The debate on feral cats continues

It takes courage and integrity to publish results that you wish were not so. I know that several of the authors of the article titled “Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return programs on populations of feral cats” (JAVMA, December 1, 2005, pp 1775–1781) were deeply invested, both personally and professionally, in the development and operation of trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs. The fact that “results of analyses did not indicate a consistent reduction in per capita growth, the population multiplier, or the proportion of female cats that were pregnant” after 11 years and 14,452 cats in California and 6 years and 11,822 cats in Florida in two well-staffed and professional efforts must be disappointing and disheartening.

The authors state that “the 2 TNR programs … were performed on too large a scale….” Unfortunately, citing the supposed success of TNR, much larger scale programs are now proposed by the Humane Society of the United States. The California Veterinary Medical Association spent $13 million to neuter 180,000 feral cats but admitted that the effort was unlikely to change feral cat numbers.¹ In San Francisco, a long-running TNR program involving picking up stray cats by the city, neutering them at the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and then returning them to the same vacant lots and warehouses where they were found was recently stopped because it was pointed out that such reabandonment violated state humane laws and no study of success and failure had ever been done.

Foley et al point to some success in TNR efforts with small colonies (mean, 7 cats), and others² have made similar observations with colonies of around 20 feral cats, but in the big picture, control or even elimination of such small colonies can have little overall effect given the magnitude of the problem.

A definition of insanity attributed to Albert Einstein was “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”³ Just as people should accept that traditional animal control alone has been insufficient, I believe we must also accept that TNR, even when very well run, is insufficient to reduce or eliminate feral cat populations. Contrary to some assertions, I do not advocate confinement and euthanasia as the only or primary means of feral cat control. The question is whether we can come up with comprehensive programs that will work. Only a broad concerted effort by a coalition of humane groups, conservationists and wildlife managers, veterinarians and professional publicists, and government at all levels can succeed in altering the human behaviors that drive the feral cat problem. Until mandatory early neutering of cats and social prohibitions and legal sanctions against abandoning cats are widely accepted and followed, we will continue to have increasing numbers of feral cats. To reverse that, we will need all the resources and tools now available and then some. Are we as a profession and the AVMA as an organization willing and able to work together, take the lead, and forge a national coalition for feral cat reduction?

David A. Jessup, DVM, MPVM, DACZM

Santa Cruz, Calif

The authors respond

We agree with Dr. Jessup that it is time for a broad coalition of stakeholders committed to cat welfare, environmental protection, and public health to come together to develop meaningful policies to reduce feral cat populations. While we agree that these policies should include a component of public education to increase the responsibility of cat owners in the future, we believe that programs directed at humanely reducing the existing cat population are also essential.

Our group and others have published several studies^1–6 documenting the beneficial effects of trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs on enhancing cat welfare and reducing targeted feral cat populations in residential areas, institutions, and neighborhoods. These studies demonstrate the efficacy of TNR for addressing specific local cat problems.

Our current study focused on determining the scale of TNR that would be required to control cat populations in a larger countywide area. Our model predicted that sterilizing 14% to 19% of the feral cat population each year would control the population, requiring a several-fold increase in the size of the TNR programs currently operating in the study areas. While accomplishing such an increase would be very challenging, it would be feasible if even a fraction of the resources currently devoted to destroying unwanted cats was redirected to neutering them. Trap-neuter-return is not a failed concept; it simply needs to be practiced on a larger scale.

Rigorous scientific evaluation of cat control efforts must become a high priority to replace the current war of words based on entrenched points of view. Models such as ours provide a starting point for developing programs and public policy. However, models are simply mathematical predictions and should be replaced as quickly as possible with studies that test the actual (vs theoretical) outcomes of control programs in the field. This impartial evaluation should apply not only to TNR but also to the outcomes of other approaches, such as public education and permanent removal of unwanted cats.

Julie K. Levy, DVM, PhD

University of Florida, College of Veterinary Medicine, Gainesville, Fla

Janet E. Foley, DVM, PhD

University of California, School of Veterinary Medicine, Davis, Calif

Patrick Foley, PhD

California State University, Sacramento, Calif

Terry Paik, DVM

Cajon, Calif

The debate on feral cats will probably continue for a while with no action occurring of any value. Dr. Wulff's rebuttal letter to Dr. Jessup (JAVMA, January 1, 2006, pp 30–31) demonstrates reasons why this mire continues.

In contrast to Dr. Wulff, my opinion is that killing feral cats is precisely the way to go about taking a leadership role in animal welfare issues. I believe that the current emotional confusion over the distinction between other animals and humans is at least in part attributable to human greed couched in progressive veterinary medicine. Owners who view pets on par with kids will spend far more on veterinary care than owners with a practical “I can always get another cat” attitude. Thus it is that many in the profession have fostered the former approach and thereby convinced a segment of society that they should not condone the intentional destruction of a feral cat.

As a scientific profession, we can reinsert rational analysis into the fray rather than let emotion dictate the path we follow on this and other issues. The AVMA does not have to advocate a gleeful, wholesale slaughter of feral cats—it can simply urge members to do what is necessary for the health of the land (and thereby society). And that is to humanely destroy feral cats to the greatest extent possible. We don't have to kill them all to improve the situation. One hundred dead feral cats means thousands of living birds, snakes, salamanders, lizards, shrews, voles, mice, chipmunks, and frogs.

A public relations nightmare? Not around my home. Most of my clients eat “sentient beings” for dinner. They're caring folks who have a concern for all animals, including feral cats. But they would understand the need to solve the problem (that's what science should do) if the problem were presented to them. Yes, some people would scream mightily. Does that mean, then, that we do nothing so as to avoid offending a small but loud minority? That doesn't sound very scientific, democratic, or responsible to me.

When I'm approached by clients concerned about feral cats, my answer is always the same: I'll euthanize feral cats for free if they'll bring them to me. I'll even loan clients a live trap. That's a pretty cost-effective way to make a dent if just 10% of the veterinarians in this country do the same. Trap, neuter, and release programs are pitifully inadequate—there are too many cats out there, and wildlife still suffers.

Dr. Wulff closed with this statement: “I cannot for the life of me imagine what it would be like explaining to clients why the veterinary profession would want to kill kitties.” Well, I cannot for the life of me imagine how a veterinarian fails to distinguish between “kitties” and the scourge of feral cats. Anyone with eight years of education should be able to explain that difference to clients.

Scott Bastian, DVM

Somerset, Pa

The author responds

I am truly grateful for Dr. Bastian's comments. Clearly, advocating the killing of feral cats as a solution to some sort of problem is a bold position. Many who advocate this position are subtle and won't just lay it out there.

However, keep in mind that we are referring to free-roaming cats that include feral cats plus owned cats that spend some or all of their time outside. Start killing any cat you catch in a trap and, welfare issues aside, somebody who might consider the cat their pet may take issue with you and the person who delivered the cat. This could happen even now with cats considered chattels. How would you feel if somebody towed your antique car away and sold it?

Also, what problem are we addressing? For example, in Florida, deer destroy more nests and eggs of ground-nesting game birds such as quail than do feral cats. Deer put more pressure on the quail population than feral cats, not to mention hogs, raccoons, oppossums, snakes, loss of habitat, and environmental toxins. Search the literature. We can't trap and shoot them all. Plus, we now have several new exotic species down here. We have Burmese pythons eating the alligators and, I hope, vice versa.

If we want to address the environmental problems of our times, there are greater issues than freeroaming cats; that is, there are greater villains and more cost-effective, time-effective places to expend energy.

Listen.

At least to date, everybody is entitled to their own opinion in this country that I once served to defend. However, I'm not comfortable being associated with greed because I advocate progressive veterinary medicine. I do not believe it is taking advantage of someone's codependency issues to provide the kind of excellent care owners want for a pet they love. Also, in most states veterinarians must perform to certain standards of care. We can believe what we like, but if people want better care than what we offer, we are legally obligated to refer them. This is true in all the states of which I am aware. Maybe it's not in Pennsylvania. But I bet it is.

Personally, I believe we have a moral obligation to not decide what people want for their pets. Once again, everybody has a right to follow his or her conscience. But the legal peril is real.

I am not against Dr. Bastian's trap and slaughter solution to whatever problem it is he is seeking to control. I think cats are contributing a tiny amount to an environmental problem, but I feel some members of our profession could be duped into speaking out and taking an anti-cat welfare position that would create great harm to our public relations if we listen to people who feel the same way Dr. Bastian does.

Rick Wulff, DVM

Archer, Fla

There seem to be more letters debating the issues of free-roaming cats and pet overpopulation than those that point toward a solution.

We seem to be more concerned about the who, what, and where than we are about actually getting a program together that addresses a real solution. There must be pilot programs in existence. Anyone gathering information and comparing results?

Here is one program to consider. In 1997, a group of concerned citizens and a couple of veterinarians, including myself, took a good hard look at our community's feral cat situation and our pet overpopulation. We came out average. Our county animal control captured and euthanized about 1,600 cats and dogs annually in a community with a human population of 90,000. This amounts to about 17 to 18 cat euthanasias for every 1,000 people residing here. The feral colonies in our city were not being addressed by animal control.

Our group activated a trap-neuter-return program for the feral cats and a pay as you can afford–basis spay/neuter program for pets whose owners claimed financial hardships. The actual spay/neuter costs were covered by a 501 (c) 3 nonprofit organization.

At the end of 2005, we had one feral colony left (population of 10) and our euthanasia count for the preceding 12 months was 267 (91 dogs and 176 cats). At the start of our program, there were approximately 700 dogs and 900 cats euthanized each year.

Today, there are few feral cats in our town, and when they are reported, trappers will be there within 72 hours.

For our community, which now has a population of 120,000, 267 euthanasias were performed in 2005. As our feral cat problem and our pet overpopulation numbers decline, one of our major issues is now the relinquished (throw-away) pet.

Approximately 250 pets from our community are relinquished annually. Some are recycled into new homes. Many are euthanized.

Our present rate of euthanasia is 2.23 for every 1,000 people in the community, which represents approximately an 85% reduction. We are pleased with these results.

Since beginning this spay/neuter program, approximately 7,000 dogs and cats have been spayed or neutered, all but eliminating the city's feral cat problem as well as our previously embarrassing pet overpopulation. I'd like to see organized veterinary medicine promote a workable experiment or two in an effort to move forward on this issue.

Lowell L. Novy, DVM

President, Valley Veterinary, Clinic Charitable Non-Profit Corp, Simi Valley, Calif

Thoughts on the cost of education

The cost of veterinary education has been discussed in the JAVMA in the past few months. Statistics and history and “costs/graduate salaries” in the 40s, 50s, and 60s and up to today have been used to give various points of view. What I know for sure, and has been corroborated with close friends, is that from 1958 to 1962 (and similar years), students could pay all their education expenses by working in the summer, working for meals during the school year, and doing some odd jobs for spending money. My tuition at veterinary school was $600 per year for comparison.

No matter what students earn in the summer or while in school today, they just can't make enough money to pay their school costs. Thank you, JAVMA, for the article on the Veterinary Scholarship Trust of New England (December 15, 2005, p 1887). Our great profession can and will be the beacon for how we assist our students in their quest to improve animal and human health.

J. Clyde Johnson, VMD

VSTONE Trustee, South Venice, Fla

Additional insight on the veterinary profession in Israel

We read with interest the article titled “An American veterinarian in Israel” in the News Section of the December 15, 2005, JAVMA issue (pp 1888–1889).

In our opinion, the article presents a misleading picture of animal welfare and the veterinary profession in Israel. The new veterinary school, established in 1985, is not mentioned except in a statement that veterinary continuing education is sadly lacking because the school “hosted roughly four conferences in one year.” There is no mention of the meetings organized by the Israel Companion Animal Veterinary Association; the meetings of the Israel Equine Veterinary Association; the meetings arranged by the Haklait, the veterinary cooperative that provides excellent care for cattle, sheep, and other farm animals; and the other seminars arranged by the school and the research institutes throughout Israel.

The graduates of the school are providing a modern concept of veterinary care and animal welfare in Israel. The Koret School of Veterinary Medicine, named after a generous donor from California and associated with The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, had its first graduating class in 1989. The curriculum is modeled after schools in the United States, and students attend college before the four-year course. The school started with few highly qualified staff: one each in surgery, medicine, radiology, anesthesiology, and virology. Distinguished basic scientists contributed to the teaching. The school is now proud to have diplomates of American and European specialty colleges in almost all clinical specialties. In 2005 at the annual meeting of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons, the number of Israeli diplomates of the European College of Veterinary Surgeons increased to five. Koret graduates have been accepted into intern and residency programs in the United States, England, and South Africa.

Dr. Levine states that “people didn't know anything about vaccines (for animals).” It is correct that “it's a young country,” in fact only 58 years old, and contains people from some disadvantaged societies. However, Israel has a very educated society, animal vaccination is practiced as widely as it is in the United States, and graduates of the school regularly give talks to owners to promote animal welfare.

Yes, Dr. Levine, you encountered veterinarians who studied “at colleges around the world” and some “have not received as high quality of an education as those who studied in the United States.” You should have mentioned the Koret School in other than a negative role and recognized the quality of education of Israeli graduates from Pennsylvania, Guelph, Bristol, Utrecht, South Africa, and the English-speaking schools in Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland.

We are disappointed to read Dr. Levine's belief that “The public has no idea; they don't know that a veterinary practice should be clean….” The public we served during our 14-year stay in Israel did have higher expectations than that and appreciated and paid for the high level of care.

We recommend that Dr. Levine restrict her activities to rescuing animals in disasters, such as in Gaza, and limit her misguided comments.

Dudley E. Johnston, BVSc, MVSc, AM, DACVS

Emeritus Professor, The Hebrew, University of Jerusalem Emeritus Professor, University of Pennsylvania

Eileen P. Johnston, VMD

Berwyn, Pa

Dr. Levine responds

I was disappointed that the article titled “An American veterinarian in Israel” was misinterpreted. I agree with some of Drs. Johnstons' substantive comments. The Koret School of Veterinary Medicine is a first-rate veterinary school; its many graduates I have had the pleasure of working with have impressed me with their competence, skill, and quality of education. As a small animal practitioner, I confidently refer difficult medical and surgical cases to the Koret School Veterinary Hospital for complete work-ups and treatment.

To be sure, there are many excellent veterinarians and veterinary clinics in Israel of the same quality as the better clinics in the United States that provide the public with a superior level of care. However, providing such level of care is not uniform in Israel. In my travels around the country in the mobile clinic, I have witnessed firsthand that there are those who simply do not receive a high level of veterinary services. This portion of the public appreciates high quality care once they are shown what this means.

There is room for improvement in the average level of veterinary services provided throughout Israel. By continuing to offer a high level of veterinary care as well as client education, we can and will facilitate such improvement. It is exciting to know that by working with the many excellent veterinarians here, we can make a difference.

Sarah M. Levine, VMD

Ra'anana, Israel

Questions reliability of fecal egg counts in equine study

I read with interest the report by Dr. Brazik et al titled “Pyrantel pamoate resistance in horses receiving daily administration of pyrantel tartrate” (JAVMA, January 1, 2006, pp 101–103). I question the conclusions drawn in this report that are based solely on fecal egg counts.

While fecal egg counts are readily performed, not much credence can be given to the results because egg output by the large and small strongyles (Cyathostomes) is a function of many factors in equids. For example, these include the age of the horses, diet, climate, time of year, degree of pasture exposure to infective larvae, exact species of worms involved, and proper dosage of anthelmintics based on body weight.

Relying solely on fecal egg counts gives one a false sense of security and has a questionable bearing on trying to establish resistance to a given anthelmintic compound.

I feel that the authors would generate better data if they would monitor the factors mentioned plus identify the ratio of large strongyles to small strongyles in the respective hosts because the former are the “bad guys” that need to be controlled.

Richard E. Bradley, DVM, PhD

Professor of Parasitology, Emeritus, College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla

Dr. Little responds

The authors thank Dr. Bradley for his comments and accept that a large number of factors can influence fecal worm egg counts (FWEC) in horses. For example, the National Animal Health Monitoring System Equine 1998 survey¹ identified regional variation, use of horses (eg, farm/ranch work vs show/competition), numbers of horses kept on the premises, and cleanliness of the premises as sources of variation in FWEC. The factors identified by Dr. Bradley are also important, and every effort should be made by veterinarians, horse owners, and farm managers to reduce selection pressure for development of resistance and to improve pasture hygiene to reduce pasture contamination with strongyles.

Nonetheless, while there are many limitations to the FWEC, it remains an established, rapid, and practical means of identifying individual horses that may be susceptible to clinical disease, identifying failure of anthelmintic treatment, and detecting resistance to a given anthelmintic when the FWEC reduction test (FWECRT) is performed. In the absence of commercially available molecular assays and given the impracticality of using critical tests on client-owned animals, the FWECRT remains the only practical standard to determine whether there is resistance to a specific drug given to horses on a farm.² Even though the FWECRT is not a gold standard in terms of definitive diagnosis of anthelmintic resistance and is not capable of reliably detecting resistance until the proportion of resistant worms is greater than 25%,³ FWECRT and FWEC should be monitored on a regular basis by veterinarians.²

Larval culture of fecal samples to determine the ratio of large strongyles to cyathostomes was not performed on this farm for financial and practical reasons, although these data would have enhanced this report if they were available. Furthermore, given that for the past 25 years, cyathostomes have accounted for almost 100% of the worm egg output for grazing horses,² the statement by Dr. Bradley that “…the former (large strongyles) are the ‘bad guys’ that need to be controlled” is open to dispute. Since the use of benzimidazoles, pyrantel salts, and avermectin/milbemycins has become widespread, Strongylus vulgaris is uncommonly identified as a cause of colic, except on farms that neglect parasite control.² For the past 15 years, cyathostomes have been considered the primary parasitic pathogen of horses.^4,5 However, the authors do accept that farms that have adopted targeted anthelmintic treatment programs do need to consider large strongyle prophylaxis in these programs for horses that persistently have FWEC lower than the predetermined treatment point for long durations.

Dianne Little, BVSc, MS, DACVS

Raleigh, NC

Views Denver's breed-specific ban as inhumane

Most veterinary organizations, including the AVMA, as well as numerous humane associations in the United States and abroad have been publicly opposed to breed-specific legislation of any kind. We as veterinarians, along with our colleagues working in shelters, humane programs, and animal control, are usually considered to be the leading experts on dogs because we work with them on an everyday basis. However, the veterinary and humane communities are sometimes bypassed by misinformed politicians with personal agendas. Such is the case with one of the most severe breed-specific laws in our country: Denver's ban and extermination program for pit bull–type dogs.

Denver has not only banned pit bull–type dogs from its city but has been legally confiscating and killing any pit bull–type dog found within its city limits. The only exception is pets traveling through the city with their owners. So far, this law has been responsible for the deaths of over 300 dogs,¹ many of which were killed because of what they might do, not because of what they did. As a volunteer investigating officer for the Morris County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Morris County, NJ, I would arrest anyone who did such a thing in my area, and under New Jersey state law, I would likely see them convicted of animal cruelty. Now, other cities across the country are looking at Denver's ban as a successful working model and considering mimicking this cruel and horrific law.

There were many veterinary associations in Colorado that fought against this law, but they were ignored by Denver's city government. Many national veterinary organizations, national humane associations, and other animalrelated agencies spoke out against it. All were ignored by Denver's city government.

I can't help but wonder where we as veterinarians failed on this issue. I also wonder whether our actions, or our lack of action, contributed to the failure. If this law had been enacted to exterminate all of the German Shepherd Dogs in the city, would we have done a better job fighting it? Would we have been more vocal nationally, perhaps even more emotional? Have we allowed the media and agenda-driven politician's mentality about pit bull–type dogs consume us to the point that this type of dog has become demonized in our minds as well? What did these dogs do to deserve this?

Every breed has good dogs and bad dogs, every large dog has the physical potential to seriously harm or kill a human being, and dogs of every breed have harmed or killed a human. To condemn them all because of the actions of a few, or worse, because of the irresponsibility of certain owners, is wrong no matter how you look at it. For us to remain indifferent while a city government exterminates people's pets is outrageous. We should be shouting out at the top of our lungs against this.

I hope this subject generates a lot of dialogue among us, as it should.

Todd Wolf, DVM, DABVP

Parsippany, NJ

Obituary provides a reminder of veterinarian's contribution

The obituary of Dr. Barbara Deeb was published in the January 1, 2006, issue of JAVMA (p 23). I never met Dr. Deeb, but a study she did in 1985 while in Beirut that was followed by an article¹ she wrote and published in the Purebred Dogs/American Kennel Club Gazette played an important role in defining the need for including pets in disaster plans. Since Deeb's study has been such an impressive first in disaster literature, I wanted to share her contribution with readers.

The article was titled “The petperson bond during wartime.” It highlighted results of a survey she conducted on the importance of the human–companion-animal bond in war-torn Beirut. If we can define a disaster as similar to war, I believe this would make Deeb's contribution the first small animal study to explore the bond during a disaster.

The results of the questionnaire on human-animal bonds included several noteworthy points: “Fifty-six percent of the 47 respondents said they remained in Beirut partly because of their pets, 75% kept their pets for companionship, 53% took their pets with them into shelters, 41% who could not take their pets into shelters reported worrying about them, 32% reported that their pets comforted them during the shelling and bombing. In addition, 66% reported they felt there was a mutual comfort between them and their pets while 72% also said they stroked or caressed their pets more at this time.”

None of these results surprise us today.

Animal-Vues, an animal education organization, modified Deeb's questionnaire. It was reprinted and distributed by veterinarians, humane shelters, and dog breeders after the Three Mile Island Incident. The results were tallied and reported in Delta Society Magazine.² The study was also the basis of a booklet³ on the care of small animals in a disaster published by the Pennsylvania State University system, Bloomsburg University. This publication was then distributed by the American Kennel Club. Thus, Deeb's Beirut study became the basis for pet disaster planning in Pennsylvania.

Today, across the state, county animal response teams are taking form. Working together with veterinarians and other pet health and welfare professionals, volunteers are being trained to help Red Cross workers and other first responders when animals are involved. These groups are called County Animal Response Teams (CARTs). Our particular CART is coordinated by a veterinarian, Dr. Larry Smith, and has two other veterinarians as active members—Dr. Patricia Kitchen and Dr. Lise Lund.

We all owe a debt of gratitude to Dr. Deeb in bringing forth the importance of the human-animal bond when planning for disasters.

Sherry R. Carpenter

Bloomsburg, Pa