Trends in Coyote Attacks on Dogs

Posted on March 5, 2011 by Danielle
Share

The Cooke County, Illinois, Coyote Project provides some interesting research on observations of coyote attacks on dogs in the Chicago metropolitan area.  Using a search of newspaper databases from 1990-2005, they found 70 articles of coyote attacks on dogs.  The average number of attacks per year increased from 0-2/yr in 1990 up to 6-14/yr in 2005.  Most attacks (60%) were on small breed dogs such as Yorkshire Terriers, Shih Tzus and Jack Russell Terriers, and these attacks were frequently fatal.  Coyote attacks on dogs peaked in December – February during the coyote mating season and again during April when the pups are usually born (Gehrt 2006).  They concluded that these patterns are consistent with resident, territorial coyote attacks rather than solitary individuals.  Attacks on larger dogs usually involved two or more coyotes and were most likely to occur during the mating season, when coyotes are most territorial.  In contrast, attacks on small dogs were likely to occur at any time of the year (Gehrt 2006).  Gehrt and Riley (2010) conclude that this pattern indicates that these attacks result from competition as well as predation.  In interspecific (between species) competition, larger carnivores such as wolves will opportunistically kill smaller carnivores such as coyotes and foxes.

Table 1. Coyote attacks on dogs based on size of the dog (from newspaper accounts of 70 attacks in the Chicago area from 1990-2005).

Table 2. Coyote attacks on dogs based on breed (from newspaper accounts of 70 attacks in the Chicago area from 1990-2005).

Since these results are only from one location and were based on newspaper articles, some care should be taken in generalizing the results.  For instance, the larger number of Yorkshire Terriers and Shih Tzus being attacked, does not necessarily mean that coyotes are more likely to attack these particular small breeds.  There may just be more of these breeds present in the Chicago area.

I would also like to point out that none of these results were actually published in the scientific literature.  In fact, I wasn’t able to find a single research study on coyotes attacking dogs, although I did (somewhat ironically) find one article published on dogs attacking a coyote.  I compiled these results from the Cooke County, Illinois, Coyote Project website, their research bulletin (Gerht 2006), and from a brief summary of the results in Urban Carnivores (Gehrt and Riley 2010).  However, in doing so, I did find some inconsistencies in the data.  For example, the website (where I got most of my numbers) indicated that they found 70 attacks from 1990-2005, but Gehrt and Riley (2010) state that there were 60 attacks from 1990-2007 (obviously they can’t both be right).  I also found that some of the percents in the breed pie chart (on the website) did not match the numbers in the text.  Therefore, Table 1 & 2 are my best interpretation of what I found and may not be entirely accurate.  Gehrt and Riley (2010) also state that there was a peak in attacks during both the mating season (December – April) and pup rearing season (May-August), but the graph from the website only shows a peak during the mating season.  A peak during the pup rearing season would suggest that predation (rather than competition) was a greater factor during this time due to the increased nutritional needs of raising the pups.  If this were true, we would expect more small dogs to be killed during this time period.

Literature Cited

The Cooke County, Illinois, Coyote Project website

Gehrt, Stanley.  2006.  Urban coyote ecology and management – The Cook County,Illinois coyote project.  Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 929.  32 pp.

Gehrt, Stanley and Seth P.D. Riley.  2010.  “Coyotes (Canis latrans)” in Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation. Gehrt, Stanley, D., Seth P.D. Riley, and Brian L. Cypher, editors.  The John Hopkins University Press.

Print Friendly
Posted in Coyote, Dog Behavior, Predators | Leave a comment

Fear Reactions of Cats to People

Posted on February 20, 2011 by Danielle
Share

Many lost cats will react in fear when they are approached by any person including their owner.  This well documented behavior is frequently confusing and even heart-breaking to the lost cat’s owner who cannot understand why their cat would act this way.  I think that former pet detective Donna Holsten described this phenomenon best when she said that “cats are very contextual.”  In his home environment, the cat may be very affectionate and even outgoing, but when displaced from this familiar environment, he quickly becomes instinctual and will frequently react in fear towards all people.

I recently found an interesting research study from Poland that documented responses of cats to people in relation to their distance from human settlements.  Goszczynski et al. (2009) found that the cat’s reaction to human presence (including its owner) may be dependent on the distance from the cat’s home.  At distances of less than 199 m (<650 feet) from buildings, 61% of cats attempted to run or hide when they saw a human observer.  This increased to 94% fear reactions at distances of 200-499 m (650 ft – 1,600 ft), and all cats reacted fearfully at distances over 500 m (0.3 miles).  What is particularly interesting about these results is that the cats in the study were not lost (presumably they were resident cats exploring within the limits of their home ranges), yet they still reacted in fear towards people when the people where encountered outside of their normal context (i.e. cats expect to encounter people near human settlements and not while they are hunting in the woods).  This suggests that a cat does not have to be lost and panicked (or in “survival mode” as it is frequently called) in order for the cat to react instinctively to perceived threats.  Rather this fear response to anything out of the ordinary is a natural continuation of their normal behavior.  I suppose another way to look at it is that cats are always in “survival mode” and it only takes a small change in their normal environment to elicit this fearful behavior.

Literature Cited

Donna Holsten.  Lost Pet Articles.

Goszczynski, J., D. Krauze, and J. Gryz.  2009.  Activity and exploration of house cats in rural areas of central Poland.  Folia Zoologica 58(4): 363-371.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Communication, Human Behavior | Leave a comment

Habitat Use of Suburban Cats: do they travel in the woods?

Posted on February 13, 2011 by Danielle
Share

Owners’ of lost cats are frequently concerned with whether their cat might be hiding or lost somewhere in the woods.  This is a valid concern since 1) the probability of detection may be very low in the woods depending on the density and type of vegetation; 2) there may be many miles of woods surrounding the area where the cat went missing; and 3) there is a lower chance of sightings if the cat is spending the majority of its time in the woods.  Owners may also perceive wooded areas as more dangerous due to larger numbers of predators, which may lead them to give up sooner.  Anecdotal evidence from lost cat cases indicate that some lost cats certainly do enter the woods, but how often does this happen and how deep into the woods might they travel?  Lacking any research on lost cat behavior relative to habitat use, I decided to look at the habitat use of owned outdoor-access cats in suburban areas adjacent to natural areas (either woods, wetland, or heath).  Since lost cats are likely to seek areas that are familiar to them, this should provide a better idea on where to focus searches for lost outdoor-access cats.

Photo provided by Amy Adams of Lost Pet Resources

Habitat use studies of suburban cats near natural areas found that most cats spent the majority of their time at home or in neighboring yards and didn’t travel far into the natural areas.  The studies found that between 69%-91% of suburban cats’ locations were at their home/yard (Barratt 1997 = 75.3% home/yard and 17% suburban, Meek 2003 = 91% home/suburban, and Morgan et al. 2009 = 69% home).  The cats spent comparatively little time in adjacent natural areas with only 7.8%-9% of locations (Barratt 1997 = 7.8%, Meek 2003 = 8%, and Morgan et al. 2009 = 9%).  In all of these studies, some cats were more predisposed to travel into the natural areas than others.  Barratt (1997) found that only four of the ten cats traveled more than 100 m (328 ft) into the preserve, but even these cats only spent about 20% of their time in the nature preserve.  Morgan et al. (2009) found that cats living within 40 m (131 ft) of the wetland traveled farther and more frequently into the wetland, but they did not have larger home ranges than cats living exclusively in the suburban area.

I found one study particularly interesting because it was conducted in Albany, New York, and the habitat was probably most similar to my home area of New England while most of the other studies were conducted in Australia or New Zealand.  Kays and DeWan (2004) found that 80% of cat hunting forays were in the garden/yard or within 10 m (33 ft) of the forest edge, and only two hunts were more than 20 m (60 ft) into the forest.  They found that the average cat home range contained 3.8 gardens/yards and only 0.071 hectares (0.18 acres) of forest.  Kays and DeWan (2004) also conducted an interesting experiment with scent stations and surveillance cameras placed throughout several forested fragments in a suburban area.  They set up 108 scent stations (from the forest edge up to 800 m into the forest), and they only detected 3 cats (out of 25 total cats detected) farther than 40 m (131 ft) into the forest.  On average, cats were located 35.6 m (116 ft) inside the forest.

Some researchers also made observations of preferred travel routes, especially when cats were hunting.  Barratt (1997) found that travel routes during the day appeared primarily determined by available cover (including drains, tall grass, fences and shrubs) and the location of resting, sunning and hunting sites close to home.  At night travel routes were influenced by favored hunting sites toward the outer edges of their home range such as farm buildings, tall grass, and forest habitat.  Meek (2003) found that cats on hunting forays walked close to fence lines and vegetation boundaries rather than traveling in the open, and Morgan et al. (2009) found that cats were located most frequently on the periphery of the wetland or on perimeter trails.

The results of these studies suggest that cats in general are more likely to be found traveling in suburban areas or in the edges of woods (i.e. up to approximately 100 feet into the woods).  In a future blog post I intend to look at research on habitat use of feral cats since it is possible that a lost cat will act more like a feral cat, especially if s/he has been lost for a long time.

Literature Cited

Barrat, David.  1997.  Home range size, habitat utilisation and movement patterns of suburban and farm cats Felis catus. Ecography 20(3): 271–280.

Kays, Roland and Amielle DeWan.  2004.  Ecological impact of inside/outside cats around a suburban nature preserve.  Animal Conservation 7: 1-11.

Meek, Paul.  2003.  Home range of house cats Felis catus living within a National Park. Australian Mammology 25: 51-60.

Morgan, S.A., C.M. Hansen, J.G. Ross, G.J. Hickling, S.C. Ogilvie, and A.M. Paterson.  2009.  Urban cat (Felis catus) movement and predation activity associated with a wetland reserve in New Zealand.  Wildlife Research 36: 574-580.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Home Range or Territory, Cat Movements or Habitat Use | 2 Comments

Coyotes Don’t Eat Cats Very Often

Posted on February 5, 2011 by Danielle
Share

Most studies of urban/suburban coyotes have found that coyotes in these areas relied predominantly on natural food sources rather than human generated food such as trash, domestic animals, pet food, and domestic fruit (Gerht and Riley 2010; Morey et al. 2007).  The most common food items were leporids (rabbits) and rodents and occasionally deer or fruit.  However, coyotes in more urbanized areas, did consume more human generated food than their rural counterparts (2% to 35%: Gerht and Riley 2010).  Of particular concern to owners’ of lost or outdoor-access cats is how frequently coyotes eat cats.  Based on observations of coyotes in Tuscan, Arizona, Grubbs and Krausman (2009) reported the alarming find that cats constituted 42% of coyote diets.  However, the majority of studies of urban coyotes have found that cats occurred in only 1%- 2% or less of coyote diets (Gerht 2006; Gerht and Riley 2010; Morey et al. 2007).  In a few studies, cat remains were found in larger frequencies.  Morey et al. (2007) found that  6.7% of scats contained cat in the site with the most urban development.  Quinn’s (1997) study in western Washington found a higher percentage of cat remains in coyote scat with an average of 7.8%.  In the residential study area, cat was the most abundant mammalian food item at 13.1% though fruit was considerably more common for all items (42.6%).  However, Quinn (1997) only recorded the “dominant” prey item for each scat, which would lead to greater representation for those items (i.e. if a scat contained mostly cat hair and only one mouse, he only recorded the cat remains for that scat).

The difference between Grubbs and Krausman’s (2009) study and the other research studies is that their estimates were based on a small number of observations (45) of coyotes consuming prey or fruit while the majority of food habits studies assess coyote diets by analyzing scat (feces).  Scat analysis is most commonly reported as percent occurrence, which can be measured with one of several methods.  The most common methods (a) measure percent occurrence as the number of occurrences of a diet item/ total number of occurrences of all diet items or (b) measure occurrence as the number of scats with an item/ total number of scats analyzed.  In the case of (b), the percentages will often not add up to 100% because some scats contain more than one diet item.  For example, if the percent occurrence of rodents was 30%, then either (a) 30% of the total items consumed by coyotes were rodents or (b) 30% of all scats analyzed contained rodent remains.

Although scat analysis is a convenient way to study dietary habits, it does have some well known errors.  Percent occurrence is biased by the size of the prey consumed such that larger prey items are overrepresented.  For example, if a coyote eats a mouse, the entire mouse will be present in one scat, but when a coyote eats a deer, the same deer may be present in several scats resulting in a higher percent occurrence for deer even though the same number of mice and deer were consumed.  It is also not possible to determine whether prey items consumed were killed by the predator or scavenged from an already dead animal.  Lastly, if coyotes are killing cats but not consuming them (as might occur in interspecific competition), then scat analysis would under-represent the number of cats being killed.  However, Grubbs and Krausman (2009) found that coyotes consumed cats in 18 out of 19 observed kills, and the coyote only left the one cat uneaten because it was disturbed by a person.  Given my personal experience studying coyotes in Yellowstone National Park, I also find it hard to believe that coyotes would not consume any animal that they killed or found dead.  In contrast, wolves would frequently kill coyotes but not consume them.

For more information on coyote predation on cats, check out the blog posts “Observations of Coyote Predation on Cats” and “More Observations on Coyote – Cat Interactions: what can we learn?”  I have also created a file that contains this discussion and the diet analysis research tables from several studies.

Review of Coyote Predation on Cats Based on Diet Analysis Studies

Literature Cited

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

Morey, Paul S. , Eric M. Gese, and Stanley Gehrt.  2007.  Spatial and Temporal Variation in the Diet of Coyotes in the Chicago Metropolitan Area.   American Midland Naturalist 158: 147-161.

Gehrt, Stanley and Seth P.D. Riley.  2010.  “Coyotes (Canis latrans)” in Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation. Gehrt, Stanley, D., Seth P.D. Riley, and Brian L. Cypher, editors.  The John Hopkins University Press.

Gehrt, Stanley D.  2006.  Urban Coyote Ecology and Management.  Ohio State University Extension Bulletin 929. 32 pp.

Quinn, Timothy.  1997.  Coyote Food Habits in Three Urban Habitat Types of Western Washington.  Northwest Science 71(1): 1-5.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Survival, Coyote, Predators | 3 Comments

How Far Do Cats Travel?

Posted on January 30, 2011 by Danielle
Share

While the behavior of lost cats is likely to differ from that of outdoor-access or free-ranging (stray, feral or farm) cats, we can still learn something from studying their normal movement patterns.  In this post, I want to focus on research studies that measured how far cats normally traveled within their home ranges and the maximum distances they traveled from their homes.

First let’s get an idea of the distances traveled for suburban outdoor-access house cats.  The average distance traveled for outdoor-access cats was only 47 meters (155 ft).  I calculated this as the weighted mean of three studies; Meek 2003 (wandering cats = 34 m and sedentary cats = 9 m), Morgan et al. 2009 (mean = 72 m), and Schmidt et al. 2007 (mean = 31.2 m).  In comparison, Barratt (1997) found that the average maximum distance that outdoor-access cats traveled from their home was 311 m (0.2 miles) with a range of 20 m (65 ft) to 940 m (0.6 miles).  Interestingly, Morgan et al. (2009) also found that cats younger than six years old traveled significantly farther and had larger home ranges than older cats.

Since outdoor-access cats in suburban areas generally have small home ranges, we can get a better idea of the distances cats are capable of traveling by looking at movements of free-ranging farm cats in rural areas.  Liberg (1980) found that farm cats in Sweden rarely traveled farther than 600 m (0.4 miles) from their home farm.  In comparison, Warner (1985) found that farm cats in Illinois traveled an average maximum distance of 1,697 m (1 mile) from the farm with a range of 956 m (0.6 miles) to 3,013 m (1.9 miles).  Germain (2008) found similar distances for farm cats in France with two cats that traveled 1,500 m (0.9 miles) and 2,500 m (1.6 miles) from the farm in a single outing.

It is important to keep in mind that all of these measurements are the straight-line distance that the cat traveled, and they do not tell us how far the cat actually walked.  In reality, cats may walk considerably farther each day/night than these numbers indicate.  One free-ranging (intact) male cat in rural Spain was continuously tracked for two 12-hour tracking periods (Palomares 1994).   During one 12-hour tracking period, he walked 4,076 m (2.5 miles), but he stayed in the vicinity of one house.  They don’t specify how far from the house he traveled, but 73.9% of his locations (over 5 months) were within 400 m (0.2 miles) of a house.  This is the only published study I could find that calculated actual distance traveled.

In a future post, I intend to look at dispersal distances of free-ranging cats and what dispersal can teach us about lost cat behavior.  Dispersal occurs when a cat leaves its current home range in search of a new home range.

Literature Cited

Barrat, David.  1997.  Home range size, habitat utilisation and movement patterns of suburban and farm cats Felis catus. Ecography 20(3): 271–280.

Germain, E., S. Benhamou, and M.-L. Poulle .  2008.  Spatio-temporal sharing between the European wildcat, the domestic cat and their hybrids. Journal of Zoology 276(2): 195-203.

Liberg, O.  1980.  Spacing patterns in a population of rural free roaming domestic cats.  Oikos 35: 336-349.

Meek, Paul.  2003.  Home range of house cats Felis catus living within a National Park. Australian Mammology 25: 51-60.

Morgan, S.A., C.M. Hansen, J.G. Ross, G.J. Hickling, S.C. Ogilvie, and A.M. Paterson.  2009.  Urban cat (Felis catus) movement and predation activity associated with a wetland reserve in New Zealand.  Wildlife Research 36: 574-580.

Palomares, Francisco and Miguel Delibes.  1994.  A note on the movements of a free-ranging male domestic cat in southwestern Spain. Hystrix 5 (1-2): 119-123.

Schmidt, Paige, Roel Lopez, and Bret Collier.  2007.  Survival, fecundity, and movements of free-roaming cats. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(3): 915-919.

Warner, Richard.  1985.  Demography and movements of free-ranging domestic cats in rural Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 340-346.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Home Range or Territory, Cat Movements or Habitat Use | 1 Comment

Cat Research Study Overview

Posted on January 29, 2011 by Danielle
Share

Before covering additional topics on cat behavior, I wanted to take a moment to review cat research in general.  Although the cat is the most popular pet in the US, there is surprisingly little research on its natural behavior.  So far I have only been able to find five research studies that focus on the home range, movements, and activity patterns of outdoor-access cats in suburban neighborhoods (Barratt 1997, Kay and DeWan 2004, Meek 2003, Morgan et al. 2009, and Schmidt et al. 2007).  Two of these studies were conducted in the US, two in Australia, and one in New Zealand.  There are significantly more research studies that have been conducted on free-ranging cats.  Free-ranging cats may be feral, semi-feral, stray, farm, or perhaps lost cats.  I have compiled a bibliography with abstracts (i.e. research summaries) when available for all the research studies that I have found so far.  I will continue to update this document as I conduct more literature research.

Research Studies on the Behavior of Outdoor-Access and Free-Ranging Domestic Cats:  Bibliography with Abstracts

If you are interested in learning more about cat behavior, I would also recommend the following books:

Turner, Dennis. C., and Patrick. Bateson, editors. 2000.  The Domestic Cat: the biology of its behavior. Cambridge University Press.  (This is the best compilation of cat research studies to date, but it is so dense that it can be difficult to read.)

Tabor, Roger.  2003.  Understanding Cat Behavior.  F&W Publications Inc.  (This book is an easy read, but still informative.)

Johnson-Bennett, Pam.  2004.  Cat vs Cat: keeping the peace when you have more than one cat. Penguin Books.  (While not research study based, this book offers useful insights into cat social behavior.  It also has very good information on how to reintroduce a cat back into a multi-cat household, which could be useful for people who find their lost cats.)

There are many other books available on cats, but most focus on how to take care of a cat or how to fix cat behavior problems.  Keep in mind that just because something about cat behavior is published in a book, it doesn’t necessarily make it true.  People can pretty much write anything that they want in books and even people that may be experts on cat behavior problems, don’t necessarily have a good understanding of cat biology.  In contrast, all scientific journal articles must be reviewed and edited by other scientists in the author’s field of research before they are published.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Communication, Cat Home Range or Territory, Cat Movements or Habitat Use, Cat Survival | Leave a comment

More Observations on Coyote-Cat Interactions: What Can We Learn?

Posted on January 20, 2011 by Danielle
Share

This post relates to the earlier post “Observations of Coyote Predation on Cats.”  Although it may sound like I’m criticizing Grubbs and Krausman’s (2009) study, I’m not saying that we should disregard the results entirely.  As I said earlier, this is a fascinating research study and the only published study on observations of coyote-cat interactions.  I just think that it should be viewed in the context of observations of coyote-cat behavior in a coyote pack that may specialize in killing cats.  Some of the patterns of behavior observed may be useful when gauging the relative risk of lost or outdoor cats to coyote predation.  For example, Grubbs and Krausman (2009) found that 69% of interactions and 68% of kills occurred during the pup rearing season (May-August).  These results could be due to the increased pressure on the adult coyotes to feed a fast growing litter of hungry pups.  Only 8% of interactions and 5% of kills took place during the breeding season (Jan-Feb).  I’m curious whether the same trends would be observed in an area of the country that experiences harsher winters than Arizona.  They also found that most interactions (86%) and kills (84%) took place between sunrise and sunset.  Jon Way et al. (2004) found that coyotes in suburban Massachusetts showed a preference to be active mostly during dawn, dusk, and especially at night, but that breeding females were active at all hours during the time they were nursing pups (April-June).  In general, this supports the theory that outdoor-access cats that initially go missing during the day are less likely to be the victim of a coyote attack.

Some other results of Grubbs and Krausman’s (2009) study raise more questions than answers.  For example, they found that 18 of 19 killed cats were at least partially consumed.  I would really like to know whether the coyotes consumed the cats at the location of the kill or whether they carried them to a different location or to the den.  This would be useful to help determine the likelihood of finding the remains of a coyote-killed cat within the cat’s home range?  Way et al. (2001) studied characteristics of coyote dens in suburban Massachusetts and found that den sites were devoid of prey remains and adult coyote scat.  However, in late-May to mid-June the pups were moved from the den to a series of rendezvous sites (i.e. a safe location where pups are left while most of the adults are away hunting), and Way et al. (2001) does not mention whether prey remains were present at these sites. (I am going to conduct further research into the characteristics of rendezvous sites.)

Grubbs and Krausman (2009) also found that in 28% of coyote-cat interactions, the coyote chased the cat.  This was the second most common coyote-cat interaction followed by 17% of cats standing their ground or chasing coyotes.  A surprising number of lost outdoor-access cats are found within a mile or two from where they originally went missing and sometimes even years after they went missing (see Lost Cats Found blog for examples).  The general assumption is that most of these cats were displaced from their familiar home range and were then unable to find their way home.  Causes of displacement might be territorial aggression from another cat or being chased by a dog or wild animal.  I would be really curious to find out if they measured how far the cats ran and the behavior of the cat after the chase ended.  I may try and get in touch with Grubbs or Krausman and see if they have additional information that they would be willing to share.

Video of a cat fending off two coyotes and eventually escaping up a tree.  (If your cat is missing, I wouldn’t suggest watching this.  It’s a close call for the brave cat.)

Literature Cited

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

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

For anyone who is interested, many of Jonathan Way’s research papers are available from the publications page of his website: Eastern Coyote Research.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Survival, Coyote, Predators | 3 Comments

Observations of Coyote Predation on Cats

Posted on January 19, 2011 by Danielle
Share

Coyote sitting in road in winter

In 2009 Grubbs and Krausman published a study on “Observations of Coyote-Cat Interactions,” which was then dubbed “Coyotes Eat Cats!” by the media.  This is a very interesting study since it is the only published research on direct observations of coyote-cat interactions.  However, I’m skeptical that this high level of coyote predation on cats is typical of coyotes in general.

The full article is available on Harris Environmental Group Inc., and I have posted a summary of their results:  Summary of Observations of Coyote-Cat Interactions.

The research study was conducted from December 2005 to November 2006 in two residential neighborhoods and a golf course in Tuscan, Arizona.  Grubbs and Krausman observed 36 coyote–cat interactions, 19 of which resulted in coyotes killing cats. Most cats were killed in residential areas from 10pm to 5am during the pup-rearing season (May – August).   In interactions where the coyote(s) did not kill the cat, most resulted in the coyote(s) chasing the cat.  They also found that one coyote was as likely to kill a cat as a pack of coyotes, and coyotes frequently (at least partially) consumed the cats that they killed.  They observed 45 instances of coyotes consuming prey and fruit composed of 42% cats, 33.3% rodents, 17.8% lagamorphs (rabbits), 2.2% birds, and 6.6% dates.

At first glance this study presents a grim picture for any cat lost or living in potential coyote habitat.  Cats in this study had a 53% chance of being killed during each interaction with a coyote, and they had about a 10% chance of encountering a coyote on any given day.  However, before we all give up hope on lost cats and assume they were eaten by coyotes, we need to look at this study in more detail and also at the bigger picture.  One major limitation of this study is the very small sample size.  Grubbs and Krausman only radio-collared 8 coyotes and 6 of these belonged to a single pack.  One coyote, the alpha male of the pack, was involved in 14 coyote-cat interactions and 12 of these resulted in kills.  That means the alpha male alone (or with other pack members) was responsible for 63% of cat kills, and a cat had an 86% chance of being killed if s/he encountered the alpha male compared to a 32% chance with the other pack members.

Predation by wolves and coyotes on other domestic (farm) animals is usually a learned behavior, and targeted removal of offending animals is more effective than general population reduction (for more information, check out the publication Coyotes in our Midst by Project Coyote).  Jonathan Way (2007), founder of Eastern Coyote Research, believes that individual coyotes may become adept at or even specialize at catching a particular prey species where they are locally abundant.  The fact that the alpha male coyote of the pack in this study was involved in such a high percentage of cat kills, suggests that this coyote may have specialized in cat predation and taught the rest of the pack as well.

A coyote shows up at a feeding station for a lost cat

There is also some indication that coyotes in Arizona and California may be bolder than coyotes in many other regions of North America.  White and Gehrt (2009) conducted an analysis of coyote attacks on humans in the US and Canada from 1960-2006 and found that nearly half (49%) of 142 recorded attacks occurred in California followed by 13% in Arizona.

In contrast to this study, the majority of research on coyote food habits has found that the occurrence of domestic cat in coyote diets was only 1%-2% (Gehrt and Riley 2010).  Quinn (1997) has published the highest occurrence of cats in coyote diets and that was only 13% for an urban area in Washington state.  In a future blog post, I intend to look at these food habit studies in more detail along with their usefulness and limitations.

When I counsel my own clients who have lost their cat in potential coyote habitat, I advise them not to give up hope unless they find remains that they can positively identify as their lost cat.  I am only really concerned about coyote predation when numerous cats go missing from the same general area and especially if the client also finds partially consumed remains of other cats in their search for their own cat.  Sure, coyotes do kill cats, but I believe that many more cats are never found because their owners’ assume they are dead and give up searching much too soon.

Literature Cited

Gehrt, Stanley and Seth P.D. Riley.  2010.  “Coyotes (Canis latrans)” in Urban Carnivores: Ecology, Conflict, and Conservation. Gehrt, Stanley, D., Seth P.D. Riley, and Brian L. Cypher, editors.  The John Hopkins University Press.

Quinn, Timothy.  1997.  Coyote Food Habits in Three Urban Habitat Types of Western Washington. Northwest Science 71(1): 1-5.

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

White, Lynsey A. and Stanley D. Gehrt.  2009.  Coyote Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 419-32.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Survival, Coyote, Predators | 1 Comment

The Importance of Shelter for Lost, Stray, and Feral Cats

Posted on January 19, 2011 by Danielle
Share

Pet detectives may advise owners’ of lost cats to search locations that offer safety and familiarity to the lost cat.  The general knowledge is that domestic cats will seek shelter in locations that most closely resemble locations that they are familiar with; therefore, a house cat is most likely to seek shelter near or in human structures as opposed to taking off into the woods.  Based on what I’ve read on cat behavior, it makes sense to me, but I (as usual) find myself asking the question, “is there any research that supports this theory?”  Unfortunately, all of the information available on where people actually find lost cats is biased towards where they search and the probability of detection in that area.  In other words, most people spend more time searching near human habitations and unless the cat is deceased and you use a search dog, it is very unlikely that you will actually locate a lost cat loose in the woods.  Therefore, unless you somehow take into account all of the cats that are not found, the percentage of cats found hiding or sheltering near human habitations is not highly informative.

A worn trail of cat prints leads under this shed.

I did find one interesting research paper that looked at the relative importance of food and shelter for free-ranging cats.  While most of these cats were probably feral or stray rather than lost, understanding the normal behavior of free-ranging cats is an important step towards better understanding lost cat behavior.  Calhoon and Haspel (1989) studied cat populations in two distinct residential neighborhoods in Brooklyn, NY.  Sector A primarily contained apartment buildings, many abandoned structures, and voluminous refuse in uncovered containers.  In contrast, Sector B contained primarily private homes, few abandoned buildings, and partially covered refuse containers.  Not surprisingly, Sector A contained a significantly greater density of free-ranging cats than Sector B.  The difference between free-ranging cat densities in urban and rural areas is often attributed to the abundance of food in urban areas.  However, Calhoon and Haspel found that neither season nor supplemental feeding had a significant effect on population density.  Rather, the availability of shelter (in this case primarily abandoned buildings) was the most significant factor effecting population distribution.  They even found that the number of cats in each sector was directly proportional to the number of floors in abandoned buildings. It is a very fascinating article, and it does seem to support the importance of human habitations as shelter whether or not the resident cat has ever lived in the comfort of a human home.

Calhoon, Robert E. and Carol Haspel.  1989.  Urban Cat Populations Compared by Season, Subhabitat and Supplemental Feeding.  Journal of Animal Ecology 58: 321-28.

Granted, Brooklyn probably doesn’t have much available woodland habitat.  Perhaps human habitations are the only available shelter.  In a future blog I intend to look at the relative use of wooded areas by outdoor-access house cats.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Movements or Habitat Use | Leave a comment

Tracking Cats in the Snow

Posted on January 17, 2011 by Danielle
Share

If a cat gets lost in the winter, you may have the opportunity to track him/her without the use of a search dog.  This method would be most useful for escaped indoor-only cats since they are frequently hiding close to home.  However, it may also be useful for finding an outdoor-access cat if there are not many other cats in the area where s/he went missing.

Front track (bottom) and rear track (top)

Domestic cat tracks are oval and are an average of 1 1/4 inches in diameter (specific measurements from Elbroch 2003: front track L: 1 - 1 5/8  in. W 7/8 – 1 3/4 in.; rear track L 1 1/8 – 1 1/2 in. W  7/8 – 1 5/8 in.).  The front track often appears asymmetrical, and the claws usually do not show in either track.  The walking stride is 6 – 12 1/2 inches long and 2 – 4 3/4 inches wide.  In deep, powdery snow, the prints may not be visible, but the trail shows a distinct triangular pattern.

Cat Trail in 18 inches of Snow. Note the triangular pattern of the imprints.

Recommended Tracking Books

Elbroch Mark.  2003.  Mammal Tracks and Sign: A Guide to North American Species. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.  (This is my favorite field guide but with almost 800 pages of glossy photos, it is a little heavy for taking into the field.)

Halfpenny, James C. and Jim Bruchac.  2001.  Scats and Tracks of the Northeast. Guilford, CT: Morris Book Publishing, LLC.  (There are similar versions of this handy little field guide for different regions of the US.)

If you want to learn more about the skill and art of tracking, I would recommend the following books:

Rezendes, Paul.  1999.  Tracking and the Art of Seeing: How to Read Animal Tracks and Sign. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers.

Young, Jon and Tiffany Morgan.  2007.  Animal Tracking Basics. Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books.  Jon Young also runs the Wilderness Awareness School.

Print Friendly
Posted in Cat Behavior, Cat Movements or Habitat Use | Leave a comment