Gushing about my new trap. long and very MPSIMS

OK. I’ll try to tackle this without making this the longest post ever. I think you mentioned your awareness of Alley Cat Allies upthread. If you haven’t joined the Feral Friends Network, you may find it a valuable resource. Also, they have educational materials available for purchase, fairly inexpensively, that include how-to handouts, door hangers for neighborhoods to give a “what’s up,” and videos. My shelter is in the network, and Chicago has a pretty large caretaking community. Getting people to start doing their own trapping is tricky. There are, in my experience, doers and donators, and they don’t really usually switch! I don’t do any trapping myself, while other people at the shelter do, plus an army of volunteers and just individuals who want to trap one or two “problem” cats and just need a little help and advice.

We’ve really ramped up our TNR program in the last few years. I don’t know if you’ve heard of Maddie’s Fund, but it’s a program in which all the shelters in a municipal area get together as a unit, where they all agree on the goal of making their area a no-kill city. Chicago is in the midst of this, and with the help and guidelines and grant funding from Maddie’s Fund, has started a 10-year plan toward making Chicago a no-kill city. Getting the feral cat population under control is #1 on the list of what needs to be done, on top of the shelters all working together toward education and legislation that will help reach that goal.

Municipal codes have already been changed, and the Animal Control units no longer pick up reported strays or ferals. Instead, people who call about nuisance cats are directed to the TNR network, where the people are educated about TNR and instructed on how to do it, or volunteers are scheduled to try to go to the location to help. Many shelters and alderman’s offices now have traps for people to use as loaners so they can trap and have cats TNR’d in their neighborhoods.

It’s still an uphill battle, we’ve really only just started, but it’s progressing rapidly and we even have a part time staff person who only works on the TNR program.

No one I know aside from veterinarians are vaccinated against rabies. Our particular shelter has the resources to house a cat if it should bite someone. Since we have cages and isolation areas, we can have a feral do the 10-day observation period if it should bite someone. So the issue doesn’t really come up for us. Luckily, it’s really rare, since we do require ferals come in traps. If someone brings a “feral” in a carrier, we will do a quick test (i.e. look a the poor thing through the carrier door!) to determine whether the cat may be removed safely from the carrier. For the most part, we will assist the person in an exam room (small, no where to hide) in moving the cat into a loaner trap (this is where the guillotine doors and transfer traps come in VERY handy! We rarely turn someone away.

The majority of our funding comes from wonderful individuals who are kind and generous! A few long-time donors also have trusts set up such that our shelter becomes the beneficiary. Such amazing people. We do have a grant-writer on staff, and she finds individual and corporate grants for us (usually for specific equipment or projects - never “free” spending with grants). We get no municipal or government funding of any kind. We do also get lots of donations of supplies (some of those may be corporate in the form of hotels giving us sheets, or Target letting us take opened items like ripped bags of litter, and hospitals giving us expired suture material), usually from people giving us stuff like their old towels, and sometimes computers or printers and such. But mostly, it’s just nice people giving what they can, and we have fundraising events at least twice a month if not more often. We have a couple of people who do nothing but development, community outreach, and events to keep our name out there and keep the awareness of shelters and animal adoption at the front of people’s minds when they want a pet.

We like to think information on low-cost spay/neuter is readily available. There hasn’t been a whole lot of resistance from regular vet practices about promoting low-cost options. I think there’s been enough education in the area, and there have been some low-cost programs around for long enough that vets in the area get it, and have figured out they’re not going to lose business because of it. There are different low-cost tiers, depending on the shelter/clinic people go to. One requires strict proof of low income (I believe less than $10,000/year), and that’s a full-service clinic for people who qualify. Another full-service clinic in the area offers their services on a sliding scale according to income. TNR services, of which there are 2 main clinics, one North and one South, are discounted and offered as a package that includes the surgery, flea treatment, ear tip, 2 vaccines, and microchip. Then there are low-cost spay/neuter services for regular owned housecats, which are broken up into regular pricing (pretty cheap), and low-income (cheap, but not as low as TNR) for which people need to produce proof of being on social security or food stamps.

Personally, I would do the same thing! Legally, I think it depends on your municipality’s laws. If there are leash laws in place, and cats are usually part of those laws even if they’re not specifically spelled out, then I believe that people who let cats out to roam at-large get what they give. They shouldn’t be surprised if the cat comes back with a broken leg, nor should they if the cat had a bit of surgery while he/she was out without a leash! They should be grateful the cat came back at all.

Now, if you’re in an area where there are no leash laws or other codes in place that make people responsible for the pet population in some way, then I guess you run into some ethics issues. But if the worst you expect is to get yelled at by a neighbor who then does the same thing again, well, I’m having a hard time imagining her having a different expectation this time around! Sounds like a lazy mooch who knows you’ll take care of it at no expense to her.

The last thing to talk about is testing. In our area, we stay away from doing it if we can. The moral and ethical obligations that come up from finding out a feral is FeLV or FIV positive is too great. Ethically, as medical staff in the clinic, we would feel obligated to euthanize positive cats. Morally, we’re a bit against putting down what would end up being a helluva lot of cats. Once spayed/neutered, they’re so much less likely to fight, roam, mate (ha!), or otherwise be that much of a detriment to a population that’s already exposed (the rest of the colony), that we really operate on a kind of don’t ask, don’t tell policy. If a cat is a possible TNA, then we’ll test. If that cat is positive, then it’s a matter of maybe it would do better released anyway, or finding a foster home from which the cat can be adopted. If a TNR cat is obviously sick, we may recommend testing and euthanizing in that case, as the cat may not survive surgery anyway. For the most part, if the cat is going back outside, we don’t test it. Have a happy life, kitty!

Whew. It’s been a long couple of days. I hope this post is useful for anyone who reads it!

Ecology and Society from 2010 actually published an analysis of this.

Here’s the abstract:

The feral domestic cat (Felis catus) is a predatory invasive species with documented negative effects on native wildlife. The issue of appropriate and acceptable feral cat management is a matter of contentious debate in cities and states across the United States due to concerns for wildlife conservation, cat welfare, and public health. Common management strategies include: Trap-Neuter-Release, Trap-Neuter-Release with removal of kittens for adoption and Trap-Euthanize. Very little empirical evidence exists relevant to the efficacy of alternative options and a model-based approach is needed to predict population response and extend calculations to impact on wildlife. We have created a structured decision support model representing multiple stakeholder groups to facilitate the coordinated management of feral cats. We used a probabilistic graphical model (a Bayesian Belief Network) to evaluate and rank alternative management decisions according to efficacy, societal preferences, and cost. Our model predicts that Trap-Neuter-Release strategies would be optimal management decisions for small local populations of less than fifty cats while Trap-Euthanize would be the optimal management decision for populations greater than 50 cats. Removal is predicted to reduce feral cat populations quickly and prevent cats from taking a large number of wildlife prey.

Why would T-N-R be better than T-E for smaller populations? I am assuming the desired outcome is few or no feral cats. How would letting any of them back out work better?

Suppose you have twenty feral cats wandering around. You can catch 90% of them. You catch eighteen, neuter them, and let them go. You have twenty cats, eighteen are sterile and two are not.

Or, instead of neutering, you euthanize them. You now have two cats wandering around, neither of which are sterile. How is this better?

Regards,
Shodan

I’m not real sure how it’s better. I just shoot the ones that are in my neighborhood, anyway.

TOO LATE TO EDIT

They apparently made some subjective judgements based on “efficacy, societal preference and cost.” Therefore, while your analysis (which is also mine) is correct for efficacy, other factors played a role.

I just shoot the ones that are in my neighborhood, anyway.

Neither of you actually likes cats, do you? Trouble is, the OP does, and many with her, including me. It isn’t just about cat control; it is about minimizing the suffering of existing cats.

And Rafe, what do you do with the cats you shoot? If you aren’t sure they have been hit fatally, do you follow them when they limp away, to put them out of their misery? Do you bury them to avoid fights with angry cat lovers? Do you let them lay where they lie? Do you check up to see of they are somebody’s pet cat (if they have a collar or tag). I really would like to know the answer.

FWIW Rafe, I agree with you that cats are very damaging to other wildlife, and that their number should be controlled. However, I really feel that this should be done as animal friendly as possible.

I don’t like feral cats. I have no problem with pet cats - my father was a veterinarian, as a matter of fact, and I used to work for him.

But if the idea is to reduce the impact of feral cats on a given ecosystem, ISTM that you need to get the cats out of the ecosystem. Not just prevent them from reproducing, although that is important for feral as well as pet cats. If you can catch the wild cat, neuter him, and place him in a good home, great. If you can’t find a home, I don’t see any advantage in putting him back where you want him gone.

Humane euthanasia vs. getting run over by a car? If you want to reduce suffering, it doesn’t seem like a hard choice to me.

We used to have a few wild cats in my neighborhood. Then a coyote set up shop in a park nearby. No more cats. That’s the alternative to humane euthanasia, very often. Feral cats do not typically live a long, happy life munching on song birds and crapping on my stoop. More like “nasty, poor, brutish, and short.”

Regards,
Shodan

Certainly - but that describes the fate of most if not all wild animals, particularly in an urban environment (including the coyote and the songbirds). Doesn’t necessarily mean we should shoot the coyote and the songbirds, to stop the poor things from suffering.

Eh, I’m with Shodan on this, and I’m a dyed-in-the-wool cat lover. I just can’t stand invasive species.

Whether a species is invasive and ought thus to be destroyed is a different issue.

The quoted study is not about “What’s the most efficient way to eliminate feral cats?” - Obviously the best solution there is to offer a bounty on cat heads. The study is about “What’s the best way to deal with the cat problem and keep everyone somewhat happy?”

So trap-neuter-euthanize is good for small populations, because the cat lovers will stay happy, and the wildlife lovers and cat shit on the front walk haters won’t be too unhappy, because there aren’t many cats. For large populations, trap-euthanize is better, because the wildlife lovers & cat shit haters happiness at actually eliminating the cats overrules the unhappiness of the cat lovers.

Not entirely sure, but I believe the non-cat-lover thinking in favor of TNR is this: Unless you have a closed system like the one described in Jerome (a human-inhabited area surrounded by lots of land where cats couldn’t survive), most areas that can support feral cats will support feral cats. That is, where there are humans – who have poorly-controlled pet cats, and who provide food and shelter for ferals, whether deliberately nor not – there will be feral cats. However, established feral cats will protect their territory from interlopers. If the established ones don’t reproduce, they don’t supply additional cats to unclaimed territory. While they are still a threat to local wildlife, they are not a threat to non-local wildlife, and are thus the lesser of two evils. It won’t make much of a difference if you don’t have an area-wide coordination of effort, of course – though you still get the local benefits of less-obnoxious feral cats, like a decrease in audible catfights and mating calls and spraying and so on.

OK, well then, I’m with Shodan, but for different reasons (actually, additional, not different, reasons.)

That’s fair enough.

But the choice is often not between humanely trapping & fixing and humanely trapping & euthanize, for the simple reason that this appears to be an activity that people are doing in their spare time, essentially because they want to - generally because they love cats, including feral cats.

If they didn’t do it, chances are no-one would do anything, at least until the population of ferals got so out of hand that it became a serious concern. The people doing it are not going to eliminate ferals as an invasive species, because that doesn’t comport with their motives for undertaking the activity in the first place.

Trap-and-fix seems preferable to doing nothing.

Shodan is arguing that it isn’t really, even if you love cats, because the cats suffer being feral. But that is true for any animal in the wild, particularly the urban wild.

That’s an incomplete synopsis of his point, and doesn’t take into account his earlier (in the same post) point about the health of the ecosystem. Of course songbirds and coyotes live, suffer, and die. That’s life on this planet. But it’s an important point that it’s the invasive cats that are causing damage to songbird populations, which are part of the naturally-evolved ecosystem. To me, anyway, the suffering of feral cats is a secondary consideration. Get them out of the way. Shoot 'em.

Wow… it’s amazing to me how a feel-good thread like this one started out to be can be absolutely ruined by threadshitting. :frowning:

I feel terrible for the original poster, who is just trying to do something good for animals. The threadshitters should be ashamed.

This makes sense, thanks.

Regards,
Shodan

What threadshitting? The OP and others started getting into discussions of the benefits of their actions, and the discussion continued. Heck, the OP herself said

If you want to discuss the benefits of something, you have to be willing to address the downsides of it too.

What in the name of God are you talking about?