Talk:Feral cat

Why Define The Feral Cat?

• I started this page to define feral cats and discuss how we humans have, once again, impacted a species and forced it into an unnatural state. Feral cats, quite different from wild cats, are our creation, as is their plight. This page isn't a forum for opinions...just information. Be sure your facts are correct and your sources are worth quoting!

CTCatVet 15 Oct 2005

newer response: Why do you have this false assumption that feral cats are different from their wild cats brothers?

You should research more before adding any asumption. Cats, unlike most other domestic animals, were never domesticated through any formal process. There was no formal traits selection or enhanced interbreeding been introduced throughout house cat history. most common domestic cats have very little genetic variation from their wild cat ancestors... actually, even to today, the genetic drift is sooo small that an african wild cat shares almost 100% genes as most "domesticated" cats. Due to this unique nature, cats are biologically never domesticated. This is why cats if bred without human contact in the wild, can revert into wild cat status within only one generation. Thus, their behaviors and habits are no different than African wild cat. If you ever observed a cat born in the wild without human interaction, the 1st instinct they have had is hissing and growling, and read for attack... you can observe this in African wild cats too. Most cats lovers assumed this hissing behaviour is due to human's abuse, or out of fear. which isn't true, it's simply a mark of the cat reverted into its african wild cat status.. well, sadly, most cats freaks can't see this and won't see this and still treat them as pet which they are already not so. If a feral cat were born in the wild and reverted to wild status, why should we kept assuming its status being pet? It's the most ridiculous remark I have ever heard from most cats lovers.

RESPONSE: You obviously have a bias against feral cats and are a supporter of the species you are saying is "forced . . . into an unnatural state." You need to follow your own advice and not make the central point of the article the fact that feral cats are dangerous to whatever species you are seeking to preserve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.141.11 (talk) 23:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

• Akin to my complaints on the Cat page, this page is very Americentric, or at the very elast urban-centric. --ZayZayEM 14:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I already had this page in my watchlist to get round to, for the purposes of expanding the generalised statements about the damage ferla cats do around the world to wildlife. Cat's are a real conservation issue in smaller islands and places like Australia, even in the US they do real damage to bird popultaions. The subject of introduced species removal, be it rat or cat or rabbit, is highly political, unfortunately, and needs careful wording.sunbird 16:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Oh my, please run a spell check and check your punctuation before you post here, Sunbird...

• "many celebrities campaign to encourage people to spay and neuter their pets, including Bob Barker." This would imply that Bob Barker is a pet and should be neutered. Perhaps the author meant "many celebrities, including Bob Barker, campaign to encourage people to spay and neuter their pets" User:jhbadger Jan 23 2005

Maybe he should be neutered - then he would know how it feels .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.192.42.117 (talk) 20:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic and Unadoptable

Blackcats, I had added those words and you deleted them, saying they were not true and emotive rather than a NPOV.

Actually, they are true. Pathetic means evoking tenderness, sympathy, pity or sorrow. Unadoptable is self-explanatory. The condition of feral cats is pathethic. And no feral cat over the age of about twelve weeks is adoptable because they cannot be socialized (or tamed or civilizied or some other similiar word). I know because I cleaned out two feral cat colonies, rescuing and finding home for 21 kittens. Two of the little buggers live here with me and my family. They were both less than nine weeks old but they are noticably different in attitude and temperament than cats raised in captivity.

That's when I did all the research and talked to concerned humans and vets, etc. about the issue.

As for NPOV, I'll admit the word "pathetic" is emotive and subjective but unadoptable isn't. I think it, at least, needs to go back in. I'll await to hear from you before editing again. Johnwhunt 23:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey Johnwhunt, sorry if I got a little over-zealous with the editing there. I went ahead and added back in the unadoptable part - slightly qualified - since there's always exceptions and because in rural and low-density urban areas the line between feral and non-feral domestic cats is sometimes a little blurry...

I also added back in about how they evoke strong emotions in animal lovers.

Hopefully this will work for everyone - if not then feel free to edit some more :)

--Blackcats 23:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Have a good day. Johnwhunt 00:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you are both right - or wrong - depending on your definitions. I am sitting here right now surrounded by about 30 ex-feral cats. None even remotely resemble domestic cats. One lives on my sholders - I have to wear a leather jacket around the house to prevent blood transfusions. Three or four run from me, but when caught, happily relax to get petted, then either stick around or run and hide as they feel is appropriate. One usually runs from me, but then on occasions, comes up tyo be petted and gets extremely affectionate. When she has kittens, she always comes to me and asks for help with the delivery. The kittens are always so beautiful that I don't have the heart to have her spayed and there is a waiting list for them. Almost all these ex-feral cats would be adoptable and will be adopted by the right person. None have any similarity to a domestic cat.

P.S. It ain't easy. Tbonge (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Tbonge. Feral cats can get used to people. It's just that most people can't get used to feral cats. They don't understand what stresses them and what relaxes them. If you hang out with a colony like I do, you learn. It's something of a matter of learning to think like cats do, while they learn to think like humans (at least humans who like cats) do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.7.7.20 (talk) 09:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

They aren't unadoptable. I have one "feral" cat who lived outdoors all her life and had never been touched by a human when I got her. She was over a year old. At first she wouldn't let anyone touch her, but after I worked with her she became a sweet affectionate cat. She'll even let my nine-year-old sister carry her around the house!

I have to agree that most feral cats are not adoptable, since I've been trying to tame feral kittens back in the 80's back in China. The feral cats in China were very wild that they were too aggressive to be adopted, even feeding is not possible after 1 year length of taming process and the process started when they were simply 2 month old. Maybe you Americans have different *feral* cats than I used to have back in China? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengjdc (talk • contribs) 20:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with the "Most humans just don't know how to treat feral cats"... because they CAN be socialised and adopted, it's just that most people can't be bothered. They think if it doesn't act like a normal cat than it cannot. Most feral cats can easily be socialised by someone with great patience and kindness. To say they're unadoptable is a bare-faced lie, considering how many stories there are of adopted feral cats. Some cats would take a lot more effort than others, sure, but every wrong that has ever been done to the cat to make it behave that way can, in time, be righted by a human that puts in the time and effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbpowder (talk • contribs) 06:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal status of feral cats

Is it worth mentioning somewhere in the article the recent public debate in Wisconsin on listing un-collared cats as unprotected, thus making hunting/killing them legal? A search on Google News shows a lot of articles on the topic. It looks like it is not a done deal so to speak so I am not sure if it merits inclusion here, but i think it is also an issue in several other states or the law may be vague. Either way we might think about including a paragraph or small section on the legal status of feral cats in different jurisdictions.

Feral cats in Australia are not just stray pussy cats that have been dumped or left home. The feral cat in Australia is a product of many generations in the wild, and have never had any human contact. They are many hundreds of kilometres fom the nearest farm house or town, and thru population pressure they might move into areas of human population only. They live very well off the native wildlife, and are too well adapted to an environment that has never had predatators since the demise of marsupial predatators 30,000 years ago. The dingo and the fox are also feral introduced predatators that are also having a major impact on the environment. Only homo sapiens have caused more damage whereever they have been introduced. 203.59.157.42 13:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

A Question...Feral Cats & Evolution

This may be a unique question due to my fascination with evolution... but have there ever been any studies or research done on the evolution of feral cats or other feral animals? While I understand that evolution can take millions of years, small changes or adaptations can be brought about in only a few generations of the genes already exist... (for example, that thing about the moths changing color in England during the industrial revolution). Are there any feral cat colonies that have been around long enough to show a preference for cats with certain traits to survive and reproduce (before they started becoming neutered)? Looking at all of the different breeds of domesticated dogs, it doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine that survival of the fittest, and not just breeding of the prettiest, can bring about noticeable changes in perhaps a few hundred years. Any thoughts?

Probably somewhat. Some breeds of cats and dogs would likely not last long in the wild, so they would disappear immediately. I'm guessing at least that has happened. --Kalmia 04:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely, see Dingo for a classic example of the evolution of the feral dog into a new species. Thew feral cat in Australia appears to be diversifying and many are not recognizable as to their original 'breed'. I happen to guess it won't be long before we see some specialize. petedavo 06:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes there has, New Scientist magazine (I think) published some studies about domesticated and wild "cousins" e.g. domesticated pigs vs. wild pigs and the verdict is that after 7-10 generations in the wild the animal is completely undomesticated and has taken on the "wild" appearance. I don't know about feral cat colonies in America, but in Australia the cats are of a considerately larger size and definately have more learned and genetic "feral" behaviour. Fox breeders in Russia have also noted that they can breed either friendly or violent foxes after 7-10 generations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbpowder (talk • contribs) 06:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View (NPOV)?

I removed this:

It has been suggested by individuals without environmental science backgrounds that feral cats should simply be hunted to immediately reduce the feral cat problem. Radical specicide, especially when more animals are abandoned each day, is never a prudent long-term answer to any animal-human problem; the solution is more responsible husbandry of the domestic cat by the species that initially started the problem.

That's as neutral as it gets...we're talking killing here...(CTCatVet)

from the main article, because of NPOV concerns. There may be a kernel of truth to this statement, but it needs to be fleshed out in a more neutral manner. Ideally, this would also include the POV of the opposing side, which seems to have some valid points as well. Unfortunately, I know little about the issue, so I can only exhort others who do to hammer out some compromise before putting this back.

(forgot to include my stamp: --greenmoss 9 July 2005 02:47 (UTC))

I always thought it was odd that some people's idea of compassion for animals is death. I'm no card-carrying member of PETA, but I think hunting wild cats seems cruel. I might change my mind if they actually eat them... (Mokru) 3 Oct. 2006

I have a cat.It is domesticated but that has not changed the fact that in the time that Salem has been part of my family that he has Hunted and killed a budgie (a native bird), two bearded dragons (a native lizard), numerous skinks, & insects, and fished a Koi out of my pond. He has also trapped a native Bandicoot which I managed to rescue. He is probably the only cat in my area that is kept within the property boundaries as I see and hear cats outside and in the nearby bush all the time. Every cat I've owned has done similar things and all seem to be proud to drag their kill inside to offer up to their human companions. My Grand Uncle was the Park ranger for Nambung National Park and he always carried a gun to shoot feral cats as he said "he saw nests and animals that he knew well being hunted and killed by the local feral cats". This is my first hand evidence. I love my cat, but I keep watch for native wildlife coming into my backyard because I know that the cat will hunt them and kill them. To pretend that a cat is not a hunter is nonsense POV. petedavo 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A lovely story, but what is it supposed to convey towards the article or the writing of the article? Neither first-hand research or POV statements are allowed in articles. Of the five pillars of Wikipedia, those are the top two. -- KirinX 16:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly the point that I'm making by the story. The cat fanciers have let themselves get POV from the talk page into the article! They are stuck in a paradigm that believes the article itself should not exist because it's not within their ability to see any other paradigm. That paradigm I bring to the point here is "the nature of the cat as a predatory animal. So therefore NPOV to cat fanciers on the subject is POV to them already.petedavo 00:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah... perhaps my confusion has helped some of them see your point too. I agree that it is hard to seem NPOV when the subject is naturally POV to an audience. But your root point, that cats are generally violent creatures when given the chance to hunt, is most valid. -- KirinX 00:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

In Australia

Although trap neuter and return programs such as those in the United States are not prevalent in Australia, they are now being introduced in some urban and suburban areas. In Adelaide, the "C.A.T.S." program has had great success to date. More recently, such programs have been introduced in Sydney by the "World League for Protection of Animals". With great success? How does one define success in such circumstances? (And are neutered animals somehow magically incapable of predating on native birds and marsupials?) Sabine's Sunbird 02:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this page forgets to talk about the very much negative impacts of feral cats in our natural environment. In Australia they are a problem which must be dealt with as native species such as bilby, numbat and mala are being hunted to near extinction. This page is very much biased and must at least say so at the top of this page. Moran

Ailurophobes write a lot of stuff along these lines but I've yet to see any of them explain coherently why numbats and malas are better than cats and therefore cats should be shot to stop them killing numbats. :-)

Saying that cats aren't part of the ecosystem and bilbawhatsits are is a red herring. They may not have been part of the ecosystem, but they are now. Which ecosystem was better is a subjective and occasionally highly silly value judgement. Either way we're not going to be able to correct one ecological intervention (introducing cats) by committing another (having them massacred).

Man, the above two comments are really pathetic. It's OK for cats to hunt Australian wildlife to extinction? Sorry, but it is not. Every bit of biodiversity lost is a tragedy; to hear excuses made for the feral species doing much of it is offensive.

The only real complaint I can see is that cats kill songbirds, which at least make pretty noises. But then, if you can fly, and you get killed by something that can't, I say it's Darwin 1, you nil. --Last Malthusian 12:00, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Cats are no better than numbats and malas or any other species, at least not from a biologist's or environmentalist's point of view. Indeed, no species is better or worse than any other, in that sense. The difference is that some species are endangered, while others aren't. In the case of species like cats, foxes, rabbits and others, who are introduced into a new habitat and prove to be too much a competition for some of the local species and so eventually drive them to near extinction, the point is that there are too many of the introduced threat and too few of the threatened animals; in which case, guess who it makes sense to be worried about, you smart ass.

"I say it's Darwin 1, you nil." Oh, wow, Darwinism with a cowboy hat and spurs. I can see this was a mature debate from the outset. Stassa 21:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know this isn't the place for debate, so please reply to my talk page. But seriously, if we protect a species, aren't we disrupting evolution? Applejuicefool 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Euthanasia"

"The wholesale removal of feral colonies by euthanasia is rarely effective, since new individuals move into the areas left by the removed animals almost immediately, and the blanket euthanasia of stray and feral cats has proven ineffective in controlling stray and feral overpopulation."

What does euthanasia mean in that sense? No matter how miserable most feral cats' lives are, killing every single one of them stretches the definition of 'merciful' beyond all normal credibility, and the phrase 'Removal by euthanasia' seems euphemistic in the extreme (must... not... Godwin...) Of course, I could just have got the wrong end of the stick, since the article doesn't really say whether these programmes involve killing all cats or just the sick ones. If not, maybe replacing 'wholesale removal' by 'wholesale killing' and removing 'by euthanasia' would be better? You can't really get more NPOV than the word 'kill'. --Last Malthusian 12:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is a very old question but thought I'd respond to the comment about the term euthanasia. The term means 'good death' but doesn't mean it's good because the animal's life was so terrible that death is preferred, but that the method of killing it is considered humane (it may be drugged and put to sleep rather than shot). I think 'killing' has very strong connotations of cruelty so is not neutral POV, but with this issue, there doesn't seem to BE a NPOV.--Paddling bear (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

removed cite tag

An image with the following caption feral cat hunting for blackbirds along a freshwater river in Virginia Beach. was tagged with a citation required tag. Given that the entire caption was a description of what the animal was (a feral cat) and what it was doing (hunting blackbirds), information that can only be provided by the photographer, it is very unclear what kind of citation is required or indeed can even be provided. Unless there is a complelling reason to think that the editor in question is lying (and I can't see any) there is no reason for the tag. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sabine. The picture is of a cat looking at the camera. There's nothing to show it doing anything. Is it domestic or wild? (The Common Blackbird is not endangered.) --WikiCats 12:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said there is no citation that could be provided. All we have is the photographer's assertion of what it was doing (and what it is). The caption makes no claim as to the status of blackbirds (given that it was taken in America it'd be the Red-winged Blackbird most likely, also not rare) nor claims that the cat is responsible for the status of the blackbird. It simply states that this cat is hunting blackbirds and is feral. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

citation required

This paragraph also has a tag Unfortunately recent studies published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association indicate that trap-neuter-release programs are not effective in reducing feral cat populations. These programs cannot be effective unless they manage cats on a population--rather than colony--basis, neuter at least 75% of the cats in the population, and carrying capacity is reduced, usually by reducing the amount of food provided to the cats by humans. Because cats are naturally so fecund, a small number of individual cats that remain unsterilized can cause a TNR colony to grow exponentially.[citation needed] The paper I think it comes from is - Paul L. Barrows (2004) "Professional, ethical, and legal dilemmas of trap-neuter-release" Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association November 1, 2004, Vol. 225, No. 9, Pages 1365-1369 - but I can't check as I don't have a vet school library log in. Can someone who does (or with access to a library) please check and if it is cite teh article? Thanks muchly! Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The feral cat has been an ecological disaster in Australia

The feral cat has been an ecological disaster in Australia sounds quite astute but there not one published paper to back it up. --WikiCats 12:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed, better? I was wondering if you could provide a cite for Environment Australia reports that “convincing evidence that cats exert a significant effect on native wildlife throughout the [Australian] mainland is lacking.”. Also I have a problem with Evidence for early predation by cats having caused major and widespread declines in native fauna is unsubstantiated and not credible. - unsubstanciated maybe but uncredible is POV. There is scientific debate about the role of cats (which is why I cited Abbott 2002 who certainly agrees with you) but to completely dimiss one point of view is disingineous. Sabine's Sunbird talk 16:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

"Evidence... is not credible" I thought you would have a problem with that. It comes from your own reference. --WikiCats 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And there are others that say otherwise. To include this statement from one author with one opinion and dismiss any other opinion and statements is POV. The statement would be better if written Evidence for early predation by cats having caused major and widespread declines in native fauna is circumstancial and its credebilty debated. Wikicats, this is not a debating forum and this is not a competition. This is an article and neutrality is to be respected, regardless of our own personal views. Views are divided on this issue and the article should reflect this, and not come down on one side or another. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the same request to anyone who makes these anti-cat allegations: "Provide the proof." I am yet to get even one published paper that establishes that cats are a threat to the environment.

Yet I can quote every environmental department in Australia, including the CSIRO, who say that no proof has ever been forthcoming.

I make no claims as to what cats do or what cats don't do. I have simply searched for the truth. I was shocked to find so many eminent persons who said that the allegations were not proven. --WikiCats 06:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Risbey, Danielle A. ; Calver, Michael C. ; Short, Jeff ; Bradley J. Stuart and Ian W. Wright (2005) The impact of cats and foxes on the small vertebrate fauna of Heirisson Prong, Western Australia. II. A field experiment " Wildlife Research 27(3): 223-235 Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

What was the level of viable habitat in that area? --WikiCats 07:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Actually, I don't even know what you mean by viable habitat. What has that got to do with the price of eggs, anyway? Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of reasonable habitat such claims becomes less reliable. Also the study said that the cat zone was not fox free only that fox numbers were reduced. I've got that study somewhere, I'll have to dig it out.

That study also brings up an an important point. It says that cats can have a large impact on mice. We know that since the introduction of large scale cat control in Australia we have had an explosion of mouse plagues in the wheat fields that they can't bring under control. When I pointed this out to the CEO of Environment Australia he put a disclaimer on their website. In essence it said that the Federal Government was not responsible for actions of the Federal Government.[1] --WikiCats 08:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The point about knock on effects is dealt with in Robley also, although in the context of fox and cat control. Eliminating an important predator, native or not, will inevidably have knock on effects, hense in a way why people do it, and the effects can be varied, often unexpected and run the gamut from beneficial to detrimental. I say find a paper or reference linking the two (prefereably peer reviewed) and put it in the article. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to cite referances to CSRIO studies or University Research here are some starters:

• [http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/cat/index.html]
• [http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/tap/cats/index.html]
• [http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Feral+cats]
• [http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/SJON-52H4ZQ?open]
• [http://www.feral.org.au/content/species/cat.cfm]
• [http://wwwcomm.murdoch.edu.au/synergy/0302/cats.html]
• [http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/enviro/EnviroRepublish_1429383.htm]
• [http://www.csiro.au/files/mediarelease/mr1998/WhenfoxIsAwayferalCatsPlay.htm]
• [http://www.wildliferesearchmanagement.com.au/Fact%20sheet_feral%20cats.pdf]
• [http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IKMP/PW/VP/VERTEBRATE_PESTS_IN_WA_CAWS.HTM]
• [http://www.naturebase.net/content/view/463/834/]
• [http://www.nt.gov.au/nreta/wildlife/animals/pests/majorpests.html]
• [http://www.petnet.com.au/uam/uamcat.html]

petedavo 15:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Do any of those arguing actually live in Australia? To my knowledge there's not much scientific studies done or papers released mainly because it's an accepted fact that cats hunt and in Australia a lot of what they're hunting is going to be endangered. If they're sucessful in their hunt, then there's a high chance they'll have impacted on the population of a rare and/or endangered species - for example the Australian antechinus (a mouse-like marsupial). Basically there are so many rare and endangered species in Australia it's going to be a hard task for the average feral cat, living far from people and cities (the majority of feral cats in Australia haven't been domesticated for generations), to snack on something that's not part of the disappearing natural ecosystem." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulbpowder (talk • contribs) 06:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Feral?

These cats that are called "feral cats" are (according to the Feral cat colony article) dependant on humans for there food. They either steal the food or have it given to them. These cats have never really left home. "Feral" means an animal that has left domestication and gone wild. The offspring of these animals will never have human contact. The worst you could say about these so called city "feral" cats is that they are stray cats. --WikiCats 05:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Are they any less feral than feral pigeons in the park fed by humans? Having human contact doesn't make an animal not a wild animal, surely? But drawing a distinction between the two might be a good idea. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sabine. Do you think that they are stray cats or not? --WikiCats 06:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

For general purposes, feral cat = stray cat, that's just semantics. Although the cats I feed on the street definately have human contact and somewhat depend on my kibble, they are surely feral, as they live on the streets, have no owner, have no vaccinations, do not like being touched, or anything that is definitive and normal of a pet house cat.Sabar 11:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Stray Cats, and such cats in populated areas should in another article. They can not be considered as Feral as they are not in the wild.petedavo 06:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

If your looking at a cat for the first time with no knowledge of it's history, you won't always be able to tell whether the cat is stray (it goes home every once in a while or is feral (it's wild but willing to eat free food if someone leaves it out). Since people who try to manage cats or wildlife have trouble, they often use "feral/free ranging" when they talk about cats in general. Free ranging would include those cats that went stray (they ran away) from those that are just out for the night (and go home each morning). Unlike most dogs, many many people just open the door and let their cats out at night.--Paddling bear (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Major Places with Feral Cats

This should be "Major Places with Feral Cats, known by the author.

I 'm Greek. There are at least a million of what you call "feral" cats in Athens, most probably two. So is that "minor" or is it just that you had no idea? I guess the latter.

That section has information about what goes on in Australia and the USA, parts of the English-speaking western world, which I imagine must have been more accessible to you. But to completely disregard the rest of the world discredits your article (and the miniscule and misinformed reference to Rome is risible as an attempt to hide the fact that you don't know about the rest of the world, btw).

My suggestion is that you remove the section altogether, or just rename it into something more accurate. Perhaps, break it down into two distinct sections, "Feral Cats in the USA" and "Feral Cats in Australia". Stassa 21:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Be Bold. --WikiCats 07:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the "expand please" tag added is fine. Stassa 13:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider that stray cats going wild is the same as feral cats that live in the wild. Stray cats in urban areas do not belong in this article. I define feral as living off it's own hunting totally dependent for it's own shelter, and not in anyway living off rubbish or handouts nor habitat[User:Petedavo|petedavo]] 06:57, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound rude but Your definition of feral doesn't matter. It is the dictionary definition we are to follow. The dictionary states feral as:

1. existing in a natural state, as animals or plants; not domesticated or cultivated; wild.

2. having reverted to the wild state, as from domestication: a pack of feral dogs roaming the woods.

3. of or characteristic of wild animals; ferocious; brutal.

Stray cats also could be listed as feral, particularly under the second or third definition.

156.34.181.176 (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The following definitions are widely used by organizations such as the Humane Society:

- Feral cats are cats born and/or living in the wild, with no human contact. - Alley cats are cats born and/or living in the streets without owner. They don't classify as feral as they don't live in the wild. - Stray cats are cats that were raised by humans, but later were abandoned or got lost. After a while, they get used to it an become either feral (if they live in the wild) or alley cats (if they live in a urban environment.) The difference with born feral or alley cats is that stray cats may become pets again, as they are already used to live with humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your pictures of Cats

I also changed the caption of ericcatlake.jpg. If the name is any indication, that's probably eric's cat near the lake, or eric the cat near the lake. In short, cut the crap, that's just a picture of your cat.

And I don't see how the picture of the cat with kittens in the beginning of the article is what the caption says it is. It's not even clear that the big cat is not the mother of the others (please respect my inteligence and don't try to point out that they 're different colours).

I 'm very happy you have cats, but this is supposed to be an informative article about feral cats. There are several forums on the net where you can post pictures of your cats. Do that there, not here. 86.144.205.210 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree about eric the cat. There is no way you can tell if this cat is wild, tame, feral or whatever. Under those circumstances I doubt if the picture should be in this article. --WikiCats 13:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, is there a way to tell if a cat is wild, feral, or tame by looking at it? I would suspect not. Applejuicefool 14:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Feral cat outside my home.

No good way of checking, but I'd say this one I photographed is a good case. Battle scars and bitten ears are the stereotypical sign, plus unkempt fur. Of course it could just be an abusive owner photographing their pet cat. This cat here is pretty much 100% feral. It has no owner, it is friendly towards other street cats (while domesticated indoor cats are much more hostile as a generality), it fights, it is young (feral cats rarely get old), he is shy, he sleeps on the street (literally), he isn't vaccinated, ect. Now, this isn't definiative and that's the problem. You have to weigh the circumstances and make a judgement call. Outside of witnessing the animal being born on the wild, there is no way to tell. Sabar 10:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

A tipped ear is a pretty universal sign of a feral cat. I was disappointed to see the photos of cats with tipped ears removed. One of them was taken by me -- and while I didn't witness the birth itself, I did witness the cat as a kitten living under my shed with its mother and littermates. I'm going to put it back -- though I admit it's not the greatest photo (I could never get close enough for a crisp, clear picture), and I wouldn't be offended if someone replaced it with a better one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.34.200 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I did not know that ALL feral cats were born with a tipped ear. Is that a genetic trait? I thought it was just a sign that it had been neutered/spayed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

More References

Most of the article is POV and location specific. The statements about the living conditions of feral cats and their survivability in the urban "wild" is relevant to dense urban areas in the English-speaking western world, but not to the rest of the world, as I pointed above, or even rural areas anywhere. The very term "feral cats" is Anglo-centric; in the rest of the world, they 're called "stray cats" (well, the equivalent in the languages of the rest of the world, of course). Hence all the calls for references.

If you don't add your references until next month, I 'll add the template about the article being location specific. 'Cause right now, it so is. 86.144.205.210 22:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --WikiCats 07:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the cat toward the bottom of the page is stray, not is there evidence that that cat is scratching the car. Original authorship of this page does not protect it from sharp-eyed editing; the page belongs to (and is authored by) all that wish to view it and participate. Please provide evidence for your caption. Otherwise, there is no value to any caption for any picture on all of wikipedia, and wikipedia cannot be considered even somewhat reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.233.207.120 (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Title

In most parts of the these cats are just called stray cats or alley cats. --WikiCats 12:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Hardly the first animal in the world to have multiple names. ;) Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone is confusing stray cats living in urban areas with the millions of feral cats that have never had any human interaction living in the wilds of Austraolia, jungles of Indonesia, and areas not habitated by humans. Stray cats do not belong in this article as they are not a wild animal unlike feral cats.petedavo 13:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kerguelen Islands

There are sheep in Kerguelen Islands. See: David Grangette, le berger des Kerguelen. --Ann O'nyme 03:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Macquarie Island - Cull gone wrong

Cull upsets island's ecological balance

Although there were initial improvements, the culling saw an unexpected explosion in rats and rabbits population. Rabbits destroy the vegetation, causing erosion and cliff collapse. The rats prey on young birds. The island is in a worst state than before. Can someone add this to the island restoration section? --Dodo bird 06:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

They should have removed all exotics at the same time, not just one.--Paddling bear (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Uses for feral cats

I read somewhere about the UN having to parachute in 15,000 live cats into the wilds of Borneo to fix an ecological problem. Apparently in some places where cats are native anyway, the use of introducing more cats can have a positive side. It'd be interesting for someone to dig up the source and plonk the story in here.petedavo 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC) PS: Jokes about crayfish bait, or chineese resturants are old hat. We hear them all the time in Australia. petedavo 04:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Cats are only native to the Middle East. They have been introduced by humans everywhere else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.167 (talk) 22:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Biased article

This is a very biased article, written from a starting point that cats don't have serious effects on native wildlife in places like Australia (wrong), that any form of culling is "bad" and cannot be contemplated (wrong AND naive), and some warped idea that now they're there we just have to accept cats killing and driving to extinction native wildlife (wrong AND foolish). Presumably this starting point is derived by an obsession with cats to the point of beyond reason.

This is not NPOV, it is anything but.

This article needs a re-write so that this chronic bias is removed.

It is totally unacceptable.

Codman 00:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Most study suggests they actually dont have much of an affect, Feral cats prefer to eat Rats and Rabbits (both introduced). The show on SBS (or perhaps ABC/ABC2) last week entitled 10 million cats outlined the same info as written in the article. Yes cats do feed on native wildlife... Have they driven species to extinction? Theres no evidence to suggest that. As the article states, foxes are the likely culprit. There is no neutrality problem here. -- Nbound 00:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Theres no evidence to suggest that. Yes, there is. I cited a paper that said so. There is also evidence to suggest that foxes also cause damage. The whole idea that it is as simple as foxes are bad, cats are okay or cats are responsible for everything is stupid beyond words. It is not an eithor or thing. Both are strong contenders for the cause of damage, with the case against foxes being stronger, but also bearing in mind that cats and foxes don't work in isolation but with factors like land use changes, desertification, overgrazing, climate change, other introduced plants and animals, introduced diseases and so on and so forth. And the extent to which each factor affects a particular threatened species or ecosystem varies on the nature of the ecosystem. Cats may be the major problem here, but over there foxes are worse and yonder the problem may be rats and dingos. Ecology, is complex and unravelling the different patterns and trends takes time, kids. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I picked up an interesting book at Perth Library called Feral Future by Tim Low ISBN 0670884650 last week, and I'm inclined to now put the feral cat further down the list of nasties in Australia. The cane toad, mice, rats, dingoes, camels, foxes, pigs, brumbys, deer, goats, buffaloe and such like seem to be having a greater impact. Interestingly it seems that australian wildlife has become feral overseas, with redback spiders in Japan, earthworms in Britain, possums, wallabies, and even barnacles (this list is not including non Mammals/marsupials such as the paperbark trees in florida).petedavo 23:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The list you give is full of different species that have widely different impacts. Cane toads are going to impact other amphibians and predators, goats, rabbits, camels and buffalo are going to impact vegetation, foxes and feral cats and dingos impact small mammals and birds. If you want to compare the cats to anything best stick to relatively similar types of predator; foxes, dogs, pigs and mongooses (though thank God they never made it to Australia). Arguably foxes are more damaging than cats. BTW - redbacks are marsupials? :P Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the AusStats invasive species graph cats threaten more native species in Australia than all other invasive species.Diplodwatcher (talk) 05:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Humans do the writing and the complaining, but it seems humans always forget: if Australia has one invasive species that has devastated the environment, it's HUMANS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.7.7.20 (talk) 09:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of opinion, anyone checking one of the key references quoted (Dickman) will find that it is misquoted, and is stated as saying the opposite of what it says (Ie it's misquoted as saying there is no discernable effect). This is shameful and misleading use of an article Clovis Sangrail (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Jellicle Cats and the trivia section

As I integrated the trivia section into the body of the article, I added a couple of sentences saying that T.S. Eliot's Jellicle Cats were based on a real colony of feral cats in London. I have added a {{Fact}} tag because I cannot find any references to this on the internet. I learned about these cats through a television news item I saw in England many years ago. Apparently the Jellicle cats were going to become extinct because of a neutering programme. I cannot remember where exactly the colony was based, but I believe it was somewhere reasonably close to the central London, perhaps it was in Camden or Marylebone. Maybe an editor in the UK can come up with something more specific.

I removed the reference to a series of fantasy novels with cat protagonists because I couldn't find anything to indicate that the novels have great cultural significance.

I have suggested that it is the cat's reputation for being independent of mind that makes feral cats interesting subjects for literature. This was to make the text flow as much as anything. Strictly speaking, this is original research, but I suspect that it won't be too widely disputed. Obviously someone who knows more about fictional cats will need to rework this. There's a list of fictional cats, but no cats in literature. That could be a very interesting article in itself (Puss in Boots...).Ireneshusband (talk) 10:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hard, but it works

I do actually have a colony of feral cats, and we have tamed them. They let us pet them, we feed them from the hand, and we can do just about anything with them. One of them was about 3 years old, and we tamed her. That goes to show that feral cats are tamable.

Does this mean they are no longer feral then? Have you placed them in homes, do they now live indoors instead of outdoors, are they no longer allowed to roam around freely? A cat colony that lives seperately from humans is still a feral cat colony.Bugguyak (talk) 12:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a feral kitten once at 1 week old back in 1985 in South Africa, but until its death, not very tamable. The feral cats here in U.S. are always somewhat tamer than anywhere else, and most likely only 1 generation away from domesticated. case varies differently and you can NOT conclude whether feral cats are tamable or not by only your very experience. Generally speaking, true ferals are extremely hard and near impossible to tame even at early age, especially being feral for generations, talking about my own experience back in 1980 in South Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Busrel (talk • contribs) 15:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Time and Effort

It did take a while, but we managed it, and everything is great. People say that these cats are unadoptable, but, I don't remember them mentioning they had a colony. My indoor cats even were born feral. They are just as cute and cuddly as pure-breds. It was well worth the time.

Cats born feral usually only bond with one person. The fact that a cat has bonded with you does not mean it has become "domestic." One could tame a tiger and make it sleep in one's own bed, but it would not make the tiger less wild.

Rather ironic...

-A quote from the article goes like this:

"However, recent studies published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association indicate that trap-neuter-release programs are not effective in reducing feral cat populations."

After searching online for an actual study showing this, I found the following:

http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.2003.222.42?cookieSet=1&journalCode=javma

which CLEARLY STATES "A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat populations in urban areas."

Perhaps that section should be fixed. :P

A later paper suggests otherwise. Results—In both counties, 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. The truth about science is that there is seldom a clear cut answer. What may work in one place does not hold for another. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Not enough distinct info in the colony article to warrant a separate article. 165.21.154.93 (talk) 04:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Activism

I have taken out "and while their lives are not luxurious" (lives of working cats). This is POV. I have also taken "out of compassion toward the animals" out of the following "Because of the perceived dangers to humans, other species, and the cats themselves, and out of compassion toward the animals, many people, including celebrities such as Bob Barker, campaign to encourage people to spay and neuter their pets and support the humane control of feral cats." Compassion for the animals is POV. Not only can one not assume why people campaign for S/N of cats, some would claim that S/N is cruel, and that little compassion is involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.180.119 (talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of feral is anything that is wild or that has escaped from domestication and become wild.[2] The definition in the article at present says "A feral cat is a free roaming, unowned and unsocialized domestic cat."

This is origional research. It seems when it comes to cats, people make up a definition for "feral cat" according to how it suites them at the time.

This article should reflect the commonly understood definition of what a feral cat is not origional research. --WikiCats (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a footnote attached to the first sentence that leads you to a reference that says,

"A feral cat is an unsocialized cat. Either he was born outside and never lived with a human family, or he is a house cat who has strayed from home and over time has thrown off the effects of domestication and reverted to a wild state."

The first sentence of the article says,

"A feral cat is a free roaming, unowned and unsocialized domestic cat."

These two seem to agree pretty closely; "unsocialized" here means "wild". You can of course improve the wording, as can anyone, by editing the article. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have pondered that definition of feral too. My references for the definition state that feral is any animal that has returned to an untamed state from domestication. The "unsocialized" statement in the article page is anthropomorphic, since it obviously refers to socialization with humans, but cats certainly have their own social structure, so that can't be right then can it? Bugguyak (talk) 00:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why the article doesn't define the word "feral" and explain how the term "feral cats" was chosen to describe this group of cats. I imagine a certain (perhaps large) percentage of the people who come to this article for information, are going to be uncertain (as I was) of what exactly the word "feral" refers to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.192.42.117 (talk) 20:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Simple cross-reference (Wikilink) to "feral" in the first sentence should go some way to help this. Some time ago, I placed accepted definitions of "feral" on the Feral page—GRM (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Australian Feral Cat Article?

This article is very confusing (at least from my perspective) as it is talking about two completely distinct issues; due , I think, to differing semantics. For management purposes [in Australia], cats are divided into three categories — domestic, stray and feral — although individual cats may move between categories. Domestic cats are owned and cared for, and stray cats are those found roaming cities, towns and some rural holdings. Feral cats, survive without any human contact or assistance, and are the main target of control programs within Australia. I think this article should be split into an article referencing the Australian feral cat problem (as definined within Australia), and this article remain to describe the "stray" cat issue as defined above 203.19.130.241 (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC).

Nonsensical line in article

The line "Feral cats continue to have a devastate island ecosystems." makes no sense.

I also agree and wonder why this article seems to be targeted towards Australia. Surely Feral cats exist everywhere and as such the document should be re-written neutrally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.218.216 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Why does it make no sense? Why does the existence of feral cats everywhere make the article un-neutral? Please be more clear. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

I put a tag on the article proposing a rewrite. I edited some sections the best I could with what I'm equipped to do (I came here on a mission from the Guild of Copy Editors). But I think the original editors of this piece should come in and clean it up. There are several issues that need working out. Namely:

• Weasel words There are a lot of sentences that start with words like "many" "Some" and "most." If you're going to say that many cities have programs that allow feral cats to be hunted, be prepared to name one with citations.
• Tone The sections of this article do not flow. It is obvious that different sections were written by different editors. Notice on Featured Article-class pieces that you can't tell that multiple writers have worked on the piece -- its tone is solid throughout.
• POV issues Earlier posts on the discussion page described the piece as being American-centric. Now it reads Australia-centric. Feral cats are universal. This article can be written universally. Perhaps a section on America and a section on Australia are warranted? Another POV issue: It's obvious that cat lovers and cat haters have both worked on this piece. Both, when citing sources have valid points to make in the article. That said, a reader shouldn't be able to tell that the person who wrote a particular section loves or hates cats.
• Citations, citations, citations There are a lot of "facts" on here that aren't backed up by citations to reputable sources.

Thoughts? Need further help? Let me know on my talk page. I'd be glad to help more with editing. AikiHawkeye (talk) 02:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Picture of Feral Cat in "Effects on wildlife" section

I took the picture of the cat with the mouse in his mouth. While he is certainly disagreeable and enjoys fighting, he is currently sleeping on my couch so I think that might qualify him to be domesticated (in the broadest sense). I recommend you use a more accurate photo and I'll update the tags associated with photo to avoid this confusion. lxowle (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so it's an indoor/outdoor cat. I'm going to remove it for now. The topics this article covers is not very clear although I think it should include feral, stray and outdoor cats. All three can affect wildlife and "feral cat colonies" refers more to strays than true ferals. --Dodo bird (talk) 08:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely up to you all - I just wanted to let you know the cat is not wild. When you settle on a definition of feral, then you can decide whether you want the picture or not. lxowle (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is pointless to post pictures of feral cats, as to the naked eye they look exactly the same as domestic ones (well, except the fact that domestic cats are usually over-weighted.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.87.1.172 (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

well, feral cats were ferocious, and you can get this wildness in their eyes, while house & stray cats were very tame and yes.. over weighted. So post a hissing feral cat is very appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.236.46 (talk) 06:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Citation found?

The line "Conservationists argue that feral cats contribute to the killing of songbirds and endangered birds, with estimates that bird loss is at 100 million a year because of predation was marked as needing a citiation. I belive that this article U.S. Faces Growing Feral Cat Problem may be the source of this number. and have cited accordingly Vantar (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Paradox

"Stray cat" redirects here, yet the article says right at the beginning that the subject of the article is not to be confused with stray cats.--87.164.116.212 (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have just arrived here to mention the same thing. How does one undo a redirect? Or can only administrators do that? Rothorpe (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you need an admin to get rid of a bad redirect. Instructions on how to do that can be found at Help:Redirect#Creating_and_editing_redirects.--Seduisant (talk) 03:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - Rothorpe (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Feral PIGS prey on cats?!

I'm hardly an expert, but I somehow fail to see HOW that could possibly work. Cats are extremely agile and have lightning reflexes, while boars are fast to charge, but slow to turn. Furthermore, a boar would charge something threatening and standing taller than it, not a small animal. Aadieu (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I was just here to ask the same question. How can a feral pig prey on a feral cat??? Komodoboy16 10:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So are cats susceptible to heat or not?

The main article on cats say this:

"For instance, cats are able to tolerate quite high temperatures: humans generally start to feel uncomfortable when their skin temperature passes about 44.5 °C (112 °F), but cats show no discomfort until their skin reaches around 52 °C (126 °F),[62] and can tolerate temperatures of up to 56 °C (133 °F) if they have access to water.[63]"

But this article on feral cats says this:

"Unlike common belief, all cats, whether feral, stray, or living indoors, are sensitive to conditions of cold and heat. [5] A cat’s normal body temperature is between 100.5 and 102.5 degrees Fahrenheit (38.2 and 39.2 Celsius). Cats do not sweat like humans do, so they may have difficulties in regulating their body temperature; cats typically regulate their body temperature through panting and licking their fur.[6]www.vetinfo.com Read more: Heat Stroke in Cats http://www.vetinfo.com/heat-stroke-in-cats.html Numerous cats living outdoors, whether feral or domesticated, die each year to heat stroke or hypothermia."

I think these two statements are rather contradictory. --Vin Kaleu (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Running by cats freaks?

This article is so biased and must be written by animal freaks, especially bunch of cats ladies, or even cats sissy men.

Any wild vicious animals can be tamed to some degree, but does it make an excuse for sparing feral cats' lives? not really, the only good feral cats were dead cats with .22 through their heads, it was how my grandparents doing it, and how my parents doing it, and I will do it without hesitation (so far I have shot 45 feral cats on my property)

Personally I don't have the time and resource to tame an extremely difficult wild animal as meanwhile, the feral cats were messing with my barn cats and harassing my hens. Shoot on sight, end of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.181.172 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

seprate topic for stray cat

I found this article is the most biased and erroneous topic on wiki.

As a cat rescuer myself, feral cats were never equivalent to stray cats, and they are truly wild beasts in the sense of temperament.

I felt that some of these sections belonging to a seperate topic----stray cat.

Feral cat should be dedicated to un-tamable, very wild cats that were living in the wild. Well, they might be pets generations ago, but reverted to true wild status.

However, sometimes the line was hard to be drawn, there were cats had a brief contact with humans but still retain lots of wildness, or some stray cats reverted into wild status for a quite long period of time without human care.. but heck, I would still recommend clear this section solely for true wild feral cats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.236.46 (talk) 06:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

TNR

I didn't edit the article because my POV isn't neutral (I think TNR projects are terrible for wildlife since they don't remove the cats that are eating so many birds and small mammals) but I think the statement below is less than neutral either. I'll have to look, but there are many studies that question TNR, not just one. I am writing to ask others that might be more neutral if they've read the citations 34-36 that this article uses. They are terrible! One says that TNR works to reduce the size of the cat colony but then states later that the building where most were living was demolished by the college and study volunteers adopted many kittens and cats. This is a bias! Were the cats just dispersed outside the study area after their home was demolished (seems likely)? Some reduction was because of adoptions, but once those research volunteers have all the cats they can hold, or the research is over and they leave, that influence is gone. I see no evidence that TNR had any effect. "While various long-term studies have shown TNR is effective in stopping the breeding of cats in the wild and reducing the population over time,[34][35][36] opponents of TNR frequently cite a study by Castillo (2003)[37] as evidence TNR does not work.[38]" Given that some cities have had TNR colonies for a decade or more, the onus showing it works seems to be on the TNR side.--Paddling bear (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Invalid article

This article a magnet for cat haters. There is no equivalent article for Feral Dogs which shows there is no will to run down dogs in the same way. WikiCats (talk) 12:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)