Anecdotal evidence holds no weight over actual science. These cats are invasive and if you care about saving the environment and all the other animals who didn't ask to be killed by this virus of an animal we introduced you wouldn't feed them and allow them to live out the rest of their lives continuing to kill any small being they can capture just for fun.
so what, is geocentric theory still valid? science can form the wrong conclusions from the data present at the time. please read the one i linked that is much more recent. it includes this note:
"Nevertheless, it has been suggested that an “information vacuum” exists relative to the innumerable TNR programs carried out across the U.S. over the past 25 years [7] (p. 1). Because robust data from these programs have been scarce, determinations about program impacts have typically been based on anecdotal evidence [7,18,24]."
if they're saying that when this was published in 2017, what does that say about the 2003 one?
the study i linked supports community cat management strategies like TNR, a local cat shelter (no questions asked surrenders = less cats being dumped), and adoption of sociable cats. it does not say TNR is ineffective.
it varies from field to field, but in general around the 10 year mark is when the probability that a specific study is likely to be disproven becomes greater than the probability that it's results will hold. in some fields that have lots of attention/researchers or rapidly changing methods/tech, it's much shorter (look at how quickly the scientific evidence on mask effectiveness with airborne virus transmission turned over during corona). scientific shelf-life is real and one of the reasons why consensus among many studies is considered better evidence than individual studies.
I suppose that's fair and more up to date studies are preferred, but to be massively downvoted for linking a study from 2003 feels very strange. That's not a very old study and everything in it is maintained today.
Anecdotal evidence holds no weight over actual science. These cats are invasive and if you care about saving the environment and all the other animals who didn't ask to be killed by this virus of an animal we introduced you wouldn't feed them and allow them to live out the rest of their lives continuing to kill any small being they can capture just for fun.
https://abcbirds.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Castillo-and-Clarke-2003-TNR-ineffective-in-controlling-cat-colonies.pdf
link to something that isn't 17 years old at least.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704110/
17 year old science doesn't suddenly become not science, what?
so what, is geocentric theory still valid? science can form the wrong conclusions from the data present at the time. please read the one i linked that is much more recent. it includes this note:
"Nevertheless, it has been suggested that an “information vacuum” exists relative to the innumerable TNR programs carried out across the U.S. over the past 25 years [7] (p. 1). Because robust data from these programs have been scarce, determinations about program impacts have typically been based on anecdotal evidence [7,18,24]."
if they're saying that when this was published in 2017, what does that say about the 2003 one?
also btw, i'm not downvoting you.
You're here flaunting science and logic then go and say something as stupid as "is geocentric theory still valid"?
These two studies support each other. That's why, the 2003 one is not disproven by later studies. There is nothing wrong with having linked that one.
it was a joke.
the study i linked supports community cat management strategies like TNR, a local cat shelter (no questions asked surrenders = less cats being dumped), and adoption of sociable cats. it does not say TNR is ineffective.
it varies from field to field, but in general around the 10 year mark is when the probability that a specific study is likely to be disproven becomes greater than the probability that it's results will hold. in some fields that have lots of attention/researchers or rapidly changing methods/tech, it's much shorter (look at how quickly the scientific evidence on mask effectiveness with airborne virus transmission turned over during corona). scientific shelf-life is real and one of the reasons why consensus among many studies is considered better evidence than individual studies.
I suppose that's fair and more up to date studies are preferred, but to be massively downvoted for linking a study from 2003 feels very strange. That's not a very old study and everything in it is maintained today.
Yeah, def shouldn't be downvoted just for that