I completely misunderstand this bit of an otherwise informative post:
But yeah, even if this was the perfect clean kill, totally fast and painless, you do wonder if that’s the only one… She seems very proud of it.
What is inhumane about trap and euthanize?
I mean, kudos to your and whatever members of the veterinary community are willing to donate time, clinical supplies for spaying and neutering, and recovery space prior to returning the feral cat to its colony, but if the goal is to reduce the feral cat population, you point out all the problems with poison, but never once seem to address the fact that the first part of TNR is T. That is, once you have the cat, you spend the time and effort to anesthetize it, remove its reproductive organs, stitch it up, care for it until it’s recovered, and release back into the colony. It seems clear to me that if you simply put the animal to sleep after trapping it, your supposed goal of reducing the colony size would be reached quicker.
What am I missing?
Wikipedia has some discussion with cites.
One argument – it’s cheaper to neuter and release than to euthanize.
Another is that it’s more effective.
This is similar to the sterile insect technique to control malaria. Make animals waste their time mating with sterile animals and it’s more effective than trying to kill them all with brute force.
How many you got?
Shoot them. In the photos, it appears to have been a head or neck shot, which is relatively quick. It is no different from any other form of hunting - track down a wounded animal and finish it off.
steronz, your cites are not particularly convincing -
Regards,
Shodan
If only the Nazi’s had figured this out.
*Oh no, he didn’t!!!
Flees…*
No, that’s not what the citation says.
The footnote on the Wikipedia page claims it drew its information from this article.
Here’s what the article says:
How many cats were put to death for the $50,000? That’s the problem with comparing the $50K spent in 2010 with the May 2013 - May 2014 period. We know the May 2013-14 period was $13K spent on 214 cats, but we don’t know how many cats were euthanized in 2010 for $50K.
My first assumption is that, contrary to your claim, it’s cheaper to trap and euthanize instead of trap, operate on, host for recovery, vaccinate, and release. I welcome a cite to the contrary, but on the face of it, the latter steps seem obviously more expensive than the former.
The $123K savings was an estimate on how many cats those 214 would have produced if not sterilized. It hardly seems controversial to point out that killing those cats after capture would also have sharply limited their fecundity.
This claim is contradicted by the Wikipedia article itself:
The footnote for that claim links to this article, titled, “Sorry, Cat Lovers: Trap-Neuter-Return Simply Doesn’t Work.”
From that article:
I believe these cite effectively refute your belief that TNR is effective or less costly.
Forgot to debunk this claim.
The sterile insect technique involves insects. This is a key difference, because the insects are sterile yet retain mating behaviors. So what happens is exactly what you surmise: many of the insects mate with sterile partners, drastically reducing their aggregate offspring numbers.
But cats are spayed by removal of the ovaries and uterus. Done correctly, this prevents the female from going into estrus (heat) and male cats will not “waste time” mating with her. (A tiny minority of cats and dogs still go into heat after being spayed; this is generally the result of a botched operation).
Male cats are neutered, and some still display roaming and mating behaviors. But this behavior won’t stop a female cat from also accepting fertile cats as suitors. In short, neither spaying or neutering has the effect you’re describing, so far as I can discover. I welcome a cited correction on this point, of course.
Damn. Common sense is so fallible.
Along w/the brain issue and vision issue, you can add a heart issue. What an incredibly sick fucking thing to say. Also ignorant, since the Nazis did indeed sterilize as well as murder, but who cares as long as Omar got to boost his rep as an I’M SO EDGY tasteless shit-heel.
Has the TNR issue been settled? No one defending it has returned to answered the cited rebuttals.
It doesnt have anything to do with this thread, Bricker, as the crazed bitch shot and killed someones *house pet. * So this thread has nothing to do with feral cat controls, and dragging that into it is just cruel. So take your “cited rebuttals” roll them up and cram them where the sun dont shine, OK?
Not all TNR programs are alike. This study might be of interest:
It suggests that much better outcomes are possible targeting a larger percentage of cats within smaller areas, rather than random pickups over multiple communities.
This would be in conjunction with community education and outreach, and coordination with adoption services. If you notice, in both this study and your cite, about half of the cats are adopted after being neutered; certainly that has to be the ideal outcome whenever possible.
For the cats deemed suitable for return to colonies, success depends on the specific communities in question. Many people want to tend to these colonies, without the problems of breeding behavior and the subsequent kitten population. Cats unsuitable for adoption or return would be euthanized.
Ultimately, I don’t think a single prong method is ideal, and programs should be designed that best serve the particular circumstances of each community. A program that works in rural Pennsylvania would probably not be the most effective solution for Philadelphia.
No one with half a brain takes Supreme Court Justice Bricker seriously- well apart from himself- so not much point even responding to him DrDeth.
Quite a few pricks have emerged in this thread however. Omar Little needs to be shortened up.
Well, there’s the explaining you have to do when you trap/treat the wrong animal. I’m pretty sure “I fixed your cat without your permission.” is less of a PR debacle than “I killed your cat.”
-
So far as I am aware, the claim that the animal killed was a house pet and not feral is, at best, unresolved. Perhaps you could remind me in which post you feel the issue was definitively settled if you disagree?
-
Even if it had been resolved, the efficacy of TNR was offered up earlier without complaint that it was irrelevant to the thread. Why should it be permissible to extol the supposed virtues of TNR without demur, but the rebuttals of those claims must go unheard?
I know somebody that that happened to.
Cat: I’ll go live somewhere else.
Owner : Where the hell did Cat go?
A few weeks pass.
Owner: Cat is back. Rejoice.
Owner: What’s this blood? OMG Cat’s balls are missing.
Cat: Fuck those bastards, I came back!
The study quoted by camille above differentiates, confidently, between stray cats and owned cats. Is that study flawed in that respect? I infer from that separation that there exists a reliable (if not perfect) method by which the study’s authors concluded they were dealing with house pets when they were.
This seems to be an open admission that the actual points I raised are unassailable, and the only avenue open to you was an insult to me.
Was it such an admission? Or did you also have a devastating array of factual rebuttals held in reserve for such a challenge?
Because if you did, and we are supposed to be fighting ignorance here, then I’d ask you to share them.
These days most pet cats are chipped. Cats wearing collars are not feral either.
Agreed, on both counts. I’d be absolutely shocked to learn the slain animal in the OP was wearing a collar. I suppose it could have been chipped.
If the body of the animal was recovered, and proved to be neither chipped nor collared, would that support an inference that the animal was not a pet?