The Press Herald’s editorial board echoes the Maine Audubon Society in declaring “that bird populations are at risk from cats is in no doubt” (“Our View: Hey, Legislature, leave those cats alone,” March 4). In fact, the scientific consensus is much more nuanced (though it is generally agreed upon that birds suffer far more from habitat loss than from cats).
First, no scientific evidence demonstrates that cats cause bird populations to decline.
Second, the effect of cats in one ecological context cannot be generalized to another. Applying findings from highly specific case studies to the world at large simply does not yield useful information.
To make this legislation credible, L.D. 644‘s backers should document the impact of free-roaming cats on specific bird populations in Maine, and should attempt to define an acceptable level of predation for this predator-prey relationship. They should compare the costs and benefits of this highly restrictive legislation to other approaches in reducing bird predation that have shown much promise, such as: equipping cats with bells, bibs or sonic collars; keeping cats well-fed, and restraining from feeding wild birds.
Otherwise, L.D. 644 will needlessly harm the well-being of Maine’s cats without providing any appreciable benefits for the birds.
Michael Burrows
Windham
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.