Reply to Wolf et al.: Why Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) Is Not an Ethical Solution for Stray Cat Management

SIMPLE SUMMARY: We provide a rebuttal to Wolf et al. (2019), outlining biological, ethical, and economic flaws in their argument that Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) is an ethical solution for stray cat management. We contend that suppression of supplementary feeding of stray cats accompanied by proactive adoption or prompt euthanasia is more effective, humane, and economical. ABSTRACT: We critique the recent article by Wolf et al. (2019) that claims scientific merit for reducing the number of stray cats in Australia through Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs, and then we provide an inventory of biological, welfare, and economic reasons why TNR is less successful than adoption and euthanasia for managing unowned cats. Like Crawford et al. (2019) and multiple other comprehensive and unbiased Australian and international scientific reviews, we refute the idea that returning neutered unowned cats to stray populations has any valid role in responsible, ethical, affordable, and effective cat management, or in wildlife conservation. The main purported objective of TNR proponents along with animal welfare, human health, and wildlife advocacy stakeholders is to reduce the number of unhomed cats. We contend that cessation of provisioning unowned cats with food is the most effective approach to achieve this objective. We also present evidence from the Brisbane City Council that informed cat management policy, advocacy, and laws, backed up by responsible rehoming or prompt ethical euthanasia, are together effective at reducing the stray cat problem.