Town Square

Post a New Topic

Tonight's council meeting: Cat rescue group warns against owl protections

Original post made on Apr 1, 2014

After weeks of controversy over cat licenses, you might think that a new city animal control ordinance would pass without a hitch at tonight's City Council meeting. That may not be the case.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, April 1, 2014, 1:44 PM

Comments (38)

Like this comment
Posted by Pet lover
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 1, 2014 at 2:15 pm

Christina Peck: "The Audubon Society . . . is heavily lobbying the Council with misinformation."

That statement is disgusting. "Hearsay and fear" are precisely what advocacy types like Peck are pushing. If anyone has factual evidence contrary to their agenda, it has to be attacked with emotional language.

The Council should ban all these speakers with their little agendas, and instead make a decision based on readily available, informed, dispassionate professional advice. Should have done so in the "cat licensing" hearing too -- but instead they let themselves be deluged with emotional irrational rhetoric.

Like this comment
Posted by Mark
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 1, 2014 at 2:47 pm

Problems are traced to Goolers, Googleits. WOrking near one of their builds I saw an increase in the number of cats -- and found that the Googlanders were feeding them from the free cafeteria food and possibly dumping cats from home in order for them to get a free meal. I trapped and took a very scared black and white cat home. It has become a great lap-cat.

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2014 at 2:57 pm

'A provision prohibiting cats north of Bayshore'
Having absolutely no practical value, other than making criminals out of the otherwise law abiding cats in the mobile home park.
Or perhaps, by making the cats at Shoreline illegal, they would be rounded up and sent back home. A familiar theme, except Mtn View is notorious for not doing THAT.
Euthanise them? Remember the outcry when the city tried that with the runaway squirrels at Cuesta park?
Maybe the city is planning to fine them!

Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Apr 1, 2014 at 3:26 pm

Cats are part of the environment! Cats and birds have been going at it for years. North Bayshore is not a wildlife sanctuary!

Build housing there.

Like this comment
Posted by Taxpayer
a resident of Gemello
on Apr 1, 2014 at 3:58 pm

And, who will pay for this?
I already pay huge property taxes. I would prefer NOT to pay to have feral cats hunted down and killed. That is NOT an approriate use of the taxes I pay to maintain city and county parks.

If the county starts killing cats, they lose a lot of volunteer labor. Someone is going to have to go in every day and monitor a group of traps. You can't leave a cat in a trap any longer - it is not humane. So, someone will have to be hired to do the hunting. And, the county may have to buy a lot of new humane traps. I don't think that's a good use of my money, and I would not like to fund a mass slaughter.

I actually think it's sort of funny that anyone would try to enforce a law about ferals - you really cannot herd cats...

Like this comment
Posted by Denise
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2014 at 4:23 pm

The shelter and rescue groups have been effectively 'mangaging' the cat population north of 101 for decades through effective TNR cat population REDUCTION methods, that why there are not that many cats out at the park anymore. Only a handful have been trapped over the last few years there, and those are ones that were dumped there. not bred there.

Breeding stopped there LONG ago through effective TNR and other cat management techniques. If new cats are dumped ,and not trapped and removed for adoption or fixed, the numbers will just explode out there again.

No, No , No ...don't turn back the clock of progress, and let that happen!

To make this practice of TNR illegal, is like the Council (and the Audubon) shooting itself in the foot. Because TNR and rescue of the dumped animals can NOT occur, the newly dumped cats will be left unfixed & unmanaged (which is what this ordinance proposes), the population of cats will just EXPLODE out there !

What is the council thinking? Why does everyone THINK community cat advocates and the Audubon Society members are on opposite sides? We ARE NOT ON OPPOSITES SIDES. WE are on the EXACT SAME SIDE, and we both have the SAME OBJECTIVE !! To have fewer cats out there. It's the exact SAME OBJECTIVE ! So, why the fight?

Let what has been working, keep working.

The population of feral cats in Santa Clara County has been reduced an estimated 22%, and the number of unwanted kittens entering our shelter system has been reduced by 25% in just 3 short years (which SAVES PUBLIC TAXPAYER DOLLARS $$$)due to expanded TNR efforts. And the number of free-roaming cats in our community keeps getting getting smaller and smaller due to recent Rescue, Shelter, and city TNR partnering efforts.

Don't let this end, all due to a not very well thought out ordinance change by the Council.

TNR is NOT the problem.

Here's the REAL problem: PEOPLE! People dump unwanted pets in the park, which we already have a ordinance against. Enforce the ordinance ! Dumping and pet abandomment is the real problem. Not efforts to manage and save the ones dumped. Saving them and TNR is the GOOD part of the equation. The dumping is the bad part of the equation. Eliminate the problem. Not the fix.

Please don't allow the City Council to hinder TNR efforts, or the numbers will start going in the OPPOSITE & WRONG direction, and we will start seeing more and more breeding cats, and litters of kittens, running about everywhere ! Neither bird advocates, nor cat advocates, want that !

So, please, Mt. View residents, show up at the Council Meeting tonight, and use your community voice to put a STOP to this very, very short-sighted and unwise change in the Mt. View animal ordinace.

Don't let "special intrest groups" dictate your laws. Do what is right for YOUR city !

Insetad, urge the council to USE public funds they do have wisely, and to let the volunteers who do good and FREE work for the city, to continue to do their good work, without ANY expense to the Tax Payer.

Like this comment
Posted by Cat Owner
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 1, 2014 at 5:25 pm

I met one of the trapper/releasers one day. Seemed very nice and caring, and gave me the rundown of what they have been doing out there.

I've frequented the area for the past 25 years and have noticed a marked reduction in the sightings of cats. I see its working first hand, by my observations, so I don't think its time to stop doing what IS working in the hopes of finding something that...also works?...maybe, or could make it worse?
No, I'm a fisherman, and we have a saying: You never leave fish (that you're catching in one area) to go find fish.

Its working well and its basically free. Is that why some are offended by it? C'mon, common sense people.

Like this comment
Posted by Garrett
a resident of another community
on Apr 1, 2014 at 6:13 pm

I lived north of Sacramento for a few years, dogs and cats can be problem. Shoreline is home to wildlife, cats well hunt down wildlife.

Back to north of Sacramento, someone I near owned a ranch, next to the ranch a housing tract was built. Dogs from the housing got out in the paddocks, the rancher shoot the dogs, people will raise stink.

Cats that are feral, Dogs that are allowed to roam can do damage.

Like this comment
Posted by SIlly
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 2, 2014 at 2:24 am

Cat people are nuts. "Oh, yes... trapping cats in Shoreline will just bring in more cats!" So dumb. Trapping is fine--they just should not be released back.

Cats are non-native PESTS that are wiping out bird populations, including protected and endangered species. Sorry folks, but they must be euthanized.

If people want cats, then keep the darned things indoors! The stupid cat people fought licensing, so now there is no good way to hold cat owners responsible for just letting them run wild.

Please write the council and ask for TNE (Trap and Euthanize). Microchipped cats could be returned to owners, but the rest should be put down. Preserve our endangered species...please!

Like this comment
Posted by Andrey
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Apr 2, 2014 at 10:02 am

Web Link
"The population size is extremely large, and hence does not approach the thresholds for Vulnerable under the population size criterion (<10,000 mature individuals with a continuing decline estimated to be >10% in ten years or three generations, or with a specified population structure). For these reasons the species is evaluated as Least Concern."
So, are burrowing owls engendered species?

Like this comment
Posted by sallazar
a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 2, 2014 at 10:07 am

SO every untamed feral cat have a "right to life" but birds lizards insects and bunny rabbits (killed by cats) and also tuna and dolphins (killed for catfood)and seaweed forests (used in catfood) are ok to kill?
If you cannot take care of them at home, its should be ok to euthanize them

Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 2, 2014 at 1:31 pm

Our cats may be cuddly pals and adorable internet memes, but they are also destroying the environment more efficiently than humans. They have been called one of the "worst" invasive species. And a new study published today in Nature Communications suggests that cats are responsible for killing several endangered bird species in the United States, and decimating bird populations on islands all over the world. In the US, cats kill as many as 3.7 billion native birds annually, making them a bigger threat to these creatures than buildings, towers, windows, poison, and cars. But there is a solution to the problem.

The biologists who worked on the new study pored over research culled over the past several years to estimate how many cats live in the US, and what their killing habits might be. They estimate that roughly 84 million owned cats live in the US, and that there are 30-80 million un-owned cats, which include feral cats, barn cats, and cats who are not allowed inside. The researchers "estimate that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.4–3.7 billion birds and 6.9–20.7 billion mammals annually." They emphasize that "un-owned cats" are the culprits here. Though the numbers may be shocking, their discovery isn't particularly startling. Un-owned cats have already been implicated in 33 modern bird, mammal, and reptile extinctions, write the researchers in Nature Communications.

Like this comment
Posted by Hmm
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 2, 2014 at 2:39 pm

They probably killed the dodo birds too.

Maybe we need a new govt agency, here is one, CGTR Capture give to restaurants.

Like this comment
Posted by David Harkness
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 2, 2014 at 7:08 pm

This is why STEM education is so important: clearly logical thinking skills are lacking in this thread.

No one denies dumping your pet anywhere is a good thing. The current and proposed ordinances won't affect this.

Since dumping *will* continue, the best we can do is control the population. You have two options: eliminate all cats in the area or make sure all cats present cannot reproduce.

If you remove and kill the neutered cats, non-neutered ones will move in and claim the territory. If you stop the neutering, only reproducing cats will remain, and the population will explode.

So you either manage the shrinking population through CNR or you accept an ever-increasing population and the end of the burrowing owl.

Want to save the owl? Support CNR and anti-dumping education.

Want to kill the owl? Pass this ordinance that will cease population control efforts.

Your attitudes towards cats and cat owners has zero impact on the outcome.

Like this comment
Posted by endTNR
a resident of another community
on Apr 2, 2014 at 7:55 pm

endTNR is a registered user.

First, a few words about what happened on the campus of Stanford. Campus environments are unique settings different from most urban, suburban and rural areas. Stanford University had between 500 and 1500 cats about 25 years ago. They implemented TNR and as of 2007 the number had leveled out to around 50 cats and 20 feeding stations. But, this had taken 20 years to accomplish and hundreds of thousands of dollars. Their annual budget is/was around $50,000. The cats are presumably still there (and we do not know if the number has increased or decreased since 2007) and may have affected local or migratory fauna over the last two decades or so.

This is not a success by any means.

Next, the so-called vacuum effect. If you remove the cats and the food source, the problem is solved. End of story. What the TNR advocates describe also happens in TNR. Immigration. Food attracts cats. Plenty of food in these colonies. Ongoing management is required no matter what. The cats are not territorial enough to prevent others from joining the colony. Happens ALL. THE. TIME.

Moving right along, are you for real? The trap equals disappearance so the cats then refuse to go into the trap? Since when? Don't they disappear for a day or two or more in TNR before being returned? This is an outright lie. Either that or these people have no experience trapping cats.

And this:

"Rescue groups refuse to trap a healthy cat if it will be euthanized," said Peck.

Really? That self-serving? So, would the RESCUE groups just leave the cat there? Is ANY life outside better than euthanasia?

The best thing that can be done for those owls, the cats, the neighboring properties, and public health is to remove those cats. The quicker, the better.

TNR is not effective. And a scourge on the environment.

Feral Freedom is outdoor cat hoarding. TNR groups are the epitome of special interests groups. All they care about is preventing euthanasia of cats. No matter what. No matter the cost to our natural resources, the cost to public health, and the cost to property rights.

TNR enables abandonment.

Oh, and pretty simplistic and incorrect for someone who references STEM. The science substantiates that TNR is not effective as a population reduction tool. Not a bit.

Like this comment
Posted by Jim
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 3, 2014 at 6:54 am

1) Neutering less than 75% of the cats annually does not achieve any population reduction. In this case doing a little really achieves nothing if your goal is population reduction.

2) TNR (as it is practiced, see #1) doesn't reduce populations, and therefore, does not reduce predation on wildlife, disease transmission, parasite transmission and risk to public health

3) TNR encourages further abandonment. (documented)

4) No such thing as 'vacuum effect' when food and cats are removed. No one would advocate removing cats and then keep putting out food.

5) Putting out food attracts coyotes which prey on cats. Why would anyone do this?

6) Cats kill more native wildlife than non-native mice and rats (documented)

7) Consider TENVAC ( if you can find a sponsor.

Like this comment
Posted by Joshua
a resident of another community
on Apr 3, 2014 at 7:36 am

TNR is a mirage, an illusion. The allegedly successful reductions of populations almost entirely come from the cats which are trapped and then adopted out or euthanized. The ones that are released linger on for years, encouraging soft-hearted and simple-minded people to feed them and to dump other cats in their company, until they inevitably succumb to disease or parasites, get hit by a car, get killed by a coyote or other predator, or suffer some other death far worse than euthanasia. Even PETA opposes TNR now, because they rightly perceive that TNR'd cats suffer far more than those which are euthanized, to say nothing of the suffering of the many animals killed by the TNR cats, either directly as the cats hunt, or indirectly as the cats spread toxoplasmosis and other diseases and parasites to wildlife, pets, and humans.

The vacuum effect and territoriality are similar illusions. Cats gather by the dozens around food sources; territorial animals do not behave this way. The vacuum effect happens because dumb people feed homeless cats, the food attracts more homeless cats, and the gathering of homeless cats encourages other people to abandon more cats.

If people want to trap and neuter feral cats, fine. But they should then be deposited only on private property, only with the owner's explicit permission, and they should be kept there. Cat colonies cannot be allowed to persist on public property, and private landowners should be able to treat cats on their land the same ways that they can treat dogs or any other non-human animals. Dogs don't get TNR. Cats shouldn't either.

The real problem? Studies have shown that rates of spaying and neutering pets vary in proportion to income, far lower in families where the income is lower. These low-income families are probably the source of most of the pets which are being dumped and swelling feral cat colonies. Spend less attention on maintaining the colonies and more on preventing them.

Like this comment
Posted by Ann Nightingale
a resident of another community
on Apr 3, 2014 at 12:32 pm

I'm delighted to see that the TNR folks are against "dumping". Does this mean that they will stop doing it? "Returning" a feral cat to the environment IS just a sanitized way to say RE-dumping. I fully support the TN part of TNR. I don't want to see cats killed. So please take some of those generous ACA funds and find a way to rehabilitate ferals/abandoned cats and put them in loving homes! Win, win, win!

Like this comment
Posted by TNR All Day long
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 3, 2014 at 3:07 pm

At least the results will quiet the sceptics. They quote how it won't work, while it is working. They'll be proven wrong soon enough, and amusingly, they will have seen their goals acheieved, even though they fought it the entire time. That's when the TNR folks will simply smile and ay "Your welcome"

Like this comment
Posted by TNR a National Success
a resident of Bailey Park
on Apr 3, 2014 at 4:42 pm

Quite amazing. I just searched on Google, and can see TNR success stories literally all over the country. Actual numbers of reduced animals, steadily declining over time. I remember the cat problem around the Mission in San Luis Obispo when I lived there. They started TNR and the numbers of cats had plummeted when I visited last. Seems we have one side arguing with actual success stories, and another group trying its best to remain salient in this discussion by simply saying the successes were not "real" successes.
Last gasp stuff. The data is in. TNR works. The Earth is not flat, we now have the data to prove it as e do with TNR...You can't argue with reality and not look a little bit kooky.

Like this comment
Posted by David Harkness
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 3, 2014 at 6:28 pm

PETA's reservation with TNR is based mostly on the quality of life of the feral cat. They also worry about the feral population's effect on wildlife.

But people will continue to abandon house pets at an alarming rate. No ordinance will curb that horrid behavior.

CNR programs have been shown again again to *decrease* feral populations, and that's the only thing saving the owls. If feral populations return to last century's levels, the wildlife will suffer.

Once you accept that you can't stop every jerk from abandoning their pets, the only sane response is to mitigate the damage. CNR does just that based on the international studies.

Or you could pass a wildlife-destroying ordinance and feel good because you "did something". Spent more money and exacerbated the problem, but SOMETHING at least. Bravo!

Like this comment
Posted by ChrisH
a resident of Waverly Park
on Apr 3, 2014 at 7:01 pm

We are talking about abandoned pets, a problem caused by irresponsible pet owners. A fact is, there are more feral cats in areas where there were none a couple of years ago, like the Palo Alto Baylands entrance at San Antonio. You can watch them hunting the ducks and water fowl every day.
Stevens Creek Trail between Yuba and Sleeper now has its new group, too. It is up to humans to take care of this problem, we are not talking Bobcats/Mountain Lions, we are talking abandoned pets. Unless we trap, kill and open their stomach , we won't know, what damage to the local wildlife they are causing. They are not part of our natural environment and are just as destructive as Lion Fish in the Caribbean, another problem caused by abandoned pets (fish). Spending tax payer money on a study is ridiculous, but maybe a Vet School like UC Davis has an interest into looking into the stomachs of these feral cats and determine what they are really living of. Enough cats get euthanized daily in Santa Clara County anyway, there should be a couple of samples readily available.
Anybody with a bird feeder in the winter knows, the fat neighborhood cats are still stalking the birds, it is in their instinct. I find at least one dead bird monthly during the winter under the feeder, the cat is not eating it, just playing with it.
I consider myself an animal lover, I have a house full of pets, 3 rescues, I found a dumped tiny kitten in my street in January, it was adopted and is now safe, I strongly believe in responsible pet ownership, feral cats should not co-exist with our wildlife.

Like this comment
Posted by endTNR
a resident of another community
on Apr 3, 2014 at 9:43 pm

endTNR is a registered user.

The TNR idea of success is to end euthanasia. Reductions? Proof please. What you say? Can't find even ONE peer reviewed study to show population reduction? We are not talking about individual colonies. That doesn't say anything about the population in a city or county or state.

All those stories 'all over the country' talk about reduced intakes at shelters and reduced euthanasia rates. That is not indicative of population reduction.

And sadly, most officials don't understand that to actually make a difference in the numbers, a high level of cats must be sterilized, every year. There are enough papers showing that this is the case. Andersen, for one.

But, hey, why should science matter? At least the cute fluffy puffs get to live and continue to destroy our natural resources. So much for priorities.

Like this comment
Posted by TNR a reality
a resident of Bailey Park
on Apr 4, 2014 at 11:52 am

No matter how much "It doesn't work" folks chime in, the fact is it IS working, any fool can do a google search and see it working all over thwe country.
This issue has been resolved. The cast is set. Thank god the snivelers are just left to do nothing more than snivel.
After the program complete everyone will pipe down since the goal of both sides will have been achieved. Until then we have to deal with sore losers.
The reference to SLO is a good one. Actual visual evidence of the decreases in the number of cats noted by EVERYONE who has been around the Mission for the past 20 years. They tried killing but that did not work; for the 10 years I lived down there the problem only grew until TNR kicked in. Those decreases were also noted by the county animal control that watched the ferels by the mission. Tell them it doesn't work, then tell them the sky is pink and that water is dry. A fool and their blind ideology are soon laughed at.

Like this comment
Posted by Can't have it both ways!
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 4, 2014 at 12:11 pm

Contrary to those repeated, smug comments about sore losers, this matter is FAR from settled.

In this week's Council action, staff were directed to further investigate "an acceptable way to manage feral cats."

New City Council members are coming next Fall. Hopefully with the wisdom to listen to independent experts, not just cat hoarders who use spin euphemisms like "community cats" and "homeless cats."

Anyone can see from comments on both recent articles that plenty of local residents (and many of us are cat owners) are outraged at policy being driven by a tiny clique of fanatic cat hoarders who'll claim, believe, or cite any rationalization they can to support their no-euthanasia-at-any-cost agenda.

Like this comment
Posted by endTNR
a resident of another community
on Apr 4, 2014 at 1:25 pm

endTNR is a registered user.

It is not a fact, nor a proven one. But, you are right - any fool can go to Google. That is about right. Fools. Using Google to bring up anecdotes about 'TNR working' is not science and does not serve to substantiate anything.

Hey, Can't Have It Both Ways, you fight the good fight. It ain't over. The science is on your side. Any town that pulls bull cookies like this does not make public health and welfare the priority. Maybe a law suit will change their minds. As is, if you don't retain the right to remove any unwanted cats from your property, they are forcing you to accept the public health risks that go hand in hand with free-roaming cats.

Web Link

Web Link

Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 4, 2014 at 1:31 pm

"any fool can do a google search and see it working all over thwe country."

Just because google search can find a bunch of stories does not make it true. Cat fanatics just blog, write articles and link to them. That's why these falsehoods are easier to find.

Hey--there's no question that if you trap, spay and release into an area that you will have fewer cats in that area over time. The problem is that you will have far fewer birds, which they prey on. More importantly, is that the TNR's only trap in areas where there are lots of people, so while the cat population may *appear* to decline, it is the areas that are more remote that take up the cat surplus.

The net result is that the *native* bird populations are being DECIMATED by a non-native species. This is just wrong.

By enforcing pet cat identification through licensing (the only way to enforce microchipping or id tags), we can hold the cat owners accountable for their pets. As it stands now, the crazy cat people just bring home litters of kittens, raise them and then let them wander off. ("Oh, I rescued 40 cats last year!" "Where are they?" "Oh, they are around somewhere...")

The second part is to trap and DO NOT RETURN the cats to an area. Both of these will reduce if not eliminate the populations of feral cats. They are non-native folks!!!! Let's stop the madness!

Like this comment
Posted by jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 4, 2014 at 2:48 pm

I remember reading in the history books about an event called the plague. Seems like when the feral cats of those times were killed (many burnt at the stake alive with their witch companions)then it was no surprise that the mouse and rat populations soared. Cats catch mice and rats and help keep those vermin under control. Get rid of the cats and then have to poison the rats?

Like this comment
Posted by @jane
a resident of Monta Loma
on Apr 4, 2014 at 3:17 pm

The cats are being feed nicely by the locals, they don't need to mess with vermin. That is just disgusting to them.

How long do cats live, 15, 16 yrs? It will take an awfully long time to get rid of the population if they are re-released after a neutering job.

Like this comment
Posted by Full Circle
a resident of Castro City
on Apr 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm

OMG, the Cat License people are back?!?! HAHAHAHA!!!!
Have a great weekend people.

Like this comment
Posted by David Harkness
a resident of Shoreline West
on Apr 4, 2014 at 6:17 pm

"There's no question that if you trap, spay and release into an area that you will have fewer cats in that area over time."

Isn't that the *whole point*? The ordinance is intended to save the wildlife by decreasing the feral population. If TNR does that, why make it illegal?

By all means, provide money to enforce anti-abandonment everywhere and education to reduce it. But given that this strategy hasn't worked in the past, why remove what *has* been working?

Perhaps the council should do a short study of the effectiveness of TNR before ending it.

Like this comment
Posted by jane
a resident of North Whisman
on Apr 4, 2014 at 8:09 pm

Now the local TV News has picked up this story and Mountain View is beginning to be known as the "Cat Killing City." How embarrassing and disgusting.

Like this comment
Posted by CatsWin
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Apr 4, 2014 at 8:48 pm

I don't like birds, but I love cats. Those morning doves are always making noise, but with the surging number of TNR cats in the neighborhood, I haven't heard one in two years!

Thank you cats!

Like this comment
Posted by Science
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Apr 4, 2014 at 9:35 pm

On one side of TNR, you have cat advocates who claim that this is the only way to keep feral cat populations down. They also claim that cats don't kill birds or other wildlife, since they setup feeding stations.

On the other side, you have a vast legion of scientists. Wildlife experts, biologists and the like have studied this and found that there is no evidence to support the claims made by the "cat people". I would suggest that the MV Council invite representatives from each faction who will present their case. The panel that adjudicates should ensure that only science-based evidence is taken into account.

If it turns out that the best approach is to trap-and-do-not-return, then so be it. The cat advocates are welcome to adopt! Science-based....not emotion-based.

Like this comment
Posted by endTNR
a resident of another community
on Apr 4, 2014 at 11:07 pm

endTNR is a registered user.

As for plague, not so fast. New research.

Web Link

And, yep, there is question. TNR does not take place in a closed system. There is the provision of food. Not all cats can be trapped. Those eluding the traps are not sterilized and continue to breed. Colonies do not disappear, and are rarely stabilized.

TNR does not result in any statistically significant reduction, even according to the AVMA.

Many of these 'managed' colonies simply grow in size.

Like this comment
Posted by O
a resident of Castro City
on Apr 5, 2014 at 11:33 pm

Can we Trap Neuter and Return people also? According to this recent NASA funded study, Web Link
we're set for a collapse.

Like this comment
Posted by O No
a resident of Castro City
on Apr 6, 2014 at 5:39 am

Its possible O...why don't you step into this big box and we can discuss it. I left a twinkie on the floor...go check it out.

Like this comment
Posted by Me, Ow.
a resident of Castro City
on Apr 6, 2014 at 5:40 am

I'm glad our local ferel population is in decline, whatever is happening, keep it up!

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Burger chain Shake Shack to open in Palo Alto
By Elena Kadvany | 9 comments | 3,136 views

Eat, Surf, Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 1,103 views

Couples: So You Married Mom or Dad . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 1 comment | 1,037 views

The Cost of Service
By Aldis Petriceks | 2 comments | 716 views