Content uploaded by Roo Campbell
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Roo Campbell on Apr 22, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Cairngorms Wildcat Project
Final Report
2
THE CAIRNGORMS WILDCAT PROJECT
Final Report
Hetherington D., and Campbell, R (2012) The Cairngorms Wildcat Project Final Report. Report to
Cairngorms National Park Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage, Royal Zoological Society of Scotland,
Scottish Gamekeepers Association and Forestry Commission Scotland
3
Contents
Summary................................................................................................................................ 4
1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 7
2. Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation................................. 9
2.1 The importance of public awareness-raising.............................................................. 9
2.2 Web presence................................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Awareness-raising materials........................................................................................... 11
2.4 Media coverage................................................................................................................. 12
2.5 Talks and public events.................................................................................................... 13
2.6 Education work................................................................................................................. 13
2.7 Awareness-raising amongst specific sectors.............................................................. 13
2.8 Outcomes of the public awareness-raising................................................................ 14
3. Neutering domestic cats........................................................................................... 17
3.1 Background........................................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Encouraging responsible cat ownership...................................................................... 18
3.3. Expanding and intensifying TNR.................................................................................. 19
3.4 Outcomes.......................................................................................................................... 22
3.5 Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 27
4. Working with estates.................................................................................................. 30
4.1 Background........................................................................................................................ 30
4.2 Communicating wildcat-friendly predator control................................................... 31
4.3 Developing a protocol for wildcat-friendly predator control................................ 32
4.4. The Estates Protocol...................................................................................................... 32
4.5. Testing the protocol in the Cairngorms National Park.......................................... 33
4.6 The five estates................................................................................................................. 34
4.7. Outcome: gamekeeping methods................................................................................ 40
4.8 Discussion.......................................................................................................................... 42
5. Researching and monitoring wildcats................................................................. 44
5.1 Intensive camera trap monitoring................................................................................ 44
5.2 Opportunistic camera trapping..................................................................................... 65
5.3 Sightings records............................................................................................................... 67
5.4 Carcases.............................................................................................................................. 69
6. Conclusions...................................................................................................................... 72
6.1 Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation............................................. 72
6.2 Neutering domestic cats................................................................................................. 72
6.3 Working with estates...................................................................................................... 74
6.4 Research and monitoring................................................................................................ 75
6.5 Synthesis.............................................................................................................................. 76
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................... 80
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................... 81
Appendices............................................................................................................................. 84
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
The Cairngorms Wildcat Project was a practical trial of targeted conservation
actions for the Scottish wildcat. The Project was a partnership between the
Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), The
Royal Zoological Society of Scotland (RZSS), the Scottish Gamekeepers Association
(SGA) and Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS). The project was informed by a
stakeholder conference in 2008, was officially launched in May 2009, and ran until
March 2012. It was largely funded by SNH under the Species Action Framework and
by additional funds generated through the Highland Tiger appeal.
The actions of the Project fall into 4 main headings. These are:
1. Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation
2. Neutering domestic cats
3. Working with estates
4. Researching and monitoring wildcats
Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation - A key feature of the Project was
the use of the ‘Highland Tiger’ awareness-raising brand to communicate to a wide
audience the species’ rarity and the actions they could take to help conserve it. The
project established a website (www.highlandtiger.com), as well as other internet
resources and promotional materials, and stimulated much coverage in the print and
broadcast media. Many educational talks were delivered at a local level and included
targeted presentations to key audiences such as farmers and gamekeepers.
Neutering domestic cats - The Project sought to develop a close working relationship
with the cat welfare charity Cats Protection in order to co-ordinate the promotion
and delivery of neutering and vaccination of domestic and feral cats within the CNP.
This element of the Project relied on volunteer effort and collaboration with local
veterinary practices, who collated available data on the number of animals treated
locally. The Project also sought to raise awareness of responsible domestic cat
ownership in the Park, by delivering talks and through the production of a leaflet
which was made widely available.
Working with estates - The Project worked with the gamekeeping community to
establish a practical protocol for their feral cat control activities that minimised the
risks of harming wildcats. The protocol included:
• A practical, but precautionary, set of criteria which helps identify a wildcat in
the field, i.e. a tabby-marked cat with a thick, ringed, blunt tail; a dorsal stripe
which does not extend onto the tail; and no white feet;
• Promoting methods of control which endeavour to avoid harm to wildcats,
i.e. cage-trapping;
• Advice on what action to take if a wildcat is accidentally caught;
• Guidance on the humane treatment of feral or domestic cats.
Five estates participated in the Project by adopting the protocol and reporting on
their feral cat control activities and any wildcat sightings.
5
Research and monitoring wildcats – Intensive camera trap monitoring was adopted by
the Project to obtain baseline and trend data on wildcat and feral cat presence on
the five participating estates. In addition, the Project collated the results of
opportunistic camera trapping, sightings records by the public, and the recovery of
wild-living cat carcasses for analysis.
Key findings and outcomes
The Project has successfully engaged the public about wildcats which is reflected in:
the species’ greater prominence in the most recent Scottish Nature Omnibus
survey; by increased participation in voluntary feral cat neutering work; by
attendance at local talks on the subject; by the volume of public sightings records
submitted; and by donations to the Highland Tiger Fund.
Feral cat management by a network of trained Cats Protection volunteers has been
substantially stepped up within the CNP with the help of the Project. Feral cat
neutering is dependent on enthusiastic individuals as well as intelligence from local
communities. The efficacy and sustainability of this mechanism, without continuing
staff resources to co-ordinate it, remains to be demonstrated as a tool for wildcat
conservation. To be an effective tool for wildcat conservation, Trap Neuter Release
needs to be co-ordinated, based on intelligence of wildcat and feral cat distributions.
Over the course of the project there was no increase in uptake of pet cat neutering
via local veterinary practices. The reasons for this are not fully understood, but could
be various.
A major success of the Project was the effective partnership between conservation
and land management interests. The Project’s engagement with estates was very
positive and raised awareness of wildcats and the need for their conservation
amongst gamekeepers, and appears to have directly benefitted their conservation.
The estate protocols developed by the Project could be adopted by the gamekeeping
sector in their own training and guidance and applied more widely in other
stronghold areas. The proactive management by land managers of feral cat
populations for wildcat conservation could potentially be supported by public funding
mechanisms e.g. SRDP.
Research has focused on establishing the status of cats currently living wild in the
CNP. This has included the assessment of distributions based on submitted public
records as well as assessing the extent of hybridisation from analysis of camera trap
images and roadkill carcasses (genetic results to follow). Consequently our
knowledge of wild-living cats in the CNP has been much enhanced. The findings
suggest wildcats are very rare, but are present in low numbers in the western half of
the National Park, i.e. Badenoch & Strathspey, Highland Perthshire and possibly
Glenlivet. No records substantiated with photos or carcases were obtained from the
eastern side of the Park, i.e. Deeside, Donside and the Angus Glens. Camera trap
images and recovered cat carcasses indicate that feral cats and hybrids are more
numerous and widespread and occupy the same areas as wildcats, hence the risks
from hybridisation appear to be real and continuing.
A programme of practical measures has therefore been successfully trialled in the
CNP with the involvement of a wide range of interest groups. The package of
measures required a large input of dedicated staff time over the three years of the
6
Project. Elements of the Project will continue where they can be integrated with
standard practice and some could be replicated elsewhere where the local
infrastructure permits (access to volunteers, veterinary services etc.). The efficacy
for wildcat conservation of some actions, such as volunteer co-ordinated Trap
Neuter Release (TNR) remain to be fully demonstrated and may require longer-term
monitoring to fully evaluate.
There is now the opportunity to build on the work of the Cairngorms Wildcat
Project in developing a new national Action Plan for the Scottish Wildcat. The
project has reinforced the parlous state of the Scottish Wildcat, but offers some
practical actions that could continue to be applied in the Cairngorms National Park
and in other areas identified as strongholds for wildcats.
7
1. Introduction
In 2007, Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) included the Scottish Wildcat on a list of
32 species for priority conservation action, which would mean that effort and
resources would be focused on its conservation. The first steps to create a wildcat
conservation project in the Cairngorms National Park (CNP), an area previously
identified as being a stronghold for wildcats, were also taken in 2007, when the
Cairngorms National Park Authority (CNPA) added the wildcat as a key priority
species to the Cairngorms Local Biodiversity Action Plan. Following on from this, a
meeting of potential project partners was called at the CNPA offices in Grantown in
September 2007 in order to discuss how best to take forward a conservation
project in the CNP. This was attended by representatives of the CNPA, SNH,
Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association (SGA), and Royal Zoological Society of Scotland
(RZSS). Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) would later join this steering group as
would the Wild Media Foundation (WMF) although the WMF’s direct involvement
was temporary and concluded prior to the official launch of the Project.
In order to identify a way forward for a Cairngorms-based wildcat conservation
project, it was decided to hold a conference. The conference, entitled “Practical
wildcat conservation in the Cairngorms National Park” was held in Aviemore in April
2008. This event was well attended by around 100 delegates from a wide variety of
sectors and, through several workshops, served to identify options for progressing a
conservation project, as well as helping to raise awareness of wildcats and their
plight, both locally through discussions amongst those in attendance, and nationally
by way of resultant press coverage.
The steering group of partner organisations designed a Project which would be
funded largely by SNH’s Species Action Framework, but also with significant funding
contributions from CNPA and RZSS. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was
signed by all Project partners with stated aims:
• To secure the future of the Scottish wildcat within the Cairngorms
National Park (CNP), leading to further action across a wider area of
Scotland
• To raise awareness of the plight of the Scottish wildcat
• To promote public support for wildcat conservation measures
Furthermore, the Project’s objectives were:
• To work with land managers in the CNP to ensure that the population of
Scottish wildcats benefits from existing feral cat control activities;
• To set in place sustainable feral cat management, with the support and
co-operation of landowners, such that this will become self-sustaining
beyond the life of the project;
• To carry out research and monitoring to develop a greater understanding
of Scottish wildcat conservation status, ecology, genetics and
epidemiology within the context of the project;
• To engage the support of the local community for responsible domestic
cat ownership, including participation in voluntary neutering and
vaccination schemes
8
• To provide an efficient and effective programme of activities which could
be applied for the benefit of Scottish wildcat across a wider geographic
area of Scotland
• To capitalise on the charismatic nature of the Scottish wildcat in the CNP
to nurture an ethos of collaboration and ownership in the Project across
a wide spectrum of interest groups and individuals.
A full-time Project Manager was employed in February 2009. The Cairngorms
Wildcat Project was officially launched by Environment Minister Roseanna
Cunningham at the Highland Wildlife Park on May 5th 2009. The Project ended on
March 31st 2012.
This reports sets out the various activities of the Project and reports on their
outcomes. It is divided into 7 chapters:
1. Introduction
2. Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation
3. Neutering domestic cats
4. Working with estates
5. Researching and monitoring wildcats
6. Project closing conference
7. Conclusions
9
2. Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation
The Project MoU had two stated aims relating specifically to awareness-raising:
• To raise awareness of the plight of the Scottish wildcat
• To promote public support for wildcat conservation measures
Furthermore, one of the objectives of the Project was:
• To capitalise on the charismatic nature of the Scottish wildcat in the CNP
to nurture an ethos of collaboration and ownership in the Project across
a wide spectrum of interest groups and individuals.
2.1 The importance of public awareness-raising
The Scottish wildcat is a rare, elusive and largely nocturnal species confined to the
most thinly populated parts of the UK. Its conservation is complex, for a range of
reasons. Firstly, the species is a predator, and can therefore be perceived as a threat
to some land management interests, such as gamebird conservation. Furthermore,
the species can be superficially similar to a tabby-marked domestic cat, which
presents difficulties in accurate identification during species surveying and
monitoring, during feral cat control activities practised by estates, and feral cat
neutering work conducted by cat welfare groups and vets. This is further confused
by hybridisation, which results in the occurrence of wild-living cats with shared
features of both wildcats and domestic cats. This had also led over the years to
scientific disagreement on defining the Scottish wildcat and how the species should
be conserved.
From the outset of the Project, it was agreed that raising awareness of the wildcat
and its plight, both at a wide public level and at a more specific and local level, was
critical to the success of any wildcat conservation project. Two key groups which the
Project aimed to reach in order to influence behaviours which could directly benefit
wildcats were domestic cat owners and gamekeepers. Given how widespread in
society cat ownership is, messages about responsible cat ownership can only be
delivered widely, rather than in a more targeted fashion that is achievable for a
professional community such as gamekeepers. Consequently, the Project engaged
with the gamekeeping community in a more appropriate, targeted manner (see
Chapter 4).
In order to catch the public’s imagination and inspire them about wildcat
conservation efforts in line with the aims and objectives of the MoU, the Project
chose a strong awareness-raising brand, ‘Highland Tiger’ (HT). A number of
awareness raising materials utilising this brand, including a website, social media,
postcards and DVD, were developed to raise the profile of the wildcat and
communicate conservation issues and actions. Furthermore, the brand would be
used wherever possible in dealings with the media.
Benefits to wildcat conservation of the Project’s broader public awareness-raising
activities would be:
• Greater awareness of the need for neutering and vaccination of domestic
cats to conserve wildcats
10
• Public involvement in recording of wild-living cats across the National
Park and beyond
• Donations of money and time from inspired members of the public which
could be usefully directed at Project objectives
2.2 Web presence
The Project website, www.highlandtiger.com, was designed to be the public focal
point for up-to-date information about wildcats and their ecology, which would also
detail the objectives and activities of the Project in a visually attractive, user-friendly
way. The site provided specific guidance on responsible cat ownership and wildcat
identification. A news section and Project Manager’s blog regularly update visitors on
Project developments, advertise talks and other events, and make pleas for voluntary
assistance e.g. with feral cat trapping. The public are also encouraged to contribute
to wildcat conservation by reporting wildcat sightings via an online form. There is
also an opportunity to donate money to the Highland Tiger Fund, a wildcat
conservation fund administered by the RZSS, the proceeds of which are used to
further wildcat conservation and research in the Cairngorms National Park.
Table 2.1 Web traffic for www.highlandtiger.com for the three years of the Project.
Year
Total visits
Monthly average
Daily average
May 09 – Mar 10
94265
8570
286
Apr 10 – Mar 11
216940
18078
603
Apr 11 – Mar 12
161705
13475
449
Access to Matrixstats for the Highland Tiger website allows statistical analysis of how
the site is used by visitors. This shows that the number of visitors to the site grew
steadily over the first year following its launch and remained consistently high over
the second and third years, with an average of 449 daily visits for the year 2011/12
year. The year running from April 2011 to March 2012 saw fewer total visits to the
website than the previous. However, April 2010 had seen a very large volume of
visitors (almost 70,000) because of a prominent story about the Project on the BBC
News site, which linked to the HT site. Excepting April, the average monthly figure
for the 2010/11 year would have been 13371, rather than 18078. The 2011/12 year,
with an average of 13475 visits per month, therefore largely represents a year of
consolidation on visitor numbers to the website, which remained fairly constant over
the course of the year. Beyond the homepage, the Project Manager’s regularly-
updated blog typically attracted the most visits to the website. The total visits to the
site for each quarter from April 2009 to March 2012 are displayed in Fig. 2.1.
11
Highland Tiger quarterly web traffic
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
80000
90000
100000
May-09
Jul-09
Sep-09
Nov-09
Jan-1 0
Mar-10
May-10
Jul-10
Sep-10
Nov-10
Jan-1 1
Mar-11
May-11
Jul-11
Sep-11
Nov-11
Jan-1 2
Mar-12
Quarterly period
Number of visits
Fig. 2.1 Total web traffic visiting highlandtiger.com during each quarter from April 2009 to March
2012
The Highland Tiger Facebook page was created in May 2009 with the aim of quickly
delivering specific messages, such as advertising an event or making a plea for
assistance, to a community of interested individuals. In June 2010, the Facebook page
had 1404 followers. By June 2011 that had grown to 2560, and by the end of March
2012 numbers had risen further to 3125. The page continues to be managed by staff
from the RZSS Education Department.
A Highland Tiger Youtube channel, www.youtube.com/user/HighlandTigers, was
created in October 2010 and is administered by RZSS staff. By the end of March
2012 the channel had uploaded 13 different videos, including the Project’s
introductory DVD material, a BBC Landward feature on the Project, camera trap
video footage, as well as wildcat footage taken by members of the public in the wild
and captivity. By the end of March 2012, the total number of channel views stood at
13,253. The Project’s introductory DVD material, which explains the plight of the
wildcat and how people can help, had been viewed 2826 times.
2.3 Awareness-raising materials
The Project funded the production of both Highland Tiger postcards and an
introductory DVD. The rationale behind the postcards was to provide a quality, but
low-cost product free of charge to the public, which would celebrate the wildcat,
help to raise its profile but, by including the Highland Tiger website URL in large
letters on the reverse, would help to spread the word about the Project, particularly
as postcards are designed to be sent to others. 250,000 postcards were produced,
and were handed out in mixed packs of five or singly.
As well as being distributed to members of the public at Project talks and events,
postcards have been handed out to Highland Wildlife Park visitors during the wildcat
feeding time talk delivered by the keepers, often resulting in donations to the RZSS
wildcat conservation fund. Large quantities of postcards were also passed to
National Park rangers and organisations such as Wild Scotland and Cats Protection
to hand out at public events. Some local visitor centres and hotels made postcards
12
available next to a charity collection can for the Highland Tiger Fund administered by
the RZSS. Approximately 50,000 postcards remain with the RZSS and will be used
for continued awareness-raising, e.g. at educational events and keepers’ feeding-time
talks.
The Project commissioned a 7-minute introductory DVD which combined images,
text, narration and music to explain the need for wildcat conservation. It is more
costly to produce a copy of the Highland Tiger DVD than a pack of postcards and so
DVDs were distributed to people who were in a position to show it to a wider
audience, e.g. at society meetings, school classes etc. Around 120 DVDs were
distributed before the feature was made available via the Highland Tiger YouTube
channel.
2.4 Media coverage and articles
To date, the project has enjoyed positive and widespread coverage in all media –
print, broadcast and web - locally, nationally and globally (Appendix 1). Much of this
coverage has been achieved through proactive approaches from journalists who have
heard about the Project, and coverage has a ripple effect encouraging more coverage
in other titles. A press release was issued to coincide with the Project’s ministerial
launch in May 2009, resulting in widespread media coverage including on BBC
Reporting Scotland and on STV News as well as on local radio and in Scottish
newspapers. Since then the Project has enjoyed frequent and significant media
coverage. In line with the Project’s Communications Strategy, there was media
coverage of the Project in every 3-month period of the year. Following an approach
from the BBC, the Project featured on the ‘One Show’ a month after launching,
attracting a prime-time TV audience of 4.5 million.
Very significant media coverage, including articles in a wide variety of national and
local press, in several magazines, on many websites, and on local and national radio,
resulted from BBC Scotland’s TV and web coverage of the Project on April 29th 2010
(mentioned above). Much of this coverage included the URL of the HT website, with
the consequence that there were over 46,000 visits to the Project website on a day
which would otherwise have received something in the region of 400. The equivalent
advertising cost of the coverage stemming from, and including, the BBC coverage
was calculated by media consultants at over £637,000. Furthermore the Highland
Tiger fund received over £1300 worth of donations via the website in the week
following the BBC web coverage. This represented 24% of 2010’s web donations
occurring in less than 2% of the available time.
Further coverage in the broadcast media included features across the UK on the
BBC’s Countryfile, Autumnwatch, and Newsround programmes, in Scotland on their
Landward and Out of Doors programmes, and several repeated one-minute shorts
broadcast on STV in the commercial breaks between prime-time evening
programmes.
The Project stimulated front cover stories in several magazines. The BBC Wildlife
magazine, the UK’s biggest-selling wildlife periodical, carried a six-page feature
focusing on the Project in September 2010. A double-page spread in the
Spring/Summer edition of the SGA’s membership magazine Scottish Gamekeeper saw
a front cover with the very positive title ‘Highland Tiger: keepers’ key role in
conservation’. A one-page article appeared in the October 2010 edition of National
Geographic magazine resulting in worldwide coverage in different languages reaching
13
an estimated 40 million readers. The Project was featured in a 4-page article in the
Shooting Times in September 2011. SNH produced a six-page article for the Winter
2010 edition of their magazine, The Nature of Scotland, while articles have also
appeared in the national press in a wide variety of titles including the Scotsman,
Herald, Sun, Daily Mail, Telegraph, Times and Observer newspapers. More locally to
the Cairngorms National Park, the Project has been covered in local titles such as
the Strathspey & Badenoch Herald, Donside Piper and Press & Journal while articles
written by the Project Manager about the need for the intensification and expansion
of feral cat neutering have appeared in several village newsletters across the National
Park.
A press release was sent out to mark the end of the Project the day before the
closing conference on 23rd April 2012. This was given as an exclusive initially to BBC
Scotland, who recorded interviews for Scottish TV and radio news, as well as for
UK-wide children’s TV news programme Newsround. The following day the press
release was sent to other media outlets, such as national press.
2.5 Talks and public events
The Project Manager (PM) responded to invitations to speak about the Project at
society meetings in and around the National Park. Priority was given to groups based
on audience composition and size, and also geographical location. To date the
Project Manager has delivered 52 presentations, with a total audience size of over
2000 people (Appendix 2). This included several local audiences with a general
interest in wildlife, as well as more specific audiences comprised of local farmers,
national park rangers, gamekeepers, mountain guides, or schoolchildren. The
National Park rangers are now all aware of the Project and distribute Project
materials, such as postcards, leaflets and DVDs, to a wide public audience. Some also
assist with camera trapping around the National Park. Any donations or speaker’s
fees are passed to the Highland Tiger fund administered by the RZSS.
In summer 2009, the Project formed the main focus of a staffed presence within the
CNPA marquee at two large public events: the Grantown Show and Braemar
Gathering. At both events Project partnership personnel interacted with the public,
handing out large numbers of postcards to help kick-start conversations with
passers-by about wildcats and the Project. The Project has also been represented at
both the Moy (2010 and 2011) and Scone (2010) Game Fairs (see chapter 3) with a
staffed stand.
2.6 Education work
The Education team of the RZSS has, since 2010, worked wildcat conservation
messages into its work both at the Highland Wildlife Park, and as a specific Scottish
wildcat lesson offered by way of an outreach programme to schools around
Scotland, including in the Highlands (Appendix 3). Total audience size reached almost
900 adults and children from across Scotland, including many from northern
Scotland. The CNPA also organised two educational events in Strathspey and
Deeside in May and June 2010, entitled ‘Celebrating Nature’. These had a woodland
theme and were aimed largely at schoolchildren. RZSS staff were in attendance to
talk about wildcats and their conservation at both events.
2.7 Awareness-raising amongst specific sectors
In addition to the broad public awareness-raising work, the Project also targeted
specific conservation messages at key sectors, e.g. local cat welfare groups, vets,
14
farmers, and gamekeepers through the use of print media or face-to-face
presentations. The outcomes of awareness-raising on responsible cat ownership and
wildcat-friendly predator control are dealt with in chapters 2 and 3 respectively.
2.8 Outcomes of the public awareness-raising element of the Project
2.8.1 Greater awareness of Scottish wildcats
In order to evaluate the effectiveness of its communications, SNH commissioned
market-research consultants to produce The Scottish Nature Omnibus. The Autumn
2011 omnibus report compared results from September 2011 to those of a
comparable report in September 2010. A total of 1,055 interviews took place in the
autumn 2011 omnibus survey and quotas were set to ensure that the results were
representative of the Scottish population. A total of 1158 interviews had taken place
in September 2010. In both reports awareness of Scotland’s nature and landscapes
was assessed.
A specific question was asked in both years what wildlife the interviewee associated
with Scotland. In September 2010, 8% of respondents replied with ‘Scottish wildcat’.
However, by September 2011 the wildcat’s share of the audience had almost
doubled to 15%. In September 2010, when asked what species they were concerned
about, 13% of interviewees responded with Scottish wildcat, making the species the
5th most significant in terms of public concern. However, by September 2011 the
share of the audience had risen to 17% and the species had become the 3rd most
significant in terms of public concern.
These results provide evidence for both an increased level of public awareness in
Scotland of Scottish wildcats and the need to conserve them. Given the considerable
media attention that the Project has enjoyed and the reach of its awareness-raising
activities, it is very probable that the recent increase in public awareness and
sympathy of wildcats in Scotland is due, at least in part, to the Project and the
activities of its partner organisations. However, it is also likely that the awareness-
raising activities and media coverage of the Scottish Wildcat Association, which was
also publicly launched in spring 2009, may also have contributed to this.
2.8.2 Public involvement in recording
In total, the Project collated 470 potential wildcat records from within and outwith
the Cairngorms National Park. 80% of these, some accompanied by photographs,
came from members of the public unconnected to the Project and 60% of records
were submitted via the Project website. In total, 56 carcases of tabby-marked cats
were uplifted from in and around the National Park and taken to the National
Museums of Scotland for detailed analysis of pelage characteristics and other
morphological features. Project staff were notified about the whereabouts of 75% of
these carcases by members of the public unconnected to the Project. Raised public
awareness of wildcats and the Project has facilitated the furthering of scientific
understanding of the distribution of wild-living cats and the extent of hybridisation.
The subject of recording is explored in more detail in chapter 4.
2.8.3 Donations to wildcat conservation
Donations to the Highland Tiger Fund administered by the RZSS came from a variety
of avenues but can be largely grouped into:
15
• Website
• Highland Wildlife Park Keeper For A Day
• Highland Wildlife Park keepers’ feeding time talks
• Collection cans at local venues and events
• Corporate donations and trusts
Improved awareness generated by the Project is likely to have facilitated donations
via all avenues with the exception of the Highland Wildlife Park’s Keeper for a Day
programme. More specifically, the Project’s website clearly has a very significant role
to play in web-based donations, while Project postcards were instrumental in
levering donations via the web (they had been originally offered in return for
donations); during the Highland Wildlife Park’s feeding time talks (keepers give cards
to those making donations); and in conjunction with collection cans at talks, public
events and in rangers stations and visitor centres around the National Park.
From May 2009 to March 2012, the Highland Tiger Fund received a total of around
£48,000. The donations can be broken down into the five main categories thus:
Funding avenues for the Highland Tiger Fund 2009-12
13
12.2
19
1.8
2
Web
Keeper for a Day
Feeding ti me tal ks
Collection cans
Corporate
Fig 2.2 Funding avenues for the Highland Tiger Fund 2009-12. Amounts shown are
thousands of pounds.
The cost to wildcat conservation of the Project’s awareness-raising materials such as
the website and postcards has been more than compensated for. The website had
cost £9200 to design and generate but web donations amounted to £13,000. The
Project’s postcards cost £8050 to design and produce but donations levered by
postcards (e.g. keepers’ talks - £19,000, collection cans - £1800) amounted to
£20,800. Approximately 50,000 postcards remain to be used for further awareness
raising and potentially for fund-raising.
In total, donations to the Highland Tiger Fund have, to date, generated around
£48,000 for wildcat conservation in the Cairngorms National Park, and have been
directed mainly at the employment and equipment costs of Dr Roo Campbell of the
RZSS, who has been conducting field monitoring on behalf of the Project (see
Chapter 5 for further detail).
16
2.8.4 Inspiring others to help
Public support for the wildcat and the Project was harnessed in other ways which
benefited the Project. Several local people volunteered to become Cats Protection
volunteers so that they assist with feral cat trapping to benefit wildcat conservation
in their area. Others wrote articles for local newsletters and approached companies
for corporate sponsorship for the Highland Tiger Fund. One individual raised money
for the Fund by running a 10km road race dressed as a tiger, while a professional
photographer donated a percentage of sales of wildcat calendars he’d designed and
produced. An event was organised by a Cats Protection volunteer in Donside to
raise funds for and awareness of wildcat conservation. The ‘Highland Tiger Fling’
took place in Tullynessle in September 2010 and attracted over a hundred local
people to a social evening where Project staff were on hand to talk about wildcats.
The event raised £1200 for the Highland Tiger fund. Another similar event is planned
for the same venue in June 2012.
17
3. Neutering domestic cats
The Project MoU had two objectives relating specifically to the management of
domestic cats:
• To set in place sustainable feral cat management, with the support and
co-operation of landowners, such that this will become self-sustaining
beyond the life of the project;
• To engage the support of the local community for responsible domestic
cat ownership, including participation in voluntary neutering and
vaccination schemes
3.1 Background
Domestic cats are likely to be relatively numerous and widespread in the
Cairngorms National Park, especially at the more settled and farmed elevations. The
National Park supports a resident human population of around 17,000, which is
scattered across the region in various towns, villages and isolated farms and houses.
Domestic cats were probably brought to Britain from the continent during the Iron
Age having been domesticated from the Middle Eastern subspecies of the wildcat
Felis sylvestris lybica (Kitchener & O’Connor, 2010). It is not known exactly how long
domestic cats have existed in the area that is now the Cairngorms National Park but
it is likely to be many centuries. The original motives for domestication of the cat
very likely relate to its ability to hunt and kill rodent pests such as mice and rats, and
latterly its ability to live closely alongside humans in their homes as a pet. Both these
qualities are still important for people in the Cairngorms and the relative importance
of these two qualities dictate how the domestic cat interacts with both people and
landscape today.
Pet domestic cats are generally looked after by owners who value them as a
companion animal. They are routinely fed and in many cases, though not all, receive
regular veterinary treatment which often includes being neutered and receiving
annual booster injections to combat several feline diseases. Some pet cats live only
indoors but many spend at least part of the day and/or night outdoors where they
are free to roam.
Feral domestic cats live more independently of humans. They do not differ from
pet cats in their genes or coat markings but are much less likely to receive veterinary
care or to be fed regularly and may therefore be in poorer condition. Unusually for a
felid, feral domestic cats can live colonially at locations where they exploit clustered
food resources, such as where they are fed directly by sympathetic non-owners, or
where there is an unnatural concentration of food brought about by human activities,
such as at rubbish dumps or on farms with high concentrations of commensal
rodents such as rats and mice. Some cats living on farms may have a lifestyle
somewhere in between that of a pet and a feral, with varying levels of feeding and
veterinary care. Furthermore some feral cats may adopt a lifestyle independent of
humans altogether, and live as a solitary animal with a home range in the wider
countryside (as opposed to within a colony in a human environment). These cats live
similarly to wildcats and hunt their own wild food and receive no veterinary care.
18
It is considered that domestic cats pose a serious conservation threat to Scottish
wildcats through introgressive hybridisation and potentially through disease
transmission (Macdonald et al., 2004). They may in some circumstances also compete
with wildcats for resources such as territory, food and mates.
Scientific opinion on the effectiveness of TNR versus lethal control of feral cats is
divided (e.g. Longcore et al. 2009). Some of the differences relate to the objectives of
different TNR programmes; which may be welfare or conservation driven. Some
models estimate that >70% of the feral cat population needs to be neutered to be
effective in reducing the population. Although in the case of wildcats the immediate
threat is from hybridisation rather than competition or predation, the ultimate aim
must still be to reduce the number of (un-neutered) cats entering the population.
However, TNR in the UK is principally carried out from a cat welfare perspective
and is regarded as more socially palatable than lethal control amongst town residents
and for example, where farmers may wish to keep some cats to control mice and
rats (although as noted this is becoming less common due to the threat of
toxoplasmosis). The Project did not set out to compare the relative benefits of TNR
and the lethal control routinely carried out by estates, but viewed these approaches
as complementary in reducing the number of un-neutered feral cats.
The Project sought to reduce the threats posed to wildcats by encouraging increased
neutering and vaccination of domestic cats. Neutering would remove a domestic
cat’s capacity to interbreed with wildcats, and should also limit the growth of the
domestic cat population, thus reducing further the risk of interbreeding, competition
and disease transmission. Vaccination of pet cats and disease screening of ferals
should also reduce the likelihood of fatal diseases being spread to wildcats.
It was clear that engagement with the local veterinary community was important as it
would be they who would carry out neutering procedures and vaccinations.
Furthermore, Cats Protection (CP), the UK’s largest cat welfare organisation, which
has a network of volunteer branches across Scotland, was identified as a body whose
expertise, policies and resources could be harnessed to help achieve Project
objectives.
3.2 Encouraging responsible cat ownership
Pet cat ownership is common and widespread enough in Scottish society that it
justifies the use of broad public awareness-raising means. The need for people to be
responsible cat owners, i.e. have their pets vaccinated and
especially neutered was a message which was frequently
included within articles or features in national and local
media. However a need was identified for a more targeted
approach providing more detailed information and advice
on how and where to get pet cats neutered.
The Project produced a leaflet promoting the need for
responsible cat ownership in the National Park. Entitled
“Cats in the Countryside” and endorsed by all local
veterinary practices and TV vet Joe Inglis, the leaflet
outlines the reasons why neutering domestic cats is
important for both cat welfare and wildcat conservation. It
provides contact details of local vets and explains both
CP’s voucher scheme, where financial help is available to
19
meet the costs of neutering pet cats, as well as their TNR service. The leaflet has
been made widely available across the National Park to vets, CP volunteers, and
National Park rangers, as well as at various local events, visitor centres and local
shops and supermarkets selling cat food. Estate A (see chapter 4) took 50 to
distribute to tenants on the estate, while a keeper from Estate C took several to
pass to the local village store. 5000 copies were produced and fewer than 500
remain. The leaflet can be downloaded from the Highland Tiger website at:
www.highlandtiger.com/pdf/cats%20in%20the%20countryside.pdf
3.3 Expanding and intensifying TNR
Early on in the Project, a dialogue developed with Cats Protection with the aim of
intensifying and expanding the neutering of pet and feral cats across the Cairngorms
National Park. This followed a presentation on wildcat conservation by the Project
Manager and Douglas Richardson of the RZSS at the CP’s Scottish conference in
Aviemore in June 2009. CP is largely dependent on a network of local volunteer
branches which are coordinated by paid national staff and part of their remit is the
Trapping, Neutering and Return (TNR) of feral cats. TNR involves the use of baited
cage-traps to catch feral cats and bring them to the local vets. There they are usually
screened for potentially fatal diseases such as FeLV and FIV. Those testing positive
are euthanized, thus helping to reduce the prevalence of fatal feline diseases in the
countryside. Those which test negative are neutered (provided they are more than 3
months old) and then released where they were trapped. The CP branch pays the
vet for the neutering procedure.
At the time of the start of the Project, CP branch coverage of the National Park was
patchy. Only one branch, Strathspey, was substantially located within the Park’s
boundaries. A series of other branches covered peripheral parts of the Park in
theory, but their main activities were located far outside its boundaries (Fig 2.1) and
so their activities inside the Park were intermittent at best. Furthermore, the
Deeside area was not covered at all by a local branch.
20
Fig. 3.1. The distribution of Cats Protection branches at the start of the Project.
Solid blue lines indicate a branch with core activities within the National Park. Dotted lines
indicate the approximate coverage of branches largely based and active outside the National
Park.
Following productive discussions, CP expressed an interest in employing a volunteer
coordinator whose job it would be to ensure that all CP volunteers in and around
the Cairngorms National Park were trained in wildcat identification, were aware of
wildcat conservation issues, and operated in a coordinated, strategic manner across
the region, especially with regard to feral cat TNR. They would also recruit and train
new volunteers. The Project had agreed to contribute one third of the annual costs
of employing that CP staff member and it was hoped that the coordinator would be
in place by the end of summer 2010. However, as a result of the unfavourable
economic climate, CP ultimately decided they could not afford to employ an extra
staff member. It was agreed that the coordination of volunteer branches in the
Cairngorms region should be carried out with existing human resources.
The Project Manager organised a meeting in January 2010 between representatives
from most of the seven veterinary practices which cover parts of the National Park,
as well as CP staff. Vets agreed to provide neutering and vaccination data so as to
help identify trends and patterns over time. It was felt that the majority of
unneutered and unvaccinated cats in the National Park are likely to be farm cats.
Vets agreed they would be unofficial ambassadors for the Project in dealings with
their farming clients and make enquiries about any unneutered cats on farms and
advocate neutering.
In spring 2010, CP took the decision to open a new branch in Deeside, an area that
had been lacking a branch for several years. Volunteers were trained in feral cat
TNR. Its geographical coverage stretches from Banchory up the Dee valley to
21
Braemar, thus covering a significant proportion of the eastern side of the National
Park.
CP admitted that they had traditionally found it difficult to engage with farmers in
northern Scotland on the issue of farm cat neutering. However, CP decided to run a
free, farm cat neutering scheme for farmers in the Cairngorms National Park in
August 2010, which was advertised in the local press and launched at the Black Isle
Show. Take-up, however, was low with only three Strathspey-based farmers
applying. In October, the Project Manager gave a presentation to 50 farmers at the
Cairngorms Farmers’ Forum about the need for farm cat neutering to protect the
Scottish wildcat. The audience was made aware of the CP’s TNR service and that the
costs of neutering could be covered by CP while funds allowed. As far as is known,
however, no applications to CP for TNR assistance were made as a result of this
event. Whether this reflects apathy or just a lack of unneutered cats on the farms in
question is not known.
3.3.1 Volunteer training and involvement
In light of the limited human resources available for TNR in most areas, as well as
the muted response of the public to TNR services offered by CP, it was decided that
a more proactive approach to TNR, involving more volunteers, should be tested.
Via alerts on the Highland Tiger blog, Facebook page and via a series of e-mails, the
Project Manager put out a call for more prospective Cats Protection volunteers to
get involved with TNR to benefit wildcat conservation in and around the Cairngorms
National Park. The response was good with over 20 new volunteers recruited from
across and around the National Park, most of whom are attracted by the wildcat
conservation angle. Two CP training days took place in October 2010 in Stonehaven
and Aviemore for newly recruited as well as pre-existing volunteers from the CP
branches covering the National Park. As well as presentations from CP staff, the
Project Manager gave presentations which aimed to ensure a strong understanding of
wildcat conservation issues and ID, as well as identification of targeted areas for
TNR, i.e. regions around the five estates with which the Project was working (see
Chapter 3).
The nine new volunteers recruited for the Strathspey branch become the branch’s
new TNR team and received new trapping equipment. Each volunteer was assigned a
geographical area and was encouraged to follow up any tip-offs and to contact
householders and land managers in rural areas proactively about any unneutered cats
in the area. It was hoped that a more coordinated, ‘sweep’ approach to TNR across
an area, making use of new volunteers’ contacts in the local countryside, would
result in increased feral neutering in Strathspey in the future.
In late 2011, CP decided that several potential volunteers from the Tomintoul &
Glenlivet area, who expressed an interest in becoming involved in TNR, would form
a separate TNR branch for the area. The new branch is separate from the pre-
existing Moray branch which is largely based around lowland towns some distance
away to the north, and which had only sporadic involvement in TNR in the Glenlivet
area in recent years (see Fig. 2.2)
22
Fig. 3.2. The distribution of Cats Protection branches at the end of the Project.
Solid red lines indicate a branch with core activities within the National Park. Dotted blue
lines indicate the approximate coverage of peripheral branches largely based and active
outside the National Park.
3.4 Outcomes
Cat vaccination and neutering data was collated from seven veterinary practices
whose client base derives from in and around the Cairngorms National Park:
Aberlour Veterinary Centre; The Crofts Veterinary Centre, Brechin; Harbit &
Ryder, Pitlochry & Aberfeldy; Morven Veterinary Practice, Alford & Ballater;
Strathspey Veterinary Centre, Grantown & Kingussie, Thrums Veterinary Group,
Kirriemuir; and Woodside Veterinary Group, Aboyne & Torphins.
3.4.1 Vaccinations
Of the seven Cairngorms veterinary branches, one (Aberlour) was unable to collate
data on cat vaccinations. Grantown could supply vaccination data only for 2010 and
2011 and was not confident that data retrieval from their computing system was
consistent between those two years. Total vaccinations, which included initial
courses as well as boosters, are shown for six practices from 2005 to 2011 in Table
2.1 and Fig. 2.3.
Table 2.1. Total cat vaccinations (initials and boosters) at 6 Cairngorms veterinary practices 2005-11
Total vaccination
Aberlour
Aboyne
Alford
Brechin
Grantown
Kirriemuir
Pitlochry
2005
423
411
207
752
380
2006
444
395
193
775
387
2007
440
441
190
1003
373
2008
466
467
252
956
232
2009
477
444
274
890
313
23
2010
460
431
185
288
948
247
2011
499
159
130
1009
190
Total
0
3209
2589
1460
418
6333
2122
Total vaccinations
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Number of vaccinations
Aberlour
Aboy ne
A lf ord
Brechin
Grantow n
Kirr iemuir
Pitlochr y
Fig. 2.3. Total cat vaccinations (initials and boosters) at 6 Cairngorms veterinary practices 2005-11
The picture is mixed, with Grantown showing a steep decline over 2 years which
could be due to data error. Pitlochry showed a decline over the period, while
Brechin and Alford were relatively stable. Aboyne showed a gradual rise over the
period while Kirriemuir fluctuated a little but overall showed a rise at a high volume
of vaccinations.
3.4.2 Neutering
Data for the total number of neutered cats was collated from each of the seven
practices (Table 2.2 and Fig. 2.4) Aberlour could not provide data for 2005 and 2006
while Grantown could provide data only for 2010 and 2011. Again there were
reservations by the vets there over the reliability of their electronic record retrieval
system. Kirriemuir again showed a high volume of cat veterinary work which had
increased steadily from 2005 to 2009 before dropping significantly in 2010 then
slightly again in 2011. Grantown again showed a significant drop between 2010 and
2011 which was put down to either data error or the economic downturn (J. Harley,
Strathspey Vets, pers. comm.). Aberlour showed a gradual decline in cat neutering
work while Aboyne reported a gradual increase over the period. The remaining
three practices were, on the whole, rather stable in their volume of cat neutering
work.
24
Table 3.2. Total number of cats neutered at the seven Cairngorms veterinary practices 2005-2011
Total neutering
Aberlour
Aboyne
Alford
Brechin
Grantown
Kirriemuir
Pitlochry
2005
132
149
90
444
86
2006
99
114
107
503
97
2007
136
144
172
122
521
100
2008
143
170
146
123
569
84
2009
91
130
141
122
606
90
2010
113
147
158
113
153
437
69
2011
91
169
115
77
414
76
Total
574
991
880
792
230
3494
602
Figures for the amount of Cats Protection-sponsored neutering at each practice
were also collated (Table 2.3; Fig. 2.5). Cats Protection-sponsored neutering
generally relates to feral cats subject to local TNR and also to local pet cats where
the owners have been given a voucher by the local CP branch to help meet the costs
of the veterinary procedure. For four branches, figures from 2005 onwards were
available. Aberlour and Aboyne had figures from 2007 onwards, while Grantown had
figures from 2008.
Table 3.3. Cats Protection-funded neutering at the seven Cairngorms veterinary practices 2005-2011
Cats Protection Neutering
Aberlour
Aboyne
Alford
Brechin
Grantown
Kirriemuir
Pitlochry
2005
0
45
304
4
2006
14
86
296
7
2007
21
24
40
88
242
17
2008
38
26
13
68
35
329
19
2009
13
20
33
92
87
406
14
2010
35
29
34
78
56
192
7
2011
16
38
88
50
175
6
Total
123
137
134
545
228
1944
74
25
Total neutering
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Number of cats neutered
Aberlour
Aboyne
Al ford
Brechi n
Grantown
Kirriemuir
Pit lochry
Fig 3.4. Total number of cats neutered at the seven Cairngorms veterinary practices 2005-2011
Cats Protection neutering
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
Number of cats neutered
Aberlour
Aboyne
Al ford
Brechi n
Grantown
Kirriemuir
Pit lochry
Fig 3.5. Cats Protection-funded neutering at the seven Cairngorms veterinary practices 2005-2011
26
Cats Protection-sponsored neutering was most prevalent in Angus, where the
Kirriemuir- and Brechin-based practices had the two highest figures over a 7-year
period. Both these practices had a considerable proportion of their total cat
neutering work sponsored by the Cats Protection – 56% for Kirriemuir and 68% for
Brechin. The limited amount of available data also suggest that a significant
proportion of the neutering work undertaken in Grantown is sponsored by CP.
Kirriemuir saw a steep increase in CP-sponsored neutering to a peak in 2009 of over
400 cases followed by a steep decrease. Pitlochry also showed a steady increase
followed by a steady decrease, albeit on a smaller scale. Aboyne has shown a modest
but steady increase while for the other practices there is no clear pattern.
Feral cat neutering data for the three years 2009 to 2011 were also supplied by Cats
Protection for the branches that operate within and just outside the National Park
boundaries. These were grouped into branches which were regarded as core to the
National Park (Strathspey, Deeside, and Glenlivet & Tomintoul) and peripheral
(Forfar & District; Inverurie & Alford; Montrose & Brechin; Moray; and Perthshire)
as suggested by the map in Fig. 2.2.
The peripheral branches cover large rural areas as well as some relatively large
settlements e.g. Perth, Elgin, Inverurie and Montrose. Consequently, they can
typically call on more volunteers than the core branches based in the National Park
where the rural population density is significantly lower. However, the level of TNR
work they carry out in the National Park is low volume and sporadic. The total
number of feral cats neutered by the peripheral branches across their areas during
2009-2011 amounted to 727. Over half of these were sponsored by the Forfar &
District branch, which saw a very significant decline from 2009 to 2010, but
especially from 2010 to 2011. Because of this, total feral neutering in the peripheral
branches declined considerably year on year. However not including the Forfar &
District data in the peripheral branch figures gives a much more stable picture, with a
slight increase across the three-year period.
Table 3.4. Feral cats trapped by five peripheral CP branches 2009-11.
Branch
2009
2010
2011
Total
Forfar & District
195
152
28
375
Inverurie & Alford
39
36
32
107
Montrose & Brechin
24
12
23
59
Moray
12
6
20
38
Perthshire
40
61
47
148
Total
310
267
150
727
Of the three core branches, only one, Strathspey, has been operational throughout
the period 2009 to 2011. Deeside became operational in spring 2010, while Glenlivet
& Tomintoul only became operational in December 2011. In order to give a fuller
picture of the level of TNR activity in these branches, Table 2.5 also shows the total
for the first quarter of 2012, which represents the final few months of the Project.
Deeside showed an increase in feral TNR work from 2010 to 2011 while the first
quarter of 2012 suggests a continuation of that trend. Glenlivet & Tomintoul has
started only very recently but has begun to demonstrate encouraging figures for the
first quarter of 2012. Strathspey showed a marked increase from 2010, when TNR
levels were very low, to 2011. Between the three branches there has been a
significant increase across the 3 years, and the first quarter of 2012 already
27
represents over two thirds of the total for the previous full year. By July 2012, the
Glenlivet & Tomintoul branch had trapped and neutered over 50 cats.
Table 3.5. Feral cats trapped by three core CP branches Jan 2009 to March 2012 inclusive.
Branch
2009
2010
2011
< Apr 12
Total
Deeside
-
23
39
17
79
Glenlivet & Tomintoul
-
-
1
17
18
Strathspey
6
3
11
1
21
Total
6
26
51
35
118
3.5 Discussion
Rates of vaccination since 2005 over 5 veterinary practices have been stable and
indicate no obvious increase over the period. Total cat neutering from 2007 over 6
practices actually declined over the period, but the total decline was exacerbated by
a considerable reduction in neutering at one practice in Kirriemuir. Cats Protection-
sponsored neutering across 7 practices from 2008 also declined but this is due
largely to a significant decline at one practice, again in Kirriemuir. The other
practices, minus Kirriemuir, have a more stable picture with regards to CP-
sponsored neutering over the time period. In terms, specifically, of total feral cat
neutering in CP branches peripheral to the National Park, there has been a steep
decline over the past 3 years. However, a decline in just one branch, Forfar &
District, skews the picture. Trends in the other four branches are stable and in fact
show a slight increase. The Forfar & District branch primarily uses the Thrums
Veterinary Group in Kirriemuir for neutering the cats it catches during TNR
activities. The reduction from 2009 to 2011 of 167 neutered ferals in the Forfar &
District branch explains much of the decline in both CP-sponsored neutering and
total cat neutering in Kirriemuir over that time period.
Much of Forfar & District’s TNR work was carried out by one individual who invests
a lot of time and effort in TNR, with the result that she had trapped many hundreds
in the past few years. However, a change in her personal circumstances meant she
had less spare time to devote to TNR following 2009 and consequently the level of
trapping in the Forfar and Kirriemuir areas was significantly reduced, something
which has resonated throughout both the veterinary and CP neutering data in the
Cairngorms region.
The difference that one committed individual can make to levels of TNR is apparent
elsewhere. For example, the TNR work of the Deeside branch, which has continued
to increase since the branch’s inception in 2010, is largely as a result of one
motivated volunteer. Likewise the encouraging start to the TNR work of the
Glenlivet & Tomintoul branch has been dependent on one or two motivated
volunteers.
The situation in the Strathspey branch is more complex. A relatively large number of
new volunteers were recruited to the branch late in 2010 to augment the existing
but small number of volunteers. They responded to a plea from the Project for
volunteers to get involved in TNR work to help save the Scottish wildcat. Many of
those who responded were experienced in the animal handling or wildlife
conservation sectors and lived locally within the community. They were trained in
28
the use of TNR equipment and given advice on how best to approach the public,
especially land managers, about feral cat TNR. Nearly all the new volunteers worked
full-time and several of them, who worked at the Highland Wildlife Park, expressed
concerns about how to fit in morning visits first to traps baited overnight in the
countryside, then to the vets in Grantown with any trapped cats, all before they
started work at 8am, which is also the same time the veterinary surgery opened. The
Wildlife Park animal collection manager, who sits on the Project Steering Group,
advised his staff that they could arrive late to work provided they phoned in advance.
However, other volunteers not employed at the Wildlife Park, remained concerned
that the timing of trap-checking and veterinary visits could not be worked into their
working week.
Another potential barrier to effective TNR work which was identified by some of
the new volunteers was that they did not know of the existence of feral cat colonies
and were uncomfortable cold-calling on people in the countryside, e.g. farmers, they
did not know. The Project Manager then sent out a plea via several e-mails to people
based in the Badenoch & Strathspey area, as well as via the blog and Facebook, for
information on the whereabouts of any unneutered feral cats or rural locations
where proprietors would allow cage-trapping. This resulted in several permissions
for cage-trapping, including locations where ferals were known or suspected.
Contact details of proprietors, grid references of locations, and the likelihood of
ferals occurring at the locations, were then tabulated and passed to all volunteers.
They were then encouraged to make contact with proprietors in order to lay traps,
in late Autumn/early winter 2011. Winter has been recommended as the ideal time
to practise TNR as not only as the cat population typically in a pre-breeding stage,
but also ferals are more likely to be frequenting rural buildings for shelter and are
more likely to take bait in traps, as wild food sources will be less abundant.
Shortly after, however, the pre-existing branch committee decided that winter TNR
was inappropriate for welfare reasons and should not therefore go ahead. Their
concerns lay around trapped cats being kept in cold, drafty conditions in farm
buildings before being uplifted to the vets. They also had concerns about the cats’
post-operative well-being in cold conditions, particularly if surgery resulted in the
localised shaving of fur, as is the case for female cats.
Cats Protection policy does not forbid winter TNR, provided there is due
consideration to volunteers’ Health & Safety and that cat welfare is not significantly
compromised. CP staff and experienced volunteers from other areas advised on
methods of reducing any potential cat welfare impacts of cold weather, which
included covering trapping cages with blankets and insulating them from the ground
with sheets of polystyrene. It was also recommended that traps should be checked
more frequently in very low temperatures so as to reduce the amount of time a cat
would spend in a cage. This information was passed to the branch committee who
were asked to reconsider, particularly as the winter in question, 2011/12, had turned
out to be much milder than in previous years.
The outcome for TNR in 2011, helped partly by having a larger number of trained
volunteers, was an increase in the number of neutered ferals on the previous two
years. The new volunteers were responsible for catching three of the eleven
neutered ferals, and one of them was a pregnant female. However, compared to the
other core branches, the number of potential TNR volunteers was considerably
greater and should have resulted in a greater number of trapped cats than it did.
29
Possible reasons as to why the potential for substantially increased TNR in
Strathspey remained unfulfilled are:
• Lack of time available for TNR amongst new volunteers, many of whom
worked full-time
• Lack of motivation or confidence to get out trapping
• A conflict of objectives between pre-existing volunteers, who are largely
motivated by cat welfare, and new volunteers who are motivated by wildcat
conservation
• Relatively low numbers of ferals in the area because of previous years of TNR
This last point may or may not be relevant but the Strathspey branch does contrast
with the other two core branches in having been in operation for several years.
Despite being few in number, volunteers in Deeside and Glenlivet & Tomintoul have
been more effective to date. However, they have spare time in which to carry out
TNR and are motivated enough to get out, speak to land managers using existing
contacts, and in some cases, make door to door enquiries. The wildcat conservation
angle has been a significant motivator for these volunteers and is used heavily by
them when communicating the need for TNR to the public. Indeed, they find the
Project’s ‘Cats in the Countryside’ leaflet a very useful tool when engaging with
people for the first time.
30
4. Working with Estates
The Project MoU had two objectives relating specifically to gamekeeping:
• To work with land managers in the CNP to ensure that the population of
Scottish wildcats benefits from existing feral cat control activities;
• To set in place sustainable feral cat management, with the support and
co-operation of landowners, such that this will become self-sustaining
beyond the life of the project;
4.1 Background
In the Cairngorms National Park and wider eastern Highlands, the management of
gamebirds such as red grouse, pheasants and red-legged partridges, is an important
part of the rural economy. Many of the estates in the National Park have gamebird
management as a focus of their objectives. Part of this management includes the
control of several mammalian and avian predators seen as a threat to gamebird
populations. Predators which are routinely controlled throughout the region through
a variety of legal means judged to be humane are corvids (except ravens), foxes,
weasels, stoats, mink, and feral cats. A range of other avian and mammalian
predators are legally protected and can only be killed under licence. This includes the
Scottish wildcat.
Feral cats are typically controlled on sporting estates by night-time shooting with a
spotlight, when foxes are very often the main target. Baited cage-traps, which
capture the animal alive, are also widely used and, by law, must be checked at least
every 24 hours. For maximum cost-benefit, cage traps tend to be deployed in
numbers around an area of particular sensitivity, e.g. a pheasant release pen. Snares,
which are typically set for rabbits or foxes, can, on occasion, also catch feral cats. If
set correctly and legally, they should hold the animal alive until the gamekeeper
checks it at least once every 24 hours. Both cage traps and snares should allow non-
target species to be released unharmed.
Spotlights typically produce eye-shine from nocturnal animals and gamekeepers can
judge species from the colour and size of the eye-shine. However, if feral cats are
shot on the basis of a cat body shape or cat eye-shine there is then considerable
scope for wildcats to be shot inadvertently. The combination of darkness, distance,
and obscuring vegetation makes accurate identification of cats, particular tabby-
marked ones, potentially challenging and there is significant scope for errors of
judgement. Cage-trapping reduces the scope for error considerably as a much
clearer view of the animal can be ascertained. However, in both a spotlighting and
cage-trapping scenario, the safety of an endangered and legally protected species is
heavily dependent on the attitudes and judgement of the gamekeeper. In order to
keep wildcats safe in the eastern Highlands then, it is crucial for the gamekeeping
community to be both sympathetic towards wildcat conservation and confident in
wildcat identification.
Given the parlous conservation status of the Scottish wildcat, brought about by
introgressive hybridisation, positive engagement with the gamekeeping profession is
very important. A significant proportion of the National Park is keepered, and
gamekeepers are active in a wide variety of terrain, at all times of year and at all
31
times of day, often with a spotlight. Productive relationships may therefore yield
much-needed information on wildcat status, ecology and conservation threats.
4.2 Communicating wildcat-friendly predator control
A fundamental step to engaging with the gamekeeping profession was to have a
gamekeeping organisation represented in the Project partnership. The Scottish
Gamekeepers Association (SGA) was approached by the Project Manager and asked
if they would contribute to wildcat conservation by joining the Project. Their
management committee agreed, with the result that a SGA representative has sat on
the Project steering group throughout the Project. The Project Manager was then
asked to give a presentation at the SGA’s 2008 AGM and talked to 120 gamekeepers
from across Scotland about wildcat identification and the need for wildcat
conservation.
Three articles about the Project have appeared in the SGA’s membership magazine
‘Scottish Gamekeeper’ to date, resulting in a front cover photo of a wildcat on two
occasions. One in the Spring/Summer 2010 edition was drafted by the Project
Manager and set out in detail the potential value of the gamekeeping profession’s
contribution to wildcat conservation by adopting wildcat friendly predator control
and monitoring. That edition of the magazine carried the front page headline
‘Highland tiger: keepers’ key role in conservation’.
The Project Manager gave presentations about wildcat-friendly predator control at
two training workshops organised by the Cairngorms National Park Authority aimed
at local land managers. One took place in Grantown on Spey and one at Mar Lodge
near Braemar, and both were attended by local gamekeepers.
The Project had a staffed presence at stands at the Scone Game Fair in 2010 and the
Highland Field Sports Fair at Moy in 2010 and 2011. At Scone the Project stand was
located within the marquee of the event organisers, the Game & Wildlife
Conservation Trust, while at Moy the Project was hosted within the marquee of the
Scottish Gamekeepers Association. This ensured good engagement with those living
and working in rural Scotland, and resulted in discussion about wildcats and their
conservation with several hundred people, particularly gamekeepers, from across
Scotland. Taxidermic specimens of a wildcat and tabby domestic, on loan from
Inverness Museum and the National Museums of Scotland, were also very useful at
attracting people over to the stand, and also for illustrating the differences in coat
markings between the two types of cat. Furthermore, a range of Project materials
was provided to visitors, including laminated wildcat ID cards.
The SGA, one of three snaring accreditation bodies, requested several hundred ID
cards to distribute them to keepers attending their legally-required snaring courses.
In March 2012, the Project Manager gave a presentation to 100 gamekeepers from
across Scotland at the annual Keeper’s Day of the British Association for Shooting
and Conservation (BASC) and gave wildcat ID cards to each delegate.
32
4.3 Developing a protocol for wildcat-friendly predator control
The Project Steering Group designed a draft protocol to help ensure predator
control activities by gamekeepers on estates were wildcat-friendly. In order to
ensure the protocol would be as relevant and practicable as possible a workshop
titled ‘Predator control and the Scottish Wildcat’ was organised by the Project and
held at the Lecht Ski Centre in December 2009. Despite the first heavy snowfall of
the winter, the workshop attracted 41 delegates, the majority of whom were
gamekeepers from in and around the National Park. Almost 20 estates were
represented, covering around 60% of the Park.
Discussions and exercises were both productive and constructive and informal
feedback suggested the event was well received, with several keepers saying they
found it more interesting, informative and relevant than expected. Delegates were
asked to comment on the draft estates protocol, and in doing so, helped to make
this document more relevant for wildcat conservation and more practical for
gamekeepers to use. All in attendance subsequently received a comprehensive
workshop report (Cairngorms Wildcat Project, 2010) which summarised the
presentations given, as well as the discussions that took place and the results of the
interactive exercises. Several other interested estates couldn’t make the workshop
but received copies of the workshop report, while several others were sent a report
with a covering letter introducing the Project to them. Estates whose gamekeeping
staff were thus aware of the need for a precautionary, wildcat-friendly approach to
predator control, as well as for monitoring the wildcat population, amounted to
around 85% of the area of the Cairngorms National Park. The workshop report can
be downloaded from the Highland Tiger website.
4.4 The Estates protocol
The protocol (see Appendix 5 for detail) encouraged gamekeepers, when engaged in
their routine feral cat control work, not to shoot if there was any doubt about a
cat’s identity. To improve confidence in wildcat identification, the Project presented
a practical definition of a wildcat based on its physical appearance. In order to ensure
that is it both field-practical and precautionary, the Project protocol simplified key
wildcat pelage criteria identified from research
by Kitchener et al. (2005). The Project’s
working definition of a wildcat largely focuses
attention on the animal’s tail shape and
markings as the tail is considered to be a
feature readily noticed in the field. Relaxing
the strict definition in this way is likely to
reduce the margin for error in the field and
probably also conserves better quality hybrids,
which are likely to possess a great deal of
valuable wildcat genetic material. The protocol
therefore encourages gamekeepers not to
shoot any tabby-marked cat with a thick,
ringed, blunt tail and which has neither white
feet nor a stripe running down the tail.
Responding to a request from gamekeepers,
the Project also produced laminated ID cards
carrying a schematic coat markings diagram.
These was intended to be small and durable
enough to be carried in a trouser pocket or glove compartment and were
33
distributed widely to gamekeepers on the five estates and beyond, as well as to Cats
Protection TNR volunteers.
Wherever possible, gamekeepers were encouraged to use live cage traps for feral
cat control, rather than rely solely on night-time shooting, with the aim of
considerably reducing the risk of wildcats being accidentally shot. Wildcats caught in
cage traps, following inspection of coat markings, can be released unharmed. The
Project’s protocol encourages the estate to re-home via the Cats Protection any
errant pets caught in cage traps, while feral cats are neutered via the Cats Protection
or humanely dispatched by estate staff.
The Project then rolled out this protocol in two ways. Firstly the ethos of the
protocol was disseminated to the wider gamekeeping community in Scotland
through a variety of means as already outlined. Secondly, a more detailed and
measureable implementation was concentrated on five estates in the Cairngorms
National Park.
4.5 Testing the protocol in the Cairngorms National Park
The Steering Group decided to trial new methods of wildcat monitoring and
promote wildcat-friendly predator control by testing the protocol on a limited
number of keepered estates in the Cairngorms National Park. The idea was to
decrease the risk of the estates’ feral cat control activities to wildcats and then
measure whether any change in approach, combined with a local expansion of TNR
activities in the wider landscape, resulted in an increase on the estate of cats
matching the Project’s definition of a wildcat.
The Project approached five estates (A-E) where tabby-marked, wild-living cats were
thought to occur, and which were well spread out across the National Park. Estate A
was considered to have wildcats but also some ferals thought to originate from
nearby villages. Estate B reported that wildcats had become scarcer there in recent
years but that ferals had become more common. Estate C felt that they did have
some wildcat activity but that feral activity was also rather low, but that sources
existed nearby. Estate D felt they had both wildcats and ferals and also had a tenancy
agreement in place whereby pet cats should be neutered. Estate E felt there were
some ferals but that wildcats had not been reported on the estate for several years.
By March 2010 all had consented to work with the Project. The Project Manager
met with gamekeeping staff from each of the estates to explain the protocol and
provide both training in wildcat identification and the pocket-sized laminated ID
cards. The occurrence of cats on the estate over time would be measured by the use
of intensive camera trapping on each estate during two periods approximately one
year apart.
The protocol also encouraged gamekeepers to report any cat activity on the estate
to the Project Manager during his regular liaison visits. This included any cats
matching the Project’s definition of a wildcat as well as any potential hybrids or feral
domestics. Information from estate gamekeepers about any colonies of unneutered
ferals, e.g. on local farms, was passed to local vets and Cats Protection branches with
a view to encouraging farmers to allow TNR.
Initially the Project deployed two Cuddeback Capture camera traps on each estate.
This make had been recommended by lynx and wildcat researchers in Switzerland
and Germany as being effective, simple to use, and relatively inexpensive.
34
Gamekeeping staff provided advice on good locations on the estate for cameras and
also supplied bait in the form of venison or dead gamebirds. Some also checked
batteries and downloaded the contents of the memory cards.
It soon became clear, however, that more intensive camera trapping was required in
order to gain a more thorough and objective understanding of the wild-living cat
situation on each estate. Coincidentally, Kerry Kilshaw, a researcher at the
University of Oxford’s WildCRU, was looking into the potential use of camera
trapping for monitoring the Scottish wildcat. SNH funded her to carry out a pilot
study (Kilshaw & Macdonald, 2011) and the Project Manager introduced her to staff
from two of the five estates in order for her to choose a site. Estate A was chosen
and she deployed 40 baited and paired-up Cuddeback Captures at 20 locations there
during the months of the 2009/10 winter. At this time, the RZSS decided to employ
a field researcher to study the ecology and conservation of wildcats in the
Cairngorms National Park with a view to the research being complementary to the
work of the Project. Dr Roo Campbell began work in spring 2010 and was initially
supplied with 40 camera traps by RZSS to carry out intensive camera trap
monitoring on the five Project estates. A further 40 were purchased by the Project
in the autumn so that two estates could be monitored at the same time.
4.6 The five estates
The Project Manager met regularly with staff from the five estates to gather
information on feral cat control activities and any records of cats on the estates. A
record was taken of the number of gamekeeping staff employed, the amount of
effort invested in cage-trapping and night shooting, and the number of feral cats
caught or shot. The total number of cage-trapping nights on each estate was
calculated by multiplying the number of deployed cages by the approximate number
of nights they were deployed. The total number of nights of spotlighting activity on
each estate was calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles engaged in
spotlighting by the approximate number of nights they were engaged. The figures for
feral cat control effort are collated in Table 3.1.
The Project Manager also collated as many cat records as possible from the estate,
including sightings by estate staff and members of the public, any photos, including
from opportunistic camera trapping, as well as any roadkill carcases from around the
estate.
4.6.1 Feral cat management
Estate A
The landscape of the estate is mixed, with areas of open hill ground managed as deer
forest and grouse moor, but with large areas of woodland on low and high ground,
as well as enclosed farmland on the lower ground. There are tenanted farms and
cottages on the estate as well as villages near its periphery. Pheasant rearing is no
longer practised. Rabbits occur on the estate but experienced a sharp decline over
the course of the Project probably due to two severe winters and possibly disease.
The estate’s year starts on February 1st. Cages were typically laid in response to
sightings of ferals. A suspected male wildcat, weighing 5.5 kg, was caught in a cage
trap on 16/10/09 and released unharmed in situ. Photographs show the cat matched
the Project’s definition as it had a thick, ringed, blunt tail but spotting on the flanks
suggest it was probably a hybrid near the wildcat end of the spectrum. The majority
35
of ferals shot on the estate are done so with a spotlight and these tend to occur on
the lower ground. Estate staff consider that ferals originate in neighbouring villages.
A longer term dataset since 2005 shows a considerable reduction in the number of
feral cats shot after 2007, when numbers fell from 33 to 5 (Fig. 3.1). As can be seen
from Table 3.1, the estate expended a moderate amount of effort in both cage
trapping and spotlighting and culled a low number of ferals. There was a slightly
increasing trend in the total number of ferals shot over the three years, with
spotlighting having played a more significant role in the last year. Cats generally occur
on the lower ground away from much of the grouse moor interest and the estate no
longer has a pheasant interest, therefore predator control activities are not
intensive. Effort was similar in levels to Estates C and E but yielded fewer ferals than
on those two estates. This could be attributable to several factors. For example, a
significant proportion of the wild-living cat population on the estate, as indicated by
camera trapping and sightings records, matches the Project’s definition of a wildcat.
These cats are not therefore subject to control so only a relatively small proportion
of the estate’s wild-living cat population would be shot. Furthermore, this population
may suppress incursions and densities of feral domestics, either through territorial
aggression or through food competition, thus helping to ensure that the general
abundance of ferals is relatively low. The existence of a Cats Protection branch
locally for several years may also have contributed to a greater proportion of feral,
farm and pet cats in the surrounding area having being neutered by way of TNR
activities and a voucher scheme for pets.
Estate B
This estate is a mosaic of woodland, farmland and hill ground managed for grouse
and deer. There are villages on the periphery of the estate as well as a significant
number of rural houses and tenanted farms. The gamekeeping staff was increased by
two in 2006 and intensive pheasant rearing occurs on some areas of lower ground.
Rabbits occur across the estate.
The estate’s year starts in March. Mar 09 to Feb 11: 12 traps around pheasant pens
for 30 nights from late July – late August. Normally 17 traps widely deployed for 6
Months Oct-Apr but severely curtailed due to snowfall during the winter.
Consequently used only Mar-Apr then Oct-Dec. Mar 11 to Feb 12: 12 traps around
pheasant pens for 30 nights from late July – late August. 25 traps widely deployed for
6 months Mar-Apr then Oct-Feb. The increase in gamebirds in recent years was
suggested by keepers as a reason for why the feral cat population has increased over
the same time scale. Pheasant pens act as a ‘honey-pot’ for ferals and cage-trapped
cats are caught mainly around pheasant pens, e.g. 29 of the 36 cage-trapped cats in
2009/10 were caught in a pheasant-rearing area and 17 of those were caught around
just one pheasant pen. Many of the cats were considered to be subadult. Each
pheasant pen has 2-3 cages baited and set around it. Cats shot during spotlighting are
more evenly spread across the estate on lower beats. Upper beats have few ferals.
Most of the ferals shot by spotlight in the last year, which experienced a significant
upsurge, were in an area of the estate where large numbers of unneutered farm cats
are considered to occur.
Table 4.1. Feral cat control effort at five estates in the Cairngorms National Park during 2009-2011. Separate figures for feral cats killed during
cage-trapping and spotlighting were not available from Estate A in 2009 or from Estate E in 2009 and 2010.
Approximate trapping nights Number of cats trapped Trapped
Approximate spotlighting nights
Number of cats shot Feral cats shot or neutered
Estate Staff 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 wildcats 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Total
A2.5 186 186 250 ? 3 2 1 150 150 150 ? 1 4 4 4 6 14
B7 1890 1890 4860 36 26 22 0 1170 1170 1170 31 22 65 67 48 87 202
C4 200 200 200 3 4 5 0 260 260 260 10 15 14 13 19 19 51
D3 20 30 30 2 3 0 0 50 50 50 7 0 0 9 3 0 12
E10 240 240 240 ? ? 0 0 130 130 130 ? ? 16 15 17 16 48
Annual feral cat totals
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Year
Number of cats
A
B
C
D
E
Fig. 4.1. The total number of feral cats shot on 5 estates for years between 1990 and 2011. Note the 2010 figure for Estate D includes two cats
which were neutered, rather than shot.
37
The number of ferals controlled on Estate B has risen steadily since 2003 (Fig. 3.1). The
estate has recently invested considerable effort in predator control which is reflected in the
number of staff engaged in predator control and the high number of both cage-trapping and
spotlighting nights (Table 3.1). This effort is driven largely by gamebird management
objectives, especially for pheasants, and resulted in a large number of ferals being shot. The
apparent abundance of ferals on the estate, which reportedly increased in the past few years,
could be attributed to several potential factors. The intensification of pheasant rearing on
the estate may have created a new and rich food resource which has contributed to the
increase in the feral population. The ‘honeypot’ effect of pheasant pens may pull farm cats
away from colonies in local farm buildings where they may have been less observable by
keepering staff in previous years. The attractiveness of the pheasant pens to cats and the
apparent effectiveness of cages in this scenario mean that the use of clustered cage traps is
more cost-effective in terms of the gamekeepers’ time (as cages must be checked at least
once every 24 hours).
Camera trapping indicates that wildcats are scarce or absent on the estate and are therefore
unlikely to represent a significant proportion of the local, wild-living cat population or to
exert any territorial or competitive pressure on feral cats. Indications from both
gamekeeping staff and local veterinarians are that there are considerable numbers of
unneutered cats on farms in parts of the estate and that these are likely to be serving as
sources for feral populations in the wider countryside.
Estate C
The majority of the estate is upland in character and is managed for grouse. However on the
lower sections of the estate the landscape is mixed largely between woodland and farmland.
Pheasant rearing is not practised. The estate itself is thinly populated with houses inhabited
mainly by estate staff. However, villages and a higher density of farms occur close to the
estate marches. Rabbits occur.
The estate’s year starts in January. The increase in ferals killed from 2009 to 2010 was
considered by the head keeper to reflect a rise in the local feral cat population. Ferals occur
in several beats but mostly in the lower ground. Cage traps are deployed usually in response
to known feral occurrences. One juvenile tabby-marked cat was caught in a cage trap on 17th
March 2010 and, due to uncertainty of identification at its young age, was transferred to the
HWP where, after a period of time and a mtDNA test, it was judged not to be a wildcat.
Another tabby-marked feral was caught in a snare and dispatched. The majority of feral cats
occur on the lower, wooded ground in a 500 m wide strip.
Over a longer timescale, the number of ferals controlled on the estate has fluctuated but
remained stable overall (Fig. 3.1). The estate invested a moderate amount of time in feral cat
control activities in the last three years and shot a moderate number of ferals as a result
(Table 3.1). Most of these were shot during spotlighting. Wildcats were not camera-trapped
on the estate, although cats with either a black or silver tabby colouration were
photographed on several occasions. Unsubstantiated sightings of cats matching the
description of a wildcat have been reported from both the core and periphery of the estate.
Two roadkill carcases from the public road on the edge of the estate were sent to the
National Museum of Scotland for analysis, and while one has yet to be assessed, one was
found to be a hybrid.
38
Estate D
This estate is well-wooded, with tenanted farms and houses on the lower ground in the river
valleys and higher, more open elevations managed for deer and grouse. Pheasant rearing is
no longer practised and snaring has not been practised for several years. Villages lie close to
its periphery and rabbits are now much less abundant than they were in previous decades.
The estate’s year starts in April. Cage trapping is used for specific issues, e.g. there were 30
trapping nights at a hen house experiencing unidentified predation until a pine marten was
caught and released. 2 trapped at a farm, in November 2009. Between 1st April 2010 and 31st
March 2011 three feral cats were caught. Two were given to Cats Protection, and were
neutered and vaccinated. One of these was released on an estate farm and one was re-
homed elsewhere. One was humanely dispatched. The 7 ferals shot in 09/10, were all in or
very near farmland. No ferals were shot with a spotlight in 2010/11 and no cats were
trapped or shot at all in the last year.
Compared to the other estates, Estate D invested the least time in both cage-trapping and
spotlighting. Correspondingly, the number of cats controlled was the lowest. In the final
year, no cats were cage-trapped or shot at all. This estate was the only one which passed
cage-trapped feral cats to the local Cats Protection for neutering. The low number of ferals
shot can be explained in part by the estate’s objectives – it does not have a economic
gamebird interest on the low ground of the estate where cats occur most. Furthermore, the
abundance of feral cats appears to be low and more concentrated at one end of the estate,
where much of the farmland occurs. Wildcats were not recorded on camera traps or by any
other substantiated means. However, there were nocturnal sightings records by keepers of
cats matching the description of a wildcat, as well as photographs of cat footprints in mud.
Both of these were reported from remote areas of the estate near the interface of open hill
and pinewood not subject to camera trapping, and could mean that wildcats do occur but at
low densities in an environment lacking rabbits and where they could be difficult to observe
because of the terrain and thick cover.
The last three years, when compared to a longer term dataset (Fig 3.1) show a steady
decline in the number of cats shot on the estate. An increase between 2000 and 2005 was
attributed to increased effort from one keeper, who pursued feral cat control intensively but
who has since left the estate. This implies less effort since then in feral cat control. Whether
this means that the feral cat population on the estate is now higher as a result is not possible
to confirm. However, the increase in feral and farm cat neutering in the area in recent years
may mean that there are fewer cats in the local countryside to fill the niches made vacant
through shooting.
Estate E
The majority of the estate is open ground given over to deer management and some walked-
up grouse shooting. However the lower ground is well wooded with some farmland. Some
pheasant rearing occurs on the low ground as do rabbits in some areas. Several estate
houses and some tenant farms also occur on the low ground and a village lies at the
periphery of the estate.
39
The estate’s year runs from March to February. Very few cats are caught in cage traps, and
none were trapped in 2011/12. They are deployed around pheasant pens but feral cats are
not considered to be significant problem for pheasants on the estate. Spotlighting occurs
using 5 vehicles from September to April for approximately one night per week for 6
months. 1 tabby feral was shot in June 2010 at a farm on the estate. Two tabby-marked cats
were shot in March 2011. One had been observed on a previous occasion in poor light but
no shot was taken for fear it was a wildcat. In better light more recently it was judged not to
be a wildcat, having a white chest and thin tapering tail. The other cat was a probable hybrid,
which had white feet but otherwise looked a good cat as it had a thick, ringed tail with no
continuing dorsal stripe. This is probably the same white-footed cat which was camera
trapped by the gamekeeper 2.5 km away on 25th December 2010 and 1st January 2011.
According to the keeper, ferals basically occupy the strip of lower ground running along the
valley. Two of the carcases mentioned above were frozen and transferred to the Highland
Wildlife Park then the National Museums of Scotland. Results of pelage analysis have still to
be confirmed.
Estate E has seen a general decline in the number of ferals controlled over the past 20 years,
although the trend increased from 2006 to 2008, before stabilising at levels considerably
lower than in the early 1990s (Fig. 3.1). Over the past 3 years, the estate invested a
moderate amount of time in both cage-trapping and night-time shooting. The number of
ferals shot was moderate but was skewed towards spotlighting. Cage-trapping was employed
mainly around a small number of pheasant pens. However, unlike Estate B, pheasant pens did
not appear to be an obvious attractant for feral cats. Camera trapping did show that wildcats
were present, despite having been undetected by keepers in the years previous to the
Project. The keepers are now aware of their presence, having been instrumental in detecting
them through opportunistic camera trapping. Spotlighting now appears to be precautionary
with some feral cats or hybrids at the domestic end of the spectrum only being shot on the
second or third occasion of being spotlighted when more confident identification could be
gained.
4.6.2 Monitoring
Detailed monitoring data from each of the estates are available in Appendix 6, and are
summarised in Table 4.2, where they are compared with the intensive camera trapping
results detailed in Chapter 5. Estate A had a relatively high volume of potential wildcat
monitoring data, which tallied with a relatively high volume of intensive camera trapping data.
Estates B and D had high volumes of sightings data of potential wildcats but either no or very
low volumes of photographic data, including intensive camera trap data. Estate C generated
moderate levels of sightings data but no photographic data, while Estate E had low levels of
sightings data, but high levels of photographic data.
Table 4.2. Summary monitoring data from each of the five estates. Figures relate to the
number of potential wildcats observed.
Observation method
Estate A
Estate B
Estate C
Estate D
Estate E
Staff sightings
6
6
3
4
1
Other sightings
5
5
2
6
0
Roadkill carcases
2
0
1
0
0
Opportunistic camera traps
5
1
0
0
1
Other photo
7
1
0
0
2
40
Intensive camera traps
6
1
0
0
6
4.7 Outcomes: gamekeeping methods
In order to assess any impact the Project may have had on gamekeeping methods relating to
the management of wild-living cats, 43 questionnaires were sent out in July 2011 to
gamekeepers in the Cairngorms National Park who either:
• attended the “Practical Wildcat Conservation in the Cairngorms National Park”
conference in Aviemore in April 2008; or
• attended the “Predator control and the Scottish wildcat” workshop at the Lecht in
December 2009; or
• attended the “Wildlife and the Law” training course at Mar Lodge in May 2009; or
• is employed on one of the estates that the Cairngorms Wildcat Project works closely
with.
The accompanying covering letter asked recipients to complete the questionnaire and send it
back in the pre-paid, self addressed envelope by July 31st. The questionnaire could be
completed anonymously. Seventeen responses were received, representing a 40% return
rate.
All who replied chose to be anonymous and the responses to each question were as follows:
1. Since your contact with the Project, do you feel more confident or less confident in your
ability to identify a wildcat in the field?
MORE 14
LESS 0
THE SAME 3
2. Since your contact with the Project, have you modified your predator control activities
to reduce the likelihood of killing wildcats? E.g. have you changed the relative use of
lamping, snaring or cage trapping; have you made changes to the timing, location or
effort invested in predator control?
YES 8
NO 9
Of those who said ‘yes’ and elaborated:
1 said he was shooting fewer stripy cats
2 said they were doing more live-trapping
1 said he was more aware of cats when lamping
1 said he was using cage traps more often and not snaring at all
I said he was taking time to identify cats
Of those who said ‘no’ and elaborated:
41
1 said he was confident he wouldn’t catch a wildcat
2 said they had always been careful
3 said they had never seen a wildcat on the estate
1 said that snares and cages were not put where wildcats had been seen
1 said that they didn’t snare or cage trap and that wildcats had not been seen
1 said they could not see any practical way of modifying that would benefit wildcats
3. Since your contact with the Project, have you avoided shooting a cat because of the risk
it might be a wildcat?
YES 9
NO 8
Of those saying yes, and who elaborated:
3 said on 1 occasion
2 said on 2 occasions
1 said on 3-5 occasions
1 said on 5 occasions
Of those saying no and elaborating:
1 said they haven’t seen a cat while lamping
4 said they had never seen a wildcat on the estate
1 said it had always been estate policy to avoid shooting if any doubt
1 said it was important to control ferals which threaten wildcats
1 said he had always been careful
4. If you answered ‘yes’ to Question 3, do you think you would have avoided shooting the
cat(s) before you had any contact with the Project?
YES 5
NO 4
1 other respondent who had answered ‘no’ to Q3, answered ‘yes’ to Q4 and expanded
by saying that staff on his estate would avoid shooting a cat looking like a wildcat, if they
ever saw one.
5. Since your contact with the Project, do you think you have seen a potential wildcat?
YES 12
NO 5
Of those responding ‘yes’:
5 saw wildcats on 1 occasion
2 saw wildcats on 2 occasions
I saw wildcats on 2 or 3 occasions
3 saw wildcats on 3 occasions
I saw wildcats on 12 occasions
42
Of those responding ‘yes’:
5 reported their sightings to the Project (total of 22-23 cats)
6 did not report their sightings (total of 7 cats)
1 did not respond (total of 3 cats)
5 respondents provided further comments:
• “Well done. Keep up the neutering/removal of farm type ferals”
• “Keep up the good work”
• “My sighting of the cat was near XXXX on XXXX and I knew that people had already
reported sightings there”
• “All we seem to see here are feral cats that have been dumped by the public”
• “I would just like to say that in the area I work in, the amount of feral cats and domestic
cats has increased significantly in the past ten years and would doubt very much if there
were any pure bred wildcats left”
4.8 Discussion
The extent and intensity of feral cat control on estates varies according to their objectives.
Those with a significant gamebird interest are likely to invest more staff and time in
controlling cats. On the whole, the number of cats caught or shot on estates reflected the
amount of effort put into cat control. Cage-trapping was used to address acute issues e.g.
predation around pheasant pens or hen houses or in areas where feral cats had recently
been sighted. Feral cats were controlled more widely on estates through night-time
shooting, usually when foxes were the main target species.
The benefits to estates of engaging with the Project varied according to circumstances. By
attempting to lower the feral cat population through encouraging more neutering of pets
and ferals the Project was seen by many estate staff as being broadly consistent with their
own objectives and they were thus willing to support it. For example both Estate A and
Estate D found that wildcat conservation was a new and useful angle to help motivate
tenants to have pet cats neutered, which would in turn benefit not only wildcats but also
broader estate management. At least one of the estates was also keen to be perceived as a
habitat for wildcats as they feel this would help to promote tourism on the estate.
The questionnaire, which was sent to gamekeepers who had come into contact both with
the Project and its message about the need to conserve wildcats and more specifically the
wildcat friendly estates’ protocol, was answered by respondents anonymously. Although only
a small sample, the results suggest that the Project has considerably improved confidence in
wildcat identification amongst gamekeepers with whom it has come into direct contact.
Almost half of respondents said they had modified their predator control activities so as to
reduce the risks to wildcats, e.g. by taking greater care in cat identification during shooting
or by using cage-trapping more often. Of those who said they hadn’t modified their activities,
several indicated that was because they felt that wildcats did not occur on their ground or
because they had always been careful to avoid harming wildcats. More than half (9) of
respondents said they had avoided shooting a cat because of the risk it could be a wildcat
since their contact with the Project, while several of those that said they hadn’t, said it was
due to there being few cats or wildcats around. Just under half of those who said that they
43
had avoided shooting a cat since their contact with the Project (4), admitted they would
have shot the cat before their contact with the Project. Care must be taken when
extrapolating from such a small sample size, but it does imply that several potential wildcats
owe their continued existence in the Cairngorms National Park to the positive response of
gamekeepers to the Project and its message about wildcat-friendly predator control.
Given the Project invested time in engaging with the wider keepering profession through
specialist magazine articles, attendance at national game fairs, and by addressing well-
attended gamekeeping meetings, it is reasonable to assume that greater confidence in wildcat
identification and modifications to predator control activities to safeguard wildcats have
occurred beyond those gamekeepers sent questionnaires, or even those working within the
Cairngorms National Park. Indeed, the Project Manager was made aware anecdotally of a
gamekeeper outside the National Park deciding not to shoot a potential wildcat which he
had in his sights, and which he judged to have been predating his pheasants, because he had
read an article in the Scottish Gamekeeper magazine about the need for gamekeepers to help
conserve wildcats.
There is also considerable potential for gamekeepers to be involved in the monitoring of
wildcat populations. Most keepers are in the field very frequently, in a wide range of terrain,
at a variety of times of day, and at all times of year, very often with a spotlight. They are
therefore in an excellent position to report on trends in populations, as well as on details of
wildcat activity and landscape-use. The majority of potential wildcats seen by gamekeepers
responding to the questionnaire were reported to the Project, thus helping to improve our
understanding of the status of wildcats in the Cairngorms National Park. This information is
particularly useful when substantiated with photographs and several keepers have been
invaluable in assisting with the deployment and running of camera traps. The experiences of
Estate E, where wildcats had not been thought by estate staff to occur, yet the opportunistic
deployment of Project camera traps by one of the gamekeepers, proved that the wildcats
were indeed present in numbers, do illustrate several points: wildcats can be difficult to
detect purely through human observation; gamekeeping staff have a valuable role to play in
wildcat monitoring; and camera traps are an invaluable tool for gathering hard evidence of
wildcat occurrence and the extent of hybridisation. Chapter 4 describes in detail the use of
camera trapping, as well as other methods for monitoring wild-living cat populations.
44
5. Researching and monitoring wildcats
The Project MoU had an objective relating specifically to research and monitoring:
• To carry out research and monitoring to develop a greater understanding of
Scottish wildcat conservation status, ecology, genetics and epidemiology within
the context of the project;
5.1. Intensive camera trap monitoring
A repeated intensive camera-trap based monitoring study was initiated in the five target
estates. The aim of this study was three-fold:
1. To assess cat populations in terms of the numbers of wildcat, hybrid cat and
domestic cat
2. To assess changes in the numbers of cats during the project
3. To investigate the ecology of wildcats, hybrid cats and domestic cats with the
intention of informing future management of cats for wildcat conservation
5.1.1. Photography
In the five target estates, 20 pairs of camera-traps (Cuddeback Capture® or Capture® IRs)
were set out in a grid of 4 × 5 pairs, with a spacing of 0.5-1.5 km (mean 1km) between
nearest neighbours, following Kilshaw and Macdonald (2011). This was achieved by placing
on a map points 1km apart in 4 × 5 km grid, visiting each point and investigating suitable
locations near the point. Cameras were not set at random with respect to habitat
characteristics and instead were, where possible, preferentially (but not exclusively) placed
at locations showing one or more of the following features based on previous studies on
wildcat habitat use (Scott et al. 1993; Daniels et al. 2001; Lozano et a. 2003; Ballesteros-
Duperón 2005; Poto čnik et al. 2005; Theil 2005; Klar et al. 20
• In cover habitat near open habitat
• On or near paths or game-trails
• Along linear features such as drystane dykes, stock fences and riparian belts
• At bottlenecks for animal movement such as holes in otherwise animal-proof fencing
(i.e. a 6ft deer fence with narrow-gauge mesh)
Field signs of cats were not used in deciding camera locations in preference to the features
listed above because future random changes in the movement of wildcats away from areas
that they were using during the first survey could lead to a reduction in population estimates
during future surveys (a process known as ‘regression to the mean’). Conversely, cat field
signs were not avoided if the location fulfilled other criteria.
Cameras were set in pairs in order to minimise data loss from camera failure and to
maximise the likelihood of photographing both sides of visiting cats to aid identification
during recaptures. These camera pairs (referred to as ‘stations’ hereon in) were baited using
a combination of lures including feathers, scent (Hawbakers Wildcat Lures # 1 and #2) and
meat (chicken leg, pheasant or deer offal). In Estates A (but see below) and B, no meat bait
was used. Scent and meat lures were refreshed at the beginning of weeks 3, 5 and 7. Surveys
lasted up to 84 days. The survey is to be repeated each year at the same camera trap
45
locations with lures matching that of prior surveys on the estate. Time of year was also
matched closely.
In estate A, a survey was conducted by Kerry Kilshaw (WildCRU) beginning in Feb 2010.
This survey matched the CWP surveys in methodology except that pheasant carcasses were
used as bait. This could be regarded as a baseline survey for estate A. Beginning Dec 2010,
Kerry Kilshaw revisited Estate A but used scent and feather lures and also adjusted the
location of some of the cameras. In order to ensure that future surveys could be linked to
these two surveys, we resurveyed Estate A beginning May 2011 using the same camera
locations and bait as used the first survey. The remaining four estates were all surveyed
through autumn-spring 2010-2011 (year 1) and again autumn-spring 2011-2012 (year 2). In
Estate B, while bait protocols were tested, an additional three months data was collected
prior in summer 2010.
Cameras recorded the date and time of each photograph taken. Individual cats were
identifiable based on pelage markings. We thus know the location, date, time and identity of
cats photographed (or captured).
5.1.2. Habitat mapping
At each camera station, habitat characteristics were visually assessed and recorded. These
include: canopy cover (%); shrub layer mean cover (%); herb layer mean height; herb layer
mean cover (%). Maps were digitised from 1:25,000 OS maps in Quantum GIS (v. 1.5.0),
checked against satellite images available from GoogleTM Maps and ground-truthed during
camera placement and rebaiting. Habitats are defined in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1. Habitat class descriptions
Habitat
Definition
Coniferous
Any habitat dominated by coniferous trees including Caledonian pine
forest and pine / spruce plantations
Deciduous
Any habitat dominated by deciduous trees and shrubs including birch
wood and juniper scrub
Felled
Recently felled plantations dominated by early successional herbs and
grasses. This class was incorporated into Grass during analysis
Grass
Pasture and unimproved grassland
Habitation
Houses and proximate gardens
Moor
Moorland
Open wood
(Coniferous
or
Deciduous)
Habitat with sparse trees and/or shrubs so that the habitat was
dominated by the underlying vegetation. These classes were
incorporated into the class describing their underlying vegetation
(Grass or Moor) during analysis
The habitat surrounding each station may play a role in the likelihood that a cat will be
captured there. A buffer of 100m was placed over each station point and the proportion of
the buffer consisting of each habitat class was calculated. Buffer areas that crossed rivers
46
>3m width where there were no suitable crossing points within the buffer area were
truncated at the riverbank because habitat across such rivers would be inaccessible to a cat
visiting the station without travelling >100m (Figures 5.4 – 5.8).
5.1.3. Statistical analyses
For all analyses, we defined a wildcat as a striped (tabby-marked) cat with a thick, blunt-
tipped tail, a dorsal-stripe that ends at the base of the tail and no white feet (see Kitchener
et al. 2005). This is the project working definition of a wildcat that is applied by gamekeepers
in the field when making management decisions. All statistical analyses were conducted
within the R programming environment (R v. 2.14.0, R Development Core Team 2011)
5.1.3.1. Population change and density
Following Kilshaw and Macdonald (2011), only the first 60 days of each survey were used to
assess population change and density. The low numbers of wildcats captured (see results)
combined with only two years data precluded the use of complex capture-mark-recapture
(CMR) models in most cases. To assess changes in cat populations between year 1 and year2
we applied a t-test, paired by estate, on the number of cats of each group captured, i.e. the
minimum number alive (MNA).
Enough cats were captured in estate E to apply CMR models to estimate density, though the
numbers were low and therefore results should be interpreted with caution. For this
analysis, we applied a spatially-explicit CMR model using the package SPACECAP (Singh et al.
2010) in R. Following Kilshaw and Macdonald (2011), potential home-range centres were
spaced at 0.5km intervals in areas within 3km of outlying stations. Points falling in unsuitable
or inaccessible habitat were excluded. These were areas of habitation, roads and rail-tracks,
moorland (see results) and areas falling on the opposite side of a large river that had no
crossing points within the 3km buffer zone. The models used included the following: Trap
response present, Spatial Capture-Recapture, Half-normal detection function, Bernoulli
detection process. The Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) simulation used 50,000
iterations with a 1,000 iteration burn-in and no thinning.
5.1.3.2. Turnover of cats and site fidelity
Survival and recruitment of cats from year 1 to year 2 was calculated based on the number
of cats captured in year 1 that were also captured in year 2 (survival) and the number of cats
captured in year 2 that had not been captured previously.
The site fidelity of cats was calculated based on the number of cats surviving from year 1 to
year 2 that were captured at the same stations in both years and the number of surviving
cats that were captured at a station where they and not be captured previously. A cat could
be counted as both using the same stations in the two years and different stations in each
year if it was captured at >1 station, at one of which it had not been captured in year 1.
47
Figure 5.1. Photo of a probable wildcat taken during intensive camera-trapping of Estate E.
5.1.3.3. Temporal activity patterns
We examined the timing of activity by cats from each of the three groups (g) (wildcat, hybrid
and domestic cat) using the times recorded by the cameras for each visit by a cat. To
minimise issues associated with changes in the times of sunset and sunrise across the survey
periods, we combined visit times into three hour blocks (t), beginning at midday (thus 1200 –
1459, 1500 – 1759….. 0900 – 1159). We used the package lme4 (v. 0.999375-42, Bates and
Maechler 2011) in R to construct GLMMs describing the effect of t on the number of visits
(v) by each individual cat. A Poisson model was used with a log link function. Random
intercepts were specified for Estate and individual cat ID. We expected a polynomial (non-
linear) relationship between t and v due to the circularity of daily rhythms and data
exploration indicated that a quadratic relationship would sufficiently explain v when t began
at midday. We therefore included t and its quadratic component (t2). We also included g and
interactions between these variables and (t × g, t2 × g) to assess whether activity patterns
were different between wildcats, hybrids and domestic cats. After finding significant
interactive effects, we then ran the same models as pair-wise comparisons between each
group (three possible pairs: wildcat-hybrid, hybrid-domestic, wildcat-domestic) to assess
which groups differed in temporal activity.
We estimated the effects of these variables by model-averaging using the package MuMIn
(v.1.7.2, Barto ń 2012) in R.
for small sample sizes). Estimates within 4 AICc of the top model were averaged for
parameter estimates.
48
5.1.3.4. Habitat association
While camera placement was not at random with respect to habitat, a diversity of habitat
characteristics was evident at and around stations allowing an examination of the habitat
association of cats. Cat populations and time-of-year varied between estates and therefore
any analysis of habitat association must control for estate. We used cat abundance (within
each cat group and combined) as our response variable. Cat abundance a at each station was
the sum of the number of individual cats ni captured at station j in year k.
We used the package lme4 (v. 0.999375-42, Bates and Maechler 2011) in R to construct
GLMMs describing the influence of habitat within 100m of each station (see above) on cat
abundance. A Poisson model was used with a log link function. Estate was set as a blocking
variable by specifying random intercepts for estate: thus we assume that the slope of the
relationship between a and habitat is the same for all estates but (in accordance with
differences in cat abundance between estates), the intercept of the relationship may be
different.
We examined habitat association at two levels: First at a broad scale (within 100m of a
station) and then at the small scale in wooded habitat (habitat at the station). We kept these
analyses separate since there was evidence of intercorrelations between levels.
Broad scale: Our measure of habitat within 100m of each station is in the form of
proportions, summing to 1, and therefore the proportion of one habitat type will correlate
with the proportion of other habitat types across stations. Intercorrelations in predictors
present a problem for linear models and can lead to over-fitting of the data (see Freckleton
2011). To negate this issue, we extracted orthogonal (non-correlating) principle components
from the habitat data using the function princomp in R, leading to three habitat variables (C1
– C3, see results). We used these variables as predictors in the model together with a binary
variable describing the presence or absence of rabbit at the station (based on whether
cameras photographed rabbit in either year) and whether the station was next to an animal-
proof fence that would channel cats past the cameras, increasing our perception of cat
abundance. We might expect that cats prefer edges between cover and open habitat (e.g.
Klar 2008) and so habitat that was mostly open or mostly closed would be less preferred
than habitat that was a mix of open and closed. Since variable C3 describes habitat openness
(see results) we included a quadratic component of C3 in the model (C3 + C32). We thus
have six variables describing habitat: C1, C2, C3, C32, rabbit and fence.
Fine scale: At this scale, we only used stations there were in or at the edge of wooded
habitat (N = 86 of 100) since the distinctiveness of non-wooded from wooded habitat would
mask variability between different wooded habitats. The height and cover of the herb layer
and the cover of the shrub layer will partially depend on the cover of the layers above,
leading to intercorrelations between these variables. As above, we therefore extracted
orthogonal principle components, leading to four habitat variables (C4 – C7, see results). We
used these in conjunction with variables on the presence of rabbits and of a fence (see
above) together with a binary variable describing whether the station was within 10m of a
watercourse (‘riparian’).
We estimated the effects of these variables by model-averaging using the package MuMIn
(v.1.7.2, Barto ń 2012) in R.
49
for small sample sizes). Estimates within 4 AICc of the top model were averaged for
parameter estimates.
To examine whether habitat association of cats were different between groups (g) (wildcat,
hybrid and domestic), we constructed the same model but with three rows per station
describing the abundance of each cat group separately. We allowed random intercepts for
cat group (g). We then compared this model with the same model that kept intercepts
constant across cat groups using AICc.
5.1.3.5. Assessing survey efficiency
In order to examine the effectiveness of the survey methodology, we graphed the cumulative
proportion of all cats caught (during each of the 10 surveys and then as a mean of all
surveys) over the whole period that cameras were deployed (max 84 days). We also
calculated the cumulative proportion of cats caught over time from the mean of subsamples
of every other camera station to assess whether the distance between cameras could be
increased without impacting population estimates.
5.1.4 Results
Maps of each area surveyed, showing the location of cameras and habitat types at the broad-
scale are shown in Figures 5.4 – 5.8.
5.1.4.1. Population change and density
In year 1 and year 2 a total of 13 wildcats, 11 hybrid cats and 15 domestic cats were
detected. Wildcats were detected on only three of the five estates, with a mean of 1.4
wildcats/estate in year 1 increasing to 2 wildcats/estate in year two (Table 5.2). The increase
in wildcats was not significant however (t = -0.885, df = 4, P = 0.426). Fewer hybrid cats
were detected than wildcats and the change in numbers between years was not significant (t
= 0.535, df = 4, P = 0.621). Domestic cats were detected on all estates in at least one of the
years and the mean number per estate and change in number were the same as for wildcats,
with the change again not significant (t = -0.812, df = 4, P = 0.468). Only estates A and E
showed an increase in wildcats and a decline in hybrids and/or domestic cats. The remaining
estates all showed an increase in the numbers of domestic cats.
The population density for cats in estate E in year 1, as estimated in SPACECAP 12.14 cats
100km-1, rising to 25.57 cats 100km-1 in year 2 (Table 5.3). The year 1 data included one
hybrid and one domestic cat and therefore the estimate for wildcat in that year is 8.09
wildcats 100km-1. Year 2 contained only wildcats. The estimates for sigma (a measure of
mobility) varied widely between years being very large in year 1 and very small in year 2,
reflecting shorter mean distance between captures in year 2. It is therefore likely that the
population estimate in year 2 is inflated in relation to year 1, possibly also due to the smaller
sample size and therefore these results should be interpreted with great caution.
50
Table 5.2. Cat population estimates (minimum number alive) and change in the population
Minimum number alive
Change
site
year
Wildcat
Hybrid
Domestic
Wildcat
Hybrid
Domestic
A
1
2
0
1
B
1
1
1
2
C
1
0
2
0
D
1
0
2
3
E
1
4
1
1
Mean
1.4
1.2
1.4
A
2
5
0
0
+3
0
-1
B
2
0
0
3
-1
-1
+1
C
2
0
3
3
0
1
+3
D
2
0
2
4
0
0
+1
E
2
5
0
0
+1
-1
-1
Mean
2.0
1.0
2.0
+0.6
-0.2
+0.6
Table 5. 3. Population size and density estimates for estate E. Sigma is a measure of the mobility of
the animals. Lam0 is the expected encounter frequency (probability per camera-day) if the cat’s
home-range was centred on that camera. Beta is the regression coefficient that measures the
behavioural response to the cameras. A larger value indicates that once captured, the cat is more
likely to be captured again. Year 1 was estimated from six cats of which four were wildcats and
therefore results should be adjusted accordingly. Year two was estimated from wildcats only.
95% CI
Parameter
Year
Mean
Lower
Upper
sigma
1
1.09E+11
0.0599
1.43E+11
lam0
1
0.0017
5.00E-04
0.0041
beta
1
2.74
1.67
3.85
N
1
9.28
6
16
Density
1
12.14
7.84
20.92
sigma
2
0.050
0.011
0.13
lam0
2
0.0084
0.0023
0.016
beta
2
2.51
1.52
3.48
N
2
19.56
10
30
Density
2
25.57
13.07
39.22
5.1.2.2. Turnover of cats and site fidelity
Overall, there was a trend of increasing turnover moving from wildcats to hybrids to
domestic cats (Table 5.4 and 5.5). This trend involved a reduction in survival between years
combined with a greater likelihood of detecting new animals in year 2.
51
Table 5. 4. Detection or otherwise of individual cats in each estate, and the station numbers at
which they were captured in each year. Note that cat 1 and cat 3 from estate A were also detected
in the baseline survey in year 0 (2009-2010). Some cats here were only detected outwith the main 60
days survey and so were not used in analyses of population change.
Estate
Cat
Classification
Year 1
Station(s)
Year 2
Station(s)
A
1
Wild
1
1
0
A
2
Wild
1
1, 2
1
1, 2, 9
A
3
Wild
0
1
3
A
4
Wild
0
1
3
A
5
Wild
0
1
3
A
6
Wild
0
1
3
A
7
Domestic
1
10
0
B
1
Wild
1
16
0
B
2
Hybrid
1
1, 2
0
B
3
Hybrid
1
11
0
B
4
Domestic
1
1
1
1
B
5
Domestic
1
13
0
B
6
Domestic
0
1
1
B
7
Domestic
0
1
3
B
8
Domestic
1
10
0
C
1
Hybrid
1
7
0
C
2
Hybrid
1
4
1
4
C
3
Hybrid
0
1
8, 11
C
4
Hybrid
0
1
11
C
5
Domestic
0
1
8
C
6
Domestic
0
1
11
C
7
Domestic
0
1
8
D
1
Hybrid
1
19
0
D
2
Hybrid
1
16
1
16
D
3
Hybrid
0
1
19
D
4
Hybrid
0
1
19
D
5
Domestic
1
16, 19
0
D
6
Domestic
1
16, 19
0
D
7
Domestic
1
19
1
19
D
8
Domestic
0
1
16
D
9
Domestic
0
1
17
E
1
Wild
1
1, 5, 8, 14
1
8, 11
E
2
Wild
1
8, 12
1
12
E
3
Wild
1
1
0
E
4
Wild
1
9, 13
1
9, 13
E
5
Wild
0
1
10
E
6
Wild
0
1
3
E
7
Hybrid
1
2, 3, 8, 12
0
E
8
Domestic
1
8
0
52
Table 5.5. Turnover of cats on each estate. Survived is defined as cats captured in year 1 (and
year 0 for estate A) that were also captured in year 2. New cats are those that were not captured in
year 1 (or year 0 for estate A).
Estate
Cat
group A B C D E Mean
Survived
Domestic
0
0.33
0.33
0
0.25
Hybrid
0
0.5
0.5
0
0.29
Wild
0.5
0
0.75
0.57
Mean
0.33
0.17
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.36
New
Domestic
0.67
1
0.67
0.78
Hybrid
0.67
0.67
0.67
Wild
0.80
0.40
0.60
Mean
0.80
0.67
0.83
0.67
0.40
0.68
All cats showed high site fidelity (Table 5.4). Of the eight cats (four wildcats, two hybrids and
two domestic cats) captured in both year 1 and year 2, all were detected at the same station
in both years while only two (both wildcats) were also detected at different stations from
the previous year.
5.1.4.3. Temporal activity patterns
Figure 5.2. Temporal activity of cats (proportion of visits to a camera station) for each group,
beginning at midday. Columns are the proportions for all individuals combined. Lines are model-
averaged estimates from individual-level data. Wildcats and hybrid cats showed a nocturnal-
crepuscular activity pattern that was significantly different from the diurnal activity of domestic cats.
53
The global model describing temporal activity patterns had a lower AICc (=401.7) than the
next best model (AICc = 409.0) and therefore contained 97.1% of the Akaike weight. The
global model indicated that there were significant interactions between cat group and time
(Table 5.6) indicating that there were differences in activity patterns between two or all of
the groups. Pairwise comparisons showed that activity patterns in domestic cats were
different from both wildcats and hybrid cats (significant t × g and t2 × g interactions) but that
wildcat and hybrid activity patterns were not different (Table 5.6). Overall, both wildcats and
hybrid cats exhibited a nocturnal-crepuscular activity pattern with visits peaking around dusk
and dawn at very few occurring in the middle of the day (Figure 5.2). Domestic cats in
contrast exhibited a diurnal activity pattern with fewer visits in the middle of the night
(Figure 5.2).
Table 5.6. Model estimates of the influence of time on cat activity (number of visits by each
individual). Estimates with 95% confidence intervals not crossing zero indicate significant effects and
are marked with asterisks. The model containing cats from all groups indicated significant differences
between groups (as indicated by significant interaction terms). Pairwise comparison between groups
showed that wildcats and hybrid cats were not different but domestic cats were different from both
wildcats and hybrid cats.
All cats
Wildcat vs Hybrid
95% CI
95% CI
Variable
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Intercept
-0.317
-1.254
0.619
-2.407*
-3.398
-1.416
t
-0.503*
-0.953
-0.052
0.764*
0.352
1.177
t2
0.053*
0.003
0.102
-0.087*
-0.131
-0.042
g (Hybrid)
-1.828*
-3.287
-0.370
g (Wild)
-2.632*
-4.289
-0.975
-0.252
-1.318
0.813
g × t (Hybrid)
1.139*
0.437
1.841
g × t2 (Hybrid)
-0.129*
-0.207
-0.052
g × t (Wild)
1.454*
0.700
2.210
0.156
-0.341
0.653
g × t2 (Wild) -0.154* -0.235 -0.073 -0.025 -0.112 0.063
Hybrid vs Domestic
Wildcat vs Domestic
95% CI
95% CI
Variable
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Intercept
-0.663
-1.805
0.478
-0.403
-1.474
0.669
t
-0.438
-0.984
0.107
-0.493*
-0.964
-0.022
t2
0.047
-0.013
0.106
0.052*
0.001
0.103
g (Hybrid)
-1.456
-3.410
0.498
g (Wild)
-2.444*
-4.393
-0.496
g × t (Hybrid)
1.098*
0.292
1.904
g × t2 (Hybrid) -0.129* -0.207 -0.052
g × t (Wild)
1.447*
0.670
2.225
g × t2 (Wild)
-0.154*
-0.235
-0.073
54
5.1.4.4. Habitat association
Principle Component Analysis of Habitat
Broad scale: The first three components extracted accounted for >99.99% of the variance in
habitat data (Table 5.7). Component C1 can be thought of as describing increasing nutrient-
poor upland conifer habitat, associated with a decline in deciduous woodland and grass
habitat and a small increase in proximity to moorland. C2 describes increasing moorland
habitat which is associated with a decline in grass and coniferous habitat and not associated
with deciduous woodland habitat. C3 describes increasing openness from deciduous
woodland habitat to grassland habitat.
Table 5.7. Principle components extracted from proportional habitat data.
C1
C2
C3
Proportion of
variance 0.407 0.345 0.246
Coniferous
0.639
-0.485
Deciduous
-0.456
-0.817
Grass
-0.598
-0.282
0.558
Moor
0.158
0.828
0.114
Fine scale: At the station level, four components were extracted from the habitat
characteristics, accounting for all variance in the data (Table 5.8). C4 can be thought off as
indicating canopy closure; C5 as dense scrub and shrub layer habitat with a low herb layer;
C6 as woodland with denser shrub layer and a taller more sparse herb layer; and C7 as
describing general openness of the station.
Table 5.8. Principle components extracted from habitat at stations
C4
C5
C6
C7
Proportion of
variance 0.479 0.308 0.137 0.075
Canopy cover
0.646
-0.160
-0.742
Shrub cover
-0.469
0.548
0.508
-0.471
Herb cover
-0.559
-0.342
-0.587
-0.475
Herb height
-0.227
-0.746
0.625
Habitat effects on number of cats captured
Broad scale: While differences in the significance of effects on cat abundance were detected
in the different cat groups when analysed separately (Table 5.9), the best model
incorporating a random effect of cat group was a poorer description of cat abundance than
the best model without (AICc = 232.8 with random effect of cat group versus AICc = 226.4
without). We were then justified in grouping together all cats for analysis (Table 5.8). Two
models accounted for >93% of the Aikaike weights while all other models were >4 AICc
from the best model. We therefore used these top two models to average parameter
estimates. These top models contained all variables except rabbit, while the next top model
was the global model containing all variables. The model averaged results from these two
models indicate a decline in cat abundance with increasing upland conifer (C1), increasing
55
moorland (C2) and increasing habitat openness (C3). The negative effect of the quadratic
component of habitat openness indicates an increasing rate in the decline in habitat suitability
with increasing openness. The presence of rabbit showed a positive effect on cat abundance,
but this effect was not significant. The presence of an animal-proof fence had a positive
influence on cat abundance, indicating that these structures channel the movements of cats.
Table 5.9. Coefficient estimates for the influence of different habitat types within 100m, presence of
rabbit and animal-proof fencing on the number of individual cats detected at each station across
years. Statistically significant effects are found where 95% CI do not cross zero and are highlighted
with an asterisk.
All cats
Wildcat
95% CI
95% CI
Variable
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Intercept
-1.2*
-1.81
-0.58
-3.76*
-6.23
-1.28
C1
-0.72*
-1.01
-0.44
-0.32
-0.75
0.11
C2
-1.12*
-1.8
-0.44
-1.03
-2.09
0.03
C3
-0.35*
-0.67
-0.03
-0.05
-0.45
0.35
C32
-0.3*
-0.51
-0.09
0.06
-0.21
0.34
Rabbit
0.39
-0.26
1.03
1.57*
0.15
2.99
Fence
1.34*
0.77
1.92
0.66
-0.26
1.58
Hybrid
Domestic
95% CI
95% CI
Variable
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Intercept
-2.8*
-4.42
-1.18
-2.93*
-4.35
-1.52
C1
-0.88*
-1.41
-0.34
-0.85*
-1.48
-0.22
C2
-1.75
-3.6
0.1
-0.66
-1.68
0.36
C3
-0.89*
-1.68
-0.11
0.06
-0.66
0.78
C32
-0.89*
-1.66
-0.12
-0.55
-1.25
0.15
Rabbit
0.73
-0.61
2.07
1.25
-0.15
2.64
Fence
1.98*
0.82
3.14
1.81*
0.62
2.99
Fine scale: With all cat groups combined, no single model was clearly better than any other,
with 11 other models showing an AICc value within 4 AICc of the top model. Model
averaging over these 12 models indicated that of the four habitat principle components, only
C5 (denser scrub and shrub layer habitat with a lower herb layer) had a significant influence
on the number of cats visiting, with this effect being positive (Table 5.10). As before, the
presence of rabbit and animal-proof fencing also had a positive influence on number of cats,
but whether the station was in riparian habitat did not have an influence.
Comparing the top two models (holding in total 32.1% of the Akaike weights) with two
models that were identical but for the inclusion of random intercepts for group indicated
that there was some limited support for the habitat association of the groups differing: For
the top model the AICc was only 2.11 AICc greater for a model with random effects for
group (Akaike weight 74.7% without and 25.3% with random intercepts for group). Similarly,
for the second top model the AICc was 2.1 AICc greater for a model with random effects
for group (Akaike weight 74.0% without and 26.0% with random intercepts for group).
56
Examining the parameter estimates for each group separately (Table 5.10) showed that C5
was only important for wildcats and hybrid cats whereas for domestic cats, C4 (canopy
closure) had a significant negative influence on number of visiting cats. In direct contrast to
the broad scale habitat association, rabbit presence was not important for wildcats but was
(positively) for hybrids and domestic cats. Note however that only stations in or at the edge
of wooded habitat were used in this analysis. Riparian habitat was a significant negative
predictor of the number of visiting domestic cats.
Table 5.10. Coefficient estimates for the influence of habitat characteristics at each station,
presence of rabbit and animal-proof fencing and whether the habitat is riparian on the number of
individual cats detected at each station across years. Statistically significant effects are found where
95% CI do not cross zero and are highlighted with an asterisk.
All cats
Wildcat
95% CI
95% CI
Variable
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Intercept
-1.414*
-2.014
-0.814
-3.393*
-5.352
-1.438
C4
-0.016
-0.229
0.198
0.275
-0.165
0.715
C5
0.571*
0.268
0.874
1.155*
0.054
2.257
C6
-0.109
-0.527
0.309
-0.887
-1.961
0.186
C7
-0.381
-0.957
0.195
-0.909
-2.075
0.257
Rabbit
1.357*
0.722
1.991
0.942
-0.568
2.453
Fence
1.280*
0.537
2.024
1.458*
0.206
2.709
Riparian
-0.574
-1.325
0.177
-0.803
-2.453
0.847
Hybrid
Domestic
95% CI
95% CI
Variable
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Estimate
Lower
Upper
Intercept
-2.863*
-3.920
-1.806
-2.873*
-4.122
-1.624
C4
-0.120
-0.461
0.22
-0.608*
-0.997
-0.218
C5
0.570*
0.077
1.064
0.227
-0.338
0.792
C6
0.282
-0.405
0.97
-0.317
-1.035
0.401
C7
-0.423
-1.370
0.523
-0.133
-1.184
0.919
Rabbit
1.704*
0.651
2.757
1.994*
0.875
3.113
Fence
1.822*
0.601
3.042
1.455*
0.176
2.734
Riparian
0.061
-1.097
1.219
-1.369*
-2.713
-0.026
5.1.4.5. Assessing survey efficiency
In the five estates over both years, an average of 94% of individual cats captured were
discovered within the 60 day period covering the baited survey (Figure 5.3). Baiting with
meat at the start of week four and six was associated with a slight jump in cat captures.
Nevertheless, 55% of the cats were captured within the first four weeks, prior to use of
meat bait. Indeed there was a rapid accumulation of cat captures within the first two weeks
of the survey with, on average, 45% of the total cats captured in this period. Using half the
number of stations at half the density would have resulted in the capture of only 58% of the
57
cats discovered over the whole survey, indicating that more widely spaced cameras miss
some individuals.
Figure 5.3. Cumulative percentage of cats (out of the total caught) over time in each estate. Solid
coloured lines indicate the survey in year 1 and dashed coloured lines in year 2. The black line is the
mean for all estates while the grey dashed cumulative line is the mean when only every second
station is used (i.e. half the density of stations). Vertical grey dashed lines indicate approximate point
of bait refreshment. In three of the estates, the last two bait refresh points also include the addition
of meat bait. The solid grey vertical line marks the end of the main 60 day survey period used to
compare population estimates.
Table 5.11. Time taken (survey-nights and camera-nights) to capture the first, second and third
wildcats at estates where wildcats were detected.
Number of nights to capture wildcats N
Estate
Survey
1st
wildcat
2nd
wildcat
3rd
wildcat
Total
number of
wildcats
A
1
6
13
2
A
2
2
11
15
5
B
1
6
1
E
1
8
9
35
4
E
2
3
9
12
5
Mean
5.0
10.5
20.7
Camera nights
100
210
413
58
Examining the time taken to capture the first, second and third wildcats in estates where
wildcats were detected using an array of 20 camera stations (Table 5.11) showed that the
presence of wildcats was established on average five days from the start of the survey, and in
all cases within eight days. Within two weeks, the presence of a second wildcats was also
established in all cases. Time taken to detect the presence of a third wildcat was longer and
overall we see an approximate doubling of time taken to detect each additional wildcat.
5.1.5. Discussion
Few wildcats were found across the study, highlighting the rarity of this species. The short
duration of this study and the low numbers of wildcats make it challenging to detect any
response to the conservation efforts of the CWP. With a small breeding population limiting
recruitment rate, without further monitoring we may not see detectable differences in
wildcat numbers. The CWP specifically targeted five estates dotted around the CNP, though
lower-level conservation efforts were implemented elsewhere. It is possible that effects of
improved management for wildcats on these five estates are hampered by management on
neighbouring estates. To be more effective in the future, wildcat conservation may need to
operate at a broader landscape level encompassing several connected estates that allow
unimpeded wildcat movement between breeding populations.
Data from estate A indicate that we fail to detect some wildcats in some years: two wildcats
on this estate were captured in 2009-10 and again in 2011-12, but only one of these was
detected in 2010-11. Wildcats can show strong site fidelity, with all individuals detected in
both 2010-11 and 2011-12 being captured at the same stations in both years. It is possible
however that some wildcats move in and out of the study area as prey populations fluctuate.
Our measure of cat turnover (survival and recruitment) was necessarily simple.
Nevertheless, there was a trend of increasing turnover (lower survival and greater
recruitment) moving from wildcats, through hybrids to domestic cats. This trend may in part
reflect predator-control practices, where domestic cats are more likely to be culled.
Alternatively, this trend may arise because wildcats (and to a lesser extent hybrids) are
better adapted to survival in the wild in the CNP. The higher recruitment of domestic cats
illustrates the need to manage breeding feral cat populations at the source.
The similarity in broad-scale habitat association of the different cat groups (wildcat, hybrid
and domestic cat) shows the importance of managing domestic cats and hybrids for wildcat
conservation. Indeed, the location records presented in Table 5.4 show considerable spatial
overlap between wildcats and hybrids and/or domestics on those estates where they co-
occur. Daniels et al. (2001) also found no difference in habitat preference between two tabby
cat groups that he distinguished as closest to and furthest from wildcat based on limb and
gut morphology. We did however find some indication of a difference in finer-scale habitat
association between domestic cats and hybrids or wildcats: domestic cats appear to show
preference against dense forest exhibiting canopy-closure. Wildcats and hybrids did not
show this preference and appeared to prefer habitat with a denser shrub layer and shorter
herb layer. A denser shrub layer will provide greater cover while a shorter herb layer may
make movement easier. Weber (2007) also found evidence that domestic cats avoid using
deep forest areas away from habitat edges, whereas wildcats do not.
59
We also detected differences in the temporal activity patterns of cats, with domestic cats
showing diurnal activity and wildcats and hybrid cats showing crepuscular-nocturnal activity
patterns. Corbett (1979) also noted that wildcats were largely nocturnal. Our results may
arise from some of the domestic cats on the estates being house cats that were shut in at
night, or because domestic cats are less fearful of human activity. Langham (1992) noted for
free-living domestic cats in New Zealand (where there are no wildcats) that, with the
exception of some males, cats were chiefly nocturnal in autumn-winter-spring. It is possible
that the diurnal activity of domestic cats found here also arises from temporal partitioning
between domestic cats and other cats. While this difference in temporal activity may reduce
the probability of contact between domestic cats and the other cat groups, domestic cats
were not exclusively diurnal and wildcats and hybrid cats were not exclusively nocturnal.
Therefore opportunities for domestic cats encountering other cats remain. The similarity in
the temporal activity patterns and habitat association between wildcats and hybrid cats
indicates that introgression between these groups is a continuing threat.
Our data is relatively coarse compared with that gained from radio-tracking of individuals
and further radio-telemetry analysis may reveal more differences. Indeed, other studies in
Europe have found indications of differences in habitat use by the different cats (e.g. Biro
2004; Weber 2007; Germain et al. 2009). Identifying such differences would aid wildcat
conservation by improving wildcat-specific habitat management. Our results of the broad-
scale habitat association of all cats combined, where cover habitat in non-upland areas is
preferred, generally agrees with the findings of other studies on both wildcats (e.g. Klar
2005; 2008; Poto čnik et al. 2005; Saramento et al. 2006) and domestic cats (e.g. Hall et al.
2000; Edwards et al. 2002). In contrast to Daniels et al. (2001) and Klar et al. (2008) we did
not find evidence of positive selection by cats for riparian wooded habitat.
While we were not able to assess the effect of increasing the survey effort by surveying
much beyond 80 days or increasing the density of camera stations, decreasing effort in terms
of time and station density did result in a decrease in the detection of cats. In particular,
decreasing station density resulted in a roughly proportional decrease in detection. These
results suggest that the station density and survey period set out by Kilshaw and Macdonald
(2011) is about right for assessing cat populations. If we wanted to simply establish the
presence of wildcats however, much less effort is required. From our analysis, a two week
survey using 20 camera stations would be sufficient to establish the presence of otherwise of
wildcats in a survey area. Such rapid surveys could then be employed to quickly map wildcat
presence over large areas. Based on wildcat habitat association, these rapid surveys could be
further streamlined by not employing the grid layout used in this study but instead setting
out cameras 1km apart solely in prey-rich wooded habitat.
60
Figure 5.4. Map of Estate A. Red points represent the location of each of the 20 camera trap
locations, with the 100m buffer around each camera trap location shown in red cross-hatch.
61
Figure 5.5. Map of Estate B. Red points represent the location of each of the 20 camera trap
locations, with the 100m buffer around each camera trap location shown in red cross-hatch.
62
Figure 5.6. Map of Estate C. Red points represent the location of each of the 20 camera trap
locations, with the 100m buffer around each camera trap location shown in red cross-hatch.
63
Figure 5.7. Map of Estate D. Red points represent the location of each of the 20 camera trap
locations, with the 100m buffer around each camera trap location shown in red cross-hatch.
64
Figure 5.8. Map of Estate E. Red points represent the location of each of the 20 camera trap
locations, with the 100m buffer around each camera trap location shown in red cross-hatch.
65
5.2 Opportunistic camera trapping
5.2.1 The Five Estates
Outside of the intensive camera trapping periods, estate staff assisted with opportunistic
camera trapping, i.e. the use of one or two camera traps to monitor areas of the estate
which appear to be suitable for wildcats or have had recent observations. This involved them
setting up cameras, supplying bait, checking batteries, and downloading photos. This type of
monitoring resulted in photographs of: a wildcat on Estate A; two domestic cats on Estate C;
a domestic cat on Estate D; and a wildcat, a hybrid and three domestics on Estate E.
Fig. 5.7 Photo of a wildcat taken on a camera trap set up by a gamekeeper on Estate E.
Fig. 5.8 Photo of a presumed domestic cat taken on a camera trap on Estate D following a tip-off from a
gamekeeper of cat field signs
66
5.2.2 Elsewhere in the Cairngorms National Park
Aside from the intensive and opportunistic camera trapping practised on the five
participating estates, the Project also loaned out cameras to key individuals and organisations
for smaller-scale opportunistic camera trapping around the National Park (Fig. 5.9). Cameras
were typically looked after by National Park rangers or by staff from partner organisations
and local conservation groups and wildlife enthusiasts who were given best practice
information developed during the intensive camera trapping sessions on the estates. Several
cat photos were taken at different sites across the National Park, including several wildcat
shots in Badenoch & Strathspey, thus adding to our understanding of wildcat distribution and
behaviour. The cameras also captured other local wildlife, including the first confirmed pine
marten record for Glen Clova in the Angus Glens. A growing number of organisations and
individuals in the National Park now have their own camera traps and these were
encouraged to submit any photos of potential wildcats to the Project, resulting in several
interesting records.
Fig. 5. 9. Map of Cairngorms National Park showing indicative locations of opportunistic camera trapping
67
Fig. 5.10. Photo taken in January on a Project camera trap set up by a member of the public
at their remote house in Strathspey
Fig. 5.11. Photo taken on a camera trap belonging to a Project partner in the Badenoch area
of the Cairngorms National Park
5.3 Sightings records
Records of sightings and roadkill carcases are very useful sources of data about the potential
distribution of wildcats in and around the Cairngorms National Park. The importance of
reporting sightings to the Project is stressed during talks and at events, as is the reporting
and collection of roadkill carcases.
68
Since its launch, the Project collated records of potential wildcats and hybrids from across
the National Park and beyond. The records were a mixture of unsubstantiated sightings,
sightings with photos, camera trap images, and carcases. Members of the public could report
sightings via a form on www.highlandtiger.com, while there was also a considerable amount
of word of mouth contact via associates of the Project. Often the Project received a flurry of
records after media coverage, especially a newspaper or magazine article which encouraged
readers to report sightings via the website. Records were also often forthcoming from
visitors at public events such as countryside fairs. Surprisingly, many records to date have
been accompanied by photographs or video footage taken by observers on their digital
cameras or mobile phones, and this is very useful for substantiating sightings.
A total of 273 records were collated from across the Cairngorms National Park area, with
the majority of these being unsubstantiated sightings records. 45% of records were
supported with photographic evidence, while 10% related to carcases. Given the Project’s
long awareness-raising reach, records were not confined to the National Park and a total of
197 further records were collated from other parts of Scotland. Records of wild-living,
tabby-marked cats came from every part of the Cairngorms National Park where wooded
landscapes occur, with the exception of the Angus Glens (Fig. 5. 12).
Fig 5. 12. Map of the Cairngorms National Park showing location of all records, both substantiated and
unsubstantiated, of wild-living, tabby-marked cats collated by the Project.
However, experiences with other felid species elsewhere in Europe shows the merits of
treating different kinds of records differently in terms of their reliability. The national
monitoring system for Eurasian lynx in Switzerland acknowledges the varying reliability
69
between substantiated records such as photographs and carcases on one hand, and
unsubstantiated sightings on the other (Breitenmoser et al., 2006). Sightings data from
members of the public typically implies a geographical distribution for lynx considerably in
excess of that implied by substantiated means such as camera trap photos, roadkill carcases,
and field signs as identified by trained experts. Many of the unsubstantiated records are likely
to be correct but they are prone to biases and are handled with care. This is probably an
even more acute issue for wildcats than for lynx as wildcats can be very similar in
appearance, especially to the untrained eye, to other felids in the same landscape such as
hybrids and tabby-marked domestic cats.
Consequently a categorisation system was developed for the various records which takes
into account both the verifiability of the record, as well as the likely type of cat. Each record
is assigned a letter A or B, based on the level of substantiation – A records were supported
with photographic evidence or a carcase, while B records were unsubstantiated sightings
records. The record then receives a number 1, 2, or 3 based on whether the described coat
markings correspond with a probable wildcat (1); a probable hybrid (2); or a possible wildcat
(3). An unsubstantiated sightings record of a cat matching the description of a wildcat (i.e.
tabby-marked cat with no white feet, but which has a thick, ringed, blunt tail) is categorised
as B1. Records where there is insufficient detail to ascertain from coat markings whether a
tabby-marked cat is a wildcat or not are awarded a 3. So for example, a camera trap photo
depicting a stripy cat but where the tail was not visible would be ascribed a category of A3.
Records were logged on a Geographic Information System (GIS) and passed to the North
East Scotland Biological Records Centre (NESBReC) before they will be made publicly
available with an appropriate level of spatial detail via the NBN Gateway.
Figure 5. 13 shows the distribution of categorised records. Unsubstantiated records are
represented by blue triangles and are more widespread. Substantiated records are
represented by circles and those with the strongest likelihood of describing wildcats
(category A1) are red. A1 records have a westerly distribution within the National Park
being found only in Badenoch, Strathspey, Perthshire and a sole record in Glenlivet. There
were no A1 records from the Aberdeenshire portion of the CNP, although other tabby-
marked cats judged to be domestics and hybrids were recorded there photographically or as
carcases. Hybrids were confirmed from across the National Park with the exception of the
Angus Glens, where recording effort was probably lower than in other areas.
5.4 Carcases
Carcases can provide much-needed information on distribution and hybridisation, as well as
on diet, disease etc.
During the period 1992-1995 a sample of 192 wild-living cat carcases had been collected
mainly in eastern Scotland by Balharry and Daniels (1998). Using the strict 7PS pelage score,
none of these cats were identified as wildcats at the time (Kitchener, 2012) and only eight of
a slightly larger sample of wild-living cats were considered to be wildcats based on both their
genetics (microsatellites) and pelage (Kilshaw et al. 2010).
As part of the Cairngorms Wildcat Project the public were encouraged to report roadkill
carcases to the Project and where possible transport them to freezers at the Highland
Wildlife Park, SNH office in Aviemore, the Glen Tanar estate or local veterinary practices.
70
Some of the carcases of tabby-marked cats which were shot on some of the five estates
were also retained in freezers for analysis.
Fig 5. 13. Map of the Cairngorms National Park showing locations
of all categorised records of wild-living, tabby-marked cats collated
by the Project.
In total, 56 carcases of tabby-marked cats from within and outwith the CNP were retrieved
via the Project and sent to the National Museums of Scotland (NMS) in Edinburgh for
analysis of pelage and skull morphometrics to determine their taxonomic status.
In 2011 SNH commissioned the NMS to analyse 19 cat carcases recovered from 1999 to
early 2010, the collation of most of which was coordinated by the Project (see Appendix 6).
The Project takes a precautionary approach to carcases and so any roadkill tabby-marked
cats from rural areas were collected for analysis. 15 of these came from the Cairngorms
National Park, 3 were from Aberdeenshire and 1 was from NW Sutherland. On the basis of
skull and/or pelage characteristics, two of the cats from Aberdeenshire and Sutherland were
judged to be hybrids, while one Aberdeenshire cat was unidentifiable. Of the 15 from the
Cairngorms, 3 from Strathspey were judged to be potential wildcats by the relaxed criteria
(none were classed as wildcats by strict criteria); 2 were hybrids (1 Strathspey; 1
Perthshire); 5 were domestics (all Strathspey); and 3 were either hybrids or domestics (2
Strathspey; 1 Donside). Two were unidentifiable.
71
More recently a further round of tabby-marked cat carcases collated by the Project was sent
for pelage analysis to the NMS. Final results are awaited but provisional results indicate that
most carcases correspond to hybrids or tabby domestics. There was, however, one cat
provisionally judged to be a wildcat. It was found dead in January 2012 at the side of the A9
near Dalwhinnie in the Badenoch part of the Cairngorms National Park.
Camera-trapping does suggest that wildcats still occur more widely in the CNP, especially in
the western half. However, most of the cat carcases submitted were roadkills and it has
been hypothesised that roadkill carcases may not be representative of the wild-living cat
population as a whole, and in particular may be under-represented by wildcats, either for
ecological or behavioural reasons (A. Kitchener, pers. comm.). This may explain the relative
paucity of cats in the carcase sample that were judged to be wildcats. All assessed carcases
of tabby-marked cats shot on any of the five estates have been provisionally judged to be
hybrids or tabby domestics.
A test of cat mitochondrial DNA was developed a few years ago and while undoubtedly a
significant breakthrough, provides an incomplete picture about a cat’s genetic background.
Mitochondrial DNA is inherited through the mother’s side only, and so a test result showing
wildcat ancestry could still nevertheless mean that the animal is a hybrid, as it tells us nothing
about the father’s side. Other DNA analyses to date have been based on 9-13 microsatellite
markers (see Kilshaw et al 2010). In conjunction with the RZSS, the University of Chester is
seeking to develop a test based on markers derived from screening the entire wildcat
genome. It is hoped that this may lead to a more definitive assessment of a cat’s genetic
make-up, i.e. what proportion of the markers are from a wild or domestic lineage. This has
obvious applications for testing the purity of captive wildcats listed on the stud book, but
also for testing roadkill carcases or cat’s temporarily caught under licence prior to their
release. It is anticipated that a protocol for testing mitochondrial DNA of cat faeces could
also be developed, which could have a useful application in field surveys.
SNH has commissioned the University of Chester to genetically test a sample of the
contemporary cat carcases from the Cairngorms National Park to assess hybridisation. The
results of these assays will not be available until after the end of the Project, but will be
incorporated with the Project findings to inform future conservation actions for wildcats in
the Cairngorms National Park.
72
6. Conclusions
The Project MoU had a stated aim relating to the identification of successful, tested
conservation measures, and the assessment of the potential for their wider application in
other relevant areas:
• To secure the future of the Scottish wildcat within the Cairngorms National Park
(CNP), leading to further action across a wider area of Scotland
Furthermore, one of the objectives of the Project was:
• To provide an efficient and effective programme of activities which could be
applied for the benefit of Scottish wildcat across a wider geographic area of
Scotland
6.1 Raising awareness of wildcats and their conservation
It is clear that the public are interested in wildcats and motivated by wildcat conservation.
Harnessing that enthusiasm has helped help meet Project objectives and management,
including drawing in significant financial donations which can then be used to fund Project
activities. The media reach of the Project and its messages, e.g. the need for domestic cats to
be neutered, has been prolific and extensive. Increased public awareness of the issues has
brought a flow of information and intelligence in to the Project on the occurrences of
unneutered farm or feral cat colonies. Furthermore, the wider public has helped to monitor
populations of potential wildcats by reporting sightings and carcases, as well as submitting
photographs. Collating these data and plotting them on a GIS helps to detect spatial patterns
in wild-living cat populations in and around the Cairngorms National Park.
To date the Project Manager has coordinated responses to media requests to feature the
Project and has given presentations on the Project to over 2000 people. Furthermore, he
has acted as a conduit for the collation and plotting records of potential wildcats and feral
cats. The latter in particular highlights the need for a person or persons to act as a point of
contact beyond the life-time of the Project. The website is proposed to remain as the main
vehicle for reporting records with some ongoing site management from RZSS and others.
6.2 Neutering domestic cats
The Project has invested considerable effort into raising awareness generally and to specific
audiences within the park. Yet no obvious trends in feline veterinary care were detected
over past 3 years in and around the CNP. The reasons for this are not fully understood, but
may reflect that levels of care were already good (J. Harley, Strathspey Veterinary Centre,
pers. comm.); that individuals are not motivated to get cats neutered as they don’t feel
responsible for them; or the economic downturn has resulted in less disposable income
available for pet cats (J. Harley, pers. comm). It might be expected that neutering rates would
plateau or even decline once a large proportion of the population has been neutered, so no
clear increase in neutering after 3 years might reflect success.
The Project sought to work with established Cats Protection volunteer TNR teams to make
best use of existing expertise and resources and to promote the sustainability of feral cat
population control beyond the life-time of Project. The Project helped to recruit and train
73
new TNR volunteers, collate information from the public on occurrences of unneutered
farm and feral cats, and raise awareness amongst a key target audience - the farming
community. Over the course of the Project, the Trapping, Neutering and Return of feral cats
in the Cairngorms National Park was expanded and in part intensified. The number of Cats
Protection branches active within the National Park has risen from one to three and the
annual number of neutered ferals has risen correspondingly from 6 in 2009 to 51 in 2011,
and had surpassed that annual figure during the first half of 2012. These figures do suggest
that, in at least some areas of the National Park, large populations of unneutered, free-
ranging domestic cats remain. The rise in neutering within the National Park has not been
mirrored in areas surrounding the Park, where there has been a marked decrease in the
number of ferals being trapped over the same time period.
It is currently not possible to evaluate the benefits of the TNR programme to wildcats as the
abundance of unneutered cats is unknown. The extent of the interaction between feral
domestic cats and wildcats, and therefore the level of threat posed to wildcats, has not been
quantified. It stands to reason, however, that a large population of unvaccinated, unneutered
domestic cats in the same landscape as a relatively small wildcat population will lead to:
competition for food resources and territory; more cat control by gamekeepers which, if
not precautionary, could put wildcats at risk; increased risk of disease transmission; and an
increased risk of interbreeding and hybridisation. The TNR process, which includes
euthanizing cats with potentially fatal diseases, should result in a lower, more stable,
domestic cat population which poses no risk to wildcats through interbreeding.
Gamekeeping staff from one of the participating estates had passed information to the
Project about local farms where colonies of unneutered cats were thought to occur and
which were thought to be acting as sources for the comparatively high numbers of feral cats
encountered by keepers in the wider area. This situation was communicated to Cats
Protection and a volunteer TNR branch was consequently established. TNR activity
subsequently confirmed that unneutered colonies did occur on several local farms and that
feral cats were widespread across the local landscape, often in habitats where wildcats could
occur, something which was also confirmed by camera trapping. While is not possible to
state explicitly the effect of feral cat TNR on wildcats, the experiences in this particular area
imply that a landscape supporting unneutered colonies at farms or other settlements will
have a correspondingly high number of feral cats in the wider countryside, which could pose
a significant conservation threat to wildcats. The high volume of ongoing TNR now occurring
there (around 50 cats been trapped and neutered between January and July 2012), should
therefore reduce the numbers of unneutered cats in the wider landscape, where they are
subject to lethal control by gamekeepers, and thus reduce the scope for inter-breeding with
wildcats. There is a need, therefore, to continue to collect neutering, camera trap, and
gamekeeping data from estates with which the Project has worked, so that the effects of
TNR can be better understood.
There is potential for TNR to continue to be more targeted and contribute more to wildcat
conservation as more intelligence is forthcoming and greater understanding of wildcat
populations develops. There is also a continuing need for collaboration between estates,
farmers and Cats Protection TNR branches, with vets continuing to perform a key advocacy
role both with pet cat owners and farmers. The CNPA will continue to produce and
74
distribute the ‘Cats in the Countryside’ leaflet, and in particular make it available to Cats
Protection volunteers and local vets as an aid for their advocacy work.
The new volunteers that the Project has helped to attract to TNR will hopefully continue to
be actively involved. However, much of the decrease in the total TNR figures for the
branches peripheral to the National Park can be attributed to the reduced activity of a single
volunteer in one particular branch who had less time available for TNR. Similarly, effective
TNR in the Cairngorms is highly dependent on a small number of highly motivated
volunteers. The rise of TNR activity within the National Park, which can at least be partly
attributable to the Project, is therefore fragile and could be difficult to sustain if there is not
a concerted effort to ensure that volunteer branches are sufficiently motivated, coordinated,
trained and resourced.
6.3 Working with estates
The Project has achieved positive engagement with the gamekeeping profession through
partnership and targeted awareness-raising. This appears to have improved the ability of
gamekeepers to identify wildcats in the field and has encouraged them to be more wildcat-
friendly in their activities. There is also some evidence of changes in attitudes to wildcats in
the land management sector that can be attributed to the Project. Survey responses and
interviews with estate staff have indicated that gamekeepers that have come into contact
with the Project’s messages do take precautionary approaches to the control of feral cats
where there is a chance it could be a wildcat. Furthermore, evidence, both anecdotal and
from the anonymous gamekeepers’ questionnaire suggests there have been several instances
of potential wildcats surviving situations unscathed where prior to the Project they would
have been shot. The Project, through its use of camera traps, has flagged up that wildcats can
be present on estates even where they have not been observed and identified by
gamekeeping staff. There has been a small increase on participating estates in the use of cage
traps, but spot lighting is still the most common method for controlling feral cats, although it
is largely undertaken with fox control in mind. Cage-trapping should continue to be a
component of feral cat control particularly where there is an acute predation issue or where
there is any doubt about the identify of a particular cat or cats. However, it should be noted
that a licence is required from SNH where it is judged that there is a significant likelihood of
deliberately or recklessly catching a wildcat.
The Project looked in detail at 5 estates only and it could be that those estates are more
open and transparent with their management activities than other estates. However the
results from these estates would appear to demonstrate an interest in wildcat conservation;
good awareness of the issues; and that reasonable steps have been taken to protect wildcats
and avoid offences. Some have also recognised the kudos and/or wildlife tourism value of
having wildcats on their land.
Over the course of the 3 years of the Project, staff at the five estates have removed 327
feral cats and poor hybrids as potential hybridisation threats to wildcats. The vast majority
of these were shot, while a very small number were neutered. There is evidence that the
approach in the field is precautionary and, that as well as preserving wildcats, will also
preserve good hybrids. However, until further field-practical, discriminatory techniques are
available and we have a better understanding of hybridisation within the wild-living cat
population, the Project’s approach is likely to have been appropriate. The precautionary
75
approach to feral cat control is also likely to make a positive contribution to wildcat
conservation, particularly if it is carried out in tandem with increased local neutering of pet
and feral domestic cats.
In order for the estates protocol for wildcat conservation to be self-sustaining and therefore
established practice more widely, there is a need to engage with owners and estate staff in a
structured manner across a wider area. Aspects of the protocol, such as wildcat ID, could
therefore be incorporated into gamekeeper training courses on predator control run by
organisations such as the CNPA, SGA, BASC, and GWCT.
6.4 Research & monitoring
There were some apparent disparities between the various monitoring methods employed.
While one estate reported unsubstantiated potential wildcat sightings by staff and public
roughly in line with the frequency of detection by intensive camera trapping, three of the five
estates reported several unsubstantiated sightings of potential wildcats which were not
confirmed by intensive camera trapping. Some of this disparity could be explained by the
often fleeting and distant nature of wild-living cat sightings, which could make
misidentification more likely than with camera trap photos. Alternatively, on Estate B all
unsubstantiated sightings by estate staff took place on parts of the estate not subject to
intensive camera trapping, thus raising the possibility that some cats in the wider landscape
were missed by the camera traps, which were deployed on a roughly 20km2 grid pattern.
Many estates in the Cairngorms National Park, including all five monitored for the Project,
are substantially larger than 20km2.
One of the estates (E) experienced the converse, as camera trapping detected the presence
of wildcats, which had not been picked up by the observations of gamekeeping staff, despite
the use of lamps at night by several gamekeepers in a wide range of terrain there.
Camera traps proved to be a reasonably reliable means of detecting key pelage
characteristics. Camera trapping therefore can be a useful and effective method for
monitoring wild-living cats and, when used intensively over several years, could help detect
trends in populations. It is also a useful tool for engaging the media, the general public, and
estate staff.
The numbers of wildcats observed during the intensive monitoring were too low to make
any general observations about populations or densities, particularly given the relatively
short duration of the Project. Estimates were derived for one estate, but it is not known
how representative this estate is of the wider area, especially given the variation in results
between estates. Intensive monitoring on 5 estates between two years showed no
statistically significant change in wildcat numbers (or of any cat), though there is a suggestion
of a small increase in wildcats. There was a trend of increasing turnover (more losses and
more new cats appearing between years) moving through a spectrum from wildcats through
hybrid cats to domestic cats. This may be due to wildcat friendly predator control methods
or perhaps because wildcats are better adapted to living in the surveyed environments.
However, with more data it would be possible to build up a picture of population densities
and changes over time, which could be linked to land management practices. Furthermore,
intensive camera trapping could be rolled out to previously unsurveyed areas in order to
build up a more comprehensive picture of where wildcats occur.
76
Evidence from pelage and morphological analyses of roadkill carcasses and/or camera trap
photos indicate a high proportion of domestics and hybrids living in the Park. Nearly all
wildcats were recorded in close proximity to areas where hybrids were also recorded so
hybrids continue to pose a real threat to wildcats in the Cairngorms National Park through
hybridisation and potentially competition.
Although there were unsubstantiated sightings, the lack of substantiated evidence from
photographs and carcases suggests that wildcats are very scarce on the eastern side of the
National Park (Donside, Deeside & Angus Glens). The east-west split may highlight a
difference in historical land management practice, as estates in the east are typically more
intensively managed for red grouse shooting, with large areas of open moorland and greater
historic predator control. Wildcat populations have recently been detected by intensive
camera trapping on lower ground in parts of Aberdeenshire further to the east of the
National Park (K. Kilshaw, pers. comm.). These populations, and indeed those in the west of
the National Park, could potentially be sources for natural repopulation of the eastern
Cairngorms National Park in a climate of improved wildcat management, but movement
could be impeded by habitat fragmentation and/or predator control activities detrimental to
wildcats.
6.5 Synthesis
What is the outlook for wildcat conservation in Cairngorms National Park?
The phenotypic wildcat does occur in the Cairngorms National Park but appears to be rare
and restricted in its distribution. The risk of hybridisation persists as a result of the presence
of hybrids and domestic ferals in areas where wildcats occur.
There are several parties interested in contributing to wildcat conservation and much
improved levels of public awareness and support, including among influential groups such as
gamekeepers and other wildlife managers. The network of Cats Protection TNR volunteers
has been expanded and strengthened within the National Park, resulting in a steep increase
in the numbers of farm and feral cats neutered.
In the absence of a dedicated Project Manager what aspects of the Project will
continue in the Cairngorms National Park?
• A network of trained TNR volunteers resourced by Cats Protection
• Gamekeeping staff on estates continuing with wildcat-friendly predator control
• The promotion of wildcat field identification by gamekeeping organisations to their
members
• Vets acting as advocates for responsible cat ownership and TNR
• Awareness-raising and education work by RZSS using Highland Tiger brand, including
website, Facebook and YouTube, as well as feeding time talks at the Highland Wildlife
Park
• SNH, CNPA and FCS ensuring that wildcats are well considered during the development
management process
77
• The continuation of intensive camera trapping by RZSS to expand the existing dataset
and thus better analyse trends in wild-living cat populations.
• Highland Wildlife Park and SNH Aviemore office to continue to take roadkill carcasses
locally for freezing before transfer to, and assessment at, NMS.
• Collation of public sightings and photographic data by SNH, CNPA and RZSS, including
via Highland Tiger website
Can we make recommendations for a package of conservation measures that could
be applied elsewhere?
• Broad, public awareness-raising about wildcats and their conservation should continue.
This lends itself to national campaigns utilising vehicles such as SNH publications and the
Highland Tiger brand managed by RZSS. Other, more specific audiences may need a
different, more targeted approach via key media, such as organisational membership
magazines and websites.
• Cats Protection could perhaps have a targeted awareness-raising campaign in tandem
with local vets aimed at the agricultural sector, but this is likely to need some proactive
engagement from wildcat interest groups.
• The more active, targeted TNR of cats in rural areas, facilitated by public sympathy for
wildcats, could be replicated beyond the National Park where there are active volunteer
networks e.g. Cats Protection or conservation volunteers. Given that the intensification
of TNR in the National Park is very recent it is currently difficult to evaluate its impacts
on wildcat populations. There are relatively low levels of TNR activity in some key areas,
but it has increased markedly in others. This may reflect spatial differences in the
abundance of free-ranging domestic cats, which may themselves have been shaped by
historical levels of TNR. However, just as likely is that it is governed by both the current
availability and motivation of volunteers. A reduction in availability of just one active
volunteer can have significant implications for levels of TNR. Furthermore, strategic
TNR may be difficult to implement in more remote areas, where there might be
increased distances and travel times between field sites, volunteers’ homes, and
veterinary services. Other species interests operate a network of volunteer co-
ordinators, e.g. the British Trust for Ornithology, but this requires dedicated staff to
support the network. Having staff specifically dedicated to the coordination of TNR
activities across wider landscapes was explored by the Cairngorms Wildcat Project in
partnership with Cats Protection but resourcing issues during an economic downturn
ultimately prevented CP from recruiting for such a post. Project staff co-ordinating TNR
has nevertheless been proposed for the Wildcat Haven project in Ardnamurchan. A key
action would be to identify other stronghold areas which support wildcat populations in
need of protection and to consider what contribution TNR could make and how it could
best be supported and co-ordinated in those areas.
• Closer liaison with the agricultural sector, including groups such as Quality Meat
Scotland, may help to identify incentives for farmers to ensure responsible cat
ownership. For example, this could ascertain if there are, or could be, required
standards of animal husbandry connected to the occurrence of cats, such as minimising
78
the spread of toxoplasmosis to livestock, which should be met for participation in
assurance schemes.
• Wildcat-friendly predator control should be encouraged more widely. The Scottish
Gamekeepers Association’s representation on the Project partnership, the Project’s
close collaboration with local estates, and its liaison with the wider gamekeeping
profession, have all helped to improve communication and engagement between
agencies and the gamekeeping community about the conservation of a threatened
predator. Traditionally, consensus between such groups on issues of predator
conservation has been hard to reach, often resulting in conflicts around other species.
The indications are that the Project’s positive engagement has increased awareness
among gamekeepers of wildcat conservation issues and improved field identification
skills, both of which should directly benefit wildcat populations by reducing the
likelihood of wildcats being shot during predator control activities. The wildcat-friendly
estates protocol could be adopted in other areas, ideally taken on by the gamekeeping
community through their own in-house training and awareness raising materials. To
date, adoption of the protocol has been integrated into the estates’ ongoing game
management objectives and activities. However, there may be scope for it to be more
proactively promoted and supported by publicly-funded land management support
mechanisms such as SRDP. A wildcat conservation option could also include a
requirement for camera trap monitoring and responsible cat ownership and/or TNR,
something which has already been investigated for the SRDP’s existing point system by
the Scottish Agricultural College (R. Marwick, pers. comm.) However, this requires
further consideration by the relevant agencies.
• Intensive camera trap monitoring, perhaps combined with some genetic sampling, could
be rolled out to other areas. This is time- and resource-intensive and it may not be
realistic to target everywhere at public expense. Therefore there is a need to target
survey to key areas based on intelligence. There is scope to incorporate the growing
amateur interest in camera trapping and assessable camera technologies, e.g. mobile
phone cameras and videos. Best practice advice on camera trapping for wildcats,
including baiting methods, should be made more widely available so as to maximise the
effectiveness of such camera trapping. Wildcat data should be collated and subject to
quality control before submission ultimately to a central point such as NBN.
What happens next?
• Having taken stock of the Project’s findings and discussions at the closing conference,
develop future actions by way of an updated Action Plan. SNH has offered to co-
ordinate this process involving interested parties.
• The collation of various cat data and records needs to continue. This should include:
veterinary data from local vets and Cats Protection branches; sightings of potential
wildcats and hybrids by the public and estate staff; collection and assessment of roadkill
carcases; feral cat data from the five estates; and the number, type and density of cats
caught on camera traps. Amongst other things, this will help to further assess the
effectiveness of measures trialled by the Cairngorms Wildcat Project. These activities
79
will have to continue on a more informal basis than during the Project but it is hoped
that they will continue.
• An informal Steering Group consisting largely of the Project’s partners will continue to
meet for the time being to help secure the legacy of the Project and contribute to the
development of further actions for wildcat conservation.
80
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to Kerry Kilshaw who assisted with record collation and to Andrew
Kitchener who assessed various collected cat carcases and many of the cat photographs the
Project collated. The partners also wish to extend their thanks to the many people who
contributed information, time and effort to the Cairngorms Wildcat Project. These include:
the gamekeeping staff of collaborating estates; the vets from the practices around the
National Park; Cats Protection staff and volunteers; members of the public who’ve reported
sightings and carcases of potential wildcats; and all those who’ve donated generously to the
Highland Tiger conservation fund.
Image credits: Front cover – Laurie Campbell; P31 – source: Kitchener, A.C., Yamaguchi, N., Ward, J.M. and
Macdonald, D.W. (2005). A diagnosis for the Scottish wildcat: a tool for conservation action for a critically-
endangered felid. Animal Conservation 8: 223-237.
81
Bibliography
Ballesteros-Duperón, E., Barea-Azcón, J. M., Moleón, M., Virgós, E., Gil-Sánchez, J. M.,
Chirosa. M. (2005) Preliminary results on habitat preferences of a wildcat (Felis silvestris
Schreber, 1777) population in an area of south of Spain: influence of rabbit distribution and
abundance. In: Biology and Conservation of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris).
Symposium abstracts. Ed: M. Herrmann. Vosges du Nord – Pfälzerwald, Germany, Jan 21st –
23rd. pp24.
Barto ń K (2012) Package ‘MuMIn’: Multi-model inference. R package, version 1.7.2.
Bates, D. and Maechler, M. 2011. Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. http://lme4.r-
forge.r-project.org/
Biro, Z. S., 2004. Home range sizes of wildcats () and feral domestic cats ( f. catus) in a hilly
region of hungary. Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde 69 (5), 302-310.
Breitenmoser, U., Breitenmoser-Würsten, C., von Arx, M., Zimmermann, F., Ryser, A.,
Angst, C., Molinari-Jobin, A., Molinari, P., Linnell, J., Siegenthaler, A. and Weber, J.M. (2006)
Guidelines for the monitoring of lynx. KORA Bericht 33e. KORA, Muri.
Cairngorms Wildcat Project (2010) Predator control and the Scottish wildcat: report on the
workshop. Pirnielimited.
Corbett, L. K. (1979) Feeding ecology and social organisation of wildcats (Felis silvestris) and
domestic cat (Felis catus) in Scotland. PhD Thesis. University of Aberdeen. Sept. 296 pages.
Daniels, M. J., Beaumont, M. A., Johnson, P. J., Balharry, D., Macdonald, D. W., Barratt, E.
(2001) Ecology and genetics of Wild-Living cats in the North-East of Scotland and the
implications for the conservation of the wildcat. Journal of Applied Ecology 38, 146-161.
Edwards, G. P., Preu, N. D., Crealy, I. V., Shakeshaft, B. J., 2002. Habitat selection by feral
cats and dingoes in a semi-arid woodland environment in central Australia. Austral Ecology 27
(1), 26-31.
Freckleton, R. P., Jan. 2011. Dealing with collinearity in behavioural and ecological data:
model averaging and the problems of measurement error. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology
65 (1), 91-101.
Germain, E., Ruette, S., Poulle, M.-L., Sep. 2009. Likeness between the food habits of
european wildcats, domestic cats and their hybrids in france. Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift
fur Saugetierkunde 74 (5), 412-417.
Hall, L. S., Kasparian, M. A., Van Vuren, D., Kelt, D. A. (2000) Spatial organization and habitat
use of feral cats (Felis catus l.) in Mediterranean California. Mammalia 64 (1), 19-28.
82
Kilshaw, K. & Macdonald, D.W. (2011). The use of camera trapping as a method to survey for
the Scottish wildcat. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 479.
Kitchener, A.C., Yamaguchi, N., Ward, J.M. and Macdonald, D.W. (2005). A diagnosis for the
Scottish wildcat: a tool for conservation action for a critically-endangered felid. Animal
Conservation 8: 223-237
Kitchener, A.C. & O’Connor, T. (2010) Wildcats, domestic and feral cats. In: O’Connor, T &
Sykes, N (eds) Extinctions and invasions: a social history of British fauna. Windgather Press,
Oxford.
Klar, N. (2005). Wildcats in the Eifel – Why are they bound to forest? In: Biology and
Conservation of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestris). Symposium abstracts. Ed: M.
Herrmann. Vosges du Nord – Pfälzerwald, Germany, Jan 21st – 23rd. pp18.
Klar, N., Fernandez, N., Kramerschadt, S., Herrmann, M., Trinzen, M., Buttner, I., Niemitz,
C., Jan. 2008. Habitat selection models for European wildcat conservation. Biological
Conservation 141 (1), 308-319.
Langham, N. P. E. (1992). Feral cats (Felis catus l.) on New Zealand farmland. II. Seasonal
activity. Wildlife Research 19 (6), 707-720.
Longcore, T., Rich, C., Sullivan, L.M. (2009). Critical Assessment of Claims Regarding
Management of Feral Cats by Trap–Neuter–Return Conservation Biology, 23, (4), 887–894.
Lozano, J., Virgós, E., Malo, A. F., Huertas, D. L., Casanovas, J. G., May (2003) Importance of
scrub–pastureland mosaics for wild-living cats occurrence in a Mediterranean area:
implications for the conservation of the wildcat (Felis silvestris). Biodiversity and Conservation
12 (5), 921-935.
Macdonald, D.W., Daniels, M.J., Driscoll, C., Kitchener, A. & Yamaguchi, N. (2004). The
Scottish wildcat: Analyses for conservation and an action plan. Wildlife Conservation Research
Unit, University of Oxford, 67 pp.
Poto čnik, H., Skr binšek, T., Kljun, F., Kis, I. (2005). Wildcat habitat utilization in the region
of Dinaric mountains (Slovenia). In: Biology and Conservation of the European wildcat (Felis
silvestris silvestris). Symposium abstracts. Ed: M. Herrmann. Vosges du Nord – Pfälzerwald,
Germany, Jan 21st – 23rd. pp20.
R Development Core Team (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0,
URL http://www.R-project.org.
Saramento, P., Cruz, J., Tarroso, P., Fonseca, C. (2006) Space and habitat selection by female
European wild cats (Felis silvestris silvestris). Wildlife Biology in Practice 2 (2), 79-89.
83
Scott, R., Easterbee, N., Jefferies, D. (1992) A radio-tracking study of wildcats in western
Scotland. Seminar on the biology and conservation of the wildcat (Felis silvestris), Nancy,
France, 23–25 September. Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France, pp. 94–97.
Theil, C. (2005) Spacing patterns and habitat use of wildcats in the Eifel. In: Biology and
Conservation of the European wildcat (Felis silvestris silvestrsis). Symposium abstracts. Ed: M.
Herrmann. Vosges du Nord – Pfälzerwald, Germany, Jan 21st – 23rd. pp21.
Weber, D. (2007) Monitoring Wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris): Guidance for a systematic survey
of the distribution of wildcats and for monitoring population changes over time,
Hintermanweber.ch, Rodersdorf. In German. Translated by H Schnell, H Armour and R
Maier. 20 pages.
84
Appendices
85
Appendix 1. Media coverage of the Cairngorms Wildcat Project 2009-12.
Titles are colour-coded according to media type. W Print media; W Web; W Radio; W TV
Period Title Local Scottish UK Intern'l
pre-May 09 Scottish Gamekeeper
Strathspey & Badenoch Herald
BBC News website
May-Jun 09 North Magazine
Scots
Scotsman
Herald
Thistledown - Glenlivet news
BBC News website
Moray Firth Radio
Reporting Scotland
STV News
One Show
Jul-Sep 09 Outdoor Photography
Oct-Dec 09 Cairngorms LBAP news
Scotland in Trust
Flybe inflight magazine
Apr-Jun 10 Daily Telegraph
Dundee Courier
Observer
Press & Journal
Daily Mail (Scotland)
Metro
Scotsman
Birmingham Mail
The Sun (Scotland)
Strathspey & Badenoch Herald
Press & Journal
Scottish Countryside Alliance
news
The Times
Outdoor Photography
BBC News website
BBC News Website
Press Association
Belfast Telegraph
Guardian
Herald
Daily Latest News
Birmingham Mail
Care2
86
Press & Journal
Scotsman
Telegraph
Times
Topix
Sun
Virgin Media
STV website
BBC Radio Scotland News
Moray Firth Radio
BBC Radio 4 News
Reporting Scotland
BBC Scotland News
Jul-Sep 10 BBc Wildlife
Daily Mail
Mammal News
Scottish Gamekeeper
Donside Piper
Sunday Mail
Strathspey & Badenoch Herald
Alford Pages
Mountain Views
Encyclopedia of Life
PBS radio
Oct-Dec 10 The Nature of Scotland
National Geographic
Scotsman
Scotland in Trust
Landward
Countryfile
Autumnwatch
Jan-Mar 11 Inverurie & Alford CP news
Out of Doors
Newsround
Apr-Jun 11 The Nethy
The People
Outer Aberdeen CP News
Shooting Times
Jul-Sep 11 Daily Mail
Banffshire Journal
Shooting Times
STV 'shorts'
Oct-Dec 11 Farm Woodland News
87
Scottish Gamekeeper
STV Highland News
360° Geo-Reportage
Documentary
Jan-Apr 12 Radio Scotland
Reporting Scotland
Newsround
BBC News website
Farming Today Radio 4
Scotsman
Herald
STV Website
Strathspey & Badenoch Herald
88
Appendix 2. Presentations on wildcat conservation given by the Project Manager
2008-12.
Date Interest Location Audience
07/03/2008
Gamekeeping Perth 120
15/04/2008 Public Aviemore 100
20/06/2008 Public Edinburgh 10
04/11/2008 Wildlife Fochabers 30
05/02/2009 Land management Grantown 20
17/02/2009 Agency Aviemore 15
26/03/2009 Agency Battleby 40
14/05/2009 Land management Mar Lodge 20
13/06/2009
Cat welfare Aviemore 100
29/09/2009 Wildlife Grantown 20
19/10/2009 Public Boat of Garten 20
04/11/2009 Wildlife Nethy Bridge 20
14/12/2009
Land management Glen Tanar 15
17/12/2009 Gamekeeping The Lecht 40
08/01/2010 Veterinary Wildlife Park 10
28/01/2010 Outdoor Stonehaven 30
03/02/2010 Public Kincraig 30
06/03/2010 Wildlife Aberdeen 90
26/03/2010 Gamekeeping Blair Atholl 10
15/04/2010 Wildlife Aberdeen 65
17/04/2010
Wildlife Boat of Garten 70
22/05/2010 Public Ballater 12
29/05/2010 Outdoor Nethy Bridge 100
05/06/2010 Cat welfare Wildlife Park 10
12/06/2010
Public Newtonmore 20
09/07/2010 Rangers Grantown 10
02/09/2010 Public Tomintoul 20
19/08/2010 Outdoor Glenmore 20
20/09/2010 Public Aboyne 50
28/09/2010 School Grantown 30
29/09/2010 Public Alford 150
27/10/2010 Farming The Lecht 50
30/10/2010
Cat welfare Stonehaven 20
31/10/2010 Cat welfare Aviemore 20
03/03/2011 Academic Aberdeen 60
08/03/2011 Wildlife Montrose 50
89
16/03/2011 Wildlife Inverness 100
15/03/2011 Rangers Aigas 10
03/05/2011 Academic Wildlife Park 15
12/05/2011 Public Glen Rinnes 30
16/05/2011 School Blair Atholl 24
19/05/2011 Public Grantown 60
19/09/2011 Academic Grantown 30
05/10/2011 Academic Wildlife Park 15
18/10/2011 Public Grantown 60
20/10/2011 Wildlife North Kessock 40
29/11/2011 Wildlife Carrbridge 20
01/03/2012 Academic Aberdeen 20
07/03/2012 Gamekeeping Perth 100
15/03/2012 Forestry Inverness 20
04/04/2012 Academic Wildlife Park 20
05/04/2012 Public Pitlochry 80
2141
90
Appendix 3. Events at which the Project was represented by a staffed presence
Date Event Location Audience
13/08/2009 Grantown Show Grantown Public/Land management
05/09/2009 Braemar Gathering Braemar Public
22/05/2010 Biobuzz Ballater Public
2-4/7/10 Scottish Game Fair Scone Public/Land management
6-7/8/10 Highland Field Sports Fair Moy Public/Land management
29/09/2010 Highland Tiger Fling Tullynessle Public
21/05/2011 Celebrating Nature Aviemore Public
03/06/2011 Celebrating Nature Balmoral Schools
5-6/8/11 Highland Field Sports Fair Moy Public/Land management
11/08/2011 Grantown Show Grantown Public/Land management
28/08/2011 Creag Meagaidh NNR Creag Meagaidh Public
03/09/2011 Braemar Gathering Braemar Public
91
Appendix 4. Educational events hosted by the RZSS where wildcat conservation
was a central theme. Green listings were visits by schools to the Highland Wildlife Park.
Yellow listings were outreach activities at the schools in question. The pink listing was an
adult visit to Edinburgh Zoo.
Date Education Groups Location Pupils Adults Total
Jul-10 Fortrose Academy Highland 17 2 19
Aug-10 Forres Academy Moray 98 10 108
Oct-10 Askham Bryan College Harrogate 0 14 14
Mar-11 SWRI Aviemore Highland 0 18 18
May-11 Oatridge College West Lothian 0 18 18
May-11 University of Central Lancashire Lancashire 0 16 16
May-11 Nordens Ark Sweden 0 16 16
Jun-11 Inverness Royal Academy Highland 16 2 18
Jun-11 UHI Moray College Moray 0 7 7
Sep-11 Forres Academy Moray 170 16 186
Nov-11 Inverness Royal Academy Highland 14 2 16
Nov-11 Angus College Angus 0 9 9
Nov-11 Inverness Royal Academy Highland 14 2 16
Dec-11 Barvas Primary school Western Isles 16 4 20
Mar-12 Inverness Royal Academy Highland 34 3 37
Mar-12 Pitlochry SWT Perthshire 0 40 40
Oct-10 Lathallan School Angus 100 10 110
Oct-10 Kirkhill Primary School Highland 25 2 27
Oct-10 Resolis Primary School Highland 30 2 32
Oct-10 Linlithgow Bridge West Lothian 32 3 35
Nov-10 Ballachullish Primary School Highland 24 1 25
Nov-10 Craigmount High School Edinburgh 7 1 8
Nov-10 Uddingston Grammar S. Lanarkshire 7 1 8
Jan-11 Donaldson’s School West Lothian 23 6 29
Feb-11 St. David’s School Edinburgh 72 4 76
Jun-11 Lothians U3A Edinburgh 0 14 14
Totals 699 223 922
92
Appendix 5. The Estates Protocol which was given to each of the 5 estates the
Project worked closely with.
The Cairngorms Wildcat Project
Estates’ Protocol
Working with estates for wildcat conservation
This paper outlines the basis for the Cairngorms Wildcat Project working with estates in the Cairngorms
National Park to conserve the endangered Scottish wildcat. Many Estates in the National Park control feral
cats, predominantly to protect game birds. Whilst they are legally entitled to do this, it is illegal to kill a
wildcat. The difficulty in separating a wildcat from a non-protected feral cat or hybrid poses a serious problem
for all keepers who need to protect game and also operate within the law.
The Cairngorms Wildcat Project wishes to work with estates to help them solve this problem. We aim to
help estates conduct cat control methods that help to ensure the wildcat remains protected.
Wildcats are threatened by hybridisation with feral domestic cats, which then results in confusion in identifying
wildcats, tabby feral cats and hybrids during predator control activities. The project promotes a precautionary
approach to feral cat control i.e. if in doubt: let it go and do not shoot. For the purposes of field identification
it may be assumed that any cat which is tabby with a thick ringed tail with a blunt black tip can be assumed
to be a wildcat. They should not have white feet, nor should the dorsal stripe extend down the tail.
We recognise that there are arguments that suggest that in some cases ‘wild living cats’ which both do and do
not resemble wildcats can be genetically indistinct from an apparently true wildcat. Because separation
between hybrids and ‘true’ wildcats in the field is extremely difficult, the project has assumed the need to
conserve those cats that most closely resemble the archetypal wildcat.
Alongside precautionary feral cat management the project is promoting responsible cat ownership as well as
the intensification and expansion of neutering of feral cat colonies around farms and settlements with a view to
reducing the flow of domestic and feral cats into the countryside.
The Project wishes to develop, with the participation of estates, the following protocol for wildcat
conservation:
WILDCAT FRIENDLY FERAL CAT CONTROL:
• All methods of feral cat control (trapping and shooting) on the estates will endeavour to prevent harm to
wildcats (as defined by the project)
• All feral cat control carried out humanely and in line with the law
• No cat matching the Project’s definition of a wildcat will be killed
• Any trapped wildcats will be released unharmed where they were trapped
• Should a wildcat be found injured in a trap, then the local vet should be informed immediately
• Any legally trapped feral cats are humanely killed or passed to Cats Protection for neutering
• Any legally trapped pet cats returned to owner if known, or Cats Protection if unknown.
• Any carcases to be frozen ASAP and retained for collection by Project staff, along with details of where
and when the specimen was collected.
93
RECORDING:
• Prior to release, photos are taken of any trapped wildcats as a record of their pelage markings. These
should show lateral and dorsal views, including tail and head.
• Prior to release, hairs, complete with follicles, are plucked from any trapped wildcats for genetic testing.
• Project informed of all known records of wildcats on the estate
• Project informed of any new sightings of wildcats on the estate
• Project informed of any known feral colonies on or off the estate which could be targeted for neutering.
• Project informed of any sightings of ferals which were not subject to control
In return…
The Project can provide participating estates with the following:
• Advice on wildcat identification
• Camera traps to help detect and identify wildcats
• A freezer for storing feral cat carcasses
• A digital camera
• GPS
• Envelopes for hair
• Cage traps to replace night-time shooting as method of feral cat control
• Promotion of the estate as “wildcat friendly” if the estate wishes it.
If the estate would prefer to have no publicity, we respect this and would not reveal the estate’s identity via
any media outlets. If, however, you wish to publicise your involvement, this may be done via some or all of the
following: the Project website www.highlandtiger.com; in newspaper and magazine articles; in oral
presentations on the Project delivered by the Project Manager; in radio and TV interviews; and of course
through the estate’s own promotional material. It should be noted that three of the five Project partners are
public bodies that can be subject to official Freedom of Information requests from the public. They are then
duty-bound to provide any enquiring members of the public with information on the Project.
We would be happy to assist estates meet their objectives towards any existing domestic cat ownership policy
they may have for tenanted homes on the estates by providing pet owners with information on both the plight
of the Scottish wildcat, and the welfare of domestic cats (i.e. the need for neutering and vaccination), and the
impacts that domestic cats can have on wildlife. Through our association with the Cats Protection it may also
be possible to arrange discounted neutering of pet cats. Quick-release reflective collars for pet cats on the
estate are something else we could provide if it was deemed desirable by the estate. Furthermore, in
conjunction with Cats Protection, the Project can arrange for colonies of feral cats inhabiting any nearby towns
and villages to be neutered, thus potentially reducing the number of feral cats likely to move on to the estate in
the longer term.
NOTE
This protocol was developed after a workshop organised by the Cairngorms Wildcat Project entitled ‘Predator
Control & the Scottish wildcat’ took place in December 2009. This was attended by over forty delegates, most
of whom were local gamekeepers.
94
Appendix 6. Monitoring outputs from the five estates.
Estate A
Wildcat sightings by estate staff - In 2010, potential wildcats were seen in the spotlight
on 4 occasions and no shots taken. In 2011 a large cat with wildcat colouration ran across a
public road on 18/8/11 at around 2045. In 2012, one was seen in amongst juniper in
February and one on rocky high ground in March.
Opportunistic camera trapping - Since July 2009 a single camera trap operated by a
local enthusiast, sometimes baited, has been deployed at several different locations on the
estate. Several images of two cats with thick, ringed, blunt tails were captured using bait,
one on 7th December 2009 and another 19th March 2010. A cat matching the Project’s
definition of a wildcat was photographed on August 29th 2010 carrying a rabbit in its mouth.
Video footage of another good cat attracted to chicken bait was captured on his camera trap
in February 2011. Since September 2010 three more Project camera traps have been
deployed on the estate on an ad hoc basis – one operated by estate staff (this has yet to
photograph a cat) and two by the local enthusiast. This same person photographed a cat
with a Project camera in January 2011 on three occasions (15th, 24th, and 25th) at the same
location. It was a striped and had a ringed tail without a continuing dorsal strip but the end
did taper. In October 2010, a BBC film crew set up camera traps for a few days around
properties on the estate where sightings had previously been made. These photographed
only hybrid cats.
Other photographic evidence - In July 2009, a female cat and four young kittens were
observed and photographed. The mother was tabby-marked, and showed no spottiness on
the body. The tail was rather thick, had distinct rings and had no stripe running down the
tail, suggestive of a wildcat, although her behaviour, which showed little wariness of nearby
humans, dogs and trains, was more typical of a domestic cat. All the kittens were tabby-
marked but one had white feet and a white chest, suggesting at least one parent possessed
domestic genes.
In December 2009 another cat was photographed. It was observed catching a vole and
washing itself. The cat was reported to have unbroken stripes on its flanks, four broad lines
running along its nape, a robust looking body and a ringed tail with a black, blunt end. There
was no white on the animal. Neither the photographs showed, nor the observer recalled,
whether there was a stripe running down the tail.
BBC footage from October 2010 showed two kittens near a den-site – one was tabby
marked but its sibling was black. Subsequent mtDNA analysis of cat faeces at that den
showed wildcat ancestry.
Roadkill carcases - In October 2009, the carcase of a young, male tabby-marked cat from
a nearby public road was sent to the NMS for assessment. It was judged to be a domestic or
hybrid. It is conceivable this cat could be one of the litter photographed just over 1 km
further north in July. In April 2011 the carcase of a tabby-marked cat was taken from a
nearby public road to the freezer and sent to the NMS but was too badly damaged to be
properly assessed.
95
Sightings on estate by non-staff - There were two sightings by different motorists on
the verge of a nearby public road on one day in April 2010. The first was seen at 2150 while
the other was seen 2km further north at 2230. The former animal was described as being
tabby-marked with thick fur, while the latter was described as being large and stocky with
striped markings and a thick tail. It is possible that both sightings relate to the same cat. In
July 2010 a cat described by an ecologist as a ‘Scottish wildcat’ passed by his property. He
had good views of the animal and was confident in his ID. A cat matching the Project’s
definition of a wildcat was seen in torchlight in January 2011. A large, stripy cat with a thick,
ringed, tail was seen in February 2011. In January 2012 a tabby-marked cat with a thick,
ringed tail was treed by a dog walker.
Details of sightings of feral cats evading control - Two black cats were seen by the
headkeeper on bales in fields in 2011 but it was not clear if they were pets or not, and so no
shot was taken. In summer 2011 one tabby-marked cat with a thin tail, and a tabby and white
cat were seen near the houses of sporting staff but neither were shot. In January 2012 a
black feral was seen in a field but was not seen again. A pet cat belonging to newly arrived
tenants was cage-trapped in November 2011. The gamekeeper encouraged the tenants to
agree to get this and another pet cat neutered for the sake of the local wildcat population.
This was done at the local vets with the assistance of Project staff and Cats Protection.
Estate B
Wildcat sightings by estate staff - A large wildcat was seen on higher ground on the
eastern march in January 2010. A potential wildcat (robust build, thick tail, shy nature) was
seen by the head keeper at 11pm on 24th August 2010 crossing the drive of the lodge. The
following morning at 6am the housekeeper reported seeing a wildcat crossing the track
which runs behind the lodge. There were two sightings by estate staff from early December
2010 of a potential wildcat hanging around the estate buildings and thought to be scavenging
deer off-cuts near the bins. There were no sightings in 2011. A tabby-marked cat ran across
the bottom of the track to the lodge on 22nd March 2012, but the sighting was very brief and
no markings were noted.
Opportunistic camera trapping - A single camera trap owned by the production team
filming a story on the Project for the BBC’s ‘One Show’, and baited with valerian, was
deployed at a site with high rabbit numbers on higher ground from 9th April - 11th May 2009.
On the 6th May a black, unneutered domestic tom was captured sniffing the valerian while on
the 9th May a smaller, presumed female, tabby-marked cat was photographed interacting with
the valerian lure. This cat was not wholly within the frame of the camera and it was not
possible to discern if the cat was a domestic or wildcat.
2-3 Project camera traps were deployed in 2010 around the estate in areas of recent
sightings or where estate staff felt would be good areas for wildcat. One camera was
deployed at the same location on the higher ground and baited with valerian from 11th Feb –
28th Mar. Another camera baited with valerian was deployed at the scene of where a keeper
had seen a potential wildcat on the eastern march from 11th Feb – 8th April. An unbaited
camera was deployed on lower ground 8th April – 1st May. Between 22nd Mar and 28th May,
two to three cameras were deployed at four sites around conifer plantations and were
96
initially baited with valerian. None of the camera traps captured photos of cats of any kind,
although other predators such as pine marten, fox, stoat and badger were photographed.
Unintensive camera trapping was not carried out on the estate during and following the
intensive camera trapping period Jun-Dec 10, until Feb 12 when two cameras were deployed
in the eastern portion of the estate but no cats were recorded.
Other photographic evidence - There have been several inconclusive photographs of
adult and juvenile tabby-marked cats from one area of the estate. A cat was observed and
photographed on 3rd June 2010 after it had crossed a public road. The cat was described as
being large with tabby markings, a thick, ringed, blunt tail. The photograph seems to bear out
this description and would correspond well to the appearance of a wildcat. The observer
had seen what she thought may have been a wildcat kitten very close to this spot the
previous year. Remotely taken video footage from around 1920 on 4th June 2011 in a cottage
garden shows what appears to be a reasonably large, long haired tabby-marked cat with
features suggesting a hybrid.
Sightings on estate by non-staff - A tabby-marked cat was sighted in a ruined farm
building, where prey remains were found, having picked up its trail in snow on 18th February
2010. A kitten was seen at the cat flap of a cottage on the 4th May 2010 at around 11pm. The
cat was described as being around 14 inches in body length, with a stripy torso, and with a
rather bushy, ringed blunt tail. A cat was observed crossing a public road at 11am on 30th
July 2010 by a motorist employed in the conservation sector. It was described as being a
medium - large sized, thick-set cat with stripy markings and a broad banded tail with a
noticeable terminal band. No white was noticed. The observer thought that the photo of the
cat seen crossing the same road less than 3 km to the south on the 3rd June could have been
the same cat. A cat was observed in mid October 2010 at the north east corner of the
estate. It was described as tabby-marked with a blunt, bushy tail. On the 8th May 2011, a
tabby-marked cat with a blunt, ringed tail was seen at the side of a public road.
Details of sightings of feral cats evading control - In 2010 a black feral was seen near
the lodge but not shot because it was in front of a gas tank. Two black ferals were seen on
the same night in early August 2010 from a minor public road but were not shot as the
keeper did not have his rifle. Three tabby kittens were seen going down a rabbit hole on the
river bank by a fisherman in an area where several ferals were known to breed, and were
considered to be ferals. The head gamekeeper saw a black and white feral in undergrowth at
on 23rd August 2010.
Information on sources of feral cats - One agricultural area of the estate is seen by
estate staff as being a likely source area for feral cats. Several farms were reported to have
many unneutered cats around the farm buildings. Cats Protection was informed and TNR
resulted in several cats being neutered where access was gained. Feeding of ferals by several
individuals was suspected by keepers in a nearby village. Few ferals are observed in the
eastern beat of the estate which consists largely of high ground. There have been two
sightings of potential wildcats by gamekeepers in this area however.
97
Estate C
Wildcat sightings by estate staff - There have been repeated sightings of a stocky, tabby-
marked cat with a thick, ringed, blunt tail. This was seen on several occasions before mid
December 2009 and then not seen again until 17th June 2010 when it was observed for an
hour during the night hunting rabbits. Probably the same cat had been seen taking a rabbit
into a nearby plantation in 2008 and returning a few minutes later without it, suggesting it
was a female feeding kittens. A tabby-marked adult cat was observed in the same area in
November 2011. A few days later a trio of kittens was seen close by – however, one was
tabby, one black and one ginger.
Opportunistic camera trapping - Two Project camera traps were deployed in 2010
around the lower ground of the estate in areas of recent sightings or cat field signs. One
camera was initially baited with valerian and deployed from 18th Feb - 23rd May at a location
where a black cat and a tabby-marked cat had been seen together on 15th February during
spotlighting and where cat field signs were evident. The black cat slipped away before it
could be shot. The tabby-marked cat, which had not been shot for fear of it being a wildcat,
was captured on the camera trap on several occasions from 20th March – 22nd May. The cat
had a rather spotty coat, with a thin tapering tail and a dorsal stripe running down its length
indicative of a feral domestic cat. A larger black cat was photographed at the same location
between the 4th and 18th April. One to two cameras have been deployed at three different
spots around the area of the repeated wildcat sightings from 18th Feb until the present (27th
August). These were initially baited with valerian but did not photograph the potential
wildcat which had been observed by estate staff. However, a large black cat was
photographed on 3rd May and may have been the same animal previously snapped in April on
the camera located 1.5 km away. However a large black cat, likely to have been the camera-
trapped animal, was shot on 4th May. The running of two Project camera traps ceased when
intensive trapping began.
Other photographic evidence - There is no other photographic evidence.
Roadkill carcases - A carcase of a large striped cat, which had been picked up from the
side of a nearby public road was analysed at the National Museums of Scotland. It was judged
to have been a domestic or poor hybrid on the basis of its pelage and skull. Another carcase
of what is thought to be a wildcat was removed from the public road by estate staff on 14th
August 2010. The carcase was transferred to the HWP then NMS for analysis and results
are awaited.
Sightings on estate by non-staff - A motorist nearly hit a cat on the public road on the
early evening of 19th October 2010. The observer, a Cats Protection volunteer, described
the cat as being a young adult wildcat and described it as being small in stature, having very
pronounced dark grey and black stripes along the side with a thick, ringed, blunt tail, and
with no spotting on the flanks. The Wildcat Project Manager saw a tabby-marked cat run
across the public road on 17th September 2011 at around 2330. There was no obvious white
on the cat, and the tail was rather thick, and although not a large animal, may have been a
wildcat.
98
Details of sightings of feral cats evading control - The tabby-marked cat noted during
spotlighting and which was camera-trapped was not shot on the estate.
Information on sources of feral cats - It is believed that sources of ferals are generally to the
east of the estate around nearby farms and villages.
Estate D
Wildcat sightings by estate staff - At 2100 on 15th February 2009 a large striped cat was
seen with the aid of a spotlight and binoculars sitting on a dead tree in remote pine forest. It
was watched for around 30 seconds before it moved away. Its ears had been folded flat. On
the 3rd January 2010, a ring-tailed cat was seen. At 1730 on the 24th March 2010 a cat was
watched for around 20 seconds at a distance of up to 10m. It was walked through a field,
jumped onto a wall, looked at the observer before disappearing. The cat had a thick, ringed
tail with a blunt tip but no dorsal stripe. There were no white markings, including on the
chin, and the body markings were stripy with no evidence of spots. On 5th April 2010 a cat
was observed in a spotlight during deer-scaring. It had a thick, ringed, blunt ended tail but
with a half length dorsal stripe. It also had long, thick, horizontal stripes running down its
back. This may have been a hybrid. A tabby-marked cat with a thick ringed tail (but with a
continuing dorsal stripe) was seen on 21st March 2011 and judged to be a hybrid. On 12th
September 2011, an estate keeper saw a young cat with stripy flanks, and ringed, blunt tail,
run across a nearby public road.
Opportunistic camera trapping - 2 Project camera traps have been variously deployed
across the estate since 30th January 2010. Initially one was baited with valerian, while one
was baited with carrion, but both are now baited with carrion. No wildcats have been
photographed to date. However, a short-coated silver tabby with a thin tapering tail,
presumably a feral, was photographed on 29th March 2010. There was no other photographic
evidence and no roadkill carcases were retrieved locally.
Sightings on estate by non-staff - At 1030 on the 24th March 2010, two visitors
observed a cat for several minutes at a distance of as close as 10m. It was described as being
larger than a domestic cat, with a thick, ringed tail. It appeared to have shorter legs than a
domestic cat and had a stripy body. The witnesses did not think the cat had a stripe down
the tail. This may well be the same cat seen by estate staff later the same day as the
descriptions of the cats are similar and location is only 1.5 km to the east of this sighting. A
young, tabby-marked cat was observed in April 2010 running across an estate track. In early
August 2011 a member of the public saw a tabby-marked cat during the day crossing a track,
while a river bailiff saw a mother and two juveniles (all tabby-marked) crossing a public road
at night on 21st August 2011. Photos of definite cat footprints and possible cat faeces were
taken at a remote site near the upper edge of a pinewood on 25/1/12.
Details of sightings of feral cats evading control - A large tabby-marked cat with a
thick tail was observed by estate admin staff around estate office on 16th December 2010.
This was initially reported as a wildcat sighting but a subsequent sighting by gamekeeping staff
led to the conclusion it was a feral cat. The same cat escaped from a cage trap in January
2011 and has not been seen since.
99
Information on sources of feral cats - Nearby villages and farms suspected.
Estate E
Wildcat sightings by estate staff - One keeper watched what he regarded as an adult
wildcat for 10 minutes during the day in the week commencing 6th February 2012. He
described it as having a tapered tail tip, but all the other features, for example thick, ringed
tail and stripy coat indicated wildcat.
Opportunistic camera trapping - 2 unbaited Project camera traps have been variously
deployed by the head beat keeper on the wooded lower ground of the estate since March
2010. These cameras started to pick up cats during the autumn and took 13 photos of cats
from September 25th, although 11 of them were taken since 25th December. These appear to
show at least five cats: 3 domestics (one tabby, one black and one tortoiseshell); I hybrid
(well-marked apart from 4 white feet); and one potential wildcat. All the domestic photos
were taken at different locations from where the hybrid and wildcat had been photographed.
As of Feb 2012, two baited cameras were deployed in woodland in the west of the estate
but no recorded no cats.
Other photographic evidence - Two kittens were handled and photographed by a
member of the public on 10th June 2011. Despite being very docile, these looked like wildcat
kittens, although one may have had white paws. If so, it may be the offspring of the white-
footed cat shot in March. No roadkill carcases were retrieved locally.
Sightings on estate by non-staff - A holidaymaker reported a mother and kitten playing
in amongst pines on low ground on 26th September 2011. Both cats had white on their
chests and the mother was described as having broken stripes on her torso and a dorsal
stripe coming onto her thick, ringed, blunt tail, so the cats were probably hybrids at best.
Details of sightings of feral cats evading control - a large black cat was seen in late
May 2010 but was not shot because it was near a holiday cottage and the keeper could not
be sure it was not a visitor’s pet. A ginger and white cat has been seen on 3 occasions in the
spotlight at one location but was considered a probable pet.
Information on sources of feral cats - none obvious, other than potentially the farm
where a female feral had been shot.
100
Appendix 7: SNH commissioned-report on the assessment of 19 wild-living, tabby-
marked cat carcases
COMMISSIONED REPORT
ARCHIVE OF WILD-LIVING CAT SPECIMENS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CAIRNGORMS
WILDCAT PROJECT
For further information on this report please contact:
Jenny Bryce
Scottish Natural Heritage
Great Glen House
INVERNESS
IV3 8NW
Telephone: 01463 725000
E-mail: jenny.bryce@snh.gov.uk
This report should be quoted as:
Kitchener, A.C. 2012. Archive of wild-living cat specimens associated with the Cairngorms
Wildcat Project. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report. Published as part of the
Final Report of the Cairngorm Wildcat Project (2009-2012).
This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of Scottish Natural Heritage. This
permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be
taken as the views and policies of Scottish Natural Heritage.
© Scottish Natural Heritage. 2012
101
Table of Contents Page
1. INTRODUCTION 102
2. METHODS 102
3. RESULTS 103
4. DISCUSSION 103
5. REFERENCES 105
TABLES 7
Table 1: Basic data including locations, collecting dates, body measurements and weights of
19 wild-living cats mainly from the eastern Scotland; A (adult), SA (subadult), J
(juvenile). Identifications follow strict and relaxed pelage criteria or skull characters
(*), if pelages could not be preserved, from Kitchener et al. (2005)
Table 2a: Key pelage characters scores (7ps) for 11 wild-living cats with their identification
following relaxed and strict wildcat definitions after Kitchener et al. (2005).
b. additional eight pelage character scores and pelage character totals (tps) for all 15
pelage characters.
Table 3: Skull character scores (SCT) for five skull characters of 17 wild-living cats from
eastern Scotland with identifications based on these scores following Kitchener et al.
(2005).
FIGURES 13
Figure 1 Locations of cat specimens analysed by NMS in 2011.
It should be noted that the working definition of a wildcat used by the Cairngorms Wildcat
Project is based on the same criteria as described in this report, but with an emphasis in the
field on the tail characteristics, i.e. a striped tabby cat with a thick blunt-tipped tail with distinct
bands and where the dorsal stripe ends at the base of the tail.
102
1. Introduction
Introgressive hybridisation with domestic cats, Felis catus, is widely recognised as
being the most significant threat facing the Scottish wildcat, Felis silvestris (Kilshaw
et al., 2010; Kitchener et al., 2005; Macdonald, et al., 2004). Recently Kilshaw et al.
(2010) found significant correlation between some genetic markers and seven key
pelage characters developed by Kitchener et al. (2005), based mainly on a sample of
wild-living cats collected mainly in eastern Scotland from 1992-1995 (Balharry and
Daniels, 1998). Using the strict 7PS pelage score, none of the cats collected by
Balharry & Daniels (1998) were identified as wildcats and only eight of the total
sample of 192 cats were considered to be wildcats based on both their genetics
(microsatellites) and pelage (Kilshaw et al. 2010). This evidence increases concern
over the level of threat caused by introgressive hybridisation to the remaining
Scottish wildcat population, which has been estimated to number between a few
hundred to a few thousand individuals (Kitchener et al., 2005). However, there has
been no further analysis of pelage patterns of wild-living cats since 1995. This report
aims to present further data on 19 cats collected in Scotland since 1999 with an
emphasis on animals collected mainly as road casualties as part of the Cairngorms
Wildcat Project, which was launched in 2009 in order to implement monitoring and
conservation action for the Scottish wildcat.
2. Methods
Nineteen wild-living cats collected mainly as road casualties from the Cairngorms
National Park (with some outliers – see Figure 1) were measured and weighed
according to normal field protocols; total length, tail length, hind foot length, ear
length, body weight and gut length were recorded where possible for each cat. Cats
were placed in three age classes: Adults (fully fused epiphyses of long bones),
subadults (epiphyses unfused at one end of log bones); and juveniles (epiphyses
unfused). Pelages of wild-living cats were prepared so that they could be scored for
pelage characters, using the method of Kitchener et al. (2005). Seven key pelage
characters (7PS) and eight subsidiary characters were scored. Total pelage scores
(TPS) were compared for all examined cats. In addition five skull characters (distal
nasals pit, relative length of nasals, shape of proximal nasals, shape of parietal
suture, and development of the angular process) were scored and summed to give
total skull character scores (SCTs) for each skull following Kitchener et al. (2005) and
Yamaguchi et al. (2004).
With agreement from SNH, skins and skeletons will be registered as part of the
National Museums Scotland collections where they will be made freely available for
use by researchers. Muscle samples have been taken from all cats and will be made
available to the continuing molecular research being carried out by the Scottish
Wildcat Genetics Group, based at the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland.
103
3. Results
Location data, collecting dates, measurements and weights are presented in Table 1.
Pelage character scores are presented in Table 2. Skull character scores are
presented in Table 3. Identifications of wild-living cats using a combination of pelage
and skull character criteria are also shown in Table 1.
A total of 19 cats, nine females and 10 males, was available for analysis although,
owing to poor preservation conditions, only 11 pelages and 17 skulls were available
for detailed scoring of characters. Cat collecting dates ranged from 1999 to 2010
and locations were mostly from areas in and around the Cairngorms National Park
and surrounding region, with one outlier from north-west Sutherland. Some locations
are a bit vague, owing to poor recording of data when they were collected; some data
are being sought from collectors to improve the overall accuracy and quality of data
for this sample. Additional cats from outside the area that were processed at the
same time are included in the results in order to increase sample sizes to a
reasonable level. Pelage and skull character scores are not affected by the sex of
the cats, so that both sexes could be combined for a total sample.
Measurements and body weights showed that males were on average 12.75% longer
and 51.5% heavier than females. However, the female sample contained mainly
juveniles, so that the sample from this study cannot reliably inform population
statistics. However, in other studies wildcat males were on average 7.64% longer
and 15.5% heavier than females (Kitchener 1995).
Eleven cats could be scored for pelage characters, but only 10 of these had a
complete set of the seven key pelage characters (Table 2a). Two definitions of the
Scottish wildcat were proposed by Kitchener et al. (2005); the strict definition requires
that all seven key characters score at least two each with a minimum total score of
19, whereas the relaxed definition requires that all key characters also score two
each, but with a total minimum pelage score of 14. The relaxed definition is useful in
field situations, where it may not be possible to evaluate all pelage characters fully or
clearly, but it will identify cats which are likely to be wildcats even if seen only
fleetingly. Five were identified as hybrid and five as domestic under the strict
definition, but under the relaxed definition three were identified as wildcats, three as
hybrids and four as domestic cats. Seventeen cats could be scored for skull
characters (Table 3), but because many of the skulls had been crushed in RTAs, only
13 have total skull character scores. However, because some skull characters were
scored for broken skulls, it was possible to give an identification for most skulls
(Table 3).
4. Discussion
A sample of 19 wild-living cats mainly from the Cairngorms National Park and the
surrounding region was analysed for pelage and skull characters. Owing to loss of
104
pelages due to decomposition prior to collecting and loss of skulls owing to collisions
with vehicles, it was not possible to obtain a complete set of data for all cats.
However, using a combination of both pelage and skull characters, it was possible to
identify all but two cats with certainty. There was a high degree of correlation
between the strict pelage identification and the skull character score identification
(Tables 2 and 3) as had been found by Kilshaw et al. (2010). Gut lengths and
indices (gut index = gut length/head and body length) (Table 1) were greater for
domestic cats than most hybrids as expected. Using this combination of characters,
seven cats were identified as hybrids, five as domestic cats and three as
domestic/hybrid. The relaxed pelage identifications classified three cats as wildcats,
but Kilshaw et al. (2010) showed that cats identified using this criterion were
genetically not separable from hybrids and domestic cats, so this definition should
only be used with caution.
Overall, the results here are consistent with those reported by Kilshaw et al. (2010)
for a larger sample of wild-living cats from across Scotland in the early 1990s that
were collected by Balharry and Daniels (1998). The results of this study suggest that
most of the wild-living cats in the Cairngorms National Park are hybrids and feral
domestic cats in about equal proportion (cf. 46.2% hybrid and 52.1% domestic in the
Balharry and Daniels (1998) sample (Kilshaw et al., 2010). However, camera-
trapping by both the Cairngorms Wildcat Project and Kilshaw & Macdonald (2011)
has shown that some wildcats are present in this area. The sample in this study was
biased towards road casualties, which may be more likely to affect hybrids and
domestic cats. As conservation action to benefit wildcats in the Cairngorms National
Park continues, it will be interesting to see if there is a change in the 7PSs and SCTs
of road-killed cats as the wild-living cat population changes. It is vital to continue to
collect and archive wild-living cats from throughout Scotland to ensure that fine-scale
changes in populations over time can be monitored.
105
5. References
Balharry, D. & Daniels, M.J. 1998. Wild living cats in Scotland. Scottish Natural
Heritage Research, Survey and Monitoring Report No. 23. , Edinburgh, Scotland.
Kilshaw, K. and Macdonald, D.W. 2011. Scottish wildcat: The use of camera
trappings as a method to survey for the Scottish wildcat. Scottish Natural Heritage
Commissioned Report. No 479.
Kilshaw, K., Drake, A., Macdonald, D.W. and Kitchener, A.C. 2010. The Scottish
wildcat: A comparison of genetic and pelage characteristics. Scottish Natural
Heritage Commissioned Report No.356.
Kitchener, A.C. 1995. The Wildcat. The Mammal Society, London.
Kitchener, A.C., Yamaguchi, N., Ward, J.M. & Macdonald, D.W. 2005. A diagnosis
for the Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris): A tool for conservation action for a critically-
endangered felid. Animal Conservation, 8: 223-237.
Macdonald, D.W., Daniels, M.J., Driscoll, C., Kitchener, A. & Yamaguchi, N. 2004.
The Scottish wildcat: Analyses for conservation and an action plan. Wildlife
Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford, 67 pp.
Yamaguchi, N., C. A. Driscoll, D. W. Macdonald, A. C. Kitchener & Ward, J.M. 2004.
Craniological differentiation between European wildcats (Felis silvestris silvestris),
African wildcats (F. s. lybica) and Asian wildcats (F. s. ornata): Implications for their
evolution and conservation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 83: 47-63.
106
Table 1: Basic data including locations, collecting dates, body measurements and weights of 19 wild-living cats mainly from the eastern Scotland; A (adult),
SA (subadult), J (juvenile). Identifications follow strict and relaxed pelage criteria or skull characters (*), if pelages could not be preserved, from Kitchener et
al. (2005)
a. Females (F)
ID/Sex
Age
Location
Grid ref.
Date
Donor
Cause
of
death
Total
length
(mm)
Tail
length
(mm)
Hind
foot
length
(mm)
Ear
length
(mm)
Weight
(g)
Gut
length
(mm)
Gut
index
Identification
Strict
(Relaxed)
F1
SA/J
Rymore,
Tulloch, Nethy
Bridge
NH985164
Sep-02
Bob
Proctor
RTA
795
145
114
59
3400
1410
2.169
Hybrid
(Wildcat)
F2
SA
Banffshire,
Ordiquill, near
Cornhill
NJ575557
21.9.03
Roy
Leverton
RTA
870
275
125
56
3750
1345
2.26
Hybrid
(Hybrid)
F3
J
near Garlyne,
Nethy Bridge
NJ025205
5.10.00
SNH,
Achantoul,
Aviemore
RTA
760
260
115
53
1950
1445
2.89
Domestic
(Domestic)
F4
J
A837
Lochinver-
Inchnadamph,
Assynt
NC245230
11.11.99
Andy
Summers
RTA
695
220
105
53
2050
1110
2.337
Hybrid
(Hybrid)
F5
J
Near
Grantown on
Spey
NJ033266
18.10.09
Cairngorms
Wildcat
Project via
SNH
620
210
83
44
1300
1445
3.524
Domestic
(Domestic)
F6
J
Near
Grantown-on-
Spey
NJ034265
17.10.09
Cairngorms
Wildcat
Project via
HWP
600
205
90
52
1320
1310
3.316
Domestic
(Domestic)
F7
J
near Nethy
Bridge
17.2.09
RZSS,
Highland
Wildlife
Park
725
220
113
57
2450
Hybrid*
F8
A
Drumfork
Estate, near
Glenshee
NO12-70-
9.10.08
SNH,
Achantoul,
Aviemore
Shot
835
245
115
57
3600
1360
2.305
Hybrid*
F9
SA
Badenoch
and
Strathspey
arrived
1.2.10
RZSS,
Highland
Wildlife
Park
785
223
100
50
2750
1615
Domestic/
Hybrid *
Means
742.8
222.6
106.7
53.4
2507.8
1380
2.653
107
b. Males (M).
ID/Sex
Age
Location
Grid ref.
Date
Donor
Cause of
death
Total
length
(mm)
Tail
length
(mm)
Hind
foot
length
(mm)
Ear
length
(mm)
Weight
(g)
Gut
length
(mm)
Gut
index
Identification
Strict
(Relaxed)
M1
A
Ballintean, Glen
Feshie
NH845015
11.10.01
SNH Aviemore
Found dead
in
outbuilding
925
280
118
57
2700
1690
2.62
Not identified –
specimen in poor
condition
M2
J
Drumtochty Glen,
Auchenblae
(NO72-78-)
26.10.02
CEH Banchory
790
285
120
54
2950
1380
2.733
Not identified –
specimen in poor
condition
M3
A
Grantown to Bridge
of Brown road
NJ064236
1.5.99
SNH Aviemore
RTA
845
280
128
64
Hybrid
(Wildcat)
M4
A
Duackbridge,
Nethy Bridge
NH997205
17.8.09
Cairngorms Wildcat
Project via SNH,
RTA
880
270
125
54
5440
1780
2.918
Domestic (Domes
M5
SA
A944 nr Strathdon
NJ325101
6.5.07
David Hetherington
via SNH
895
300
127
58
4450
1884
3.166
Domestic (Hybrid)
M6
A
Mondhuie, Nethy
Bridge
NH993207
12.8.09
Cairngorms Wildcat
Project via SNH
RTA
875
325
127
57
Hybrid
(Wildcat)
M7
A
Tersets Farm,
Drumoak,
Aberdeenshire
NO779991
17.3.09
Cairngorms Wildcat
Project via SNH
810
260
135
56
4800
2150
3.909
Hybrid*
M8
J
Laggantygown
Cemetery
(Loch Vaa)
NH910175
16.10.09
Cairngorms Wildcat
Project via HWP
600
200
105
53
1600
1450
3.625
Domestic/Hybrid*
M9
A
?Badenoch and
Strathspey
Arrived
21.5.07
?SNH, Aviemore
875
295
121
57
3850
Domestic*
M10
J
South end of
Kingussie
NH748005
28.1.09
Cairngorms Wildcat
Project via HWP
RTA
880
278
126
58
4600
1310
2.176
Not identified –
specimen in poor
condition
Means
837.5
277.3
123.2
56.8
3798.8
1663
2.969
108
Table 2a: Key pelage characters scores (7PS) for 11 wild-living cats with their identification following relaxed and strict wildcat definitions after Kitchener et al.
(2005). b. Additional eight pelage character scores and pelage character totals (TPS) for all 15 pelage characters.
a.
ID Dorsal
line
Tail tip
shape
Tail
bands
Broken
stripes
on flank
Spots
on flank
and
rump
Nape
stripes
Shoulder
stripes 7PS Strict
definition
Relaxed
definition
F1
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
16
Hybrid
Wildcat
F2
2
2
3
2
2
1
1
13
Hybrid
Hybrid
F3
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
9
Domestic
Domestic
F4
3
1
2
3
2
1
1
13
Hybrid
Hybrid
F5
1
1
1
1
2
2
1
9
Domestic
Domestic
F6
1/2
1
2
1
1
2
1
9/10
Domestic
Domestic
M1
2
2
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
M3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
16
Hybrid
Wildcat
M4
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
9
Domestic
Domestic
M5
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
11
Domestic
Hybrid
M6
2/3
2
2
3
3
3
3
18/19
Hybrid
Wildcat
109
b.
ID White
chin
Cheek
stripes
Spots on
underside
White
paws
White
flank
Colour
of tail
tip
Hind
stripes
Ear
colour
TPS
F3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
31
F4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
36
F5
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
20
F6
3
2
3
3
3
3
1
1
28/29
M1
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
-
-
M3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
37
M4
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
1
30
M5
2
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
29
M6
3
3
3
3
3
3
-
2
-
110
Table 3: Skull character scores (SCT) for five skull characters of 17 wild-living cats from eastern Scotland with identifications based on these scores following
Kitchener et al. (2005).
ID
Angular
process
development
Anterior
nasals
shape
Posterior
nasals in
pit
Nasal length
compared with
maxillae
Parietal
suture
shape
SCT
Identification
F1
3
3
3
1/2
2
12/13
Hybrid/Wildcat
F2
3
1/2
2/3
3
3
12/14
Hybrid/Wildcat
F3
1
2
2
3
3
11
Domestic/Hybrid
F4
1
-
-
--
-
-
?Hybrid/Domestic
F5
1
1
1
1
2
6
Domestic
F7
1
2
2/3
3
1
9/10
Hybrid
F8
3
1/2
2
2
2/3
10/12
Hybrid
F9
3
-
?2
-
2
-
Domestic/Hybrid
M1
3
1
1
2
1
8
Domestic
M2
3
-
-
-
-
-
-
M4
3
1
1
3
1
9
Domestic
M5
1
3
1
3
2
10
Domestic/Hybrid
M6
3
3
2
1
3
12
Hybrid
M7
3
3
2
3
1
12
Hybrid
M8
1
1
3
3
2
10
Domestic/Hybrid
M9
1
1
1
3
1
7
Domestic
M10
-
-
2/3?
-
2
-
-
Figure 1
