Cats are not native to the environment and pose threats to birds and other wildlife.  Although the exact impact is debatable, reducing the number of outdoor cats is a worthwhile pursuit.  To accomplish this daunting task, we need more thoughtful and sincere discussion of all the available options along with their pros and cons and less of the misinformation that Ted Williams and Steve Holmer have been providing.  In fact, the peer-reviewed science on this topic very clearly documents significant population declines in TNR colonies that adhere to best practices such as placing adoptable cats in homes, euthanizing untreatably sick or injured cats, and ensuring a sufficiently high trap rate.  Efforts at reducing cat populations will fail, regardless of the method used, when too few cats are either sterilized or destroyed to offset the prodigious reproduction of the remaining cats.
As for the rabies threat, Mr. Williams' figures seem to speak for themselves.  Approximately 95 million cats seem to account for "spikes" of 300 rabies cases per year.  Magnifying this threat, along with other specious arguments regarding everything from brain tumors to spread of the plague, is all part of the "kitchen sink" approach to pursuing an inflexible ideological agenda that is ultimately detrimental to the wildlife they claim to be protecting.

Walter: Why do you imagine these are "My Williams' figures"?  I merely posted the article for general interest.  One thing the feral cat issue DOES NOT need is more talk, thoughtful or otherwise.  And I have heard no thoughtful talk issuing from the cat mafia.  Feral cats are a scourge.  They need to be humanely euthanized.

Ted: That the loudest voices on both sides of this issue are equally disingenous and irrational is of little comfort to me and provides no benefit to wildlife.  Surely you agree that the objective is to actually reduce the number of outdoor cats.  If you want all feral cats humanely euthanized, then you should ask Steve Holmer why the American Bird Conservancy spent many years urging cities like mine (Los Angeles) to establish sanctuaries to house these cats based on the model of Chico, CA which, predictably, failed to solve that cities feral cat problem.  That is not the kind of leadership we need on this issue.  Tough talk is fine when it is backed by tough action.  Otherwise it gives the dangerously false impression that folks like you and Steve Holmer actually have a realistic plan for reducing feral cat numbers in myriad settings across the country when all you really have is unhelpful rhetoric.
 
In your Audubon Magazine article on this topic (http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite09...), you never got around to explaining to your readers that if they don't want "the cat mafia" sterilizing cats that they would need to engage, en masse, in the joyless and time consuming task of trapping and euthanizing tens of millions of cats.  The only actual solution you discussed was hunting cats by rifle, which I agree is more humane than trapping when done by trained staff, but which you surely recognize is wholly unrealistic in the vast majority of settings in which feral and stray cats must be managed.  Pretending that solutions used on remote islands or federally managed lands can be applied to urban and residential areas is no less magical thinking than pretending that sterilizing a few cats here and there has any impact on overall populations.
 
The available science on this topic, when one actually bothers to read the raw studies rather than the selectively edited summaries of them, confirms what any basic understanding of mathematics and the reproductive abilities of cats tells us.  Management programs, whether lethal or not, that leave too many unsterilized cats in the environment will fail.  For every cat colony across the land, we have to objectively assess the available resources ready to carry out various management projects and then focus on making those projects as successful as possible.
 
Yes, there will always be values clashes and, yes, groups like Alley Cat Allies are unlikely to be thoughtful partners in such a case by case approach.  There are indeed groups out there, however, that recognize the need for better standards for TNR projects and who want to encourage such standards.  All of this "us" vs "them" chest beating rhetoric undermines efforts to find common ground where it exists.
 
To put this in perspective, consider that my wife and I spent considerable time, money and energy reducing a neighborhood colony from a peak of 20 unsterilized cats and growing down to three sterilized cats via TNR.  For our successful efforts, folks like you and Steve would like to see us prosecuted under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  Contrast that reaction to the virtual standing ovation that Kiera Butler of Mother Jones received for reciting all of the anti-TNR talking points in a recent article, even though she apparently wound up taking no action on her neighborhood feral cat, leaving it unsterilized and uneuthanized.  This just underscores the current focus on rhetoric over results.
 
 
If TNR, which has been around for several decades, is the root cause of all the feral cat scourge, ask yourself how Mark Twain came to observe on an 1866 visit to Hawaii that "I saw cats—Tom cats, Mary Ann cats, long-tailed cats, bobtail cats, blind cats, one-eyed cats, walleyed cats, cross-eyed cats . . . platoons of cats, companies of cats, regiments of cats, armies of cats, multitudes of cats," as you note in your Audubon article.  And ask yourself, in which century was it that these 33 species of birds were driven to extinction in part or in whole by feral cats.
 
 
You say that the last thing we need on this topic is thougtful discussion.  Fine.  Stop the rhetoric and put forth a plan of action that doesn't tip toe around the need for your readers to commit themselves to trapping and euthanizing the tens of millions of feral and stray cats in question.  Righteous indignation isn't a substitute for action.

I've been battling an invasive-species cat infestation on my land for 15 years. Only until recently, on advice of the sheriff to shoot them all, were they devastating all wildlife. Native prey became gutted and skinned suffering play-toys for these cats. Native predators all starved to death from cats destroying all their food sources. My lands were finally clear of all cats and NONE returned -- that oft-spewed "vacuum effect" that cat-advocates claim is a bald-faced lie, NATIVE wildlife returned to replace them. After destroying them all I started to go online to see what others had to say about this issue and to offer my advice on how I managed to get rid of every last one of them.

I found some surprising things about all the diseases these mangey invasive vermin are now spreading throughout the USA.

The plague:
http://outbreaknews.com/2011/07/29/colorado-stray-...

Tularemia (rabbit-fever, transmissible to humans):
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/health/miscellane...

Flea-borne Typhus:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/county-317133-a...

Along with the usual parasites they all carry, like hookworm -- that shut down businesses in large parts of Miami:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-11-24/news/f...

And perhaps the most insideous one of all, the common Toxoplasma gondii parasite that they spread through their feces into all other animals and even livestock. This is how it gets into meats and humans get it from undercooked meats, from cats roaming around stockyards and farms. This parasite not only changes the mind of the animal it invades, but can even kill you at any time during your life once you've been infected by it. It becomes a permanent lifetime parasite in your mind, ready to strike at any time that your immune system becomes compromised. It's now being linked to the cause of autism, schizophrenia, and brain cancers. The weirdest part of all, its strange life cycle is meant to infect rodents. Any rodents infected with it lose their fear of cats and are actually attracted to cat urine. So even the often proclaimed use for cats to control rodents is now false. Cats actually attract rodents to your home, with their whole slew of flea-borne and other diseases.

Rabies is just one of the concerns.

Walter Lamb insists on someone stating a plan of action that works? I've got one, but I'm sure he doesn't want to hear it (cat-advocates never want a viable solution). It only took 2 seasons to rid my land of ALL cats.
TNR programs and their advocates are making absolute fools out of each and every one of you that they con with their nonsense. Not only are they causing untold damage to ALL native wildlife (directly and indirectly) and further spread of deadly diseases to all animals and humans, but are also doing *ABSOLUTELY* *NOTHING* to curtail cats' breeding rates. On top of that, they are doing all of this while violating all invasive-species laws in existence. (Cats being listed in the TOP 100 WORST invasive-species OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database".)

If you do the research, as I did using data from the most "successful" TNR programs, you'll easily find that not even *ONE* TNR program has EVER trapped more than 0.4% of existing cats in any one area for over a decade now. They simply cannot trap them faster than they breed out of control, no matter what they do. And those cats that learn to evade traps go on to produce offspring that now also know how to evade any trapping method used. So not only are 99.6% still and ALWAYS breeding out of control, and spreading their diseases everywhere, and still destroying ALL wildlife (native prey becomes tortured play-toys, native predators starve to death from cats destroying their ONLY food), but TNR fools are also ensuring that any future generations of these devastating invasive-species won't even be able to be trapped. This is why, due to TNR-Advocates' insistence that they have "the answer", that their feral-cat population has now climbed to an ecologically-deadly 150 MILLION feral-cats across the USA. Soon to turn into 1.5 BILLION cats within the year if you apply cats' breeding rates to previous population numbers.

Find whatever way that you can to destroy all feral and stray cats on-sight. Avoid using traps if at all possible because trapping is what slowed everything down to where cat populations have now sky-rocketed out of control. TNR advocates are at least right about one thing, trap and kill doesn't work either, because it is based on the very same flawed method that they use -- slow, random-chance, inefficient, easily outfoxed traps. There's a reason the phrase "hunted to extinction" is so well-known in all cultures across all lands. It is the *ONLY* method that is faster than a species can out-breed and adapt to. Following is some good documentation on the most humane ways to confront a feral-cat problem where you live, including the best firearms, air-rifles, and ammo required. Though avoid using their suggested slow and inefficient trapping methods that got us into the disaster that we have now. http://deenawinter.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/ec1...

On advice of the local sheriff where I live I used a .22 equipped with a good illuminated-scope and a laser-sight for use when they are most active, dusk to dawn; as well as to afford precision aim for a humane kill. I shot every last one of them on my property to restore all the native wildlife to proper balance. Mission accomplished! 100% total success! This is even a more humane method  than terrorizing trapping and animal-shelter methods; and why it is the preferred feral-cat management policy in so many areas today. One moment the cats are happily stalking defenseless animals to cruelly torture again, the next they are dead and don't even know what happened. Making your land 100% cat-free is something that cat advocates haven't been able to solve nation-wide for 30-40 years. On my land only 1 person in only 2 seasons was able to accomplish what they couldn't attain in decades. Why is that? The cost per cat was also only 0.3 CENT, 3 cats PER PENNY, a ONE-TIME expense (5000 rounds on sale for only $15). All cats gone for the price of a few cups of coffee. And contrary to another famous TNR-Advocate's bald-faced "vacuum effect" LIE ... NO CATS REPLACED THEM. The NATIVE predators and their required NATIVE prey that WAS here and BELONGS here is what replaced their lousy invasive-species cats that had destroyed the entire native food-chain. This year I'm even enjoying birds I've never seen in my life before. Two of the warblers listed in the top 10 songbirds of the world for their song. What an amazing sound to awake to each morning. You have no idea what you're missing if you have cats by you. I now feel sorry for anyone who has cats. Their lives and world are dismally empty and they don't even know it.

May you have as much success as I did, and so quickly and inexpensively too.

p.s. Avoid the use of poisons if at all possible that, if released into the food-chain, would go on to harm the very wildlife that you are trying to save from destruction by cats. And please bury or incinerate the carcasses so all the highly toxic diseases that cats now carry won't go on to harm nor infect more wildlife or humans. Which, if you do a Google search, now even includes cats spreading the plague in the USA. So much for that myth that cats would have saved people from the plague in Europe, cats would have made it far worse, and just might do so this time around. Search some more and you find they are also spreading flea-borne typhus and tularemia now too.
 
 
 

Some further information to help you do the RIGHT thing. ALL the required laws that you need to deal with this problem are already in place and have been for decades most everywhere.

Cats listed in THE TOP 100 WORST INVASIVE-SPECIES OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database":
http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?s...

Cats are _NOT_ exempt from invasive-species laws.

IT IS YOUR CIVIC AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DESTROY ANY INVASIVE-SPECIES WHEN FOUND AWAY FROM SAFE CONFINEMENT AND OUT IN A NON-NATIVE HABITAT. In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-sight. Since cats are genetically engineered through selective-breeding and no longer have ANY native habitat ANYWHERE on earth, these laws include cats. This is precisely how they are dealt with on my own land, destroyed by using any and all humane methods. (Though to be perfectly honest, considering how cats destroy all other animals by ripping their skin off the live animals or disemboweling them for their slowly dying and twitching cats' play-toys, I'm not sure why cats should given the privilege of a humane death. I've been drawn to many animal screams in my woods to find the cat shredding another animal to death. I guess I'm just more humane than all cat-lovers and their cats.)

For example: it is highly illegal for a person to transport an African Cichlid fish species to just the other side the road if you catch one in the canals of the Everglades while fishing. THEY MUST BE DESTROYED ON-SIGHT. Yet Cichlids are often kept as pets, that's how they wrongly got into the canals to begin with. There are hefty fines in place for anyone caught transporting these invasive-species alive if caught in the wild. (Interestingly, these Cichlids are FAR FAR LESS damaging to the environment and all other native wildlife than cats are.)

All of this much to the dismay of criminally irresponsible and psychotic cat-lovers who are desperately trying to raise these invasive-species cats to some absurd level of "Community Cats". If they do that then I'll just raise "Community Pet Piranha" and release them in all your lakes and pools, or "Community Pet Black-Mambas" and release them in all your backyards and parks, then claim the exact same protections for them as cat-advocates want for their invasive-species cats. It'd only be fair! (Are you starting to see just how absurd and ludicrous these cat-advocates are yet?)

Very well said Woodsman!  In case you missed my piece on feral cats it's at:

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0909.html

 

And don't miss the caterwauling lfrom the cat mafia at::

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/letter/letter0911.html

 

 

 

Now I don't feel so bad for posting so much for you to read. I hope you can use some of it to further strengthen your arguments whenever you have to try to educate these ineducable morons.
 
You might also like this bit of insight, it explains so much.
 
A little information to help you understand the behaviors of "cat-lovers" and their cats. Something I discovered when local "cat-lovers" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) were using cats to overtake my land and woods, eventually even by moving my property markers when using their cats failed. (An expensive many $1000s lesson for them, surveyors are not cheap.) Now you'll know exactly why cat-lovers do what they do. It really has nothing at all to do with their concern for cats, nor even the lives of anyone nor anything else, quite the opposite.

Human Territorial Behavior By Expendable Proxy

I have come to the inexorable conclusion that the vast majority of "cat-lovers" and cat-owners that let their destructive invasive-species roam free, and especially those that defend the rights of feral cats to overtake private and public property and wildlife areas, are only (cowardly) using cats as a proxy for their OWN territorial behavior. Not unlike uneducated inner-city youth that will disrespectfully and inconsiderately use loud music to stake-out a territory for themselves. Whether this behavior is done consciously or subconsciously, the underlying motive is the same. As long as they can have one of their cats defecate in another's yard or destroy their property, animals, and wildlife; and the land-owner not have any recourse; the cat-owner/cat-caretaker owns that territory. It's time to put a stop to them using their "cute kitty" excuse for usurping and stealing others' property. If they want territory they can damn well buy it just like anyone else. Instead they're using underhanded, disrespectful, and manipulative means. By putting (and sacrificing) live animals in the path of their envy and greed. Again proving why they don't care about cats nor anyone else at all. "Cat-lovers" only really want your yard, garden, or forest while making all others and all other animals suffer for what they can't have nor own. Bottom line--they want to control you and your property. That's _ALL_ that "cat-lovers" are really after. It's why they don't care at all if their cat nor any other animals, nor even other humans, get harmed by their goals and (lack of) values in life.
 
 

Woodsman,
 
Nothing could have made my point better than your rambling manifesto on this topic and Ted Williams glowing endorsement of it.  I'll certainly be curious to know if the American Bird Conservancy and The Wildlife Society also endorses your views, especially the remarkable statement that "TNR advocates are at least right about one thing, trap and kill doesn't work either, because it is based on the very same flawed method that they use -- slow, random-chance, inefficient, easily outfoxed traps."  Perhaps Steve Holmer of ABC will include some of your research and findings in his presentation and on their web site.  
 
 
Please share with Ted and the group your ideas for destroying cats on-site in urban and residential areas.  I recall this suggestion from another forum:  "Now if everyone in the cities would put all those gangs to work, they already have guns, redirecting their energies ... we could be rid of ALL OF THEM IN JUST ONE SEASON! What a great summer-employment project for all gang members!! And they'll get their need to shoot something out of their systems! (But please, outfit them with shovels too, to bury all these disease infested cats so the dead cats can't do even more damage to all humans and wildlife.)"  (http://www.theawl.com/user/12262/woodsman?page=2)
 
 
Your prediction that there will be a staggering 1.5 billion feral cats in the U.S. within a year is reminiscent of the math employed recently by the "doomsday preacher" and reflects a complete ignorance of the dynamics of feral cat reproduction.  And your sweeping (yet undocumented) claim based on one project that NO project has EVER trapped more than 0.4% of cats is an excellent example of what is passing for "science" these days.  And all Ted Williams can say is "Right on!"  Priceless.
 
 
Folks who want a rational, science-based discussion of this topic are beginning to see that demagogues like Ted Williams have no interest in that.  Any argument, regardless of how unsubstantiated, is considered "well stated" as long as it supports the desired conclusion.  Any argument, no matter how grounded in the available scientific body of knowledge, that challenges that desired conclusion is "caterwauling by the cat mafia."
 
 
The more these people are forced to defend their sweeping claims on this issue the more rational individuals will get to see just how far away from science this discussion has veered, even among many professional wildlife conservationists.  This is going to be a black eye for the profession and it is a real shame at a time when sound wildlife conservation policies based on sound science are so desperately needed.  We're begging Americans to listen to reason on climate change and this is the example we set?
 
 
Truly sad.
 
 
Walter Lamb

Walter:

You claim to have vetted my Audubon article, and yet you remain “curious” as to whether the American Bird Conservancy and the Wildlife Society agree with Woodsman and me.  Please read again, more carefully, and you will learn that they do.  The task of euthanizing feral cats that you claim is so joyless and difficult is neither.  There is an extremely effective and selective feral-cat poison--Tylenol.  So far the cat mafia has prevented it from being approved for use; but this will change.  Only an ecological illiterate would claim that saving native ecosystems by reducing invasive exotics is “joyless.”

Ted:
 
There is no mention of Tylenol or any other poison in your article but thank you for the official clarification not only on your behalf but also on behalf of the American Bird Conservancy.  It is important for policy makers across the country to clearly understand the various approaches to feral cat management being proposed by different groups so that they can make informed decisions on what is best for their communities and jurisdictions.
 
I believe that all potential solutions to this problem should be open for informed, civil discussion.  However, I can't find any reference to Tylenol or any endorsement of cat poisoning on the American Bird Conservancy's web site or their extensive literature on feral cats.  I'd hate to think that you are just shooting from the hip on this, so I'm hoping you are aware of an actual plan that outlines how the Tylenol approach will be implemented.  Could you share that with us so we can incorporate it into an intelligent discussion where we weigh the pros and cons of such an approach relative to other available approaches across myriad settings?
 
As for your charges of  ecological illiteracy, it is hard to take them seriously from someone who believes Woodsman to be a viable spokesperson on this issue.   If your litmus test for ecological literacy is finding actual joy in the euthanasia of cats or any other animal, I think that you and woodsman will find yourself in a fairly small group.  Many of my peers in the bird watching community have trapped and euthanized cats in order to protect native wildlife, but they don't speak of the experience as being "joyful" but rather what they see as an unfortunate necessity resulting from irresponsible human behavior.  There is a difference between euthanizing cats out of a sense of ecological duty and getting joy from it.
 
I look forward to contunuing this discussion.   I think many readers are learning a lot about your perspectives on this topic that they weren't aware of from your Audubon magazine article.
 
 Walter

In his impotent effort to demonize the opposing view, Walter Lamb wrote:
 
"Please share with Ted and the group your ideas for destroying cats on-site in urban and residential areas.  I recall this suggestion from another forum:  "Now if everyone in the cities would put all those gangs to work, they already have guns, redirecting their energies ... we could be rid of ALL OF THEM IN JUST ONE SEASON! What a great summer-employment project for all gang members!! And they'll get their need to shoot something out of their systems! (But please, outfit them with shovels too, to bury all these disease infested cats so the dead cats can't do even more damage to all humans and wildlife.)"  (http://www.theawl.com/user/12262/woodsman?page=2)"
 
And just what part of this advice is faulty? If they observe the very same precautions that law-enforcement use to kill humans with their high-powered weapons, which law-enforcement do every day, wherein is the danger? Do you trust the marksmanship skills of law-enforcement officers over that of gang-members? I certainly don't. The news is full of them both making deadly mistakes. Considering that feral-cats won't be living in areas that are rife with human habitation, it only serves to prove that gang member will shoot to death less humans than law-enforcement officers do.
 
(btw: did you know that there are WHOLE TOWNS and small citries in the USA that all inhabitants have been declared and convicted as "felons" by the USA goverment? Yes, they exist, and I documented their lives and how the change of a simple law turned all inhabitant of these towns and small cities into automatic "felons". Yet these people are more respectful of their fellow humans, their environment, and native wildlife than ANY law-enforcement officer. You really should get out of your mommy's basement more often.)
 
Keep typing Walter Lamb, I'm enjoying watching you prove to the rest of the world what an inept moron that you are.
 
 

No, Walter.  There is no mention of Tylenol by ABC or Audubon.  That's because the cat mafia has made sure that it is not registered for feral-cat control.  Your conclusion that I or anyone finds "joy" in killing feral cats is esp. brainless.  That's like saying we find joy in spending a boiling-hot summer day cutting and herbiciding Asian bittersweet.   We find joy in restoring native ecosytems.

Ted:
 
You called me an "ecological illiterate" for describing the task of killing cats as a joyless one and now you are calling me "brainless" because I'm missing some semantic disctinction between my calling it a joyless task and you calling it one that you find no joy in.  I think folks recognize the name calling as a distraction from the fact that you don't have a plan for reducing the number of feral cats in the environment.
 
If I'm wrong, just share the details of your Tylenol plan with us.  How will the poison be distributed and by whom?  What doses of Acetaminophen are required to cause mortality in cats?  Could any native wildlife, such as crows or snakes, potentially be harmed by this poison?  What about children?  How much will this cost and who will pay for it?  Given that it took 14 years of hunting, trapping, poisoning and introduction to eradicate Marion Island of about 2,500 cats, how long do you think this Tylenol campaign will take to make a dent in the North American population?  Are there any studies demonstrating the efficacy of this plan under conditions similar to those in which it will implemented in the U.S.?
 
It would be great if we were having a civil conversation in which questions like this could be asked and answered, rather than simply hurling insults.  No one reading your Audubon Magazine article could have known that you hold the views that you've articulated here on your blog, which you claim also represent the views of the American Bird Conservancy and The Wildlife Society.  I am going to suggest to Audubon Magazine that now would be a good time to revisit this important conservation discussion so that their readers can better understand the current consensus thinking on this topic.
 
Let's keep this conversation going.  As Woodsman notes, it proves what an "inept moron" I am.
 
Walter

Walter: No, I did not call you an “‘ecological illiterate’ for describing the task of killing cats as a joyless one.”  I wrote that “only an ecological illiterate would claim that saving native ecosystems” by removing invasive exotics is “joyless.”  No, I did not call you “brainless.”  I accurately wrote that your statement that I “find joy” in killing feral cats was “brainless.” 

I have always had a plan for reducing feral cats--humane euthanasia or keeping them in escape-proof enclosures at the expense of their advocates.  Trapping is legal and efficient.  Why do you imagine that I have a “Tylenol plan”?  As I explained to you, Tylenol is not registered for feral-cat control thanks to the lobbying of the brainless, ecologically illiterate cat mafia.  And no, native wildlife would not be affected by Tylenol.  It is very selective to cats.  Bobcats, lynx and cougars would not be at risk because they don’t sneak into barns and onto porches and eat bait.

It is not possible to educate or even have a “civil conversation” with feral-cat advocates.  My mission is to educate people who don’t know about the threat feral cats pose to wildlife.  No one is “hurling insults at you.”  Again, I did accurately describe one of your statements as “brainless.”  If you are not brainless, don’t make brainless statements.

Do you really believe there is “consensus thinking” on the feral-cat issue?  C’mon Walter.

"Given that it took 14 years of hunting, trapping, poisoning and introduction to eradicate Marion Island of about 2,500 cats"
 
This oft-spewed claim always amazes me. When I consider how many cats I had to destroy in densely wooded and heavy underbrush areas, and did so, ALONE, in under ONE YEAR, at a leisurely rate at that ... I can only think ...
 
The people in this Marion Island project were a bit like Scotty in Star Trek scenarios. Drag out the project as long as possible to get as much praise as possible for pretending how difficult the project was. In this case I think it was people who found a way to manipulate those with money into a 14 year career for themselves. After all, how many decent paying jobs are available on Marion Island? Hell, if I needed a buck and knew that if I could get rid of 2500 cats in only 1 year with just 4 people (easy, believe me, that's EASY,  that's less than 2 cats per person per day!), I too would keep telling everyone how difficult it is. And every day I'd go out with rifle in hand, firing at cats, and saying "OOOPS! Missed another one! How about you Bob? How many did you manage to miss today? 30? Well, we'd better get your rifle hunting skills up. We can't be dragging out this project and getting paid this well for FOURTEEN YEARS, can we now. LOL!!!!!!"
 
See how that works? That's the REAL world.
 
10 shooters, shooting 10 cats per day (that's not even a decent work day) means you could get rid of 2500 cats in 25 days. Someone got scammed REALLY GOOD.
 
 
 

Ted:  It's hard to have a productive conversation when you're talking in circles.  If you think trapping is effective and you consider it to be the central element of your plan for controlling feral cats, then why did you voice such strong agreement with Woodman's primary argument that "trap and kill doesn't work either"?  Which exactly of Woodman's many fascinating comments were you responding to when you said "Right on!  Very well said Woodsman!".  Did you actually read his comments before throwing your support behind them and suggesting that the American Bird Conservancy and The Wildlife Society shared his views?
 
Why did you attempt to rebut my claims that trapping is time consuming by talking about Tylenol if your own plan revolves around trapping and not Tylenol?  Since your own Audubon Magazine article addresses the challenges of trapping can't you just agree that my statement was both accurate and relevant, especially in light of your backtracking on Tylenol?
 
As for the Tylenol reference itself, you might consider arming yourself with some basic knowledge of Acetaminophen, Tylenol's active ingredient, before you start "educating" others about it.  You seem unaware of the research into its use as a toxin for controlling snakes and you seem to have no knowledge whatsoever as to how it would be used to control feral cats once it is appproved for use, as you assure us it will be.  Could you at least share with us which organizations sought its approval and which agency denied its approval?  I certainly hope that those arguing for its approval had a stronger case than you've provided.
 
Rather than cover your tracks on the charge of "ecological illiteracy" you could just acknowledge that it was unwarranted since you've echoed my original statement that the actual task of trapping and euthanizing cats is a joyless one.  Better yet, you could address the actual point I was making, which is that the task is unpleasant enough that even those who find joy in removing invasive species from native ecosystems can't be relied on to participate in trap and kill programs in sufficient number and with sufficient frequency to make an impact on feral cat populations.  I work with an organization that removes native species on hot summer days and we can get an abundance of volunteers every month (http://www.ballona.org/take-action/ballona-steward...).  Show me which wildlife organizations are calling on their members to participate in regularly scheduled cat round ups.   In your own article you missed an opportunity to encourage your readers to take any action.  If anything is ecologically illiterate it is thinking that a combination of righteous indignation and inaction will do anything to stem the formidable reproductive capabilities of cats.
 
My reference to "consensus" thinking was in response to your unsupported claim that the American Bird Conservancy and The Wildlife Society shared the views articulated on this blog.  Since you appear so conflicted about your own views, that issue seems moot now.  However, if you think that ABC or TWS are willing to go on record in supporting the approval and use of acetaminophen in managing feral cats, please encourage them to do so.
 
The bottom line is that hyper-polarized invective, whether from cat advocates or folks like you and Woodsman, isn't getting the job done.  Those insisting that TNR is a magic cure-all to the problem and those insisting that it is the root of the problem are just mirror images of one another.  Luckily, folks are starting to recognize the spin on both sides and those looking for real solutions will reject the demagoguery and will focus instead on objective analysis of all of the solutions available to their community and the pros and cons of each.

Nothing “works” in that it will “control” feral cats.  But substantially reducing them by trapping and shooting is certainly beneficial to native wildlife.  Do you really suppose that snakes are going to come into barns and onto porches and eat bait?  Hoop snakes perhaps?  I know exactly how Tylenol would be used to control feral cats.  You would grind up pills and add it the powder to sardines or catfood placed in strategic locations.  No--your original statement was not that “the actual task of trapping and euthanizing cats is a joyless one.”  You divined that I find “actual joy in the euthanasia of cats.”  Again, a brainless statement.  Unfortunately, there are very few wildlife organizations “calling on their members to participate in regularly scheduled cat round ups.”  They’re scared to death because of the power of the cat mafia.  Audubon is one of the few organizations that would allow me to write a piece advocating feral-cat control.   No.  I didn’t “miss an opportunity to encourage [my] readers to take any action.”  YOU missed my encouragement.  Re-read.  Why do you imagine that I am “conflicted.”  I am very clear on what I advocate.  Control feral cats in any way your state laws allow--trapping or shooting, depending on where you live.  The reason American “isn't getting the job done” has nothing to do with “invective.”  We need more of it on the part of wildlife advocates, not less.  It has to do with the ecological illiteracy of this nation and the political power of the cat mafia.
  

 

After having researched all the ways that trapping totally fails, I *DO* realize that due to laws that are supported by fools like this Walter Lamb, it makes it near impossible to reduce the number of cats faster than their breeding rates (far from their breeding rate, only <0.4% can be trapped).

HOWEVER, there ARE ways that you can make traps more effective if that's all that you are left with due to the ignorance of people like Mr. Lamb.

Adhering to my well learned lesson that you don't waste your time and energy arguing with cat-lovers, you just do what needs to be done, MUST be done:

1. If there are any feral or stray cat-feeders in your area, surreptitiously try to find out the EXACT brand and flavor of foods that they are feeding these cats that you need to trap and destroy. Feral (and wild) animals will only trust proven foods. And food with "Real Tuna Flavor!" on one brand's label will NOT smell nor taste the same to these cats as with "Real Tuna Flavor!" from another brand. Use what these criminally-irresponsible cat-feeders have been doing to your advantage. They have already trained these cats to completely trust the foods they are explicitly using, and will be highly wary of any others. The cats would rather wait for a food that they know they can trust rather than risk eating an untested food. Use these cat-feeders' foods to bait your traps. Later, you can thank the cat-feeders for spending so much time, effort, and money training those cats for you.

2. You might have to bait your trap with an effective "cat call". Contrary to popular first-misconceptions, "Here kitty kitty" will not work on feral cats. They evade human sounds. I had to use an MP3-player cat-call to get the remaining few on my land that would never come close enough for a humane kill. Get an MP3-player and those compact and inexpensive (~$3-5) battery-powered MP3-player speakers that you can get on ebay. Download sound-files of cats in heat, mewing kittens, and others. Cat-lovers are more than happy to share the sounds of theirs and others cats all over the internet. Now you can put those sound-files to a worthwhile purpose. Cats will check out these sounds for several reasons: territorial behavior, mating, or to destroy any kittens that are not theirs.

3. Some people reported that putting a stuffed animal in the trap with some catnip-extract is also effective to increase chances of a cat entering the trap.

Humanely Euthanizing a Trapped Cat

1. Put trap + cat in any water deep enough to drown them. This is often used in rural areas for excess kittens as well as excess adults. If you have nosy neighbors that will raise a stink, then do it in your bathtub or anywhere away from their eyes. If you can't get water deep enough at home, then tell your neighbors you're dropping them off at the shelter as you drive to the secluded shore of a lake or canal. (BTW: Don't trust your shelter to destroy them. In one horror story I read online, a person spent several $thousand in renting traps, only to find out their shelter turned them over to TNR fools because the shelter didn't want to be bothered with the expense and hassle. These TNR criminals then returned them to the person's business that the cats were previously destroying. Now under the watchful eye of animal-control that nothing can happen to those cats because they now belong to the very people who were trying to get rid of them. Out of $thousands and even worse off than before by taking them to an animal shelter because now they have no way at all of getting rid of them. This is just how much that cat-advocates can destroy your life and livelihood.)

2. Take trap + cat to any location where a gunshot cannot be heard (or would be of no concern) by others. A rural area or in your basement.  There are also very quiet types of .22's being sold today that are no louder than a CO2 air-rifle. Low-power, but powerful enough to humanely kill a cat. And in many rural areas nobody even thinks twice if they hear a gunshot going off in the distance -- it's a normal day, any time of year. (This popular method of taking the cat + trap to a safe location to shoot them was shared with me from people in Catifornia.)

3. CO Asphyxiation. Put trap + cat into a cardboard box large enough, and with lid-flaps to make a semi-decent seal. Hook a wet-vac or other hose to the exhaust of your car, insert other end of hose into a hole in the box, insert trap + cat into box. Close lid, start engine. This can also be made into a portable system by folding down the box and putting it in your trunk so you can take the cats to where you'll be disposing of them and euthanize them right there as well. Also helpful if you have neighbors as troublesome and ignorant as Mr. Lamb. One person also reported using a helium tank that you can buy for children's parties for baloons, instead of using CO (the helium displacing all oxygen). Covering the box or just the trap alone in a plastic bag to ensure a tight fit with only one small opposite exit for the displaced air. But I find this an exorbitant and expensive waste of $ and resources when CO is plenty and will do the same. Not to mention that there are dwindling resources of helium left available for more important uses. We can't make new helium. Once reserves are gone that's it. You can make all the CO that you want.

In all cases, be sure to bury or incinerate the carcasses so all the myriad diseases that cats carry won't go on to infect more wildlife nor humans.

Returning these highly-destructive invasive species back to the land (other than buried deeply) is not an option. They must be destroyed.

And another reason that Mr. Lamb and others believe that trapping is always ineffective is because the cat mafia keeps letting the trapped cats go, supposedly after sterilization.  It never occurs to them that sterile cats can kill wildlife, too, that a few viable males can knock up the unsterilized females, and that a fed feral-cat colony encourages cat owners tired of their cats to dump their pets for the free lunch.  Trapping can be effective depending on who does it and where.  If the trappers (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) know what they’re doing, they’ll get results.  If the cat colony is on an island, they’ll get even better results.  And if the cats have rabies, they’ll get the necessary resources to virtually wipe them out.

Gentlemen,
 
A truly fascinating discussion.  Good to have these comments on record so people can see the level of thought being put into this discussion.  I do hope that Audubon Magazine will see the benefit of revisiting this topic so that its readers can get a taste of the current thinking from a prominent spokesperson on the matter.
 
For the record, I never stated that trapping is ineffective -  Woodsman did, so it's interesting you want to argue with me about a statement he made.  I have consistently pointed out that the success or failure of any method of control is determined by the ability to trap or remove a sufficient number of cats to offset the reproduction of remaining unsterilized and uneuthanized cats.  It's a determination best reached by an objective mathematical analysis of available resources on a community by community basis, not demagoguery.  I actually agree that US Fish and Wildlife Service staff are likely to be efficient trappers, but I also know that most areas in which feral cats need to be controlled aren't under their jurisdiction.
 

I am glad that you acknowledged that most wildlife organizations are scared to back up their tough anti-TNR talk with the necessary action required to make lethal control work.  Blaming their lack of courage and candor on the "cat mafia" is the kind of cop out that doesn't save a single bird from cat predation.  The reason ABC and other groups are so skittish is because many of their own members have reservations about lethal control.  Why do you think ABC put so much focus on their Chico, CA sanctuary fairy tale in which they stress that even unadoptable cats "are living out their lives in the comfort of a fully enclosed barn on private property"?  [Of course, the sanctuary filled up and unsterilized, uneuthanized cats started reproducing and there is still a cat problem in Chico]  Do you think an organization stressing the comfort of cats has the stomach to go on record lobbying for approval of Tylenol poisoning, let alone rally their members to conduct sustained trap and remove projects?  You can easily prove me wrong by getting Steve Holmer to make an official statement on the matter.
 
Your readers can review what's been written here for themselves.  Just search for this: "... the joyless and time consuming task of trapping and euthanizing tens of millions of cats."  That was my original comment to which you took exception before later echoing it.
 
I'm happy to keep getting your views on the record.  If wildlife organizations want to actually address this problem, a little inward reflection is in order.  Talk is cheap.  Action is harder to come by.
 
 
Walter

Here's another reason that I advise people on why they should never use traps unless there's no other options to destroy-on-sight.
Those cats that have learned to evade all trapping methods are the next generations to survive. Ever hear the old adage, "If you invent a better mousetrap nature will just invent a better mouse."?

Now, thanks to trap-advocates, we have a race of freely roaming cats in all countrysides of every continent which are passing on their "how to survive" behavior to all their offspring, both genetically and behaviorally. The next phase of millions of feral-cats won't even be able to be trapped. This is just how dangerous it is to suggest the use of traps. You thought 150,000,000 feral cats (present USA est.) was bad? In colloquial terms, "You ain't seen nuthin' yet!"

There's a reason the phrase "hunted to extinction" is so well-known in all cultures across all lands. It is the *ONLY* method that is faster than a species can out-breed and adapt to.
 

The "nice"(?) thing about people like Walter Lamb is that we don't even need his words on record, we have 150 MILLION, soon to be 1.5 BILLION, feral cats spreading diseases to and destroying all life in every square foot of the USA to show and PROVE the effects and results of his criminally and morally irresponsible actions and beliefs.
 
I still ask, if the goal is to get rid of cats that nobody wants, and to do it as humanely as possible, and to prevent the suffering of cats (and wildlife), why was I alone able to COMPLETELY rid my land of all of them in just one year to accomplish EXACTLY what they've sought for decades, and yet they can't accomplish that simple feat ANYWHERE for how many decades now?
 
Clearly my method works, theirs does not -- AT ALL. You just have to be more than a spineless and heartless wuss to carry out this method to stop the cats from suffering and to stop all wildlife from suffering from their cats.
 
What's to discuss?
 
Humanely destroy them as fast as you see them, then they don't have to suffer for months from the TNR-advocate's method of animal-torture that they LOVE to call "attrition" (death by disease, attacks, exposure, starvation, being road-kill, etc. etc.). How much simpler of a solution can you get than that? Extremely inexpensively too. Rounds of '22's on sale made sure I solved the problem at the cost of 3 cats PER PENNY. No suffering -- all solution. Everything gets fixed.
 
The only thing we can't fix is "stupid" in the human gene pool. There's no legal solution for that.
 
Remember folks, do what needs to be done FIRST. My land is 100% cleared now of cats. I have all the time in the world to become a problem for people like Walter Lamb, just as they made their cats problems for everyone else for decades. Don't waste your time doing what I'm doing online. Stop reading, and go out and destroy any cats on your land FIRST. Only later, THEN you can have fun trying to educate the ineducable cat-advocate morons online like this Walter fool.  :-)
 
p.s.  for those of you incapable of comprehending why any cats that learn to evade traps will ensure a whole race of non-trappable cats. Perhaps you can think of it in terms you might be more familiar with. Think of traps like an antibiotic to a dangerous and harmful animal-eating bacteria. If you don't use an effective antibiotic or don't take enough of it, the bacteria only evolve to be completely resistant to that antibiotic. Eventually resistant to all antibiotics that are on the shelves-- the reason there are super-strains of bacteria in hospitals now. Traps are a wholly-ineffective antibiotic to this infection. Traps can't get rid of this animal-eating infection, they can only make it stronger.

Woodsman - I get your points. But for the record, drowning is NOT humane. The AVMA has a guide to euthanasia. Drowning is not considered humane. Neither is what you are describing by using the exhaust of a car. Now that there are catalytic converters, this does not work and essentially you wind up not killing the cats by means of CO but you cook them to death from the heat - not humane in the least. Shooting is one thing, the other suggestions are not euthanasia (good death).

I think the word "humane" is used by Woodsman and Ted in an obligatory sense.  I haven't read anything about Acetaminophen toxicosis that suggests it is "humane."  I think it is fair for wildlife advocates to ask whether control methods must necessarily be limited to those that are humane when threatened native species might be at risk, but trying to have it both ways just sends mixed messages.  I'm sure Ted will blame the "cat mafia" for forcing him to use the term "humane".

Thanks for the heads-up on the car-exhaust problem. Since I don't use that method but it was well known when I was a kid I didn't take new exhaust-emission treatment into consideration. This means you only have to use the exhaust from any other internal-combustion engine without any catalytic converter on it (or bypass the one on your car, which many people do by draining out all the pellets from the converter). Use a lawnmower, yard-tractor, leaf-blower, etc. exhaust instead then. CO2 would work too, and there's plenty of sources for that. You just need to displace the oxygen. Even paintball-gun tanks available at any Walmart would probably have enough CO2 in them. You just need the right fittings and a valve. I recall an interesting show on PBS where people in a volcanic village would instantly die if they accidentally stepped into a shallow ravine that was pooled with CO2. They quickly passed-out and couldn't climb back out again.

And as for drowning not being humane, why is it not? Most people who have survived drowning claim that when their lungs were finally full with water it was actually a very peaceful and painless experience. It's just the initial holding of the breath that's difficult. And since that doesn't last as long as the torment of trapping, caging, and being paralyzed with drugs, trapped in a state of torment until animal-shelter methods take effect, 1 minute of drowning is far superior to days of animal-shelter's torment.

Drowning is still a popular and often-used method most everywhere. I don't think that someone sitting behind a desk and putting their opinions on paper is going to change that any time soon. I suspect most of the reasons they don't advise this is to dissuade people from having a simple and readily-available method that anyone could easily use which would detract from business ($) for veterinarians. I've noticed this "gotta keep the money in our pockets" trend with other "official reports" put out by any faction associated with the pet-care industry.

A footnote that I have attached to other posts of mine ...

 ** (Though to be perfectly honest, considering how cats cruelly torture and destroy all other animals by ripping the skins off of live animals or disemboweling them for slowly dying and twitching cats' play-toys (not even using them for food), I'm not sure why cats should be given the privilege of a humane death. I've been drawn to many animal screams in my woods to find their cats shredding another animal to death; which I had to then quickly put that animal out of its misery, torment, and suffering caused by that cat. Lucky for those I found so fast from their screams. Other wildlife that I'd find days later had died a slow and agonizing death from wounds after being shredded by their cats. I guess I'm just more humane than all cat-lovers and their cats, that's why their cats get shot and die instantly instead of equitably and justifiably tortured to death. If cat-advocates want REAL justice for their cats then any cat found outdoors would have to be cruelly tortured to death the same way their cats cruelly torture all other animals -- something that I couldn't do. Maybe that's why TNR-advocates don't mind that their cats slowly die of "attrition" -- by disease, attacks, exposure, starvation, road-kill, etc., on ad-infinauseum.)

Killing them "humanely" should be only a minor concern at this point. Especially considering that not ONE TNR'ed cat has EVER died humanely all these years. They die by the inhumane method of "attrition". TNR-advocates can kill cats inhumanely, but nobody else can? Doesn't make sense, does it. A TNR'ed cat can take a year to die from disease, or months to die from cat-fight wounds, or days to die from being hurt by a vehicle, laying there in the brush or out of sight gasping for breath for days from some injury caused by being released as a TNR'ed cat, but they can't take a few hours to die the very same way from a poison?
 
Just because you don't see how your TNR cat dies inhumanely means that it doesn't die inhumanely? Is that it? Is that how it works with you TNR-advocates? Are you that amazingly brain-dead?

A TNR advocate not suggesting the faster method of using poison to end their cats' suffering makes them into a hypocrite. Using any poison is a more humane method than killing cats with TNR.

We have 150 MILLION of them to get rid of, soon to be 1.5 BILLION within the year. You'll just have to face up to the fact that due to cat-advocates' criminally irresponsible behavior all these years, that some of their piece-of-sh** vermin are just not going to get to "go gentle into that good night". Just like every TNR'ed cat. And isn't that just too bad.

Blame yourselves cat-lovers -- _YOU_ CAUSED THIS.

So which is it, TNR-advocates? Shooting or poison to more quickly end their suffering, both of which are faster and FAR FAR more humane than the TNR method that you use to reduce cat populations. Which will it be? We have 150 million cats now to PROVE that torturing cats with TNR doesn't work, we have to use a far faster method to get rid of them all. That's a FACT.
 
I'm still against poisons, in that poison might go on to harm any wildlife that might feed on that dead cat, but then the cats' diseases are just as harmful to wildlife as any poison that cat might ingest. A whole opossum family here died from eating cat-meat once. A cat I had shot, not poisoned. Nope, I'm back to square one. The ONLY safe and effective method is by shooting and immediate removal, followed by burying or incineration. All other methods can cause further harm. For those of you who live where firearms can't be used, then I suggest you look online about how to build suppressors (silencers) for guns and use the ever popular "SSS Cat Management Program" -- Shoot, Shovel, & Shut-Up.

Yes, CO2, when used properly is considered humane. Here are the full guidelines by the AVMA (I am not suggesting people go out and do this, but because the subject has arisen, here is the info):

http://www.avma.org/issues/animal_welfare/euthanas...

Drowning does not seem to fit the bill:

(Remember, the people are the idiots, the animals should not suffer because people were stupid and let them loose, run free, or did TNR):

The term euthanasia is derived from the Greek terms eu meaning good and thanatos meaning death.2 A “good death” would be one that occurs with minimal pain and distress. In the context of these guidelines, euthanasia is the act of inducing humane death in an animal. It is our responsibility as veterinarians and human beings to ensure that if an animal’s life is to be taken, it is done with the highest degree of respect, and with an emphasis on making the death as painless and distress free as possible. Euthanasia techniques should result in rapid loss of consciousness followed by cardiac or respiratory arrest and the ultimate loss of brain function. In addition, the technique should minimize distress and anxiety experienced by the animal prior to loss of consciousness.

Clearly this thread has run its course.  It's never fair to to judge an entire group of people by the extreme views of a single person and I know that many people who oppose TNR would also reject the outlandish proposals and claims being presented by Woodsman.  Those claims, by themselves, aren't particularly noteworthy.

But it is noteworthy that a prominent spokesperson like Ted Williams agreed so forcefully and repeatedly with those views.  This highlights just how strong the "group think" has become on this issue.  If someone is perceived to be sufficiently opposed to TNR, the "critical analysis" switch goes off in the head.  It isn't about having a coherent argument, it is about having a loud and unified argument.  Of course, the same is true of many cat advocates as well.

We need more rational voices on this topic to speak up.

Walter

And yet, for all the bleeding-heart stupidity presented by cat-advocates it is THEIR TRAPPING SOLUTION which has slowed everything down to where they are now breeding exponentially out of control. If you can come up with a far far faster method than trapping which is also humane (shooting being one of the MOST humane methods) to get rid of them, then by all means do so. Until then, every word coming from you people is easily dismissed.
 
YOU HAVE FAILED.
 
TRAPPING DOES NOT CUT IT.
 
YOU'VE PROVED THAT WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.
 
 

Woodsman has it right.  Shooting is efficient and humane.  The bleeding hearts have made it illegal in some states.

Ted - Not to beat a dead horse, but this is why I described your views on this topic as conflicted.  You want to voice solidarity with Woodsman even though he vehemently disputes your belief that trapping is effective.  You seem to recognize that eradicating cats by rifle is only a fraction of a solution at best or you wouldn't have highlighted trapping when describing your proposed management plan.  I can't imagine that you support Woodsman's proposal to employ armed gangs to hunt cats in urban environments or that people should make homemade silencers in order to shoot cats where doing so is illegal, but you've passed on every opportunity to disagree with those comments and every opportunity to say that he is correct.
 
You also seem conflicted about whether methods to control feral cats should be limited to those that are humane.  I doubt that Acetaminophen poisoning would be considered humane based on the toxicosis reports I was able to find.  Do you consider that approach to be humane?  I am not making any judgements, just looking for some consistency.
 
Walter

“Conflicted” only in your imagination, Walter. What do you mean by “effective”? Woodsman has it right that feral cats learn to avoid traps. But in many situations trapping is the only method that is legal. Therefore it is the MOST effective legal method in those situations. You seem to be searching for ways to give up on controlling feral cats. Do I think you can eliminate them by trapping? No, in most cases. Yes, in a few situations, esp. on islands and when professionals are doing it —the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, for example. But eliminating some feral cats is better than eliminating no feral cats. You seem to want to talk and study forever— the ancient alternative to action. I am all for Woodsman’s proposal to shoot feral cats in urban or any environments, provided the law allows it.

Moral of the Story:

I wasted 15 YEARS of my life arguing with demented cat-lovers. During which time THEIR _INVASIVE_SPECIES_ CATS DESTROYED ALL NATIVE WILDLIFE ON MY LAND. All native prey became tortured cats' play-toys, all native predators STARVED TO DEATH. Those that became neither died of cats' diseases they spread everywhere (which not only includes the potentially deadly and mind-altering Toxoplasma gondii parasite, but rabies, hookworm, the plague, flea-borne typhus, and now tularemia; they are nothing but 4-legged bags of deadly infestation today).

It wasn't until I STOPPED arguing and on advice of the sheriff finally did what needed to be done -- SHOOT ALL CATS -- that my land, all the wildlife on my land, and my life itself started to return to normal. I no longer have to go out twice a day on cat-patrol to shoot more cats nor waste more time and energy burying them to protect wildlife from the diseases they carry. Much to the chagrin of manipulative TNR LIARS that spew their psychotic "vacuum effect" bullsh**. NO CATS have replaced them. The native predators and all other native wildlife THAT BELONGS HERE replaced them!

Learn from this. You can argue with the Toxoplasmosis parasites in the cat-lovers' brains until you are blue in the face and your whole planet is destroyed by their cats, but it'll never get rid of the cats that have destroyed your life and all wildlife.

JUST DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE -- DESTROY THEM.

Cats listed in The TOP 100 WORST INVASIVE-SPECIES OF THE WORLD in the "Global Invasive-Species Database":
http://www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?s...

Cats are _NOT_ exempt from invasive-species laws!

IT IS YOUR CIVIC AND MORAL RESPONSIBILITY TO DESTROY ANY INVASIVE-SPECIES WHEN FOUND AWAY FROM SAFE CONFINEMENT IN A NON-NATIVE HABITAT.

In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-sight. Since cats are genetically engineered through selective-breeding and no longer have ANY native habitat ANYWHERE on earth these laws include cats. Much to the dismay of all criminally irresponsible and psychotic cat-lovers who are desperately trying to raise them to some absurd level of "Community Cats". If they do that then I'll just raise "Community Pet Piranha" and release them in all your lakes and pools, or "Community Pet Black-Mambas" and release them in all your backyards and parks, then claim the exact same protections for them as cat-advocates want for THEIR INVASIVE-SPECIES CATS. It'd only be fair! (Are you starting to see just how absurd and ludicrous these cat-people are yet?)

Only later, AFTER your land and life are 100% free of these invasive-species cats, can you have fun trying to educate the ineducable. Use the time you got back from their invasive-species taking over your life to share the best ways to destroy all cats -- without harming any other wildlife or humans. Then if you want, make YOUR life THEIR problem. Just as they made THEIR cats YOUR problem for all these many years. It's only fair! Because that's what it's really all about, isn't it. It's not about cats at all. They only want to control your life with their cats. You can put a stop to that immediately by destroying their cats. And there's NOT ONE THING they can do about it if you do it right. They'll no longer have any part of your life.

"In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-sight." 

 

I wish this was so, but it's not.  That's why we have guys so indoctrinated with no-kill that they release brook trout in reclaimed greenback cutt streams of Rocky Mountain National Park.

In Wis. feral cats got so bad that in 2005 the Wisconsin Conservation Congress—a purely advisory entity sired by Aldo Leopold to ensure public participation in DNR decision making—considered a proposal to recommend that free-ranging cats be placed on the unprotected list along with skunks, starlings, and the like. At hearings in 72 counties the proposal was supported by a majority of the public. It was hardly a radical notion because cats have long been classified as unprotected wildlife in other states. It wasn’t even necessary because there had never been a Wisconsin law against drowning or shooting problem cats on one’s own property.

 

Still, the cat mafia caterwauled. Failing to grasp the difference between game protected by seasons and bag limits and unprotected nongame, the press wrongly reported that the state was considering opening a hunting season on house cats. One inflammatory piece, in the Wisconsin State Journal, was used in a Society of Environmental Journalists workshop as an example of how to warp news. The din ultimately induced Governor Jim Doyle to issue a proclamation that cats wouldn’t be hunted in Wisconsin.

“I am all for Woodsman’s proposal to shoot feral cats in urban or any environments, provided the law allows it.”

My understanding is that shooting is not legal in most urban/suburban settings. Clearly, cat colony problems are rampant in cities and suburbs and are only getting worse, which is why we need support for traditional animal control. Seriously! Check out the article below – a glimpse into the future of life in a ‘no-kill’ world. Ted, maybe in a more rural area, shooting may be the humane method of choice. But, for those of us living in the suburbs and busy cities that have a little green patch here and there – well, we need to be able to trap or have animal control trap for removal and impoundment. Unfortunately, the trend by the larger organizations promoting TNR are to take away the rights of property owners to do just that – AND to encourage shelters not to accept feral cats at all!

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x843641026/Luciano-Real...

Ted - Since you are aware that I spent considerable time and money drastically reducing the feral cat population in my neigborhood, I don't think you really believe that my goal is inaction.  My goal has been to make sense of what plan of action you are proposing.  Beyond islands managed by USFWS or a similar agency, it's pretty clear that you haven't given it much thought, especially when you talk about hunting cats with rifles in cities like New York, Los Angeles or Detroit.
 
I'm the first to acknowledge that the success of my backyard TNR project doesn't have any bearing on other projects in other settings.  That's a key point that is lost on you and others who want to reduce a range of values, choices and settings down to a child-like narrative of good vs evil.  This isn't a fairy tale, it is a real world problem driven by the daunting mathematics of feline reproductive capabilities.  Suggesting that eliminating a few cats is better than eliminating no cats ignores the very science that you cited in your own Audubon Magazine blog.  Both lethal and non-lethal approaches to feral cat management must meet minimum thresholds to be effective.
 
You know how to tap into the anger and frustration on this issue and the romantic yearning for a more manly, wild-west culture, but you have nothing of substance to offer the thousands of local policy makers across mainland North America who want actual solutions for their urban and suburban communities.
 
The Wisconsin law that you referenced above and also in your Audubon Magazine article is actually a great example of how tough talk is rarely backed by tough action.  You note that feral cats were a huge problem in 2005 but you also note that is was perfectly legal to shoot or drown cats on private property right up to that point.  Why weren't more people taking advantage of that right?
 
"Concerned" raises an excellent point in the comment above.  When push comes to shove, most opponents of TNR are more concerned about losing their option for traditional animal control than they are in shutting down individual TNR projects.  I tend to share that concern because eliminating that option takes the pressure of cat rescue groups to demonstrate that they can consistently and substantially reduce populations of feral cats via non-lethal control.  The reality is that anything short of substantial and sustained population reduction will ultimately lead to cats being euthanized anyway.
 
We are making some progress in this thread.  You finally saw fit to correct one of the many misstatements by Woodsman.  You might want to weigh in on a few others as well, such as his prediction that we'll have 1.5 billion feral cats within the year - just for the sake of credibility.

Walter, Walter, Walter:

Why do you keep insisting that I am proposing “a plan of action”?  I write something and you read something utterly alien.  For example, you accuse me of “talking about hunting cats with rifles in cities like New York, Los Angeles or Detroit.”  Huh????  How do you come up with this stuff?  And how can we have a dialogue when you make such preposterous statements?  I’m not sure what you’ve done in your neighborhood, but you seem to want to study feral-cat control forever while they multiply.  Communities need to eliminate them any way they legally are able: trapping or shooting and NEVER releasing.  If people don’t want to euthanize them (as they of course should) they should keep them in enclosures and on permanent welfare, as we do for some of the feral horses that infest the West.

“Both lethal and non-lethal approaches to feral cat management must meet minimum thresholds to be effective.”  That’s just verbal excreta.  What’s “minimum”?  What’s “effective”?  I did not cite any “science of eliminating cats” for the simple reason that none exists.  Usually, it is not possible to eliminate cats.  Usually, it is possible to reduce them.  That’s better than doing nothing.  And wildlife advocates don’t need me to arouse their “anger.”  Any wildlife advocate who isn’t angry isn’t paying attention.

 

And thank you Ted for being brave enough to both broach the subject and to follow up with all the comments.

I have a good friend who is very involved with TNR in another country. She's young and a biologist. I also read a very informative article in a wildlife management magazine that was an eye opener. I like cats, I've had them as pets, they're amazing animals.

None the less... I understand why all ferals should be killed as cheaply and effectively as possible. Eventually the US will probably reach a tipping point.

Again good reading, thanks.

" 'In fact, it is against the law to NOT destroy an invasive-species on-sight.'

I wish this was so, but it's not.  That's why we have guys so indoctrinated with no-kill that they release brook trout in reclaimed greenback cutt streams of Rocky Mountain National Park."

This is why in other statements of mine, ANYONE can fall back on the "SSS Cat Management Program" -- Shoot, Shovel, & Shut-Up. That's legal everywhere in the world. And if you cannot do it without drawing attention, then it can be modified into the "TDSS Cat Management Program" -- Trap, Drown, Shovel, & Shut-Up. That too is legal everywhere in the world. [Btw: I did some calculations and a 16-gram C02 cartridge for a paintball-gun creates 6.57 liters of gas at 100% concentration at atmospheric pressure. Which is just about 400 cubic inches of space. Considering they use 30% to 50% concentration of CO2 for humane euthanasia, you could use a 16-gram CO2 cartridge to euthanize a cat in a 800-1200 cubic-inch area of confinement. (8"-12" x 10" x 10") That seems pretty small, so adjust number of cartridges required accordingly. They lose consciousness in under 1 minute and have respiratory arrest in under 5 minutes. Information taken from previously supplied AVMA documentation.]

Just because there may not be a government law that decrees the rightful thing to do -- destroy invasive species cats, doesn't mean that there's not a moral and common-sense law that this is what must be done. Until spineless and ignorant lawmakers get their heads out of their asses, and do what's right, instead of destroying every ecosystem on the planet in trying to garner the cat-lovers' votes (an ecological disaster caused by their conflict-of-interest) ... we just have to rely on people who have the strength of heart and sensibility and sense of responsibility to do what is right. We can no longer wait around for spineless and ignorant lawmakers. We're already up  to assholes-deep in their piece-of-shit cats. It doesn't need to get any deeper than it already is for people to see and do what MUST BE DONE.

p.s. I'm also well aware of other brainless acts that law-makers and the DNR has caused to threatened and endangered trout species in the Rockies. Like the time they introduced an invasive-species crustacean to help feed one threatened species, only to find out that same crustacean fed on the eggs of 2 other even far more endangered species, one being a Blue-Trout something or other. (Sorry, I forget exactly which species these were, I was informed of this when fishing the streams out that way one year long-ago, by some DNR officials who were explaining what happened to their now missing trout. Their own acts causing the trout being moved from endangered to presumed extinct.) Having laws and educated environmentalists in agreement is not always a wise thing. Some of the stupidest people I have ever met in life have had a PhD after their names and had done the most damage of all to the natural environment. Sometimes it will fall on those with the most common-sense and real-life experience and lifetime observations to do the right thing -- lawmakers or not.

Well, I'm not saying this shouldn't be done.  I'm saying that shoot, shovel and shut up is against the law in some states.  That's a fact, though an unhappy fact.  I do agree with you that there are higher laws.  For example, picking up a freshly hit ruffed grouse on the road in August is aganst the law.  It's also against a higher law to let it rot.

Dear Walter .... I took the population numbers from those that TNR advocates trust and use then ran them through population growth calculations from the years those numbers were published. 150 MILLION feral-cats today is a LOW LOW LOW LOW estimate of how many are in existence according to cats genetics and behavior. Taking that 150 million and projecting it to 1.5 BILLION in a year's time, is also a LOW LOW LOW LOW estimate. It should actually be about 2.4 BILLION. Would you rather I use that more realistic number that the cats' reproduction rates spit out in the calculations?

And Ted, not a correction but when I mean SSS is legal, it really is. If nobody knows about it it's perfectly legal. There's no crime committed if it never happened. In fact, even where it IS legal to destroy any cat on your own property, local law-enforcement usually asks that you don't tell anyone because then criminally-irresponsible cat-lovers will raise a stink and waste the police department's valuable time in having to explain to the cat-lover why it's legal for their neighbors to shoot cats in their area. They've got better things to do than cater to and coddle criminally-irresponsible pet-owners. They'll learn why their cats disappeared when they start asking more knowledgeable neighbors who inform them of local laws. And who's to say their cat didn't become road-kill? That's just how much cat-lovers care about their cats, they let them get run-over by cars. So what difference does it make if they get shot too? Same thing. By shooting them you are actually doing even more public service than destroying an invasive species, you are preventing someone from having a deadly car-accident in having to swerve to miss that cat. People who let their cats out never consider that, do they, they only think about themselves. Though here, people aim their cars for cats if its safe for all else to do so.

After typing the last comment and out of curiosity, I plugged the following into a google search:
 
cat "car accident" swerved "to miss"
 
I only got 340,000 hits.
 
Granted, not all of those search hits are swerving to miss a cat, but a good number of them are. Many of them deadly accidents caused by free-roaming cats. "Shoot a stray cat to save a family of 4" might become a new bumper-sticker.
 
There are probably better ways to find out exact statistics on this from insurance companies and accident reports, but I'm not THAT curious to hunt down the info. Though it would be interesting to know as a data-point just how many car accidents are caused each year by stray cats, and how many human fatalities and injuries were the result. Then we can add auto-accidents to the ever growing and amazingly lengthy list of why cats should not be allowed to roam free.

My last post seems to be either stuck in the moderation queue or vanished into thin air.  In any event, Woodsman, you can quote whatever absurd figures you want.  If you took them from cat advocacy groups then those groups are also quoting absurd figures, although I doubt that is the case since you are complaining on the TWS blog that such groups are underestimating the number of feral cats.
 
That Ted seems to agree with your estimate, which has now jumped from 1.5 to 2.4 billion, is another example that this is not a science-based discussion.

Walter: I deleted your post because it violated my extremely liberal netiquette guidelines.  To wit: A post must be relevant.  A post must be more or less civil.  And a post must be somewhat intelligible.  You flunked on the last category.  Your current post in which you make the absurd claim that I “seem to agree” that there are 1.5 to 2.4 billion cats is borderline.  But I’ve let it go.  If you wish to continue this dialogue, you will cease your preposterous statements.

To tell the truth Walter, the ONLY reason I quote any numbers at all (obtained through valid scientific principles and advanced math) is because idiots seem to think they are important.
 
WHEN IN FACT, the number of feral cats out in the wild is IRRELEVANT.
 
They are an "invasive species".
 
Do you KNOW what that means? It means, that if even ONE native animal is harmed or even threatened by even ONE invasive species, then that INVASIVE SPECIES MUST BE DESTROYED.
 

From Ted to Walter:

Walter: If you have something fresh and cogent to say, let's hear it.  Otherwise, expect to be deleted as you have been three times  now.

A word of correction on what I said about those numbers spit out by valid calculations.

When discussing whether a highly-destructive, disease-spreading, invasive-species like cats should or should not be allowed to roam free; then it's true, those numbers are useless and are only used by manipulative con-artist idiots who think that those numbers have some validity on whether or not an invasive-species should be allowed to destroy native wildlife.

1 native animal destroyed by 1 invasive-species cat =  destroy ALL invasive species cats.

No complex recursive population-growth calculus required there! Just logic and basic common-sense.

HOWEVER these population-growth numbers can become very important when deciding on the best course of action to take in solving the feral-cat disaster. They let any populace know if they'll ever have the financial resources to do so by using their preferred method. In most cases, every municipality must allocate anywhere from 1/10th to 1/2 $BILLION PER YEAR if employing TNR costs just to catch-up to their breeding rates (presuming that rate is met today, not a month from now) -- sustaining that expense YEARLY into perpetuity. This range of TNR expense also kept showing up whenever I analyzed any area's TNR efficacy which always resulted in <0.4% cats being trapped anywhere. Whereas shooting them results in costs substantially lower -- in the range of $2,000 to $75,000 for 1 year, per populated area. (Cost being very much ammo sale-price dependent.) Which ends up being a ONE-TIME-EXPENSE. And one which also solves all the myriad problems with destruction of wildlife (not even harassing them with non-discriminatory traps), protection of rare and endangered species, spread of deadly diseases, as well as being one of the most humane methods available to nearly anyone and everyone. (Law-makers permitting. Or not permitting, if they give you no other choice. There's always SSS.) It is also a cost that is attainable by the tax-base in most every area. Let's not forget the most important reason of all -- it is the ONLY method that can easily catch-up to and surpass cats' breeding rates and their ability to out-adapt/outfox things like traps. "Out-adapt" also includes things like growing resistant to poisons or adapting to presently-fatal diseases. (Another method often employed to get rid of cats, by intentionally infecting cat-colonies with diseases which are fatal to them. However, any that survive will not be able to be rid of next time by using the same disease. A basic evolutionary principle and problem that the antibiotics industry knows all too well.)

Numbers matter, very much, but only when you put them to good and relevant use.

We all know, it's been proved 100% in every location, that trapping has failed and failed disasterously. Trap & sterilize does not work. Trap and kill does not work. The common denominator -- slow, inefficient, easily outfoxed traps.
 
People living in urban areas are locked behind laws passed by incredibly ignorant and stupid lawmakers as well as wanting to ensure the safety of their neighbors in finding the swiftest methods to remove all cats from their neighborhoods.
 
The other day (while posting something) another novel solution came to mind for the trapped urbanite.
 
Use Tazer/Stun-Guns. Police have no problems using them on humans knowing they are potentially deadly even on humans. Employ them to take out your excess cats. Granted, you won't have the range afforded by a decent .22 or even a good air-rifle. And you might have to still resort to quick-confinement and drowning or a quick injection after they are immobilzed. But you'll be able to get more cats as well as those that have already learned to evade all trapping methods. (A common problem reported online by people who are advised to use traps. They just give up and buy a .22 or air-rifle instead.)
 
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taser   "There are a number of cartridges designated by range, with the maximum at 35 feet (10.6 m). Cartridges available to non-law enforcement consumers are limited to 15 feet (4.5 m)."
 
Either of those ranges could be considered within distance of many bird-feeders. :-)
 
I bet that exceptions will be made for "civilians" on the type of cartridge that can be purchased, once "Feral-Cat Erradication Patrols" are coordinated in every neighborhood, town, and city -- as they'll eventually be forced to do. What with people like Walter Lamb in the world who are only ensuring the exponential increase of feral-cat populations everywhere. They'll have no choice in the matter then.
 
Do note: Sterilizing will NEVER EVER EVER be considered a viable option on any cat that's allowed to roam free. This does NOTHING to prevent an invasive species from spreading diseases and detroying native wildlife. If you're going to do the job, then do it right. Solve ALL the problems your cats cause in the world -- or get out of the way for those that can, will, and do.

Just a heads-up, because I don't know how long it will take the owners of wildlifeprofessional.org to fix the problem and I'm not sure where to report this to, but if you go to that site you will be redirected to some scam outfit. Do NOT put in your email address or try to send any email on any of the pages that links to their address. It's just a blank page with a place to put in your email addresses and send an email.
If in doubt, right-click and view "page souce" to see what  the hijackers are up to.
The homepage automatically redirects you to their scam site, all other links redirect you to the email page.
Looks like cat-lovers are stepping-up their attacks on anyone who is trying to do something about all the problems they cause in the world.
 
 

Woodsman HAS BEEN POSTING ON 100's OF SITES the same exact wording. He’s obviously a landowner with a financial interest in being able to shoot cats on his property. Most of his arguments are distortions of statistics or irrelevant if you check them. Such as links to studies showing that fleas cause disease, etc. So what?
TNR does help reduce cat populations. Those who promote it have the same goal as the landowners like this guy. Cats are just wild animals. The reason they are multiplying on your land is because you upset the ecosystem by killing all the coyotes, wolves, owls, etc. Certain groups are heavily propagandizing to advocate killing of all wild animals in favor of expanding human expansion, profits, etc...Successful TNR threatens their goals.
Shooting cats is not the answer. Some of them are already friendly and have been set free by ignorant people… There’s a lot of youtube videos of happy endings with for feral cats. An example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0c3shTi-A . If the goal is to eliminate suffering, TNR helps. Also, these programs must be allowed to continue because eventually science can find a more effective way to mass sterilze cats via biotech and perhaps some sort of dna-altering substances which can be put in their food. (and which would only sterilize cats, not other species). Something like that. This would also solve the problem for landowners like the one who’s posting all this over-puffed comments.

Hey Anon: Please desist from this BS.  Trap, Neuter and Re-abandon does not “reduce” feral cat populations.  I know, I’ve seen it in action.  In the majority of cases TNR INCREASES cat populations in the following ways: 1. the inoculations extend the lifetime and wildlife killing of cats trapped and re-abandoned; 2. the feeding does the same; 3. feral cat colonies that are fed and medicated are magnets for people who want to ditch their cats.  Could it be that Woodsman’s agenda is merely the protection of native wildlife?

Ted - You really are doing yourself no favors with your continued insistence on defending of Woodsman at every turn.  The gentleman is simply not right in the head:
 
http://wildlifeprofessional.org/blog/?p=4088&cpage...
 
As for TNR, the negative aspects that you cite need to be part of the equation in determining the overall relative values of different approaches.  They no more support universal opposition to TNR in all cases than side effects of a medication would support banning that medication.  A doctor can factor negative side effects into his determination of a treatment, deciding in one case that the benefits outweigh the drawbacks and in another that they do not.
 
Walter Lamb

Walter:

Defending Woodsman’s basic position is different than defending Woodsman.  Like the rest of us he doesn’t always get everything exactly right.  But his central argument is correct--id est, that Trap, Neuter, and Re-abandon is a counterproductive fraud gotten out and defended by bleeding-heart ecological illiterates and that nature would be well rid of feral cats and defenders and enablers of feral cats.  Feral cats are a threat both to wildlife and people.  Your central argument is incorrect--id est, that we need to keep studying and weighing and diddling forever well the cat mafia does TNR and feral cats continue to sterilize the wild.