Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell, City Council member Trevor Ozawa and the entire Honolulu City Council are to be commended for their support of trap-neuter-return (TNR) to manage their community’s population of unowned, free-roaming “community” cats.

Last month, the Council unanimously approved a budget that allocates $300,000 for TNR efforts in Honolulu through June of next year.

As many elected officials will readily attest, such allocations can be quite controversial; many constituents have strong feelings for and against TNR. Add to this the misinformation and scaremongering that often accompany any discussion on the subject, and policy makers sometimes feel under fire from all sides.

Increasingly, though, elected officials are recognizing the considerable value in TNR: In most situations, it’s the only truly feasible solution available.

We can already hear the skeptics: TNR doesn’t work; the cats need to go; remove them!

But the science is quite clear: Only two methods have proven effective at reducing populations of free-roaming cats.

The first method is intensive eradication campaigns using lethal traps, poisons (deadly to other animals, too, including humans), hunting and introduced viruses. These have been employed successfully only on islands much smaller than Oahu (and generally uninhabited).

The second method is targeted sterilization efforts. Since eradication costs can exceed $100,000 per square mile (equating to more than $6 million for Honolulu, only about one-third of Oahu’s urbanized land area), this approach is a non-starter in public policy conversations.

Although some argue that the traditional approach to managing free-roaming cats (i.e., impoundment followed, in most cases, by lethal injection or gunshot) is more humane, there’s no evidence whatsoever that it has produced any permanent population reductions. It’s also wildly unpopular and costly, a poster child for failed public policy. Even setting aside for the moment the humane argument, then, we’re back to where we started: TNR.

Targeted TNR programs offer a common-sense, animal-friendly, effective, and economical alternative to lethal control methods. And, unlike lethal methods, TNR enjoys broad public support. No wonder such programs are becoming increasingly popular across the U.S. and internationally, in communities large and small, urban and rural.

Nevertheless, the debate continues. Indeed, the Honolulu City Council heard objections from stakeholders opposed to its budget allocation for TNR efforts, including the state’s Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR). It’s no secret that DLNR is opposed to TNR and outdoor cats in general; in the past two years alone, the agency has supported numerous legislative measures targeting these cats.

What DLNR has failed to provide — both in their legislation and their objections to Honolulu’s TNR plans — is a feasible alternative. Instead, the agency falls back on flawed science, empty rhetoric, and thinly veiled threat of legal action — none of which, it should be obvious, does anything to actually address what DLNR itself claims to be a serious problem.

Equally obvious: DLNR’s approach gives elected officials very little to work with. After all, their constituents expect solutions, however imperfect.

We applaud Caldwell and the Honolulu City Council for their commitment to TNR. It’s the right decision not only for the city’s community cats, but for the community itself and for the wildlife we all want to protect. Honolulu’s practical approach to managing its population community cats should be a model for the rest of Hawaii.

Basil Scott is president of Kauai Community Cat Project. Peter Wolf a policy analyst with Best Friends Animal Society.