Tim Bonner: Why won't the RSPB condemn cats?

Research published this week has suggested that domestic cats kill up to 270 million wild animals a year in the UK. The study tracked 79 cats in Hampshire and Berkshire and recorded the prey they brought home. Cats living on the edge of the countryside ranged over a greater area and killed, on average, 34 animals a year. This is more than those living in urban environments which killed 15 animals each. With a UK population of 9.5 million cats, the impact on wildlife is immense.

Despite this, the RSPB sticks to the position that "there is no clear scientific evidence that such mortality is causing bird populations to decline". There is, of course, a very sound ecological principle of a 'sustainable harvest' which underpins the hunting (in its broad definition) of wild animal populations, including fish. In simple terms that means that a proportion of the population of a species can be harvested without having an impact on its long term viability. The numbers of wild birds and mammals hunted in the UK are, however, tiny compared to the hundreds of millions being killed by cats.

Yet there is a stark contrast between the RSPB's interest in shooting and its concern about cats. A couple of years ago it dedicated almost its entire AGM to the announcement of a review of its policy on game shooting. Subsequently it carried out an extensive literature review, a consultation with stakeholders and produced a new, if predictable, policy calling for government intervention into many areas of game shooting. Whether this was justified is not really the point. The challenge for the RSPB is to explain why management for shooting, which it accepts "can have considerable wildlife benefits, for example by providing habitat that can benefit species other than gamebirds" is worthy of such scrutiny, whilst the killing of hundreds of millions of wild animals by cats is not.

If there is 'no clear evidence' as to whether this huge toll on wildlife is having an effect on bird, wild mammal and reptile populations then surely a responsible (and rich) conservation organisation like the RSPB should be urgently commissioning research to find out? It could use its AGM to announce a study and consult with its members and other stakeholders on their attitudes towards cat ownership and the impact of cats on the environment and biodiversity. It could review its policy and call for government intervention to reduce cat numbers and minimise their impact on wildlife. Of course it will do none of these things, because it is far too worried about upsetting its cat owning membership. That approach may protect the RSPB's income, but it does not protect its reputation. An organisation that will pander to a few activists and attack shooting, but refuse even to contemplate the impact of our feline killing fields is wide open to the charge of hypocrisy.