Talk:Feral cat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmm26. Peer reviewers: Cbeedy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Commentary on edits by Jmm26

Regarding this revert [1], some problems are:

• Who are the American Association of Feline Practitioners, and why do they deserve so much WP:WEIGHT? As far as I can tell, they're a chapter of the AVMA, and one with unusually strong views about euthanizing healthy feral cats. In 2016, it seems they tried to get the AVMA to drop its conditional non-opposition to euthanizing feral cats [2] and failed. It appears that their proposal failed 94.2% to 5.8% [3]. This implies that their position on euthanizing feral cats is a fringe view within the AVMA.
• The statement The non-lethal Trap-Neuter-Return approach is now being supported by veterinarians and nonprofit organizations all over the nation, as well as over 550 local laws. is written like a press release or promotional ad.
• The statement This growing support and trend towards managing and controlling the feral cat population in a more humane, non-lethal TNR approach is similarly promotional in tone, and also POV because not everyone agrees that TNR is humane.
• The text goes on to make POV claims about "zoocentric ethics" in Wikipedia's voice, claims which are heavily disputed in the literature.
• The POV being presented in WP's voice is sourced to an alleged (by his opponents) pro-TNR lobbyist working for Best Friends Animal Society [4] and is being published in a controversial Frontiers Media journal.
• Why don't we use TNR to control the rat population, and do birds have the same rights that cats allegedly do under "zoocentric ethics"? Geogene (talk) 02:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In addition to your comments : this section on TNR is anyway quite long, so not necessary to add more web-based statements, imo. And in view of the link to trap-neuter-return, some of this verbose part can perhaps even be moved to this other page. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:06, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Geogene, I agree with all your points here. Neutrality^talk 15:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Commentary Regarding Possibly False, Definitely Biased Picture text

• One of the statements under a picture of a cat is, "Feral cats are an invasive species and one of the greatest threats to native wildlife." This is objectively false, as it is widely accepted by science that without cats, the world would be overrun with rodents. They are not an "invasive" specie to 90+% of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2308:470:3def:7fcd:8469:1dcd (talk) 10:18, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

You could argue that feral cats and any domestic cats are an invasive species anywhere outside the Middle East, but I agree the statement is inaccurate as a generalisation and factual questionable, at best unsourced. It's editorialising rather than encyclopaedic so should be changed. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Feral cats belong to a distinct species (Felis catus) that is fully separate from F. sylvestris, the African and European wildcats that are the closest wild relatives [5]. As a domestic species that evolved to live with people, they have no native range [6]. Geogene (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@BhagyaMani: Regarding this revert [7]:

• The caption does seem relevant for the image.
• WP:BAREURL says that There is nothing wrong with adding bare URL references to Wikipedia. If you only have time and inclination to copy the reference URL you found, we thank you for your contribution!
• I used bare URLs in this case because I thought it so obvious that it's WP:SKYISBLUE territory, meaning you should not have demanded the sources in the first place. (I'm sure all the sources you need are *already* in the body of the article)
• The comment by the IP above that precipitated this is pseudoscientific nonsense. Geogene (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 20 February 2022

Since towns and cities are part of these animals' range, Category:Urban wildlife seems appropriate. 151.177.58.208 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Information incomplete

I think this wiki doesn’t include a neutral and completed information about the feral cat. The author is only talking about one case that some unowned cats don’t like to be with people so they would rather live in the wild world. However, there’re some unowned cat which is stray cat which means that they’re being homeless might be abandoned by their pet owner and they dont have any ability to feed themselves. Moreover, the author holds a strong opinions on the feral cat which choose the article about how it have negative impact on the wild animals. Moreover, the topic is only limiting in the range of western country. The author didnt talk about the stray cat situation in Asia especially like Japan and China. In my opinion, I think stray cat and feral cat are two different topic based on my own research and knowledge. I think they’re both under the topic about unowned cat but they should be separated.X5mao (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

X5mao this article is based on the best available sources, so personal opinions and feelings toward cats are not relevant. Geogene (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

For this same reason I reinstated this. Geogene personal opinions are WP:OR and not RS. Neighborhoodcats is a source and so you need to provide a better one. It is inconceivable that vet care is other than rare but occurring. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Neighborhoodcats is a self-published advocacy source, so no, it is not usable here. Geogene (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, this edit summary is the one you claim is original research (the OR claim appears to apply exclusively to an edit summary, which is not my understanding of what counts as OR) But this is the edit summary in question: they "may" receive any level of veterinary care, but usually don't. In practice it's difficult to trap the same cat twice, and TNR programs usually aren't even able to keep them up to date on their rabies boosters. Also, sourced to a self-published advocacy group.[8]

Here is that summary broken up into its constituent statements, and sourced:

• Colony cats usually don't receive medical care. (admittedly, this one depends on what you mean by veterinary care. For example, does fish antibiotics administered by untrained caretakers count as "medical care"?) Sources: [9], Source quote: Because of the difficulty of catching cats more than once, most studies use visual assessments of TNR cats to determine the health of the cats. [10]
• In practice, it's difficult to trap the same cat twice Source: [11] a source quote: Recapturing feral cats can be very difficult because the cats become trap shy.
• TNR programs usually aren't even able to keep them up to date on their rabies boosters. Source: [12] Source quote: While feral cats that are returned to TNR colonies have been vaccinated for rabies, they are unlikely (if trap shy) to get the necessary booster shots, which means that these cats do not have life-long immunity to rabies. Another source and source quote: Some TNR advocates argue that vaccination is not a good return on investment and that resources should instead be directed toward spaying and neutering. Ninety thousand feral cats were released into California without vaccinating them for rabies, despite bat and skunk rabies being endemic within this state. [13]

I'm not seeing any "original research" here, and this is more about there not being any requirement to put cites in edit summaries, but I do see an unreliable advocacy source that was re-added to the article for no good reason. Geogene (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

In section 4.3 Diet, paragraph 2: "Although some people advocate for feral cats as a means to control pigeons and invasive rodents like the house mouse and brown rat, these cosmopolitan species co-evolved with cats in human-disturbed environments, and so have an advantage over native rodents in evading cat predation."

Change to: "In the United States, some people advocate for feral cats as a means to control pigeons and invasive rodents like the house mouse and brown rat. However, these cosmopolitan species co-evolved with cats in human-disturbed environments, and so have an advantage over native rodents in evading cat predation."

This is because native and invasive are relative terms and require geographical specificity to be meaningful. Panickyintheuk (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Please fix the name of Christopher A. Lepczyk. Here [14] it says "Lepczyk", and in the article text it says Lepcyzk. "Lepcyzk" is completely unpronounceable, as opposed to "Lepczyk" that sounds quite natural to a Polish speaker. Christopher's ORCID page also says "Lepczyk" [15]. Grzejab (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

To accurately summarize the findings in the citations used, please change:

"Scientific evidence has demonstrated that TNR is not effective at controlling feral cat populations.[5][6]"

to

"Scientific evidence has demonstrated that TNR is not always effective at controlling feral cat populations unless all colony members can be sterilized, and surgeries can keep up with the rate of cats abandoned by owners.[5][6]" Bachboy (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Source 5 says, Our research adds further evidence to the growing body of scientific literature indicating that TNR is ineffective in reducing cat populations. [16] and Source 6 says, In theory, sterilizing enough cats so that the birth rate is less than the death rate would reduce the cat population in a given area. However, this assumes a closed population, a phenomenon that has not been observed in any of the studies....The practice of TNR and the establishment of TNR colonies is neither humane nor proven to be effective at reducing feral cat populations. [17]. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

46.196.193.165 (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Add line to the paragraph as there has been no consensus about feral cats impact on wildlife and many of researches about that issue is biased or wrong like mentioned in this scientific paper.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31087701/

 Not done: The relevant section contains enough equivocation already the importance of this effect remains controversial. small jars tc 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion piece. But when people find themselves typing something very close to 'we are not science deniers' in a journal, I think it's fair to wonder whether the viewpoint they're defending has any significant following at all. Geogene (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Conservation biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acryan1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ldonahue3254.

— Assignment last updated by Mcking24 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias Against TNR

This article seems a little biased against TNR, or perhaps misses some of the considerations involved. For example, it seems to completely dismiss any ethical objections to killing feral cats or even risks of mistakenly killing small wild cats (or strays or outdoor domestic cats). It seems like it might make more sense to discuss the pros and cons of TNR, killing, and not interfering. To explain what I mean, you might compare feral cats to humans or conversely to deer. All three are overpopulated and cause some amount of environmental harm, but different solutions are considered acceptable. That is to say, I'm not suggesting we treat all three groups the same, but that discussing this in terms of purely effectiveness is missing a key component of the debate. I think it is a mistake to treat this as a question to which there is one correct answer. Hopefully this makes sense. 173.66.202.193 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

From the published literature I've seen on it, TNR as a means of controlling feral cat populations is not particularly well respected in the scientific literature. As for ethics, Ive read some published commentary out there that TNR is unethical because it perpetuates feral cats in the environment at the expense of the birds and other prey animals that feral cats kill. Basically, feral cat advocates must address why, if we don't treat birds as individual beings, whose individual welfare matters, then why should we treat cats that way? And they must do so in a logical and not emotive argument. There are also widely repeated claims in the literature that TNR is abusive towards the cats themselves, because their lives tend to involve a lot of suffering. All of this is a tough hurdle for TNR advocates to overcome, especially since nearly all pro-TNR sourcing is from feral cat advocacy groups that exist for no other purpose than to perpetuate TNR, and these sources not preferred for Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this article continues to give WP:UNDUE weight to the views of cat advocacy and humane organizations. Geogene (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose at this point we get into the trolley car problem. 173.66.202.193 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"feral cat advocates must address ..." This kind of political argument has nothing to do with writing and improving the article Feral cat, which is what this talk page is for. This is not a forum for general argumentation about any cause, pro or con. "it might make more sense to discuss the pros and cons of TNR, killing, and not interfering": Not unless the reliable sources we are relying on are doing so; just making up such arguments ourselves would be original research. "this article continues to give WP:UNDUE weight to the views of cat advocacy and humane organizations": That's just a statement of opinion without an argument or evidence backing it up. (Versus the eother editor's statement of opinion of "This article seems a little biased against TNR", i.e. in the opposite direction.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, let me know if you don't find any claims of fact I made above in this recent literature review [18]. I'm pretty sure it's all covered there. Geogene (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing one source is not laying out a WP:UNDUE case. And trying to shift the onus onto external third parties with stuff like "feral cat advocates must address ..." isn't doing it either (nor is the opposing "ethical objections to killing feral cats ..."). These are all extraneous assertions about what kinds of arguments external third parties should be addressing, and don't have anything to do with the policy basis for our own article's balance. You may well be correct in the long run about the DUE balance, but neither of you are making the case properly. I would suggesting asking for input at WP:NPOVN. Actually, I'll just do it myself. This topic would benefit from more eyes and minds on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest to change (add/remove) in the article and what sources back it? Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the history of the article, "Control and Management" was originally just "TNR for management", and over time, critism has been peppered throughout it - so instead of saying "these are the pros, these are the cons", it's now muddled and doesn't present the information in an organized matter - it's all muddled. In addition - sources like this "Culling cats 'may do more harm than good'" were removed right off the page. [19] Removing this one and adding another article by the exact same source doesn't really speak to reliability as an issue, but the POV of each article.

"Is TNR successful" depends on the goals of TNR. If the goal is "making a cities animal control more cost effective" the result of the study will be different from "did TNR protect a specific species of bird that is endangered." Denaar (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We also have a POV-fork. TNR should be mentioned on this article, but we have an ENTIRE article on Trap–neuter–return - so we shouldn't have such a long piece on it here, people should go to the main article to read up on it. Denaar (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This page started out as a pro-TNR/anti-culling screed, so yes, some low quality sources will have been removed. Other parts have yet to be improved, retain the pro-TNR POV. This article should cover control and management of feral cats, including lethal control. I'm also not sure how animal control programs can be considered more successful by intentionally not controlling animals, that seems very strange to me. Geogene (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to strongly concur with the idea that this material needs to be culled (pun intended), WP:SUMMARY style, with a {{Main|Trap–neuter–return}} hatnote in the section, because WP:CFORKing is not good, but that's what's going on here. The very process of reducing the redundant material to a summary will resolve (unless an unskilled editor tries it) the problem of the section having gotten disorganized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I'm not sure who your "unskilled editor" remark is aimed at, but I have an idea, and it makes me think you should probably try to summarize it yourself. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Had no one in mind at all, actually. I was just making the humor point that producing a WP:SUMMARY isn't actually guaranteed to result in a well-organized result. :-) Anyay, I probably actually could do a reasonable job of it, but have a lot on my plate already, and perhaps the ongoing discussions here and at the TNR article should settle out a bit first.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Felixer and Curiosity data added in Spanish article

First, apologies for my bad English. I've added some data with reference in the section "Australia", but I can't do the same here due to the protection from edition. Can anyone add the text below? I've also published the article Felixer related to this subject

For these reasons, eradication campaigns are carried out in Australia using various methods; the most widespread, through the use of a bait specially designed to not affect native carnivores, called Curiosity, which contains the poison called compound 1080—sodium fluoroacetate—with a special encapsulation that only breaks with cats' teeth. (Reference: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/invasive-species/feral-animals-australia/feral-cats/curiosity-bait )

More recently, a device called Felixer has been developed, which uses the same poison and differentiates between cats and the rest of the fauna, and takes advantage of the cat's grooming behavior to shoot a measured dose of a gel with poison on its fur. 

Thanks. Linuxmanía (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is promising, but the citation needs to be properly formatted (Template:Cite web), and the second claim needs a source. Also "that only breaks with cats' teeth" not a plausible claim; maybe something like "designed to break with cats' teeth in particular" or something otherwise more moderate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)