OUT THE FRONT DOOR

Cats are commensal animals. This fact has some very important implications for trap-neuter-return (TNR) and for the battle to save cats from bird conservationists. The mesocarnivores who live in a commensal or mutual relationship with humans generally combine scavenging with predation in order to survive. Their populations differ from populations of wild animals in several respects, including higher numbers, smaller territories, opportunistic feeding, and a tolerance of human presence. The literature about the domestic cat in the United States contains very little information on the implications of commensalism. Most studies on control of feral cat populations and cat predation seem to assume the commensal nature of the cat without really addressing its implications. This is a mistake, because management of commensal species is, or should be, completely different from management of populations of wild animals who seek to avoid contact with humans. The commensalism of the domestic cat presents us with both problems and opportunities in controlling their numbers. There is so little that has been written specifically about commensalism in domestic cats that I had difficulty finding anything that was available to the general public on the issue. I finally found an excellent book by an English professor of archeology, Terry O’Connor, that deals with the subject of commensalism in general and has a section on cats. The book is called “Animals as Neighbors: The Past and Present of Commensal Species.” Although the book does not connect the dots between the commensalism of the cat and control techniques such as TNR and Return-to-Field (RTF), it does provide a broad general background on commensalism itself – how it developed over human history and where the various types of commensal animals fit into the scheme. As O’Connor notes, feral cats “rely on our built environment and garbage for protection and food.” In other words, feral cats thrive in environments where there are a lot of vacant, unused structures and accessible trash. This has been confirmed by ecological studies that were done in Baltimore and Brooklyn in the 1980s. So what does this mean for our feral cat programs? First and most obviously, feral cat overpopulation is primarily an issue of the urban environment, specifically the blighted urban environment. Although feral cats can certainly exist in the wild by hunting, that does not appear to be their preferred habitat. In the wild, food becomes much more of a limiting factor for cats. Therefore, if we solve the problem of feral populations in the cities, we will have solved the great bulk of the overall problem. There are many people who argue that TNR is not the answer to the feral cat problem because we cannot possibly do TNR on enough feral cats to make a difference. Yes we can. We just need to concentrate on the areas where conditions exist that can maintain a large feral population, which means blighted urban environments. We do not need to do TNR on every feral cat in every jurisdiction in the United States to solve the problem, because in places where empty buildings and garbage are not available feral cat populations are likely to be self-limiting. Second, we might want to see if we can coordinate TNR with programs to reduce urban blight. This will not only attack the problem at the roots, but it re-directs the public’s attention away from the feral cat “problem” and to the conditions from which the problem originates – the availability of empty structures and garbage. As an added benefit, attacking urban blight will reduce the rat population too. Simply removing cats from an urban area where they are thriving will likely result in a large increase in the rat population, since the same conditions favor both species. Coordinating blight-reduction measures with TNR could mean that colony caregiving must begin to include managed shelter as well as managed food sources. Third, we need to confront bird conservationists with the implications of commensalism. As O’Connor discusses at length, birds are commensal species too. Some of the most successful commensal birds are pigeons, sparrows, and crows. Bird conservationists, oddly enough, are not interested in saving pigeons, sparrows, and crows from cat predation. In fact, they appear to hate the successful commensal birds as much as they hate cats. This is strong evidence that bird conservationists are more concerned about their view of “nature” than about animal welfare. Crows are among the most intelligent animals on the planet, yet bird conservationists tend to see them solely as pests. The idea that the life of an individual animal has value seems very foreign to the thinking of the typical bird conservationist. Not all types of birds are commensal, and some live in the wild far from humans. These are often the rare species that bird conservationists love – not for themselves as individuals, of course, but because they represent that ideal, pristine version of nature that conservationists value. As far as I can tell, there have been few if any studies on feral cat presence in remote, wild regions of the United States like the swamps of Louisiana. I suspect that is because there are few feral cats in areas that are truly remote from human habitation. (The exception is on some oceanic islands where cats have been introduced and then the humans left, but that is a whole different story.) So bird conservationists are barking up the wrong tree, so to speak, when they blame feral cats in the United States for killing the type of birds they care about. Since feral cats live primarily as scavengers in human settlements, the birds they kill are very likely to be the commensal species that bird conservationists hate anyway. Feral cat supporters need to press bird conservationists to be more specific about just what birds cats are killing. Are they killing bluebirds and goldfinches, or pigeons and sparrows? Is there decisive evidence that, in the United States, cats are a significant predator of rare bird species? And if such evidence is lacking, then they need to, in the immortal words of Trey Gowdy: “Shut up talking about things that you don’t know anything about.” No Kill advocates, unlike bird conservationists, care about the lives of all animals, including starlings, pigeons, and crows. That is why we advocate for TNR, because managed cat colonies reduce whatever bird predation may exist (since managed colonies are provided with food) while also preserving the lives of the cats. Feral cat advocates have some very strong arguments available to us in favor of TNR. We need to start pushing back harder on the bad science that bird conservationists have been rolling out to support their “kill cats” agenda. We need to stop trying to address their inadequate studies one by one and develop our own comprehensive picture of the relationship between cats and birds. One of the components of our picture should be that cats and birds co-exist extremely well in the suburbs (see my blog post about cats in the suburbs). Another should be that cats in urban areas, to the extent that they are preying on birds at all, are likely preying on commensal bird species that are not endangered and that many people regard as pests. Another part of the picture should be that the cat, since it is a commensal animal, is a highly unlikely predator of the rare bird species that live in areas remote from human habitation. And the final piece of the puzzle is that since cats are commensal, TNR can work to control populations where control is needed most. Bird conservationists have for the most part been getting a free ride with their simplistic claim that “cats kill birds, therefore cats are bad for bird populations.” They have even had the cheek to ask the taxpayers to fund their “kill cats” programs. Feral cat advocates have been slow to push back on the science because we, for the most part, are not scientists. That needs to change. As Bob Dylan said: “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”

Amelia County is a rural area of about 13,000 people located west of Richmond, Virginia. The municipal Amelia County Animal Shelter provides animal control and sheltering for the county. The shelter accepts owner surrenders at no charge during normal business hours. The shelter relies heavily on transfers, with about 650 animals transferred in 2012 and 401 transferred in 2013. A shelter officer told me in response to an e-mail query that the shelter releases animals only to approved rescues. The official also told me that the shelter does not dispatch animal control officers to pick up stray cats, but will provide traps to residents who wish to trap stray cats and bring them in to the shelter. The shelter describes its program as follows: “We promote our animals being housed at the shelter on the radio, in the local paper and on the internet at www.petfinder.org to reunite them with their owners and, if not, to hopefully find a new appropriate home. Adopters find a friendly knowledgeable staff always willing to help.” The shelter has a Petfinder page and there is a Facebook page run by a volunteer. Volunteers use the Facebook page to network for the shelter’s Urgent dogs. The Amelia Patrons For Animal Welfare (APAW), a non-profit that was formed in 1995, provides support for the shelter. Their first order of business back in 1995 was a new shelter facility, which they helped to accomplish in 1996. APAW works with local veterinarians on a low cost spay-neuter program, and their members also volunteer with the shelter. The shelter’s intake has ranged from 631 to 1057 in the last four years. This is an intake of from 49 to 81 per 1000 residents in its service area, which is a very high intake. Amelia County reports to the Virginia state database for animal shelters. It reported an 88% live release rate in 2010 and an 87% live release rate in 2011. In 2012, the shelter reached the 90% mark for the first time, with a live release rate of 91%. The state reporting form does not include a category for owner-requested euthanasia. The shelter’s live release rate for 2012 with the “died in facility” category counted with euthanasias was 90%. According to the statistics the shelter submitted to the state for 2013, the live release rate fell to 81%. This rate was unchanged if the one animal who died in shelter care is counted with euthanasias. Amelia County, MI, is counted in the Running Totals as an 80%+ community.

[NOTE: The Worth Watching category lists communities whose animal shelter systems are doing substantially better than average, but have not reported a sustained (for one year or more) 90%+ live release rate. These communities are not counted in the running total in the blog’s subtitle. For more about the Worth Watching category, see the Worth Watching page link in the blog’s header.] Richmond is an independent city (not part of a county) located along I-95 in eastern Virginia. There is a Richmond County in Virginia, but it is a rural county located more than an hour away from the city of Richmond. The population living within the Richmond city limits was 204,000 at the 2010 census, and the metro area population is estimated at about 1.3 million people. The Richmond city shelter is called Richmond Animal Care and Control (RACC). It is a municipal agency that provides animal control and sheltering for the city of Richmond. The shelter states on its website that “we take in any animal in need in the City of Richmond – including animals that are sick, severely injured or too aggressive to be placed for adoption.” RACC became an independent city agency in 2012. RACC is doing a major renovation of its building that should be completed by mid-2014. The Richmond SPCA is a non-profit that takes in owner surrenders from the public by appointment, and offers a suite of pet retention programs. The SPCA also takes in a large number of shelter transfers. In 2012, for example, the SPCA reported to the state that it took in 982 owner surrenders and 2393 transfers from other Virginia agencies. From 2001 until 2008, RACC had a formal public-private partnership with the Richmond SPCA. In 2008, the formal agreement between the city and the SPCA expired, but the organizations continued to work together. Then, in the spring of 2012, RACC and the SPCA “parted ways.” SPCA CEO Robin Starr said that the city had failed to offer a new partnership agreement even though it had been directed to do so by the city council. Starr noted that RACC’s live release rate had dropped significantly in 2011, and opined that RACC policies were heading in the wrong direction. Starr stated that “[d]espite the absence of a working relationship with the City, we took in nearly the number of animals from RACC in 2011 that we did in prior years” and that the SPCA would not “desert the homeless animals of the City of Richmond who need us now more than ever.” RACC and the SPCA reported statistics to Maddie’s Fund as a coalition in the years 2008 and 2009 (they also reported as a coalition for 2010, but with the addition of Hanover County). The live release rate was 80% for the coalition for 2008 and 79% for 2009.  In 2010, RACC by itself (without combining its statistics with the SPCA) reported a live release rate of 71% with an intake of 4292 cats and dogs. In 2011, RACC had an intake of 4658 animals and a live release rate of 64% according to its statistics reported to the state. In 2012, RACC’s reported statistics showed an intake of 4740 animals and the live release rate was again 64%. (The Richmond SPCA reported an intake of 3777 cats and dogs and a live release rate of 99.6% to the state for 2011, and an intake of 3761 cats and dogs and a live release rate of 99.6% for 2012. Many of these animals were transfers from RACC.) After RACC became an independent agency in 2012, the city conducted a nationwide search for a director. Starr described the selection of the new director as an “issue of crucial importance.” Christie C. Peters, who had been the executive director of the Portsmouth Humane Society, was selected and took over at RACC in February of 2013. In May of 2013, RACC announced that its live release rate had hit 80% for the first time. Starr commented that the informal relationship between RACC and the SPCA was going well and said: “The statistics bear out the fact that we’re achieving pretty terrific results together.” In October of 2013, Peters announced that the number of cats euthanized had dropped to 212 for the year so far, compared to 639 for 2012. Peters said that fewer animals were entering the shelter because of new pet-retention programs and a new appointment policy for owner surrenders. RACC and the Richmond SPCA are not the only intake facilities in the city. The Richmond Animal League (AHS) has its own shelter that can house up to 30 dogs and 60 cats and kittens. AHS reported to the state of Virginia that in 2012 it took in 1509 cats and dogs. The majority — 1161 — came from other Virginia agencies, but AHS also took in 255 owner surrenders and 20 strays. AHS’s live release rate for 2012 was 99% — 98% if animals who died in shelter care are counted in with euthanasias.

Routt County is located in northwest Colorado, bordering Wyoming. The population recorded in the 2010 census was 23,500. The county seat is the city of Steamboat Springs, which has 12,000 people. Steamboat Springs has a city-run animal control and shelter called the Steamboat Springs Animal Shelter (SSAS). SSAS serves the entire county, including all the incorporated and unincorporated towns. I was told in a telephone call to SSAS that Routt County has its own animal control officers but contracts with Steamboat Springs for strays to be taken in by SSAS. The shelter official told me that SSAS takes in owner surrenders for the city and the county. Once in a while the shelter gets full, and when that happens they ask owners who want to surrender animals if they can wait. If the owner cannot wait, SSAS takes the animal immediately. The shelter gets support and volunteer help from the Routt County Humane Society (RCHS). This recent newsletter describes how RCHS volunteers staff the shelter to extend the hours that it is open to the public, and raise funds for spaying and neutering and medical care for shelter animals. As an example of an animal that would not have survived without medical care provided by RCHS, the newsletter describes the case of a 4-week-old puppy who stopped nursing and required several days of intensive care before he recovered. RCHS also provides assistance for low-income families to spay and neuter their pets. Another organization that supports the shelter is the Animal Assistance League of Northwest Colorado (AALN), which serves 5 counties, including Routt. AALN provides humane education, spay-neuter funding, assistance to horses and other livestock in need, and other programs. The Colorado Department of Agriculture collects information on the statistics of animal shelters in the state. The 2012 report submitted by SSAS shows a total intake of 625 animals. Intake per 1000 people was 27. The live release rate was 98%. One animal died in shelter care, but if that is counted in with euthanasias it does not change the live release rate. The Colorado reporting form does not separate out owner-requested euthanasia.

Jackson, Wyoming, is a town of just under 10,000 people located in the Jackson Hole valley in Teton County. Together, the city and county have a population of over 21,000. The town is a gateway for nearby Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Park, and there are several notable ski resorts in the area. This makes for very heavy tourist traffic in addition to the permanent population. The Jackson-Teton County Animal Shelter (JTCAS) provides animal control and sheltering services for both the city and the county. The shelter accepts owner surrenders from Teton County residents as well as taking in strays. The shelter does not post its full statistics on its website. It states, however, that its intake is 500-600 dogs and over 200 cats per year, and that it either returns or adopts out almost all of the dogs and over 90% of the cats. JTCAS states on its Petfinder page  that “euthanasia is performed only in the case of terminal illness, serious irreparable injury, or aggression.” In addition to Petfinder, JTCAS has a Facebook page that it uses to network for its pets, including photos of available dogs and cats. JTCAS receives funding for its basic expenses from the city and county, but like many progressive shelters it relies on donations for the “extras.” As the shelter says: ”Additional services provided to our shelter animals, such as spay/neuter, vaccinations, and other medical care, are made possible through donations.” Teton County is counted in the Running Totals as a 90%+ community.

Gallatin County, Kentucky, is located along I-71 between Cincinnati and Louisville. It is a rural county with a population of 8600 people. The county has a municipal shelter, the Gallatin County Animal Shelter, which is supported by a non-profit called Friends of Gallatin Shelter (FOGS). The shelter is open 7 days a week for adoptions. Deb Miller, president of FOGS, answered my questions about the shelter and provided its statistics. FOGS managed the shelter from January 2011 to April 2013, when a FOGS board member took over and FOGS remained as shelter support. Miller said that before FOGS took over: “The place was a horrible mess, and the one paid county ‘Manager’ was as bad as bad could be. Animals were found dead in cages regularly, the manager only came to clean and feed every other day or so, and of course, the cats never made it out alive.” The shelter accepts owner surrenders with no fee. They do not require an appointment for surrenders and do not use a waiting list, although occasionally during kitten season they may ask a person who wants to surrender a litter of kittens if they can wait until a foster is lined up or room is made. Gallatin animal control offers an owner-requested euthanasia service, but only for animals who are terminally ill. If an owner requests euthanasia for a non-terminal animal, the animal is taken into the shelter and placed by adoption or rescue. Owner requested euthanasias of terminal animals that are done by the animal control officer are not counted in the shelter’s statistics. In 2011, according to the statistics Miller sent me, the shelter’s live release rate was 99% (98% if animals who died or were lost in shelter care are counted in with euthanasias). In 2012, the shelter took in 410 animals and had a 95% live release rate. In 2013, the shelter’s intake increased to 463 cats and dogs. Despite the increased intake, the shelter had a 100% live release rate in 2013. The modified live release rate (counting the two animals who died in shelter care against the live release rate) was 99.6%. Miller said that they were especially proud of the 143 cats who were adopted from the shelter during 2013, which was a 60% increase in cat adoptions from 2012. She attributed the increase to their efforts at social networking and finding fosters. There was also a 55% increase in the number of dogs who went to rescues. Gallatin County, KY, is counted in the Running Total as a 90%+ community.

King George County is located in Virginia and has 24,000 residents. It lies between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, along the Potomac River. Animal control and sheltering is provided by a government agency, King George County Animal Control (KGCAC). A group of volunteers known as the King George Animal Rescue League (KGARL) partners with KGCAC to pull animals from the shelter. This article from May 2012 describes how KGCAC and KGARL have used transports to help achieve their high save rates. The article describes how a Chow who was surrendered for being aggressive with children and who also had skin allergies was placed with an adoptive family in New Hampshire after volunteers worked for several months to find the placement. Like most successful rescues, KGARL uses social media. Their Facebook page has features on shelter animals and they run a Petfinder site for KGCAC. KGARL also provides assistance for low-cost spaying and neutering. Virginia shelters report their statistics each year to the Virginia Department of Agriculture state database. KGCAC reported live release rates of 93%, 98%, 98%, and 96% in 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012 respectively. In 2013, the live release rate was 91%, with an intake of 664. The modified live release rate (with animals who died in shelter care added to euthanasias) was 95% in 2012 and 89% in 2013. The format for the state report does not have a separate category for owner-requested euthanasia. King George County, Virginia, was originally listed by this blog on April 15, 2013, based on its 2012 statistics. This post is a revision and update with 2013 statistics.

Newport County in Rhode Island (population 83,000) lies along Narragansett Bay, and there are several islands in the bay that are part of Newport County. The largest of the islands is Aquidneck. There are three small cities on Aquidneck Island — the city of Newport (population 25,000), Middletown (16,000), and Portsmouth (17,000) (Portmouth’s territory includes several of the smaller islands along with part of Aquidneck). The Potter League is a non-profit animal shelter located in Middletown that has contracts for stray intake and sheltering for Middletown, Portsmouth, and the city of Newport. It also accepts owner surrenders from all residents of Newport County without any conditions, although it asks owners to fill out a personality profile on surrendered animals. The League offers a wide range of services and programs. The League publishes its statistics in annual reports. According to the report for fiscal year 2011-2012, the League had a total intake of 1732 animals during the year, with a live release rate of 91% (89% if owner-requested euthanasias are included with euthanasias). The League transferred in 331 animals from “overcrowded shelters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and the Virgin Islands.” The report is interesting in that it shows that the money the League receives for its sheltering service is a small fraction of its total intake. One advantage that a non-profit has over a tax-funded city shelter is that non-profits can and do raise money directly from the public, often very successfully.

OK, so I’m exaggerating a bit. But now that I’ve got your attention, I’d like to talk about one easy step that would sharply improve save rates for typical shelters, and would free up lots of time and money that could be used to go the rest of the way to the 90% threshold and beyond. What is that one easy step? Stop bringing cats into the shelter unless (1) the shelter has room for them and can adopt them out, or (2) they are sick or injured. This sounds like a radical idea to some, but in fact the idea has been embraced by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the ASPCA, and Maddie’s Fund, among others. See this draft whitepaper, and this blog by Wayne Pacelle, the CEO of HSUS. The reasoning behind their recommendation is very simple — many “stray” cats have homes, but for various reasons their owners don’t think to look for them at a shelter until it’s too late and the cat has been adopted to a new home or, in many cases, killed. If cats are just left alone, they are much more likely to find their way home. Some people object to the idea of managing cat intake because they think that stray cats will overrun cities and towns unless they are rounded up by the local “shelter” and killed. Pacelle interviewed Dr. Kate Hurley and Dr. Jennifer Scarlett for his blog post, and Dr. Hurley explained that: “shelters have only been impacting a tiny fraction of the total population through euthanasia, not nearly enough to reduce the overall population size, not enough to protect public health, wildlife, reduce the cat population or serve any of the other goals we might have hoped to realize through this practice.” This article by Dr. Scarlett goes into more detail about cat populations, and shows that shelter impoundment and killing of cats barely makes a dent in cat populations. Since impoundment and killing of cats has negligible success at reducing cat populations, it is an exercise in futility to keep impounding them. Maddie’s Fund has created webcasts to show shelters how to implement modern techniques for managing cat intakes. Maddie’s Fund also has this FAQ to address concerns about the new protocols. Some might wonder how diverting cat intake would save money if the shelter has to implement an alternative program to manage intake. The answer is to recruit volunteers for things like pet retention counseling and trap-neuter-return (TNR). People love to volunteer for things that actually help animals instead of killing them. But even if a shelter for some reason could not set up a good volunteer program, that shelter can certainly manage its intake with less time and expense than it takes to impound cats, house them for the stray-hold period, and kill them. Let’s look at a couple of typical examples of how diverting cats from the shelter would affect the save rate. Let’s assume that 10% of a shelter’s current cat intake is sick or injured cats, and thus 90% of cat intake could be diverted. Let’s also assume that 5% of the sick or injured cats had to be euthanized and 5% recovered and were live releases. The Burlington County Animal Shelter in New Jersey is like many shelters in that it is doing pretty well already with dogs but is still killing lots of cats. The shelter took in over 5000 cats and dogs in 2012, and had an overall save rate of about 60%. The shelter’s save rate for dogs was around 90%, but the save rate for cats was less than 50%. If the shelter had diverted 90% of the cats and euthanized half of the remainder, the overall save rate would have shot up to about 85%. The time and money saved from sharply reducing intake could then be used to improve outcomes for the dogs and remaining cats, and the shelter could quickly reach 90% or more. As another example, let’s look at the city shelter in Tallahassee, Florida, which is a typical, high-kill shelter for both dogs and cats. The shelter has been running at about a 50% kill rate for years and has not improved in spite of repeated “plans” put forward by shelter management. In fact, the Tallahassee shelter is so bad that the ASPCA recently kicked the shelter out of its “partnership” program. Even a failing shelter like Tallahassee could substantially improve if it followed the recommendations of Maddie’s Fund and HSUS. Florida shelters are required by law to post their statistics, and here are the statistics for Tallahassee for 2012. The live release rate was reported as 53% for 2012. If the shelter had cut its cat intake by 90% and euthanized half of the remaining cats for illness or injury, the live release rate would have increased to 65%. Then the shelter could have used the time and money it saved to improve its disgraceful save rate for dogs and for the remaining cats. With major players like HSUS, Maddie’s Fund, and the ASPCA signing on to the idea that healthy cats should be diverted from the shelter, we could be approaching a tipping point on shelter policies toward cats. The thing I especially like about these new recommendations is that they could sharply raise performance even for dismal, hapless municipal shelters like the one in Tallahassee. But it won’t be easy to get shelters to buy in and change their ways, and the worst shelters will probably be the slowest to adapt, as they are in most things. As Dr. Scarlett said in her interview with Pacelle: “Making the shift to control shelter populations at the front door may be a huge cultural change for some communities. Leaders who decide this is the best solution for their community have to be ready to invest a lot of work and communication to get their staff’s buy-in, respond to the public’s concern, and be willing to work with local wildlife advocates. The good news is that results will be worth it.”