Free-Roaming Cats, Infectious Diseases, and the Zombie Apocalypse

A recently published paper describing free-roaming cats as “a significant public health threat” fails to deliver convincing evidence. In fact, the very work the authors cite undermines, time and time again, their claims.

“Domestic cats are a potential source of numerous infectious disease agents,” write Rick Gerhold and David Jessup, in their paper, “Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free-Roaming Cats,” published online in July by the journal Zoonoses Public Health (and to be included in an upcoming print edition).

“However, many of these diseases are controlled in cats belonging to responsible owners through routine veterinary care, proper vaccination regimens and parasite chemotherapy. Free-roaming cats often lack the necessary preventative care to control these diseases and consequently pose a potential health threat to other domestic animals, wildlife and humans.” [1]

Just how much of a threat do these cats pose?

Gerhold and Jessup would have us believe that the risks are high and the consequences dire. A careful reading of their paper, however, reveals the authors’ tendency to cherry-pick some studies and misrepresent others. And, occasionally, simply get their facts wrong.*

All of which raises serious questions about Gerhold and Jessup’s case against free-roaming cats. Read more

Answering the Wrong Questions in Columbia, MO

Just three days after the Columbia Heart Beat reported that Nathan Voris may have had a financial stake in Columbia, Missouri’s new animal control ordinance, Voris is denying any conflict of interest.

Voris, the former chair of the Columbia-Boone County Board of Health—now an employee of Pfizer Animal Health—was instrumental in crafting the ordinance, which requires all colony cats to “be tested annually for feline leukemia and feline immune deficiency virus.” No such testing is required for pet cats.

Pfizer Animal Health manufactures vaccines and a variety of FeLV and FIV tests for cats.

According to a story in yesterday’s Columbia Daily Tribune, though, Voris’ relationship with Pfizer (which, the Heart Beat reported, actually began when Voris was in veterinary school, serving as the drug-maker’s student rep) had no impact on the ordinance.

“Voris said he did not begin his employment with Pfizer until after provisions regarding feral cats were written into the proposed legislation, and, as a member of the Equine Veterinary Operations team for Pfizer, he has no personal stake in products for cats.”

According to the Tribune, Voris testified at last week’s City Council meeting, where the ordinance was approved 4–2, “and he defended the effectiveness of tests for feline leukemia and feline immunodeficiency virus.”

Was anybody disputing the effectiveness of the tests? The question is not whether or not they are effective, but whether they’re appropriate.

Research suggests that FeLV and FIV infection rates among colony cats are “similar to infection rates reported for owned cats,” [1] so the cats don’t benefit from annual testing. And the caretakers certainly don’t—in addition to the challenges of trapping and transporting cats for yearly vet visits, there’s the cost (easily $60 or more per cat, a local clinic tells me).

And there’s no benefit to local animal control officers, or to public health. So, what’s the provision in there for? According to Voris, the annual testing requirement has been in there for more than a year now—and still, nobody can explain its purpose.

I certainly can’t.

The news stories over the past week or so have done nothing to change my initial impression of Columbia’s new ordinance: this is the kind of legislation I’d craft if I were dead-set against TNR but lacked the integrity to take a stand publicly.

[Thank you, once again, to Alley Cat Rescue for the tip.]

Literature Cited
1. Lee, I.T., et al., “Prevalence of feline leukemia virus infection and serum antibodies against feline immunodeficiency virus in unowned free-roaming cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2002. 220(5): p. 620-622.

Pharma’s Market?

In my previous post, I criticized proposed revisions to Columbia, Missouri’s animal control ordinance, arguing that its onerous provisions “suggest either a lack of input from TNR practitioners, or a lack of good-faith negotiation on the part of those responsible for drafting the proposal. Or both.”

Later that same day, the Columbia City Council approved the ordinance 4–2. According to Ward 1 Councilman Fred Schmidt, who voted in favor of the proposal, the fact that the feral cat provisions are largely unenforceable played a key role in its approval.

Ward 4 Councilman Daryl Dudley, the only other official to respond to my inquiries, had a decidedly different take: “I believe that feral cats should be treated the same as feral dogs.”

Conflict of Interest
Four days later, reporter Mike Martin, writing for the Columbia Heart Beat, shed some new light on the issue.

“One of the chief architects of a controversial new Columbia ordinance that mandates yearly testing and vaccinations for stray cats is employed by a pharmaceutical giant that makes and sells the newly-required vaccines and tests, the Columbia Heart Beat has learned.”

Nathan Voris, who chaired the Columbia-Boone County Board of Health during 2010, after being elected Vice Chair in 2009, has been an employee of Pfizer Animal Health for the past year. According to Martin’s story, Voris also served as a student rep for the pharmaceutical giant during his days in veterinary school.

“Voris’ employer, writes Martin, “is a leading maker of at least six feline leukemia tests including one for ‘difficult-to-sample cats’ called ASSURE FeLV; four feline immunodeficiency tests; and rabies tests and vaccines under the Pfizer and Synbiotics brand names.”

Columbia’s new ordinance is perhaps the first in the country to require all colony cats to “be tested annually for feline leukemia and feline immune deficiency virus.” No such testing is required for the city’s pet cats.

Christina McCullen, a board member of SNAP (Spay, Neuter & Protect), a local TNR group opposed to the ordinance, told Martin that Voris’ “position on the feral cat ordinance was so extreme that other Board of Health members were commenting about it and attempting to be more moderate.”

“I had no idea that Nathan Voris was an employee of Pfizer, and I am outraged to learn that he may have a financial conflict of interest in the contentious debate over including these tests and vaccinations in the ordinance.”

Very Mixed Feelings
Whatever Voris’ financial interests, his opposition to TNR is no surprise.

In his May 22, 2009 blog post, Voris portrays stray and feral cats (and, by association, their caretakers) as the very scourge of Boone County. Voris’ claim that he has “very mixed feelings on the issue of feeding stray cats or managing stray cat colonies” is contradicted by his litany of complaints.

Many of Voris’ objections to TNR mirror Dudley’s: cats should be treated no differently than dogs—in which case, one feral cat is too many. (Voris’ “concession” is straight out of the American Bird Conservancy playbook: “If the captured cats were released into an enclosure that protected neighbors, the ecosystem and the public, I would fully support the TNR program.”)

Voris’ apparent concern for rabies vaccinations is understandable—if overblown. His hand-wringing over personal property damage, on the other hand, seems little more than a red herring. Misguided, too, if Voris is implying that a (growing) population of unsterilized cats is likely to cause less damage and prompt fewer nuisance complaints than a community of managed colonies.

But it’s the “ecosystem” portion of his argument that I found most interesting.

As evidence of the “environmental impacts of stray cat colonies on local wildlife,” Voris cites the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Migratory Bird Mortality “fact sheet” [1] (PDF), which, in turn, cites as its single source the infamous  “Wisconsin Study.”

If he’s looking for a scientific argument for opposing TNR, Voris is off to a remarkably poor start.

“There are coastal locations,” Voris continues, “where the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are rounding up stray cat colonies due to their predation on endangered birds.”

“We have similar shorebirds (least tern and piping plover) on the Missouri River that are protected under the Endangered Species Act. If there were an exception for stray cat colony caretakers, what would stop every cat owner from claiming they are a colony caretaker and exempt from responsibility for their pet?”

Voris is right about USFWS’s shoreline roundups (though their rationale remains questionable). But along the Missouri River? According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “The majority of nesting on the Missouri River by both species occurs” outside of Missouri:

“…below Gavins Point [on the Nebraska-South Dakota border] and Garrison Dams [North Dakota]. Least terns can also be found in small numbers below Fort Peck [Montana] and Fort Randall Dams [South Dakota] and occasionally limited nesting occurs on reservoir segments. Piping plovers also nest heavily on Lake Sakakawea and Lake Oahe with limited nesting occurring on Fort Peck Lake, Lewis and Clark Lake, and the sections of the Missouri River below Fort Peck Dam [Montana] and Fort Randall Dam. [South Dakota]” [2]

Reports from USACE suggest that cats simply aren’t a significant threat in these areas.

“Species documented as taking least tern and/or piping plover eggs, chicks, and/or adults: coyote, domestic dog, mink, raccoon, the American crow, American kestrel, black-billed magpie, common raven, European starling, great blue heron, great horned owl, northern harrier, merlin, peregrine falcon, red-tailed hawk, ring-billed gull, and various snake species.” [3]

In fact, neither the Final Predation Management Plan for Least Tern and Piping Plover Habitat along the Missouri River, [2] nor the related Environmental Assessment [3] mentions cats even once (this, despite numerous comments from ABC included in the EA).

(According to USFWS, by the way, “The serious decline of these birds [sic] species is directly related to the current operation of the [river] system and the elimination of habitat necessary for their survival. The large reservoirs formed by the six dams on the river have greatly changed the character of the river and the fish and wildlife it supports.” And I rather suspect USACE had a hand in the river’s “current operation.”)

•     •     •

Whether or not Voris’ association with Pfizer Animal Health is responsible for the inexplicable yearly testing provision in Columbia’s new ordinance, it’s clear that the provision has nothing to do with his alleged concerns for “neighboring property, the ecosystem and public health.”

I ended my previous post this way: If Columbia is truly interested in addressing the issue of feral cat management, then, it’s back to the drawing board—with, one hopes, a team that will take the task more seriously. A week later, I don’t see that Nathan Voris has any role to play on that team.

[Note: Alley Cat Allies has posted an Action Alert as a convenient way for Missouri residents to contact Columbia officials about this issue.]

Literature Cited
1. n.a., Migratory Bird Mortality. 2002, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Arlington, VA.

2. n.a., Final Predation Management Plan for Least Tern and Piping Plover Habitat along the Missouri River. 2009, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Missouri River Recovery Integrated Science Program: Omaha, NE. p. 46.

3. n.a., Environmental Assessment Predation Management Plan for the Least Tern and Piping Plover Habitat Along the Missouri River. 2009, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District: Omaha, NE. p. 109.

Columbia, MO

When the Columbia, MO, city council meets July 5th, they’ll be voting on “Amending Chapter 5 of the City Code relating to animals and fowl.” Many of the proposed amendments are found in Article VI, which addresses issues related to feral cat colonies and the numerous requirements being proposed for their caretakers—including two-year permits and yearly FeLV/FIV testing.

While it’s encouraging to see city officials debating this important issue, Columbia’s proposed ordinance (PDF) is likely to do more harm than good—for the cats, their caretakers, and for the community as a whole.

* * * Readers interested in contacting city officials will find contact information here. * * *

Article VI reads as follows:

Sec. 5-111. Feeding a feral cat colony without a permit.

No person shall provide food, water or other forms of sustenance to a feral cat colony without a feral cat colony caretaker permit.

Sec. 5-112. Feral cat colony caretaker permit.

(a) Any organization or individual over the age of eighteen (18) may submit an application to the department for a feral cat colony caretaker permit. The application shall be on a form provided by the department and shall provide the following information:

  1. A detailed description of the cats in the colony;
  2. Proof that the feral cats in the colony have been ear tipped and microchipped, neutered or spayed and vaccinated against rabies or are spaying and vaccination against rabies;
  3. The address of the private property where the colony will be maintained;
  4. Written permission from the private property owner to maintain the colony at such address; and
  5. Contact information for the applicant and any other information that may be required by the department.

(b) Feral cat colony caretaker permits shall be issued for a period of two (2) years.
(c) A permit fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) shall be paid when the original application is submitted and biannually for permit renewals.
(d) An animal control officer may inspect the private property where the feral cat colony will be maintained.
(e) No feral cat colony caretaker permit shall be issued for a feral cat colony located on public property.

Sec. 5-113. Requirements for care of feral cat colonies.

Every person issued a feral cat colony caretaker permit shall comply with the following requirements:

  1. Regularly feed the cat colony, including weekends and holidays.
  2. Annually trap each cat over the age of eight (8) weeks in order to comply with requirements (3) through (6).
  3. All cats must be spayed or neutered.
  4. All cats must be tested annually for feline leukemia and feline immune deficiency virus. Those cats testing positive must be humanely euthanized or isolated indoors.
  5. Identify all trapped cats by tipping their ears and insertion of a microchip.
  6. Have all cats vaccinated for rabies in addition to any other vaccinations or immunization requirement imposed by the state.
  7. Maintain records on the location and size of the colonies as well as the vaccination, microchipping, ear tipping and spay and neuter records of the colony cats.
  8. Take all reasonable steps to a) remove kittens from the colony after they have been weaned; b) place the kittens in homes or foster care; and c) capture and spay the mother cat.
  9. Obtain medical attention for any colony cat that exhibits illness, signs of rabies or unusual behavior and remove the cat from the colony to prevent disease or injury to other cats in the colony.
  10. If possible, report number of cats that died or otherwise ceased to be a part of the colony and the number of cats placed in animal shelters or permanent homes as companion cats.

Sec. 5-114. Revocation of permit.

(a) The director may revoke the feral cat colony caretaker permit of any permit holder for any of the following reasons:

  1. Conviction of any violation of this chapter or any other animal statute or ordinance.
  2. Failure of the permit holder or property owner to permit an animal control officer to inspect the property at which the feral cat colony is located.
  3. Failure or inability of the permit holder to provide care for the feral cat colony as required by Sec. 5-113.
  4. The size of the feral cat colony has increased to such numbers that the colony is a health hazard or interferes with the peace or quiet of any Columbia resident.

(b) Within sixty (60) days of the revocation of permit, the former permit holder shall relocate the colony to the care of one or more feral cat colony permit holders.

•     •     •

Nancy Peterson, Cat Programs Manager, Companion Animals, Humane Society of the United States addresses several of the flaws in Columbia’s proposed ordinance in her letter to city officials. I share Peterson’s concerns—the expenses associated with permits and microchipping, for example, which would unnecessarily burden caretakers (and divert precious funding from sterilization efforts).

Among the issues I’d like to address in detail are Article VI’s overly broad language, its requirement for FeLV/FIV testing, and its restrictions on feeding feral and stray cats.

Vague Language
Although permit applicants would be required to provide “a detailed description of the cats in the colony,” there’s no mention of which details are to be included. (Presumably, the application will be more specific.)

Similarly, caretakers are required to “maintain records on the location and size of the colonies as well as the vaccination, microchipping, ear tipping and spay and neuter records of the colony cats.” But records from low-cost, high-volume vet clinics—upon which most TNR programs depend—often omit the kinds of detailed information routinely included for pet cats. (I’ve seen paperwork that includes nothing but trap number and sex, for example.)

And when it comes to the location and size of a colony, what sort of records will be sufficient? Considering the potential consequences involved—revocation of a caretaker’s permit—more precise language is in order.

Perhaps the most unsettling language, though, is Article VI’s provision for inspection of “the property at which the feral cat colony is located.”

It’s not clear what circumstances would justify such an inspection, or whether caretakers would be given notice (or, as far as that goes, even allowed to be present). Do animal control officers have such far-reaching authority when it comes to inspection of private property housing pet cats (or dogs)? As Peterson suggests, this provision may very well run up against search and seizure protections and privacy laws.

FeLV, FIV, and Rabies
Article VI requires all cats to “be tested annually for feline leukemia and feline immune deficiency virus. Those cats testing positive must be humanely euthanized or isolated indoors.”

Given the impracticalities involved with isolating a feral cat, of course, a “failed” test is essentially a death sentence.

And, of course, the testing poses significant challenges for caretakers, both logistically and financially (easily $60 or more per cat, a local clinic tells me). Indeed, the only TNR programs likely to satisfy this requirement are those participating in formal research studies—and therefore provided with additional resources.

What’s more, there’s no justification for such a provision in the first place—because there’s no reason to expect infection rates among colony cats to be any different from those of pet cats.

A study of 1,876 colony cats (733 cats from a Raleigh, NC, TNR program and 1,143 cats from a Gainesville, FL, program) revealed a 4.3 percent rate of FeLV prevalence, and a 3.5 percent rate of FIV seroprevalence—“similar to infection rates reported for owned cats.” [1]

So why single out feral cats? If city officials are truly concerned about FeLV and FIV infection among Columbia’s cat population, why aren’t the owners of all cats allowed outdoors required to have their pets tested annually?

In fact, sterilization—required of colony cats but not of pet cats—reduces the spread of FeLV and FIV—both directly (“kittens are much more susceptible to [FeLV] infection than are adult cats”) and indirectly (“aggressive male cats are the most frequently infected [with FIV]”).

Furthermore, Article VI addresses the issue of sick cats directly, requiring caretakers to “obtain medical attention for any colony cat that exhibits illness, signs of rabies or unusual behavior and remove the cat from the colony to prevent disease or injury to other cats in the colony.”

And while Article VI is clear that colony cats must either be “vaccinated against rabies or… actively being trapped” in order to be vaccinated, it’s not clear whether this is a one-time requirement or not.

It’s also not clear whether booster shots are beneficial. July Levy, Maddie’s Professor of Shelter Medicine at the University of Florida’s College of Veterinary Medicine—and one of this country’s foremost experts on feral cats—suggests, “Even a single dose of rabies vaccination provides years of protection against rabies infection.”

Feeding Restrictions
Article VI prohibits residents from providing “food, water or other forms of sustenance to a feral cat colony without a feral cat colony caretaker permit.” Which, it seems to me, is just a step away from an outright feeding ban (which would effectively outlaw TNR altogether).

While I agree with the apparent intent here, the idea that the people feeding feral and stray cats are part of the problem is misguided. Indeed, these same people can be an integral part of the solution.

In a 2007 survey of 703 Ohio households, Linda Lord found that “only 42 of the 184 (22.8 percent) participants who reported feeding free-roaming cats had ever taken any of these cats to a veterinarian for any type of veterinary care.” [2] More intriguing than the figures, though, is the root cause.

“One reason,” suggests Lord, Associate Dean for Student Affairs at Ohio State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine, “may be the lack of affordable resources, particularly low-cost spay-neuter services, for free-roaming cats.” [2]

“Only 79 (11.2 percent) participants in the present study reported that they were aware of a trap-neuter-return program in their community. Although 296 (42.1 percent) reported they did not know whether such a program existed in their community, it is likely that there is limited access to these types of programs in many parts of Ohio.” [2]

Rather than outlawing “feeding without a permit,” then, Columbia should be developing and promoting community-based services that better connect with residents concerned for the welfare of homeless cats—ultimately increasing sterilization rates.

Caretaker permits, and the bureaucracy that invariably goes with them, are likely to have just the opposite effect, deterring community participation—thus driving down overall sterilization rates.

And finally, the underlying premise here—essentially, that handouts from well-meaning residents increase the population of feral cats—warrants a few comments as well.

A review of 29 studies revealed that, although the population density of cats correlates fairly well with the population density of humans (i.e., a greater density of cats in urban areas), these high densities do not require provisions by “cat lovers.” Indeed, “garbage bins” and “market refuse” proved sufficient to support some of the highest population densities. [3]

Similarly, researchers in Brooklyn found that “supplemental feeding” had no “significant effect on population density,” because available food supplies—again, mostly garbage—already exceeded what the cats required. [4]

All of which confirms a point I made in my previous post: we’re not likely to starve our way out of the “feral cat problem” (Marion Island being a rather dramatic case study [5, 6]).

•     •     •

As I say, I’m pleased to see officials in Columbia tackling this important issue. But the city’s proposed ordinance (years in the making, I’m told) falls well short of what’s necessary to make a significant, positive impact. Indeed, its various provisions—which, taken together, are onerous enough to drive caretakers “underground”—suggest either a lack of input from TNR practitioners, or a lack of good-faith negotiation on the part of those responsible for drafting the proposal. Or both.

Whatever the case, this is not just a missed opportunity; the proposed ordinance actually reads as if it were drafted by people dead-set against TNR but unwilling to make their position known publicly. If Columbia is truly interested in addressing the issue of feral cat management, then, it’s back to the drawing board—with, one hopes, a team that will take the task more seriously.

Literature Cited
1. Lee, I.T., et al., “Prevalence of feline leukemia virus infection and serum antibodies against feline immunodeficiency virus in unowned free-roaming cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2002. 220(5): p. 620-622.

2. 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.

3. Liberg, O., et al., Density, spatial organisation and reproductive tactics in the domestic cat and other felids, in The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour, D.C. Turner and P.P.G. Bateson, Editors. 2000, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

The Things People Say (or Don’t)—Part 1

Wildlife/bird advocates opposed to TNR are eager to talk to the press, so why won’t they reply to my e-mail?

Just about the time I was writing my response to “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return” (Conservation Biology, Volume 23, No. 4, 887–894), its lead author, Travis Longcore, began showing up in the news. The Urban Wildlands Group, for which Longcore serves as science director, was the lead petitioner in the case that would eventually lead to an injunction against publicly supported TNR in Los Angeles.

Given the obvious bias and overall tone of Longcore’s paper, I was hardly surprised to read what he told the press. There’s this, for example, from an interview with Southern California Public Radio:

“Feral cats are documented predators of native wildlife,” said Travis Longcore, science director for the Urban Wildlands Group. “We do not support release of this non-native predator into our open spaces and neighborhoods, where they kill birds and other wildlife.”

Hardly the stuff of controversy, at least at first glance. Who can argue with the fact that cats kills birds and other wildlife? That’s what predators—including cats and a number of other species, too, of course—do. Nobody’s debating that. What impact this predation has on birds and wildlife is another matter altogether—one Longcore doesn’t address here. (I’ll be addressing this issue repeatedly in future posts, starting with a critique of Longcore’s essay in Conservation Biology).

What’s more interesting is Longcore’s reference to cats as “non-native” and wildlife as “native.” It’s a recurring theme in the feral cat debate: native is inherently good; non-native is inherently bad (even worse is invasive non-native, another term often used to demonize cats). Never mind the fact that the cats are here because we brought them here, or the hypocrisy of the native/non-native argument. We routinely protect non-native species from native predators—consider, for example, the current controversy over livestock and wolves. Again, a topic to delve into more deeply in the future.

A week later, Longcore was quoted in the Los Angeles Times:

“It’s ugly; it’s gotten very vicious,” said Travis Longcore of the Urban Wildlands Group, one of the organizations that sued the city on behalf of the birds. “It’s not like we’ve got a vendetta here. This is a real environmental issue, a real public health issue.”

No vendetta? Maybe not, but Longcore’s essay in Conservation Biology has an agenda that takes priority over the science (hardly surprising in retrospect—given the timing of its publication, it must have been written while Longcore was preparing for the L.A. case). His apparent concern for the environment and public health strike me as largely disingenuous.

Also from the Times:

Those cats, Longcore said, often are diseased. And when colonies are fed, the practice often attracts more cats, either from around the neighborhood or because people dump new cats.

Let’s set aside for the moment Longcore’s assertion about colonies attracting cats, feral or dumped (I’ll get to that in another post). What about his suggestion that “these cats are often diseased”? In his own paper, Longcore acknowledges a rate of only 5–12% overall for feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and/or feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV). In the largest of the studies he cites, more than 12,000 cats were tested for FeLV and FIV, revealing an overall rate of infection of 5.2%, which, noted the researchers, “is similar to results previously reported for feral cats and for pet cats.” [1]

What about rabies? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “approximately 1% of cats… tested for rabies were found positive” in 2008, the last year for which statistics are available.

It’s difficult to see how these rates of infection would lead anybody to suggest that free-roaming cats are “often diseased.” And I don’t expect to get any clarification from Longcore. While he seems eager to talk to mainstream media, which accepts his claims at face value (and passes them along as accurate to the public), he has yet to respond to my e-mail inquires.

I realize that taking issue with Longcore’s comments will no doubt strike some people as nitpicking. But such statements—which put PR before science—only impede any honest discussion of the issues.

[1] Wallace, J. L., & Levy, J. K. (2006). Population characteristics of feral cats admitted to seven trap-neuter-return programs in the United States. Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery, 8, 279–284.