Let me start by saying that life is about risks. No matter how much you try or all the plans you make, you will experience e both good and bad in life, including illness and death.
Opponents say that community cats (homeless, outside cats) face more risks and therefore trap-and-kill ifs more humane than allowing them to live outside. This is plain nonsense. Even if there are more potential risks for an outside cat, that does not mean they should be mass slaughtered. When community cats are put through the trap-neuter-vaccinate-return (TNVR) process, these cats live healthier and happier lives.
Vaccinations protect against diseases such as rabies. Spay/neuter reduces/eliminates reproductive cancers and ceases nuisance behaviors such as heat cycle, howling, wandering , etc.
Feral cats (ones not socialized to people) do not die mainly from disease, starvation or larger predators. The top killer of these cats is animal shelters. When a feral cat enters a shelter, it is deemed to be unadoptable. This is a certain death sentence. There is not a chance for the cat to survive.
If a TNVR program is in place, these cats have an effective, efficient and cost saving alternative to death.
Let’s face it, inside cats face risks too. Boredom, inactivity and obesity lead to other health issues. Living inside does not assure a cat of a longer or healthier life.
So what is the real excuse for not putting a TNVR program in place? Is it ignorance, lack of compassion or an unwillingness to try something that has proven to save money and lives?
I wish someone could answer this without running the risk of being wrong.