Alley Cat Allies – Pain In The Bud

Journalists Need To Stop Citing The Bunk Studies Blaming Cats For Annihilating Wildlife

Free-ranging cats do have a negative impact on wildlife, but we’re not going to solve the problem by demonizing them and culling them by the millions.

The Literary Hub story starts off with a provocative question: what if cats ruled the world?

This is a question I find amusing to ponder, so instantly my mind was filled with images of cats scandalizing foreign heads of state by insouciantly swiping gifts off tables, angering diplomats by yawning and nodding off during summits, and financing the construction of massive and unnecessary coastal walls, on the off chance the ocean decides to move inland and get them wet.

Then the writer cited the repeatedly-debunked “study” that credulous media of all stripes still reference without bothering to read the text — that infamous 2013 Nature Communications paper, published by birders who author books with titles like “Cat Wars: The Consequences Of A Cuddly Killer.”

Some journalists don’t know any better, some are overworked, and some are frankly too lazy to read the study with a critical eye, but I think one of the more likely reasons people continue to cite the paper is because it’s easier to blame felinekind for wildlife extirpation than it is to admit we’re the primary culprits. After all, according to the WWF’s most recent annual review, we’ve killed off 73 percent of Earth’s wildlife since 1970, and we certainly didn’t need house cats to help us push elephants, rhinos, every species of higher non-human primate, and innumerable other species to the brink of extinction.

We did that. We did it with our relentless development, consuming and fracturing wild habitats. We did it with careless industrialization, by dumping chemicals and garbage into our rivers and lakes until more than half of them were rendered too polluted to swim in or drink from. We did it by bulldozing old growth forest and jungle, by exploiting species for fur, folk medicine, ivory, sport hunting and in the illegal wildlife trade.

Cheetahs are critically endangered, and they’re being driven to extinction even faster by poachers, who sell them to wealthy buyers in oil-rich gulf states where they’re trendy pets. Credit: Riccardo Parretti/Pexels

More than 47,000 species — that we know of — are headed toward extinction. It’s so much easier to blame it on anyone or anything else than admit we need to make major changes to our lifestyles and policies.

But don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Alley Cat Allies has to say about the 2013 meta-analysis and its derivative papers:

“The Smithsonian-funded study published in Nature Communications is not rigorous science.
It is a literature review that surveys a variety of unrelated, older studies and concocts a highly speculative conclusion that suits the researchers’ seemingly desperate anti-cat agenda. This speculative research is highly dangerous. It is being used by opponents of outdoor cats and Trap-Neuter-Return (including the authors) to further an agenda to kill more cats and roll back decades of progress on TNR. And it is being spread unchecked by the media.“

Here’s what a group of ethicists and anthropologists wrote about the claims against cats in the journal Conservation Biology, lamenting the lack of nuance and danger in arguing that cats must be stopped “by any means necessary.” The drive to blame felines, they argue, has “fueled an unwarranted moral panic over cats”:

“Contrary to Loss and Marra’s claims that the scientific consensus is consistent with their views that cats are a global threat to biodiversity, the actual scientific consensus is that cats can, in certain contexts, have suppressive population-level effects on some other species (Twardek et al. 2017). This is something that is true of all predators, native or not (Wallach et al. 2010). Thus, cats should not be profiled as a general threat a priori and without reference to important factors of ecological context, situational factors, clear definition of harms, and evidence thereof.”

“There are there are serious reasons to suspect the reliability of the new, extreme cat-killer statistics,” wrote Barbara J. King, retired chairwoman of the department of anthropology at The College of William and Mary.

Feline predatory impact varies by local conditions. Free-ranging cats in cities and suburbs kill rodents, but have minimal impact on other animals, data shows. Credit: Patricia Luquet/Pexels

Like we’ve often noted here on PITB, the authors of the Nature Communications study can’t even say how many free-ranging felines exist in the US. They say it’s between 20 and 120 million. That’s a 100 million difference in the potential cat population! How can they tell us how many birds and mammals are killed by cats if they can’t even tell us how many cats there are? No amount of massaging the numbers can provide an accurate picture if the initial data is shaky or nonexistent.

Furthermore, the nature of a meta-analysis means the authors depend on earlier studies for estimates on predatory impact, but the 2013 Nature Communications paper does not include any data —not a single study — on feline predatory impact. In other words, they have no idea how many animals free-ranging cats actually kill.

In authentic studies that actually do measure predatory impact, the data varies widely in geographic and demographic context. Data derived from the D.C. Cat Count, for example, shows that cats living more than 800 feet from forested areas rarely kill wildlife, and are much more likely to kill rodents.

Those who cite the bunk study and its derivatives are “demonizing cats with shaky statistics,” King wrote, adding she was alarmed by “an unsettling degree of uncertainty in the study’s key numbers.”

Free-roaming populations are reduced when cat colonies are managed, and the animals are fed and fixed. Credit: Mia X/Pexels

Ultimately, we agree with Wayne Pacelle, former president of the Humane Society of the United States.

The meta-analysis authors “have thrown out a provocative number for cat predation totals, and their piece has been published in a highly credible publication, but they admit the study has many deficiencies. We don’t quarrel with the conclusion that the impact is big, but the numbers are informed guesswork.”

Cats do have a negative impact on wildlife, it varies according to local circumstances, and those of us who love cats have a responsibility to keep our pets indoors and help manage free-ranging populations.

But cooler heads must prevail, approaches to managing cats must be evidence-based, and the effort requires people of all kinds working together — which becomes much more difficult when agenda-driven pseudoacademics whip people into a frenzy by portraying felines as bloodthirsty, invasive monsters who need to be wiped out “by any means necessary.”

When that kind of rhetoric drives public policy, you get countries like Australia killing two million cats by air-dropping poisoned sausages, vigilantes gunning down cats with shotguns in public parks, and local governments offering cash prizes to children who shoot the most cats and kittens. Those efforts aren’t just cruel and inhuman, there’s not a shred of proof that they do a damn thing to help other species.

Solving the problem of free-ranging cats requires us to own up to our own role in species extinction and to take measured, evidence-based steps to protect vulnerable wildlife. Otherwise, we’re inflicting a whole lot of suffering on sentient creatures and accomplishing absolutely nothing.

PA Pols Push Declaw Ban, Online Series Features Bodega Cat ‘Interviews,’ Plus: ‘The Last Cat’ Of The Skies, The Iconic F-14 Tomcat

Bodega cats are the stars of a popular online series and could soon become legal in New York, where they’ve helped keep delis and small groceries rodent-free for as long as such places have existed.

Although it’s way too early to celebrate, Pennsylvania could become the fourth state to outlaw cruel declawing procedures after two lawmakers there introduced a new bill.

The Pennsylvania declawing ban proposal closely mirrors laws already passed in New York, Maryland and Massachusetts, and would outlaw the procedure except in cases where it’s medically necessary. (Although extremely rare, sometimes cats suffer from cancer of the nail bed and other maladies that necessitate surgery, but that’s a far cry from the elective declawing currently legal in 47 states.)

The state’s Veterinary Medical Association, the usual villain in these situations, is opposed to the ban. State veterinary medical associations argue that outlawing the procedure — which amputates a cat’s toes up to the first knuckle — would limit options for veterinarians and caretakers.

The veterinary medical associations, which contrary to their names do not represent all or even most veterinarians, also claim that declaw bans lead to more surrenders, but that claim has been repeatedly debunked by statistics from states and municipalities where bans have passed. In each of those cases, surrenders actually decreased, which is not a surprise to those who understand declawing, rather than “solving” any behavioral issues, actually causes cats to lash out even more because of the suffering they endure from the mutilation.

Here in New York, the Veterinary Medical Association successfully prevented declawing bans from making it out of committee for years, despite organizations like the Humane Society, SPCA, Alley Cat Allies and others wholeheartedly opposing elective declawing. Each state VMA buys influence with campaign donations, and relies on the lawmakers they support to kill declawing bans. Let’s hope Pennsylvania’s Veterinary Medical Association proves less adept at derailing that state’s bill.

The Last Cat of the Skies: The Iconic F-14 Tomcat

When I was a kid, the two Dream Machines that adorned posters on my wall were the Lamborghini Countach and the F-14 Tomcat. The Countach remains a car without equal with its inimitable, angular design that still manages to look futuristic more than half a century since the first models rolled out of the factory.

The twin-engine Tomcat is kind of like the Countach of fighter jets with its variable wing geometry, prominently angular air intakes and unique silhouette that makes it easy to distinguish even from the ground.

A Tomcat from the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71) during a combat flight over the Persian Gulf in 2005. Credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Rob Tabor

Grumman’s air superiority fighter was immortalized in pop culture when Tom Cruise’s ace fighter pilot, Maverick, flew the aircraft in 1986’s Top Gun, and the Tomcat enjoyed a nostalgic encore in 2022’s excellent Top Gun: Maverick, displaying its staying power in a film that also heavily featured newer aircraft like the F-18 Super Hornet and the sixth generation prototype “Darkstar,” based on Lockheed Martin’s secretive SR-72.

The F-14 is the last of Grumman’s “cat” aircraft, after the Wildcat and Hellcat, and while it no longer fills a role in the US military, it remains a potent weapon for other countries half a century since its first flight. You can read all about the Tomcat in The Aviationist’s new feature here.

The Tomcat’s variable wings were a technological marvel when the aircraft was first released. The wings are swept forward for takeoff and landing, and typically swept backward during high speed, high altitude flight, allowing the fighter to maneuver in ways other aircraft could not. The wings can also shift to an asymmetrical configuration, allowing for unique capabilities in flight.

New York’s deli cats get their say

Bodega cats, longtime fixtures of New York’s answer to grocery stores, are enjoying a moment thanks to a major push to finally legalize their presence, and popular social media accounts featuring photographs of the beloved mousers keeping watch over their stores and snoozing in snack aisles.

A bodega cat in New York takes a siesta from his usual napping, eating and rodent-hunting duties. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Now the New York Times has a feature on the popular TikTok series Shop Cats, which features “interviews” with the neighborhood felines.

Like Buddy, they seem to have an odd fascination with Mao Zedong, and their answers don’t make much sense, but that’s part of their charm. Check it out here.

Header image of a bodega cat courtesy of Pexels

Local Politicians Have No Clue How To Manage Cats

Feeding strays is now punishable by a $150 fine in an Ohio town, the latest municipality whose elected leaders chose to ignore expert guidelines on managing feline populations.

Every time the stray cat issue comes up, local town boards and city councils act as if they need to reinvent the wheel.

Imagining that they are the first to deal with this extremely common problem, they make decisions from positions of ignorance, dismissing the concerns of people who actually work with cats. Or they “do the research” and come up with their own ineffective policies instead of simply looking at what other towns and cities have tried in the past.

At least that way, you know what works and what doesn’t, and how much your decision’s going to cost taxpayers.

But that would be the smart thing to do, which is why our local elected leaders don’t do it. Instead they pull stunts like the village board of Mogadore, Ohio, a town of 3,700 about 10 miles east of Akron.

The Mogadore board just passed a law that makes feeding strays and ferals punishable by a fine of up to $150, as if that will stop cats from finding food and breeding.

Tellingly, Mogadore’s elected leaders say their ordinance applies to “wild, stray, or un-owned” cats, which means they don’t understand they’re all the same species.

Apparently neither do the reporters at WOIO, a local news station in Cleveland. A story from the station is confidently incorrect in telling readers “[d]omestic cats that have become wild, meaning live outdoors, roam free, and rarely interact with humans, are also considered feral.”

Stray cat and kitten — Credit: Sami Aksu/Pexels

Felis catus is a domestic animal. By definition a domestic cat is not wild and cannot become wild. Evolution cannot happen to a single animal.

While evolution is a constant process, speciation — wolves becoming dogs, wildcats becoming house cats, wild boar becoming docile farm pigs — is a species-wide shift that takes at least a few hundred years but often much longer, “from human-observable timescales to tens of millions of years” depending on the species.

The whole process results in changes at the genetic level. The transition from wildcats to domestic cats, for example, involved changing only 13 genes.

This is not rocket science, it’s basic stuff we all learned in high school science classes.

But that’s almost beside the point.

Fining people for feeding stray cats, including caretakers who voluntarily manage cat colonies, will not solve the problem. It doesn’t work. It has never worked in any town anywhere in the world.

It also creates a needlessly adversarial relationship with the passionate people doing the hard work of managing the feline population, often thanklessly and at their own expense. Why make enemies of them when they’re doing a public service?

Mogadore’s village board had a representative from Alley Cat Allies and people from local rescues on hand to inform them that fines don’t work, and to offer the humane and effective option of trap, neuter, return. TNR may not be perfect, but it’s better than anything else people have tried.

Mogadore’s board and mayor ignored the experts and went ahead with their plan to fine people instead.

They’re not alone. This happens thousands of times across the US, Europe, Australia and most other places where domestic cats live. Japan and Turkey take a more humane approach, and they’re better for it. But here in the US, we often deal with issues by ignoring precedent and engaging in wishful thinking.

If the residents of Mogadore are lucky, their elected officials will realize their mistake sooner rather than later.