Trap Neuter Return, then Get Over Yourself

Washington Post Magazine article
Alley Cat Allies Response to WaPo
Dr. Fox's and Readers' comments on TNR

I have not been a dedicated blogger, I know. As with all diaries and journals I have tried to keep throughout my life, I start out strong and then just sort of peter out. My apologies to anyone who actually missed me. (Allow me a few delusions of importance, please.)

I feel inspired to post after reading the Washington Post Magazine's article on Trap Neuter Return programs operating in DC. I was extremely disturbed by some of the comments reported.

I do believe that pet cats should be kept indoors to the greatest extent possible, or at least to escape-proof back yards (I wouldn't want my dog to wander around unsupervised, why would I want that for my cat?).  It does seem to me that felis catus probably should be categorized as an invasive species in the Americas and certainly in Australia and New Zealand, and that they can prey on indigenous animals that may or may not be threatened. They may, of course, also prey on other invasive species, like rats. And their destructiveness is nothing compared to the destruction caused by the species that helped them migrate to new continents: humans.

We are the most destructive invasive species of all. However, if I suggested wide-spread "euthanasia" to manage human populations, I would be considered a monster, and rightly so. Progressive humans can look back at history and recognize that efforts at eugenics, at keeping "undesirable" people from reproducing, were and are horrific. I would like to think that nobody read Lois Lowery's The Giver and thought it was a blueprint for an ideal society.

I lead with all this not to say that there is no distinction between human and non-human animals, though I find the importance/meaning of those distinctions so minimal that some find it offensive. I lead with all this to say that large sections of humanity must let go of their arrogant assumption that it is right and proper that humans curate the planet.

It is dangerous thinking that both environmentalists and non-environmentalists adopt. The position of Ingrid Newkirk is a perfect example of this. The president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals believes it is unethical to return feral cats to outdoor lifestyle. PETA often seems to be of the view that animals are better off dead than in less-than-perfect circumstances of any kind. It's ironic, I think, that the world spends considerable resources on psychiatric treatment to prevent people from adopting the same philosophy in their own lives. 

A representative of the American Bird Conservancy thinks its morally justified to kill cats because this saves birds. Of course, organizations also justify killing invasive bird species to preserve indigenous birds. But whoever is being killed and who is being saved, we humans have reserved the right to make that decision. And our reasons often fail tests of practicality and morality.  It makes no sense to euthanize healthy homeless dogs while people continue to purposefully breed English bull dogs, animals of notoriously poor health. We also devote significant amounts of money and labor resources to trying to breed pandas in captivity, despite ample evidence that this is a losing battle. But hey, they have those cute black circles around their eyes, so by all means, lets focus on them.

The world is in many ways a big mess right now, and it's all thanks to human behavior. In a misguided effort to preserve the native species that we have endangered, many organizations institute eradication policies of species considered invasive, which frequently means killing any that can be found. This is as if animals have no emotional lives, no sentience worth considering. Moreover, it is an attempt to solve problems with the same defective thinking that caused the problems in the first place. We change the landscape and the ecosystems we inhabit to accommodate our needs. If we find that in accommodating our physical needs we have left a wake of destruction, we satisfy our psychological need to make reparation by creating making a new path of destruction. Yet destruction is the result no matter what. It is only that we have convince ourselves that the latest form of annihilation is a moral good. This is also what European colonialists thought about their policies of forced sterilization and transplantation of indigenous human populations.

We know now that they were wrong to think that because they had the power, they had the right, or even the obligation, to tell others humans how or whether or they could live. We now redirect that energy to animals, animals that are in the wrong environments because of our interventions.

Trap-neuter-return is humane and sensible. It may be slower than mass extermination (and the evidence doesn't necessarily prove it is), but you would think by this point we would have learned that the quickest solution is not the best or the most sustainable. When we stop thinking about the planet and its non-human denizens as though it was our living room and decor, to be arranged in the most pleasing and efficient manner, maybe we will finally start to find real solutions to our problems.