Do you like this story?
How about we save money and NOT kill the cats?
By David S. Greene
March 18, 2010
Saving lives saves money. I’m not asking you to take my word for it. There’s data that backs it up. The Best Friends Animal Society commissioned a study by John Dunham & Associates, and funded by PetSmart Charities. Here’s the bottom line, from yesterday’s press release:
With an estimated 87 million free-roaming, homeless cats in the United States, it would cost governmental entities about $16 billion to trap and kill these cats as opposed to about $9 billion for supporting trap-neuter/spay-return (TNR) programs run by rescue organizations and individual volunteers.
OK, that’s a savings to John Q. Taxpayer of $7 billion, or $80.45 per feral cat not killed. As Sen. Everett Dirksen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there, sooner or later we’re talking about real money.” This is real money, and it would make a real difference. In fact it already is, in communities where TNR has been adopted. I’ll get to that in a minute.
Meanwhile, the issue has direct applicability now. Today. In the state of New Jersey. Here’s the lede from our friend Alley Cat Rescue‘s current post:
Fish and Game Council member Leonard Wolgast has sponsored a resolution to have feral cats reclassified by the NJ Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), which could put an end to TNR programs in the state and allow feral cats to be hunted. [...] Unfortunately, Mr. Wolgast is a member of this committee and owns property with a kennel (owned and operated by his wife’s family) that contracts with several communities in Central Jersey to pick up and euthanize cats.
First there’s the screaming conflict of interest, but let’s not waste time right now on the ethical violations haunting New Jersey’s regulatory agencies. The bigger problem is the needless waste of both money and animals’ lives. Furthermore, hunting down feral cats to kill them doesn’t solve the problem. You want proof of that? I take you back to the Best Friends’ study.
“The city of San Diego had one of the earliest and most successful TNR programs. In the early 1990s, the Feral Cat Coalition of San Diego began programs aimed at curtailing the free-roaming cat population in the city as an alternative to exterminating the cats. Since 1992, not only has the city moved towards being a “no-kill” community, it has witnessed 50 percent decrease in the feral cat population.”
Fifty percent decrease. Trap and kill didn’t do that. TNR did, and this is conclusive data from close to two decades’ worth of TNR policy in a major city. But TNR isn’t just working in San Diego. Again, back to the study summary:
“TNR programs have had much success on municipal levels, with some of the most comprehensive being San Diego, New York City, Mobile county, Alabama, Chicago/Cook County and Jacksonville, Florida.” (Best Friends, First Coast, the City of Jacksonville, and Jacksonville Humane Society have partnered in a program called “Feral Freedom.” The cats that arrive to the city animal shelter in traps are turned over First Coast to be spay/neutered then returned to their original trap location. These cats are referred to as “community cats.”)
TNR works, and it saves money. So why are we still killing cats?
Photo credit: feral kitten, flickr creative commons.
Share & Enjoy
|
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Google Buzz
|
Digg
|
|
Technorati
|
StumbleUpon
|
Delicious
|
Email
|
Home
An estimated 87 million free-roaming, homeless cats in the United States
That figure just blows my mind, it really does. How very, very sad. If only each and every person looked after their own pets this wouldn’t happen. Easy to say, but will never happen of course :(
Comment by Alison — March 18, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Having community cats that are spayed or neutered sounds like the right way to go.
Yes, it is so very sad that so many cats are homeless, but it is a reality nontheless.
Thanks, David, for this posting.
Comment by Evelyn — March 18, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
Although I fully appreciate that feral cats are not dispersed evenly throughout the country, the figure means that on average there are 1,740,000 feral cats in EACH STATE. That’s 1.74 million. Of course in reality, California, Texas (and I’m betting Florida) have far more, while Rhode Island, Delaware and Alaska have far fewer.
Comment by David S. Greene — March 18, 2010 @ 7:22 pm
Spayed and neutered.
I don’t think the coyotes care.
Comment by retrieverman — March 18, 2010 @ 10:03 pm
“If only each and every person looked after their own pets this wouldn’t happen.”
80% of owned cats are S/N. Even if that number became 100% tomorrow, that doesn’t stop stray/feral cats from continuing to reproduce.
Hence the entire logic behind TNR.
Comment by Pai — March 18, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
Pai, excellent point.
Comment by Joy — March 19, 2010 @ 5:08 am
While 80% is an encouraging number, 20% of those altered cats have had — at least — one litter before being altered.
It would be great to get them fixed before they make 6-12-20 more.
Comment by Mary Mary — March 19, 2010 @ 5:30 am
Where or how is it documented that 20% of intact, owned cats have had a litter?
Comment by Joy — March 19, 2010 @ 5:40 am
Joy, I will try to find that citation later today, but I think it comes from either Madddie’s Fund or the Pet Overpopulation Project (or similar name).
Wherever I saw it, it seemed like a credible source.
Comment by Mary Mary — March 19, 2010 @ 5:59 am
If 20% of owned cats are intact, then I would hazard to guess that only 10% of owned cats are even capable of producing a litter, unless the sex ratio of intact owned cats is skewed for some reason.
Comment by Valerie — March 19, 2010 @ 8:18 am
Or 40% of female spayed cats had a litter prior to being spayed, unless the sex ratio is skewed. That seems kind of high to me. (Shoulda read prior comment more carefully.)
Comment by Valerie — March 19, 2010 @ 8:22 am
Some of those altered cats that had a litter before being altered belong to responsible breeders who health tested, temperament screened, showed the cats to their championship, and then had one or two litters whose buyers were likewise carefully screened. Those cats aren’t part of the problem.
Some of the intact cats belong to responsible breeders who health test, etc.
Some of the owned, altered cats who had a litter before being altered were strays who got picked up while pregnant, and were altered after the litter was weaned.
While an intact cat is a more problematic indoor pet than an intact dog, a cat being intact, or a cat having had a litter before being altered, is not in and of itself evidence that the owner is careless or irresponsible, nor is it proof that the cat is “part of the problem” with regard to feral cats.
Comment by Lis — March 19, 2010 @ 8:34 am
Yes, that’s the problem I have with Alison’s comment. The second sentence does not follow from the first. Free-roaming homeless does not equal people who are not looking after their pets.
We have indoor/outdoor cats. They are not homeless or feral and they are constantly looked-after. They are neutered.
Feral, homeless, not looked-after cats are a different category entirely since they are not owned and no one is legally responsible (or shouldn’t be) for them.
I can personally vouch for trying to kill one’s way out of a feral cat problem not working. We trapped and transported about seven feral toms over the course of a year to the local Humane Society to be put down. (Long before I’d ever heard of TNR). One had started coming into our house at night for a free meal and some territorial marking. But the couple of unspayed feral females a block or so away remained at large. As soon as we removed one tom, another would move in.
The situation only resolved itself when a neighbor who knew better relentlessly trapped, neutered and released every feral, boys and girls. The niche stayed filled, no new kittens were born and the colony’s numbers dropped over time.
As the song says, I’m a believer.
Comment by Susan Fox — March 19, 2010 @ 9:26 am
I’ve been caring for a colony for several years - it was approximately 30 cats but with care it’s down to 3 cats - kitty colony care has brought experiences of joy, heart-breaking deaths, fears & worries - also the grind of daily feedings & trappings. Some good fortune has included meeting wonderful rescue people (now friends) who adopted out kittens and some adults. Also as it can get expensive, my own funding has been ok and also have had a kind veterinarian (as well as a s/n clinic..the best)
So the Question? if TNR works - it saves money why are we still killing cats?
It’s the broken animal control system throughout the U.S. - in my view.
Success with my colony has been assisted by being out of the local Animal Control’s jurisdiction otherwise they use their power to hassle rescuers and kill the cats.
To borrow from Kurt Vonnegut:
Many people need desperately to receive this message:
“I feel and think much as you do, care about many of the things you care about, although most people don’t care about them. You are not alone.” Timequake
So thanks David S. Greene for writing this article.
Comment by mary frances — March 19, 2010 @ 4:19 pm
Unmentioned are the ecological costs that come from that many cats.
If someone released brush tailed possums in even a urban area in the US, many people would be demanding that they be killed. Which is correct.
But because cats are pets, they get the pass.
But if ferrets ever managed to go feral in the US, I guarantee, that no one would be defending them.
Cats are sacred cows, just like feral horses and burros.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 10:29 am
But TNR has a strong record of success, while catch & kill has a strong record of failure. Why is killing better, even when it’s less effected at the stated goal?
Comment by Lis — March 20, 2010 @ 10:58 am
Because the ecological problems are such that you have to use more extreme measures, even if they aren’t cost effective.
It’s just like those pythons running around in Florida. It’s going to cost a heap of money to solve that problem.
This seems more or less like a subsidy to irresponsible people who let their cats run around unneutered.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 11:33 am
Every couple of months a feral cat shows up here. I live in a very rural area. No cat has lasted more than a month. The cold, the coyotes, and the bobcats (the cats that have a right to be there) take care of the problem.
I can see having outdoor cats to protect grain stores and livestock feed. I can’t figure out why anyone with a pet cat would let it roam outside. It’s bad for wildlife, and it’s dangerous for the cat.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 11:36 am
BTW, there are worse things in this world than euthanasia.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 11:37 am
retrieverman, it’s not a subsidy for irresponsible people. It’s done because it’s the right thing to do for the *cats.*
Unlike, say, allowing a pet dropped off in the middle of nowhere by some heartless fool to die of exposure and predation. Oh, but that’s *natural,* right? So it absolves *you* of any responsibility. And it’s cheap, too! And then you get to come here and be all self-righteous about the *environment,* and how cats are ‘sacred cows,’ and there are *worse* things than euthanasia.
Some days, I really hate people.
Comment by Eucritta — March 20, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
I really hate feral cats and “wild” horses.
Double standards exist for these animals.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 1:13 pm
Cats belong in the house, unless they are there for pest control
If you let them roam, you either 1. hate your cat or 2. hate wildlife.
I don’t feel sympathy for invasive species.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 1:15 pm
And don’t say it’s a false equivalence with brush-tailed possums.
You can buy them for pets in some states.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 1:18 pm
Cats belong in the house, unless they are there for pest control
If you let them roam, you either 1. hate your cat or 2. hate wildlife.
So, which does Gina hate?
Not all areas have vulnerable native species, and in some areas the “natural” predators of the pest species have been gone for quite a while—and not because of cats.
When I last had a cat who was allowed outside—over thirty years ago, now—she mainly brought home mice, with the occasional young rat thrown in. When she got birds, they were starlings and pigeons—and if you want me to feel sorry for rats with wings, you’ll have a long wait for that.
I don’t feel sympathy for invasive species.
Not even the most invasive species of all, your own?
Comment by Lis — March 20, 2010 @ 1:39 pm
Thanks for pointing out the monumental hypocrisy of hating feral cats for being “invasive” while our own species continues its cancer-like growth.
Furthermore, making public policy on the basis of hate always works really well, yo.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 20, 2010 @ 1:53 pm
I don’t feel sympathy for us.
We’re far too overpopulated. That’s why I’m not having kids. And family planning is very important for any kind of Green policy.
But here’s my point:
It’s not wrong to hate that pythons are roaming the Everglades.
So why is it wrong to hate that feral cats are taking a ton of birds and small mammals?
What cats have done to some islands and Australia is really shocking.
I can see having some farm cats to keep the rats down. My grandparents had a farm in which the rats and mice were a constant concern, but because the grain attracted mostly rats. That’s what the cats hunted.
But when you happen to like birds a lot, and you see some descendant of Mesopotamian wildcat run off with one. It does tend to tick you off a bit.
I don’t think dogs belong on the Galapagos Islands for the same reason. I have blog on my blogroll (Ella Bay Forever) in which the author is very concerned with dogs killing cassowaries.
I love dogs, but I certainly wouldn’t want dogs to make the cassowary numbers drop.
Cats that aren’t keeping rodents down on working farms belong in the house or in enclosures.
If I had a pet tiger, I wouldn’t be allowed to let it roam— because that tiger is predator that can kill people. A cat is just as dangerous as any tiger to songbirds, small mammals, and virtually all game birds.
Of course, in my part of the world, the natural predators don’t let the Mesopotamian wildcats go for long.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 2:35 pm
http://ellabayforever.blogspot.....mment-form
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
Don’t parse, retrieverman. You didn’t say you hate THAT feral cats do something… you said you HATE FERAL CATS.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 20, 2010 @ 2:50 pm
I do hate feral cats.
And feral pythons and feral brush tailed possums.
And feral dogs that kill cassowaries.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
What about feral children?
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2010 @ 3:19 pm
Feral children are mostly myths and urban legends. Most of them are abused and abandoned children.
Entirely irrelevant to this conversation.
But this is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fvN7FNUPas
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:22 pm
So I repeat: hate is a crappy basis for public policy.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 20, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
I just don’t understand. If you think there should be no feral cats roaming free, then you agree with the goal of TNR; to decrease the population of feral cats, preferably to zero.
TNR advocates are just saying they know a better way. Yes, TNR “happens” to be more humane than other alternatives but more important (presumably more important to you) it’s a more EFFECTIVE way to control the feral cat population.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2010 @ 3:32 pm
My question is why do cats get this privilege but other invasive species don’t?
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:34 pm
I’m not so sure that it is the most effective way. You have this study, and I have the ones I’ve seen.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:35 pm
Catch/Kill has just simply not worked.
Other than a few island examples, does anyone have documentation of catch/kill working?
Our feral colony, the one at the medical complex where my husband works, is down to five cats. All well fed, middle aged. Down from the 25 or so who were always about when we started about 15 years ago.
It would be zero, except for new additions over the years. Not nearly as many new cats wander in, now that local groups also do TNR and low/no cost s/n.
The TNR debate gets derailed into cats vs wildlife. But for me the debate on feral cats needs to be what works. Catch and kill did not help local cat issues, although it had been practiced with a passion for decades. Now numbers are down. Good for people, cats and wildlife.
Comment by JenniferJ — March 20, 2010 @ 3:38 pm
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcpro.....c_cats.pdf
My solution is for there to be a cat tax.
We have dog taxes. That tax money goes to mitigate damages that dogs might cause.
That’s what a cat tax would do.
And it would allow people to claim ownership over cats, so we can kill the ferals.
I don’t know where you are getting the “facts” that killing cats doesn’t reduce their numbers.
As soon as a cat shows up here, it’s either shot by the neighbors or the coyotes or bobcats get it.
Killing works very nicely here.
I used to have a dog that could be used on cats, but such an animal is a liability now.
When she died, I’m sure the birds had a funeral.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:41 pm
But no one has answered my question:
Why do feral cats get this privilege and other invasive species don’t?
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:42 pm
Please read carefully: http://www.abcbirds.org/abcpro.....iology.pdf
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:45 pm
http://www.abcbirds.org/abcpro.....l_cats.pdf
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
We should have a bird tax paid by bird watching enthusiasts - to pay to control the population of feral and non-native bird species in the U.S.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
So you hate bird watchers?
The birds are part of nature. They are part of the commonwealth. I don’t think we should tax people who want share in the commonwealth (that’s somewhat akin to taxing social security benefits).
Cats are not part of the commonwealth. They a biological pollutant— all harmful invasives are.
It’s pollution.
We should tax pollution.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Many bird species are invasive. The exact same “cat tax” proposal will work on birders, which you’d easily see if not blinded by your hate and prejudice. It’s always so sad to see public policy debates get hijacked to serve these emotional agendas. Very sad.
Comment by Christie Keith — March 20, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Invasive, feral and non-native birds are harmful and their populations should be controlled just like with feral cats.
And no, I don’t hate bird watchers….and even if I did, I certainly wouldn’t think that was a good reason to tax them or unnecessarily kill anything.
Comment by Joy — March 20, 2010 @ 3:58 pm
Starlings and sparrows— even monk parakeets— are invasive species in the United States.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
I’m very fine with an exotic bird tax.
And an exotic pet tex.
Dogs are taxed. Livestock is taxed.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 5:25 pm
Starlings and sparrows— even monk parakeets— are invasive species in the United States.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
Please get your facts straight. HOUSE sparrows are an invasive species. There are dozens of other sparrow species, such as the song sparrow, that are indigenous to the Americas.
So, to sum it up, it’s okay for farm cats to be outside and hunt song birds, but not “city” cats?
Is that what you really mean?
In my experience, outdoor cats kill mice, rats, chipmunks, rabbits, etc. Not once have I seen a cat kill a bird - and why should they, where there is an abundance of other, easier prey?
And of course, habitat loss, night-lit tall buildings, and pesticides are all irrelevant to the loss of sing birds - let’s just blame cats.
Sorry, not buying it.
Comment by K.B. — March 20, 2010 @ 5:33 pm
Owning cats is fine. I’m not anti-cat.
I know a Siamese cat that is absolutely wonderful.
However, it doesn’t change the fact that in most cases TNR isn’t that effective and this cost-benefit analysis leaves out ecological and public health costs.
It’s just like these people who tell you how economically beneficial coal mining is. Yes, for those companies, it’s quite profitable, but the environmental and social costs are externalized.
This has nothing to do with bigotry. My hatred of feral cats is like my hatred of excessive CO2 in the atmosphere. It’s like my hatred of overfishing. My hatred of the Canadian seal hunt.
It’s not so much hatred as much as it is passion for the things we’re destroying.
I am a Greenie. Ever since I saw The Company of Whales as a young boy I’ve been concerned about what we’re doing to this planet and its creatures.
But just because cats are wonderful pets, doesn’t mean that we should allow feral cats to take so much of our heritage away from us.
Feral cats are unlike any native predator. They live in high densities and reproduce at rapid rates. One cannot expect native species to put up with such pressures for too long.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 5:38 pm
The only reason for tolerating farm cats is that they do perform a service in controlling rodents, and I’m fine with that. I’m willing to sacrifice some birds over that one. I think there are better ways to control rodents, but if that’s what people are using. I’m fine with it.
But feral cats are something different— especially fed feral cat colonies.
I guarantee you that there aren’t as many farm cats as there are feral cats in this country, and most farms aren’t the best habitat for native species.
And I can tolerate urban feral cat colonies, although the disease risk is not mitigated there either.
But if every community in America allows large numbers of feral cats to exist without some sort of cull, we’re asking for a disaster.
And as I said before, my measure applies to any species. I’m a dog person, but if dogs were at doing this (as they are in Australia and the Galapagos), I’d be for a dog cull.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
BTW, I didn’t say those things were irrelevant to bird loss. You are sayings cats are irrelevant to bird loss.
I’m saying cats are a factor to bird loss, along with those other things.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 5:45 pm
You’ll awfully long on the personal anecdotes and opinion and awfully short on facts. Cats are an easy target, but the fact is destruction of the habitat and climate change had had and will have a bigger impact than all the cats ever born.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 20, 2010 @ 6:15 pm
Cats are a factor, yes. About as much as birds being killed by cars, I suspect. In 40 years, in fact, I have seen more birds killed by cars than by cats. I have seen more birds killed by *dogs* than cats.
And my family has had outdoors cats my entire life, and does to this day (I don’t, due to allergies).
Do I agree with outdoor cats in all areas? No. Do I think there is an incredible lack of personal responsibility in cat ownership? As someone who lives in a “cottage” area, where it seems it’s the in thing to “adopt” a cat for the summer, just to abandon it (intact) come fall, yes, yes I do. Do I think we need to re-think a lot of areas of pet ownership? Yep!
But the old “cats kill birds” argument is lacking, IMO.
Again, I live in an area with a LOT of feral cats (the 3 current family cats were all strays). And we have an incredible diversity of bird life. I don’t see how those two are incompatible. And talking to “old-timers” in the area - the diversity is greater now than it has been in their memories. Cardinals, for one very visible example, were RARE in the 50s and 60s - quite common now. In my own lifetime, I have seen the return of incredible numbers of turkey vultures. I think changing pesticide usage has done more for birds than any cat policy ever will.
As for the seal hunt, as a Canadian, I prefer to understand the entire issue, not just the propaganda that surrounds it. Kinda like horse meat, dog meat, etc. - not something I’d do, but not something I’m going to take another country to task over.
My motto - clean up your own backyard before you peek over the fence.
Comment by K.B. — March 20, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
I do hate feral cats.
And feral pythons and feral brush tailed possums.
And I find this—bizarre. Bizarre and unproductive. It’s not going to produce good public policy in any case.
And feral dogs that kill cassowaries.
You hate feral cats, you hate feral pythons, you hate feral brush tailed possums—but you only hate feral dogs that actually do something objectionable.
Of course, even such relatively targeted hate (for feral dogs that actually do something objectionable, rather than all feral dogs) is not a sound basis for good public policy addressing the problem.
Feral cats are unlike any native predator. They live in high densities and reproduce at rapid rates. One cannot expect native species to put up with such pressures for too long.
But “live in high densities and reproduce at rapid rates” are exactly the characteristics targeted—successfully, in many, many well-documented cases—by TNR.
In my neighborhood we have a lot of wandering outdoor cats—some feral, some owned cats who go home to nice, warm beds and canned food every night.
We also have a lot of birds.
And when the local cats bag prey, it’s generally mice.
Because cats are not different from any other predator, and unless pressed hard by necessity, they prefer the easiest prey items available.
Birds fly. Cats don’t. Birds are not cats’ first choice of prey.
And if you think cities don’t have rodent populations needing control, I can only conclude that you have never spent any significant amount of time in any major urban area.
Comment by Lis — March 20, 2010 @ 8:23 pm
Cats don’t target birds?
News to me.
Most cats consider it a challenge to hunt birds
Most cats are hunting because it’s fun.
Not because that’s how they normally eat.
Plus, these colonies are fed, so the cats have energy to spare hunting birds.
Comment by retrieverman — March 20, 2010 @ 9:08 pm
Ok retrieverman, out of the 54 comments preceding this one, 25 of them are yours. That’s right, I counted. You’re happily dominating the discussion, yet the sum total of your argument, such as it is, seems to be “I hate all things feral, and any cat found outside should be killed”. Ok, we get that, and the whole thing has gotten tiresome. Even you could probably agree with that. Amazingly, if you scroll way up, you’ll find the comments follow the discussion of a study that makes a strong argument indicating that trap and kill simply doesn’t work as well as TNR, and TNR saves tax dollars as well. So if you’re going to justify the killing of feral animals (because you hate them, which, sorry, has no weight in a serious policy discussion) over TNR, you bear the burden of explanation for adding the significant extra cost for a policy that is being proven over the years in major municipalities not to work.
I’m tired of hearing that you hate ferals. It’s irrelevant, boring, and doesn’t sound like a reasoned statement from a respectable, coherent adult, which I know you are, because I read (and very much enjoy) your blog. Make an actual point with some facts behind it, ok? “Feral cats: bad” doesn’t cut it.
Comment by David S. Greene — March 20, 2010 @ 9:12 pm
When you argue against TNR, you’re arguing against the METHOD, not the ultimate goal.
The goal of TNR is to eliminate the existence of feral cat colonies through attrition. Read, “eliminate the existence of feral cat colonies”.
TNR advocates aren’t arguing that feral cats should be left to roam and reproduce unchecked. That’s obvious, otherwise there would be no TNR advocates. But they do argue that TNR is the most effective and environmentally sound method.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2010 @ 5:54 am
Oh, David, if I could write as succinctly, as brilliantly, as factual, and as forcefully as you did on comment 55, I would used the exact same words.
You are so on target!
Comment by Evelyn — March 21, 2010 @ 6:39 am
Seriously,”retrieverman,” get back on your meds.
You seem to have decided that the way to generate traffic to your site is to pick a fight with other bloggers and then whine on your blog about how you’re not being understood and the big kids are so wrong, anyway.
Knock it off.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 21, 2010 @ 6:43 am
Maybe it is time for a change of meds?:)
Comment by Evelyn — March 21, 2010 @ 7:52 am
I’m not on medication, as anyone who has read my blog knows, I have consistently opposed TNR.
I have a post that you can check out:
http://retrieverman.wordpress......esnt-work/
I didn’t realize we had a new religion— lots of new religions on animals.
Comment by retrieverman — March 21, 2010 @ 9:47 am
If you try to push this as a policy nationwide, I’m going to oppose it.
I think even PETA is on my side on this one.
The blind pig has found another acorn.
Comment by retrieverman — March 21, 2010 @ 9:49 am
I think retrieverman is just trying to advertise his blog. I’m not taking the bait.
Comment by Joy — March 21, 2010 @ 10:04 am
If you try to push this as a policy nationwide, I’m going to oppose it.
I think even PETA is on my side on this one.
Comment by retrieverman — March 21, 2010
First, why you think anyone cares or is concerned about your opposition is beyond me.
Second, PETA being on your side is no badge of honor on any animal issue.
Third, you clearly are trolling for attention, which you no doubt need since everyone has pretty much realized you don’t have any actual expertise in anything. You’re all about a little reading, a little Google searching and a lot of opinions.
And you know what they say about opinions.
Go bloviate on your own blog. You’re not adding a thing to the discussion here.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — March 21, 2010 @ 10:13 am
I miss Kurt Vonnegut but how lucky he was amongst us - anyway I borrowed from him in my above comment here goes again.
“There’s only one rule I know of, babies - God damn it you’ve got to be kind.” - Kurt Vonnegut, God Bless you, Mr. Rosewater.
Read somewhere that he had it etched in wood above his doorway as you entered his writing area.
Nature is cruel and we don’t have to be. The world is connected to our thoughts and acts of kindness - so every act of kindness is not simply a sign of personal virtue - it’s saving the planet…a blend of environmentalism, spirituality, compassion and common sense. Killing isn’t kind - TNR is an act of kindness.
Comment by mary frances — March 22, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
Amen, mary frances, well stated.
I, too, believe in being kind wherever and whenever possible, to decrease the negativity that is ever-present around us.
Comment by Evelyn — March 22, 2010 @ 2:15 pm
Oh snap at #63.
Gina has let the (… dare I say it … ?) cat out of the bag.
Comment by PBurns — November 15, 2010 @ 1:44 pm
Geez, was I a bitch, or what?
I’m trying to be nicer these days.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — November 15, 2010 @ 2:06 pm