The UTD Mercury has received a lot of feedback; some positive, some negative, on the story we reported on in our Aug. 20 issue, "Feral cats need student caretakers."
Some of those who wrote in response to our story insisted that the "trap-neuter-return" policy proposed by Facilities Management does not work, and that maintaining an artificially inflated feral cat population poses a significant health risk to humans.
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), for instance, does not outright endorse feral cat colonies, but neither does it oppose them. According to their website, feral cat colonies should be considered an interim step to solving the problem of feral cats.
However, no source we've seen in opposition to "trap-neuter-return" provides a solution to the simple, stated problem that cats are going to be abandoned and that they will breed in the wild.
Given that feline overpopulation and unchecked breeding is already the state of things on campus, a managed feral cat colony is the best, most realistic solution.
The cats are already here, and there is no reason to assume they will stop breeding. A rampant, unmanaged feline population is dangerous, to both the cats and students.
By way of illustration, a kitten was run over in a parking lot just west of the power plant on UTD campus last week. It died quickly, probably of a brain hemorrhage. Until UTD police could arrive to remove the cat, the animal created a traffic hazard as students concerned for the animal's welfare directed traffic around it.
Far from making a case for complete removal of the feral cat population from campus, which would be a nearly impossible task anyway, this shows how necessary it is to control the population by keeping the cats from breeding.
Taking the cats to a shelter or depending on good-natured people to adopt them just isn't a realistic solution. No animal shelter could possibly absorb the cost of a never-ending stream of unwanted cats. Eventually, they will be euthanized. The main benefit of a managed feral cat colony is the sterilization aspect. The cats get to live, while the possibility of many unwanted kittens running loose on the streets is lessened.
Opponents of the plan do make good points, though. Students should not look at the feral cat colony as a catchall for unwanted pets. The choice to get a pet should not be made lightly. Anyone who chooses to adopt an animal should seriously consider whether or not they are willing to care for it for the rest of its natural life. Cat owners may be tempted to dump the cat into the colony as a way to avoid the guilt of animal abandonment.
Such a choice would be immature and irresponsible. A feral cat colony is a method for controlling a pre-existing population, not a pet shelter to be used just because a student graduates or the fun of having a kitten wears off.
Another good point brought up by the AVMA is the need for natural or artificial barriers to protect the cats and native wildlife. A controlled cat colony should be restricted to a very specific area to help avoid the grim specter of what happens when a cat ends up under the wheels of a car. Cats with a defined territory and a ready source of food aren't going to go hunting as long as the resources available in their immediate surrounding meet their needs.
The AMVA also brings up the problem that the number of feral cats in a managed population are insignificant compared to the total number of feral cats nationwide. They conclude because of this that the impact a managed feral cat colony will be similarly insignificant.
While logically true, a managed cat population is still better than no management at all. Simply saying that because this program wouldn't make enough impact it should be scrapped is little different from saying that because food aid to impoverished countries doesn't make a large enough dent in the problem of world hunger it should be totally eliminated.
The most glaring problem with a managed colony is the possibility that cats from outside the existing population may find their way in when they discover a ready source of food. Proponents of the plan say that the territorial nature of feral cats would prevent that. Opponents say that this isn't true, and that other types of wildlife also move in to take advantage of the available food source.
Nonetheless, when UNT adopted a similar plan, they found that their feral cat population was reduced by at least half, according to a spokesman for their program.
This observable success at a campus located so near UTD makes it almost obvious that the choice to establish a feral cat colony is the correct one.
Simple pragmatism suggests that wild animals, absent human intervention, will continue to exist in any environment. Animals such as skunks or coyotes may very well use the cats' food source. But anywhere humans are, there's going to be garbage, and enough of it will be edible that just because a skunk or coyote can't find cat food doesn't mean it will go away.
Furthermore, it's true that cats from outside the population may move in to an already existing colony. However, the lack of an established colony does not mean that more cats wouldn't move on campus anyway. There's no shortage of discarded food here.
The plan to establish a feral cat colony is, however, an ambitious one. It will require students dedicated to the cause to make it work and it will not be a one time, silver bullet solution that permanently alleviates the problem of unwanted cats.
Just as people who decide to adopt a pet must be aware of the commitment they are making, a university that decides to engage in such a program must be committed to monitoring the size of the population regularly, and students who take part in feeding and managing the colony should realize that they are committing to the care of living creatures. That's nothing to be taken lightly.
