Putting "Release" into TNR

Google the words “feral cats” and you’ll get a lot of information from many different groups about TNR. The program is a simple one. In its most generic and probably often practiced form, it looks something like this: Feral cats are trapped in humane cages, and then taken to veterinarians who sterilize them. The stray friendly cats are adopted into homes through local rescue groups. The feral ones are released back into their habitats, and then fed daily and watched over by dedicated cat lovers—all at the caretakers’ own expense.

In some cases, caretakers are not apparent and so the cats are simply released back into their habitats so that they are better able to survive without the biological imperatives of mating and raising litters, because sterilization reduces or eliminates mating, roaming, and marking behaviors which cause human conflicts, and because less cats means less chance encounters with humans, which can be a death sentence if the cats are taken to animal control. About 70% of cats are killed by animal control facilities nationally, and the number rises to virtually 100% if they are feral, with exceptions which are too far and too few between.

Other than leaving the cats alone, TNR is the humane alternative to trapping and killing. And often it is the difference between life and death for free roaming (stray or feral) cats. In a 2006 study published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, researchers found that the number of cats being impounded and killed was generally increasing in all Ohio shelters, with the feral cat most at risk of being killed. There was one exception: the animal control facility with a TNR program.

But what does TNR stand for? And does it make a difference? Roughly half of the groups say TNR is an acronym for Trap-Neuter-Return. The others use Trap-Neuter-Release. At first glance, the choice of words (return vs. release) seems to be mere semantics, since all the groups are essentially advocating the same thing: the trapping of the cats from a particular location, the sterilization of the cats, and then return of the cats to the location of trapping. But a deeper reading underscores something more significant.

Notwithstanding the need to relocate feral cats due to human intolerance and encroachments, the returning of the cats to the original location of where they were trapped has become such a strong element of the belief systems of cat caregivers, that the idea that the cats can be released elsewhere when return to the original location is inadvisable (because of human threats to the cats in the area) is, in some circles, heresy.

In Louisiana, an animal control officer did not want to kill feral cats in his facility, so when they were brought into the shelter, he instead sterilized and then released them into a wooded area, with a fresh water stream, where he believed the cats could live out their lives. But the program came to halt because of complaints not from those opposed to TNR, but by feral cat activists who believed (wrongly) that if the cats were being released without a caretaker into another area, they were better off being killed at the shelter.

Since feral cats are the offspring of abandoned pets and are thriving, and since—as a general rule—feral cats are entering shelters relatively healthy and robust, then it is clear that they are doing well, with or without a caretaker. And while there are counterexamples, as there are with all animals, this is no reason to enact an unreasonable standard for feral cats that we do not have for other wild animals.

Therefore, if return to the location of trapping is not an option, the compassionate alternative is to spay/neuter and release in some other safe location even when there is no established feeder. If the feral cat is out there and appears healthy, we may intervene to spay/neuter to allow feral cats to be better able to thrive without the biological demands of mating or raising litters. Failing to do so puts them at risk for human conflicts which result in impoundment and shelter killing.

Some groups have cautiously supported TNR in some circumstances and so long as certain conditions have been met—if the landowner agrees, if there is shelter, if there is no wildlife predation, if the climate is temperate, if there is a feeder 365 days a year, if there is licensing, if all the cats are vaccinated regularly. Even some No Kill shelters have adopted some of these preconditions to the support of TNR. But the true No Kill position is that while some of these factors may or may not be important for other reasons, they are utterly irrelevant for purposes of supporting TNR.

The No Kill movement’s break with traditional sheltering is less about saving “pet dogs and cats” and more about focusing on the individual animal. Regardless of whether a shelter takes in 30, 300, 3,000 or 30,000 dogs and cats each year, No Kill is premised on—in fact demands—fundamental fairness to individual animals. This commitment is echoed in the mission statement of virtually every humane society and SPCA in the country which claims to cherish animals, enforce their rights, and teach compassion. Yet, these lofty goals can only be achieved if we judge, treat, and devise a plan for shelter animals individually with all the resources we can muster.

Implicit within the No Kill philosophy is the understanding that some animals, such as those who are irremediably suffering or hopelessly ill, will be killed for reasons of mercy. In its purest form, the No Kill gold standard is that we would never end life when that life is not suffering. And feral cats, as a general rule, are not suffering.

Unless they are hopelessly ill or irremediably suffering, feral cats should never be killed in shelters. Caveats about location, proximity to wildlife, landowner opinions, and local ordinances are not relevant to the life and death calculus. They may play a part in where the cat is released, but not whether he or she should die. A No Kill plan which does not thoroughly address the unique nature and needs of feral cats and preserve their lives cannot, by definition, be No Kill. A No Kill community must include a commitment to saving all healthy and treatable feral cats. But that is only the first step. From the No Kill position, the rights of feral cats are self-evident. These may not be legal rights, but they are fundamental to the No Kill position. In the end, our goal is not “no more feral cats,” it is “no more killing of feral cats.”

And that is why our approach to TNR must include a platform which promotes the right of feral cats to their habitat, wherever that may be, and a right to their very existence, independent of their relationship to humans. They are animals who share our communities and whose needs must be accommodated.

Therefore, unless we are going to define "Return" in the broadest possible terms to mean their entire habitats (i.e., outdoors) and even if we acknowledge that return to the original location of trapping is the ideal, when the alternative is not advisable or possible, the correct terminology is Trap-Neuter-Release. That is what we should be advocating for, and only that will do.

Read the No Kill Advocacy Center's special feral cat issue of The No Kill Advocate by clicking here.