Animal Wise Radio

Petr wolf is full of kitty litter. Nico Dauphine is an kind, brilliant woman who would never do such horrible things as she ie being accused of in this misleading and naive interview. Her big sin is apparently disagreeing with the notion that we can create some garden of Eden scenario in which we can control invasive species by loving them to death. Being accused of horrific things is not the same as being guilyt of them. I would go so far as to say that some TNR proponents are on a witchunt.

And another thing- Nico Dauphine can pet-sit for me any day.

Ajaxalpha: Not sure how you would describe "sin"... BUT, be that as it may, the big issue, as Mr. Wolf made clear in his interview, is that the so-called "science" she publishes is not science. Whether or not she tried to poison cats with antifreeze and rat poisoning is a question for the courts to decide. The evidence against her seems pretty compelling. All of those facts were made very clear in Wolf's interview. If you have a specific objection to the factual accuracy of anything Wolf said, feel free to comment on that. Otherwise, all you are doing is expressing a personal opinion... and, based on what? Do you know Ms. Dauphine? If so, how?

Listeners interested in how Nico Dauphine misrepresents the science surrounding feral cats are welcome to check out one of my recent posts, in which I address some of the claims she made during her infamous "Apocalypse Meow" presentation at the Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources in 2009 (http://www.voxfelina.com/2011/06/apocalypse-meow-a-brief-review/).

Critiquing the science around outdoor cats is another discussion.
Of course it is up to the courts to decide on the allegations against Ms. Dauphine. But that isn’t the impression I got when listening to your interview. There was quite a bit of negative (and inaccurate) speculation on her past. You spent very little time investigating this statement from her lawyer: "An attorney for Daupine told NBC Washington's Derrick Ward that she vehemently denies the accusations, saying, "her whole life is devoted to the care and welfare of animals."
I'm curious how you decided Peter Wolf was the appropriate person to discuss Ms. Dauphine's court case. As far as I know it, his sources are merely the press releases that everyone else has seen (likewise for ACA, etc). Do you believe everything you see on TV or the internet? Of course not. It would have been better to interview someone who was actually involved in the case, but of course they probably can't discuss details until the case is resolved.
If you are aiming for an unbiased, scientific perspective on the issue, why not wait until she has had her day in court? You may end up finding out that the real story is "shocking" for a very different reason!

Yes, Mike, it is my pleasure to say that I know Nico personally. I have always been impressed by her kindness, intelligence, and candid devotion to animals. And before you say I'm biased- actually let's talk about bias, shall we?

You mentioned bias in science- how people involved in an activity shouldn't be doing research on it, correct? Peter Wolf is an outspoken spokesman for TNR, doing research (outside of his field ) on TNR. Don't you think, by your standards, he is biased to find results in favor of TNR? What were his qualifications again? What kind of peer review process is his science subjected to? He really didn't spend much time on science compared to the time devoted to dragging his 'opponents' name through the mud. Doesn't sound very impartial to me.
And yet you take his word for it when he says a presentation that disproves his own suspect findings is flawed.
I find it hard to believe the main purpose of this interview was to discuss Nico's review when the show description is "VOXFelina.com and a shocking story of alleged animal abuse from a within the Smithsonian Institute "

Let's talk about bias in the media.- Well actually I don't think much needs to be said there. Crazy sounding story? Throw enough 'alledgedly's' in there and you can get away with just about anything. Lucky you.

Facts? Really? Maybe you should do your homework before you accidentally spread more lies on the radio.Maybe you should check again to what that case in Athens was really about. No cats were mistreated. She didn't "break the system". To quote SnowWhite "you might be surprised". I think your listeners would be surprised at the tactics of some of these TNR crusaders.

Ajaxalpha, I appreciate you putting your cards on the table, and acknowledging your bias and your personal relationship with Ms. Dauphine. Beyond a doubt, we all have our various biases that taint our perspective. I am sure that is also true of Mr. Wolf.

There is a difference between his or my bias, however, and that which seems apparent in Ms. Dauphine's "science" -- Neither Mr. Wolf or I are publishing our bias under the guise of "science" or "research".

The charges against Ms. Dauphine are fact. Whether or not she will be convicted is yet to be seen. But, the charges are definitely a story worth discussing on our show, as are the flaws in her many statements about the damage done by free-roaming cats to wildlife.

If Ms Dauphine were interested in having that discussion, she would be welcome to join us on-air. Whether she does not not, you can learn more about my perspective on free-roaming felines here:

http://www.vimeo.com/17030550

Not claiming it's science now I see.You sure were gushing about Mr wolfs "really good science" and "he really does his research" I have a different perspective on why you're not "publishing under the guise of science or research". because you cant get a paper past a peer review, perhaps? Maybe you don't have real science to back up TNR.

Ajaxalpha - Wow. Talk about taking a leap in logic. Have you even read Mr. Wolf's blog at VOXFelina.com? I am guessing not. If you did, you would understand that he is not a scientist. He does, however, critique the science on this topic, and he does it very well. He is not a scientist, but he is addressing the actual and so-called science on the topic. What about that is hard for you to understand?

Neither he nor I have ever claimed we were conducting the research. That is, unfortunately, not true of Ms. Dauphine, who has made statements about cats that are clearly untrue, and do not take into account basic, known science, like population dynamics... or the actual science that has been done relating to cat predation (Hint: they eat many more mice and rats than they eat birds. Another hint: Rats also eat birds.)

A study on the impact of cats on the Thin Billed Prion in the Falkland Islands concluded the cats were neutral, or potentially of benefit, to the birds. The Prion were assumed to be extra vulnerable to cats, because they are ground nesting, relatively small birds. The study was not conducted by cat lovers. It involved the killing of cats and studying their stomach contents in order to objectively determine what they were actually eating. The cats' diets were almost exclusively rats, mice and rabbits.

They also studies the stomach contents of rats, which were known to predate on prions and their eggs. The study concluded the rats were taking more birds than the cats, and that by helping keep the rat populations down, the cats provided some benefit to the birds.

THAT is consistently what actual science is saying. A simple, back of the envelope projected estimate of the number of birds killed by cats is not "science" and it missed the far more interesting dynamics that occur in the natural world.

Dr. Dauphine has not claimed to have conducted any basic research on cats either. The works she has published are reviews of others’ work. According to professional organizations, like The Wildlife Society, made up of trained scientists with extensive backgrounds in ecology, statistics, population dynamics, etc., the general consensus is that cats are not good for wildlife. (look up TWS’s position statement online)

Yes, the paper you cited shows that the problem is not always that simple- but you omitted part of its conclusion. Rats are possibly worse – but no one is advocating for deliberately perpetuating them in the environment. Likewise, habitat loss, towers, windows, and wind farms are not being advocated as benign sources of mortality either. Just because some of these sources may be worse, doesn’t mean the impact of cats is not additive or inconsequential. It is not just about birds either.

And, I feel the need to repeat:
Yes, the charge against Dr. Dauphine is fact. But the rest of your discussion about the case was decidedly negative speculation based on some very brief, incomplete news reports and press releases. You may have said, “it is up for the courts to decide”, but that was drowned out by your conversation’s overall tone.
Your show also misrepresented events in Athens. Doesn’t it make sense that Dr. Dauphine was never charged with anything, animal cruelty or otherwise, because no such thing occurred?
Critiquing Dr. Dauphine’s scientific reviews is one thing, character defamation quite another.

SnowWhite - I believe you are the one misrepresenting things. Regarding Ms Dauphine's activities in GA, listen to the interview, Mr. Fox stated clearly that the his comments were derived from Ms. Dauphine's court testimony in a case where she was serving as an "expert" witness. No one ever tried to suggest or claim otherwise. However, her own stated activities in GA prove a very odd and strange bias on the topic of free-roaming cats.

You also misrepresent the work of TNR advocates, and you fail to acknowledge a couple of basic scientific facts. These facts include the following:

1) Free-roaming domestic cats first arrived in the continental US on ships with the Conquistadors. They rapidly colonized North America and have been here ever since. Eliminating them from North America is impossible.

2) Traditional trap and kill approached to managing feral cat populations are very expensive, inhumane and breathtakingly ineffective.

3) The most cost effective and efficient means to control feral cat populations is TNR.

Ms. Dauphine may have not claimed to have conducted research herself. But, given her position at the Smithsonian, and her publishing of articles like "Apocalypse Meow" in which she grossly exaggerates the so-called damage to bird populations due to cats, it is not clear to the average reader that she might not really know what she is talking about, or that she has a pre-disposed bias that may be irrational. In her writing, she also cites others who have not really done real research on the topic. The result has been a LOT of organizations citing Dauphine and others, and people believing their opinions ARE based on actual scientific research.

For this reason, it is very important for people like Mr. Wolf to point out that there is no actual research backing up much of the writing on this topic.

I also find it interesting, though not surprising, that neither you nor Ajaxalpha seem willing to use your real names when "defending" Ms. Dauphine.