet Products Association’s 2008 National Pet Owners Survey—the authors arrive at 57 million pet cats with outdoor access.

But what does that mean, to be free-ranging for at least some part of the day?

A 2003 survey conducted by Clancy, Moore, and Bertone [4] suggested that nearly half of the cats with outdoor access were outside for two or fewer hours a day. And 29% were outdoors for less than an hour each day. And a closer look at the study commissioned by ABC indicates similar behavior: “35% keep their cats indoors all of the time” and “31% keep them indoors mostly with some outside access.” [5]

For Dauphiné and Cooper, though, these cats are no different from feral cats. For them to simply add the number of “part-time” outdoor cats to the population of “free-ranging outdoor cats” is highly misleading! The authors have no idea what impact these cats might have on bird populations—which is the stated purpose of their paper.

Note: For a closer look at the flaws in Dauphiné and Cooper’s paper, download “One Million Birds,” by Laurie D. Goldstein.

* * *

OK, back to Steve Holmer and the L.A. Times…

Holmer’s estimate of 160 million is not a range, but the high limit of a seriously-flawed estimate (which is itself based on little more than wild guesses). And he refers specifically to feral cats—an error even Jessup, Dauphiné, and Cooper (none of whom, it seems, is likely to give feral cats even the slightest benefit of the doubt) don’t make.

Given the context of the discussion—TNR in Los Angeles—such an error was likely (perhaps intended?) to have serious consequences. To suggest that there are 160 million feral cats in this country—approximately one feral cat for every two human inhabitants—is irresponsible and manipulative. And it raises doubts about the integrity of ABC and its representatives. All of which I told Holmer. His reply read, in part:

We are doing are [sic] best to convey the facts as they become available. The 160 million figure was based on an earlier version of Nico’s latest paper and are now being updated in our materials which should now say:

There are currently 88 million pet cats in the U.S. according to a pet trade association, and that number is growing. In addition, it is estimated that there may be 60–100 million free-ranging feral cats in the U.S., and that these cats may collectively kill more than one million birds each day. Reducing this mortality even a small amount could potentially save millions of birds each year.

I haven’t checked the ABC website to verify Holmer’s claim. In any event, the damage was already done; ABC and the other petitioners had put a stop to publicly supported TNR in Los Angeles. And, from what I’ve seen (I’ve yet to wade through the thousands of pages of discovery documents in the case), they’d done so by selectively overlooking, ignoring, and misrepresenting the scientific research. Or, in the case of Holmer’s comment to the Times, simply “inventing” it.

By the way, I asked Holmer about his revised figure of “more than one million birds each day” killed by cats. He’s stopped replying to my e-mail.

References
1. Dauphiné, N. and Cooper, R.J., Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations, in Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics. 2010. p. 205–219

2. Jessup, D. A. (2004). The welfare of feral cats and wildlife. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 225(9), 1377-1383.

3. Winter, L., “Trap-neuter-release programs: the reality and the impacts.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1369-1376.

4. Clancy, E. A., Moore, A. S., & Bertone, E. R. (2003). Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 222(11), 1541-1545.

5. ABC. (1997). Human Attitudes and Behavior Regarding Cats. Washington, DC: American Bird Conservancy. Available at: http://www.abcbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/cats/materials/attitude.pdf

The Things People Say (or Don’t)—Part 2

28 Apr 2010

Like the Urban Wildlands Group, the Los Angeles Audubon Society seems eager to spread the word about the “threat” of feral cats. But, just like Urban Wildlands Group, what they’re saying doesn’t always add up.

The L.A. Audubon Society was (along with the Urban Wildlands Group) a petitioner in the case (LASC BS115483) that eventually led to an injunction against publicly supported TNR in Los Angeles. So it was no surprise to see a representative quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

“At San Pedro’s Cabrillo Beach, a feral cat colony resides near where snowy plovers nest, said Garry George, conservation chairman for the Los Angeles Audubon Society. At San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, George said, feral cats have wiped out the California quail population. And in San Diego, feral cats roam free near a habitat for the California least tern, which officials are trying to monitor and protect, he said.”

I’ve yet to look into George’s claims—and will reserve judgment until I have. That said, I think there’s reason to be wary. In February 2009, George had an article published in the online version of Los Angeles Magazine that raises questions about his ability to serve as a trustworthy spokesperson on the subject of feral cats. In “How to Make Your Yard a Bird Magnet,” George writes:

If feral cats are destroying your property, including your birds, you can use a Hav-a-Heart trap with a permit from Animal Services. They will spay or neuter the cats you trap and offer to find them a home.

To start with, it’s not clear that George’s bit of advice (including a link taking readers to the American Bird Conservancy’s Cats Indoors! campaign, a topic all its own) belongs in the article all. Then there’s his choice of words (to hear George tell it, you’d think real estate values in L.A. would be suffering for all the destruction wrought by feral cats!).

The real issue, though, is George’s assertion that L.A. Animal Services will sterilize and help find homes for the feral cats you trap. I’ve spoken with a representative at L.A. Animal Services, and was told—in no uncertain terms—that this is simply not the case. And it wasn’t true when George wrote it, either.

It’s hardly surprising—given how overcrowded L.A.’s shelters are with adoptable cats—that they’re not offering to find homes for feral cats (which often make for “difficult” adoption candidates). For George to suggest that these cats were headed for a happy ending is highly irresponsible. Either he didn’t know any better, or he intended his statement to be misleading and deceptive (he failed to respond to my inquiries on the subject). In either case, George had no business writing what he did. The fact that he did write it raises unsettling questions about his integrity and that of the organization he represents.

All of which begs another rather unsettling question: Do supporters of the L.A. Audubon Society fully understand what they’re supporting?