Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

What is the greenest way to dispose of pet waste? Scoop and flush, or bag and throw in the trash?

Jenifer M.
Vienna

A. Dearest Jenifer,

Flush or toss?The greenest way to dispose of pet waste is to dispose of your pet, I suppose. No pet, no waste! But barring that revolutionary scheme, a few other options present themselves.

You have not said what kind of pet you have, but judging by your reference to scooping, I am going to assume it is a cat. The time-tested advice for felines is to bag and throw away the soiled litter, including poo. If you are on a municipal sewer line, you may be able to flush the feces, but you should check with your town; if you have a septic tank, it's not advised. By the way, when you choose kitty litter, don't buy a brand that contains clay -- you might want to consult our product tester for the best non-clay options.

If you are scooping the waste of a dog or other animal, the same truth applies: bagging is best. It's gross to think about all that pet waste rotting in landfills, but it's a teeny bit less gross than imagining it seeping into our waterways or contaminating our gardens with its pathogens. (Some people compost pet waste, but it must be done very, very carefully -- here are some tips.)

Of course, we hear occasionally about efforts to turn pet poop into power -- I fur-vently hope "they" keep working on this idea, and I'm also very glad that is not my line of work.

Ferretly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I hear a lot about clean coal technology. Is it true that we can use coal in a "clean" way? I don't believe it. Can you please explain this?

Anand
Manhattan

A. Dearest Anand,

You know the expression "go with your gut"? Methinks you should. You don't believe coal can be used in a clean way, and you are right.

It is accurate, however, to say that coal can be used in a cleaner way than it traditionally has. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu and others point out that, since coal is abundant, relatively cheap, and unlikely to disappear from our energy mix any time soon, we should find cleaner ways of feeding our addiction. These include turning coal into a gas before burning it, and capturing and storing carbon dioxide emissions. Here's a fun and colorful clean-coal overview from the BBC.

Will these "cleaner" methods prevent coal from harming our health and polluting our air and water? Will they stop coal companies from blowing the tops off of mountains? Will they keep miners from being trapped and killed underground? Not likely. There's a reason my fellow Grist writer David Roberts calls coal the "enemy of the human race." It is an outmoded, dangerous source of power. We should all lobby our utilities and our representatives to give us better, safer, healthier options.

I wrote a bit more about the clean-coal conundrum last year; you can find my answer here. I also recommend you swing on over to the Department of Energy to get a sense of their plans, and visit iLoveMountains.org for a real, human understanding of where coal actually comes from.

Sequesterly,
Umbra

Q. Hi Umbra,

I am a college student and I'm really involved in and passionate about making my university more sustainable. One of the issues that I am trying to address is our current disposal of mattresses. Every year, my university "disposes" of 1,200 mattresses by incinerating them for energy (people think this is awesome and sustainable -- I wish I was kidding). So, I have been spending endless nights researching a safer alternative for this herd of mattresses. I can't recycle them because it's too damn expensive (about $20,000/yr). I can't donate them because they are ripped and flat -- who wants a holey pancake mattress? I can't Freecycle them because bedbugs are a huge issue in my area and I don't think I can find 1,200 people who want college student mattresses (think about what you did on your mattress back in the day...). So I am asking, I am BEGGING, you for help!

Mattress Maiden
Boston, Mass.

A. Dearest MM,

What I did on my mattress back in the day ... let's see, I slept on it. I read a lot of Aldo Leopold. I sorted my collection of fallen leaves by size and hue. What do you do on your mattress?

Never mind. The real question is, why is it so hard to dispose of mattresses in this country? I'm afraid, dear MM, you have outlined exactly the problem: Mattresses can rarely be donated, especially as bedbug concerns (real or imagined) increase. They take up too much space in landfills, so much in fact that some municipalities will no longer accept them. And though recycling programs are cropping up, they are few, far between, and can be fiscally frustrating.

Still, I think recycling is the best bet. Interestingly, Massachusetts is home to one of the nation's few mattress recyclers, and another outfit is venturing into New England soon. It's amazing what happens to your mattress: the wood is chipped for energy, the steel springs recycled, the cotton and foam used for insulation or other textile needs. I'm not sure which of the many fine Beantown schools you attend, but I see that Tufts and MIT both recycle mattresses. Those schools are dealing with a much smaller quantity than you mention, but you might contact them to find out how they've sprung over any obstacles. (You might also see if your school is retiring too many mattresses too soon.)

Another possible resource: Some schools rely on the help of the Institutional Recycling Network -- you might contact them as well, if you haven't already.

Above all else, it seems to me that the burning of these mattresses is a misguided plan. For one thing, mattresses are treated with chemicals to make them resistant to fire -- so once they are coaxed to go up in smoke, they likely release all sorts of nasty fumes. That's way more squirm-inducing than thinking about the damages that might have resulted from certain collegiate activities.

Stain removerly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Climate Hope: Inspiring 2009 Books for Clean Energy

What Do Coal and Dirty Dorm Rooms Have in Common?

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Who could say no to this face?Ken WardKuba, 10, has waged a brilliant campaign. Unfortunately, I'm the target. Who can say no to a puppy? It's ... Grinch-like.

My parents managed the trick, but that's because my Dad was raised on a farm and Grandpa Ken, on my Mom's side, trained hunting dogs -- so when my folks said dogs didn't belong in a city, who was going to argue? I don't have the background, or perhaps backbone, to peremptorily dismiss the matter, so I've fallen back on penny-ante arguments, the sort of weaselly excuses grasped by legislators who don't want to vote the right way.

Kuba, with unending patience, has batted each one aside. When you find yourself debating the pros and cons of a Boston Terrier vs. Portuguese Waterdog, it's time to throw in the towel. (It'll be a mutt, if there is to be an "it"; we've no budget for pedigree.)

As with any decision at the JP Green House, I've looked into the question of how this action will affect our carbon footprint. The blogosphere is full of articles and posts on how to reduce your pet's carbon footprint, but I found no comprehensive analysis of the collective carbon impact of pet ownership.

By rough calculation, however, the impact is sobering.

According to the American Veterinary Medicine Association, there are 72 million dogs and 82 million cats in American households (also 12 million birds and 7 million horses). Using the one (unattributed) estimate of pet emissions, 0.5 metric ton per cat and 1.75 tons per dog (which compare to 8.5 metric tons/year for U.S. homeless persons and seems in the right range), we get 41 million and 126 million metric tons, respectively, for U.S. cats and dogs, for a staggering total of 167 million tons/year. That is 375 percent greater then total U.S. cement production.

Sure, we can cut the impact of one pet by a number of means, particularly avoiding mass-produced pet foods. And by adopting a mutt we do not add to the problem. But the larger question -- is pet ownership compatible with averting climate cataclysm? -- is a tough one.

So, Grist readers, please weigh in on the question, should Kuba have a puppy?

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Climate Denial Crock of the Week: The big mist take

The U.S. Chamber needs to get its story straight

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

GoodGuide scanner makes healthy food shopping point and click

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?

Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change

It's time to let the cat out of the bag about the icky stuff in your cat's litter box. (No, not that stuff.) If you're using clay-based kitty litter, you could be making a mess of the environment -- and your health.

Most conventional cat litter is made from natural clay, or sodium bentonite, which is formed into pellets and dried. The clay is strip mined from the earth in a destructive process that seems quite silly when you think about what happens to it once it hits the litter box: It is shat upon and then tossed in the landfill, where it will remain for a long, long time. In fact, over the average lifespan of a cat (15 years), you could be dumping almost 2,000 pounds of the stuff.

GRIST'S PICK

But what's potentially more distressing is that the dust generated when the sodium bentonite is disturbed -- by a digging cat or a poop-scooping human -- contains silicon particles that are a known carcinogen. Fortunately for both felines and their friends, there are an increasing number of clay-alternatives on pet-store shelves. They fall into several categories: wood-based (pine, cedar), plant-based (wheat, corn, grass fibers), and paper-based (newsprint, recycled newspaper). Unlike clay, most of these litters are biodegradable -- especially if disposed of in a paper or corn-based bag -- and flushable, though there is some debate as to whether this is advisable, especially in coastal areas.

But which of these alternative litters is the cat's meow? Here's the scoop.

Feline Pine
$2.99 / 4.1 lbs.
Ingredients: Renewable yellow pine and natural guar bean gum
Flushable: Yes
Biodegradable: Yes

My cat Bella prefers softer litter, so I got the scoopable version of Feline Pine instead of the large-pelleted original. That was my first mistake. The scoopable Feline Pine is essentially tiny flakes of pine -- like sawdust, or the cedar shavings you might see in a gerbil tank. Because it's so light and flaky, it doesn't sift easily through a slotted litter spoon. It also sticks to cat fur, which means it slowly starts to appear everywhere -- on my couch, on my pile of clean clothes, on my bathroom rug, anywhere the cat hangs out.

Swheat Scoop
$9.95 / 14 lbs.
Ingredients: Naturally processed wheat
Flushable: Yes
Biodegradable: Yes

The Swheat Scoop packaging claims that natural wheat enzymes help neutralize odor and clump with urine. I can attest to the former -- the litter box maintained a pleasant-ish oatmeal scent -- but as to the clumping power, I found that a lot of the urine clumps stuck to the bottom of the litter box, which proved a pain when cleaning.

World's Best Cat Litter
$10.95 / 7 lbs.
Ingredients: Whole kernel corn
Flushable: Yes
Biodegradable: Yes

I like that these guys go ahead out on a limb and call this the "world's best cat litter." I don't know that I'd go that far, but this stuff does clump well -- it actually ends up looking like a Nutty Buddy (those ice-cream cones covered in peanuts) and scoops well. It doesn't quite cover the poop though, and did end up smelling more than clay litters I've used.

Good Mews
$6.99 / 8 lbs.
Ingredients: Recycled paper fiber
Flushable: Yes
Biodegradable: Yes

These black pellets smell strongly of newsprint, and that is the first thing I noticed when I poured them into the litter box. I'm pretty sure Bella also took notice of this, as she refused to use the box and ended up pooping on my cushy comforter (probably the surface in my apartment most resembling a litter box) while I was away that day.

Fresh Step Crystals
$12.99 / 8 lbs.
Ingredients: Silica gel (sodium silicate)
Flushable: No
Biodegradable: No

After the Unfortunate Comforter Incident of '08 (see above), I ran out to one of the few stores still open that night and grabbed the only non-clay litter I could find: these blindingly bright blue and white crystals. It wasn't until later that I learned that this silica-based litter is readily inhaled by both humans and felines and has been linked to respiratory problems like lung cancer, bronchitis, and in some cats, a fatal form of tuberculosis. Good thing I wouldn't have recommended it anyway -- the crystals have a strong perfume-y smell and were quite noticeably crunchy (read: loud!) whenever Bella used the box.

Cat Country Elite (Finicky Feline Formula)
$5.95 / 8 lbs.
Ingredients: Organic wheatgrass fibers
Flushable: Yes
Biodegradable: Yes

The Cat Country Elite formula is supposedly a smaller-pelleted version of the more common Cat Country litter. Because this stuff is made from wheatgrass, I thought Bella would totally dig the smell -- but it actually made her sneeze quite a bit when I first introduced it to the litter box. She did start using it though, and it seemed to perform just fine -- but I'm not a fan of the intense farm-y smell.

Our tester Bella with her pick.

Photo: Sarah van Schagen

The bottom line: None of these cat litters are perfect. My top two picks are Swheat Scoop (good with odor, annoying cleanup) and World's Best (good clumping, lost points for odor). But a once-monthly annoyance seems preferable to a smelly box all the time -- plus Swheat Scoop is half the price of World's Best (per pound). So for Bella and me, Swheat Scoop hits the sweet spot. Though perhaps the very best option is to combine two different types of litter.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Toxic suds want to watch you shower

The contents of your dog's bowl -- kibble, kibble, more kibble -- may not look that interesting, but to nutritionist Marion Nestle, they're nothing less than a microcosm of the global food system. In her new book Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine, Nestle (pronounced NES-uhl, no relation to the multinational) investigates the 2007 pet-food contamination scandal, at the time the largest consumer product recall in U.S. history. Companies withdrew nearly 200 brands of cat and dog foods from store shelves, and while the federal Food and Drug Administration eventually confirmed only 17 or 18 animal deaths, pet owners reported more than 4,000 fatalities.

Marion Nestle with Fantom.

Photo: Larry Cohen

Nestle delved into the roots of the recall in Canada, China, and the United States, even examining rumors that a Canadian woman had developed kidney disease after eating contaminated cat food (apparently false). Though Nestle is convinced of the need for regulatory reform and consumer vigilance in the worldwide pet-food production system, she emphasizes that most commercial pet food -- fancy label or not -- is safe and healthy. "I know people who feed their pets on the cheapest possible garbage food, and their pets do just fine," she says.

But what does the pet-food contamination scare say about the safety of people food? Earlier this month, news broke that infant formula manufactured by the Sanlu Group and other Chinese companies was tainted with the protein-mimic melamine -- the same industrial chemical found in the recalled pet food. The contamination, which is now thought to have killed four infants and sickened thousands of babies in China, has also turned up in liquid milk and other dairy products. Grist spoke with Nestle -- who has "grandpets," but no pets of her own -- to learn more about the unexpected culinary connections between pets and people.

Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine, by Marion Nestle.

You investigated who knew what, and when, in this recall saga. Who bears the bulk of the blame?

The blame started with some unscrupulous manufacturers in China who laced wheat flour with melamine -- an industrial chemical -- and sold it as wheat gluten. That was clearly fraudulent; a reporter for The New York Times interviewed farm-feed producers, and lots of people told him that they did this sort of thing all the time. They would have used urea, which was less toxic, except it was easier to detect. It was just a completely open secret in China that this kind of thing was being done.

Let's give everybody the benefit of the doubt: I don't think the Chinese realized how toxic [melamine] was. Probably they've been doing this for a very, very long time, and it never caused any problems before. But in this particular batch, the concentration of melamine was exceptionally high, and because of that, its byproduct (cyanuric acid) was also present. Those two chemicals together, at very low concentrations, can form crystals that block the kidneys of cats and dogs.

Then it unfolded that people in America didn't know where their [pet-food] ingredients were coming from -- which is understandable, because there were so many intermediates. The companies bought it from an American supplier, who bought it from a distributor, who got it from an importer who imported it from China. Wheat gluten is no longer produced in the United States, because it's too expensive to make here. Everyone was looking for the cheapest possible ingredients and getting them from China, just like we get so many other things from China.

What else has changed in recent decades about how we make and distribute pet food?

The big shock in all this was the consolidation and centralization of the industry. Canned pet food is quite complicated to make, so once a factory is set up to make it, it's easier to contract with that factory to make your recipe. The shock was that this one company in Canada, that nobody had ever heard of, had a factory in the United States that was making pet foods sold under 100 different brands -- ranging from the least expensive to some of the priciest. They were all made at the same place with the same ingredients.

You write that contaminated pet foods are an early warning of the safety hazards of globalization.

We saw that right away in this case with [the blood thinner] heparin. It was exactly the same situation: A fraudulent ingredient was put in that tested like heparin but was not heparin, just like the fraudulent ingredient melamine was put into pet food because it tested like protein. That happened within just a few months [of the pet-food recall] -- and it killed people.

There were photographs of the backyard factories [in China] that were making heparin that were just absolutely shocking. There was a photograph in The New York Times of this operation that was in this dirty room with pig guts hanging out of buckets. It was amazing -- "Oh my God, injecting that into my body? I don't think so."

Are problems in the pet-food supply system also a direct threat to human food?

It's impossible to separate the food supplies for pets, people, and farm animals. We already knew that from [genetically engineered foods], when things destined for animals got into the human-food supply.

The pet-food supply is linked to the human-food supply in two very important ways: One is that pet foods provide an outlet for the byproducts of human-food production, things that would otherwise have to be wasted or go into landfills or be burned. The other way is that surplus pet foods are fed to pigs and chickens. Who knew? I certainly didn't.

In this case, melamine was fed to pigs, and pigs were found to be excreting melamine in their urine. The meat from pigs on that farm had already been sold and consumed. If [melamine] caused any problems [for humans], nobody knows anything about them. [If it didn't], it was because of what the FDA charmingly refers to as the "dilution effect" -- since nobody eats just pig meat, [the melamine] would be so diluted that it would be below the level that would be toxic.

What are some of the key changes you'd like to see in pet-food regulation?

I think [companies] need to have much more transparent labeling. They need to have calories on the label. Companies really need to be very clear about where their ingredients are sourced -- they need to know, and they need to inform their customers. And they need to be paying very, very close attention. They need to test for foreign toxins; in the case of dry foods, they need to test for bacterial and biological contamination. They all should be produced under [Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point] plans, standard food-safety plans.

Are these things companies could effectively do voluntarily?

Some companies are doing them voluntarily, but I think much greater national regulation is needed. The pet-food companies complain that the rules are different depending on what state they're in. Well, that is a silly way of doing things; national regulation is absolutely essential. And it's not fair to ask companies [to act voluntarily] because it sets up an unequal playing field: One company is going to go to all the trouble of doing this kind of thing, and it's going to cost them, and everyone else is going to behave badly. Although in this instance, the companies that really behaved well -- and let their customers know about it -- did not suffer the same hit in sales.

[My colleague and I] heard a food-safety official who consults with pet-food companies speak at a meeting, and he talked about the kinds of reasons that people in these companies gave him for not following standard food-safety procedures. They said it was too much trouble, that it wasn't necessary, that nobody told them to do it -- these were dog-ate-my-homework kind of excuses. So unless these procedures are in place and diligently enforced, problems are going to occur. We know this from the human food-safety issue -- voluntary doesn't work, desultory doesn't work, casual doesn't work.

Are these reforms similar to those you'd suggest for human-food safety?

For human-food safety, we need a farm-to-table, universal, federally administered food-safety system -- preferably with one agency in charge. We don't have anything like that. We have a piecemeal food-safety system that's divided largely between two agencies, [the Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration]. There are shocking overlaps and gaps that people have known about for years and have been complaining about -- we need a single food agency that will impose federal regulations farm to table. It would be very good for the food business, but food companies don't see that.

Did the scope of the pet-food recall draw attention to problems with human-food safety?

Oh yes, definitely, everybody drew the parallel -- and if they didn't, there was immediately the heparin problem, and then there were tomatoes, or jalapeño peppers, or cilantro, or whatever came next.

So has any progress been made?

No. We're in the wrong election cycle.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

City preps and countries posture ahead of Copenhagen talks

Water, conflict, and security on the banks of the Hudson

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Disappearing slave history

New interactive map shows devastating effects of global temperature rise

Without pets, the world would be such a pale, less playful version of itself. No Wallace and Gromit videos. No Fluffy purring in our laps or Fido fetching his Frisbee. No cheerful creatures welcoming us home and adoring us unconditionally. (OK, we'd still have mom.)

So we love them, there's no getting around it. But can we lighten the eco-pawprint of our pets? Why yes, we can: today's marketplace offers everything from eco-friendly kibbles, collars, and chew toys to beds, leashes, and kitty litter -- all of which promote better pet health without hurting the planet. If you're less inclined toward consumption, we still have ideas for greening your goldfish bowl (and a handy list of resources, too).

Here's how to start.

Spay it forward. More than 50,000 cats and dogs and untold numbers of other animals are born every day in the U.S., an overpopulation crisis that takes a major toll on the planet. Outdoor cats kill huge numbers of songbirds; feral or unleashed dogs harass and kill other wildlife; and surplus pets in general spread disease and foul the landscape with their waste. Life is no picnic for the unwanted, either: an estimated 3 to 4 million of them are euthanized at animal shelters each year. So snip this population crisis in the bud -- literally -- and spay or neuter all your pets, including those repro-crazed rabbits. They'll live healthier, longer lives as a result.

Don't spend bills at mills. Huge numbers of pet stores and other retailers get their animals from puppy mills, the notorious mass-breeding outfits that spark over-pup-ulation and produce sick, badly bred animals. The best way to muzzle the mills, not surprisingly, is to boycott them. So pick a pooch from a shelter or animal rescue group instead. Online resources like Petfinder or Pets 911 can help you find the right match.

Keep it simple. Choose toys and tidbits made and packaged with recycled, organic, or earth-friendly materials (hemp doggy Frisbees and leashes, anyone?). Rejoice in the growing variety of natural pet shampoos, potions, and flea and tick products, which are free of organophosphate insecticides.

Nix the vinyl and nylon. Spot doesn't need that raincoat with matching collar and leash, and the atmosphere doesn't need the nasties that result from vinyl production and disposal. If every pet toy sold each year were made of 100 percent recycled materials, according to The Green Book, it would save enough virgin materials to make a Frisbee more than two miles in diameter. Fetch!

Image: iStockphoto

Doo the right thing. Pet poop isn't our idea of a fun topic, either, so we'll cut to the chase. 1) Pick up the dog turds. If you don't, rain can sweep them into storm sewers and local waterways, spreading pollution as they, um, go. 2) Use biodegradable bags. Putting poo in regular plastic bags only preserves it at local landfills for the next century. 3) Avoid kitty litters made with clay, a material that's (ugh) strip-mined. Clay litters can also include silica dust and clumping agents, which have been linked to feline lung diseases and other health problems. Take the safer route and use eco-friendly alternatives like Feline Pine, Yesterday's News, or others.

Go organic. Conventional pet foods come with ingredients you may not have bargained for, including pesticides, herbicides, hormones, antibiotics, and -- last year's addition -- melamine, a contaminant that killed 1,950 dogs and 2,200 cats and sparked one of the biggest pet food recalls in history. (Note to vegans or the easily nauseated: you might want to skip the next sentences.) These mainstream brands often also include items coyly described on their labels as "meat or poultry byproducts" or "reconstituted animal byproducts" -- industry-speak for grisly waste materials (hair, blood, and worse) culled from "4D" animals: the dead, diseased, dying, or disabled.

Finicky felines insist on organic kibble.

Photo: iStockphoto

As with human food, buying organic can strain the pocketbook: a 15-pound bag of certified organic cat or dog food can cost $50. If you don't want to go that route, consider making your own kibbles and bits. It takes time, precision, and consultation with your vet to make sure you're providing the proper vitamins, minerals, supplements, and meats -- after all, carnivores do need carni. But there are dozens of books, lists, and websites to help guide you, and you'll have the satisfaction of being in charge. Bone appetit!

Get a new leash on life with our list of handy -- or should we say pawsy -- resources. And add your own suggestions and ideas in the comments section below.

Spaying guidance
Humane Society of the U.S.
Spay USA

Green pet products
Only Natural Pet
Worldwise
Earth Dog
Urban Leash and Treat

Biodegradable waste bags
Eco-Products BioBags
Poopbags

Organic pet foods
Organics 4 Your Pets
Natura Pet Products
Heidi's Homemade
Newman's Own Organics Premium Pet Food
Castor & Pollux Pet Works

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Dear Umbra,

I have three cats, and live in a close-in suburb of Boston. I love the cats dearly, and let them outside during the day to wander about, and generally not have to live an indoor, sedentary, boring life. My question concerns their hunting instincts: I haven't had any luck with any particular way of preventing them from killing birds, mice, etc. I worry most about the birds, having read repeatedly that the millions of pet cats we have in this country really do a number on songbirds and other birds. I've put bells on them (more than one per cat), I feed them well and regularly, and don't feed them anything approaching a recognizable animal. I keep them in at night, after reading that's when they do the most damage, but I still get at least a bird a month, and often more. I read about a gizmo in Australia that does inertial sensing of when the cat leaps and makes sound and light, but it was very expensive, and I'm not even confident it'd work. Any suggestions?

Richard Soenneker
Malden, Mass.

Dearest Richard,

I am answering your question at the request of a dear friend. She believes that if cat owners only knew the impact their cats have on songbirds, they would keep their cats indoors. We will see.

The cat that swallowed the canary.

Photo: iStockphoto

You've read all the reasoning behind the indoor cat recommendation, I'm sure, so let us see if we can shock others into compliance. Here are the accepted facts about domestic cats and their decimation of the songbird population.

Cats are natural hunters, and no matter how well satiated you keep them, they still want to practice their hereditary skills. I suppose if you spooned Meow Mix into a cat until it was comatose it wouldn't hunt, but a regular old self-regulating cat probably finds a good meal fuel for a nice prowl about the neighborhood. It is not a natural predator-prey relationship: Household cats have an unfair advantage over other bird predators (and their prey) in that their food source is constant, and their own populations will not fluctuate if their prey's population declines.

Several oft-cited studies form the basis for an estimate of 100 million to 1 billion U.S. songbirds killed annually by domestic cats. One study, from the University of Wisconsin, finds that a reasonable estimate is 39 million birds killed by cats each year -- in Wisconsin alone. Here's a dramatic quote from the same study: "Worldwide, cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause, except habitat destruction." The University of Florida Conservation Clinic, in a report to the Fish and Wildlife Service, estimated that a free-roaming cat kills 100 mammals and birds per year.

These and other studies are the driving force behind various campaigns to keep cats indoors, so one might tend to be skeptical -- perhaps they do not cite the studies finding that cats prefer to lovingly hug birds and are misunderstood. Then one remembers that one learned math in elementary school. You say you have three cats and see more than one killed bird per month. You live in a city, where bird populations are lower than in the country, so let's assume each of your cats actually kills two birds per month. I think that sounds reasonable. Over a year, then, your pack of pets kills 72 birds. That is the low-balled price of having your cats outdoors: 72 birds per year, not including various small (perhaps endangered) mammals.

I don't have a cat these days (and no, I did not keep my childhood best friend inside), so I have no firsthand knowledge of the bells that purportedly warn prey of death's approach. All we can go on is the general bird powers-that-be report of failure: Cats are smart enough to learn to stalk quietly wearing the bell, or, if the bell jingles at the last moment, it is already too late. Plus the prey may not have gotten that memo about running away when it heard the bell ring. Even if the bell were effective half the time (as has been reported in one study), you're still looking at 36 dead birds per year (to keep using you as an example). The American Bird Conservancy, which runs the Cats Indoors! Campaign, mentions two other products. One is CatAlert, a sonic cat collar from Britain, which reduced but did not eliminate bird kills, and did nothing to reduce small mammal murder. The other is the CatBib. Hee hee. It's a neoprene bib that physically interferes with the predator's killing stroke.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that if you value a diverse and numerous wild bird population, you should keep your cat indoors. The Cats Indoors! Campaign also highlights various benefits indoor-only life brings to cats, particularly a much longer life span. But no one thinks their own special pet kills lots of birds, or they believe living indoors causes the cat to suffer (who can say, really?), and certainly no one thinks their cat is going to be the one whose life expectancy is cut to five years instead of 17. There's always a reason to postpone removal of culpability. We all take unnecessary small car trips that could be postponed and clumped with other errands or avoided altogether (special clause in my contract: relate everything to the automobile).

Probably the best that birds can hope for is to host bird flu in a form that is deadly to cats. Cat owners, in denial about the impact their cute pet has on cute wild animals, will come to their senses as they see increasing numbers of dead cats with birds in their mouths. Will this happen before the rising oceans cause us to stop driving? I'm on tenterhooks. By the way, before I get any angry letters -- did I mention I loved my cat? And this column has been approved by a certified crazy cat lady. I'm just giving you the facts, everyone.

Rowrkkxxsssly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Should Kuba have a puppy?

Energy efficiency and sex