SciBlogs

Archive 2013

At home with cats - Wayne Linklater May 17

No Comments

My cats died. I buried them – head to toe, together – in my rambling garden below the kowhai tree. I don’t garden on their grave. It is a weedy sinking mound – a tribute to what the living cannot control.

I met my cats because I fell in love. She sat across from me at dinner – a birthday celebration for the man who would one day marry us on a rocky point off La Jolla, San Diego. I’d been in Sand Diego for just a few hours. It was foreign and the table of colleagues and future friends new to me. She smiled. I knew a week later I would marry her.

I met her cats two weeks later. She lived sandwiched between the edge of a wild canyon and busy street. Coyotes and cars kill cats and cats fight at great veterinary expense. And so she, like many more in North America than New Zealand, kept her cats indoors. They ate indoors and toileted in litter boxes cleaned often.

Athena and Pandora at home

Athena (top) and Pandora (Pandy) at home, inside. In San Deigo and then New Zealand, they were indoor cats living full, healthy lives. Inside, they were not a threat to native wildlife and cats fighting, predators, and traffic were never a threat to them. Veterinary expenses were rare.

We married and left our jobs in San Diego for jobs in Wellington. The cats came too – it was my wife’s only condition on moving. I joked that the relocation expenses provided by my new university went largely to moving my new feline children from California: veterinary bills, air travel, quarantine boarding.

In New Zealand the cats remained indoor cats. I believed that cats needed to be outdoors to have quality lives. I was wrong. In our house they roamed, slept, explored, slept, hid, fought, slept and played. They lived full lives.

But they grew old. Pandora grew thin, painfully thin. Athena grew slow and reluctant to live well. One day my wife woke up with a conviction held with the same certainty as her determination to bring the cats with her to New Zealand – it was time to die gently. They were too old to live well, too sick to live happily. Three days later and a visit from the veterinarian and they slept to death.

I do not have cats anymore but my oldest daughter and wife would like one again sometime. I know this will happen. Do I miss them? Not really. But my wife does. I’d like a dog.

I have learned that cats can live indoors. It is better for cats. But next time we have family cats I will build an outdoor mesh-walled enclosure off the lounge so that they can also enjoy an outdoor environment without being free-roaming and we can also keep their litter boxes and food bowls out-of-doors – less mess and smell.

So this is my memoir about cats. This is the place they have in my life. I can have a relationship with cats without sacrificing the other important relationship in my life – my relationship with New Zealand’s native and unique biodiversity. I can be true to my different animal relationships without compromising either.

To control the cat problem we do not need to pit ‘cat-lovers’ against ‘conservationists. We are the same people and the solutions are not divisive. In response to my previous posts on this debate (beginning here), some have assumed I am a ‘cat-hater’. Oh… if only people, lives and debates were that simple.

I have learned to live with cats for the people I love. But I also learned that cats’ impact on our biodiversity can be managed by keeping them indoors.

Cats should not be free-roaming in New Zealand. They are a threat to our wildlife. We should keep cats indoors for ours, our wildlife and cats sake.

The 10 most WANTED – New Zealand’s conservation wishlist - Wayne Linklater May 14

5 Comments

We are good at killing pests. We are winning battles on offshore islands or temporarily holding the front on the mainland, but we are not winning the war on pests… yet.

New Zealand’s Department of Conservation want new tools, better tactics and grander strategy for the protection and security of our nation’s biodiversity. And they got them at the Pest Summit.

If you could put financial limits, logistic constraints aside what would you do to win the war on pests? In what ideas would you invest your research dollar to rapidly transform the war against pests in our favour?

This is the wishlist of 50 New Zealand scientists from the Pest Summit:

1. Larger scale pest management – existing tools applied on a massive spatial scale, necessarily requiring greater cooperation of communities.

2. Internationalise – facilitate and coordinate international contributions to solving our pest problem.

3. A dedicated pest agency – to achieve a nationwide coordinated, strategic and socio-politically efficient pest control program unconstrained by land ownership and tenure.

4. Advanced pest surveillance, detection and monitoring tools – the application and deployment of highly sensitive, remotely operated, independent, and low maintenance technologies.

5. Improved killing devices – to radically cut pest control costs and ramp-up operational efficiency towards greater certainty and scales of success, i.e., eradication.

6. Social science – effecting attitudinal and behavioural change in citizens about pest and pest management.

7. Super-lures – chemicals so powerfully attractive to pests that they massively increase the vulnerability of pests to traps, especially when they are at low and invading densities.

8. Conservation behaviour – advances in our ability to manipulate pest animal behaviour.

9. Biological control agents – genetic manipulations of pests, or their parasites, so that pest populations self-destruct.

10. Mass mobilisation – harness the power of citizens and faciltiate their networking towards the single popular objective – pest-free communities.

Would you add anything else?

 

The 50 scientists supporting different ideas faced off in front of a ‘dragons den’ panel and then voted on their favourite three.

Which ideas do you think were most supported?

Its great to be Number 1, but… - Wayne Linklater May 02

No Comments

No1 (trimmed)I’d reply, ‘Awesome!’, ‘Wonderful’, ‘Pretty damn good’, ‘Deserved’, but no one has asked. I understand why no one asks. Gloating is seldom encouraged.

But that is how it feels to be Director of New Zealand’s highest ranked university centre for applied ecology

… in the leading Ecology, Behaviour & Evolution research group

… at the number 1 university for research in New Zealand?’

 

CBRE duel logo (trimmed)The Tertiary Education Commission’s evaluation of university research performance was released last month. It determines how our universities will be funded for the next 6 years – the Performance-based Research Fund (PBRF). Victoria University did extremely well.

But then… ’So what?’ What does this ranking mean to you if you do not administer or operate in a university?

Blog 1 (synthesis centre), Picture 3Being number 1 for research in ecology means very little unless all that research and researcher talent translates into improvements in our environment that transform the quantity and quality of peoples’ lives. This is where research ‘rubber meets the road’. Who is measuring that, and how is it measured?

PBRF rankings do not measure ‘rubber-meets-the-road’ value. Individual academics’ self-reports of leadership in research, evidence for the esteem of their peers, and publication quantity and quality are evaluated by panels of fellow scientists and academics – hardly robust, independent estimates of value. Can we do better? Probably, and it would help if universities took a more active role in defining and measuring their value.

University value to the wider community has largely been defined externally and simplistically with the flourish of cyclical or pendulous government policy. The PBRF is an external definition and metric of universitys’ research value – a financial ‘stick and carrot’. The current government also wants to define our research value by its relevance for business and measures of economic return. But universities have greater and more diverse values than those, which correspond to the equally diverse communities they serve. To define and measure their value universities need to invest in their capacity to gather evidence for the value of their research in ways behavioural, medical, aesthetic, social, financial, and political. With that information comes the power to write the political agenda. Universities, afterall, can have longer-term vision than elected government.

Researchers at universities are so often reported in the media describing themselves as aimlessly curious. We delight in this characterisation of following our interests for fortuitous, serendipitous gain but, however honest and quaint, it is a poor external profile for the communities and government that we serve. They want evidence that we are relevant and important – empirical evidence. We need to demonstrate to our nation that research is much-much more than intellectual masturbation and self-congratulation, …

… and that research rankings are a meaningful metric of our value to the nation.

Oh… and did I say already? … Its great to be No. 1!

Where’s Waynie? - Wayne Linklater Apr 24

No Comments

me as wallyMy daughter, Zoerita Jacks, was born in early February. During my 10 weeks parental leave, I had plans to at least keep writing and posting on this and my other blog. Politics and ecology, of course, do not sleep either. But the impossibility of daily routines with newborns and preparations to move the family for eight months sabbatical at UC-Berkeley soaked up all fragments of free time. And also, parental “leave” – hilarious – was punctuated by the usual university works, like post-graduate students’ thesis deadlines and research contract milestones, that sealed the fate of aspirations for writing.

Zoerita JacksBut that is all behind me. With gorgeous new smiling daughter, we arrived yesterday in The Bay. I am on sabbatical at last! Zoerita woke me early and I packed her for a dawn stroll to induce her next deep sleep and allow her mother to sleep. This part of Oakland, California, with its treed streets, birds and hillside views is restful – especially at dawn while people slumber. I also spent my last sabbatical here conducting surveys of household attitudes and beliefs about biodiversity and making bird counts at dawn throughout the East Bay to test hypotheses about our relationships with wildlife in urban landscapes – work that post-graduate students, John Parker and Jennifer Vinton, duplicated in Wellington, N.Z. I hope to write and publish about that work while I am here. I also hope to write most of a book about feral horses, informed by mine and colleagues work with New Zealand’s Kaimanawa horses: http://perissodactyla.wordpress.com/.

Though not writing posts, or perhaps because I have not been writing them, I am congested with ideas that have abandoned polite and tidy mental queues for a mad crush at the gates of articulation. I am not sure where to start. But start soon I will. I have promised, afterall, to finish a series on wildlife rehab and large exotic animals, especially elephant, in NZ zoos. I’d also like to complete advocating for integrating the 3Rs of enviromental policy and continue my series on domestic cats and their management for wildlife. My research groups work to develop a super-lure for New Zealand’s pest mammals will also make these pages since we just finished a well-attended symposium on the topic. I am sure too there will be other ecological debates in the forefront of New Zealand’s news. I am contemplating a piece about how the wider community, including business, interpret and use the language of ecology. And I expect my visit to California will motivate other intersting topics in polit-ecol science.

Bunny Foo foo and blogFor the moment I have passed-off the sleeping babe to my wife – the dawn stroll worked a dream. I have claimed a coffee from the fresh pot and woken my first daughter, Anneles, for breakfast. As I write Anneles is serving me, and her rabbit Bunny Foo Foo, imaginery tea. Its good to be back.

I will be posting again soon…

but first…

Anneles has asked me if we can make pink lemonade from the enormous number of lemons on Grandpa’s tree and a water melon sweet with the Californian summer…

Wanted – pied pipers for New Zealand - Wayne Linklater Apr 06

No Comments

The Pied Piper RatsLures have been critical to the control of New Zealand’ introduced mammalian pests.  Convincing a mammal, like a rat, to visit or enter a trap and behave in ways that trigger its lethal mechanism has depended largely on food lures – aniseed, chocolate, peanut butter, eggs, meat and many more.

Peanut ButterBut the power of food lures is limited. They are not attractive enough for all animals all the time. Some animals are disinterested or less motivated by food. Food lures are also seldom attractive enough to draw animals from substantial distances, such as out of the ranges in which they live. Thus, traps largely capture just animals living locally. Food lures also decay quickly to become unattractive.

All these limitations make food lures unsuitable as tools for eradication or biosecurity – the ‘holy grail’ of a pest free New Zealand. The landscape must be saturated with food-lure traps if there is any hope of a substantial reduction in the pest population or to detect invaders. The physical labour and time to distribute and service the enormous number of traps required, especially across New Zealand’s broken topography, is prohibitively expensive.  

In December last year, at the Department of Conservation’s Pest Summit, a forum of 50 scientists and biodiversity managers agreed that the development of super-lures should be a research priority – lures that are so attractive that no animal is immune and will travel from their homes from far-and-wide to investigate and trigger a trap.   

New Zealand’s biodiversity would be better protected, and the restoration of its indigenous ecology made possible, across greater swathes of our magnificent landscape if we could develop super-lures. for mammals. 

front of bookletThis Monday the Centre for Biodiversity & Restoration Ecology at Victoria University is hosting a symposium bringing researchers from across New Zealand to foster a search for super-lures that will, necessarily, require collaborative inter-disciplinary research across several institutions. The symposium titled “In search of super-lures: mammalian communication and pest control” is bringing scientists from Connovation Ltd, Goodnature LtdPlant & Food Research, Landcare Research, Department of Conservation, and Auckland, Lincoln and Victoria Universities together to present their work and plan for the future.

Professor Jane Hurst from the Centre for Integrative Biology at Liverpool University, and Associate Prof. Peter Banks from the Behavioural Ecology & Conservation Research Group at Sydney University, also accepted invitations to make plenary presentations of their research  – research which we think has important lessons for New Zealand’s search for super-lures.

From molecules, animal physiology and behaviour, to the ecology of landscapes, the search of super-lures is gathering pace.

What progress has already been made?

What still needs to be done?

What innovations might be possible?

Watch this space.

 

Science, evidence, policy and good government - Wayne Linklater Feb 07

No Comments

Since beginning Polit-ecol Science a small number of colleagues have queried me on why I would write a blog that might be political and, to some, contentious. Some have even gone so far as to suggest that they would not do such a thing because it might impact on their chances of career advancement and success at external research funding. Frankly, the implication that parts of our science community might cower from debate and critique on issues that they could inform and that are important to others in our nation’s communities is alarming.

Policy on the environment, informed by ecological science, divides New Zealand’s parliament.

Governments, even in relatively transparent democracies have a Jekyll and Hyde relationship with science and scientists. One cannot claim the mantle of improving the quality and quantity of peoples’ lives in the modern world without co-opting science. It can contribute to political credibility to also periodically ‘roll-out’ your local neighbourhood scientist for public display – might be good for the scientist’s career advancement too. Science and scientists, if they are doing their job however, will also periodically challenge government – science, you see, is fundamentally blind to authority, even if some scientists are not.

We see this tension between science and government in the on-going debate about the quality of New Zealand’s environment and especially freshwater and fisheries. Challenges to government policy on freshwater management by individual scientists, even when the New Zealand Association of Scientists or Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment have delivered the same message, are disputed by representatives and met with inaction. The current government appears hell-bent on under-representing or even ignoring its nation’s scientific evidence when making and applying freshwater policy.

Beliefs about our environment and society motivate and structure government policy. Scientists reduce beliefs down to their simplest tenants and phrase them as hypotheses. The belief that New Zealand’s freshwaters are in good shape can be phrased, for example, as hypotheses about the bacteria in the water or its clarity. Scientists test these hypotheses by mesuring these things. The outcomes are viewed as evidence supporting or not supporting a belief.

In science if the evidence contradicts our belief we change our belief. But this iterative process is not confined to science. Societies which allow belief to be challenged and changed by evidence are more innovative, adaptive and successful societies. Government does not represent or serve its community when it protects its beliefs from evidence.

How should we view government when it pursues policy contrary to scientific evidence, not because they have better evidence or concerns about the quality or quantity of the evidence, but because the evidence does not support their belief? We should view them as sport – professional sport for scientists.

In the Centre for Biodiversity & Restoration Ecology at Victoria University we conduct research in ecological science to inform biodiversity management and policy. I use this blog and social media to engage with people and policy that might be informed by ecological science. Ultimately, the tax payer is my boss – this is where my salary comes from. Whereas a politician is a representative of the people, I am the people’s employee – making the science I do work for ‘the people’. Sometimes that will require that I debate and critique policy. Its my job.

Ecology by the people, biodiversity for the people.

 

SPCA’s cruelty to cats and other animals – Are they mad? - Wayne Linklater Jan 30

2 Comments

Trapped, neutered and released stray and feral cats continue to inflict pain and suffering on native wildlife and people. Hunting cats, not part of the  native ecosystem, torture and kill other animals unnecessarily. Diseased stray and feral cats, when threatened or cornered inadvertently, will bite and scratch to injure, and transmit diseases to people. Why does the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals not care about preventing cruelty in other animals, only cats?

The SPCA’s support for trap-neuter-release (TNR) programs becomes even more bizarre when we consider that TNR also inflicts pain and suffering on cats… yes cats! There is a strange belief that animals alive have better welfare than dead animals, even though they are subject to lives that are cruel. TNR programs inflict suffering on cats.

Stray cats are diseased, full of parasites, and often malnourished towards suffering, pain and death. The life span of feral cats is estimated to be 5 times shorter than owned cats and death rates as high as 80% [1]. Stray and feral cats live cruel, short lives. Moreover, de-sexed cats are less aggressive and less likely to defend themselves. Migrating entire cats, especially males, attack, injure, and displace de-sexed cats.

When de-sexing stray and feral cats, surgeons will inevitably sometimes be de-sexing felines that are late-pregnant. That means killing near birth foetuses of whole litters in a process that is a much slower death than the mother’s euthanasia.

TNR programs are crueller to stray and feral cats than the going to sleep and never waking up again of euthanasia. TNR programs satisfy the animal welfare credentials of only a few self-interested groups. A broader more robust assessment of animal welfare would not support TNR programs for cats in New Zealand.

Yes – they are mad

The claims that advocates of TNR make have been scientifically evaluated and shown to be false several times [2].

A recent socio-psychological survey of people involved in the care of feral cat colonies and TNR programs found their attitudes and motivations to be “rooted in lack of knowledge and mistrust” [3]. I doubt the ‘sanity’ of TNR programs and it seems we should also question whether those that conduct them are rational and reasonable people.

The evidence is in. Dr. Gareth Morgan is right to point the finger at the SPCA for supporting TNR of cats – it is mad. They are mad, quite mad.

Until such time as the SPCA stops TNR they have lost my support. In previous posts I have advocated conservationists engage with animal welfare agencies to help achieve solutions. I do not think the SPCA should be considered amongst those groups for the moment.

Fortunately, not all SPCA centres support TNR – some know it is flawed. Give support to SPCA-Waikato for working with groups to address the cat problem humanely and rationally.

Bob! – take Morgan’s $5 – you will be doing cats and our other animals everywhere a favour.

 

Bibliography

1 Jessup, D.A. (2004) The welfare of feral cats and wildlife. Javma-Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 225, 1377-1383

2 Longcore, T., et al. (2009) Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return. Conservation Biology 23, 887-894

3 Peterson, M.N., et al. (2012) Opinions from the front lines of cat colony management conflict. PLoS One 7

 

Trap-neuter-release or Trap-kill-$5? - Wayne Linklater Jan 30

4 Comments

To my horror, but thanks to Dr. Gareth Morgan’s recent announcement that he will donate $5 to Bob Kerridge’s SPCA for every cat they euthanize rather than release, I discovered that some factions of the SPCA are releasing cats into our cities, towns and countryside – lots of cats. Bob Kerridge – CEO SPCA – is considered a hero by a few for it. They call it trap-neuter-release – TNR

But TNR is not a solution

TNR programs do not stop the cat problem because cat numbers can only decline when a cat dies. But more cats are abandoned and migrate into the colony from other places to replace those that die [1]. Indeed, the presence of TNR in a neighbourhood is likely to encourage some domestic cat owners to release and abandon their cats – knowing that they will be cared for. The problem, therefore, is not solved.

TNR is not a viable solution when stray and feral populations are large [2] like in our major cities and wilderness. Success depends on de-sexing the majority of the population and getting them before they breed. Achieving those capture rates is extraordinarily difficult. Cats try not to be caught. A proportion of cats will not be caught and continue to breed.

TNR of so many colonies and so many cats takes constant monitoring, coordination and extraordinary resources. When that investment is not achieved or periodically fails to be maintained, which is inevitable for most colonies some of the time, cat colonies recover and grow again.

The ‘cat lovers’ who care for stray and feral cat colonies are also unlikely to be motivated to push TNR colonies into decline and eventual disappearance, even if it were possible, because they would be out of a cause or out of a job. It is more likely that they will just manage colonies of stray and feral cats in perpetuity. Indeed, in programs around the world those TNR programs that do reduce colonies end up with many small managed colonies requiring on-going investment, not the removal of the stray and feral cat problem [3].

The few TNR programs that were reportedly successful were only small populations where adoption campaigns could also remove a large number. The capacity of the human population to absorb cats is limited. We already have one of the highest cat ownership rates in the world.

TNR protects disease and predators of our native wildlife

Disease and parasites are a major problem of stray cat colonies in cities. They vector diseases to other domestic pets and people, including toxoplasmosis – a disease carried by cats which infects 40% of New Zealanders at some time in their lives and cannot be cured.

De-sexed stray and feral cats continue to impact native wildlife and on a much greater scale than anyone imagined. Stray and feral cats cause the greatest harm because they hunt to survive.

TNR does not address the human health and native wildlife problems – stray and feral cats even de-sexed continue to carry and transmit disease and kill native wildlife. By managing colonies of stray and feral cats we are effectively maintaining a reservoir of infection, disease and native animal predators for the future – madness.

Bob! – take Morgan’s $5 – you will be doing New Zealand and New Zealanders a favour. If the SPCA doesn’t accept the offer they’re mad.

How mad? – see my next post.

 

Bibliography

1 Castillo, D. and Clarke, A.L. (2003) Trap/neuter/release methods ineffective in controlling domestic cat “colonies” on public lands. Natural Areas Journal 23, 247-253

2 Guttilla, D.A. and Stapp, P. (2010) Effects of sterilization on movements of feral cats at a wildland urban interface. Journal of Mammalogy 91, 482-489

3 Jongman, E. and Karlen, G. (1996) Trap, neuter and release programs for cats: A literature review on an alternative control method of feral cats in defined urban areas. In Urban Animal Management Conference Proceedings, pp. 81-84, Australian Institute of Animal Management Inc.

 

 

 

Cat-harsis – solutions aplenty and possible - Wayne Linklater Jan 29

No Comments

 

Indoor cats and cat runs, like the one illustrated, are more common in other countries but also possible in New Zealand. Indoor cats live longer healthier lives and cannot kill native wildlfe.

I began writing about solutions to the cat problem by suggesting conservationists appeal to cat owners’ self-interest and the health and well-being of cats so that increasingly cats are de-sexed and indoors, especially from before dusk to after dawn.

Collars with owner contact tags not only help ensure the safety and well-being of your cat but if you add a bell or bib they substantially reduce the number of native animals your cat kills. Studies in New Zealand and around the world have found cat kill-rates are reduced by up to 51% if they wear bells or bibs.

Solutions will be more widely adopted and permanent if they make sense to cat owners for reasons other than just the protection of native wildlife. De-sexed domestic cats free-roaming less often and wearing collars with bells or bibs when they are, however, is unlikely to entirely solve the problem. Some owners will be intransigent and some negligent. Not all owners care all that much, even about their cat – hence the need for organisations like the SPCA.

Nevertheless, this initial approach by conservationists will open a positive dialogue with cat owners towards other solutions that will require that cat lovers also look beyond their own interests. The dialogue will allow us to solve the more intractable problem that unwanted kittens will still be born, and cats will still be lost or abandoned to become strays in our neighbourhoods and feral in wilderness.

Unfortunately, the problem is not helped by the legal definitions of domestic, stray and feral cats in New Zealand. The definitions are blurred in ways that prevent a reduction in stray and feral cats in places where people live [1]. The problem arises because stray cats in human-dominated environments are not legally defined as feral, although they have the same effect on native wildlife in city reserves, parks and gardens as a feral cat in wilderness.

And unfortunately, stray cats are common. Large populations form in our cities – sometimes near biodiversity sanctuaries [2]. I believe, therefore, that economically, socially and ecologically effective management of the cat problem requires improved policy and regulation of the domestic cat in New Zealand. Owner or cat registration and identification (like mandatory microchip implants) would assist in demarcating domestic from stray cats and, therefore, stray cat management. Legislation to more clearly distinguish the domestic from stray cat and to empower local authorities to control stray cats is necessary.

A cat caught by the Department of Conservation after it killed at least 102 bats from the same colony near Okakune.

Some places where we live are more valuable to native wildlife than others and biodiversity sanctuaries and their wildlife require greater protection from cats. The expectation that if you allow your cat to stray into such special places it can be caught and euthanized is reasonable encouragement for cat owners to manage their cats’ behaviour – in the same way that domestic dogs killing kiwi in National Parks are reasonably euthanized. ‘No Cat Zones’, or at least no out-of-door cats, may also be reasonably expected around such special places. No cat neighbourhoods which provide a 1.2 km buffer to our cities’ wild places are likely to develop in the near future – 2.4 km buffer zones in rural areas [3].

I reserve the last word to speak on behalf of cat owners who, in a recent survey, demonstrated that they largely de-sex their cats already (92% in Auckland) and are not just cat lovers but lovers of all wildlife. Cat owners expressed stronger conservation values than non-cat owners [4]. As conservationists we need to harness the conservation ethic of cat owners and appeal to their values. Many cat owners will support better legal and regulatory management of cats, even if the few noisy ones do not. Conservationists should appeal to the majority of responsible cat owners with conservation values to, necessarily, divide-and-rule.

 

Bibliography

1 Farnworth, M.J., et al. (2010) The Legal Status of Cats in New Zealand: A Perspective on the Welfare of Companion, Stray, and Feral Domestic Cats (Felis catus). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 13, 180-188

2 Aguilar, G.D. and Farnworth, M.J. (2012) Stray cats in Auckland, New Zealand: Discovering geographic information for exploratory spatial analysis. Applied Geography 34, 230-238

3 Metsers, E.M., et al. (2010) Cat-exclusion zones in rural and urban-fringe landscapes: how large would they have to be? Wildl. Res. 37, 47-56

4 Farnworth, M.J., et al. (2011) What’s in a Name? Perceptions of Stray and Feral Cat Welfare and Control in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 14, 59-74

 

 

 

Conservationists should care about cats - Wayne Linklater Jan 28

1 Comment

– the least cost, least resistance, and most sustainable solution to the domestic cat problem.

Debates that divide communities are especially emotional and irrational when one side attempts to impose a solution. Inevitably the imposition will result in an equal (or stronger) and opposite resistance from the other side. Positions become entrenched and solutions are not achieved – even when they are advantageous.

The recent controversy about domestic cats and cat ownership is a debate like this. Reactions to solutions like cat registration and ownership controls lead to speculations about regulated euthanasia, and unhelpful headlines and quotes like “take people’s kittens away” and “Morgan calls for cats to be wiped out” - just silliness.

Real and sustainable solutions to the domestic cat problem will only be found if conservationists transcend this debate and engage positively with cat owners.

Fundamentally the conservation lobby needs to acknowledge and accept that most people, including cat owners, do not care enough about native wildlife to change their behaviour – prevent their cats killing native animals or choose not to own a cat. This is not going to change in the foreseeable future. Suck it up greenies. Wake up and smell the coffee.

So ask yourself…

What do cat owners care about?

They care very much about the health and well-being of their cats.

What measures would improve cat health and well-being but, secondarily, also reduce how frequently cats kill wildlife?

Cat hit by car but still alive. It is cruel not to keep your cat indoors. Source: The PETA files (http://www.peta.org/)

Cat deaths and injuries requiring veterinary intervention are common. They cost owners emotionally and financially. A leading cause of admissions of cats to veterinary clinics is cats fighting and motor vehicles. Some vets report “over 90% of septic wounds in cats result from cat bites sustained during a cat fight”. One vet recounts “At least 4 cats owned by either me, or my family while I was growing up, were killed by cars and another three were badly injured but survived”. This experience is common. So common, crippling and costly are injuries to cats from fighting and traffic that many veterinarians recommend that cats have indoor lives.

Cat owners who de-sex their cat are less likely to pay expensive veterinary bills. De-sexed cats fight less. Cats who are kept indoors, but especially at night, are less likely to fight or be hit by vehicles. And owners that do not leave food outside for their cats are less likely to attract other cats to their properties that fight.

Fortuitously, these are also measures which are likely to reduce the chances of your cat killing wildlife. Cats kill most native animals at dusk, during the night, or at dawn. A cat cannot kill native wildlife in the garden if it is not in the garden. When food is not left outdoors we do not support stray and feral cat populations. De-sexed cats range less and do not contribute unwanted kittens to abandoned, stray and eventually feral cat populations.

By appealing to cat owners to do the right thing for their cats we are more likely to reduce predation on native wildlife. We are appealing to the cat owner’s self-interest. Goodness… the mutual respect that such an approach might generate between conservationists and cat owners might make the co-existence of domestic cats and native wildlife possible, especially because the engagement makes other less tractable solutions possible (but more on those in the next post).

Cat owners are more likely to support regulation and controls on cat ownership if they are explicitly targeted at improving cat welfare. Cats killing wildlife might be reduced just enough to allow vulnerable native species to live where we do.

I advocate a redirected and renewed campaign by conservation agencies (engaging with the SPCA and veterinary associations) which highlights for people the cat health and financial advantages of cats indoors. Bugger the biodiversity – it is irrelevant.

More solutions in my next post, especially for those cat owners that do also care about native wildlife.

 

 

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer