CHAPTER 3
INTRODUCTION
Science is not conducted or interpreted in a vacuum. Values, experiences, perceptions, and group identity influence how people read scientific research and how they think it should apply to policy and other practical projects. Differences in values, beliefs, and perceptions of risk fuel the heated debate over the science of predation by outdoor cats and the efficacy of TNR. In order to understand this debate and to develop balanced, scientifically grounded, and pragmatic solutions, we need to understand how different people decide which research is relevant, how they interpret it, and why their conclusions about how to manage cats so often diverge.
Our approach to these debates relies in part on an understanding of framing, a method of selecting and highlighting information that helps to define an issue, identify its cause, ascribe value to it, and develop potential solutions (Entman, 1993). Framing is inherently subjective, since it emerges from the experiences and perspectives of different stakeholders. Thus, the same information can be presented and received in multiple ways (Scheufele, 2013). This subjectivity has led some scholars to conclude that “Facts have no intrinsic meaning. They take on their meaning by being embedded in a frame or story line that organizes them and gives them coherence, selecting certain ones to emphasize while ignoring others” (Gamson, 1989, p. 157).
While we do not advocate a completely relativist approach to scientific research, we do believe that frames are socially constructed, meaning they are created and debated through social interactions and norms. Thus, it is important to identify and understand diverse perspectives and to engage differences, in both the conduct and the interpretation of scientific research. Frames shape not only the conclusions people draw from research, but also the terms they choose to use and the information they highlight. This is true not just for policymakers and ordinary citizens, but also for scientists, who are not immune to the influence of social factors such as bias, culture, and worldviews. Scientists have distinctive perspectives and value commitments that influence their methodological choices and their choices about what to emphasize or exclude. Most individuals interested in the issue of outdoor cats have strongly held beliefs and attitudes about this topic, supported by a set of ethical and normative values (Wald et al., 2013; Wald & Jacobson, 2014). The frames used to describe outdoor cats interact with prior beliefs and values and group identification, influencing how messages are received and accepted.
These frames involve a number of tensions that also arise in other environmental, social, and scientific debates. In this chapter, we explore some of the most important of these: tensions between risk and benefits; questions about the uncertainty of research; debates about scientific objectivity; and conflicts between animal welfare and ecological preservation. These tensions arise in various aspects of the conflict over outdoor cats. Here, we focus on two of the most important issues: the scientific evidence documenting the ecological impact of cat predation and the effectiveness of cat management methods such as TNR. In order to understand how frames might shape these debates, we identify several prominent frames used in the presentation of scientific evidence of cat-related impacts and the effectiveness of management methods, providing specific examples of how these frames are employed in the peer-reviewed literature and online information targeting the general public. The conclusion of this chapter focuses on several possible reasons for divergent framing and identifies new opportunities for engagement tools that reduce conflict and promote collaboration.
WHAT IS FRAMING?
Just as photographers choose how to frame or crop a photo, writers must choose how to focus a story. Where and how photographers decide to focus their lens changes the story that the picture tells, just as the frame a writer chooses will influence the direction and tone of a story. Frames are narrative tools that can help a writer focus on specific events. A frame provides context and imbues an object or situation with intrinsic value (positive or negative) (Mattis, 2014), helping readers make sense of news, ideas, and facts (Gamson, 1989).
Group identification can shape individuals’ selection of frames, and often members of the same group use the same frames (Powell, 2007). The issues associated with outdoor cats often are explored by referring to the domains of environmental and public health, but the frames used vary by group. For example, conservation advocates often assert that cats pose risks to wildlife, through predation, competition, and the transmission of disease, and to human health and safety, as carriers of rabies and toxoplasmosis, a disease transmitted by parasites commonly found in cat feces. Animal welfare advocates also refer frequently to public and environmental health concerns, but they frame them very differently, minimizing the risks and describing cats as beneficial to people and society.
The use of different frames stems, in part, from the divergent values described in chapter 4, but it is also related to the ambiguity of cats as species that cross multiple categories and differences in how different stakeholders in this debate conceptualize risk. The framing of cats is complicated and often ambiguous because cats straddle several of the traditional categories normally used to define animals: wild/domestic, native/non-native, feral/tame, and aggressive/friendly. While we use the term outdoor cats for most of this book, a variety of alternative adjectives are used to describe these animals: wild, feral, free-roaming, community, homeless, abandoned, stray, dumpster, yard, colony, nuisance, invasive, non-native, domestic, and more. The ambiguity inherent in the categorization and naming of cats makes this subject particularly susceptible to framing effects. Framing effects—divergent interpretations of issues or objects that audiences use as shortcuts to make judgements—are particularly important for issues that are ambiguous (Scheufele, 2013; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Ambiguity creates room for framing, which serves as a shortcut for individuals to make decisions about objects, situations, and policy (Scheufele, 2013). Indeed, previous research has suggested evidence of framing effects in the cat debate (Wald et al., 2013; Wald, Lohr, Lepczyk, Jacobson, & Cox, 2016). Using focus groups (described in detail in chapter 5), a review of existing literature, and an audit of the content from a sample of online cat management communications (see McLeod, Driver, Bengsen, & Hine, 2017) we identified at least five important frames: risks and benefits, uncertainty, scientific objectivity, animal welfare, and owner responsibility. While these do not exhaust the debate about outdoor cats, they offer a good way to understand the ways different readings of scientific research shape the current conflict.
RISKS AND BENEFITS
Conservation websites and peer-reviewed articles regularly categorize cats as non-native animals. This categorization may contribute to the use of negative frames about the risks cats pose to ecological systems, native species, and people. Risk frames can influence public perceptions of risk to wildlife and exposure to wildlife (Muter, Gore, & Riley, 2009). Risk frames are driven by both emotional (or affective) and cognitive responses to perceived hazards (Muter et al., 2009). Cognitive risk perceptions refer to an individual’s awareness of the magnitude of the risk while affective risk is an emotional response or feeling to a perceived threat or risk event (Renn, 1998; Sjöberg, 1998). Affect can be positive (like) or negative (dislike); it can influence perceptions, judgment, and decision making (Zajonc, 1980).
Ecologists and members of the conservation community use risk as their primary frame in discussing outdoor cats. Scientists, including ecologists, often define risk as the probability that exposure to a hazard will lead to negative consequences (Susskind & Field, 1996). Thus, risk is something that is quantifiable, estimable, and verifiable (Andersen, Adams, Hope, & Powell, 2004). In most cases, scientists rely on logic, quantitative data, and experimental approaches to estimate risks. A recent article exploring the predation of free-ranging cats on wild vertebrate species illustrates the ways ecologists use the risk frame to estimate risks and highlight the negative ecological effects of outdoor cats (Loss & Marra, 2017).1 The review begins by describing domestic cats as a harmful species that pose substantial risks to environmental health. Evidence of the risks that cats pose to environmental health is provided by focusing on quantitative estimates of wildlife predation, competition, fear-related population suppression, and the spread of disease. Risk assessments, especially for invasive species, focus on estimating exposure to the invasive animal, the susceptibility of the populations exposed, and the probability and severity of the public health and environmental consequences of an exposure to the invasive animal. The authors suggest that cats have contributed to widespread extinctions of birds and mammals, and they cite evidence from review papers (Bellard, Genovesi, & Jeschke, 2016; Doherty, Glen, Nimmo, Ritchie, & Dickman, 2016; Medina et al., 2011; Nogales et al., 2004) and quantitative measures of cat predation (e.g., per capita wildlife kill rates) in combination with cat density estimates (how many cats indoor and outdoor probably exist in this area) (Blancher, 2013; Loss et al., 2013).
Once the risk has been assessed, the next step is to identify management strategies that will reduce or eliminate exposure to the risk. As such, the review by Loss and Marra (2017) ends with a section called “management and policy implications,” suggesting that the potential impacts of cats warrant the development and application of “effective and humane approaches to reducing and eradicating mainland cat populations” (p. 508). Like other organisms classified as invasive species, cat control appears to be a normative goal among conservationists (Evans, Wilkie, & Burkhardt, 2008).
In addition to emphasizing the risks that cats pose to birds and other wildlife, many conservationists argue that supporting cats outdoors—through TNR initiatives and feeding colonies in particular—poses dangers to public and environmental health. They criticize the science of TNR studies for not highlighting these risks and supporting policies that reduce them. Conservationists generally assert that there is only “limited evidence that such [TNR] programs consistently reduce populations” (Loss & Marra, 2017, p. 503). However, recognizing that TNR has public support, the same authors have also called “for a substantial increase in rigor for monitoring and regulatory oversight” of TNR programs (p. 508).
While many of the conservation articles we analyzed focused primarily on a risk frame, we did find a few examples where ecologists addressed the benefits associated with outdoor cats and suggested that the impacts of outdoor cats on wildlife are distracting from more important causes of wildlife loss. One prominent example was an article by Fitzgerald (1990) who suggested that even if cats did kill wildlife, they likely kill “species whose populations few people will be concerned to see increased” (p. 168). Fitzgerald went on to describe several benefits associated with cats, including the pre-dation of nuisance species like house sparrows, Norway rats, and ship rats, controlling the spread of diseases and reducing the predation of rats on birds.
Some evidence suggests that conservationists recognize the role of values, risk perceptions, and attitudes in social conflict over the management of wildlife (Estévez, Anderson, Pizarro, & Burgman, 2015). While some in the scientific community recognize that decisions about how to manage the risks associated with invasive species “cannot be made on the basis of science alone” (National Research Council, 1996, as cited in Andersen et al., 2004, p. 790), many continue to prioritize risk assessments that ignore important social aspects of wildlife management decisions. Most risk assessments fail to measure public perceptions of species’ risks and benefits, to identify key stakeholders, or to consider the drivers of public support for specific species or control measures (Pyšek & Richardson, 2010). Instead, many conservationists call for collaboration among prominent stakeholders in the cat debate with few specific examples about how to engage this community or encourage trust-building among publics who deeply disagree.
In recent years, the need to engage the public is being mentioned more frequently by scholars in the conservation community. Loss and Marra (2018) argue that conservationists should “engage early with TNR advocates, and include conservation professionals in policy discussions” (p. 265). Yet the social, experiential, and cognitive factors (e.g., values, attitudes) that could contribute to successful public engagement campaigns to reduce outdoor cats are still rarely considered (McLeod et al., 2017). These gaps are particularly important in the cat debate because cat caretakers and advocates are the ones with direct access to the cats and local knowledge of community resources, problems, and priorities. “If quantitative risk assessment is produced without the consideration of and input from those most affected by decisions” it is unlikely to acknowledge the “tangible evidence and embodied knowledge of the people” engaging with cats directly (Mattis, 2014, p. 76). Moreover, poor engagement efforts can result in public rejection of the message and the proposed management approach (Schenk, Hunziker, & Kienast, 2007). Communication will be more effective if messages and outreach campaigns are delivered by trusted sources (Wald, Nelson, Gawel, & Rogers, 2019). We address these issues further in subsequent sections.
In contrast to the conservationist emphasis on risk, the animal welfare supporters regularly emphasize benefits and minimize the negative ecological impact of cat predation. Articles published by prominent members of the animal welfare community often start by reminding readers that cats are loved by humans, both by owners and by caretakers who manage feral cats. Some scholars also argue that cats, even unowned or unsocialized animals, have valuable relationships with human caretakers that enhance the quality of life of both the humans and the cats involved (Centonze & Levy, 2002). As noted by Patronek (1998), “The subject of free-roaming cats would be incomplete without mention of the potential impact of caring for these cats on the lives of their caretakers” (p. 223). Individuals in the animal community normalize TNR by describing it as something of a “common activity,” though only 12% of the households included in a random phone survey of the general public reported feeding cats (Levy, Woods, Turick, & Etheridge, 2003).
Animal advocates may also begin with quantitative evidence that downplays risks to birds from cat predation and risks to public health. A good example of how cat-related risk is described can be seen in the discussion of rabies exposure: “The last case [of rabies] in a human associated with cats in the United States was reported in 1975” (Levy & Crawford, 2004, p. 1355). The authors continue by suggesting that the risks of rabies exposure from wildlife was much higher than cats, citing statistics from the CDC: “more than 90% of cases of rabies occur in wildlife.” Other scholars have suggested that the “overall risk of infection [plague] in cats, and subsequent transmission to human beings” are minimal because there is not a direct pathway for exposure: “the sequence of events necessary to transmit disease is rarely encountered in managed cat colonies” (Patronek, 1998, p. 219). Patronek continues by suggesting that concerns about diseases spreading from cats to people “should not be a matter of undue concern” (p. 219). Animal welfare advocacy websites, such as those run by Alley Cat Rescue, Alley Cat Allies, and Pet Guardian Angels of America, frame the risks about cats and disease as “misconceptions” or “myths.” According to Alley Cat Rescue, “anti-cat campaigns use the fear of zoonotic diseases to push for the eradication of feral cats”; instead of framing cats as a risk, animal welfare groups focus on “the important role cats have played in preventing the spread of disease,” describing cats as predators that control mice and rats and suppress the spread of bubonic plague (Alley Cat Rescue, n.d., para. 3).
In the veterinary and animal welfare communities, discussion of the potential risks associated with cats often includes efforts to minimize them or to delegitimize them by criticizing the science of cat predation. “Pronouncements about cat-related wildlife mortality,” according to Patronek (1998), have been “determined on the basis of tenuous assumptions, or on speculation” (p. 222). Some TNR advocates minimize the risks by challenging the scientific evidence provided by the conservation community. For example, in 2013, Peter Wolf, a Cat Initiatives Analyst at Best Friends Animal Society and author of Vox Felina, an animal welfare and advocacy blog, wrote an open letter to the American Veterinary Medical Association criticizing its coverage of a paper published in the journal Nature Communications. The aforementioned paper by Loss, Will, and Marra (2013) estimates that free-ranging domestic cats kill 1.3–4.0 billion birds annually. According to Wolf (2013), “the implied impact [to birds] due to predation by cats is simply not supported by existing data” (para. 3). Just as the conservation community uses data to make their points about predation, Wolf begins his letter by presenting data to support his argument that many of the bird species identified in the Loss, Will, and Marra (2013) article are listed in the North American Breeding Bird Survey as stable or increasing. Wolf goes on to suggest that several flawed assumptions in the model and “errors” made by the authors contributed to inflated predation rates “by a factor of 10–20” (Wolf, 2013, para. 5). Alley Cat Allies (ACA), a prominent animal welfare organization, claiming 650,000 members and self-described as “national experts on cats” (ACA, n.d.-a) has an entire webpage devoted to “Cats and Wildlife,” which includes a link encouraging members to “Share the Truth About Cats,” who “have been wrongly portrayed as a major threat to wildlife, public health and more.” The page goes on to suggest that “these myths have cost millions of cats their lives” and hope that by “setting the record straight” about “misinformation” or “myths that feral (community) cats suffer outside, that cats should be indoors-only, or that cats are responsible for wildlife depletion” they will protect cats. The page also provides information about the natural history of the cat, counterarguments about cats and wildlife (e.g., “Humans: The Number One Threat to Wildlife” and links “Debunking bogus studies blaming cats for wildlife depletion”), and arguments in favor of cats outdoors (e.g., “Feral Cat Health Analysis: Living Health Lives Outdoors”) (ACA, n.d.-b).
Though some animal advocates provide counterarguments, many downplay the risks by not addressing them. An audit of the content from 32 organizations’ websites (22 cat advocacy/welfare groups and 10 conservation) showed that while all the conservation organizations mentioned cat-related risks, only 3 (13%) of the cat advocacy organizations did so.2 Instead, these advocacy organizations focused on messages about animal welfare and the benefits associated with cats.
UNCERTAINTY
One of the first steps in the process of assessing risk is the identification of “known” and “unknown” information; thus, the risk frame is often paired with the uncertainty frame (Powell, 2007). The uncertainty frame generally involves a description of the science related to an issue as uncertain, incomplete, inaccurate, or incorrect. The uncertainty frame used by both sides of the cat debate is generally employed by describing the challenges associated with establishing cause-and-effect relationships, the lack of clear empirical evidence or statistical patterns, and the lack of substantial evidence (e.g., “more research is needed”). Uncertainty related to cats revolves around a number of questions: Does cat predation pose a risk to wildlife or natural ecosystems? How severe is the risk? How do these risks compare to other sources of environmental harm (e.g., pollution, habitat loss, climate change)? What is the best way to address the problems associated with feral cats?
Uncertainty About Cat-Related Risks
Uncertainty is regularly acknowledged in the scientific literature about cats. Scholars in the ecological community regularly admit that there are inherent difficulties “linking cause to effect in population ecology” (Loss & Marra, 2017, p. 504). Specifically, the complexity of ecological systems makes it very hard to determine the exact cause of species decline or extinction (Doherty et al., 2016). Recent work by Stracey and Robinson (2012) highlights major gaps that still remain in our knowledge “of the role of predation in structuring urban bird communities” (p. 64). For example, few studies have experimentally estimated how species size interacts with their ability to defend themselves, find food, and nest successfully (Stracey & Robinson, 2012). It is very hard to pinpoint single causes of ecological problems, due both to the complexity of ecological systems and to the limitations of most research, which can provide only partial, short-term pictures of a given situation.
It is undeniable that cats kill wildlife. Focus group participants reported seeing cats kill birds and small rodents; researchers have documented cat predation using KittyCam and nest video cameras (Loyd, Hernandez, Carroll, Abernathy, & Marshall, 2013; Stracey, 2011; Stracey & Robinson, 2012), surveys of cat owners (Churcher & Lawton, 1987; Lepczyk, Mertig, & Liu, 2004; Levy et al., 2003), and the content of cat feces (Nogales & Medina, 1996). The importance of cat-caused mortality to wildlife varies by location. The vast majority of extinct and near-extinct species historically or currently threatened by cat predation (among other factors) live(d) on oceanic islands (Medina et al., 2011; Vazquez-Dominguez et al., 2004), where lethal cat control is now regularly used as part of island bird conservation activities (Nogales et al., 2004). Island species lack defensive behaviors and many are poor flyers, making them both unique to global biodiversity and especially extinction-prone (Nogales et al., 2004). Most of the cat warring, in contrast, concerns mainland urban or suburban environs where few or no prey species are listed by international conservation agencies as vulnerable.
However, the threats cats pose to continental or noninsular species, and how this threat compares to other urban threats, such as window and car collisions (discussed below), is not established (Calver, Grayson, Lilith, & Dickman, 2011). This is an important gap in the data, since the majority of outdoor cats that have been identified as problems are in suburban, urban, or otherwise disturbed areas rather than coastal areas or wildlife refuges. That conservationists consistently cite island studies to highlight the risks of cats in urban areas is unhelpful given that mainland birds are not at risk of extinction from cats alone.
Several different kinds of uncertainty about the role of cats in bird deaths are becoming clear. First, uncertainty surrounds the “urban predator paradox.” The paradox refers to the fact that despite the large numbers of predators in urban areas—including domestic cats—predation rates on urban prey are lower or the same as the predation rate in other areas (Chiron & Julliard, 2007; Fischer, Cleeton, Lyons, & Miller, 2012; Haskell, Knupp, & Schneider, 2001; Sorace, 2002). Researchers interested in this paradox have explored whether prey species compensate for cat predation by producing large numbers of offspring (van Heezik, Smyth, Adams, & Gordon, 2010). Some research suggests that this does occur for at least some species, particularly common urban and suburban birds such as northern cardinals or Carolina wrens, which means that cat predation may not be high enough to alter population growth (Stracey & Robinson, 2012). Alternatively, urban bird communities may self-sort to include only bird species that effectively avoid nest predation (Stracey, 2011; Stracey & Robinson, 2012). In a recent study, authors monitored nests in habitat areas ranging from parking lots, urban forests, pasture, and nonurban forests to observe differences in nesting success (e.g., the number of nests that result in one fledgling—or a young bird that is learning to fly (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, n.d.)—across different habitat types. The results suggest that despite facing more predators in urban areas, including cats, urban birds are more successful when they are able to defend their nests, by mobbing the predator or placing the nest in a place the predator cannot access (Stracey, 2011). Also, urban mockingbird nests (found in parking lots and towns) had higher rates of survival than rural nests (in pastures and wildlife preserves) (Stracey & Robinson, 2012). While Stracey (2011) ends with the suggestion that house cats, the dominant predator in this study, be kept indoors at night, she also addresses the complexity of this topic and suggests several important gaps in knowledge related to urban bird characteristics that might minimize the potentially negative impacts of cat predation on urban prey species.
Second, despite the rigor of the studies mentioned above, they focus only on nest predation. The majority of existing studies exploring urban vs. rural bird predation and mortality focus on losses of chicks and eggs at nests, not adult deaths between areas with and without cats. This is an important source of uncertainty because studies of raptors (e.g., hawks) in urban areas shift from a focus on killing nestlings to preying on adult songbirds once they become urban-adapted. In urban areas, raptors such as Cooper’s hawks appear to ignore nests and focus exclusively on adult birds (Malone, Powell, Hua, & Sieving, 2017). This is one likely explanation for the urban predator paradox (or why nest-based studies often find that urban nest success is higher or similar to nonurban data) (Stracey, 2011; Malone et al., 2017). Even with the addition of cats, the major urban nest predator in Stracey’s studies, urban nest losses are not extreme. Therefore, more research is necessary to address current gaps in our knowledge about cat predation on adult songbirds in urban vs. rural areas.
Given this and the information from raptor diet studies, a third source of uncertainty is the lack of rigorous studies comparing adult songbird deaths, in urban and nonurban areas, due to cats, to native—often urban-specialized killers—and other important mortality factors (e.g., cars, window collisions) (Arnold & Zink, 2011; Klem, 1990). Previous attempts to single out the cat-related impacts on prey species have resulted in tenuous conclusions in both directions (e.g., Kays & DeWan, 2004; Moseby, Hill, & Read, 2009; Risbey, Calver, Short, Bradley, & Wright, 2000; van Heezik et al., 2010). Some researchers hypothesize cats may be killing primarily the old, sick, or weak individuals (compensatory predation on the doomed surplus) (Baker, Molony, Stone, Cuthill, & Harris, 2008), or individuals that would otherwise have been killed by a different urban predator, such as hawks (Roth & Lima, 2003), but this has also not been adequately tested. Cats’ mere presence may reduce the numbers of prey animals, change their behavior (Beckerman, Boots, & Gaston, 2007), or suppress reproduction in native birds (Bonnington, Gaston, & Evans, 2013), yet “virtually nothing is known” about the cumulative impacts of multiple sources of mortality for birds (Loss et al., 2013, p. 5).
Such data are indeed difficult to obtain, and enumeration of dead adult birds killed by cats (so-called “body count data”) featured by ecologists in their arguments against cats is practically useless without death rates due to other factors to add up the total. The nest data tell us this uncertainty is real, and the killing power of native raptors that are now hyperabundant in urban areas should not be underestimated (Malone et al., 2017). Further research on this question would help parties on all sides assess the ecological threat that cats actually pose, and target both conservation and cat management programs.
The complexity of urban systems makes it difficult to say with certainty that cats are the most important driver of prey populations in urban locations. Loss and Marra (2017), who call cats the “most ubiquitous and environmentally damaging invasive predators on Earth” (p. 502), acknowledge that “linking cause to effect in population ecology is extremely difficult and fraught with uncertainty” (p. 504). Even while acknowledging the inherent uncertainty of the current research, scientists sometimes draw conclusions about the negative effects of cat predation based on research that is far from definitive: “Feral cats Felis catus, for example, are implicated in at least 14% of insular bird, mammal, and reptile extinctions” (p. 15) according to a review of cat predation on native island vertebrates (Doherty & Ritchie, 2016). “Implicated,” of course, is a vague term, and review articles also are limited in their ability to provide evidence of a causal relationship, as Doherty and Ritchie (2016) suggest: “Given the difficulties in attributing causation in species declines and extinctions, most inferences regarding the impact of invasive predators were based on observational evidence, rather than experimental data” (p. 11264).
It is clear that the debate about outdoor cats is not immune to problematic claims, uncertainty, and limitations associated with existing scientific methods and techniques. Critics of conservationists’ claims about cats have suggested that “the reputation of cats as predators was largely based on casual observations, perpetuated rumor, and speculation and … most references to cat predation were unsupported by factual data” (Patronek, 1998, p. 221). While it is undeniable that cats kill birds, the research on cat predation and interpretations of these studies are all far from clear-cut. For example, a study conducted on Reunion Island in the Western Indian Ocean concluded that feral cats posed a critical threat to an endangered species of petrel and advocated that strict “control of cats at breeding colonies is urgently needed to save this species from extinction” (Faulquier, Fontaine, Vidal, Salamolard, & Le Corre, 2009, p. 330). The same research cited risks to the petrel population from light pollution and “light-induced” mortality, but the policy conclusions focused primarily on eliminating cats from the island. This is an example of the ways a particular framing of the question presupposes certain conclusions—in this case, the need to remove cats—even when the research itself suggests that petrels face multiple anthropogenic threats—including the cumulative effects of both light pollution and cat predation—and that conservation policies should logically address all of them.
The scientific efforts required to resolve these issues will need to be comprehensive and involve multiple measures of cat and bird activities and interactions—with each other, but also with other prey and predators in urban and suburban ecosystems, which are anything but static and simple. Similar complications shape the ways different groups interpret research about the effectiveness of TNR programs.
Uncertainty About Cat Management
A review of feral cat control techniques concluded TNR “is a viable, humane alternative to other methods” of cat management (Robertson, 2008, p. 372). Yet the review referenced only two programs that resulted in the stabilization or reduction of a local population of cats, previously described as the goal of the TNR programs (Robertson, 2008, p. 371).3 The first program described was an intensive initiative conducted over 11 years (see Levy et al., 2003), including both TNR, euthanasia, and adoption efforts. This effort was successful because it documented a reduction of the number of cats in the colony, but it was not successful solely because of the TNR program (Levy et al., 2003). A second article was described as successful because it “reduced the population [of colony cats] by 26% within a year” (quoted in Robertson, 2008, p. 372, referencing Centonze & Levy, 2002). Yet the original article by Centonze and Levy (2002) suggests that the numbers they reported “were estimates” and that they “should not be interpreted as precise data based on accurate record keeping” (p. 1633). This is another example of how framing can imply conclusions—in this case, that TNR is effective—that are broader, or more conclusive, than the research truly supports. While Robertson (2008) acknowledges that TNR may only work to control the feral cat population “under certain conditions” (p. 372), the author also suggests that “TNR programs and education are pivotal to successful reduction in [cat] numbers” (p. 373).
Some scholars, at least, are becoming hesitant to draw hard and fast conclusions about lethal management. For example, Doherty and Ritchie (2016) recently called on conservation scientists to stop “jumping the gun” by calling for lethal controls to manage invasive species, including cats, when “considerable uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of management approaches in different environmental contexts” (p. 15). They highlight the unintended consequences of lethal management by citing a culling program implemented in southeastern Australia (detailed in Lazenby, Mooney & Dickman, 2014). In this example, during the culling program, feral cat numbers increased “from 75% to 211%” in some areas (Lazenby, Mooney, & Dickman, 2014, p. 414), returning to precull levels after control efforts ceased. As Doherty and Ritchie (2016) suggest, the observed increase may have occurred because “culling removed dominant resident cats, which allowed younger and/or previously subordinate individuals from surrounding areas to invade the vacated territories (Lazenby et al., 2014)” (p. 17). Another unintended consequence of lethal cat control is “mesopredator release,” which is the proliferation of smaller predators such as rats following the eradication of cats. The mesopredators often cause as much damage as the cats, or even more (Courchamp, Langlais, & Sugihara, 1999; Sutherland, Glen, & Paul, 2011).
These studies reinforce the uncertainty surrounding ecological research and suggest that care and even humility should accompany any conclusions drawn from individual cases. Some scholars concerned about existing uncertainty and current gaps in the literature have called for more additional research: “The only unequivocal way to address this question [effect of cats on wildlife populations] is by experimentally manipulating cat predation pressure, although this will be logistically difficult” (Baker et al., 2008, p. 97). Doherty and Ritchie (2016) argue for a more nuanced approach to invasive species management. “We do not prescribe strict management guidelines because it is not feasible or useful given the complex social–ecological systems in which invasive predator management takes place,” they wrote. “Rather, we propose that current uncertainty in invasive predator management can be addressed through a combination of adaptive management, expert elicitation, and cost-benefit analyses” (p. 16). Adaptive management is a more flexible, experimental, and participatory approach to natural resource management. Unlike traditional management strategies, adaptive initiatives start with the assumption that systems and natural resources are variable, unpredictable, and uncertain (Evans et al., 2008).
Scholars in the animal welfare community have also acknowledged uncertainty, or at least disagreement, among veterinarians and others in the animal protection community. There is debate, for example, “about whether TTVAR [trap-test-vaccinate-alter-and-release] should be discouraged, tolerated, or encouraged” (Patronek, 1998, p. 218). Just as the ecological impacts of cats are difficult to discern, the “ecological characteristics” of cat populations are complex because “cats can change from owned to unowned, and confined to free-roaming, during short periods” (Patronek, 1998, p. 218). Uncertainty about cats’ characteristics can make it difficult to distinguish “the impacts of free-roaming, owned cats from those of unowned cats [on wildlife]” (Levy & Crawford, 2004, p. 1354). While encouraging TNR as a viable method of management, scholars in the animal welfare community have also acknowledged failures of TNR, including increased cat abandonment at visible colonies (Robertson, 2008) and the challenge of drawing concrete conclusions about the effect of spay/neuter activities on the number of animals in local shelters (Levy, Isaza, & Scott, 2014).
Like Doherty and Ritchie’s nuanced approach, some scholars in the animal welfare community acknowledge that “no single solution is likely to be appropriate for all situations” (Levy & Crawford, 2004, p. 1359). Others have suggested that widespread advocacy for TTVAR programs “as a panacea for the problem of unwanted cats could undermine years of effort to foster responsible pet ownership among cat owners” (Patronek, 1998, p. 225).
While both cat and bird advocates acknowledge uncertainty in the scientific evidence, they ignore other gaps in their knowledge. Ecologists regularly mention the challenges associated with determining causation in population ecology, but they continue to rely on risk assessments and empirical data, which are substantially limited by important gaps in the data that make quantitative estimates difficult, if not unreliable. Animal welfare scholars simultaneously cite studies that highlight the challenges, uncertainties, and complexities inherent in using TNR as a widespread management strategy while continuing to recommend it as the best available option for cat control. There is a tendency for some on both sides to leap from partial and uncertain data to hard and fast conclusions. However, there are encouraging signs suggesting that many individuals on both sides acknowledge the gaps in their data and the dangers of rushing to policy decisions.
Despite the inherent uncertainty in both the study of cats and TNR, multiple sources suggested that the challenges associated with studying cats and TNR do not justify inaction. Loss and Marra argue that uncertainty should not be conflated “with the conclusion that cats have no impacts on vertebrates and so cat management is unnecessary” (2017, p. 504). Indeed, one possible way to start to resolve debates about the science over cats and birds is by building strong collaborations between researchers from both of these communities.
THE SCIENTIFIC/OBJECTIVITY FRAME
Another important feature of debates about outdoor cats is the prioritization of scientific objectivity. Factual information is by far and away the most popular presentation style used in the debate about outdoor cats. This is true for scientific articles, but this approach also is used frequently on organizations’ websites. In a recent audit of the content of 32 different organizations’ websites, 96% of conservation organizations and 94% of the animal advocacy organizations used factual information instead of narratives to describe the cat issue on their websites (McLeod et al., 2017). This is likely related to a reliance on the science deficit model that we discussed in chapter 2, but it also related to a general reliance on “objective” data and facts to convey legitimacy in the debate about outdoor cats.
Both sides accuse the other of being irrational, relying on emotions, and permitting their biases to shape their interpretations of the data. According to Levy and Crawford (2004), “debate about the true impact of free-roaming cats on the environment, on feline welfare, and as a reservoir of feline and zoonotic diseases is ongoing, often emotional, and fueled largely by a lack of sound scientific data on which to base credible conclusions” (p. 1355). Many of the articles published in veterinary or animal welfare journals encouraged efforts to recognize “the degree of public affection for feral cats” (p. 1357), suggesting that “engaging cat feeders in solutions for feral cats will undoubtedly be more productive and economical than warring against them” (p. 1360).
Conversely, scholars in the conservation community suggest that the “policies for management of free-ranging cat populations and regulation of pet ownership behaviors are dictated by animal welfare issues rather than ecological impacts,” equating animal welfare and support for TNR with a “non-scientific” approach to decision making (Loss et al., 2013, p. 2). Among conservationists, public resistance to management was occasionally framed as an emotional issue related to the popularity of cats as pets (Loss & Marra, 2017) or discomfort with animal suffering and euthanasia (Lepcyzk et al., 2010). Conservation scholars have expressed concern that public attitudes about management “do not always align with evidence” and that efforts to manage cats should not depend “solely on public opinion without considering scientific evidence” (Loss & Marra 2017, p. 508). While we agree that knowledge and scientific evidence are important components of this debate, the continued reliance on facts and data as the primary tool to change beliefs about cats or opinions about cat management is problematic. This is true not only because the data itself is partial and ambiguous, but even more generally because the conflict over cats is not driven solely by data: “Ultimately, the issue of feral cats is a social problem” (Lepczyk et al., 2010, p. 2).
Like any heated social conflict, the cat debate is driven by differences in values and beliefs that influence how members of both communities interpret data and evidence. Effective persuasive communication techniques must go beyond the provision of facts and logical arguments. As Kahneman and Tversky, two influential scholars in behavioral psychology, put it: “No one ever made a decision because of a number” (as quoted in Adams, 2016, para. 2). People do not make decisions based solely on evidence and the logical consistency of arguments, but rather they choose to believe stories that best match their values and preexisting beliefs (Fisher, 1989). We discuss alternative approaches to this model at the end of this chapter and in chapter 5.
THE ANIMAL WELFARE FRAME
Animal welfare is clearly at the center of debates about outdoor cats, since the disagreement is about how one nonhuman species—domestic cats—are affecting other nonhuman species—especially birds but also other native wild animals. Here the conflicts often hinge on the relative value of different kinds of animals, particularly species that are domestic and “invasive,” and those that are wild and native. As discussed in chapter 4, different groups place very different values and priorities on these categories, shaping their reading of the research and the policy options.
Conservation advocates sometimes try to appeal to the community of animal welfare advocates by highlighting the risks that outdoor or free-ranging behavior poses to cat health. This argument suggests that it is not in the cats’ interest to range freely. Outdoor cats are more likely to suffer from disease and parasites and to die prematurely, in this view; as one author puts it, “Many feral cats live short, brutal lives” (Jessup, 2004, p. 1379). This approach has been taken not only by conservation advocates, but also by the animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), which has called TNR “subsidized abandonment” and which asserts that “feral cats do not die of ‘old age.’ They are poisoned, shot, tortured by cruel people, attacked by other animals, or hit by cars, or they die of exposure, starvation, or … contagious diseases” (Hutchins, 2008, as quoted in Jessup, 2004, p. 1378).
Animal welfare articles regularly start with a focus on animals’ lives. According to some scholars in this community, a primary concern in the debate over methods to control outdoor cats “is the welfare of the cats themselves” (Levy & Crawford, 2004, p. 1357). Most of the articles we reviewed in the veterinary and animal welfare literature described cats as pets or animals with an important connection to people. By focusing on cats as companion animals, the animal welfare community frames cats as a popular, loved, and valuable species that provide comfort, companionship, and health benefits to people. In the aforementioned audit of organizations’ websites, not one of the cat advocacy/welfare websites referred to cats as an “invasive” or non-native species, even though these frames were common across all the conservation websites (McLeod et al., 2017). According to one study, free-roaming cats provide health benefits for “lonely elderly adults” by serving as “an outlet for affection” and a reason to get outside. For them, feeding and caring for outdoor cats “helps prevent depression, reduces social isolation, and provides companionship” (Patronek, 1998, p. 223). Cat caretakers and many animal welfare advocates insist that outdoor cats can and often do live healthy, satisfying lives. Levy and Crawford (2004) suggest that “Although TNR may not meet the gold standard of care desired for pet cats, it appears that sterilized feral cats can enjoy an extended period of good quality of life while their population dwindles by adoption or natural attrition” (p. 1359).
OPPORTUNITIES FOR COMMON GROUND
The frames that we have explored in this chapter are not only used by these organizations to define the cat debate, but they are also used to justify their stance and recommendations about what action should be taken, and by whom. For example, the conservation community regularly uses the risk frame to justify their support for specific control actions; however, messages focused around this frame tend to backfire with the animal welfare community. The framing of persuasive communication campaigns must be designed carefully and thoughtfully to build trust and avoid creating backfire effects, reinforcing existing misperceptions and further alienating stakeholders who strongly disagree these risks exist. We believe a degree of reframing in this debate is warranted—that all parties need to recognize that their own view is not the only one possible, there may be other ways, and accept there may be relative merits for each perspective.
Robertson (2008) noted that “Any balanced and unbiased discussion must consider the public who considers them [cats] a nuisance” (p. 367). While the previous quote came from a veterinary source, similar quotes were found in the conservation community. Thus, all sides recognize the need to engage the diverse publics involved in this debate. Yet the science/objectivity frame, regularly observed in our review, often pits scientists against the public. This is problematic because it creates distance between the two groups and perpetuates the “othering” of the public, as we discussed in chapter 2. It also ignores the fact that the public may indeed understand that cats pose some risk to wildlife. “Most people understand very well that nothing is risk free and are able to ‘live with’ uncertainty and the lack of control that it entails” (Wynne, 2002b, as cited by Cook, Pieri, & Robbins, 2004, p. 438).
Collaborative efforts around outdoor cats might be more successful if scientists and conservationists engaged cat caretakers and TNR advocates in decisions about cat management, assuming that they not only understand risks but might have creative ideas about how to minimize the potential risks to wildlife and the cats they care for. Empowering the public to display their own knowledge, ideas, and concerns, and to share data and responsibility for complex and controversial scientific issues can enhance public trust in scientists (Goodwin & Dahlstrom, 2013). Trust and distrust are critical elements of effective natural resource management outcomes, especially regarding public support for management decisions (Stern, 2008; Stern & Baird, 2015; Stern & Coleman, 2015; Vaske, Absher, & Bright, 2007; Wald et al., 2019). Distrust of the government drove public opposition to the eradication of monk parakeets (Crowley, Hinchliffe, & McDonald, 2018) and contributed to delayed efforts to control gray squirrels in Italy (Bertolino & Genovesi, 2003). Efforts to encourage collaboration between stakeholders, particularly those with local knowledge and experience, could both enhance trust and provide new sources of information that could inform the current debate.
Scholars in the field of education reform suggest that educational initiatives can be more effective when they accept that “publics create meaning and contribute to knowledge production in various ways” (Berkowitz et al., 2005, as cited by Varner, 2014, p. 335). Cat caretakers and advocates might have knowledge about cat behavior and cat-wildlife interactions that is different from and complementary to the research being conducted by scientists interested in this issue. By including these groups in this conversation, we could identify new perspectives, ideas, and opportunities for collaboration. One possible approach to this would be to use the animal welfare and ownership responsibility frame to engage interested groups in a citizen science project focused on efforts to reduce the number of homeless pets or encourage responsible pet ownership. For example, a new citizen science initiative and app called Cat Tracker has been developed to help residents, cat owners, city managers, and shelters map the cat population in Syracuse, New York (Chalifoux, 2018). The data collected through this initiative could be paired with community meetings, decision-making tools, surveys, and data about wildlife to identify how key stakeholders can be engaged and how cats could be managed collaboratively across different areas of the city. However, any effort to engage in citizen science initiatives in this area must first consider ways to build trust and identify shared goals between potential stakeholders.
While we should not lose sight of the existence of deep-seated differences among parties that may delay collaborative initiatives, it is possible to identify a range of techniques that can help reframe messages that may encourage resolutions (e.g., Moore, 1996). One promising tactic is shifting from a specific interest to a more general one to allow each party to see how their particular concerns can be satisfied across a host of solutions that satisfy others’ interests as well. Another option involves narrowing the issue and breaking it into smaller parts, for example, by focusing on particular local issues or identifying short-term goals that some stakeholders agree on (Jacobson, Wald, Haynes, & Sakurai, 2014). Finally, stories can engage audiences in a deeper way than standard scientific writing and can “connect diverse stakeholders,” encourage imagination, and collective action (Moezzi, Janda, & Rotmann, 2017, p. 8). Thus, instead of focusing on efforts designed to “correct” existing misperceptions, public outreach efforts to promote collective action could be designed to encourage storytelling, perspective taking, and the cocreation of knowledge. It is unrealistic to expect complete agreement on all sides, but “agreeing to disagree” can be constructive as the acknowledgment and respect of each other’s right to have opposite viewpoints can be a stepping stone to building trust and reducing tension (Gray, 2003, p. 34). “The goal of science communication is not agreement, but fewer, better disagreements,” as Fischhoff (2013) puts it. “If that communication affords [scientists and the public] a shared understanding of the facts, then they can focus on value issues” (p. 14033). To encourage a more effective, humane, and, ultimately, successful approach to outdoor cat management, engagement efforts should focus on building a shared understanding of both the available facts and the current limitations in the data.
While different groups perceive risks and other issues related to outdoor cats in very different ways, all the people involved consider nonhuman nature—in some form—significant and worth protecting, and agree that proposed management solutions should be based on solid scientific research. The scientists, advocates, and managers involved in this debate all share an incredible passion and drive to address the outdoor cat issue. The passion to do something about the outdoor cat issue and the motivation to protect nonhuman nature could be points for possible collaboration between multiple sides in this debate. Unfortunately, previous negative experiences and a history of animosity between these groups has hampered these collaborative efforts. Occasionally, conflicts are so entrenched that two groups cannot meet without fighting. We have heard the debate about outdoor cats described as such a conflict, but we believe the continued separation of these communities is ineffective and unnecessary. Actively excluding one perspective from the debate about outdoor cats or continuing to criticize or condemn opposing groups will contribute to further polarization and lack of trust between the diverse stakeholders concerned about cat management. Having explored this debate for several years and engaged with publics on many sides of this issue, we believe that “it should be possible both to believe deeply in the rightness of one’s own cause and to hear out the other side. Civility is not a sign of weakness, but of civilization” (Kristof, 2018). In the following chapter, we further explore the contradictions inherent in the cat debate and highlight the possible areas for shared understanding and values. We hope this deeper understanding of underlying differences and similarities will help us uncover potential pathways for collaboration and growth.