A Cat-astrophic Proposal

This letter was sent to Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle as well as the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Paul Scott Hassett. I have omitted my real name for this posting.

Dear Mr. Hassett,

Mark Smith of La Crosse, Wisconsin, is proposing that free roaming domestic feral cats—which includes any cat that is outdoors without a collar and not under a human’s direct control—be listed as an unprotected species, able to be hunted at will by anyone with a small game license. Smith contends that such cats are “an invasive species, plain and simple.” A study conducted by two University of Wisconsin at Madison researchers, John Coleman and Stanley Temple, concluded that free roaming cats are responsible for killing millions of native birds each year in Wisconsin alone, and preserving those species is the justification Smith provides for declaring open season on felines. Whether or not that is his true motivation, it is a valid concern; however, his “solution” will lead to a slew of new problems, and there is not even any indication that it would be effective in resolving the original issue.

Smith says, “What I'm trying to do here is make a distinction between a domestic cat and a feral cat. Domestic cats are under the ownership of an individual. If you open the door and kick your cat out at night, you've changed its status.” However, it is very possible for a pet cat to be outdoors and collarless without any action by the owner. Well-designed cat collars are made to easily detach from a cat’s neck for the same reason that skis should disengage from a human’s feet. Just as a relatively minor tumble on the ski slopes could result in serious injury if the skis remained connected, a cat collar that snags on something and doesn’t come off could turn into a hangman’s noose. Even “indoor-only” cats—whose owners are least likely of all to make them wear uncomfortable collars—wouldn’t be safe from hunters. The only cat I own and have ever owned is a plush cat my girlfriend gave to me, and I know he’s not going anywhere, but most cats aren’t so stationary. It’s not unusual for them to run out the door of the house on their own volition. Smith claims that he wants cat owners to take more responsibility for their pets, and that is an admirable goal, but the means through which he seeks to accomplish this are extremely drastic. Ultimately, it is we humans who need to correct our behavior and take Bob Barker’s advice when he tells us every weekday morning to spay and neuter our pets. Humans—not cats—are the root of the problem here, but even when humans are fully caring and responsible, that doesn’t eliminate the chance that their pets will get lost. The probability that this will happen to a certain individual or family may be small, but in all likelihood it will happen to someone, and when that occurs, those whose cat was unnecessarily killed by a hunter won’t care about probabilities.

If a pet cat is killed and the one who did the deed claims that it wasn’t wearing a collar at the time, how are we to even know whether that’s the truth? As I explained earlier, it’s not difficult for a cat that escaped its owner’s control wearing a collar to lose that collar, so a person who kills a cat that left home with a collar could just as easily be telling the truth as lying about the cat having been collarless. The hunter could have made an honest mistake and not seen the collar, or he or she could have seen the collar and decided to fire on the “non-native” and “invasive” species nonetheless. In either case, it would be relatively simple to remove the collar without anyone else’s knowledge and plead total ignorance.

Thus far, I’ve focused on the difficulty in distinguishing a feral cat from a pet cat that got away, but even if we had some way to know quickly and with absolute certainty to which category a cat belongs, killing feral cats is not the optimal way to decrease their numbers. In the Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) approach, “Feral cats are trapped, spayed or neutered, vaccinated, tested for infectious diseases, ear-tipped for easy identification, and released into a suitable habitat,” as explained by Dane County Friends of Ferals. TNR is not only more humane than the traditional trap and kill method, but has also proven far more successful at controlling the feral cat population. The reason for this is the “vacuum effect,” whereby other individuals will simply move into the void left by the departed animal and continue to breed. Through TNR, trapped feral cats will still occupy territory but be unable to reproduce, and this will ultimately cause a gradual decrease in their population. TNR is perhaps the most promising initiative in combating the feral cat problem, but there are a host of others that merit exploration and discussion. Better alternatives to Smith’s suggestion certainly exist; we simply need to be willing to do some work to find them.

I think it’s more important to examine the likely consequences of this proposal instead of speculating about the motive(s) behind it, but I can’t help but question Smith’s alleged concern about preserving bird populations. After all, Wisconsin opened dove hunting in May 2001, since studies showed that it would have a negligible effect on the dove population. To support his assertion that feral cats are threatening songbird populations, Smith cites only the research of John Coleman and Stanley Temple; however, an analysis of “The Wisconsin Study” shows that it used highly questionable processes to reach its conclusion. Therefore, Smith’s proposal has no valid basis. If humans are allowed to hunt doves in Wisconsin because nothing indicates that hunting poses a threat to their population, then cats should be left alone to hunt birds for the exact same reason.

Mark Smith’s idea may be upsetting, yet I find it even more upsetting that some people have decided to send him death threats. These few wayward people undermine our position by conveying the impression that opponents of this measure are just fanatics who must resort to coercion instead of supplying counterarguments and alternative ideas. I don’t doubt that Mark Smith is an upstanding citizen who, as a firefighter, makes a valuable contribution to his community; it is merely this particular idea of his (and the 52 other residents of La Crosse County who voted to let it move forward) that I wish to attack. I’m not just writing this letter for the cats that can’t speak; I’m writing it for the multitudes of humans who won’t speak because they can’t imagine that such an idea has a chance of being implemented. As one can see from the opening of dove hunting despite disapproval by the majority of Wisconsin residents, cat hunting is not out of the question if those of us against it don’t make our voices heard. I may not live in Wisconsin, but it’s only a few dozen miles away from me, and I worry about the precedent that will be set if this proposal takes effect. I implore you to not let this move forward. Let’s show Mark Smith, those who issued death threats against him, and anyone else who needs a reminder, that it is possible to resolve problems without killing something in the process.

Sincerely,

Davy Kraken
Minneapolis, Minnesota