An Examination of an Iconic Trap-Neuter-Return Program: The Newburyport, Massachusetts Case Study

Abstract

Simple SummaryLocal communities in the United States are commonly responsible for selecting the most appropriate method of managing free-roaming cats. Lethal management has been widely utilized for generations, but the use of trap-neuter-return (TNR) has grown in recent decades. Despite expanded use of TNR, a relative scarcity of data associated with such programs exists. This paper retrospectively examines an iconic TNR program—began in 1992—that resulted in the elimination of hundreds of cats from the Newburyport, Massachusetts, waterfront. A careful review of contemporaneous reports, extant program documents, and stakeholder testimony indicates that an estimated 300 cats resided in the area at the commencement of the TNR program; none remained 17 years later. Up to one-third of the cats trapped were sociable and adopted into homes; the remainder were sterilized and vaccinated before being returned to the waterfront, where they declined in number over time due to attrition. A compelling narrative emerged from the available evidence concerning the effectiveness of TNR as a management practice, although a lack of feline population data associated with the Newburyport TNR program underscores the need for establishment of standardized data collection and assessment practices.AbstractThe use of trap-neuter-return (TNR) as a humane alternative to the lethal management of free-roaming cats has been on the rise for several decades in the United States; however a relative paucity of data from TNR programs exists. An iconic community-wide TNR effort; initiated in 1992 and renowned for having eliminated hundreds of free-roaming cats from the Newburyport; Massachusetts waterfront; is cited repeatedly; yet few details appear in the literature. Although the presence of feline population data was quite limited; a detailed narrative emerged from an examination of contemporaneous reports; extant TNR program documents; and stakeholder testimony. Available evidence indicates that an estimated 300 free-roaming cats were essentially unmanaged prior to the commencement of the TNR program; a quick reduction of up to one-third of the cats on the waterfront was attributed to the adoption of sociable cats and kittens; the elimination of the remaining population; over a 17-year period; was ascribed to attrition. These findings illuminate the potential effectiveness of TNR as a management practice; as well as call attention to the need for broad adoption of systematic data collection and assessment protocols.

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

“…Four articles assessed the impact of long-term conventional TNR programs on free-roaming cat populations in the United States [25][26][27], and in Australia [28], over extended periods of time; 23, 15, 10 and 9 years respectively. A US study [25] retrospectively evaluated a 23-year TNR program through census data collected before and during the program (program is ongoing).…”

“…The Newburyport study [26] trapped, neutered and either returned, adopted or euthanised more than 300 cats with the majority being part of the initial population (~300) and~40 additional cats that migrated to the population during the management program. With 100% of the cats at Newburyport neutered during the program, the last cat passed away of old age (~16 years old) 15 years after the beginning of the program, resulting in a decrease in 100% of the cat population.…”

A moral panic over cats

“…); bickering over a useful but not miraculous tool like TNR (Longcore et al. ; Spehar & Wolf ); perceived cruelty on the part of some involved conservationists (Animal Legal & Historical Center ; Dell'Amore ); and challenges to the rigor and program of invasion biology itself (Chew & Hamilton ; Chew ; Munro et al. ).…”

“…Despite the scientific documentation of negative population or biodiversity impacts in certain ecological contexts (Doherty et al 2016;Twardek et al 2017), there is also scientific evidence providing a more nuanced perspective on potential impacts that cautions against assuming the presence or number of cats is divorced from context. Examples include notable downward revisions of wild cat numbers in Australia (Legge et al 2017;Doherty et al 2019); applying assumptions about specific case studies to the world at large (Tantillo 2006;Schaffner 2018); low numbers of species that are threatened or endangered by free-ranging cats on mainlands (Doherty et al 2016); potential disconnects between lethal population management and conservation best practices and outcomes (Littin et al 2004;Doherty et al 2019); distractions from larger threats to biodiversity, such as habitat loss (Ferreira et al 2011;Doherty et al 2019); a failure to address spatial, temporal, and ecological dynamics, such as proximity to human structures, predator guilds, predator-prey relations, and compensatory versus additive predation (Crooks & Soulé 1999;Ferreira et al 2011;Gehrt et al 2013;Oro 2013); unsatisfactory and counter-productive outcomes to the removal of cats and their predators in some disturbed island and mainland ecosystems (Rayner et al 2007;Bergstrom et al 2009;Wallach et al 2010;Lazenby et al 2015;Marlow et al 2015;Fulton 2018); reappraisals of the positive roles nonnative species may play in disturbed or novel ecosystems (Wallach et al 2010;Schlaepfer 2018); appreciation for the role companion animals, such as cats, play in nature protection (Twardek et al 2017); bickering over a useful but not miraculous tool like TNR (Longcore et al 2009;Spehar & Wolf 2017); perceived cruelty on the part of some involved conservationists (Animal Legal & Historical Center 2013; Dell'Amore 2013); and challenges to the rigor and program of invasion biology itself (Chew & Hamilton 2011;<...>…”

Editorial: Pets without a Human Family

“…Some of the abovementioned issues, such as how should unwanted pets be managed (by sheltering, by killing, by trapping/neutering/releasing, etc.) or the consequences of adopting a kill (versus a no-kill) strategy for reasonably healthy, non-dangerous animals in shelters have a broader scope and have received more coverage in the academic literature (e.g., Rowan, 1992;Arkow, 1994;Fournier & Geller, 2004;Frank, 2004;Frank & Carlisle-Frank, 2007;Robertson, 2008;Budke & Slater, 2009;Coate & Knight, 2010;Loyd & DeVore, 2010;White et al, 2010;Levy et al, 2014;Spehar & Wolf, 2017;Tan et al, 2017 for the former andDiGiacomo et al, 1998;Frommer & Arluke, 1999;Baran et al, 2009;Rogelberg et al, 2007 for the latter). In this issue, Fawcett (2019) discusses the role of shelters in animal population management in the framework of the "One Welfare" concept, and explains why addressing the problem of unwanted animals by sheltering them is justified on utilitarian grounds.…”