CHAPTER 5
For some in the wildlife/conservation community, the idea that cats are intrinsically valuable may be hard to accept, but just as a conservation advocate or birdwatcher derives pleasure from watching a bald eagle soar or a humming bird zoom across the sky, many TNR advocates derive the same pleasure from interacting with feral cats—even if “interacting” does not involve touching or holding the animal.
This appreciation for animals, including wild and domesticated beings, is just one of the many things that bird people and cat people share. Previous chapters have described the dualistic portrayal of the cat debate and the various communities that have a “stake” in the cat debate. Here, we will explore what these communities actually know, believe, and value; highlight important areas of agreement between and within groups, based on their concern for nonhuman nature and desire to protect animals; and challenge whether the polarized views typically emphasized in the media really exhaust the debate.
WHY STAKEHOLDERS MATTER
If we are going to find a solution that reduces that cat population and benefits wildlife, we have to understand and engage with all of the stakeholders—individuals interested in and concerned about outdoor cat welfare and management—involved in the cat debate. Implementing TNR or lethal control on a large scale will require cooperation between these interested groups (Peterson et al., 2012), including those who are passionate about helping outdoor cats and those who are passionate about saving wild birds.
Countless TNR volunteers manage cat colonies. Some of these volunteers are so devoted to the task of feeding feral animals that they sacrifice their own time, money, and ability to travel. “It’s a big responsibility managing outdoor cats,” suggested one focus group participant. “You know, I haven’t taken a vacation since I’ve had them. They’re like children; you can’t trust just anybody. I mean if they’re [cats] not fed one day that would be so traumatizing to them.”
The passion and commitment demonstrated by cat colony managers is matched in fervor by birdwatchers who travel the globe in search of rare species or bird enthusiasts who track birds daily using the eBird app, a “real-time, online checklist program” that allows birders to record bird sightings, keep track of bird lists, and share sightings with others in the birding community (eBird, n.d.). Passionate eBirders describe this program as “addictive” and “can’t imagine how” they lived without it (Team eBird, 2017a). Ken Burton, who won the May 2017 eBird Challenge, said, “I’m on eBird virtually every day for one reason or another and usually submit about four complete checklists a week” (Team eBird, 2017b, para. 2).
If we could find a solution that engages both of these communities, we would have a ready-made citizen group to mobilize and implement the agreed-upon management strategy. Unfortunately, as the response to Cat Wars illustrates (see chapter 2), there currently aren’t many examples of collaboration around the issue of outdoor cats. While the conservation community has done a good job of asking important questions about cat distribution, the spread of zoonotic diseases, and cat-related predation of birds and mammals on islands, it has done a poor job of reaching out to the diverse stakeholders that are necessary for the successful management of outdoor cats. In particular, the conservation community has focused more on communicating with others focused on the risks that cats pose to wildlife than with TNR groups who could be important allies and partners in the effort to reduce the number of unowned, outdoor cats. Because of this lack of communication, members of the two groups are not able to acknowledge each other’s perspective. This makes civil dialogue impossible and hampers the development of collaborative solutions that respect the values and goals of all parties.
Whether you are talking about the management of controversial animals or decisions about where to site a nuclear waste facility, communication between communities affected by these decisions should include all stakeholders’ perspectives, even those that make us uncomfortable. Despite the hundreds of TNR and bird advocacy groups across the United States, we are aware of only one prominently described example of collaboration between an Audubon Society group and a feral cat advocacy organization (Lisnik, 2015). It is very possible that other examples of collaboration exist, but the fact that they are not being covered by the national media, or discussed within the animal welfare and wildlife communities that the authors engage in, highlights the divisive nature of this conflict, the overwhelming focus by news media and stakeholder organizations on the conflict surrounding this issue, and the current gap in efforts to promote collaboration.
PERSPECTIVE TAKING AND DEEP LISTENING
Collaborative outcomes, including animal management initiatives, are more likely when participatory processes build trust and shared understanding among key stakeholders and when participants are able to take the perspective of others within the collaborative process (Ansell & Gash, 2008). Pragmatic solutions to the currently unsustainable stray, feral, and outdoor cat population are more likely to be found by engaging both conservation advocates and animal advocacy groups in dialogue and participatory efforts, which require an understanding of common goals and shared understanding between interest groups. To date, the conversation about outdoor cats has focused primarily on conflict, with little to no emphasis on the areas of agreement that could contribute to collaborative or cooperative initiatives. To begin to identify potential avenues for establishing common ground between key stakeholders, this chapter presents data collected by Dara Wald during six focus groups with TNR groups and Audubon Society members in Florida, surveys distributed to undergraduate students at the University of Florida, as well as surveys with randomly selected TNR supporters, Audubon Society members, and the public in Florida (see Wald, 2012, for details about focus groups and surveys).
Unlike previous studies about the topic, our research is based on interviews and focus groups with key stakeholders, who, compared to the general public, hold significantly different perspectives about the management of outdoor cats, are more interested, knowledgeable, and concerned about this issue, and are more likely to influence policies about outdoor cats (Wald et al., 2013). Surveys included questions about environmental values, beliefs about outdoor cats, perceived cat-related risks, attitudes toward management methods, affection for cats, and preferences for lethal management (Wald & Jacobson, 2013). Unlike previous research, these surveys used neutral terminology about cats (e.g., outdoor cats instead of feral cats) so that biased survey words would not influence survey responses, change attitudes, or pressure respondents into providing the “correct” response to this controversial issue.
This chapter focuses on what we have learned by listening and taking the perspective of both cat- and bird-lovers. The first section of this chapter explores the relationship between affection for cats and opinions about cat management. While affection for animals is certainly an important component of concern about cat management, we find that the relationship between affection and management support is more complicated than the one typically described in media coverage of this debate. Next, we explore the role of knowledge in the cat debate. As we described in chapter 2, scientists often attribute public conflicts over science to ignorance caused by a deficit of knowledge. The science deficit model often leads to the design of educational campaigns focused on increasing public awareness about an issue, with the assumption that awareness will change behavior. We will explore what TNR supporters know, or do not know, about cat predation and cat-related risks to wildlife from cats, and review what this tells us about the relationship between knowledge, affection, beliefs, and stakeholder preferences for cat management. The results of our study both enrich and challenge what had previously been known—and believed—about the cat debate. In addition to summarizing some of these findings, we address the implications of these results for communication efforts designed to engage with stakeholders concerned about outdoor cats. Finally, we discuss areas of common concern and shared interests between stakeholders that might provide a pathway to encourage consensus, collaboration, or cooperation between these groups.
SOME WE LOVE, SOME WE HATE
TNR volunteers and cat caretakers express affection for outdoor cats (Centonze & Levy, 2002) and commit time and money to their care. Affection is a critical factor in human cognition and behavior and has been cited as a factor predicting support for animal management techniques and protection efforts (Fulton, Skerl, Shank, & Lime, 2004; Tarrant, Bright, & Cordell, 1997; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999; Vaske & Needham, 2007).
In the following section, we take a look at the relationship between affection for cats and birds and TNR support or opposition. While love appears to be related to TNR support, it may not be the only thing that matters; there may be other attitudes, beliefs, or values that also influence TNR advocates’ support for nonlethal management strategies. Identifying these other factors and how they influence TNR advocates’ behavior will help stakeholders interested in working with TNR communities identify messages that appeal to this community. In addition to exploring affection for cats among TNR supporters, we also explore feelings about cats among conservation group members.
Based on the portrayal of the conflict in the media, we expected conservation group members to express very little affection for cats, especially outdoor cats; however, conservation group members often expressed positive feelings for cats during focus group meetings and described outdoor cats as “pretty” and “beautiful.” “I have a very dear place in my heart for cats,” asserted one focus group participant and member of the Audubon Society. “We had cats my whole life and I love cats, and we brought strays in all the time, we had kittens in our neighborhood that I grew up in, and we’d bring them in and raise them.” Several other participants in the conservation group reported both affection for cats and mixed feelings about letting cats roam outside. One participant acknowledged feeling guilty for letting her cats outdoors because of the “risk to wildlife.” Despite these feelings, she still likes to watch cats: “I mean, it’s just a thing I enjoy. They’re beautiful to watch.” Another long-time Audubon Society member suggested that because of affection for his own cats, he could “get kind of swayed easily by either side” of the cat debate. Instead of finding anger and hostility toward cats among conservation group members, focus group results revealed many members of the conservation community who liked cats, acknowledged both the pros and cons of letting cats roam outdoors, and, in several cases, sheepishly admitted letting their own animals outdoors. Since focus group participants were not randomly selected, it is possible that the respondents quoted here were more interested in this question and more positive about cats than the rest of the Audubon Society membership.
To explore this question further, we also asked about affection for cats in a mail survey that was randomly distributed to a representative sample of Audubon Society members. The survey included a question about feelings toward outdoor cats (1 = unfavorable feeling, 7 = favorable feeling) and a question about feelings toward domestic cats in general (1 = hate, 7 = love). In what follows, we look at the results of both of these questions separately.
TNR supporters express significantly more affection for outdoor cats than conservation group members or the general public (approximately two points higher) and greater affection for domestic cats (approximately one point higher) than the public. However, there was no difference in affection for outdoor cats among conservation advocates and public respondents. Thus, while conservation advocates are less enthusiastic about outdoor cats than TNR advocates, they are no less enthusiastic than the general public. The dominant narrative in the media and among stakeholder groups often describes cat-lovers and bird-lovers in conflict and implies that these two groups are mutually exclusive. Our results challenge this narrative and suggest that it is possible for people to love birds and cats. Moreover, while TNR advocates expressed greater affection for cats, the bird-lovers we engaged with do not appear, in general, to dislike outdoor cats any more than the general public.
Previous research has suggested that affection, or feelings, can influence perceptions of animals, judgement, and decision making. Thus, we also explored the relationship between affection and preference for lethal and nonlethal management. We asked participants to indicate their preferred management action for outdoor cats (e.g., trap-neuter-return; placement in a long-term, no-kill sanctuary; trap and euthanize; poisoned baits; shooting; providing cats with food or other assistance; and no management) and measured attitudes about the humaneness of lethal management by asking respondents to tell us if they thought lethal strategies such as euthanasia, poisoning, or shooting were inhumane or very humane (1 = not humane, 7 = very humane).
Our initial results suggest that love for cats is strongly related to support for TNR (see Wald & Jacobson, 2013). Affection for outdoor cats is associated with increased support for TNR programs and perceptions of TNR effectiveness. Affection is also related to increased perceptions of lethal methods, including euthanasia by a veterinarian, as inhumane. Positive feelings about cats is related to increased tolerance for outdoor animals and decreased support for government control of outdoor cats and the confinement of cats indoors. As love for domestic cats increases, so does affection for outdoor cats, and we observed similar relationships between support for TNR and affection for domestic cats. While affection was associated with support for TNR among TNR advocates, several members of the conservation group suggested that feelings for cats were not driving their opposition to TNR. As one participant suggested, “I’m perfectly fine with cats; I just don’t like them outdoors.” To which another respondent added, “They’re fine if they’re leashed.” While affection for cats was higher among animal welfare advocates, comments captured in focus groups suggest that support for cat management among conservation group members may not be driven by negative feelings about cats—whether they are indoor or outdoor. In what follows, we will explore several other factors that may influence conservation group members’ preferences for cat management.
Regardless of affection for cats, we observed widespread discomfort with the idea of poisoning cats, even among people who don’t particularly like cats. As one Audubon Society member suggested, “Poisoning is a pretty rough way to go. I mean I’m not a great cat lover, but I’m not necessarily looking to cause any great physical impact.” Respondents generally preferred nonlethal management methods and euthanasia, either by a veterinarian or in an animal shelter, over shooting or poisoning outdoor cats. Respondents in both stakeholder groups also objected to shooting cats. Calling shooting an “extreme solution,” one respondent from the Audubon Society said, “If they’re [cats] just eating mockingbirds, I don’t think I would shoot a cat.” Both conservation group members and members of the TNR community suggested in focus groups that their rejection of shooting and poisoning was related to concerns about it not being a “humane” or “fair” approach to management. Indeed, concerns about the humaneness of cat management methods appeared to be an important factor influencing stakeholders’ support for cat management. As one member of the conservation group said, “Getting rid of them [cats] humanely would be the primary objective because I have nothing against cats. I don’t dislike cats, and the cats are not evil; they’re just in the wrong place.”
These results suggest that in addition to affection, the perceived humaneness of management strategies might also influence opinions about management strategies. To explore this idea, we ran a series of models to better understand the relationship between affection for cats, perceived humaneness of management strategies, and support for specific management approaches (lethal vs. nonlethal). We found an important relationship between beliefs about the humaneness of lethal strategies and support for TNR. While support for lethal management was generally low, people who perceived lethal efforts as humane were more likely to support these methods and less likely to support TNR. Moreover, attitudes about lethal management predicted attitudes toward TNR and intention to support other nonlethal interventions.
Affection for cats influenced opinions about management, with affection increasing support for TNR and decreasing support for lethal management. However, when we compared affection for cats and attitudes about humaneness as predictors of support for management, we found that perceptions of humaneness had a much larger effect on support for TNR than affection. In addition, while positive beliefs about cat-related impacts (e.g., that cats provide companionship or reduce the spread of disease) increased affection for cats, it was not associated with support for lethal management. Instead, negative beliefs about the risks cats pose to wildlife and people (e.g., spread rabies, kill wildlife) increased positive attitudes toward lethal management. These findings suggest that stakeholders, especially conservation group members, support lethal management methods if they perceive big risks to wildlife and people from cats and if they perceive lethal methods of management as humane. TNR group members also support nonlethal management methods because they believe these methods are humane. However, TNR members appear to be motivated by affection for cats, positive attitudes toward TNR, and positive beliefs about cats and the benefits they provide to humans.
Our results challenge the idea that support for management is driven only by love of cats or love of birds; instead, they suggest that many members of the conservation community care about cats, own cats, and appreciate their beauty but also support lethal management methods. At the same time, these results suggest that TNR supporters are opposed to lethal management and supportive of TNR because of positive feelings about outdoor cats and concerns about the humaneness of lethal management. Participants who were more concerned about the potential risks cats pose to wildlife were more supportive of lethal management strategies. Participants who were more certain of the benefits cats provide to them or to society (i.e., through pest management) were more supportive of TNR. Thus, support for lethal management and support for TNR appear to be influenced by very different factors, concerns, and beliefs. We believe that framing this debate as one between cat-lovers and bird-lovers overemphasizes the effect of affection on management support and ignores the critical role of ethical values and risk-related beliefs underlying stakeholders’ attitudes about the humaneness of lethal management strategies (Gorman, 2003; Hatley & Ankersen, 2003; Rosenthal, 2011). We continue to explore the role of stakeholder values, beliefs, and perceptions of risks and benefits in the following section.
THE SCIENCE DEFICIT PROBLEM
One common refrain heard during focus group meetings with Audubon Society members and conversations with friends in the wildlife and ecological community is that TNR advocates favor TNR because they just do not know, or understand, that cats—even neutered animals—kill birds. This supposed disregard among the TNR community for mounting evidence that cats kill birds frustrates many members of the wildlife community and has contributed to the publication of op-ed pieces, such as a 2014 article published in the New York Times by Richard Conniff, a regular contributor to the Times, Smithsonian, and National Geographic magazines. Conniff tackles the knowledge “deficit” (or assumption that TNR advocates do not understand that cats kill birds) by providing a primer on the science of cat predation: “researchers recently estimated that free-ranging cats killed about 2.4 billion birds annually in the Lower 48 states” (para. 9). Conniff continues with a focus on cat-related risks, “cats are the primary hosts of toxoplasmosis” (para. 16). This article attempts to correct what the author sees as a lack of knowledge, on the part of the TNR community, about the potential risks cats pose to people and the environment. This approach assumes that greater knowledge about the science will change TNR advocates’ beliefs and behavior.
Unfortunately, increased knowledge does not automatically alter people’s values or practices. The headline of an article in Slate makes this point: “Scientists, Stop Thinking Explaining Science Will Fix Things. It Won’t” (Requarth, 2017). There are several reasons why more information about the science of cat predation and cat-related risks is not, by itself, likely to change TNR advocates’ beliefs and behaviors. In the following section, we explore these reasons, focusing on what TNR supporters know and believe about cat predation and cat-related risks. We also explain why messages focused on risks and cat predation are likely to backfire with TNR groups and explore alternative pathways for effectively engaging this community.
WHAT WE LEARNED FROM LISTENING TO CAT PEOPLE
Cat owners and TNR advocates know that cats kill animals. Focus group participants regularly mentioned cat predation on birds, snakes, mice, and “other little animals.” Several respondents who owned cats and let them roam outdoors acknowledged that their pets bring dead animals back to their houses to “let you know what they [the cat] did.” Another cat owner recalled an incident when her own cat ate one of her pet birds—valued at $150.
TNR group members acknowledged that cats were predators, but suggested that predation and hunting was part of a cat’s nature: “You can’t take that out of them, whether they’re tame or not. Even my cats, will bring in baby snakes—or a bird last week—and it’s just because anything that wiggles, they’re going for it.” While acknowledging that cats prey on wildlife, one participant also understood that cat predation was a source of frustration for some people: “I have a neighbor who was very upset because the cats go after birds.” At the same time, other respondents acknowledged that seeing cats kill wild animals was not enjoyable because they do not want “to see anything hurt or dead or suffer.”
Survey results provided further evidence that TNR group members understand that cats kill wildlife. When stakeholders were asked whether “cats kill mice and pests,” a majority of the TNR group members (87%) agreed with this statement. In fact, TNR group members were more likely than the conservation group members (78%) and public respondents (83%) to agree that cats kill mice and pests (Wald, Jacobson, & Levy, 2013). However, TNR group members were more willing to acknowledge that cats kill “mice and pests” than they were to acknowledge that “cats kill wildlife.” When we asked stakeholders whether “cats kill wildlife,” the number of TNR respondents agreeing with this statement dropped to 54%. While this is still the majority of the stakeholder group, it is far below the 87% of conservationists who agreed that “cats kill mice and pests.” This inconsistency suggests that “knowledge” about predation is not the same thing as understanding the magnitude of the risk to wildlife or a willingness to acknowledge these risks. Moreover, this finding is consistent with other examples of controversial scientific and environmental topics, like climate change, where people may understand the scientific data and evidence but continue to reject it or criticize it (Kahan, Peters, Dawson, & Slovic, 2017).
If, as our research suggests, TNR supporters know that cats kill wildlife, why don’t they accept that cat predation poses a risk to the environment? Our results indicate that when people believe cats are beneficial to them, they are less likely to acknowledge the risks associated with outdoor cats. This finding suggests another possible reason that messages based on risk will likely backfire: TNR advocates perceive direct benefits from cats, and some TNR group members view cat predation as beneficial to them because cats control undesirable animals. As one focus group member put it: “In terms of rats, snakes, and mice, where I live, um, we are surrounded on three sides by water…. So we should be overloaded with rats, and snakes, and mice, and we aren’t. I mean there just aren’t any out there.” This particular respondent viewed a habitat without snakes, rats, and mice as “clean and healthy,” and he suggested that he was glad that outdoor cats were around to help keep his community “clean.”
There were several other ways in which focus group respondents, especially members of the TNR community, viewed cats as beneficial to people. Previously, we discussed the positive feelings stakeholders expressed about seeing cats outdoors, but respondents also suggested that participating in TNR activities provided TNR advocates with positive feelings: “I just feel warm and fuzzy taking care of them. This was the first litters that I’ve actually watched the babies grow up and have litters of their own; and now I’ve had to do something because I’ve realized they grow rapidly, so I needed to bring them in and have them fixed so it doesn’t happen. So I can let them have a healthier, better life, and then I feel warm and fuzzy knowing that I did something for them.” These positive sentiments about taking care of cats are not that different from some of the motivations that drive conservation efforts. As Drew Lanham, professor of ecology and conservation at Clemson University, said in a recent interview with Audubon magazine, “conservation can be broken down into simple components: care and love” (Saha, 2017, para. 5). Just as concern for cat welfare appears to motivate TNR advocates, concerns about bird welfare motivates bird feeding (Cox & Gaston, 2016).
Imagine for a moment trying to convince active bird feeders that they should stop feeding birds because birds carry salmonella, avian pox, and other diseases that can negatively affect humans (CDC, n.d.; Mass Audubon, n.d.). When confronted with this point, bird feeders are likely to minimize the risks that birds pose to people and cite the steps that can be used to reduce the spread of disease at feeders: clean feeders, add feeders to reduce congestion, store seed in airtight containers to reduce spoilage (Mass Audubon, n.d.). This response mirrors reactions from TNR advocates when they are confronted with the potential risks associated with outdoor cats.
When people perceive something as beneficial, they are less likely to acknowledge the potential risks associated with it. The more an individual perceives benefits associated with a potential source of risk, the less they believe, or are willing to acknowledge, the associated risks (Alhakami & Slovic, 1994). This same pattern holds for cats. Cats are less likely to be perceived as a risk to wildlife and the environment by people who perceive cats as beneficial to them (Peterson et al., 2012; Wald & Jacobson, 2014). Indeed, during focus groups with TNR members, it was clear that many respondents were skeptical that cats are a source of risk. As one TNR supporter suggested, cats may kill “a squirrel, a bird, a rat even, but the ratio of how many cats there are to how many wild animals they kill isn’t very many.” The belief that the magnitude of the risk from cats to wildlife is really small was reinforced by another participant who suggested that while “feral cats probably do kill some [songbirds],” cat predation is probably not detrimental to bird populations or species as a whole. One TNR supporter was frustrated with conservation groups’ concerns about TNR because the purpose of doing TNR was to “reduce or manage” cat predation and “keep it on an even level,” suggesting that conservation communities should support TNR because reducing the cat population will “give the wildlife a better chance.”
Participants who believe outdoor cats provide them with companionship and improve their quality of life are more likely to agree that cats kill mice and pests and benefit people. Participants who believe that these benefits make cats intrinsically valuable are less likely to agree with a statement that suggests that cats pose risks to wildlife and the environment.
Compared to members of the conservation community, members of the TNR community were significantly more likely to agree that “outdoor cats provide me with companionship, outdoor cats improve my quality of life, and by killing pests, outdoor cats reduce the spread of disease.” While we did hear positive comments about outdoor cats by conservation group members, TNR group members were much more likely to describe cats as “beautiful” and “natural,” and to describe outdoor cats as contributing to the natural environment or providing a benefit for people. The relationship between risks and benefits goes the other way, too. The more risks you perceive from an animal or technology, the less likely you are to acknowledge the benefits associated with it.
Unlike respondents in the TNR community, conservation group members are very concerned about the risks cats pose to wildlife and the environment. These stakeholders perceive cats as exotic animals who pose unacceptable levels of risk to wildlife; thus, fewer of them were willing to agree with a statement framing cat behaviors as beneficial (cats kill mice and pests). The model we mentioned earlier reinforces this idea and provides evidence to suggest that perceived cat-related risks promote support for lethal management while perceived cat-related benefits are associated with greater support for TNR. Moreover, these results suggest that ethical concerns about lethal management may have a larger effect on stakeholder preferences for management than positive attitudes toward cats (Wald & Jacobson, 2013). In the next section, we address these factors further and discuss the implications of our findings for educational campaigns aimed at reducing the population of unowned, outdoor cats.
COMMUNICATION CHALLENGES
At presentations of this information at academic conferences, one of the most common questions we are asked is: if TNR advocates don’t believe the risks that cats pose to wildlife, why don’t we just educate them and give them the scientific information about cat predation? It is appealing to think that when scientists or “experts” convey simple and vivid messages to the public, the public will receive the communication and change their beliefs or behavior. As we mentioned above, the science deficit theory is commonly adopted by many environmental scientists and conservation groups concerned about outdoor cats. Unfortunately, this model of communication—also called the transmission model or the loading dock approach (Cash, Borck, & Patt, 2006)—has been widely criticized. The science deficit model has failed, in part, because it overlooks the deeply divergent values and ethical beliefs that guide disagreements over science, such as the debate over how to manage outdoor cats. Just as increasing scientific literacy by explaining the science of climate change to individuals skeptical of climate science is not likely to change beliefs about climate change (Requarth, 2017), attempts to explain cat-related risks to wildlife and people are not likely to change minds among people who are skeptical that cats pose a risk to wildlife and people.
While information is an important first step, knowledge alone is not enough to change strongly held beliefs about cats or ethical opposition to lethal management. What we know—as well as how we interpret that knowledge—is subject to preexisting biases and beliefs. Our aforementioned results highlight one of the reasons the debate over cat management feels intractable: strongly held and conflicting beliefs and values. As Susskind and Field (1996) explain, “When values collide, all sides tend to wrap themselves in the rhetoric of moral right and moral outrage. The other side is portrayed as ignorant at best and as inhuman at worst. Each side views itself as righteous, and, above all, as eminently reasonable” (p. 153). Our research exposes a complicated mix of values and beliefs about the humaneness of lethal management methods that are related to stakeholders’ preferences about TNR and other management options.
Beliefs are slow to change and “extraordinarily persistent in the face of contrary evidence” (Slovic et al., 1979, p. 37). Persuasive messaging aimed at changing beliefs can be met with misinterpretation and attempts to discredit the messenger or provide counterevidence that contradicts the persuasive message (Hart & Nisbet, 2012; Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). Attempts to change strongly held beliefs can result in “backfire effects,” in which individuals confronted with persuasive messages that contradict a strongly held belief become more committed to their original beliefs and opinions (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010). Backfire effects have been observed in campaigns aimed at increasing energy efficiency and promoting antismoking initiatives (Grandpre, Alvaro, Burgoon, Miller, & Hall, 2003; Shen, 2011). A strategic communication campaign designed to try to persuade cat advocates that lethal management is appropriate to reduce the risks associated with cat predation on wildlife is likely to fail because cat advocates do not believe that cat predation poses widespread risks to wildlife, and because TNR advocates perceive enormous benefits from cats, leading them to suppress concerns about cat-related risks. Persuasive messages encouraging lethal cat management also are likely to backfire with TNR advocates, whose beliefs are both strongly held and grounded in ethical concerns about the humaneness of lethal animal control. When presented with new information that conflicts with their existing perceptions, individuals with strongly held perceptions and beliefs are less likely to change their beliefs (Festinger, 1962; Koehler, 1993; Nickerson, 1998). The more active and involved an individual is in a particular issue, the less willing the individual will be to accept evidence contradicting strongly held beliefs (Johnson & Eagly, 1989).
When it comes to controversial social topics, conflict and group identity can disable the tools that people use to interpret scientific information. The shared values, moral understandings, and identities that connect stakeholders together in an in-group community can also lead in-group members to reject contrary beliefs and perspectives, especially when these messages come from individuals or organizations not included in the group (out-group). In-group members are more likely to reject out-group sources as less trustworthy or knowledgeable than in-group sources (Kahan, Braman, Gastil, Slovic, & Mertz, 2007). Individuals who have a large stake in the TNR community, or who feel that their personal well-being is connected to their animal welfare identity, may be more willing to reject information that challenges the values or core beliefs of the animal welfare community. They may reject this information in an effort to protect a part of their own identity as a member in the group (Kahan et al., 2007).
Given the conflict surrounding the debate over outdoor cats and the large commitment of time and money often invested in birding and TNR activities, it is possible that group identity is associated with the skewed the interpretation of scientific evidence regarding cat predation and the effectiveness of TNR initiatives. For an example of how identity, strongly held beliefs, and risk perceptions might influence the interpretation of evidence, we can revisit the Amazon reviews of Cat Wars, discussed in chapter 2. Reviews from self-identified wildlife advocates consider the book to be an excellent read (five stars) for calling attention to the “damage outdoor cats are doing to our native wildlife,” while self-identified animal advocates describe the book in negative terms, giving it one star because it “ignores evidence.”
The tendency to reject information from out-group sources has clear implications for people who want to change the nature of the debate about outdoor cats by targeting stakeholders who already have strongly held beliefs about TNR and cat management. Knowledge about cat-related risks to wildlife and the environment can raise awareness about the issues associated with outdoor cats, but based on our findings, knowledge alone is not likely to change the perceptions, beliefs, or behaviors of TNR advocates. Moreover, a focus on information about cat-related risks may further alienate stakeholders who strongly disagree that these risks exist, contributing to the continued rejection of scientific information about cat-related risks (as we saw in the response to Cat Wars). To engender public support, animal welfare organizations and conservation groups must develop compelling and effective communication campaigns that persuade recipients to change their beliefs or behaviors. The challenge is that beliefs are extremely resistant to persuasive messages, especially from out-group sources. In a debate that regularly features perspectives from cat-lovers who disagree with bird-lovers, finding a neutral source of information will be challenging. Risk communication involves the transmission of messages designed to persuade recipients to change their attitudes or behavior toward a risk item (Breakwell, 1997). Trust is a critical component of risk communication and public engagement. The debate between cat advocates and the wildlife community has become so heated (as we described in chapter 2) that scientists, and especially conservation scientists, may not be perceived by certain groups as trusted sources of information about cat predation.
Lack of trust between bird and cat communities is particularly problematic because large-scale cat management efforts will require both public and stakeholder collaboration and participation in activities that control the cat population. Collaborative outcomes, including prosocial behaviors, are more likely when participatory processes build trust and shared understanding among key stakeholders and when participants are able to take the perspective of others within the collaborative process.1 Before stakeholders can work together for a shared goal, they must understand and respect the values and beliefs of stakeholders on all sides of this debate. The current focus on conflict, continued reliance on messages rooted in the deficit model, and lack of understanding of potential areas for collaboration is delaying efforts to build partnerships between conservation advocates and animal advocacy groups. In light of these challenges and the urgency of this problem, we believe a new approach, focused on potential areas of collaboration, is necessary. In the following section, we present stakeholders’ shared concerns and discuss how they could provide the basis for collaborative efforts to reduce the unowned, outdoor cat population.
WHAT DO STAKEHOLDERS AGREE ON?
On the surface, our findings appear to support the claim that TNR supporters and Audubon Society members have different values, beliefs, and attitudes, which in turn drive their management preferences. Compared to Audubon Society members, TNR supporters expressed more positive attitudes toward cats, believed cats provide more benefits to people and fewer risks to wildlife, and preferred nonlethal management methods. On the other hand, Audubon Society members expressed more strongly held environmental values than TNR supporters. They were more likely to make statements such as “We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support” or that “Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.” Audubon Society groups were more supportive of trapping and impounding cats and euthanasia than TNR supporters. None of these findings are surprising, and they support previous research on this issue. However, emphasizing only these disagreements makes it difficult, if not impossible, to have constructive conversations about these issues. Communication between stakeholder groups often breaks down because discussions focus on areas of disagreement (Fisher & Ury, 1991).
Finding areas of agreement does not mean solving the problems immediately; in fact, we recommend against starting a collaborative conversation focused on the pros and cons of lethal cat management, which is at the heart of the conflict over outdoor cat management. Rather, in Dealing with an Angry Public, Lawrence Susskind and Patrick Field (1996) suggest starting small. They cite a case of conflict between the public and the Environmental Protection Agency over a plan to incinerate toxic chemicals in and around the New Bedford Harbor, within three miles of a working-class community. The conflict was heated and resulted in opposition groups filing a lawsuit against the city of New Bedford. Negotiators might have been tempted to start that first public meeting with a conversation about alternative approaches for cleaning the harbor, but instead, they started by negotiating an agreement that the EPA would not do anything in the harbor for 30 days and the community would delay their lawsuit for the same period. This agreement didn’t address the primary reason for public outrage, but it started a conversation between the groups, it encouraged commitment to the process of collaboration, and it built trust and respect between stakeholders so that future meetings could address more controversial topics (Susskind & Field, 1996). In the next section, we identify several potential areas of compromise and agreement between stakeholder groups that might be used as building blocks for future collaboration between cat advocates and conservation group members.
AREAS FOR COLLABORATION
The first area of agreement between stakeholders was a desire to control or manage the outdoor cat population. Several respondents in both the TNR and Audubon Society groups suggested that people should be responsible for taking care of cats and dogs because they need human intervention to be “healthier and happier.” In addition, all of the groups participating in the focus groups and the surveys agreed that the outdoor cat population should not increase. No one wants more unowned cats. As one focus group respondent suggested, TNR is an opportunity to reduce the outdoor cat population: “Honestly, I do hope that they eventually will disappear. ‘Cause hopefully what that number means, is it’s becoming more under controlled…. You know, that’s the whole reason I think why we all do this [TNR]. ‘Cause hopefully that number will be way, way, way down.” There was very little support for “no management,” and stakeholders were generally supportive of programs that reduce outdoor cats, especially those that relied on nonlethal management methods. One focus group participant explained that he participated in TNR efforts because he did not think that living outdoors was a good way for cats to have to go through life. He further suggested that it was the responsibility of people to help cats and “keep them from overpopulating.”
Environmental campaigns and management efforts will fail if they cannot generate public interest and support. Environmental managers and outreach coordinators can spend an enormous amount of time trying to figure out ways to get stakeholders to come to focus groups or community meetings, to participate in cleanup campaigns, or to adopt a new behavior. The outdoor cat debate is unique because there is immense interest in the topic from stakeholders who are already committing time, money, and effort to managing cats and feeding birds. In addition, stakeholders on various sides of the cat debate share a desire to reduce the cat population. A shared agenda—to reduce the cat population—and passion for this issue are only two of the areas of agreement that could motivate collaboration.
When asked to choose between management types, there was widespread support for nonlethal methods among all of the stakeholder groups. Other studies have reported that nonlethal methods are generally perceived as more humane than lethal control (Reiter, Brunson, & Schmidt, 1999). This was true in our study as well. Members of all three of the groups we studied preferred nonlethal management, including TNR and placement in a long-term or no-kill cat sanctuary, over approaches that involved killing outdoor cats. We found concrete agreement over the importance of management, with support for mandatory rabies vaccination, owner-provided identification, and TNR as a “good management strategy.” While support for TNR is lower among conservation advocates than TNR members, it is still generally positive. In fact, we found generally positive support across all stakeholder groups for TNR as a management strategy. Compared to the other possible management strategies, TNR was the strategy that most stakeholders supported.
Although one focus group respondent suggested that due to the increasing need to find a solution to the growing population of outdoor cats in the community, it was only “necessity” that contributed to “sort of permitting or promoting” TNR. Both TNR advocates and conservation group members expressed frustration with cat owners who abandoned cats or shirked responsibility for their animals. As one respondent indicated, “I think it would be great if someone would bring them indoors or to take their outdoor animal that they own and just make it an indoor animal, you know that would bring the numbers down and that would be a great solution. That would be the preferred solution. Someone takes responsibility for it, the cats being cared for life is good.” Other respondents expressed a desire for people to become “more responsible for their pets,” so that there would be fewer animals in “the shelters and less going in the streets.” One focus group participant suggested that owners should be punished for not taking care of their own cats: “If you can’t be responsible … I think it is a problem, and you shouldn’t be allowed to keep it [the cat].”
According to this respondent, responsible ownership included meeting cats’ basic needs, like food and water, and preventing animals from posing a danger to other animals or to the ecosystem. If owners couldn’t meet this level of responsibility, the respondent suggested that the owner should “suffer penalties for that.” To some TNR members the number of outdoor cats is not as important as the number of animals with responsible owners and caregivers: “It doesn’t matter if there were 100 of them [outdoor cats], if they were taken care of and I knew they were taken care of and they were fixed and healthy.” While most TNR members were not happy that cats were outdoors, they suggested that this was just the reality and often blamed irresponsible pet owners for this problem. Both groups expressed frustration for owners who are not taking ownership or responsibility for managing and caring for outdoor cats.
Referring to a specific neighbor, one Audubon Society participant explained:
In my situation, I feel like she doesn’t own the cats … she has a hole in the attic where they live and procreate, and the house is just in shambles. She has a dog she leaves inside and is not there frequently enough to give this dog a happy life. So, I don’t feel like she’s an owner of these cats. But in other situations where you have these people that own the cats, that feed them, that take care of them, that allow them to be outside and wander into other people’s homes and properties, then it’s acceptable.
Our data also suggest that there are, in fact, critical areas of agreement between groups, focused on their concern for nonhuman nature and desire to protect animals. The environmental values scale used in our surveys was designed to measure individual environmental concern (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000). Scores in this study, for both active stakeholder groups, were extremely high. In fact, these scores were higher than previously reported scores for farmers, birdwatchers, fishers, and hunters.2 This seems to suggest that, regardless of group membership, stakeholders support the rights of plants and animals to coexist with people. This suggests framing the conversation about outdoor cats not as a conflict between bird-lovers and cat-lovers (or between cat-haters and bird-haters), but, more constructively, as a spectrum in which even the people with the strongest feelings share some common core values: they care about non-human nature, they agree that the population of outdoor cats should not grow, and they want to find ways to control that population that minimize harm and death to animals of all sorts.
FROM CONFLICT TO COLLABORATION
Understanding the problems raised by outdoor domestic cats presents a challenge for public policy and for advocacy groups seeking collaboration. Conflict and uncertainty exist about a number of issues, including the definition of the cat problem (are cats in urban areas contributing to species decline?), as well as how to describe and name these animals (e.g., as native, invasive, exotic, domestic, feral, outdoor, community, stray, or free-roaming). These are not merely semantic issues, for the ways we define these animals and the potential risks or benefits they pose influences responses to questions about management support. Previous studies have suggested there is public support for euthanasia as a method to manage feral cats (Lord, 2008; Loyd & Miller, 2010b). However, our research used the term outdoor cats and found much less public and stakeholder support for lethal management methods. In focus groups, participants suggested that their perceptions of feral cats differed from their perceptions of outdoor cats. In addition, the use of different terms to describe lethal management—such as euthanasia rather than killing, culling, or eradication—also has the potential to influence self-reported levels of support for different options.
Developing clear, agreed-upon, and uncontroversial terminology is one step that will help build common ground between stakeholders. This is necessary to create a shared vision between stakeholders and to develop management strategies with broad support. A variety of negotiation methods can promote dialogue among stakeholders, improve decision making, and resolve controversial issues. It can help to develop clear goals: “no more homeless pets” is a very different goal than “keep cats indoors.” The goals will differ depending on whether the objective is to reduce cat predation on wildlife or to reduce the current population of outdoor cats. Identifying goals that all stakeholders agree on can be the first step to developing management methods with broad stakeholder support.
Collaborative or cooperative intiatives often start with a fluid process where the group’s core values and mission shift and adapt to the arrival and departure of new members (Imperial et al., 2016). An important first step in this process is to decide who is invited and who is excluded, and whether the group will invite a facilitative leader. This could include targeted recruitment of groups representing a diversity of environmental groups and animal welfare groups with different moral or value-based beliefs about TNR (described in chapter 4). Moreover, early decisions about the frequency, duration, and location of meetings can determine who participates and has discursive legitimacy—the ability to have a voice—throughout the decision-making process.
Decision-making processes are more likely to be perceived as fair when they include (1) consistent decisions across people and time, (2) reduced bias and influence among powerful decision makers, (3) clear standards about ethical norms and practices, and (4) are based on accurate information. Initial conversations about goals or collaboration could be designed to leverage traditions from principled negotiation, including separating people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, establishing shared criteria for decision making, and looking for win-win solutions (Fisher & Ury, 1991). Thus, early discussions among participants should include efforts to determine rules for communicating throughout the collaborative process and address participants’ expectations about the type of interactions that might occur. These basic decisions can lay the foundation for a strong working relationship with all of the parties involved in the conflict.
The current debate about outdoor cats usually revolves around only two options: TNR or euthanasia. We believe this narrow focus contributes to the current conflict between stakeholders, and we would encourage researchers, stakeholders, and others interested in this issue to begin identifying creative new and humane ways to manage outdoor cats. It is futile to try to convince the TNR community that cats are not valuable, just as it would be futile to try to convince a member of the conservation community that a bald eagle is worthless. No persuasive message will ever be effective enough to convince a TNR advocate that widespread shooting or poisoning is an appropriate management strategy for cats.
If the driving factor for management support, as suggested by our model, is perceptions of the humaneness of existing management strategies, then it is important to identify innovative management techniques that are perceived as more humane and effective than current methods. This will require stakeholders, managers, and researchers to think creatively rather than relying on existing options. Developing a large list of possible outcomes or methods also makes it easier to identify areas of shared interest between groups. As one focus group participant said, “All of you guys have proposed things that I may not have thought about before coming here, so now I can leave here thinking about things you guys have proposed and saying, ‘Hmm now I can apply that to my everyday situation.’ So, you gain knowledge from every individual, or every organization that you talk to.” Only broad conversations, incorporating people with clear disagreements, as well as those who have already identified common values and goals, will lead to policies and practices that can garner broad public support and achieve the goals of both conservation and animal welfare advocates.
Occasionally conflicts are so polarized that two groups cannot be in the same room together without a fight. We have heard the debate about outdoor cats described as such a conflict. However, our results suggest several potential areas of agreement that could provide the foundation for collaboration and shared goals. Pragmatic solutions to the cat debate will not be possible without a concentrated effort to build trust with diverse stakeholders. Actively excluding one or another perspective from the debate about outdoor cats, or continuing to criticize or condemn opposing groups, will contribute to further polarization and distrust between the diverse stakeholders concerned about cat management. We believe the only way to promote a more effective, humane, and ultimately successful approach to outdoor cat management is to engage all sides of this debate in open, face-to-face communication about cats and cat management.