► Like most wild animals, will not attack if unprovoked, but will defend themselves if threatened or cornered. Their strongest instinct is to run ^(1).

► The average stray female has 5.25 litters in her life, totalling 22.3 kittens of which 12.9 survive ⁽⁹⁾.

► 60% of these cats and their offspring become feral cats within three years ^(1).

Animal: Common among ill, malnourished animals

Common Flea Treatments

Healthy nourishment

Human:

Treat yard (nematodes, etc)

House: Many effective treatments

Person: Personal hygiene

Animal: Temporary Hair Loss, Scaling (usually self-limiting)

Anti-fungal creams

Human: Temporary Hair Loss,

Scaling (usually self-limiting)

Anti-fungal creams, personal hygiene; refrain from petting, wear gloves.

Bites/ Scratches: Any wound or skin breakage can become infected. Normal home first aid should be administered for any skin breakage to prevent infection.

Solutions: Animals that are clearly afraid of humans should not be touched, teased or intimidated. All creatures will defend themselves.

If bitten - animal must be caught and quarantined or human must undergo rabies treatment.

Chlamydiosis: Conjunctivitis possibly related to feline upper respiratory infection.

Toxoplasmosis: Single-celled parasite that invades warm-blooded animals. Contracted by humans by eating improperly cooked meats. Normal healthy humans exhibit only mild malaise; immune suppressed (e.g. AIDS) humans may suffer serious complications.

Feline Connection: Infected animals may eliminate oöcysts in faecal material. If ingested by a pregnant woman, the fetus may suffer congenital Toxoplasmosis which may be inconsequential or fatal.

Rabies: This is a virus whose primary carriers are raccoons, bats, foxes and skunks.

Cats are not normal vehicles for this virus, but can become infected by one of the above. Postexposure prophylaxis for humans is expensive but effective.

Solution: Existing Ontario regulations requiring periodic vaccination against rabies of pet cats and dogs provide an effective barrier between the primary carriers and humans. Rabies in primary carriers can be prevented through food-based vaccines ⁽²⁾.

Last known seropositivity for rabies in Essex County: 1994: 6 foxes, 1 dog and 1 bat ^(7).

Note: A 1996 New York study of a managed feral cat colony within a rabies epizoötic area, showed these managed feral cats to be free of rabies ⁽²⁾.

Territoriality is a characteristic of mammalian males. This is exemplified by tom cats who find it necessary to mark their territory with specially designed urine. It is not a pleasant odour to humans.

Solution: This behaviour is almost completely eliminated by neutering the animal; also there are many excellent repellants readily available.

Burying faeces is normal cat behaviour. Very minor damage can be caused to vegetable gardens by stray/feral cats. The more common culprits are rabbits. Two remedies exist: repellants and wearing gloves while gardening.

Not burying is again an indication of dominance establishment in mainly unneutered cats.

In unstable territories, there will be considerable discussions among cats seeking to claim new territories. This is a major problem in communities that have attempted to solve the feline cat problem by trapping and killing.

A common complaint against the domestic cat is that she is responsible for the decline in the song-bird population in urban areas. This is nonsense. There is no evidence for this complaint, in fact, all evidence points to humans being solely responsible. Urban sprawl, shopping malls, road building, golf courses, poisonous air, pesticides in water and air, deforestation, livestock farming - these are the causes of songbird decline ⁽¹⁰⁾.

Songbirds in general are declining; however, other birds such as blackbirds, green finches, blue jays and brown-headed cowbirds are increasing. More than 250 species of songbirds migrate south of the US. Here tropical deforestation is occurring at the rate of 200,000 sq km /year. This is another cause of decline in songbirds.

Collisions with windows on houses and buildings is a significant cause of bird deaths in urban areas.

A San Francisco study documented that the songbird decline which had been blamed on cats was actually attributable to a park landscaping program which removed the undergrowth necessary for birds’ food and habitat ⁽¹⁰⁾.

Longwood Gardens, PA: When feral cats were trapped, neutered, released and provided with litter boxes and shelters, the bird population, including ground-nesting species increased. The cats became a tourist attraction.

A Brooklyn study documented that in 180 hours of observation of stray cats, only one incident of predation was recorded.

In Baltimore, researchers found that when food was readily available, hunting plays a very small role in cat food acquisition.

These results were consistent with similar studies in Rome, Portsmouth Docks, Pennsylvania and Oklahoma.

When the stomach contents of feral cats are examined, invariably the main diet is found to be human refuse, followed by rodents, and to a small extent, birds. Urban cats are connoisseurs of restaurant and other human food, rural cats specialize in rodents.

There was a complaint on the barrier islands off Florida that domestic cats were responsible for the extinction of endangered species of mice. Actual scientific studies however documented that this was caused by the sprawl of human beach front homes and the concomitant competition by domestic mice and birds.

Few would believe these claims, if made about a program to license people. Yet, when it comes to cats, we are asked to believe all these claims are true: according to proponents, mandatory cat licensing will put an end to the problem of stray and abandoned cats, raise the status of felines, increase funding for budget-strapped animal control agencies, and make cat owners more responsible. Unfortunately, licensing cats, like licensing people, won't do any of these things.

The San Francisco SPCA has considered the various claims made for mandatory cat licensing, and has found neither evidence nor common sense to support them. In our view, the primary effects of mandatory cat licensing would be to:

* Put the lives and well-being of cats at risk, and rationalize round-up-and-kill campaigns;

* Penalize responsible cat owners, and force many compassionate caretakers to stop providing for homeless cats;

Indeed the most vocal proponents of cat licensing have been animal control agencies and humane organizations that hold contracts to do animal control--the very agencies and organizations that stand to gain the most in terms of more staff, larger budgets, and expanded enforcement power.

Since none of this expanded power will help either cats, their caretakers, or taxpayers, we cannot escape the conclusion that the call for cat licensing has more to do with entrenching bureaucracy than with compassion, saving lives, and providing a helping hand to those who care.

Caring can't be mandated, and a licensing mandate will only punish those who care. Millions of compassionate people provide abandoned cats with food, love, and shelter in their own homes. Others put aside their own needs in order to care for a beloved pet or make sure a shy and reclusive neighborhood cat has daily sustenance and medical attention. Still others work tirelessly to feed, foster, and rehabilitate feral cats and kittens, all at their personal expense. Mandatory cat licensing will exact a heavy toll from every one of these caregivers. They will either have to pay the license fees--in essence, a "cat tax" on each of the cats they care for--or face citations, fines, penalties, and possible confiscation of the animals they love. These new burdens, imposed on the very people who are doing the most to help cats, will force many to stop caring for these animals, or at least force them to care for fewer cats, with the net result being more cats left to fend for themselves and fewer people to help them. Responding to these concerns, some cat licensing proponents have said that enforcement won't be stressed, or will only be "complaint driven." In our view, passing laws that aren't enforced or are enforced sporadically is just as unfair and counterproductive: few people are likely to comply with a cat licensing mandate that isn't enforced. In Los Angeles, for instance, compliance rates of less than 1% were reported, despite a canvassing program. And people who voluntarily comply can probably be counted among the most responsible--and affluent--pet owners. We see neither equity nor sense in enacting a law that only penalizes through taxation the very people whose behavior is already exemplary. Needless to say, truly irresponsible cat owners won't be affected. If the law isn't enforced, they are free to ignore it. If it is enforced against them, they are likely to surrender or abandon their animals, which will only add to the number of cats killed.

In our view, this claim is on a par with suggesting that licensing poor people or the homeless will help raise their status. Of course cat licensing proponents aren't making a comparison to people, but to dogs: if cats are licensed like dogs, they say, cats will enjoy the same "status" as dogs. Unfortunately, dog licensing didn't confer any beneficial "status" on canines: it was and is a tool for protecting livestock, enforcing rabies laws, and ridding the public of other threats posed by unowned, free-roaming dogs. Indeed, since 1933 California dog licensing laws have explicitly authorized the impoundment and killing of millions of un-licensed dogs, just for being unlicensed.

This is the precedent to which cat licensing proponents appeal when they claim that licensing will raise the "status" of cats. We doubt that cats would choose such a status for themselves. They might prefer to retain the unlicensed status they now share with humans. Dogs might want to join them.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that cat redemptions are as likely, if not more likely, to decline once voluntary cat identification is replaced with coerced licensing. In Los Angeles County, for instance, the number of stray cats redeemed by their owners was reportedly down 32% after implementation of mandatory licensing. Proponents tend to ignore such evidence like this, instead pointing out that dogs, who have been subject to licensing for years, enjoy higher redemption rates than cats. But dogs differ from cats in many ways, and there is no reason to think licensing is the factor that results in the higher redemption rate for dogs. Indeed, 63% of the stray dogs at the San Francisco Animal Care and Control Department shelter were redeemed by their owners during the 1993-1994 fiscal year, even though just 4% of the dogs impounded were licensed. Clearly, factors other than licensing are responsible for the high dog redemption rate.

Since cat licensing will likely result in more cats being abandoned and/or surrendered to shelters, since it will not appreciably affect redemptions, and since it may very well become an impetus to round-up-and-kill campaigns, it is difficult for us to see how it would result in a decrease in shelter euthanasias.

Cat licensing will cost local governments and taxpayers money, not raise it, resulting in a net loss to animal control and/or other vital government services. Indeed, proposals to set a license fee at from $5.00 to $10.00 probably couldn't even cover basic administrative expenses. Dog licensing has been a net loser in many communities at these fee levels; indeed, it was a net loser for the American SPCA in New York City even at a higher fee structure. There is no reason to believe cat licensing could be any more cost-efficient. High fee levels, meanwhile, discourage compliance--and enforcement via door-to-door canvassing is extremely expensive in terms of the personnel time that must be assigned to the task.

Claim: Dog owners help pay animal control costs; it's time cat owners paid their fair share.

As noted above, the usually higher licensing fees now paid by dog owners often cover little more than the basic costs of administering the licensing programs, if that much. From a fiscal standpoint, therefore, local governments and taxpayers, not to mention dog owners, might be better off if mandatory dog licensing were simply abolished. In any event, enacting another costly government program that won't pay for itself isn't the way to give dog owners equity. No doubt there will be animal control agencies and contracting humane organizations who dispute our analysis and offer projections to show that cat licensing will make money for animal control service in their communities.

We believe these agencies should be willing to stand behind their projections by having their direct subsidies cut by the amount they expect cat licensing to raise. Without this or a similar mechanism for accountability, we fear cat licensing will become yet another expensive government program that only works to inappropriately expand bureaucracy at the expense of taxpayers, responsible cat caretakers, and the animals themselves.

Claim: Regulating cat owners through licensing and other mandates is the only way to solve cat problems.

In our view, the way to teach people to be responsible pet owners and help the cats in a community is through voluntary incentive-based measures that enable people to do the right thing. Government mandates that seek to blame and punish pet owners are likely to be costly and counterproductive. Moreover, it seems to us grossly unfair to penalize the community at large through coercive mandates, when it is the local shelters who are the primary source of animals, and whose policies and practices have the greatest impact, for better or worse, on local animal welfare issues. We realize that in some cases local shelter policies may have failed, and animal problems may be worsening in a community. In such cases, government intervention might be warranted, providing it is carefully focussed to have the greatest impact. For instance, requiring shelters to alter animals before adoption and to devote a substantial proportion of their annual animal control and shelter budgets (e.g. 10-20%) to offering free neutering services would do far more to help cats and reduce pet overpopulation than cat licensing and other punitive mandates.

In 1992 - 93 this county’s Animal Control Advisory Committee on Cat Licencing conducted a survey to ascertain the cost/benefit of implementing such a program. The following summarizes their findings:

“A review of our survey results and other data gathered ... suggests that jurisdictions enacting mandatory cat licensing have seen no such resultant benefits in increased claim rates”.

2. Will cat licencing reduce the risk posed to the public health and welfare by rabies?

There is no health risk due to rabies in that no rabid cats have been reported in California (in all reporting periods).

Estimated cost to implement cat licencing: $220,450 (including $139,000 yearly expenses). Number of owned cats: 9,250, resulting in maximum revenue for 100% compliance of $88,075. Compliance rate is normally in the range of 1% to 20% for dogs, thus actual projected revenue will be below $20,000.

(Fort Wayne, IN has had an aggressive cat and breeder licensing program in effect since 1982. Only 6.2% of cats are claimed to be licensed. ^[16]).

“The result (of licencing) will be a dramatic increase in dumping, and a decrease in people’s willingness to care for neighbourhood strays. People will simply refuse to accept and care for cats for fear of being held legally and financially responsible.”

After this county implemented a mandatory licensing and breeding moratorium, two agencies analysed the results of the program (17, 18). Both concluded that the program was a dismal failure and recommended an immediate repeal of cat licensing.

Deliberate infection with Feline Enteritis, followed by dog attacks, followed by hunting, followed by poisoning.

Shooting: totally unsuccessful. “Cleansed” areas created a vacuum quickly overtaken by new populations.

Trapping and killing: no effect. New populations took over “cleansed” areas.

(Cost of Processing Licensed Cats - all above plus notifying “owners” - dealing with owners’ anger at their licensed cats being impounded)

Feeding hungry animals is a normal, healthy, life-affirming activity for people of all ages. It is part of our human biophilial needs; it is an intrinsic adaptive behaviour; it is part of the human-animal bond which has tremendous strength.

It is compassion, it is love, it spreads love in this world. It is what we want to teach our children.

It gives animals some nourishment with which to fight off disease and predators.

“Caring for free-roaming cats can be of psychological benefit to lonely elderly adults, because it allows them to perform meaningful tasks, provides an outlet for affection, gets them outdoors, helps prevent depression, reduces social isolation, and provides companionship and the opportunity to nurture.”^{( 2)}

Windsor: preliminary indications are that fewer than 5% of households feed strays.

d. 33.27% of cats are indoor only; 2.535 are indoor/outdoor; 14.2% are outdoor only.

Strategy: 120 managed feral cat colonies wherein cats are sterilized, vaccinated, FeLV tested.

Strategy: City allocates 0.1% of its annual budget to cat and dog sterilization.

Results: 20.5% reduction in feral cat population after 3 years; enhanced health of existing colony; elimination of nocturnal vocalization.

Are we all so callous that we no longer can empathize with hunger? With loneliness? Abandonment?

Are human communities to be sterile of all other life? One former city councillor told me so. “All cats and dogs belong on farms, outside the city limits”, he said.

“But if today neighbours no longer experience a dependence on one another under certain circumstances, and therefore raise the barriers of selfishness, aggravate a lack of consideration, and increase their personal claim to power, such behaviour explains why some people sue each another over the ‘trespassing’ of a cat on their property. Nothing attests more strongly to the denaturalisation of man than such instances” ⁽¹⁹⁾.

“Animal Services shall educate and inform the public regarding coexistence with wildlife. Animal Services shall not trap, relocate, or kill any healthy wildlife, nor shall it aid or assist any person in such activity.” ⁽²⁰⁾

“Staff is in agreement that feral cats will be given the same protected status as wildlife.” ⁽²¹⁾

“The new policy puts Berkeley on the same page as other areas, such as Oakland, San Francisco, and San Mateo and Marin counties...(it) brings the city into compliance with the state Fish and Game law..

”We’re trying to protect healthy animals, which includes wildlife and feral cats ... just because you don’t like having it around doesn’t mean that you have the right to put it to sleep. (Mimi Cary)”

75% of all respondents believe that feral cats should be considered part of urban wildlife.

Within the last few decades, scholars in more or less disparate disciplines such as architecture, psychology, theology, sociology, anthropology, ecology, evolution, and ethology have converged upon an amazing but common conclusion:

Human beings have an intrinsic physiological, psychological and spiritual need to live a life closely integrated with a diversity of life.

“This theory asserts a biological and evolutionary basis for most fundamental values people attach to nature, particularly living biota. The effective realization of these values is integral to the full expression of our humanity. The notion of biophilia proclaims a human dependence on nature extending far beyond the narrow demand for physical and material sustenance to a broader range of emotional, intellectual and even spiritual needs.⁽³¹⁾”

This phenomenon enlightens our attempts to understand the many psychological dysfunctions so prevalent in “normal city life”. The more we attempt to cleanse our cities of “extraneous” animal or plant life, the more we dehumanize ourselves.

We need to embrace life in all its forms. For our own mental and spiritual health, and definitely for the sake of our children and grandchildren, we need to value life, and to honour those who nurture it.

The person who is intolerant of animal life within human communities needs our help in finding his inner humanity; the intolerance, however, should not be rewarded and should never be made a norm mandated by any law or regulation, or by-law.

We know that abuse in all its forms is interrelated and mutually causative. Child abuse causes animal abuse. Since children intrinsically empathize and identify with animals, the witnessing of or participation in animal neglect or cruelty is child abuse. The single strongest predictor of domestic abuse within a community is the prevalence of hunting.

This earth belongs to all life forms. The minuscule rectangle on which sits my abode is a piece of the earth which I am privileged to be able to care for. It “belongs” to me only as a care taker. The rabbits behind my shed, the birds on the trees, the occasional skunk, the many squirrels, the worms in the ground, the gophers, the cats that share their lives with me and those that sleep with neighbours - they all own it as much as I do. The richer the living habitat, the richer I am as a human animal.

This city which is becoming more and more dependent on exploitive revenue generation must think more about creating a life and family-friendly community - otherwise there will be no more community. Families will exit.

In the 1950's the “City Fathers” enacted a by-law that allows me to have two cats plus two dogs plus two rabbits, plus two ferrets, plus two parrots, plus two canaries, and so on. But - I cannot have three cats.

It’s a farce; it is unenforceable; it diminishes the city’s credibility and authority.

It is patronizing, condescending, rude, intrusive, insulting, backward, neanderthallic, and stupid.

It penalizes those cat-loving people who pride themselves on adhering to laws (whether or not they are good laws) and who could very easily give wonderful homes to more than two cats. How many lives could be saved were it not for this stupid by-law?

Given the need for good homes for cats, denying these people the legal right to adopt homeless cats is criminal.

They have families and form social groups. They live longer, healthier lives with cat company.

They are no longer considered the familiars of witches or isolated reclusive elderly ladies. They enhance the physical and emotional lives of humans of all ages and types.

The people who harbour cats in the hundreds and do not release them to adoption suffer from an addictive disorder. Neither the present by-law nor any regulation will alter this. Only professional counselling will help these people. They generally see the rest of society as a cruel place and feel they are protecting the animals. Threats only reinforce their fear of the outside world, thereby exacerbating the need to cling to the animals. These people are often severely depressed and suicidal. No by-law can address this problem.

That the by-law referring to the maximum number of cats be repealed and there be a rethinking of the whole concept of any legislative need to regulate residents’ family (animals are family members) as opposed to individuals’ rights to determine their own family.

The following are tentative recommendations, pending completion of the JCCS survey and full understanding of the nature and extent of the stray and feral cat problem in Windsor. However, if Windsor residents follow the trends previously described, then the following are our recommendations:

These animals are not a significant problem. 80 - 90% are neutered. Those that are not, usually do not go outside or are too young.

The reasons hypothetically vary from religious/cultural grounds to economic. Each reason will require a different but appropriate strategy from education to financial incentives to have their cats neutered. Mandatory neutering is not workable.

These cats can be helped by providing a Trap/Neuter/Release program combined with adoption or managed outdoor foster care.

Same as above, but since there is less chance of adoption, managed and/ or subsidized outdoor foster care is the best option.

It is likely that we may never know how many such cats exist. They are afraid of humans and elude detection.

Where they exist, managed feral colonies are the most effective programs. Cats are caught, neutered, vaccinated, then released into a controlled and managed environment.

There already are dozens, if not hundreds of wonderful Windsor citizens who at their own expense are caring for feral cats - including neutering, vaccination and other veterinary care. They are the true heroes of this city.

Beginning last fall, Jazzpurr Cat Care Society underwent an internal review of its mission, goals and objectives. We were and are very proud of the work we doing in helping homeless cats, but we also know that it is not nearly enough.

We hypothesize that the biggest problem is the abandonment of domesticated cats due in part to lack of decent alternatives. It is these cats that reproduce and suffer on the streets of Windsor.

There are not enough homes for all the abandoned domesticated cats. Until there are enough homes, the best and most workable solution is to control the reproduction of cats.

As a result of that process (and before this issue arose in City Council), we decided to explore the feasibility of opening a low-cost or no-cost spay/neuter clinic. It is to explore the need and support for such an endeavour that we commenced our survey.

We have researched the costs for start-up, monthly fixed costs, and the per/animal costs. Once we can accurately quantify the need for such a service and have reasonable expectations for capital and operating revenues, we will open such a clinic, and if invited, offer a proposal to the city to provide spay/neuter services.

Initial responses in our survey regarding support for such a service are overwhelmingly positive.

Through its many educational efforts, Jazzpurr Cat Care Society helps people choose kind and loving ways of dealing with animals - and in many instances with each other.

To address the core cause of animal abuse, we have joined with the Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse in a collaborative educational campaign. We are very proud to announce that through a very special private grant, we have been able to fund a year-long program of billboard educational programs encouraging people to

2. Patronek, Gary, J. 1998. Free-roaming and feral cats - their impact on wildlife and human beings. JAVMA, Vol 212, No. 2, January 15, 1998.

3. Alley Cat Allies. Health care for feral cats: Zoonoses: Potential health hazards for humans. P.O. Box 397, Mount Ranier, Maryland, 20712.

4. Cary, Mimi. 1998. Feral cat management alternatives. City of Berkeley, CA 94704.

5. Zaumbrecher, Karl I. And Smith, Richard E. 1993. Neutering of feral cats as an alternative to eradication programs. JAVMA Vol 203, No. 3, August 1, 1993.

6. Bradshaw, John. VETMED, March 24, 1998. Antrhozoölogy Institute, Southampton University, UK.

7. Brown, David. Personal Communication, March 24, 1998. Program Manager, Environmental Division, Windsor/Essex County Health Unit.

8. Strong, Martin. Personal Communication. September 1994. Director of Communicable Diseases, Windsor/Essex County Health Unit.

9. Johnson, Karen. 1995. National Pet Alliance Report on Trap/alter/release Programs. Cat Fanciers’ Almanac, July 1995, pp. 92-94.

10. Alley Cat Allies. 1997. Feral Cats, New Environmental Witch-Hunt. www.feralcat.com/wtchhunt.html

11. Hartwell, Sarah. 1995. Why Feral Eradication Won’t Work. www.feralcat.com/sarah2.html.

12. Avanzino, Richard and Rockwell, Pamela. 1995 San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty Animals Position Statement Against Mandatory Cat Licencing.

13. Cat Fanciers’ Association Legislative Committee Guidance on Issues: 1992. Individual Cat Licencing.

14. Miller, Joan. 1997: CFA Opposition to a Cat Tax, Mandatory Rabies Vaccination and Cat Nuisance Penalties in Barnegat, New Jersey.

15. San Diego County Animal Control Advisory Committee Subcommittee on Cat Licencing. Report to the Sand Diego County Board of Supervisors, November 22, 1993.

16. Lewellen, Laura and Johnson, Karen. 1994. Considering Cat Licensing for San Jose. National Pet Alliance.

17. The Animal Council. 1995. The San Mateo County Pet Overpopulation Ordinance: A Legislative Failure. An Evaluation of Statistics and Reports. P.O. Box 168, Millbrae, CA 94030.

18. National Pet Alliance: 1992-93 Fiscal Year Report Card on the San Mateo County Pet Overpopulation Control Ordinance. P.O. Box 53385, San Jose, CA 95153.

19. Bergler, Reinhold. 1989. Cat And Man: The Benefits of Cat Ownership. Don Mills: Oxford University Press.

21. Keene, James, City Manager, City of Berkeley. Memorandum to the Mayor and Members of City Council. February 28, 1998.

22. Burt, Cecily. No more catching critters. Oakland Tribune, Tuesday, July 29, 1997.

23. Manning, Ann Marie and Rowan, Andrew N. Companion animal demographics and sterilization status: Results from a survey of four Massachusetts towns. Anthrozoös, Vol V, No. 3, (192-201).

24. Nasser,R., Mosier,J.E. and Williams, L.W. AM J Vet Res, vol 45 (2), pp 282-287. February, 1984.

25. Johnson, Karen. National Pet Alliance’s Survey Report on Santa Clara County’s Pet Population. 1993.

26. Johnson, Karen. National Pet Alliance’s Santa Clara County’s Pet Population South County Report.

27. National Pet Alliance. San Diego: Survey Results. http://www.fanciers.com/npa/sdresults.html

28. Handy, Geoffrey. Measuring your community’s pet population, owner attitudes. Shelter Sense, May 1993, pp 3 -12.

29. Sturla, Kim. Fixing the feline. The Animals’ Agenda. September/October 1997.

30. Johnson, Karen. National Pet Alliance Report on Trap/Alter/Release Programs. Cat Fanciers’ Almanac. July 1995, pp. 92 - 94.

31. Kellert, Stephen R. Biophilia and Humanity. New York: Delta Society Conference, October 1994.

32. Newman, Steve. Earthweek: A Diary of the Planet. When the Cat’s Away. The Windsor Star. February 28, 1998, p. E7.

33. Kennedy, Christina M. The cycle of abuse: The link between the exploitation of women and exploitation of animals. Animal People (from Carl Sagan website).