A drop net consists of a large net, which is often hung from poles, and suspended over a baited target area.  The trap must be monitored and when the target animal is under the net, it is either manually or remotely triggered, and drops on the animal.  Drop nets were first used to capture game birds and are now widely used by wildlife biologists to catch deer and other ungulates.  They have also been used to try and capture extremely trap-shy lost or stray dogs.

Here is a video of a drop net available from Wildlife Capture.com. Their drop net uses a radio-controlled electromagnetic trigger, and a 25′ x 25′ drop net costs $3,950.  They do also offer rentals, but prices are not provided.

Commercial drop net costs are prohibitive to most pet detectives, rescue workers, and owners who might need one to capture a trap-shy lost or stray dog.  However, I was able to find several drop net trap designs in scientific research journals that are relatively inexpensive and might not be that hard to build.

Manual Trigger Drop Net Designs

Deer drop nets where originally built with an explosive tripping mechanism (Ramsey 1968), and some more recent drop nets use radio-controlled release of electromagnets.  However, I wanted to start by looking at some simple manually triggered drop nets, which might be easier to build for the average person.  Honestly, I found most of the instructions at least somewhat confusing, and I may attempt to contact the researchers for more detailed instructions.  However, these instructions should at least provide useful brainstorming ideas for designing your own drop net.

Here’s a comparison of three manually triggered drop net designs.

A comparison of manually triggered drop net designs

Lopez, R.R., N.J. Silvy, J.D. Sebesta, S.D. Higgs, M.W. Salazar.  1998.  A Portable Drop Net for Capturing Urban Deer.  Proceedings Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 52: 206-209.

Lopez et al.’s (1998) drop net design is the least expensive and easiest to set up.  The trap frame is portable and constructed of chain link fence top rail tubing with welded corner posts.  The net is 5.2 m x 5.2 m, which is held up by tension using a perimeter rope and washers.  The trigger mechanism is a piece of bailing twine tied to a pull-pin and washer mechanism.  For construction directions, see Lopez et al.’s (1998) Methods.

Lopez et al. 1998. A Portable Drop Net for Capturing Urban Deer. Proc. Annu. Conf. Southeast. Assoc. Fish and Wildl. Agencies 52: 206-209

D’Eon, R. G., G. Pavan, and P. Lindgren.  2003. A Small Drop-Net versus Clover Trap for Capturing Mule Deer in Southeastern British Columbia.  Northwest Science 77(2): 178-181.

D’Eon et al.’s (2003) design has the advantage that it can be constructed and set up by a single person.  The trap is meant to be suspended 1-2 m from the ground between two large trees.  The net is 6.1 m x 6.1 m with four sections of galvanized pipe attached to either end for weight.   A 60 m release cord is used to trigger the net by pivoting two additional sections of galvanized pipe.  For design instructions, see D’Eon et al.’s (2003) Methods.

Figure 1. D'Eon et al. 2003. A Small Drop-Net versus Clover Traps for Capturing Mule Deer in Southeastern British Columbia. Northwest Science 77(2): 178-181.

D’Eon et al.’s (2003) success rate (75%) was considerably lower than the other two designs.  However, they only attempted to catch four deer, and the first one escaped when they suspended the net 2 m above the ground.  When they moved the net to 1 m above the ground, they caught three additional deer in two trapping attempts.

Jedrzejewski, W. and J.F. Kamler.  2004.  From the Field: modified drop-net for capturing ungulates.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1305-1308.

Jedrzejewski and Kamler’s (2004) drop net design is more labor intensive to set up and costs significantly more than the other designs (though even this net is far cheaper than the commercially available ones).  However, this net is also three to four times the size of the other nets since it was being used to capture the much larger red deer.  Modifications of the net set up and trigger mechanism could probably be used on a much smaller net though the success rate would most likely decrease.

Jedrzejewski, W. and J.F. Kamler. 2004. From the Field: modified drop-net for capturing ungulates. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1305-1308.

This drop net was built on a semi-permanent frame constructed of wooden poles sunk into the ground and braced with metal cables to support the weight of the net.  A pulley was attached to the cable at the top of each wooden pole.  Nylon ropes were then attached to the net near each pole, and the ropes were run through the nearest pulley.  All the ropes were tied to a single metal ring at the trigger mechanism with ropes on the far end coming across the top of the net.  The trigger mechanism is simply a hook through a metal ring, which releases when another rope is pulled.  This might sound complicated, but it will make a lot more sense when you look at the diagrams.  For complete instructions, see Jedrzejewski and Kamler’s (2004) Trap description and construction. 

Jedrzejewski, W. and J.F. Kamler. 2004. From the Field: modified drop-net for capturing ungulates. Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1305-1308.

Remote Trigger Drop Net Designs

For the more tech savvy people out there, a remote controlled drop net is another option.  Lockowandt (1993) wrote a paper on how to build “An Electromagnetic Trigger for Drop-Nets.” Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to find a copy of this paper available on the internet, but you could get a copy from your local University (like I did). Lockowandt (1993) estimated that the electromagnetic trigger system cost $980 and it took three days to build. Missing Pet Partnership was able to get instructions on building an electromagnetic drop net from their local Fish & Wildlife Agency.  See their case on Catching Sophie.

A somewhat different remote net trap was designed by Dematteis et al. (2010). This net trap is also activated by remote radio-controlled electromagnets, but it is an up-net rather than a drop net. With an up-net, the sides of the net enclosure lie on the ground, and when the net is triggered, the sides of the net are raised up creating an enclosure trap. Dematteis et al. (2010) reports that the up-net had a 96.2% (50/52) success rate when used to capture chamois (a goat-antelope species native to mountains in Europe) in their study. The estimated cost of their up-net enclosure trap was $4,617, making it cost prohibitive to duplicate. However, modifications of their design could be used to create a smaller, less expensive net trap.

If anyone has already built a small portable drop net that might be used to help capture skittish lost dogs, I would love to hear about it, especially if you are willing to share you designs with others.

Literature Researched

D’Eon, R. G., G. Pavan, and P. Lindgren.  2003. A Small Drop-Net versus Clover Trap for Capturing Mule Deer in Southeastern British Columbia.  Northwest Science 77(2): 178-181.

Dematteis, A., M. Giovo, F. Rostagno, O. Giordano, D. Finn, A. Menzano, P. Tizzani, G. Ficetto, L. Rossi, and P.G. Menguz.  2010.  Radio-controlled up-net enclosure to capture free-ranging Alpine chamois Rupicapra rupicapra.  European Journal of Wildlife Research 56: 535-539.

Jedrzejewski, W. and J.F. Kamler.  2004.  From the Field: modified drop-net for capturing ungulates.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 32(4): 1305-1308.

Lockowandt, S.P.E.  1993.  An Electromagnetic Trigger for Drop-Nets.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 21: 140-142.

Lopez, R.R., N.J. Silvy, J.D. Sebesta, S.D. Higgs, M.W. Salazar.  1998.  A Portable Drop Net for Capturing Urban Deer.  Proceedings Annual Conference of Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 52: 206-209.

Ramsey, C. W.  1968.  A Drop-Net Deer Trap.  Journal of Wildlife Management 32(1): 187-190.

Most people are probably not even aware that there are such a thing as deer traps, but wildlife biologists use a variety of traps to capture deer including box traps, Clover traps (a netted-box trap), drop nets, and drive nets..  Deer, like many trap-shy dogs, are generally not comfortable entering enclosed spaces, so the design of some of these traps might be useful for capturing shy dogs as well.  These are mostly just ideas at this point since I don’t yet have experience using these traps and some may not prove to be practical.  However, I wanted to share the variety of trap designs available in scientific research journals.  In this article, I’m going to focus on Clover traps and box traps, and next I’ll look at designs for net traps.

Clover Trap

The Clover trap is what first caught my attention when I was trying to think of a way to improve dog enclosure traps.  The Clover trap, which is named after its designer, is a netted-box trap.  Here is a demo video of a Clover trap.  You really only need to watch the first 2 minutes of the video, and I would not suggest wrestling any trapped dogs to subdue them.

Clover Trap

Close up of guillotine door mechanism

I do think this trap would require some modifications to securely trap a dog, but it does offer some interesting possibilities.  The netting makes the trap appear much more open than the traditional wire cage trap.  On the downside you probably would need to supervise the trap closely because a dog could likely chew through the netting.  The trip-wire mechanism might also need to be modified.  However, a very useful feature of this trap is that it doesn’t require the dog to duck under the door to enter the trap.  Many dogs (even non-trap-shy dogs) are somewhat leery of the overhanging door on many cage traps.  The Clover trap has a netted guillotine door that rolls up at the top of the trap.

Enclosure Trap designed by On Track Pet Tracking (ontrackpettracking@gmail.com)

This type of netted-guillotine door might also be modified to attach to a larger dog enclosure trap like this one.  This enclosure trap is meant to be monitored and manually triggered when the dog enters, so chewing through the netting wouldn’t be a concern.  This particular trap uses a large wire-fence door, which makes the trap very comfortable to enter, but the door takes up more space within the trap and is slower to close than a guillotine door.  Here’s a video of my dog being caught in the trap.  Other enclosure traps often use a solid guillotine door, which can be intimidating for the dog to walk under.

For design instructions for the Clover Trap see VerCauteren’s (1999) research paper.  Clover traps can also be bought from online suppliers such as Wildlife Capture.com (sold as parts or as complete traps).

Stephenson Box Trap

Stephenson box trap

The original deer box trap is the Stephenson box trap, which is basically a large wooden box with two guillotine type doors so it looks like a tunnel.  While it is an enclosed space, the sheer size of the trap (approximately 10 ft L x 4 ft W x 9 ft H) might make them comfortable for many dogs to enter.  These traps would be useful in a location where constant monitoring is not possible since they are very secure and offer some protection from adverse weather.  Anderson and Nielsen (2002) provide an updated design and instructions for anyone who might be interested in exploring this option further.

Literature Researched

Anderson, R. G. and C. K. Nielsen.  2002.  Modified Stephenson trap for capturing deer.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(2): 606-608.

Clover, M.R.  1954.  A portable deer trap and catch-net.  California Fish & Game 40: 367-373.

Thompson, M.J.K., R.E. Henderson, R.O. Lemke, and B.A. Sterling.  1989.  Evaluation of a collapsible clover trap for elk.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 17: 287-290.

VerCauteren, K., J. Beringer, and S. Hygnstrom.  1997.  Use of netted-cage traps in population management and research of urban white-tailed deer.  Great Plains Wildlife Damage Control Workshop Proceedings.  Paper 380.

VerCauteren, K., J. Beringer, and S.Hygnstrom.  1999.  Use of netted cage traps for capturing white-tailed deer.  USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications. Paper 833.

The secretive nature of cats makes it nearly impossible to observe their natural behavior when outdoors.  Likewise, few cat owners know where their cats travel or what they do when allowed outside.  A new study conducted in Britain used GPS loggers to map the travel of outdoor-access house cats.  What makes this study more innovative than most is that they also used a small video camera attached to the cat’s collar (i.e. a cat-cam) to see exactly where the cat was traveling and what they were doing.  The project was led by world renowned cat behavior expert Roger Tabor.  Here’s a preview of the documentary and a link to the report summary: The Secret Lives of Cats.

I haven’t yet been able to find a copy of the full documentary so I don’t know if it’s even available yet.  If you want to look for it, it’s produced by BBC and not to be confused with the “Secret Life of Cats” by National Geographic.  The report summary is interesting, but I’m really hoping that they actually publish some of their results in a scientific journal.

Pat4Cats GPS logger from PawTrax

Another exciting aspect of this study is that it could easily be replicated by anyone who wants to learn more about outdoor-access cat behavior.  They used the Pat4Cats GPS logger from PawTrax, and this is nearly identical to the i-gotU GT-120 GPS logger.

The Eyenimal Cat Video Camera available from Petgadgets.com

Both GPS loggers use the @trip PC software.  Here’s an example track from my dog Dante with me on a mountain bike ride.  Please be aware that a GPS logger is not the same as a GPS tracker.  The logger will record and save locations that can later be downloaded to your computer, but it will not send a live location to your cell phone or internet should your cat go missing.  The cat-cam that they used is the Eyenimal Cat Video Camera.  However, after doing a little research, I found that the Mr Petcam may be a better design and at half the price.  I am planning on purchasing a cat-cam myself to learn more about the habitat use and movement patterns of outdoor-access and stray cats in New England.  Understanding normal outdoor cat behavior is an important step toward understanding lost cat behavior.

Here’s a fun example of another cat-cam video.  This one was done using Mr. Lee’s CatCam.

Coyote crossing river in Yellowstone

So many of the people who contacted me this summer were convinced that their lost cat had been killed by coyotes.  This is a pervasive belief that unfortunately causes many people to lose hope and stop searching for their lost cat after a short period of time.  Unless you are able to find his/her remains, you may never know whether your lost cat was killed by coyotes.  However, understanding some basic behavior of coyotes in urban/suburban areas may help you understand the relative risk of your cat being killed by coyotes.  In many cases, you will find that the probability of this happening is much less likely than you may have initially feared.  For more perspective on this issue, you may also want to read my article “Coyotes Don’t Eat Cats Very Often.”

Coyote packs generally consist of a breeding pair and 1-2 associates (young of previous years) who stay to help raise the current pups.  Although many coyotes live in packs, they frequently travel singly or in pairs.  Coyotes in urban/suburban areas generally have smaller home ranges than their rural counterparts.  Way et al. (2002) found that  the average home range for a breeding adult coyote in Massachusetts was approximately 30 km² (11.5 square miles).  This is equivalent to 7,400 acres or a circular area with a 3.8 mile diameter.  In comparison, Gehrt et al. (2009) found that coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area had an average home range of only 4.95 km² (1.9 square miles).

Denning & Pup Rearing

The coyote breeding season generally runs from January – February and pups are born between mid-March and mid-April.  Way et al. (2001) found that den sites in eastern Massachusetts were located within 300 m (984 ft) of water and were devoid of prey remains and adult scat.  In late-May to mid-June the pups are moved from the den to a series of rendezvous sites.  These are concealed resting sites where the pups are left while the adults are out hunting.  Way et al. (2001) found that rendezvous sites were located 0.2-8.0 km (0.1-5 miles) from the nearest house and were within 4 km (2.5 miles) of water.  Pups are self-sufficient by September and may either disperse or remain with their parents for up to several years. 

In a previous article, Observations of Coyote Predation on Cats, I noted that researchers in Arizona (Grubbs and Krausman 2009) found that coyotes killed the largest number of cats (68%) during the pup rearing season (May-August).  Similarly, a study in California found that predatory attacks on children were most common in the spring/summer (Timm and Baker 2004).   This suggests that coyotes are most likely to attack pets and young children when they are under the increased food demands of gestating and raising pups.  However, some pet detectives that I work with in the eastern US have observed that they find more coyote killed cats during the winter months. 

Activity Patterns & Travel (Way et al. 2004)

Coyotes in suburban environments were mostly active during dawn, dusk and especially at night.  In contrast, studies of coyotes in natural areas found that they were more active during the day.  However, breeding females may be active at all hours during April – June when they are nursing pups.

Coyotes travel about 20-26 km (12-16 miles) per day/night.  In urban/suburban areas, coyotes frequently travel along power lines, dirt roads, and railroad tracks.  They also hunt and travel in altered areas such as golf courses, cranberry bogs, and dumps.  Neighborhoods that bordered natural areas  or altered areas were used on an especially frequent basis.  Coyotes always slept in wooded/natural areas or remote altered areas during the day, but they were often within 50 m (164 ft) of a house.

Assessing Potential Risk to Missing Cats

If you answer yes to most of these questions, then there is a higher risk that your cat may have been killed by a coyote:

1. Is your cat an outdoor-access cat that didn’t return home?
2. Did your cat go missing at dawn, dusk or during the night?
3. Did your cat go missing in May through August?
4. Have many other outdoor-access cats also gone missing within your town?  (At least 3 cats per month within 4 miles of your home.)
5. Is your cat a kitten, sick, elderly or unusually small (less than 5 lbs)?
6. If you live in an urban/suburban area, is your neighborhood next to a park, conservation area, golf course, cemetery or dump?
7. During your search did you find the remains of any deceased cats?  (High risk.)  Have you found the remains of any cats in your area in the last several months? (Moderate risk.)
8. Have you observed coyotes chasing cats in your neighborhood in the past few months?
9. Are coyotes frequently seen during the day in your neighborhood?
10. Have there been reliable reports of coyotes attacking or killing dogs or cats in your town?  These reports are only really reliable if someone saw the pet get attacked or found the remains afterward.  In some cases there may be as many as 30-40 reported attacks per month (Baker and Timm 1998).

Even if you answer yes to all these questions, it does not necessarily mean that your cat was killed by a coyote.  If there are coyote killing cats in your area, there is also an increased risk that your cat might get injured and be hiding or might get chased out of his home range and not know how to find his way home.  Even in the Arizona study, where the coyote pack was frequently seen hunting cats, many cats interacted with coyotes, but were not killed (Grubbs and Krausman 2009).  Out of 36 observed coyote-cat interactions, cats were killed 53% of the time, chased 28% of the time, and stood their ground 17% of the time.

To learn more about coyote behavior and how to coexist in an urban/suburban environment, I also recommend these resources.

• Eastern Coyote Research: most of the coyote biology in this article is summarized from the research of Jonathan Way who has been studying coyotes in Massachusetts for over 10 years.
• Project Coyote: includes a downloadable book, Coyotes in Our Midst, on understanding and coexisting with coyotes.
• The Cooke County, Illinois, Coyote Project: research on coyotes in the Chicago metropolitan area.
• Myths & Truths About Coyotes: a very comprehensive yet easy-to-read book including almost everything you ever wanted to know about coyotes.  Personally, I think the author is overly grim in her assessment of coyote risk to cats, but in general it is a rather unbiased account of coyote behavior.

Literature Researched

Baker, Rex O. and Robert M. Timm.  1998.  Management of Conflicts Between Urban Coyotes and Humans in Southern California.  Proceedings of the 18th Vertebrate Pest Conference: 299-312.

Gehrt, Stanley D., Chris Anchor, and Lynsey A. White.  2009.  Home Range and Landscape Use of Coyotes in a Metropolitan Landscape: Conflict or Coexistence?  Journal of Mammalogy 90(5): 1045-1057.

Grubbs, Shannon E. and Paul R. Krausman.  2009.  Observations of Coyote – Cat Interactions.  Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5): 683-685. 

Timm, Robert M., Rex O. Baker, Joe R. Bennett, and Craig C. Coolahan.  2004.  Coyote Attacks: an Increasing Suburban Problem.  Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 69, 67-88.

Way, Jonathan G. and Marc Bekoff.  2007.  Suburban Howls: Tracking the Eastern Coyote in Urban Massachusetts.  Dog Ear Publishing, LLC.

Way, Jonathan G., Issac M. Ortega, and Eric G. Strauss.  2004.  Movement and Activity Patterns of Eastern Coyotes in a Coastal, Suburban  Environment.  Northeastern Naturalist 11(3): 237-254.

Way, Jonathan G., et al.  2002.  Eastern Coyote Home Range, Territoriality, and Sociality on Urbanized Cape Cod.  Northeast Wildlife 57: 1-18.

Way, Jonathan G., Peter J. Auger, Issac M. Ortega, and Eric G. Strauss.  2001.  Eastern Coyote Denning Behavior in an Anthropogenic Environment.  Northeast Wildlife 56: 18-30.

I was excited to recently learn about a new research study on the behavior of free-roaming feral and pet cats.  Here is a link to a summary of their findings from the Illinois News Bureau.  The full research article is available free for download at The Journal of Wildlife Management website.  I will also be updating my posts on cat home range and travel using data from this research.

Literature Cited

Horn, Jeff A., Nohra Mateus-Pinilla, Richard E. Warner, and Edward J. Heske.  2011.  Home range, habitat use, and activity patterns of free-roaming domestic cats.  The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(5): 1177-1185.

Photo by Greg Saulmon / Courtesy of Masslive.com

Many cat owners believe that a lost cat will find its way home.  Lord (2008) conducted a survey of households in Ohio and found that 62% of cat owners believed that if their cat strayed from home they would be able to find their way home on their own.  Only 21% of cat owners disagreed with the statement.  Interestingly, the division of belief was nearly identical for non-cat owners.

Lord et al. (2007) also conducted a study in Ohio on “Search and Identification Methods that Owners Use to Find a Lost Cat.”  In this study, they found that 35% (48) of lost cats returned home on their own (12% in 3 days or less; 15% in 4 to 7 days, and 8% in more than 7 days), 18% (25) were found using various search methods, and 47% (65) were not recovered.  While more than 1/3 is a decent number of cats finding their way home, the fact that even more cats were never found, suggests that most methods used by owners to find their lost cats were ineffective.  Search methods included: advertised in newspaper, read newspaper, searched websites, called or visited animal agency, posted neighborhood signs, contacted veterinarians, called police, sent e-mail to neighbors, walked around the neighborhood, and spoke with neighbors.  The relative success of different recovery methods is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Methods by which 138 lost cats were recovered

Forty-one percent of the lost cats were escaped indoor-only cats.  Lord et al. (2007) does not provide a break down of the percent of indoor-only and outdoor-access cats that returned home on their own, which is unfortunate since the behavior of these two types of cats is very different.

In a future post, I intend to look more at the relative effectiveness of traditional methods used to find lost cats and lost dogs.

Literature Cited

Lord, Linda K.  2008.  Attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 232(8): 1159-1167.

Lord, Linda K., Thomas, E. Wittum, Amy K. Ferketich, Julie A Funk, Paivi J. Rajala-Schultz.  2007.  Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost cat.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 230(2): 217-220.

Example of a well-designed lost cat poster. A full body picture would make this poster even more effective.

I was surprised to recently learn that as many as 30% of people acquire their cats because they were found as strays or abandoned or “just showed up” (New et al. 2004)  This does not include cats adopted from shelters, which accounted for another 13% of cats acquired, or those adopted from rescue groups, friends or strangers.  These are all cats that were found roaming the streets or showed up on someone’s back porch.  Unfortunately, most people tend to assume that a loose cat is homeless or abandoned rather than lost, and they will make limited or no effort to find the cat’s original owner.  (For more information, see Missing Pet Partnership’s “Think Lost, Not Stray.”)  So it is quite possible that many of these “stray or abandoned” cats are actually lost cats that were never found.  Since most cats do not seem to travel very far, these statistics underscore the importance of aggressive local advertising (i.e. lots of large florescent lost cat posters) when a cat goes missing.

Most common sources of cats acquired during 1996

These statistics are from two studies conducted by the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy and published in several research papers, which are available for download on their website.  An estimated 4.62 million households (17.1% of households surveyed) acquired at least one cat during 1996 with a total of 8.6 million cats adopted.  Table 1 shows a break down of the most common sources for acquiring cats.  Since some households acquired more than one cat in a year, more than one source was possible per household.

Literature Cited

New, John C., William J. Kelch, Jennifer M. Hutchinson, M.D. Salmon, Mike King, Janet M. Scarlett, and Philip H. Kass.  2004.  Birth and Death Rate Estimates of Cats and Dogs in U.S. Households and Related Factors.  Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7(4): 229-241.

Lost cat investigates trap, which is elevated to keep out skunks.

Trail cameras (also called wildlife, game, scouting, motion-sensitive, surveillance or remote cameras) can be highly effective tools for helping locate and recover displaced cats (including escaped indoor-only cats) and skittish lost dogs.  They can help provide evidence that the lost pet is in the area and whether s/he will enter a humane trap if one is set up.  For an example, see Kat Albrecht’s recent blog “Catching Bill.” However, the effectiveness of the camera is dependent on several factors including the quality of the camera and where/how it is set up.

Selecting a trail camera can be a daunting task, especially if you intend to purchase a quantity of cameras to rent out to clients.  There are so many brands available, none of them are particularly cheap, and they all seem to have some technical issues.  The TrailCamPro.com website provides some very useful information for making this decision.  They have a “First Time” Trail Camera Buyer’s Guide that covers many important aspects of selecting a camera including:

• Trigger Time
• Detection Zone
• Recovery Time
• Picture Quality
• Type of Flash
• Battery Life
• Security Options

There is even a step-by-step Trail Camera Selection Guide that picks a camera for you based on the criteria you select.  The information is interesting, but you are limited to selecting from the cameras that they sell.  I was happy to see that the best quality affordable camera that they suggest is the one that I currently use: the Bushnell Trophy Cam.  TrailCamPro.com sells them for $200+, but you can buy them for around $150 on Amazon.com.  I only say “affordable” because the next step up is their best camera, the Reconyx, which sells for $500+.

If you are really serious about learning all the features and how different brand cameras compare, then you should also check out the TrailCamPro.com Trail Camera Tests including trigger speed, detection zone, recovery time, and flash range tests.  Both TrailCamPro.com and Chasing Game also provide in-depth reviews of many different trail cameras.  I was unhappy to find that Chasing Game has some rather unflattering reviews of the Bushnell Trophy Cam based on camera performance and customer service issues.  TrailCamPro.com also indicated that the Warranty Rate for the 2010 Bushnell Trophy Cam was 3.8%, while the best made cameras have a return rate of less than 1%.  However, until I find a better camera for the same cost, I’m probably going to stick with Bushnell.

Whichever camera you select, you can improve your success by setting up the camera effectively because even a great camera won’t get a single picture of a lost pet if set up poorly.  TrailCamPro.com provides a useful Trail Camera Checklist.  Since their website is aimed primarily at deer hunters, the height that they suggest placing the camera (24”-36”) is too high for cats and small dogs, but most of the information is applicable to setting up a camera to locate missing pets.  Chasing Game also has some useful set-up information under the “Getting Started” tab.  In addition, they cover the topics of camera camouflage and security, which TrailCamPro.com does not cover on their checklist.

If you want even more in-depth information or are seeking answers to a particular question, there are many forums and discussion groups online.  Among the hunting forums, I found the Chasing Game forum particularly user-friendly and informative.  Besides hunters, wildlife biologists are the other heavy users of trail cameras, which they generally refer to as “camera traps.”  The Yahoo! Camera Trap Group is another good source for information and questions on camera selection and set-up.

I am currently researching wildlife studies that use camera traps.  I am particularly interested in those that compare using trail cameras to other methods of detecting animals such as track plates (a method of recording animal tracks), box trapping, and spotlighting to determine which is more effective.  I am also hoping to learn more about how to most effectively set-up cameras for cats and dogs by researching wildlife studies on similar size carnivores such as wildcats, foxes, and coyotes.

Tomcat with healed leg fracture.

Road traffic accidents (RTAs) are a common cause of injury and death for outdoor-access cats.  Olsen and Allen (2001) found that 51% of outdoor-access cats that suddenly and unexpectedly died were the result of RTAs, and Rochlitz et al. (2001) found that RTAs were the forth most common cause of death for cats after old age, cancer, and renal failure.  Based on the results of this study, Rochlitz (2003) conducted a more in-depth study to determine which factors may predispose cats to being involved in a RTA.  This study is particularly interesting because the results can be used to improve behavioral profiling of lost outdoor-access cats.

The cat’s age and sex were the two most important factors in determining whether s/he would be involved in a RTA.  Cats between the ages of 7 months to 2 years were most likely to be in a RTA and cats 6 years or older were less likely.  Overall, the likelihood of being in a RTA decreased by 16% for every year increase in the cat’s age.  Rochlitz (2003) suggests that this may be due to changes in the behavior of cats as they get older such as spending more time indoors, staying closer to home, and being more cautious.  Male cats were more than twice as likely to be involved in a RTA as female cats.  Due to small sample size, Rochlitz (2003) was unable to determine whether being spayed or neutered was a significant factor.  However, other studies have found that un-neutered male cats have much larger home ranges than neutered males or spayed or un-spayed females, which suggests they might be more likely to be in a RTA.  Rochlitz (2003) was unable to determine why males in general were more likely to be in a RTA than females, but males were found to spend more time outdoors than female cats.

The cat’s pedigree also affected whether s/he might be involved in a RTA.  Pedigree cats, mostly Siamese, Persian and Burmese in this study, were less than a third as likely to be hit by a car as domestic short-hair/long-hair cats or mixed breed cats.  The difference in risk for pedigree cats may be partly due to differences in the owner’s behavior and the cat’s behavior such as owners interacting with their cats more and cats spending more time indoors.

Other factors that were significant included traffic levels and whether the cat wore a reflective collar.  Cats were less likely to be in a RTA in areas with very low to low traffic levels and more likely to be in a RTA in areas with below-average to average traffic levels.  Strangely, cats living in areas with above-average to high traffic levels were not more or less likely to be hit by a car.  Another puzzling outcome of the study was that cats wearing reflective collars were more likely to be in a RTA.  Rochlitz (2003) was unable to determine a reason for this observation.

Almost equally important as the significant factors, Rochlitz (2003) also found that some factors did not influence whether a cat would in a RTA.  These factors included: coat color, whether the cat was allowed outside at night, season, the amount of time spent outside, and the time lived at an address.  Contrary to what was expected, dark colored cats and cats that were let outside at night, were not more likely to be hit by a car.  This particular study was conducted in Cambridge, UK, and surrounding towns, so the lack of seasonal differences may not be generalized to other areas of the world with different climates.  While amount of time spent outside was not independently linked to an increased risk of a RTA, cats in the high risk categories (i.e. young cats, male cats, and mixed-breed cats) all spent more time outside.  Time lived at an address was also strongly linked to the age of the cat and how much time s/he spent outdoors.  The sample of older cats that had moved (3) was really too small to determine if this was an influencing factor.

Rochlitz (2003) also attempted to measure some of the characteristics of RTAs.  Most RTAs (69%-80%) occurred just outside or very near the cat’s home.  However, this data may be biased because cats that were involved in RTAs farther from home may be less likely to be found by their owners’ and brought to a vet.  Rochlitz (2003) also attempted to determine what time of day/night most RTAs took place, but this analysis was inconclusive due to the large number of unknowns (47% of accidents).

Road traffic accidents are frequently a concern when an outdoor-access cat goes missing.  The results of this study help identify young (7 month – 2 years), male, mixed-breed cats as the highest risk group for RTAs.  Missing cats that fall into these categories should prompt a thorough search of the area around the home and immediate neighbor’s homes in case the missing cat has been involved in a RTA.  The results of this study also show that only 25% of cats involved in a RTA ended up dying.  These results may be somewhat biased since owners are probably less likely to bring a dead cat to the veterinarian, but they still show that many cats do survive being hit by a car.  This highlights the importance of thoroughly searching for the missing cat in case it is injured and hiding in silence.  More research needs to be conducted on the behavior of cats immediately after they have been in a RTA in order to improve our ability to find them.

To view a more detailed summary of Rochlitz’s (2003) two studies, follow this link to A Summary of a Study of Factors that may Predispose Domestic Cats to Road Traffic Accidents.

Literature Cited

Olsen, Tammy and Andrew Allen.  2001.  Causes of sudden and unexpected death in cats: a 10-year retrospective study.  Canadian Veterinary Journal 42: 61-62.

Rochlitz, I., T. De Wit, and D.M. Broom.  2001.  A pilot study on the longevity and causes of death of cats in Britain.  Cheltenham, BSAVA Congress Clinical Research Abstracts. p.528.

Rochlitz, I.  2003.  Study of factors that may predispose domestic cats to road traffic accidents.  Part 1.  The Veterinary Record 153: 549-553 & Part 2: The Veterinary Record 153: 585-588.

When an outdoor-access cat goes missing from its home range, this frequently means that something has happened to the cat to prevent it from returning home.  Death, injury or illness may all prevent a cat from returning home.  When sick or injured, a cat may hide within its home range and may die if not found.  This behavior has been observed in both outdoor-access and indoor-only cats.  Understanding the frequency of different causes of death in owned cats (particularly sudden death where the owner does not know that the cat is sick or injured), may help us better determine priority areas to search for a missing cat.

Olsen and Allen (2001) conducted a study on sudden and unexpected causes of death for cats in a city of over 200,000 people and surrounding towns in Saskatchewan, Canada. During a 10-year period, one large veterinary facility treated 994 cats of which 79 (8%) were brought in for autopsies by their owners because they died suddenly and unexpectedly.  Of these 79 cats, 49 (62%) were outdoor-access, 11 (14%) were indoor-only, and 19 (24%) were unknown.

Table 1. Underlying causes of sudden and unexpected deaths in 79 cats.

Table 1 shows the relative frequency of different causes of sudden death.  By far the most frequent cause of sudden death (34%) was attributed to trauma caused by road traffic accidents (RTAs).   All but two of the RTA deaths were outdoor-access cats, so that means that 51% (25 out of 49 total) of outdoor-access cat deaths were due to RTAs.  Other types of death due to trauma were 3 dog bites and 1 gun shot.

Heart disease (20%), primarily hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, was the second most frequent cause of sudden death followed by intestinal disease (8%).  Five of the 6 cases of intestinal disease were under six months old and died of enteritis due to feline panleukopenia.  Surprisingly, three of these kittens were indoor-only.  Respiratory disease accounted for 6% of deaths; three of these cats died of pneumonia and were 2-10 months old.  The other two cats died from breathing obstructions.

Urinary tract diseases (5%) were more likely to occur in older cats.  Three cats aged 8, 10, and 18 years died of renal disease.  One 6 year old cat died of a urethral obstruction.  This is unusual only because urinary obstructions usually have visible symptoms such as frequent urination or straining prior to death.  Diseases associated with feline leukemia virus (FeLV: 4%) were the last relatively frequent cause of sudden death.  All three FeLV-related deaths were outdoor-access cats.  The remaining four causes of sudden death all accounted for few cats (1% each).  The cause of death could not be determined in 13% of cases.

In this particular study, road traffic accidents accounted for a high percentage of deaths (51% of outdoor-access cats autopsied).  This number is even likely to be an underestimate because the data were collected from autopsy reports.  If a cat was obviously hit by a car, its owner would probably be less likely to go through the expense of getting the body autopsied.  There were also no cases of poisoning or death by predators, besides the three presumed dog bites.  However, predator deaths may also be underestimated since these bodies are less likely to be recovered.

Unfortunately, since Olsen and Allen (2001) did not collect data on the entire population of cats in the study area, it is not possible to determine whether certain characteristics (e.g. age, sex, access to outdoors, etc.) may predispose cats to different causes of sudden death.  In upcoming blog posts, I intend to focus on the most common causes of sudden death and find out what is known about them.  The first paper I’m going to review is a very informative study on the factors that may predispose domestic cats to road traffic accidents.

Olsen, Tammy and Andrew Allen.  2001.  Causes of sudden and unexpected death in cats: a 10-year retrospective study.  Canadian Veterinary Journal 42: 61-62.