13.07.2013 Views

TNR Handbook - Neighborhood Cats

TNR Handbook - Neighborhood Cats

TNR Handbook - Neighborhood Cats

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

The <strong>Neighborhood</strong> <strong>Cats</strong> <strong>TNR</strong> <strong>Handbook</strong><br />

e) Cost savings. Lower euthanasia rates at local shelters, fewer complaint calls for<br />

animal control and the use of a large volunteer work force all save money for<br />

municipalities. For example, in San Diego County, <strong>TNR</strong> was introduced in 1992<br />

and in two years resulted in a 40% drop in euthanasia rates. Based on how much<br />

it cost the local shelter to intake, hold and euthanize each cat, the decline saved<br />

the county hundreds of thousands of dollars.<br />

f) Gaining caretaker cooperation. Caretakers know the cats’ numbers,<br />

whereabouts and habits, and they can withhold food and facilitate the trapping.<br />

Their cooperation is crucial for a successful attempt at feral cat population<br />

control. <strong>TNR</strong> gains their assistance because the cats will not be harmed, whereas<br />

attempts to trap and euthanize provoke caretaker resistance.<br />

g) Improved public relations for animal control. When animal control supports<br />

<strong>TNR</strong> instead of trying to round up and kill the cats, their public image improves.<br />

This can lead to more volunteers, more people coming to municipal shelters to<br />

adopt cats and improved fundraising.<br />

• Failed alternatives to <strong>TNR</strong><br />

One of the most persuasive reasons for doing Trap-Neuter-Return is that nothing else<br />

works! Whether the goal is population reduction or lowered nuisance behavior, no other<br />

technique has been shown to have a realistic chance of long-term success. An<br />

examination of the available alternatives makes this plain.<br />

Trap and kill<br />

“Trap and kill” has been the predominant approach by animal control agencies in the<br />

U.S. for decades. Trapping feral cats, carting them off to a shelter and then euthanizing<br />

them may, in the short term, reduce the population in a given area. But in most cases this<br />

reduction is only temporary and eventually the cat population returns to its former level.<br />

There are several reasons for this:<br />

The vacuum effect<br />

Feral cat colonies spring up and subsist in certain locations because the habitat<br />

provides adequate food and shelter for them to survive. When a colony is removed from<br />

a location, but the habitat is left unchanged, unneutered cats from neighboring colonies<br />

sooner or later will move into the vacant territory to take advantage of the still remaining<br />

food and shelter and the cycle starts all over again. This phenomenon, termed the<br />

“vacuum effect,” was first documented by wildlife biologist Roger Tabor in his studies of<br />

London street cats (Tabor, Roger, The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat (1983).)<br />

Altering the habitat to remove the food source is difficult to achieve as a practical<br />

matter. All it takes to create a source is an unsealed dumpster, open garbage cans or one<br />

person leaving out cans of food when they spot a cat. Trying to stop people from feeding<br />

is virtually impossible. In the face of feeding bans with civil and criminal penalties,<br />

experience has shown that compassionate people will persist, one way or another.<br />

5

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!