.

PLEASE CLICK HERE TO DONATE NOW - Help us protect the Cats and Birds in Hawai'i

.

The Coexistence Framework™ v2.1

An Adaptive Ecological Cat Population Management System

A Conservation Science-Based Management Framework for Community Cats, Wildlife Protection, Public Health, and Human Communities

Prepared by: Greg Puʻuwai Aloha Baker, Founder
Organization: Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy
Date: Draft v2.1 — June 2026

.

.
Executive Summary

The Coexistence Framework is an adaptive ecological management model designed to reduce unmanaged and free-roaming cat populations over time while strengthening wildlife protection, public health safeguards, animal welfare, and community accountability.

The framework is not based on the assumption that cats should remain everywhere. It does not reject conservation science, endangered species protection, predator management, or the vulnerability of Hawaiʻi’s native wildlife. Instead, it applies established conservation and environmental management principles to a complex, human-associated population problem that cannot be solved through single-factor policy alone.

The framework is grounded in:

• Adaptive Management,
• Conservation Biology,
• Systems Ecology,
• Landscape Ecology,
• Risk-based Prioritization,
• Outcome-Based Conservation,
• and One Health principles.

The central premise is simple:

Effective cat population management must reduce unmanaged reproduction, prevent abandonment, protect sensitive wildlife habitat, improve public health safeguards, and create measurable accountability across the full system.

The framework recognizes that ecological risk varies by landscape. A cat living in a dense urban area, a cat abandoned near a shopping center, a pet cat allowed to roam near native wildlife habitat, and a cat entering a seabird nesting area do not represent identical ecological conditions. Conservation policy must therefore distinguish between different habitats, different risk levels, and different management responsibilities.

To accomplish this, the Coexistence Framework organizes management into three operational zones:

1. Pet Cat Zone — prevention, ownership accountability, sterilization, microchip registration, and reduced abandonment.
2. Community Cat Zone — high-intensity sterilization, certified caretaker oversight, colony tracking, adoption pathways, feeding management, and population reduction.
3. Wildlife Conservation Zone — protection of sensitive habitat, conservation-manager authority, exclusion, targeted removal where necessary, predator management, and adaptive response.

This three-zone structure is supported by a closed-loop accountability system using:

• microchip-linked identification,
• automatic registration at implantation,
• caretaker-linked colony registration,
• certified colony caretaker standards,
• colony tracking software,
• monitoring metrics,
• conservation-zone coordination,
• and adaptive ecological review.

The goal is not to defend unmanaged cat populations. The goal is to replace unmanaged systems with measurable, accountable, science-based management.

The Coexistence Framework is intended to be evaluated under both a Conservation Science Rubric and a One Health Rubric. It therefore asks whether a proposed management approach:

• protects vulnerable wildlife,
• reduces unmanaged cat populations,
• prevents new cats from entering outdoor populations,
• improves disease-risk management,
• reduces suffering,
• uses measurable outcomes,
• adapts to local ecological conditions,
• respects conservation authority,
• and creates operational accountability.

The framework supports humane population reduction, not unmanaged coexistence. It recognizes that in sensitive wildlife areas, cats may require exclusion, removal, adoption, relocation where appropriate, or other conservation-directed interventions. At the same time, it recognizes that large-scale unmanaged reproduction, abandonment, feeding bans without sterilization, and untracked removal policies can fail to address root causes and may not produce durable conservation outcomes.

The Coexistence Framework therefore proposes a more complete management model:

1. Prevent new cats.
2. Stabilize and reduce existing community cat populations.
3. Protect sensitive wildlife habitat.
4. Monitor outcomes.
5. Adjust based on evidence.
   
   

Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary
2. Purpose of the Framework
3. The Management Problem
4. What the Framework Is — and Is Not
5. Scientific Foundations
   • Adaptive Management
   • Conservation Biology
   • Landscape Ecology
   • Systems Ecology
   • Risk-Based Prioritization
   • Outcome-Based Conservation
   • Goodhart’s Law and Conservation Metrics
6. The Three-Zone Adaptive Management Model
7. Pet Cat Zone
8. Community Cat Zone
9. Wildlife Conservation Zone
10. Closed-Loop Ecological Accountability
11. One Health Integration
12. Monitoring and Metrics
13. Conservation Safeguards
14. Implementation Pathway
15. Limitations and Research Priorities
16. Rubric Alignment
17. Conclusion
18. Framework Evaluation Checklist
19. Appendix A: Key Terms
20. Appendix B: Suggested Core Metrics
21. Appendix C: Foundational Scientific Principles and Key Sources
22. Index
23. About the Author
24. About Hawai’i Animal Advocacy
    

1.  Purpose of the Framework

The purpose of the Coexistence Framework is to provide a structured, science-based management model for human-associated cat populations in Hawaiʻi.

The framework is designed to help communities, policymakers, conservationists, animal welfare organizations, public health professionals, and land managers move beyond the polarized question of “cats versus birds” and toward a more accountable question:

What management system will most effectively reduce unmanaged cat populations, protect native wildlife, improve public health safeguards, reduce animal suffering, and produce measurable ecological outcomes?

The framework is intended to support:

• long-term reduction of free-roaming cat populations,
• reduced kitten recruitment,
• prevention of abandonment,
• improved pet owner accountability,
• protection of sensitive wildlife habitat,
• reduced migration into conservation areas,
• improved disease-risk management,
• more transparent monitoring,
• and better coordination among animal welfare, conservation, public health, and community stakeholders.

This document is not intended to replace species recovery plans, endangered species protections, conservation management plans, or agency authority. Wildlife managers retain authority within protected and sensitive conservation areas.

Instead, the framework is intended to strengthen conservation outcomes by addressing the full system that produces unmanaged cat populations in the first place.

2.  The Management Problem

Hawaiʻi’s cat population challenge is not caused by a single factor and cannot be solved by a single intervention.

Unmanaged outdoor cat populations are shaped by interacting drivers, including:

• unsterilized pet cats,
• abandonment,
• inadequate microchip registration,
• uncontrolled reproduction,
• kitten recruitment,
• inconsistent colony management,
• lack of caretaker accountability,
• public feeding without sterilization,
• feeding bans without population control,
• fragmented agency authority,
• lack of shared data,
• sensitive wildlife habitat,
• disease concerns,
• and community conflict.

When these factors are managed separately, policies often fail to address root causes.

For example, removing cats from one location without addressing abandonment, reproduction, food sources, and immigration may create temporary reductions without long-term stabilization. Similarly, public feeding bans may reduce visible feeding activity but do not automatically sterilize cats, prevent abandonment, stop reproduction, protect wildlife, or create monitoring systems.

At the same time, unmanaged outdoor cat populations can create real ecological and public health concerns, especially near sensitive wildlife habitat. Conservationists are correct to require rigorous attention to wildlife vulnerability, endangered species protection, disease ecology, and habitat-specific risk.

The Coexistence Framework begins from the position that both realities must be addressed:

1. Unmanaged cat populations are a serious management failure.
2. Simplistic or non-adaptive policies may fail to produce durable conservation outcomes.

A more effective system must manage the entire pathway by which cats enter, persist, reproduce, move across landscapes, and interact with wildlife and human communities.

3.  What the Framework Is — and Is Not

The Coexistence Framework is a structured adaptive management model.

It is not:

• a claim that cats belong everywhere,
• a defense of unmanaged colonies,
• a universal TNR-only policy,
• a rejection of conservation science,
• a rejection of predator management,
• or a claim that all landscapes should be managed the same way.

The framework is:

• a population-reduction strategy,
• a prevention strategy,
• a conservation accountability strategy,
• a humane management strategy,
• a One Health strategy,
• and an adaptive governance model.

The framework accepts that some areas, especially sensitive wildlife habitats, may require intensive protection, exclusion, targeted removal, and conservation-manager-directed intervention.

At the same time, the framework recognizes that broad policies focused only on removal, feeding prohibition, or numerical cat reduction may fail if they do not also address reproduction, abandonment, pet-owner accountability, community behavior, and long-term monitoring.

The framework therefore asks management systems to be judged by outcomes, not slogans.

4.  Scientific Foundations

The Coexistence Framework is grounded in established principles used across conservation and environmental management.

4.1 Adaptive Management

Adaptive management recognizes that ecosystems are dynamic, uncertainty exists, and management actions must be adjusted based on monitoring and measured outcomes.

Applied to cat population management, adaptive management means that policies should not be fixed around ideology or a single preferred tool. Instead, management intensity should adjust based on:

• habitat sensitivity,
• cat population trends,
• sterilization rates,
• kitten recruitment,
• immigration and abandonment,
• wildlife incidents,
• disease-risk indicators,
• and observed management effectiveness.

A policy that fails to reduce unmanaged reproduction or protect wildlife should be revised. A program that reduces kitten recruitment, stabilizes populations, prevents migration, and improves wildlife outcomes should be strengthened.

4.2 Conservation Biology

Conservation biology prioritizes the protection of biodiversity, native species, endangered species, ecological function, and habitat integrity.

The framework recognizes that Hawaiʻi’s native wildlife is uniquely vulnerable because of island evolution, habitat loss, invasive species, disease, climate pressures, and human-caused landscape change. Sensitive wildlife areas require heightened protection and professional conservation oversight.

The framework therefore does not treat all cats or all places the same. It distinguishes between human-associated environments and high-risk conservation areas.

4.3 Landscape Ecology

Landscape ecology recognizes that ecological processes vary across space. Risk is not evenly distributed across a landscape.

A cat near a seabird colony, wetland, forest bird habitat, or endangered species nesting area presents a different level of ecological concern than a cat in a heavily modified urban or commercial area.

The Coexistence Framework applies landscape ecology by organizing management into zones and matching intervention intensity to ecological sensitivity.

4.4 Systems Ecology

Systems ecology recognizes that ecological problems are shaped by interacting variables.

In cat population management, relevant variables include:

• pet ownership behavior,
• sterilization rates,
• abandonment,
• feeding practices,
• food availability,
• kitten survival,
• disease ecology,
• movement patterns,
• wildlife vulnerability,
• predator guild interactions,
• enforcement systems,
• and community cooperation.

A policy that targets only one variable may produce unintended consequences elsewhere in the system. For example, banning feeding without sterilization may disperse cats, reduce monitoring, weaken caretaker cooperation, or leave reproduction unaddressed.

The framework therefore manages the system, not just the visible symptom.

4.5 Risk-Based Prioritization

Risk-based conservation prioritizes management resources where ecological vulnerability and potential conservation benefit are greatest.

The framework applies this principle by prioritizing intensive wildlife protection within sensitive conservation zones while using prevention, sterilization, adoption, and monitoring in human-associated zones.

This allows limited resources to be directed toward measurable conservation benefit rather than symbolic or undifferentiated action.

4.6 Outcome-Based Conservation

Outcome-based conservation evaluates success through ecological results, not activity alone.

Relevant outcomes may include:

• reduced wildlife mortality,
• improved nesting success,
• reduced cat migration into sensitive habitat,
• reduced kitten recruitment,
• reduced unmanaged feeding,
• reduced abandonment,
• fewer nuisance complaints,
• lower shelter intake,
• and long-term population reduction.

The framework does not assume that any intervention is successful simply because it was performed. Sterilization, removal, enforcement, feeding management, adoption, and exclusion must all be evaluated by their outcomes.

4.7 Goodhart’s Law and Conservation Metrics

Goodhart’s Law warns that when a measure becomes a target, it may cease to be a good measure.

In conservation management, this is relevant when simple metrics such as “number of cats removed” or “number of cats sterilized” become substitutes for actual ecological outcomes.  Removing many cats from low-sensitivity areas may produce less conservation benefit than preventing a smaller number of cats from entering high-sensitivity nesting habitat. Similarly, sterilizing cats without monitoring population trends may not prove long-term reduction.  The framework therefore supports metrics, but it requires that metrics remain connected to ecological outcomes.

.
.

5.  The Three-Zone Adaptive Management Model

The Coexistence Framework organizes management into three operational zones.

This structure clarifies responsibility;

• Pet owners are responsible for pet cats,
• Certified caretakers are responsible for registered colony oversight,
• Conservation managers are responsible for sensitive wildlife areas,
• Public agencies are responsible for policy, enforcement, data coordination, and funding systems that support measurable outcomes.
  

6.  Pet Cat Zone

6.1 Purpose

The Pet Cat Zone focuses on prevention.

The largest long-term source of unmanaged cat populations is often not managed colonies, but the continued entry of new cats into the outdoor population through abandonment, unsterilized pet reproduction, lost pets, and inadequate owner accountability.

The Pet Cat Zone is designed to reduce this inflow.

6.2 Management Standards

Recommended standards include:

• • sterilization of non-breeding cats,
  • microchipping,

• automatic registration at time of implantation,

• owner-updatable registration systems,
• abandonment prevention,
• public education,
• containment guidance,
• special attention to wildlife-sensitive areas,
• and enforcement against intentional abandonment.

6.3 Microchip Registration

A major systems failure occurs when cats are microchipped but ownership registration is never completed.

The framework recommends automatic registration at the time of chip implantation. Owners should be able to update information later, but the initial chip should not enter the system as an unregistered or functionally anonymous identifier.

This supports:

• lost-pet reunification,
• abandonment accountability,
• population tracking,
• enforcement integrity,
• and reduced inflow into community cat populations.

6.4 Conservation Relevance

The Pet Cat Zone is conservation-relevant because preventing new cats from entering outdoor populations reduces future predation risk, disease-risk pathways, shelter burden, and community conflict.

Prevention is often more effective than repeated downstream intervention.

7.  Community Cat Zone

7.1 Purpose

The Community Cat Zone addresses free-roaming cats already living in human-associated environments.

The goal is not to preserve unmanaged colonies indefinitely. The goal is to replace unmanaged reproduction with monitored population stabilization and reduction.

The Community Cat Zone seeks to:

• sterilize cats at high intensity,
• reduce kitten recruitment,
• prevent population growth,
• reduce nuisance behavior,
• create caretaker accountability,
• monitor migration,
• support adoption when possible,
• and reduce population size over time.

7.2 Certified Colony Caretaker System

The framework supports certified colony caretaker systems.

Certified caretakers should be trained in:

• humane trapping,
• sterilization coordination,
• vaccination where available and appropriate,
• ear tipping,
• microchip-linked identification,
• feeding management,
• colony monitoring,
• recordkeeping,
• public communication,
• nuisance mitigation,
• disease-risk awareness,
• and wildlife-sensitive area protocols.

Caretakers are not necessarily legal owners of the cats. They function as registered ecological stewards responsible for monitoring and management duties.

7.3 High-Intensity Sterilization

Low-intensity sterilization does not reliably stabilize populations.

Community Cat Zones should prioritize high-intensity sterilization within defined geographic areas. Management should focus on measurable sterilization coverage, kitten recruitment, and population trends rather than scattered activity.

Key indicators include:

• percentage sterilized,
• number of intact females,
• number of kittens observed,
• number of new arrivals,
• number adopted,
• number deceased,
• number missing,
• and net colony population trend.

7.4 Feeding Management

Feeding should not be unmanaged or disconnected from sterilization.

Managed feeding should support:

• monitoring,
• trapping,
• health assessment,
• reduced roaming,
• nuisance control,
• colony count accuracy,
• and rapid identification of new arrivals.

Feeding without sterilization and tracking should not be considered adequate management.

At the same time, feeding bans without sterilization, monitoring, or alternative population-control systems may undermine accountability and disperse cats into less visible areas.

The framework therefore distinguishes between unmanaged feeding and managed feeding within a certified accountability system.

7.5 Adoption and Removal Pathways

Community Cat Zones should include adoption and placement pathways whenever feasible, especially for:

• kittens,
• friendly adults,
• abandoned pets,
• injured cats,
• cats unsuitable for return,
• and cats near sensitive areas where return is inappropriate.

TNR should not be treated as the only tool. It is one tool within a broader population management system.

.

8. Wildlife Conservation Zone

8.1 Purpose

The Wildlife Conservation Zone prioritizes the protection of sensitive habitat and vulnerable species.

These areas may include:

• seabird nesting habitat,
• endangered species habitat,
• wetlands,
• native forest bird habitat,
• protected conservation lands,
• restoration sites,
• and other ecologically sensitive areas.

The framework recognizes that these areas may require intensive intervention.

8.2 Conservation Authority

Wildlife Conservation Zones operate under conservation-manager authority and applicable federal, state, county, and land-management requirements.

The framework does not remove authority from conservation professionals. Instead, it seeks to improve coordination and upstream prevention.

8.3 Management Tools

Depending on the site, Wildlife Conservation Zone management may include:

• exclusion fencing,
• cat-proof barriers,
• no-colony policies,
• targeted removal,
• adoption or relocation where appropriate,
• intensified monitoring,
• predator cameras,
• necropsy standards for wildlife mortality events,
• multi-predator assessment,
• disease-risk assessment,
• and coordination with nearby community cat programs.

8.4 Migration Monitoring and Adaptive Response

If a managed colony cat enters a Wildlife Conservation Zone, microchip identification and colony registration can help determine:

• where the cat came from,
• whether a nearby colony requires additional intervention,
• whether feeding protocols need adjustment,
• whether barriers are failing,
• whether abandonment is occurring,
• or whether return is inappropriate.

Potential responses include:

• intensified trapping,
• increased sterilization,
• adoption or placement,
• caretaker corrective action,
• feeding-site modification,
• targeted removal,
• expanded monitoring,
• or formal suspension of colony authorization near sensitive habitat.

This creates evidence-based intervention rather than assumption-based conflict.

.

9.  Closed-Loop Ecological Accountability

The framework’s accountability system is one of its central features.

A closed-loop system connects identification, responsibility, monitoring, and response.

9.1 Core Components

The system includes:

1. Microchip-linked identification
   Each managed cat should be individually identifiable.
2. Automatic registration
   Microchips should be registered at implantation.
3. Caretaker linkage
   Community cats should be linked to a registered caretaker or managing organization.
4. Colony registration
   Managed colonies should be assigned to defined locations.
5. Sterilization confirmation
   Sterilization status should be documented.
6. Colony tracking software
   Population data should be recorded consistently.
7. Monitoring and reporting
   Caretakers should report population trends, new arrivals, kittens, adoptions, deaths, and movement concerns.
8. Conservation coordination
   Wildlife incidents or sensitive-zone migration should trigger adaptive review.
9. Corrective action
   Management should be adjusted when outcomes are not acceptable.

9.2 Why Accountability Matters

This system addresses longstanding criticisms of community cat management, including:

• unclear ownership status,
• lack of monitoring,
• weak public accountability,
• unmanaged feeding,
• unknown sterilization rates,
• inability to trace cats,
• and poor coordination with conservation managers.

By creating traceability, the framework converts unmanaged outdoor cat presence into a monitored management system with defined responsibilities.

10.  One Health Integration

The Coexistence Framework aligns with One Health because it recognizes that human health, animal health, wildlife health, and environmental conditions are interconnected.

A One Health approach does not treat cat management as only an animal welfare issue or only a wildlife issue. It recognizes overlapping concerns.

10.1 Human Health

Relevant human health concerns may include:

• zoonotic disease risk,
• public sanitation,
• community conflict,
• nuisance complaints,
• mental stress related to unmanaged animal populations,
• and public trust in management systems.

The framework supports human health by reducing unmanaged populations, improving monitoring, encouraging responsible feeding practices, reducing abandonment, supporting vaccination where appropriate, and creating clearer accountability.

10.2 Animal Health and Welfare

Unmanaged cat populations often experience:

• disease,
• injury,
• starvation,
• parasite burden,
• kitten mortality,
• abandonment,
• and suffering.

The framework improves animal welfare by reducing reproduction, supporting sterilization, linking cats to caretakers, creating adoption pathways, and reducing the number of cats born into unmanaged outdoor conditions.

10.3 Wildlife Health

Wildlife health concerns include:

• predation,
• disturbance,
• disease exposure,
• habitat sensitivity,
• and cumulative stress from multiple invasive species and human pressures.

The framework protects wildlife by prioritizing Wildlife Conservation Zones, supporting exclusion and targeted removal where necessary, monitoring migration, and reducing long-term outdoor cat populations.

10.4 Environmental Health

Environmental concerns may include:

• waste accumulation,
• unmanaged feeding sites,
• watershed contamination concerns,
• habitat degradation,
• and broader ecosystem disruption.

The framework supports environmental health through managed feeding standards, monitoring, population reduction, and coordination with conservation and public health authorities.

10.5 One Health Standard

Under a One Health evaluation, the framework should be judged by whether it produces integrated improvements across:

• Human Health,
• Animal Welfare,
• Wildlife Protection,
• Ecological Integrity,
• Public Accountability,
• and Long-term System function.

11.  Monitoring and Metrics

The Coexistence Framework requires monitoring because management claims should be evaluated through measurable outcomes.

Metrics should be divided into three categories.

11.1 Population Metrics

Population metrics include:

• colony population count,
• sterilization percentage,
• number of intact females,
• kitten recruitment,
• adoption numbers,
• abandonment reports,
• new arrivals,
• death or disappearance records,
• and long-term population trends.

11.2 Conservation Metrics

Conservation metrics include:

• wildlife incident reports,
• confirmed predator evidence,
• nesting success trends,
• sensitive-zone cat detections,
• migration frequency,
• habitat-specific risk indicators,
• and documented conservation outcomes.

Wildlife mortality events should use appropriate evidence standards, including site assessment, camera evidence where feasible, necropsy when appropriate, track or sign analysis, and consideration of the full predator guild.

11.3 Governance Metrics

Governance metrics include:

• microchip registration compliance,
• caretaker certification numbers,
• colony registration numbers,
• reporting compliance,
• complaint response time,
• enforcement actions for abandonment,
• interagency coordination,
• and annual adaptive review completion.

11.4 Outcome Priority

The framework should not be judged only by activity counts.  The most important question is whether the system produces:

• fewer unmanaged cats,
• fewer kittens,
• fewer abandoned cats,
• fewer cats entering sensitive areas,
• improved wildlife protection,
• reduced public conflict,
• and stronger ecological accountability.

12.  Conservation Safeguards

To pass a conservation science evaluation, the framework must include safeguards that prevent misapplication.

12.1 No Universal Return Policy

Return-to-field or return-to-colony should not be treated as appropriate in every location.

Cats should not be returned to areas where doing so would conflict with sensitive wildlife protection, legal conservation requirements, or site-specific management plans.

12.2 Sensitive Habitat Priority

Wildlife Conservation Zones receive priority where endangered species, nesting colonies, native wildlife concentrations, or vulnerable habitats are present.

12.3 Conservation Manager Authority

Conservation managers retain decision-making authority within designated wildlife protection areas.

12.4 Evidence-Based Mortality Assessment

Wildlife mortality should not be assigned to cats without appropriate evidence. At the same time, cat predation risk should not be dismissed where evidence supports it.

The framework supports rigorous mortality investigation standards and multi-predator assessment.

12.5 Corrective Action

If a colony contributes to wildlife risk, nuisance, unmanaged reproduction, or repeated migration into sensitive areas, management must be corrected.

Corrective action may include:

• increased trapping,
• adoption,
• relocation where appropriate,
• feeding modification,
• caretaker review,
• suspension of feeding authorization,
• or targeted removal.

.

13.  Implementation Pathway

The Coexistence Framework can be implemented in phases.

Phase 1: Mapping and Risk Classification

Identify:

• pet-dense areas,
• known community cat locations,
• feeding locations,
• abandonment hotspots,
• shelter intake patterns,
• sensitive wildlife habitat,
• high-risk buffer zones,
• and conservation priority areas.

Phase 2: Pet Cat Prevention

Implement:

• sterilization campaigns,
• microchip registration,
• owner education,
• abandonment enforcement,
• containment guidance,
• and low-cost access to veterinary services.

Phase 3: Colony Registration and Caretaker Certification

Create:

• certified caretaker training,
• colony registration,
• standardized feeding rules,
• monitoring requirements,
• reporting templates,
• and public complaint response systems.

Phase 4: High-Intensity Sterilization and Adoption

Prioritize:

• targeted trapping,
• high sterilization coverage,
• kitten removal and adoption,
• friendly adult adoption,
• intact female identification,
• and repeat sweeps.

Phase 5: Wildlife Zone Coordination

Coordinate with conservation managers to:

• identify no-return areas,
• define buffer zones,
• monitor cat movement,
• respond to wildlife incidents,
• and apply exclusion or removal where needed.

Phase 6: Data Review and Adaptive Management

Conduct regular review of:

• population trends,
• kitten recruitment,
• wildlife incidents,
• migration events,
• caretaker compliance,
• public complaints,
• and conservation outcomes.

Management should then be adjusted based on the results.

.

14.  Limitations and Research Priorities

The framework recognizes that ecological systems are complex and that additional research is needed.

Important research priorities include:

• long-term comparison of management models,
• effects of high-intensity sterilization across different landscapes,
• cat movement between colonies and sensitive habitat,
• effectiveness of microchip-linked accountability systems,
• disease-risk changes under managed versus unmanaged conditions,
• wildlife outcomes near managed colonies,
• comparative outcomes of feeding bans, removal programs, and integrated management,
• and cost-effectiveness across policy models.

The framework should be treated as adaptive. It should improve as data improves.

No management model should be assumed universally effective or ineffective without habitat-specific evidence and outcome evaluation.

.

15.  Standards Alignment

The Coexistence Framework is designed to be evaluated through both a Conservation Science standard and a One Health standard.

15.1 Conservation Science Compliance Standard

The standard aligns with conservation science by:

• recognizing wildlife vulnerability,
• prioritizing sensitive habitat,
• supporting conservation-manager authority,
• applying landscape-level risk differentiation,
• requiring monitoring,
• focusing on ecological outcomes,
• allowing exclusion and targeted removal where necessary,
• and avoiding universal one-size-fits-all policy.

15.2 One Health Alignment Standard

The standard aligns with One Health by:

• reducing unmanaged reproduction,
• improving animal welfare,
• reducing public nuisance,
• addressing disease-risk pathways,
• improving environmental sanitation,
• protecting wildlife,
• strengthening community accountability,
• and integrating human, animal, wildlife, and environmental health.

15.3 Operational Accountability Alignment

The framework aligns with governance and accountability standards by:

• requiring traceability,
• defining roles,
• linking cats to caretakers or owners,
• supporting data systems,
• monitoring outcomes,
• requiring corrective action,
• and enabling adaptive review.

.
.

16.  Conclusion

Hawaiʻi’s cat population challenge requires a management system that is humane, conservation-grounded, publicly accountable, and measurable.  The Coexistence Framework offers such a system.

It does not ask conservationists to accept unmanaged cat populations. It does not ask animal advocates to ignore wildlife protection. It does not ask public health professionals to overlook disease concerns. It does not ask communities to tolerate unmanaged nuisance conditions.

Instead, it asks all parties to move toward a more disciplined model:

• Prevent new cats from entering outdoor populations,
• Stabilize and reduce existing community cat populations,
• Protect sensitive wildlife habitat,
• Use professional conservation oversight,
• Monitor outcomes,
• and Adapt based on evidence.

The framework recognizes that effective conservation requires more than symbolic action. It requires measurable ecological outcomes, habitat-specific management, operational accountability, and long-term prevention. 

The goal is not unmanaged coexistence.

The goal is managed population reduction, wildlife protection, public health stewardship, reduced suffering, and ecological accountability.

In this sense, the Coexistence Framework is both a humane management model and a conservation accountability model.

Its central message is:

Humane policy must be effective policy. Effective policy must be accountable policy. Accountable policy must be measured by outcomes.

NOTES:  Framework Evaluation Checklist

Conservation, One Health, and Accountability Review

The Coexistence Framework is designed to be evaluated against conservation science, One Health, humane management, and public accountability standards.

This checklist is included as an initial self-review tool. It is not a substitute for the full Conservation Science Compliance Standard or One Health Alignment Standard, which may be applied in greater detail through separate evaluation documents.

The purpose of this checklist is to clarify the standards the framework seeks to meet and to demonstrate that Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy is willing to apply accountability expectations to its own proposals before asking agencies, conservation organizations, policymakers, animal advocates, and community members to do the same.

17.1 Conservation Science Review

Does the framework:

• recognize the vulnerability of Hawaiʻi’s native wildlife and sensitive habitats?
• distinguish between urban, community, and wildlife conservation landscapes?
• prioritize sensitive wildlife habitat for heightened protection?
• respect the authority of conservation managers in Wildlife Conservation Zones?
• allow exclusion, targeted removal, and other conservation-directed interventions where necessary?
• require monitoring of wildlife incidents and sensitive-zone cat movement?
• focus on measurable conservation outcomes rather than symbolic activity alone?
• avoid one-size-fits-all management across ecologically different landscapes?

17.2 Population Management Review

Does the framework:

• reduce unmanaged reproduction?
• prioritize high-intensity sterilization in defined target areas?
• address kitten recruitment as a core population driver?
• include adoption and placement pathways where feasible?
• prevent abandonment and reduce new inflow from pet cats?
• use microchip registration and traceability to improve accountability?
• track colony population trends over time?
• require adaptive correction when population outcomes are not being achieved?

17.3 One Health Review

Does the framework:

• consider human health, animal health, wildlife health, and environmental health together?
• reduce unmanaged cat populations and associated public nuisance concerns?
• improve disease-risk management through monitoring, sterilization, vaccination where appropriate, and accountable care systems?
• reduce animal suffering caused by abandonment, uncontrolled reproduction, disease, and unmanaged outdoor survival?
• protect wildlife from predation, disturbance, and disease-risk pathways?
• address feeding-site sanitation and environmental concerns?
• improve public trust through transparency and accountable management?

17.4 Governance and Accountability Review

Does the framework:

• define responsible parties for each management zone?
• distinguish between pet owners, certified colony caretakers, conservation managers, and public agencies?
• require registered caretaker oversight for managed colonies?
• link managed cats to identification, colony location, and caretaker responsibility?
• use monitoring data to guide management decisions?
• include corrective action when management standards are not met?
• support transparent reporting and periodic review?
• create a practical pathway for collaboration among animal welfare, conservation, public health, and community stakeholders?

17.5 Adaptive Management Review

Does the framework:

• treat management as an ongoing process rather than a one-time action?
• require monitoring before declaring success?
• adjust interventions based on outcomes?
• recognize uncertainty and ecological complexity?
• compare management effectiveness across different habitat types?
• avoid relying only on activity counts such as number of cats removed or number of cats sterilized?
• prioritize long-term reduction, wildlife protection, and measurable ecological benefit?

17.6 Summary of Standards

The Coexistence Framework should be considered successful only if it contributes to measurable progress in all of the following areas:

• fewer unmanaged cats,
• fewer kittens born outdoors,
• reduced abandonment,
• reduced movement into sensitive wildlife areas,
• improved wildlife protection,
• improved animal welfare,
• improved public health safeguards,
• stronger community accountability,
• and better coordination among stakeholders.

This checklist establishes the first level of accountability. More detailed evaluations may be conducted through the Conservation Science Rubric, the One Health Rubric, and future framework-specific assessment documents.

.

Appendix A: Key Terms

Adaptive Management

An evidence-based management approach in which policies and interventions are adjusted over time based on monitoring, outcomes, and changing ecological conditions.

Community Cat

A free-roaming cat living outdoors in a human-associated environment. A community cat may be socialized, semi-socialized, or unsocialized, and may or may not have a specific caretaker.

Certified Colony Caretaker

A trained and registered individual responsible for managing a community cat colony through sterilization coordination, feeding management, monitoring, recordkeeping, and communication with relevant authorities.

Closed-Loop Ecological Accountability

A management system connecting identification, registration, caretaker responsibility, monitoring, data tracking, and adaptive response.

Conservation Manager

A wildlife or land-management professional responsible for protecting sensitive habitat, endangered species, ecological restoration areas, or wildlife populations.

Ecological Zoning

A management approach that applies different rules and interventions to different areas based on ecological sensitivity and risk.

High-Intensity TNR

A targeted sterilization strategy that seeks high sterilization coverage within a defined cat population or geographic area, usually combined with monitoring, adoption, and repeat trapping.

One Health

An integrated approach used worldwide that recognizes human health, animal health, wildlife health, and environmental health are interconnected.

Outcome-Based Conservation

A conservation approach that evaluates success through measurable ecological outcomes rather than activity counts alone.

Pet Cat Zone

The management zone focused on owned cats, sterilization, microchip registration, containment, and abandonment prevention.

Community Cat Zone

The management zone focused on existing free-roaming cats in human-associated landscapes, using certified caretakers, sterilization, monitoring, adoption, and population reduction.

Wildlife Conservation Zone

The management zone focused on sensitive wildlife habitat where conservation protection, exclusion, targeted removal, and professional oversight may be required.

.

Appendix B: Suggested Core Metrics

Population Metrics

• Total colony count
• Sterilization percentage
• Number of intact females
• Kitten recruitment
• New arrivals
• Adoptions
• Deaths
• Disappearances
• Population trend over time

Conservation Metrics

• Wildlife incidents
• Cat detections in sensitive areas
• Migration from managed colonies
• Nesting success trends
• Predator evidence
• Habitat-specific risk indicators

One Health Metrics

• Public complaints
• Feeding-site sanitation
• Disease-risk observations
• Vaccination status where applicable
• Waste management
• Public education participation

Governance Metrics

• Microchip registration compliance
• Colony registration compliance
• Caretaker certification
• Reporting frequency
• Complaint response time
• Corrective actions completed
• Annual adaptive review

.

Appendix C: Foundational Scientific Principles and Key Sources

Adaptive Management and Conservation Science

Allen, C. R., Fontaine, J. J., Pope, K. L., & Garmestani, A. S. (2011). Adaptive management for a turbulent future. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(5), 1339–1345.

Holling, C. S. (1978). Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley & Sons.

Williams, B. K., Szaro, R. C., & Shapiro, C. D. (2009). Adaptive management: The U.S. Department of the Interior technical guide. U.S. Department of the Interior.

Landscape Ecology and Ecological Zoning

Forman, R. T. T. (1995). Land mosaics: The ecology of landscapes and regions. Cambridge University Press.

Turner, M. G., Gardner, R. H., & O’Neill, R. V. (2001). Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and process. Springer.

Wu, J., & Loucks, O. L. (1995). From balance of nature to hierarchical patch dynamics: A paradigm shift in ecology. Quarterly Review of Biology, 70(4), 439–466.

Systems Ecology and Ecological Systems Thinking

Odum, E. P., & Barrett, G. W. (2005). Fundamentals of ecology (5th ed.). Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Odum, H. T. (1988). Self-organization, transformity, and information. Science, 242(4882), 1132–1139.

Pickett, S. T. A., Kolasa, J., & Jones, C. G. (2007). Ecological understanding: The nature of theory and the theory of nature (2nd ed.). Academic Press.

Conservation Governance and Outcome-Based Management

Game, E. T., Kareiva, P., & Possingham, H. P. (2013). Six common mistakes in conservation priority setting. Conservation Biology, 27(3), 480–485.

Gregory, R., Ohlson, D., & Arvai, J. (2006). Deconstructing adaptive management: Criteria for applications to environmental management. Ecological Applications, 16(6), 2411–2425.

Salafsky, N., Margoluis, R., & Redford, K. H. (2001). Adaptive management: A tool for conservation practitioners. Biodiversity Support Program.

Goodhart’s Law and Conservation Metrics

Goodhart, C. A. E. (1984). Problems of monetary management: The U.K. experience. In A. S. Courakis (Ed.), Inflation, depression, and economic policy in the West.

Legge, S., Woinarski, J. C. Z., Dickman, C. R., Murphy, B. P., Woolley, L.-A., & Calver, M. C. (2017). Enumerating a continental-scale threat: How many feral cats are in Australia? Biological Conservation, 206, 293–303.

Community Cat Population Management and TNR

Levy, J. K., Gale, D. W., & Gale, L. A. (2003). Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 222(1), 42–46.

Levy, J. K., Isaza, N. M., & Scott, K. C. (2014). Effect of high-impact targeted trap-neuter-return and adoption of community cats on cat intake to a shelter. The Veterinary Journal, 201(3), 269–274.

Spehar, D. D., & Wolf, P. J. (2019). Integrated return-to-field and targeted trap-neuter-vaccinate-return programs result in reductions of feline intake and euthanasia at six municipal animal shelters. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 6, 77.

Cat Ecology and Wildlife Interactions

Doherty, T. S., Glen, A. S., Nimmo, D. G., Ritchie, E. G., & Dickman, C. R. (2016). Invasive predators and global biodiversity loss. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(40), 11261–11265.

Lynn, W. S., Santiago-Ávila, F., Lindenmayer, J., Hadidian, J., Wallach, A., & King, B. J. (2019). A moral panic over cats. Conservation Biology, 33(4), 769–776.

Woinarski, J. C. Z., Murphy, B. P., Legge, S. M., Garnett, S. T., Lawes, M. J., Comer, S., Dickman, C. R., Doherty, T. S., Edwards, G., Nankivell, A., Paton, D., & Palmer, R. (2017). How many birds are killed by cats in Australia? Biological Conservation, 214, 76–87.

Hawaiʻi Wildlife Protection and Conservation Standards

National Marine Fisheries Service. (2020). Recovery Planning Handbook. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703–712.

Disease Ecology and Toxoplasmosis

VanWormer, E., Fritz, H., Shapiro, K., Mazet, J. A. K., & Conrad, P. A. (2013). Molecules to modeling: Toxoplasma gondii oocysts at the human-animal-environment interface. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, 36(3), 217–231.

VanWormer, E., Miller, M. A., Conrad, P. A., Grigg, M. E., Mazet, J. A. K., & Carpenter, T. E. (2013). Toxoplasma gondii, source to sea: Higher contribution of domestic felids to terrestrial parasite loading despite lower infection prevalence. EcoHealth, 10(3), 277–289.

About the Author

Greg Puʻuwai Aloha Baker is the founder of Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy and holds an MBA and a Certificate in Community Cat Program Management from the University of the Pacific’s Benerd College.

His work focuses on the intersection of humane animal management, conservation policy, public health, and community stewardship. He has been actively involved in community cat management, rescue, and advocacy on Hawaiʻi Island for more than five years, including participation in the trapping, sterilization, and return of more than 100 community cats and volunteer work with high-volume PetFix Spay/Neuter MASH events.

His field experience includes community cat trapping, colony support, direct animal care, public education, and participation in high-volume sterilization efforts. This practical experience informs his emphasis on prevention, measurable population reduction, humane treatment, and accountable management systems.

His policy work developed in response to Hawaiʻi County Bill 51, the county cat-feeding ban measure. In that effort, he helped organize public education and advocacy that contributed to more than 7,600 petition signatures opposing the measure and supporting humane, science-based alternatives.

These efforts led to the founding of Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy, a Hawaiʻi-based organization advancing evidence-based approaches to animal population management, wildlife protection, public health, and community accountability.

About Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy

Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy is a Hawaiʻi-based organization focused on science-based, humane policy for animal population management.

HAA works at the intersection of animal welfare, conservation, public health, and community stewardship. The organization promotes evidence-based strategies that address the root causes of free-roaming animal populations while supporting protection of native wildlife, ecosystem health, and community well-being.

HAA recognizes that conservation challenges in Hawaiʻi are complex and multifactorial, involving habitat loss, invasive species, disease, watershed degradation, climate pressures, and human activity. Effective management therefore requires integrated, measurable, and publicly accountable approaches rather than single-factor responses.

The organization supports humane population stabilization through targeted sterilization programs, responsible colony management, adoption pathways, public education, and collaborative community engagement. HAA also supports improved scientific rigor, transparent policymaking, and management strategies grounded in verifiable evidence and real-world outcomes.


© 2026 Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy. Educational use permitted with attribution.