This is not your typical dog GPS tracker comparison article or review.  I have been involved in lost pet recovery work since 2009, and, yes, I will recommend what I believe are the best dog GPS trackers on the market today.  But there is no best tracker that I recommend for every dog.

Australian Cattle Dog (35 lbs) wearing Fi 3 with medium collar.

The only other issue I had with the Fi collar is that you have to make it quite snug or your dog could pull out of the collar if they got scared or excited.  (My dog has done this since I last updated this article).  For a skittish or reactive dog, I would recommend walking the dog with a separate martingale collar, or opting for a tracker that will attach to a martingale collar or harness.  There are Fi compatible martingale collars for sale by Mimi Green and other sellers.

Australian Cattle Dog (35 lbs) wearing Tractive (front) and Whistle (left side) GPS trackers.

The Fi Mini and Tractive Dog 6 can attach to most collars or harnesses.  If you have a favorite collar already, these may be the way to go.  The only downside is that the tracker could get pulled off the collar if your dog wrestles with other dogs or runs loose through the woods.  This seems uncommon, but I saw a few complaints in reviews for the Tractive.  

Figure 1:  Battery life test of Fi 3, Whistle Go Explore 2.0 and Tractive Dog 6 at home.

Battery life tests of Fi 3, Fi 3+, and Tractive Dog 6 on two camping trips.

The Tractive Dog 6 had by far the fastest connection speed with an average of 15 seconds.  However, there was one test in rural Vermont with spotty cell coverage where it could not connect.  It appears that Tractive will try to connect for about a minute before a pop up appears that states: "Connection Too Weak. Buildings or trees may be blocking coverage where your tracker is.  Try again in a minute."  I tried moving the tracker to another location that said my phone had service and was open to the sky, but it still would not connect.  

Even though Tractive could not connect to Lost Dog Mode (called LIVE mode in Tractive), I was still getting some connection.  Tractive accurately recorded our walk and other time spent in that area.  So I could still get locations on my dog, but they were not updated as frequently.  In default tracking mode, Tractive updates the location every 2 to 60 minutes depending on activity level of your dog.  If your dog is moving, you will get more frequent updates. In Lost Dog Mode, Tractive updates locations every 2 to 3 seconds.  You can learn more about the difference between Default Tracking and LIVE Mode here. 

Tractive Dog 6 created an accurate track in an area with poor cell reception.

The Fi Series 3 had a pretty consistent connection time of around 1 minute.  The only time it took longer to connect to Lost Dog Mode was in a rural area of VT with spotty cell coverage.  There it took 4 minutes to connect.  Unlike Tractive, Fi will continue to attempt to connect to Lost Dog Mode for several minutes.  If it cannot connect after 5 minutes, it gives you the option to cancel Lost Dog Mode.

Like Tractive, Fi also provided up-to-date locations in this area while in default tracking mode, but the walk recording was a little less accurate.  When in default tracking mode, Fi updates locations around once every 5 minutes.  In Lost Dog Mode, Fi provides "real-time" updates.  I'm still testing this feature, but it seemed to provide location updates between 3 to 5 times per minute when moving depending on speed.

Fi 3 created a somewhat accurate track in an area with poor cell reception.

Tractive was the easiest to use and the most accurate. When using Lost Dog Mode (called LIVE mode in Tractive), the app shows your dog's location, your location and their path of travel.  Tractive updates locations every 2-3 seconds in Lost Dog Mode so it provides a very detailed path of travel.  The downside of course is that battery level drops quickly.  

Once close, you can turn on Radar mode, which is the Bluetooth feature on Tractive.  Since you have to be really close, Bluetooth probably isn't useful unless you are looking for a lost tracker.  In this case, Tractive has the best features since Bluetooth will even work in the Safe Zone if your dog loses their tracker at home.  There is also a sound feature on Tractive to help you pinpoint the location, but it's not very loud.

Tractive Dog 6 GPS track during Lost Dog Mode test.

Fi 3 overall worked well, but was a little more difficult to navigate than Tractive and had some glitches.  When in Lost Dog Mode, the Fi app shows your dog's location and your location, but it doesn't show their path of travel.  During this test, my location did not update frequently, so it was difficult to tell where I was.  However, Fi has the option to get directions in Google Maps.  When I did this, my location was updated.  This is a good backup option to check where you are, but your dog's location will not update when in Google Maps.  

Fi 3 Lost Dog Mode test.

In the Fi app, your dog's path of travel is recorded under the Timeline, but you can't view it until you turn off Lost Dog Mode.  The path of travel recorded by Fi during the Lost Dog Mode test was less accurate than Tractive.  There were a few glitches where the location jumped around.  Overall, I have found that Fi tracks are sometimes very accurate and other times have some inaccurate locations that cause the track to jump around.

Fi uses Bluetooth, but doesn't have a separate Bluetooth tracking feature like Tractive.  When you get close, your icon will appear attached to your dog's icon in the app.  This can make locating them more difficult if they are hiding, but you could try switching to Google Maps for a (hopefully) more accurate location.

Fi 3 GPS track recorded during Lost Dog Mode test.

The post How to Select the Best Dog GPS Tracker 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.

Lost Pet Statistics Infographic by PurringPal

How Many Pets Go Missing?

If you have ever tried to research lost pet statistics, you have probably seen the statement that 1 in 3 pets (30%) will go missing in their lifetime.  Most prominently, this statement appears on the homepage of the HomeAgain microchip company.  Various other sites attribute this statement to the ASPCA or AHA but fail to provide an exact source.  To date, I have been unable to find any actual research to back up the 1 in 3 pets will go missing statistic. 

The only published research study on lost pet rates found that between 11-16% of dogs and 12 - 18% of cats are likely to go missing at least once in five years.

Weiss et al. 2012

The first research on lost pet statistics was conducted by the ASPCA in 2010 (Weiss et al. 2012).  They surveyed pet owners and found that 14% of dogs and 15% of cats in the study went missing once in a five-year period.  Since their study had a small sample size, they used statistics to calculate that in the US pet population, between 11-16% of dogs (1 in 6 to 9) and 12-18% of cats (1 in 5 to 8) will go missing in a five-year period.  Unfortunately, they made no attempt to calculate or discuss how this lost pet statistic relates to the lifetime of the pet.  If a dog or cat lives 10, 15 or 20 years, does the chance of them going missing increase or stay the same? 

In reality, there are many variables that contribute to the likelihood of an individual pet going missing.  At this point, there isn’t any published research on what characteristics increase the chances of a pet going missing.  You might think that indoor-only cats are less likely to get lost than an outdoor-access cat, but the available research indicates that this may not be true.  Lord et al. (2007a) found that 41% missing cats were indoor-only cats, and approximately half of survey participants in the Huang et al. (2018) study reported a missing indoor-only cat (unpublished data). 

How Many Lost Cats Are Found?

If your cat goes missing, what are the chances that they will be found?  You may have heard the lost pet statistic that only 1 to 5% of lost cats are found.  This fortunately is NOT true and is a misinterpretation of return-to-owner (RTO) rates.  RTO rates are the percentage of pets that are returned to their owners after they have been brought to a shelter.  Sadly, very few cats ARE returned to their owners once they end up in a shelter.  Various studies found RTO rates of 1.5 to 4.5% for cats.  Likely reasons for this low RTO rate include:

• Very few cats have ID tags
• Microchips are often not registered or kept up-to-date
• Owners tend to wait longer to check the shelter and don’t check them as often as for a lost dog
• Many towns/cities have short or nonexistent minimum stray holds for cats
• Animal Control in smaller towns may not pick up stray cats, so they end up taken to rescues or shelters farther from where they were found
• Unless a cat is sick or injured, most people tend to assume a loose cat lives somewhere nearby and is not lost, so they are not reported or brought to a shelter
• A cat may be missing for weeks or months before they are taken to a shelter

Research studies report that between 53-84% of lost cats are found (Table 1).  The range in values is partly due to the potential bias of the different study methods.  The least biased study is probably Weiss et al. (2012) which found that 75% of missing cats in the study were found and therefore statistically 63- 84% of lost cats in the US are found.  

If you work with a lost pet tracker or pet detective, you may find that their recovery rates are lower then these.  This is most likely because many people wait to contact a pet detective or tracker until after their cat has been missing for several days or a week or longer.  In some cases, they have even been using search techniques that are detrimental to finding their lost cat.  Many lost cats can be found without professional help, but make sure that you are using proven search methods and not just trying everything you can find on the internet.

One interesting lost pet statistic that has not be published is the difference in recovery rates between lost indoor-only cats versus outdoor-access cats.  While both types of cats may be equally likely to go missing, indoor-only cats are much more likely to be found (Table 2).  My case records show a similar trend with around 75% of lost indoor-only cats being found versus only 33% of lost outdoor-access cats.  When an indoor-only cat goes missing, they are likely hiding in fear and are usually not too far from home.  On the other hand, when an outdoor-access cat goes missing it usually means that something happened to prevent the cat from coming home.  These cats may be trapped, injured and hiding or deceased nearby.  Or they may be displaced and lost farther from home, which makes them much more difficult to find.

How Are Lost Cats Found?

Weiss et al. (2012) and Lord et al.( 2007a) both determined that most cats were found because they returned home on their own (45-72%).  Weiss et al. (2012) also found that 30% (18-44%) were found in the neighborhood.  Lord et al. (2007a) found that 11% of cats were found due to neighborhood signs, but they did not even ask specifically about doing a neighborhood search.  All other search methods were less then 2%.  See Table 4.  Please understand, these results do NOT suggest that the best search method is just to wait until your cat comes home.  All of these studies had relatively low recovery rates, and many cats were never found.  What these studies strongly suggest is that most people don’t know how to effectively search for a missing cat and use ineffective methods. 

I would recommend reading this blog article: Review of “Successful Search Methods Used to Locate Missing Cats and Likely Locations Where Missing Cats are Found."  This study used a more complex method than simple percentages and looked at what search methods owners actually found useful in their search.  In particular they found evidence that a physical search increased the likelihood of finding a missing cat alive (Huang et al. 2018). 

How Many Lost Dogs are Found?

Lost dogs have a much higher recovery rate than lost cats.  Research studies found that between 71- 97% of lost dogs were recovered (Table 3).  Weiss et al. (2012) used statistics to estimate that between 86 to 97% of lost dogs in the US are found.  Dogs also have higher return-to-owner (RTO) rates if they are brought to a shelter.  RTO rates were between 10 to 30% (HSUS online).  

More dogs are likely found at the shelter because: 

• Significantly more dogs have ID tags (48-89%) compared to cats
• Owners tend to check the shelter sooner and check back more frequently
• Most towns/cities have minimum stray holds for dogs (though these may be as short as 2-3 days)
• Many towns have some sort of Animal Control Officer that will attempt to pick up loose dogs
• People are more likely to report or try to catch a loose dog

How are Lost Dogs Found?

Weiss et al. (2012) found that most dogs (38-59%) were found by searching the neighborhood.  This was followed by 13-29% returned home on their own.  Nine to 23% were found due to an ID tag or microchip.  Only 2-12% were found by visiting or calling animal control/shelter.  This study used a random phone survey so is less biased then other studies.

Lord et al. (2007b) found that most lost dogs were found due to a call or visit to an animal agency/shelter (34.8%).  This was followed by 25.5% found due to a license or ID tag and 15.2% found due to neighborhood signs.  Only 7.6% of dogs returned home on their own.  The results from this study are somewhat biased because they found survey participants by contacting people that had reported their pet lost to the shelter or had posted a lost pet ad in the newspaper.  This likely led to an underestimate of lost dogs found in the neighborhood or due to ID tags.

They also found that owners were significantly more likely to recover their lost dogs when they called or visited an animal agency, and posted signs in the neighborhood. Dogs wearing a license and ID tag when lost were more likely to be recovered.  Dogs believed stolen were less likely to be recovered, even though the search effort was not different.

Literature Cited with Abstracts, Notes and Tables

Do you still want to learn more about lost pet statistics?  The following articles were researched to write this article.  This bibliography includes abstracts (summaries), additional notes, and tables.

Huang, L., M. Coradini, J. Rand, J. Morton, K. Albrecht, B. Wasson, and D. Robertson.  2018.  Search methods used to locate missing cats and locations where missing cats are found.  Animals 8(1): 5.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ani8010005

Abstract: Missing pet cats are often not found by their owners, with many being euthanized at shelters. This study aimed to describe times that lost cats were missing for, search methods associated with their recovery, locations where found and distances travelled. A retrospective case series was conducted where self-selected participants whose cat had gone missing provided data in an online questionnaire. Of the 1210 study cats, only 61% were found within one year, with 34% recovered alive by the owner within 7 days. Few cats were found alive after 90 days. There was evidence that physical searching increased the chance of finding the cat alive (p = 0.073), and 75% of cats were found within 500 m of the point of escape. Up to 75% of cats with outdoor access traveled 1609 m, further than the distance traveled by indoor-only cats (137 m; p ? 0.001). Cats considered to be highly curious were more likely to be found inside someone else’s house compared to other personality types. These findings suggest that thorough physical searching is a useful strategy, and should be conducted within the first week after cats go missing. They also support further investigation into whether shelter, neuter and return programs improve the chance of owners recovering missing cats and decrease numbers of cats euthanized in shelters.

Visit the Lost Pet Research blog for a full review of this article.

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

http://www.localpethealth.com/Portals/0/searchmethodsusedtofindlostcats.pdf

Abstract:  Objective: To characterize the process by which owners search for lost cats and identify factors associated with time to recovery.  Design: Cross-sectional study.  Sample population:  Owners of 138 cats lost in Montgomery County, Ohio, between June 1 and September 30, 2005.  Procedures:  A telephone survey was conducted.  Results:  73 of the 138 (53%) cats were recovered; median time to recovery was 5 days (range, 0.5 to 81 days). Most cats (48 [66%]) that were recovered returned home on their own or were found in the neighborhood (5 [7%]); most other cats were recovered through posting of neighborhood signs (8 [11%]) or calling or visiting an animal agency (5 [7%]). The highest success rate for any of the search methods that were used was only 12% (posting neighborhood signs). Only 26 of the 138 (19%) cats had some type of identification at the time they were lost (ie, identification tag, rabies tag, or microchip). Owners allowed 82 (59%) cats to spend at least some time outdoors. The percentage of sexually intact cats recovered by their owners (4/16 [25%]) was significantly lower than the percentage of neutered cats recovered (69/122 [57%]).  Conclusions:  Results suggest that the percentage of lost cats recovered by their owners is low, possibly in part because of the lack of use of traditional identification methods and the general acceptance that cats may roam. Veterinarians can help educate owners about the importance of identification and the need to keep cats indoors.

Table 1 from Lord et al. 2007a

Notes:

• Biased sample – only included owners of lost cats that either placed an advertisement in the lost-and-found portion of the local newspaper or that contacted one of the county’s 3 animal agencies.
• 53% (73/138) recovered.  Conclude that traditional search and identification methods are largely ineffective. 
• 35% of all cats returned home on their own.  66% of found cats returned home on their own.
• Median recovery time = 5 days (range 0.5 to 81 days)
• See Table 1 for how found.  Most found cats (66%) returned home on their own.
• 66% (73) found at home, 29% (21) were found less than 1 mile from home, 3% (2) were found 1-5 miles from home, and 3% were found more than 5 miles from home.
• The percentage of sexually intact cats recovered (25%) was significantly lower than the percentage of neutered cats recovered (57%) (P = 0.02).
• 41% (56) of lost cats were indoor-only cats.
• Lost before: 78% of cats had never been lost before, 17% had been lost 1-5 times previously, and 5% had been lost more than 5 times before.
• Identification: 10% of cats were wearing ID tag, 6% wearing rabies tag, and 7% had a microchip.  Overall, 14% were wearing some type of visible ID and 19% had any type of ID.  Only 1 cat recovered due to ID tag.  Having identification did not increase the likelihood that the cat was recovered.  (Probably because so many cats returned home on their own.) 
• Shelters: Only 7% of cats were found by calling or visiting an animal agency.  RTO rate in this county was 1.5% for cats.  No mandatory hold period, but most held for 72 hours.  Medium time to visit/call shelter was 3 days, and median time between visits was 8 days.

Lord, L.K., T.E. Wittum, A.K. Ferketich, J.A. Funk, and P.J. Rajala-Schultz.  2007b.  Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost dog.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 230(2): 211-216.

Abstract: Objective: To characterize the process by which owners search for lost dogs and identify factors associated with time to recovery.  Design:  Cross-sectional study.  Sample Population:  Owners of 187 dogs lost in Montgomery County, Ohio, between June 1 and September 30, 2005.  Procedures:  A telephone survey was conducted.  Results:  132 of the 187 (71%) dogs were recovered; median time to recovery was 2 days (range, 0.5 to 21 days). Dogs were recovered primarily through a call or visit to an animal agency (46 [34.8%]), a dog license tag (24 [18.2%]), and posting of neighborhood signs (20 [15.2%]). Eighty-nine (48%) dogs had some type of identification at the time they were lost (ie, identification tag, dog license tag, rabies tag, or microchip). Owners had a higher likelihood of recovery when they called an animal agency (hazard ratio, 2.1), visited an animal agency (1.8), and posted neighborhood signs. Dogs that were wearing a dog license tag also had a higher likelihood of recovery (hazard ratio, 1.6). Owners were less likely to recover their dogs if they believed their dogs were stolen (hazard ratio, 0.3).  Conclusions:  Results suggest that various factors are associated with the likelihood that owners will recover a lost dog. Both animal agencies and veterinarians can play a role in educating dog owners on the importance of identification tags, licensing, and microchips and can help to emphasize the importance of having a search plan in case a dog is lost.

Table 1 from Lord et al. 2007b

Notes:

• At the time of the study, each county had a dog warden and a dog license was required.  Required to hold unlicensed dogs for 3 days and licensed dogs for 14 days.
• RTO 19%
• Biased sample – only included owners of lost dogs that either placed an advertisement in the lost-and-found portion of the local newspaper or that contacted one of the county’s 3 animal agencies.
• 71% of dogs recovered.
• Median recovery time was 2 days (range 0.5 to 21 days)
• See Table 1 for Methods found.
• 8% returned home, 71% found less than one mile, 14% were found 1-5 miles, and 7% were found more than 5 miles from home.
• 54% had never been lost before, 28% had been lost 1-5 times previously and 18% had been lost more than 5 times before.
• ID: 43% were wearing some type of ID tag, and 48% had some form of identification.  Only 8% had a microchip.  53% of dogs with ID were found vs 35% of dogs without ID.
• Shelters: 28% of dogs were found by calling or visiting a shelter.  Median time to call or visit was 1 day (0-14 day range).  Owners that found their dogs visited or called the shelter sooner and checked more frequently than those that did not.
• Significance: Owners were significantly more likely to recover their lost dogs when they called an animal agency, visited, and posted signs in the neighborhood.  However, posting signs did not become effective until the dog was lost for > 7 days.  Dogs wearing a license when lost were more likely to be recovered.  Dogs believed stolen were less likely to be recovered, but search effort was not different.

Lord, L.K., T.E. Wittum, A.K. Ferketich, J.A. Funk, and P.J. Rajala-Schultz.  2007c. 

Search methods that people use to find owners of lost pets.  Journal of the American

Veterinary Medical Association 230(12): 1835-1840.

Abstract:  Objective:  To characterize the process by which people who find lost pets search for the owners.  Design:  Cross-sectional study. Sample Population-188 individuals who found a lost pet in Dayton, Ohio, between March 1 and June 30, 2006. Procedures-Potential participants were identified as a result of contact with a local animal agency or placement of an advertisement in the local newspaper. A telephone survey was conducted to identify methods participants used to find the pets' owners.  Results:  156 of 188 (83%) individuals completed the survey. Fifty-nine of the 156 (38%) pets were reunited with their owners; median time to reunification was 2 days (range, 0.5 to 45 days). Only 1 (3%) cat owner was found, compared with 58 (46%) dog owners. Pet owners were found as a result of information provided by an animal agency (25%), placement of a newspaper advertisement (24%), walking the neighborhood (19%), signs in the neighborhood (15%), information on a pet tag (10%), and other methods (7%). Most finders (87%) considered it extremely important to find the owner, yet only 13 (8%) initially surrendered the found pet to an animal agency. The primary reason people did not surrender found pets was fear of euthanasia (57%). Only 97 (62%) individuals were aware they could run a found-pet advertisement in the newspaper at no charge, and only 1 person who was unaware of the no-charge policy placed an advertisement.  Conclusions:  Veterinarians and shelters can help educate people who find lost pets about methods to search for the pets' owners.

Weiss, E. M. Slater, and L. Lord.  2012.  Frequency of Lost Dogs and Cats in the United

States and the Methods Used to Locate Them.  Animals 2: 301-315. 

http://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/2/2/301

Abstract:  A cross-sectional national random digit dial telephone interview was conducted between September and November 2010. There were 1,015 households that had owned a dog or cat within the past five years. Of these 817 households owned dogs and 506 owned cats. Fourteen percent of dogs (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 11–16%) and 15% (95% CI: 12–18%) of cats were lost in the past five years. No owner demographic variables were associated with losing a pet. Ninety three percent (95% CI: 86–97%) of dogs and 75% (95% CI: 64–85%) of cats were recovered. For dogs, searching the neighborhood and returning on their own were the most common methods of finding the dog; 14% were found through an identification tag. For cats, returning on their own was most common. Dogs were more likely than cats to be lost more than once. Cats were less likely than dogs to have any type of identification. Knowledge of the successful methods of finding dogs and cats can provide invaluable help for owners of lost pets. Since 25% of lost cats were not found, other methods of reuniting cats and their owners are needed. Collars and ID tags or humane trapping could be valuable approaches.

From Table 1 of Weiss et al. 2012

Notes:

• 14% (11-16%) of dogs and 15% (12-18%) of cats went missing at least once in the past 5 years.
• 93% of dogs in the study (86-97% in US population) and 75% of cats in the study (63-84% in the US population) were found
• Not a set definition for "lost"; owners were allowed to define lost in their own way.  Best interpretation would be any time that the owner was concerned about the absence of the pet. 
• Dogs were more likely than cats to be lost more than once. P=0.05
• Cats were less likely than dogs to have any type of ID or even a collar.  11% (6-19%) of dogs and 56% (44-68%) of cats had no form of ID when lost (P<0.001)
• Found that lost neutered pets, those belonging to respondents with more education, and lost cats belonging to respondents with higher income were more likely to be found.
• Most dogs were found by searching the neighborhood (49%, 38-59%).  Followed by 20% (13-29%) returned home on their own.  Only 6% (2-12%) were found by visiting or calling animal control and 15% (9-23%) were found with in ID or microchip.
• Most cats returned home on their own (59%, 45-72%).  Followed by 30% (18-44%) found in the neighborhood.  Only 2% (0.04-10%) were found due to ID or a microchip and the same were found due to visiting or calling animal control.

RTO Rates from Various Studies:

• 1.5% for cats and 19% for dogs in Montgomery County, OH.  No animal control laws at county level for cats. 
• 3% for cats in San Mateo County, CA.  Increased to 4.5% when ID and licensing of cats was required.
• 5.2% in Honolulu where cats are required to wear ID.
• 10-30% ROI for dogs and 5% for cats in US (HSUS online)

The post Lost Pet Statistics appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

Types of Scent Discrimination Dogs

A scent discrimination dog is trained to follow and/or identify the scent of an individual person or animal.  These dogs are described as scent-specific.  In most cases the search dog handler first provides the dog with a scent article containing the the scent of a specific person or animal.  Scent-discrimination dogs may work in one of several ways.

Trailing Dogs

A trailing dog is provided with a scent article (such as from a missing person or animal) and follows the strongest scent trail left by that individual.  Due to the behavior of scent, the scent trail may not be located where the individual actually walked.

Tracking Dogs

Many people use the terms tracking dog and trailing dog interchangeably, but there is technically a difference.  A tracking dog will focus on crushed vegetation and ground disturbance along with deposited scent in order to follow in the exact footsteps of the suspect or missing person.  Some tracking dogs are not scent-specific and just follow human scent and ground disturbance.  Tracking dogs may be used by the police, but most tracking is recreational such as AKC Tracking.

Scent-Specific Area Search Dogs

Though not common, some scent discrimination dogs may not be trained to track or trail at all.  These dogs are trained to only search for air scent coming directly off of the missing person or animal.  A scent-specific area search dog will only search within an area determined by the handler.

Scent Matching or Scent Lineup

Most scent discrimination dogs should also be able to perform scent matching or a scent lineup.  In a scent lineup, the search dog is tasked to match the target scent to one or more scent samples.  For example a police dog may match a scent article from a crime scene with a lineup including a suspect.  Or a conservation dog may pick out all the scat samples belonging to an individual animal.

Scent Discrimination Dog Research Studies

The lack of scientific research on scent discrimination dogs is really surprising given that search dog evidence is admissible in court in many locations (Brisbin 2000).  Most scent discrimination experiments focus on scent matching or lineups rather than trailing.  Studies of scent discrimination dog accuracy may measure one or more factors:

• Sensitivity: this measures how often the dog detected the target scent when it was present.  A dog with poor sensitivity will miss more correct matches.  They might also fail to find a scent trail when one is present or lose a scent trail they were following.
• Specificity: this measures how often the dog correctly identified or matched the scent article to the target(s).  A dog with lower specificity with have more frequent false alerts.  They might follow the wrong trail or alert on the wrong person.

Human Scent Lineup Studies

In these studies, scent discrimination dogs were presented with a sample of individual human scent and tasked to find matching samples from a series of scent samples or an actual lineup of individuals.  Settle et al. (1994) found that 7 police dogs showed an 80% accuracy in matching scent samples after 9 months of training.

Schoon (2001) reviewed methods of scent identification lineups in the Netherlands .  A prior study by Schoon (1998) determined that scent lineups were similar in reliability to bloodstain, tool marks and hair analysis (i.e. moderate reliability).  However, using the revised protocol, he concluded that the scent lineup should be considered as reliable as fingerprint, firearms and footwear analysis (i.e. highest reliability).  Part of the revised protocol involved disqualifying dogs that failed test lineups prior to being given the scent article from the crime scene.  To qualify as accurate, the dog also had to correctly match the suspect’s scent in two successive lineups.

Marchal et al. (2016) described the type of rigorous training that is involved in developing a highly accurate scent discrimination dog.  These dogs were trained for use in judicial case lineups in France.  Dogs that completed this program showed an 85% sensitivity (i.e. only 15% missed matches) and 100% specificity (zero false matches).  The initial training program took 10 months (with training sessions 5 days per week) followed by continuous training for 8-10 months.  Table 1 shows the improvement in accuracy over ten periods of continuous training.  Near the end of that program, only dogs that gave no false alarms over 200 trials entered into the judicial case program.  Dogs continued to receive training throughout their working life.  Even with all this training, they did not rely on the accuracy of a single dog.  In a judicial case task, scent-matches were always confirmed by 2 to 7 other dogs working on the same case.  The number of lineups used per court case averaged 14-39 with 4.6 to 13 lineups per dog.

As an interesting side note, Marchal et al. (2016) found that (9) German Shepherds outperformed (4) Belgian Shepherds (Malinois).  The German Shepherds showed higher sensitivity and zero false alerts.  They suggest that the Belgian Shepherds exhibited a decreased level of attention in completing the scent lineups.

Wildlife Scat Matching Studies

In these studies, scent discrimination dogs were presented with the scat sample of an individual animal and tasked to find all matching samples from a collection of other scat samples.  This information can be used to better estimate populations of wildlife using scat collections.

Kerley and Salkina (2007) tested the ability of 5 dogs to match 58 Amur tiger scats to 25 known tigers.  They found that the dogs correctly matched scats 87% of the time.  The accuracy of four out of five dogs increased to 98% with repeated-trial tests.

Wasser et al. (2009) found that 3 dogs correctly matched maned wolf scat samples to the correct individual 79% of the time while missing 21% of scats (averaged from their Table 1).  On average, the dogs selected the wrong match only 9% of the time except for two samples that they got wrong 75% of the time.  They speculate that there may have been cross contamination of those samples.  For accurate results, the researchers recommend using 3 scent discrimination dogs and only using results where at least 2 out of 3 dogs selected the same sample matches.

Scent Trailing Studies

I did a lot of searching, but I was only able to find a few research articles on the accuracy of scent trailing dogs.  Only the first study (Harvey and Harvey 2003) tested dogs on longer, aged trails.  The other studies used short, fresh trails.

Harvey and Harvey (2003) conducted the first published research study on the trailing ability of the bloodhound.  Eight bloodhounds were selected that had all started their training prior to six months of age.  They were divided into two groups based on their experience.  Novice dogs had less than 18 months of training experience.  Veteran dogs had more than 18 months training and had run one or more trails for law enforcement or search and rescue.  Five trails were set by pairs of people and included a split trail near the end.  Trails were 0.5-1.5 miles long and set in variable terrain in areas with lots of foot traffic.  All trails were aged for 48 hours and their location was unknown to the trailing dog handlers (i.e. blind trails).  Overall, novice dogs only had a 53.3% find rate and one false identification.  Veteran dogs had a 96% overall find rate with no false identifications.

Stockham et al. (2004b) studied whether bloodhounds could use scent from detonated pipe bombs and arson devices to successfully track and identify a target individual.  Twenty bloodhound-handler teams participated in the study.  Trails were set in an urban public park using a split trail method.  Test trails were only 32-41 meters long and were not aged.  Overall, the dogs correctly identified the target person in 53 of the 80 (66.3%) bomb-debris experiments and 31 of the 40 (77.5%) arson-debris experiments with no false-positive identifications.  Bloodhounds with more case experience had a higher success of finding a scent trail and identifying the subject, but no statistical analysis was conducted.

Harvey et al. (2006) tested the ability of 9-13 bloodhounds to distinguish between monozygotic twins, related people and unrelated people that lived together versus those that lived apart.  Scent trails were all on grass, only 150-200 meters long and aged less than 60 minutes.  Two tests were run: Test 1 looked at negative trails, and Test 2 was a split trail.  Table 2 shows the percent of bloodhounds that performed better than chance in trailing and identifying individuals from the split trail test.  Most dogs struggled to differentiate between twins, but had moderate to high success for related people and non-related people, especially when living apart.  The researchers conclude that the results suggest that “the discriminatory capabilities of the bloodhound seem to greatly depend upon a person’s genetically derived odortype.”  However, environmental odors may also be used to facilitate differentiation, especially when individuals are closely related.

Woidtke et al. (2018) conducted the most recent test on the accuracy of mantrailing (i.e. scent-specific trailing of a human subject).  Their study used 7 dogs from different breeds including 3 bloodhounds and one bloodhound mix.  Four dogs were mantrailing police dogs and 3 dogs were private search and rescue dogs.  The dogs had between 1.2-5 years of training/experience (mean = 3.4 years), and all were certified by their organizations.  All trails were set in urban locations with a T-junction at the end of the trail (i.e. split trail).  Trails were only 130 meters long and tests were conducted within 5 minutes of trails being set.  The dogs were marked as successful if they followed the correct scent trail or gave a proper “negative indication,” and they were marked as wrong if they followed the wrong trail (false positive) or could not find the trail (false negative).

This study found the following results:

• The success rate of the police dogs was significantly much better than the private search and rescue dogs (p=0.00001).
• Some dogs performed significantly better than other dogs on each test.
• The dogs were significantly more successful with (damp) saliva scent-articles than axillary (armpit) sweat (p=0.009965).

In about 25% of trials, the search dog was presented with a scent article from an individual that was not present.  In this case, the correct response is a “negative indication” – rather than starting to trail, the dog should indicate to the handler that no scent in present.  Police dogs gave correct negative indications 97% of the time versus 74% for private search and rescue dogs.  This difference in performance was also significantly different (p<0.01).

The researchers speculate that the police dogs performed better for the following reasons:

• They were all trained using a consistent method (Armin Schweda) for 2 1/2 years starting when they were puppies.
• They had several years of experience and received regular, weekly training.
• The handlers had many years of experience as police dog handlers.
• Three out of the 4 police dogs were bloodhounds.  This breed showed higher success rates overall.

Conclusions on Scent Discrimination Dog Accuracy

While dogs innately have amazing scenting capabilities, scent discrimination is a learned skill that takes years of practice to master.  Even well trained scent discrimination dogs are not infallible.  In the above research studies, some dogs were clearly better than others with accuracy ranging from around 53% up to 97%.  The most accurate dogs had received more than 18 months of initial training, had experience working real-world cases, and continued to receive regular, on-going training.  Search dogs with high accuracy still made mistakes between 3%-15% of the time.  For this reason, researchers recommended using 2 or more scent discrimination dogs to confirm the accuracy of scent-matches or lineups AND performing repeated trials with the same dog.  Novice dogs and those with less training made considerably more mistakes.  Accuracy rates for these dogs were around 50% to 75%.  That means that 25% to 50% of the time, these dogs might follow the wrong trail, lose the trail, miss a scent-match or identify the wrong individual or scent-match.  Overall, scent discrimination dogs appeared to make more errors related to sensitivity (i.e. not finding a scent that was present) than specificity (i.e. making a false or incorrect match).

Scent Discrimination Dog Success in Real-World Cases

The majority of these studies were done under laboratory conditions with only a fewer “real world” tests.  Of those tests, only one (Harvey and Harvey 2003) conducted tests using longer, aged trails, and those were only 48 hours old.  Most of the studies used specialized methods to provide the search dogs with uncontaminated scent articles (i.e. scent articles that only contained the target scent and not scents of other individuals).  Unfortunately, in real life most scent articles are contaminated with the scent of other people or animals.  This introduces another factor that could lead to more errors than were seen in the above research studies.  In order to work accurately with contaminated scent articles, trailing dogs must receive additional special training (Stockham et al. 2004a).

In police work, search and rescue, and lost pet searches, actual walk-up finds are very rare.  A walk-up find occurs when the search dog follows a scent trail and actually finds the missing person or animal or police suspect.  The likelihood of a walk-up find depends on many factors including species, age, circumstances of disappearance, environment, quality of the scent article, and age of the scent trail to name a few.  In many cases, a scent discrimination trailing dog may provide valuable information on where the missing person or animal traveled and/or where they are spending time, but other methods are usually used to locate the individual.  For more information on how lost pet search dogs work and when to use one see this article.

Literature Researched

Brisbin, I.L., S. Austad, and S.K. Jacobson.  2000.  Canine Detectives: the Nose Knows – Or Does It?  Science 290: 1093.

Harvey L.M., S.J. Harvey, M. Hom, A. Perna, and J. Salib. 2006.  The Use of Bloodhounds in Determining the Impact of Genetics and the Environment on the Expression of Human Odortype.  Journal of Forensic Science 51(5): 1109-1114.

Harvey L.M. and J.W. Harvey.  2003.  Reliability of Bloodhounds in Criminal Investigations.  Journal of Forensic Science 48(4): 5 pages.

Jones, P.  2006.  Scents and Sense-Ability.  Forensic Magazine April/May 2006.

Kerley, L.L. and G.P. Salkina.  2007.  Using Scent-Matching Dogs to Identify Individual Amur Tigers from Scats.  Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4): 1349-1356.

Marchal, S., O. Bregeras, D. Puaux, R. Gervais, and B. Ferry.  2016.  Rigorous Training of Dogs Leads to High Accuracy in Human Scent Matching-To-Sample Performance.  PLoS ONE 11(2): e0146963.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0146963.

Settle, R.H., B.A. Somerville, J. McCormick, and D.M. Broom.  1994.  Human Scent Matching Using Specially Trained Dogs.  Animal Behavior 48(6): 1443-1448.

Schoon, G.A.A.  2001.  Scent Identification Line-Ups Using Trained Dogs in the Netherlands.  Problems of Forensic Science 47: 175-183.

Schoon. G.A.A. 1998.  A First Assessment of the Reliability of an Improved Scent Identification Line-Up. Journal of Forensic Science 43(1): 70-75.

Stockham, R.A., D.L. Slavin, and W. Kift.  2004a.  Specialized Use of Human Scent in Criminal Investigations.  Forensic Science Communications 6(3): 13 pages.

Stockham, R.A., D.L. Slavin, and W. Kift.  2004b.  Survivability of Human Scent.  Forensic Science Communications 6(4).

Taslitz, A.E.  1990.  Does the Cold Nose Know? The Unscientific Myth of the Scent Dog Lineup. Hastings Law Journal 42: 15-134.

Wasser, S.K., H. Smith, L. Madden.  N. Marks, and C. Wynne.  2009.  Scent Matching Dogs Determine Number of Unique Individuals From Scat.  Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1233-1240.

Woidtke L, J. BreBler, and C. Babian.  2018.  Individual Human Scent as a Forensic Identifier Using Mantrailing.  Forensic Science International 282: 111-121.

The post How Accurate are Search Dogs? – Part 2: Scent Discrimination Dogs appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

Tomahawk Dog Traps

Tomahawk offers some good quality dog traps in a variety of sizes and styles.  They come in 42" to 72" (6 feet) long.  I would suggest getting one with a rear sliding door, which makes baiting and cleaning the trap much easier.  The rigid models are sturdier and will likely last longer.  However, if you can't fit a rigid model in your vehicle, they also offer collapsible models for easy transport.  The collapsible models also have lower shipping costs, which can get quite high with these traps.

If you are trapping medium to large dogs, the 72" model (610C or 210C) is the best option.  The trip plate is set far back in the trap, so most dogs will be fully inside the trap before stepping on the trip plate.  Most Tomahawk traps have a spring-loaded door that shuts quickly and reduces the chances of escape.  

Tomahawk now offers several models in the GT610 series with a gravity style door instead of a spring-loaded door.  I haven't heard heard much about these yet, but will update recommendations once I know more.

Tru Catch Large Animal Traps

Tru Catch offers a selection of quality made traps for small to extra-large dogs.  Their unique design includes a quiet gravity door, an extra-large trip plate, and a variable trigger.  These traps have a large trip plate set far back from the entrance, which increases capture rates.  Typical small trip plates may allow the dog to eat the bait and not set off the trap.  The variable trigger mechanism can be set for either light or heavy dogs.  

All traps come with a sliding rear door except the 48F Folding Trap, which has a hinged rear door.  A rear door makes adding bait easy and allows easy release of wildlife.  Wildlife can also be released through the front door using the automatic door release mechanism; if you roll the trap upside down with your foot, the front door will automatically open.  (This method is not recommended for releasing skunks!)

Trapping on a Budget with Humane Way

Compared to Tomahawk, Safeguard and Tru Catch, the Humane Way trap is not really the best design for catching lost dogs.  However, if you need to locate a trap quickly, this trap may be available with fast shipping from Amazon.com  I have two Humane Way traps and they work well for dogs up to 40-50 lbs.  They may accommodate dogs up to 60-80 lbs if the dog is not trap-shy.  These traps are built with somewhat lower quality materials and will bend or break with prolonged use. 

The post Best Humane Dog Traps appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

“The canine sense of smell is legendary and, as with many legends, it is sometimes hard to find the sources and separate scientific facts from urban legends”  – Goldblatt et al. (2009)

A well trained search dog should not make frequent mistakes, but how accurate are they?  How often do search dogs miss locating what they are trained to find?  How frequently do they make a mistake and indicate something is there when it is not?

There are several different types of search dogs including area detection, tracking and trailing dogs.  This article explores the scientific research on the accuracy of different types of area detection dogs.  This type of search dog is trained to search an area (determined by the handler) and indicate if they find one or more target scents.  Most area detection dogs are not trained to find the scent of a single individual (i.e. scent specific).  Dogs may be trained to find many different scents including humans (search and rescue dog), cats (cat detection dog), bombs (explosives detection dog), cancer (medical detection dogs), household pests (bed bug or termite detection dogs) or certain species of wildlife scat (conservation dog).

Scent Detection Dog Research Studies

Several research studies on search dog accuracy measured two factors: 1) how often did the search dog miss a target scent and 2) how often did the search dog misidentify a scent (i.e. give a false positive).  Helton (2009) reviewed the results of 12 different detection tasks including cancer detection, scat detection, termite detection and bomb detection.  He found that search dogs found and correctly identified the target scent 91.61% of the time (range = 75.00% to 100.00%).  Looked at another way, the search dogs missed indicating a target scent in an average of 8.39% of trials (range = 0% to 25%).  Helton (2009) also found that the search dogs gave false alarms (e.g. indicated a scent was present when it was not present) an average of 3.42% (range = 0% to 18.20%).

Additional studies conducted in the field provide more insight into the accuracy of search dogs.  Three field research studies (Harrison 2006, Long et al. 2007 and Smith et al. 2003) found that the search dogs located the correct species of wildlife scat 89% of the time (range = 72% to 100%).  While it is often difficult to determine how frequently search dogs missed locating scat in the field, Wasser et al. (2004) found that search dog handlers (rather than search dogs) located 0% to 25% of bear scat samples.  Reindle-Thompson et al. (2006) used search dogs to determine the presence of ferrets in prairie dog colonies.  One dog was 100% accurate at finding ferrets while the second dog only correctly indicated the presence of ferrets in four out of seven (57%) prairie dog colonies.

Possible Factors Affecting Scent Detection Dog Accuracy

As these studies indicate, the majority of detection dogs are accurate most of the time, but they are not infallible.  The training and experience of the search dog team (that is both the dog itself and the dog’s handler) are probably the biggest factors affecting how often a search dog makes mistakes.  Environmental factors can also have a strong influence on whether the search dogs misses locating a target scent such as a buried bomb or wildlife scat.  Some environmental factors that may make a search more challenging are hot dry air (Smith et al. 2003), gusty winds, lack of wind, and topography of the search area.  MacKay et al. (2008) estimated that scat detection dogs were able to locate a scat anywhere from 100 meters away to only 1 meter away depending on environmental conditions.

Still other factors that can influence a search dog’s accuracy are physical fitness and health (Altom et al. 2003 and Gillette 2004).  A hot or tired dog that is panting heavily is not able to sniff as effectively and fewer scent particles are detected.  Certain medications such as steroids (Ezeh et al. 1992) and some diseases can also effect a dog’s ability to identify and process scents (Furton and Myers 2001).

Accuracy versus Success Rates for Scent Detection Dogs

Whether or not the search dog is accurate is important, but that does not mean that they find their intended target 80 to 90% or more of the time.  In order to have a successful find, the target scent must be present in the search area, and the search area is determined by the search dog handler or another person.  Therefore, a large part of their success is determined by the knowledge and experience of the search dog handler, especially when finding lost people or lost cats.  In human search and rescue multiple search dog teams are often used and each is assigned a separate quadrant to search.  In lost cat searches, often a single dog is used to search the most likely areas where the cat will be found.  Typical success rates for cat detection dogs may be as high as 20% or as low as 5%.  In both human and lost cat searches, many other tools besides the search dog are also used to improve the chances of a successful find.

Recommended Reading

Helton, William, editor.  2009.  Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs.  CRC Press.

Long, Robert, Paula MacKay, William Zielinksi, and Justina Ray, editors.  2008.  Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores.  Island Press.

Literature Cited

Altom, E.K., G.M. Davenport, L.J. Myers, and K.A. Cummins.  2003.  Effect of dietary fat source and exercise on oderant-detecting ability of canine athletes.  Research in Veterinary Science 75: 149-155.

Brooks, S.E., F.M. Oi, and P.G. Koehler.  2003.  Ability of canine termite detectors to locate live termites and discriminate them from nontermite material.  Journal of Economic Entomology 96: 1259-1266.

Ezeh, P.I., L.J. Myers, L.A. Hanraham, R.J. Kemppainen, and K.A. Cummins.  1992.  Effect of steroids on the olfaction of dogs.  Physiology and Behavior 51: 1183-1187.

Furton, K.G. and L.J. Myers.  2001.  The scientific foundation and efficacy of the use of canines as chemical detectors for explosives.  Talanta 54: 487-500.

Gazit, I. and J. Terkel 2003.  Domination of olfaction over vision in explosives detection by dogs.  Applied Animal Behavior Science 82: 65-73.

Gazit, I, A. Goldblatt, and J. Terkel.  2005.  Formation of olfactory search image for explosives odours in sniffer dogs.  Ethology 111: 669-680.

Gillette, R.L. 2004.  Optimizing the scenting ability of the dog.  Athletic and Working Dog Newsletter, May.

Goldblatt, Allen, Irit Gazit, and Joseph Terkel.  2009.  Chapter 8 – Olfaction and Explosives Detector Dogs.  Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs.  CRC Press.

Harrison, R.I. 2006.  A comparison of survey methods for detecting bobcats.  Wildlife Society Bulletin 34: 548-552.

Helton, William.  2009.  Chapter 5 – Overview of Scent Detection Work: Issues and Opportunities.  Canine Ergonomics: The Science of Working Dogs.  CRC Press.

Kauhanen, E., M. Harri, A. Nevalainen, and t. Nevalainen.  2002.  Validity of detection of microbial growth in buildings by trained dogs.  Environment Internationl 28: 153-157.

Kiddy, C.A., D.S. Mitchell, D.J. Bolt, and H.W. Hawk.  1978.  Detection of estrus-related odors in cows by trained dogs.  Biology of Reproduction 19: 389-395.

Long, R.A., T.M. Donovan, P. MacKay, W.J. Zielinski, and J.S. Buzas.  2007.  Effectiveness of scat detection dogs for detecting forest carnivores.  Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2007-2017.

MacKay, P. D.A. Smith, R.A. Long and M Parker.  2008.  Chapter 7 – Scat Detection Dogs.  Noninvasive Survey Methods for Carnivores.  Island Press.

McCulloch, M. et al. 2006.  Diagnostic accuracy of canine scent detection in early- and late-stage lung and breast cancers.  Integrative Cancer Therapies 5: 30-39.

Pickel, D. et al.  2004.  Evidence of canine olfactory detection of melanoma.  Applied Animal Behavior Science 89: 107-116.

Reindl-Thompson, Sara A., John A. Shivik, Alice Whitelaw, Aimee Hurt, Kenneth F. Higgins.  2006.  Efficacy of Scent Dogs in Detecting Black-Footed Ferrets at a Reintroduction Site in South Dakota.  USDA National Wildlife Research Center – Staff Publications.  Paper 438.

Smith et al. 2003.  Detection and accuracy rates of dogs trained to find scats of San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica).  Animal Conservation 6: 339-356.

Wasser, S.K., B. Davenport, E.R. Ramage, K.E. Hunt, M. Parker, C. Clarke, and G. Stenhouse.  2004.  Scat detection dogs in wildlife research and management: application to grizzly and black bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem, Alberta, Canada.  Canadian Journal of Zoology 82: 475-492.

The post How Accurate are Search Dogs? – Part 1: Area Detection Dogs appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

Safety Tips

Never take your dog to a fireworks display!

This may seem obvious to most, but each year I see some poor dogs that have been brought along to the fireworks celebration.  Even if your dog has never displayed sound phobias before, don’t test your luck.  Phobias can develop at any time, and if your dog is exposed to a particularly loud or startling firework, they may panic and run away.

Keep your dog inside during fireworks

Provide your dog with a secure place to hide, and close all windows and doors if possible.  Some really frightened dogs have broken out through screen doors and windows and gotten lost.  Run the AC or a fan to provide some white noise.

Make sure that your dog is secure at all times

If you must take your dog outside, do so on a leash (even if you have a fenced yard) and make sure that your dog’s collar is fitted  properly.  If too loose, your dog may pull out of the collar and run off.  With a properly fitted collar, you should be able to easily slide two fingers between the collar and your dog’s neck.  The collar should feel snug but not tight.  If your dog is on the skittish side, I recommend a martingale collar (or limited slip collar) for taking your dog on walks.  Even though my dog Dante was not afraid of loud noises, I still used a martingale collar on his walks ever since he pulled out of his collar to chase after a squirrel.  Be aware that many dogs can easily slip out of harnesses.  If using a front-clip harness (like the Easy Walk Harness), clip your leash to both the collar and the harness.

If anyone will be coming or going from your house during the fireworks, make sure that your dog cannot easily get outside.  If you don’t have a separate entryway to your house (like an enclosed porch or garage), then secure your dog with a baby gate or behind a closed door.  If that’s not an option and you will be home, then leash your dog and keep them with you.

Be prepared in case your dog escapes!

Make sure that your dog has an ID tag with your current phone number or an embroidered collar.  If you don’t have one, make a temporary ID by taping a piece of paper with your phone number onto their collar.  If your dog doesn’t have a collar, write your phone number in permanent marker on their stomach.  I don’t normally recommend writing on your dog, but July 4th is essentially a disaster preparedness situation from your dog’s perspective.  If microchipped, make sure that the microchip is registered and your contact information is up-to-date.

Better yet, get your dog a GPS or radio-tracker for their collar.  Whistle and Fi are the best tracking collars that I have found.

Calming Tips

1. Exercise your dog earlier in the day to naturally make them more calm at night.
2. If possible, don’t leave your dog alone.
3. If your dog is particularly scared, keep them in a closed room with a secure place to hide: a covered crate or coffee table or under a bed.  Some dogs even prefer to hide in the bathtub.
4. Provide white noise with an air conditioner, fan, TV or radio.  Better yet, use psycho-acoustically designed music to reduce your dog’s anxiety such as Through a Dog’s Ear.  This is most effective if you start playing well before fireworks when your dog is still relaxed.   This music has been clinically proven to calm the canine nervous system.  Listen to free sound samples here.
5. Use a canine body wrap like the Thundershirt.  This body wrap applies gentle, constant pressure to calm fear and over-excitement, like swaddling an infant.  They report that this is proven effective in over 80% of dogs.  You can also create your own calming body wrap using an ace bandage.
6. Distract your dog with a toy or treat.  If your dog is not so distressed that they won’t eat, a safe chew toy is a great distraction.  Stuff a Kong with wet food and freeze it or stuff a bone with semi-moist food like a BLUE Wilderness Wild Roll.
7. Try using a calming essence or pheromone.  Some options include:
   • Rescue Remedy is a homeopathic product formulated from a variety of plant and flower extracts.
   • Thunderease Dog Calming Spray includes dog appeasing pheromone (DAP).
   • Zesty Paws Calming Treats contain organic hemp, Valerian root and L Tryptophan for dog stress relief.
8. If your dog is extremely anxious or destructive, consider talking with your vet about getting a prescription anti-anxiety medication.

Have a Happy 4th of July!

The post Top Tips to Keep Your Dog Safe and Calm this 4th of July appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

Dogs breeds commonly used in scent detection work include Labrador Retrievers, Bloodhounds, German Shepherds, Malinois, Beagles and several other hounds and spaniels.  These breeds have traditionally been used as hunting dogs, search and rescue dogs, police dogs and military dogs.  There is a common assumption (in part supported by their large number of scent receptors) that these breeds have a superior scenting ability.  On the other hand, short-nosed (brachycephalic) breeds like pugs, boxers, and bull dogs are often assumed to have a poorer sense of smell due to their squished faces and the reduced size of their rostrum.

Hall et al. (2015) set out to test the assumption that German Shepherds (a common scent detection dog) would outperform Pugs (a short-nosed breed) and Greyhounds (a sight hound) in a scent discrimination test.  

Study Methods

Hall et al. (2015) recruited pet dogs for the study that were in good health and had no prior scent training.  The subjects originally included 10 German Shepherds, 11 Pugs, and 10 Greyhounds.  However, 1 Pug and 9 of the Greyhounds refused to participate in the experiment.  The dogs were trained to alert to a cotton ball with anise oil buried in a bin of pine shavings.  In discrimination tests, the dog had to select the target odor that was in one of two bins.  They also ran the test using lower scent concentrations (10% and 1% dilution) of the anise extract.  For comparison to the scent tests, they ran a visual discrimination test using different size Styrofoam cups.

Results of the Study

Pugs performed significantly better German Shepherds in proportion correct (i.e. correct selection of the bin containing the target odor).  By the end of the testing, 9 out of 10 pugs had an 83% or greater accuracy compared to only 3 out of 10 German Shepherds.  (See Figure 2 from Hall et al. 2015)

Pugs also outperformed German Shepherds on the dilution tests.  The Pugs maintained a high level of accuracy at the 10% dilution, and the Pugs’ average performance at the 1% dilution was greater than the German Shepherds performance at the 10% dilution.  (See Figure 2 from Hall et al. 2015)

In the visual discrimination tests, Pugs and German Shepherds had similar accuracy.  (See Figure 4 from Hall et al. 2015)

Greyhounds were excluded from analyses due to the small sample size.

Conclusions

The results of this study did not support the hypothesis that a traditional scent dog (the German Shepherd) would outperform a short-nosed breed (the Pug) in a simple scent discrimination test.  In fact, Pugs outperformed German Shepherds even at low scent concentrations.  The researchers conclude that the differences “cannot easily be explained as general learning differences, general trainability, or simple motivational differences” because the two breeds performed similarly at the visual discrimination test.  Unfortunately, the Greyhounds could not be motivated to perform the test, so they were excluded.

Why might Pugs outperform German Shepherds?

Previous researchers have assumed that Pugs’ physical characteristics such as shrunken rostrums, crowding of the ethnoturbinate bones (see photos at the end of this article), and rotation of the olfactory lobe lead to reduced olfactory (scenting) ability (Roberts et al. 2010).  The results of this study do not support this assumption and further research is clearly needed.  Hall et al. (2016) suggest that Pugs may have a higher density of olfactory receptors which might counteract the effect of their shrunken rostrum.  German Shepherds have 225 million scent receptor cells, but I was unable to find any research relating to pugs (citation needed).  The placement of the olfactory recess may also play a role, but hasn’t been studied in Pugs.   Hall et al. (2016) also postulate that the difference in performance may be due to behavioral rather than physical differences.  For example, sniffing is thought to play a large role in olfactory perception and  “Pugs may engage in a superior sniff pattern.”

Does this mean that Pugs should be the new breed of choice for scent detection work?

Despite their performance in this particular test, in most cases Pugs would not make superior scent detection dogs because they are more prone to overheating and are not be able to perform the physical tasks of larger breeds.  Hall et al. (2015) are careful to point out that the results of this study should not be generalized to the larger population.  The German Shepherds in this study were pet dogs with no prior scent detection training while most German Shepherds used in serious scent work such as search & rescue, police and military are carefully selected from working lines of German Shepherds.  If Pugs were tested against these dogs, it is quite likely that the German Shepherds would outperform the Pugs.  Another study by Polgar et al. (2016) found that scent breeds performed better than non-scent breeds and short-nosed breeds in a natural detection task, but the difference was only statistically significant at the lowest level of concentration.

Literature Cited

Hall NJ, Glenn K, Smith DW, Wynne CDL.  2015.  Performance of Pugs, German Shepherds, and Greyhounds on an Odor-Discrimination Task.  Journal of Comparative Psychology 129: 237-246.

Polgar, Z, Kinnunem M, Ujvary D, Miklosi A, Gacsi M.  2016.  A Test of Canine Olfactory Capacity: Comparing Various Dog Breeds and Wolves in a Natural Detection Task.  PLoS ONE 11(5): e0154087.

Roberts T, McGreevy P, Valenzuela M.  2010.  Human Induced Rotation and Reorganization of the Brain of Domestic Dogs. PLoS ONE 5(7): e11946.

Resources

Learn more about dog scenting ability from the Canine Olfaction Lab at Texas Tech University.

The post Pugs Outperform German Shepherds at Scent Detection Test appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

Huang, L., M. Coradini, J. Rand, J. Morton, K. Albrecht, B. Wasson, and D. Robertson.  2018.  Search methods used to locate missing cats and locations where missing cats are found.  Animals 8(1), 5.

Abstract:  Missing pet cats are often not found by their owners, with many being euthanized at shelters. This study aimed to describe times that lost cats were missing for, search methods associated with their recovery, locations where found and distances travelled. A retrospective case series was conducted where self-selected participants whose cat had gone missing provided data in an online questionnaire. Of the 1210 study cats, only 61% were found within one year, with 34% recovered alive by the owner within 7 days. Few cats were found alive after 90 days. There was evidence that physical searching increased the chance of finding the cat alive (p= 0.073), and 75% of cats were found within 500 m of the point of escape. Up to 75% of cats with outdoor access traveled 1609 m, further than the distance traveled by indoor-only cats (137 m; p < 0.001). Cats considered to be highly curious were more likely to be found inside someone else’s house compared to other personality types. These findings suggest that thorough physical searching is a useful strategy, and should be conducted within the first week after cats go missing. They also support further investigation into whether shelter, neuter and return programs improve the chance of owners recovering missing cats and decrease numbers of cats euthanized in shelters

Lord, L.K., W. Ingwerson, J.L. Gray and D.J. Wintz.  2009.  Characterization of animals with microchips entering animal shelters.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 235(2): 160-167.

Abstract:  Objective: To characterize animals with microchips entering animal shelters and the process used to find owners.  Design: Cross-sectional study.  7,704 microchipped animals entering 53 animal shelters between August 2007 and March 2008.  Procedures: Data for animals with microchips were recorded by participating animal shelters and reported monthly.  Results: Of 7,704 animals, strays accounted for slightly more than half (4,083 [53.0%]), with the remainder classified as owner-relinquished animals (3,225 [41.9%]) and other (396 [5.1%]). Of 3,425 stray animals for which animal shelters reported that the owner was found, a higher percentage of dog owners (2,191/2,956 [74.1%]) than cat owners (298/469 [63.5%]) was found. For 876 animals for which the owners could not be found, the main reasons were incorrect or disconnected telephone number (310 [35.4%]), owner did not return telephone calls or respond to a letter (213 [24.3%]), and animal was registered to another group (151 [17.2%]). Of 1,943 animals for which animal shelters contacted a microchip registry, 1,129 (58.1%) were registered in the database. Purebred neutered dogs whose owner information was in the shelter database registry or microchip registry had a higher likelihood that the owners would be found.  Conclusions and Clinical Relevance: The high rate for return of microchipped dogs and cats to their owners supported microchipping as a valuable permanent pet identification modality; however, issues related to registration undermined its overall potential. Bundling of microchip implantation and registration, point-of-implantation data registration, use of annual compliance and update reminders, and providing access to all registries are potential solutions.

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

Abstract:  Objective: To characterize the process by which owners search for lost cats and identify factors associated with time to recovery.  Design: Cross-sectional study.  Sample population:  Owners of 138 cats lost in Montgomery County, Ohio, between June 1 and September 30, 2005.  Procedures:  A telephone survey was conducted.  Results:  73 of the 138 (53%) cats were recovered; median time to recovery was 5 days (range, 0.5 to 81 days). Most cats (48 [66%]) that were recovered returned home on their own or were found in the neighborhood (5 [7%]); most other cats were recovered through posting of neighborhood signs (8 [11%]) or calling or visiting an animal agency (5 [7%]). The highest success rate for any of the search methods that were used was only 12% (posting neighborhood signs). Only 26 of the 138 (19%) cats had some type of identification at the time they were lost (ie, identification tag, rabies tag, or microchip). Owners allowed 82 (59%) cats to spend at least some time outdoors. The percentage of sexually intact cats recovered by their owners (4/16 [25%]) was significantly lower than the percentage of neutered cats recovered (69/122 [57%]).  Conclusions:  Results suggest that the percentage of lost cats recovered by their owners is low, possibly in part because of the lack of use of traditional identification methods and the general acceptance that cats may roam. Veterinarians can help educate owners about the importance of identification and the need to keep cats indoors.

Lord, L.K., T.E. Wittum, A.K. Ferketich, J.A. Funk, and P.J. Rajala-Schultz.  2007.  Search and identification methods that owners use to find a lost dog.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 230(2): 211-216.

Abstract: Objective: To characterize the process by which owners search for lost dogs and identify factors associated with time to recovery.  Design:  Cross-sectional study.  Sample Population:  Owners of 187 dogs lost in Montgomery County, Ohio, between June 1 and September 30, 2005.  Procedures:  A telephone survey was conducted.  Results:  132 of the 187 (71%) dogs were recovered; median time to recovery was 2 days (range, 0.5 to 21 days). Dogs were recovered primarily through a call or visit to an animal agency (46 [34.8%]), a dog license tag (24 [18.2%]), and posting of neighborhood signs (20 [15.2%]). Eighty-nine (48%) dogs had some type of identification at the time they were lost (ie, identification tag, dog license tag, rabies tag, or microchip). Owners had a higher likelihood of recovery when they called an animal agency (hazard ratio, 2.1), visited an animal agency (1.8), and posted neighborhood signs. Dogs that were wearing a dog license tag also had a higher likelihood of recovery (hazard ratio, 1.6). Owners were less likely to recover their dogs if they believed their dogs were stolen (hazard ratio, 0.3).  Conclusions:  Results suggest that various factors are associated with the likelihood that owners will recover a lost dog. Both animal agencies and veterinarians can play a role in educating dog owners on the importance of identification tags, licensing, and microchips and can help to emphasize the importance of having a search plan in case a dog is lost.

Lord, L.K., T.E. Wittum, A.K. Ferketich, J.A. Funk, and P.J. Rajala-Schultz.  2007. Search methods that people use to find owners of lost pets.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 230(12): 1835-1840.

Abstract:  Objective:  To characterize the process by which people who find lost pets search for the owners.  Design:  Cross-sectional study. Sample Population-188 individuals who found a lost pet in Dayton, Ohio, between March 1 and June 30, 2006. Procedures-Potential participants were identified as a result of contact with a local animal agency or placement of an advertisement in the local newspaper. A telephone survey was conducted to identify methods participants used to find the pets’ owners.  Results:  156 of 188 (83%) individuals completed the survey. Fifty-nine of the 156 (38%) pets were reunited with their owners; median time to reunification was 2 days (range, 0.5 to 45 days). Only 1 (3%) cat owner was found, compared with 58 (46%) dog owners. Pet owners were found as a result of information provided by an animal agency (25%), placement of a newspaper advertisement (24%), walking the neighborhood (19%), signs in the neighborhood (15%), information on a pet tag (10%), and other methods (7%). Most finders (87%) considered it extremely important to find the owner, yet only 13 (8%) initially surrendered the found pet to an animal agency. The primary reason people did not surrender found pets was fear of euthanasia (57%). Only 97 (62%) individuals were aware they could run a found-pet advertisement in the newspaper at no charge, and only 1 person who was unaware of the no-charge policy placed an advertisement.  Conclusions:  Veterinarians and shelters can help educate people who find lost pets about methods to search for the pets’ owners.

L.K. Lord, B. Griffin, M.R. Slater, and J.K. Levy.  2010.  Evaluation of collars and microchips for visual and permanent identification of pet cats.  Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 

Abstract:  Objective:  To determine the percentage of pet cats still wearing collars and having functional microchips 6 months after application.  Design:  Randomized controlled clinical trial. Procedures:  538 client-owned cats were randomly assigned to wear 1 of 3 types of collars: plastic buckle, breakaway plastic buckle safety, and elastic stretch safety. Each cat was fitted with the assigned collar, and a microchip was inserted SC between the scapulae. Owners completed questionnaires about their experiences and expectations of collars at enrollment and at the conclusion of the study.  Results:  391 of the 538 (72.7%) cats successfully wore their collars for the entire 6-month study period. Owners’ initial expectations of the cats’ tolerance of the collar and the number of times the collar was reapplied on the cats’ necks were the most important factors predicting success. Type of collar likely influenced how often collars needed to be reapplied. Eighteen (3.3%) cats caught a forelimb in their collar or caught their collar on an object or in their mouth. Of the 478 microchips that were scanned at the conclusion of the study, 477 (99.8%) were functional.  Conclusions:  Most cats successfully wore their collars. Because even house cats can become lost, veterinarians should recommend that all cats wear identification collars since they are the most obvious means of identifying an owned pet. For some cats, collars may frequently come off and become lost; therefore, microchips are an important form of backup identification. Owners should select a collar that their cat will tolerate and should check it often to ensure a proper fit.

Weiss, E. M. Slater, and L. Lord.  2012.  Frequency of lost dogs and cats in the United States and the methods used to locate them.  Animals 2: 301-315.

Abstract:  A cross-sectional national random digit dial telephone interview was conducted between September and November 2010. There were 1,015 households that had owned a dog or cat within the past five years. Of these 817 households owned dogs and 506 owned cats. Fourteen percent of dogs (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 11–16%) and 15% (95% CI: 12–18%) of cats were lost in the past five years. No owner demographic variables were associated with losing a pet. Ninety three percent (95% CI: 86–97%) of dogs and 75% (95% CI: 64–85%) of cats were recovered. For dogs, searching the neighborhood and returning on their own were the most common methods of finding the dog; 14% were found through an identification tag. For cats, returning on their own was most common. Dogs were more likely than cats to be lost more than once. Cats were less likely than dogs to have any type of identification. Knowledge of the successful methods of finding dogs and cats can provide invaluable help for owners of lost pets. Since 25% of lost cats were not found, other methods of reuniting cats and their owners are needed. Collars and ID tags or humane trapping could be valuable approaches.

The post Research Studies on Lost Pet Behavior and Recovery appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

I run a business where I help people find their missing cats and dogs, and sometimes this involves catching a frightened lost dog. It is actually surprising, especially to the panic-stricken and bewildered owner, how often a beloved pet dog will run in fear even from their owner once lost and in an unfamiliar environment. This is commonly referred to as the dog being in “survival mode,” and I have worked several cases (and heard of many more) where a lost dog acted feral until it was captured. Some revert to their normal friendly selves while still in the trap as soon as they see their owner, while others need to be brought home to relax in a familiar environment before acting friendly and social again. I have also seen similar behavior in lost or stray dogs where the owner was not present. While loose, they acted extremely fearful and untrusting of people, but once trapped and brought indoors, they turned out to be friendly, well-socialized dogs.

One such case stands out in my mind.  I received a call from a Tennessee rescue group that had lost a foster dog in Vermont.  He was a pug mix and had slipped his leash and run away upon arrival at his foster home.  I was not contacted until one month after he went missing, but I located him within three weeks using 30 large florescent posters put up over a six-mile radius from where he went missing.  It turned out that he was living near a small town about four miles from where he escaped, and a local woman had been putting out food for him but couldn’t get anywhere near him.  We used a humane trap baited with food and blankets mailed up from his original foster mom in Tennessee.  He appeared subdued, but not outwardly friendly once trapped.  However, when we carried the trap into the house and let him out, he transformed into a different dog.  He ran from person to person and jumped into laps and appeared ecstatic to be back in a home after seven long weeks living in the woods. Here’s example of a similar story where the dog was loose for years before being caught: Ghost Dog Finally Makes It Home.

On the other hand, I worked another case where the outcome was very different. I was assisting another lost pet tracker in a case where the lost dog was a former street dog from the south, and he escaped upon arrival at his new home in New England. He was actually caught a few weeks later, but then again escaped his new owners within one week. Even when indoors at his new home, this dog was extremely fearful of people and had a reported history of biting in fear. It took several months and many trapping attempts before he was finally captured, and despite being on his own living in the snow and cold, the Animal Control Officer thought he looked remarkably healthy. In a very unfortunate series of events, the dog ended up seriously biting someone shortly after his capture. Now he is being held indefinitely by animal control, his new owners did not reclaim him (for complicated reasons so please don’t judge), and his future is uncertain.  I don’t think there really was the option to leave him running loose where he was, but the outcome was really disheartening.  (Update: I originally wrote this article in 2014.  This dog lived for 1 ½ years as a foster dog before passing away due to an illness.  He was described as a productive shelter volunteer that helped evaluate and befriend new shelter dogs, and no additional incidents of biting are known.)

The real question is probably not whether this dog should have been captured once lost in New England, but whether it was in his best interest to be caught down south in the first place and transported up here as an adoptable dog. I don’t know enough about these programs to provide a critical argument, but it does raise some interesting questions.  Do feral or severely under-socialized dogs that are rescued down south and then transported up north really benefit from the situation?  It is not uncommon for these dogs to run off shortly after being adopted, and if found and caught, they remain at a high risk of taking off again at the first opportunity.  Are there other options for these dogs besides killing them or adopting them out?  Are trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs for dogs ever a viable option in the United States?

Obviously this is a complicated issue that would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.  Personally, I think in some cases (if the option exists) that an extremely fearful or feral dog might be better off left alone to live on their own similar to TNR colonies of feral cats. However, I would caution people that it is not possible to assess the temperament of a loose dog until it has been trapped and allowed to feel safe indoors. Unfortunately, this leads to the quandary that in order to determine if you should catch a dog, especially one where the owners cannot be located and you don’t know the dog’s history, you really need to catch the dog first.

– Danielle Robertson, Lost Pet Research & Recovery

The post Should We Catch this Dog? appeared first on Lost Pet Research and Recovery.

The post When NOT to Use a Tracking Dog to Find a Lost Dog 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.