Vox Humana

Photo courtesy of Alley Cat Allies.

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

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

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

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

For additional updates on the Loews cats:

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

Photos courtesy of Alley Cat Allies.
Photos courtesy of Dorian Wagner/Save Loews Cats.

Loews Memo-random

Just as Loews began removing cats from their Portofino Bay Hotel and Royal Pacific Resort properties late last month, Shawn German, Regional Director of Human Resources, issued a memo outlining, among other things, the rationale for the decision and penalty for any members of the Loews “campus community” violating their no-feeding policy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


POLICY# 7225



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This policy applies to all LHUO staff.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Taking the Loews Road

On Wednesday, the Loews Portofino Bay Hotel and Loews Royal Pacific Resort announced that the property’s managed colony of cats will be “relocated to the county animal services center.”

This, of course, was not entirely unanticipated. Loews first announced that it would be reversing its position on TNR and on-site managed colonies back in January. Nor was it a surprise—given how the self-proclaimed “pet-friendly” luxury chain has tried to downplay the issue from the outset—that the big announcement was buried in a Facebook comment to a post more than two months old now:

We have reviewed our practice involving feral, free-roaming cats and have talked with numerous agencies including Orange County Animal Services. The Florida Department of Health states that feral, free-roaming cats pose a continuous concern to communities due to the persistent threat of injury and disease.

The priority at our hotels is the health and safety of our guests and team members. As a result, the cats will be relocated to the county animal services center.

We appreciate all the feedback we have received on this important matter and are grateful for your understanding as we implement this policy.

Turns out, an awful lot of us don’t understand at all—beginning with their alleged public health concerns. Jennifer Hodges, Director of Public Relations for Loews Hotels at Universal Orlando, played the same card in January—but, to my knowledge, no details were ever offered. (I received a brief, generic e-mail reply when I inquired about the issue.)

The real problem for Loews, however, is that in their efforts to keep the whole thing low-profile, they apparently failed to inform their own marketing department. Which, in turn, failed to get the website updated accordingly. As a result, visitors to the site might easily come away with the impression that Loews actually is “the vacation choice of every pet lover.” Or that, as is indicated in the out-of-date copy, “Loews loves pets.”

Perhaps it’s true that “your VIP (Very Important Pet) will be waited on hand and paw, traveling in first-class comfort.” But for the cats outside—sterilized, vaccinated, and well cared for—their next trip won’t be comfortable at all.

And, more than likely, it’s one-way.

Impaired Vision

Opponents of trap-neuter-return are long on rhetoric, but short on alternatives—at least ones they’ll discuss openly.

We just want the cats gone.

Yeah, well, I want a pony.

I don’t actually say that, of course. Not usually, anyhow—in part, because the two wishes are hardly comparable. If I really wanted a pony, I’d simply go buy one (a rescue, of course; or, as an alternative, contact the Bureau of Land Management, which began its most recent brutal roundup of wild horses and burros in Nevada last year). End of story.

“Removing” cats—a euphemistic reference to an often-fatal course of action—on the other hand, is not the end of the story at all (except, as I say, for the particular cats involved). Where there is adequate food and shelter—and island eradication efforts have demonstrated rather dramatically just how little human assistance the domestic cat requires in this regard—there will very likely be cats. If not today, then it’s very likely only a matter of time.

And still, the call for their “removal”—accompanied by this naive wish that such a move will be a one-time occurrence—is, it seems, continuous.

Last week, Loews Hotels in Orlando, FL, made headlines nationally when the self-described “pet-friendly hotel brand” reversed its position on TNR and on-site managed colonies. Among the news stories brought to my attention this week: the Waco, TX, Lions Club is demanding that Heart of Texas Feral Friends, whose volunteers have been sterilizing and caring for cats in a park owned by the Lions Club, discontinue feeding. According to KXXV News, the cat food “could attract bigger animals that could bite children playing at the park.”

In Harvey Cedars, NJ, 51-year-old Mark Rist has been, according to the Asbury Park Press, “charged with feeding feral cats,” the result of a two-month investigation. According to the paper, Rist was feeding 63 cats in one area—despite what Police Chief Thomas Preiser describes as the community’s “ongoing effort to control feral cats.’’ “It has cost the borough over $5,800 in fees to have cats trapped and taken to the animal hospital,” said Preiser. “This is on top of the over $3,000 the borough pays just for animal-control services.’’ (An online petition advocating that the charges be dropped has been started, and has more than 1,650 signatures already.)

And, less than 60 miles away, in Manalapan, NJ, health department officials have announced that they’ll begin trapping a managed colony of cats located at the Bridge Plaza office complex on February 1. As Michael Volovnik, president of the property association, explained to the Asbury Park Press, the cats are using a playground sandbox as a litter box, and could also cause a traffic accident in the complex parking lot. (I thought I’d heard all the “reasons” for killing outdoor cats, but this one’s new to me.)

Take away their food—or the cats themselves—and the problem’s solved, right? End of story.

Um, no. Not even if you click together the heels of your ruby slippers three times, repeating as you do: “We just want the cats gone.”

And yet, this is precisely what TNR opponents would have us believe. In fact, they often go much further. When, for example, the American Bird Conservancy sent a letter (PDF) to the mayors of the 50 largest U.S. cities last October, urging them “to oppose Trap-Neuter-Re-abandon (TNR) programs and the outdoor feeding of cats as a feral cat management option,” their stated objective was to “stop the spread of feral cats.”

How’s that supposed to work, exactly?

Darin Schroeder, ABC’s Vice President for Conservation Advocacy, and author of the letter, hasn’t bothered—either in his original, well-publicized mass-mailing, or in response to my inquiries—to explain the mysterious cause-and-effect relationship underlying the claim. (Or, while we’re at it, ABC’s projections regarding the number of recipients who would surely be alienated by a letter that so grossly insults their intelligence.)

As I’ve pointed out previously, common sense—and science, which ABC claims to have firmly in its camp on this issue—tells us that such policies (assuming they could be enforced, of course) would only drive population numbers upward. (Indeed, there is plenty of evidence from island eradication efforts. On Marion Island, to take one of the more spectacular examples, the population of cats was estimated to be about 2,200 in 1975, just 26 years after they were introduced to the 115-square-mile, barren, uninhabited South Indian Ocean island. [1] If there were any efforts to sterilize these cats, I’ve not read about it. And the only “handouts” they received were “the carcasses of 12,000 day-old chickens” [1] injected with poison, as part of the 19-year eradication program.)

Now, if, as Schroeder claims, there are “well-documented impacts of cat predation on wildlife,” how could the inevitable increase in the free-roaming cat population possibly be a benefit? Or—again, if Schroeder is right about the impacts—be aligned with ABC’s vision of “an Americas-wide landscape where diverse interests collaborate to ensure that native bird species and their habitats are protected, where their protection is valued by society, and they are routinely considered in all land-use and policy decision-making”?

Such contradictions are, as anybody who’s been paying attention has surely noticed, hardly uncommon in ABC’s anti-cat messaging.

ABC didn’t do any better with their letter (this one, more of a low-key affair) to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, sent last summer. (DOI oversees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which, as I’ve pointed out repeatedly, has been an eager, taxpayer-funded participant in the witch-hunt against free-roaming cats.) In that letter, ABC, along with several signatories, aimed to “call [Salazar’s] attention to the threat being posed to wildlife by feral cats.” (Once again, ABC referred to “the well-documented impacts of cat predation on wildlife,” this time citing the work of, among others, former Smithsonian researcher Nico Dauphine, convicted in October of attempted animal cruelty for trying to poison neighborhood cats. It’s not entirely clear, but I have to think the letter was sent just prior to her arrest, after which ABC hasn’t, to my knowledge, expressed the slightest support for Dauphine.)

Signatories to the letter “urge[d] the development of a Department-wide policy opposing Trap-Neuter-Release and the outdoor feeding of cats as a feral cat management option, coupled with a plan of action to address existing infestations affecting lands managed by the Department of the Interior.” (This would include much of the Florida Keys, of course. Regular readers will recall that ABC enthusiastically endorsed the deeply flawed Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuges Complex Integrated Predator Management Plan/Draft Environmental Assessment, issued a year ago.)

This “plan of action” is something I’ve been giving a great deal of thought to for some time now. And not just as it relates to “existing infestations” on DOI-controlled land; I’m interested in the big picture here. These folks are hell-bent on a future in which the feeding of outdoor cats is prohibited, one in which TNR is banned.

What I want to know is this: What happens if they get their way?

Alternatives to TNR?
One might expect that ABC, promoters for 15 years now of Cats Indoors!, would have an answer. Indeed, I brought up the subject during a December 2010 webinar celebrating the launch of their book The American Bird Conservancy Guide to Bird Conservation. “What we recommend,” offered Michael Parr, Vice President of ABC, “as an alternative to [TNR], is not abandoning cats in the first place.”

“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.”

After 14 years (at that time) of staunch opposition to TNR, this is the best ABC can do? Well, yes. (One wonders if ABC officials are truly so out-of-touch and/or flat-out delusional that they really think nobody’s noticed.)

The Wildlife Society
ABC is not alone, of course. The Wildlife Society, which signed onto the DOI letter, in its position statement (issued in August 2011) on Feral and Free-Ranging Domestic Cats (PDF), calls for “the humane elimination of feral cat populations,” as well as “the passage and enforcement of local and state ordinances prohibiting the feeding of feral cats.”

And in November, TWS sponsored the USFWS workshop, Influencing Local Scale Feral Cat Trap-Neuter-Release Decisions , at its annual conference. According to TWS, the “workshop [was] designed to train biologists and conservation activists to advocate for wildlife in the decision making process by providing the best available scientific evidence in an effective manner.” (Ah, yes: “best available scientific evidence.” It’s the same expression ABC and USFWS like to throw around. The critical term here is available. It seems all the science contradicting their steady stream of bogus claims is locked in the same filing cabinet, and the key’s been “lost.”)

But TWS hasn’t done any better than ABC when it comes to connecting the dots between our current situation and a future free of feral cats.

When, in his November 14 blog post, TWS Executive Director/CEO Michael Hutchins drifted off-message, conceding that “TNR alone is not the ultimate solution,” (emphasis mine) I used the opportunity to press him on the issue. Referring to the recently issued TWS position statement, I told Hutchins, “it doesn’t seem unreasonable to expect a well-established and influential organization such as TWS to propose a plan to accompany such a vision.”

“On the contrary, it’s exactly what your membership should expect from their leadership—and what those of us who care for the cats you’re targeting demand.”

And Hutchins’ response? Cue the crickets (native species only, of course).

(Hutchins did, however, spend a good deal of time backpedaling: “I haven’t changed my position at all, and neither has The Wildlife Society, an organization now representing more than 10,600 wildlife professionals.” It now appears that the post itself has been modified to reflect his “corrected” position on the subject.)

Urban Wildlands Group
In January 2010, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge handed down an injunction prohibiting the City of Los Angeles from supporting TNR. Under the provisions of the injunction (in its revised version, filed with the court in March 2010), the City, its Board of Animal Services Commissioners, and its Department of Animal Services are prohibited from “promoting TNR for feral cats and encouraging or assisting third parties to carry out a TNR program.” [2]

According to the original petition—filed by the Urban Wildlands Group, Endangered Habitats League, Los Angeles Audubon Society, Palos Verdes/South Bay Audubon Society, Santa Monica Bay Audubon Society, and ABC—implementation of TNR in L.A. “can cause significant adverse environmental impacts by causing proliferation of rats and raccoons and creating water pollution problems.”

It’s important to recognize that the very premise of the petition—brought under the California Environmental Quality Act—is a red herring, nothing more than a roundabout way to go after TNR (in part, by restricting the funding to key organizations integral to L.A.’s various TNR programs). Setting that aside for the moment, though, the question remains: If TNR isn’t the answer, then how are we to reduce the population of stray, abandoned, and feral cats?

Travis Longcore ought to have an answer. Indeed, as head of the Urban Wildlands Group, current president of the Los Angeles Audubon Society, and author of the well-circulated “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return” (a compilation of cherry-picked “facts,” misrepresentations, and glaring omissions, which I’ve critiqued in some detail), Longcore (who, I suspect, is the same “Travis” whose comment brought Hutchins back from the brink in November) would seem to be the go-to guy on this topic.

In fact, he doesn’t seem to have any plan, either.

In a December 2010 exchange on the Audubon magazine blog, The Perch (in which senior editor Alisa Opar blindly endorsed the infamous University of Nebraska-Lincoln paper as if it were actual research), Longcore twisted himself in a knot avoiding the question.

“You’ve been very straightforward about your desire to see TNR and the feeding of feral cats outlawed.” I wrote. “But then what?”

“I’ve yet to hear from you—or anybody on your side of the issue—spell it out. We all know the cats won’t disappear in the absence of TNR/feeding. We can argue about rates of population growth, carrying capacity, etc.—but let’s keep it simple here. Under your plan, there are these feral cats—an awful lot of them—that no longer have access to the assistance of humans (other than scavenging trash, say). OK, now what?”

Longcore’s response, in a nutshell, advocated for mandatory spay/neuter, and “cat licensing so that cats are no longer treated as second class, disposable pets.” (It’s difficult to see how their wide-scale killing will get them bumped up to first-class, but such illogical leaps have long been the norm among TNR opponents.)

Whatever his misgivings about disclosing a feasible alternative to TNR, Longcore was more than willing to diagnose the mental health of TNR supporters:

“TNR advocates… aren’t actually interested in reducing feral cat numbers. TNR is something that they ‘sell’ to their jurisdiction so that they are allowed to keep feeding ‘their’ cats. They appear to prefer that the problem persist so that they can validate their sense of self worth by being rescuers.”

There’s an irony to Longcore’s allegation, of course. If, as he implies, he and his fellow petitioners are “actually interested in reducing feral cat numbers,” then why not lay out the way forward?

“You failed to answer the question posed,” I pressed.

“Let me rephrase it, then: Throw in mandatory spay/neuter (if and only if adequate low/no-cost S/N is provided to the community—a rarity, as I’m sure you know), as you suggest. And let’s say there are—again, just to simplify matters—no roaming pet cats. The problem remains: many, many feral cats. And even if Animal Control had the resources to round up every one of them that triggers a complaint, it’s a drop in the bucket. And once you’ve outlawed TNR, there’s no way even one of these cats is going to be sterilized. So, the next step here is what, exactly?”

Longcore’s reply, not surprisingly, was a laundry list of “policies needed to control feral cats,” the majority of which—either directly or indirectly—simply lead to more killing: mandatory spay/neuter, pet limits, prohibitions on roaming, and prohibitions of “feral cat feeding unless on feeder’s property, or with permission of property owner and nearby owners/residents.” Oh, and “euthanasia” (not to be confused with euthanasia). Among the non-lethal solutions: “adoption or other nonlethal removal (e.g. the few sanctuary spaces),” and “outdoor enclosures for ferals where property owners are willing.”

“If you want to go out and sterilize and release feral cats in your back yard under this scenario, go ahead, but recognize that doesn’t then mean your neighbor can’t then trap and remove them. If you want feral cats to have a good life, adopt them and treat them like real pets. If you aren’t going to, then it is my strong belief the appropriate thing to do is to euthanize them.”

As for how this mass “euthanasia” would play out—you know: budget, time line, population projections, examples of successful models, etc.—Longcore had no more to say than did Schroeder or Hutchins.

Visions of the Future
Is it really so unreasonable to expect TNR opponents—especially those individuals and organizations pushing so hard for policy changes—to present a feasible alternative to TNR? Or even, as a start, to address directly comments made by Mark Kumpf, former president of the National Animal Control Association, who compares the traditional trap-and-kill approach to “bailing the ocean with a thimble”?

“There’s no department that I’m aware of that has enough money in their budget to simply practice the old capture-and-euthanize policy,” explains Kumpf in a 2008 interview with Animal Sheltering magazine. “Nature just keeps having more kittens.” [3]

Those budgets are very likely even tighter today. Now, take away TNR—along with all the “free” resources that come with it—and you’re wishing you had a thimble with which to bail the ocean.

As I explained to Hutchins, those of us advocating and caring for our communities’ stray, abandoned, and feral cats demand better answers than they’ve provided. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that supporters of various organizations opposing TNR are beginning to feel the same way. In part, because—and this, too, is becoming increasingly clear—a position opposed to TNR and the feeding of outdoor cats often, in fact, runs counter to an organization’s stated vision.

Either that, or their “concerns” about outdoor cats are really little more than fear-mongering (a tried-and-true fundraising technique, of course).

The way I see it, there are really only four possible scenarios in play here:

1. No TNR + No Feeding = Fewer Cats
As I’ve pointed out, this one simply doesn’t add up. And heaven knows, if there were evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of such policies, ABC, TWS, the Urban Wildlands Group, et al. wouldn’t be shy about it. That’s not to say they don’t try to suggest as much, of course.

In its TNR “fact sheet” (PDF), TWS, for example, holds up Akron’s 2002 ordinance—which requires the city’s animal control wardens to “apprehend” and “impound” any cats “running at large”—as both humane and cost-effective. Last summer, I took an in-depth look at the impact of Akron’s “cat ordinance,” and found that it’s been far more costly than TWS suggests. And if it’s done anything to reduce the population of the city’s stray, abandoned, and feral cats, nobody’s documented it. (Again, this would seem to be a “success story” in the making for TNR opponents.)

2. No TNR + No Feeding = More Cats—Oops!
What if all this rabid campaigning against outdoor cats has blinded participants to the inevitable consequences of their actions? You know, a careful-what-you-wish-for scenario.

Again, there’s no evidence to suggest that the “plan” will work. And yet, the drumbeat only grows louder. I tend to think that, generally speaking, the leadership at ABC, TWS, the Urban Wildlands Group, et al. is—despite various failures, of which I’ve been highly critical—smart enough to realize this simple fact. On the other hand, I have colleagues—people with far more experience and a much broader perspective—stop me cold when I say so.

3. No TNR + No Feeding = More Cats—But That’s OK
In the 22 months since launching this blog, I’ve been at pains to expose the flimsy nature of most complaints regarding the alleged impacts of free-roaming cats on wildlife and the environment. Much of that effort has involved the untangling of predation estimates based on indefensible sampling and extrapolation, and—more important—decoupling the implied relationship between predation and population-level impacts. Among the evidence I’ve presented (which would seem to be locked tightly inside the aforementioned filing cabinet, thus rendering it “unavailable” to TNR opponents):

Mike Fitzgerald and Dennis Turner’s thorough review of 61 predation studies, in which the authors conclude rather unambiguously: “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.” [4]

Also: two very detailed studies supporting a widely understood (though only rarely acknowledged among TNR opponents) pattern of predators: cats tend to prey on the young, the old, the weak and unhealthy. [5, 6] Or, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds makes puts it: “It is likely that most of the birds killed by cats would have died anyway from other causes before the next breeding season, so cats are unlikely to have a major impact on populations.” [7]

It may be that leaders of the TNR opposition do, in fact, recognize the implications of the well-documented science on the subject (though never publicly, of course), whether that concerns predation, rabies, toxoplasmosis, or any number of other aspects of the debate. Such an understanding would allow them to continue pushing for policies that would, despite their claims to the contrary, actually increase the number of free-roaming cats—but still have little or no significant consequences for the wildlife these organizations claim to protect.

Donors are happy, wildlife’s happy—what’s not to like, right? (Actually, all this unwarranted attention on cats is, I’m sure, diverting scarce resources from the real issues—so maybe the wildlife will, in the end, lose anyway.)

4. No TNR + No Feeding = More Cats. Exactly.
File this one under “A” for Apocalyptic. Or Armageddon, maybe.

What if more cats—lots of them—is not only OK, but the goal? At some point, their numbers become so great that popular opinion undergoes a tidal shift, favoring lethal control methods. The bigger the problem becomes, the more drastic the measures considered.

If some wildlife suffers for the cause, well, it’s a small price to pay. If you want to make an omelet, you have to be willing to break a few eggs, right? No free lunches here. Collateral damage. Etc.

Wild conspiracy-theory talk? Maybe so. I mean, it’s a bit like suggesting that our esteemed Smithsonian Institution hired a cat-killer to conduct research on pet cats. As I often tell my colleagues: you can’t make this stuff up. So.

•     •     •

TNR opponents have, for years, misled policymakers and the public—not only about the “threats” posed by free-roaming cats, but about their plan going forward (again, assuming they actually have a plan). They’re advocating for the extermination—in the tens of millions—of this country’s most popular companion animal, without ever proposing any feasible alternative to TNR. (Ironic, isn’t it? These same people claim to have the “best available science” on their side, but either cannot or will not describe or discuss what exactly they’ve got in mind for a solution to the “feral cat problem.”)

Once again, I’m reminded of that famous quote from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis: “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants, electric light the most efficient policeman.” Public scrutiny and a demand for transparency, Brandeis recognized, can bring about significant social change.

We need to start asking better questions—and demanding better answers—of TNR opponents. And we must do so repeatedly and publicly—in town halls, letters to the editor, and any number of online venues; and by contacting local, state, and federal representatives and government agencies.

No TNR? No feeding of outdoor cats? What’s your plan, then?

As the sunlight Brandies spoke of reveals the fatal flaws underlying the anti-TNR rhetoric, it helps light the way forward.

Literature Cited
1. Bester, M.N., et al., “A review of the successful eradication of feral cats from sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Southern Indian Ocean.” South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 2002. 32(1): p. 65–73.


2. Urban Wildlands Group et al. vs. City of Los Angeles et al. (Case No. BS 115483). Stipulated Order Modifying Injunction. March 10, 2010. Los Angeles Superior Court.

3. Hettinger, J., “Taking a Broader View of Cats in the Community.” Animal Sheltering. 2008. September/October. p. 8–9. http://www.animalsheltering.org/resource_library/magazine_articles/sep_oct_2008/taking_a_broader_view_of_cats.html


4. 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.

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. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/ibi/2008/00000150/A00101s1/art00008

6. 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/

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

Resort to Killing?

Last week, the Loews Portofino Bay Hotel and Loews Royal Pacific Resort reversed its position on TNR and on-site managed colonies, citing what the Orlando Sentinel calls “liability reasons.” According to the paper, Orange County Animal Control considered Loews’ past efforts a “model program”—exactly what one would expect from a chain of “18 distinctive luxury hotels and resorts” that’s gone out of its way to appeal to vacationing pet owners through its Loews Loves Pets program. (The Loews website mentions only their Woofie Weekends offer, but a 2009 Examiner.com article refers to “gourmet room service options like roasted salmon and tuna delight for cats.”)

Not surprisingly, Loews’ decision sparked an uproar among TNR supporters, and, indeed, cat lovers in general. (The comments—overwhelmingly in support of TNR—continue to pile up on the Loews Portofino Bay Hotel & Loews Royal Pacific Resort Facebook page.) On Friday, Jennifer Hodges, Director of Public Relations for Loews Hotels at Universal Orlando, issued the following statement:

“The cat colony remains unharmed and on property. We are working to find a solution that keeps the health and safety of our guests a priority while taking the most humane approach possible. Loews Hotels welcomes any viable suggestions. If you’d like to make a recommendation or can provide a safe sanctuary for these feral cats, please contact: input@loewshotels.com.”

A sanctuary? We’re still entertaining that fantasy? Clearly, the folks at Loews aren’t as well-informed as one would expect, given their previous support for TNR.

Hodges never replied to my e-mail and telephone inquiries requesting details about the alleged heath and safety risks. What’s changed recently to warrant this about-face? I’d also like to what Loews plans to do going forward, though I think that’s pretty clear: “relocate” (trap-and-kill apparently doesn’t do well in focus groups of affluent travelers) any cats found on the properties.

Something else that’s pretty clear: all the unwanted attention is making a difference. Hodges’ statement on Friday was itself a reversal from Loews’ position just a few days earlier, as posted via Facebook:

“Loews Hotels is a pet-friendly hotel brand and we support the humane treatment of animals. It is important to share the facts surrounding this issue. Feral cats at our Orlando hotels are being humanely trapped and taken to a local shelter…”

And the story continues to get traction, picked up by animal advocates (including Best Friends Animal Society, The Conscious Cat, and Bunny’s Blog) and others (see, for example, Flyer Talk and DIS). There’s even an online petition (2,657 signatures so far).

All of which puts Loews in a very awkward position. How does this “pet-friendly hotel brand” defend a position aligned with the mass killing of this nation’s most popular companion animal?

So far, Loews doesn’t have much of an answer.