Effectiveness of the Liberator? in reducing predation on wildlife by domestic cats

Abstract

We evaluated the effectiveness of the commercial collar-worn product the Liberator? in reducing the number of vertebrates pet cats bring home. Fifteen cats identified by their owners as hunters bringing home at least one prey animal per fortnight were included in the study, which was carried out in Perth, Western Australia over six weeks in November/December 2006 (southern hemisphere late spring/early summer). Each cat spent three weeks wearing a Liberator? and three weeks without it and the number of prey brought home by the cat during each period was recorded by its owner. Participating cats caught 91 prey (37 birds, 44 mammals and 10 herpetofauna). The Southern Brown Bandicoot was the only prey species of conservation concern. Liberators? made no statistically significant difference in the number of cats catching prey, but did reduce the overall number of prey caught. Cats wearing Liberators? caught only 38% of all birds, 40% of all herpetofauna and 30% of all mammals captured during the study. Despite this positive result several product failures occurred, so owners wishing to reduce predation by their cats will need to decide whether the Liberator? is a cost-effective option.

Domestic carnivore interactions with wildlife in the Cape Horn Biosphere Reserve, Chile: husbandry and perceptions of impact from a community perspective

“…A new Chilean law promoting responsible pet ownership was recently enacted ( Ministry of Health, 2017 ) and could be a first step towards regulating confinement by national legislation which was considered far from sufficient in 2014 by Bonacic & Abarca (2014) . Meanwhile, bells, electronic alarms, or colorful collar covers are an option for free-roaming cats to reduce depredation rates on wildlife ( Gordon, Matthaei & Van Heezik, 2010 ; Calver & Thomas, 2011 ; Willson, Okunlola & Novak, 2015 ), as well as advice on environmental enrichment techniques for indoor cats ( Rochlitz, 2005 ), outdoor enclosures, and leash training ( Hall et al, 2016 ). (5) Finally, an instrument such as this survey can reveal what problems with free-roaming pets exist; thus, it provides insight into impacts in the absence of biological studies or complementary to them (e.g., dogs interacting with rare and endemic mammals were only detected through interviews in Silva-Rodriguez & Sieving, 2011 ).…”

Use and perception of collars for companion cats in New Zealand

“…Improved collar usage for cats may improve uptake of huntingdeterrent devices, such as bells, which have been demonstrated to reduce the hunting success of cats (Nelson et al 2005;Calver et al 2007;Gordon et al 2010). Regular use of collars with antipredation devices may mitigate the impact of cats on native and non-native fauna in New Zealand (Farnworth et al 2010a;Calver and Thomas 2011). Thomas et al (2012) reported that cat owners were less likely than non-cat owners to consider collar-mounted antipredation devices to be acceptable, which may explain why respondents to a New Zealand survey stated that of those cats wearing collars, only half of them had bells attached (Farnworth et al…”

Understanding the Relationship between Intention and Cat Containment Behaviour: A Case Study of Kitten and Cat Adopters from RSPCA Queensland

“…One participant who was allowing their cat to roam unrestricted was using a bell and a cat bib on their cat in the hope of reducing their impact on wildlife. This is another contentious issue, with studies both supporting and rejecting the effectiveness of these methods [ 29 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 ]. In the push for the containment of pet cats, the use of curfews, and bells/bibs are two issues that need to be clarified (and communicated)—are they acceptable forms of management to help minimise the impacts on wildlife; what is their impact on the welfare of the cat; and what effect, if any, do they have on the other motivations for containing cats?…”