Misunderstanding the free‐ranging cat issue: Response to Debrot et al. 2022

As authors of the original works calling attention to the need to understand trap-neuter-release (TNR) in conservation biology (Lepczyk et al., 2010; Longcore et al., 2009) as well as having collectively worked on issues surrounding feral and free-ranging cats for over 50 years, we appreciate the renewed interest in the topic. However, we found the recent article A renewed call for conservation leadership 10 years further in the feral cat Trap-Neuter-Return debate and new opportunities for constructive dialogue by Debrot et al. (2022) to have understated or missed several key pieces of information relevant to conservation. As a result, the Perspective serves to obfuscate rather than clarify current conservation and management efforts focused on free-ranging cats by minimizing existing knowledge and selective use of the literature to support points. While TNR appeals to those seeking to avoid euthanasia as a solution, it is ineffective at reducing feral cat numbers at scale. In a population not supplemented with food, the percent of the cat population needed to be spayed or neutered must exceed 70% to reduce cat numbers through decreasing births in a population (Andersen et al., 2004; Foley et al., 2005). Such a large number has only been achieved once at a meaningful scale (Gunther et al., 2022), where the authors noted the need to implement TNR at high intensity, sustain the effort over long time scales, and over all contiguous areas. In fact, this one example cost more than one million dollars ($US) over 9 years of TNR implementation (Gunther et al., 2022). Notably, two other large, intensive, and well-funded TNR efforts, conducted in California and Florida over eleven (1992–2003) and six years (1998– 2004), respectively, failed to reduce cat numbers (Foley et al., 2005). Hence, TNR is not considered a viable form of cat management. One reason the authors suggest that TNR is an acceptable form of management within cities is because they are “unimportant for wildlife” and “need not be a priority for conservationists,” which reinforces a traditional, but misguided, view that cities are sacrifice zones for wildlife and hold no value for conservation. Unfortunately, this view underestimates the relevance of cities to conservation as they are not monolithic concrete jungles, but rather, are home to endemic, rare, and threatened and endangered species (Schwartz et al., 2002, Ives et al., 2016, Lepczyk et al. 2022) and contribute significantly to regional biodiversity (Spotswood et al., 2021). Moreover, people enjoy seeing native wildlife in areas where they live and generally do not value free-ranging cats (e.g., Lohr & Lepczyk, 2014). A second issue of consequence is that TNR policies are more about rejecting the use of lethal control or housing of cats in shelters than about population control of cats based on scientific research. Having worked extensively in the trenches of cat policy, it is critical to note that pro-outdoor cat advocates are seeking to move cat management away from animal shelters altogether, particularly those that practice euthanasia, in response to the no-kill movement specifically and “compassionate conservation” more generally. Such movement toward “managing” cats only in the field turns a blind eye to the inhumane treatment and conditions of cats living outdoors that organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have noted for years (https:// www.peta.org/about-peta/faq/what-is-petas-stance-on-pro grams-that-advocate-trapping-spaying-and-neutering-andreleasing-feral-cats/). Third, the authors only incidentally mention the serious nature of zoonotic diseases and effects on public health associated with free-ranging cats. No work to date has demonstrated that any TNR program has been successful at reducing disease transmission or is a positive form of managing disease, particularly within a One Health context. Given the large number of serious diseases that are impacting humans and wildlife due to cats (Lepczyk et al., 2015), this is a serious oversight for a socioecological systems approach to cat management. Fourth, having worked directly with stakeholders, including many of the pro-outdoor cat advocacy organizations, as well as policymakers, conservation practitioners, and the public, it is clear that there is a general lack of understanding about the political nature of cat Received: 26 May 2022 Revised: 22 August 2022 Accepted: 24 August 2022