We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett - Shelter Report 2010

A sand so white and sea so blue

Can’t match our tear stained eyes

How many moons and many June’s

Before we let them leave alive

The following spreadsheets are a compilation of six years of shelter statistics – including three years from the old shelter (2005-2007) and three years with our new shelter. The data represents only the live animals that entered the shelter. Since the shelter officially opened in the last quarter of 2007 some of the numbers for 2007 were skewed upwards



                            **********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
                             **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Felines Handled
Felines Strays            1707       1771        1981         2487         2836       1318
Felines Surrendered   2642       2257        2051         2343         2298       2486
Felines Total Incoming  4349    4028        4032         4830         5134       3804
Felines Killed                3084    3079        3169         4025         4588      3232
Felines Picked Up Owner  57      28            43             18           108              32

Total Canine/Feline In    9,868    9,107     9,174       10,437     11,063       8,845
Total Out Alive              4609      4136     4660          4049        4157        3567
Total Out Dead              5229      5399    5842          6991        7608        5707

After three years of a steady increase in “stray cats” the number of stray cats picked up in 2010 went from 2,836 in 2009 to 1,318 in 2010. While the number of cats surrendered at the shelter increased slightly from 2,298 in 2009 to 2,486 in 2010 the overall effect was a cat intake number of 5,134 in 2009 dropping to 3,804 in 2010 or a net decrease of 1,330.

That number mirrors the drop in cats killed from 4,588 in 2009 to 3,232 in 2010 or 1,356 that were saved by simply leaving them alone.

That in itself might be a feel good statement, but for taxpayers the “potential savings is in the range of between $120,000 and $150,000 (*** see note) in animal control costs.

Potential, because in order to capture those savings a management team familiar with the concept of changing with the communities needs is needed. Now, if that gets your attention read on, we CAN save more.

One might suggest not picking up strays cats placed the community or cats at risk thus justifying the huge yearly expenditures for the “catch and kill” enforcement model, yet, there isn’t any statistical data to support that.

***cost figures based on manpower, equipment needed for catch/impound, cost of intake handling, cost of care and manpower during housing, costs of killing and cost of disposing of waste.****

One would think that the “excess” cats would find their way to the highways as “road kill” yet, in 2010 the number of dead cats picked up off the road dropped as well from 263 in 2009 to 153 in 2010.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett applaud this policy change and encourage the county to adopt a “Trap/Neuter/Release” program in partnership with the “Feral Cat Rescue Community” completely outsourcing forever the issue of feral cats in our county.

The goal should be zero for the number of stray cats picked up by animal control in 2011. Attaining that goal alone would result in another 1,300 cats not entering the shelter allowing the shelter to focus on providing shelter and top notch adoption/rescue opportunity thus relieving the county of the cost and negative stigma of simply killing these cats as well.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett strongly encourages a task force committee study the alternate Trap/Neuter/Return programs. Madison County (GA) embraces a trap/neuter/release policy because it SAVES MONEY.

This “task force committee” approach is hallmark too success in business. There could not be a better time for this county to reach out to it’s citizens for help in attaining our shared goals. It certainly is a better approach then to continue squandering this trust instead.

Note: There wasn’t any increase in 2010 in the number of cats that were adopted or that went to rescue. That would have been another cost savings as well.

FACT - Despite killing 98 cats in December 2010 there were only SEVEN cats available for adoption when I visited the shelter on January 6th 2011.

I am also disappointed that ANY cats were killed in December of 2010 since little effort was made trying to promote adopting/rescuing these cats out AND there was plenty of empty cage space. It should be appalling to all citizens that our leadership in animal control places so little value with these cat’s lives.

No cat should be killed as long as there is ONE space available to keep it’s alive – that’s not providing shelter – that’s slaughtering an innocent cat.

Shelter numbers for dogs

                                                 Gwinnett Shelter Stats 2005 thru 2010
                           **********OLD SHELTER********* **NEW SHELTER***
                          **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Canines Handled
Canines Strays       3026         3068         3095         3539         3823          3455
Canines Surrendered  2493     2011         2047         2068         2106          1586
Canines Total Incoming  5519  5079        5142         5607         5929           5041
Canines Killed         2145         2320        2673         2966         3020          2475
Canines Picked Up Owner 891   860          865          924           885            936

The number of dogs picked up as strays picked up from 3,823 in 2009 to 3,455 or a drop of over 10%. Likewise, owner surrender’s dropped from 2,106 in 2009 to 1,586 in 2010 or close to 25%. The combined result was a drop in canine intake numbers from 5,929 in 2010 to 5,041 in 2010.

Dogs killed 2009     3,020
Dogs killed 2010     2,475

Dead dogs picked up from the road 2009     320
Dead dogs picked up from the road 2010     249

We like to think that these numbers are the result is from the responsible pet owners feeling less intimidated into surrendering their responsibility under the threatening guidelines of the old animal “nuisance” ordinance that the county had the courage to correct.

We recommend offering low cost retention services like microchipping where pet owners would be guaranteed at least one “free ride home” for any pets picked up that whose owner can easily be identified.


We encourage the county to investigate expanding cost saving programs offering low cost spay/neuter services, low cost vaccination programs and pet retention consulting under a revamped and retooled animal services unit.

Partnering with the Rescue Community – A Dismal Failure

                           *********OLD SHELTER***** **NEW SHELTER***
                         **2005** **2006** **2007** **2008** **2009** **2010**

Animals Adopted   2326       1756         1982         1906         2093          1583
Animals Rescued    1335       1492        1770          1201         1071          1016

Citizens Visiting Shelter (2009)     32,308
Citizens Visiting Shelter (2010)     27,791

The number of citizens visiting the shelter fell off in 2010 by 4,500 visits. The number of pets sent to rescue continues to drop – adding to the cost of running the shelter.

The number of pets adopted from our new shelter dropped as well. Adoptions fell by 25% from 2,093 in 2009 to 1,583 in 2010. This is disappointing as well.

Clearly, we have not fully utilized or promoted our new shelter for the reasons it was built. The shelter was NOT built as a more efficient detention, disposal operation – it was built to service the needs of pet owners in our community.

Innovative shelter managers realize that moving a pet to rescue or finding a family to adopt ends the county’s responsibility and expense in handling that pet. .

It simply COST money to kill a pet and COST NOTHING to save it..

We call on the county to replace the current “Rescue/Adoptions Coordinator” with a qualified civilian applicant with the experience and motivation needed to build this partnership.

We encourage the county to expand on promoting shelter pets through the many social networks that other progressive shelters are using. Posting pets on Facebook saves lives and provides the rescue community with accurate information on URGENT pets. It also results in more pets being adopted and more going to rescue. That saves money.

Shelters competing for market share with other kill shelters in the region – Gwinnett chooses to NOT compete. This policy cost the taxpayers money.

When you look at the number of dogs and cats that still are being killed, you realize that if only we were “doing our best” we would reach goals on adoption/rescue that were our best efforts in the past. Those best numbers combined with fall into the 4,000 to 4,500 dogs and cats saved.

Simply by doing our best we would save from 1,500 to 2,000 pets are currently being killed by NOT doing our best.

When you add that number to the number of 1,300 stray cats that shouldn’t be being picked up in the first place and we now reduce the killing by 3,000 or more in 2011.

That is our goal. That is our target for saving lives.

Enforcement issues and warning Signs for 2011

There are warning signs from 2010 shelter report that are concerning as well.

For one, the number of complaints responded too in 2009 totaled 25,049. In 2010 animal control responded too 25,259 complaints.

Citations issued dropped off as follows:

Restraint 10-29 (2009)    685 - note – there were no warnings issued at all
Restraint 10-29 (2010)    440

License No Tag 10-43 (2009)     345
License No Tag 10-43 (2010)     171

Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2009)     500
Public Nuisance Animal 10-33 (2010)     290

Fact is, even citations issued for “nuisance animals” dropped as well in 2010.

Those numbers are tempered with new categories created with the revised barking/tethering ordinance passed in 2009

Barking (which used to be part of the nuisance section) 10-51B (2010)    54
Duty to be a responsible owner (2010)    140

So, while those numbers remain constant – under the new law NONE of these pet owners add to the number of pets entering our shelters but instead are resolving there pet issues through mediation or fines – just as it should be.

Vicious Animal 10-37 (2009)   39
Vicious Animal 10-37 (2010)     5

Biting Animal 10-38 (2009)   44
Biting Animal 10-38 (2010)     5

Animal Control has a huge responsibility in keeping our community safe from vicious or dangerous dogs. Despite all the media hype about ‘pit bulls” in our county being a “clear and present danger” the numbers don’t bear that out either.

Even the number of bite cases dropped from 44 in 2009 to again FIVE in 2010.

Doesn’t sound like a problem HUGE enough to pass new laws that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to enforced, especially if we’re trying to move that number from FIVE to ZERO?

A Transformation in ideology takes root

Animal Control killed 3,455 dogs and 3,232 cats in 2010. Our goal for 2011 is too reduce that number by 3,000 moving us that much closer to becoming Georgia’s first No Kill Community.

Solving our longstanding and expensive animal control issues was the foundation for which “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” was built on. We acknowledge and support the work of Dr Tim Montgomery and Superior Court Judge Carla Brown for their role in writing this proposed resolution. We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett appreciate being given the opportunity to participate in that process.

This resolution has the overwhelming support of citizens in our community as well.

Collectively as a community, we have provided the bricks, tools and mortar necessary to build the bridge, but need the political leadership and courage to lead the way.

We respectfully request once again an UP or DOWN vote on this issue that has been held hostage for TOO LONG.

A unique opportunity for the county presents itself to selectively invest in programs that will continually lower our intake numbers moving us closer to ending all the needless killing of dogs and cats in our shelter.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett have provided and will continue to provide a blueprint for that success. All of our proposals will be short term budget neutral with long term cost savings of lowering intake built in.

We seek the leadership in our government, our shelter and our animal welfare community that SHARES that vision. Can we count on YOU?

We encourage our elected officials to give strong consideration to a long term strategy for it’s animal welfare issues. The focus remains to control costs and provide the citizens with the quality of animal services they and their family pets deserve.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett are committed to building a responsible community of pet owners by empowering our citizens to do the right thing for not only their pets but the neighborhood and community as well.

This is about working together as a community in solving our animal problems, that’s how a democracy works.

Follow:

No Kill Gwinnett on Twitter
http://twitter.com/#!/by20hounds
No Kill Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/No-Kill-Gwinnett/126165217428735?v=info
We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett on Facebook
http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/We-the-Pet-Owners-of-Gwinnett/146231598744336

Changing the way we think about animal control

Much has changed in the field of animal control in the past five years. We know how to end the killing of all healthy adoptable dogs and cats. We know how to implement cost effective, community supported feral cat programs, low cost spay/neuter services and proactive adoption programs. Many animal shelters across the country have no only embraced the No Kill philosophy, but more important the programs and services that make that possible.

One would think that with all this success is saving shelter pets innovative communities like Gwinnett would be leading the charge at our own shelter – but it is not.

After an exhaustive study on how our county provides it’s advise our animal related issues it became apparent that the system was broken.  Detailed documents on every Animal Advisory Council meeting in the years from 2006 through the summer of 2008 showed an alarming disconnection with issues that plagued our shelter.

It became apparent that we not only needed to reform how we ran our shelter but more importantly how we developed our animal welfare policies and restore confidence with pet owners in the community.

The “Animal Advisory Council Reform Resolution” tackles the difficult process of how we provide expert advise to our political process in developing a long term animal welfare program that not only meets the expectations of the community but more importantly looks at programs that will reduce the cost of animal control moving forward while putting an end to the killing on healthy dogs and cats that our shelter is supposed to protect.

The credit for this resolution goes to AAC members Carla Brown and Tim Montgomery who worked diligently in finding common ground. The resolution is up for consideration by our commissioners is collaboration with the current animal advisory council who passed this resolution without dissent.

As in any change – the “devil is in the details” – here is precisely what these changes are::

The membership changes from the current seven members to eleven. Only two positions were left intact under the new makeup of the board, they are the Lawrenceville Kennel Club and the Gwinnett Municpal Association retains.

The Gwinnett County Extension Service position was eliminated and replaced with a representative from the “Livestock Animals”

Gwinnett Humane Society’s position has been eliminated and replaced with a representative for the “Gwinnett Rescue community”.

The Feline Interest position remains but will be filled by a representative from the Feline Rescue community specifically with experience in developing a feral cat program.

The two “Member at Large” positions have been eliminated and replaced with one member being appointed by each commissioner’s district and a representative appointed by the county Chair. This will form the direct communication link between the advisory council and the board of commissioners that has been lacking.

The advisory council will no longer report findings and recommendations to animal control and the Gwinnett Police Department but instead forward these recommendations directly to the Board of Commissioners. The GAAC will forward only those recommendations that have been approved by majority vote.

It will remain the responsibility of the Board of Commissioners to make final decisions on all recommendations submitted.

There are also procedural issues that were addressed.

Officers elected to the same office will have a two-year term limit.

Two Year Term Limit on chair position.

Members can set up subcommittees that investigate specific issues/problems without approval from animal control or the GPD.  This will set in motion creating subcommittees to investigate solutions for problems like feral cats, building a no kill community and developing an animal services unit that serves and educates the community on responsible pet ownership.  This coalition building will bring together many of the experts in animal welfare who have been disenfranchised from the process.

This is not cosmetic change - this is changing our animal welfare culture.  This is about opening up the door for others to join in on the discussion and participate in the process.

The most significant change comes with HOW this group will study issues.

Section 12 – Committees – The chairman may appoint, with concurrence of the GAAC, various standing and temporary committees to further proposals of the GAAC. Such committees may include members of the staff of various county departments, residents and business owners of the county whose background and knowledge may be a benefit of the GAAC in accomplishing it’s goals.

The purpose of the committees shall be to make detailed investigations, stidies and recommendations to the GAAC as instructed pertaining to matters or classes of matters within it’s purview.

The Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be an ex-officio member of all committees.

This step alone opens up the process of developing breakthrough thinking leading the way towards solving long-term problems with animal issues in our community.

We now stand on the mountain of change.  While our efforts have brought us to this pinacle - it will be YOUR efforts that decide our county's destiny.   The question is "do we want to slip backwards and return to the valley of failure and doom" or do we want to march boldly on to the promised land that embraces life saving thinking instead.  I think we know that answer.


Please write your commissioner and ask for their support in passing this resolution.

A Gift of Death to an Extreme Animal Rights Movement

I wrote "A gift of death to an extreme animal rights movement" in December of 2008 on my "Trailed by 20 Hounds" blog.  In this article the foundation of pet ownership philosophy was examined.  More so, the foundation of deceit coming out of the leaders in the animal rights movement was also put under the spotlight.

From the article "This philosophy of defending policies of humane euthanasia while professing to protect animal rights is a contradiction that can not be explained. One would assume that at the point an animal is killed any right or lack of it the animal might be entitled to becomes a mute point."

Shelter reform advocates have stopped questioning how shelters choose to kill dogs and cats entrusted to their care with instead asking on what moral authority do we kill at all?  In the absence of implementing life saving programs this one single question remains unanswered today.  There is no moral support for killing any dog or cat that isn't suffering with a terminal illness.

Owning and enjoying pets is always about choice and responsibility. The nucleus for moderate animal advocacy must include opposition to pet limit laws, BSL, mandatory spay/neuter and nuisance animal laws that include provisions that allow for impounding and killing as a sentencing guideline.

To read more:
http://by20ounds.blogspot.com/2008/12/gift-of-death-to-extreme-animal-rights.html

Trap Neuter Release - Compassionate - NO KILL Solution for Feral Cats

Fight to Survive

With the killing of cats in Gwinnett at an all time high – it should be obvious that current programs and policies of “catch and kill” are not working.

The 2010 third quarter numbers for our shelter show 908 cats “dropped off” at the shelter with road patrols bringing in an additional 174 “strays” or a total of 1,082 intakes.

None of the cats picked up were returned in the field and only two reclaimed by their owners during a three-month period. Of the 1,082 cats needing life saving efforts at our “shelter” 915 or 85% were killed. The cost to catch and kill 915 cats in a three-month period is between $50,000 to $80,000.

“Trap-neuter release, commonly referred to as TNR, is the only method proven to be both humane and effective at controlling feral cat population growth.

With a “Trap/Neuter/Release program the cost to spay/neuter these same 915 now dead cats would have been less then $20,000 including vaccination costs.

TNR traps all the feral cats in a colony – they are altered and then returned to their territory, where caretakers provide them with regular food and shelter. This non-lethal sterilization method reduces the number of feral cats in an environment both immediately and over the long run.

TNR was introduced in the US during the 1980’s. The practice of TNR grew rapidly in the 90’s when Alley Cat Allies began providing information and assistance to people caring for feral cats that recognized that their numbers must be controlled and reduced sterilization.

In communities where TNR is widely embraced, feral cat numbers have dropped. TNR works because it breaks the cycle of reproduction. Since TNR programs are operated largely or entirely through the efforts of dedicated and committed volunteers the cost savings to taxpayers is an added benefit.

The Huge Cost Savings through TNR

Aside from the minor ethical issue of killing healthy yet wild cats there is a much larger issue that even taxpayers can support. That’s the potential advantage on a large scale is cost savings with our animal control budget both short term and in the years to come.

For one – a Trap Neuter Release Program doesn’t involve funding new animal control trucks at a cost of over $207,000 to be used to round up cats for slaughter. Instead, freed of the responsibility of chasing down loose cats, these same “road” officers could instead focus on enforcing county leash, tethering, neglect and cruelty laws and working with the public on life saving programs at the shelter instead.

Traditionally, the cost involved with feral cats includes the time it takes for an officer to trap the cat, the expense of feeding and sheltering during the usual mandatory waiting period before the animal can be killed and the cost of killing and disposing of the body.

In contrast, the only cost involved with TNR is the neutering and vaccination of each cat. The rest of the work – trapping, feeding, and so on – is done by volunteers.

In a study in Orange County, Florida, over the course of two and a half years of a new TNR program, cost savings were found to be 47 percent of an alternative “catch and kill” program.

TNR has the advantage of being humane because it respects the cats' right to live and provides them with as high a quality of life as possible under the circumstances.

It is also effective at lowering population levels, both within individual colonies and across entire communities. “Catch and Kill” is not only more costly; but it doesn’t work. TNR is clearly the future when it comes to care and control of feral cats.

Is there any wonder our new shelter has experienced an increase of over FIFTY PERCENT in the number of cats being killed in the last three years alone?

There are volunteers and rescue groups who care about cats – enabling these citizens to do the right thing for feral cats is critical in reducing not only the growth in killing but in animal control costs as well.

Yet, shelter management under the watchful eye of the Gwinnett Police Department continues to cling to this model that fails EVERY YEAR.

National Animal Control Association Supports Trap Neuter Release

In practice, many municipalities which have tried TNR have found it effective in reducing cat populations within their borders. For this reason, the National Animal Control Association recently changed its position on feral cat control to support TNR.

In an interview explaining the change, the president of the National Animal Control Association explained that municipalities have found management more successful in controlling cat populations than attempts at eradication, that it is much cheaper and elicits the assistance of the private sector, that no agency in the country can afford to just keep practicing trap and euthanize, and that the old method of trapping and euthanizing is like trying to "bail the ocean with a thimble" due to limitated animal control resources.

The High Cost of Trap, Hold and Kill

In general the cost of sterilization and returning a feral cat is less than half the cost of trapping, holding, killing and disposing of a feral cat. TNR protects public health and advances the goal of reducing the numbers of feral cats in the environment. The public will support humane, non-lethal TNR as the long-term solution to feral cat population.

The traditional approach has been "trap-and-kill," whereby feral cats are trapped, usually by animal control or your neighbor, and then invariably killed. The reasons why it almost always fails in the long term are clear enough.

First, it's not easy to catch all the cats in a feral colony. If there are a large number of cats, it can take several days and a lot of persistence. Animal control and/or your neighbor rarely have the time or resources to make this kind of sustained effort.

Instead, what normally happens is that animal control officers set some traps, catch some of the cats, and make a temporary reduction in the colony's numbers.

All’s well until nature kicks in – or new cats show up. The feral colony grows in size up to the number of cats their food source can support. Once the colony is reduced, the remaining cats over breed until the ceiling imposed by the food source is reached again, and the temporary drop in population is quickly erased.

Even assuming all the cats in a colony are caught and removed, that still won't lower the population in the long run. This is due to the "vacuum effect," first observed by Roger Tabor in his studies of London street cats (The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat).

In the real world one feral colony are surrounded by other feral cat groups in adjoining areas. If a colony is removed but its food source remains, cats in neighboring territories will move in and start the cycle of reproduction again.

This last point also indicates another reason why it is almost impossible to eradicate feral cats from an area: their caretakers. Feral cat caretakers are a devoted breed who will often do whatever is in their power to feed and protect their feline wards, including violating feeding bans.

The trap-and-kill approach turns these caretakers into enemies. While “Trap Hold and Kill” sheltering models are costly to implement TNR, on the other hand, mobilizes an enormous volunteer force for population control.

An effective TNR program also reduces cost and killing by not bringing feral cats into the shelter in the first place. Plenty of domestic cats are now dying in our new shelter for “lack of space”. Why bring in feral cats off the streets when they can be maintained where they are, in a manner more befitting their unique natures?

At the other end of failed alternatives to TNR is the “rescue” model. Feral cats are NOT adoptable as pets. Many well-meaning people, convinced they are "saving" a feral cat by bringing him indoors, end up condemning the poor creature to a life of hiding under the bed and being in constant fear. Better a fuller, even if riskier, life in freedom.

Breaking the Cycle of Failure

Every female feral cat trapped and altered represents fewer kittens during and after “kitten season”. Should the county invest from $20 to $50 on a spay surgery as a preventative measure or should taxpayers be burdened with the cost of handling an entire litter soon thereafter?

Should the county support a TNR program that can be funded by local citizens, volunteers and non-profits when the only trade off is putting an end to a killing mentality or should we taxpayers continue to finance the slaughter of thousands of cats each year instead? Who benefits from this “pest” eradication service?

The cost of trapping – holding – killing and disposing on an entire litter is several times higher then the initial investment in spay/neuter.

It has estimated that the cost to handle a stray cat for the five required days in the shelter, plus the cost of killing and disposal, is about $70 per cat. There are still only three alternatives to handling the population of stray cats: 1) alter/release/management; 2) exterminate/kill; 3) ignore.

Comparing cost options:

Test/Vaccinate/Alter = less then $50 in a low-cost program  vs.

Stay at shelter = $70 - $100

Funding for a program of this type can take many forms:

1. Looking at the figures from 2009 alone, one can readily see that for a cost of 4800 cats (killed) X $70 per cat (to trap-hold-kill)) cost the taxpayers close to $340,000. The costs of altering (even if this cost was absorbed by the county) would be less then half. Successfully implementing a TNR program would not only provide immediate cost savings but would also reduce the number of cats handled in the future further reducing the cost of “controlling cat populations”.

2. The program pays for itself with reduced animal control costs. Reduced shelter costs frees up resources and manpower for staffing life saving adoption and retention programs instead.

3. Further cost saving can be realized by developing partnership with local veterinary services and by soliciting donations through local non profit rescues and grant programs. The decreased shelter costs would more than fund any future and ongoing trap/alter/release efforts.

If Gwinnett County’s animal welfare policy included a partnership with the rescue community by providing services instead of simply killing off as many cats as they can pick up our citizens would do the rest.

Removing the obstacles that enable volunteers to provide medical treatment, food and support services for feral cats will provide the best possible outcome for all involved. Instead of enabling solutions, current policy only provides the obstacles to that success. Should we be surprised with nothing but failed results?

Naysayers who scream for “eradication”

There may be those who prefer to continue the eradication method. The concerns put forth are usually centered around noise (cats fighting over territory or mating), smell (of spray), vector infestation, disease transmission or possible injury. The assumption of a quick and clean solution makes this avenue of population control especially attractive. Yet eradication programs are ineffective.

While attractive from a theoretical and short-term perspective, eradication has proven to be an elusive goal. Some will continue to advocate the trap and kill eradication approach. However, if eradication programs really worked, we wouldn't be faced with so many stray cats and their offspring ending up being killed at our shelter during “kitten season”.

Cats are territorial. They don't allow other cats into their territory to steal their food. Altered cats will stand their ground and guard their food source, will not have kittens, and will die in a few years. Remove the cat(s) from the habitat without changing the habitat and another cat will move in.

Gainesville Florida Study evaluates effects of feral cat sterilization program

Various long term studies have shown that TNR is effective in stopping the breeding of cats in the wild and reducing the population over time. In addition to these studies, a 2004 controlled study by veterinarians in Connecticut found that TNR consistently reduced the populations of feral cat colonies, by a mean of 36% over two years and with the extinction of one third of the colonies within the same period, while the non-TNR'd colonies increased by a mean of 47%.

Many TNR programs that have resulted in decreased populations have also included intensive efforts to adopt a large proportion of the population, which is generally part of TNR.

Although a recent study on a Florida spay/neuter program for feral cats wasn’t able to identify the program’s precise effects, the results published in the Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science (Vol. 5, No. 4, 2002) suggest that a feral cat trap-neuter-return program can be an important facet of a community strategy to fight pet overpopulation.

Written by Kathy L. Hughes and Margaret R. Slater of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A & M University and Linda Haller of the Hawaiian Humane Society, the study focuses on the feral cat sterilization program that Haller oversaw when she managed Orange County Animal Services in Orlando.

Begun in 1995, the trap-and-return program was a cooperative effort between the county and a local volunteer group. Though the county had tried in the past to address feral cat issues, those efforts had focused mainly on trapping and euthanasia—and had failed to reduce the numbers.

Under the new program, the volunteer group trapped the cats and brought them to the county to be spayed or neutered, eartipped, and vaccinated against rhinotracheitis, calicivirus, panleukopenia, and rabies. (Some were later re-trapped for a subsequent vaccination.) The surgery was free, and caretakers paid $5 for each rabies vaccination.

“High-risk males” or cats that appeared ill were tested for feline leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus infections, and, if positive, were euthanized. Kittens were not returned to the colonies but were socialized and, if possible, put up for adoption. Those who appeared to be at least seven weeks old were neutered or spayed.

From fiscal years 1990 to 2001, the period during which data was collected, the county sterilized 37,182 cats, including 7,903 ferals. Analysis of the program’s results was complicated by concurrent changes to regulations and other animal control programs (the study did not identify these), but statistics were still significant.

The number of cat impoundments remained stable during the study period, despite an increase of 32 percent in the human population. Although intake rates did not decrease as expected, the authors note, “This may reflect in part a change in the county code of September 1995, in which a renewed emphasis was placed on enforcement.”

The adoption rate during that period reached 12 percent, twice as high as it had been during the six years before the trapping program began. Euthanasia of impounded cats decreased by 18 percent from fiscal year 1996 to fiscal year 2001. (Feral cats who had already been spayed or neutered did not factor into impoundment statistics.)

The frequency of cat-related complaints also fell—by 25 percent between the mid-90s and 2001. The county’s policy of requiring relocation of colonies deemed a “nuisance” may have contributed to this decline (though the need for relocation was rare); public awareness also may have increased during the years because of educational outreach on the part of volunteers and rescue groups.

Reducing the financial cost of addressing feral cat issues was a goal of the program from the beginning, with county officials surmising that a neuter-release program would be less expensive and less labor-intensive than impoundment.

They appeared to be right: Spaying and neutering the feral cats totaled $442,568, according to the study, substantially less than the estimated $1.1 million it would have cost to impound and euthanize the cats.

Other positive trends were recorded during the study period. The authors observed that the relationship between animal services staff and citizens concerned about feral cats improved, and that “citizens who previously felt overwhelmed by the dilemma of feral cats they saw in their neighborhood now feel empowered and able to make a difference in these cats’ lives.”

While the authors acknowledge that “separating out the effects of a single program may be impossible,” they stress that no negative consequences were recorded for the sterilization program. They also laud the creation of the program itself.

“The establishment of the feral cat program was done without a change in the county code,” they wrote, “through the persistence and teamwork of concerned citizens and county officials.”

It's important to recognize that if a cat is truly feral, then the most compassionate choice may be to allow him to live outdoors. Trying to domesticate such a feral cat is little different from trying to make a squirrel or a raccoon a household companion - you might succeed somewhat, but never fully and only with a great deal of time and patience. Moreover, you would not be permitting the animal to live in the manner that suits him best.

Innovative Solutions versus the Rhetoric of a Failed Killing Philosophy

The number of feral cats in the U.S. is estimated to be in the tens of millions. Sadly, many communities still opt to control populations via outdated methods, including lethal elimination or relocation. Not only are some of these methods horribly cruel, they are also highly ineffective. It’s time to include the issues of feral cats in the fight to end animal cruelty.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett support the immediate implementation of a Trap Neuter Release Program that will put an end to the slaughter of hundreds of cats each month.

We support an immediate issuance of free spay/neuter vouchers for all residents to take in stray and “loosely owned” community cats for free altering.

Implementing this one program alone will dramatically reduce the number of pets being killed at our shelter and lead to the cost savings necessary to further implement other life saving programs as well.

To accomplish the cultural change needed to transition from an animal “control” mindset to a responsive animal “services” unit it is imperative that our elected commissioners and the law department show the political courage to move swiftly in approving the “Animal Advisory Reform Resolution” that has broad community support and was approved without dissent by our current animal advisory council.

We the Pet Owners of Gwinnett encourage the Board of Commissioners to appoint a new voice to fill the “Feline Interest” position on the newly revised advisory council with a voice experienced in establishing a successful TNR program in our community. This voice would be responsible for building the critical partnership bridge with the Feline Rescue community to assure success.

The following information provides background on TNR, online and print resources, and what you can do to get involved.

TNR is the only proven solution to solve this problem. Caring for the existing colony:

· Ends the breeding cycle

· Alleviates suffering due to: fights, starvation, being hit by cars, illness...

· Helps prevent the spread of disease; the two of concern to humans being fleas and ringworm

· Results in less noise and troublesome behavior

· Cuts down on wildlife predation

To learn more
Alley Cat Allies
http://www.alleycat.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=505

http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/feral_cats/tips/feral_cat_organizations.html

http://www.spayusa.org/

http://strayaid.org/

Feral Cat Coalition
http://www.feralcat.com/lffc.html