Tune in tomorrow to Animal Wise Radio, when I’ll be on with hosts Mike Fry and Beth Nelson discussing the 2012 Trap Liner Award and other feral cat news items from last year.
As always, you can listen online—the show is live 12:00–2:00 CDT.
While you’re at it, please show your support by “Liking” their Facebook page (where you’ll read about, among other things, ongoing efforts by Animal Ark and Fix Minneapolis to reform Minneapolis Animal Care and Control).
Wellington, Kansas, rings in the new year by introducing a pet limit law aimed at reducing the number of free-roaming cats. The likely outcome? More cats—and more of them killed.
According to a news report Monday, the city of Wellington, Kansas (8.19 square miles, population approximately 8,057), recently modified its animal ordinance to include a provision that “no person or household shall own or harbor more than four cats of more than six months of age or more than one litter of kittens.”
“We were picking up, compared to years past, a couple hundred cats per year,” Wellington Police Chief Tracy Heath explained. “We’re hoping that this new ordinance may lower that number.”
Hoping?
Well, OK. I suppose that’s all Tracy’s got in this case. There is, after all, no reason to think the four-cat limit will lead to fewer intakes. Read more
“Like so many others of my tenure and temperament—stubborn ancients, I suppose—web reporting is anathema to everything I love about newspapering: getting a tip, developing leads, fleshing-out the details, then telling the story.”
“Now,” laments former Times-Picayune reporter Chris Rose in the August issue of the Oxford American (excerpted in the current issue of Utne), “it stops with the tip. Just verify (hopefully!) and post it. I didn’t write stories anymore; I ‘produced content.’”
Perhaps this emphasis on “web reporting” explains the largely pathetic coverage surrounding the free-roaming cat/TNR issue. There’s probably not even a tip in many cases, just a press release.
Whatever the cause, the effect (in addition to a misinformed public, misguided policy, etc.) is a very competitive field for the 2012 Trap Liner Award. Read more
Inspired by Nicholas Felton’s stunning Feltron Annual Reports, a brief overview of 2012…
Although I wasn’t planning to post anything until next week, I changed my mind after watching this video about Stray Cat Alliance’s I Spayed L.A. program. “A year-and-a-half ago, when we started this program, we believed that the community would embrace us,” observes founder and executive director, Christi Metropole, “but they have embraced this program more than we ever could dream possible.”
Indeed, they did. This year, the organization spayed and neutered more than 1,000 cats in South Central Los Angeles, and they’ve got plans to sterilize another 2,000 by summer.
For more information, check out the Stray Cat Alliance website.
(Video not working? Click here to watch it on YouTube.)
The National Geographic Society is, according to its website, “one of the largest nonprofit scientific and educational institutions in the world.” I’m not going to dispute the relative size of the organization, but an article posted Tuesday on its News Watch blog raises doubts about their commitment to science and education.
The piece, which is billed as “an interview with Dr. Michael Hutchins,” is not much of an interview at all, but an easy platform for Hutchins, former executive director and CEO of The Wildlife Society, to vilify invasive species in general and—not surprisingly—free-roaming cats in particular. As I pointed out in my online comment (still awaiting moderation), one would expect some insightful follow-up questions on a topic that, as contributing editor Jordan Carlton Schaul acknowledges, “has generated contentious debate among a number of factions, including conservation scientists and activist communities.”
For starters: How would restrictions or outright bans on TNR, such as those proposed by Hutchins, benefit the wildlife he claims to want to protect? Read more
It’s that time of year again—time to overdo it. Buy too much, eat too much, and drink too much. But there’s no such thing as too much gratitude. So, please, be generous to your favorite feral cat/TNR non-profit organizations.
And speaking of gratitude—I’d like to use this opportunity to express my sincere thanks for your continued support of Vox Felina, and for all that each of you is doing for your community’s stray, abandoned, and feral cats.
Happy holidays!
A recent study finds important differences between cat caretakers and bird conservationists when it comes to their attitudes and beliefs about the impacts of free-roaming cats and how to best manage them. In the end, however, the methods employed lead to far more questions than answers.
“Because western society’s orientations toward wildlife is becoming more moralistic and less utilitarian,” explain the authors of a study recently published online in PLoS ONE, “conservation biologists must develop innovative and collaborative ways to address the threats posed by feral cats rather than assuming wholesale removal of feral cats through euthanasia is a universally viable solution.” [1] Not surprisingly, the authors fail to acknowledge that “euthanasia” hasn’t proven to be a viable [see Note 1] solution anywhere but on small oceanic islands. Still, given the sort of recommendations typically generated by the conservation biology community on this subject, I suppose we have to recognize this as some kind of progress. Read more
Putting on any conference is a tremendous undertaking. But the challenges involved in pulling together The Outdoor Cat: Science and Policy from a Global Perspective went far beyond the logistics of wrangling 20-some speakers and 150 or so attendees. For starters, there was deciding who should (and should not) be invited to present. (More on that shortly.) And then there’s the fact that, no matter what happens, you’re bound to be criticized.
There’s simply no way to get something like this completely right, no matter who’s in charge or how much planning goes into it.
And so, I give a lot of credit to the people involved—who knew all of this, and did it anyhow. Those I know of (and I’m sure to be leaving out many others, for which I apologize) include John Hadidian, Andrew Rowan, Nancy Peterson, Katie Lisnik, and Carol England from the Humane Society of the United States; and Aimee Gilbreath and Estelle Weber of FoundAnimals. Many of you told me, very modestly, that this conference was “a start.”
Fair enough, but it’s a very important one. Five or 10 years from now, we might look back and call it a milestone.
Here, then, are some snapshots of the various presentations (in the order in which the they were given). Read more
There was a great deal to think about on the long ride home from the Outdoor Cat conference earlier this week. I hope to post a brief overview of the event’s many excellent presentations in the next few days, but first need to offer an apology to Dr. Donald Burton, founder and executive director of the Ohio Wildlife Center.
In Tuesday’s Q&A session, I challenged some of the claims he’d made regarding rabies and toxoplasmosis during his presentation. And while I stand behind the facts I presented, I regret the tone I used—which was rather accusatory and preachy. Perhaps even condescending. I did not mean to suggest that Dr. Burton was deliberately trying to mislead the audience, only to point out that some of what he presented was, in fact, misleading.
I concluded my comments by suggesting that at a conference such as this, one expects better. I worry, in retrospect, that the same can be said of my contribution.
“The UK has lost more than 44 million breeding birds in less than half a century,” reports a recent article in The Guardian, “including an average of 50 house sparrows every hour.”
“Scientists estimate the number of nesting birds has plummeted from 210 million in 1966 to 166 million today. The shocking statistics are contained in the State of the UK’s Birds 2012 report (PDF), published on Monday, and charting the ups and downs of the nation’s bird populations.” [1]
The story was brought to my attention by two Vox Felina readers (thank you!), both of whom were quick to point out that there’s no mention of cats at all. The same goes for the report itself. Which isn’t entirely surprising, actually. As some of the online comments point out, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds suggests that predation by cats is largely compensatory, not additive:
“Despite the large numbers of birds killed, there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide… 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.” [2]
It’s important to note, also, that outdoor cats are the norm in the UK, unlike here in the U.S. where about two-thirds of pet cats are indoor-only. [3–5] (I read somewhere that the figure in the UK is closer to 10 percent, but haven’t seen any credible numbers for recent years. If you know of any, please send me an e-mail.)
Unlike similar stories in U.S. papers, there are very few comments suggesting that cats play a role—with a couple of notable exceptions, who (not surprisingly) don’t use their real/full names, and whose “research” seems to begin and end with Google. According to one of them, “the RSPB seems not to want to upset some of its members who keep cats.”
Could be.
Or perhaps the RSPB is genuinely interested in addressing the critical issues—the ones for which rigorous scientific evidence exists—in their conservation efforts.
1. Davies, C. (2012, November 18). UK breeding bird population shrinks by more than 44 million since 1966. The Guardian,
2. RSPB (2011) Are cats causing bird declines? http://www.rspb.org.uk/advice/gardening/unwantedvisitors/cats/birddeclines.aspx Accessed October 26, 2011.
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. http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.1541
4. 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://www.avma.org/avmacollections/feral_cats/javma_232_8_1159.pdf
5. APPA, 2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. 2009, American Pet Products Association: Greenwich, CT. http://www.americanpetproducts.org/pubs_survey.asp
Readers who follow online discussions about free-roaming cats and TNR will likely recognize Walter Lamb’s name. His comments stand out in such forums for their well-articulated, insightful, and refreshingly rational quality. Walter brings a unique perspective to these discussions, too—a bird watcher who’s used TNR to manage his neighborhood’s stray, abandoned, and feral cats.
Walter and I have communicated by e-mail for nearly 18 months now, sharing research notes and offering commentary on various news stories and research studies. In June, he contacted me with an intriguing idea for a Q&A blog post—which, I’m pleased to say, finally made it to the top of my to-do list.
Thank you, Walter, for your patience and your ongoing, thoughtful correspondence!
WL: As you know from our previous communications, I am an avid bird watcher who also used a sterilize and return approach to successfully reduce the number of homeless cats in my neighborhood from about 20 unsterilized (and reproducing) cats down to 2 remaining sterilized cats. I have been very disappointed that some wildlife conservation organizations, and many of my bird watching peers, have taken a dogmatic and moralistic approach to universally vilifying non-lethal methods of control rather than objectively analyzing all of the available science to devise pragmatic policies that can achieve the best results for wildlife in various settings.
However, I also believe that many cat advocacy groups are similarly guilty of focusing too much on talking points at the expense of objectively evaluating how they can maximize the impact of their efforts not just for cats, but for our native wildlife as well. While I understand that your blog is dedicated to protecting cats, you have always demonstrated an open mind and a willingness to consider differing perspectives. I’m hoping that you will publish the four points outlined below on your site along with your responses to them.
My neighborhood project was successful because our local mentor was very blunt about the need to aggressively trap all of the unfixed cats. She didn’t sugarcoat anything or lead us to believe that just catching one or two cats was a noble effort in its own right.
I find it troubling that an organization like Alley Cat Allies doesn’t even mention population reduction in their mission statement, vision statement, or list of core values. One gets the sense from their web site that merely choosing a non-lethal approach to the problem is sufficient. I’m interested in your perspective as to why measurable and documented population reduction doesn’t seem to be more ingrained in the culture of organizations like Alley Cat Allies (or if you think it is and I’ve just missed it).
PW: Obviously, I can’t speak for Alley Cat Allies—let me see if I can address your concern from my own perspective. I am, as I think you know, a proponent of the kind of intensive sterilization effort you and your neighbors achieved. That said, I would argue that sterilizing just one or two is better than the alternative. From a population-control perspective, it’s unlikely to make a difference (unless the colony is no bigger than three or four cats), but then again, neither is having animal control haul them away to be killed. And, as you know, this is typically how such roundups go: cats are trapped only until complaints subside. At which time the remaining cats—very likely unsterilized—will continue reproducing.
And I think there’s another factor that we shouldn’t overlook or discount: people are much more likely to participate in, and support, life-saving efforts. While I agree that it’s critical to get as many cats as possible sterilized—and that this message is conveyed to anybody involved in TNR—I worry that an all-or-nothing approach will only serve to hamper any efforts to get started. In which case, the only option will be taxpayer-funded roundups—and we know how well that’s been working.
WL: This strikes me as an example of conflicting talking points. On the one hand, the Best Friends’ slogan seems to highlight a goal of getting cats out of the environment and into loving homes. On the other hand, defending cats’ place in the outdoors as critical for ecological balance, namely in the form of rodent control, seems to run counter to that goal.
I realize that there are examples in which the removal of cats did have unintended impacts on island ecosystems, but I’m not sure that translates to other ecosystems, especially on the mainland. I worry that this sends the wrong message to colony managers who might actually be able to achieve zero population but are given the impression that zero population is not actually a desirable goal. What is your take on this seeming contradiction?
PW: Just as I can’t speak for Alley Cat Allies, I can’t speak for Best Friends.* But, again, I’m happy to share my own thoughts. As you know, many outdoor cats are simply not adoption candidates. Many of us—including the folks at Alley Cat Allies, Best Friends, and myself—think that a fearful or unsocialized temperament is not sufficient cause for lethal control. One of the few remaining options for these cats, then, is as “working cats”—in barns, warehouses, or other environments where rodent control is desired.
Now, some argue that cats don’t actually keep down rodent numbers, and I have no first-hand experience with this myself. But as you know, cats have served this function for thousands of years now. (I’ve heard anecdotally of instances in which business owners complained of the rats and mice following the removal of cats from a particular area.)
To your more general point about cats and the environment, though—I don’t know that we’ll ever reduce the population of outdoor cats to zero across a large area (for a number of reasons). But I also don’t know that any colony managers are reducing their efforts if and when they have the opportunity to sterilize/adopt/re-home their way to zero population for a particular colony.
WL: It is always interesting to me that the most controversial aspect of TNR isn’t even represented in the acronym itself. I think the very different actions of sterilizing a cat and feeding a cat should be thought of separately, even if both are considered important from an animal welfare perspective. Telling someone that they shouldn’t attempt to trap and sterilize a group of cats unless they are also willing and able to feed and care for them indefinitely seems destined to suppress overall sterilization rates.
I won’t get into a detailed discussion of the pros and cons of feeding as I know you have delved into those issues in depth on your blog. What I will say is that I think that both the pros and cons of feeding are getting lost in the polarization of the discussion. I find the defense of feeding stations to be far less solid scientifically than the defense of sterilize and return itself. I was very interested in your quote of Animal People editor Merritt Clifton articulating why he opposes feeding and I hope that could be the grounds for a more thoughtful discussion of the pros and cons of various feeding practices in different settings. [Full disclosure, we fed some of our neighborhood cats on our back porch, but only after we had achieved a virtual 100 percent trap rate.]
PW: You’re absolutely right about the controversy surrounding feeding. And I agree that making sterilization efforts contingent upon a long-term caretaker commitment is counterproductive.
I know some people who, as Merritt recommends, feed only for the purposes of trapping and sterilizing. Once the cats are returned, they’re on their own. While I understand the arguments for such an approach, I think it overlooks or ignores some key advantages of ongoing feeding:
1. Regular feeding allows for ongoing monitoring for “new arrivals.” I’ve seen this first-hand, when I started feeding only one or two cats on my patio—only to have their siblings turn up soon thereafter, along with three kittens. I was able to trap and sterilize all but one adult. (I haven’t seen this cat in many months.) The kittens were all adopted. Without the daily handouts, these cats would have remained essentially invisible—and would have contributed further to the neighborhood’s population. One of my own (indoor-only) cats is another case study—had I not been feeding a small colony nearby, I never would have found, sterilized, and, ultimately, adopted him.
2. For some caretakers, regular feeding provides the opportunity to bond with the cats (even if they’ll never be able to actually touch them, as is often the case). While this factor is often dismissed by TNR opponents, I think it’s incredibly important to the ongoing effort to bring down the population of stray, abandoned, and feral cats. I think for many people, it’s this bond that keeps them involved with TNR. Take away the feeding, and you’re likely to deter such participation—and, as I think you’ll agree, we need “all hands on deck.”
[One common objection to feeding is that the food attracts wildlife that might carry rabies. In some contexts, it’s a very valid point. But again, on the whole, I think the benefits outweigh the risks. In areas where rabies among cats is more common—here in Arizona, it’s virtually unheard of—vaccinations are an integral part of most TNR programs. So the feeding and monitoring leads not only to sterilization, but also vaccination—which then serves as a kind of protective barrier between rabies in raccoons, for example, and humans.]
WL: I am aware of the herculean efforts of many cat advocates to tame and adopt the cats that they trap. Adoption to indoor only homes is the same as permanent removal from a wildlife conservation perspective and is one the best ways to achieve immediate population decline. However, when reading news coverage from different areas across the country, I very often hear the blanket statement that “these cats aren’t adoptable.” I realize that is indeed true of many feral cats, even those who may seem tame in the presence of their caretakers. However, I worry that in some cases the assumption is made that the cats aren’t adoptable when that may not be the case.
Our neighborhood cats certainly seemed unadoptable when we first trapped them. It took a good deal of time and effort, following the advice of our local mentor, before we discovered that these cats were actually semi-domesticated and adoptable. I’m wondering if this isn’t another case of one overly simplistic talking point (i.e., “these cats should be put in homes instead of returned to the outdoors”) being countered by another overly simplistic talking point (i.e., “these cats aren’t adoptable”) instead of trusting new volunteers to understand a deeper level of complexity (i.e., whether cats can be adopted depends on many variables, such as availability of homes, resources for fostering the cats, how feral the cats have become, etc.). I’d be curious to know whether you think more can be done to encourage greater rates of adoption of trapped and sterilized cats prior to return to the outdoors.
PW: I suppose the message that “these cats aren’t adoptable” is intended not so much for the folks willing to put in the time (as you and your neighbors have done), but for the various stakeholders who so often misunderstand and/or misrepresent the fate of cats rounded up. It’s not uncommon for a shelter to have a live-release rate of 50 percent or less for cats. (Some, like Polk County (FL) Animal Control, kill more than 90 percent of cats brought in.) If the cats aren’t very adoptable from the moment they arrive, they’ll almost certainly be killed. And, when these cats are taking up precious cage space, it means more of the adoptable cats will be killed as well.
In my experience, it’s not so uncommon for colony cats to warm up to caregivers—charming their way into homes the way a couple of mine did. But it takes more time than most rescues/fosters would be willing to give. And unless they’re kittens, these cats don’t seem to do well indoors, anyhow. That said, there will certainly be exceptions. And I think adoption is a valuable aspect of TNR—better lives for the cats and some happy endings for their caretakers, too. And, fewer of them outdoors, of course.
• • •
When Walter first contacted me with his Q&A proposal, it was, he explained, with the “hope that we can set a better example of how to have a civil dialogue on this important topic than what you and I have encountered elsewhere.”
Indeed! Thank you, Walter, for the invitation.
* Full disclosure: I support Alley Cat Allies and Best Friends—financially (at a very modest level) and in terms of their overall missions—and I communicate with various individuals in both organizations on a regular basis. I’m also incredibly grateful for the support they’ve shown me (e.g., profiles in their publications, the opportunity to present at the recent No More Homeless Pets Conference, etc.).
Coming up December 3rd and 4th: The Outdoor Cat: Science and Policy from a Global Perspective, a conference with an ambitious—and admirable—goal:
“To bring together scientists, technical experts, and others with an interest in the constellation of issues tied to the presence of free-roaming, abandoned, and outdoor cat populations in our world, and to take the measure of contemporary scholarship with the goal of forging a stronger union between knowledge, evidence, insight and policy.”
Although I won’t be presenting, I’ll be in attendance—with plenty of questions and comments, of course. And I’m encouraging anybody with an interest in the science and policy issues surrounding free-roaming cats to attend as well. It’s an excellent—and all too rare—opportunity to hear a broad range of perspectives, with speakers from the fields of conservation biology, wildlife rehabilitation, veterinary medicine, municipal animal services, animal law, and more.
I’ll be posting more about the conference in the near future, but wanted to get this out there so that anybody interested can make plans. Registration is just $135.
Many thanks to the Humane Society Institute for Science and Policy, FoundAnimals, and the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association for making the conference possible!
In Nature Wars, to be released next week, award-winning journalist Jim Sterba argues that it’s time for Americans to reconnect with nature—and what better incentive than a massive lethal control campaign against any number of plants and animals, including feral cats? His book reflects attitudes that are out of step with contemporary culture, and a rationale that’s not supported by the science. As the song says: War! What is it good for? Absolutely nothin’…
“People have very different ideas regarding what to do, if anything, about the wild creatures in their midst,” writes Jim Sterba in his new book Nature Wars: The Incredible Story of How Wildlife Comebacks Turned Backyards Into Battlegrounds, “even when they are causing problems.”
“Enjoy them? Adjust to them? Move them? Remove them? Relations between people and wildlife have never been more confused, complicated, or conflicted.” [1]
Agreed. And I largely agree with Sterba’s diagnosis: “Americans have become denatured.”
“That is to say, they have forgotten the skills their ancestors acquired to manage an often unruly natural world around them, and they have largely withdrawn from direct contact with that world by spending most of their time indoors, substituting a great deal of real nature with reel nature—edited, packaged, digitized, and piped in electronically.” [1]
So what’s the solution? Here, Sterba and I part company. Read more
Ordinarily, this is the sort of thing I would post on the Vox Felina Facebook page rather than the blog itself. But, since (even a week later) Superstorm Sandy has many pet owners and colony caretakers in New York and New Jersey doing all kinds of things they don’t ordinarily do, I could hardly say no.
Sarah Donner, who describes herself as “a singer/songwriter/creative type who likes cats, 90s mixtapes, musicals, and sequins,” is putting on a special online “pay-what-you-can” concert this Thursday night to raise money for Staten Island Feral Initiative. The 30-minute show begins at 5:00 pm (MST).
To buy a ticket and “tip the artist” (the tips are what will be donated to SIFI), visit the Stageit website. For more information about SIFI’s disaster relief effort, and to make donations directly, please visit the Survivors of Sandy ChipIn! page.
I had the pleasure of meeting some of the folks from SIFI at the No Kill Conference in August—these are good people doing good work. If you can help them out, please do so. And even if you can’t, please help spread the word.
Thank you.
When officials in Polk County, Florida, contributed nearly $50,000 to SPCA Florida’s TNR program, they probably expected to take some heat. But maybe not from some of their local veterinarians. According to a story in Friday’s edition of The Ledger though, the “controversial stray cat program is drawing complaints from local veterinarians who question its effectiveness and the use of taxpayer dollars.” [1]
Sounds like some Polk County vets have been talking to their colleagues in neighboring Hillsborough County, where members of the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation have launched a substantial anti-TNR campaign—apparently as a way to stifle competition from low-cost clinics. Read more
Less than 24 hours after Superstorm Sandy made landfall near Atlantic City, NJ, reports of the community’s famous “Boardwalk Cats” were already coming in. And so far, it’s been mostly good news. “Chalk up another win for the cats, TNR and, in this case, Alley Cat Allies,” wrote Francis Battista, co-founder of Best Friends Animal Society, in a story posted yesterday on the Best Friends Blog. ACA “not only took on the Atlantic City cats as a model program, but are the folks responsible for establishing best practices for TNR and who continue to be effective advocates for community cats everywhere.”
Photo courtesy of Alley Cat Allies.On Tuesday, Alley Cat Allies posted a story on their website announcing: “our program manager in Atlantic City reported seeing cats returning to their colonies along the Boardwalk.”
“It’s extremely encouraging to see cats coming back already after such a serious storm. Access to the most damaged part of the Boardwalk is still hampered by road closures, but we’ll continue to provide updates as the floodwaters recede and we’re able to conduct a full assessment.”
That same day, Melissa Block, co-host of NPR’s All Things Considered, checked in with 63-year-old caretaker Frank Hoops, who’s lived in the city his whole life.
“Mr. Hoops… was taking care of some feral cats that live under the boardwalk. He was concerned about them. He had come to see them, and he said they survived the storm just fine.
In fact, in the eye—when the eye of the storm passed over Atlantic City, apparently, according to one of the security guards at a casino, 25 cats were walking single file down the boardwalk looking just fine. And he said the cats he looks after—Pepper, Pewee—they’re all fine.”
Yesterday, an update was posted on the ACA website:
“Along the Boardwalk, where more than 100 feral cats have been living in managed colonies for 13 years, the powerful ocean dragged the cats’ tide-tattered shelters out onto the beach, scattering them around like seashells. The destruction is nothing short of catastrophic.
Despite the devastation, we are very pleased that our program manager in Atlantic City continues to report seeing cats returning to their colonies along the Boardwalk. Often cats will stay away from an area for a few days to a few weeks until they know things are back to normal, so the fact that we have seen almost half of the Boardwalk cats is a sure sign of their resilience. Most of the cats appear healthy and have good appetites, despite their being a bit soggy…
We have deployed our Disaster Response Team to the area to help with clean-up and rebuilding. If you live in or near Atlantic City and want to help, please email us. We also want to hear from people in other areas of the country who were affected by the storm or who are offering assistance to those in need. We know that caregivers and rescuers all along the East Coast have been affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are perhaps without power or a way to get back to their homes or colonies. We are committed to making sure that they have the support and resources they need. Please contact us at info@alleycat.org or 240-482-1980, ext. 330.”
[Note: As will all forms of disaster relief, this effort requires a great deal of coordination. It’s important, therefore, that volunteers interested in helping call or e-mail ACA—and await a response—rather than traveling directly to the boardwalk.]
Later in the day, e-mails issued by ACA reported that “about 15 of the 25 cats who live near the Taj Mahal casino have been spotted,” and that “two cats who needed a little extra TLC” were receiving veterinary care and would be looked after by ACA’s local team “until they are ready to return to their home.”
“Our disaster response team,” explained Alison Grasheim, ACA’s deputy director of communications, “will be spending this evening building shelters and continuing assessments.”
For additional updates, please visit the ACA Facebook page. To make a donation: www.alleycat.org/donate.
I’m only now starting to catch my breath (nowhere close to catching up on my sleep!) after this year’s No More Homeless Pets Conference in Las Vegas (video highlights here). Among the numerous attendees and presenters I was able to spend time with (too little in every case) were* Bonney Brown, executive director of the Nevada Humane Society; Jackson Galaxy, star of My Cat From Hell and author of Cat Daddy;Frank Hamilton, co-founder and president of the Animal Coalition of Tampa; Dr. Ellen Jefferson, executive director of Austin Pets Alive!; Katie Lisnik, director of cat protection and policy for the Humane Society of the United States; Christi Metropole, founder and executive director of Stray Cat Alliance; Dr. Jeff Newman, co-founder and director of Caring Hands Animal Support and Education; Becky Robinson, co-founder and president of Alley Cat Allies; Christie Rogero, targeted spay/neuter manager for the Animal Welfare Association; Holly Sizemore director of community programs and services for Best Friends; Lori Weise, founder and director of Downtown Dog Rescue; and, last but certainly not least, longtime friends Bob Miegl and Corinne Mitchell from PAWS of Coronado.
I also had the opportunity to chat (again, too briefly) with Best Friends co-founders Francis Battista, Judah Battista, Gregory Castle, and Faith Maloney. Congratulations one and all on an informative, inspirational event—and thank you for inviting me to participate!
Taking It to the Street (Cats): Grassroots Advocacy for Community Cats—which I had the honor of presenting alongside Laura Nirenberg, legislative attorney for Best Friends’ Focus on Felines campaign, and Lisa Tudor, Director of Development and Outreach for the Foundation Against Companion-Animal Euthanasia (FACE) and founder and executive director of IndyFeral—was a great success. Many thanks to all who attended—your commitment to the stray, abandoned, and feral cats in your communities is an inspiration.
Two of the most memorable take-aways:
Unfortunately, many attendees’ plans were disrupted by Hurricane Sandy, forcing some of leave early while others were stranded in Las Vegas. My thoughts go out to all of those in Sandy’s path, as well as the various animals—owned and unowned alike—in their care.
* I know even as I type this out that I’m overlooking people—my apologies!
Looking forward to seeing old friends and making some new ones, too.
Hope to see you there!
I almost feel sorry for Don Thompson and his colleagues at the Hillsborough Animal Health Foundation. After all, it can’t be easy to recruit others in the local veterinary community when you’re essentially asking them to alienate themselves from a large segment of their clientele—and the public in general. The sharp distinction that HAHF draws between pet cats (which, presumably, are to receive top-notch vet services) and unowned cats (the vast majority of which are, apparently, to be rounded up and killed) is simply incomprehensible to many (most?) people.
In an e-newsletter sent out yesterday (with the headline Why the Veterinary Community is Needed!) from HAHF and the Hillsborough County Veterinary Medical Society, Thompson and his colleagues tried to rally the troops by going after Sherry Silk, executive director of the Tampa Bay Humane Society. This, in response to her recent opinion piece in Florida Voices defending TNR.
“Ms. Silk’s letter demonstrates the need for the local veterinary community to be involved in ongoing county discussions regarding animal issues,” reads the unsigned appeal from HAHF/HCVMS. “As the director of HSTB Ms. Silk continues to ignore science and fact, even while the Humane Society has a prominent role in formulating county animal policies.”
So now Thompson & Co. have “science and fact” on their side? Hardly.
One obvious sign: their newsletter repeats the now-standard drivel about Kerrie Anne Loyd’s Kitty Cam research: all the alarmist, out-of-context, meaningless “results” and no mention of the fact that 55 cats—observed for a total of about 2,000 hours—were responsible for killing just five birds. (There is, not surprisingly, also a link to the American Bird Conservancy’s August 6 press release about the Kitty Cam study. So much for “science and fact.”)
I don’t want to speak for Silk, but can’t help responding to the question posed by HAHF/HCVMS: Is the video evidence insufficient for Ms. Silk?
Yes, the video (from which, to my knowledge, only still images have been made public) is insufficient—to anybody familiar with the research and with the larger issues involved. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out previously, Loyd herself found the evidence less than compelling, admitting to CBS Atlanta in an interview earlier this year: “Cats aren’t as bad as biologists thought.” [1]
Not the sort of “science and fact” Thompson & Co. care for, I guess.
Like ABC, HAHF/HCVMS continues its scaremongering about rabies. Although I addressed the topic in detail in Part 2 of my original HAHF series—and again last week—it’s worth revisiting the subject in light of some of the claims being made by HAHF/HCVMS.
There were, explain Thompson & Co. in yesterday’s newsletter, “455 cat attacks in Florida in 2010, the last year data is available.” But, as the Florida Department of Health report from which this figure was taken explains, this is a reference to the number of “possible exposure cases.”
“Rabies [post-exposure prophylaxis] is recommended when an individual is bitten, scratched, or has mucous membrane or fresh wound contact with the saliva or nervous tissue of a laboratory-confirmed rabid animal, or a suspected rabid animal that is not available for testing.” [2]
Multiple “possible exposure cases” can result from interaction with a single animal—whether confirmed rabid or merely suspected of being rabid. If, as HAHF/HCVMS claims, there were, on average, nearly nine “cat attacks” in the state every week for all of 2010, one would expect to see hundreds of related news stories. A quick check of 38 Florida newspapers reveals a relative handful.
It’s true, as HAHF points out (more or less) on its website, that 2010 PEP incidents were up 41 percent over the previous five-year average. But, as the Florida DOH report explains:
“This increase in PEP may be due to improved reporting, increased exposures to possible rabid animals, increased inappropriate or unnecessary use of PEP, or a combination of factors. Reductions in state and local resources may contribute to increases in inappropriate or unnecessary use of PEP by decreasing resources to investigate animal exposures and confirm animal health status, and by reducing county health department staff time to provide regular rabies PEP education for health care providers.” [2]
But there’s another factor related to the “unnecessary use of PEP,” which occurs, according to a study of “11 geographically diverse [across the U.S.] university-affiliated, urban emergency departments” [3] in about 40 percent of the cases documented: “media hysteria.” [4] Make no mistake: HAHF/HCVMS, with their ongoing campaign of scaremongering, is becoming part of the problem. As if to prove the point, there’s this from their newsletter:
“The reason there have been no human rabies cases from feral cats is because we use rabies vaccines in the event of bites! 30,000 people got Rabies shots in 2010 in the U.S. to prevent Rabies—but according to Ms. Silk the bites from cat attacks are not a concern? Should we skip the shots and see what happens? Rabies is 100 percent fatal! Fifteen feral cats were proven to have rabies in Florida in 2010—is it worth gambling a child’s life to see if the number of cat-to-human rabies increases?”
Ah, yes—I’d almost forgotten: this is all about protecting the children. And how will a ban on TNR and the feeding of outdoor cats make those children safer?
If HAHF/HCVMS get their way, the threat of rabies will only increase (along with the number of unowned cats in the community, and the number of cats killed by Hillsborough County Animal Services—which has an abysmal track record as it is). And yet, they have the gall to accuse Silk of “faulty logic” for defending TNR (and close their newsletter with the arrogant assertion: “It is obvious our leadership is badly needed in Hillsborough County.”).
• • •
The timing of the HAHF/HCVMS newsletter was hardly accidental. Just two days earlier was the first meeting of a taskforce charged, as Ian Hallett, director of Hillsborough County Animal Services, described in an August 7 memo, with “conduct[ing] a comprehensive assessment of best practices resulting in a financially feasible plan to minimize our county’s use of animal euthanasia.”
What better time for some more propaganda to both distract and rally the troops, some of whom are no doubt acutely aware of last week’s unanimous decision by the Alabama State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners (less than 500 miles away) to reject a proposed rule change that targeted non-profit spay/neuter clinics? The Alabama Veterinary Practice Owners Association may have used different tactics (i.e., “concern” for the care of the animals treated at low-cost clinics), but they seem to share what many of us believe to be the true goal of HAHF/HCVMS: to eliminate their low-cost competition.
Which, no matter how you disguise it, is a pretty tough sell to a community of animal lovers (which is to say, any community). No wonder Thompson would rather talk about “cat attacks.”
1. Paluska, M. (2012) Kitty cameras show Athens cats on the prowl. http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/17711012/kitty-cameras-show-athens-cats-on-the-prowl
2. n.a., 2010 Florida Morbidity Statistics Report. 2011, Florida Department of Health, Division of Disease Control, Bureau of Epidemiology: Tallahassee, FL. http://www.doh.state.fl.us/disease_ctrl/epi/Morbidity_Report/2010/2010_AMR.pdf
3. Moran, G.J., et al., “Appropriateness of rabies postexposure prophylaxis treatment for animal exposures. Emergency ID Net Study Group.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 2000. 284(8): p. 1001–1007. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=193015
4. Noah, D.L., et al., “Mass human exposure to rabies in New Hampshire: exposures, treatment, and cost.” American Journal of Public Health. 1996. 86(8): p. 1149–51. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8712277