Calver Michael C, Crawford Heather M, Fleming Patricia A
Environmental and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, Perth WA 6150, Australia.
Animals (Basel). 2020 Feb 23;10(2):362. doi: 10.3390/ani10020362.
To continue dialogue over proposed Australian trials of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR), we applied a framework requiring identification of areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, and identification of empirical data collection required to resolve disagreements. There is agreement that Australia has a problem with stray cats, causing problems of impacts on wildlife, nuisance, disease transmission (including public health issues and exchange of diseases between stray cat and pet cat populations), poor welfare outcomes for stray cats, and an emotional burden on staff euthanising healthy stray cats. There is disagreement on whether (i) current measures are failing, leading to unacceptably high euthanasia levels, (ii) some contributors to the debate misunderstand TNR, (iii) TNR trials will reduce urban cat populations and associated problems, (iv) TNR is an ethical solution to cat overpopulation, and (v) some contributors to the debate promulgated misinformation. Although not everyone agrees that TNR trials should proceed, as a hypothetical exploration, we propose an experimental approach explicitly comparing TNR to alternatives. Trials could only be considered if other detailed and well-funded attempts at stray cat control focusing across an entire Local Government Area (LGA) prove ineffective.
为了继续就澳大利亚提议的诱捕-绝育-放归（TNR）试验展开对话，我们采用了一个框架，该框架要求确定达成共识的领域、存在分歧的领域，并确定解决分歧所需收集的实证数据。人们一致认为，澳大利亚存在流浪猫问题，流浪猫对野生动物造成影响、带来滋扰、传播疾病（包括公共卫生问题以及流浪猫与宠物猫群体之间的疾病传播）、导致流浪猫福利状况不佳，还让负责安乐死健康流浪猫的工作人员背负情感负担。对于以下问题存在分歧：（i）当前措施是否失败，导致安乐死数量高得令人无法接受；（ii）一些参与辩论者是否误解了TNR；（iii）TNR试验是否会减少城市猫数量及相关问题；（iv）TNR是否是解决猫数量过多问题的道德方案；（v）一些参与辩论者是否传播了错误信息。尽管并非所有人都同意应进行TNR试验，但作为一种假设性探索，我们提议采用一种实验方法，将TNR与其他替代方法进行明确比较。只有在针对整个地方政府辖区（LGA）的其他详细且资金充足的流浪猫控制尝试被证明无效的情况下，才会考虑进行试验。
