Disputes claims that studies show TNR to be successful

Michelle Lerner's letter to the editor, "TNR Is Most Effective, Cheapest Way To Control Feral Cats" (Suburban, July 2), requires a response.

As attorney for Project TNR (Trap-Neuter-Release), she heralds the virtues of TNR of feral cats and urges Old Bridge to adopt TNR as its method of dealing with stray cats. For those unfamiliar with TNR, it involves trapping and surgically sterilizing feral cats and then releasing them back into the environment. The theory is that each cat sterilized would be able to live out its life without reproducing, and the total population of cats would diminish over time. The mantra of TNR advocates is that this is the only proven, effective method of stray-cat control. But is it really?

TNR groups are quick to say that studies show it to be effective, but they never cite the names of the actual studies and the groups that performed them. It is like the medical recommendation to drink eight glasses of water a day. When researched, the eight glasses a day recommendation is found to be an urban legend. No medical group ever made such a statement. It was a myth repeated over and over until it appeared to be fact. The same goes for TNR's efficiency.

But there are several studies performed by credible groups that show TNR is not successful at all. Among them is a study of two large, long-term TNR programs in California and Florida, published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. It showed TNR to be ineffective in reducing cat populations.

Surrounding towns have tried TNR. East Brunswick, North Brunswick and Carteret all have allowed groups to TNR cat colonies. Every program was discontinued because the number of cats and the resulting complaints increased instead of decreased. South River allows TNR but recently began trapping and removing cats because it did not halt the growth of the cat population.

After these experiences, the Middlesex County Health Department issued a position paper against TNR.

Logic would dictate that TNR will do little if anything to reduce nuisance complaints. If the cats are returned back to the location of the complaint, how will sterilizing stop them from using sandboxes and flowerbeds as litter boxes, shredding outdoor furniture, scattering garbage, damaging car finishes and killing birds and small mammals?

Obviously, it won't. Since these groups plan on feeding the cats after they are released, they will stay right where they are. In fact, the steady food supply will cause new cats to migrate to the area, creating more complaints. An unlimited food supply means unlimited cats. Most groups Ms. Lerner lists that support TNR programs are animal welfare groups — their concern is for the cats and little else. And her letter would have you think that the state Department of Health and the National Animal Control Officers Association give a ringing endorsement to TNR, but their endorsement is lukewarm at best, stating it may work in some situations.

Project TNR is a program of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance. This organization will say or do just about anything to protect animals. Should what it says be trusted without verification? Are these really the people you want dictating what you must tolerate regarding nuisance animals and how your government must deal with them?

Euthanasia of some animals may be unnecessary in a world designed by the animators at Walt Disney, but we live in the real world.
David Blumig
State-Certified Animal
Control Officer
East Brunswick