To the editor:
In the past week there have been several reports in the national press about the appalling effects of domesticated cat predation on wildlife. Those reports are not mere conjecture about wildlife destruction by cats, but are well-documented studies published by such agencies as the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Wildlife Foundation, and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute. All are based on sound scientific research. Extrapolated findings from 21 studies show that there are up to 80 million “unowned” cats and 84 million “owned” cats in the U.S. They defined “unowned” as farm cats living in barns, strays living outdoors that may be fed by humans, and feral cats that fend for themselves and live alone or in colonies. One study notes that Washington, D.C. alone has an estimated 300 outdoor cat colonies.
Nor are confirmed house pets free of blame. The studies concluded that all those cute, cuddly “kitties” that are allowed to roam freely are far deadlier than anyone may suspect. The research showed that cats kill between 1.4 billion and 3.7 billion birds and between 6.9 billion and 20.7 billion small mammals such as meadow voles, chipmunks, squirrels and even young rabbits. And to counter any misconceptions, they note that the small mammals killed do not include Norway rats or “apartment vermin.” Unfortunately many of the destroyed birds — up to 15 percent of the total bird population — are also among those on the endangered species lists.
I am a homeowner whose personal experience with roaming felines includes other negative consequences of having them around. A year seldom goes by when newly seeded or transplanted flower beds or garden boxes are not torn up by cats using them as litter boxes. And if growing plants are not destroyed that way, then they are either burned or contaminated by cat urine sprayed on them as territorial markers.
Therefore, I am offended by remarks published in the Feb. 6 of the Aroostook Republican by Norma Milton of the so-called Halfway Home Pet Rescue Adoption Center. She openly stated that one cat called Thomas would “… do well in any family with other animals as long as he is allowed the freedom of going … outside for hunting purposes.” She adds that, “Thomas is an avid hunter and has great confidence in himself if in conflict with other predators — the coyotes can beware of this Tom.” She is clearly unaware of the coyotes, foxes and even bears that frequent our neighborhood and may in fact provide some small help in ridding us of cats. But she continues her disgusting discourse about the cat by saying, “In return for a generous daily supply of cat food and fresh water, he will bring you gifts of mice, rats, squirrels, etc., as he knows how much you appreciate his help.”
Years ago, dogs were allowed to run freely in Caribou, and they also were destructive, unsanitary nuisances until the city enacted ordinances requiring them to be kept under strict control as well as licensed annually. Caribou needs to do the same thing with all the cats, and stop the counters of local businesses from being littered with collection boxes aimed at stirring emotional and sympathetic responses from those as poorly informed as the owner of HHPR.
Carroll B. Knox
Caribou
