U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service want free-ranging feral cats eliminated

This is a follow-up to an earlier page about the USFWS demonising feral cats. My thanks to Rick Hall, WA Alliance for Humane Legislation for getting the letter upon which this article is based.

In a letter from Catherine T Phillips PhD, an Acting Project Leader at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), to the Escambia County Board of County County Commissioners, she makes it clear that the USFWS “recommend that County Officials continue to take action to eliminate free-ranging feral cats throughout Escambia County”.

She does not specify clearly how feral cats should be eliminated although she makes it clear the the USFWS “opposes trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs that allow domestic or feral cats to return to free-ranging conditions”.

Most TNR programs allow the cats to return to free-ranging conditions. The name states that: trap-neuter-return (“release” is an alternative version).

If Ms Phillips opposes TNR and wants feral cat elimination it does hint strongly at out-and-out killing – trapping and then euthanising.

However, she muddies the water by hinting that the long term solution is to “take appropriate action to ensure that cat owners act responsibly to restrain or confine their animals and hold owners accountable for any damages to wildlife that occur from allowing animals to roam at large”.

Owners should act responsibly but she seems to be saying that cat owners should be punished if their cat(s) kill wildlife. That is not sensible because it is unenforceable and unworkable.

However, it shows the extreme views of the USFWS if Ms Phillips represents the general goals and viewpoints of the Service.

Ms Phillips appears to be using inaccurate research on the predation of outdoor cats on birds and mammals in the USA to support her arguments (up to 5m birds and 22m mammals). As at today no one is sure of the impact on wildlife by cats in the USA because there is not, as yet, any definitive trustworthy statistics based on widespread research as opposed to estimates from small local studies.

She threatens the Escambia commissioners with possible civil and/or crimimal proceedings unless they do something about feral cats other than in using TNR. She quotes the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and implies that the Escambia commissioners could end up being personally responsible and hauled through the criminal courts with a possible 6 months prison term at the end unless they act in eliminating free-ranging feral cats (aren’t they all free-ranging?).

If she represents USFWS their policy on feral cats is fierce and uncompromising.

“Ban and eliminate free-ranging TNR colonies, feral, and domestic cats through humane capture by authorised or licensed animal care and control personnel….”

That smells of trap and kill to me.

Please comment here using either Facebook or WordPress (when available).

Is Dr. Phillips malevolent?

Shorebirds that nest on the ground may have a hard time defending their turf from cats and other predators. Many species of birds are extinct or endangered, thanks mainly to humans and, secondarily, cats and other carnivores, domestic and wild.

What is unclear is this excerpt from Dr. Phillips’s letter:

‘Additionally, when TNR cats receive food from humans, they can reach population levels that may create areas of abnormally high predation takes on wildlife. . .’

If she means that releasing the cats and withholding food hastens their death, then euthanasia is a kinder fate. Her comment, however, also suggests she’s forgotten that TNR cats are sterile.

While she clearly lays out the fines and terms of imprisonment, she has little to say as to where or from whom the requisite land to contain the cats might be obtained, the funds to buy and enclose it (unless it’s government land), and to feed and medicate how many cats? The high hundreds? Hundreds of thousands? A few hundred?

A law that mandated micro-chipping pet cats on the prowl would nail the owners (though to no avail if they were insolvent).

But her letter outlines the penalties, with scanty advice as to how the county can bring itself into compliance – nor, chances are, would any of that fall within her jurisdiction.

Bird and wildlife sanctuaries are more common in some areas than others. The coastal regions of the Pac. Northwest are world-famed resting and nesting places for migrating and native birds, some from Argentina, en route to the Arctic. These birds are admired by locals and tourists – as they would be by everyone on PoC. Does endangered wildlife deserve to be under constant siege in its birthing season? Temporary cat enclosures – they wouldn’t be forever when the cats are TNR – might help ease the pressure on wildlife populations. Would the cost be immense or affordable?

Within a few decades the human race has caused more destruction to every form of life, including its own, than eons of cats.

Though cats add to the tragedy, Sarah Hartwell’s firebrand polemic says much that people like to underplay. Of particular interest are her comments regarding a curious reality observed by anyone with cats: namely, not every cat is predisposed to hunt. While far and few between, they exist, nor are they invariably old. She also maintains that some cats are less adroit than others in capturing prey.

Four decades ago, a group of Russian zoologists began breeding foxes with a view to suppressing certain traits and developing others. The experiment is nearing its end – and the end is cruel. Thousands of foxes bonded to their human caregivers are being destroyed because the experiment is running out of money (as if Russia weren’t teeming with multi-billionaires). Unlike their wild kin, the hybrids are gentle and affectionate, an astonishing transformation when ancient cultures took thousands of years to turn wolves into dogs.

Without harming them, could a modification in temperament be achieved with cats? Barring a hitch, when birth control bait for rodents will be on the shelves within months, could scientists engineer cats that don’t hunt?

Quixotic or doable? Whichever, a long-range goal if scientists wanted to give it a try.
____________________________________

[New Breed of Fox Tame as a Pussycat – NY Times]

[Domestic Cat – Wildlife Enemy No. 1 or a Convenient Scapegoat? – Messybeast]

Reply ↓

Comments

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service want free-ranging feral cats eliminated — 17 Comments

Beaufort Vanguard on August 8, 2014 at 8:04 am said:
Boy, Brad sure has a hard-on for the poor cats. What a head-case.
Reply ↓
- Michael Broad on August 8, 2014 at 11:55 am said:
  Brad is probably Woody or Jim:
  https://pictures-of-cats.org/jim-stevenson-aka-woodsman001.html
  Woody is the world’s most notorious cat website troll but I have become quite accepting of his madness. I feel sorry for him. He rants all the time. He is being polite on this page.
  Reply ↓
Sylvia Ann on August 6, 2014 at 5:28 pm said:
Is Dr. Phillips malevolent?
Shorebirds that nest on the ground may have a hard time defending their turf from cats and other predators. Many species of birds are extinct or endangered, thanks mainly to humans and, secondarily, cats and other carnivores, domestic and wild.
What is unclear is this excerpt from Dr. Phillips’s letter:
‘Additionally, when TNR cats receive food from humans, they can reach population levels that may create areas of abnormally high predation takes on wildlife. . .’
If she means that releasing the cats and withholding food hastens their death, then euthanasia is a kinder fate. Her comment, however, also suggests she’s forgotten that TNR cats are sterile.
While she clearly lays out the fines and terms of imprisonment, she has little to say as to where or from whom the requisite land to contain the cats might be obtained, the funds to buy and enclose it (unless it’s government land), and to feed and medicate how many cats? The high hundreds? Hundreds of thousands? A few hundred?
A law that mandated micro-chipping pet cats on the prowl would nail the owners (though to no avail if they were insolvent).
But her letter outlines the penalties, with scanty advice as to how the county can bring itself into compliance – nor, chances are, would any of that fall within her jurisdiction.
Bird and wildlife sanctuaries are more common in some areas than others. The coastal regions of the Pac. Northwest are world-famed resting and nesting places for migrating and native birds, some from Argentina, en route to the Arctic. These birds are admired by locals and tourists – as they would be by everyone on PoC. Does endangered wildlife deserve to be under constant siege in its birthing season? Temporary cat enclosures – they wouldn’t be forever when the cats are TNR – might help ease the pressure on wildlife populations. Would the cost be immense or affordable?
Within a few decades the human race has caused more destruction to every form of life, including its own, than eons of cats.
Though cats add to the tragedy, Sarah Hartwell’s firebrand polemic says much that people like to underplay. Of particular interest are her comments regarding a curious reality observed by anyone with cats: namely, not every cat is predisposed to hunt. While far and few between, they exist, nor are they invariably old. She also maintains that some cats are less adroit than others in capturing prey.
Four decades ago, a group of Russian zoologists began breeding foxes with a view to suppressing certain traits and developing others. The experiment is nearing its end – and the end is cruel. Thousands of foxes bonded to their human caregivers are being destroyed because the experiment is running out of money (as if Russia weren’t teeming with multi-billionaires). Unlike their wild kin, the hybrids are gentle and affectionate, an astonishing transformation when ancient cultures took thousands of years to turn wolves into dogs.
Without harming them, could a modification in temperament be achieved with cats? Barring a hitch, when birth control bait for rodents will be on the shelves within months, could scientists engineer cats that don’t hunt?
Quixotic or doable? Whichever, a long-range goal if scientists wanted to give it a try.
____________________________________
[New Breed of Fox Tame as a Pussycat – NY Times]
[Domestic Cat – Wildlife Enemy No. 1 or a Convenient Scapegoat? – Messybeast]
Reply ↓
- Michael Broad on August 6, 2014 at 6:58 pm said:
  Is Dr. Phillips malevolent?
  I think she is. The tone of her letter indicates a less than scientific viewpoint. A dislike of cats I sense.
  Her comment, however, also suggests she’s forgotten that TNR cats are sterile.
  Agreed. This hints again at a less than balanced viewpoint about feral cats.
  But her letter outlines the penalties, with scanty advice as to how the county can bring itself into compliance
  Agreed but I think she is implying that the county should trap and kill. I sense that clearly reading between the lines but she can’t say that.
  …could a modification in temperament be achieved with cats?
  This is quite a nice idea. Never crossed my mind. A mind altering drug perhaps but none currently exist except for recreational drugs for humans that last a short time. As you say it would have to be humane and without side effects. I wonder if that is possible.
  Reply ↓
Brad Perth on August 6, 2014 at 1:20 pm said:
Any dog that is found harassing or killing wildlife is destroyed on sight, and if the owner is known then they are fined and convicted of hunting illegally with a domesticated animal. If someone just reports their dog harassing or hunting wildlife, then game-control officers will then confiscate that dog from the owner, have it destroyed, and the owner fined and convicted of hunting illegally. Further barring them from obtaining any hunting licenses in the future.
Tell us all again why domesticated cats are exempt from these policies. That’s always good for another laugh.
You yourselves even know this to be true. This is precisely why you make every excuse in the universe to not collar, license, or microchip your cats. You don’t want the law coming down on you for what your own cat has done. That’s why we just shoot or poison them for you instead. You won’t obey the law where cats are concerned, you have no regard for your cats’ lives nor the lives of any animals that your cats torture to death for their play-toys. So why on earth should anyone else have even one concern for the life of your cat if you have already proved that you don’t even care what the law is, what animals live or die, not even if your own cat dies from your own negligence.
You’re no longer going to get to destroy this planet with your clearly expendable cats. Your cats will all die before that happens. You have absolutely nobody else but your own selves to blame for how the world now sees your cats — a pestilent vermin that must be destroyed in any way possible.
Reply ↓
- Michael Broad on August 6, 2014 at 3:14 pm said:
  “If someone just reports their dog harassing or hunting wildlife, then game-control officers will then confiscate that dog from the owner, have it destroyed, and the owner fined and convicted of hunting illegally”
  Does this apply across the entire USA? I very much doubt it. Could you be more accurate and tell me which laws you are referring to?
  Voters elect legislators and legislators make laws. So if there are no laws which you describe for cats then it is because of the people who vote: your neighbors and you.
  Humans will die off before cats! Humans are far more dangerous and far better killers of wildlife and the planet than cats and you known it 😉
  Reply ↓
- Michael Broad on August 6, 2014 at 3:15 pm said:
  Are you a USFWS employee Brad?
  Reply ↓
- Dee (Florida) on August 6, 2014 at 4:17 pm said:
  Hi again, Jimbo.
  Yes, you are correct that a dog permitted to run at large by an owner and, subsequently, chases or harrasses wildlife is in violation of law. The law, apparently, doesn’t apply to dogs engaged in hunting.
  There is some inequality, as you say. But, that’s the way it is. Cats are cats and dogs are dogs.
  In that light, I assume that you would agree that a domesticated cat outside and in the presence of their owner hunting wildlife is acceptable.
  In the case of ferals, they have no owners and harrass and chase wildlife the same as a coyotes, bobcats, and snakes. Not illegal.
  Reply ↓
  - Brad Perth on August 6, 2014 at 4:58 pm said:
    The only thing that your thinking will get you is more shot & poisoned cats. How many of yours are left? It’s only a matter of time until you have zero. And that’s YOUR fault.
    Reply ↓
    - Michael Broad on August 6, 2014 at 6:35 pm said:
      Brad, I live with one black cat with 3 legs! LOL. That is it.
      Reply ↓
    - Dee (Florida) on August 6, 2014 at 6:52 pm said:
      My colonies are intact, Jimbo. And will continue to be.
      I support their predation, especially of birds, which are only useful in destroying insects and weeds.
      Reply ↓
    - Dee (Florida) on August 6, 2014 at 7:33 pm said:
      Stay on subject, Jimbo.
      Acknowledge that this is true:
      In that light, I assume that you would agree that a domesticated cat outside and in the presence of their owner hunting wildlife is acceptable.
      In the case of ferals, they have no owners and harrass and chase wildlife the same as a coyotes, bobcats, and snakes. Not illegal.
      Reply ↓
  - Michael Broad on August 6, 2014 at 6:36 pm said:
    Good answer Dee. Brad is outflanked 😉
    Reply ↓
Dee (Florida) on August 5, 2014 at 6:38 pm said:
I could give a rats _ss what their “policy” is regarding the disposition of ferals. That is not LAW. They are not lawmakers. The only action they could take with Escabian County is to try to sue in civil court. I would hope that Escabian doesn’t wimp out to this bogus intimidation.
Reply ↓
- Michael Broad on August 5, 2014 at 6:49 pm said:
  Totally agree. It is a very threatening letter. Coming from a federal government agency it could intimidate some people.
  Reply ↓
- Joyce on August 7, 2014 at 3:28 pm said:
  There is one slight problem with government agencies that most people are unaware of — they can put policies into place, utilize these policies for a year or two, then present these policies to the state senators and representatives when they are in session and have said policies written into law. I learned this from a very dear state representative here who was very against this procedure.
  Reply ↓
  - Michael Broad on August 7, 2014 at 3:30 pm said:
    Good point. I think you are saying that once they have used their policies for a while they become set in cement and then they can be ratified into new law.
    Reply ↓