Start A Petition


Offbeat  (tags: animals, environment, humans, nature, protection, abuse, activists, americans, crime, culture, death, ethics, family, law, media, politics, sadness, safety, society, world, ethics, media, abuse, abused, AnimalCruelty, AnimalWelfare, animaladvocates, anima )

- 1577 days ago -
Allow your residents at Biltmore Park Apartments to feed stray cats. Your recent ban on feeding strays is cruel, These friendly cats, have depended upon kind residents for food,- for many years.To Allow the cats to starve to death is horribly cruel.


We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 7:52 am
Broken link Wendy--will return

wendy kelly (165)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 8:05 am
I have sent a request to Eric, I couldn't post this, or it wouldn't go from preview, As soon as Eric explains I will try to post again, here is the link to the petition ----------

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 8:06 am
Got it+signed-thanks

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 8:09 am
N, S & S > 60 supporters needed now! Thank you Wendy!

Justin Vale (13)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 8:18 am
i got this femboy nut that keeps feeding these two huge tom cats. they feces all over my yard. a lot. the drains are always covered with cat feces. but everytime i ask him to stop he goes all drama queen on me. i just gave up. it looks like he's ready t fight for the right t feed in my yard. what am i gonna do? fight a young flame femboy/part time drag queen? what if i lose? how do you live something like that down? i'm not calling the cops on him. now i pee on the food he leaves. breaks my heart, but i gotta.

Darren Woolsey (218)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:08 am
Hi Wendy, Noted, Signed, Shared.

Kathryn M (108)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:12 am
Got it. I signed.

wendy kelly (165)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:13 am
Hello Nyack, we just need a signature, not a donation , just like the signatures you require for your petitions > ---AS IT SAYS >>>. Please sign the petition and make this company rethink allowing their residents to feed the stray cats they have been feeding for years. Thanks
Justin call your nearest cat rescue people, explain your problem,
Spoiling the cats food,- wont stop them fouling your garden ! infact, they will probably go into your garden more often, - to look for unpolluted food, as for what the person feeding the cats,- what he looks like /acts ? ,- what has that to do with anything,- makes me think your problem is with him, and you are taking it out on the cats ? if your post is actually serious , or not !!!

wendy kelly (165)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:17 am
Thank you everyone, for taking the trouble to read, my post about the problems I have had posting xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx green stars to you xxxxxxx

Shelli S (374)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:41 am
Femboy nut? Wow, ok..Not even worth it, 2 tired 2day..Corporations, the downfall of everything good . S/N Thanks Wendy

Justin Vale (13)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:42 am
i can't do that wendy. the cats will be killed for sure. they're huge old males. i can't do it. besides it's been going on for over a year now. but i've been here since 98. the cats come and go on their own.

Justin Vale (13)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:43 am
it's a backyard in the city. it's cement.

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 10:04 am
Thank you Wendy
Why is Justin Vale so bitter? He's homophobic too!

wendy kelly (165)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 10:27 am
Well put a dirt box for them, or sand box, will help stop your problem, and if the cats do their own thing, well thats cats?,
The only other thing you can do, is fit a water sprinkler, set it to go off, when the cats enter your yard, water wont hurt them, and might stop them coming in.
Sounds like you kind of like them, ? if so move their food to different parts of the yard, they don't like being fed too near each other.
Other than that see can you find a "no kill" shelter, then get a humane trap and take them there.?
Cats get tired of fighting for food etc, --if they are elderly, or getting old, they will enjoy the rest , from the "streets".
but stop spoiling their food. Wish I could help more, but you have 3 choices now. ??
hope you signed the petition, because my friend , loves her visiting friendly cats, who are so scared of humans, thanks to bleep bleep cruel cat abusers xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Sandi C (90)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 10:34 am
will sign when able, as Darla is a friend.

. (0)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 10:52 am
Hi Wendy,, firstly may take this opportunity to thank you for forwarding story to myself, I have signed it and left a comment, please advise if I can be of further help in this or another matter, thank you


Nina R (103)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 10:55 am
Broken link Wendy...would love to sign..

Phil m (47)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 11:03 am
Hi Wendy,
Signed from the link you provided.

Carrie B (306)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 11:27 am
Signed, noted, and tweeted.

Sandra S (40)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 11:40 am
Signed using the link you provided. TNR is important. One of my adopted cats was one. I'm "guilty" of feeding strays myself. I hope this petition helps.

Sandrea S (278)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 12:29 pm
Thanks Wendy ~ I signed and tweeted this earlier. Great idea to make a C2NN for more exposure : )

Lydia M (80)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 1:52 pm
Note but Unable to Sign :(
With Thanks Wendy & Patricia for forward.

Miia Suuronen (44)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 2:16 pm
Signed and noted.

wendy kelly (165)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 2:24 pm
For Lydia, and can I say I am so sorry for your loss xxxxxxxx here is the link i posted at the top of these comments xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have sent a request to Eric, I couldn't post this, or it wouldn't go from preview, As soon as Eric explains I will try to post again, here is the link to the petition ----------

Barb K (1678)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 2:44 pm
Signed! Tried to send to FB from but could not do it. Thanks Wendy & Patricia
283 supporters
217 needed to reach 500

Animae C (508)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 2:46 pm


287 supporters
213 needed to reach 500

Thank You dear Wendy

Denise Nuno (105)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 2:59 pm
I will never understand why so many people are averse to having healthy stray and feral cats in their neighborhoods. They play an important role in the community - eliminating vermin and preventing overpopulation. Although it has not been universally accepted, study after study has shown that communities who TNR have healthier ecosystems and controlled stray and feral cat populations. They have also shown that where trap and euthanize programs exist, the void is continuously filled by new, UN-neutered and UN-vaccinated cats and population growth is unchecked.

My city now has a TNR program, but I introduced TNR in the neighborhood more than 15 years ago, my neighbors have really embraced the results and most of them share the responsibility of seeing that the cats are well fed and sheltered.

At first they were skeptical but with the mortgage crisis and high foreclosure rate we began to see rats and mice in our neighborhood. The cats kept it in check. They don't breed because they're all neutered. They're all vaccinated and combo tested to screen for FIV and Feline Leukemia, They're fully vetted at no cost to the residents and all are healthy and well-fed. They keep the population in check because they manage and protect self-defined territories and don't breed. The neighbors began to appreciate and enjoy "their" ferals. Most of the cats now have fairly dedicated feeding stations and many have feral housing, porches, patios, sheds or garages for refuge from cold and wet weather. It's a very harmonious relationship.

Denise Nuno (105)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 3:11 pm
Noted, signed & shared.

I'd further recommend the organizers contact Alley Cat Allies. Becky Robinson is an amazing leader with a successful track-record as a TNR advocate. Alley Cat Allies will have the tools and support these local advocates will need to successfully forward a TNR program to a corporation, community or city.

MmAway M (520)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 5:41 pm
Dang I wish I knew how to do live links. I will get this done Wendy. For some strange reason copy paste isn't working for me.

Justin please ZIP it.

Ray thank you for the forward, been MIA here and gotta rush off, this will be done!

TU Wendy I have had feral cats that were the love of my life from the canyon and I am a dog person.

Shirley S (187)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 5:50 pm
noted TY

Past Member (0)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 6:25 pm
I can not get the page.I will try again later.

Jaremy Lynch (127)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 6:45 pm
Noted and signed. I just copy and pasted the link. Thank you Wendy.

Gisela Gama (50)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 7:16 pm
I signed with two emails. Sharing now. Thank you, Wendy !

Paulinha Russell (80)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 7:34 pm
Signed. Thanks

Vicky P (476)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 8:01 pm
noted, signed

Candy L (473)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 9:24 pm
Thanks Signed & Tweeted, If your using Internet explorer, the link just takes you back to this care2 page not to

Mary T (356)
Wednesday March 25, 2015, 10:00 pm
thank you Wendy - signed, noted & shared

desanka s (416)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 2:07 am
2 signatures from my family. Thank you Wendy and Marilyn for the forward.

Angela K (373)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 4:07 am
Signed & shared, ty Wendy

Bruce C D (89)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 4:25 am
Forgive my warped sense of humor. I don't agree with or condone Justin's outrageous comment, and I would hope he is pulling our leg, but even if he is not joking, I would have still laughed aloud at the sheer irascible ignorance involved.

I love cats, and they seem to love me. I have very much enjoyed owning them in the past (lest anyone unduly take exception, I speak of ownership in the sense of taking responsibility for their welfare). However, it is because of my love for them and all animals that I cannot in good conscience support TNR programs. Sorry, Wendy. Incidentally, if I'm not mistaken, I believe there was a Care2 petition for this exact same thing not all that long ago.

I've studied this issue at great length. I've read all the literature I could find from advocates like Alley Cat Allies (known as All Cat Lies by their detractors). I've also read all the literature I could find from those opposed to TNR. Logic and the science does NOT support TNR. Not only is TNR overall not an effective, responsible, or efficient solution to what is a major problem, neither is it in the end a humane solution. What I discovered is that TNR advocates present a very skewed perspective on this issue, ignoring and denying many of the realities.

Not one single environmental group supports TNR. PETA does not support TNR. Many scientists, veterinarians and their associations do not support TNR. There are a number of good reasons for that.

A major problem with TNR and its advocates is that it and they are species-centric. In other words, cats are being given exceptional consideration at the expense of, and to the detriment of, other species. In a way, it's little different than racist discrimination. In the U.S. and most other places, cats are an invasive species. They do NOT play a constructive role in our natural ecosystems. In fact, they kill billions of wildlife in the U.S. alone each year. Each cat allowed to roam free outdoors--regardless whether feral or not, or how well fed--kills on average exponentially many times its number of other animals. Rats and mice make up less than half of their prey. Birds, amphibians, reptiles and other small mammals are also prey. Many of the animals they kill are killed for sport, and not even eaten. They generally do not die humanely at the paws of cats.

Justin did bring up one valid point, and that is that TNR cats still present a nuisance. They are also pose a health risk to humans and wildlife. A good number of feral cats contract rabies, for instance. The same fleas that carry bubonic plague that live on rats can also live on cats. Toxoplasmosis runoff from their feces sickens and adversely affects marine life. They contribute to the spreading of disease among other cats. Neutering may make them less aggressive, but they still fight, resulting in veterinarians treating a good number of domesticated cats allowed outdoors that become injured, developing abscesses and the like.

Most TNR cats lead a miserable existence, have shortened lives, and often die cruel, horrible deaths. Perhaps it is debatable whether that is more humane than euthanizing them (I don't think so), but it is yet another factor deserving of consideration.

Despite TNR programs being in place a good many years in some places, with some successes, overall the policy is not reducing feral cat populations. Most TNR programs do not vaccinate the cats, they only neuter them, because the cost can be prohibitive. Moreover, even where initially vaccinated, the necessary follow-up vaccinations to keep them protected, which requires re-trapping them, are rarely done.

I could go on, but I've found that letting people do their own research is more effective, and I urge everyone to examine both sides of this issue carefully and critically with an open mind. Feral cats are a human-caused problem, and to date we have not been willing to fully take responsibility for the mess we've made. For the record, I support TSAFE (Trap, Sterilize, Adopt, Foster, Euthanize). I would also support stricter measures that could help ensure pet owners do not abandon their animals. Perhaps we could require every pet have a microchip embedded to identify its owner, and if found abandoned, the owner could be held accountable.

I know TNR advocates have the best of intentions, and I appreciate that. However, I've found many are ill-informed or misinformed, or have not given it much thought, and still others seem to allow emotion to trump logic and reason.

Please remember--responsible and environmentally conscious cat owners who really care about their pets and wildlife do not allow them to roam freely outdoors. One can also make or purchase safe outdoor enclosures for them, and most cats can be easily trained to be walked using a leash.

Stella G (403)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 4:39 am
Wendy non riesco a mettere la firma, un link non funziona e l'altro mi dice errore. Sono veramente dispiaciuta. Provato anche ieri, stesso esito.

marisol melgarejo (41)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 4:43 am
I Can´t sign sorry

wendy kelly (165)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 7:13 am
Bruce, you are entitled to your opinion, but as for the discrimination part, sorry I don't agree in any way ,
As for the killing of wild life, may I suggest you do a study on pesticides, Pesticides are the biggest killer of wild life, as is is rat poison,- often scattered around, indiscriminately due to a growing rat problem. The poison is a risk for dogs, as people take their dogs for a walk, the dog sniffs about,- at exciting new scents, and walks in the poison, dogs lick their paws clean, ...........
The cats in question being fed , are largely ex-pets, they are friendly and adoptable, the trouble is there are far too few "no kill" shelters, possibly thanks to views such as your own? - that's my own opinion, not based on facts.
As for cats being allowed out, no - one should sit in judgment , it all depends where you live, and the times you allow your cats out.
You say , feral cats are a man made problem, and your answer to that problem is round them up and kill them, humanely of course ?
. Also blaming a cat for it's nature is simply not fair, Why don't you blame people who breed dogs to fight, or any animal trained to be involved in "blood sports" , we in UK -have hunting the poor fox, but people have protested so much , this has all but stopped,
you still have gun dogs . When A cat catches a bird, or tiny mouse, I don't know one cat owner that likes that,-
but the cat does not think , "Right I am going to load up my shot gun, and am going to kill me a few Grouse, or rabbits, or deer "? humans do that, point the finger at humans that kill, not a cat doing what is instinctive.
As for Justin, ? I answered him politely, as I have you I hope.
This wasn't a debate about TNR, and if there was a petition about this before ? I don't see the relation, accept, another person cares enough to start one?
Just please with respect , don't present your opinion as fact, - re- the rights & wrongs of cat ownership

wendy kelly (165)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 7:24 am
I have sent a request to Eric, I couldn't post this, or it wouldn't go from preview, As soon as Eric explains I will try to post again, here is the link to the petition ----------

Past Member (0)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 8:27 am
I want to thank everyone who has signed and shared this petition. It means a lot. One of the cats here is a tortoiseshell I call Sunshine who is at least 8 years old and maybe close to 10 years. She's super friendly with people she trusts and is adoptable if she were to be an only cat. she was left behind by a so-called owner who moved out not once but twice! There's a few other cats who are regulars as well, one of whom I believe was also left behind. The majority of the cats on the property have been here for years with a few new ones showing up who are most likely born to the unsprayed females left behind.

Henriette Matthijssen (154)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 9:32 am
I signed, Thanks Wendy for posting!

Michela M (3964)
Thursday March 26, 2015, 3:12 pm
if I click, this comes out:

Well this is embarrassing…
We couldn't find the page you were looking for.

Bruce C D (89)
Friday March 27, 2015, 1:53 am
@Wendy Kelly--

If you had done the research with an open mind, you would know that my comment wasn't just an opinion. When it comes to TNR, the environment and wildlife also deserves a voice.

You are presenting a fallacious, nonsensical argument commonly seen from TNR advocates. If one thing humans are doing is killing lots of wildlife, it doesn't make something else humans are doing that kills lots of wildlife right. By all means, let's use less pesticide, and let's use it smarter. But we also need to address the fact that the millions of feral cats in the U.S. kill billions of wildlife annually. Anywhere from 1.7-3 billion birds alone are killed by free roaming cats each year--just in the U.S.

The billions of wildlife being killed annually by the millions of cats humans are not taking responsibility for are not dying humanely when cats kill them. You don't care about their suffering? Don't they have a right to live and not become prey for an invasive species humans are unwilling to take responsibility for? Conversely, euthanizing animals is recognized as a humane procedure. And TNR advocates are discriminating and species-centric, because they attach more importance to saving each cat than to saving all the wildlife each cat kills--not only each year, but over the course of each cats life. Which is more suffering, euthanizing one cat, or allowing numerous wildlife to be brutally and cruelly killed by that cat? Each cat euthanized saves thousands of wildlife animals. Anyone can do the math.

Your question was already answered. I support TSAFE, which includes adopting, fostering and euthanizing. It is the most humane solution for ALL the animals, because the problem involves more than just cats. TNR advocates often have tunnel vision, refusing to recognize the scope of the problem and the impact of TNR on other animals.

In the earlier petition, I had also pointed out that the management/owners of Biltmore Apartments of San Antonio have a right and responsibility not to allow residents to feed feral cats on their premises. After all, this is private property. Feral cats carry diseases and pose a health risk, and if something were to happen, the owner could be held liable. Not all residents of those apartments may be willing to put up with the nuisance they cause, and the owner is responsible for protecting their rights and considering the wishes of all tenants. Another thing about this petition that didn't make any sense that I had pointed out earlier when it was at Care2 is that there is nothing to prevent these people from feeding the cats nearby off-premise. Yes, cats are territorial, but their territory isn't THAT small.

Here is an article that will hopefully help inform from a Care2 partner, TakePart:

Sorry, Cat Lovers: Trap-Neuter-Return Simply Doesn't Work

If animal welfare advocates are genuinely against killing animals—and if they believe in protecting public health—they need to be against TNR.

Various estimates say that anywhere from 20 million to 100 million feral cats roam the United States. [Most estimates I've seen have the number pegged at 70-80 million.] Together with pet cats that are allowed to wander free, they kill billions of birds, mammals, and other animals every year.

Every time I write about the need to deal with this rapidly worsening problem, certain readers argue for a method called TNR, which stands for “trap-neuter-return,” or sometimes “trap-neuter-release.” So let’s take a look at how it might work.

TNR is an idea with enormous appeal for many animal welfare organizations, because it means cat shelters no longer have to euthanize unwanted cats: They just neuter and immunize them, then ship them back out into the world. It’s a way to avoid the deeply dispiriting business of putting animals down, not to mention the expense of feeding and caring for the animals during the usual waiting period for a possible adoption. And it enables animal shelters to put on a happier face for donors: “We’re a shelter, not a slaughterhouse.”

TNR advocates generally cite a handful of studies as evidence that this method works. The pick of the litter is a 2003 study that supporters say shows TNR enabled the University of Central Florida to reduce the feral cat population on its Orlando campus by 66 percent. On closer examination, though, what that study showed was that 47 percent of the cat population was removed through an intensive adoption program, another 11 percent was euthanized, and at least another 6 percent was killed by automobiles or moved off campus to nearby woods. TNR itself appears to have accomplished almost nothing—and it took 11 years to do it.

By email, the lead author of that study, Julie K. Levy, told me that adoption is a common component of TNR programs. She added, “I’d hate to speculate about what the outcome would have been without some cat removal, as that introduces a lot of uncountable variables.” But Levy, who remains a TNR advocate, was part of a team that subsequently examined just that question in two large-scale TNR programs in San Diego County, Calif., and Alachua County, Fla. She and her coauthors found that “any population-level effects” from TNR alone “were minimal.”

The programs might have been effective, the coauthors suggested, if they had neutered 71 to 94 percent of all feral cats, but that rate is “far greater than what was actually achieved.” It is, in fact, far greater than almost any TNR program ever achieves, because, as Levy has written more recently, “capturing free-roaming cats, transporting them to a central facility for sterilization, and returning them to the trapping site are resource-intensive activities” and “challenging to sustain.”

TNR advocates also frequently cite a large-scale program on 103 cat colonies in Rome. Trapping and neutering decreased the populations of 55 cat colonies there, while the other 48 colonies either gained population or stayed the same. The authors of that study concluded that, in the absence of a public education campaign to stop people from abandoning cats, “all these efforts” are “a waste of money, time and energy.”

Yet TNR proponents just go on touting the same evidence, with an almost magical faith that it will somehow turn out to support their almost religious beliefs. They do this, I think, because anyone who has seen a pet die knows how emotionally devastating it can be. Twice in my life, I’ve been the person who delivered a pet to the veterinarian to be, as the euphemism has it, “put to sleep.” They rank among the worst days of my life. But both deaths were quick and painless, a matter of falling asleep on my lap, and in both those cases it was infinitely better for the animal than to go on living with disease and impairment.

That’s the choice TNR advocates refuse to make. They see only the individual cat saved from euthanasia and willfully blind themselves to the consequences ***for the cat itself and for everyone else.*** When they cite the Rome study as a success story, for instance, they neglect to note that Italy doesn’t have rabies. In this country, on the other hand, rabies prevention efforts cost $300 million a year, and 40,000 people must receive treatment after being bitten or scratched.

Cats are three to four times more likely than dogs to have rabies, and yet TNR programs inevitably leave a significant percentage of feral cats on the street, untreated, for years at a time, aggravating the rabies problem and numerous other diseases of both cats and humans. Because of the threat to public health, most communities have laws preventing individuals from hoarding animals even in the privacy of their homes. But as the authors of one recent article on cat-borne diseases put it, TNR “is essentially cat hoarding without walls.”

The cats in TNR programs also go on killing. Let’s say each cat kills 30 birds a year, and the local TNR program has a population of 100 cats. Over a 10-year period, that program has made itself an accessory to 30,000 unnecessary deaths. (Yes, I’m assuming that the population stays the same. That’s because a lot of TNR programs explicitly aim “to maintain stable cat populations.”) TNR advocates see the cat deaths as individual tragedies. But birds somehow just die as populations, or species. Because the cats do their killing out of our sight, and without our direct intervention, people fail to see that those other deaths are equally individual, and—because cats like to have their fun—far more cruel.

Despite all this, TNR continues to gain popularity. It could well show up next in your community. Politicians like how it sounds to be against killing, so they are easy targets for TNR advocates driven by an extremely narrow definition of “animal welfare.” Be prepared to stand up and remind community leaders that if they are genuinely against killing animals—and if they believe in protecting public health—they need to be against TNR.

wendy kelly (165)
Friday March 27, 2015, 2:41 pm
@ BRUCE C.D. --This wasn't about TNR, and for your info, one of the residents, has complex madical issues, and wouldn't be able to walk far to feed the STRAY, Friendly cats . BUT SINCE YOU MADE IT ONE, I CAN ALSO PRODUCE FACTS, WITH LINKS -
Old news: Richard Conniff’s March 23rd op-ed in the New York Times, in which he used his experience of losing a cat he cared for as an opportunity to misrepresent TNR, and vilify animal welfare organizations that support it. Although Conniff’s piece lacks the kind of focus one expects from an op-ed in the Times, it’s clear to anybody familiar with the issue: he’s using all the familiar “science” and scaremongering to justify lethal roundups.

And like so many others who have taken the same position, Conniff is happy to talk about anything except the evidence that lethal methods can do the trick.

The reason, of course, is because such evidence doesn’t exist.

More recently: The Dodo published a recap of Conniff’s op-ed on March 24th, followed by a response from cat behavior consultant and UC Berkeley PhD candidate Mikel Maria Delgado two days later and, yesterday, a response I wrote on behalf of Best Friends Animal Society.

The latter prompted a response from Conniff himself, via Twitter:

‪@dodo ‪@bestfriends Are you really pretending cats don’t kill wildlife? Have you ever owned a cat?

Which suggests that he didn’t actually read the piece. Or maybe he’s simply resorting to that tactic so often employed by people who’ve taken an indefensible position: try to change the subject.

Maybe it’s both.

In any case, Conniff apparently got enough pushback that he felt compelled to defend himself on his blog yesterday, with a post bearing the title “Sorry, Cat Lovers, TNR Simply Doesn’t Work.” Among the evidence Conniff cites as proof of TNR’s ineffectiveness, is an 11-year study (which he refers to as the “pick of the litter”) on the campus of the University of Central Florida in which nearly half (47 percent) of the 155 cats living on campus were adopted. In 2002, upon completion of a related six-year study, just 23 cats remained on campus. [1]

For Conniff, though, the project’s “intensive adoption program” is cheating somehow. “Another 11 percent was euthanized, and at least another six percent was killed by automobiles or moved off campus to nearby woods,” Conniff continues. “TNR itself appears to have accomplished almost nothing—and took 11 years to do it.”

At which point, one would expect Conniff to present his readers with an example or two of lethal roundups that have outperformed the UCF effort. He does no such thing—because, again, such evidence doesn’t exist.

If the UCF project “accomplished almost nothing,” then lethal methods—employed for generations now—have accomplished less than nothing.

The rest of Conniff’s post is more of the same. (Of course it is; what else has he got?)

His reference to the often-cited Rome study is interesting not so much for what he says about it, but what he doesn’t say. “The authors of that study,” writes Conniff, “concluded that, in the absence of a public education campaign to stop people from abandoning cats, “all these efforts” are “a waste of money, time and energy.”

Well sort of.

What the authors actually concluded was this:

“The spay/neuter campaigns brought about a general decrease in cat number but the percentage of cat immigration (due to abandonment and spontaneous arrival) is around 21 percent. This suggests that all these efforts without an effective education of people to control the reproduction of house cats (as a prevention for abandonment) are a waste of money, time and energy.” [2]

So, spay/neuter education and outreach. Exactly the sort of thing that’s an integral part of virtually every community cat program I’m aware of.

I think we can check that box.

“Trapping and neutering decreased the populations of 55 cat colonies there,” Conniff goes on to explain, “while the other 48 colonies either gained population or stayed the same.” (His description is very similar to the one used by the authors of the publicly funded, agenda-driven “Rabies Prevention and Management of Cats in the Context of Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Release Programmes,” published last year, which tells us something about Conniff’s reading list.)

What Conniff fails to mention, of course, is the degree of the program’s success.

Although some colonies experienced initial increases, numbers began to decrease significantly after three years of TNR: “colonies neutered 3, 4, 5 or 6 years before the survey showed progressive decreases of 16, 29, 28 and 32 percent, respectively.” [2]

True to form, Conniff has nothing to offer by way of trap-and-kill efforts demonstrating similar reductions.

The fact that Conniff is unable—neither in his NYT op-ed, nor in his blog post—to provide a single example of a community that has killed its way out of the “feral cat problem” says it all. Yet it’s “TNR proponents,” he complains—apparently without irony—who “just go on touting the same evidence, with an almost magical faith that it will somehow turn out to support their almost religious beliefs.

Already on the wrong side of science and public opinion, Conniff seems to have bids farewell to reason and common sense.

All of which we’ve come to expect from the American Bird Conservancy, The Wildlife Society, various purveyors of junk science on the subject, and others who persist in their efforts to keep the witch-hunt going. But Conniff, I’d like to think, is not one of them. He writes for National Geographic, Smithsonian, the New York Times, and other highly regarded publications.

And science writers—though they can’t be expected to have all the answers—are very good at asking the right kind of questions.

Or maybe that’s just my magical faith talking.

Literature Review

1. Levy, J.K., D.W. Gale, and L.A. Gale, Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2003. 222(1): p. 42–46.

2. Natoli, E., et al., Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy). Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2006. 77(3-4): p. 180–185.

wendy kelly (165)
Friday March 27, 2015, 3:43 pm
."Do not wait for leaders. Do it alone, person to person."
.- Mother Teresa

marisol melgarejo (41)
Saturday March 28, 2015, 12:16 am
I could sign

Patricia Cannell (818)
Saturday March 28, 2015, 6:41 am
Signed and noted!

Bruce C D (89)
Saturday March 28, 2015, 8:42 am
@Wendy Kelly--

First of all, if this is not about TNR, as you state, and the stray and feral cats around the Biltmore Park Apartments are not being at least trapped and sterilized as part of any management program, much less vaccinated, that would be totally irresponsible and much worse, providing even less justification for signing the petition. Otherwise, if so, then this petition essentially does involve TNR, making it a relevant topic of discussion here.

While I have every sympathy for disabled people (being partially disabled) and those with medical conditions, that isn't what this petition is about. Nowhere does it state anything about any disabled or impaired person(s). Where I come from, that's called moving the goal posts, and is considered disingenuous. Moreover, it is a disingenuous ploy to play on people's sympathy, because this isn't about one alleged disabled person, is it? Isn't the concern supposed to be about the cats? In actuality, though, it really is about humans--humans with a very narrow view of animal welfare, and human societies unwilling to take responsibility for cleaning up their messes. You (and other TNR advocates) are unable to provide a rational explanation as to why TNR is not a species-centric approach that places a higher value on a smaller number of just one single select invasive predatory species meeting cuteness criteria than it does a much larger number and far broader range of indigenous wildlife.

The TNR advocate responding to Richard Coniff's article does not respond to many of the points and arguments he presented, just as you have not responded to many of the points and arguments I've presented. In fact, you didn't respond to any; all you did was post the article. The rebuttal article you've presented engages in ad hominem and deceit, while hiding behind sophistry. It also evades and attempts to downplay the issue about free-roaming cats killing wildlife, just as you do. The first link confirms what Coniff stated in the article of his I posted, as does the abstract in the second link. Furthermore, Coniff wasn't implying that TNR programs don't have some success; he conceded that, as I did. The objection is that TNR is overall neither an effective nor humane strategy. Not particularly humane for each cat returned outdoors to most likely suffer a shortened miserable existence and die a cruel, horrible death much worse than euthanizing, and certainly not humane for the thousands of wildlife suffering cruel deaths from each TNR cat. But the author of your article and TNR advocates never talk about that. TNR advocates, with their tunnel vision, invariably ignore, minimize and deny the other side of the equation.

One example of the sophistry the author is engaging in is that euthanized cats do not reproduce any more than do sterilized cats. So if every cat trapped in a TNR program was euthanized, the reproduction rate would be decreased just the same, regardless if other cats come to repopulate that territory. And whether it is a TNR program or a TSAFE program, as new cats join a colony or enter a territory, they need to be trapped. The difference is that removed cats do not kill wildlife, nor do they pose nuisance or health hazards to humans and other animals. Also, removing all the cats trapped reduces the colony size immediately by the respective number, whereas it takes years when the cat is returned and released. Another example is the author talks about education and outreach, but neglects to mention how TNR programs cause more people to abandon their pets instead of doing the responsible thing, because they see the cat colonies (and likely see they are being fed) and use that as an excuse. Also, this is a problem with society, and needs to be addressed comprehensively by society, which would be more effective than a scattershot approach by various groups and organizations. Our governments have an obligation to educate people about problems within our societies, and only governments can pass the laws and regulations (and enforce them) that are needed to stop, or at least greatly reduce, pets from being abandoned. Which isn't to say that individuals and organizations can't assist in these efforts, only that they should not be relied upon as the primary agent. Yet another example of your author engaging in sophistry is that Conniff was correct to point out the different ways not attributable to sterilization that TNR colonies were reduced--such as with feral cats moving away or being adopted. A feral cat that moves elsewhere isn't solving the problem, it's just relocating the problem to another place. And other solutions like TSAFE also utilize adoption; TNR is not required to accomplish that. One more piece of sophistry your TNR advocate is engaging in is the fallacy of attacking other methods instead of defending TNR. The author can't name even one TNR program, despite a number of well-managed programs being in place for 10-20 years, in which the the goal of eliminating feral cats has been reached. Nor can any TNR advocates give an accurate estimate when that goal could be reached for any particular colony. Such sophistry can be effective on those unsophisticated or biased towards the author's point of view--they eat it up like candy.

While I respect that many TNR activists are dedicated people making significant sacrifices, and many TNR programs are well managed, a good number are ad hoc affairs which are poorly managed. TNR requires a fair amount of time, money and resources to be done properly. But even well managed TNR programs are often unable to trap all the cats to have them sterilized, allowing feral cats to reproduce, perpetuating the problem. They may not be vaccinated because of the added cost, and even when they are, the needed periodic follow-up vaccinations, which require re-trapping, is usually not done. The author advocating TNR notably omits mention of any of these issues with TNR. For any program to be successful in eradicating feral cats, it will be require effective alternatives for dealing with felines resistant to trapping.

The author you provide is also engaging in deceit, because the science does not back TNR, which is why conservation groups do not support TNR--it's not because they hate cats. I mean, common sense should tell people that if the science supported TNR, then conservation groups would be enthusiastic supporters. And if TNR is indeed ethical and humane, then PETA would also be fully onboard supporting it. But TNR advocates like to portray conservation groups and those opposing TNR as part of some vast conspiracy against them--just as is insinuated in the article you've posted. And if the science actually did support TNR, then TNR advocacy groups wouldn't need to be filling campaign coffers of local politicians as they do to advance their agenda. Another deceit is that euthanizing programs have worked where there is a sustained commitment. I'm sure your author is well aware the main reason for a lack of success in most places using euthanizing is a lack of commitment and an unwillingness for spending the money needed to solve an ongoing problem, and that euthanizing costs far less to society than TNR programs (keep in mind that whether expenses are borne by individuals, groups, or government, they remain a cost to society).

The mindset of TNR proponents is illogical, irrational, and hypocritical. They are opposed to humans humanely euthanizing feral cats, but ignore that TNR essentially involves humans allowing invasive feral cats as a proxy to inhumanely kill far larger numbers of native wildlife animals. Most are opposed to people using dogs to occasionally hunt other animals, but actively support TNR, which releases cats outdoors, giving invasive predatory cats carte blanche to hunt other animals whenever without any restriction. And many see nothing wrong with allowing their own cats to roam free outdoors to kill native wildlife at will.

TNR advocates often point out the use of cats to control vermin, and while rats may also be an undesirable invasive species, the mice, voles, shrews, squirrels, rabbits and other small mammals, as well as many of the birds, amphibians and reptiles cats prey upon, all form vital parts of the natural ecosystems in which they live. A University of Kansas study and successful program working with farmers found that better designed storage facilities and practices, combined with the use of natural predators like snakes and raptors, eliminated the need for farmers and ranchers to use free roaming cats to control pests. But if TNR advocates don't have a problem with humans using cats to reduce other animal populations they deem vermin and pests, then they shouldn't have any objection to humans employing coyotes and other native predator species to reduce invasive pestilent cat populations, right? Or do they have a double standard revealing their discriminatory species-centrism?

Living in England, Wendy, you may be aware that San Antonio, where the apartment complex in this petition is located, is in the very southern part of Texas. But you are probably unaware that southern Texas attracts more bird watchers than any other place on earth, and that a great many species of birds live there and migrate through. Free roaming cats are an invasive predatory species that reportedly kill an average of one bird a day. How many naturally evolved beautiful indigenous songbirds viciously and inhumanely killed by a human-bred domesticated feral cat that is an invasive predatory species would it take for you to justify the humane euthanizing of that feral cat? Is the life of even one native wildlife animal that plays a role in local ecosystems worth less than the life of one non-native hybrid feral cat that does not have a natural role in local ecosystems? Can you answer those questions truthfully and still candidly assert that TNR is not species-centric and discriminatory? If you're honest with yourself, I'm quite certain that you cannot.

Bruce C D (89)
Saturday March 28, 2015, 10:02 am
@Wendy Kelly--

I know I've given you quite a bit to chew on, but I'm going to post a couple more informative pieces from other perspectives to butress the arguments and points presented and hopefully provide additional insight. The first is an article written by a veterinarian, and the second is a short video documenting some of the problems with TNR.

A Veterinarian’s Pespective on the Feral Cat Issue
March 27, 2013
by Brian Monk
Brian Monk is a veterinarian, birder, photographer, and professional orchid grower and lecturer. He received his DVM from Virginia Tech in 1997 and currently resides in Ft. Lauderdale, Floirida, with his wife Mary-Margaret and his 5 rescued cats.

Let me make myself perfectly clear: I love cats. I am a veterinarian, quite a few of my patients are cats, and I count five of them as my pets. I believe that cats have an inherent value to us, both as living things and as companions. I also love birds, and have been watching them before I was old enough to know what they were. Without question, birds also have inherent value, both to our planet and our hobby. My position as both a birder and a veterinarian lends me a unique perspective about the current controversy surrounding feral cats, and the various solutions offered up to address this issue.

A recent study has determined that 1.4-3.7 billion birds are killed by feral cats per year, and its publication has pitted wildlife conservation groups against feline advocacy groups. The controversy centers around the most important question, “What is the solution to this problem of cat overpopulation?” The only thing that these two groups seem to agree on is that feral cat overpopulation exists.

Feral cats lead short and brutal lives. Kittens suffer a 50-75% mortality rate. Disease is prevalent in feral cat populations, as expected. They are plagued with parasitism by various worms, arthropods, and protozoa; viral diseases like Feline Leukemia, Feline Immunodeficiency Virus, Herpes, Distemper, and Rabies; bacterial infections such as Toxoplasmosis, and Haemobartonellosis. Traumatic injury is common. Feral cats suffer attacks from dogs, other cats, and other wildlife. And they suffer from the inexplicable cruelty of some humans. Personally, I have seen cats poisoned (both inadvertently and intentionally), caught and tortured, shot (with arrows and bullets), and set on fire. Many feral cats are chronically malnourished. Regardless of the debilitation, feral cats for the most part receive no veterinary care for their illnesses, even in “managed” colonies, and suffer needlessly. Feral cats rarely live more than 6 years, and rarely die peaceful deaths.
Rabies in feral cat colonies is a serious concern. Rabies is an untreatable and uniformly fatal disease. Prophylatic preventative therapy is long, painful, and expensive. Though cats are not a primary carrier of the disease (like raccoons or bats), they are easily infected due to their interactions with other wildlife. And because cats are generally accepted, humans are easily exposed. According to the Centers for Disease Control, cats are the only species with an increasing frequency of rabies infection.

Feline advocacy groups are in favor of continued tolerance of feral cats, citing the effectiveness of Trap-Neuter-Release programs (TNR) and managed colonies in reducing feral populations. Trap-Neuter-Release programs are intended to reduce cat populations by surgically sterilizing as many feral cats as can be caught. These cats are then released back into the environment. In some instances, the groups attempt to “manage” these feral populations by feeding cats in a specific area, the intention being to keep them from preying on other animals.

This solution on its face has a certain moral palatability and logical origin. If all feral cats are prevented from reproducing, then eventually the population will be reduced to zero, and this can be accomplished without killing a cat. But the flaws in this thinking should be apparent. Not all cats can be captured, and these continue to reproduce. New individuals can enter the TNR area at will, and they will reproduce. And surgical sterilization does nothing to prevent continued predation on native wildlife. TNR can neither eliminate feral cats, nor reduce predation, and does not address illness or disease, facts supported by actual scientific study.

Proponents of TNR ignore these facts. They downplay or deny outright the problems with rabies and other diseases. They counter that feral cats are a natural part of the ecosystem and play an important role in the biologic control of pest species, that the estimation of wildlife killed by cats is grossly exaggerated, and that conservation groups have more important things to worry about. They have provided no studies that refute the numbers of wildlife killed. The studies that they do refer to regarding the effectiveness of TNR are of limited scope, and often contradictory in their findings. All of these studies openly admit that TNR will not be effective at eliminating feral cat populations.

What is not in dispute is that domestic cats are an invasive species, with a population of 60-70 million in North America. Derived from the desert-dwelling wild felines of northern Africa, and brought to this continent by European settlers, cats are exceptionally well adapted to a predatory lifestyle, having keen eyesight, acute hearing and sense of smell, incredible strength and speed, lethal weaponry, and an incredible rate of reproduction. Cats are beautiful, efficient, and almost-perfect predators. And they are an alien species, altering the landscape, and causing- environmental, agricultural, and economic harm. There is no other small cat native to North America similar to Felis sylvestris, and thus they have a huge and disproportionately damaging effect on wildlife.

Cats have their own biology, ecology, and ethnology, and their behaviors directly impact the biome. There are 60-70 million feral cats in the North America. Feral cats draw their sustenance almost entirely from wildlife that they catch and kill. A cat will eat as often as possible, and must eat several times a week (at least) to survive. These are facts, undisputed by both sides. One shouldn’t need to use statistics or years-long research to see how quickly the numbers of dead prey add up.

Clearly, given the stated facts, feral cats must be completely removed from the environment, and by that I mean active extermination. From an ethical perspective, this may sound like a difficult thing to do, and I understand the visceral response concerning the outright extermination of an individual life. But only the complete elimination of feral cats will provide the solutions that both conservationists and feline advocates want. Disease, health problems, public safety, and environmental concerns are all addressed successfully by eliminating the feral feline population. I have considered all other possible solutions from the perspective of both a veterinarian and a conservationist, and they are either impractical or impossible.
The removal and eradication of harmful invasive species has become an important part of most conservation plans, and is actually supported by federal, state, and local law. These laws mandate the protection of native wildlife, and as such require the active elimination or control of alien species. Laws currently exist that allow specifically for the control, prevention, and elimination of feral cat colonies, while protecting pet cats and their owners.

Feline advocacy groups like Alley Cat Allies approach this situation without compromise. They use vague moral reasoning and use this to generate guilt in their audience, tearfully pleading that no one needs to kill the poor, defenseless little kitty-cats. Questions about the effectiveness of TNR and the health of feral cats are dismissed, or met with a furious, venomous, and illogical character assassination. They state as loudly as possible that “cats are not a threat to wildlife” and scream that the science behind cat-predation studies is flawed, all without offering up any evidence to the contrary. Fingers are pointed to habitat loss, cell-phone towers, and anything else that might play a role in population or biodiversity loss, and admonishments handed out to the guilty conservationists. With these methods, they apply pressure for the public to adopt TNR. Unfortunately, this has been effective at even the legislative level. A bill is currently being explored in the Florida legislature that would make the creation of feral cat colonies much easier, regardless of their effect on wildlife, disease, or property rights, and it has gained some traction, already receiving unanimous passage by the Florida House Agriculture & Natural Resources Subcommittee. They are essentially being treated as a naturally occurring wild species.

This problem of feral cats is a difficult one. Although it is only a part of the greater question of avian conservation, it is obviously an important part. Further, it seems to be a part where real progress could be made, with benefits that are not so vague as biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. Improving feline health in general, while keeping our precious wildlife safe, is a noble goal, that we can only approach ignobly. Feral cats exist because of man’s ego and carelessness. But TNR does not adequately address the issue. It does not ease feline suffering or eliminate feline predation on our wildlife to a point that is acceptable, to me as a veterinarian and a conservationist, or to anyone else who considers the facts. As difficult as it may be, the elimination of feral cats via Trap and Euthanasia is the only truly viable solution.
Loss, Will, & Marra; The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications, Volume: 4:1396, Jan 2013
Hildreth, Vantassel, Hyngstrom; Feral Cats and Their Management. University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Service; Publication EC1781.
Levy, Gale, Gale; Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2003:222, pp 42-46, Jan 2003.
Foley, Foley, Levy, Paik; Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return programs on populations of feral cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2005:227, pp 1775-1781, December 2005.
HB 1121 Passes Through First Committee Stop;
Nutter, Levine, Stoskopf; Reproductive capacity of free-roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2004:225, pp1399-1402, November 2004.
Horn, Mateus-Pinella, Warner, Heske; Home range, habitat use, and activity patterns of free-roaming domestic cats. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75:5, pp1177-1185, July 2011.
Barrows, Jessup, Winter, Levy, Crawford, Stoskopf, Nutter; Animal Welfare Forum:Management of Abandoned and Feral Cats. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 2004:225, pp1354-1383. November 2004.

Trap, Neuter, and Release: Bad for Cats, Disaster for Birds
Posted by "GrrlScientist" on June 2, 2009
This video documents the fact that “feral cat colonies” are a disaster for wild birds. Each year free-roaming and feral cats kill hundreds of million of birds in the United States. One controversial solution to deal with the feral cat problem is trap, neuter and release. However, evidence is growing that this method is not eliminating the cat colonies or the predation of birds and other wildlife. There are other problems created by feral cats as well including threats to human health, and public nuisance issues. [9:19]

Trap, Neuter, and Release: Bad for Cats, Disaster for Birds

wendy kelly (165)
Saturday March 28, 2015, 3:49 pm
@Bruce C D, wow, I am not going to carry this on, you twist my words, --
When I said this wasn't a discussion about TNR, I didn't say the residents would not be doing just that,
This petition is about being allowed to feed Stray cats, who have been left behind by their so called owners.
You said why can't the residents feed the cats elsewhere, off private property,- =
So I gave you an explanation as to why some residents were unable to do that, - one of the residents HAS (not alleged) complex medical issues so wouldn't be able to do that.
No way was I being as you say disingenuous, or looking for sympathy, neither am I moving the goal posts, by providing you with an explanation, to a question you asked ,
- and I don't take kindly to be called a fake,!
if you really knew me, you wouldn't have bothered saying that.
the petition is about the residents, and the cats, the residents have been feeding for YEARS with no problems. As I said there are not many cats, for it to be a problem, so if it isn't broke why try to fix it?.
- The land maybe "private Land", but the residents pay rent for their bit of land. Next the residents will be told to move their plant pots, because the big org landlord wants all the flowers to be the same colour.
So to answer your question, YES this petition is about the residents, as well as the cats, they don't want your sympathy, or your opinions , If the cats started to breed, then of couse the residents would try to get TNR, They care deeply for the "forgotten pets".
I really don't have time for further debate, - You don't know me, I don't know you , so let's keep it that way, . We will never agree, .
Thank you to everyone who signed and I am sorry the comments have been distorted by @Bruce C.D, -
but I promise you, I really was answering questions he raised, and by explaining why one resident wouldn't be able to walk too far to feed the pets, cruelly left behind, by so called owners due to complex medical issues, I am disingenuous ?? it wouldn't be in the petition, because it wasn't relevant, - Bruce C D, asked why couldn't the residents feed the cats else where , off private property, I told him, simple as that. I am closing now, as I am very displeased at being called disingenuous, and looking for sympathy, I am not manipulating, and am very upset at being told I am,
This proves to me, Bruce C D, will do anything to prove his point, including sullying my character.
I can't or perhaps rather don't see the point of answering questions asked, to be called a "fake" by someone, who didn't like the answer they got, maybe it would be better for them, not to ask the questions?.
for a better view of TNR, what works, what doesn't , - here are two links, love hugs x wendy k x & kelly cats xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Promoting trap/neuter/return (TNR) of community cats through our cat initiatives.

marisol melgarejo (41)
Sunday March 29, 2015, 9:25 am
I still can´t sign ?

Mariann Rannenberg (158)
Tuesday March 31, 2015, 1:23 am


Apolonia Pl (392)
Tuesday March 31, 2015, 11:37 am
N%S. 80 signatures still needed...

Bruce C D (89)
Tuesday March 31, 2015, 1:04 pm
@Wendy Kelly--
You're obviously confused about several things. First, nowhere did I accuse you of being a "faker." You alleged that there was a person involved with a medical condition. You do understand the meaning of alleged, don't you? If not, here is the definition for the usage in this instance:

allege (verb) -- To assert without proof.

In other words, it means to make an unsubstantiated claim. Which is exactly what you did, because you didn't offer any proof to support your assertion. Now, I have no way of knowing if the hearsay you allege is true or not (I had just assumed it was), but you seem to be confusing the meaning of the word, which doesn't make something true or false, it only means that is what is being claimed.

Perhaps it was wrong of me to call it disingenuous for you to bring up that person, since it was in response to my query. However, just because one person can't feed the cats off-premises doesn't mean that other residents or people can't accomplish the task, so that is hardly adequate justification. Nor is it relevant. As evidenced by the petition, the chief concern is clearly for the cats. Obviously, what is most important here is that the cats don't starve, not who feeds them. The precise location isn't that important either; it just needs to be somewhere within their territory, which would encompass much more than the grounds of a single apartment building. Since the decision of the owner/management was made, presumably the cats are being fed off-premises. Implying that they are going to starve to death, as the petition does, is unduly alarmist and disingenuous, because not only is that likely untrue, neither is the implication true that only the solution asked for in the petition could prevent that.

You also seem to be confused about whether or not this is a TNR program, or if these people are just feeding cats without even bothering to trap and sterilize them, which even TNR groups recognize is irresponsible. That is vital information of which petition signers should be informed. That's a real problem with this petition; there is no link and very little information provided. Regardless, whether it is or isn't TNR, the arguments I've presented here still remain perfectly valid and the concerns raised legitimate, because these are abandoned and feral cats living outdoors, suffering, posing health risks to humans and animals, and cruelly killing native wildlife even when fed.

You said: "If the cats started to breed, then of course the residents would try to get TNR." Which not only indicates that this is not even a TNR program, but that you don't have even a clue. The time to sterilize abandoned and feral cats isn't after they start breeding--it should be a proactive procedure to keep cats from unwanted breeding. And we especially should NOT want those kinds of cats breeding, causing the huge problem we have to grow even larger. Even TNR advocate groups agree with that.

You are engaging in a logical fallacy when you say things like this:
"The land maybe "private Land", but the residents pay rent for their bit of land. Next the residents will be told to move their plant pots, because the big org landlord wants all the flowers to be the same colour."

Yes, residents do pay rent, which does give them some very specific rights. But they also sign a lease, which also restricts some rights and gives the owner/management rights. They also share common areas with other tenants. Following your logic, if the owner tells a renter they can't play their music too loud in consideration of other residents, then it follows that "Next the residents will be told to move their plant pots, because the big org landlord wants all the flower to be the same colour." See how silly that is? Logical fallacies are disingenuous whether engaged in knowingly or done unaware, and this argument ad absurdum of yours is also just plain ludicrous.

You keep conveniently ignoring how the owner/management has rights, as do those tenants of this apartment complex who may not wish to have abandoned and feral cats fed on the property where they reside. For example, what about the pregnant mother tenant who does not wish to be forced to stay inside lest she be exposed to toxoplasmosis in cat feces and possibly risk harm to her fetus? She doesn't have any rights? What about the mom tenant who feels prevented from allowing her children to play outside because of all the cat feces and the risk of them getting bit or scratched by an abandoned or feral cat and possibly catching rabies or having to undergo treatment for rabies? Don't her and her kids have any rights? What about the right of the owner not wishing to pay extra for liability insurance, or to have to constantly clean up the mess? (I see at least one tenant there did say the cat feces they left were a problem, and that these apartments do have families with children as tenants.) What about his right not to have his property value decreased or lose renters or prospective renters because of abandoned or feral cats on the premises? Owners don't have any rights? Also, as I'd already pointed out before, the landlord has to consider the rights and wishes of ALL of his tenants. Is that really that hard to understand? Your argument is another example of the myopic tunnel vision and narrow-minded thinking common to TNR proponents. It isn't even about the abandoned and feral cats that continue to suffer under TNR as much as it appears to be about their own selfish species-centrism and misguided emotions, causing them to forsake an analytical and reasoned approach, which would allow them to see that what they are advocating for is ultimately more inhumanity and suffering, not less.

You claim that it isn't that many cats, and that residents have been feeding them for years, and that if it isn't a problem, then why fix it? OK, how many cats is it? How many is too many? Maybe your idea of too many isn't the same as that of another person. If it isn't a problem, why did the owner adopt this policy? There is another side to this story we aren't hearing, but some are so hopelessly biased they not only don't want to know or hear it, they don't even want to question or consider it.

Here is another disingenuous logical fallacy of yours: "...they don't want your sympathy, or your opinions." Obviously, the petition is hoping for people's sympathy. And one would hope people have sympathy for those suffering disabilities or medical conditions. The latter part is just inane. Naturally, it wouldn't come as any great surprise if TNR people don't want any opinions that might cause them to reconsider what they are advocating--it's all about illogical fuzzy emotions. But of course I never claimed anybody wanted my opinion. And of course I have every right to give my opinion whether people want it or not. And of course you have no way of knowing if other people want my opinion. You're only speaking for yourself, and it comes across as nothing more than a rather shallow attempt to silence those disagreeing with you.

Once again, you have still failed to address any of the more critical points and arguments. All you offered was a couple very weak counter-arguments on a some peripheral issues. I didn't expect you would be able to present a rational case, because I've yet to see anybody make one from the TNR camp. While not without hope, neither did I expect you would be able to answer my questions honestly, because that would have meant admitting you are wrong, or at least admitting the case for TNR isn't so cut-and-dried, and that there are other factors involved which are equally deserving of consideration. Personally, I don't run away or hide from a discussion on an issue, and I don't mind conceding a point or admitting when I'm wrong.

It's true that we don't know each other, but that does not preclude judging what a person says. You would be mistaken to confuse attacks against your arguments and position with personal attacks. For example, calling someone's argument disingenuous isn't the same as calling that person disingenuous. Or explaining why someone's thinking is narrow-minded on a particular subject under discussion isn't to say that person is narrow-minded on all things or even most things. I eschew making such blanket judgments about people, and I try to refrain from making personal attacks, which are not conducive to civil discourse and usually only counter-productive, anyway. But I am frank and open with people, and have no compunction against calling BS when I see it.

Bruce C D (89)
Tuesday March 31, 2015, 1:18 pm
Here are some of San Antonio's regulations regarding this, raising even more questions about this petition:

An Overview of City of San Antonio Code: Regulating the Care and Control of Animals

Leashing and Control. Animal Care Officers have the legal authority to enter unenclosed front yards of private property to impound unrestrained animals.

Rabies Vaccination. All dogs, cats and domestic ferrets must be vaccinated against rabies by sixteen (16) weeks of age by a licensed veterinarian. Booster vaccinations are required by State, County and City law one year following the initial rabies vaccination and then at one or three year intervals depending on the vaccine used. Other vaccinations are highly recommended and you should establish a relationship with a veterinarian for your pet.

Licensing. All dogs, cats and domestic ferrets must be licensed by sixteen (16) weeks of age and annually thereafter with the City of San Antonio, Animal Care Services Division. Licenses are $5 for sterilized animals and $50 for unsterilized or intact pets. Proof of current rabies vaccination must be demonstrated when the license is issued.

Animal limits A maximum number of eight (8) cats or five (5) dogs or an aggregate number of eight (8) may be permitted at a residence within the City limits. ) The total number of domestic fowl and livestock allowed at a residence is five (5) which may include: up to three (3) domestic fowl; and up to two (2) animals from the following classes of livestockequines, bovines, sheep, goats and llamas.

Animal Bites. All animal bites and scratches which have broken the skin must be reported to the Animal Care Services Division within 24 hours by calling 737-1600 OR 287-2778 anytime day or night. Biting animals are required by State, County and City law to be quarantined for rabies observation for 10 days from the date of the bite, regardless of the vaccination status of the animal.

Outdoor Cats. All outdoor cats must be spayed or neutered.

Abandoned Animals. It is unlawful to abandon an animal within the City Limits. An abandoned animal is any animal abandoned while in the person’s custody without making reasonable arrangements for assumption of custody by another person.

AnimalPermits/Licenses. The revised Chapter 5 Ordinance institutes a permitting and licensing process for variety of animal related concerns beyond general pet licensing. There are permits governing areas like animal related businesses as well as residential pet concerns like litter permits, excess animals, livestock and cat colonies.

Sec. 5-115. - Cat colony permit and registration.
(a) Each cat colony will be registered by the caretakers with the department or its designee which will serve as a clearinghouse for information on current caretakers, education for new caretakers, and assistance for persons found in violation of this section. Cat colonies with eight (8) or fewer cats are not required to be registered as a cat colony.
(b) Any feral cat picked up by the department which has an appropriate ear tip will be returned to that colony unless veterinary care is required or the criteria listed in subsection (d) apply.
(c) Caretakers of feral cat colonies shall obtain a cat colony permit which shall be valid for one (1) year, and implement proper management and sterilization practices as required by the department. Any person or caretaker determined to be in violation of proper management and sterilization practices required by the department shall be issued a written warning and be allowed a period of time to come into compliance, or provide satisfactory evidence of working to achieve compliance. That period of time shall not exceed ninety (90) days from issuance of the initial warning notice. Failure to comply shall result in a violation of this chapter, which may result in the issuance of a citation.
(d) The department has the right to immediately seize and remove all, or parts of any colony for the following reasons:
(1) Public health and public safety concerns including rabies, other epizootic and certain zoonoses identified by the department of health; or
(2) Animals creating a public nuisance as defined in section 5-150
(Ord. No. 2010-06-17-0555, § 1, 6-17-10)

wendy kelly (165)
Tuesday March 31, 2015, 2:50 pm
@Bruce C D-


Definition of disingenuous in English:

Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does:
this journalist was being somewhat disingenuous as well as cynical
*pretending* = false = fake .
I said in my first reply to you, you were entitled to your opinion, but I disagree with you.
That does not make you right, and me wrong, or vice/ versa.
There are about 8 cats maximum, none of which have caused problems, it is the owners that caused the problem, by abandoning their pet, and not neutering there pet.
The residents were simply ensuring the poor cats did not starve.
They do need help to trap neuter and help the cats find forever homes. -(The ones that can be adopted).
I am not prepared to carry on , debating this with you, it takes attention away from what this petition is about,
you may enjoy endlessly trying to prove your point, which you already made at length, I will leave it to care2 members, please sign this petition, if you would like to, .
Denise has already said TNR can work very well , please see her post a few posts back.
As for me, I am off to give my new rescued kitten some attention, and to see are we any further along to prosecute the people that dumped , and left a Mom cat and 4 kittens to the elements.
No nothing to do with the petition, just saying I have to go! - If owners were prosecuted for dumping their cat, or dog , the "stray animal" would be considerably less too, JUST SAYING

wendy kelly (165)
Tuesday March 31, 2015, 3:03 pm
*sorry should have read the "stray animal problem" would be considerably less too.*

Bruce C D (89)
Wednesday April 1, 2015, 2:12 am
@Wendy Kelly--

Yeah, I'm busy saving the world, too, but that doesn't stop me from responding to your points and arguments, nor would I use that as a flimsy excuse to evade them. After all, there are no time constraints to respond being placed upon either of us. As for me, I'd much prefer people spend the time needed to respond fully and intelligently rather than firing off some quick, incomplete, poorly contemplated response instead. Moreover, I see educating people and encouraging them to think a bit more deeply about this issue as a component of doing my part to make the world a little better place. And I can't help but notice that you seem to have plenty of time to respond to other things besides key points raised. So, yeah, I think that is disingenuous. But, as was already explained to you, calling something someone does or says disingenuous is not the same as saying the person is a "faker." Even my youngest child in school can comprehend the difference, so I don't believe that you are incapable of understanding.

As was also already explained, what has been presented isn't just an opinion, it is also facts and reason. That's like people denying global warming saying those of us who accept the scientific consensus are "just expressing an opinion."

No, this debate does not detract from the issue, because it directly pertains to what this petition is all about. More accurately, you do not wish to discuss what is wrong with this petition. I had already read Denise's postings, which mostly parrots misleading and erroneous TNR talking points, a number of which I've addressed.

So, "only" up to eight cats? That seems like a really convenient number in light of the relevant sections of San Antonio's municipal code regarding animal control. Is there any way people can get accurate information about this petition without relying on someone's hearsay? It doesn't appear so. Regardless, even eight cats could easily be seen as too many by the owners and other residents of these apartments who have to deal with the headaches they can cause. And it seems you've just admitted that these abandoned and feral cats in this colony are not being properly sterilized, which is irresponsible and contributing to a growing problem. That may well have also been a factor in the apartment owner's decision.

Yes, I think most everyone would agree that there needs to be better measures to prevent people from abandoning pets they no longer want. As seen in the San Antonio statutes, I suspect the law is fairly strict in most places, and the problem might be due more to a lack of enforcement of the existing laws. But the fact remains that TNR, despite being in place for many years in a number of places in the U.S., has not proven effective in the overall reduction of abandoned and feral cats. And the fact remains that what this petition and TNR are advocating is ultimately more animal suffering all around, not less. TNR advocates can bury their heads in the sand and dismiss those things as "opinion," but facts are funny things--they don't just go away.

wendy kelly (165)
Wednesday April 1, 2015, 4:41 am
This is tiresome, you twist my words, to fit your points, you try to "bait me" with your insults, - I am pleased your child is literate long may, all your children learn and thrive, -mine have by the way, just incase you have something to say on that.
I wish I could save the world, I would do it in a heart beat, I though was delighted in playing a part in the rescue of a mother cat & kittens, One of the kittens has now happily joined the kelly family, and we are delighted with him.
Mother cat and kittens now have proper caring homes, What's not to like? .
I am sorry you don't like the fact, I would rather spend time with the kitten, and my other cats, than be here debating with you, but there you go , .
I have answered your questions, I will not allow you to carry on verbally trying to beat me into submission .
I am not on the "witness stand" .
I will leave you with this news, (I have also sent this to my friend, who I am not judging AS YOU DO) but offering some help to the situation the residents find themselves in. -If I lived near her, I would have visited to help! but I am in the UK,
To answer your points about San Antonio , I think the next article does this, and it explain why TNR works .
San Antonio unifies to help community cats

Trap/neuter/return in the Lone Star State has a secret weapon.

February 24, 2014
By Denise LeBeau

Where have San Antonio’s shelter cats gone? Thanks to the San Antonio Community Cats Project, a collaboration between Best Friends Animal Society and PetSmart Charities®, the majority of community (aka feral) cats are now bypassing shelter cages. Instead, they’re spayed or neutered and returned to their original territory. More cats are leaving the city’s animal shelter alive, thanks to key collaborations and one very effective secret weapon.

Concentrated solutions

San Antonio colony catIn the last 13 months, thousands fewer cats died in the shelter thanks to collaboration among Best Friends, City of San Antonio Animal Care Services, San Antonio Humane Society, and the San Antonio Feral Cat Coalition to trap, neuter and return (TNR) the community’s cats. As a result of everyone’s combined efforts, the city shelter’s live release rate for cats (which is the percentage of cats that leave the shelter via adoption, return to their guardians, transfer to a rescue organization, or return to managed cat colonies) has increased to 79 percent. And that’s something to celebrate.

“We’re incredibly proud of the teamwork that has gone into producing these results,” says Shelly Kotter, Best Friends community cat program manager. “Shelter staff and animal control officers play a huge part in the success of San Antonio.”

Best Friends also has a local community cat coordinator, Evelyn Zuniga, who helps the project run smoothly. Part of Evelyn’s role is running a robust trap loan program. Evelyn explains, “It gives the residents the resources they need to TNR the community cats themselves.”

“Communities have an obligation to their residents – both two- and four-legged,” says Lisa Norwood, public information officer at San Antonio Animal Care Services. “Since the partnership began, Animal Care Services has seen a 22 percent decrease in the number of cats coming into the shelter, as well as a substantial increase in the number of positive placements and requests for feline spay/neuter. The numbers don’t lie. TNR works.”

Evelyn adds, “Without the support of ACS (Animal Care Services) and the other clinics we work with, we could not have made such tremendous strides. ACS helps us by enforcing our right to return our trapped cats to their correct location.”

The outreach partners are thrilled. “Because of the partnership, many caretakers are able to get entire cat colonies completely sterilized,” says Nicole Poore, board member of San Antonio Feral Cat Coalition. “In addition, the size of the project has allowed so many cats to be fixed in such a short time that the larger community of people who may have been opposed to TNR initially have been able to see how effective it is.”

Caring, beyond the numbers

San Antonio community catWhile the project is geared toward creating a no-kill community, the well-being of the community cats is a driving force. “Every cat we spay or neuter has a lower risk of certain types of cancer. We are honored to be part of a program that allows these cats to live longer, healthier lives,” says Seamus Nelson, director of communications at San Antonio Humane Society.

Evelyn echoes the sentiments that the program is helping the cats live both happier and healthier lives, and it’s the folks in the field who are making the difference: “It is a wonderful feeling that we are able to help resident cats that would have otherwise been caught and euthanized. We love it when residents express how thankful they are for our program.”

So what’s the secret weapon in TNR? A caring public.

Get involved

Learn how Best Friends is helping community cats across the country.

Photos courtesy of San Antonio Animal Care Services

Bruce C D (89)
Thursday April 2, 2015, 12:19 pm
@Wendy Kelly--

You're the one twisting things. Pointing out that someone is evading key points and arguments in a discussion is not putting them on the "witness stand." Anyway, such evasions are telling in themselves.

No surprise your self-promotional literature from a TNR group notably neglects to mention the thousands of wildlife each cat released will cruelly and inhumanely kill, or the miserable existence and horrible deaths the cats suffer. That's how they create the illusion that more animal suffering is a "success." TNR groups are counting on people to be species-centric, narrow-minded and unwilling to look past the surface to think deeply enough to contemplate the unpleasant realities of TNR.

wendy kelly (165)
Thursday April 2, 2015, 5:54 pm
You can't answer because all your stuff was outdated old old news , End Of !!!! see the report -
The outreach partners are thrilled. “Because of the partnership, many caretakers are able to get entire cat colonies completely sterilized,” says Nicole Poore, board member of San Antonio Feral Cat Coalition. “In addition, the size of the project has allowed so many cats to be fixed in such a short time that the *****Larger community of people *****who may have been~ opposed to TNR initially~ have been able to see how effective it is.”******* GOOD NIGHT HAPPY SAFE EASTER !!!


Bruce C D (89)
Friday April 3, 2015, 9:09 am
@Sandy Kelly--

Nope, you're the one out of date and evading the points and arguments, just as you've done once again. Each and every new study has only reinforced how free-roaming invasive cats inhumanely cruelly kill incredible numbers of native wildlife. And, as already pointed out, despite TNR programs being in place in the U.S. for many years, they have not decreased the overall amount of abandoned and feral cats--proving they are not an effective solution.

Sandrea S (278)
Friday April 3, 2015, 9:32 am
I'm proud to present my community's - entire Island's - Feline Support Society...

The Cape Breton Feline Support Society, referred to as the CBFSS, was formed
in April 2005 and is a registered charity.

The main focus of the CBFSS is to offer care and support to feral or wild
undomesticated cats and also strays. Although the CBFSS is independent
of the Cape Breton Humane Society (CBHS), we work in conjunction
with the CBHS on animal welfare matters.

The society has approximately 18 volunteers who are devoted to saving
abandoned, stray, and feral cats. They also have a trap, neuter, and release
program also known as TNR, as a means to provide some quality of life,
and at the same time humanely manage the numbers of unwanted offspring.

I can attest to the success of our feral and stray cats population, as healthy and well fed. Not just in my immediate neighbourhood, but in all neighbourhoods that I'm familiar with. There are no dead birds or mice laying around.There are no sick cats wandering about. We have Veterinarians that work in conjunction with our SPCA and Feral Society.

With so many concerned citizens in my neighbourhood, and the neighbourhoods I'm familiar with, abandoned cats and kittens are quickly spotted, then dealt with immediately, medical wise. There are no draconian laws preventing people from feeding stray cats.

This works because of one very effective secret weapon - the compassion of the people.

Sandra S (40)
Friday April 3, 2015, 10:02 am
Well, I helped in my small way, by adopting a feral cat that had been spayed because of the TNR program. She was a sweetheart. Became a full time indoor cat.

"inhumanely cruelly kill" That's an odd thing to say. Is it ever possible for an animal to kill humanely and the other animal not suffer a cruel death? I like wildlife, including birds, and don't like to see animals suffer, but
let's be realistic. That isn't the way nature operates.


wendy kelly (165)
Friday April 3, 2015, 12:21 pm
@Bruce C D , - will do any thing to ram his point of view down everyone's throat, - a few things to consider, that are often overlooked -
First, it should be stated that the single most significant threat to bird populations is habitat destruction, in all of its forms and with all of its causes. !!!
various causes of mortality,- kill individual birds directly, and can certainly have an adverse effect on population size, but can actually have a beneficial effect in some cases. Studies of hunting have documented that in certain cases killing small numbers of birds can improve the health and survival of the remaining birds. As long as the habitat is intact, the population has the potential to replace the lost birds.

In simplest terms, habitat destruction reduces the population by reducing the available resources, denying birds the chance to reproduce, and effectively putting a cap on the population size.

Cars may kill 60 million birds per year. ~ do you drive @BruceCD
High tension line collisions – may kill up to 174 million birds per year. This figure extrapolates from European studies to the millions of miles of aerial wires in North America.
Window strikes – estimated to kill 97 to 976 million birds/year – Millions of houses and buildings, with their billions of windows, pose a significant threat to birds. Birds see the natural habitat mirrored in the glass and fly directly into the window, causing injury and, in 50% or more of the cases, death. Simple steps can be taken to reduce the number of birds striking windows. Decals that stick to the glass are not very effective, but strips of tape on the outside of the glass, or strings or feathers hanging outside the window, each no more than 10 inches apart, are fairly effective. Decorative features like stained glass designs or window dividers can achieve the same result. Outside screens are very effective both to reduce the reflection
Pesticides may kill 72 million birds per year or possibly many more. The sub lethal effects of pesticides may also make the birds more susceptible to predators or unable to reproduce, essentially killing them.
These birds are killed for Sport, not to eat ! -Hunting - as a point of reference the carefully-managed annual waterfowl hunt kills about 15 million birds a year in North America.
Oh and @Bruce CD, my name is Wendy Kelly , not Sandy Kelly
- I think we should ignore him now, I am afraid, @Bruce CD, will only keep "gainsaying" what we have said, further twising others words, to point his finger at us,(sigh)-
To stop this I recommend holding up a mirror, he can then see himself, and point at himself , xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bruce C D (89)
Sunday April 5, 2015, 11:45 pm
@Sandrea S. / Sandra S.--

As I can attest from my own observations, there are plenty of cats where they have TNR programs who are not healthy, who are not provided adequate shelter from the elements, who do not receive proper vaccinations, who aren't always all sterilized to prevent breeding (as is apparently the case with this petition), and who do leave evidence of their wildlife killing. Moreover, it has been well documented how cats are very capable predators that kill prodigious amounts of native wildlife even when well fed, regardless if you personally witness it or not.

It's all very well to have compassion, but what about compassion for the tremendous amounts of wildlife each cat inhumanely kills on average? How come TNR advocates look at each invasive cat as an individual, but not the native wildlife they kill, which are instead viewed in conglomerate as species? That's a textbook example of species-centrism. And as I've pointed out previously, if TNR advocates are not being hypocritical, then by their reasoning they should have no problems introducing native coyotes to reduce invasive feral cat populations. Of course, they are being hypocritical, and they would never agree to any such thing.

Yes, Sandra, animal killings are usually not humane. That's precisely the point. Euthanizing is recognized as a humane way of killing. Abandoned and feral invasive cats are a human-caused problem, and every day they are allowed to roam free, humans are irresponsibly and selfishly allowing by proxy a whole lot of inhumane killing and suffering upon native wildlife. Invasive cats may do the actual killing of native wildlife, but it is humans who bear responsibility for their killing. So a human "saved" a feral cat by sterilizing it and returning it to where it was found. Leaving aside the question of the inhumanity involved with the likelihood of that cat leading a shortened, miserable existence and suffering a horrible death for the moment, that same human by their very action just consigned on average thousands of wildlife animals to cruel deaths by that same cat.

Which demonstrates the very narrow view of animal welfare held by TNR advocates and why TNR isn't reducing animal suffering, it is increasing it. Whether a native wildlife animal is cruelly killed by humans themselves or by an introduced invasive species they irresponsibly allow to prey upon other animals makes no difference to the animal that suffers. It still feels the same pain, regardless, and it is caused by humans just the same.

Bruce C D (89)
Monday April 6, 2015, 3:44 am
@Wendy Kelly--

I'm not sure how or why I confused your first name last time or where I came up with Sandy, but it was merely a simple inadvertent mistake. Or, given the two new recent posters, perhaps it was a premonition.

You're presenting the same argument I'd already told you TNR advocates frequently employ and that I'd already demonstrated was a logical fallacy. It was another one of those key points and arguments of mine you have no answer for. I shouldn't have to repeat myself, but this is a pretty easy TNR argument to refute.

So if my roof is leaking and my foundation is bad, I can't work to fix both? If littering isn't as bad for the environment as driving to work every day, then people should stop driving to work but keep on littering? One can't be opposed to both the human reduction of species habitat and the human introduction of an invasive predatory species into native ecosystems that kills prodigious amounts of native wildlife? While the statistics may be true, such senseless arguments by TNR advocates are a rotten excuse and a really poor defense, but they work well enough for the feeble-minded and are eagerly latched onto by those unwilling to be objective about TNR.

Besides that which, the statistics you present are misleading because you're making disingenuous comparisons. For one thing, you don't even provide a statistic for the number of birds killed by cats for comparison. And if comparing birds killed in the U.S. by cats to other things like power lines, it would be inaccurate and therefore misleading to compare it to power lines in all of North America, which is a much larger area. Nor are birds the only native wildlife being killed by free roaming invasive cats. And none of these statistics change or hide the fact that invasive cats are still a leading cause of bird mortality in the U.S. For example, 15 million birds killed by hunters annually in *North America* doesn't even begin to compare with the 1.7-3 BILLION birds killed annually in the *U.S.* by invasive cats humans allow to roam freely--and the U.S. only comprises half of North America.

Speaking of hunting for sport, that is what cats often do, not even eating the prey they "play" with (torture) and cruelly kill. Conversely, most hunters I know only hunt those species they are going to eat, and strive to make a good shot to minimize the suffering. Where I come from, hunters and fisherman are an integral part of conservation programs; they donate money to preserve habitats, and the fees they pay help preserve and protect wildlife areas. Also, hunters are heavily regulated with the goal of wildlife management and preserving healthy populations. Regulations are constantly in flux each year in response to changing populations and conditions. On the other hand, there are no regulations restricting hunting for free roaming cats, who are incapable of abiding by them, anyway.

Yes, some predation is necessary for the health of most any species, but what we are talking about here is allowing an invasive species of animal that has no natural role in an ecosystem to prey at will upon native wildlife, and the consensus among biologists and environmentalists is that that is harmful and undesirable. TNR advocates try to diminish or downplay the science, they attack the scientific studies that don't support what they wish to believe, while playing God with our ecosystems.

You falsely accuse me of "gainsaying" and twisting people's words. But you can't even offer one example as proof, because I've done neither of those things. However, I did show how you twisted things.

By the way, you can hold up a mirror all you want, but it won't do you any good if you're not looking into it, since I'm not the one lacking introspection on this issue. I used to be where you're at on this issue, and only arrived at my present position after much research and thought about this. If you truly were introspective about this, then you would be able to honestly respond to all my points and arguments instead of evading them as you have done. Ignore me if you want, bury your head in the sand, pretend the billions of native wildlife inhumanely being killed by invasive cats each year in the U.S. alone isn't a problem, but it won't change the sad truths about TNR. Nor will it stop me from being a voice for the environment, for all the native wildlife being killed or harmed by cats whom you choose to ignore and not speak up for, and, yes, a voice for the free roaming cats humans are causing to suffer, too.

wendy kelly (165)
Monday April 6, 2015, 4:51 am
@Bruce CD, of course Hunters help the environment - NO suprise who the opposer's are see the bottom paragraph - the good old "NRA" = notice @ Bruce CD defends Hunting & fishing mmmmmmmm. ? speaks volumes that does ! -
Effects of Toxic Lead Shot and Lead Fishing Sinkers on the Environment
lead sinker - Image ©Doris Lin 2013, licensed to, Inc.
Fishing hook and four pound lead sinker, found on a New Jersey beach. Image ©Doris Lin 2013, licensed to, Inc.

Doris Lin
Animal Rights Expert
In addition to directly killing animals, hunting with lead shot and fishing with lead sinkers poisons wildlife and our own environment. Although the toxic effects of lead have been known for decades, there is no federal ban on lead ammunition or lead sinkers.While animal rights advocates oppose hunting and fishing no matter what kind of ammunition or sinkers are used, the toxicity of the ammunition and sinkers are additional issues of concern.
Lead Toxicity

Lead is an element and a metal with many uses, but it is toxic to people and animals. Children are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning, which can cause developmental delays. According to a 2010 petition submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by the Center for Biological Diversity and other nonprofit groups, "Health effects from lead exposure can run the gamut from acute, paralytic poisoning and seizures to subtle, long-term mental impairment, miscarriage and impotence." The petition requested that the EPA enact regulations prohibiting "the manufacture, processing, and distribution in commerce of lead shot, lead bullets, lead fishing sinkers, and other lead-containing fishing gear." The petition was rejected.In March of 2013, thirty scientists signed a Consensus Statement on the effects of lead ammunition on the environment, which concludes:
Based on overwhelming evidence for the toxic effects of lead in humans and wildlife, even at very low exposure levels, convincing data that the discharge of lead-based ammunition into the environment poses significant risks of lead exposure to humans and wildlife, and the availability of non-lead alternative products for hunting . . . we support reducing and eventually eliminating the introduction of lead into the environment from lead-based ammunition.
It is believed that lead poisoning from lead pipes contributed to the fall of the Roman Empire. Lead poisoning was also a factor in the deaths of the men of the Franklin expedition - a British team searching for a route to Asia via Canada in 1845 - although whether the main source of the lead was the tinned food or the water distillation system on their ships is debatable.
Lead, Wildlife and the Environment

While lead may leach into our water and soil from lead shot and lead sinkers, the most direct effect is on birds who ingest small pieces of lead as they ingest pebbles for their gizzards. The Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department has found:
Since 1989, 60% of analyzed loon deaths in Vermont were directly related to lead ingestion, entanglement with fishing line, or other impacts with fishing gear; 19 of 38 (50%) adult loons died of lead poisoning from ingesting lead sinkers. An additional four loon deaths (10%) were caused by entanglement or because of swallowing hooks or lures. In New England, from 1985-2005, over 176 of 381 (46.2%) adult loons died from lead fishing gear.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity petition:
It is unknown whether wildlife species sustain sublethal effects on coordination and cognitive behaviors similar to those demonstrated in humans, but it is likely that repetitive sub-lethal exposures to lead will cause permanent neurological and behavioral decrements in all species of wildlife . . . Birds with acute lead poisoning can appear normal, but experience massive tissue destruction to internal organs and death within a few days . . . Birds with chronic lead poisoning may develop appetite loss, anemia, anorexia, reproductive or neurological impairment, immune suppression, weakness, and susceptibility to predation and starvation.
Waterfowl are not the only species affected. As many as twenty million mourning doves are killed by lead poisoning every year in the United States from ingesting lead shot. Small mammals like mice, squirrels and opossums who live near firing ranges have elevated levels of lead, and lead has been found in deer and grizzly bears. Because lead is rarely found in its elemental state in nature, these exposures are almost certainly from human sources.
Avoiding Lead

Numerous federal laws regulate the use of lead, including the Toxic Substances Control Act, Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, COMPENSATION, and Liability Act.Because of children ingesting paint chips and becoming poisoned, lead housepaint has been banned in the United States since 1977. However, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns on their website, "There is a good chance that any home, building, school or daycare center built before 1978 contains some lead paint." Lead pipes, solder or flux has been banned for use in public water systems since 1986, but plumbing within a building or connecting the public water system to the building may contain lead. Lead in drinking water cannot be seen, tasted or smelled, so the EPA recommends having your water tested if you are unsure if there is lead in your water supply. The U.S. has banned the use of lead solder in cans, but canned foods imported from other countries may still contain lead solder. Lead in gasoline has been banned in the U.S. since 1996.
Lead Shot and Lead Sinkers

An estimated 3,000 - 6,000 tons of lead shot are released into the environment by hunters annually in the U.S., and approximately 3,000 tons of lead sinkers are lost by anglers in American and Canadian waters every year.Making your own lead fishing sinkers, consuming game killed with lead shot and breathing in lead dust at a firing range can all cause lead poisoning in humans. A study by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources found that lead particles can infect the meat of a hunted animal up to 18 inches away from the bullet wound. After 59 out of 100 packages of ground venison donated by hunters to Community Action Food Centers of North Dakota were found to contain visible lead fragments, the meat was pulled from food shelters and food BANKS. The North Dakota Department of Health recommends that pregnant women and children under six years old not eat meat from animals killed with lead ammunition.Lead sinkers have also caused elevated lead levels in children, from biting the sinkers and from living in homes where anglers make their own lead tackle.In the U.S., there is no federal blanket ban on lead ammunition or lead sinkers, although lead shot has been prohibited for waterfowl hunting since 1991. Several states have focused on banning the sale and/or use of the smallest lead sinkers that are more likely than larger sinkers to be ingested by wildlife. As of 2009, twenty-five states regulate the use of lead shot. California has banned the use of lead ammunition for hunting big game and coyotes within the California condor's range.Great Britain banned the use of lead sinkers in 1987. Denmark and Sweden have banned all lead ammunition. Costa Rica and Botswana have banned all sport hunting.The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are four million households in which children are exposed to lead, and that half million U.S. children ages 1 to 5 have elevated levels of lead in their blood.
2012 Petition to the EPA

In 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity again petitioned the EPA to ban lead shot and lead sinkers, this time with 99 other groups. The EPA rejected their petition again, stating that they would not consider a nearly identical petition. The National Rifle Association opposed the petitions, arguing that the EPA does not have the authority to regulate lead ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The NRA also backed the Sportsmen's Heritage Act bill, which would have definitively stated that the Toxic Substances Control Act does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate lead ammunition.While the Center for Biological Diversity emphasizes the availability of nontoxic ammunition and sinkers,

Bruce C D (89)
Monday April 6, 2015, 1:22 pm
@Nyack Clancy--

No, it is not an assumption at all. It is a scientific consensus. What you are suggesting is humans playing God with our ecosystems even more than we already do. In the U.S., we already have native felines, which do play vital roles in their ecosystems. I'm in favor of naturally increasing the populations of native predators, not artificially trying to inappropriately expand the roles of an invasive species which is ill-suited to replace them and is not needed to augment other predators. Cats have no ecological niche. They are not a natural or native part of the ecosystem. They deplete biodiversity--they do not add to it. One of the reasons is that the invasive domesticated cat concentrations can be as much as 50 times higher or more in any given area than native predators.

Why would anyone expect people to be better pet owners or more responsible when we condone outdoor lives and deaths for domestic animals through TNR? TNR enables abandonment. The root cause of overpopulation is irresponsible pet ownership. We need to treat cats as we do dogs. License them, prevent them from roaming, remove strays. Impose feeding bans. And spay-neuter. They are both human-bred domesticated companion animals--socialized or not. They are not wild animals--they don’t belong free-roaming outside.

@Wendy Kelly--

That's right, I am not opposed to all hunting or fishing, which humans as a species have been doing for millions of years. Humans are omnivores. I am not a vegetarian, although I do restrict my intake of animal products. That doesn't make someone immoral or evil, as some extremist fanatics try to portray them.

However, you are making all kinds of spurious connections and insinuations against me in a pathetic attempt at ad hominem, a disingenuous logical fallacy aiming to discredit the person rather than their arguments--for which you again have no answer. Your attack against me with irrelevant matter also appears to be a disingenuous distraction and diversion from your inability to answer the arguments presented and the topic at hand--which has nothing to do with lead shot or the NRA.

I am a vociferous opponent of the NRA, of which I have never been a member, and which has morphed into more of a lobbyist for the arms manufacturers than the advocate for gun safety and hunters it once was long ago. I support gun control. Those position are well documented by my record here at Care2, as is my opposition to lead shot, which has already been replaced by steel shot in many places in the U.S. There was a Care2 article on this a few months back, and my comments listing the same facts you did (and more) are publicly displayed for anyone to see.

I see you mention the Center for Biological Diversity, of which I am a supporter. Presumably you also support their efforts. The CBD, like all conservation organizations, opposes TNR because the science does not support it.

wendy kelly (165)
Monday April 6, 2015, 1:40 pm
Yes it does, yes it does, yes it does I am opposed to all blood sports, it isn't sport, when humans hunt with bullets , you will do anything to keep this going in an effort to prove you are right , but you can't , so I am not responding any more, I have daily clicks to do, etc.

oh good news Sandrea, Sandra, and everyone who clicks to donate =

GOOD NEWS - Thank you all! A new challenge has been met !

Bruce C D (89)
Monday April 6, 2015, 6:16 pm
@Wendy Kelly--

No, the science does not support TNR, nor is there a moral argument to be made in support of TNR. No amount of denial of the truth or dissemination of TNR lies and half-truths will change those facts.

This isn't about hunting, which is just a dishonest way for you to change the subject and evade the arguments. When people feel compelled to use unscrupulous tactics like that in a discussion, it only demonstrates they can't defend their beliefs. Which is also what the record here clearly shows. The case against TNR was already made long ago, and most of my responses since have been deconstructing your feeble arguments, many of which weren't even about TNR.

It would be nice to just once have an honest discussion with a TNR advocate where all the points and arguments are responded to objectively and intelligently. That that hasn't yet happened speaks volumes about the lack of justification for TNR. When it comes to TNR, what the author said is true--it's like a religious belief blindly adhered to among advocates.

Sheila Gredzinski (0)
Thursday June 4, 2015, 8:14 am
Thank you Wendy! Shared this story.

Kerstin Strobl (123)
Sunday August 2, 2015, 3:45 am

Dawnie W (250)
Sunday June 19, 2016, 6:44 am
❤️couldn't sign it because firefox says it is not available any longer. Noted❤️
❤️Thanking you kindly for sharing this information❤️
💕💛ღ❤️Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ💕♥L💜ve, Hugs and Peace go with you all♥💕Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ❤️ღ💛💕
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Offbeat

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.