Review of “Search Methods Used to Locate Missing Cats and Locations Where Missing Cats Are Found”

Distances to Where Cat was Found

For cats found alive, the median distance traveled was 50 meters (164 feet) with a maximum of 25 km (15.5 miles). Of these cats, there was a significant difference (p<0.001) between the distance traveled by indoor-only cats versus outdoor-access cats.  Distance traveled by outdoor-only cats was not significantly different.  (See Figure 2 and Figure 3)

Median (average) distance traveled:

• Indoor-only cats = 39 m (128 ft)
• Outdoor-access cats = 300 m (984 ft)
• Outdoor-only cats = 183 m (600 ft)

Based on the median and 75%th percentile (i.e. 75% of cats were found at or below this distance), I would suggest the following search areas.

• Indoor-only cats = at least 39 m and up to 137 m (128-450 ft) radius from location lost
• Outdoor-access cats = at least 300 m and up to 1600 m (approximately 1,000 feet – 1 mile) radius from location lost
• Outdoor-only cats = at least 183 m and up to 1600 m (600 ft – 1 mile) radius from location lost

Only 17 cats found deceased had a recorded distance.  For deceased cats, the median distance found was 200 m (656 ft) with a maximum of 5 km (3.1 miles).  Deceased cats may show a farther distance traveled because cats found deceased close to home may never be considered “missing” and their owners were less likely to participate in this study.  Analysis of deceased cats was limited due to the small sample size.

Locations Where Cats were Found

Most cats found alive where found outside (83%).  Of these, 20% were found in someone’s yard, 19% were found waiting outside their own home, 16% were found hiding under vegetation or shrubbery, and 10% were found under a patio, deck or porch.  Only 1% were found up a tree.  Eleven percent of cats were found in someone else’s home while 4% were found somewhere in their own home.  Most cats found in a neighbor’s house were either in the garage (28%), the basement (13%) or hiding behind/under furniture (22%).  Only 2% of cats were found inside a public building.  This would presumably include shelters and rescues, but that specific question was never asked.   (See Table 6)

Cat owners were asked to rank how strongly their cat matched four cat personalities: 1) curious/clown cat, 2) aloof cat, 3) cautious cat, and 4) very timid/fearful cat.  Cats considered very curious were most likely to be found in someone else’s house (p=0.005).  (See Figure 4)

Cats’ Demeanor When Found

Most cats appeared scared (50%) when found, while 30% were quiet but alert and 25% were friendly/relaxed.  Only 10% hissed or acted in the manner of feral cat.  A quarter (25%) of cats were meowing when found and 9% were sick or injured.  These results would be more informative if they were sub-categorized as indoor-only and outdoor-access cats.

Notes

*Categories of Effectiveness for Search Methods

I seperated search methods into three categories of effectiveness: “Most Effective Methods,” “Moderately Effective Methods,” and “Least Effective Methods.”  These were based on the assigned % values in Table 5 under the far right column: “Where this method was used and the cat was found alive, % of those cats where this method helped the most (No./Denominator).  I assigned them using the following values:

• Most Effective Methods = 50% or more
• Moderately Effective Methods = 40% to 49%
• Least Effective Methods = less than 40%

Here is an explanation from the research paper of what these values mean: “The relative time taken to find the cat alive due to the particular search method, relative to the time taken to find the cat alive by other methods or waiting, is shown in the right-hand column in Table 5 (‘Where this method was used and the cat was found alive, % of those cats where this method helped the most’). A high percentage indicates that the particular search method was generally more rapid in resulting in the cat being found alive relative to the time that the alternative other methods and types and /or just waiting collectively took to result in the cat being found alive.”

Limitations and Errors in Study Design

The study did not differentiate between successful methods for finding Indoor-only versus Outdoor-access Cats

In my experience, the behavior for an escaped indoor-only cat is quite different from a missing outdoor-access cat.  These differences are also recognized by the Missing Animal Response Network.  Different search strategies are suggested based on the outdoor experience of the cat, the location lost and circumstances of disappearance.  This study did find a difference in the distances traveled for indoor-only versus outdoor-access cats.  However, there was not enough funding to conduct a statistical analysis which subdivided the search strategies used and determine which search methods were most effective for indoor-only versus outdoor-access cats.  In my mind, this is a large limitation in the application of the study results to actual lost cat cases.

I did an analysis myself of the recovery rates of indoor-only versus outdoor-access cats (unpublished data).  For indoor-only cats (including those that had some outdoor experience such as allowed outdoors supervised or were previously outdoor cats) 71% of cats were found versus only 45% of cats that were allowed outdoor unsupervised.  These results might be biased if people were more likely to complete the survey if they had lost AND found their cat rather those still searching or never found their cat.

How many cats were found in a Shelter, Rescue Group or Municipal Animal Facility?

“Found in a shelter/rescue group or municipal animal facility” was not included as an option for a specific type of location found.  This was an oversight in creating the survey.  Only 2% (9) of people selected the option, “found inside a public building,” and after reviewing the study results, I was only able to find 3 entries where a cat was found in a shelter and 1 found at a vet (1% total; unpublished data).

Effectiveness of Tattoos and Microchips for Finding Lost Cats

**Only 4 out of 6 people indicated that a tattoo was a primary method in recovering their cat.  This method is listed as a “Most Effective Method” for finding a lost cat, but this outcome may be the result of a very small sample.  Moreover, when I reviewed the results, I only found one case were the tattoo directly related to the cat being recovered AND this cat also had a microchip.

For 40 out of 86 microchipped cats (47%), participants selected that a microchip was “a primary method or resource that helped you the most” to find your cat.  However, when I reviewed these survey entries, I found that only two (and possibly up to 6) people indicated that their cat was actually found due to a microchip being scanned (unpublished data).  This suggests that people may have indicated what they thought were successful methods for finding a lost cat and not just what helped them find their missing cat.

Possible Bias in Distances Traveled and Deceased Cats Found

Only around 58% of lost cats were found (unpublished data).  If cats were closer to home (or location lost), they were probably more likely to be found. Likewise living cats are probably easier to find than deceased cats.   This may biases the results for distances traveled by lost cats and proportion of cats found deceased.  The 42% of cats not found might have traveled farther away or could be deceased both of which would make them harder to find.  The longer a cat is lost, the more likely they are to be adopted by a new family (remember 20% of people adopted their cat as a stray).  Other lost cats might eventually be integrated into the feral population or brought to a shelter or rescue group after their owner has stopped looking.  If these cat don’t have a registered and up-to-date microchip, they will never be reunited with their families.  Interestingly, anecdotal evidence from microchipped cats found months to years after they go missing shows that many lost cats are still within 1 mile of their home when found.

Bias of Survey Respondents – Mostly Cat-Loving People that Lived in the Suburbs

The results of this study may be skewed by the characteristics and demographics of the people that completed the study.  Nearly 90% of survey respondents strongly agreed with statements that they were attached to their cat and regarded them as a family member.  People with a stronger human-pet bond might search more thoroughly and longer then the general population.  Most cats (77%) lived in a house, townhouse, or condo with a yard/garden.  Therefore, the results of this study pertain mostly to cats lost by people that currently live in this type of location/dwelling.

Possible Errors in Recall from Survey Respondents

While 50% of respondents had lost their cat in the last two years.  The range was 4 days (5th percentile) to 14 years (95th percentile) ago.  This likely led to some recall errors which may have effected the results of the study.

Errors in Paper Results and Discussion

Most Successful Search Strategies

When reviewing the research paper recently, I noticed an apparent error that had been overlooked.  In the results section, it states “Relative to other methods or waiting, the most rapid relative times taken to find the cat alive using a physical search strategy were when the search methods included ‘spoke with neighbors and asked them to look or assist in the search for my cat’, ‘walked around the area at night, using a flashlight (or spotlight)’, ‘asked and received neighbors’ permission to search their property using a slow methodical search’ and ‘searched my yard or the immediate area’.”  However, in the discussion section, it states “More specifically, the most successful physical search strategies were ‘searched my yard and the immediate area’, ‘while I was looking for my cats, I called its name’, ‘walked around the area during daylight hours’ and ‘spoke with neighbors and asked them to look or assist in the search for my cat’.”  Based on Table 5, the latter methods are in fact the most common search methods and not the most successful.  In fact, two of these (italicized above) were among the least successful search strategies.

Missing Data on Search Dogs

Table 5 of the published study states that no one used a trained search dog.  However, when I reviewed the unpublished data, I found 41 people used search dogs.  Of those that used search dogs, 54% of cats were found alive, 5% were found dead, and 41% were not found.  This does not mean that the search dogs found 54% of lost cats.  It only means that in 54% of the cases were a search dog was used, the cat was eventually found alive.  So unfortunately (do to this error), the study does not tell us anything about the perceived effectiveness of search dogs. 

Literature Reviewed

Liyan Huang, Marcia Coradini, Jacquie Rand, John Morton, Kat Albrecht, Brigid Wasson, and Danielle Robertson.  2018.  Search Methods Used to Locate Missing Cats and Locations Where Missing Cats Are Found.  Animals 8(1): 5.