To the Editor:
I am writing this letter to correct the inaccuracies in Al Sullivan’s biased column entitled “A Fuzzy Issue,” which appeared in the Aug. 11 issue.
First of all, I did not cite any “studies” in my presentation to the Council. I stated that the United States Department of the Interior sent a letter to the Director of the New Jersey DEP in support of the Fish & Game Council’s Resolution on TNR and noted the letter included possible legal implications of TNR programs relevant to applicable Federal Wildlife Laws. I also read excerpts from “Position and Policy Statements” from the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians and the American Veterinary Medical Association, both of whom oppose TNR due to zoonotic disease risks that feral cats post to the public.
The National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians is a U.S. organization whose purpose is to draft uniform public health procedures and works in close cooperation with the CDD. The American Veterinary Medical Association is a not-for-profit representing more than 80,000 U.S. veterinarians. The AVMA has been designated the accrediting body for the 28 schools of veterinary medicine in the U.S. Department of Education.
At no time did I state that I was in favor of removing all the stray and feral cats to have them euthanized and in fact do not support mass euthanasia. The only time the word “remove” was mentioned in my presentation was when I was quoting the “Compendium of Animal Rabies Prevention and Control” from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which includes a recommendation that “stray dogs, cats and ferrets should be removed from the community.”
I also corrected Ms. Henderson’s misrepresentation that the N.J. Department of Health and Senior Services endorses TNR when, in fact, the NJDHSS neither endorses nor opposes cat colonies or TNR techniques. However, they do state on their website that free-roaming cats pose a threat to human health and state that cat colonies should not be established in areas where they may pose a nuisance or zoonotic disease risk to the public. I invite the public to visit the Department’s website www.state.nj.us/health/animal welfare/stray.shtml.
Mr. Sullivan cites two studies that supposedly counter the position of the NASPHV and the AVMA but gives no details about the studies and I could not find these studies. If Mr. Sullivan is correct and they do exist, then if the University of Florida is so confident that their study is accurate, why, in a recent rabies alert, does the University warn students to stay away from stray and feral cats seen around the campus and residence halls due to the danger of students contracting rabies? If Stanford University stands behind their study, then why do they ban stray and feral cats around campus housing and enforce a “cat exclusion zone” in the vicinity of the child care center? Mr. Sullivan cites two studies that say feral cats pose no threat to the public, I can cite 21 studies, surveys and papers from such publications as the “Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association,” Veterinary Parasitology,” the “Journal of Zoology,” the “Journal of Clinical Microbiology,” the “Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery,” and the “American Journal of Pathology” that say the opposite.
Also, Mr. Sullivan quoted one study that said, “There has not been a single human death from rabies attributed to transmissions from a cat in the USA in over 30 years.” However, Mr. Sullivan doesn’t provide the reader with any statistics on the number of cats who tested positive for rabies or the number of individuals who had to be treated for rabies after being bitten by a rabid cat. In a paper prepared by the Communicable Disease Service and the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services in June 2008, from 1989 through 2006, cats accounted for over 90 percent of the total domestic animal cases of rabies in New Jersey (285 cases). Per the CDC, the number of rabies-related human deaths in the United States has declined from more than 100 annually at the turn of the century to one or two per year in the 1990s because of modern day prophylaxis which has proven nearly 100 percent successful. The death toll from rabies has declined due to modern medicine, not due to the elimination of rabid animals.
Again, as I stated in my presentation, although TNR advocates and feral cat colony maintainers have admirable sympathies for feral cats, I wonder where their sympathy is for the people, especially children, who are at risk of contracting injury, disease or parasites form roaming feral cats? Solutions to the over population of feral cats must not come at the expense of public health, natural resources, the cats or property rights.
CATHY SMITH