Prohibition of the Care, Feeding, or Sheltering of Feral, Wild, or Stray Animals

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed policy regarding the prohibition of caring for feral, wild, or stray animals on campus. I appreciate the college’s intent to maintain safety, cleanliness, and alignment with state regulations.

I would like to respectfully share some concerns about the current draft and its potential impact on our campus community.

1. Long-standing Community Partnerships

   Our college has historically collaborated with reputable animal welfare organizations—such as Best Friends Utah and other community partners—to responsibly support the well being of our campus cats. These partnerships have not only aligned with humane best practices but have also helped manage local animal populations through structured programs such as trap neuter return (TNR) and monitored feeding.

   Eliminating the ability for staff and partners to engage in these practices may unintentionally undo years of coordinated, effective population management.

2. Impact on Campus Safety and Facilities

   Ironically, prohibiting established feeding/sheltering practices can sometimes increase safety and cleanliness issues. When community cats are part of a structured care program, they are predictable in their locations, healthier, and less likely to seek food near trash areas or buildings.

   Without managed care, there is a risk that animals will:

   • Seek shelter in hazardous or inappropriate areas
   • Roam unpredictably
   • Reproduce more rapidly
   • Contribute to greater long-term maintenance challenges

   Allowing controlled, humane management generally reduces these risks and maintains a stable, healthy population.

3. Humane and Ethical Considerations

   The college has always taken pride in fostering a compassionate, community minded environment. Many faculty, staff, and students care deeply about the welfare of the animals that live on our grounds. A complete prohibition may send an unintended message that conflicts with our values.

4. Potential Opportunities for Policy Refinement

   Rather than a total ban, the college might consider alternatives such as:

   • Allowing care only through authorized programs run with vetted community partners
   • Establishing designated feeding/shelter stations managed by Facilities or approved volunteers
   • Implementing a TNR-based management approach
   • Creating a permit system for controlled involvement

   These options uphold safety and regulatory compliance while still supporting humane animal management.

B. Removal of Feed Stations and Shelters

1. Facilities and Environmental Health & Safety teams are authorized to promptly remove and dispose of any food, water, or shelters left for feral, wild, or stray animals found on or in college facilities.”

When does this go into effect? What does this mean for the community cats that are on the various campuses?

I am concerned about the effect that this policy will have on the stray cat colonies that live at the Jordan, Redwood, and Miller campuses. It is my understanding that we have coordinated with local organizations to ensure that these cats are safe. I worry this policy would penalize well-meaning individuals who are acting benevolently. Consider adding a clause about individuals assuming personal liability rather than out right prohibiting this behavior.

I presume this is specifically related to the feral cat colony at the Taylorsville campus. First off, they are a long standing part of the traditions of SLCC. Second, as a professor that researched domestic animal and wildlife behavior in college and who worked in animal welfare for over a decade, it’s important to understand some key concepts. You are going to get feral cats no matter how you try and mitigate them. Even if you euthanize them, you will just get what’s referred in the research as a vacuum effect where more just show up. Bailing water won’t plug that leaky boat. Which bring us to what you can do to manage the issue: the evidence based and most humane (a ndtherefore the least damaging from a PR standpoint) way to manage them it to TNR (trap, neuter and vaccinate, and release.) This was what was happening for a awhile. The above new policy would run counter to that. If it’s not happening anymore, we are lucky in Utah to be home to Best Friends, the world’s largest proponent of these programs for feral cat colonies. If management of the colony has faltered, I’m happy to help SLCC partner with community orgs like Best Friends to get it functional again. Otherwise, this is going to 1) fail and you’ll end up with more feral cats that are also unchecked disease vectors and population bombs (no matter how many you euthanize) and 2) be a huge PR nightmare that’s going to harm SLCC moral. Another key part of managing issues like this is considering human factors (as it’s referred to in research.) Again, I am happy to help SLCC with my expertise in any way possible to actually address the issue. Because this won’t.

In addition to the points already raised, we should evaluate how this proposal affects the ecological balance at our various locations. Specifically, we need to consider how changes to the stray animal population might influence pest suppression efforts.

I agree with everyone in that a ban is not the solution.

I agree that there should be a shared goal of reducing stray cat populations and protecting campus health and wildlife… however, evidence-based approaches (like managed TNR programs) have demonstrated proper success when it comes to long-term population decline.

This WILL hurt morale. Also…cats are incredibly clean creatures by nature, so I do not really see the pointed countermeasure of “maintaining college facilities’ cleanliness,” especially at the risk of dispersing and destabilizing these colonies…

Please reconsider your approach.

In my limited interaction and time working with staff at Best Friends Society and reading through the literature that exists on evidence based practice regarding TNR colonies, I find the purpose of the document to be at odds with the policy. The stated purpose of the document reads: “The purpose of this policy is to protect the health and safety of the Salt Lake Community College community, maintain college facilities’ cleanliness, and preserve local wildlife by prohibiting the feeding, care, or sheltering of feral, wild, or stray animals in or on college facilities.” Based on what we know about feral and stray cats, i’m not seeing how this action helps protect the health of our staff when peer-reviewed literature suggests it would do the exact opposite. I’m not suggesting we have to commit to the cat colonies at our campuses. I would like to see the purpose of the document align to the prohibitions of TNR colonies on campus.

I agree with those who have responded that this is not the right solution for many reasons. I support [the 1st commenter’s] recommendations above.

I agree with all the above comments. This is not the solution. I understand that stray cat populations may present some challenges, but they also help control rodent populations in and around campus.

I also agree with the above comments. It would be interesting if the College can produce evidence that banning the feeding of the resident cats will accomplish what the proposed policy is designed to do. Also, is there any evidence that caring for the cats has produced any harm?

I also agree with all of the above comments and that this ban is unnecessary.

I had hoped it would not come to this. And I agree this is not the solution. The providers worked with Prior to this proposed policy, the cat caretakers and the SLCC administration met to find ways to provide shelter for our feral cats and also minimize the contact with the campus population. From my experience when the cats were removed many years ago the rat population grew and openly roamed the campus. The cat population is ageing, and I think this is mean-spirited and cruel approach. This policy is misguided and I do not see the benefits it proposes to “protect the health and safety of the Salt Lake Community College community....” Respectfully--please abandon this stance.

If you take away the cats’ designated food, they will start scavenging trash and litter. If you take away the cats’ designated shelters, they will find their own in every nook and cranny around campus. I don’t see the cats as being a nuisance right now, but this policy risks turning them into one.

P.S. I don’t have numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if our windows kill more birds than the cats do.

Halting TNR operations will only make the issue of stray cat populations worse, exactly as [another commenter] has stated. As stray cat populations rise, ecological damage and health risks also rise. This strategy is not aligned with its proposed rationale. We need to use evidence-based practice to guide policy.

As someone who has been associated with this college for over 15 years, I feel compelled to express my concern regarding this recent policy change. In my experience, this is one of the more troubling decisions I have seen implemented during my time here.

The community cats on campus have served an important role, not only in pest control—particularly at the Miller Campus, where the Culinary Arts program operates—but also in fostering a sense of connection and morale among students and staff. These cats have been a long-standing part of the campus environment.

It is also important to note that sightings of the cats have been infrequent and generally limited to a few designated areas. Personally, I can count on my hands the number of times I have seen them. Their presence has been minimally disruptive while still providing clear benefits.

In many communities, including my old neighborhood in Sandy, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs are commonly used and have proven to be an effective and humane method of managing community cat populations. In some cases, cats are even relocated to areas specifically for natural pest control purposes.

Rather than removing the cats under this new policy, I would encourage the college to consider reinstating or formally supporting the volunteer group that has responsibly cared for these cats for many years. A structured, well-managed TNR program could address concerns while preserving the benefits the cats provide.

During construction at South City, for example, the number of trapped and deceased rodents created sanitation challenges that took facilities weeks to resolve. Situations like that illustrate how managed community cats can serve as a natural and preventative solution.

I respectfully urge the administration to reconsider this policy and explore alternative approaches that balance campus safety, humane practices, and the positive contributions these animals have made to our college community

I am writing in opposition to the proposed prohibition policy, and I want to offer a research-informed alternative for the Cabinet’s consideration.

The Cabinet’s goals are the right ones. Protecting health and safety, maintaining campus cleanliness, and caring about local wildlife are things I care about too. Where I disagree is whether this policy will actually get us there. The evidence suggests it will not.

The scientific literature on feral cat management is consistent on one point: removing or cutting off care for an established colony does not reduce the population. It triggers what researchers call the “vacuum effect,” a well-documented ecological phenomenon where removing a territorial population opens up the habitat for new, unmanaged, and unvaccinated animals to move in and take their place. A study published in the peer-reviewed journal Wildlife Research (Lazenby, Mooney, and Dickman, 2015) found that low-level culling of feral cats in Tasmania produced a 75 to 211% increase in the number of cats alive in the targeted areas during the culling period. We would not be solving the problem; we would be setting the stage for a larger, harder to manage one.

We also have long-term peer-reviewed research conducted on college campuses specifically. A 28-year TNR program at the University of Central Florida was documented in a peer-reviewed study published in the journal Animals (Spehar and Wolf, 2019). Over that program, the campus cat population declined by 85% from the initial census, with 11 of 16 colonies fully eliminated. These results held even as UCF’s enrollment grew significantly over the same period. A nine-year TNR program at an Australian university similarly brought a population of 69 cats down to 15. These are not anecdotes; they are controlled, long-term observations at institutions a lot like ours.

On health and disease concerns, neutered and vaccinated cats in a structured TNR program are healthier and pose less of a public health risk than unmanaged populations. When we remove the structure, we lose the vaccination coverage too.

SLCC has built a culture that centers care and people. The cats at Jordan, Redwood, and Miller campuses are part of the fabric of those places for a lot of people here. An abrupt removal of care programs for animals that have been part of organized, humane efforts for years would be a morale hit that I think we are underestimating.

We are also fortunate to have Best Friends Animal Society right here in Salt Lake City. Best Friends runs the nation’s largest no-kill sanctuary for companion animals and has become a national leader in the no-kill movement, with active TNR programs running in Salt Lake City right now. They have partnered with municipalities and institutions across Utah to design structured, effective community cat programs. If our coordination with community partners has lapsed, Best Friends is an obvious and accessible organization to re-engage.

I am asking the Cabinet to table this policy and work with staff, faculty, and community partners to develop a structured Community Cat Management Policy instead. I have added a draft framework to this comment and am happy to support the development of that program in any way that would be useful.

Policy Title: Community Cat Management Policy
Purpose: To protect the health and safety of the Salt Lake Community College community, maintain campus cleanliness, and support humane and evidence-based animal population management by establishing a structured, monitored approach to the management of community cats on college grounds.
Policy Statement: Salt Lake Community College recognizes that unmanaged feral and stray cat populations present real concerns for health, safety, and campus operations. The college also recognizes that prohibition of care, absent a structured management strategy, is not supported by scientific evidence as an effective population control measure and is inconsistent with the college’s values of compassion and community. Accordingly, the college will pursue an evidence-based Community Cat Management Program in partnership with vetted animal welfare organizations.

Procedures:

Authorized Program Only. Feeding, sheltering, or providing care for community cats on college grounds is permitted only through the college’s designated Community Cat Management Program. Unauthorized, uncoordinated feeding or sheltering is not permitted.

Program Administration. The Associate Vice President of People and Workplace Culture, in collaboration with Facilities and Environmental Health & Safety, shall designate a Community Cat Program Coordinator responsible for overseeing the program, maintaining records, and serving as the primary liaison with community partners.

Community Partnerships. The college shall establish a formal Memorandum of Understanding with at least one vetted animal welfare organization (such as Best Friends Animal Society Utah) to support trap-neuter-vaccinate-return (TNVR) services, population monitoring, and ongoing colony management.

Designated Feeding and Shelter Stations. Feeding and shelter stations shall be placed only in pre-approved locations determined by Facilities in consultation with the Program Coordinator, sited to minimize contact with the campus population and maintained to uphold campus cleanliness standards.

Colony Records. The Program Coordinator shall maintain current census records for each campus colony, including the number of cats, their TNVR status, vaccination records, and health observations.

Population Reduction Goals. The program shall operate with an explicit goal of reducing colony size over time through TNVR, socialized cat adoption placement, and natural attrition, consistent with the evidence-based outcomes documented at peer institutions including the University of Central Florida and comparable university campus programs.

Health and Safety Protocols. Any cat displaying signs of illness, injury, or aggressive behavior shall be reported to the Program Coordinator, who will coordinate with veterinary partners on appropriate response. Diseased or injured animals will be humanely handled in accordance with partner protocols.

Annual Review. People and Workplace Culture shall conduct an annual review of the program, including colony census data, any reported incidents, and progress toward population reduction goals, to be reported to the Cabinet.

Unauthorized Animal Care. This policy does not authorize the feeding or care of wildlife, including birds, rodents, or other native animals, or the keeping of personal pets on college grounds. Those prohibitions remain in effect.

I agree with my colleagues above, and would like to echo some of the previous points made.

The prohibition and removal of feeding stations and shelters will likely destabilize current feral and stray populations, possibly leading to increased safety concerns. Even without official feeding stations, food sources will likely be constant at the college, both from the environment and well meaning students, which could further increase unpredictable and unsafe wildlife behavior.

As others have said, a structured TNR program would be an effective, long term solution. It controls population growth and supports campus safety. I also believe that it’s important for us to uphold our culture of compassion for the local wildlife, to benefit our students, community relationships, and of course the much-loved cat population at the Taylorsville campus.

I agree with all of the comments above. Another unfortunate proposal that does not make sense. What is this attempting to resolve? Very, very, sad.

It’s disappointing to see us step back from supporting the feral cat population, especially when humane management options like TNR programs have proven effective. Allowing the cats to go without food isn’t a solution—it’s an avoidable cruelty that reflects poorly on our community values. We should be looking for compassionate, sustainable approaches, not abandoning animals who rely on us. Who in cabinet doesn’t like cats? Why is this a problem?

[The first commenter] said it best and I support everything said.

Our efforts with community partners have helped keep our campus cats safe and healthy, as well as helped manage the local populations; without the ability to do this on campus, not only will it harm the relationships with our community partners, it will likely see an increase in animals on/around campus. And like [the first commenter] said, without these programs in place, it will likely see an increase in issues around campus related to the animals; allowing humane management reduces risk and maintains health of the animals and our campus.

[The first commenter’s] suggested alternatives seem to fit better with what might be the spirit of this policy(?) but without harming animals, our community partnerships, or abandoning our values.

Please don’t implement this policy.

I agree with all of the above comments.

I have no expertise in this area, but I agree with all the comments from my colleagues, there is a much better approach to finding a solution than prohibition all together. We are a community college for a reason, and I agree with partnering with an organization to address this “issue” and allow our employees to a be a part of this.

Just adding my support to all of my colleagues’ comments above. There are many people on campus who are more informed about this issue than I am, and I appreciate the detailed research-based recommendations that have been provided. I will say that I have been at the college for 20+ years, and I can affirm that enacting this policy will have a significant impact on campus morale. Whatever specific problems need to be solved, there is a better way to solve those problems than this policy.

I also agree with the above comments and sentiments. This seems unnecessarily cruel and ignores SLCC commitment to community. This is one of the practices at SLCC that makes me proud to be part of such a caring and thoughtful working environment.

I agree with the above, this is not a solution. Unsheltering, and not helping with food (that is not paid for by the college but the individuals helping) for them, is not going to change that fact that there will be a stray cats on campuses. By having these cats on campus, they are helping reduce the rodent population to the buildings. In my experience with the cat colony at Redwood, there was a selected team that fed and cared for the cats on certain days and watched out for those who could be sick and need attention.

This is disappointing. [The earlier commenter’s] draft proposal [Policy Title: Community Cat Management Policy] better reflects our values.

I like the cats because they reduce the rodent population.

This is just silly all around, I’d love to be snitched on by feeding a cat on campus who keeps rodents away. Beyond silly

I further support the above measures. But in the event that the college is committed to removing the cat colonies, Best Friends TNR programs or similar would need to feed, shelter and care for the cats in order to humanely trap them. They can be relocated to other colonies (farms sometimes accept stray colonies for their beneficial pest control).

But there is, as has been said, a warm feeling among the SLCC community for our cats.

What health and safety threats are being addressed by this policy?
How do the prohibitions outlined in this policy reduce threats to health and safety?
What local wildlife does this policy aim to preserve, and how?
Why are stray, wild, and feral animals all lumped together when they represent very different considerations and concerns?
How does this policy address the longstanding agreements with community partners to help feral cats on campus and protect the campus community through an evidence-based, TNR approach?

[The first commenter] put it very well. When we take away resources, the issue does not go away, it becomes someone else’s problem.

If we need to clean up spaces, then this should be added as an initiative. There are many people at the college who care deeply about the population of cats, and I myself am disappointed in SLCC for considering a community joy a nuisance.

If we are concerned about native wildlife, I would be more than happy to discuss solutions to help support native wildlife in tandem with the shelters in order to serve both communities instead of taking away resources. Myself and multiple of my instructors have asked many times to be included in any plans for outdoor spaces so that native wildlife might be included in considerations for plant systems, however I have never been contacted for comment except for a small patch on the north side of South City. As far as I can tell, the majority of this advice was disregarded since the area was still turned into a zeroscape with only a few different species of plants and is otherwise rocks. This does not support native communities and is actively causing compaction and contributing to water loss for the area.

I am concerned with the colleges decision to use the support of native wildlife as a reason to stop supporting these stray cats since this will cause them to seek out prey animals which WILL include native birds, rodents, and possibly even local pets like chickens.

This decision is based on a poorly researched idea and is being implemented without proper rational oversight. Until real data can be provided supporting this decision, it needs to be taken back to the planning phase and reevaluated for effectiveness.

How long have these cats been on campus? For years, we’ve taken care of them and now we’re going to simply abandon them AFTER they’ve become dependent on us. This is very disappointing as well as being cruel.

Although it seems like having cats on the campuses might add to the “uncleanness,” it seems that there might be a better solution involving the community partnership [the first comenter] proposed in the comments. Are you sure you want to be the Community College that has nothing better to do than to rid the world of all the evil cats? Because you know that’s how it will unfortunately play out in the news cycle... When you could tout the partnership that cares for the uncared for... ;)

I agree with the comments above. The cats are part of our identity as a college. Let us use this opportunity to teach and educate not eliminate.

Like many of my colleagues, I oppose this policy. As a community college, our identity is rooted in the idea of community as a lived practice of care, stewardship, and shared responsibility. The cats who live on our campus have become part of that environment and are known to students and employees alike. I am especially appreciative of the experts who have weighed in with research demonstrating that abruptly ending managed care is not an effective solution. As they’ve mentioned, evidence-based approaches such as monitored feeding and trap-neuter-return programs are widely recognized as more humane and more effective at stabilizing and gradually reducing feral cat populations. Engaging established community partners with expertise in animal welfare would allow the college to address legitimate concerns in a responsible and collaborative way.

While I understand the policy’s stated goals of health, safety, and facility maintenance, a blanket prohibition risks creating unintended consequences. It signals a shift away from the relational, community-centered practices that have long defined us. Enforcement alone does not resolve complex ecological or campus concerns; thoughtful stewardship does. It is also clear that there is significant passion among faculty and staff for this issue. I’m sure this is also an issue students are passionate about. Rather than narrowing the response to prohibition, could we channel that energy into a structured forum or working group that brings together campus stakeholders and community partners to develop a thoughtful, research-informed path forward?

On a tangential note (and I will be explicit that this is a cat pun), perhaps this is an opportunity for SLCC to be more “purr-poseful” in how we approach shared challenges. What if, beyond this immediate issue, we adopted the educational practice of a Community Solutions Lab model as an innovative way to return to the core ideal of what community colleges should do in advancing our civic purpose? Such a model could invite students, faculty, staff, and community partners to engage pressing campus and regional issues. For example, this could start with a conversation about the feral cats on campus, the environmental and public health implications of climate change and our drying lake, and how we support unsheltered members of our community. Rather than treating these as peripheral or administrative matters, we could view them as opportunities for collaborative inquiry and applied problem-solving that will, in turn, help us prepare civically engaged graduates who will benefit our community well beyond their labor. In doing so, we would not only address immediate concerns but also reaffirm our role as a convening space where community challenges are met with shared responsibility, creativity, and care.

The policy above states “promptly remove”. My question is what is that removal processs actually entailing? Are we actually removing the animals and giving them a good place to live? Are you protecting facilities members for any injuries during this process? At the end of the day, it seems out of touch to try and get rid of a “problem” that may be preventing many other problems that we are not aware of. The data given above is a good starting point to be informed on this issue, and I’m sure a win-win-win situation could be worked out for everyone.

I do not feel this is the right solution to this issue. The cats at the Redwood Library have always been an amazing part of that area knowing they took care of pests and lived on their own. We need rules but not an outright ban.

This ban on the cats will just cause more struggle for the cats that have found a home here and remove a sense of community for students and staff that enjoy the cats. This will also not stop cats from migrating onto campuses. The majority of the campuses are within or near neighborhoods where cats will naturally migrate onto the campus due to the amount of hiding, natural space, and food source. Why not foster the cat communities that already exist on campuses and have been reliable, whereas if they are gone then we don’t know what cats or animals will come on campuses that are now “uncontested territories”.

I agree with the majority of my coworkers who have pointed out that no longer managing the cat population will not make the issue go away, but could possibly make it worse.

The removal of the cats would be extremely disappointing. They bring a sense of community to many and joy to staff and students on campus. There are many willing to take care of them and their needs as long as they’re given permission to too.

I also agree with previous statements made about this policy. This is not the solution. This policy really seems cruel and I am wondering why SLCC feels the need to enact a policy that seems to support animal cruelty?

I agree with the above comments. The University of Hawaiʻi Manoa (my Alma mater) tried out a policy such as this and they were overwhelmed with rodents within 3 months. After that, they worked with on- and off-campus partners to manage the colonies of campus cats which, again, eliminated the rodent problem on campus. This policy will set our campuses back years in both animal welfare partnerships and health. We will have a lot more sick, non-neutered cats and a lot more rodents - neither of which is healthy for our campuses. I do not support this policy, it was crafted with good intent but is ultimately myopic and antiquated in its approach to campus cat colonies.

I submit this comment on behalf of [a commenter] Vigos from Whiskers, a Utah-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that has responsibly managed the community cat colony at Salt Lake Community College’s Redwood Campus since 2019.

“Prior to Whiskers’ formal assumption of management, I oversaw the colony as a staff member of Best Friends Animal Society.

In 2015, as both a Civically Engaged Scholar of SLCC and a staff member of Best Friends, I formally presented a comprehensive community cat management plan to the college cabinet. That plan addressed concerns, corrected misconceptions regarding community cats, and provided a structured management framework. The proposal was approved by the cabinet and staff association for lifetime management of the colony.

I respectfully request clarification regarding the basis for reconsidering that 2015 approval, which was intended to provide long-term stability and management continuity. The original approval contemplated ongoing collaboration and good-faith efforts to address concerns as they arose.

For more than a decade, the Redwood colony has been fully sterilized, vaccinated, medically monitored, and responsibly maintained. The colony originally consisted of more than 23 cats and has naturally decreased through aging and attrition to approximately 13 today. There has been no reproduction within the original managed colony.

On the rare occasion that an unsterilized cat appeared from the surrounding area at Redwood, we fulfilled our commitment by trapping, sterilizing, vaccinating, ear-tipping, and returning to the original location when appropriate under Utah law. This is the standard and evidence-based model of effective Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) management.

Utah law explicitly authorizes community cat programs. The Utah Community Cat Act (Utah Code §§ 11-46-301 through 11-46-307) recognizes sterilized, vaccinated, ear-tipped community cats as part of a lawful population management strategy and contemplates ongoing colony care as part of stabilization. The City in which the Redwood Campus is located has adopted provisions consistent with this law. The Miller Campus, located in Sandy, also falls under this statutory framework and was included in the original agreement.

Community cats are domestic cats. Lack of socialization does not transform a domestic cat into wildlife under the Wildlife Resources Act.

Likewise, the citation to the Cruelty to Animals Act (Utah Code § 76-9-301 et seq.) warrants clarification. That statute addresses abuse, neglect, and intentional harm. It does not prohibit humane feeding, vaccination, sterilization, or lawful colony management authorized under the Community Cat Act. Accordingly, the Cruelty to Animals Act should not be interpreted as a basis to dismantle a lawful, longstanding TNR management agreement.

It is also important to consider animal welfare implications. Under § 76-9-301, cruelty includes abandoning an animal or failing to provide necessary food, water, care, or shelter to an animal in one’s custody. While managed community cats are not “owned” in the traditional sense, removing relied-upon food and shelter sources without a structured humane transition plan presents significant welfare considerations. If relocation is required, Whiskers must be permitted to continue care throughout the relocation process to ensure humane standards are upheld and unnecessary suffering is avoided. The policy does not specify an effective date or provide a humane transition framework when authorizing Facilities to remove relied-upon food and shelter sources.

It is critical to understand the ecological impact of removal. Eliminating a stable colony will trigger what is widely recognized as the “vacuum effect.” The environmental resources on campus — waste bins, dumpsters, landscaping, and sheltering areas — will remain. The existing sterilized cats currently occupy and stabilize that territory, preventing influx from surrounding neighborhoods. Their removal will create open territory into which unsterilized cats will move and reproduce. The result will be renewed breeding cycles and increased reliance on facilities to manage this resurgence.

Removal does not eliminate cats; it eliminates management.

Notably, the Redwood colony has not generated the concerns referenced at other campuses. Those situations were not managed by Whiskers and should not serve as justification for dismantling a program that has functioned successfully for over a decade.

Across Utah, institutions of higher education recognize that TNR is both humane and fiscally responsible. Examples include:

• University of Utah
• Utah State University
• Southern Utah University

These institutions recognize that properly managed colonies reduce nuisance behaviors, prevent reproduction, stabilize populations, and provide natural, chemical-free rodent control. Managed programs reduce institutional burden; unmanaged populations increase it.

Additionally, the original 2015 management plan included posted signage identifying the cats as a managed colony and discouraging unauthorized feeding. At the Miller Campus, the removal of signage contributed to unmanaged feeding behaviors by community members. Clear communication and visible management are preventative tools that support institutional oversight.

The proposed policy authorizes Facilities to “promptly remove and dispose of” feed stations and shelters. If relocation of the Redwood colony is required, Whiskers respectfully requests written authorization to maintain access to feed and shelter locations through July 31, 2026, to allow for humane, phased relocation of what is now a largely senior population.

We respectfully request:

• Affirmation of the 2015 cabinet approval for lifetime management of the Redwood and Miller campus colonies.
• Written clarification permitting continued care access through July 31, 2026, should relocation proceed.
• Inclusion of an exception within this policy for properly managed community cat programs consistent with Utah Code §§ 11-46-301–307.
• A collaborative meeting to review documented colony data, long-term population outcomes, and discuss structured expansion of managed programs across campuses where appropriate.

For more than a decade, Whiskers has ensured no unmanaged expansion at the Redwood campus. The colony has reduced naturally and remains stable. Removing a managed, sterilized colony will not resolve concerns; it will create new and ongoing institutional responsibility.

Whiskers remains willing to partner with the college to implement structured, lawful community cat management across campuses.

Our organization has demonstrated long-term commitment, transparency, and accountability. We respectfully urge the college to maintain collaboration rather than dismantle a program that has proven humane, lawful, and effective.

Respectfully,
[commenter]
Whiskers”

This is very upsetting to me. One of the things I loved about this school was that students helped take care of the feral cats. I am very upset over this proposed policy and am utterly against it.

I would like to cosign everyone’s comments thus far that the removal of the cat shelters, especially during winter, and the prohibition against the management of the Redwood colony in particular goes against well-studied best practices. I would be interested in seeing what data the college is using to make this new policy.

As noted by several other commenters, this policy would cause more harm than good: it would cause a Vacuum Effect with more cats coming onto campus; sudden removal of management and support will only lead to sick cats. This would punish the SLCC volunteers who have so diligently cared for this local community.

Additionally, it’s my understanding there was some concern over cleanliness around child-focused areas on campuses other than Redwood; we do not have that issue here in Taylorsville. I understand not wanting to make an unfair exception, but it seems only right to reward, not punish, those who have successfully managed our local community at SLCC campuses. Please reconsider this policy.

As an alumni and staff at slcc this is wrong and should not be put into place!

I agree with [the commenter above] #SAVETHECATS

I agree with the previous comments expressing concerns about this policy. SLCC is a community college, and the campus cats have become an important part of that community. It would be extremely disappointing to see them removed. I do not support this policy.

The cat population is part of our community. Many people on campus care deeply about them, and for some, caring for them has become a meaningful act of compassion and connection. When moving straight to prohibiting feeding, care, or sheltering altogether, it feels like SLCC is skipping over an opportunity to lean into our values of collaboration, community, and inclusivity.

Rather than resorting to an outright prohibition, there’s space for a more balanced solution, one that addresses health and wildlife concerns while also acknowledging the human and ethical dimensions of the situation (my colleagues shared some great ideas in this comment section).

If our institutional values truly center collaboration and community, this feels like an opportunity to bring stakeholders together to co-create a thoughtful plan. A policy rooted in care and shared responsibility may ultimately be more sustainable and more reflective of what the college say we are.

I’m reaching out to discuss the stray cat population at SLCC. While I understand the intent behind prohibiting animal care, research and past campus initiatives suggest that a managed approach is more effective for public safety.

Instead of a total ban, I propose we adopt a formal Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) policy. By partnering with organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, we can ensure these cats are vaccinated and sterilized at no cost to the college. This addresses health concerns while allowing a specific, authorized group of caretakers to manage the cats responsibly, ensuring our campus remains safe and clean.

I actually support this policy. The community cat program may be good for some employees’ morale, but it is unimportant or a nuisance to many others at the College. The feral cats are an invasive species. They are not a native species to Utah, and they cause a direct, ecological impact on native species and environments. In fact, the Western Governors Association, of which Utah is a member, has feral cats listed as number 13 on their list of the top 50 invasive species in the West.

Managing the cats shouldn’t be about maintaining and sustaining a population for years into the future. It should be about effective containment and reducing the population of an invasive animal. A policy discontinuing cat supportive activities that achieves this goal makes a lot of sense over current practices.

The evidence isn’t conclusive that TNR programs work or that community cat programs are beneficial. Several research articles point to the ineffectiveness of small-scale TNR programs (Crawford et al., 2019, Lepczyk et al., 2022, Aeluro et al., 2021, Peterson et al., 2012). TNR programs increase reproduction for unsterilized cats and attract new cats that are either already in the neighborhood or are abandoned/brought to the College (Crawford et al., 2019, Lepczyk et al., 2022). Other articles are critical of the assertions made on cat colony caretakers webpages and social media because their suggested TNR best practices haven’t been explicitly tested (Peterson et al., 2012). Not even PETA supports TNR programs like the one at the College.

Research also suggests that feral cat colonies don’t reduce rat populations through predation. Some rats may leave the area, but most stay and just learn to avoid the cats. Cat colonies really only reduce the sightings of rats or vermin. Instead of killing rats, the cats are killing “easier” prey like native birds. (M. Parsons et al., 2018)

Further, the cat program that exists at the College doesn’t comply with the city codes for the campuses that have cat programs. Taylorsville City Code (8.01.04.17.B) states that people or organizations providing care to feral cats must do the following:

1. Obtain permission from the owner of the property whereupon the shelter and food is provided. (It seems the College is rescinding this permission.)
2. Take responsibility for feeding the cats throughout the year and ensuring that feeding areas are secure from insect, rodent, and other vermin attraction or harborage. (The current placement of cat food and shelters on the Taylorsville campus doesn’t comply with this.)
3. Maintain contact with governmental agencies to ensure sterilization, vaccination, and ear tipping of all adult feral cats. (This may be the only point in compliance.)
4. Remove droppings, spoiled food, and other waste from the premises as often as necessary and at least every seven days. (The cat program doesn’t clean-up the cats’ droppings or other messes and leaves it for the College to clean-up.)

West Jordan City Code (6-3B-3.C.6) states that community cat caretakers must register with the City’s Animal Control Division, receive a community cat caretaker permit, and identify the approximate location of the colonies they intend to care for. Caretakers must also provide proof to the City that they mailed a notice to all property owners within a designated range that they will engage in care taking activities and have a sign posted on their property to give notice of their caretaking responsibilities. West Jordan does not have provisions for starting or maintaining a cat program on someone else’s property. Caretakers must also keep sterilization and vaccination records for a minimum of 3 years.

Sandy City has provisions in its code (12-1-25) for a community cat program run through their animal shelter and adoption center. They don’t provide the option of establishing a separate cat colony caretaking operation.

Per Utah Code 11-46-303(3), the cat caretakers do not have custody of any of the cats in a community cat colony. They are not pets and they aren’t being abandoned. Discontinuing the program is not animal cruelty.

A lot of time, effort, and money is being directed at this topic. It seems like these resources would be better used if channeled toward helping students or the College achieve their goals. The College has tried to be accommodating of the cat program for over a decade. It’s only been in the last few years that they’ve tried to establish clearer expectations and boundaries on the program in response to problematic behavior from the cat caretaker community. This approach hasn’t worked nor discouraged current and former employees, approved caretakers or not, from feeding and/or establishing new colonies (like Jordan Campus and the West Valley Center), introducing new cats to the colonies, and placing feeding and shelter stations in unauthorized places. The issue isn’t the cats being on campus. The issue is that it’s simply no longer an initiative that is tenable. While the law does allow for community cat programs and colonies, it doesn’t require the College to participate if the College decides that it’s not in its best interest to do so.

I agree with these comments. Just saying don’t feed or water animals is not a helpful solution. I think SLCC can do better for a conscious living and caring campus.

As the other staff have stated, I find this to be a poor solution to a non-existent problem. With a unique perspective as someone who is both a student and an employee, I can say firsthand that I have seen the impact these cats have had on students. I have personally heard stories of others saying that after spending time in the Testing Center on the Redwood campus, they felt disheartened with their testing results, and seeing the stray cats gave them personal motivation.

Outside of morale for staff and students, if the entirety of this goal is to potentially protect students, I think it should be deeply considered that the reality is most stray cats will often find shelter regardless of whether or not it is provided. In a state with inclement weather such as Utah, this is often in and around cars. These stray cats seek warmth from car parts in the winter, as well as protection against heat in the summer. If we truly are concerned about student safety and morale, it should be seriously considered what the effect of unintentionally killing a stray cat could not only do to a student, but to the SLCC community as a whole.

If it is more a concern about presentation and the college not wanting to be associated with these animals, I believe it would be a much better solution to move shelter to more discreet areas, as completely removing shelter will not remove the cats. Years and generations of cats in the colony have known SLCC as a safe area and will continue to return to it, shelter and food provided to them or not.

Outside of this, faculty may understand the consequences of feeding and sheltering these cats, but students may not. Removing a food bowl will not stop a student from throwing their leftover lunch meat to the strays.

Overall, I find this to be a completely unnecessary “problem” that needs to be fixed, and I know that an institution as great as this one should support the community and reflect the communities views. I believe that this policy does not align with those values, and should be reconsidered.

I agree with all of the comments previously posted by my co-workers. The cats on Taylorsville Campus cause no harm, keep campus clear of vermin, and with continuing the safe TNR practices that have been set we can continue to have campus be clean, clear, and a safe environment for the cats and students/staff/faculty. Removing the cats won’t cause anything other than frustration for staff members who have dedicated hours and years to managing their outdoor shelters and bathrooms, and there is no guarantee that the cat’s wont come back to campus once they’ve been removed. Which then will cause sanitary issues due to the oversight being removed. Truly - what is the harm with allowing the cats to remain on campus? This policy has been attempted before and there’s been no direct communication with what administrations issue is with these animals. To my understanding the cats stay outside (other than the one time one snuck into a building and got stuck), are we planning on putting up fencing and netting to not allow geese on campus? They cause more mess and disruption than the cats! We are all creatures on this earth and should not put ourselves above our other co-beings and say they’re not allowed to exist in certain spaces. It is outside. They can live outside.

I just want to add please take into consideration predator-prey dynamics and by eliminating the feral cat population, plan on the rodent prey population increasing quite a bit. Prey such as rodents have more diseases, including bacterial and viral, associated with them than do the cats especially if practicing TNR. I have experience from prior institutions who tried to get rid of the cats, had an explosion of rodents and had to backtrack and try and re-introduce because it was so bad. Just be mindful of the potential consequences here.

I am not in favor of this policy! Ever since I was a student here, the cats have always been a part of our community at SLCC, removing them will only cause more frustration.

I agree with my peers in this comment section. I am not in favor of this policy. I have never had an issue with the cats, and I have never heard any student complain about them either. There are bigger issues to discuss.

I was unaware that such a policy was under consideration by the college. I largely support the policy for ecological reasons, but I suspect there will be a lot of public blowback. The emotional investment and attachment towards cats on campus by employees, students, and the larger community (as indicated by comments here) suggests that even if this policy were adopted, it would likely be thwarted or ignored.

By the time I read the proposed policy, many comments against it were already posted. Although some comments used phrases like “evidence-based”, very few included citations for that evidence. The proposed policy provides references to two Utah statutes, but it does not include any scientific support or reasoning. I’ll add some here as responses to statements made in other comments, although I won’t be able to address everything to keep this relatively brief.

TNR (Trap-neuter-release)

Despite what some comments here have suggested, there is no scientific consensus that TNR (or variants, like TTVAR) is an effective or ethical method of reducing feral cat numbers. Scientific support leans against it being effective (Boone 2015), primarily because TNR efficacy requires high levels of implementation and low levels of immigration (Schmidt et al. 2009, Gunther et al. 2022). For most TNR efforts, at least one of those two is not met. However, anyone confidently stating a particular position on TNR effectiveness is likely falling victim to confirmation bias by selectively ignoring contradictory evidence. As an example of the lack of consensus: in response to efforts in Australia to reduce feral cat populations, a review of empirical data suggested that TNR has several ethical and welfare issues (Crawford et al. 2019). This was disputed by Wolf et al. (2019), who stated that Crawford et al. misunderstood the purpose and process of TNR. Two responses to Wolf et al. address their specific criticisms (Calver et al. 2020) and challenge their general assertions (Read et al. 2020). While there is support for TNR being effective in some contexts (Luzardo et al. 2025), most studies do not support a claim of widespread efficacy (Lepczyk et al. 2022).

Boone 2015
Schmidt et al. 2009
Gunther et al. 2022
Crawford et al. 2019
Wolf et al. 2019
Calver et al. 2020
Read et al. 2020
Luzardo et al. 2025
Lepczyk et al. 2022

I have insufficient data about the cats on Redwood campus to determine if this is a situation in which TNR could be effective. [One commenter] stated: “On the rare occasion that an unsterilized cat appeared from the surrounding area at Redwood, we fulfilled our commitment by trapping, sterilizing, vaccinating, ear-tipping, and returning to the original location … For more than a decade, the Redwood colony has been fully sterilized, vaccinated, medically monitored, and responsibly maintained. The colony originally consisted of more than 23 cats and has naturally decreased through aging and attrition to approximately 13 today. There has been no reproduction within the original managed colony.” This suggests a high capture rate and low immigration rate that could allow TNR to be more successful. However, anecdotally, [this commenter’s] statement is not entirely correct. Since September 2020, I have conducted regular (at least once per week) surveys around nine buildings to monitor for bird-window collisions. Through this activity, I frequently see a large portion of campus, and this occasionally includes observations of cats. During 5+ years of monitoring, I have twice encountered kittens (without intentionally looking for them) that were likely birthed and reared on campus given their small size and limited mobility. Thus, some reproduction is likely occurring on campus. Further, I worked with a student to monitor campus wildlife during April 2024 to February 2025 using trail cameras. We recorded at least a dozen distinctive cats, but nearly all appeared to have intact ears (not ear-tipped), indicating that they had not yet been captured as part of the TNR effort on campus.

VACUUM EFFECT

There were a couple comments about the “vacuum effect” (meaning that removal of cats from a site would just pull in more cats from surrounding areas), but there isn’t much research about it that is directly relevant to cat colonies. It seems the idea is based on the observation that sterilized cats roam less than intact cats but still maintain territorial behaviors which should prevent immigration of new cats (Mahlow & Slater 1996). As one comment noted, one study provided some experimental support for this idea (Lazenby et al. 2014). However, sterilized cats do not always roam less (Guttilla & Stapp 2010) and large numbers of cats at colonies imply that territories are not really maintained when supplemental food is available. In addition, Lazenby et al. themselves state (p. 417): “Clearly the low-level culling effort we used did not constitute a sustained, multi-faceted, long-term downward pressure on our study populations, which may be required if culling is to be used … Rather this study provides evidence that ad hoc culling of feral cats may be not only ineffective, but has the potential to increase the impact of feral cats.” In other words, part of the reason they observed an increase in the cat population was their low-level reduction efforts, and a more sustained effort would have likely succeed in reducing the cat population. Also, studies that involved greater trapping intensity and duration did reduce cat populations (e.g., Herrera et al. 2022). Thus, the hypothetical and empirical evidence for a vacuum effect to increase the cat population at SLCC is not supported, especially if a long-term effort for cat removal is pursued in conjunction with a cessation of systematic feeding.

Mahlow & Slater 1996. Current issues in the control of stray and feral cats. J Am Vet Med Assoc 209(12):2016-20.
Lazenby et al. 2014
Guttilla & Stapp 2010
Herrera et al. 2022

CLEANLINESS

A few comments indicated that they consider cats to be clean and/or that they believe this policy would lead to decreased cleanliness on campus, which would be the opposite outcome from what the policy intends. I agree that cats tend to be fastidious, but that is not the same as being sanitary. In fact, cats are known to carry and transmit diseases to wildlife, other domesticated animals, and humans (Gerhold & Jessup 2013, Ma et al. 2022, Mendoza Roldan & Otranto 2023, Black et al. 2025). Pregnant women are recommended to avoid changing cat litter because of the risk of toxoplasmosis which can cause fetal complications (Stiepan 2022). Anecdotally, cats leave a lot of fecal material on campus, which can spread disease (e.g., toxoplasmosis). Again, because I regularly walk around the outside of campus buildings for a separate research effort, I observe feces (mostly feline, but occasionally from dogs) near most buildings, but it tends to be concentrated at buildings that have a small rocky substrate (e.g., pea gravel), like the AAB. If any efforts to support cats on campus will be continued into the future, they should require cat-care personnel to clean up after the cats by removing feces.

Gerhold & Jessup 2013
Ma et al. 2022
Mendoza Roldan & Otranto 2023
Black et al. 2025
Stiepan 2022

WILDLIFE

A few comments suggested that cats are not harming native wildlife because they’re being fed. However, Loyd et al. (2013) reported that 49% of wildlife kills by owned cats wearing cameras were abandoned, suggesting that hunger was not always the driver of hunting behavior in cats. Domestic cats (Felis catus) are not native to North America but were derived from the African wildcat (Felis lybica), which occurs in Africa and Asia (Driscoll et al. 2007), meaning that wildlife in North America did not evolve with these cats and may therefore be more vulnerable to them. Domestic cats are efficient predators with a generalist diet (Lepczyk et al. 2023), and they have caused numerous extinctions of native wildlife (Doherty et al. 2016, Woinarski et al. 2019). Feeding stations concentrate these proficient hunters in densities higher than would be sustainable with limited natural food resources, but feeding does not eliminate hunting activities (Cecchetti et al. 2021, Plimpton et al. 2021). This intensifies predation pressure on wildlife populations already reduced due to other human modifications of the environment. Rufino et al. (2025) reported that among 810 wild vertebrates (birds, mammals, and reptiles) admitted to a rescue center due to injury by cat, 73% died and 4% were euthanized. Cats also impose indirect (non-fatal) negative effects on wildlife (Bonnington et al. 2013, Diaz et al. 2022). Individual variation in behavior may mean that particular cats pose a lower threat (Cecchetti et al. 2020), but cats as a whole certainly have had a negative impact on wildlife (Loss et al. 2022).

Loyd et al. 2013
Driscoll et al. 2007
Doherty et al. 2016
Woinarski et al. 2019
Cecchetti et al. 2021
Plimpton et al. 2021
Rufino et al. 2025
Bonnington et al. 2013
Diaz et al. 2022
Cecchetti et al. 2020
Loss et al. 2022

PEST CONTROL

A few comments mentioned that cats should be retained on campus for pest control purposes. For the same reasons that cats are reducing wildlife (i.e., efficient predation), they can be effective pest control. Indeed, typical pest species (e.g., house mouse, Mus musculus) are often well-represented in analyses of domestic cat diets (Lepczyk et al. 2023), particularly in urbanized areas (Plimpton et al. 2021). Baker et al. (2003) reported that abundance of a small rodent was inversely related to cat abundance, indicating that the rodent was limited by cat predation. However, cats prioritize attacking weaker prey, and may avoid attacking larger pests (e.g., rats, Rattus sp.) that could fight back and cause injury before being subdued. Parsons et al. (2018) reported that cats increase avoidance behavior in rats but rarely attack them, perhaps making it appear as though rat numbers had been reduced even when they weren’t. Additionally, supplemental foods may attract pests, as several studies have found rats in higher densities near cat feeding stations even with higher predation by cats (Tamayo-Uria et al. 2013, Ayyad et al. 2018). Thus, some pests may just shift location rather than decrease in numbers in response to fed cat colonies. Even if pest control is effective, cats will contribute harm to native wildlife, as outlined above. Analysis of continental predation patterns indicates that in North America >220 bird species have been recorded as prey for domestic cats (Philippe-Lesaffre et al. 2024), even though birds are rarely the pest implied in pest control.

Lepczyk et al. 2023
Plimpton et al. 2021
Parsons et al. 2018
Tamayo-Uria et al. 2013
Ayyad et al. 2018
Philippe-Lesaffre et al. 2024

Even if we remove the cats or stop feeding them, other cats will come in and the issue will still be here. At least these cats at the Redwood campus have been neutered and cared for and are beloved by the community. It is cruel to remove their food and shelter when they’ve been relying on us for years. The cat group at SLCC at Redwood is volunteer based, we provide it with our own money and donations to my knowledge. Please let us continue our own community formed group and continue feeding the cats. We want to branch off to other campuses too to prevent this issue from happening. We have new members every so often who are excited to feed the cats and be apart of this group. It gives them a sense of community and responsibility within SLCC.

If there are problems of students/people abandoning cats at campuses, we should put signs up first or notices in the SLCC today message to not abandon any animals and you will be punished by it. It would be sad to punish all the cats for some people not following the rules.

If we enforce this, are we also enforcing no unleashed dogs or the geese who come over here from the stream nearby? I always see dog walkers here in the morning and some have them unleashed. One has jumped on me as well during lunch one time. I have never seen the cats here bother anyone and they typically run away if you try to pet them. As the comments have stated, the community will be negatively affected by this policy, and we urge you to reconsider.

If the college does commit to a community-based partnership (Whiskers, Best Friend Animal Society), what office or role will be RESPONSBILE for maintaining that partnership and ACCOUNTABLE for its continued success?

Thayne Center doesn’t have a current MOU with Whiskers. Our MOU with Best Friends Animal Society doesn’t have any specifics regarding care for animals at our campuses. I want to be clear - student fees are not the appropriate source for covering this partnership or sustaining this practice at SLCC. The MOU referenced connects students with the larger organization for its regular functions.

The continuity piece seems to have been lost from whatever “approval” may have happened in 2015. What office should have kept record of that conversation?

I am strongly opposed to this policy. The cats at SLCC have been a quintessential aspect of the Redwood campus for years, even when I was a student in 2012. This policy undermines all of the hard work SLCC students, staff, and faculty may have invested in coordinating proper care of the feral and stray cats that found their way to this property. I cannot imagine all the time and effort they have taken to build partnerships on and off campus all for a good cause. How insulting is it to then propose a policy that would ban them from continuing that work without considering the harm it would cause to all those involved?

I think SLCC should take responsibility, and enact a collaborative approach that adheres with SLCC values by establishing an official partnership with a local organization for the sole purpose of maintaining the feral cat colony. They can certainly build on all of the work that has already been done to accomplish this goal. I do not think that Thayne Center should be responsible for the partnership and it should not be funded by student dollars, but rather, I believe that Facilities should maintain the relationship. Doing so better aligns with their mission “to create and sustain safe, reliable, and welcoming environments where students can learn, grow, and succeed.” Preserving physical and living aspects of the campus that add to that welcoming environment should be their responsibility. I wholeheartedly oppose SLCC engaging in cruel tactics to isolate, starve, harm, and/or injure the feral cats via this policy. Doing so would demonstrate a abhorrent lack of commitment to collaboration, community, integrity, innovation, and trust.

If this does go into effect, how will the current population be removed? This could turn into a PR nightmare. It would be unfortunate if we were known as the Institution that destroyed a cat population by allowing them to starve. (Do we really think that would work anyway?) This is the kind of PR we do not need. What happens when new animals arrive? Let’s use our Biology researchers to help with this situation.

Full disclosure so that comment readers know where potential bias might come from in my comment.

I am a part time student. I am a full-time staff who’s worked for SLCC since October 2019. From October 2019 to end of June 2022 I worked as a custodian on the Taylorsville Redwood Campus. Since July 2022 I’ve worked in financial aid at the Redwood Campus. I also have a background in working in animal care, approximately 4 years. Approximately 3 and a half years of that was with the Humane Society of Utah. I worked mostly in the adoption area but worked on the transfer team and the intake area as well.

I am in favor in violation of 1B. “abandoning any live animal on or in college facilities.”. I recommend adding resources to this for people who are in need of rehoming their pet. Salt Lake County Animal Shelter’s website has a variety resource for pet owners including a link to Utah Humane Society programs and services for pet owners needing to rehome their pet.

I am not in favor of violation 1 a, l leaving food, water, or shelter on or in any college facility for the purpose of feeding and sheltering animals.

First concern is that this policy would harm members of the community that live around SLCC campus who have reason to believe that their lost pet is lost somewhere on a SLCC campus.

To reference the comment that [was] made on behalf of an employee who wished to remain anonymous WGA does have Feral Cat listed as 13 of 25 for the top 25 Terrestrial Invasive Species of the West, but reviewing the document Utah is not listed as one of the terrestrial survey participants. In addition, feral cats like most invasive species are the fault of humans. While SLCC is not the direct cause of the feral cat population it can fulfill its purpose to educate people to prevent more abandonment leading to more feral cats and practice appropriate stewardship for wildlife. Another reference to this comment is the link provided to PETA’s site is merely their stance on it and is not a research page. A personal observance in relation to PETA and what weight their opinions should carry is none, because of a problematic history and most animal shelters in the area do not affiliate with them.

I do come across dog/cat droppings, but not an unusual amount. I do actively have to avoid goose droppings at least once a year and did spend a couple nights with a power washer trying to clean the parking lot walkway to the student center of bird droppings when I was a custodian. Now while I did not experience myself as a custodian my mom did when she worked as a custodian for a post office. Someone would leave food for cats in the middle of the sidewalk and not in a container this did leave residue on the sidewalk and attract birds and bugs. If there are not designated areas for feeding and even if feeding is forbidden people are going to feed cats which runs the risk of the food on sidewalk scenario.

I will echo other comments about the PR nightmare that can follow, I will also add on that SLCC and Humane Society of Utah do share at least one donor the Eccles Foundation. There is good probability that there is more overlap than we realize of donors.

Recommendations in relation to violation 1 a. Do not implement as it is.

Instead implement a policy that does not allow unauthorized feeding or housing of animals on campus.
Create and maintain partnerships with local communities such as Whiskers, Best Friends, Humane Society, Salt Lake County Animal Services etc. to feed, clean up after, provide care for, track, and actively trap cats to assess if they are a candidate for trap neuter release, a lost pet, or if they are suitable for adoption. This will enhance trust the community has for SLCC which is linked to one of our mission values. This will also open opportunities for SLCC Serves Day activity options, and potential partnerships for work study positions. Animal shelters have IT staff, marketing staff, accounting staff, and even could use engineering/construction students to help improve animal facilities.

Provide high quality cat housing on campus. Funding for this can actually come from shared donors of SLCC and other animal shelter groups. they love sticking their name on things.

The elimination of the feral cat population across our campuses carries a lot of emotion for many who have cared for them over the years. As we adapt to the changes within and throughout our communities, isn’t this an opportunity to do things differently and have a more positive impact on the greater community?

I appreciate [a previous commenter’s] recommendation to adopt an educational practice of a Community Solutions Lab model. This seems like a powerful way to model civic responsibility while also strengthening workforce-readiness skills – particularly critical and abstract thinking as we think about ISLE and the competencies we want students to learn. It offers a structure where students, staff, and faculty can work together to deepen a sense of belonging, engage in meaningful problem solving, and develop the ability to move beyond surface level symptoms to identify root causes and solutions. Is there a more effective approach than this—one that positions the community college as a true civic anchor while cultivating the skills and mindset our students need?

This policy is not aligned with best practices of managing community cats. There are experts at SLCC and the Salt Lake County Community that could provide guidance on the best long term management of community cats on and near SLCC campuses. This policy seems to not align with statements made many times since I have been an SLCC employee that the community cats would not be harmed now or in the future. I would like to see this policy not moved forward until conversations with experts in this field are included.

I am disappointed to read about this policy, and I feel as though it is cruel. In addition, I feel as though the college has taken the word “community” out of community college. I have had the wonderful opportunity to go on at least 3 college sponsored alternative break trips as a staff advisor with SLCC college students to Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kanab, Utah. There we learned about TNR programs and how to navigate and support community cats. SLCC is an educational institution, and I feel as though the college is missing out on the opportunity to educate and work with community partners. This greatly saddens me and really hope the college reconsiders this policy.

1. Policy
   1. This policy feels reactionary. The Policy Statement should function as a clear statement of purpose, not an announcement or notice of a recent issue. Policy language must be durable, neutral, and procedural. If the tone or structure reflects an announcement style approach (reactive, situational, or event driven), it undermines the stability and longevity expected of institutional policy.
   2. The Policy Statement states that the prohibition applies to visitors as well as students, employees, and contractors. However, the policy does not explain how enforcement applies to visitors, particularly those who do not receive policy communications or training and who may be on campus briefly or intermittently.
2. References
   1. No Comments on References.
3. Definitions
   1. No Comments on Definitions
4. Procedures
   1. 4.A: The heading “Violations” frames the section in punitive terms. Because the content primarily defines prohibited conduct (what individuals may not do), renaming this section to “Prohibited Conduct” would improve clarity and make the section more accessible without changing its substance.
   2. 4.B: The sentence structure is unclear and contains duplicated wording (“and and”). The intent appears to be that Facilities and EHS are authorized to work in a humane and ethical manner with local shelters and/or animal control to remove and dispose of food, water, shelters, and any animals found on or in college facilities.
      1. Consider rewording to something like: “Facilities and Environmental Health & Safety are authorized to work with local shelters and/or animal control, in a humane and ethical manner, to remove and dispose of food, water, shelters, and animals found on or in college facilities.”
   3. 4.B.1: The sentence “The college will take every humane and ethical [action] to find a place for the feral and stray animals” requires clarification and correction. It is grammatically incomplete, and the policy does not outline how humane or ethical placement decisions will be made.
   4. 4.B.1: Additionally, while definitions of feral, stray, and wild animals are provided (Section 3.C–E), the policy does not establish procedures or controls for identifying an animal’s category. This is particularly important because species commonly found on campus—e.g., rats, rabbits, geese—may appear “wild” but could also be lost pets or domestic animals.
   5. 4.C: The heading “Reporting Violations” frames the section in an enforcement only context. Because the section functions as a general reporting mechanism for any concerns, observations, or issues, renaming the header to “Concerns or Reports” (or simply “Reporting”) would make the section more neutral, accessible, and aligned with how community members typically engage with safety related reporting.
   6. C.1: Currently states “Individuals observing violations…”, which frames reporting as identifying wrongdoing. To avoid creating a punitive or “tattle tale” perception, the phrasing should be revised to focus on safety concerns rather than confirmed violations. A more neutral approach encourages reporting based on observations or potential issues, not judgment.
   7. General Comments
      1. Overall, the policy reads as reactionary and may come across as corrective or punitive in tone. Policy language should inform and guide the community, not give the impression of “scolding” or reprimanding individuals. A more neutral and educational framing would better support compliance and community trust.
      2. Considerations:
         1. Reframe sections to emphasize health, safety, and wildlife protection rather than punishment or corrective action.
         2. Balance prohibitive language with brief context explaining why certain actions are restricted.
         3. Ensure the tone remains delicate, neutral, and educational, supporting voluntary compliance rather than defensiveness.
   8. The policy does not include a carve out for sanctioned academic activities, creating potential conflicts with legitimate instructional or research practices. Faculty and students may engage with wildlife or environmental conditions as part of coursework or research (e.g., using bird feeders to study behavior, conducting building collision studies, or other field based observational work). Without an explicit exception, these activities may be unintentionally prohibited.

Comment posted on behalf of [commenter], Community Cat Coordinator, Best Friends Animal Society in Utah (received via email on 3/3/2026)

To Whom It May Concern:

My name is [commenter’s name redacted due to deidentification for public posting]. I am an alum of Salt Lake Community College and currently work for Best Friends Animal Society. For many years, we have had the privilege of knowing that compassionate individuals—including several SLCC staff members—have served as caregivers and stewards to a group of community cats residing on campus.

Community cats are unowned, free-roaming cats who live outdoors and thrive in their outdoor environment. Best Friends Animal Society and other animal welfare organizations use the term “community cats” because these animals are part of the communities in which they live and are often supported and cared for by people of that community.

It has come to our attention that SLCC is considering a policy change titled “Prohibition of the Care, Feeding, or Sheltering of Feral, Wild, or Stray Animals.” After reviewing the proposed policy and its stated purpose, I would like to address several points. Many of the assumptions underlying the policy do not align with the realities of the campus cat population, and in practice, the policy may produce outcomes opposite to its intended goals. I also noted that the references cited in the policy do not accurately apply to community cats. Utah’s Community Cat Act provides a more relevant and appropriate framework.

1. Policy Purpose vs. Current Conditions

   The stated purpose of the policy is to “protect the health and safety of the Salt Lake Community College community, maintain college facilities’ cleanliness, and preserve local wildlife.” However, the presence of a managed community cat population has historically supported employee morale, fostered a sense of community, and contributed positively to staff well being. Mental health is an increasingly recognized aspect of workplace wellness, and the cats have been a meaningful source of comfort and connection for many staff members.

   Additionally, when SLCC opened the policy for public comment, we became aware that the overwhelming majority of feedback submitted by staff opposed implementing the prohibition.

2. Distinguishing Community Cats from Wildlife or Stray Animals

   Community cats are domestic animals, genetically identical to pet cats who live indoors or partially outdoors. Their preference for outdoor living or their varying degrees of sociability do not categorize them as wildlife.

   They are also not stray cats. These cats are not lost or abandoned; they have lived on campus for years as a managed colony whose population has steadily declined through the humane and effective method of Trap Neuter Vaccinate Return (TNVR). Daily caregiving ensures they have food, water, shelter, and ongoing medical care—including dental care—thanks in large part to the dedication of caregivers such as Jessica Vigos, founder of Whiskers, a local nonprofit rescue.
   These cats are stable, healthy, and well-cared-for—not abandoned.

3. Risks Associated With Removing a Managed Food Source

   Eliminating a consistent food source does not improve health or safety. Instead, it creates desperation in animals who will be forced to seek food in ways they normally would not—such as entering garbage bins, approaching buildings, or attempting to cross nearby busy roadways. The Redwood Campus is surrounded by major streets, particularly to the east and west, increasing the risk of injury or death if cats are compelled to roam farther in search of food.

   Desperate cats are more noticeable, not less. Any resulting injuries or deaths would understandably cause distress for staff, students, and visitors.

4. The Vacuum Effect

   Removing a managed colony—whether by relocation or by creating an environment in which they cannot survive—triggers the well documented “vacuum effect.” When cats are removed, new, unaltered cats move into the territory and begin reproducing, restarting the cycle. The Alley Cat Allies resource on the vacuum effect explains this effect in detail.

5. Legal Considerations: Community Cats Are Exempt From Feeding Bans

   Under Utah’s Community Cat Act, community cats are explicitly exempt from feeding bans. The statute states:
   11 46 303 Community cats.
   (2) A community cat is:
   (a) exempt from licensing requirements and feeding bans; …
   (Full text of Utah Community Cat Act)

   Given this legal framework, the proposed prohibition would not apply to the managed community cat population at SLCC.

In light of the information above, we respectfully request that SLCC reconsider the proposed policy. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss humane, legally compliant, and effective management options that protect both the campus community and the cats who have long been part of it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Comments from [commenter from] Humane Society of Utah, were received via an email attachment on 3/3/2026. The comments have been forwarded to the policy sponsor.