Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

Posted by Nils on 27 Sep 2012 at 11:15 GMT

This paper focuses on opinions and beliefs of stakeholders. If you are interested in the cost and viability of TNR the following link to a peer reviewed scientific paper in the journal Conservation Biology can answer your questions. The summary is that TNR takes 30 years to eliminate cat colonies whereas trap and remove programs take about 2 years. Similarly TNR programs cost twice as much as trap and remove programs.
http://onlinelibrary.wile...


Costs and Benefits of Trap-Neuter-Release and Euthanasia for Removal of Urban Cats in Oahu, Hawaii

CHERYL A. LOHR*,
LINDA J. COX,
CHRISTOPHER A. LEPCZYK

No competing interests declared.

RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

WalterLamb replied to Nils on 27 Sep 2012 at 17:48 GMT

This comment, apparently in response to my earlier note questioning the accuracy of the citation of the Stoskopf, Nutter paper, seems to clearly confirm that the authors cited the wrong paper in support of their assertion on costs and efficiency [and it is not clear why Dr. Peterson suggests that their paper did not make such an assertion]. The Lohr et al paper cited above is not referenced in the original study, so it would seem that a correction is indeed in order.

Perhaps even more notable, however, is that Dr. Peterson has now cited a peer-reviewed, scientific study* that supports the response of 70% of cat caretakers that "Feral cats are eventually eliminated by TNR." One might have expected that Dr. Lepczyk, co-author of Dr. Peterson's study as well as the Lohr et al study, would have pointed this out prior to publication.

[* A separate discussion would be required to address the Lohr et al study. If the Peterson et al paper is corrected to cite that study, such a discussion would become appropriate. In the meantime, I would encourage the authors to review the Stoskopf, Nutter paper, which they did cite, and which provides a very different perspective on the elimination of cat colonies via TNR, based on actual colony observation as opposed to a mathematical model. Stoskopf and Nutter also provide a different perspective on the relative risk of zoonotic diseases. Lastly, my understanding was that the Peterson et al study was also a peer-reviewed, scientific study. It seems as though we make such studies sacred when it suits our purpose, even though it is commonly understood that published studies are still subject to additional scrutiny and correction.]

Anyway, what is really at question here is whether precision in a peer-reviewed study such as this matters, or whether it is scientifically acceptable to write off as nit-picking anything that undermines the conclusions of a class project turned peer-review paper.

The clearest sign of identity politics is when even an agreement on facts gets spun into a disagreement. Barring an additional response from the authors, there seems to be no disagreement that the citation of Stoskopf, Nutter is inaccurate.

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

Nils replied to WalterLamb on 27 Sep 2012 at 19:48 GMT

Walter's comments associated with this paper support its scientific validity because our main claim is that group identity drives how people involved in the conflict approach both empirical and value based questions. Walter has already defined where he would fit in our study. He states “I am very active in bird related recreation and conservation and I’m glad that I was able to remove so many cats from the environment and to ensure that the remaining cats would produce no offspring.” http://wildlifeprofession...). So, in our study he would have fit in the group of cat colony caretakers who also considered themselves a “bird person.” Our study would predict that such a person would have opinions totally in line with the cat colony caretakers, despite affiliating with birds, and be critical of any empirical research that might make TNR look like a bad idea despite what scientific experts may say or find. Given the response to this paper, the Lohr paper, and several other recent scientific developments the prediction seems accurate. Rather than explain any future comments, I will just post the same link and explanation.

Competing interests declared: author

RE: RE: RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

WalterLamb replied to Nils on 27 Sep 2012 at 20:30 GMT

Nils - The problem here is that you've created a built-in defense, dependent on the very identity politics your paper discusses, to shield yourself from any criticism. As I told you in our e-mail exchange, my connection to the bird watching community dwarfs any activity relating to cats. But the more important point is that you've assumed that I am critical of empirical research that might make TNR look bad when the very Stoskopf, Nutter paper that I've been championing, and which you incorrectly cited, contains many findings that could be used to argue against TNR in certain settings. On The Wildlife Society blog that you link to, I have been highly critical of groups like Alley Cat Allies for painting too rosy a scenario for TNR and not focusing enough on accountable population reduction. I welcome anyone to review my comments there and decide for themselves whether I blindly support TNR, or whether I simply ask for a more math-based approach that recognizes variability in decision making.

So in the self-interest of not having to directly acknowledge a simple but important mistake that you've clearly acknowledged indirectly, you have decided to exploit identity politics and label me as "one of them." It is really unfortunate, because the policy discussion that relies on accurate science is more important to wildlife than whether you made a mistake in citing a source that does not say what you claimed it said. And for the record, I think that lethal control is very likely to be less expensive and more effective than TNR in many situations. This is all about moving away from a binary view of a more complex topic.

Only time will tell whether the PLOSONE staff will actually want you to explain where Stoskopf and Nutter support your assertion. I really don't understand the resistance to replacing the Stoskopf, Nutter citation with a Lohr et al citation.

I really hope you will take a step back and try to look at this from a less polarized perspective. Right now, your paper and your defense of it sounds like a Republican arguing that we could get past partisan politics if we could just get the Democrats to admit how ignorant they are (or vice versa). I think most people understand that that is a fairly disingenuous argument.

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: RE: RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

Nils replied to WalterLamb on 27 Sep 2012 at 23:10 GMT

The defense you mention was created by survey respondents, and only defends the paper from people who are clearly embedded in the debate, and you are one of those people. See: http://wildlifeprofession.... And a host of other only debates about the issue.
I discussed this with Michael (of Stoskopf et al) because he lectured to the students and is a collaborator. He was quite amused that I've ended up in your cross hairs, given his similar experience years ago.

Competing interests declared: author

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

Shapope replied to Nils on 27 Sep 2012 at 23:45 GMT

Dr. Peterson, I just read your paper and the response posts. It seems like WalterLamb might not be on either "side", but just likes to argue. If I were you I wouldn't enable him. Looking forward to the next paper.

No competing interests declared.

RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

WalterLamb replied to Nils on 28 Sep 2012 at 05:00 GMT

Nils - You are not in my cross hairs. I'm sorry that what started as a very friendly and cooperative discussion has deteriorated. I am "embedded" in this topic as you say because I want to see wildlife conservation resources allocated optimally. I agree with your conclusion that more collaboration is needed between wildlife advocates and cat advocates, but I think you've made that collaboration exceedingly difficult by implying that anyone with any experience with TNR is programmed to deny empirical evidence. It makes me curious whether you are among the 50% of wildlife professionals who doesn't think conflict resolution is possible.

I'm glad to hear of your cordial relationship with Dr. Stoskopf. If he conducted a study that supports your assertions about relative costs, is it unreasonable to ask you to cite that study instead of the one you cited which did not draw that conclusion. In less time than you've already invested researching my writings on this issue, you could have either provided the text from that paper to explain the citation, or responded to my note and agreed that the citation should have referenced a different paper.

Given that Dr. Stoskopf is a collaborator of yours, it is also hard to reconcile your study's claim that cat advocates falsely believe that TNR eventually eliminates feral cats with Dr. Stoskopf's observation that "To date, one of our experimental colonies has already gone extinct and another is approaching extinction." Of course, you could have worded the question differently, with qualifiers such as "always" or "rapidly," but you didn't.

In any event, I am going to add some additional comments over time and you are, of course, welcome to reply to them or ignore them. I would like to think, however, that you and others could focus on the actual points being made, if you do reply, rather than on what you think you know about me as a person based on your nine question survey that I never filled out.

Walter Lamb

No competing interests declared.

RE: The real cost of TNR and trap and remove programs estimated

WalterLamb replied to Nils on 09 Nov 2012 at 01:14 GMT

I don't want to get into an overly detailed discussion of the Lohr et al paper here, but I will eventually try to submit a formal response to the journal in which it was published when I can find the time.

In the meantime, it is worth pointing out how various studies can build upon layer after layer of assumptions of varying quality, all the while maintaining a high degree of certainty far past the point where such certainty is justified by the raw science. In reading the description above, one would think that the Lohr et al study examined numerous real world control efforts across a wide range of different settings in order to come objectively to the conclusions above.

I strongly encourage people to read the actual study and to examine the many assumptions and to think about whether they are good assumptions or not. I'll give just a few examples here for consideration:

1) The study assumes that professional animal control officers would earn somewhere between the minimum wage and twice the minimum wage. This seems inconsistent with the average salaries list on various career sites. It isn't clear why Lohr et al decided on this range.

2) Lohr et al assume that the economic value of a bird is between $1 and $15,000 citing fines at the high range for illegal take of songbirds. They don't explain the $1 minimum at all or entertain whether, if a single mortality event doesn't effect the overall population of a species, there might be far less than $1 impact associated with that mortality event. [And to deflect the predictable charges of environmental treason for saying that, I need to stress again that this is coming from someone who has spent tens of thousands of dollars on bird conservation and related recreational activities.]

They also cite a study that included the following single sentence estimating the value of a bird to be $30 (I'll let others judge the economic soundness of it):

"This cost per bird is based on the literature that reports that a bird watcher spends $0.40 per bird observed, a hunter spends $216 per bird shot, and specialists spend $800 per bird reared for release; in addition, note that EPA fines polluters $10 per fish killed, including small, immature fish (Pimentel and Greiner, 1997)." [Pimentel et al, 2000, 2005]

They declined to place an economic value on feral cats because they were unaware of any research estimating such economic value. But their value range for birds was not based on previous research (Pimentel's $30 estimate seems not to have used at all) but rather on fines relating to birds. There are also examples of fines being levied for the killing of stray cats that are readily found via a Google search. The authors could have used that information to try to estimate an economic value for feral cats. Of course, that raises the question of whether fines are a good indication of something's true economic value.

3) Related to above, had the author's wanted to estimate the value of a feral cat using the methods employed by Pimentel et al, they might have taken the cost figures they listed for providing these cats with food and medical care and created some arbitrary value based on those figures. Instead, they decided to do the opposite, and treat those figures as economic liability instead of economic value. In other words, if you pay for equipment to rear a bird in captivity, that demonstrates the economic value of birds in general. If you buy equipment to care for a feral cat, that demonstrates their economic liability.

None of this is to say that assumptions aren't inherently necessary when constructing economic estimates. They are. But even the best assumptions introduce uncertainty into such an estimate. Some assumptions that might be valid in Hawaii may not be valid in New York City (back to Stoskopf's focus on variability). And, if we are being honest, some assumptions just aren't very good at all and lead us further away from an accurate estimate. If we could debate these assumptions objectively, we'd be more likely to arrive at accurate estimates than if we continue to debate them ideologically.

Nonetheless, as Dr. Petersen noted, this is a published study in a peer-reviewed journal which does indeed conclude that lethal control is more efficient and less expensive than non-lethal control. It makes no exceptions for any set of conditions and there is no requirement that anyone referencing this studies conclusions do so in the context of its many assumptions. So any researcher may now say "If you attempt non-lethal control it will take 30 years to eradicate the colony and be twice as expensive as lethal control (Lohr et al, 2012)"

Of course, feral cat advocates know how to do this also and use many of the same anecdotal examples from the same studies to make bold, universal (and completely unscientific) claims about the efficiency of TNR. They can say "TNR has been shown to eliminate feral cat colonies (Stoskopf and Nutter, 2004)". In a zero sum game, one might argue that the Lohr study and things like the Best Friends Animal Society TNR "calculator" might cancel each other out. But this isn't a zero sum game and misleading assertions from both "sides" have a detrimental effect on wildlife conservation.

No competing interests declared.

Do cats really cause up to $55.5 trillion in economic damage in the U.S. every year?

WalterLamb replied to Nils on 08 Feb 2013 at 05:25 GMT

With the recent, highly publicized study by Loss et al that cats kill up to 3.7 billion birds per year, and the argument by Lohr et al that each bird could have an economic value of up to $15,000, we can now conclude from the peer-reviewed literatue on this topic that annual economic damage from predation of birds by cats is over three times the total gross domestic product.

Lohr et al conclude that even lethal control of cats is not economically advantageous unless birds are valued at at least $250. Even at that value, the annual economic cost of 3.7 billion birds would be $935 billion dollars per year just in the U.S. Global economic damage from climate change has been estimated at just over a trillion dollars, so this would suggest that it makes more economic sense to address the issue of free-ranging cats than to address climate change.

No competing interests declared.