For the volunteers with The Feline Resistance, it started with an email sent by environmental journalist Bruce Barcott to our organization on August 23, 2007:

Dear Feline Resistance,

I am a writer based in Boulder, Colorado. I'm currently on assignment for the New York Times Magazine, working on a feature about feral cats, birds, the Cats Indoors Campaign — everything you're working on.

I would very much like to speak with Veronica Lennon for the article. Would it be possible to put me in touch with her today (Thursday) or tomorrow (Friday)? I am best reached by e-mail today: bruce.barcott@colorado.edu.

Sincerely,
Bruce Barcott

Bill Hawkins, our public relations spokesman responded to Barcott and informed him that Veronica Lennon, director of The Feline Resistance, would be willing to communicate with him if he planned to be "intellectually honest" and "fair" in his report.

Bruce Barcott is a contributing editor for Outside Magazine. The fact that he was an environmentalist made us wary since most view feral cats as "invasive species" that should be "removed" from the environment.

We assumed that since Barcott was writing for the New York Times Magazine, he would be fair and so we decided to cooperate. When Bill Hawkins spoke with Barcott on the telephone, Hawkins was informed that Barcott was finishing up his research and had already spoken with a number of cat representatives, naming some recognizable names in the feline community. This reinforced our belief that the author was objective.

Arrangements were made for all questions to be submitted by Barcott to Veronica Lennon by email in order to avoid misquotes.

In addition to The Feline Resistance, in depth interviews were conducted with other feral cat experts including representatives of Alley Cat Allies; Julie Levy, DVM, PhD and associate professor at University of Florida veterinary school who is respected internationally for her research on feral felines; and author Ellen Perry Berkeley who has written two books on the subject. Not a single quote from any of these sources was included in Barcott's article. Despite the wealth of information available on both The Feline Resistance and Alley Cat Allies web sites, among others, not a single report, study, or statistic was cited.

Barcott never revealed that his article would center on the controversial case of cat killer, Jim Stevenson, and in fact, only alluded to him once towards the end of our correspondence as "one of the cases" he was "looking at."

In the opening paragraphs of "Kill the Cat that Kills the Bird?" (New York Times Magazine 12/02/07) Barcott describes Jim Stevenson as "a bearish, ruddy faced 54-year old former science teacher who is known as the ornithological guru of Galveston, Texas." We discover that Stevenson "lives in a bird blind" and "birds are his obsession and his profession." Barcott goes on to chronicle Stevenson's misunderstood efforts to save a bird from "a scraggly cat stalking the plovers." He quotes Stevenson talking about the "tame, abiding little creatures" that "roost in the dunes and can't see or hear a cat creep up on them."

In her opening statement to a jury, Paige Santell, a Galveston County assistant district attorney describes Jim Stevenson as a man who "shot an animal in cold blood" using a .22-caliber rifle fitted with a scope. Santell told jurors that Stevenson used a Remington hollow-point bullet pulled from a full magazine to murder an animal cared for and loved by John Newland, a bridge toll collector who caught him in the act.

Barcott says that after Stevenson saw the cat stalking the plover, he tried to capture it. "He failed and returned home frustrated. Late that night, he worried the problem." It wasn't until the next morning that he felt compelled to stalk the pregnant cat and kill it next to a food tray John Newland provided for his cats beneath the toll bridge.

Interestingly, Stevenson did not seem to "worry the problem" of shooting cats in the past, telling a reporter for the Houston Chronicle:

"What I do on my property is very much my own business, and it's not illegal to shoot feral cats. But I think people who turn cats loose should be arrested." (Kevin Moran, "Accused cat killer breaks his silence", Houston Chronicle, 11/17/06):

Stevenson's long history of antipathy towards outdoor felines was also chronicled in a November 2006 a Los Angeles Times article:

-"In a 1999 posting on an Internet bulletin board for bird lovers, Stevenson nonchalantly described killing many feral cats during his first year living on Galveston Island. He rationalized his acts as a way to restore the natural order. 'I'm sorry if this offends — but I sighted in my .22 rifle, and killed about two dozen cats,' Stevenson wrote in his message, titled 'killer kitties; kittie killers'."

-"When we allow feral cats to roam free, we might as well be out there with BB guns plinking away at the songbirds ourselves," he added. "Regardless of what you think about killing an animal, you must ask yourself if one stray cat's life is worth more than dozens — or hundreds — of wild birds already bowing to the stresses of cars, TV towers, pesticides, loss of habitat."

-"In the interview, Stevenson did not deny writing the message, or killing numerous cats in the past around his small, big-windowed house near Galveston Bay. But he stopped short of confessing to shooting the cat the morning of Nov. 8, a crime for which he could get up to two years in prison if convicted." (Miguel Bustillo, "Alleged cat slayer says he's martyr for birds", Los Angeles Times, 11/25/06)

Stevenson tells Barcott "the cat dropped like a rock."

But, at the trial, Galveston Police Officer John Bertolino — who was the first to arrive at the crime scene about an hour after John Newland's cat was shot — described the condition of the cat as "paralyzed, but still alive." He added, "It was trying to pick itself up. Picking up on its front paws so it could crawl to Mr. Newland."

And assistant DA Santell told the jury "Momma Cat" died a slow and painful death "gurgling on its own blood."

Barcott ignores these discrepancies and details in his eagerness to set up his primary premise: "With one shot of his rifle, Stevenson found himself cast as the Bernhard Goetz of birders. His cat slaying became a national flash point in the strange Sylvester-and-Tweety feud between birders and cat fanciers, which the resolution of Stevenson's case last month has done little to pacify. For more than 20 years, the two sides have exchanged accusations and insults over the issue of cats killing birds. Depending on whom you talk to, cats are either rhinestone-collared mass murderers or victims of a smear campaign waged by lowdown cat haters."

But Barcott's premise is false. The "feud" is really a war and the conflict is not between cat fanciers and birders. It is a war between cat advocates and the people who want free-roaming felines incarcerated or exterminated. Many of these individuals are bird loving extremists. Some are simply cat haters. In the middle are recreational bird watchers and the general public who have been influenced by anti-feral propaganda promoted by special interest groups.

Barcott repeats the National Audubon Society's unsubstantiated charge that "worldwide cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause except habitat destruction." He describes the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) as "a smaller, feistier group" that "runs a campaign to persuade cat owners to lock up their pets."

The National Audubon Society is a close ally of the American Bird Conservancy and advocates their anti-feral campaign called "Cats Indoors!" This program carries the tagline of "a campaign for safer birds and cats." In fact, ABC's "Cats Indoors!" is a campaign that advocates the capture and transfer of feral cats to animal shelters knowing full well that most will be killed. According to Alley Cat Allies, "more cats are intentionally killed in the United States than die from any other documented cause. More than 70% of all cats that enter animal control pounds or shelters die there (and) virtually all feral cats are killed."

In the next paragraph, Barcott reinforces his pledge of allegiance to avian special interest groups with misleading, incorrect and/or dismissive descriptions of feline advocates and their primary organization:

-"Feral cats may not have owners, but they do have lobbyists."

-Becky Robinson, founder of Alley Cat Allies, is an "ex-social worker."

-Alley Cat Allies "harnesses a fierce coalition of celebrities, cat experts and feral colony caretakers to fight for the rights of wild cats."

-Tippi Hedren is "the actress best known for starring in the 1963 Alfred Hitchcock thriller, "The Birds." Which, as you will recall, was a film in which Hedren spent two hours dodging attacks by murderous birds."

As defined on their web site, Alley Cat Allies (ACA) is "the national nonprofit clearinghouse for information on feral and stray cats. For more than a decade Alley Cat Allies has advocated Trap — Neuter — Return, the most humane and effective method to reduce feral cat populations.

Founded in 1990, "Alley Cat Allies has helped thousands of individuals improve the lives of tens of thousands of stray and feral cats and kittens and has motivated and assisted hundreds of grassroots activists to found feral cat groups in their communities."

Becky Robinson, President of Alley Cat Allies "has worked in the animal protection field for 23 years. She co-founded ACA in 1990 and has consulted with animal control agencies, animal organizations, humane societies, spay/neuter clinics, veterinarians, local governments, and individuals worldwide."

Tippi Hedren serves as a volunteer on ACA's Board of Advisors. Throughout her life she has been actively involved with international conservation groups to save wildlife. In 1972, Ms. Hedren founded the Shambala Preserve, an 80-acre sanctuary for endangered exotic big cats, many of which are orphans or "cast-offs" from circuses, zoos and private owners. She currently serves as President of the Roar Foundation, a non-profit organization established in 1983 that educates the public about wildlife and maintains the Shambala Preserve. Ms. Hedren has been the recipient of numerous animal welfare and humanitarian awards.

A major part of ACA's donations come, not from celebrities, but feral cat caretakers who spend much of their time and income performing a function that should actually be a part of animal control's job description.

Feral cats do not have lobbyists because there isn't any money to be made advancing their cause. On the other hand, birding is big business. According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): "Habitat conservation attracts birders who, in turn, attract large throngs of birdwatchers who pump astounding amounts of money into local and state economies." Birdwatching in now a hobby of 47.8 million Americans.

According to the latest numbers from USFWS, "Americans spent $45 billion observing, feeding and photographing wildlife." State Departments of Parks, Recreation and Tourism excitedly report that "Wildlife watching economically impacts numerous travel and retail markets — food, lodging, transportation, gasoline, binoculars, cameras, film and developing, guidebook publishing, wild bird food, membership in wildlife organizations, camping equipment, motor homes, campers and off-road vehicles."

With hunting and fishing on the decline, states can make up the difference by adding bird watching trails and tours to entice the aging and affluent "boomer generation" to spend their "ecotourism" dollars. According to an article in the National Wildlife Federation's magazine, "In the past decade, some two dozen states have mapped out detailed long-distance routes known as birding trails. 'Birding drives' might be a more apt term, since these are not walking paths but self-guided, point-to-point driving tours that cater to families' growing thirst for wildlife-watching. The paths also boost local economies by attracting tourist dollars. To green-minded purists, the whole notion of establishing motor routes for birders — which necessarily involve automobiles, asphalt, petroleum and exhaust — may seem a step in the wrong direction." (Doug Stewart, "Getting on the Trail of America's Birds," National Wildlife Magazine, June/July 2006)

Jim Stevenson has benefited from the estimated 500,000 tourists who visit the ecologically sensitive Gulf Coast barrier island annually seeking bird tours and a convenient bed and breakfast. Avian advocacy groups like the American Bird Conservancy and the National Audubon Society also reap the financial rewards which allow them to hire lobbyists to advance their cause.

In fact, it was Linda Winter, a former Washington D.C. lobbyist who developed the "Cats Indoors!" campaign in 1997 and, as Director, promoted the agenda to state wildlife agencies and the media. The "Cats Indoors!" program was based extensively on a discredited Wisconsin study by Stanley Temple and John Coleman. Ms. Winter used their extrapolated statistics for many years to generate publicity and donations. Although Linda Winter is no longer the director of "Cats Indoors!" the campaign is still in full swing.

The National Audubon Society has an annual budget of approximately $100 million. In 2007, the "smaller and feistier" American Bird Conservancy received a $40 million cash infusion from "corporate partners" which include Mitsubishi International and ConocoPhillips. This money is being spent on a five-year campaign which is detailed on the ABC web site. The "highlights" include a section on "Eliminating Threats" which specifically targets free-roaming cats. Felines are described as "invasive," "alien," and are listed as one of the "worst threats" to bird populations in the U.S. along with the Black Rat, Indian Mongoose and Brown Tree Snake.

As part of its new campaign, another lobbyist for the American Bird Conservancy introduced a bill that was described by Merritt Clifton's publication, Animal People, as "possibly the most sweeping feral animal extermination mandate ever put before Congress." H.R. 767, introduced by Rep. Ron Kind (D-WI), contains a passage requiring that funded extermination programs must minimize "adverse impacts to the structure and function of national wildlife refuge ecosystems and adverse effects on non-target species." There are no restrictions on the species that may be targeted or the methods that may be used to kill them.

Although outdoor cats are not specifically mentioned, they will be targets for extermination.

In fact, if this bill becomes law the U.S. federal government could enlist bird enthusiasts to report on non-native animals and then recruit hunters to kill them.

According to the American Bird Conservancy, "Much of the bill's language was developed by ABC's Executive Director of Conservation Advocacy, Darin Schroeder, during his previous tenure on Representative Kind's staff."

Carol Browner, Chairwoman of the Board of Directors of the National Audubon Society and Former Administrator of the EPA was invited to speak before the Committee on Natural Resources regarding H.R. 767 on October 9, 2007. Her testimony was "offered on behalf not only of National Audubon Society but also National Wildlife Federation, The Wilderness Society, and Defenders of Wildlife. Together, our organizations represent more than six million members and supporters across the country."

Cat advocates were not invited to testify. In fact, few understood the implications of the bill or were even aware of its existence until it had already been passed unanimously by the House of Representatives. Ultimately, the Senate did not vote on H.R. 767 in 2007; however, it could be resurrected at any time.

Nobody spends money watching feral cats. There are no cat trails to walk (or drive). No tourism dollars to collect. In fact, states lose money on felines since it costs taxpayers over $100 to capture, incarcerate and kill a cat.

Homeless feral cats don't attract a lot of money and lobbyists are expensive, so when free roaming felines win a victory it is almost always due to exposure by advocates. An example of this occurred in 2005 in Wisconsin when legislation was proposed that would have allowed hunters to shoot outdoor cats. The justification for this plan came from the Temple/Coleman Wisconsin study promoted by the American Bird Conservancy via its "Cats Indoors!" campaign.

Ted O'Donnell and Adam Bauknecht, animal advocates from Madison, launched Don't Shoot the Cat, an online organization which alerted the press and the public worldwide to the potential savagery proposed against outdoor felines in their state. It was a call to action that did not go unheard. In fact, after being deluged with emails and telephone calls, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle killed the proposal.

Other less publicized examples have occurred in many areas throughout the country. There have been victories and defeats, but in almost every case, it was a coalition of concerned citizens, not paid lobbyists, who volunteered to fight back on behalf of the cats.

Bruce Barcott laments the "alarming decline" in certain bird species, and admits that "The primary cause of those losses is well known. Habitat destruction — industrial and agricultural development and suburban sprawl replacing forests and fields — is by far the biggest threat to bird populations." He adds: "What is less understood is the extent to which a complex combination of secondary factors contributes to the decline."

In her unpublished December 5, 2007 letter-to-editor of the New York Times Magazine, feral cat expert and author of Maverick Cats and TNR: Past, Present and Future Ellen Perry Berkeley wrote: "Barcott acknowledges correctly that destruction of bird habitat is the primary cause of bird loss. A more complex explanation from him, however, would have included not only destruction of bird habitat, as we vastly expand our own habitat, but also degradation of bird habitat, as we infuse our air with pesticides and pollution, and fragmentation of bird habitat, as we chop our land into smaller and smaller chunks (causing, among other things, nest predation and nest parasitism from invading birds)."

Barcott does not give precise estimates of the "secondary factors" contributing to bird decline. Merritt Clifton, however, editor of Animal People, has given an estimate of 163 million birds killed annually in the U.S. by pet and feral cats, which is about half the number of birds he cites as being killed by a combination of collision with window glass (100 million) and collision with moving automobiles (220 million).

In acknowledgment of her expertise, Barcott interviewed Ms. Berkeley extensively in numerous telephone conversations and emails. She provided her books as well as copies of material related to feral cats, none of which was used in his article. Throughout the interview process, Barcott never mentioned to Ms. Berkeley (or us) that he had his own forthcoming book — about saving a bird.

Ironically, the next issue Barcott addresses in his article involves ethics:

"Which was the higher ethical duty, to save the bird or leave the cat unharmed? What are our obligations to cats and birds? It's a tough question even for some cat advocates."

It is especially tough for cat advocates who live in New Zealand which, along with Australia is one of the most aggressively anti-free roaming feline locales in the world. New Zealand is where Barcott's token pro-cat author/"philosopher" Jeffrey Masson now resides. Living with cats in this environment has made him understandably conflicted about allowing felines outdoors as evidenced in his statements to Barcott. However, in a 2002 Powell's Author Interview, Masson was adamant: "There's a dispute right now: The American Veterinary (Medical) Association says never let your cat outdoors. And there are shelters that will not let you adopt a cat if you don't agree never to let them outdoors. I understand, but philosophically I find it an appalling idea. You are depriving a cat of what makes it a cat. It's in the nature of a cat to be free. They hate confinement. I think to deprive them of freedom — to be outdoors, to be climbing trees, to be meeting other cats — you're taking away their happiness. They can be contented, and they'll live longer, and they may even bond more closely with you, but they'll never be true cats. Imagine being confined to your house. Sorry, we're not going to put you in a prison, but you can never leave the grounds of your house. What kind of life would that be for us?"

After dispensing with Masson who "ultimately sided with the animal-welfare school," Barcott moved on to environmental philosophers J. Baird Callicott and Holmes Ralston III, both predictably immersed in the anti-cat camp.

Barcott could have asked Ed Duvin, considered the "father of the no-kill movement" about his thoughts concerning speciesism which is the belief in the inherent superiority of one species over another.

Or he might have quoted Gary J. Patronek (VMD, PhD, Tufts University Center for Animals & Public Policy) who in a letter to the editor of the Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association, 11/15/96) wrote: "If the real objection to managed colonies is that it is unethical to put cats in a situation where they could potentially kill any wild creature, then the ethical issue should be debated on its own merits without burdening the discussion with the highly speculative numerical estimates for either wildlife mortality or cat predation. Whittling down guesses or extrapolations from limited observations by a factor of 10 or even 100 does not make these estimates any more credible, and the fact that they are the best available data is not sufficient to justify their use when the consequences may be extermination for cats. What I find inconsistent in an otherwise scientific debate about biodiversity is how indictment of cats has been pursued almost in spite of the evidence."

Moving on from the philosophical, Barcott boldly declares: "One point in the case against cats is undisputed: they destroy island ecosystems."

Actually, that point has been disputed in a number of studies.

In her unpublished letter to the New York Times Magazine feral cat expert Ellen Perry Berkeley wrote, "Cats undoubtedly take birds. But an Associated Press article only a month ago, about rats overrunning an Aleutian island, cited the California-based Island Conservation as saying that rats are to blame for between 40 and 60 percent of all seabird extinctions, with 90 percent of those occurring on islands. Other predators of songbirds (according to the comprehensive new book, Silence of the Songbirds by Bridget Stutchbury) would include skunks, opossums, raccoons, chipmunks, squirrels, cowbirds, blue jays, and crows."

It was reported in a December 2007 New York Times article that "Ecological theory suggests removing a predator isn't always beneficial to the prey especially if there is more than one predator species around and they share the same prey. In that case, elimination of the top predator may allow the midlevel predator to thrive, and a result may actually be worse for the prey." University of Auckland researchers "found such a case on Little Barrier Island, a wildlife sanctuary in New Zealand. They studied the impact of two predators, feral cats and kiore, or Pacific rats, on a small burrowing seabird, Cook's petrel.

Kiore were introduced to the island hundreds of years ago, and cats were introduced in the 1870s. Both preyed on the petrels, with the cats also preying on the rats. Both were eventually eradicated, the cats in 1980, the rats in 2004.

The researchers analyzed data on petrel chick survivability from 1972 to 2007. As they report in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, removing the cats actually made life worse for the petrels, since that left more kiore to prey on them....

Only when the rats were eliminated did petrel breeding success increase, to a level above that when both predators were around. The researchers say the findings reinforce the idea that an understanding of an entire ecosystem is crucial to proper management of introduced species." (Henry Fountain, "When removing one predator harms the prey", New York Times, 12/11/07)

In 2000, the Australian government's feral cat extermination program backfired on Macquarie Island resulting in "an alarming ecological domino effect." It was reported that "…nearly 2,500 cats were marauding the island, killing an estimated 60,000 seabirds a year. Specially trained dogs were used to hunt down the predators, with the last feral feline humanely destroyed in June 2000…But in a chain of events which demonstrates the complexity of restoring nature's balance, the removal of the cats had an unforeseen consequence- an explosion in the number of rats and rabbits on the island." (Nick Squires, "Cull upsets island's ecological balance", UK Telegraph 01/22/07)

With the cats gone, the rats began decimating delicate bird eggs, and rabbits were destroying fragile nesting areas and habitat. It is an established fact that rodents have been involved in extinction of bird species throughout the world.

The Australian government's mission to eradicate all cats is not limited to remote islands. Since they have been exterminating cats on the mainland for many years, they now have an exploding rat population. CSIRO, Australia's national science agency, reports that the land down under now has over 50 species of native rodents and the non-native Black and Norwegian rats are spreading disease in suburban areas like Melbourne:

"The diseases we're talking about are a full range from parasites, the roundworm that occur in lungs, for example, that transfer to humans, through to the viruses."

Additional research concludes:

-Black rats carry bubonic plague, typhus, toxoplasmosis, and trichinosis.

-The Norwegian is considered by many to be the greatest mammal pest of all time. It has caused more deaths than all the wars in history. It harbors lice and fleas and has been the source of bubonic plague; typhus, trichina, infectious jaundice, and many other serious diseases.

-Rats are usually a contributing factor of first importance in the spread of pandemics.

Felines have a well documented history of effectively controlling vermin populations. And yet, the Australian government continues its mission to eradicate all cats.

In addition to ignoring the rats' devastating role in island ecosystem degradation, Barcott's "evidence" regarding cats is based on dead specimens of a wren from an island off New Zealand in 1894 and data collected by a Swiss ecologist forty years ago. While the next studies he uses to portray felines as prolific continental bird killers are more current, they are, nevertheless, scientifically flawed.

Barcott contends: "But continents and islands are different. Continental birds had defenses against clawed mammals, so cats weren't a problem. Or such was the comfortable conventional wisdom until recently in the United States, which has 1 in 4 of the world's cats. The idea was challenged in 1987, when two biologists (Peter Churcher and John Lawton) found that cats in a small English village were killing a surprising number of birds—nearly 300 by 78 cats in a single year. American biologists followed up with a study of cat kills in rural Wisconsin. John Coleman, a wildlife ecologist with the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, and Stanley Temple, a University of Wisconsin professor, estimated that the state's 1.4 to 2 million rural cats were killing between 8 million and 219 million birds every year. Though the range was so large as to be of limited value, alarms went off in the birding world. If cats were taking out that many birds in a single state, imagine the carnage nationwide!"

With all the studies, research and bird counts conducted every year; one must wonder how avian advocates failed to notice this dramatic decline taking place before their eyes. Instead of analyzing the data, organizations like the American Bird Conservancy used statistical extrapolation to conjure up a crisis to stimulate a fundraising campaign.

One widely circulated article based on an actual investigation of the data contained in the Churcher/Lawton; Temple/Coleman studies was written by Jeff Elliott:

"But what do those studies actually say? And how good is the science in them? Here's some background on the two most frequently mentioned studies, cited in Cats and Wildlife: A Factsheet, from the National Audubon Society. Britain's 5 million cats kill about 20 million birds per year.

Studying the hunting trophies brought home by 78 cats in a single English village, Peter Churcher and John Lawton found birds were 35 percent of the kill — by far the highest estimate in any such study. In a 1989 condensation for Natural History magazine, they multiplied their results by the estimated number of cats in the entire nation. Rarely are projections made with such limited data, except in junior high science projects — which may be an appropriate comparison, considering Churcher teaches at a boys' school.

Note: Churcher himself is quoted in the newsletter Catnip, published by the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, sounding a note of caution. "'I'd be very wary,' says Churcher, 'about extrapolating our results even for the rest of Britain, let alone America. I don't really go along with the idea of cats being a threat to wildlife'."

Researchers in Wisconsin cite cats for killing 19 million songbirds. Dr. Stanley Temple, co-author of this frequently quoted work, seemed exasperated when asked again to rehash his findings. 'The media has had a field day with this since we started,' he sighed. Those figures were from our proposal. They aren't actual data; that was just our projection to show how bad it might be.' No one interviewed has seen Temple's unpublished research. But the (Sonoma County) supervisors appeared to give special attention to a letter written by Drs. Peter Connors and Victor Chow, UC/Davis researchers working at the Bodega Marine Laboratory. By projecting the numbers cited from Wisconsin and Great Britain, they estimated 500,000 Sonoma County birds are killed by cats annually.

In a telephone interview, Connors said he has read only the condensation of the British study and has seen only 'extracted forms' of Temple's work, which of course were guesstimates for the proposal. He was surprised to learn this study was unpublished. 'Look, we're not cat researchers,' said Connors. 'I've never worked with cats at all; I'm an ornithologist.' Then what expertise does he have about cats? 'Vic (Chow) has been participating in a mentor program with Piner High School students on a project tracking feral cats,' he explained.

'We had (radio transmitter) collars on three animals. We didn't do a full study; it's just a program with high school students'." (Jeff Elliott, "The Accused", The Sonoma County Independent, 3/3-16/94)

Barcott declares that "cat advocates love to attack the Wisconsin study, but the more you delve into the scientific literature, the more the Wisconsin study looks like a red herring used by cat defenders to divert attention from more grounded research."

Actually, cat defenders were trying to bring Barcott's attention to more grounded research during the extensive interviews with him, yet virtually none of it was cited in his article. Even if he had not spoken with representatives of Alley Cat Allies, Barcott could have found a large amount of information and about cats and predation on their web site. The following is an excerpt from one of their reports:

"Many studies have shown that cats do not have a detrimental impact on wildlife on continents. However, many people still feel that cats are to blame for the depletion of songbirds and other animals. Two studies most often quoted to support placing blame on feral cats are the Stanley Temple study and the Churcher/Lawton study. Some individuals and groups use these studies in misguided efforts to discredit Alley Cat Allies' and others' work to humanely control feral cats. However, over sixty studies on feral cats have been written from different continents throughout the world — all showing three very important points:

-Cats are opportunistic feeders, eating what is most easily available. Feral cats are scavengers, and many rely on garbage and handouts from people;

-Cats are rodent specialists. Birds make up a small percentage of their diet when they rely solely on hunting for food;

-And, cats may prey on a population without destroying it. If this were not so, we would no longer have any mice around." (From Alley Cat Allies report: "Understanding Cats and Predation")

Barcott did later quote Roger Tabor, an esteemed wildlife biologist who has studied feral cats for 30 years, regarding the "vacuum effect." But he ignored the rest of Tabor's other significant research including his findings that "cats have low success as bird hunters," and "the bulk of a feral cat's diet is garbage, plants, insects, and other scavenger material" and therefore cats are "not impacting bird populations on the continents."

Additionally, in 1979 noted researchers B.M. Fitzgerald and B.J. Karl found that "Cats suppress populations of more dangerous predators such as rats and thus allow denser population of birds than would exist without them."

Barcott's choice of "experts" included Fern Duvall, a wildlife biologist with the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Barcott quotes Duvall claiming that felines are worse than mongooses when it comes to predation on birds: "…mongooses tend to take one or two birds and be satisfied. Cats can go postal. We've had as many as 123 wedgetail shearwaters in one colony killed by a single cat."

Members of The Feline Resistance were familiar with Duvall's reputation. A few years ago we had communicated with TNR expert Lela Nickel who, at that time was director of 9th Life, a feral cat sanctuary in Maui. Ms. Nickel's observations about Mr. Duvall are as follows:

"The stories of Fern Duvall's fanatical attitudes towards bird extinction are almost too numerous to list. But I'll hit some of the highlights of his career on Maui so far. Keep in mind, Duvall does not hold a doctorate and studied the philosophy of German biologists who taught 'ethology,' a technique which applies evolutionary theory to early animal and childhood human behavior, in order to examine its instinctive and adaptive nature. Its roots go back to Charles Darwin's Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859).

The following is an excerpt from one article in a series of stories that ran on the front pages of the Maui News and Honolulu Advertiser in August of 2002 prompted by Duvall's discovery of an attack on a flock of sea birds":

A feral cat or cats are likely responsible for killing nearly the entire Hookipa colony of wedge-tailed shearwaters, a total of 93 indigenous Hawaiian seabirds, over the past two weeks. "I just get so sick of doing this," said state wildlife biologist Fern Duvall as he trudged up and down the slope filling plastic trash bags with carcasses. He said the colony gets hit "all the time." Bite marks on the birds' chests and heads were typical of cat kills. The fact that the carcasses were left intact indicates the guilty feline was hunting out of instinct, not for food. Duvall said a single cat could have caused all the damage. "An animal probably found the colony and it's just coming back repeatedly," he said.

Ms. Nickel's response to this report:

"First, Duvall needs to first authenticate his claims about feral cats roaming Hookipa. I live within a mile of the area in question so I am very familiar with the (few) feral cats 'hotspots' in the area. I personally spent the night out at Hookipa after this story was printed to see if there were perhaps cats that only came out in the evening. All I found was a flat, windy featureless expanse of pastureland bordering the sea; the only fresh water was in a steep sided trough for the cows. I saw absolutely no signs of cats in the area at any time. But I did see people running their big dogs without a leash there- this was a frequent occurrence. I also suspect this activity would chase off any stray cat that happened to find itself there.

But beyond the lack of physical proof is the absurdity of the argument Duvall contends that cats would hunt down a bird, deliver a killing blow, and move on to another bird, and another, and another . This proves he has no understanding of feline habits and hunting practices. I have observed cats' predatory behavior for years, and never have I seen one kill repeatedly. They amuse themselves for hours with anything they capture, and always remove it from the scene of the crime. Duvall even speculates it is a deliberate repeated action, possibly by a single cat.

Now in my experience it's not uncommon to witness dogs, especially in pack mode, go into a killing frenzy when confronted with a flock of birds. But for some reason this was never considered a possibility at one of the most popular dog running spots on the island by any of the numerous stories printed in the media, even though I wrote a letter to the editor expressing this possibility. In response, Duvall claimed he has witnessed one cat take out 33 birds in his sanctuary at Kahana Pond. This statement borders on preposterous, but it's his argument and he stuck to it, although he shifted his attitude which was reported in an article last year in the Maui News."

Back on the road with Jim Stevenson, Barcott writes: "Stevenson swung his arms in an arc and named the birds around us like a trick shooter nailing tossed cards: "Four stilts, two laughing gulls, three godwits, a flock of royal terns, clapper rails and — there he is — one piping plover."

Returning to the cats, Barcott abandons his picturesque avian narrative. His words echo in stark contrast when it comes to describing the area John Newland has set up for his cats: "Under the bridge, I spotted an old plastic tray and a golf ball hanging down on a fishing line — a toy for the cats. A couple of gnarled ferals peeked out from some bushes."

Barcott continues: "Until the early 1980s municipalities contained feral cats the old fashioned away: they shot them. Or they trapped and killed them. 'It was considered pest control,' says Roger Tabor, the British biologist. Tabor helped change that in the 1970s with his research on feral cats in London. He found that ferals weren't loners. They lived in highly social colonies, and killing them didn't work. If you removed some cats, others simply took their place. Tabor called it the vacuum effect."

In her letter-to-the editor, Ellen Perry Berkeley noted: "One of the earliest researchers on this side of the Atlantic, Dr. Karl E. Zaunbrecher, whose favorable study of TNR (trap-neuter-return) was published in 1993 in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, now comments, more than a decade later, 'Eradication is a complete failure everywhere. Eradication won't make the problem go away; it only makes the problem worse.' More recently, extensive research published by Dr. Julie Levy has documented the positive effects of TNR in many ways. In contrast to eradication, the trap-neuter-return method of population control for feral cats — so lightly treated in the Barcott article — can bring numerous advantages. It is less expensive, for one thing. San Diego's Feral Cat Coalition, in its first five years of TNR, reduced cat impoundments and euthansias by 50 percent, saving the municipalities $1 million."

There are many other TNR "success stories." Barcott chose to ignore them all, writing a total of two sentences about the TNR movement admitting that the colonies "seemed to work." Once that's out of the way, he counters with: "The problem with TNR, bird advocates contend, is that it doesn't eliminate the problem."

Jim Stevenson insists that he "tried to work with the local feral cat people" and to get assistance from local officials but "they did nothing." Instead of investigating these claims, Barcott allows Stevenson to lament the drop in the migrant songbird population as he peers out "at the dozens of new vacation condominiums going up along the shore." Stevenson continues: "We've taken away their food source and their habitat. Double whammy. Then they get here, and those migrants, man, they're beat. For the cats, it's easy pickings. They're popping birds like they were M&M's."

Stevenson's overstatement defies logic and demonstrates his lack of credibility as an observer of cat predation. Also, never mentioned as part of Stevenson's overall character and reliability as a source is the fact that "Stevenson's arrest was not his first legal tangle over the treatment of animals: Records obtained under the Texas Public Information Act show that he was cited by Texas game wardens in 1996 for illegally capturing birds and possessing turtle parts." (Miguel Bustillo, "Alleged cat slayer says he's martyr for birds", Los Angeles Times, 11/25/06)

In the late afternoon, Barcott and Stevenson are "…headed for home. Our route took us past the San Luis Pass bridge just when John Newland happened to be out feeding the feral cats." Barcott gets out of the vehicle to talk to Mr. Newland alone — Stevenson "wanted nothing to do with the toll taker." Barcott reports that Newland tells him in his "Texas twang" that he has "15 to 20 cats" and that "the babies don't last long. Maybe one out of 10 survive. We got coyotes, owls, hawks out there. I've seen owls carry my babies off."

Barcott continues his questioning: "I asked him about Jim Stevenson. 'I've got pictures of the cats he shot,' Newland said angrily. 'He shot a mother and a baby in their bed, splattered all over the wall.' Newland pointed to some grimy blanket strewn on a concrete shelf — feral cat beds. 'He shot one off the rocks here; you can see the bloodstain. The one he got caught doing was right there by that food tray. He shot her there, pregnant and she died.' Barcott then admits that 'This was the first I'd heard of Stevenson shooting more than one cat.' He asks Newland, 'This wasn't the first time your cats were shot?' Mr. Newland responds: 'Three days before he killed that pregnant cat, my coworkers heard four shots, saw a car going off toward the beach. It was his little Chevy compact'."

Returning to the November 25, 2006 Los Angeles Times article "Alleged cat slayer says he's martyr for birds" that chronicled Stevenson's admitted history of cat killing, it was also reported:

"This week, Newland, 68, visited the flower-adorned grave below the toll bridge where he buried the feline he called Momma Cat. The white and gray tabby was pregnant when she was killed. Nearby were buried several cats that Newland is convinced also died at the hands of Stevenson. 'That's cruelty, if there ever was cruelty,' Newland said of the killings. 'I just can't get it out of my mind'."

Barcott leaves Newland and asks Stevenson about the accusation: "The toll taker says that wasn't the only cat you shot. He says you've been shooting at the cats for a while." After "Stevenson grew quiet," Barcott "finally" received this cryptic answer from the man who has publicly confessed to shooting many cats: "What I would say to that is that if that's so, why doesn't he have any evidence to support his accusation?"

Stunningly, without any further investigation, Barcott ends the interview with Jim Stevenson this way:

"We drove along in silence for a while. Then Stevenson spotted a dead bird on the side of the road. He stopped to check it out. 'It's a yellow-bellied cuckoo,' he said. He held the dead bird tenderly in his palm, ran his fingers through its soft feathers and explained in great detail the cuckoo's fascinating toe structure."

Barcott leaves Galveston and moves on to Portland, Oregon where he visits the Audubon Society's Wildlife Care Center, an emergency room for injured and diseased animals. Bob Salinger, Conservation Director of the Portland Audubon Society blames cats for the majority of bird victims brought in and Barcott singles out a woman who has brought in for treatment a bird that her cat attacked. "Glancing at a "Cats Indoors!" brochure, she said somewhat sheepishly, 'My cats are indoor-outdoor. I half expected a lecture from the people here, but I felt responsible for the bird, so I came anyway'."

Bob Salinger himself notes in his article "Cats and Wildlife" that they see a lot of feline related injuries to birds because cat owners bring them in. He also writes, "Those who would dismiss urban wildlife populations as ecologically insignificant fail to understand that the warblers passing though our backyards, neighborhoods, and parks are exactly the same birds that travel thousands of miles from their breeding grounds in the north to their wintering sites in Central and South America. Too often urbanites fall into the trap of believing wildlife is something only to be protected 'out there' beyond our urban growth boundaries. When it comes to migratory birds, we need to be just as concerned about what is happening in our own backyards. "

If Mr. Salinger looked into many of these backyards he would probably notice a lot of birdbaths and feeders which not only attract predators, but are also breeding grounds for disease.

Barcott's article continues: "Despite the number of cat-caused injuries, bird and cat advocates have achieved a rare détente in Portland. Salinger works with the Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon to keep cats in check near critical wildlife refuges."

Ellen Perry Berkeley points out that "a growing number of TNR groups, coast to coast (not just the rare case cited by Barcott), are working closely with local wildlife organizations to devise the best solutions to possible local problems — with these solutions invariably including TNR that is well-located and well-managed. With this cooperation, we can hope that the feral cat population — already down considerably because of TNR, according to Animal People (down to perhaps one-quarter of the number given by Barcott) — will be even lower with the further acceptance of TNR."

Barcott concludes his article by mentioning that feral cat "ownership" combined with the Endangered Species Act "could have devastating ramifications for TNR programs across the country. Endangered birds are protected by the Endangered Species Act and all migratory birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. If feral-colony caretakers are held to be legally responsible for the cats, they could conceivably be charged with violations of either act by aiding and abetting the killing of endangered or migratory birds."

Assuming Barcott actually read the information on The Feline Resistance's web site either before or after contacting us, he would have discovered that this has already happened. Back in 2003, "Cats Indoors" Director, Linda Winter and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) declared war on outdoor cats, accusing "non-native" felines of threatening endangered species of birds and mice. Part of the plan to eradicate the cats was to initiate a state-wide ban on trap-neuter-return. Instead of humanely reducing homeless free-roaming populations; these animals were to be captured and sent to shelters where the majority would be killed.

When the public learned of this proposal they rose up and fought back. Ultimately, trap-neuter-return was not outlawed on a state wide level, but the attack on outdoor cats continued. In 2004, Space Coast Feline Network (SCFN), a Brevard County TNR group with a history of success in reducing feral cat populations, was sued by Dr. Christine Storts. Her attorney, Pamela Jo Hatley, joined forces with the American Bird Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to sue SCFN under the Endangered Species Act. This lawsuit resulted in SCFN losing funding from the county.

Ironically, while the FWC was so concerned with exterminating "non-native" free-roaming felines, Florida's parks and refuges were being over-run by Burmese pythons — exotic snakes that can grow more than 20 feet long and weigh over 200 pounds. These invasive reptiles have no natural predators in Florida and feed on birds and mice, among many other species.

Other "exotics" that should have been "of concern" are:

-Nile monitor lizards; seven feet long, dagger-clawed and voracious. Their diet includes the eggs of endangered Burrowing Owls. Wildlife officials have no idea how to stop them from decimating fragile ecosystems.

-Gambian pouched rats; running rampant in the Florida Keys. The enormous African rats could eventually make their way onto the Florida mainland where they could quickly destroy ecosystems, threatening crops, birds and other animals.

Today, the southern end of Florida is teeming with alien invaders wreaking havoc on native wildlife. But back in 2003, influenced by the American Bird Conservancy, the FWC was primarily concerned about wandering felines.

The American Bird Conservancy and other avian organizations like the National Audubon Society continue to fund, endorse and advance a simplistic anti-cat campaign that does not address the real issue.

Just "keep your cats indoors"? There are millions of homeless felines that do not have that option.

If the American Bird Conservancy and "Cats Indoors!" campaign supporters were intellectually honest, they would attempt to address the problem of feline overpopulation in a meaningful way. Since they reject trap-neuter-return, here are some other ideas on how they could help:

-subsidize spay/neuter clinics

-fund research for feline oral contraceptives

-start a fleet of spay/neuter mobile units

-urge bird lovers to adopt shelter cats

-donate money to existing cat sanctuaries

-stop distributing false information and harmful propaganda

If avian advocacy groups are serious about addressing the issue of feline overpopulation in a humane way, they should prove it. They should stop wasting money on propaganda and divisive tactics and do something effective to solve the problem.

Perhaps Bryan Kortis, Executive Director of New York City's Neighborhood Cats, a group whose mission is "to make TNR a fully understood, accepted and practiced method in every community," said it best: "Ultimately the wildlife and TNR organizations want the same thing — fewer feral cats. The wildlife organizations have no realistic way to get there. We do."

By Veronica Lennon, Director
The Feline Resistance!
January 28, 2008