Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management, University of Hawaii at Mānoa, 1910 East-West Road Sherman Laboratory, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2013 Feb;27(1):64-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01935.x. Epub 2012 Sep 25.
Our goal was to determine whether it is more cost-effective to control feral cat abundance with trap-neuter-release programs or trap and euthanize programs. Using STELLA 7, systems modeling software, we modeled changes over 30 years in abundance of cats in a feral colony in response to each management method and the costs and benefits associated with each method . We included costs associated with providing food, veterinary care, and microchips to the colony cats and the cost of euthanasia, wages, and trapping equipment in the model. Due to a lack of data on predation rates and disease transmission by feral cats the only benefits incorporated into the analyses were reduced predation on Wedge-tailed Shearwaters (Puffinus pacificus). When no additional domestic cats were abandoned by owners and the trap and euthanize program removed 30,000 cats in the first year, the colony was extirpated in at least 75% of model simulations within the second year. It took 30 years for trap-neuter-release to extirpate the colony. When the cat population was supplemented with 10% of the initial population size per year, the colony returned to carrying capacity within 6 years and the trap and euthanize program had to be repeated, whereas trap-neuter-release never reduced the number of cats to near zero within the 30-year time frame of the model. The abandonment of domestic cats reduced the cost effectiveness of both trap-neuter-release and trap and euthanize. Trap-neuter-release was approximately twice as expensive to implement as a trap and euthanize program. Results of sensitivity analyses suggested trap-neuter-release programs that employ volunteers are still less cost-effective than trap and euthanize programs that employ paid professionals and that trap-neuter-release was only effective when the total number of colony cats in an area was below 1000. Reducing the rate of abandonment of domestic cats appears to be a more effective solution for reducing the abundance of feral cats.
我们的目标是确定通过诱捕-绝育-释放计划还是诱捕和安乐死计划来控制流浪猫的数量，哪种更具成本效益。使用 STELLA 7 系统建模软件，我们模拟了在 30 年内，每种管理方法对一个流浪猫群体数量的影响，以及每种方法相关的成本和收益。我们在模型中纳入了为群体中的猫咪提供食物、兽医护理和微芯片的相关成本，以及安乐死、工资和诱捕设备的成本。由于缺乏关于流浪猫捕食率和疾病传播的数据，分析中仅纳入了减少对楔尾鹱（Puffinus pacificus）的捕食这一益处。如果没有更多的家猫被主人遗弃，且诱捕和安乐死计划在第一年就捕获并安乐死 3 万只猫，那么在第二年的至少 75%的模拟中，这个猫群就会被根除。而诱捕-绝育-释放计划则需要 30 年才能根除这个猫群。如果每年有 10%的初始猫群数量作为补充，那么猫群将在 6 年内恢复到承载能力，并且需要再次进行诱捕和安乐死计划，而诱捕-绝育-释放计划在模型的 30 年时间框架内从未将猫的数量减少到接近零。家猫的遗弃降低了诱捕-绝育-释放和诱捕和安乐死的成本效益。诱捕-绝育-释放的实施成本比诱捕和安乐死计划高出约两倍。敏感性分析的结果表明，使用志愿者的诱捕-绝育-释放计划仍然不如使用专业人员的诱捕和安乐死计划具有成本效益，而且只有当一个地区的流浪猫总数低于 1000 只时，诱捕-绝育-释放才有效。减少家猫的遗弃率似乎是减少流浪猫数量的更有效方法。
