A veterinary blog for pet lovers, vet voyeurs and the medically curious...
Support Dolittler: Subscribe!
Search

I love the concept of TNR (trap-neuter-release) as a means of population control. It’s not an ideal solution (TNR combined with exclusive indoor living gets my vote), but it seems the best we have to offer given the deadlocked status of tree huggers vs. cat fanciers. So at the risk of incurring your wrath (yet again) on the subject of wildlife and cats and population control, here’s a short primer on this vet’s take on trap-neuter-release programs:

Sure, these programs can work. They thin out cat populations over time and have the potential to spare environmentally sensitive areas while culling out the sick and suffering. Though I rarely see TNR efficiently employed, I’ll never complain at the sight of a Have-a-Heart trap in my hospital waiting room.

Like a huge percentage of vets, I donate my services with free or at-cost neuters on a near-daily basis—and would happily do more. Nonetheless, it’s clear that what I do represents just a drop in the bucket. This knowledge would be downright depressing were it not for the fact that there’s this one kitty in front of me who will later leave my presence less likely to contract disease through fighting and sexual transmission. And that alone is satisfying for me—but it’s not enough for the rest of them.

Consequently, when I think of TNR programs and my role, I feel like a welfarist, not an environmentalist. In my area (South Florida) TNR is undertaken so spottily, is so woefully underfunded and relies on so small a cadre of overworked volunteers that it’s no match for our feline population.

Moreover, I see TNR rarely accomplished intelligently. Ideally, TNR should further the environmental goals that should go hand in hand with welfare principles. But they seldom do. In fact, TNR in my area often overlooks basic welfare principles, too.

And that’s because the reality of most TNR efforts is that they’re individual and solitary, relying on the hard work, funds and personal aspirations of the person devoting his/her time to the task. Even if there’s an organization providing the funding, the individuals trapping and undertaking to secure veterinary services for neutering are ultimately responsible for most of the decisions regarding individual cats and the colonies they care for.

Here’s just a sample of the problems I see:

1-People who trap the cats are usually unwilling to relocate them to less environmentally sensitive areas—they like feeding the cats and enjoying them in their colonies.

2-While they're largely unable to pay for their healthcare as a population, I do see some TNR volunteers spend huge amounts on saving individual ferals instead of using these funds to trap and neuter more.

3-Many (most of my TNR clients) even refuse euthanasia when it's clear one of the cats they want me to neuter (on my time and dime) is ill. But it's still better to neuter them than to refuse on principle, so I do.

Ultimately, for most TNR volunteers and organizations, it’s less about the population and its control than about the individual cats. And it’s almost never about sparing the environment, despite the raging debate you were treated to a couple of days ago on this blog.

But I don’t blame them. It’s their work, their money, their time, their love—not the environmentalists’.

Nonetheless, I wish it could be different. Here’s how I would do it and what I propose the Audubon Society and/or the American Bird Conservancy should do if they want their aims met as well:

1-Every cat and bird lover who has the means and the opportunity should pony up and buy a $50 trap (the galvanized steel “Have-a-Heart” trap works well for me and I've seen them for as low as $30 on Amazon--feel free to offer other suggestions in your comments).

2-Efforts should be undertaken to establish a network of vets willing to perform spays and neuters at cost. Environmental organization funds for these efforts would ideally be matched by local and national government money.

3-Every city’s Audubon or American Bird Conservancy would determine ideal zones for TNR and relocation and mobilize their troops in those directions.

4-Obviously sick cats or those that test positive for FeLV or FIV would be euthanized.

5-Citizens are encouraged to spend $25 for Audubon or American Bird Conservancy certificates to spay or neuter the local strays they trap. Ideally, they would be directed to relocation zones for these strays.

Birders and backyard wildlife lovers need to put their time, energy and money where their mouths are. It’s not a cat lover’s solution—it’s everyone’s who’s ever had cause to complain. I vote for no more whining. If Cats Indoors (a laudable PR campaign spearheaded by the American Bird Conservancy) isn’t enough (and it’s not), then bird-lovers like me need to take the next step and work our butts off like my TNR clients do.

Comments
Great topic. I do a lot of TNR on my own dime and yes I am very attached to my fairly stable (1 kitten from God only knows where in the last 2 years, knock wood) colonies. I never considered that recloaction but if there were somewhere to relocate them to I'd surely give it some thought although that in itself would make me worry that I'd end up with more of the never ending supply of feral cats. I pay to have them tested for FIV/FELV and would gladly have them pts if my vet didn't think they were healthy. I know its not ideal and I get very angry at the humans that imo initially started this whole cycle. My colony includes a beautiful DLH and a Siamese who are wild as can be now but I'd guess they didn't start out as true ferals.

I'd love to see an inside only initiative be started for felines. Mine do not go outside, ever, and I would agree that they can be not only a danger to the birds but a real nuisance to the neighborhood. The bottom line, imo is that it isn't safe for domestic animals to roam free. In the other thread someone mentioned the suburbs and all I could think of is the people who are enraged that bears, deer etc. are invading their space. People really disappoint me.
# Posted By Jules | 12/8/07 11:09 AM
It is so true Dr. Khuly that in order to make a difference, TNR must be done aggressively. Cats can reproduce way faster that you can TNR them! You need dedicated volunteers and hospitals willing to neuter 20+ cats in a day, (though every day would be unreasonable).

And while I agree that indoor cats are safer and much less of a burden on local wildlife, the only people that would be affected by legislation are responsible cat owners that likely keep their cats indoors anyways. Feral cats should never be kept indoors IMO (they would be terrified with a few exceptions...). And irresponsible pet owners will continue to allow their un-neutered cats to roam and contribute to the stray and feral population. These cats are rarely if ever microchipped or tattooed so good luck enforcing bylaws!

I think strict spay/neuter laws, lots of public education, and a good, aggressive TNR program is definately the way to go.
# Posted By Meghan RAHT | 12/8/07 12:44 PM
Thank you for all your hard work doing spay/neuter for free. I missed the debate, so I have to go back and catch up. But getting a positive on an FIV test can mean the cat was vaccinated, or if a kitten, that their mother was vaccinated, right? There's been controversy in Los Angeles recently because the city provides a list of vets that honors their spay/neuter vouchers, and one of the vets has been killing kittens that test positive for FIV to the heartbreak of some new adopters. People mistakenly believe the list is of "city-approved" vets, or those they recommend. The city won't take his name off though.

I have heard of some studies/statistics that suggest that feral cats are not as big a threat to wildlife as many think, but I'd have to search for that. It's probably on the Alley Cat Allies website.
# Posted By Pam Holt | 12/8/07 6:37 PM
I only wish bird and cat lovers would take your message to heart, Dr. Kathy!

The opinion of "I didn't directly cause it, it's not my problem! Someone else fix it!" is the biggest enemy to every goal of animal welfare activists.

And as heartless as it sounds, I do believe in TNR -- but not TNR and feed and sustain. TNR's purpose is to humanely and effectively stabilize populations with the hope they will eventually /decline/; feeding is only a means to draw them all out to keep track, and we should not be whisking sick cats off to the vet for treatment except for humane euthanasia.

I'm also curious about the effects on a colony relocation has, as far as impacting areas which are already dealing with overpopulations of feral cats and inter-colony conflicts.
# Posted By Agnes | 12/8/07 7:28 PM
As far as the "inside/outside cat" issue, I highly recommend cat fences. A few companies sell them. I got mine at http://catfence.com/. It's an extension to your fence that is angled to keep the cats in the yard. It also keep the coyotes out! A few years ago, one of my cats had a bird in his mouth, but let him go and he flew away after shaking it off, but since then I have hoped the birds are too smart to land on the ground in my backyard.
# Posted By Pam Holt | 12/8/07 9:01 PM
Pam Holt--How terrible that kittens who test positive for FIV are being euthanized!!! This vet may not understand FIV. Vets spend more time on dogs than cats, and, unlike Dr. K, not all of them are very knowledgeable about cat diseases. An FIV SNAP test detects FIV antibodies, not antigen, so it simply means that a kitty has been exposed. Kittens can test positive up through 16 weeks of age because they have maternal antibodies they received from the colostrum--milk the mother cat produces for about the first 24 hours after giving birth. Those antibodies could be because the mother has FIV, has been exposed to FIV, or has been vaccinated for FIV. Any kitten that tests positive should be retested at 16 weeks, and if positive, again at 6 months. Kittens that remain positive (pretty rare) should have blood drawn for aa confirmatory test--the Western Blot. Since the SNAP test detects antibodies only, it really doesn't make sense to have ANY cat or kitten killed on the basis of that test. Even an adult cat that appears to be sick who tests positive may not be sick because of FIV. I've just been through this recently with a vet who I really think didn't have a good understanding of FIV and wanted to euthanize a mother and kitten who SNAP'd positive. We did a Western Blot on the mother cat and she is positive. She was also sick. Her illness was not due to end stage FIV, however, and she is doing fine right now. She has many more healthy years to live.

Dr. Khuly--As someone who traps frequently, I have only one problem with your post. I would LOVE to relocate cats if they are not wanted where they are, but relocating is very difficult. To trap a cat in one place and release it to another is to possibly condemn the cat to death as it tries to make its way back to its own territory, etc. Cats have to be transitioned to the new territory while confined in a cage over a period of weeks so they become acclimated, and even them they don't always choose to stay. You make it sound like it's easy to relocate feral cats, and I just want to make sure everyone who reads this knows that it's not quite as easy as just moving the cat. One organization that does a great job of explaining how to transition feral cats is Barn Cats Inc. I'll try to put a link here, but I usually screw it up.

http://www.barncats.org/program.php


Thanks for another thought provoking post! Heather
# Posted By Heather#2 | 12/8/07 9:38 PM
Oops. I just noticed your stance on FELV/FIV testing Dr. Patty. I have to disagree with that one also. I think if a feral appears to be ill/compromised he should be tested and euthanized if positive, but I don't think he should be tested otherwise. My objections to euthanizing for FIV are outlined in the previous post.
# Posted By Heather#2 | 12/8/07 9:45 PM
Yet again I'm struck by how differently pets are viewed in Europe and the US. In my corner of the world we also do a lot of TNR - although most of the ferals are put down, since the local shelter will only pay for their neutering, if the have a "feedhost" - a volunteer, that agrees to feed them, and look out for illnesses.

As to the indoor/outdoor issue: a lot of petowners consider it a mild case of animal cruelty to keep a cat indoors, since you are preventing it from acting out their natural behaviours like hunting. In fact - a lot of times our recommendation #1 for unappropriate toileting behaviour is to give the cat access to the great outdoors.

Thanks for a great blog - it has once again proved that cats and their owners are not created equal around the globe

/Mette
# Posted By Mette | 12/9/07 5:17 AM
Heather #2: I am aware of all the unfortunate limitations of FIV testing--epecially perturbing when it comes to kittens. Again, the issue comes down to doing what is best for the *population,* not for the individual. While it is undoubtedly best for a non-ill cat to be retested in six weeks' time (for both FIV and FeLV) if they've tested positive, that's not what's best for the population. That's because letting that potentially persistently infected feral back out typically means greater disease transmission. If there's a foster home available for six weeks--God bless them. Otherwise, it's best for the other kitties that this positive one be culled.

As to the FIV vaccine: vets do not typically employ it except in very specific cases where indoor cats are housed together with mixed positive-negative statuses. I keep a stash but use it only about once a year. My clients are always informed about the positive testing in the future and the risks of being unable to distinguish true disease from positive testing. To my knowledge, it is not used in feral colony vaccination anywhere.
# Posted By Dr. Patty Khuly | 12/9/07 9:19 AM
"As to the indoor/outdoor issue: a lot of petowners consider it a mild case of animal cruelty to keep a cat indoors, since you are preventing it from acting out their natural behaviours like hunting. In fact - a lot of times our recommendation #1 for unappropriate toileting behaviour is to give the cat access to the great outdoors."

Mette, cats don't need to actually kill stuff in order to satisfy their prey drive. Providing cat trees (to climb on), cat condos/space under the bed/other appropriate places to hide, and a variety of toys, including the "cat dancer" type toys, that let the cat exercise its chase/pounce/kill instincts, can and will amply satisfy the needs of a cat that is not already accustomed to going outside. And using appropriately sized and stuffed treat balls to let them "hunt" for part of their daily food works as well for cats as for dogs. Of course, this does mean spending time actually playing with your cat, and not just cuddling with it and putting down food. It's more work than opening the door to the back garden and hoping the cat doesn't wander out front and into traffic. Plus, it means spending time keeping the litter boxes clean enough that the cats don't find them nasty places to eliminate in.

But in North America, where we still have actual wildlife, it has the extra added bonus that the cat doesn't get eaten by a coyote, bobcat, fisher, badger, mountain lion, wolf, alligator, insert locally prevalent predator species here. In the UK, I believe the only predators you have left are the fox and the badger, and the fox is not usually a serious threat to a cat, while the badger tends to avoid humans to a greater extent than, say, coyotes. Or bears. Or alligators.

Some of the differences in attitudes towards pets come from the fact that Britain and North America are actually significantly different places. When you've actually lost a cat to a fisher (a type of weasel, by the way, not a person with a fishing pole) it can somewhat alter your opinions of the goodness of cat access to the Great Outdoors.
# Posted By Lis | 12/9/07 11:37 AM
"Heather #2: I am aware of all the unfortunate limitations of FIV testing--epecially perturbing when it comes to kittens. Again, the issue comes down to doing what is best for the *population,* not for the individual. While it is undoubtedly best for a non-ill cat to be retested in six weeks' time (for both FIV and FeLV) if they've tested positive, that's not what's best for the population. That's because letting that potentially persistently infected feral back out typically means greater disease transmission. If there's a foster home available for six weeks--God bless them. Otherwise, it's best for the other kitties that this positive one be culled."

I agree. If we are talking about ferals there is no way, imo, that a FIV positive cat or kitten should be put back out even though it is very sad to pts. I've never heard of doing FIV as part of the feral vaccinations and my house cats haven't had it either. Its along the same lines as spay abortions very unfortunate but better than the other option. In my opinon. :)
# Posted By Jules | 12/9/07 12:00 PM
Agnes- TNR is only humane, in my opinion, if there IS someone willing to feed and monitor the colony. First of all, feeding the cats will decrease (but not eliminate) their impact on surrounding wildlife. Second, it allows the volunteer to spot new additions to the colony that may not be altered and vaccinated yet. Quick trapping of the new additions will prevent new litters. And finally, it allows the volunteer to spot any cats that are ill so that they CAN be brought in for euthanasia.
In my experience feeding a colony will not extend the life expectancy of the cats. A colony that is 100% sterilized will decrease in population suprisingly rapidly, even when fed regularly by volunteers.
# Posted By Meghan RAHT | 12/9/07 1:31 PM
I'd like to point out one problem with spay/neuter and licensing regulations that well-meaning municipalities employ. Overly strict laws often perpetuate the problems of stray and feral cats. Where there are strict laws that mandate that all cats be leashed and licensed, the caregivers of ferals risk being ticketed, and the cats rounded up by animal control. Most cities don't tolerate TNR. Where cats are found living in colonies, often underneath an empty house, or behind a business, in an alley, etc., they are rounded up, taken into a shelter, and then because they are feral, they are euthanized. An individual caregiver can't afford to step forward and claim ownership, because they're violating the ordinances. Same thing happens with strict spay/neuter laws. Laws like that will drive people underground. I'm convinced the problems of owned and unowned animals can only be solved by a state, city and county offering free and low-cost spay/neuter programs for any and all animals that anyone encounters. The savings in euthanasia fees, shelter costs, employee time and salaries, public health and safety make it a wise use of public funding. The piecemeal and volunteer approaches we're currently using are only putting a couple of fingers in the dike.

And you can educate the public all you want, but unless a service is made available, people are going to be careless.

It's sad, I know a lady who trapped, neutered and released some neighborhood ferals. Now another neighbor is trapping them to take to the shelter. They are neutered and vaccinated, but because they aren't "adoptable", they'll be put down. She's trying to find homes for the few that are friendly, but it's very hard to find new homes for adult cats, as we know.

Oh, and to the people who believe that cats must be outside, I second the idea of a cat fence or outdoor enclosure. After all, we used to allow dogs to roam free in neighborhoods, "being dogs", until it because clear that it was not a good idea for cities and suburbs to allow this. People also became convinced of the fact that their dog is better off being safe behind a fence. Why are cats different?

Rita
# Posted By Rita | 12/9/07 5:28 PM
I would love to see bylaws that have petstores and shelters spay and neuter before adoption. I think this is one way to decrease the overpopulation problem. As far as cost of these procedures go, I don't think it is fair to ask veterinarians to further discount these procedures. EWveryone has to make a living and spays and neuters are already loss leaders.
# Posted By Meghan RAHT | 12/9/07 5:58 PM
TNR could work, as you say if it was done more aggressively, more often, and for the sake of the whole population, not just a select few cats. But it has some problems. Sick cats stay out there, neutered or not, spreading disease. And a neutered tom will sometimes continue to act like a tom, especially if neutered later in life. He will continue to fight, spray, and by fighting, spread disease. It stops more kittens being born, but doesnt always stop the other behaviours.

And these cats are often trapped by rescue organisations for just that behaviour. Ever been woken by sparring tom cats in the middle of the night? It has been voted one of the worst sounds in the world, on human ears. Along with cleaning a sprayed front door, and copping the smell - not fun.

Someone has to continue to feed these colonies. They might shrink over time, but only if the kittens are also trapped and neutered. There are not enough homes for all these cats. I think TNR is only part of the solution.

Good in theory
# Posted By Robin | 12/9/07 6:07 PM
Experienced cat trappers recommend Tru-Catch, Tomahawk, and Safeguard traps; each has a few advantages and drawbacks. Trappers and caregivers need training; minimally they should read and understand the basics of trapping and Trap-Neuter-Return-Manage on Alley Cat Allies [ http://alleycat.org ,] Neighborhood Cats [ http://neighborhoodcats.org ] and the American Cat Project [ http://americancat.net .]
# Posted By ~Barb, AnimalResources | 12/10/07 10:41 AM
Relocation areas are limited and relocation must be done correctly, the process is not fast and easy. As extensive Trap-Neuter-Return-Manage is implemented, along with addressing the issues of ‘owned’ cats, there are fewer cats to affect environments. The Cats Indoors! campaign could have been a welcome addition to the multiple efforts needed; unfortunately it recommends that cats be taken to shelters (where they will most often be killed!)
# Posted By ~Barb, AnimalResources | 12/10/07 11:01 AM
Thanks, Barb: Your blog appears to provide a plethora of feral cat info and resources. Thanks for your work.
# Posted By Dr. Patty Khuly | 12/10/07 11:13 AM
I have a hard time siding w/the bird-lovers - mostly b/c the cat problem is directly our fault. Cats are just trying to get a meal. No different than any other ecological imbalance - if we weren't screwing things up, there probably wouldn't be a problem.
# Posted By anna | 12/10/07 1:06 PM
S M T W T F S
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
VIRTUAL VET HOSPITAL
Got a sick pet? Visit our Virtual Vet Hospital and admit your own pets as patients in Dolittler's unique pet healthcare forum.
PODCASTS
New! Download our latest podcasts:
ARCHIVES
FAVORITE POSTS
RECOMMENDED
CAREERISTS
Did you always want to be a vet or vet technician? Thinking about it? Working on it? Need some Help?
VetInfo.com
AVMA
Miami Vet Specialist
Penn Vet School
DVM.com
VIN
Vet News Network
Vet Practice News
Vetstoria
"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated."
- Mohandas Gandhi
This blog is running version 5.003.