I’m trying to get to bedrock on conflicting assertions and policies related to free-ranging cats and songbirds. The American Bird Conservancy has posted a new video criticizing an array of programs across the country through which well-meaning animal lovers “trap, neuter and release” feral cats.
Search the Web for “ trap, neuter, release” or “ feral cat coalition” and you’ll find such efforts from Indiana to Florida to Washington State. The idea is that, once sterilized, populations of wild cats will slowly decrease on their own accord by attrition. The video, and other experts on bird-cat interactions, strongly dispute this, noting that in some cases enduring communities of feral cats are a magnet for cat owners seeking a place to dump their unwanted kittens or cats.
Officials at the Humane Society of the United States say the video presents a one-sided view of a legitimate problem. In a phone chat, Nancy Peterson, the head of cat programs for the society, said the bird group’s proposed solutions, including cat sanctuaries, were completely untenable in a world of limited resources. She described a variety of places where trapping and neutering greatly reduced cat populations. Ms. Peterson added that cat owners ideally should keep their cats indoors or within a confined area, to avoid adding to wild populations (and the killing of birds) and that cat lovers feeding stray or feral animals should seek help in getting them neutered. Otherwise, she said, populations can quickly spiral out of control.
A recent article in the Humane Society’s magazine has identified something of a middle ground in this heated arena:
“Is there such a thing as a cat-person or a bird-person?” asked a 2008 press release from the Audubon Society of Portland in Oregon. “It’s not about birds versus cats; it’s about protecting birds and cats.”
It was an unusual statement from a wildlife organization, but that group’s conservation director, Bob Sallinger, defies some of the stereotypes that animal advocates have about conservationists. For one, he’s skeptical of lethal control solutions aimed at protecting one species from another— something many environmentalists support when they believe a species is threatened. “Where does it end?” Mr. Sallinger said. “I struggle with that.”
And despite the years he spent overseeing a wildlife rehabilitation hospital that receives a steady flow of the victims of house cat attacks, he doesn’t hold a grudge against cats either. Almost a third of bird species in Oregon are in serious trouble, Mr. Sallinger says, but “even if we solve the cat problem tomorrow, it’s not going to stop bird populations from declining. It would just be removing one pressure—and none of [the pressures] are going to be solved overnight.”
But many people involved with bird conservation are far less accommodating. I also contacted Suzie Gilbert, a neighbor of mine and the author of “Flyaway”, a book about her experiences as a bird rehabilitator. She’s always mainly focused on hawks and other raptors but has for years gotten calls from people who’ve come across songbirds wounded by cats. She sides, no surprise, with the bird group and pointed me to this passage in her book:
As a wildlife rehabilitator, I see firsthand the damage cats do to birds. Of all the ways human beings casually slaughter “protected” wildlife, letting domesticated cats outside is by far the most egregious, and the most easily shrugged off. People who wouldn’t dream of taking a shotgun and blasting a bird out of a tree let their cats outside, which accomplishes the exact same thing but in a slower and more horrifying way. The cat doesn’t need to tear the bird to pieces, either: one tiny nick will of a cat’s claw or tooth will subject the bird to enough bacteria to kill it, only it will take the bird one or two days to die. If the bird is a single parent feeding nestlings, they will all starve to death.
Precautionary measures simply do not work. During an 18-month period, a single cat roaming a wildlife experiment station killed over 1,600 birds and small mammals. A study in England showed that cats wearing bells killed more birds than cats without them; during a study in Kansas, a free-roaming declawed cat killed more birds than the cats with claws.
Those who profess to love the cats they let outside ignore the fact that the average life span of an indoor cat is 15-19 years, while the life span of cats allowed outside is two to three. Outdoor cats fall prey to cars, animal attacks (including dogs, wildlife and other cats), human abuse, poisoning, traps and a host of diseases, including rabies. Those who “love” their cats might want to show it by keeping them inside, where they are safe and secure. And perhaps those who profess to “love” nature shouldn’t advertise their hypocrisy by allowing their pets to slaughter the dwindling wildlife populations around them.
Here’s a video produced by the Humane Society about the issue and the trap, neuter, release strategy:
Are there feral cats where you live, or attempts to control them? A separate, even more heated, issue is whether pet cats should be allowed to roam backyards and woods freely. I’m a dog owner. Our older dog has on occasion killed squirrels, a rabbit and at least (unforgettably) one skunk. Nonetheless, we choose to let the dogs explore our property and freely roam the woods on hikes. As far as I can tell, resulting wildlife kills are rare (squirrels climb trees, and our dog only wishes she could). But it’s still a value judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment