The Prime Directive

[Guest guest]

>It is high time you reprinit your editorial of April 2004. Number is

>not important, peoples' (including authorities) approach is what

>really matters in all types of man-animal conflicts.

>Love & regards, Debasis

 

 

The editorial is below--but one of the points it makes is

that understanding the numbers one has to work with is extremely

important.

 

If India has 70 million dogs, 49 million must be sterilized

and vaccinated to stabilize the population and eliminate rabies.

 

This can be done if the success Rahul Sehgal and Animal Help

Ahmedabad achieved in 2006 can be replicated just 100 times in other

cities.

 

What does that take? 100 comparably capable project leaders;

100 strong voices within city administrations who genuinely want to

stop rabies; 100 people capable of educating their local news media

about what is going on; perhaps 2,500 properly trained veterinary

surgeons and vet techs; 25,000 dog catchers with a sense of loyalty

and responsibility to the team effort; and about 2.5 million

volunteer neighborhood dog monitors.

 

This may sound like a lot, but compared to what would be

required to solve most of India's other social problems, it is

relative trivia.

 

Further, I believe much of the leadership capacity already

exists, & is already mobilized. There isn't any lack of motivation

or brains, just more need to share the know-how.

 

 

-----------

 

 

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 2004:

 

 

The Prime Directive for handling feral cats & street dogs

 

Puppy-and-kitten season has again arrived, and again we are

hearing familiar cries of dismay.

From communities lacking TNR (Trap/Neuter/Return) programs to

control the reproduction of street dogs and feral cats, we are

hearing of overcrowded shelters and exhausted, demoralized animal

control staff, to whom it is no comfort that shelter killing rates

have plummeted over the past several decades when they themselves,

right this minute, may feel obliged to kill an animal for whom there

is no adoptive home and no cage space.

From communities that do have TNR, we are hearing far too

often of increasingly militant organized resistance.

An election campaign underway in India, for instance, has

encouraged demagogues in Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad, Sringar, and

Cochin to blame street dogs for disease and filth, and to pledge

that if elected, they shall hire the unemployed to purge the dogs.

Many of the dogs who might be killed are sterilized and vaccinated,

and all of them are vital parts of the front line of Indian national

defense against the consequences of poor sanitation.

Similar political ploys recently victimized street dogs in

several parts of central and eastern Europe, including Athens, site

of the 2004 Olympic Games.

In Australia, New Zealand, Britain, and parts of the U.S.,

feral cats fed by TNR volunteers are meanwhile commonly but

erroneously blamed for the decline of rare bird species. The birds'

real enemies are habitat loss, lighted skyscrapers, microwave

towers, pesticides, and--especially in the U.S.--deer populations

that have been " managed " into excessive abundance for the benefit of

hunters. While the deer devour the forest understory that the birds

need to nest, cats take the rap--though like any predator, cats

hunt primarily the sick, the injured, the old, and the very young,

most of whom would have little chance of survival and only the

prospect of longer suffering without predator intervention.

The common denominator among opponents of TNR for either dogs

or cats, anywhere in the world, is that the TNR programs are

conspicuously returning the animals to public habitat, in conflict

with the interests of competing use groups.

Even where the defenders of street dogs and feral cats

prevail politically, the animals often lose, because only one

poisoner can kill hundreds of animals overnight.

" It grieves me beyond measure to think of the possibility of

a resumption of slaughter of street dogs, " Compassionate Crusaders

Trust founder Debasis Chakrabarti wrote from Kolkata (Calcutta) in

June 2003.

" We impress upon all our people that the calls of municipal

councillors, other government departments, hospitals and housing

complexes, and other public places must get priority, " Chakrabarti

continued. " This enables us to convince decision-makers that our

program works. Then we remove sick and injured dogs from the roads,

wherever our people see them. A concentrated effort makes the roads

free of badly diseased dogs. This silences many of our critics, "

since the remaining dogs do not look like a public health threat.

" We initially agree with dog haters when they call us to

remove dogs, " Chakrabarti added. " Our people are tutored to soothe

people who become indignant when dog lovers refuse to understand

their fear or dislike of dogs threatening their children or soiling

the common areas in a residential complex. After the irate person is

calm, and confident of our cooperation, our people gently begin to

ask with seeming casualness whether all the dogs in the locality

threaten them or just one? Most often, people grow adamant due to a

personal grudge against a neighbour who refuses to admit that their

grievance has some validity, " Chakrabarti observed. " With some

understanding and pampering, they begin to agree that they have no

wish to harm an animal, but it is just this one dog who is a

habitual nuisance. Then our people offer to sterilize and return the

rest, removing just this one villain, and they usually agree. "

The Chakrabarti approach is equally applicable to

sidestepping potential conflicts over cat TNR. Essential to doing

TNR successfully with either street dogs or feral cats is

understanding that even though the ecological precepts behind it

appear to work anywhere, responding appropriately to the cultural

environment wherever homeless dogs or cats exist is just as important

as understanding the population biology.

ANIMAL PEOPLE was instrumental in introducing

Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) to the United States, starting in 1991 with

a seven-month trial of the method in northern Fairfield County,

Connecticut. We had already been informally sterilizing and often

socializing barn cats and wandering cats of unknown origin for 15

years, along with hundreds of other rescuers around the country,

but only belatedly realized the importance of quantifying our

experience so as to be able to teach the technique and respond to

criticism of it, which in those days came primarily from within the

humane community.

The prevailing view, espoused most vociferously by PETA and

the Humane Society of the U.S., was that feral cats were miserable

waifs who could never be tamed and could best be helped by " putting

them out of their misery. "

Starting at the onset of the winter of 1991-1992, we captured 326

cats from eight separate colonies in a systematic effort assisted by

neighborhood volunteers. The most pathetic waif among these cats,

whom we named Rosalba, is still among us, a shy but seemingly happy

indoor pet. Forty-three cats, or 13%, arrived with health

problems, of whom 24 were successfully treated, including Rosalba,

while 19 either died or were euthanized.

Of the survivors, 237 (73%) already had regular feeders and

safe habitat. After sterilization and vaccination, those cats were

released where they were captured.

Seventy cats (22%) either had no reliable caretakers, were

young enough to be easily socialized, or came from habitat we deemed

unsafe. We were able to adopt out 47 of the 70 during the seven

months of the project.

We relocated the remaining 23, among whom nine were picked

off by wild predators soon after relocation. This, a severe shock

and disappointment at the time, turned out to be typical of feral

cat relocations when we compared results with others, and also

turned out to be typical of wildlife relocations, which are

considered successful if half of the animals survive for one year.

We kept our doors open to the survivors. Ten of them

eventually became quasi-house cats. Only Becky/Louise--named after

the founders of Alley Cat Allies--has rarely come inside for naps and

visits.

 

Getting to zero

 

From the beginning, our goal was to reduce the feral cat

population at our initial target sites to zero as rapidly as

possible. We estimated that this would take from three to five

years. Only one site, the location of the largest colony, still

had feral cats after three years. It was down to zero cats by late

1996.

There are two preconditions for zeroing out a cat or dog

population through TNR, and both were stringently observed:

1) At least 70% of the animals and preferably 100% must be

sterilized. Before the 70% figure is reached, there will be no net

reduction, because the reproductive capacity of the remainder will

still exceed replacement. ANIMAL PEOPLE made every effort to trap

and sterilize 100% of the cats at each site as rapidly as they could

be identified.

2) Sites must be monitored on an ongoing basis to ensure

that all newcomers are identified, caught, and sterilized.

We learned the hard way that highly visible habitat, where

feeding animals may encourage people to abandon their pets, should

be considered unsuitable. The largest colony site was as big as it

was due to frequent abandonment, and persisted as long as it did

because abandonments continued until the feeder learned to keep his

activity invisible.

We stipulated as fundamental humane considerations that all

kittens who could be socialized for adoption would be, a rule we

have also seen applied to puppies captured in successful TNR efforts

on behalf of street dogs. Kittens and puppies are easily adopted,

and are the most vulnerable animals if left at large.

We further required that no sick, elderly, or disabled

animals should ever be released, not that we found many, because

animals with infirmities are typically the first to be killed by

predators.

Finally, as the Prime Directive for practicing TNR

successfully without rousing politically problematic opposition, we

determined right from the beginning that no animal should ever be

returned or relocated into hostile or otherwise unsuitable habitat.

Hostile habitat is anywhere the animals will be at high risk

of being injured or killed, whether accidentally or deliberately,

whether by humans or other animals. Most especially, hostile

habitat is anywhere the community is intolerant of the presence of

homeless cats, or dogs, which puts the animals at high risk of

being poisoned, beaten, shot, or subject to capture and extermination

at the discretion of municipal agencies or other civil authorities.

Obviously we erred in our relocation of the nine cats who

were killed by wild predators, but we did not err in removing them

from their former habitats, characterized by heavy traffic and local

opposition to their presence. If we had not removed them, most

would have been killed sooner than they were.

Most situations in which vaccinated and sterilized animals

are rounded up for extermination by local officials appear to result

from disregard of the Prime Directive.

The outcome of trying to " save " animals by keeping them in

unsuitable locations is an enormous waste of time and money, and

often a net increase in the animal suffering.

ANIMAL PEOPLE found through our own experiment and two

national surveys of cat rescuers that 80% to 90% of all of the places

where feral cats take up residence should be considered unsuitable.

Fortunately, the suitable locations tend to have about half of the

cats.

Mention of the Prime Directive inevitably raises the question

of what to do with the animals from unsuitable habitat. The

conventional response is " euthanasia. "

ANIMAL PEOPLE does not consider population control killing or

culling to be " euthanasia. " The word " euthanasia, " literally

meaning " good death, " is most properly used to describe putting to

death hopelessly suffering creatures in order to relieve their

misery. Reflecting the contentiousness of the issue, there is

internal disagreement within ANIMAL PEOPLE over whether or not the

word " euthanasia " might accurately be applied to painlessly ending

the lives of healthy animals who are in clear and present danger of

experiencing a more miserable death. The humane community long ago

began misusing the term " euthanasia " as a synonym for all use of

lethal injections--and sometimes all killing done within animal

shelters, by any method--in order to feel better about killing

healthy animals from lack of alternatives. Some humane workers may

still believe there are no viable alternatives for many of the

animals who cannot be sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to

suitable habitat--but with the U.S. feral cat population down by as

much as 90% in a decade, and even the Indian street dog population

visibly reduced in many major cities, the old argument that there

will never be enough homes to adopt out all the animals in need is no

longer the verity that it once was.

High-volume adoption has not even begun yet in any nation

with abundant street dogs, but that is precisely the problem: when

dogs are visibly abundant, they have little perceived value. When

enough dogs are removed from problematic places, they are no longer

omnipresent pests, their better qualities can be more effectively

advertised, and rescuers can give former street dogs significant

added value by housebreaking them and teaching them to obey basic

commands.

Here in the U.S., pet dogs commonly wandered at large as

recently as 1970. Shelters rarely adopted out dogs other than the

cutest puppies--and often did not even try. Today few people allow

their pet dogs to wander, and shelters have captured 21% of the

total dog acquisition market, placing primarily full-grown adults.

The adoption potential for feral cats is even greater.

Survey after survey has affirmed over the past 25 years that half of

all household pet cats are acquired either from the cat just showing

up on the doorstep or from an animal shelter or rescue group. When

the U.S. had as many as 35 to 40 million feral cats, obviously there

were not enough homes to accommodate them all, but today the number

of homes becoming available each year is approximately equal to the

feral cat population.

In theory, at least, there are enough homes now. The

problem is matching the cats to the homes--and not all feral cats

want to be matched.

Our experience was that among the 70 feral cats whom we tried

to tame for adoption in 1991-1992, about one in five were hopeless

cases. This suggests that 80% of the present U.S. feral cat

population can find homes, if removing cats entirely from contested

sites is necessary to avoid jeopardizing the cats, and to avoid

conflicts that spill over to the thousands of other locations where

TNR can be practiced quietly, discreetly, and without opposition.

 

 

 

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

 

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

 

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]