Feral Thoughts

Wool: wearing your own, comfortable, carbon sink and keeping important bits cool

You learn something new everyday.

Yesterday I learned that wearing wool is like carrying your own little carbon sink around. I gave a presentation on the impacts of rabbits and wild dogs on wool production at a meeting of fine wool producers at Yass, about an hour from Canberra. I also got to hear about the latest in wool fashion and marketing.

I knew that the range of wool clothing products had changed over the past decade or so and that next-to-skin wool clothing is now exceptionally comfortable. The materials passed around the room had a terrific feel to them. But when Australian Wool Innovation's Chief Executive Brenda MaGahan spoke, she taught me a few new things. Wool is composed of grass, sunshine and water so it is 42% carbon. When you think that the sheep has worn it for a few years and then you might wear it for a decade, that's not a bad place to store a bit of carbon. Driving home to the solar-paneled house in the hybrid, I resolved to wear more wool and carry more carbon on me.

Animal Liberation: Better to die of dehydration than a bullet

Director of Animal Liberation Australia, Mark Pearson, has told Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio program The Current that a camel is better off to die from dehydration than a bullet. To be exact, Mr Pearson said “there is veterinary science to say that at a certain point of dehydration, suffering is not as… does cease and really just a process of death.”

In arguing that camels should not be culled in Australia's Outback, Mr Pearson used a variety of arguments including that it won't work, past mismanagement and that fencing or fertility control were better alternatives. He advocated that the bulk of the Government's investment in camel management should be directed to fertility control research. As a fertility control research organisation, our Cooperative Research Centre would obviously be delighted with an injection of funds but the reality is that the state of technology worldwide is not there yet and the urgency of the camel situation means they cannot continue to be ignored.

Would $75 million make you stop breeding?

It's pretty hard to find anyone opposed to finding a really good sterilising agent for animals.  It's long been a goal for wildlife managers, especially those of us involved in feral animal research.  Oversupply of pet dogs and cats results in horribly high numbers of animals having to be put down, worldwide.

 

American charity Found Animals has thrown out a heck of a challenge in offering up to US$75 million for cracking this "holy grail" of animal management.  That should get some attention; maybe even from the big drug companies. 

Founder the charity Dr. Gary Michelson is a bit of a legend in medical circles and an inventor of devices used in spinal surgery and treatments.  Apparently he's made a lot of money but lives simply and enjoys giving it away.  But Dr. Michelson is not a passive philanthropist simply making donations.  He's actively challenging a more entrepreneurial approach to the dog and cat sterilisation problem by putting up the money to try and stimulate research and delivery.

Maybe this might be the stimulus needed to get this important job done.  After all, dog and cat sterilisation is the biggest animal health market in the world.  It's routinely done surgically in veterinary clinics every day.  But surgical spaying won't fix the dumped and overabundant pet issue (see my earlier arguments on TNR - trap, neuter, release) and it certainly can't dent the wild populations we need to control.  If someone invents a solution for overabundant pets, it may well have uses in wildlife management or vice versa.

Next week, I'm in New Zealand with a small group of colleagues from the UK, USA and New Zealand to re-examine and discuss how we are going on finding wildlife sterility treatments.  This meeting continues a series we've had in York and Fort Collins in the past.  We've decided it is such an important area of research that we'll make more gains by sharing than competing.  The Michelson prize might spur things on a bit!  I'll report back.

Thanks to commenter Shel for pointing out the Michelson prize.

Trap, neuter and release.... not a valid option in Australia

Trap, neuter and release (TNR) is touted as an idea whose time has come.  The website Neighborhood cats is one example of many advocating the technique (www.neighborhoodcats.org/whatistnr.htm) and going as far as claiming TNR as the "only method proven to be humane and effective at controlling feral cat population growth".  At the recent International Animal Welfare Conference on the Gold Coast, several delegates questioned me about TNR as a method of feral cat control in Australia.

I can't see TNR as a viable option in Australia.

Too many cats and too few people is my view.  The United States has a human population density over 10 times greater than that of Australia (30 people per square kilometre compared to 2.6).  Cats are also the most widely and sparsely distributed feral animal in Australia.  So I don't think it would make the slightest impact on Australia's feral cat population using TNR.

Of course that's different to city-wide or suburb-wide control of cat colonies where the technique is used in the United States.  Its success is quite variable.  Castillo and Clarke (2003) concluded that advocates would be better off directing their efforts to the underlying problem of managing irresponsible pet owners.  Nutter (2005) found that TNR can be effective and provide a viable option for feral cat management.

Dr. Nutter's study is interesting.  Three of her findings are particularly important.  Firstly, neutered cats live a lot longer than intact cats.  Secondly, at least 75 to 80% of cats in the colony need to be neutered to cause population decline and thirdly, there needs to be virtually no immigration into a colony if the population is to decline.

These factors combined mean that TNR colonies take about 13 years to run to extinction.  So if the aim is to get rid of a colony, there needs to be a dedicated effort over a long period as well as little likelihood of new animals entering the population.  I think it is going to be extremely rare to see this set of circumstances occurring.  In these American programs, the colony is almost always fed by people that care for the cats.  I'd be interested in the emigration rate of cats leaving the colony, especially in Australia where I imagine few colonies are regularly fed by humans - these cats cat be doing enormous damage to wildlife in very low numbers.  The attached picture is one from New Zealand by Dr. Elaine Murphy and shows the diet of one feral cat for one day.

A major factor that influences those advocating TNR is that it is an alternative to lethal control.  In her study, Dr. Nutter pointed out harvesting (this could be removal and rehoming or lethal control), even at very high levels every one or two years will not lead to long-term reduction in the numbers of cats because of re-establishment through immigration.

So if one is to argue that TNR is likely to be ineffective in Australia, one has to always acknowledge that lethal control is also probably going to be ineffective.  My understanding of the conference delegates that asked me about TNR was that they were under the impression that significant lethal control of feral cats was going on in Australia - they were leaning towards TNR as an alternative to killing the cats.

The fact is, we lack the tools to do widespread cat control at the moment.  To my knowledge, no authorities in Australia are undertaking widespread control except where the population is confined in some way, so the "TNR as an alternative to killing" argument is a moot point.  (There is active research to develop better tools, which could change the situation).  For colony cats, or strays around cities, I don't think TNR stands up in this country because our rehoming rates from shelters are relatively high.  In Canberra, I believe the RSPCA re homes almost all the cats turned in - so in that case maintaining cat colonies by TNR would be a huge waste of resources.  It may be different elsewhere.

The views of the cat gurus are most welcome.

References

Castillo, D. and Clarke, A.L. (2003) Trap/Neuter/Release methods ineffective in controlling domestic cat "colonies" on public lands. Natural Areas Journal 23:247-253.

Nutter, F.B. (2005).  Evaluation of a trap-neuter-release program for feral cat colonies: population dynamics, home ranges and potentially zoonotic diseases.  Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University, pp 224.