A Long-Term Lens: Cumulative Impacts of Free-Roaming Cat Management Strategy and Intensity on Preventable Cat Mortalities

Simple SummaryMuch controversy surrounds the management of Australia’s unowned urban cat population. The longstanding practice of trapping and killing urban stray cats and kittens that are not reclaimed or adopted has proven ineffective at reducing their numbers. In addition, it has been shown that shelter staff tasked with the repeated killing of healthy animals often face severe mental health consequences. A growing body of scientific evidence from Australia and elsewhere indicates that a non-lethal alternative, trap-neuter-return (TNR), can be effective at reducing urban stray cat numbers. TNR has also been associated with declines in feline intake and euthanasia at animal shelters. A large-scale trial of TNR in Australia is warranted and needed urgently. An extensive yet fundamentally flawed argument against such a trial is presented in a recently published article, “A Case of Letting the Cat out of the Bag—Why Trap-Neuter-Return Is Not an Ethical Solution for Stray Cat (Felis catus) Management,” by Crawford et al. In the text that follows, we provided a rebuttal to the Crawford et al. paper and argued that TNR is an ethical, scientifically sound solution for the management of Australia’s urban stray cats.AbstractThe recently published article, ‘A Case of Letting the Cat out of the Bag—Why Trap-Neuter-Return Is Not an Ethical Solution for Stray Cat (Felis catus) Management,’ by Crawford et al. warrants rebuttal. The case presented in the paper, opposing the initiation of TNR trials in Australia, ignores peer-reviewed evidence which substantiates the effectiveness of TNR at reducing unowned urban cat numbers. In addition, the paper’s authors offer a number of unrealistic recommendations, which are little more than a rebranding of the failed status quo. Urban stray cats have long been considered a problem across Australia. Current practice calls for the trapping and killing of thousands of healthy urban stray cats and kittens each year with no apparent effect on the total population. In contrast, the literature offers numerous examples, including two recent studies in Australia, of reductions in urban stray cat numbers where TNR has been implemented. TNR has also been associated with reduced feline intake and euthanasia at shelters, which improves both animal welfare and the well-being of shelter staff. A large-scale trial of TNR in an urban Australian context is scientifically justified and long overdue.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reply to Crawford et al.: Why Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) Is an Ethical Solution for Stray Cat Management

Wolf

Rand

Swarbrick

et al. 2019

“…Three articles that simulated TR, as well as TNR, were reviewed. Two of these articles [31,32] reported that TR (even at low intensities) resulted in a higher decrease in cat population than TNR, but did not investigate TR in combination with TNR; whilst the third article [33] only involved TR of the feral cat population of the island (TNR was used on the owned population), precluding a direct comparison. When interpreting the simulation results, it should be noted that these reductions in cat populations were estimated from high-intensity programs conducted frequently (every 6 months) over long periods (10-50 years) and that TR as a sole strategy is not advisable for ethical reasons, nor from a disease epidemiology perspective, as removing cats creates a vacuum that will be filled by immigrant cats [34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three articles used literature and expert opinions as data inputs for their simulations and compared multiple methods of managing free-roaming cat populations. In an urban population of 50 cats, Boone, et al [31] simulated low (25%) and high (50%) intensities for; no management (control), trap-cull (TC, euthanasia), trap-neuter-return (TNR), and trap-remove (TR; euthanasia or adoption). TC results are not presented in Table 2 as they do not meet Criterion 6; however, they are presented here for comparison.…”

Section: Simulations Using Literature and Expert Opinion As Model Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global Strategies for Population Management of Domestic Cats (Felis catus): A Systematic Review to Inform Best Practice Management for Remote Indigenous Communities in Australia

Kennedy

Cumming²,

Brown

2020

Pet domestic cat (Felis catus) populations are increasing all around the world, resulting in an increase in contact with humans and wildlife, potentially spreading zoonotic diseases and predating on wildlife. With the recently identified rise in cat populations in remote Indigenous communities in Australia, culturally appropriate cat population management strategies are required. A systematic review process was conducted to review the current global cat population management practices that are suitable for owned, free-roaming cat populations in these communities. Eight articles on in-situ field cat populations and five studies simulating computer modelled cat populations reported results of 66 population management interventions. Surgical Sterilisation (SS) was used in all socialised owned cat articles. The trap–neuter–release (TNR) method was used most frequently on unsocialised cats and gained the best results when the trap–remove (TR) method was used concurrently to adopt out unwanted social cats and euthanise ill or injured cats. The results of this review suggest that long-term TNR/SS programs supplemented with TR provide the current most ethically sound best practice, humane method of managing cat populations in remote Australian Indigenous communities. It is also recognised that no one plan will fit all, and that further research on the micro-level techniques used to deploy both TNR and TR needs to occur, and that culturally appropriate community consultation during all processes is vital in achieving a sustainable management program.

“… A Venn diagram to represent the top 10 papers on the TNR topic determined by each of citations (total citations received) [ 28 , 34 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 ], citation rate (citations/year) [ 28 , 34 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 ], or social media mentions [ 26 , 32 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 ]. Note that the citations list actually includes 11 papers, because two papers tied for tenth spot on the list.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The literature has grown into one of contrasting viewpoints (e.g., [ 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ] cf. [ 32 , 33 ]. Over the past decade, there have been several reviews of the TNR literature with a focus on the effectiveness, practicability and humaneness of TNR (e.g., [ 28 , 30 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 ]); however, to our knowledge, there has been no bibliometric study of the TNR literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for Citation Networks in Studies of Free-Roaming Cats: A Case Study Using Literature on Trap–Neuter–Return (TNR)

Calver

Fleming

2020

Trap–Neuter–Return and its variants (hereafter TNR) aims to control unowned cat populations. Papers on this topic form a useful case study of how how an area of literature grows, papers become influential, and citation networks form, influencing future study as well as public perceptions of the science. We analysed 145 TNR studies published 2002–2019. Common topics, identified by frequently used language, were population control, interactions with wildlife, disease transmission (including implications for pets, wildlife and humans), free-roaming cats, and feral and domestic cat management. One or more papers on each of these topics was judged influential because of high citations overall, high average citations/year, or frequent mentions in social media. Open Access papers were more influential in social media, raising greater public awareness than studies published in journals that were less accessible. While divergent views exist on a range of topics, the network analysis of the TNR literature indicated potential for forming self-reinforcing groups of authors. While it is encouraging that diverse views are expressed, there is a risk of reduced dialogue interactions between groups, potentially constraining dialogue to refine arguments, share information, or plan research. Journal editors could encourage communication by choosing reviewers from different camps to assess manuscripts and by asking authors to acknowledge alternative views.