Behavioral differences between urban feeding groups of neutered and sexually intact free-roaming cats following a trap-neuter-return procedure

Simple SummaryLocal communities in the United States are commonly responsible for selecting the most appropriate method of managing free-roaming cats. Lethal management has been widely utilized for generations, but the use of trap-neuter-return (TNR) has grown in recent decades. Despite expanded use of TNR, a relative scarcity of data associated with such programs exists. This paper retrospectively examines an iconic TNR program—began in 1992—that resulted in the elimination of hundreds of cats from the Newburyport, Massachusetts, waterfront. A careful review of contemporaneous reports, extant program documents, and stakeholder testimony indicates that an estimated 300 cats resided in the area at the commencement of the TNR program; none remained 17 years later. Up to one-third of the cats trapped were sociable and adopted into homes; the remainder were sterilized and vaccinated before being returned to the waterfront, where they declined in number over time due to attrition. A compelling narrative emerged from the available evidence concerning the effectiveness of TNR as a management practice, although a lack of feline population data associated with the Newburyport TNR program underscores the need for establishment of standardized data collection and assessment practices.AbstractThe use of trap-neuter-return (TNR) as a humane alternative to the lethal management of free-roaming cats has been on the rise for several decades in the United States; however a relative paucity of data from TNR programs exists. An iconic community-wide TNR effort; initiated in 1992 and renowned for having eliminated hundreds of free-roaming cats from the Newburyport; Massachusetts waterfront; is cited repeatedly; yet few details appear in the literature. Although the presence of feline population data was quite limited; a detailed narrative emerged from an examination of contemporaneous reports; extant TNR program documents; and stakeholder testimony. Available evidence indicates that an estimated 300 free-roaming cats were essentially unmanaged prior to the commencement of the TNR program; a quick reduction of up to one-third of the cats on the waterfront was attributed to the adoption of sociable cats and kittens; the elimination of the remaining population; over a 17-year period; was ascribed to attrition. These findings illuminate the potential effectiveness of TNR as a management practice; as well as call attention to the need for broad adoption of systematic data collection and assessment protocols.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Examination of an Iconic Trap-Neuter-Return Program: The Newburyport, Massachusetts Case Study

Spehar¹,

Wolf

2017

“…However, it is unclear whether cats were scavenged or preyed upon, which would influence the level of risk coyotes pose to outdoor cats. Lastly, traumas can also arise from agonistic interactions with other cats in response to overlapping territories and the sharing of resources [29].…”

Section: Increased Risk Of Trauma Predation and Poisoningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncontrolled Outdoor Access for Cats: An Assessment of Risks and Benefits

Tan

Stellato

Niel

2020

Uncontrolled outdoor access is associated with a number of welfare concerns for companion cats, including increased risks of disease and parasites, injury or death due to traffic, predation or ingestion of toxic substances, and getting permanently separated from their owner. In addition, cats pose a threat to local wildlife due to predatory behaviors, and can sometimes be a nuisance to human neighbors. Despite these concerns, recent estimates suggest that many owners are still providing their cats with uncontrolled outdoor access, likely because it also offers welfare benefits by allowing cats to perform natural behaviors, such as hunting, exploring, and climbing. While some have suggested that outdoor access is necessary to meet cats’ behavioral needs and to prevent related behavioral problems, others have recommended various environmental enrichment strategies that can be developed to meet these needs within an indoor environment or through supervised and controlled outdoor access. This review examines the welfare issues and benefits associated with outdoor access for cats, as well as what is currently known about peoples’ practices, knowledge, and attitudes about the provision of outdoor access for cats.

“…Increases in 'bite performance' [89], which presumably includes bite force, improves territorial defence and therefore mating possibilities in lizards [89][90][91], rodents [92] and lemurs [51]. Cats are territorial and will fight other cats using claws and biting [93,94], and cats with greater bite forces could therefore be advantaged in physical confrontations. Male cats also restrain females during copulation by biting the back of the neck [95], taking advantage of immobility induced by the 'scruff reflex' [96] and protects the male from retaliatory aggression from the female.…”

Section: Other Considerations-bite Force and Fighting/territorial Matmentioning

confidence: 99%

Body Size and Bite Force of Stray and Feral Cats—Are Bigger or Older Cats Taking the Largest or More Difficult-to-Handle Prey?

Fleming

Crawford

Auckland

et al. 2020

As carnivorans rely heavily on their head and jaws for prey capture and handling, skull morphology and bite force can therefore reflect their ability to take larger or more difficult-to-handle prey. For 568 feral and stray cats (Felis catus), we recorded their demographics (sex and age), source location (feral or stray) and morphological measures (body mass, body condition); we estimated potential bite force from skull measurements for n = 268 of these cats, and quantified diet composition from stomach contents for n = 358. We compared skull measurements to estimate their bite force and determine how it varied with sex, age, body mass, body condition. Body mass had the strongest influence of bite force. In our sample, males were 36.2% heavier and had 20.0% greater estimated bite force (206.2 ± 44.7 Newtons, n = 168) than females (171.9 ± 29.3 Newtons, n = 120). However, cat age was the strongest predictor of the size of prey that they had taken, with older cats taking larger prey. The predictive power of this relationship was poor though (r2 < 0.038, p < 0.003), because even small cats ate large prey and some of the largest cats ate small prey, such as invertebrates. Cats are opportunistic, generalist carnivores taking a broad range of prey. Their ability to handle larger prey increases as the cats grow, increasing their jaw strength, and improving their hunting skills, but even the smallest cats in our sample had tackled and consumed large and potentially ‘dangerous’ prey that would likely have put up a defence.