"To one whose mind is free, there is something even more intolerable in the suffering of animals than in the sufferings of humans. For with the latter, it is at least admitted that suffering is evil and that the person who causes it is a criminal. But thousands of animals are uselessly butchered every day without a shadow of remorse. If any person were to refer to it, they would be thought ridiculous. And that is the unpardonable crime. That alone is the justification of all that humans may suffer. It cries vengeance upon all the human race. If God exists and tolerates it, it cries vengeance upon God." Jean Christophe.
Amanda Lollar Responds
I should point out that the below again are just allegations. Lollar chose to sue and get an injunction against Mary for posting what Mary regarded as proof of Lollar breaking the law. Now Lollar is equally guilty of posting what I regard as libelous stuff against Mary. --Ed
UPDATE - The truth about the episiotomy:
Amanda Lollar has worked and trained under the direction of a veterinarian for over 20 years. She has developed many life-saving procedures for insectivorous bats over the past two decades.
Mary Cummins filmed the episiotomy while attending her internship at Bat World sanctuary, and even helped during the procedure. Her voice can be heard offering to assist with the lighting, as well as my voice addressing her. She also took photos after the procedure. What Ms. Cummins failed to explain is that the bat had a pup stuck in her birth canal, likely for several hours. Waiting would have caused the death of the mother, an agonizing death at that. There was no vet available, and most veterinarians don’t do procedures on bats at 11pm anyway. I have preformed this procedure numerous time to save the life of the mother, as we have a wild sanctuary which is home to 30,000 bats as well as a nursery colony. I rescue mothers in trouble every summer.
Mary Cummins filmed the episiotomy while attending her internship at Bat World sanctuary, and even helped during the procedure. Her voice can be heard offering to assist with the lighting, as well as my voice addressing her. She also took photos after the procedure. What Ms. Cummins failed to explain is that the bat had a pup stuck in her birth canal, likely for several hours. Waiting would have caused the death of the mother, an agonizing death at that. There was no vet available, and most veterinarians don’t do procedures on bats at 11pm anyway. I have preformed this procedure numerous time to save the life of the mother, as we have a wild sanctuary which is home to 30,000 bats as well as a nursery colony. I rescue mothers in trouble every summer.
Cetacaine is used to anesthetize the vaginal area before an incision is made – that is what is being applied with the cotton swab. As with humans, general anesthesia is not used for an episiotomy (which is not considered actually surgery). The pup was stillborn, likely from being stuck in the birth canal for so long. After the pup was discovered dead, the mother was placed under general anesthesia so she could be cleaned up and the incisions closed with surgical glue. The mother fully recovered and was later released.
Mary Cummins has made false complaints about us to Texas Parks and Wildlife, the USDA, the Texas Veterinary Medical Board, the Texas Department of Health, USFWS, the Mineral Wells Department of Health, the City Manager, the Fire Marshal, Code Enforcement, the Chief of Police and we suspect the IRS. Each and every one of the officials who investigated her complaints found them to be without merit, some even called and offered their help in fighting Ms. Cummins. Mary Cummins has also sent numerous false and damaging emails to the large majority of our supporters, who in turn forwarded her emails back to us in support.
An injunction was scheduled on May 4th, 2011, to force Mary Cummins to remove the defamatory statements she has made about Bat World Sanctuary and Amanda Lollar from the internet. Approximately three days before the injunction, numerous new pages containing false and damaging statements appeared on dozens of internet sites, including facebook, indybay, twitter, myspace, care2 and more. Copyrighted videos from Amanda Lollar’s most recent book were illegally downloaded and altered in an attempt to display cruelty, then uploaded to youtube. Other recent defamatory items include photos Mary Cummins took without permission while interning at Bat World Sanctuary.
The Poppy Foundation
| THE WORDS WE USEAND WHY THEY MATTER Tina Clark Studies have indicated that surveys show completely different outcomes depending on the way the questions in the survey are worded. One person will answer the very same question in two completely different ways depending on the wording of the question. Therefore, one survey could have two or more completely contradictory outcomes based simply on the way the questions were worded. Choosing one word over another, even if those words ostensibly mean the same thing, can make a huge difference in the way we look at things, and can even completely change one’s world view. In our relationship with non-human animals, the words we use can have a major impact on the way we view animals and therefore on the animals themselves. Words we use without even thinking about them can color the way we perceive non-humans. An example is the word "owner" versus the word "guardian." We must stop thinking of ourselves as owners of our animals, and begin thinking of ourselves as their guardians. We must start thinking of them as companions, not as property. A study done by FIREPAW shows that people who refer to themselves as their animals’ guardians rather than as their owners were more likely to treat their animals well. In Defense of Animals has a program called the Guardian Campaign, the goal of which is to have the word "owner" replaced with "guardian" in official language, and it has succeeded in doing so in areas ranging from law codes to shelter and vet forms to signs in public areas–even the entire State of Rhode Island now uses the word "guardian" officially. Of course, it wasn't too long ago that humans "owned" other humans. We have done away with that, and I eagerly await the day we will regard the owning of any creature as abhorrent. We can start by choosing to use the term "guardian." Something I hear quite often, even among many animal advocates–people one would think would know better–is the habit of referring to non-human animals as "it," with its concomitant "that" or "which" instead of "who" or "whom." This seems to come so naturally to some people, but whenever I hear it, it is so obviously discordant, it affects me the same way as hearing someone use terribly bad grammar. Many people give the excuse that they don't know the gender of the animal, and therefore can't say "he" or "she." But it is better to be wrong about an animal's gender than it is to treat that animals like an inanimate object. If you didn’t know the gender of a human, would you call that human it? I doubt it. Referring to non-human animals as "it" helps people to think of them as objects, not the living beings they are, and therefore gives permission to exploit them, to treat them any way we please without regard for their feelings. There is another type of word usage, or mis-usage that has a slightly different background. The use of the word "shelter" to denote a place where animals are taken in and killed, and the use of the word "euthanasia" to describe that killing must also be done away with, but the impulse here is slightly different. These words have come about as euphemisms, a way to make the pounds seem like places that are protecting animals, and the killing that occurs in them seem like a favor to the animals. The use of such words intentionally hides what these places actually are and what actually happens in them. And this, too, has a disastrous effect on the animals. When the public thinks of pounds as "shelters," they are lulled into thinking that animals are cared for and protected there. They are more likely to abandon their animals at these places, and are more likely to buy puppies or kittens from breeders or pet shops rather than adopt to save a life. They are also less likely to be outraged at the killing that goes on and to want to do what it takes to stop it. Often those who are working to help animals will continue to use these terms, especially when dealing with members of the pound system, even though they know how inaccurate and misleading the words are, simply because they don’t want to be seen as too radical, or to alienate the people affiliated with the system. I admit I have on occasion fallen into this trap in the past. But I will no longer do so. Therefore, I hereby vow I will no longer use inaccurate terms when talking about animals. I will no longer use the word "shelter" when talking about a place that executes animals, and I will no longer refer to that execution as "euthanasia," even when talking to "animal services" people. I will call a pound a pound, and I will call killing killing. I encourage others to do the same. This is important. We must stop using euphemisms that hide the truth and begin using accurate words for things, so that the truth will be brought to light, and the killing stopped. A word that is perhaps even worse than euthanasia is destroy, as in "the animal was destroyed." No. The animal was killed. You kill living beings. You destroy inanimate objects. While "euthanasia" simply gives the impression that the killer is performing an act of mercy, saying that one "destroys" an animal actually makes the animal sound as if he were some inanimate object. The way we talk about animals in the wild also affects the way we think of them and consequently the way we treat them. When they are no longer seen as feeling individuals, but rather "natural resources," well, aren't resources just things we use for our own benefit? When we kill them and refer to it as "harvesting," we turn them into something like wheat or oranges. Then, when some animals who haven’t been targeted for killing are accidentally killed in the massacre, they become "trash animals" (the non-human equivalent of "collateral damage"). Then there's meat--oh, the euphemisms we use to distance ourselves from the fact we are eating someone's dead body. It has been sanitized so entirely that we don't have to think about it–to even connect the meal with the individual we are consuming. We don't eat pigs and cows and calves; we eat pork and beef and veal. If you eat pork, well, pork is not an animal, it’s food, and you don't have to even think about a pig. If we called it what it really was, I think more people would hesitate before they dug into that piece of meat, and many would finally make the connection and perhaps give up meat altogether. This is why those of us who are advocates for animals must start calling dead flesh what it is. And it's funny, but when you call meat what it is in front of someone who's about to eat it, they can become quite irate. Believe me, I know from whence I speak. Unfortunately, our everyday language is filled not only with thoughtless references to non-human animals, but also with downright derogatory ones. To merely call someone an animal is considered an insult, as are, more specifically, the terms "pig," "rat," and so many others. We talk about "killing two birds with one stone" as if that were a good thing to do. These references are deeply ingrained in our culture, and we who care about animals must be vigilant, not only removing them from our own language, but also bringing it politely to the attention of others who use these terms and phrases. The words we choose to talk about anything or anyone color the way we view that thing or being. In the case of non-human animals, this can give us an unspoken permission to treat them in harmful ways. After all, wouldn't it be easier for you to "harvest" a "resource" than to murder a fellow being? And doesn’t it seem perfectly permissible–even the right thing to do–to "euthanize" someone rather than kill him? We must not merely make the change in our language, we must make the change in our hearts as well. Until it becomes second nature for us to say he or she rather than it, who or whom rather than that or which, etc., we are not truly respecting animals. As long as we have to catch ourselves, we are not there yet. Our old outmoded, speciesist view of animals dictates the words we have long used with regard to them, and these words perpetuate that mindset. But it also works in reverse: we begin realizing that animals deserve our respect and real protection, and we begin using words that reflect that, and those words help change the way all of us view non-human animals. |
Further Allegations of Animal Cruelty With Video
Ady Gil put it up in his site. He posted this on his wall.
Amanda Lollar of Bat World Sanctuary performed surgery on this bat. The bat had no pain relief. Lollar is not a veterinarian. She accidentally cut the bat's vagina too deeply. Then she yanked the baby out. She accidentally yanked the umbilicus out. Then the bat's vagina and uterus prolapsed. The bat later died. Baby was born dead but was pink which means he'd just died
The Video, "
can be downloaded from:
Please, politely email the regulatory agencies who are investigating this animal cruelty. Tell them you want her prosecuted to the full extent of the law. There is another video of her yanking the molars out of a bat with no pain relief. The bat is seen kicking and fighting her then bleeding. This woman should not be operating on bats. Thanks.
Allegations of Animal Abuse
Amanda Lollar commits animal cruelty at Bat World Sanctuary
Videos and photos (see links below) have surfaced of Amanda Lollar performing illegal surgery on conscious bats. The bats can be seen kicking and trying to bite her. In one video she performs an episiotomy on a bat. Lollar accidentally pulls out the bat's vagina and uterus because she cut too much. The bat passes out in shock. She later dies along with her baby. Let authorities know you want Lollar prosecuted for animal cruelty and abuse.
amandalollarkilledthisbat...
Video of Lollar performing illegal episiotomy surgery on a bat. GRAPHIC!!! Mom and baby die.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEXPuBKgkac
Amanda Lollar is a "wildlife rehabilitator" who treats bats in Mineral Wells, Texas. She is not a veterinarian yet she illegally performs surgery. She illegally possesses and uses controlled substances such as Isoflurane. Her illegal acts were reported to the Texas Veterinary Board. They stated, "she committed animal cruelty and should be reported to the police."
Amanda Lollar purchases, possesses, and administers rabies vaccinations to bats. Only veterinarians may possess and administer rabies vaccinations to animals because they can cause an animal to die if not administered properly. Lollar does not report rabid bats to the Texas Health Department. Instead, she euthanizes them illegally with controlled substances, then dumps their bodies into the regular trash. Her illegal acts were reported to the Texas Health Department. They stated that "her acts are criminal and should be reported to the police."
Texas Parks & Recreation was contacted about Amanda Lollar's illegal activity as they control her wildlife rehabilitation permit. They stated, "wildlife rehabilitators cannot perform surgery, and they cannot have controlled substances." The USDA was also contacted because Lollar has a USDA exhibitor permit to exhibit her bats. Lollar violated the Animal Welfare Act by "not providing proper veterinary care." Texas Parks & Recreation and the USDA are currently investigating Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary.
In another video, Amanda Lollar can be seen using forceps to pull out the teeth of a conscious bat. The bat is clearly kicking and trying to bite Lollar. After Lollar yanks two of his teeth out the bat can be seen bleeding. Lollar uses this video as an example of "proper" dental surgery in her website http://www.batworld.org .
Video of Amanda Lollar pulling out the teeth of a conscious bat. GRAPHIC!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GN16jtbiU
A visitor to the sanctuary last year found a one-winged dead bat under Amanda Lollar's desk. It had been dead for at least two days as insects were eating it. It appeared to have died from lack of food and water. When Lollar was shown the dead bat she said the bat "was one of my favorite bats." She obviously cannot care for the bats she has if her favorite bat could go missing for days and not be noticed.
The visitor also noted that Lollar has seven dogs even though she has no kennel permit. They are all debarked. Some of the dogs have medical and dental issues, as well as very long nails. They are never walked. One of the dogs cannot use its rear legs, so she's forced to drag herself around. Lollar's outdoor cats also need veterinary care as they appear to have fleas, worms, and dental issues.
A licensed veterinarian saw the videos and stated, "This is a nightmare! No one but a veterinarian should perform surgery. Report her to the state veterinary board. She should go to jail." A viewer of the episiotomy video stated, "That is horrific! They should arrest her immediately. She pulled out her vagina! She should never be allowed around animals ever again because she has a complete disregard for their feelings of pain."
It should be noted that Lollar used photos from this bat's botched episiotomy in her website and book to show "proper episiotomy procedures." What she claims happened in her book is not what happened in real life as evidenced by the video.
These violations were reported to the police as instructed by the Texas Health Department and Texas Veterinary Board. Make sure the Mineral Wells Police Department thoroughly investigates these acts of animal cruelty and abuse. Please, politely ask the Chief of Police Mike McAllester to take necessary action, policechief [at] mineralwellstx.gov. Also ask the USDA Robert.M.Gibbens [at] usda.gov and Texas Parks & Wildlife wpoffice [at] tpwd.state.tx.us to revoke Lollar's USDA and wildlife rehabilitation permits.
Photos of abuse, illegal surgery and controlled substances are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62357242@N04
Video of Amanda Lollar giving illegal rabies vaccination to a baby bat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g_tSgx7yeE
Video of a skinny, shaking, dying pallid bat at Bat World Sanctuary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx21JohdwQE
Video of Amanda Lollar holding a rabid bat in her hand without gloves. Afterwards she illegally euthanized it with Isoflurane pictured in the background then she dumped it in the regular trash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagiiJwFPaQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEXPuBKgkac
Amanda Lollar is a "wildlife rehabilitator" who treats bats in Mineral Wells, Texas. She is not a veterinarian yet she illegally performs surgery. She illegally possesses and uses controlled substances such as Isoflurane. Her illegal acts were reported to the Texas Veterinary Board. They stated, "she committed animal cruelty and should be reported to the police."
Amanda Lollar purchases, possesses, and administers rabies vaccinations to bats. Only veterinarians may possess and administer rabies vaccinations to animals because they can cause an animal to die if not administered properly. Lollar does not report rabid bats to the Texas Health Department. Instead, she euthanizes them illegally with controlled substances, then dumps their bodies into the regular trash. Her illegal acts were reported to the Texas Health Department. They stated that "her acts are criminal and should be reported to the police."
Texas Parks & Recreation was contacted about Amanda Lollar's illegal activity as they control her wildlife rehabilitation permit. They stated, "wildlife rehabilitators cannot perform surgery, and they cannot have controlled substances." The USDA was also contacted because Lollar has a USDA exhibitor permit to exhibit her bats. Lollar violated the Animal Welfare Act by "not providing proper veterinary care." Texas Parks & Recreation and the USDA are currently investigating Amanda Lollar and Bat World Sanctuary.
In another video, Amanda Lollar can be seen using forceps to pull out the teeth of a conscious bat. The bat is clearly kicking and trying to bite Lollar. After Lollar yanks two of his teeth out the bat can be seen bleeding. Lollar uses this video as an example of "proper" dental surgery in her website http://www.batworld.org .
Video of Amanda Lollar pulling out the teeth of a conscious bat. GRAPHIC!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_GN16jtbiU
A visitor to the sanctuary last year found a one-winged dead bat under Amanda Lollar's desk. It had been dead for at least two days as insects were eating it. It appeared to have died from lack of food and water. When Lollar was shown the dead bat she said the bat "was one of my favorite bats." She obviously cannot care for the bats she has if her favorite bat could go missing for days and not be noticed.
The visitor also noted that Lollar has seven dogs even though she has no kennel permit. They are all debarked. Some of the dogs have medical and dental issues, as well as very long nails. They are never walked. One of the dogs cannot use its rear legs, so she's forced to drag herself around. Lollar's outdoor cats also need veterinary care as they appear to have fleas, worms, and dental issues.
A licensed veterinarian saw the videos and stated, "This is a nightmare! No one but a veterinarian should perform surgery. Report her to the state veterinary board. She should go to jail." A viewer of the episiotomy video stated, "That is horrific! They should arrest her immediately. She pulled out her vagina! She should never be allowed around animals ever again because she has a complete disregard for their feelings of pain."
It should be noted that Lollar used photos from this bat's botched episiotomy in her website and book to show "proper episiotomy procedures." What she claims happened in her book is not what happened in real life as evidenced by the video.
These violations were reported to the police as instructed by the Texas Health Department and Texas Veterinary Board. Make sure the Mineral Wells Police Department thoroughly investigates these acts of animal cruelty and abuse. Please, politely ask the Chief of Police Mike McAllester to take necessary action, policechief [at] mineralwellstx.gov. Also ask the USDA Robert.M.Gibbens [at] usda.gov and Texas Parks & Wildlife wpoffice [at] tpwd.state.tx.us to revoke Lollar's USDA and wildlife rehabilitation permits.
Photos of abuse, illegal surgery and controlled substances are here
http://www.flickr.com/photos/62357242@N04
Video of Amanda Lollar giving illegal rabies vaccination to a baby bat
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1g_tSgx7yeE
Video of a skinny, shaking, dying pallid bat at Bat World Sanctuary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx21JohdwQE
Video of Amanda Lollar holding a rabid bat in her hand without gloves. Afterwards she illegally euthanized it with Isoflurane pictured in the background then she dumped it in the regular trash
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zagiiJwFPaQ
180 Days for operating a shelter without a permit?
What has happened here? Who changed the law? Times article says man faces 189 days in jail for operating a shelter without a permit.
More than 100 cats found at North Hills man's home, 7 dead ones in freezer
April 15, 2011 | 12:04 pmLos Angeles city prosecutors charged a North Hills man Friday with multiple counts of animal neglect for allegedly hoarding more than 100 cats and keeping seven dead ones in his freezer.James Howard, 58, also was charged with operating a shelter without a permit.111His alleged cat hoarding was discovered by the Los Angeles Animal Control Task Force, working on a tip.Once at Howard’s residence, investigators counted 103 cats on the property and more than 80 living in a motor home. They found seven dead cats inside a freezer.Howard could face up to one year in jail for each count of animal neglect and 180 days for operating a shelter without a permit, city prosecutors said. He is scheduled to be arraigned May 6.11
April 15, 2011 | 12:04 pm
Los Angeles city prosecutors charged a North Hills man Friday with multiple counts of animal neglect for allegedly hoarding more than 100 cats and keeping seven dead ones in his freezer.
James Howard, 58, also was charged with operating a shelter without a permit.111
His alleged cat hoarding was discovered by the Los Angeles Animal Control Task Force, working on a tip.
Once at Howard’s residence, investigators counted 103 cats on the property and more than 80 living in a motor home. They found seven dead cats inside a freezer.
Howard could face up to one year in jail for each count of animal neglect and 180 days for operating a shelter without a permit, city prosecutors said. He is scheduled to be arraigned May 6.11
Alleged PETA Investigation of IAMs
For nearly 10 months in 2002 and early 2003, a PETA investigator went undercover at an Iams contract testing laboratory and discovered a dark and sordid secret beneath the wholesome image of the dog- and cat-food manufacturer: dogs gone crazy from intense confinement to barren steel cages and cement
Peter Wolf Continues to Bring Reason to the Anti-Feral Cat Rhetoric
Posted: 08 Apr 2011 02:16 AM PDT
“SF Weekly is San Francisco’s smartest publication. That’s because we take journalism seriously, but not so seriously that we let ourselves be guided by an agenda.”
At least that’s what the paper’s Website
Now, as somebody who reads SF Weekly only rarely, I want to be careful not to generalize. But if last week’s feature story is typical, then it’s time for the paper to update either its About page or its editorial standards.
“Live and Let Kill”
Reporter Matt Smith argues that “greater scrutiny may be just what the feral feeding movement needs,” while he swallows in one gulp the numerous unsubstantiated claims made by TNR opponents.
Indeed, Smith pays more attention to colony caretaker Paula Kotakis’ “cat-hunting outfit” (“green nylon jacket, slacks, and muddied black athletic shoes”) and her mental health (“For Kotakis, strong emotions and felines go together like a cat and a lap.”) than he does the scientific papers he references (never mind those he overlooks).
His reference to “the feral feeding movement” reflects Smith’s fundamental misunderstanding of TNR, and his dogged efforts to steer the conversation away from sterilization, population control, reduced shelter killing, and the like—to focus on the alleged environmental consequences of subsidizing these “efficient bird killers and disease spreaders.”
Here, too, Smith’s misses the mark—failing to dig into the topic deeply enough to get beyond press releases, superficial observations, rhetorical questions, and his own bias.
Make no mistake: there’s an agenda here.
Science: The Usual Suspects
“Environmentalists,” writes Smith, “point out that outdoor cats are a greater problem to the natural ecological balance than most people realize.” Actually, what most people (including Smith, perhaps) don’t realize is that Smith’s sources can only rarely defend their dramatic claims with solid science.
Populations and Predation
Smith’s reference to the American Bird Conservancy, which, we’re told, “estimates that America’s 150 million outdoor cats kill 500 million birds a year,” brings to mind the 2010 L.A. Times story in which Steve Holmer, ABC’s Senior Policy Advisor, told the paper there were 160 million feral cats in the country.
Smith got a better answer out of ABC—but ABC’s better answers are only slightly closer to the truth.
Surveys indicate that about two-thirds of pet cats are kept indoors
Reasonable questions, but Smith is no more interested in asking than ABC is in answering.
The closest Smith comes to supporting ABC’s predation numbers is a reference to Jonathan Franzen’s latest novel, Freedom, a book “about a birder who declares war on ‘feline death squads’ and calls cats the ‘sociopaths of the pet world,’ responsible for killing millions of American songbirds.” (The fact that Franzen sits on ABC’s board of directors
In Smith’s defense, chasing down ABC’s predation numbers is a fool’s errand. Such figures—like the rest of ABC’s message regarding free-roaming cats—have more to do with marketing and politics than with science
No 1. Killer?
For additional evidence, Smith turns to Pete Marra’s study of gray catbirds in and around Bethesda, MD.
“In urban and suburban areas, outdoor cats are the No. 1 killer of birds, by a long shot, according to a new study in the Journal of Ornithology. Researchers from the Smithsonian Institution put radio transmitters on young catbirds and found that 79 percent of deaths were caused by predators, nearly half of which were cats.”
Let’s see now… half of 79 percent… That’s nearly 40 percent of bird deaths caused by cats, right? Well, no.
Although SF Weekly included a link to the Ornithology article on its Website, it seems Smith never read the paper. Like so many others (e.g., The Washington Post
The real story, it turns out
What’s more, even if Marra and his colleagues are correct about the three additional kills they attribute to cats, the title of “No. 1 killer of birds” goes not to the cats, but to unidentified predators, as detailed in the Ornithology paper:
“During our study of post-fledging survival, 61% (42/69) of individuals died before reaching independence. Predation on juveniles accounted for 79% (33/42) of all mortalities (Bethesda 75% (6/8), Spring Park 75% (12/16), and Opal Daniels 83% (15/18) with the vast majority (70%) occurring in the first week post-fledging. Directly observed predation events involved domestic cats (n = 6; 18%), a black rat snake (n = 1; 3%), and a red-shouldered hawk (n = 1; 3%). Although not all mortalities could be clearly assigned, fledglings found with body damage or missing heads were considered symptomatic of cat kills (n = 3; 9%), those found cached underground of rat or chipmunk predation (n = 7; 21%) and those found in trees of avian predation (n = 1; 3%). The remaining mortalities (n = 14; 43%) could not be assigned to a specific predator. Mortality due to reasons other than predation (21%) included unknown cause (n = 2; 22%), weather related (n = 2; 22%), window strikes (n = 2; 22%) and individuals found close to the potential nest with no body damage (n = 3; 34%), suggesting premature fledging, disease or starvation.” [4]Taken together, the detailed mortality figures and the study’s small sample size make a mockery of Smith’s claim, and—more important—its implications for feral cat management. Which might explain why he didn’t bother to share this information with readers.
The Power of One
“If trappers miss a single cat,” warns Smith, “populations can rebound if they’re continuously fed, because a fertile female can produce 100 kittens in her lifetime. Miss too many, and the practice of leaving cat food in wild areas will actually increase their numbers by helping them to survive in the wild.”
As Michael Hutchins
Nor is a female cat—even with help—going to produce 100 kittens over the course of her lifetime. A study of “71 sexually intact female cats in nine managed feral cat colonies” found that:
“Cats produced a mean of 1.4 litters/y, with a median of 3 kittens/litter (range, 1 to 6). Overall, 127 of 169 (75%) kittens died or disappeared before 6 months of age. Trauma was the most common cause of death.” [5]To produce 100 kittens, then, an unsterilized female would have to live at least 25 years. Smith fails to reconcile—or even acknowledge—the obvious discrepancy between claims of of-the-charts fecundity and—to use David Jessup’s phrase—the “short, brutal lives” [6] of feral cats.
Do these cats breed well into their golden years, or, are they “sickened by bad weather, run over by cars, killed by coyotes, or simply starved because feeders weren’t able to attend to a cat colony for the several years or more that are called for,” as Smith suggests?
Clearly, the two scenarios are mutually exclusive.
California Quail
The closest we get to the “demise of native birds” promised on the cover is Smith’s observation that “wildlife advocates blame the city’s forgiving attitude toward feral cats for helping to almost wipe out native quail, which used to be commonplace.”
This is not a new complaint, as a 1992 story in the San Francisco Chronicle illustrates:
“A decade ago, the hedges and thickets of Golden Gate Park teemed with native songbirds and California Valley quail. Now the park is generally empty of avian life, save for naturalized species such as pigeons, English sparrows and starlings.” [7]But the Chronicle, despite its dire proclamation (“One thing seems certain: San Francisco can have a healthy songbird population or lots of feral cats, but not both.” [7]), did no better than SF Weeklyat demonstrating anything more than correlation. This, despite interviews with scientists from the California Academy of Sciences, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and Golden Gate Chapter of the Audubon Society.
A few years later, Cole Hawkins that he found the answer. Conducting his PhD work at Lake Chabot Regional Park
A quick look at A. Starker Leopold’s 1977 book The California Quail (a classic, it would seem, given how often it’s cited) offers some interesting insights on the subject. (Full disclosure: this was a quicklook—I turned immediately to the glossary, and then to the two sections corresponding to “Predators, cats and dogs.”)
In the “Quail Mortality” chapter, Leopold describes Cooper’s Hawk
“The house cat harasses quail and may drive them from the vicinity of a yard or a feeding station (Sangler, 1931), but there is little evidence that they catch many quail in wild situations. Hubbs (1951) analyzed the stomach contents of 219 feral cats taken in the Sacramento Valley and recorded one California Quail. Feral cats, like bobcats, prey mostly on rodents.” [9, emphasis mine]The picture changes somewhat, though, when we get to Leopold’s chapter on “Backyard Quail”:
“Cats… not only molest quail, but skillful individuals capture them frequently… Feline pets that are fed regularly are not dependent on catching birds for a living, but rather they hunt for pleasure and avocation. They can afford to spend many happy hours stalking quail and other birds around the yard, and hence they are much more dangerous predators than truly feral cats that must hunt for a living and therefore seek small mammals almost exclusively (wild-living cats rarely catch birds).” [9]As to how many “skillful individuals” reside in Golden Gate Park, it’s anybody’s guess. (The idea that few cats catch many birds while many cats catch few if any, however, is well supported in the literature.
(A more recent source, The Birds of North America, provides an extensive list of California Quail predators—including several raptor species, coyotes, ground squirrels, and rattlesnakes. Cats are mentioned only as minor players. [10])
Toxoplasmosis
Another complaint from the area’s wildlife advocates, writes Smith, is “Toxoplasma gondii, “shed in cat feces, that threatens endangered sea otters and other marine mammals.” But not all T. gondii is the same. In fact, nearly three-quarters of the sea otters examined as part of one well-known study [11] were infected with a strain of T. gondii that hasn’t been traced to domestic cats. [12]
Once again, domestic cats have become an easy target—but, as with their alleged impact on California Quail, there’s plenty we simply don’t know.
Feral Feeding
For Smith, the trouble with TNR is its long-term maintenance of outdoor cat populations. “Its years of regular feeding,” he argues, citing Travis Longcore’s selective review of the TNR literature, [13] (which Smith mischaracterizes as “a study”), “causes ‘hyperpredation,’ in which well-fed cats continue to prey on bird, mammal, reptile, and amphibian populations, even after these animals become so scarce they can no longer sustain natural predators.”
But that’s not what happened in Hawkins’ study (though he did his best to suggest as much). And it’s not what happened in the two Florida parks Castillo and Clarke used to study the impact of TNR.
Over the course of approximately 300 hours of observation (this, in addition to “several months identifying, describing, and photographing each of the cats living in the colonies” [14] prior to beginning their research), the researchers “saw cats kill a juvenile common yellowthroat and a blue jay. Cats also caught and ate green anoles
That’s it—from nearly 100 cats (about 26 at one site, and 65 at another).
Calhoon and Haspel, too, found little predation among the free-roaming cats they studied in Brooklyn: “Although birds and small rodents are plentiful in the study area, only once in more than 180 [hours] of observations did we observe predation.” [15]
Feeding and Population Control
Smith’s description of the vacuum effect reflects his misunderstanding of the phenomenon and the role feeding play in TNR more broadly:
“Feral cat advocates believe removing cats from the wild creates a natural phenomenon known as the ‘vacuum effect,’ in which new cats will replace absent ones. (Key to the ‘vacuum’ are the tons of cat food TNR supporters place twice a day, every day, at secret feeding stations nationwide.)”Smith would have readers believe that TNR practitioners bait cats the way hunters bait deer. In fact, the food comes after the cat(s), not the other way around.
Cats are remarkably resourceful; where there are humans, there is generally food and shelter to be found. Indeed, even where no such support is provided, cats persist. On Marion Island
As Bester et al. observe, the island’s cats didn’t require “tons of cat food” as an incentive to move into “vacuums”:
“The recolonization of preferred habitats, cleared of cats, from neighbouring suboptimal areas served to continually concentrate surviving cats in smaller areas.” [16]Still, those “tons of cat food TNR supporters place twice a day, every day, at secret feeding stations nationwide” are key to the success of TNR—just not in the way Smith suggested. Feeding allows caretakers to monitor the cats in their care, “enrolling” new arrivals as soon as possible.
By bringing these cats out into the open—via managed colonies—they’re much more likely to be sterilized and, in some cases, vaccinated. Many will also find their way into permanent homes. Take away the food, and these cats will merely slip back into the surroundings, go “underground.”
And in no time at all, the ones that weren’t sterilized will be breeding.
• • •
By framing TNR (the “feral feeding movement,” as he insists on calling it) as “animal welfare ethics on one side, and classic environmental ethics on the other,” Smith overlooks some critical common ground: all parties are interested in reducing the population of feral cats. He also allows himself to give in to an easy—and rather tired—narrative: the crazy cat ladies v. the respected scientists.At the same time Smith recognizes Kotakis’ dedication and accomplishment (“In her tiny bit of territory in the eastern parts of the park, her method and dedication might just have created a tipping point that has produced a humane ideal of fewer feral cats.”), he can’t resist commenting on her OCD (including a quote from a clinical psychologist who, we can safely assume, has never even met Kotakis).
Meanwhile, Smith couldn’t care less about looking into the science.
I suppose “Live and Let Kill” is balanced in the sense that Smith gives “equal time” to both sides of the issue, but that’s not good enough. Serious journalism demands that readers are provided the truest account possible.
Literature Cited
1. APPA, 2009–2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey. 2009, American Pet Products Association: Greenwich, CT. http://www.
2. Clancy, E.A., Moore, A.S., and Bertone, E.R., “Evaluation of cat and owner characteristics and their relationships to outdoor access of owned cats.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2003. 222(11): p. 1541-1545. http://avmajournals.avma.org/
3. Lord, L.K., “Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2008. 232(8): p. 1159-1167.http://www.avma.org/
4. Balogh, A., Ryder, T., and Marra, P., “Population demography of Gray Catbirds in the suburban matrix: sources, sinks and domestic cats.” Journal of Ornithology. 2011: p. 1-10.http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
http://nationalzoo.si.edu/
5. Nutter, F.B., Levine, J.F., and Stoskopf, M.K., “Reproductive capacity of free-roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1399–1402. http://avmajournals.avma.org/
6. Jessup, D.A., “The welfare of feral cats and wildlife.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 2004. 225(9): p. 1377-1383. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
http://www.avma.org/
7. Martin, G. (1992, January 13). Feral Cats Blamed for Decline In Golden Gate Park Songbirds. The San Francisco Chronicle, p. A1,
8. Hawkins, C.C., Impact of a subsidized exotic predator on native biota: Effect of house cats (Felis catus) on California birds and rodents. 1998, Texas A&M University
9. Leopold, A.S., The California Quail. 1977, Berkeley: University of California Press.
10. Calkins, J.D., Hagelin, J.C., and Lott, D.F., California quail. The Birds of North America: Life Histories for the 21st Century. 1999, Philadelphia, PA: Birds of North America, Inc. 1–32.
11. Conrad, P.A., et al., “Transmission of Toxoplasma: Clues from the study of sea otters as sentinels of Toxoplasma gondii flow into the marine environment.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2005. 35(11-12): p. 1155-1168. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
12. Miller, M.A., et al., “Type X Toxoplasma gondii in a wild mussel and terrestrial carnivores from coastal California: New linkages between terrestrial mammals, runoff and toxoplasmosis of sea otters.” International Journal for Parasitology. 2008. 38(11): p. 1319-1328.http://www.sciencedirect.com/
13. Longcore, T., Rich, C., and Sullivan, L.M., “Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding Management of Feral Cats by Trap-Neuter-Return.” Conservation Biology. 2009. 23(4): p. 887–894.http://www.abcbirds.org/
14. Castillo, D. and Clarke, A.L., “Trap/Neuter/Release Methods Ineffective in Controlling Domestic Cat “Colonies” on Public Lands.” Natural Areas Journal. 2003. 23: p. 247–253.
15. Calhoon, R.E. and Haspel, C., “Urban Cat Populations Compared by Season, Subhabitat and Supplemental Feeding.” Journal of Animal Ecology. 1989. 58(1): p. 321–328.http://www.jstor.org/pss/5003
16. Bester, M.N., et al., “A review of the successful eradication of feral cats from sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Southern Indian Ocean.” South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 2002. 32(1): p. 65–73.
http://www.ceru.up.ac.za/
17. Bloomer, J.P. and Bester, M.N., “Control of feral cats on sub-Antarctic Marion Island, Indian Ocean.” Biological Conservation. 1992. 60(3): p. 211-219. http://www.sciencedirect.com/
Tsunami Destroyed Japanese Whaling Industry!!!!!!!
Tsunami destroyed Japan's whaling industry.
An end to whaling!!!
y MARTIN FACKLER
Published: March 24, 2011
AYUKAWAHAMA, Japan — At first glance, it seemed like just one more flattened building in a seaside town where a tsunami had leveled hundreds of homes. But survivors gathered at this one to stand and brood.
Ko Sasaki for The New York Times
Seiko Taira admired a can of whale meat that her daughter found in the wreckage. Whaling remains popular in Ayukawahama.
Multimedia
The New York Times
Ayukawahama was close to the epicenter of Japan’s quake.
They came to what had been the headquarters of Ayukawa Whaling, one of only a handful of companies left in Japan that still hunted large whales. Those who gathered on a chilly recent Thursday spoke as if the company’s destruction two weeks ago had robbed the town of its soul.
“There is no Ayukawa without whaling,” said Hiroyuki Akimoto, 27, a fisherman and an occasional crewman on the whaling boats, referring to the town by its popular shorthand.
Japan’s tsunami seems to have succeeded — where years of boycotts, protests and high-seas chases by Western environmentalists had failed — in knocking out a pillar of the nation’s whaling industry. Ayukawahama was one of only four communities in Japan that defiantly carried on whaling and eating whales as a part of the local culture, even as the rest of the nation lost interest in whale meat.
So central is whaling to the local identity that many here see the fate of the town and the industry as inextricably linked.
“This could be the final blow to whaling here,” said Makoto Takeda, a 70-year-old retired whaler. “So goes whaling, so goes the town.”
The damage was particularly heavy here because Ayukawahama sits on the tip of a peninsula that was the closest land to the huge undersea earthquake 13 days ago. The resulting tsunami tore through the tiny fishing towns on the mountainous coastline, reducing Ayukawahama to an expanse of splintered wood and twisted cars. Three out of four homes were destroyed, forcing half of the town’s 1,400 residents into makeshift shelters.
At the offices of Ayukawa Whaling, only a light green harpoon gun — which once proudly decorated the entrance — and an uprooted pine tree were left standing. Across a parking lot stood the skeletal frame of the factory where whale meat was processed. A beached fishing boat and crumpled fire truck lay on the raised platform where the whales were hoisted ashore to be butchered.
The company’s three boats, which had been sucked out to sea, washed up miles down the coast with remarkably little damage. But they remain grounded there.
Ayukawa Whaling’s chairman, Minoru Ito, said he was in the office when the earthquake struck, shattering windows and toppling furniture. He led the employees to higher ground.
All 28 of them survived, he said, though he later had to lay them off. He said he fully intended to rebuild, hopefully in time for an autumn hunt off the northern island of Hokkaido, though he acknowledged the recovery might take more time. He said the most costly part would be getting the whaling ships back in the water, an undertaking that the company cannot afford without government help.
Once the ships are ready, he wants to hire back the employees. However, he admitted that the waves might have scared some employees away, from both whaling and Ayukawahama.
“If we can fix the ships, then we’re back in business,” said Mr. Ito, 74, whose father was also a whaler. “They should not be afraid, because another tsunami like that won’t come for another 100 years.”
Other residents were similarly undaunted. Mr. Akimoto, the occasional whaler, who came with a friend to see the ruined company, said the town needed to resume whaling as soon as possible to lift its spirits.
He said the year would be a sad one because the town would miss the April hunting season, during which coastal whalers like Ayukawa Whaling are allowed to take 50 minke whales under Japan’s controversial whaling program, which is ostensibly for research.
Ayukawahama and the other three whaling communities — among them Taiji, made infamous by the movie “The Cove” — hunt only in coastal waters. Japan’s better-known whaling in the Antarctic is conducted by the government.
Mr. Akimoto said April was usually the town’s most festive month, especially when large whales were brought ashore. He said he would miss that feeling this year.
Added his friend, Tatsuya Sato, 20, “We are so hungry that if they brought a whale ashore now, the whole town would rush down to eat it.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)