One of the hot-button issues in Wisconsin last year was a bill that would have allowed hunters to kill feral cats. The bill was introduced to address the growing feline population in my home state that was killing native species. As would be expected, it turned out to be quite a divisive issue, especially among the more green-oriented folks. Some wanted them dead because they were more concerned about the animals the cats were killing, while some who didn't want to see any animals dead wanted to look at alternatives like trap-neuter-release programs.
As with many situations, the general population doesn't get involved in an issue until they feel that their own property is at risk -- public opinion turned against the bill after it was pointed out that a hunter may not have any good way of telling a feral cat from a housecat that got outside, especially at a distance or if the cat's collar doesn't contrast much with its fur.
Fast forward one year, and a similar issue is coming up in and around New York City. A large number of feral cat colonies -- mostly abandoned companions -- have taken up residence along Long Beach. Unlike the feral cats in Wisconsin, these cats are lucky enough to have caretakers who feed them, provide them with shelters, and pay to have them spayed, neutered, and vaccinated. But, unlike the situation here (as far as I know), these cats are posting a very specific threat:
...the growing number of feral cat colonies has raised concerns among advocates of the piping plover, a beach-nesting shorebird protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.This last point is probably true. I imagine the adoption rate for cats is relatively inelastic. While some of these cats may be adopted should they end up in shelters, they would only be trading places with another cat who would go to the euthanization chamber instead. Either way, it's a death sentence for a sizable number of cats.
To many plover lovers, the stray cats are gangs of predatory carnivores threatening the threatened birds.
"The cats are wiping out the bird life," said Kathleen O'Connor, of the Great South Bay Audubon Society. "The feral colonies have played havoc with the population. The beach is the worst place you could put them. They give the plovers a heart attack, so they can't reproduce."
And with the plovers set to migrate back to these beaches next month, a plan proposed by state park authorities to remove the cats has cat advocates up in arms. They say the cats will wind up in shelters, and inevitably, be euthanized.
But I have to agree that we can't just let them be, either - the plovers are a threatened species, and the cats are threatening them further. "The cats can prey up to 1.5 miles from where they live . . . there have been cat tracks and bird remains found at some nesting sites, indicating that cats have attacked and killed birds." Normally I'd say that trap-neuter-release plus patience should be enough -- especially since these cats are being fed so they don't have to hunt as much -- but I agree that the plovers make the situation a little more urgent. Why can't the cats be relocated to somewhere where they'll do less damage, other than the usual "not in my backyard" objections that inevitably come up?
Details from the article are slim but, from what I can see, I have other reasons to take issue with people on both sides of the debate. For one, at least some of the people who are acting as advocates for the cats bear some responsibility for the problem in the first place:
"That's a Maine coon," Mrs. Carlson said last week, pointing to a furry cat cowering in the brush. "That's a $1,000 cat, and someone just dumped him here."The cynic in me can't imagine that a person who knows the market rates for different cat breeds is adopting cats from shelters rather than contributing to cat overpopulation by buying them from breeders. I'll grant, though, that she has probably become involved in efforts to get these cats adopted. Maybe working with this situation has helped her to realize that supporting cat breeders with so many cats already in need of homes is a Bad Thing. I certainly hope so.
While I'm taking jabs at the people who are spending countless hours and thousands of dollars on taking care of these abandoned souls, I might as well get it out of the way -- to me, this sentence is absolutely soaked in irony: "'How can they say that one species belongs here and another doesn't?' asked Mr. Gibson, who on Thanksgiving brought down a 12-pound turkey that his wife had cooked especially for the cats."
And since we're talking about speciesism, I should mention that I see plenty in a parks department official's concern that "cats also pose certain risks to people in the form of rabies and cat-scratch disease." I'm sure there are plenty of other animals living in the area that pose a disease threat - raccoons come to mind. Are cats really such a public health hazard that they require this much special attention?
Polemic aside, I want to go back to the true root of the issue: this problem wouldn't exist if there weren't such a massive disparity between the number of cats needing homes and the number of homes needing cats. Please, if you're looking to adopt, contact your local shelter. Last year my local humane society had to euthanize the better part of 2,000 souls, all of whom deserved a chance. Even if you insist on a specific breed, you can find breed-specific rescue organizations in any metropolitan area.
If you're already sharing your home, thank you. And don't forget to spay and neuter.
Categories: cats | feral | TNR | wildlife
