zoonotic diseases

Study: Nearly half of U.S. counties now home to ticks that transmit Lyme disease

kkrisberg — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 17:04:56 +0000

Study: Nearly half of U.S. counties now home to ticks that transmit Lyme disease

It’s been nearly two decades since the last publication of a nationwide survey on the distribution of blacklegged ticks — the primary transmitters of Lyme disease. That survey, released in 1998, reported the tick in 30 percent of U.S. counties. Today, a new study using similar surveillance methods has found the tick in more than 45 percent of counties.

“These kinds of changes tend to be gradual,” study co-author Rebecca Eisen, a research biologist in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, told me. “But when you see the cumulative change over 20 years, it is surprising.”

The study, published earlier this week in the Journal of Medical Entomology, found that the blacklegged tick — scientifically known as Ixodes scapularis and a primary Lyme disease vector in the eastern U.S. — has now been documented in 1,420 of the 3,110 counties within the continental U.S. Its relative in the western U.S., known as Ixodes pacificus, is now in 111 counties. Together, the ticks have now been documented in nearly 50 percent of counties across 43 states. And the new numbers mark a more than 44 percent increase in the number of counties with a documented presence of such ticks since 1998. The study also noted that Lyme disease case counts have also increased steadily, from 10,000 in 1991 to more than 30,000 in 2008, though the true disease burden is likely much greater.

Eisen said her main message to people is to be aware that these vectors are expanding their range and to take precautionary steps to reduce contact with ticks. But before getting too much deeper into the study and its findings, it’s probably a good idea to answer two questions right away.

First, does the expansion of blacklegged tick territory translate into an increased risk of Lyme disease exposure? Not necessarily. Eisen said while blacklegged ticks may now be established in more counties, their host-seeking behavior and the particular animal hosts they seek out still differ according to region. For example, ticks in the South tend to stay immersed in the leaf litter, so they’re less likely to come into contact with people. While ticks in the Northeast are more likely to be on top of leaf litter. Of course, the very different climates contribute to host-seeking and survival behaviors that impact the chance of human encounters as well. As of 2014, the great majority of confirmed Lyme disease cases — 96 percent — were in just 14 states, all of which are in the Northeast, North Central and Mid-Atlantic regions.

The second question: Is this study the first that my local or state health department knows of this trend? Most definitely not, Eisen said. Just about every year, most state health departments post updates on vectors and vector-borne diseases, and local health departments are continuously working to keep their residents aware of risks. However, the updated survey that Eisen co-authored provides public health practitioners with a national overview — a chance to view overall trends and examine distribution changes across state borders. Eisen and study co-authors Lars Eisen and Charles Beard write:

Data on the current geographic distributions of medically important tick vectors, such as I. scapularis and I. pacificus, provide information complementary to epidemiological data on geographic disease case occurrence to inform the medical community and the public of where risk for exposure to tick-borne disease agents may occur. The lack of routine systematic surveillance across the continental United States of ticks of public health importance hampers our ability to define their current geographic distributions and to monitor changes in their ranges and densities over time. Although we are able to report in this paper where I. scapularis and I. pacificus are now known to be present at the county level, our certainty in where the tick is absent is low, especially at the edges of their ranges and in regions where they can be assumed to occur only at low densities.

They go on to write:

Given the lack of systematic surveillance for I. scapularis, one might ask if the range expansion suggested by our data is real or merely an artifact of enhanced tick surveillance and research activities in some areas. A true range expansion of I. scapularis in northern states, as described in this report, is supported by the largely concordant changes in the distribution of human Lyme disease cases captured through mandatory reporting of the disease since 1991.

Overall, the study found that most of the blacklegged tick’s expansion has occurred in the northern U.S., while populations in the southern states have remained pretty stable. The tick’s range in the western U.S. increased only slightly, from 3.4 percent to 3.6 percent of counties. More specifically, I. scapularis has expanded its range northward into upstate New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and northern Maine; westward across Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio and New York; and south- and southwestward into West Virginia, Virginia and North Carolina. For example, in West Virginia, the blacklegged tick was reported in just four counties in 1998, whereas the updated survey found it in 43 counties. On the other side of the country, I. pacificus is now established in 95 counties, the majority of which are located in California, Oregon and Washington (that’s a fairly small increase from the 1998 survey in which that tick was established in 90 counties).

While Eisen’s study doesn’t definitively pinpoint the factors behind expanding tick territories, she said one of the long-term drivers is an expanding deer population. Ticks, she said, like to feed on deer, and deer tend to follow forested areas. So as forests and deer populations expand, so too do ticks. Other drivers include changes in climate conditions that enable ticks to survive and reproduce in new regions, among many other variables, she said. (Click here for more on how public health scientists predict climate change will impact the distribution of vector-borne disease.)

Luckily, there a number of ways to reduce one’s risk of exposure to blacklegged ticks and Lyme disease. For example, Eisen said, avoid areas with high grass and leaf litter; hike in the center of a trail and not on the edges; use repellents containing at least 20 to 30 percent DEET; and shower as soon as possible when returning indoors. All the tips you need can be found on the CDC site.

Next, Eisen and her research colleagues hope to develop a statistical model to help predict where tick expansion might happen in the future. While she said it wouldn’t be surprising to see some additional expansion, she predicts there is an “edge” to the tick’s potential range. Because blacklegged ticks need forests to thrive, that edge is likely where forests runs into prairie lands, high alpine areas and agricultural regions.

“One of the main things I hope people take away (from this study) is the recognition that tick populations change over time, so we need to continually monitor that distribution,” Eisen said. “We need to continue to focus on ways to prevent tick-borne diseases and reduce human encounters. And there’s lots of options on the table.”

To download a full copy of the new study, visit the Journal of Medical Entomology.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for nearly 15 years.

kkrisberg Fri, 01/22/2016 - 12:04

Tags

Environmental health

infectious diseases

Public Health - General

CDC reports highest West Nile virus caseload in years, but predicting outbreaks remains a challenge

kkrisberg — Fri, 05 Jul 2013 13:20:21 +0000

CDC reports highest West Nile virus caseload in years, but predicting outbreaks remains a challenge

Last year, reported cases of West Nile virus in the United States hit their highest levels in nearly a decade. It's a good reminder to keep protecting yourself from getting bitten, but it also begs the question: Is this just a sign of a much bigger threat? The answer is just as wily as the pesky mosquito.

According to recent data published June 28 in CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the federal public health agency received reports of 5,780 nationally notifiable arboviral disease cases in 2012. (Arboviral diseases are those transmitted by arthropods, such as ticks and mosquitoes.) That year's multistate outbreak of West Nile virus accounted for 98 percent of the 5,780 cases and represented the highest reported caseload of West Nile virus since 2003. West Nile reports came in from 48 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico — the virus has yet to be detected in Hawaii and Alaska. Mosquitoes catch the virus by feeding on infected birds and then pass it on to humans.

Of the 5,674 West Nile cases reported in 2012, 2,873 were neuroinvasive, meaning the virus got into the brain (encephalitis) or spinal cord (meningitis), causing serious health problems. But most people who contract West Nile won't even experience symptoms. The MMWR report states that "extrapolating from the 2,873 West Nile virus neuroinvasive disease cases reported, an estimated 86,000–200,000 non-neuroinvasive disease cases might have occurred in 2012." The report's authors — Nicole Lindsey, Jennifer Lehman, Erin Staples and Marc Fischer — go on to write:

Reported numbers of arboviral disease cases vary from year to year. It is not clear why more (West Nile virus) activity occurred this year than in recent years. The weather, numbers of birds that maintain the virus, numbers of mosquitoes that spread the virus, and human behavior are all factors that can influence when and where outbreaks occur. Because of this complex ecology, it is difficult to predict how many cases of disease might occur in the future and in what areas.

So while West Nile virus was first detected in the United States in 1999 in New York and even though it's had the attention of scientists ever since, the mosquito-borne disease still remains a bit of a mystery.

"Last year's case numbers are probably just a fraction of what really happened," said A. Marm Kilpatrick, assistant professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of California-Santa Cruz.

With declines in federal funding support for surveillance activities, it's difficult to get a concrete handle on just how much West Nile virus is spreading, Kilpatrick told me. He said that while about 40,000 cases of West Nile have been reported since it first showed up in the U.S., researchers estimate that about 2.5 million people have actually been infected, with the overwhelming majority experiencing no symptoms. (And people who are infected with the virus, whether they develop symptoms or not, are believed to gain lifelong immunity.) What we do know is that so far West Nile virus has infected more than 300 species of birds, more than 60 species of mosquitoes and about 30 mammals — "it can infect just about anything," Kilpatrick noted.

Beyond case numbers, trying to predict how the virus and its host will move, what communities are vulnerable, and where virus hotspots might pop up are formidable challenges. Because so many environmental and biological factors affect the virus and its spread, forecasting a particular year's West Nile threat is more a process of educated guessing.

For example, according to a 2012 Lancet article Kilpatrick co-authored on the dynamics and drivers of vector-borne zoonotic diseases, the appearance of such diseases locally is driven by a combination of environmental and social conditions, ranging from poverty and conflict to temperature and rainfall to land use and development. And even those influences are still the subject of ongoing research, Kilpatrick told me.

For example, he said, one major hypothesis is that the effects of climate and warming temperatures will enable the virus to replicate more quickly inside its mosquito host, which can lead to bigger epidemics among humans. But the research so far isn't rigorous enough to make a definitive cause-and-effect connection, Kilpatrick said. There's also the hypothesis that lots of rainfall will lead to more mosquito breeding, which could then lead to more West Nile virus. But even that isn't for sure, as too little or too much rain could disrupt breeding patterns — Kilpatrick called it the "Goldilocks theory."

So what if an area experiences a serious epidemic one year — such as last year in Dallas, where the mayor actually declared a state of emergency — is that a solid predictor? Maybe, maybe not. An epidemic one year could mean the local human and bird population built up an immunity to the virus, thwarting the virus the following year, Kilpatrick said. Or there could be enough young birds born that second year with no immunity that West Nile virus makes a repeat visit.

"There are so many pieces to the story," Kilpatrick said. "The reason I have a job is that figuring out the dominant factor is not a trivial matter."

In Louisiana, where residents often joke that the mosquito is the official state bird, 155 cases of neuroinvasive West Nile virus were reported in 2012. Gary Balsamo, state public health veterinarian and assistant state epidemiologist with the Louisiana Office of Public Health, said that referring to neuroinvasive numbers is the most accurate way to gauge the ebb and flow of West Nile virus. He told me that even though medical diagnosis of the virus is improving, the 2012 caseload numbers represent a "real increase, so something was going on."

"Still, we can't really pinpoint any one factor responsible for that," said Balsamo, who's also president-elect of the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians. "Over the years, people have tried to come up with methods to model (the spread of West Nile virus), but I'm not sure anyone's done that great of a job simply because the disease is so multifactorial."

Full of marshes, wetlands and mosquitoes, Louisiana is no stranger to arboviruses, Balsamo noted, and so surveillance and reporting of neuroinvasive disease cases as well as awareness among physicians to test for West Nile is well established. Still, the "best predictor of whether we'll have cases is the calendar...regardless of what happened the previous year," he said. In other words, summer is West Nile season so protect yourself from mosquitoes.

"We've told people in the past that we don't have really good predictive models so it's best to simply avoid mosquito bites," Balsamo said. "This disease is affected by climate, by rainfall, by terrain...there are so many factors in play here that I don't know if we'll ever get really good at predicting it. So whenever you have something like that the best lesson is to always be vigilant."

To learn more about West Nile virus and how to protect yourself, visit CDC. For a copy of the recent MMWR report, click here.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

kkrisberg Fri, 07/05/2013 - 09:20

Tags

education

Environmental health

Public Health - General

public health veterinarian

Castrating sheep with teeth: not a good idea (with video!)

tsmith — Thu, 08 Dec 2011 13:20:21 +0000

Castrating sheep with teeth: not a good idea (with video!)

Just a quick post as I'm in end-of-semester hell. Via Maryn McKenna on Twitter, the CDC has released a report of Campylobacter illnesses due to not food consumption, but because of castrating lambs. With their teeth.

On June 29, 2011, the Wyoming Department of Health was notified of two laboratory-confirmed cases of Campylobacter jejuni enteritis among persons working at a local sheep ranch. During June, two men had reported onset of symptoms compatible with campylobacteriosis. Both patients had diarrhea, and one also had abdominal cramps, fever, nausea, and vomiting. One patient was hospitalized for 1 day. Both patients recovered without sequelae.

During June, both patients had participated in a multiday event to castrate and dock tails of 1,600 lambs. Both men reported having used their teeth to castrate some of the lambs.

Among the 12 persons who participated in the event, the patients are the only two known to have used their teeth to castrate lambs.

Sadly, this wasn't the first time I've heard of such a procedure. This was on Dirty Jobs a few years back (and yes, Mike Rowe participated--not for the squeamish).

On a related note, my grandma always had sheep on her farm. I helped to shear but never castrate. Now I'll have to ask my dad and uncles what method they used...

tsmith Thu, 12/08/2011 - 08:20

Tags

Nom nom nom?

I just crossed my legs and held them closed tight... Really tight.

Oh god, please tell me that is prosecutable as animal cruelty!!! I mean seriously, WTH possessed them to bite the lambs' nuts off???

I grew up on a ranch with sheep, and participated in marking lambs every year after I got big enough to catch a lamb and bring it to my father, who did the actual work. (I did that until I went off to the university in 1953.) He always used a knife, never his teeth. Use of teeth was well known; and I heard, at the last family reunion, that one of my uncles used his teeth. I have never seen it done, except on TV. Marking lambs is hard, dirty work.

In addition to docking and castration, marking lambs involves vaccination (don't recall for what) and, in our case cutting an overbar and underbit on the right ear of muttons, and left ear of ewes.

If you know where to look in sheep country, you can find a resturant with mountain oysters. I've never had them.

Apart from the possible transmission of pathogens this method is safe for all involved. I grew up on a farm - the son of a veterinarian. We raised dairy cattle, pigs and sheep for our 4-H and FFA projects. Each year we'd need to 'dock' and castrate the sheep and I don't ever recall Dad and my older brothers and sisters NOT using this method. Quick and efficient. I would sometimes accompany Dad to vaccinate sheep in the foothills around Bakersfield, CA where the Basque would herd 100's of sheep and they'd use this same method. Quick and efficient. I don't remember ever seeing a lamb in undue distress as a result of this method.
Mike Rowe gave a TED talk and described a moment of insight and awakening surrounding the episode you've posted. Give it a watch at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRVdiHu1VCc . At about 3:30 Mike describes the answer to the question "Why do it this way?"
I've had 'mountain oysters' and depending on the cook, they're very good.

Bio613

I don't know about sheep, but when we castrated calves on my parent's place we used a rubber band/grommet like affair called an elastrator that was stretched with a sort of pliers. The calves wiggle pretty hard when you stretch an elastrator band around their scrotum so you have to be careful you're actually getting both testes. I missed one once and we wound up with a one-balled bull. He grew up to be a very cheerful and playful fellow, sort of like having a 1500 pound puppy. I hated having eventually to slaughter him, as he had much more personality than most steers.

I have a friend with a mixed farm, he uses the "rubber band" method to castrate male lambs. It's a quick easy process which causes vary little distress to the lambs, the testicles just drop off a day or so later. I can't imagine why anyone would want to do it with a knife, never mind their teeth, unless it's to save the few pence each band costs.

I have a mental image of the CDC employees sitting in a conference room discussing the pros and cons of publishing this report.

Pros: Entertainment value. Raising awareness for a potentially unknown route of infection.

Cons: Putting the idea in someone's head that this is something they might find entertaining on an otherwise dull Saturday night near a sheep farm.

I'm sure pain medication is expensive and time-consuming for farmers to use, but we're supposed to be "enlightened." Lambs are sentient creatures. The only reason to condone this type of practice and spare the farmers the expense of performing it humanely is a might-makes-right kind of argument--we can do this, so we may do this. It's revolting. Reason #62,489 to be vegetarian.

If I were gay and lived in sheep country, this would scare the hell out of me. Any anecdotal evidence of straight women using this method?

it is so cruel and sad!!

Well, I watched the first 28 seconds but then I had to run and do something. brb.

@9 But do you also not wear wool, leather or any other animal product? This is done to wool producing sheep...

Years ago I worked in a vet hospital and they had some evil-looking clamp-like things they told me where used for castrating sheep. Guess they were joking or just didn't know any actual sheep farmers.

The clamp is called, so far as I recall, a bedezer. I wouldn't be sure of the spelling. There is a pair in a drawer out at the ranch. I don't recall anything about their use. I vaguely think they were used on bull calves. I know about the elastic band method, but I think it came out after my time. I would think it would be faster than the other methods I know of.

Good God, I had no idea such a practise existed.

I can't understand why are they doing this to animals. I know I can't fight the old deeds but certainly I can't take how they treated this animals.

Trap, Neuter, and Release: Bad for Cats, Disaster for Birds

grrlscientist — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 05:59:42 +0000

Trap, Neuter, and Release: Bad for Cats, Disaster for Birds

tags: feral cats, housecats, feral cat colonies, unwanted pet cats, alien species, invasive alien species, wild birds, disease transmission, conservation, streaming video

This video documents the fact that "feral cat colonies" are a disaster for wild birds. Each year free-roaming and feral cats kill hundreds of million of birds in the United States. One controversial solution to deal with the feral cat problem is trap, neuter and release. However, evidence is growing that this method is not eliminating the cat colonies or the predation of birds and other wildlife. There are other problems created by feral cats as well including threats to human health, and public nuisance issues. [9:19]

grrlscientist Tue, 06/02/2009 - 01:59

Tags

invasive alien species

I can't see the video (access to videos is blocked at work), but it does make sense. The "feral cat biomass" that a given ecological niche can support is going to be about the same whether that biomass is non-breeding adult individuals or the whole age distribution in a fertile population.

If anything I would expect a given niche to support more adult biomass because without young to support, the adults can hunt for longer and can sustain longer periods without food without mortality. Infertile females likely live longer due to the lack of metabolic stress of pregnancy and lactation. A non-breeding population might even have a larger impact on wildlife. The fraction of non-neutered cats necessary to sustain a population is small.

Releasing feral cats (or any non-native animal but especially mammalian predators) is going to adversely affect prey populations. Even if they are neutered, instead of killing the one cat, one is condemning all the prey that cat will kill and eat in its remaining lifespan.

Gee, if the cats are a problem why the hell do they let them live? Even if they're neutered they still need to hunt and they'll still kill things for fun. Haven't the cat-neuterers ever had cats (or observed them)?

Domestic animals belong indoors or they must be contained and controlled in such a way that they do not adversely affect the environment. I love cats. I have two, but they are neutered AND kept indoors. They have no place in our outdoor environment. I love birds more than I love cats... I am waging a constant battle against a cat that prowls our neighboorhood and has killed numerous protected birds in my yard. I wish I could find the owner - I feel that the owner is responsible for its cat's killing of protected species. If the owner went outside with a gun and killed the woodpeckers, robins, and doves that his/her cat has killed, it would be a prosecutable offense. I would kill this cat if I could. It is as dangerous as a chemical spill.

Ugh, I'm so confused. I've recently seen an alternate view mentioned: that, since cats (and red foxes) have been introduced since the 1500s in North America and because they displaced other bird-eating predators (e.g. weasels, etc) the total predatory pressure on bird populations probably hasn't changed significantly. Not being a bird expert, I have no clue where to begin to look to determine what's supported in the literature - is there there a body of studies that indicate that cats (etc), and not maybe something even more drastic like habitat reduction, are driving songbird population declines?

Every bird lover wants to blame cats when it's humans destroying the ecology for birds, not cats. Give me call when you are dying from the plague or hanta virus from truly pestulent lifeforms of rodents as you sit looking through binoculars at the pretty birds, giving you the avian flu. More of rodents are killed by the pound than any bird that can fly and situate their nests well away from feral domestic cats. Birds are a challenge but not the norm for a wild cat. It's equal misplaced hysteria like the mercury anti-inoculation nuts.

What bothers me about that video is that it is pure advocacy. There aren't enough "cat sanctuaries" to handle the feral cats that are out there, and TNR programmes (from what I have read) usually try to find homes for adoptable cats. The alternative is release or euthanise, and euthanising cats is a very hard sell.

It seems poorly researched. I have come across mention of programmes that have been monitored, but in the video you have someone speaking "from my limited experience". There is literature out there about programmes that have successfully reduced cat populations significantly.

With regards to the issue of carrying capacity - feral cat colonies develop where people feed them. TNR will fail if new cats enter the colony, but wouldn't that be true of a programme that traps and doesn't release?

Finally, what bothers me about the video is that they talk about birds killed by cats. But what proportion of that is free-roaming domestic cats? And what proportion of those birds are sparrows and starlings and pigeons? By all means, eliminate free-roaming cats in environmentally sensitive areas. By all means, reduce feral cat populations. But use the data that's out there and present it fairly. This sort of a message is worthy of Fox News, not of a reputable organisation.

I can't say that I agree with killing one species to preserve another species. Both have a right to live.

One is nature taking it's course. The other smacks of just killing.

Love cats. But I have chosen not to have a cat (or a dog) as a pet for over 20 years now because of the damage they wreak in my country (Australia). I live on a rural property and the amount of wildlife here is more than sufficient replacement for cats and dogs. Nothing like seeing wild wallabies and bandicoots grazing just metres from my house.

Just shoot the damn cats. They are our fault, we have to clean it up. Just as we knocked out all the wolves in the US, we now have to hunt deer to keep their population in check, something the wolves would have done.

So here we are where we introduced a species that is ruining everything for everyone. We do the same with those giant rodents in Alabama. What are they called? The keep digging out the levies. They gotta go.

Patrol and start shooting. Make a few jobs in a down turned economy. Bring a garbage can and a shovel.

noboby they are called nutria, I've seen them in Texas too. I tend to agree with the just shoot the damn cats position. I have an indoor cat and it NEVER goes outside where it would be a menace.

This is just sad for everyone.

The Feral Cat colony folks are passionate about the cats but stubborn about recognizing the real damage they do. I agree that it is time to start legal proceedings against ANYONE feeding feral cats. Those cats are killing endangered species. Here in Florida they catch the baby sea turtles that hatch on the beach before the hatchlings reach the ocean. They kill baby birds by the millions in the US because most species of passerine birds leave the nests before they are well flighted. In California the feral cats EAT THE BABY EGRETS ALIVE in the egret nesting area along the Sacramento River. Cats are not natives. They don't belong in the wild. AND if the feral cat people or others believe these cats have a RIGHT TO LIFE, then it needs to be a life INSIDE a structure where they cannot harm OUR native wildlife. Wildlife belongs to all the public and feral cats are "illegally taking" native wildlife. If people went out with guns and shot those turtles or rabbits or birds, they would go to jail. Time for the feral cat lovers to stand up and get responsible. And, I am a cat lover. I have re-homed several from the local animal control...but those cats stay INDOORS.

And at what point does it become necessary to trap, neuter, and release other animals, say humans, who are responsible for the extinction of entire species and the destruction of the general environment?

To criticize cats as a "problem" can only come from a mind that regards itself as above looking in the mirror. Cats, and what they do, have every bit as much of a right to populate and pursue their interests as any other living thing. Except, oh course, humans, who taint the biosphere and then in the same stroke pretend to be so advanced a lifeform that their destructiveness is a sign of intelligence.

I agree with Ian @ comment #6. I am an avid birder and am the owner of 3 strictly indoor cats. Feral cats are problems and at least there is an effort to try to control their population; obviously, if there was more funding for sanctuaries and shelters (does ABC, Audubon, etc provide any funding?), more of the cats could be removed and ultimately adopted.

But owners of domesticated cats are an equal, if not more of, a problem than feral cats. Most owners think it's OK to let their cats out, so they do. I am constantly chasing and hosing (w/ water) other people's cats out of my yard. Interestingly, many shelters require people adopting cats to sign a contract promising not to let the cats outdoors--I signed such a contract each time I adopted my cats. At least there is an effort by animal shelters and pet adoption programs trying to educate the public that it's not a good idea to allow cats to roam free, not just for the birds' sake but to protect the cats' health and well-being. I agree outdoor cats are a problem, but there needs to be more cooperative measures in place as well as education that cats will thrive and live longer if kept indoors.

@ #4: Red Foxes were not introduced to North America. They are a native species. Perhaps you meant Australia?

The real problem with this issue is that cats are domesticated, and we view them differently then we do, say, Australian rabbits or cane toads. If you see cats as pets, then treat them as pets and make every effort to get them off the streets. If you see them as just another predator in an ecosystem, treat them the same way you'd treat any other invasive species. The neuter and release program tries to have it both ways.

I once read that a large part of an urban coyote's diet is cats. If you can agree that the cat population needs to be controlled, and you believe that there is nothing wrong or cruel about leaving a cat feral (the two points on which the neuter and release program seems to be based), then how can you argue that humane euthanisation is unethical?

I'm going to second megan here. I'll bet if someone did a study on how many birds were hit by cars versus killed by cats per year, we'd find yet again that humans are the issue. Humans have done far worse to birds than a plague of cats.
Most housecats are too slow to catch any but the dumbest birds...mine used to sit on the porch and stare at the hummingbirds, drooling. The only time she ever "caught" one was when it crashed into the window and fell to the ground. I've had cats that have managed to grab the occasional songbird, but the number that they've actually caught has been really low.
The folk-wisdom rule is that smart and fast is inversely proportional to "pretty". I'm not sure that's true, but I have a hard time believing that the animal rights crowd would give a crap if housecats were pruning the starling or crow populations.

@17: Nope, I meant North America. Red foxes are non-native in temperate habitats; probably introduced from European populations for fox-hunting in the southeastern US and spread from there.

@Scrabcake: I would suggest you don't take Megan's advice because it is such ignorant nonsense. Here, let me show you:

1. "Every bird lover wants to blame cats when it's humans destroying the ecology for birds, not cats. "

That's utter nonsense. Both humans and cats do damage. Cats do a hell of a lot of damage; it seems to be instinctive for them to kill things just for fun. It is a false dichotomy, giving you the ridiculous choice of "humans vs cats" threatening birds.

2. "Give me call when you are dying from the plague or hanta virus from truly pestulent lifeforms of rodents as you sit looking through binoculars at the pretty birds, giving you the avian flu. More of rodents are killed by the pound than any bird that can fly and situate their nests well away from feral domestic cats."

Written like a true ignoramus. Anyone who's observed cats even for the relatively short period of a week would know that cat's don't care for killing rodents. They kill far more birds (and other wildlife) than rats and mice. The "cats kill and eat rats" is really something of a myth; perhaps they do when there's little other choice, but everywhere I've traveled to I've seen cats preferring other food. Not to mention the bird flu is not easily contracted by humans; you'd have to eat an uncooked infected animal and even then there's no guarantee you'll get the disease.

3. Birds are a challenge but not the norm for a wild cat. It's equal misplaced hysteria like the mercury anti-inoculation nuts.

Any of the responsible cat lovers who have posted here can vouch that this is 100% bullshit. Cats like to kill things - lizards, snakes, birds, small possums, and once in a while even rats and mice. Why are birds a "challenge" for cats? Why are they "not the norm"? That is mere ignorant hearsay. If you care to spend many hours tracking and watching cats, you'll see that killing birds is high on the list of things cats do. I have seen feral cats, perhaps only in their 5th generation, and they are vicious killing machines; nothing like the cute cuddly things you might keep in your house. You have to remember that the small domestic cat varieties came from a region encompassing North Africa, the "Middle East", and India. They were bred from the native wild cats and selected for their temperament; if you try to touch a wild cat and it fights rather than runs, you'll get some really serious injuries.

I'm certainly all for protecting wildlife. I also like cats. We've got three, all spayed or neutered. Two are quite comfortable indoors. One was picked up stray between six months and a year old. He yowls to be let out. Constantly. In the summer his dry food goes untouched and he lives on insects, rodents and birds. We live in a town of 700 surrounded by cornfields. The mice get in the house in the winter and grackles will drop their feces the length of the pool in the summer. At least until we got the one demanding outdoor cat...that is universally loved by even the most cat hating members of our family. He is friendly, likes to be petted and generally is non-destructive of property. I have a tough time with the fact this pet kills rather than eat dry food. But, he is a predator and not killing endangered species. I also worry that a raccoon, fox or coyote might get him. Again, I don't like to disturb the enjoyment others have of wildlife...but this cats behavior is pretty similar to how humans and cats first developed companionship in the first place.

As an evolutionary biologist studying both avian behavior and the efficacy of trap neuter return on the control of feral cat populations this issue is of central importance to me. A few points:

1. People have been shooting, poisoning, and otherwise removing feral cats for upwards of fifty years. Except for on the smallest islands, this approach does NOT work.

2. Currently, there are few empirical studies of the effect of trap neuter return on population sizes of feral cats--papers tend to be projects based on ecological models and the results vary depending (of course) on the constraints and parameters. The jury is still out.

3. There are limited data demonstrating a significant effect of feral/free-roaming cats on avian populations except for the Stephen's Island wren--but there are data showing that removing "invasive" species can actually result in a reduction in the population of the species targeted for rescue. This is because a species such as feral cats reduces the population of rodents as well affecting avian populations and the rodent population might ultimately be more of a problem for the birds.

4. Labeling of species such as cats, starlings, cane toads etc. as "invasive" releases us from the responsibility we should be taking for the problem by putting the blame on them. If they are "alien" or "invasive" we no longer need to approach our dealings with them in an ethical manner (if you are curious: http://jdcalkins2001.wordpress.com/2008/05/07/language-and-cats/)

5. The fundamental issue is the pet overpopulation problem and the irresponsibility of people. Were people more responsible shelters would have room for these cats. At present 3-4 million cats and dogs (sorry I cannot find a better number right now) are euthanized annually because they arrive in shelters without space.

I believe that the spay/neuter and release program is meant to leave a non-breeding colony in place so that other cats, fertile and virile, don't move in.

I think that the crux of the biscuit here is to spay and neuter your pets, and for the love of whatever God there is or isn't, don't abandon them. Take them to the shelter. Give them away. Even if there's no non-killing shelter around, most people know a crazy cat lady or two who is willing to take on just one more. When you adopt a pet you take on the responsibility to take care of the thing and that includes making arrangements for the animal should you need to give it up.
As for letting kitty roam around outside, as long as she's not spawning a brood of kittens every year which then go wild, and as long as you live in a safe place for a cat to be outside, I don't see a problem with it. Yes, cats kill things. Lizards, tomato worms, rats, mice, birds, etc. That's nature. If people fixed and didn't abandon their pets, it wouldn't amount to much more than hobbyist predation.
For the record, my cats liked rodents, bugs and lizards far more than birds given from my very scientific survey of the carcasses left on the doorstep in the mornings. It's kind of sweet in a disgusting sort of way. :P

I'm not sure how anyone thought that trap neuter and release was going to work in creating sterile colonies. You can't possibly fix all of them, and the two that you miss are going to have masses of kittens while the sterile ones die off and then you're back where you started.
The feral cat problem is not one that I'm sure has an easy or morally straightforward solution. It would be interesting to see any study done on their populations over time, and whether they do end up with any natural predators. It seems like as small tasty mammals, and given that there are small cat species on almost all continents with the exception of Australia, that they should have potential predators in many ecosystems.

this is why God had us invent varmint rifles

I remember years ago in Tucson, someone wrote a passionate letter to the editor of the local paper advocating the elimination of coyotes to protect the cats. Someone send a follow up, copying the exact letter but replacing coyote with cat and cat with bird. Quieted the discussion quickly.
Any human intervention into the natural predator/prey balance leads to huge, often unintended shifts in populations. The feral cat problem is exacerbated by the "well doers" who supplement their food, preventing the population to be established at the natural sustainable food supply limit. This keeps the predator population artificially high and leads to an unsustainable hunting pressure on the prey species.

Several years ago the BBC sponsored a project following domestic and feral cats in various places around the UK. What they found was that the most massive destruction of local wildlife, birds and rodents both, was from domestic cats left outside at night. They don't have to kill to eat, and the better fed they are the more energy they have -- and they spend it all killing for fun. Cats with energy to spare will kill anything that moves and is small enough for them to catch, and they'll simply leave it if they aren't hungry or it doesn't taste good to them.

It is NOT OK to leave a domestic cat wandering around outside, Scrabcake. Not to mention the fact that very few humans have any *real* notion of what other wildlife lives in the neighbourhood and what their cats like to kill, or how much of it they are capable of killing. What ends up on your doorstep is, in the vast majority of cases, only a fraction of what they kill.

...And it's not like I have a grudge against cats. It's just that I know them.

right. blame it on the cats.
What about all the human beings who have built skyscrapers which are so invisible to birds that they kill untold numbers of birds every year?
what about all the birds that are killed by our automobiles?
what about all the birds that are killed by pesticides?
what about all the birds that are killed by loss of habitat.
How dare you people blame the plummeting numbers of birds on CATS! at least cats just kill the slower, sicker birds.
Our skyscrapers, cars and poisons kill them so wantonly we don't even notice their demise.

right. blame it on the cats.
What about all the human beings who have built skyscrapers which are so invisible to birds that they kill untold numbers of birds every year?
what about all the birds that are killed by our automobiles?
what about all the birds that are killed by pesticides?
what about all the birds that are killed by loss of habitat?
How dare you people blame the plummeting numbers of birds on CATS! at least cats just kill the slower, sicker birds.
Our skyscrapers, cars and poisons kill them so wantonly we don't even notice their demise.

yes, let's kill the cats. What about all the human beings who have built skyscrapers which are so invisible to birds that they kill untold numbers of birds every year?
what about all the birds that are killed by our automobiles?
what about all the birds that are killed by pesticides?
what about all the birds that are killed by loss of habitat.
How dare you people blame the plummeting numbers of birds on CATS! at least cats just kill the slower, sicker birds.
Our skyscrapers, cars and poisons kill them so wantonly we don't even notice their demise.

1. I'd have to agree with the poster who suggests domestic cats who are left outside have more energy to hunt. My understanding is that cats brains have different areas devoted to hunting and hunger satiation. Therefore even when full they feel compelled to hunt. I disagree with your conclusion however. In the case of this single cat I was discussing, my observation is that he prefers what he hunts to what we provide. He isn't gaining any energy.
2. I don't think you should be hunting cats or using varmint rifles. I love cats, they are amazing creatures. But, clearly I can't stop you. I'd only ask that as a good predator you eat your kill. I'm thinking a mangy, underfed feral cat would probably be kinda stringy. But, if you can eat it, go ahead.

Domestic cats are a pet species which has evolved to rely on humans over thousands of years. This makes their abandonment or re-abandonment animal cruelty and inhumane. Their presence outdoors is entirely an environmental issue, not an animal welfare one. There is nothing compassionate, non-lethal, nor humane about their murder of our wildlife, I've watched it in my own yard for years. Anyone abandoning them or enabling them to murder protected wildlife should be prosecuted.
It will take a committed organization of birders, biologists, ecologists, and other concerned citizens to overcome the pandering and myths of the cat enablers and apologists.

I'd say domestic cats are alot closer to the wild cats they evolved from than any domestic dog. Having said that, I really think you've gotten caught up in your own rhetoric. "Enabling them to *murder* protected wildlife..." You've anthropomorphized a predatory animal into a wanton serial killer and a prey species into a helpless innocent in need of our protection. I may in fact identify with cats, but I don't go so far as to label even the people who intentionally kill them as murderers. Idiots maybe. Cruel, heartless bastards, without a doubt. But, murderers? Nah!

I will accept they are idiots. Cruel, heartless bastards, too, I still think they are murderers though. We have to fight fire with fire. The pet enablers think they have words like "compassion, non-lethal, and humane" patented, and use them incessantly on our politicians.
Remember Frank Luntz, the speech coach Rove used to teach the GOP to frame their discussions? You could get the votes of an entire forum of birders with a closeup picture of the remnants of a clutch of murdered fledglings. The politicians have to be reminded feral cats are destructive abandoned pets.

Don't get me wrong, though, I am ABSOLUTELY NOT advocating hunting cats, either. There are arguments for shooting feral cats, in small, isolated and protected wildlife sanctuaries where there is both a need to keep them out and a possibility of doing so. (Even so, I still don't like it.)

A better management system in most places, I would have thought, was doing as they do in Australia and penalising cat owners who let their cats roam. And on the feral side, it would probably be far more effective to capture feral cats and subsidise additional shelters to take care of them until they are either rehomed or euthanised. (I prefer no-kill shelters, but realise they aren't always possible.)

To a large extent cats ARE a problem that humans have created, by not neutering pets and dumping pets. I really do wish there were a way of tracking people who dump pets and punishing them severely.

In 2007 Audubon published a major research paper called âCommon Birds in Declineâ. In it they stated the reasons for declining bird numbers as intensified farming techniques, logging, urban sprawl, industrial development, pesticides and loss of wet lands. The paper did not mention cats!

Going to the British Royal Society for the Protection of Birds website one can find this âDespite the large numbers of birds killed, (by cats) there is no scientific evidence that predation by cats in gardens is having any impact on bird populations UK-wide. This may be surprising, but many millions of birds die naturally every year, mainly through starvation, disease, or other forms of predation. There is evidence that cats tend to take weak or sickly birds."

âProf. Daniel Klem, Jr.(Bird Observer Vol 34, 2006)âEven considering the remarkable number attributable to cats, this figure is more than likely to be far less than the annual kill at glass. Further, cats are active predators that most often capture vulnerable prey, while sheet glass is an indiscriminate killer that takes the strong as well as the weak and is astronomically more abundant than cats in the environment.â
Sadly, if all the feral cats were removed and all domestic cats were kept indoors, the bird population would continue to drop, because it's human caused habitat destruction that is destroying the bird population. It's a people problem, not a cat problem.

pearlsperson, you forgot to mention that Audubon also cites in the 2007 state of the birds, invasive, non-native animals and plants - the domestic cat falls under that.

Take the least storm petrel or the Florida scrub jay - both cite cats as a threat. One would have to look at the specific species listed to see exactly what conservation challenges there are, but make no mistake - cats are part of the equation.

Further, take a look at the first US State of the Birds 2009 - a joint effort of government wildlife agencies and conservation groups - they studied 40 years of data and concluded that, yes, cats are indeed, part of the problem:

http://www.stateofthebirds.org/challenges/invasive-species

You are correct in noting that glass (window strikes) kills many birds, maybe as many as one billion, but that does not mean we should ignore the impact of cats.

Heart disease is the number one killer of American women. That does not mean we ignore breast cancer. On the contrary, we focus on ALL issues for optimum health and well-being. Same deal for the environment.

There are only so many isolated and fragmented patches of habitat left. Too often what is otherwise suitable habitat for breeding and resident birds is also occupied by cats.

Here is a bit more info about the cat as a prime cause of decline in the house sparrow and starling population in the UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scientists-blame-cats-for-decl…

This is not about blaming the cats. The cats are most certainly not to blame - it is their instinct to hunt. The blame lies with humans - any human who lets his cat roam freely, or dumps it after not wanting it any more, or releases one back to the wild through TNR - all these HUMAN actions result in the destruction of native wildlife.

You can clear cut an acre of woods or sustain dozens of cats there - either way, that habitat has been degraded.

The American Veterinary Medical Assn has stated that any reduction through TNR is INSIGNIFICANT. Think about this, there are an estimated 60 to 100 million ferals. Add up all the TNR all over the country and we won't even get to one percent of the population as having gone through TNR - that would be 600,000 cats if we use the lower estimate!

Operation Catnip, probably the country's largest spay-neuter clinic devoted just to ferals, since 1998, has done about 25,000 surgeries. That sounds impressive, but is a drop in the bucket. TNR is a bandage for a gushing wound. We won't change the behavior of people if we condone outdoor lives and deaths for cats.

You can clear cut an acre of woods or sustain dozens of cats there - either way, that habitat has been degraded.

pearlsperson, you forgot to mention that Audubon also cites invasive, non-native animals and plants - the domestic cat falls under that.

http://www.stateofthebirds.org/challenges/invasive-species

You are correct in noting that glass (window strikes) kills many birds, maybe as many as one billion, but that does not mean we should ignore the impact of cats.

There are only so many isolated and fragmented patches of habitat left. Too often what is otherwise suitable habitat for breeding and resident birds is also occupied by cats.

Here is a bit more info about the cat as a prime cause of decline in the house sparrow and starling population in the UK:

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/scientists-blame-cats-for-decl…

A few other things to keep in mind... The population of the domestic cat has tripled in the last 40 years. Humans and cats may have had a relationship for a very long time, but the population has reached epidemic status. The out of control population of the domestic cat is vastly larger than ALL native predators put together. A single cat can extirpate native fauna from a given site.

There is no scientific evidence that TNR is effective in reducing the cat population through natural attrition. If there is a study to be cited, please do so.

For information about cat predation on wildlife, public health issues, etc., see here:

http://tnrrealitycheck.com/references.asp

Cats do not defend their territorities. They do not prevent other cats from joining the colonies. Migrants find the food, pet owners dump cats at colonies, even colony caregivers relocate cats into existing colonies.

Good point Jo - the TNR folks try to have their cake and eat it too. They want the cats to be treated as if they are a natural part of the environment - even a form of wildlife, until the suggestion is made that they be treated like other wildlife (don't feed them and/or have open season on them) - then they backpeddle.

The reality is that these are domestic unsocialized cats - not wild animals. They depend on humans.

Mike, #21, knowingly letting your cat outside to feast on birds could be considered a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. How do you know he is not killing threatened or endangered species? Do you observe him constantly? Does he roam off your property?

#22 - Ferals do need removal, just as other non-native species. A problem does not arise because cats were removed from a particular island, but because other non-natives like rabbits were not removed also and should have been. And this is not a blame game. If something is spreading like wildfire, it is invasive and needs to be controlled - TNR is not the way to go - there is no control.

#24 - it is not nature when cats are in the environment - they are not a natural part of any North American ecosystem - they are a human engineered product - we domesticated a wild cat, let it roam unaltered and now we have a serious problem.

I have been saying it for years, people! The cat fanciers are united, we have to unite, too! How did it become such a sin and crime to dare to wish bad things on little fuzzy-wuzzy kitties? Thousands of cat enablers wrote our politicians complaining! Those of us opposing them have to make it very clear domestic pets should never be allowed to prey on our natural fauna!

Domestic pets should never be allowed to prey on natural fauna, BUT, no bad wishes here for the felines either! That needs to be made clear, BirdAdvocate - my wish is that every cat gets a home. That is not possible, but many of them can be socialized for adoption or re-homed or given sanctuary or fenced in. Those that cannot, euthanasia to me is a compassionate outcome for these cats. What I see as a bad thing, as re-abandonment, as an act of cruelty, is the method of TNR because these cats, regardless of the wildlife issue, should not be living and dieing on the streets or in the wild. That is not an act of compassion to release them back out there.

What about the fact that if feral cats are caught and neutered/spayed and released over time their population will degrease as they will no longer breed and repopulate but if you let them continue un-neutered/spayed they will continue to multiply and the end result is the less cats that will be killing birds. I know from experience as I'm dealing with that issue right now when 3 years ago a neighbor renter went off and left cats and they had kittens and those kittens had kittens and so and so on and some of these females are having as many as 3 litters a year so now my property and the property of my neighbors is being over run and they are tearing insulation out from under my house and doing other damage too not only to birds, so right now I know of at least 13 kittens that were born in various buildings on my land and I have never put on grain of food out for any of them, I also have seen at least 15 to 20 wild feral cats on my land or crossing over it, if I live trap them and take them to our local shelter they said it would cost me $15 per cat so I'm taking them to a free spay/neuter clinic who wants to cut down on the number of feral cats and by stopping them from breeding common sense says the population will degrease in the next year or 2. I am catching the kittens, socializing them giving them shots and finding responsible homes for them. This plan does work if you give it a little time.

There will be no TNR once we have national/state laws that will hold cat owners accountable for there cats.it is in the best interst of the cat-humans-wildlife safety and health to have accountability laws for cat owners. it is our human responsibility to make decisions that are in the best interest of everyone involved-not just the cats.no cat laws=anarchy within communitys and division between neighbors.TNR IS ONLY A BAND AID- TNR does not benefit the well being of ALL involved. THE ONLY THING THAT WILL WORK IS HAVING owner ACCOUNTABILITY LAWS FOR CAT OWNERS.OWLS AND HAWKS WERE CREATED TO TAKE CARE OF THE RODENT POPULATION. cat owners need to supervise and care enough about there cats to not allow them to roam IT IS NEGLECTFUL TO ALLOW YOUR CATS TO ROAM WHEN YOU WILLINGLY KNOW THEY ARE AT RISK AS WELL AS YOUR NEIGHBORS AND WILDLIFES HEALTH AND SAFETY. as well as allowing free roaming cats to desrtroy propery costing people thousands of dollars in repairs,This is irresponsible and poor citizenship and lack of respect for the communitys you live in.We must hold cat owners responsible for there cats it is right, it will end the cat issues.weeding out good vs neglectful cat owners as well.