Florida Community Cat Act: A Humane Approach to Managing Free-Roaming Cats H 1121/S 1320

Transcription

1 Florida Community Cat Act: A Humane Approach to Managing Free-Roaming Cats H 1121/S 1320 Laura M. Nirenberg, Esq. Legislative Attorney, Cat Initiative Best Friends Animal Society lauran@bestfriends.org (219)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. What is a Community Cat Program? (a/k/a Trap-Neuter-Return or TNR ) II. III. IV. Benefits of a Community Cat Program Public Opinion and Support Fact Sheet V. Community Cat Program Cost Savings Overview VI. VII. VIII. IX. Community Cat Act v. Other Alternatives a. Trap and Transfer b. Trap, Hold and Euthanize c. Lethal Control d. Do Nothing Statistics and Studies a. Statistics Supporting Community Cat Models b. Case Studies Supporting Community Cat Models Other States with Community Cat/Feral Cat Policies a. Utah b. Illinois Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

3 I. What is a Community Cat Program? A community cat program (a/k/a trap-neuter-return or TNR ) is a non-lethal, comprehensive management plan in which healthy, homeless, free-roaming cats ( community cats ) are humanely trapped, evaluated and sterilized by a licensed veterinarian, vaccinated against rabies, ear-tipped (an international symbol for a sterilized cat), and then returned to their original habitat. The ultimate goal of a community cat program is to humanely curtail the population growth of free-roaming cats over a period of time by preventing them from reproducing. To highlight the importance of spay/neuter services for outdoor cats, please note that on average, unaltered female cats can have up to three litters per year with up to six kittens per litter. This is potentially 18 new cats being born for every one existing, unsterilized female each year. 1 Sterilizing outdoor cats not only results in healthier lives for the cats themselves, but also reduces the number of homeless cats over time. The feasibility of these progressive programs is determined by the social makeup and the set priorities in any given community. The Community Cat Act will provide the necessary autonomy and legal clarification for counties and municipalities to implement non-lethal, cat management programs. II. What are some of the Benefits of a Community Cat Program? Community cat programs have been shown to effectively curtail cat population growth while also providing numerous other benefits to communities, including the following: Reduce shelter admissions, euthanasia rates, and operating costs Create safer communities and promote public health by reducing the number of unvaccinated cats Improve the lives of free-roaming cats o Neutered males are no longer compelled to maintain a large territory or fight over mates o Spayed females are no longer forced to endure the physical and mental demands of giving birth and fending for their young o Sterilized cats can live, long healthy lives as evidenced by a survey of cat caregivers across the nation: 24% reported cats in the 6-8 year-old range, 35% in the 9-12 year-old range, and 14% have cats over 13 years old. 2 1 FAQs on Reproduction (Heats and Pregnancy) in Cats, Peteducation.com, Doctors Foster and Smith, 2013, (last visited Mar. 11, 2013). 2 Feral Cat Survey, Alley Cat Rescue, Inc., (Over 600 surveys were delivered to survey feral cat groups across the nation; 120 groups in 37 states responded.)

4 Increase shelter adoption rates as fewer community cats in shelters opens up more cage space for adoptable cats Reduce the frequency of nuisance complaints Community cat programs also have a positive impact on animal control officers and shelter workers. Job satisfaction among these workers increases tremendously when the job does not entail unnecessarily destroying healthy animals. This increased job satisfaction results in less employee turnover and an overall improved public image of the shelter itself. The reduction in euthanasia and animal admissions also provides more time for staff and volunteers to care for resident animals and give personal attention to potential adopters. These programs also offer financial incentives. When non-lethal programs are adopted, animal control facilities can capitalize on the generosity of volunteers who assist in trapping and locating other cats in the area in need of sterilization and vaccination services. Frequent monitoring is an invaluable component in any successful community cat program as it helps to ensure all intact animals are properly sterilized to prevent breeding. Not surprisingly, this volunteer base is typically unavailable for traditional trapand-kill programs as people are rarely inclined to participate in programs that inflict harm on animals. Commonly referred to as caregivers, these volunteers may feed and monitor the health of the individual cats once the cats are returned. Caregivers may also assist in capturing kittens or friendly adult cat, and place these adoptable candidates into foster homes where they can eventually be placed with loving families. Equally important, these volunteers can collect critical data that can be used to seek grant funding for expansion of current programs. The environment and wildlife populations also benefit from community cat programs as community cat populations unable to reproduce will begin decreasing through attrition. This natural progression not only provides a healthier existence for cats, but also creates a more balanced ecosystem. III. Public Opinion/Support The lines between owned pet cats and community cats are blurry as pets are sometimes allowed to roam outdoors. The resemblance of community cats to our beloved companion animals provides a familiarity in the minds of many that naturally rejects programs that are likely to result in death this is especially true given the death may be that of a family member. 3 3 Gauging Family Intimacy Dogs Edge Cats, PEW RESEARCH CENTER (Mar. 7, 2006), available at (last visited Mar. 11, 2013) (discussing how strongly families feel about pet ownership and 78 per cent of cat owners consider their cat to be a family member).

5 Cats, regardless of ownership status, are opportunistic by nature and capitalize on the kindness of strangers. According to surveys, approximately 9 to 25 percent of households feed free-roaming or stray cats. 4 This connection with community cats adds to the familiarity and triggers increasing skepticism about population control methods that result in the death of healthy animals. Even members of the public who may be frustrated by cats and their behavior typically do not want to see them killed. In fact, most community cat programs address these legitimate frustrations through educational components that offer solutions to common problems. The availability of these types of cost-effective alternatives that minimize frustration and positively resolve human conflicts with cats also maximizes the likelihood of community support of non-lethal programs. ( It is also important to note that the primary complaint about cats is yowling and fighting and this behavior is rarely present when cats are sterilized. Non-lethal alternatives to managing community cat populations are growing increasingly popular as evidenced by the number of groups dedicated to improving the lives of community cats. 5 Equally important, according to a recent survey conducted by Harris Interactive, 81 percent of Americans believe that leaving a stray cat outside to live out its life is more humane than having the cat caught and killed. 6 Cats have thrived outdoors for thousands of years and many live long, happy, healthy lives. 7 4 Verne R. Smith, The Law and Feral Cats, 3 J. ANIMAL L. & ETHICS 7, 8 (May 2009). Compare Shawn Gorman & Julie Levy, A Public Policy toward the Management of Feral Cats, 2 PIERCE L. REV. 157, 157 (2004) (estimating between 9-12% of households feed strays), with BOB CHRISTIANSEN, SAVE OUR STRAYS: HOW WE CAN END PET OVERPOPULATION AND STOP KILLING HEALTHY CATS AND DOGS 18 (Canine Learning Center Publishing 1998) (estimating 25% of households feed strays). 5 Feral Cat Organizations, The Humane Society of the United States, (last visited Mar. 8, 2013). 6 Karyen Chu, Ph.D., and Wendy M. Anderson, J.D., U.S. Public Opinion on Humane Treatment of Stray Cats, Alley Cat Allies, 2007, (last visited Mar. 8, 2013). 7 Jennifer L. Wallace and Julie K. Levy, Population Characteristics of Feral Cats Admitted to Seven Trap- Neuter-Return Programs in the United States, 8(4) J. FELINE MED. SURG. 279, 282 (2006); see Karen C. Scott et al., Body Condition of Feral Cats and the Effect of Neutering, 5(3) J. APPL. ANIM. WELF. SCI. 203, 210 (2002); see Brian J. Luria et al., Prevalence of Infectious Diseases in Feral Cats in Northern Florida, 6(5) J. FELINE MED. SURG. 287, 287 (2004). See also Irene T. Lee et al., Prevalence of Feline Leukemia Virus Infection and Serum Antibodies Against Feline Immunodeficiency Virus in Unowned Free-Roaming Cats, 220(5) J. AM. VET. MED. ASS N. 620, 620 (2002) (This study of 733 unowned, free-roaming cats in Raleigh, North Carolina, and 1,143 in Gainesville, Florida, concluded that the [p]revalence of FeLV infection and eroprevalence for FIV... are similar to prevalence rates reported for owned cats in the United States. ).

6

7

8 IV. Community Cat Program Cost Savings Overview As mentioned above, success of these programs will be gradual and then become more apparent as time passes. The same can said about any corresponding financial benefits. For instance, in 2008, the City of Jacksonville, Florida, partnered with the local humane society and First Coast No More Homeless Pets (FCNMHP), a nonprofit organization, to implement their community cat program, Feral Freedom. With other partner organizations incurring the cost of sterilizations, housing, etc., the county reaped a financial benefit as shown below: 8 (The slight increase in costs reported for FY can be attributed to an unexpected increase in non-feral cat intake and/or a more stringent review of community cat eligibility.) Total Jacksonville Care Program Costs FY FY FY FY FY FY Community Cat Program $356,156 $333,639 $430,960 $360,329 $348,039 $321,898 Other Cat Programs $862,841 $856,010 $659,704 $580,582 $469,474 $549,049 Total Cat Costs $1,218,997 $1,189,649 $1,090,664 $941,181 $817,513 $870,947 Understandably, a decrease in shelter intake and euthanasia, together with an increase in live release rates, also plays favorably in the financial scheme of things and lessens the burden on the county, and ultimately, taxpayers. 9 8 Rick DuCharme, Community Cat Management, Target Zero Institute, Id.

9 In 2010, John Dunham and Associates, an economic research firm in New York, conducted a study for Best Friends Animal Society to determine the fiscal impact of TNR in controlling cat populations in the United States. Given the inability to precisely estimate outdoor cat populations, this study assumed that the number of free-roaming cats was equal to that of pet cats - a little over 87 million. 10 The figures provided, while obviously much larger than any county or local figures, nonetheless clearly illustrate that Community Cat Programs are less expensive than eradication. ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FELINE ERADICATION FOR THE UNITED STATES Trap/Enforcement $4,374,762,500 Sheltering $3,499,810,000 Food/Supplies $3,499,810,000 Laboratory Tests $874,952,500 Eradication/Euthanasia $3,499,810,000 Estimated Cost of Eradication in the US $15,749,145,000 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ALTERATION AND RETURN Trap/Enforcement $4,374,762,500 Neuter/Spay $3,499,810,000 Physical Exams $3,499,810,000 Vaccines $3,499,810,000 Estimated Cost of TNR in the US $13,999,240,000 Net Savings $1,749,905,000 ESTIMATED COSTS ASSOCAITED WITH DISCOUNT PACKAGED ALTERATION AND RETURN* Trap $4,374,762,500 Packaged TNR Procedure $2,624,857,500 Estimated Cost of Discounted Packaged TNR in the US $6,999,620,000 Net Savings $8,749,525,000 *Discounted rates may be attained through partnerships with local non-profit organizations and/or veterinarians who wish to actively participate in community cat program efforts. 10 John Dunham & Associates, The Fiscal Impact of Trap, Neuter and Return Policies in Controlling Feral Cat Populations in the United States, 2010.

10 V. Community Cat Act v. Other Alternatives: a. Trap and Transfer An alternative to TNR that is periodically suggested is the notion of trapping and transferring community cats to a sanctuary for lifetime care. Lifetime care is generally required for feral cats as these animals are unsocialized to humans and thus, are rarely good adoption candidates. This lack of socialization towards humans also means that long-term confinement in unfamiliar environments can be highly stressful. Unfortunately, lifetime sanctuary care is also cost-prohibitive as evidenced below. Cost per cat/per year Best Forgotten Friends Felines, CT Animal Society, UT Cat House on the Kings, CA Tabby's Place, NJ Cost per cat/per year It s also important to stress that all reported costs are not equal. For instance, as highlighted above, Forgotten Felines has an average expense of $ per cat/per year for feral cats. 11 As an all-volunteer organization, however, this figure fails to take into account any costs attributed to salaries or personnel expenses. Best Friends Animal Society also fails to provide a truly accurate cost per year as the $2,496 figure does not include medical supplies and utilities. Equally important, the annual expense would undoubtedly increase significantly if the costs associated with proper care and handling of unsocialized, unadoptable feral animals were factored in. 12 Sanctuaries are not only costly, they are limited in space. Many sanctuaries are routinely filled to capacity and often struggle with meeting the financial demands necessary to provide high-quality care. As Dr. Kate Hurley and Dr. Julie Levy point out, good intentions alone have repeatedly proven insufficient: There is a disturbing trend in the number of hoarding and cruelty investigations of such 11 Letter to Ian Hallett, Director, Hillsborough County Animal Services, from Laura M. Nirenberg, Esq., Legislative Attorney, Best Friends Animal Society (Jan. 29, 2013). 12 Id.

11 facilities when the number of cats accumulated outstrips the resources of those responsible for the humane care of the cats. 13 b. Trap, Hold and Euthanize Trap, hold and euthanize is the option that many Florida shelters are currently using. With this model, animal control, generally in response to a citizen complaint, goes out and sets a trap. Once trapped, the cat is brought back to the shelter and held for a designated time frame to allow owners to reclaim their lost pets. During this hold period, shelter staff is responsible for feeding and housing the animals. Once the hold period expires, however, the cats are frequently euthanized and disposed of. Concerned community member complaints are common when outdoor cat populations are not sterilized. Consequently, with this constant influx of cats, shelters quickly fill up to their limited capacity. This understandably results in increased stress levels for both animals and staff members and ultimately, decreased welfare for the animals as overcrowding and disease transmission are much more prevalent. The failure of trap-and-kill policies is a biological certainty. Every habitat has a carrying capacity or, more specifically, a maximum species population size that can be sustained in that habitat. This carrying capacity is determined by the availability of food sources, water, shelter, and other environmental necessities. When a portion of the sustainable population is permanently removed and the availability of resources is unaltered, the remaining animals respond through increased birthing and higher survivability rates. Consequently, trapping and removing cats from any given area does little more than ensure that the cat population will rebound to the same level as before, necessitating additional trapping and killing. While lethal control may arguably rid an area of cats temporarily, it is not an effective long-term solution because new cats will quickly fill the vacated area and breed, resulting in a perpetual cycle of killing. Trapping and killing, the traditional method of animal control, has been used for decades, and given the current problem of large populations of free-roaming cats, it is obvious that killing does not work. Equally important, killing homeless animals as a means of population control is publicly unpalatable. By contrast, TNR puts an end to this perpetual cycle of death and makes it possible to maintain a colony at a relatively stable number of sterilized cats, who are unable to breed and multiply. 13 Dr. Kate Hurley, DVM, MPVM, Dr. Julie Levy, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, Maddie s Fund, Feline Shelter Intake Reduction, Jan _FAQs.html

12 c. Lethal Control Lethal control in this context would mean poisoning or hunting of cats. The inherent cruelty surrounding this option is evident and has repeatedly been deemed unacceptable in our society. Additionally, this method of control is undoubtedly hazardous on many levels as poisoning is indiscriminate in nature and can be consumed by nontarget species. This toxic substance can also be accidentally ingested by a child or someone s beloved pet. Shooting or hunting cats is also contrary to public policy. It is also inherently dangerous, especially in urban areas where other animals, including pets, or people could be accidentally injured. There are also many areas wherein discharging firearms is illegal, making this methodology even more difficult. Lastly, as with all forms of animal control, there is a cost associated with lethal control. The costs associated with this alternative could potentially be much higher than other alternatives, and will be an ongoing expense with no end in sight given the biological certainty that any remaining cats will continue to breed and repopulate any previously eradicated areas. d. Do Nothing The last option of doing nothing has been tried repeatedly across the country and is a disservice to the public, the cats and the environment. Unaltered cats continue to breed and cause conflicts with community members. Given the demands on food sources and den sites, these inflated numbers lead to decreased cat well-being. This tactic also inevitably results in an increase in nuisance complaints to elected officials and is both irresponsible and impractical. VI. Statistics and Studies Case studies on feral cats have been going on much longer than many people realize. There are several studies that support TNR and numerically show that the actual number of cats decreases over time. a. Statistics Supporting Community Cat Models There have been many unpublished successes with community cat models, including programs implemented in areas with sensitive wildlife. In San Francisco s Golden Gate Park, the cat population was reduced from 85 to 2 through TNR. In New Jersey, the NJ Division of Fish and Wildlife and NJ Audubon collaborated with TNR organizations on a successful pilot project for protecting sensitive catvulnerable wildlife through TNR, which incorporates analysis of the interaction

13 between cats and vulnerable species in a given area and options for barrier fencing, limited removal or relocation, TNR, and patrolling of buffer zones. 14 Equally important, between 1992 and 1993, concerns surrounding an estimated 300 cats living along the Merrimack River in Newburyport, Massachusetts, resulted in the formation of The Merrimack River Feline Rescue Society. This private organization trapped all the cats and kittens, removed 200 for adoption, and trapped/neutered/returned the remaining cats. In 2009, Zorro, the last feral cat from the colony died. Another example comes from the University of Central Florida (UCF). In 1991, UCF began its TNR program for on-campus feral cats following concerns about students who would feed the cats and sabotage local animal control efforts to lethally control the population. The university started tracking 155 feral cats after a spay/neuter program. By 1996, the number of cats had decreased to 68 cats, and by 2012, just 5 of the original cats were left Total Campus Cat Population After TNR Number of Cats Gainesville is another Florida city that has experienced success with TNR. This work specifically targeted one zip code. Maddie s Fund, a non-profit organization, worked 14 New Jersey Feral Cat and Wildlife Coalition, Pilot Program: Ordinance and Protocols for the Management of Feral Cat Colonies in Wildlife-Sensitive Areas in Burlington County, New Jersey, (July 2007) 20Ordinance&Protocols_Pilot_7_07.doc (last visited Mar. 10, 2013)

14 with the city and sterilized 2,226 cats over a two year period. When comparing the number of intakes with other area shelters, the shelter located within the targeted zone showed a 68% decrease in the number of cat intakes, whereas other local shelters showed only a 13% decrease. 15 Nuisance behavior complaints also decreased. San Jose, California, has also shown great success with TNR. From 2009 to 2012, there was a significant decrease in both intake and euthanasia rates. Intake decreased 26% for cats and 25% for kittens (11,428 in 2008 to 8,545 in 2012). Euthanasia rates decreased 65% from 8,106 to 2,805. Live release rates also increased from 28% to 83% over this same time period. 16 This case is slightly different than the other examples provided as the city is the primary surgery provider. This program also partners with a non-profit organization that accepts adoptable sterilized cats for placement and provides community educational materials. CAT EUTHANASIA RATES SAN JOSE, CA Cats Kittens Indianapolis, Indiana, has also experienced impressive results from its community cat program. Although the extensive progress made in this community has not been broken down into total cost savings to taxpayers, the numbers reported below are positive indications of the program s success in this community (information provided by FACE/Indy Feral): 15 Dr. Julie Levy, DVM, PhD, DACVIM, Maddie s Fund, Feral Freedom: Getting Cats out of Shelters Alive, Feb. 26, 2013, (last visited Mar. 11, 2013) 16 Jon Cicirelli, Public/Private Partnerships for Trap/Neuter/Return, No More Homeless Pets National Conference, Oct , 2012.

15 b. Case Studies Supporting Community Cat Models 1. Stoskopf, M.K. and Nutter, F.B., "Analyzing approaches to feral cat management one size does not fit all." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (9): p ; and dissertation by Felicia Nutter - Nutter, F.B., Evaluation of a Trap-Neuter-Return Management Program for Feral Cat Colonies: Population Dynamics, Home Ranges, and Potentially Zoonotic Diseases, in Comparative Biomedical Department. 2005, North Carolina State University: Raleigh, NC. p In one of the very few controlled studies to compare sterilized/managed and unsterilized/managed colonies of feral cats, researchers observed a 36 percent average decrease among six sterilized colonies in the first two years (despite the fact that no cats were removed for adoption during this period; only three were adopted throughout the seven-year study), while three unsterilized colonies experienced an average 47 percent increase. Four and seven-year follow-up censuses revealed steady population decreases among sterilized colonies. In addition, sterilization of adults in the control colonies was beginning to slow, and then reverse, initial population increases. All non-tnr d colonies continued to increase in size. Immigration into both TNR d and breeding colonies was consistent but occurred at low levels in both.

16 2. Robertson, S.A., "A review of feral cat control." Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery (4): p A 2008 review of the literature on feral cats and feral cat control, including several studies of TNR, emphasizes the importance of context in effective management: when considering feral cats, one solution does not fit all situations because all situations are different. Robinson found ample scientific evidence that TNR under certain conditions can control the feral cat population, and is a viable, humane alternative to other methods previously used, and recommends continued and increased funding (by private welfare organizations and by municipal and government agencies) for long-term success. 3. Levy, J.K., Gale, D.W., and Gale, L.A., "Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (1): p A TNR program on the campus of the University of Central Florida begun in 1991, led to the adoption of nearly half (47 percent) of the 155 cats living on campus over an 11-year observation period. In 2002, at the end of the study, just 23 cats remained on campus. Eighty-three percent of cats on-site at the end of the study had been there more than six years. This compares favorably with the mean lifespan of 7.1 years reported for pet cats, observed Levy at al., particularly as almost half of the cats in our study were first observed as adults of unknown age. The authors emphasize the importance of adoptions and an ongoing surveillance and maintenance program for new arrivals if TNR programs are to be successful. 4. Natoli, E., et al., "Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy)." Preventive Veterinary Medicine (3-4): p A no-kill policy in Italy (dating back to 1991) has prompted the widespread implementation of TNR in that country. A survey of caretakers responsible for 103 cat colonies (10 percent of the registered colonies in Rome at the time) revealed a 22 percent decrease overall in the number of cats despite a 21 percent rate of cat immigration. Although some colonies experienced initial increases, numbers began to decrease (again, despite immigration): colonies neutered 3, 4, 5 or 6 years before the survey showed progressive decreases of 16, 29, 28 and 32 percent, respectively. The increased colony shrinkage after 3 years (colonies neutered 3-6 years before the final survey showed decreased of 16-32%, respectively) indicates that passage of time would further reduce cat numbers. Researchers concluded that populations would be reduced more quickly if there were not such a high rate of pet cat abandonment in Rome and advised efforts to reduce abandonment.

17 5. Mendes-de-Almeida, F., et al., "The Impact of Hysterectomy in an Urban Colony of Domestic Cats (Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758)." International Journal of Applied Research in Veterinary Medicine (2): p Also: Mendes-de-Almeida, F. et. al. (2011): Reduction of Feral Cat (Felis catus Linnaeus 1758) colony size following hysterectomy of adult female cats. Journal of Feline Medicine & Surgery. Beginning in 2001, hysterectomy has been used to control the population of feral cats at the Rio de Janeiro zoo. Prior to the program s implementation, the population of cats of the RIOZOO suffered constant interventions but without a preestablished methodology and only with the simple objective of eliminating the population. Therefore, the population of cats fluctuated, the animals showed weak social relations and behavioral interactions reflected by weak individual territorial defense, and this probably opened the way for high migration rates... The impact of hysterectomy on the population living in the zoo met our expectations. Between 2001 and 2004, however, the estimated population became stable, showing a trend to decrease.... we conclude that programmed biennial interventions submitting all adult females to hysterectomy constituted an efficient measure for controlling the urban colony[.] Over the next four years, estimated population numbers dropped 58 percent, from 40 cats in 2004 to 17 cats in Centonze, L.A. and Levy, J.K., "Characteristics of free-roaming cats and their caretakers." Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (11): p One of the earlier studies of TNR, this 1999 survey of 101 individuals or couples who cared for 132 colonies of free-roaming cats in north central Florida revealed that approximately 70 of respondents colony cats were sterilized, resulting in a 26 percent decrease in the overall cat population [from 920 to 678] over a median period of 18 months. In addition, 87 percent of respondents reported that the feral cats in their care had an excellent or good quality of life. 7. Tennent, J., Downs, C.T., and Bodasing, M., "Management Recommendations for Feral Cat (Felis catus) Populations Within an Urban Conservancy in KwaZulu- Natal, South Africa." South African Journal of Wildlife Research (2): p Also: Tennent, J. and Downs, C.T., "Abundance and home ranges of feral cats in an urban conservancy where there is supplemental feeding: A case study from South Africa." African Zoology : p Researchers at the University of KwaZulu-Natal s Howard College Campus (Durban, South Africa) found a minimum of 55 individuals identified as resident across the portion of campus they used as a study area. Although the campus is recognized as an urban conservancy ( urban areas interspersed with conservation-sensitive natural bush habitat and a nature reserve on the northern border ), Tennent et al. were unambiguous in their recommendation that a suitable and ongoing

18 sterilization programme, which is run in conjunction with a feral cat feeding programme, needs to be implemented to control the population of feral cats. Removal, on the other hand, would likely create the vacuum effect, thus encourag[ing] subsequent reinvasion of the area. It may be more costly both financially in the long-term and in terms of effects on the indigenous wildlife populations if immigration of new, unsterilized cats were to take up residency on the campus. 8. Hughes, K.L., Slater, M.R., and Haller, L., "The Effects of Implementing a Feral Cat Spay/Neuter Program in a Florida County Animal Control Service." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (4): p A 12-year study conducted by Orange County (FL) Animal Services revealed a number of benefits to the community following the implementation of a TNR program. No attempt was made to quantify changes in the population of feral cats, but researchers found that euthanasias among impounded cats dropped 18 percent, while adoptions doubled, following implementation. In addition, the number of cat impoundments remained relatively stable despite a 32 percent increase in the area s human population over the study period. The cost to sterilize the 7,903 cats was estimated at $442,568, approximately forty percent of the estimated cost to impound and euthanize the same number of cats. 9. Hughes, K.L. and Slater, M.R., "Implementation of a Feral Cat Management Program on a University Campus." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (1): p A comprehensive TNR program conducted on the campus of Texas A&M University was generally viewed as a success by the veterinary faculty and the university s pest control service. Like the Orange County study, this research did not attempt to measure population changes over the study period (August 1998 through July 2000). Nevertheless, 26 percent of the 158 cats involved were removed for adoption, and, based on the decrease in the number of complaints those who remain are less of a nuisance than previously. 10. Neville P.F., & Remfry, J., "Effect of neutering on two groups of feral cats," Vet Rec (18): p Although this study focused exclusively on the individual cat behavior during feeding time following sterilization, it determined that colonies will always tend to decrease in number provided all immigrants to the colony are also sterilized. Interestingly, following sterilization, none of the cats were reported for taking exotic water fowl, although these same cats were suspected of having done so prior to the study.

19 11. Schmidt, P.M., et al., "Evaluation of euthanasia and trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs in managing free-roaming cat populations." Wildlife Research : p Mathematical modeling shows that removal and TNR, when implemented at the same intensive levels, achieve comparable reductions in cat numbers. Treatment effort (the number of cats treated per 1 percent population decrease ) is much higher for removal than for TNR removal/euthanasia is times greater than for TNR (over the 25-year period the researchers modeled). Although the model indicates that TNR is less effective than euthanasia at high rates of colony immigration, it fails to take into account adoptions (common TNR practice, reducing the effects of immigration), thereby raising questions about the model s overall output. 12. Zaunbrecher, K., & R. Smith, "Neutering of Feral Cats as an Alternative to Eradication Programs," Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. Aug. 1, (3): p Studied a well-established feral cat colony at The Gillis W. Long Hansen s Disease Center in Carville, LA, after frequent attempts of eradicating cats failed to result in a noticeable reduction in the population due in part to the patients disregard of feeding bans and other various attempts to sabotage removal efforts. The study concluded that the cost of conducting a capture/neuter program was modest and that neutering all animals within a reasonable period of time was essential. An improvement to the overall health of the cats in the colony was evident and nocturnal vocalization generally deemed a nuisance, was undetected by the authors during the 3-year census. The authors also concluded that neutering/returning freeroaming cats in an institutional setting is effective, humane, and economically feasible as evidenced by the low turnover and improved health of the colony over the 3 year period. VII. Other States with Community Cat/Feral Cat Programs: a. Utah Effective as of May 2011, Utah passed a Community Cat Act codified at UT ST Below are some relevant provisions from the Utah Code. Section (1) "Community cat" means a feral or free-roaming cat that is without visibly discernable or microchip owner identification of any kind, and has been sterilized, vaccinated, and ear-tipped. (2) "Community cat caretaker" means any person other than an owner who provides food, water, or shelter to a community cat or community cat colony. (3) "Community cat colony" means a group of cats that congregate together. Although not every cat in a colony may be a community cat, any cats owned by individuals that congregate with a colony are considered part of it.

20 (4) "Community cat program" means a program pursuant to which feral cats are sterilized, vaccinated against rabies, ear-tipped, and returned to the location where they congregate. (As shown, these definitions are similar to proposed house bill 1121 and senate bill 1320.) Section (1) A cat received by a shelter under the provisions of Section may be released prior to the five-day holding period to a sponsor that operates a community cat program. (2) A community cat is: (a) exempt from licensing requirements and feeding bans; an (b) eligible for release from an animal shelter prior to the mandatory five-day hold period in Section Section (2)(c)(iii) says that the shelter needs to keep a record of all intakes and dispositions but that dispositions may be to a Community Cat Program as defined above. b. Illinois The State of Illinois has defined feral cat and exempted feral cat caretakers from the owner definition. Illinois has also codified law pertaining to the liability of community cat caretakers, municipalities operating Community Cat Programs and veterinarians. 510 ILCS 5/2 Sec. 2.11b. "Feral cat" means a cat that (i) is born in the wild or is the offspring of an owned or feral cat and is not socialized, (ii) is a formerly owned cat that has been abandoned and is no longer socialized, or (iii) lives on a farm. Sec "Owner" "Owner" means any person having a right of property in an animal, or who keeps or harbors an animal, or who has it in his care, or acts as its custodian, or who knowingly permits a dog to remain on any premises occupied by him or her. Owner does not include a feral cat caretaker participating in a trap, spay/neuter, return or release program. 510 ILCS 5/35 (a) Any municipality or political subdivision allowing feral cat colonies and trap, sterilize, and return programs to help control cat overpopulation shall be immune from criminal liability and shall not be civilly liable, except for willful and wanton misconduct, for damages that may result from a feral cat. (c) Any veterinarian who sterilizes feral cats and any feral cat caretaker who traps cats for a trap, sterilize, and return program shall be immune from criminal liability and shall not, as a result of his or her acts or omissions, except for willful and wanton misconduct, be liable for civil damages.

21 (These provisions are very similar to those as proposed in house bill 1121 and senate bill1320.) VIII. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and Community Cats The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission s (FFWCC) current policy does not prohibit the practice of TNR nor does it call for the killing of cats. 17 FFWCC policy dictates that the agency needs to develop science-based, humane solutions to reduce the impact of cats on wildlife. FFWCC has also acknowledged that it is up to municipalities to consider TNR or Community Cat Programs and that FFWCC will not attempt to eradicate outdoor cats. Much of FFWCC policy works on public awareness about letting pet cats outside and caring for outdoor cats. Community Cat Programs are also concerned with public education. Many of the successful programs listed in the above sections regularly provide educational materials to the public about community cats. 17 Cats: Free-Ranging and Feral, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, (last visited Mar. 11, 2013).