Tax-Exempt Lies: The Trap-Neuter-Return Industry

My blood boiled this morning when I saw some propaganda for trap-neuter-return programs being shared around Facebook. Trap-neuter-return (TNR) is a method of dealing with feral cat populations by spaying and neutering them and then releasing them back into the wild. Conservation biologists have found that TNR fails to reduce populations of cats. As an alien predator subsidized by humans, free-roaming cats kill between half a billion and a billion birds a year, as well as an untold number of reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, and insects in the United States alone. Furthermore, free-roaming cats spread diseases harmful to humans, including toxoplasmosis, implicated in fetal death, brain cancer, and schizophrenia.

Despite these facts, the TNR industry is well-funded and boasts a national activist army. It’s easy to exploit the emotions of cat lovers to fund the innumerable, frequently torturous deaths of chipmunks, chickadees, and butterflies. What everyone ought to find truly galling, however, is that the taxpayer subsidizes this destruction. Alley Cats, the major national promoter of TNR programs, is a tax-exempt charity with a staff of 30. (They claim that TNR works to reduce feral cat populations over the long term, but the only studies they can cite are a small handful of short-term, single-case studies carried out by veterinarians, not biologists. There is now a large body of peer-reviewed research conducted by biologists finding that TNR does not reduce feral cat populations, especially when compared to the traditional trap-kill method. See links above.) As a 501(c)(3) organization, Alley Cats is eligible to receive tax-deductible donations, which means that the taxpayers of the United States are effectively subsidizing donations to this organization. This is rather as if someone were to form a “charity” dedicated to dumping heavy metals into the water supply or to “solving” Third World “overpopulation” by poisoning wells and stealing bed-nets. So long as you have noble intentions, apparently, the IRS will allow you to obtain charitable status. Charities often have secondary ill effects, as when foreign aid inadvertently promotes corruption or distorts local production, but this is one of the few cases I can think of in which a charity is actually doing first-order harm — and getting recognition and support from the government for it.

32 thoughts on “Tax-Exempt Lies: The Trap-Neuter-Return Industry

  1. Jason, usually I agree with you, but not here. Not as to the negative content of the TNR programs (I’ll take your word on that) but as to the claims (i) that their tax-deductive status amounts to a “subsidy” and (ii) that they shouldn’t have it. I do not want bureaucrats deciding which charitable enterprises are “worths supporting” and which not, and I can’t imagine you do either. It seems to me those standards ought to be as content-neutral as it is possible to get, and I can imagine lots of deranged charities getting past the bar. And the fact that they do doesn’t mean there is a “subsidy” going on, any more than the failure to tax anything amounts to a subsidy to it. That, it seems to me, is quite an important distinction to maintain, difficult as it may be at some points. (And of course the question whether something ought to be tax-deductible need not invoke the claim that there is a “subsidy” involved; those seem to me distinct questions.)

    1. Hm, I should have defended that aspect of the argument more thoroughly. My case that it’s effectively a subsidy would go something like this: 1) A general level of taxation is necessary to fund whatever government is doing at the moment. 2) Selecting certain income to exempt from taxation necessarily requires moving the remainder of the burden of taxation more heavily to the non-exempt income. 3) Thus, the non-exempt income earners are effectively subsidizing the exempt income earners. 4) However, that does not mean that these subsidies are always unjustified. Sometimes charities can do things (like education) more efficiently than government, and subsidizing them will tend to work out better than not (and having more of the service provided directly by government).

      A lot of gov’t programs are run as “tax expenditures” but in my view are no less subsidies for that – e.g., exempting a particular business from property taxes for the first 10 years, provided it provides X number of jobs, and so on.

    2. Been managing a colony for 14 years now. No nasty diseases (or diseases of any kind) transmitted to me or any humans I know of that care for other colonies. Prior to TNR, there were cats and kittens everywhere. Lack of TNR is what established my colony to begin with. Now, 14 years later, I have only 5 left in my colony after losing one to cancer last fall at the age of almost 16. Outlived 2 of her indoor-only brothers that I managed to socialize and bring home as kittens by more than 3 years. Without TNR, there would’be been tens of thousands of kitten by now. Feeding a healthy bird population right along with the ferals. If anybody really wants to cut down the population, which is what we all want, then spaying/neutering is the way to go. In turn, with less cats, there will be far less so-called eco impact. Furthermore, there have been a number of studies that show that it’s cheaper to TNR than to impound and euthanize – about 60%, in fact. Jason, you are so misinformed that it is a sad shame. Why don’t you adopt a colony yourself and see firsthand what the facts are? Along that same line, Mark, why don’t you use your own intelligence to research facts rather than ‘take Jason’s word for it’? You both make my blood boil. Value freedom, eh? Yeah, only as long as it’s yours. That’s slave-master talk.

      1. I go with the science on this. A broad range of evidence shows that TNR programs don’t diminish feral cat populations. Neutering & spaying is better than not, of course, but feeding the cats is worse than not. And the best solution is to humanely put down feral cats. TNR advocates don’t want to do this because they value the lives of cats hundreds of times more than they value the lives of native reptiles, amphibians, birds, small mammals, and insects. Because they’re fluffy or something.

    3. THANK YOU, Jason Sorens for telling the truth!

      The most egregious lie “non-profit no-kill” charlatans tell is that “TNR WORKS!” The second-most egregious lie they tell is that “CATS CONTROL RODENTS!” I realize you and others can point to a huge, steaming pile of cat-nutter lies from which to choose other candidates for ‘most egregious’, but these are my two favorites.

      The reality is that every place that’s overrun by invasive felines is also overrun by invasive rodents (house mice, Norway, Pacific and brown rats), and has been ever since Europeans introduced these species everywhere they now occur. This is NOT a coincidence.

      Invasive cats and rodents form and PERPETUATE balances of sustainable numbers for the benefit of precisely ONE organism. Not the cats. Nor the rats. And certainly not humans. They, and arguably we, exist solely to complete the life-cycle of a cat-vectored parasite, Toxoplasma gondii—at least from the parasite’s standpoint.

      It reproduces only in felid digestive tracts. Infected cats shed its oocysts (“egg-cells”) by the tens of millions with their feces. The oocysts’ immediate purpose is to infect commensal rodents. They cause neurochemical changes in the rodents so that, instead of fleeing the scent of cat-pi$$, they are sexually aroused and attracted by it, thus facilitating the oocysts’ return to feline digestive tracts where they can once again reproduce, completing the life-cycle. Cats don’t ‘control’ rodents—they attract them.

      Studies in South Africa have shown that toxoplasmosis works the same way on Chimpanzees vis-a-vis leopards. Additional studies suggest the stereotype of the lonely cat-hoarding spinster dying and being eaten by her hoarded cats—this has actually happened more than once—may prove to have more to do with parasitology than urban legend.

      In recent decades misguided, irresponsible people have adopted worthless ‘no-kill’ strategies rather than active pest control-oriented approaches to reduce and eliminate feral cat populations. As a direct result of this–particularly the fraudulent practice known as “Trap-Neuter-Return”–infectious T. gondii oocysts are now present in our environment at densities of from three to 434 oocysts per square foot, and they persist in the environment and remain infectious for 1 ½ to 4 ½ years.

      They contaminate vegetable gardens, row-crop soils, pastures, livestock and game animal browsing areas, insufficiently-filtered municipal and rural water supplies, inshore marine habitat and the filter-feeding organisms therein (enjoy those raw oysters, folks!), as well as parks, beaches, schoolyards and children’s play areas. The oocysts can and do become aerosolized. All it takes is inhaling one oocyst to blind, permanently debilitate or kill a child. Or immuno-compromised adult.

      Per the CDC as many as 1/5th of the U.S. population is infected with toxoplasmosis. Most are asymptomatic because healthy immune systems usually suppress the parasite’s deleterious effects. Nonetheless 4,500 Americans are hospitalized each year due to toxoplasmosis-induced food-borne illness, and about 325 of them die.

      Toxoplasmosis causes 400 to 4,000 stillborn, blind, hydrocephalic, microcephalic and severely mentally retarded newborns annually in the US, and no one knows how many chronic miscarriages in childbearing age women. Ocular lesions caused by the parasite blind 70 people–mostly children–annually. The parasite has also been linked to adult-onset schizophrenia and Alzheimer’s.

      In addition to ingestion, inhalation and congenital (intrauterine) transmission, the infectious oocysts can be transmitted via breast milk and semen. And NO ONE’S immune system remains healthy forever–they deteriorate with age, and the embedded oocysts WILL STILL BE THERE.

      Selfish, irresponsible ‘no-kill’ extremists maintain disease-ridden vermin at unnaturally high densities by subsidizing them with food, thus simultaneously promoting conditions favoring disease outbreaks and attracting its carriers to human habitation!

      They have essentially decided to shorten their neighbors’ life spans by needlessly exposing them to zoonotic disease. NEEDLESSLY deserves emphasis here—toxoplasmosis would be largely AVOIDABLE were it not for TNR. By eliminating free-roaming cats we could eliminate toxoplasmosis almost as thoroughly as we have smallpox and polio.

      These myopic, misanthropic, outdoor cat-hoarders are modern-day equivalents to Typhoid Mary–they won’t stop because all they care about is preventing cats from being euthanized no matter the costs to their communities. If such people became enamored of RATS and wanted to feed and maintain them in TNR colonies, they would be dragged off and institutionalized as menaces to public health–and rightly so. Cats carry far more potentially-fatal diseases transmissible to humans than do rats.

      Speaking of which—and to prevent cat-nutters from wasting our time with another of their favorite incessantly-repeated lies: “KITTIES SAVED US FROM PLAGUE!!!” In fact cats did nothing WHATSOEVER to fight bubonic, pneumonic or septicemic plague (Yersinsia pestis). The only role cats played during the 14th century European plague pandemic and its lesser ‘sequels’ (outbreaks) was to catch plague and die from it–after transmitting it to something else.

      Cats are particularly susceptible to plague. There have been six cases of cat-vectored plague in Colorado and Wyoming since July of this year.
      Transmission to humans was in all recent cases via infectious respiratory spray to people who got too close to infected cats.

      Oh yes—’persecution’ of cats had nothing to do with the 14th-century plague pandemic either. That took place 300 years AFTER said pandemic.

      Another consequence of “TNR”: 1/3rd of all human rabies exposures in the US are now due to feral and free-roaming cats. That’s about 13,000 exposures per year for at least the last 15 years, each requiring painful and expensive PEP (Post Exposure Prophylactic) inoculations at $3,000.00-$26,000.00 per person. Untreated rabies is nearly always fatal.

      The greatest rabies outbreak in US HISTORY—665 exposures in one New Hampshire town in 1994 which cost that municipality $2 million to treat–was caused by a TNR CAT-COLONY.

      And yet another consequence of TNR: These self-absorbed, arrogant, elitist ‘animal-welfare’ fanatics are, for the sake of their bloody CATS, stealing entire generations’ FUTURES by irresponsibly spreading and perpetuating their noxious “community” vermin; thanks to their efforts, a cat-vectored brain-worm, Toxocara catii is infecting one out of every three Black American children living in poverty, and impairing the development of no one knows how many of these children.

      I’m unsure whether it’s more apt to compare TNR advocates and practitioners to Michigan Governor Rick Snyder for poisoning a entire generation of Flint, Michigan’s children or Jeffery Amherst for handing out smallpox-ridden blankets to peaceful “Indians”.

      Beware of ‘cat-nutters’ bearing gifts (or asking for donations)!

  2. That frames our disagreement very clearly. You are right if you take as the baseline “whatever level of taxation is necessary to fund whatever government is doing at the moment.” But why accept that as a baseline? It’s precisely that that I challenge. Instead, take as a baseline the endeavors that government is legitimately entitled to engage in. Now figure that subsidies occur when government is entitled to take resources from some part of the polity and direct it to others, as part of the functions it is mandated and entitled to perform. On this baseline, the fact that it does not take resources from some source, because it has no authority to do so, does not count as a “subsidy”; instead, it counts as a reflection of the limits of legitimate government power. I take it that the justification for at least some deductions from income tax fall into this category — as in effect respect for first-amendment expressions of religious, moral, or related commitments. It may not tax contributions to these enterprises because to do so represents an intrusion on the expression of such beliefs in violation of the 1st amendment.

    Why would libertarians accept as the baseline funding all the things government does, rather than what it is entitled to do?

    “Tax expenditures” of the sort you are identifying here I think are something different. I think we should also wonder about their consistency with the rule of law, but that is another matter.

    1. I certainly agree that there may be good reasons for exempting certain contributions from taxation, so my “baseline” terminology wasn’t actually meant to have moral content. At the same time, I’m not sure if our disagreement is purely terminological. If we’re thinking about the extent to which the government allocates rewards to encourage outcomes that it seeks, tax credits, exemptions, and subsidies are all of a piece. So for instance you could refrain from taxing contributions to churches up to a certain amount of taxable income, or you could tax contributions to churches at the same rate as other income, but also allow a check-off on your income tax form to allocate some of your tax money to a church, up to a certain amount (whatever the maximum would otherwise be under option A). The latter counts as a government expenditure in the accounts, and the former as a lack of tax revenue, but the practical effect of both policies is identical. The Earned Income Tax Credit provides another example. Is it welfare, a type of subsidy? Depends on who’s counting. A tax code riddled with tax credits and deductions is, in my view, just as “manipulative of the market economy” as is an expenditure account riddled with subsidies. Some of those manipulations may be justifiable or at least defensible, but they’re still manipulations.

      1. We agree on this. We also agree (I think) that the matter is not merely terminological. Baseline questions are questions about legitimate starting-points, departures from which require justification. I think if we see tax-deductios uniformly as subsidies, departures from a starting-point and in need of justification, we get the justificatory burden exactly the wrong way around. The way I am pitching it, the starting-point is that the state may not impede the expression of moral, religious, or other ideological expressions; changes from that starting point are what require justification. From that conception of the baseline, not taxing contributions to at least some kinds of charitable operations isn’t a subsidy; it is simply a reflection of limits on government power, to tax and otherwise.

        Consider a comparable world. In this world, there is no deduction for charitable contributions. Now, some government genius proposes a negative “deduction” on such contributions. If you give to charity, your taxes go up by (say) 20%. If government is entitled to meet its income needs by taxation, and a decision not to tax this extra amount means the tax burden must be met some other way, then that would in fact by a “subsidy” to the organizations in question on the model you are defending. As would a failure to tax them at any level, to the point where they cease to exist. My semantic and moral intuitions tell me that something has gone seriously wrong there, and I think where things go wrong is in treating as the baseline the level of funding needed for government to carry out whatever it does, which is your proposal as I understand it. That cannot be the right baseline, because it ignores the entitlement that its citizens have to keep the income they earn absent some overriding justification for taxing it away. That’s the baseline my way of framing the issue respects and yours does not, at least as it seems to me.

      2. I think the question of which baseline to use depends on the mode of analysis we are doing: ideal or second-best. In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be taxes, so there would be nothing to deduct. In the world as it is now, the questions of what the level of taxation ought to be and what its variance across activities ought to be are analytically separable. If we hold the level of taxation constant, then any choice to exempt certain income from taxation has to reflect a choice about why that income deserves special treatment. One good argument for such treatment would be that the income is going to a public purpose that ought to be promoted (such as moral, religious, and ideological expressions). Absent such a showing, special treatment seems to bear a heavy burden. Why should contributions to my church be deductible but not contributions to my Spain travel fund? Both activities have value to me (let’s assume). Libertarians would generally argue that pursuing one’s interests and material goals should enjoy just as substantial legal respect as pursuit of one’s ideological goals. However, the law might justifiably carve out exceptions for private activities with beneficial or harmful third-party effects, subsidizing the former and taxing the latter (even more). I think the term “subsidy” captures this aspect of the argument, that the justification for the special tax treatment turns on whether the activity has beneficial third-party consequences.

      3. Jason, I’ll leave you with the last word. But it seems to me that there is considerable space between an “ideal” of no taxation and a “second best” world where funding decisions are made independent of any constraint on the proper functions of government. It seems to me you do not have to be an anarchist to think that there are some forms of human activity which we have pre-political reasons for constraining government from touching. If there are, that is a reason for thinking there is a baseline which includes the permissibility of engaging in those activities without the suppressing power of taxation being exerted against them. That’s the space for privileging the account on which it is no subsidy to refuse to tax income that is given to charities. Does that leave all kinds of messy questions about taxation? Of course, but that’s a burden the tax advocate must bear. My interest is in getting at least some domains of human activity out of the scope of government control in the first place.

      4. Does it matter which domains those are, or is your position that any withdrawal of the taxing power, no matter how selective, is to be desired? If the government decided not to tax contributions to Spain travel funds, would that also not count as a subsidy but as a withdrawal of political power on your account? Or are there certain kinds of private projects that are more worthy of political respect than others? Just trying to sort out where the substantive differences in our positions truly lie.

      5. I’d be inclined to say there are two questions here, not one. One point is that in general withdrawal of taxing power is desirable, just as you suggest. But I think that a different point is that some activities should not be subject to taxing power, even if you think taxing power is necessary (as any but anarchists would accept). That is, to take a different example, you don’t get to tax the right to vote, and thus not taxing voting rights does not count as “subsidizing” them. I’d think the 1st amendment would represent a recognition of something like a domain for exercise of conscience that would similarly qualify.

      6. Understood. In one sense I’m an anarchist, in that I think that nonconsensual governments may not legitimately tax, but a government established by a real contract could. The content of that contract could authorize or prohibit any form of taxation; it would be up to the members.

        I’m leery of the notion that some private projects are inherently more worthy of legal respect (independently of their consequences or the content of any applicable contracts) than others, but I don’t think the view is incoherent or unreasonable.

      7. I agree with your basic point here, though I was thinking of basic constitutional argument in the absence of anarchy, as a second-best. It’s a good question what constraints on contract would emerge in anarchy!

  3. From a total neophyte in these waters; shouldn’t this argument about tax exempt status be applied to religion also? Isn’t granting any institution that status in fact State Sponsorship?

    1. I’m not sure what I think about that, honestly. Churches provide charitable and educational services that it may be worthwhile to subsidize in the current environment. In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be taxes, so there would be nothing to deduct. My argument here is just that in the world as it exists now, government shouldn’t be offering tax deductions to contributions to harmful activities.

      1. But by the reasoning you put forward isn’t the granting of tax-exempt status to a “church” or other religious institution forcing me to unwillingly support that organization? And who’s to say whether charity is self serving or education is indoctrination?

      2. If you offer the same tax deduction to non-religious and anti-religious charitable, educational, and social organizations as you do to churches, then it seems to me the tax deduction is viewpoint-neutral.


    FACT: Trap & Kill failed because cats cannot be trapped faster than they exponentially breed out of control.

    FACT: Trap & Sterilize (TNR) is an even bigger abject failure because they cannot be trapped faster than they exponentially breed out of control, and they also continue the cruelly annihilate all native wildlife (from the smallest of prey up to the top predators that are starved to death), and the cats continue to spread many deadly diseases that they carry today — FOR WHICH THERE ARE NO VACCINES AGAINST THEM. Many of which are even listed as bioterrorism agents. (Such as Tularemia and The Plague — Yes, people have already died from cat-transmitted plague in the USA. No fleas nor rats even required. The cats themselves carry and transmit the plague all on their own.)

    FACT: Every last TNR cat dies a cruel and heinous death; under the wheels of a car, from other cat and animal attacks, finding environmental poisons, starvation, dehydration, heat exposure, freezing to death, infections, incurable diseases, parasites, etc., etc. And if very very lucky being humanely shot to death or re-trapped and humanely drowned (the two most common methods often employed on all farms and ranches to protect their gestating livestock’s offspring and valuable native wildlife from dying from cats’ Toxoplasmosis parasites).

    FACT: Hunted To Extinction (or in this case, extirpation of all outdoor cats) is the ONLY method that is faster than a species like cats can exponentially out-breed and out-adapt to. Especially a man-made invasive-species like these cats that can breed 2-4X’s faster than any naturally occurring cat-species.

    FACT: Alley Cat ALL-LIES of NYC have only managed to reduce the number of feral cats in their own city by 0.08% to 0.024% (and as the months go on that percentage becomes even more insignificant), thereby allowing more than 99.92% to 99.976% to continually and exponentially breed out of control. Here’s how Alley-Cat-ALL-LIES’ deceptive math works: If you TNR 4 cats and 3 die from being flattened by cars, this translates to a 75% reduction of feral-cats worldwide. Alley Cat ALL-LIES can’t even reduce the number of feral cats in their own city, yet they promote it as a worldwide solution. Then even bigger fools fall for it and promote it.

    FACT: When researching all the most “successful” TNR programs around the globe, JUST ONE OF THEM has managed to trap more than 0.4% of cats in their area. Oregon’s amazing 50,000 TNR’ed cats (the highest rate I found) is only 4.9% of all feral-cats in their state. Yet, by applying advanced population growth calculus on the unsterilized 95.1% of cats, they will have trapped only 0.35% of all feral-cats in their state sometime this year. <0.4% is a far cry from the required 80%-90% to be the least bit effective.

    FACT: Their mythical "vacuum effect" is a 100% LIE. A study done by the Texas A&M University proved that any perceived "vacuum" is just the simple case that CATS ATTRACT CATS. Get rid of them all and there's no cats there to attract more. I proved this myself by shooting and burying hundreds of them on my own land. ZERO cats replaced them FOR OVER 2 YEARS NOW. If you want more cats, keep even one of them around, more will find you. That university study also found that sterilized cats very poorly defend any territory. Non-sterilized cats, being more aggressive, take over the sterilized cats' resources (shelter & food if any). If there is any kind of "vacuum effect" at all, it is that sterilizing cats cause non-sterilized cats to restore the reproductive void.

    FACT: During all this investigation I have discovered something that is unfaltering without fail. Something that you can bet your very life on and win every last time. That being — IF A TNR CAT-HOARDER IS TALKING THEN THEY ARE LYING. 100% guaranteed!

  5. Here’s how to treat cats just as humanely as the HSUS, SPCA, and every last TNR practitioner and supporter.

    Reducing feral-cat numbers THE-TNR-WAY by “natural attrition”, but without traps & sterilizing them (sticking knives into them) and cutting off their ears to appease your own beliefs:

    (or “The Way That *ALL* Stray-Cats Die”)

    1. Aim your car for cats when it’s safe for all else to do so.

    2. Put out poison for cats (Acetaminophen/Paracetamol (1-capsule generic tylenol) pain-relievers (the most cat-species specific), antifreeze, vermin-poisons, poisonous plants or animals — the ways that all TNR’ed cats succumb to “attrition” by poisons).

    3. Infect them with deadly diseases.

    4. Turn your dogs or other large predators loose on them.

    5. Starve them to death.

    6. Let them die of thirst.

    7. Put them in heated boxes until they die of heat exhaustion (emulate hot weather).

    8. Throw them in freezers until they are dead (emulate a harsh winter).

    9. Scratch the cat’s eyes and gash their skin to emulate a cat-attack so they slowly die of infections. (Justifiably the same way they destroy all native animals. Though that involves more skinning-alive and disemboweling-alive so the cat can enjoy their play-toy writhe and twitch to death. The longer it takes an animal to die of wounds the more a cat enjoys it. The cat-lovers themselves also greatly enjoy this, or they wouldn’t let their cats do it.)

    10. Trap and drown.

    11. Shoot them.

    Can you think of more ways that *ALL* TNR’ed cats die?

    NONE of them die of old-age you know.

    Any of these are the “natural” ways that TNR’ed cats die, according to TNR-Advocates’ own definition of how their cats die through “attrition”, so TNR-advocates should have NO problems when you destroy their cats this way!


    It’s how they’re doing it! TO EVERY LAST ONE OF THEIR TNR CATS.

    If these methods are acceptable to all TNR-advocates then it’s PERFECTLY okay for anyone else to do the same!

    If you kill their cats this way and they complain, they’re just being whiny hypocrites. That’s all.

    The ONLY difference in destroying them immediately in the manner that ALL TNR’ed cats die; instead of trapping and sterilizing them first; is that some money isn’t going into an HSUS/SPCA board-member’s pocket, veterinarian’s pocket, cat-food company CEO’s pocket, or a drug-company CEO’s pocket. That’s the ONLY difference.

    And THAT folks, is how to become just as “humane” as every last TNR advocate!

  6. Here’s another aspect of TNR that few seem to be aware of.

    Not long ago I learned that TNR cat-hoarders practice a form of “TNR-On-A-Budget” (my name for it). TNR cat-hoarders who want to keep feeding their cats but can’t afford all that tedious mucking-about and getting them sterilized or vaccinated just trap the cats and clip the cats’ ears themselves. Then release them again right after clipping their ears. Doing their best to hide all evidence of where they keep these colonies and telling few about them. This way the cat if trapped again just gets released right there so the cat-hoarder can continue to dote-over and feed their unsterilized and unvaccinated cats. Plus everyone else who might happen on their secret cat-hoarding locations thinks those cats are sterilized and vaccinated so they have fewer concerns about them still overbreeding or spreading deadly diseases. The TNR cat-hoarder feeder just tells them, “Oh, don’t worry. See that clipped ear? They are sterilized and vaccinated. Perfectly fine and legal!”

    Thanks to these “TNR-On-A-Budget” people, clipped-eared cats must be trapped and euthanized or destroyed on-site — the only affordable and sane solution for everyone.

    If you doubt what I claim about TNR-cat-hoarding addicts practicing “TNR-On-A-Budget”, then perhaps you might enjoy this post I found to again prove everything I say is 100% true. They don’t talk about this practice too openly, just like they like to hide their cat-hoarders’ colonies and how they attempt to do so (also revealed in the thread this post was taken from, verifiable link below).

    “Chris Cook
    We had a culling of the neighborhood cats 2 years ago when there were only 10 or so (I lost 4 under my care in the same week). Now there’s over 25 – that I know about (about half fixed)… it’s just a matter of time before someone decides they have the ‘solution’ to the cat ‘problem’. All I can do is get them tipped (in case Animal Services gets them, there’s a small chance they’ll release them back to the area they caught them) and hope for the best by making my own yard a hidden sanctuary of sorts. At least my HOA knows I’m TNRing them and not just feeding them so they (for now) look the other way while slamming the feeders-and-breeders who contributed to the problem getting out of hand and refusing any and all offers of assistance.”


    Not only is this criminally irresponsible TNR practitioner hoarding and feeding unsterilized cats, she even attracted MORE cats to keep reproducing — which again disproves their oft-spewed “vacuum effect” LIE. While also lying to her HOA to boot. She even believes that what she is doing *is* TNR, that’s just how demented these people are. I’d say this person reflects the norm rather than the exception, since TNR advocates relentlessly lie about so much and so often.

    Hint: for those of you permanently solving cat-hoarder’s ILLEGAL TNR invasive-species colonies by stepping up their rate of “attrition” (i.e. death by any means necessary); look around for any game/field/trail-cameras that might be hidden from immediate view, then collect them as a souvenir and payment for your well-deserved efforts.

  7. Yikes! The Woodsman rants again! I just wonder if you are liviing on government subsidies (i.e. disability) or if you have a real job—other than ranting against cats on any public forum available, that is….

  8. This “torturous destruction” on birds and butterflies is the Circle of Life, stupid. The cats are eating. And you want to talk about the exploitation of animal lovers and propaganda? How about your stupid picture of a kitten eating the face off of a rabbit. Yeah. That wasn’t intended to cause horror and a spike in emotional reactions. And TNR would undoubtedly cause a drop in feral cat populations given time unless populations happen to be on the rise due to other causes, in which case, we better all be glad some of them are being spayed and neutered or things would be a lot worse.

    TNR is not a solution, it is a method of control that indisputably helps. A cat couple and a litter of kittens can, in their lifetime, produce up to 400,000 offspring. Spay and neuter the first two when they’re babies and in 20 years that is 400,000 less feral cats in the world. Obviously fixing cats doesn’t drop the population number overnight. It doesn’t kill them. It is is a longterm tool to help control overpopulation. The other two choices to reduce the numbers would be euthanasia, which is no better than the cats killing chickadees and butterflies to live, or having all these cats be adopted-in which case, they would need to be captured and then government resources would have to support them at shelters until they are eventually euthanized which also costs taxpayer money.

    Don’t be a dolt.

    And your picture is ridiculous. Cats are carnivores, not monsters.

  9. Here in the Florida Keys we have a bunch of cat farmers trying to send us all to life in a giant litter box. Like Kris Work, they use sentences like “Feeding a healthy bird population right along with the ferals.” Let me guess… grackles, jackdaws, rock doves, crows, and starlings? He dunno. They got feathers anyway. These ignorant toxozombies stole 4 of my live catch traps yesterday. So much for doing this humanely. This will be reported to the rest of the environmentally concerned community and frankly, I don’t know where it goes from here but I usually have fun overcoming technical challenges to a problem.

    1. This is an even more serious problem on island habitats, so this information is particularly worrying.

  10. On March 29th, 2016 Humane Society of the United States Director of Cat Protection and Policy Katie Lisnik hosted a live forum on the HSUS home page devoted to a heartfelt appeal: “Somebody, ANYBODY, please provide us some data proving that TNR works!”

    All the brightest stars of the TNR galaxy were in attendance–Best Friends of Animal’s paid liar and ex-spoon designer Peter J. Wolf, “zoologist”-cum-shyster Susan Houser and Maddie’s Funds’ very own fraudulent ‘shelter medicine’ veterinarian J. K. Levy DVM, whose ‘research’ gives staid scholars serving on peer-review committees something at which to point and laugh. Alas, all these ‘animal welfare’ worthies had to offer was excuses. Why? Because there IS NO DATA that supports TNR. NONE.

    TNR charlatans like Kris Works’ ridiculously untenable position is that, since they have no scientific data WHATSOEVER supporting their fabricated claims, the best they can do is try to malign the rigorous work of real scientists proving how irresponsible and destructive her advocated ‘humane’ programs are. But here’s what I can’t figure out:

    HSUS bilks MILLIONS from gullible and uninformed people every year–to the point where the Feds dragged ’em into court for violating the RICO anti-racketeering act. They had to pay nearly $16 million in settlement to get out of it. You gotta be pretty CORRUPT to get the Feds’ attention!

    One would think with all that money they could BUY some hungry, unethical “scientist” to FABRICATE some pro-TNR data–you know, someone better at lying than Dr. Levy or Katie Lisnik. It seems these cat-nutters can’t do ANYTHING right!

  11. How Ignorant can people be? I think people with such narrow minded intelect are most qualified to be subjected to a “TNR” program for humans. I shutter at the thought that some of these people are allowed to reproduce. The amount of tax shielding that any of these charities receives has absolutely no impact on your life or finances whatsoever. The biggest opponents tend to be the least informed. It is human ignorance and irresponsibility that is at the root of the problem.

  12. Peter wolf is a horrible human being. He may be loved in and by the cat community, but towards his neighbors and surrounding neighbors that dont want him feeding ferals and strays in a neighborhood that he does not live in, he will do whatever it takes to to harass them yell at them, lie to the police about them, just so he can keep on illegally feed his cats. Neighbors, not his since he does not live there, ask him not to dump food on street corners next to thier holmes, the police tell him to leave and not come back but he does not care about the people that live there and thinks he can do anything he wants. He will get another feeder to lie for him if that’s what it takes to keep feeding his cats in thier neighborhood not his. If any of these cat websites think it an honor to be associated with him they are ignorant of his behavior or are just like him. It is impossible for me to read or believe anything that he writes, knowing exactly what kind of person he truly is. If any of these cat groups want to keep there reputations at high standards then they should stay clear of him. And if they do keep him as a pillar of the cat community then they are completely untrustworthy and do not deserve to be listened to and certainly should not recieve any donations especially from taxpayer money

  13. Of t n r works it works by not letting us properly take care of this mess. Experts like peter j wolf lie to anyone they have to, to keep the unwanted cats from being humanly killed. Since he represents these organizations and I know what kind of person he is, then these organizations are no better than he is. All you need to see is his colony of unwanted cats to know that tnr does not work. Most since it does not work buy also because he just keeps dumping more of his unwanted cats off in his colony. The best part about his colony is that it is not in his neighborhood it’s I’m mine. Not his. He dumps food on street curbs, other peoples property where he has been told not to. He does not care about what are neighborhood thinks about this and there is not a single one of them that was asked if he could feed his unwanted cats but when we see him doing it he just lies about what he is doing. Always getting angry and sometimes violent

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s