Cats Are Not Fish: A Ricker Model Fails to Account for Key Aspects of Trap-Neuter-Return Programs.

Peter J Wolf,Julie K Levy,Rachael E Kreisler

doi:10.3390/ani11071928

Peter J Wolf, Julie K Levy + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11071928

Copy DOI

Abstract

Simple SummaryVarious population models have been used to predict the sterilization effort necessary to reduce free-roaming cat numbers through trap–neuter–return (TNR) programs. Among these is a Ricker model, first developed for application in the management of fisheries. We tested this model by using data from two long-term (i.e., >20 years) TNR programs with well-documented population reductions. Doing so revealed that the model cannot account for some key aspects of typical TNR programs. This model is therefore inappropriate for use in assessing the effectiveness of TNR programs. A more recently developed model that accounts for the movement of cats in and out of a given area is better suited for modeling TNR programs.In a frequently cited 2005 paper, a Ricker model was used to assess the effectiveness of trap–neuter–return (TNR) programs for managing free-roaming domestic cat populations. The model (which was originally developed for application in the management of fisheries) used data obtained from two countywide programs, and the results indicated that any population reductions, if they existed, were at best modest. In the present study, we applied the same analysis methods to data from two long-term (i.e., >20 years) TNR programs for which significant population reductions have been documented. Our results revealed that the model cannot account for some key aspects of typical TNR programs, and the wild population swings it predicts do not correspond to the relative stability of free-roaming cat populations. A Ricker model is therefore inappropriate for use in assessing the effectiveness of TNR programs. A more recently developed, stochastic model, which accounts for the movement of cats in and out of a given area, is better suited for predicting the sterilization effort necessary to reduce free-roaming cat numbers through TNR programs.

Highlights

The use of trap–neuter–return (TNR) as a humane alternative to the lethal removal of free-roaming domestic cats originated in Europe in the 1950s and was adopted in the US beginning in the early 1990s [1]
We first attempted to replicate the results presented by Foley et al [22] and having done so, tested the authors’ model against the results of two long-term studies demonstrating significant reductions in free-roaming cat populations [3,32]
Our results revealed that the model cannot account for some key aspects of typical TNR programs (Table 3)

Summary

Introduction

The use of trap–neuter–return (TNR) as a humane alternative to the lethal removal of free-roaming domestic cats originated in Europe in the 1950s and was adopted in the US beginning in the early 1990s [1]. The practice received relatively little attention from researchers interested in evaluating its effectiveness, resulting in what some have described as an “information vacuum” [2]. Several studies have been published on the subject. Some have reported the results of targeted. TNR programs producing significant long-term population reductions [3,4,5,6,7], while others have documented significant reductions in feline intake and euthanasia at animal shelters where high-intensity targeted TNR has been implemented [8]. Still others have reported reductions in feline intake and euthanasia resulting from shelter-based TNR programs [9]. Studies of TNR programs implemented over just one [12] or two years [13]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion