KC DOG BLOG

CDC tries to stir up more hysteria over nothing -- and again the result will be dead animals

Ealier this week, media began reporting about a new CDC Study. It seems like every time the CDC publishes anything about animals, it tends to do so in a way that creates a swarm of hysteria, and leaves a trail of dead animals in its mist. If taken at face value based on media reports (at this point, I've yet to find a full copy of the report) this appears to be no exception. 

The USA Today report starts off the fear mongering this way:

Headline: "Feral Cat Colonies could pose rabies risk CDC says."

Subhead: "Cats are main domestic animal linked to human exposure of rabies."

Lead: "Efforts to care for abandoned cats could mean more huamns will be exposed to Rabies."

Before reading further I was quick to lock my cat up in another room just to be safe. 

The story goes on to note that for 30 years the main domestic animal linked to human rabies has been the cat. And in the past 10 years, the number of feral cat colonies has "exploded as animal rights groups fight to end the capturing and killing of strays. These two trends are now on a collision course." 

Scary indeed!

Except, when it's not. 

According to the sceintific data (also published by the CDC), in 2010 (the most recent year of the study), there were 6,690 rabid animals reported in the US. That sounds like a lot, go on.

Here are the species of animals that carried those rabies:

1) Racoons: 36.5% of cases

2) Skunks: 23.5% of cases

3) Bats: 23.2% of cases

4) Foxes: 6.9% of cases

5) Cats: 4.9% of cases

6) Cattle: 1.1% of cases

7) Dogs: 1.1% of cases

So, in other words, of the estimated 60 -150 million estimated free-roaming cats in this country, 303 were diagnosed with rabies. That's .0005% -- if you use the lowest estimate of population.

Hmmm, that seems a bit less scary. 

So while wildlife accounts for 92% of the total population of rabies cases, cats somehow, as the leader among domesticated animals, ended up with the target on their furry little heads.  Anyone suspicious yet? 

But wait, there's more from the study: 

With the so called "explosion" in feral cat colonies, the increase in cat-diagnosed rabies was only a 1% increase -- which could be a trend, or just a random deviation from year to year. Most likely the latter.

Meanwhile, it's really important to realize exactly how dangerous all of this is to humans. In 2009 (again, the most recent year reported), there were exactly 2 cases of rabies in humans. In the 9 years from 2001 to 2009, that number was exactly 29. Of those 29 (approximately 3 per year), 8 actually got the disease from a bite in another country. 20 contracted it from a bite by a bat. 

Since 2001, the number of humans in the US that have contracted rabies from a cat?  Zero. 

So while the number of feral cat colonies has "exploded" in recent years, the likelihood of a human getting rabies from a cat in the past 13 years?  Zero. 

Um, what is that collision course thing we were talking about before? 

So WTF was the CDC thinking in publishing this?

The facts are what the facts are:

 -- People are not contracting rabies in large numbers in this country (roughly 3 per year, 1/3 of those are getting it other countries). 

 -- In spite of the growth of feral cat colonies, no one in the last 13 years has contracted rabies from a cat.

--  In spite of this supposed growth of rabies, the increase in cats diagnosed has increased only 1%

So why are we trying to scare people about feral cat colonies?  Why are they seemingly trying to encourage people to round up and kill feral cats for protection from something that isn't a threat? Why are they not advocating for the roundup and killing of racoons, bats and skunks?

And why would we discourage TNR -- which is what animal welfare groups are promoting which encourages not only altering cats to keep them from being reproducing, but also vaccinating them against rabies in the process? Why are they discouraging a solution that actually a) lowers the population and b) vaccinates cats against this supposed risk? 

BTW, it's worth noting that one of the co-authors of this "study" just happens to be George Fenwick -- who is the President of the American Bird Conservancy(ABC). Fenwick is quoted in the USA Today that he predicts that more feral cats will mean "the incidents of rabies exposure is going to increase at a fairly rapid rate (even though, there is no evidence that points to that based on the fact that it hasn't over the last decade).  

It's worth noting that the ABC is very outspoken against Feral Cats - so Fenwick is hardly an unbiased source here. But the rabies argument is easily among his worst. Fenwick founded the American Bird Conservency and now makes $170,000 a year doing it. His wife then earns another $85,000 a year off their efforts. So preserving his interests is very lucrative. 

It's a shame the CDC allowed Fenwick to influence this study and create hysteria over a problem that doesn't seem to exist and advocate against something that is actually a very viable solution to that supposed problem.

We need to demand better from government published stories and not let outside interest groups impact public policy in a way that creates a slaughter of healthy animals. 

More from Vox Felina and Alley Cat Allies

The costly hysteria about community cat caregivers

For the life of me, I don't get the hysteria surrounding the feeding of community cats.that exists in many communities. The policies in many of these communities is inhumane, cruel, and wildly inconsistent.

Let's say I own a cat. It lives with me indoors.

Then, let's say I decide to just quit feeding my cat. And it gets skinnier and skinnier. If this situation occurred, animal control would come to my door, and (rightfully), write me a ticket for starving my cat -- and, depending on the severity of the case, could send me to jail for animal cruelty.

And yet, in many cases, if the cat lived outdoors, and in my neighborhood, it would actually be ILLEGAL for me to feed the cat. And I could be arrested for NOT allowing it to starve.

So, inside: I MUST feed my cat (this is a good law), but outside I MUST NOT feed the cat. Anyone else scratching their head over this?

Earlier this week, a Liberty, MO woman, Annette Betancourt, was found guilty of feeding feral cats that lived in a wooded area behind her home. Under the city's law, if you feed an animal for more than 3 days in a row in the same place, you own the animal. And, the city has a pet limit of 4. So the city said that by feeding these cats (estimated to be about a dozen cats), Betancourt become the owner of these cats, and was hoarding cats. So, by feeding these cats (and also trapping them, getting them spayed or neutered and releasing them back to the colony so they wouldn't create more cats), Betancourt was sentenced by a judge. Betancourt was only fined for her activity, but could have, under the law, been sentenced to 6 months in jail. For feeding cats.

Betancourt isn't the only person in a Northern Kansas City suburb having trouble with such laws. In Smithville, MO, a family is now challenging authorities after they found a camoflage surveillance camera mounted to a tree that law officials said was being used to catch the man for feeding feral cats in his neighborhood. The family is actually challenging the legality of such an action as a violation of the 4th amendment. The family believes they were being targeted because they had recently spoken out about the city ordinance prohibiting the feeding of feral cats.

Here is what officials need to understand (well, beyond the fact that it is illegal to video record people without a warrant): feral/community cats exist throughout urban and rural landscapes. And Trap/Neuter/Release is the only viable solution to handling the issue.

There are actually several "solutions' -- but none of the rest of them are viable, or humane. Sure, the city could use animal control resources, and taxpayer funds, to trap the harmless animals and take them to their city shelter where they would likely be killed. It's inhumane, and costly, but doable. And while they're at it, they could probably use animal control resource to round up squirrels, and rabbits, and other mammels that live in these neighborhoods. It would be a collossal waste of money, but, in theory, it could be done.

The city could ignore the cats, and not allow people to feed them or spay/neuter them and tend to the colonies. In these cases, the cats would be allowed to reproduce freely and create even more community cats. This of course is a solution, but it doesn't solve anything, and makes the perceived "problem" worse.

Or, they can allow the public to tend to these colonies: provide some basic needs for the cats, and also allow them to alter the cats so they don't reproduce and create MORE community cats. There are many people willing to participate in these programs. They cost the cities nothing, and they keep the community cat populations smaller. And, it's humane. It's a complete win, and the only solution that is a win for any party.

So why are cities still spending taxpayer dollars taking people to court, or installing video cameras, to stop people from actually helping solve the problem?

It's time to quit the hysteria around community cats -- and start working on proving viable options for the cat caretakers in these communities.

Click here for more on Annette Betancourt's case.

 

Kansas City area cities declares war on cats

Some days I feel like we're getting closer to having a kinder, more humane community, and then some days, I can only shake my head about how far we have to go.

On Monday, Kansas City, MO animal control removed more than 60 cats from a house in Kansas City, North that were living in "deplorable" conditions. While most report that the cats were in very treatable, according KC Animal Health and Public Safety Division manager Patrick Egberuare the shelter veterinarian determined "euthanasia" was the "humane course". No opportunity for rehabilitation, no opportunity treatment....simply killed.

Meanwhile, in Lake Waukomis (a small community in the Northland), the city has begun using city funding to capture feral cats and kill them (not "euthanize" as the city tries to call it) in the city shelter. While the city used to operate a Trap/Neuter/Return Policy, they say that has gotten more difficult because residents are feeding the cats -- making the cats less likely to be baited into traps because they have access to other food. Huh?  If they catch them to kill them, they can equally catch them to neuter and release them.  Sigh.

Hopefully the city will work with the local NAWS group and others to efficiently run a TNR program in the community and take killing them off the table.

While we've been making a lot of progress in the metro in how we treat animals - -we definitely still have a long way to go.

Feline Claw Snipping Law works against No Kill Goals

Ok, so this is a topic I often don't discuss here at the KC Dog Blog -- but this particular case I think is very disturbing, and I want to call some attention to it.

It appears that there are several groups in California that are frantically trying to push for laws that ban the practice of declawing cats.

Now, I admit, the practice of declawing cats is somewhat controversial. I personally don't like the idea of declawing cats any more than I would like the idea of my own fingernails being cut out of my fingers. 

However, as an owner of two cats, I can say, in spite of our best efforts, the tricky little buggers do claw at things -- and often they're things I don't want them clawing on. It's sort of hard to keep really nice carpet, rugs and couches around when you have a couple of cats.  And so while I am not a fan of the practice of declawing cats -- I do understand how frustrating it is to have your stuff torn up from time to time.  I do get it.

Now, some proponets of a ban on declawing would say, well, then you just shouldn't own a cat then if you want to declaw it.  I guess that's one way to look at it. But here's a reality.  Every year, some 2.5 million cats are killed in shelters every year - -most of them very lovable -- simply because it is difficult to find homes for all of the available cats.  As far as I'm concerned, as long as we're STILL killing homeable cats in shelters because we can't find good homes for them, then we shouldn't be in the practice of eliminating perfectly good homes because someone prefers to have nice carpet. 

And while I personally wouldn't love the idea of having my own finger nails cut out of my fingers, if give the choice between that, and being killed, I'm 100% sure which one I would choose for myself.  And that's the route I would choose for the cats too.

While all of this is a bit crazy enough, there is one other thing that really strikes me here -- and I'm going to post Gina's opening statement on the topic word-for-word because she succinctly handled the this issue for me:

"I am struck by the disconnect between the legislative agendas of some very vocal animal advocates: They want to force EVERYONE to surgically remove he reproductive organs of all dogs and cats, and at the same time, they want to allow NO ONE to surgically remove the claws of cats."

My hope is that many of these people -- most of whom I think are well-meaning -- will really look at these issues closely and determine to do what is in the greater good of the animals.  And while I don't love the practice of declawing, I love it a lot more than the practice of killing animals in shelters because we cannot find homes for them -- and denying potential new homes because they choose to declaw a cat. Talk to them. Reason with them. But if it's the difference between the cat having a home and ending up in a shelter where death is a likely option -- then by all means, we should not prevent that cat from having a home.

This decision, like so many others, should be left to a pet owner and their licensed veterinarian.