Cat feeding stations are commonly used to feed feral cat colonies and outdoor/barn cats.  They are also frequently used to help locate a missing cat.  When searching for a lost cat, the feeding station is often set up with a surveillance camera to verify that the cat is present before setting a humane trap.  

There is a lot of disagreement around the use of cat feeding stations since they can attract other wildlife including predators that may harm cats.  In particular, coyotes are a potential threat to cats in most areas of the US.  Some pet detectives will never or rarely use a feeding station due to the potential risks involved.  However, there are also potential risks to not providing food if the cat cannot be found and caught quickly.

Coyote visits cat feeding station

When used for feral cats, most Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) sites recommend feeding the cats once a day at a set time, and only leaving the food out for 30 minutes.  Any remaining food and bowls should be picked up to avoid attracting any wildlife.  Unfortunately, this is not practical when using a feeding station for a lost cat.  Many lost cats only come out at night and generally avoid human activity.  It often takes several days and sometimes a week or longer of setting a feeding station before the lost cat appears on camera.

What can be done to reduce coyote activity around a cat feeding station? If you are in a hurry for the answer, skip to "what we can learn from this study."

---

Table of Contents

What We Can Learn from Published Research Studies on Feral Cat Feeding Stations

Study Methods

Study Results

What we can learn from this study

Study Limitations

Using Elevated Platforms for Cat Feeding Stations

Other Potential Methods to Protect Cats from Coyotes at a Feeding Station

Use of Coyote Deterrents

Reduce Coyote Access to the Food

Provide Escape Routes or Secure Shelter for the Cat

Future Research

Literature Researched

---

What We Can Learn from Published Research Studies on Feral Cat Feeding Stations

I was only able to locate a single study on coyotes and cat feeding stations: Confluence and Implications of Cats, Coyotes, and Other Mesopredators at a Feral Cat Feeding Station (Mitchell et al. 2022).

Study Methods

This study focused on a single TNR cat colony in Rhode Island, US.  Over the course of two years, three different feeding methods were employed.  Visits of cats, coyotes, raccoons, and skunks were measured at the feeding station using a wildlife camera.  

Method A: Large quantities of food at ground level.  Between 3-5 lbs of dry food was heaped in a large salad bowl or two "deli" trays.  This method was also what was used prior to the start of the study.  

Method B: Large quantities of food elevated.  An on-demand gravity feeder was secured on top of a one-meter-high table.  Animals had to climb or jump onto the table and then push open a flap at the bottom of the feeder storage bin to access the food.  The feeder was never left empty.  

Method C: Small quantities of food at ground level.  Between 1.25-1.5 lbs of dry food was placed in a bowl on the ground.  

In all cases, food was placed out on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between 8:00 and 8:30am.  

Study Results

The following animals visited the cat feeding station: cats (64% of visits), raccoons (22%), coyotes (9%), and skunks (5%).  Blue jays, turkeys, mice, squirrels, grey fox, red fox, and opossums were also present but were not measured.  

Boxplot from "Confluence and Implications of Cats, Coyotes and Other Mesopredators at a Feral Cat Feeding Station" (Mitchell et al. 2022)

Overall, cats visited the feeding stations less when coyotes, raccoons and skunks were present.  The most cats and fewest coyotes visited when large amounts of food were placed on an elevated platform.

Method A: When large amounts of food were placed on the ground, cats visited mostly during the day.  Coyotes, raccoons and skunks primarily visited at night.  During this time, 30% of the feral cats disappeared from the feeding station.  

Method B: When large amounts of food were placed on an elevated feeding station, more cats visited at night.  Raccoons also ate from the feeding station.  Coyotes and skunks were not recorded.

Method C: When small amounts of food were placed on the ground, cats visited throughout the day and night.  Cat activity was highest when the food was put out in the morning.  Coyote and raccoon visits were minimal at night, and no skunks appeared.  The food was generally gone before night.

What we can learn from this study

Based on this study, an elevated feeding platform works best if you want to maximize cat activity at the feeding station while minimizing coyote activity.  This also allows you to more safely provide a large quantity of food.  With more food present, some food will be available at all hours.  This increases the chances of getting all cats in the area (and hopefully the lost cat) to make an appearance at the feeding station.

The second best option was only providing small amounts of food on the ground during the day.  This may also reduce coyote activity at the feeding station unless you live in an area where coyotes are frequently active during the day.  However, if this method were used for a lost cat, the food could easily be gone well before the cat shows up (usually in the middle of the night).

Another interesting finding of this study was how long it took before all cats in the area showed up on camera.  With large quantities of food, it took 3-5 days to get an accurate estimate of the number of cats in the area.  In contrast, with small amounts of food, it took 8-11 days.  This is something to take into consideration when you determine how long to leave up a feeding station before concluding that the lost cat is not present.

Study Limitations

Unfortunately, this seems to be the only study on cat feeding stations and interactions with wildlife (at this time).  The study was conducted on a single feeding station in Rhode Island in a suburban area.  Since coyote activity is highly variable throughout the country, this study really needs to be replicated in other areas.  In areas with significant daytime coyote activity, the results might differ.

During the study 40% (8/20) of cats disappeared and most occurred during Method A when large amounts of food were on the ground.  During this time coyote visits were highest (14% of visits).  The researchers conclude that the missing cats were killed by coyotes, but they never found any cat remains.  It certainly is possible that the cats were killed by coyotes, but it is also quite possible that they left for other reasons. 

Using Elevated Platforms for Cat Feeding Stations

The elevated cat feeding station used in the this study was described as "an
“on-demand” gravity feeder secured on top of a one-meter-high table... Animals had to climb or jump on the table and push open a flap at the bottom of the feeder’s storage bin to access dry food. Feeders could hold up to 3.2 kg (7 lb) of food; the feeder was never left empty" (Mitchell et al. 2022).  I reached out to the authors to try and get a photo or illustration of the elevated feeding station, but I never heard back.  

For those interested in using an elevated platform, I found the following resources.  These include designs that will limit raccoons, opossums, skunks, and coyotes.  In general, minimal elevation (even 1-2 feet) will usually exclude skunks.  On the other hand, raccoons can climb just about anything, but they aren't great jumpers.

A minimally elevated cat feeding station may exclude skunks but not other wildlife.

• The Ark Workshop offers a variety of cat feeding stations for sale.  
• For a more permanent structure, here are the building instructions for a raccoon proof feeder courtesy of Shawdowcats.net.

When setting up a feeding station for a lost cat, you probably want something more portable.  I sometimes just use a folding table with a box on top to protect the food from the weather.  With a large enough table, a trap can also be set up if needed.  This set-up works to keep skunks out, but usually not raccoons or opossums.  I haven't yet had a coyote show up at an elevated feeding station, so I can't say from personal experience how well this works to exclude coyotes.  If anyone else would like to share their elevated feeding station designs, please email photos to info@lostpetresearch.com.  

Cat feeding station on a folding table. This will avoid skunks but likely not raccoons or opossums.

One concern that I sometimes have with elevated cat feeding stations is whether it might also exclude some cats.  In my experience, not all cats are great jumpers and some cats, in particular old or overweight cats,  might have difficulty reaching the platform.

Other Potential Methods to Protect Cats from Coyotes at a Feeding Station

Below are some additional suggestions, but most have minimal to no research that I am aware of.  However, I am planning to do additional journal research on these topics.

Lost Pet Research participates in affiliate referral programs including Amazon Associates. If you purchase anything via an affiliate link, I may receive a small commission at no cost to you. Learn more here.

Use of Coyote Deterrents

There are a lot of coyote deterrents on the market.  Unfortunately, many things that will scare a coyote, like loud noises, flashing lights or spraying water, are also likely to scare off a lost cat.  The methods listed below are some of the less intrusive coyote deterrents, but it is still possible that they would scare away a cat.

Wolf Urine

Some researchers have found that wolf urine works to discourage coyote activity even in areas where wolves are not present (Wauson and Rogers 2021).  In order to be effective, the urine must be applied in a perimeter and reapplied frequently.  This study used dispensers that needed to be re-filled every nine days (despite the online instructions stating every 33 days).  They also recommend applying the urine high enough to simulate a large wolf.  The Predator Pee Store also promotes wolf urine as a feral cat repellent, but I haven't found any research to support its effectiveness.

Predator Deterrent Lights

Nite Guard and Predator Guard are among companies selling predator deterrent lights.  These products have one or two small red lights that flash and supposedly simulate the eyes of a larger predator.  I haven't yet found any studies to support whether they work or not.  There is also the question of whether these would scare a cat if they actually work.  

No products found.

No products found.

Fladry

Fladry consists of a line of brightly colored flags hung along a fence or perimeter.  The flags moving in the wind are supposed to scare wolves and other predators from entering livestock pastures.  There is some evidence that this works for wolves (at least for a month or two), but at least one study found that it did not work for coyotes (Davidson-Nelson and Gehring 2010).  As with other tools, there is some concern that fladry might scare a lost cat as well.

Reduce Coyote Access to the Food

If the coyotes cannot access the cat food, they are less likely to continue visiting the feeding station.  This is what this research study found when they put the cat food on an elevated platform.  Theoretically, this would also work if the food was made inaccessible in other ways such as placed inside or under something where coyotes could not fit.  

Provide Escape Routes or Secure Shelter for the Cat

Alternatively, the food could be placed on the ground, but near suitable escape routes or secure shelter for the cat.  This could be near a shed or deck that a cat could hide underneath, but a coyote would not fit.  If no natural escape routes are present, one site recommends using 12 inch x 6 foot PVC pipes.  These need to be secured in place so they won't roll.  The cat may need to be encouraged to investigate the pipe with treats or they might not use it in an emergency.

If you are making more of a long-term feeding station, you might consider building a cat house as an escape shelter and/or for secure sleeping.  This should have a door that is just big enough for the cat and a coyote can't enter or get their head inside.  For my feral cat shelter I placed a large cinderblock at the entrance to create a secure hallway.  (There are no coyotes in my yard, but my feral cat frequently uses the shelter to escape my puppy.)  The Feralvilla provides a safe design that has a ground floor entrance and then a second floor sleeping area.   

Feral cat house with cinderblock door for protection from dogs and coyotes.

Providing the cat with something to climb is another option.   However, I've seen a number of Youtube videos where cats attempting to climb were pulled down by coyotes.  In general it seems like cats are not able to climb quickly enough.

These methods seem less than ideal, since the coyotes are likely to continue to visit the feeding station if food is readily available.

The post Cat Feeding Station Best Practices to Avoid Coyotes appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

For a more in depth discussion, see "Do Coyote Attacks Increase During Mating Season."

Please help spread the truth that coyotes are not more dangerous during breeding season

Share0

Tweet0

Share0

Share to Facebook or Twitter.  You even have my permission to save and download a copy of the infographic.  Just please link back to this page if you use it on your website.

Literature Researched

Frauenthal, VM, P Bergman, and RJ Murtaugh.  2017.  Retrospective evaluation of coyote attacks in dogs: 154 cases (1997-2012).  Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 27(3): 333-341.

Gehrt, S and SPD 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.

Grubbs, S and PR Krausman.  2009.  Observations of Coyote-Cat Interactions.  Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5): 683-685.  See full notes here.

Lukasik, VM and SM Alexander.  2011.  Human-Coyote Interactions in Calgary, Alberta.  Human Dimensions in Wildlife 16: 114-127.

Poessel, SA, SW Breck, TL Teel, S Shwiff, KR Crooks, and L Angeloni.  2013.  Patterns of Human-Coyote Conflicts in the Denver Metropolitan Area.  Journal of Wildlife Management 77(2): 297-305.

White, LA and SD Gehrt.  2009.  Coyote Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada.  Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 419-432.

The post Coyotes are NOT More Dangerous During Breeding Season appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

It’s that time of year again, and the coyote mating meme is making the rounds on Facebook.  But ARE coyote attacks on pets really more common during mating season?  In case you are not familiar, the coyote mating meme states: “WARNING!  The next 4-6 weeks is mating season for coyotes. Please do NOT let your dogs, or cats out alone.  The outcome can be tragic as they can and will attack your pets. (Coyote breeding typically peaks in late February, and early March.)  Male coyotes can become more aggressive during this time of year.”  In this article, I’m going to review the existing scientific research and determine if it supports that coyotes are more dangerous during the mating season.

If you don't have time to read the full article, check out the infographic.  Feel free to download and share to help spread the word.

Share0

Tweet0

When is Coyote Mating Season?

The coyote mating meme generally states that coyote mating or breeding season lasts 4-6 weeks and peeks in late February to early March.  Coyote researchers generally classify January through April as the mating season, May through August as pup rearing and September through December as dispersal.  (Dispersal is when young coyotes leave the pack to find their own territory.)  Coyote breeding season may vary by a month or so depending on the geographic location of the coyotes.  For example in Massachusetts, mating season is late December to March.  Researchers don't mention a "peak" to the breeding season.  Most likely it varies each year depending on weather, prey abundance and other factors.

Why Coyote Attacks Might Increase During Mating Season

Coyote attacks on pets might increase during the mating season when coyotes are more territorial.  However, male coyotes in particular are not more aggressive.  All coyotes in a pack may defend their territory.  Territorial attacks would hypothetically be more likely on medium to large dogs that coyotes saw as more of a threat. 

Food can be harder to find during the winter.  Coyote attacks might also increase if coyotes are traveling into urban/suburban areas looking for easier to obtain food.  In this case, we could expect predatory attacks on small dogs and cats.

What Does the Research Show?

Overall, researchers found that seasonality was not a good predictor of coyote attacks.  More studies found that coyote attacks increased during the pup rearing season rather than the breeding season. However, no reported results were statistically significant.  

Figure 1: Percentage of Coyote Attacks by Season

Breeding Season = Jan - April, Pup Rearing Season = May - Aug, Dispersal = Sept - Dec

AB = Attacks on people or pets in Calgary, Alberta (Lukasik and Alexander 2011), CO = Attacks on people or pets in Denver, Colorado (Poessel et al. 2013), CA = Attacks on dogs in southern California (Frauenthal et al. 2017), AZ = Attacks on cats in Tucson, Arizona (Grubbs and Krausman 2009), US and CAN = Attacks on people in the US and Canada (White and Gehrt 2009)

Researchers Concluded that More Coyote Attacks Occur During ...

Mating Season

---

In Denver, CO, most coyote conflicts took place in December through February.  Coyote attacks on pets were 1.5 times more likely during breeding season.  (Poessel et al. 2013)

In Chicago, IL, most attacks on dogs took place in December through February (mating season) with another peak in April (when pups were born).  Attacks on larger dogs usually involved two or more coyotes and mostly occurred during mating season.  (Gehrt and Riley 2010).

Pup Rearing Season

---

In Calgary, Alberta, most coyote attacks on pets were during the pup rearing season and the least were during the breeding season. (Lukasik and Alexander 2011)

In southern CA, there were nearly twice as many attacks on dogs during July.  Most dogs in this study (81%) were less than 22 lbs. (Frauenthal et al. 2017)

In Tucson, AZ, most attacks on cats were during the pup rearing season.  (Grubbs and Krausman 2009)

In the US and Canada, most attacks on humans were during the pup rearing season. (White and Gehrt 2009)

However, no reported results were statistically significant.

Conclusion: Is the Coyote Mating Meme True?

The existing research does not support the coyote mating meme.  Overall, seasonality was not a good predictor of coyote attacks.  More research studies found that coyote attacks on pets increased during  the pup rearing season (May-Aug) rather than the mating season (Jan-April). 

Why Coyote Attacks Might Increase During Pup Rearing Season

More research studies found that coyote attacks on pets increased during the pup rearing season rather than the breeding season.  Attacks on pets might increase during pup rearing due to the need for more food for the pups and coyotes protecting dens and/or pups.  In this case, we would expect to see more predatory attacks on small dogs and cats.  Attacks on medium to large dogs would be more likely where the dog approached a coyote den.

Why the Coyote Mating Meme May Have Been Created

Just seeing coyotes may increase the perception that there is increased danger.  Several studies reported that sightings of coyotes were highest during mating season.  In the winter, coyotes are often more visible, especially in areas with snow.  Coyotes also tend to travel more extensively in winter. These increased sightings (and not increased attacks) may be the reason why the mating meme was created.

Figure 2: Percentage of Coyote Sightings by Season

Breeding Season = Jan - April, Pup Rearing Season = May - Aug, Dispersal = Sept - Dec

AB = Attacks on people or pets in Calgary, Alberta (Lukasik and Alexander 2011), CO = Attacks on people or pets in Denver, Colorado (Poessel et al. 2013)

Overall, Coyote Attacks are Relatively Rare

It is important to understand that coyote attacks or aggressive behavior are not common in most areas of the US or Canada.   In Denver, only 12.7% of reports were described as conflicts, and in Calgary (Alberta), only 5% of reports involved aggression or attacks.  In both studies, the vast majority of reported "incidents" were just sightings: 89% in Calgary, Alberta and 75% in Denver, Colorado.

Figure 3: Coyote Incident Reports in Alberta

Attacks on people or pets in Calgary, Alberta (Lukasik and Alexander 2011)

Figure 4: Coyote Incident Reports in Colorado

Attacks on people or pets in Denver, Colorado (Poessel et al. 2013)

As a species, coyotes pose a relatively low threat to human and pet safety, and conflict is likely limited to specific individuals in the population.  Seasonality is less important than other factors (Lukasik and Alexander 2011).  Coyotes that are more likely to pose a threat are sick or injured coyotes or those habituated to eating human food (e.g. garbage or pet food).

Keeping Pets Safe from Coyote Attacks

The results of these research studies provide some good tips for keeping pets safe from coyote attacks.

1. Don’t let small dogs outside alone even within a fenced yard.  In southern California, 81% of attacks were on small dogs less than 22 lbs.  Most (76%) of attacks took place while the dogs were off-leash in a backyard with a 6-10 foot fence. 
2. Don’t let cats or small dogs outside alone at night.  Obviously, the safest action is to never let your small dogs or cats outside, unsupervised.  But if you do, avoid doing so from dusk until dawn.  In California, 70% of attacks on dogs were between 7pm to 7am with the highest incidence between 9pm to 11pm.  Similarly, in Arizona, the majority (78%) of attacks on cats were between 10pm and 5am.
3. Don’t let dogs run off-leash in the woods, especially during winter or spring.  If your dog doesn’t stay close to you when off-leash, there is a greater danger that they could run into a pack of coyotes.  During mating season, coyotes MIGHT be more territorial, and during pup rearing season, they MAY defend their den or pups. 
4. Lastly, don’t leave out food or unsecured garbage, especially at night.  Coyotes that regularly eat human food are more likely to have conflicts with humans or pets. 

Where to learn more about coyote behavior

Keep in mind that in many areas, coyote attacks on pets are not nearly as common as people tend to assume.  In particular, many cases of missing (and never found) cats are blamed on coyotes without any evidence.  However, in some areas of North America, coyote attacks are more common.  To learn more, check out these articles:

• Regional Risk of Coyote Attacks on Pets
• Understanding Coyote Behavior in Urban/Suburban Areas and Assessing Risk to Cats

Some coyote behaviors are often misinterpreted as dangerous.  Coyotes may stare at or follow people or pets, and this is not necessarily aggressive behavior.  Another version of the coyote mating meme states that coyotes will lure dogs back to the pack to kill them.  This is another myth.  Check out this article to learn more.

Literature Cited and Research Study Summaries

Frauenthal, VM, P Bergman, and RJ Murtaugh.  2017.  Retrospective evaluation of coyote attacks in dogs: 154 cases (1997-2012).  Journal of Veterinary Emergency and Critical Care 27(3): 333-341.

• Study conducted from 1997-2012 in southern California
• 154 dog attacks were witnessed
• 15.6% of dogs died or were euthanized due to injuries
• Size of dogs attacked:
  • 81% of dogs attacked were less than 22 lbs
  • Average weight of dogs in the study was 13 lbs
• Seasonality of attacks:
  • Attacks occurred throughout the year
  • Nearly 2x as many attacks in July (pup rearing season)
• Time of attacks:
  • 70.3% of attacks occurred from 7pm to 7am
  • Most common time of attacks 9pm – 11pm
• Location of attacks:
  • 76.3% were off leash in the backyard
  • Many yards had a 6-10-foot fence, which the coyote jumped over

Gehrt, S and SPD 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.

• Study in Chicago, Illinois, 1990-2004
• Based on 70 newspaper articles of coyote attacks on dogs
• 60% of attacks were on small breed dogs
• Coyote attacks on dogs peaked in December – February (mating season) and again in April (pup rearing season)
• Attacks on larger dogs usually involved two or more coyotes and mostly occurred during mating season, when coyotes are most territorial
• Attacks on small dogs were likely to occur at any time of the year

Grubbs, S and PR Krausman.  2009.  Observations of Coyote-Cat Interactions.  Journal of Wildlife Management 73(5): 683-685.  See full notes here.

• 78% of coyote-cat interactions took place between 10pm - 5am
• 84% of cats were killed between 6pm - 5am
• 69% of attacks and 68% of cats killed were during pup rearing season (May-Aug)
• 8% of attacks and 16% of cats killed were during coyote breeding season (Jan-April)

Lukasik, VM and SM Alexander.  2011.  Human-Coyote Interactions in Calgary, Alberta.  Human Dimensions in Wildlife 16: 114-127.

• Study conducted from 2005-2008 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada
• Based on 1,684 incident reports
• 89% of reports were coyote sightings
• 5% of reports were aggression or attacks
• Reported incidents may involve humans and/or pets
• Seasonality of incidents:
  • Most sightings were during the breeding season and least during pup rearing
  • Most attacks were during the pup rearing season and least during the breeding season
• Most often reported near a river and in central Calgary

Poessel, SA, SW Breck, TL Teel, S Shwiff, KR Crooks, and L Angeloni.  2013.  Patterns of Human-Coyote Conflicts in the Denver Metropolitan Area.  Journal of Wildlife Management 77(2): 297-305.

• Study conducted from 2003-2010 in Denver, CO
• Based on 4,006 incident reports to the government, mostly from citizens
• 87.3% were coyote observations and 12.7% were conflicts (e.g. aggression or attacks)
• 92.4% of conflicts were attacks on pets
• 2.5% of conflicts were attacks on humans and 46.1% of those also included a pet
• 76.1% were coyote attacks on dogs and 21.9% were on cats
• Locations of attacks on pets:
  • 45.8% near a house
  • 20.2% in fenced yard
  • 5.3% were dogs off leash
  • 0.8% were dogs on leash
• Seasonality of coyote conflicts and observations:
  • Observations were 2x as common from December – March
  • Conflicts were 1.5x more likely during December – February
• Habitat type of conflicts:
  • More common in development and open space land
  • Less common in natural and agricultural areas
  • More common in suburban areas
  • Less common in rural and exurban areas
• Hypotheses for increased attacks during winter:
  • Coyotes frequent developed areas more often in winter in search of easier to obtain food
  • Coyotes are more aggressive and territorial during breeding season
  • During short winter days, people are more active, especially walking dogs, at dusk and dawn when coyotes are also more active

White, LA and SD Gehrt.  2009.  Coyote Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada.  Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 419-432.

• In the US and Canada, most attacks on humans were during the pup rearing season, but the results were not statistically significant.  

The post Do Coyote Attacks Increase During Mating Season? appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

When a cat or small dog goes missing, pet owners/guardians are often concerned that s/he could have fallen prey to a coyote or other predator.  As a pet detective for over ten years, I have often been asked the question: “Do coyotes carry cats back to their dens to eat them?”  Of more concern, I’ve occasionally heard from people that a tracking dog team led them to a presumed predator den and they were told that the resident coyote (or fox or fisher) had killed their cat and taken it into the den.  There is unfortunately a lot of misunderstanding and myth when it comes to coyote behavior.

Den Use by Coyotes

Coyotes actually only use dens when they are raising their pups and stop using them when the pups are 8-10 weeks old.  “After that, even young pups generally sleep in the woods – even on nasty, rainy days” (Way 2012).  The coyote breeding season runs from mid-January to early February (in Massachusetts), and the pups are born 60-66 days later in mid-March to early April (Way 2012).  Several weeks before the pups are born, the coyote pair will excavate multiple possible den sites.  If a den site is disturbed, the coyotes will move the pups to one of these other dens, and they will often move the pups every few weeks presumably to avoid parasites like fleas infesting the den (Parker 1995: 63-66).

While the pups are nursing, the female will make short excursions from the den for food and the male may also provide her with some food.  Once the pups are 8-10 weeks old, the coyotes will move the pups to a rendezvous site.  This is usually in an open area and near water.

Do Coyotes Bring Prey Back to their Dens?

Jonathan Way operates Eastern Coyote Research and has been studying coyotes in Massachusetts for more than ten years.  There is a good article on his website on the “Eastern coyote/coywolf life cycle in southeastern Massachusetts,” which answers many commonly asked questions about coyote behavior.  This is what he had to say about whether adult coyotes bring prey back to their dens.

“I have heard reports of dens surrounded by cat collars, cat remains, or deer fawns. However, all dens I have examined (over 20) have been devoid of prey. I believe this is an old wives tale to perpetuate the myth that coyotes/coywolves wipe out their prey supply, or at the least are having an undesirable affect on our local wildlife (or pets). Adults regularly clean dens by doing things like eating pup feces and regurgitate most food to the pups during this time” (Way 2012).

For more information on coyote denning behavior, I would recommend reading Way’s (2001) study on “Eastern coyote denning behavior in an anthropogenic environment.”  Other research presented in Eastern Coyote: The Story of Its Success (Parker 1995) found similar cases of clean coyote dens:

• South Dakota – “There are seldom excessive tracks or any large accumulation of food remains around a den as would be expected if the den were used [for] several weeks” (Gier 1957).
• Maine – “Active dens were devoid of prey remains and adult scats, similar to observations [of dens] in Missouri” (Harrison and Gilbert 1985; Hallett 1977).
• Wisconsin – “Unlike foxes, coyotes remove bones, scats, and other debris from the den site” (Fruth 1986).

Conclusions

A coyote is most likely to carry its prey a minimum distance from the kill site before consuming.  Unless the location is perceived as unsafe by the coyote, carrying prey, especially a 10 lb cat, is a waste of energy.  If they need to bring prey to their mate or pups, they will usually consume the edible parts, carry the food in their stomach, and then regurgitate it at the den or rendezvous site.  If they don’t need to share their food, uneaten prey remains are more likely to be cached (buried) for later consumption.  From the research that I’ve read and my personal experience doing coyote research in Yellowstone, it is highly unlikely that a coyote would carry a cat or other large prey item into the den to consume.  On one occasion, I observed a coyote in Yellowstone carrying the legs of a pronghorn fawn, back to the den area.  When we later surveyed the coyote den sites in the park, I found some scat, bones and pieces of hide near the dens.  However, at least in areas where coyotes are hunted, they seem to keep the den area cleaned of prey remains.

In contrast to coyotes, I found in preliminary research on bobcats, foxes and fishers that these species are more likely to bring prey back to their den.  Bobcats and fishers may even bring the prey into their den to consume.

Literature Cited

Fruth, K.  1986.  The coyote (Canis latrans).  Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wildlife Management PUBL-WM-148. 1.

Gier, H.T.  1957.  Coyotes in Kansas.  Kansas Agricultural Experimental Station Bulletin 393: 254.

Hallett, D.L. 1977.  Post-natal mortality, movements, and den sites of Missouri Coyotes.  M.Sc. thesis University of Missouri, Columbia.

Harrison, D.J. and J.R. Gilbert.  1985.  Denning ecology and movements of coyotes in Maine during pup rearing.”  Journal of Mammalogy 66: 714.

Parker, Gary.  1995.  Eastern Coyote: The Story of Its Success.  Halifax, N.S.: Nimbus Publishing Limited.

Way, J.G. 2012. Eastern coyote/coywolf life cycle in southeastern Massachusetts and some commonly asked questions. Eastern Coyote Research Publications 4: 1-5. URL: http://www.easterncoyoteresearch.com/downloads/EasternCoyoteLifeCycle.pdf

Way, J. G, P. J. Auger, I. M. Ortega, and E. G. Strauss. 2001. Eastern coyote denning behavior in an anthropogenic environment. Northeast Wildlife 56: 18-30.

The post Do Coyotes Carry Cats Back to their Den? appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

Many people with a lost pet think that a search dog is the best method for finding their pet.  However, most people tend to have unrealistic expectations and a lack of understanding of how a search dog works.  I previously wrote an article on considerations for Using a Search Dog, and in this series of articles, I plan to go more in-depth on how search dogs are used to search for different types of lost pets starting with lost outdoor-access cats, specifically those lost from their home.  An outdoor-access cat is defined as a cat that is allowed outside and unsupervised.  These are the most difficult type of lost pets to find because of the number of possible scenarios for their disappearance and due to the nature of their scent trails.

A Brief Overview of Scent & Types of Search Dogs

Our cats are constantly depositing scent wherever they go.  Scent theory describes scent as small rafts of skin (i.e. clusters of skin cells) that are constantly being shed from the body and that are then being broken down by bacteria (Syrotuck 2000).  Some scent is deposited with direct contact with the ground while additional scent flows off the top of the body through air currents and travels through the air before being deposited on the ground.  Scent will be stronger in areas where a cat repeatedly walks such as on preferred travel routes throughout their territory or where they rest.  Large concentrations of scent can also collect (i.e. scent pools) where a cat spends a period of time such as a sleeping spot or refuge such as under a porch.

There are several different types of search dogs that may be called by many different names: tracking dogs, trailing dogs, area detection dogs, air-scenting dogs, cat detection dogs or remains detection dogs to name a few.  Scent-specific dogs (generally tracking or trailing dogs) are trained to follow the individual odor of a missing person or animal.  This individual odor is composed of the skins rafts and personal bacteria of the individual and is catalyzed by body secretions of that individual (Syrotuck 2000).  Tracking dogs are trained to follow the scent left by the actual tracks of the missing animal, while trailing dogs are trained to follow the greatest concentration of scent on the ground.  Since scent is also deposited in air currents from the animal, this scent may travel several feet to over 100 feet from where the animal actually walked.  Although there is technically a difference between tracking and trailing dogs, they are often both referred to as “tracking dogs” by the general public.  For simplicity, I will also refer to tracks or trails interchangeably, but if you were to study scent theory, you would find that there can be a lot of variation between the two.  

Area detection dogs (e.g. air-scenting or cat detection dogs) are trained to search an area and locate the concentrated scent of any cat.  Ideally this scent is “air scent” coming off of the actual lost cat, but the dogs may also indicate on a scent pool such as under a deck where the cat hid for a while.  Both tracking/trailing dogs and area detection dogs are usually also trained to indicate on the scent of a deceased cat though some dogs are trained to specialize in just this task.  Most people tend to assume that a tracking/trailing dog is superior to an area detection dog, but once you understand the challenges of tracking a lost outdoor-access cat, you may find that this is not always the case.

Challenges of Tracking a Lost Outdoor-Access Cat that Disappears from His Home Range

Outdoor-access cats usually have a home range where they regularly travel and rest.  This may also be referred to as the cat’s territory or home range though technically it is only truly a territory if the cat defends it from other non-resident cats.  For more information on cat home range size, read this article.  The following illustrations show a very simplified version of a cat’s home range and movements.  The first series of pictures (Tracks 1-6) show a cat regularly traveling around his home range culminating in Track 7, which shows all his travels for that week.

If the cat then goes missing, you can now imagine how difficult it would be for a tracking or trailing dog to follow the scent trail of the missing cat.  A well trained dog can differentiate between an older and newer trail and direction of travel, but this is made more difficult with the many regularly traveled trails that will have an accumulation of scent and trails going in both directions.  

The difficulty of locating the lost cat is made more difficult if there isn’t an uncontaminated scent article.  The scent article is an item that smells like the missing cat that will be presented to the search dog.  This tells the search dog what scent trail to follow.  Many cat owners have more than one cat or dogs in the home, and it can be very difficult to find an item that is unique to the missing cat (i.e. uncontaminated from other pet scents).  If the scent article also contains scents of other cats/dogs that go outside, then the search dog may also follow the numerous additional trails left by these pets.  A well trained search dog will be trained in “missing member searches.”  This is where the search dog is presented with a contaminated scent article and is then allowed to smell all the other pets in the house, and determine which pet is missing.

How Different Probabilities Influence the Effectiveness of the Search Dog

When an outdoor-access cat goes missing from their home, there are different probability categories (or scenarios) for what might have happened to the lost cat.  These include: 1) Theft, 2) “Rescue” (i.e. when someone takes your cat because they think it is a stray), 3) Intentional Transport (e.g. a cat hating neighbor or angry ex-boyfriend kidnaps your cat and dumps him somewhere), 4) Unintentional Transport (e.g. your cat gets into the plumbers van), 5) Trapped (e.g. stuck in the neighbor’s shed), 6) Injury, Illness or Death (e.g. hiding because sick or injured or deceased due to illness or hit by car), 7) Wildlife Kill (i.e. victim of a predator attack), and 8) Displacement (e.g. chased out of their home range or otherwise leaves their home range). When an outdoor-access cat is lost away from home, this is a very different scenario and will be discussed in a future article.  In some search probabilities, specifically theft, rescue, or any type of transport, the tracking/trailing dog has no chance of successfully finding the lost cat because the cat has been removed by a person and there isn’t a scent trail to follow.  A search dog will also be unable to locate a cat outside if the cat is actually hiding or trapped inside the home, and this happens more frequently than people assume.

A tracking or trailing dog might be able to locate a missing cat within their home range (or just outside of it) if the cat is trapped somewhere outside, hiding and injured (such as from a severe cat fight or hit by a car) or deceased (such as hit by a car or killed by a predator).  An area detection dog can also be used to successfully locate a cat under most of these circumstances.  The picture below shows examples of where a cat might be located in each scenario.

Keep in mind that this is a very simplified scenario, and most cats will have a larger home range (usually 3 yards or more in each direction) which contains many more scent trails for the tracking/trailing dog to work through.  In neighborhoods where the houses are close together and fenced, a tracking/trailing dog will have a much more difficult time because he will be unable to follow the trails made by the cat since cats frequently climb under or over fences from yard to yard.  In these cases, an area search dog may be more effective to quickly check each yard for any sign of your cat.

Additional Challenges of Locating the Displaced Cat

One of the more common scenarios for a lost outdoor-access cat is that the cat has become displaced from his home range.  This may occur if he is new to the area and becomes lost or if he is scared out of his territory (such as by fireworks, construction, a loose dog, or another cat) and either becomes lost or is afraid to come back.  As much as we cat lover’s want to deny it, some “lost” cats will also choose to leave their homes when there is a significant change in the household such as a new baby, puppy or roommate.  Some cats are more sensitive than others and may leave due to a change in routine (such as a prolonged injury or illness of their owner) or even a small change in circumstances (such as a remodeled living room or change in brand of cat food).  In either case, the lost cat has left his home range and there may only be one scent trail leading to his new location.  The photo below shows an example of this scenario where the lost cat traveled to the neighbor’s home and got in a fight with their new cat and was chased across the busy road.

When a lost cat is displaced from their home range, it can be challenging for a tracking/trailing dog to work through all the scent trails and scent pools to find the one most recent track that leads away from their home.  This is made more difficult the longer the cat has been missing because the scent deposited throughout the home range might be an accumulation of years of scent while the trail leading out of the home range is only a single scent trail.  How long scent survives is a whole other discussion that I will blog about in a future article.  There has been some research that accumulated scent pools/trails may be viable for up to six months (Phillips 2006) while there is considerable debate on whether a single scent trail lasts for only 12 hours, a week or two, or even a month or more.  Personally I am skeptical of those who proclaim to track scents more than a month old.

If the search dog does successfully find the displaced cat’s scent trail, it is unlikely that they will actually locate the lost cat during the search.  These are referred to as “walk-up” finds and they usually only occur in less than 20% of searches and rates of only 5% or less are not uncommon.  Unless the lost cat is stationary (e.g. hiding, trapped, severely sick or injured or deceased), it is unlikely that the search dog will be able to find the exact location of the cat.  A cat that is being searched for by a dog will likely feel hunted and will evade the search dog team.  In fact, a well trained search dog team will likely stop the track for your lost cat if the search dog indicates that the scent is very fresh and the cat is likely nearby.  Using a search dog in this situation can provide some very useful information including where your cat went after leaving their home range and the area that they are currently hiding out.  This information can help you determine where to put up additional posters, distribute flyers, and perhaps set up a wildlife camera and/or humane trap.  Sadly, many people put all their hope (and often money) into hiring a tracking/trailing dog and then do not follow-up with the necessary search tactics after the search dog leaves.

Literature Cited

Jones, Phillip.  2006.  Scents and Sense-Ability.  Forensic Magazine (online edition).  April/May 2006.

Syrotuck, William G.  Scent and the Scenting Dog.  2000.  Barkleigh Productions, Inc.  Mechanicsville, PA.

The post Using a Search Dog to Track a Lost Outdoor-Access Cat appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

• Observations of Coyote Predation on Cats
• More Observations of Coyote-Cat Interactions: What Can We Learn?
• Coyotes Don’t Eat Cats Very Often
• Understanding Coyote Behavior in Urban/Suburban Areas and Assessing Risks to Cats
• Trends in Coyote Attacks on Dogs

Most of these articles dispute the pervasive belief that the majority of missing cats and small dogs have become food for a coyote.  I believe that far more pets, especially cats, are never found because their owners do not know how to effectively search or give up too soon (often because their friends and neighbors convince them that their cat was killed by a predator).  In many locations a missing cat is much more likely to have become displaced (wandered or scared away from its home), become trapped (such as in a crawl space) or be hit by a car.  For more information see:

• Risky Behaviors of Outdoor Access Cats
• Factors That May Predispose Cats to Road Traffic Accidents
• Causes of Sudden Death in Cats

This is not to say that I believe that coyotes never kill cats.  Coyotes are an opportunistic and highly adaptable predator, and they will certainly kill cats on occasion.  In fact, in some parts of their geographic range, coyotes kill and probably eat a lot of cats.  

There is unfortunately very little research available on the occurrence of coyote attacks on pets, especially on a national level.  However, there is a fair amount of research on coyote attacks on humans, and the results from these studies suggest that far more cats and dogs are killed by coyotes in California than in any other state/province (Baker and Timm 1998; Timm et al. 2004; Timm 2006; White and Gehrt 2009).  The largest number of incidents occurred in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties.  Other states/provinces that may show higher rates of coyote attacks on pets include Arizona, Nevada, British Columbia and Alberta.

The results from several studies suggest that far more cats and dogs are killed by coyotes in California than in any other state/province.  Other states/provinces that may show higher rates of coyote attacks on pets include Arizona, Nevada, British Columbia and Alberta.

Baker and Timm (1998) found that there is a predictable sequence of observed changes in coyote behavior that indicate an increasing risk to human safety.  Based on additional research, Timm et al. (2004) defined these changes in order of their pattern of occurrence as follows:

1. An increase in observing coyotes on streets and in yards at night.
2. An increase in coyotes approaching adults and/or taking pets at night.
3. Early morning and late afternoon daylight observance of coyotes on streets and in parks and yards.
4. Daylight observance of coyotes chasing or taking pets.
5. Coyotes attacking and taking pets on leash or in close proximity to their owners; coyotes chasing joggers, bicyclists, and other adults.
6. Coyotes seen in and around children’s play areas, school grounds, and parks in mid-day.
7. Coyotes acting aggressively towards adults during mid-day.

Since several of these predictors of coyote attacks on humans include attacks on pets, we should be able to safely conclude that states/provinces with more attacks on humans will likely have many more attacks on pets.  For example, Baker and Timm (1998) found that the following incidents preceded attacks on humans in southern California.

• In the three weeks prior to three children being approached and bitten by coyotes (in separate incidents), USDA-ADC personnel received 30-40 complaints of coyotes attacking or killing household pets, or approaching people during daylight hours.  (San Diego County 1998)
• Prior to an attack on a poodle snatched from his owner’s arms, coyotes had been seen in early and late mornings chasing and killing cats and rabbits in the neighborhood.  (Orange County 1991)
• The attack on a child was preceded by 3-4 weeks of coyote attacks on two dogs and six house cats as reported to animal control.  (Orange County 1992)
• Two to three months prior to the first attack on children, cat remains were found numerous times on the college campus.  Coyotes were also seen chasing and carrying off cats at night and early in the morning.  (Riverside County 1995)

There is some disagreement on what constitutes a coyote attack (Fox 2006; Webster 2007), so data from different studies do not report the same number of attacks per location, but all studies found high numbers of attacks in California. White and Gehrt (2009) found reports of 70 (49%) attacks in California followed distantly by 18 attacks (13%) in Arizona from 1960-2006 (Figure 1).

Timm and Baker (2004) reported 89 coyote incidents in California from 1978-2003, and Timm (2006) reported more than 160 human safety incidents in California involving coyotes since the early 1970s (Table 1).  Incidents of coyotes with rabies were excluded from this analysis.  Like White and Gehrt (2009), Timm (2006) also found that Arizona had a higher incidence of attacks, but found that Nevada and British Columbia were higher rather than Alberta.

One study on coyote predation on cats in southern California also supports a higher incidence of attacks on cats in this region of the country (Crooks and Soule 1999).  They found that 21% of 219 coyote scats contained cat remains.  Most studies on coyote diets found that cat remains were only present in 1-2% of coyote scats (including other studies in southern California and Arizona), with some as high as 6.7% (Schaumburg, Illinois) to 13.1% (western Washington) (see “Coyotes Don’t Eat Cats Very Often“).  Crooks and Soule (1999) also found that 25% of radio-collared cats in the study were killed by coyotes, and 42% of cat owners reported that coyotes had attacked or killed their cats.  Another study in Arizona found that cats constituted 42% of the diet of one pack of coyotes (Grubbs and Krausman 2009).

Even in states that don’t show a large number of human attacks (and therefore pet attacks), there may be smaller regions (e.g. even a single section of a town) where more cats and/or small dogs are being attacked by coyotes.  You may be able to determine the prevalence of coyote attacks in your area by doing an internet search for news reports or police logs of coyote attacks on pets or by calling your local Animal Control Officer or even talking to your neighbors.  However, be skeptical of all reports where a coyote attack is assumed just because a cat or small dog went missing and the event wasn’t witnessed and no remains were found.  According to Timm’s et al. (2004) sequence of changes in coyote behavior that indicate an increased risk to human safety, frequent reports of daylight observations of coyotes may be another warning sign.  See  “Understanding Coyote Behavior in Urban/Suburban Areas and Assessing Risks to Cats” to assess the risk of a missing cat being killed by coyotes.

Baker and Timm (1998) speculate that the coyotes’ “recent adaptation to urban and suburban habitats in places such as southern California has taken place over several generations, and such adaptation may involve learned behaviors passed from parent to offspring.” Based on dietary studies of coyotes, cats are not generally a common prey item, and preying on cats may be a specialized or learned behavior.  If this were the case, then we would only expect to see high rates of attacks on cats in certain regions.  In a small area such as town, this could be the result of a single coyote that has learned to specialize in killing cats.  However, it is possible for a solitary coyote or pack to have a home range that encompasses several towns (Fox 2006), which could lead to a larger area of attacks by a single coyote.  This type of issue would be similar to “problem individuals” of wolves or coyotes killing livestock (Linnell et al. 1999).  When seen in a larger area such as regions of southern California, the cat killing behavior is likely an adaption to urban life and is probably being taught to successive generations of coyotes.

Literature Researched

Baker, R.O. and R.M. Timm.  1998.  Management of Conflicts Between Urban Coyotes and Humans in Southern California.  Proceedings of the 18th Annual Vertebrate Pest Conference.  University of Nebraska – Lincoln.  299-312.

Crooks, K.R. and M.E. Soule.  1999.  Mesopredator release and avifaunal extinctions in a fragmented system.  Nature 400: 563-566.

Fox, C.H.  2006.  Coyotes and Humans: Can We Coexist?  Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Vertebrate Pest Conference.  University of California – Davis.  287-293.

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

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

Gompper, M.E.  2002.   Top Carnivores in the Suburbs?  Ecological and Conservation Issues Raised by the Colonization of North-eastern North America by Coyotes.  BioScience 52(2): 185-190.

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

Howell, R.G.  1982.  The Urban Coyote Problem in Los Angeles County.  Proceedings of the 10th Annual Vertebrate Pest Conference.  University of Nebraska – Lincoln.  21-23.

Linnell, J.D.C., J. Odden, M.E. Smith, R. Aanes, and J.E. Swenson.  1999.  Large carnivores that kill livestock: do “problem individuals” really exist?  Wildlife Society Bulletin 27(3): 698-705.

Timm, R.M.  2006.  Coyotes Nipping At Our Heels: A New Suburban Dilemma.  11th Triennial National Wildlife & Fisheries Extension Specialists Conference.  University of Nebraska – Lincoln.  139-145.

Timm, R.M. and R.O. Baker.  2004.  Coyote Attacks: An Increasing Suburban Problem.  Proceedings of the 21st Vertebrate Pest Conference.  University of Nebraska – Lincoln.  47-57.

Webster, J.C.  2007.  Missing Cats, Stray Coyotes: One Citizen’s Perspective.  Wildlife Damage Management Conferences Proceedings.  University of Nebraska – Lincoln.  74-116.

White, L.A. and S.D. Gehrt.  2009.  Coyote Attacks on Humans in the United States and Canada.  Human Dimensions of Wildlife 14: 419-432.

The post Regional Risk of Coyote Attacks on Pets appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

The primary focus of the research was cat predation on wildlife, but they also analyzed some potentially risky behaviors of outdoor-access cats.  Potential risks of being outdoors include road-traffic accidents, aggression from other cats, poison, disease, parasites, and contact with domestic dogs or wild predators.  Here is a summary of the risky behaviors they observed.

Interestingly, they did not observe any aggressive direct contact between cats or with other domestic animals.  Neither did they observe any predatory attacks on cats by wild animals though one cat did chase off an opossum.  However, interactions with strange cats were fairly common (25% of cats), and these interactions could include hissing, spitting and growling.  Aggressive interactions with other cats may cause a resident cat to leave its territory.  This did not happen during the study, but two cats did go missing before the study started.  Statistical analyses revealed that cats were significantly more likely to engage in risky behaviors if they were male (P=0.015) or lived in a suburban (vs rural) area (P=0.033).  Frequency of risky behaviors also decreased with age (P=0.001) and increased with time spent outdoors (P=0.000).

Crossing roads was by far the most frequently observed risky behavior accounting for 67% of observed risky behaviors.  Therefore, the group of cats that is most likely to engage in risky behaviors (young males) is probably crossing roads more than anything else.  Another study (see below) found that young male cats were also significantly more likely to be hit by a car.  No cats were hit during the study, but one was killed shortly before it started.

The researchers were surprised to find that four of the cats visited a second home for food or affection.  While this does not directly effect the cat’s welfare, it can increase the probability that the cat will go missing from his original home if the second family takes him in.  Adoption of (assumed) stray cats is fairly common with 20-45% of cat owning households acquiring their cat this way.  Prior to the start of this study, two cats were lost, and what happened to them was either never determined or just never reported by the researchers.

For more information on these topics, check out the following articles:

“Factors that May Predispose Cats to Road Traffic Accidents”

“Adoption of Stray Cats and the Importance of Lost Pet Posters“

The post Risky Behaviors of Outdoor-access Cats appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

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 effected 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.

The post Factors that May Predispose Cats to Road Traffic Accidents appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

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 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.

The post Causes of Sudden Death in Cats appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

The post Coyotes Don’t Eat Cats Very Often appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

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 Behaviour. 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 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.

The post Cat Research Study Overview appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

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.

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.

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.

The post More Observations on Coyote-Cat Interactions: What Can We Learn? appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.