Longcore's Response to My Critique of His Cynical Condemnation of Feral Cats

Dear Ed,

That's a very sensationalistic subject line, but it's not what I said. (meaning in the email critique I sent out)

I was referring to the attached study, which compares the effort necessary for TNR to reduce populations versus euthanasia (although adoption or removal to sanctuary would have an equal effect, which is why I said "removal" and not "euthanasia").

This type of scientific study (that is, published in the peer reviewed scientific literature) is what would be considered in assessing the impacts and efficacy of any TNR program under CEQA.  


Travis Longcore, Ph.D. 
Science Director, The Urban Wildlands Group
Research Associate Professor, USC Department of Geography
Lecturer, UCLA Institute of the Environment
(310) 247-9719


I am well aware of the paper you attached, and offered one and all to do a rebuttal. However, LAAS refused to provide me any information they had regarding their preliminary CEQA study because of the lawsuit. 

I still would be glad to prepare a rebuttal--and I think most points in that paper are easily rebutted--but it would be useless without authorization by the City. They mostly ignored my input regarding scientific evidence and scientific reasoning over the past thee years. The Mayor's group is kind of arrogant. They feel they are handling everything well.

Perhaps now the powers that be in the Mayor's Office will allow Dr. Prupas, head veterinarian at LAAS, to put together an official study group on these issues, which would be way late with regard to your lawsuit.

Your suggestion of sanctuaries or placing them in homes is ludicrous.

There are an estimated 1-3,000,000 homeless and feral cats living within the city of Los Angeles. LAAS is not able to handle 25,000 cat and kitten impounds a year, let alone an additional 50% of 1-3 million.

Cat sanctuaries have been the holy grail of TNR people as long as I can remember, but they have never happened despite desperate tying over the years because of lack of resources. Council refused to turn over some City property many years ago for ust one sanctuary that might have housed a couple of thousand cats.

The same problems hold true with adoption. LAAS is only adopting out 24,000 dogs and cats a year with a budget of $20,000,000. How much would be needed to place 500,000 to 1.5 million?

All the rescues together may place a like number, but  doubt it.

Therfore, your solutions are not solutions, but only a thin cover over your heartless "removal" recommendation. If removal became the law, you would be condemning 500,000 to 1.5 million cats to death.

1 comment:

Right on target. said...

"Your suggestion of sanctuaries or placing them in homes is ludicrous."

This person obviously has no understanding of what he is saying here.

All the sanctuaries we know about have been utter failures. They ended up with more neglect and abuse than any hoarder's home. Rescuers placed their rescues in the sanctuaries, One near San Diego and another at Singita, and they had to go back and get the cats out because the cats were horribly neglected. You are right to describe sanctuaries as the Holy Grail of rescuers. They weren't sanctuaries, they were houses of horror.