 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / September 2004Inconsistent feral cat statistics
Because I've come to cats late in life I have found it helpful to read books on their care. One thing bothering me is that the statistics on feral cats from several sources are not consistent. Cats for Dummies quotes 60 million feral cats in the US (pg 57). On the other hand The Encyclopedia of the Cat gives a figure of 4.5 to 6 million (pg 9). This is a British book but it takes the US into account. (It gives 1.5 million ferals in England). Both are recent books. Finally, Tues NY Times Science section gave the figure of 60 million to 100 million feral cats in the US in an article about controlling animal population. Naively, 60 million seems exaggerated to me. That's an awful lot of wild cats! Intuitively, I would go for the British estimate of 4.5-6 million feral population for the US because the book seems sober to me. 100 million in the NY Times, even if it is the Science section, seems off the wall to me. Please note none of these sources gives any basis for their figures. So what's the story on these statistics? They have to be estimates, so how are they made? Are there other estimates perhaps more believable, or at least supported? -- Dick >So what's the story on these statistics? They have to be estimates, so >how are they made? Are there other estimates perhaps more believable, or >at least supported? Estimates like those are generally extrapolations. Compare those sourceless figures to the range of estimates you see quoted on the average lifespan of the feral cat (sometimes loosely given as an estimate for the average lifespan of any cat that sets foot outdoors), also virtually always given without any source or basis, other than an occasional, vague "according to ...." You are right to question these estimates. First off, I'd consider the source--if you can track one down. I would suspect an estimate that originated from the American Bird Conservancy would be high, for example. I think I would probably trust estimates from a group that actually works with feral cats and has some handle on how many colonies its groups are working with across the country more than many other sources. You might check with Alley Cat Allies and see what they say--they probably do know the origins of the figures you are seeing in the media. I would suspect an estimate that originated > from the American Bird Conservancy would be high, Do you remember Temple's "Wisconsin Study"? He extrapolated from extrapolations and used his own studies - which were largely extrapolations - as references LOL! > I would suspect an estimate that originated >> from the American Bird Conservancy would be high, > >Do you remember Temple's "Wisconsin Study"? He extrapolated from >extrapolations and used his own studies - which were largely >extrapolations - as references LOL! Yes, and I'm also thinking of that so-called "study" by Churcher and Lawton in England, in which a schoolteacher asked the local villagers to bring him the carcasses of the prey their cats killed. Even though there was no way of knowing how many of these birds and rodents had actually been killed by the cats in question, they came up with an average number of kills per cat and multiplied this by the number of cat in the U.K.. This extrapolation based on 78 cats is often quoted as "proof" that house cats are decimating wildlife both here and in the U.K. > > I would suspect an estimate that originated > >> from the American Bird Conservancy would be high, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 78 cats is often quoted as "proof" that house cats are decimating wildlife both > here and in the U.K. Good memory! Here's an excerpt from a post I wrote back in January about bogus cat predation studies: "In addition, almost *all* of the astronomical numbers of killed/caught prey reported in these pro-bird studies are *only* extrapolations from other very small studies. Many of the extrapolations of the average number of prey caught/cat/year from smaller studies to larger cat populations often include large cities, where many cats are kept indoors and also include cats that either too old or too young to hunt. So even though the total number of cats for a given area may jive with local estimates, the number of actual hunters may only be a fraction of the total population. This would *drastically* reduce the accuracy of the estimated number of prey caught/cat/year. The Churcher and Lawton study is one of these bogus studies... the methodology was seriously flawed. C&L asked owners of 78 cats in the village to keep all the dead animals their cats brought home. They divided the total number of kills by the 78 cats and multiplied the average number of kills per cat by the 5 million cats in England at the time.... including London and other big cities where many cats are kept indoors. (They also included very old and very young cats who probably didn't even hunt.) From these figures, C&L concluded that 5 million cats were responsible for killing about 70 million animals every year -- of which about 20 million are birds.... You can imagine how many feathers that piece of fiction ruffled.... Another incredibility manipulative and deceptive author to be wary of is Stanley A. Temple -- In all his articles he cites references for his data.... Almost all of references he cites and quotes to substantiate his absurd claims are other articles *he* wrote! In those articles, he cites and quotes even more articles that *he* wrote.... IOW, he's his own reference! IOW, "If you don't believe and want proof, just ask *me*"! In one of his delusions, Temple states rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year....Gee, does Wisconsin even have 200 million birds...?" Bogus predation studies like these incite people and often lead to community-wide mass slaughters of stray/feral cats. Phil >In one of his delusions, Temple states rural free-ranging domestic cats in >Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year....Gee, >does Wisconsin even have 200 million birds...?" > >Bogus predation studies like these incite people and often lead to >community-wide mass slaughters of stray/feral cats. I believe it was Temple who also came up with the estimate of 114 free-roaming cats per square mile in rural Wisconsin. Sheesh, I've spent a lot of time in rural Wisconsin and you'd be tripping over cats if the density per square mile were that high! > Because I've come to cats late in life I have found it helpful to read > books on their care. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > how are they made? Are there other estimates perhaps more believable, or > at least supported? The estimates are inconsistent for a number of reasons, the most plausible are the differences in interpretations of the word "feral", the methodologies used to reach the estimates, and the constantly changing flow between the owned and unowned cat populations. The Humane Society of the United States places the estimate at 80% of the owned cat population, that's about 40 million cats. Again, there's no distinction between feral and strays. Phil |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.