Comment
What Conservation Biologists Can Do to Counter
Trap-Neuter-Return: Response to Longcore et al.
CHRISTOPHER A. LEPCZYK,∗ NICO DAUPHINE´,† DAVID M. BIRD,‡ SHEILA CONANT,§
ROBERT J. COOPER,∗∗ DAVID C. DUFFY,†† PAMELA JO HATLEY,§§ PETER P. MARRA,∗∗∗
ELIZABETH STONE,††† AND STANLEY A. TEMPLE‡‡§§§
∗Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawai‘i at Ma¯noa, Honolulu, HI 96822, U.S.A.,
email lepczyk@hawaii.edu
†Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London NW1 4RY, United Kingdom
‡Avian Science and Conservation Centre, McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec H9X 3V9, Canada
§Department of Zoology, University of Hawai‘i at Ma¯noa, Honolulu, HI 96822, U.S.A.
∗∗Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U.S.A.
††Pacific Cooperative Studies Unit, Department of Botany, University of Hawai‘i at Ma¯noa, Honolulu, HI 96822, U.S.A.
§§Pamela Jo Hatley, P.A., P. O. Box 47477, Tampa, FL 33646-0113, U.S.A.
∗∗∗Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center, National Zoological Park, Washington D.C. 20008, U.S.A.
†††Center for Wildlife Health Research, 24 Goss Road, Pownal, ME 04069, U.S.A.
‡‡Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.
§§§Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, U.S.A.
We applaud the recent essay by Longcore et al. (2009)
in raising the awareness about trap-neuter-return (TNR)
to the conservation community. Trap-neuter-return has
gained a great deal of traction in recent years as an ac-
cepted form of feral cat management, but as noted by
the authors, it has not lived up to the ideal it proffers.
We concur with the authors’ thoughts and findings on
TNR and want to make several additional points about
feral cat management and TNR regarding environmental
conservation.
First, TNR is often presented to policy makers and the
public as a scientifically valid and humane way of con-
trolling and managing homeless and unwanted cats. Pro-
ponents of TNR are well organized and push for TNR-
friendly policies in communities and shelters around the
United States, often with little opposition from the con-
servation biology and wildlife ecology communities. The
reasons behind this lack of opposition are unclear, but
it may be that conservation biologists and wildlife ecolo-
gists believe the issue of feral cats has already been stud-
ied enough and that the work speaks for itself, suggesting
that no further research is needed. Or, they simply do not
want to devote time and energy to the issue and are un-
aware of policy actions.
Paper submitted May 22, 2009; revised manuscript accepted June 12, 2009.
Regardless of why the scientific and management com-
munities have remained relatively silent, it is impera-
tive that we now begin speaking out (sensu Nelson &
Vucetich 2009). By way of example, those of us who are
conservation biologists should look to the evolutionary
biology community. When local policies or regulations
are put forth that promote the teaching of creationism
or intelligent design, the evolutionary biologists have re-
sponded in force from across the nation and world. Such
responses have been successful in defeating attempts to
favor the teaching of creationism or intelligent design and
serve to remind the public that the scientific evidence
overwhelmingly supports the theory of evolution. We
the conservation community should consider the issue
of TNR in the same light and challenge such propositions
when they are raised. Without such challenges by those
who are knowledgeable about the subject, we simply al-
low the use of TNR to grow and thereby gain further
acceptance.
Second, the conservation biology and wildlife ecology
communities need to build bridges with the animal wel-
fare, veterinary, and public-health communities. Many or-
ganizations within these communities oppose TNR, cat
colonies, and outdoor cats in general, because cats living
627
Conservation Biology, Volume 24, No. 2, 627–629
C©2010 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01426.x
628 Countering Trap-Neuter-Return
Figure 1. Growth of the house cat population in the
United States over time. Population estimates were
derived from manufacturers of pet food, American Pet
Products Manufacturers Association, American
Veterinary Medical Association, and similar
organizations.
in these conditions tend to have shorter lives, higher lev-
els of parasites and disease, and generally poorer health.
In fact, across the United States cats are the leading rabies
vector among domestic animals (Blanton et al. 2007). Al-
though proponents of TNR assert that they are providing
services that allow cats to live full and healthy lives, free-
roaming and feral cats are often in very poor condition
(Jessup 2004). The animal welfare community opposes
“cat hoarding,” whereby people care for more pets than
they can adequately support, because it is considered
inhumane. Trap-neuter-return is essentially cat hoarding
without walls. Considering that most communities have
laws banning animal hoarding, we should consider the
same standard for outdoor cats as those that are in a per-
son’s home.
What then to do about the problems of outdoor cats,
cat colonies, and unwanted cats? The population of
owned cats is growing (Fig. 1) and likely mirrored by a
growing population of feral cats (Schmidt et al. 2007).
This problem almost certainly has been exacerbated
by the current economic recession, whereby increasing
numbers of pets are being abandoned or surrendered to
shelters (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals 2009). Concurrently, there are increasing ef-
forts to convert animal shelters into “no kill” facilities.
As a result, we face the conundrum of how to humanely
deal with more andmore feral cats. There is no simple an-
swer that will please all parties, in large part because we
now find ourselves in the unpleasant position of having
far too many feral cats in the environment with no sin-
gle solution that is acceptable to all. Ultimately, the issue
of feral cats is a social problem and one that many find
uncomfortable due to the highly charged emotions asso-
ciated with it. No one wants to euthanize animals and no
one likes to see them suffer. But unfortunately, the conse-
quences of allowing cats to roam wild or live in colonies
with extremely poor health conditions are less humane
than euthanasia. We as a society do not allow dogs, fer-
rets, livestock, or other domestic animals to roam free
or live in the wild in colonies and the same should be
true for cats. Cats deserve the same humane treatment
and legal regards as dogs and other pets. Likewise, wild
animals (i.e., amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles)
deserve humane treatment and should not be reduced to
second-class treatment at the expense of cats (or other
pets).
We suggest that the following actions should be en-
couraged. First, conservation biologists, wildlife ecolo-
gists, and the like should have open dialogues with the
animal welfare, sheltering, veterinary, and public-health
communities. These communities generally agree on a
desire to promote animal welfare and reduce cat over-
population. If we do not begin to work together, we will
face strong obstacles in reducing the numbers of feral
cats present on our landscapes.
Second, the wildlife and conservation communities
need to challenge policies that are put forth to allow or
promote feral cat colonies and TNR. Conservation biolo-
gists have just as much opportunity to make their points
at local meetings, through the news media, and at out-
reach events as do TNR proponents. Although feral cats
may not be the issue we are most interested in or want
to pursue with our time, we should remind ourselves of
our responsibility to provide scientific information to the
public with regard to wildlife and the environment.
Third, the wildlife and conservation communities
should advocate for policies that encourage responsible
pet ownership as well as for enforcement of existing
policies. This includes requiring licenses for cats, substan-
tially decreasing unwanted breeding of pet cats through
mandatory or subsidized spaying and neutering, and re-
quiring cats to be kept under their owners’ control at
all times when outdoors. In many cases, local ordinances
requiring owners to keep their domestic animals under
control are enforced for dogs, but not for cats. In these
cases, such policies are already in place but require in-
creased enforcement in order to be effective.
Fourth, “releasing cats into the wild and supporting
feral cat colonies is a violation of the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act, as well as
laws prohibiting animal abandonment (Winter 2003).”
Thus, it may become incumbent upon us to take legal
action against colonies and colony managers, particularly
in areas that provide habitat for migratory birds or endan-
gered species.
Fifth, we should seek laws making it illegal to maintain
cat colonies on public lands. Sixth, we need to increase
public awareness about being a responsible pet owner,
not just for the benefit of cats (and other domestic animals
Conservation Biology
Volume 24, No. 2, 2010
Lepczyk et al. 629
as well), but also for individuals of wildlife species and
the environment.
Finally, we need to move away from the prevailing
view that depredation of individual wildlife species does
notmatter as long as their populations are intact. If we are
to consider cats from an individualistic viewpoint, then
the same argument must be made for wild animals. The
issue of feral cats is not going away any time soon, and no
matterwhat options are taken, it maywell be a generation
or more before we can expect broad-scale changes in
human behavior regarding outdoor cats. Further delays
will amplify the problems. The sooner we take action,
the better.
Acknowledgments
We thank S. Hess for fruitful discussions and T. Longcore
and C. Rich for constructive suggestions on the draft
manuscript.
Literature Cited
American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA).
2009. ASPCA estimates up to 1 million pets at risk during economic
crisis. Press release. ASCPC, New York.
Blanton, J. D., C. A. Hanlon, and C. E. Rupprecht. 2007. Ra-
bies surveillance in the United States during 2006. Jour-
nal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 231:540–
556.
Jessup, D. 2004. The welfare of feral cats and wildlife. Jour-
nal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 225:1377–
1383.
Longcore, T., C. Rich, and L. M. Sullivan. 2009. Critical assessment of
claims regarding management of feral cats by trap-neuter-return.
Conservation Biology 23:887–894.
Nelson, M. P., and J. A. Vucetich. 2009. On advocacy by environmen-
tal scientists: what, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology
23:1090–1101.
Schmidt, P. M., R. R. Lopez, and B. A. Collier. 2007. Survival, fecundity,
and movements of free-roaming cats. Journal of Wildlife Manage-
ment 71:915–919.
Winter, L. 2003. Popoki and Hawai‘i’s native birds. ‘Elepaio 63:43–
46.
Conservation Biology
Volume 24, No. 2, 2010