Abstract
Simple SummaryWe provide a rebuttal to Wolf et al. (2019), outlining biological, ethical, and economic flaws in their argument that Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) is an ethical solution for stray cat management. We contend that suppression of supplementary feeding of stray cats accompanied by proactive adoption or prompt euthanasia is more effective, humane, and economical.We critique the recent article by Wolf et al. (2019) that claims scientific merit for reducing the number of stray cats in Australia through Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs, and then we provide an inventory of biological, welfare, and economic reasons why TNR is less successful than adoption and euthanasia for managing unowned cats. Like Crawford et al. (2019) and multiple other comprehensive and unbiased Australian and international scientific reviews, we refute the idea that returning neutered unowned cats to stray populations has any valid role in responsible, ethical, affordable, and effective cat management, or in wildlife conservation. The main purported objective of TNR proponents along with animal welfare, human health, and wildlife advocacy stakeholders is to reduce the number of unhomed cats. We contend that cessation of provisioning unowned cats with food is the most effective approach to achieve this objective. We also present evidence from the Brisbane City Council that informed cat management policy, advocacy, and laws, backed up by responsible rehoming or prompt ethical euthanasia, are together effective at reducing the stray cat problem.
Highlights
Optimal management of unowned domestic cats (Felis catus) is important for improving animal welfare, wildlife conservation, human health, and minimising social conflict issues in Australia [1] and around the world [2,3,4]
Wolf et al [13] claims Crawford et al present “a position of opposition to trap-neuter-return (TNR) that conflicts with the available scientific evidence and wrongly concludes that trialling the effectiveness of TNR should not be attempted in Australia.”
The release of neutered animals can successfully limit populations of short-lived insects that typically mate only once [21], and reduced populations of non-pest animals can theoretically be achieved through fertility control (e.g., [22,23]), three characteristics of cat biology or behaviour are inconsistent with TNR providing a viable technique for sustainably eliminating stray cat populations
Summary
Optimal management of unowned domestic cats (Felis catus) is important for improving animal welfare, wildlife conservation, human health, and minimising social conflict issues in Australia [1] and around the world [2,3,4]. Wolf et al [13] claims Crawford et al present “a position of opposition to trap-neuter-return (TNR) that conflicts with the available scientific evidence and wrongly concludes that trialling the effectiveness of TNR should not be attempted in Australia.” In evaluating both papers, we note a number of issues that require clarification and attention. Available scientific evidence, including two recent independent and comprehensive Australian reviews [1,15] not referenced by either Crawford et al [12] or Wolf et al [13], support the weight of peer reviewed evidence [16,17] that TNR does not effectively reduce the number of unowned cats. An adoption program may have a greater total cost, but be less expensive on a per capita basis, and more efficient
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
