Assessing the safety of collars used to attach predation deterrent devices and ID tags to pet cats

Abstract

Collar-worn deterrents reduce predation by cats while collar-mounted ID enhances return of lost animals. A perception that collars are hazardous limits adoption. We defined cases as 'collar incidents' (cat snagged its collar or caught a paw), 'collar injuries' (veterinary treatment needed for a collar incident), and 'collar deaths' (cat died), before integrating data from veterinarians, owners from the general public and 30 owners from a welfare society. Despite biases associated with components independently, together they indicated that collar injuries or deaths are rare.One hundred and seven veterinarians interviewed recalled one collar injury/2.3 years. At one practice over three years only 0.33% of 4460 cat cases were collar injuries, while 35 180 cat cases at four clinics during August and November 2011 included none. The 63 owners from the general public reported only one collar injury and no deaths in a lifetime of ownership, although 27% experienced collar incidents. In contrast, 22% reported cats needing treatment following road accidents, 53% reported cats needing treatment for fighting injuries and 62% had owned cats killed on the road. Most (62%) 40 of the 55 respondents from the cat welfare society had experienced a collar incident, but only two cats needed treatment. One died. In contrast, 31% and 58% reported cats needing treatment for road accidents and fighting respectively, and 41% had owned cats killed on the road. Fighting and road accidents are greater hazards to roaming cats than collars, which offer the compensatory benefits of mounting predation deterrents and ID 45 tags.Keywords: animal welfare, cat collar, Felis catus, pet cats, urban wildlife, wildlife One drawback to the wider use of collar-mounted predation deterrents is a perception that cats wearing collars risk significant injury from snagging on objects or catching 90 paws or teeth in the collar (Lord et al 2010). This view may also reduce the use of collarworn ID tags that facilitate the return of lost animals (Lord et al 2010 problems may be exaggerated and that more detailed study of their incidence is warranted. A logical first step is to determine the risk associated with collars, after which the risks of collars plus predation deterrents can be investigated. It would also be 105 valuable for reassuring owners uncertain whether or not to fit their cats with collarmounted ID tags.This study assessed the incidence of mishaps involving cat collars and perceptions of the safety of different collar designs in an Australian suburban context, using an integrated 110 data analysis approach based on the experiences of veterinarians, a cross-section of owners from the wider community and owners who were members of a cat welfare society. We also collected data from the same sources on the incidence of fighting injuries and road accident trauma to place the collar data in the context of other hazards to free-roaming cats in suburbia. Although each component has its own potential biases, 115 by integrating them in one comprehensive stud...

Reconciling actual and perceived rates of predation by domestic cats

“…; Calver et al. ). In this study neutering, the only control strategy suggested not obviously linked to aiding wildlife populations and a largely welfare driven strategy was the most favored statement.…”

“…This implies that even the most informed cat own-ers may not be swayed by implications for biodiversity when the cost to the cat is perceived to be high. Instead, better motivation to accept controls on cat predation may be achieved by highlighting welfare advantages (Lilith et al 2006;Toukhsati et al 2012), such as lowering the risk of road traffic accidents, poisoning, infectious diseases, fighting-related injuries, and reduced threat from wildlife interactions, which are important contributors to cat mortality and long-term welfare (Moreau et al 2003;Rochlitz 2004;Egenvall et al 2010;Calver et al 2013). In this study neutering, the only control strategy suggested not obviously linked to aiding wildlife populations and a largely welfare driven strategy was the most favored statement.…”

Hunting behaviour in domestic cats: An exploratory study of risk and responsibility among cat owners

“…Use of collars may be limited by residual concerns about their safety (despite the relative infrequency with which quick‐release collars have been found to cause injury; Calver, Adams, Clark, & Pollock, ), practical concerns about the expense of consistently replacing quick‐release collars, lack of acceptance by cats, or perceived inefficacy at preventing hunting. There is clearly a need for more robust yet reliably safe quick‐release collars to be developed, and although collar‐mounted devices can reduce hunting efficiency (Calver, Thomas, Bradley, & McCutcheon, ; Gordon, Matthaei, & Heezik, ; Hall, Fontaine, Bryant, & Calver, ; Nelson, Evans, & Bradbury, ; Ruxton, Thomas, & Wright, ; Willson, Okunlola, & Novak, ), further work to compare the effectiveness and safety of different devices would be beneficial.…”

Do collar-mounted predation deterrents restrict wandering in pet domestic cats?

“…Death or injury of cats in these events had considerable financial and emotional costs to owners in one region of the UK (see Rochlitz, 2004a;. Given the high frequency of road accident trauma for cats elsewhere (Engenvall et al, 2009, Calver et al, 2013 financial and emotional costs are likely to be widespread. It can also be difficult to reunite lost cats with their owners.…”

“…If an inexpensive collarmounted device could reduce roaming, then predation, disease transmission and general nuisance attributed to pet cats could be reduced, as well as the risks of road accidents, fighting and unwanted litters. While owners may have reservations about the safety of collars (Lord et al, 2010), the risk of serious injury or death is low for correctly fitted and maintained safety collars (Brinkley, 2007;Lord et al, 2010;Calver et al, 2013).…”