Talk:Feral cat

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jmm26. Peer reviewers: Cbeedy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request 20 February 2022

Since towns and cities are part of these animals' range, Category:Urban wildlife seems appropriate. 151.177.58.208 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Information incomplete

I think this wiki doesn’t include a neutral and completed information about the feral cat. The author is only talking about one case that some unowned cats don’t like to be with people so they would rather live in the wild world. However, there’re some unowned cat which is stray cat which means that they’re being homeless might be abandoned by their pet owner and they dont have any ability to feed themselves. Moreover, the author holds a strong opinions on the feral cat which choose the article about how it have negative impact on the wild animals. Moreover, the topic is only limiting in the range of western country. The author didnt talk about the stray cat situation in Asia especially like Japan and China. In my opinion, I think stray cat and feral cat are two different topic based on my own research and knowledge. I think they’re both under the topic about unowned cat but they should be separated.X5mao (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

X5mao this article is based on the best available sources, so personal opinions and feelings toward cats are not relevant. Geogene (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

For this same reason I reinstated this. Geogene personal opinions are WP:OR and not RS. Neighborhoodcats is a source and so you need to provide a better one. It is inconceivable that vet care is other than rare but occurring. Invasive Spices (talk) 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Neighborhoodcats is a self-published advocacy source, so no, it is not usable here. Geogene (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, this edit summary is the one you claim is original research (the OR claim appears to apply exclusively to an edit summary, which is not my understanding of what counts as OR) But this is the edit summary in question: they "may" receive any level of veterinary care, but usually don't. In practice it's difficult to trap the same cat twice, and TNR programs usually aren't even able to keep them up to date on their rabies boosters. Also, sourced to a self-published advocacy group.[1]

Here is that summary broken up into its constituent statements, and sourced:

• Colony cats usually don't receive medical care. (admittedly, this one depends on what you mean by veterinary care. For example, does fish antibiotics administered by untrained caretakers count as "medical care"?) Sources: [2], Source quote: Because of the difficulty of catching cats more than once, most studies use visual assessments of TNR cats to determine the health of the cats. [3]
• In practice, it's difficult to trap the same cat twice Source: [4] a source quote: Recapturing feral cats can be very difficult because the cats become trap shy.
• TNR programs usually aren't even able to keep them up to date on their rabies boosters. Source: [5] Source quote: While feral cats that are returned to TNR colonies have been vaccinated for rabies, they are unlikely (if trap shy) to get the necessary booster shots, which means that these cats do not have life-long immunity to rabies. Another source and source quote: Some TNR advocates argue that vaccination is not a good return on investment and that resources should instead be directed toward spaying and neutering. Ninety thousand feral cats were released into California without vaccinating them for rabies, despite bat and skunk rabies being endemic within this state. [6]

I'm not seeing any "original research" here, and this is more about there not being any requirement to put cites in edit summaries, but I do see an unreliable advocacy source that was re-added to the article for no good reason. Geogene (talk) 22:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2022

In section 4.3 Diet, paragraph 2: "Although some people advocate for feral cats as a means to control pigeons and invasive rodents like the house mouse and brown rat, these cosmopolitan species co-evolved with cats in human-disturbed environments, and so have an advantage over native rodents in evading cat predation."

Change to: "In the United States, some people advocate for feral cats as a means to control pigeons and invasive rodents like the house mouse and brown rat. However, these cosmopolitan species co-evolved with cats in human-disturbed environments, and so have an advantage over native rodents in evading cat predation."

This is because native and invasive are relative terms and require geographical specificity to be meaningful. Panickyintheuk (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Mvqr (talk) 16:24, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2022

Please fix the name of Christopher A. Lepczyk. Here [7] it says "Lepczyk", and in the article text it says Lepcyzk. "Lepcyzk" is completely unpronounceable, as opposed to "Lepczyk" that sounds quite natural to a Polish speaker. Christopher's ORCID page also says "Lepczyk" [8]. Grzejab (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2023

To accurately summarize the findings in the citations used, please change:

"Scientific evidence has demonstrated that TNR is not effective at controlling feral cat populations.[5][6]"

to

"Scientific evidence has demonstrated that TNR is not always effective at controlling feral cat populations unless all colony members can be sterilized, and surgeries can keep up with the rate of cats abandoned by owners.[5][6]" Bachboy (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Source 5 says, Our research adds further evidence to the growing body of scientific literature indicating that TNR is ineffective in reducing cat populations. [9] and Source 6 says, In theory, sterilizing enough cats so that the birth rate is less than the death rate would reduce the cat population in a given area. However, this assumes a closed population, a phenomenon that has not been observed in any of the studies....The practice of TNR and the establishment of TNR colonies is neither humane nor proven to be effective at reducing feral cat populations. [10]. Geogene (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2023

46.196.193.165 (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Add line to the paragraph as there has been no consensus about feral cats impact on wildlife and many of researches about that issue is biased or wrong like mentioned in this scientific paper.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31087701/

 Not done: The relevant section contains enough equivocation already the importance of this effect remains controversial. small jars tc 10:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting opinion piece. But when people find themselves typing something very close to 'we are not science deniers' in a journal, I think it's fair to wonder whether the viewpoint they're defending has any significant following at all. Geogene (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Conservation biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 21 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Acryan1 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ldonahue3254.

— Assignment last updated by Mcking24 (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bias Against TNR

This article seems a little biased against TNR, or perhaps misses some of the considerations involved. For example, it seems to completely dismiss any ethical objections to killing feral cats or even risks of mistakenly killing small wild cats (or strays or outdoor domestic cats). It seems like it might make more sense to discuss the pros and cons of TNR, killing, and not interfering. To explain what I mean, you might compare feral cats to humans or conversely to deer. All three are overpopulated and cause some amount of environmental harm, but different solutions are considered acceptable. That is to say, I'm not suggesting we treat all three groups the same, but that discussing this in terms of purely effectiveness is missing a key component of the debate. I think it is a mistake to treat this as a question to which there is one correct answer. Hopefully this makes sense. 173.66.202.193 (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

From the published literature I've seen on it, TNR as a means of controlling feral cat populations is not particularly well respected in the scientific literature. As for ethics, Ive read some published commentary out there that TNR is unethical because it perpetuates feral cats in the environment at the expense of the birds and other prey animals that feral cats kill. Basically, feral cat advocates must address why, if we don't treat birds as individual beings, whose individual welfare matters, then why should we treat cats that way? And they must do so in a logical and not emotive argument. There are also widely repeated claims in the literature that TNR is abusive towards the cats themselves, because their lives tend to involve a lot of suffering. All of this is a tough hurdle for TNR advocates to overcome, especially since nearly all pro-TNR sourcing is from feral cat advocacy groups that exist for no other purpose than to perpetuate TNR, and these sources not preferred for Wikipedia articles. Unfortunately, this article continues to give WP:UNDUE weight to the views of cat advocacy and humane organizations. Geogene (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I suppose at this point we get into the trolley car problem. 173.66.202.193 (talk) 06:12, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

"feral cat advocates must address ..." This kind of political argument has nothing to do with writing and improving the article Feral cat, which is what this talk page is for. This is not a forum for general argumentation about any cause, pro or con. "it might make more sense to discuss the pros and cons of TNR, killing, and not interfering": Not unless the reliable sources we are relying on are doing so; just making up such arguments ourselves would be original research. "this article continues to give WP:UNDUE weight to the views of cat advocacy and humane organizations": That's just a statement of opinion without an argument or evidence backing it up. (Versus the eother editor's statement of opinion of "This article seems a little biased against TNR", i.e. in the opposite direction.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:, let me know if you don't find any claims of fact I made above in this recent literature review [11]. I'm pretty sure it's all covered there. Geogene (talk) 12:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Citing one source is not laying out a WP:UNDUE case. And trying to shift the onus onto external third parties with stuff like "feral cat advocates must address ..." isn't doing it either (nor is the opposing "ethical objections to killing feral cats ..."). These are all extraneous assertions about what kinds of arguments external third parties should be addressing, and don't have anything to do with the policy basis for our own article's balance. You may well be correct in the long run about the DUE balance, but neither of you are making the case properly. I would suggesting asking for input at WP:NPOVN. Actually, I'll just do it myself. This topic would benefit from more eyes and minds on it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

What exactly do you suggest to change (add/remove) in the article and what sources back it? Alaexis_¿question? 08:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking through the history of the article, "Control and Management" was originally just "TNR for management", and over time, critism has been peppered throughout it - so instead of saying "these are the pros, these are the cons", it's now muddled and doesn't present the information in an organized matter - it's all muddled. In addition - sources like this "Culling cats 'may do more harm than good'" were removed right off the page. [12] Removing this one and adding another article by the exact same source doesn't really speak to reliability as an issue, but the POV of each article.

"Is TNR successful" depends on the goals of TNR. If the goal is "making a cities animal control more cost effective" the result of the study will be different from "did TNR protect a specific species of bird that is endangered." Denaar (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

We also have a POV-fork. TNR should be mentioned on this article, but we have an ENTIRE article on Trap–neuter–return - so we shouldn't have such a long piece on it here, people should go to the main article to read up on it. Denaar (talk) 16:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This page started out as a pro-TNR/anti-culling screed, so yes, some low quality sources will have been removed. Other parts have yet to be improved, retain the pro-TNR POV. This article should cover control and management of feral cats, including lethal control. I'm also not sure how animal control programs can be considered more successful by intentionally not controlling animals, that seems very strange to me. Geogene (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have to strongly concur with the idea that this material needs to be culled (pun intended), WP:SUMMARY style, with a {{Main|Trap–neuter–return}} hatnote in the section, because WP:CFORKing is not good, but that's what's going on here. The very process of reducing the redundant material to a summary will resolve (unless an unskilled editor tries it) the problem of the section having gotten disorganized.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I'm not sure who your "unskilled editor" remark is aimed at, but I have an idea, and it makes me think you should probably try to summarize it yourself. Geogene (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Had no one in mind at all, actually. I was just making the humor point that producing a WP:SUMMARY isn't actually guaranteed to result in a well-organized result. :-) Anyay, I probably actually could do a reasonable job of it, but have a lot on my plate already, and perhaps the ongoing discussions here and at the TNR article should settle out a bit first.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

This is not an issue with two equally weighted options- TNR is provably ineffective at best and compounds the issue at worst. There are no pros to 'not interfering' with invasive cats lol. Your bias against aggressive population control methods is clear- the correct term is culling not killing, and it's demonstratably the only method that can make a dent in feral populations- hence why some of the worst-affected countries like Australia have culling programs. Feral cats are one of the most devastating invasive species, and can't be compared to deers or humans- also human population control is not a legitimate conservation method (obviously) so mentioning it is moot. This article is actually in better condition than some other cat ones (like the Farm Cat) page that are heavily biased. Minty420 (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

And your bias against TNR is equally clear. Our "job" here is to summarize the dispute as captured in the modern, independent, reliable, secondary sources on the matter, not just repeat activistic primary-source opinions from blowhards on either side, much less pick a side as Wikipedia's "stance", but to give them due weight according to the preponderance of the source treatment.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Felixer and Curiosity data added in Spanish article

First, apologies for my bad English. I've added some data with reference in the section "Australia", but I can't do the same here due to the protection from edition. Can anyone add the text below? I've also published the article Felixer related to this subject

For these reasons, eradication campaigns are carried out in Australia using various methods; the most widespread, through the use of a bait specially designed to not affect native carnivores, called Curiosity, which contains the poison called compound 1080—sodium fluoroacetate—with a special encapsulation that only breaks with cats' teeth. (Reference: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/environment/invasive-species/feral-animals-australia/feral-cats/curiosity-bait )

More recently, a device called Felixer has been developed, which uses the same poison and differentiates between cats and the rest of the fauna, and takes advantage of the cat's grooming behavior to shoot a measured dose of a gel with poison on its fur. 

Thanks. Linuxmanía (talk) 12:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is promising, but the citation needs to be properly formatted (Template:Cite web), and the second claim needs a source. Also "that only breaks with cats' teeth" not a plausible claim; maybe something like "designed to break with cats' teeth in particular" or something otherwise more moderate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Traslation of the Feral Cat Related pages and Cat Impact on australia and Wildlife

Is a real Shame that one of the most relevant and visited pages of wikipedia, the pages about feral cats and their impact, are not traslated in the language of one of the nations with the worst situation regarding cats. Cat popolation in italy are one of the worst about control. There is a gigantic ignorance about the environmental impact caused in the world by cats, the Italian people see stray cats as pets that roam happily, not as harmful invasive species. I have very limited resource to traslate propely the pages, i try to put the google-traslated pages, to make the pages exist, but wikipedia reject pages auto-traslated. Please make these pages exist. Make appear the FACTS about Cat damages.

make a way to WARN ITALIAN PEOPLE that feral cat problems ARE REAL AND HAVE TO BE WORRIED ABOUT IT.

PLEASE STOP THIS DEVASTATING IGNORANCE. Eastriverotter62 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

@Eastriverotter62: Yelling about off-site problems in ALL CAPITALS is not going to inspire anyone to do this work for you. And it is work, a lot of it. This is English Wikipedia, and we're all busy improving it for our English-speaking audience. If you think an article is important to translate from en.wikipedia to it.wikipedia, then that is something to bring up among editors at it.wikipedia (probably at https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Richieste_di_traduzione), or just start doing the work yourself. Machine translators like Google Translate have improved a lot with AI over the last couple of years, and are a good way to get started. You seem to have enough English youself to detect problems in the translation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The only way i have to edit it is through chrome in desktop mode on android. Try yourself what it means. Edit a paragraph can take Hours and put reference links is near to impossible.

Traslate the page is relevant to give people fact about the annihilation that cat does on italy, in italy is near to be like australia, here is cats overpupulaton everywere but people deny the annihilation caused by cats because the lack of information about it, and here is like a cat hell.

There are a why if in the wikia most of the cat pictures comes from italy, here is a real crazy cat lady hell, you have no idea. Eastriverotter62 (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Repeat: If you think an article is important to translate from en.wikipedia to it.wikipedia, then that is something to bring up among editors at it.wikipedia (probably at https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Richieste_di_traduzione).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Invasive species

There is no reason for this to be a section. What little we can use from this reverted edit simply belongs at or near the top of the "Effects on wildlife" section (and really that section should move to be a subsection of "Behavior and ecology"; it's confusing for them to be widely separated like this, since their effect on wildlife is a subtopic of their ecology). The salvageable material from the reverted edit is probably only the following (after deletion of WP:OR editorializing against a source, removal of blathering about what the source's purposes are, some formatting cleanup, and following the source material much more closely):

Cats are an invasive species wordwide, and are included on the International Union for Conservation of Nature's "100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species" list of human-introduced animals and plants having serious effects on biodiversity. Cats were listed for their widespread predation on birds and other wildlife, mostly by feral populations, with effects most severe on islands where native species evolved without predators.

References

This would actually be a good first sentence for the section.

The reste of the material Xhkvfq tried to add is more off-topic blathering about the nature of the "100" list (this is not the 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species article), personal opinion-mongering about how it must be interpreted, and what amounts to excuse-making for cats by pointing fingers at other species that are not the subject of this article. That was inappropriate material and it was right to revert it.

I'll take up the policy problems with Xhkvfq's approach at User talk:Xhkvfq.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

PS: If someone thinks a particular source has reliability issues, that should be raised on the article talk page, and if the matter cannot be ironed out, then it goes to WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. But if anyone thinks IUCN is going to be ruled unreliable, they are in for a rude awakening. I'm the first to say that they have to be given due weight as a conservation agency, which is not the same thing as a neutral scientific journal or the like; but the weight due them in this topic area is quite heavy. What's not okay at all is trying to gin up a false perception of widespread disagreement with IUCN in other reliable sources when there is no real-world evidence of this.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Stray and feral

Stray and feral cats are not the same thing, and the way this article is written is misleading and contributing to a lot of misinformation. I've raised domesticated cats from the time they were kittens, strays, and ferals. A stray cat can revert to a domesticated cat, but a feral cat cannot, although it will give the superficial appearance of resembling a domestic or a stray to a casual observer, their behavior is not the same and they have altogether different reactions to their environment. A domestic cat raised from the appropriate young age will exhibit highly socialized, dog-like behavior. A stray, if it experienced this kind of early socialization, will also exhibit much of the same behavior, with certain caveats. A feral may mimic some of this behavior to an observer, but does not actually engage in it, it's kind of like going through the motions since it knows it will get food, treats, or pets. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2024 (UTC)