Content uploaded by Martina Cecchetti
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Martina Cecchetti on Jan 10, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
People and Nature. 2019;1–13.
|
1
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/pan3
Received:30July2 018
|
Accepted:26Octob er2018
DOI:10.1002/pan3.6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Hunting behaviour in domestic cats: An exploratory study of
risk and responsibility among cat owners
Sarah L. Crowley | MartinaCecchetti | RobbieA.McDonald
Thisisanop enaccessarti cleundertheter msoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionL icense,whichpe rmitsuse,dis tribu tionandreprod uctioninanymed ium,
provide dtheoriginalwor kisproperlycited.
©2019TheAuth ors.People and NaturepublishedbyJohnWiley&SonsLtdonbehalfofB ritishEcologicalSociety
EnvironmentandSustainability
Instit ute,Universit yofExeter,Penryn,
Cornwall,UK
Correspondence
SarahL .Crowley,Environmentand
SustainabilityIns titute,Univer sityofE xeter,
Penry n,Cornwall,UK.
Email:s.crowley@exeter.ac.uk
Funding information
SongBirdSurvival;UniversityofExeter
Abstract
1. Thepotentialimpact ofdomesticcatson wildlifeisthesubject ofgrowinginter‐
nationalinterestandconcern.Whileferalcatsareoftentheprimaryfocusofre‐
searchanddebate,inmanysocietiesasubstantialproportionofdomesticcatsare
ownedbyprivateindividuals.Wepresentatypologythatclassifiesdomesticcats
inrelationto varying degrees of human control over their reproduction, move‐
ment,andprovisioning.Understandingtheperceptionsandpracticesofcatown‐
erswillbekeytoidentifyingandmitigatinganynegativeecologicaleffectsofcat
huntingbehaviour.
2. Toinvestigatehowcatownersperceive(a)theirpets’huntingbehaviour,(b)their
responsibilities for managing this, and(c)the mitigation strategies available, we
conducteddetailedinter viewswithadiversesampleofcatownersintheUnited
Kingdom.
3. Weidentifiedaspectrumofviewson huntingbehaviour,fromownerswhoper‐
ceivedhuntingaspositive(forpestcontrol,orashealthycatbehaviour)tothose
whoweredeeplyconcernedaboutitsconsequencesforwildanimals,theirpopu‐
lations,andwelfare.However,huntingwaswidelyunderstoodasanormal,natural
componentofcatbehaviour,andownersrarely perceivedastrong individualre‐
sponsibilityforpreventingorreducingit.
4. Thosewhodidwishtomanagehuntingperceivedseveralbarrierstothis,includ‐
ingconcernthattheywereunabletocontrolbehavioureffectivelywithoutcom‐
promising cat welfare, doubt about the efficacy and practicality of popular
mitigation measures, andunfamiliarity with alternative options.Werecommend
that(a)initiativesdirectedatchangingcatowners’behaviourconsiderthemulti‐
plefactorsandcompetingprioritiesthatinformtheirdecision‐making(particularly
cat healthand welfareand practicality orcost of inter ventions);(b)researchers
workcollaboratively with catownersand veterinary,catwelfare, andconserva‐
tionorganizationstoidentifyeffectivesolutions,and(c)somedegreeofaccount‐
abilityformanagingproblematichuntingbehaviourshouldbepromotedasapart
of“responsiblepetownership”initiatives.
KEYWORDS
animalmanagement,domesticcat,predation,responsiblepetownership
2
|
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
1 | INTRODUCTION
Managing the effects of domestic cats (Felis catus) on wildlife is
an international challenge in conservation science, policy, and
practice.The issue is complex;cats undoubtedlyhave significant
detrimental effects on some vulnerable species, especially in is‐
land ecosystems (Medina et al., 2011; Nogales et al., 2013), and
previous research indicates that, even when killing behaviour
is not univer sal, large n umbers of ca ts inevit ably kill lar ge num‐
bers of wil d animals (Bla ncher, 2013; Loss, Wil l, & Marra, 2 013;
Woods, McDo nald, & Harri s, 2003). Howeve r,sub stantial va ria‐
tionsinlandscapetype, catdensit y,the vulnerabilityofdifferent
species andpopulations,andcatmanagementmeasuresresultin
uncertainty in determiningtheoccurrence,type, andseverityof
impacts.
The majority of research to date hasfocused onthe behaviour
andimpactsofunowned (i.e. feralor “colony”)cats.Morerecently,
researc hers have also begun investigating the ro le of owned do‐
mestic c ats in wildl ife declines , by attemptin g to quantify t he dy‐
namics and drivers of predatorybehaviour in pet cats (Dickman &
Newsome,2015;vanHeezik,Smyth,Adams,&Gordon,2010;Loyd,
Hernandez,Carroll,Abernathy,&Marshall,2013;Thomas,Fellowes,
&Baker,2012;Tschanz,He gglin ,Gloor,&Bont ad ina,2011)ands ub‐
lethal effectsof cat presence (Bonnington,Gaston,& Evans,2013;
Mahlaba,Monadjem,McCleery,&Belmain, 2017).While manage‐
mentdecisionsaboutunownedcats can be made bypublicauthor‐
ities, themanagementofowned catsis primarilytheresponsibility
ofprivate individuals—cat owners. Effortstoavoid or mitigate any
impactsofownedcat sonwildlifewillrequirecatownersto(a)iden‐
tify cathuntingbehaviour as a problematicactivity, (b) take orac‐
ceptresponsibilit yformanagingthatbehaviour,and(c)beequipped
with the appropriate incentives, knowledge,and capacity to do so
effectively.Wearethereforeinterestedinwhether,andtowhatex‐
tent,cat ownersconsiderhuntingbehaviour problematic;whether
theyconsider themselves responsible for theirpet s’hunting; and if
so,whatmethodstheyemploy,ormightemploy,tomitigatethis.To
exploretheseissues,weconducteddetailed,semi‐structuredinter‐
viewswithcatownersintheUnitedKingdom.Qualitative research
ofthis kindisnot ableorintendedtobe representativeofthepop‐
ulation nor to show theprevalenceordistribution ofcertain views
amongcatowners.Instead, inter viewsenableusto examineissues
surroun ding cat husb andry an d management i n greater dept h and
detailthanlarge‐scalesurveys.Throughoursubsequentanalysis,we
haveidentifieda seriesof keyissues and challenges that shouldbe
takenintoaccountincontinuing discussions about cat ownership,
husbandry,andmanagement.
1.1 | Catownershipisdefinedbycontroland
responsibility
Domestic cats are generally classified as either “owned” or “un‐
owned.”Inpractice,however,cat ownershipisbestconceptualized
as a spec trum of contro l over cat behavio ur,wi th three key are as
of human influence: provision of food, control of reproduction,
FIGURE 1 Differentcategoriesofcatownershipandhusbandrypracticesinrelationtohumancontroloverprovisioning,reproduction,
andmovement.AllimagesareclassifiedasavailableforreusewithmodificationunderaCreativeCommonsLicence.Credits:CássiaAgini
(indoorcat),StephenHanafin(indoor–outdoorcat),DonGraham(free‐rangingcat),PhilRoeder(feralcat)
|
3
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
and contro l of movement (Fig ure 1). Self‐sust aining fera l cats tha t
donot rely onanyhumanprovisioning,noraresubject toanyform
of anthrop ogenic controls, ar e at one end of the spec trum. Fully
confine d cats whose f ood provision , breeding, a nd movement are
closely controlled by humansare atthe otherend.The majority of
catsfallsomewherebetweenthese extremes. Feral cat “colonies”
form around areliable food source, generally provided(either in‐
tentionallyorunintentionally)byhumans.Humans,therefore,exert
some controloverthe provision offood, andpotentiallyreproduc‐
tion (throughneutering programmes). “Indoor–outdoor” cats tend
to have closer r elationships wit h individuals or f amilies who pro‐
videfood and shelter;ownersmay alsocontrolreproduction and/
orcatmovement(e.g.,throughgardenconfinementorkeepingcats
in overnight ). These dif fering level s of control are ass ociated with
varyingdegrees ofattributed orassumed responsibilitybyowners.
Colonycatsareoftensuppor tedby“caretakers”whoassumevolun‐
tary responsibilityfor provisioningand in some cases sterilisation,
butareunlikelytoattempttoconfinethecatsorcovertheirveteri‐
narycare.Conversely,someownerskeeptheircatswhollyconfined
duetotheir perceptionof responsibility fortheir cat s’safetyatall
times.Legislativeandregulatoryresponsibilitiesvaryinternationally
andregionally(seeSection1.3below).
1.2 | Catownerperceptionsand
management practices
Thefocusofexistin gresearchonpeople'spercept ionsofc atowner‐
shipandmanagement variesby region.Research from theUSAhas
pr im ari lycon centr ate do npe rcept ion sa ndman age me ntoffer al, co l‐
ony,andowned“free‐ranging”cats(Ash&Adams,2003;Dombrosky
& Wolvlerton, 2014; Loyd & Hernandez, 2015; Loyd & Miller,
2010;Peterson, Har tis, Rodriguez,Green, & Lepczyk,2012; Wald,
Jacobson,&Levy,2013).Feralcatmanagement,andparticularlythe
strateg y oftrap–neuter–return, is the subject of long‐standingand
increasi ngly polaris ed public deba te in North Am erica, wit h sharp
divisionsdrawnbetween activist ssupportingandopposingit (Loss
&Marra,2018;Loss,Will,Longcore,&Marra,2018;Petersonetal.,
2012;Wald etal.,2013).The managementofowneddomesticcats
has receivedless attention,excepting Gramza,Teel,VandeWoude,
andCrooks(2016),whoexaminedColorado residents’ perceptions
of the “bidir ectional r isks” associ ated with cat ro aming behavio ur:
threatsto cats(e.g.,injury,loss),andthreat sfromcats (e.g.,wildlife
pre da tion) .USsa mp le swerealsoi nc lu de dinHa lletal.’s(2016)i nter‐
national comparison ofcatownerattitudes,which identified ahigh
rate ofpermanent confinement (indoor cats)inthe USA compared
with Aus tralia, New Ze aland, and t he United Kingd om, and whic h
maypartiallyexplainthegreaterfocusonmanagementofunowned
andsemi‐ownedcatsinNorthAmericandiscourses.
InAustralasia,thereisheightenedinterestincatsaspredatorsof
nativewildlife,andinAustralia,theownedcatpopulationisreport‐
edly declining (Hall et al., 2016). The management ofpredation by
feral cats, though not without controversy (Farnworth, Watson, &
Adams,2014;Hillier&Byrne,2016),iswidelyconsideredanecessit y
(Dohertyetal.,2017).Socialresearchondomesticcatmanagement
has there fore been emp loyed as a means of a ssessing th e accept‐
abilityofpotentialregulatoryinter ventionsforownedcats(Grayson,
Calver, & Styles, 2002; Lilith, Calver, Styles, & Garkaklis, 2006;
KingboroughCouncil[Tasmania]2017),whichinsomeregionshave
been enactedinlaw(e.g.,WACat Act2011). Althoughsupportfor
registr ation and nig ht confineme nt of cats is rel atively high , there
isnevertheless resistance to permanent confinementandbanson
cat ownership (Grayson et al., 20 02; Lilithetal., 2006; Travaglia &
Miller, 2017). A seri es of studies ( Toukhsati, Benn ett, & Cole man,
2007; Toukhsati, Young, B ennett , & Coleman , 2012; Zito, Vankan ,
Bennett, Paterson, &Phillips, 2015) has additionally examined the
phenomenon ofc at“semi‐ownership” inAustr aliaand has sought
toidentifyboththeprevalenceofthisandparticipants’perceptions
ofresponsibilitytowardssemi‐ownedcats.Thisresearchfoundthat
althoughsomepeopleregularlyfeedcatstheydonotown,theyare
unlikelytotakere spo nsibilityforneuteringthoseanimalsforanum‐
berofreasons,includingtheassumptionthatotherpeopleown(and
arethereforeresponsiblefor)them.
These studies have almost invariably employed quantitative
surveys , at differe nt scales, to a scertai n differen ces in public pe r‐
ceptionsandattitudesbetweendemographicorstakeholdergroups
(e.g.,catownersandnon‐owners).Thishashelpedidentifypatterns
andtrendsinattitudesandbehaviourswithinandbetweenpopula‐
tions.However,suchsurveysarelimitedintheirabilitytoextendour
unders tanding a s to the reason ing and affe ctive fac tors infor ming
theseperceptions.Morerecently,researchersinAustralia(McLeod,
Hine, & Bengsen, 2015) and New Zealand (Harrod, Keown, &
Farnworth,2016)haveinvestigatedperceptionsand useofspecific
managementinterventions—containmentandcollars,respectively—
withtheaimofidentifyingbarrierstotheiruseand/orinformingbe‐
haviourchangestrategies.
Here, we have taken a different, qualitative approach to ex‐
ploring issues surrounding cat roaming behaviour, predation, and
manageme nt in the United K ingdom. Th is research a imed to flesh
out,contextualizeanddevelopourunderstandingofcatownerper‐
ceptions and behaviours by exploring participants’ self‐reported
thought s and feeling s about their r esponsibili ties towards and f or
theircats.
1.3 | Catownershipandmanagementinthe
UnitedKingdom
Given cult ural variat ions in the so ciolegal cont ext of domes tic cat
management, it is wor th outlining current circumstances in the
UnitedKingdom.RecentestimatesplacetheownedUKcatpopula‐
tionat8–11million(PDSA, 2018;PFMA, 2018).Thecareandman‐
agement ofcatsfallunder multiplelegislativeacts andregulations.
TheAnimalWelfareAct2006requirescatownerstoberesponsible
forprotectingtheirpetsfromunnecessarysuffering,pain,injury,or
disease. H owever, owners must a lso pay due rega rd to their pet s’
needto display normalpatternsofbehaviour(which,forcats,argu‐
ably includes exploratory and hunting behaviour). Owned cats are
4
|
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
legally consideredpropert y(rather than persons), andthereby of‐
fences wou ld be commit ted if they were st olen, injure d, or inten‐
tionallykilled.Unownedcats,however,arenotprotectedmammals,
andsocan legally be humanely killed.Finally, catsarenotcovered
byeitherofthekeyactsthatrestrictroaminginotherdomesticani‐
mals—theRoadTrafficAct1988or DangerousDogsAct1991—and
thereforeretainacommonlaw“righttoroam”(asproperty,theyare
alsoincapableoftrespass).Ownersarenotlegallyliableformostcat
behaviourthat may be regarded as problematic (including hunting,
defecatinginprivategardens,enteringhouses,orfightingwithother
people s’ cats). This refl ects wide r societal at titudes in the U nited
Kingdom t hat normal cat b ehaviour inclu des these ac tivities, th at
moreseriousthreat sofdamagetopeopleorproperty arerare,and
thatcatscannot“realisticallybefencedin”(Nurse&Ryland,2014).
Twostudies have investigated UKcat owner at titudes towards
wildlife , both as part of eco logical resea rch studying ow ned cats’
roamingand/orpredationbehaviour.Thomasetal.(2012)sur veyed
householdersintheirurbanstudyareatoexamine perceptions of
theimportanceofcatpredationonwildlife,theacceptabilityofdif‐
ferent man agement strategi es, and how existi ng practices ref lect
those perceptions. They found a generally low level of concern
aboutthepotentialimpactsofcatsonwildlifeandalowlevelofac‐
ceptabilityformostmanagementstrategies;collar‐mounteddevices
were considered the most acceptable. McDonald, Maclean,Evans,
andHodgson(2015) conducted door‐to‐doorsur veys todetermine
whetherowners’perceptionsoftheircats’huntingbehaviourcorre‐
spondedto actualpreyreturns,andto identify whethertheextent
ofpredatorybehaviourinfluencesownerattitudestomanagement.
Themajority of participatingowners wereable to predict whether
or not their cats would return prey, but not how much. Owne rs
tendedtodisagreewiththemanagementoptionspresented(neuter‐
ing,nightconfinement,permanentconfinement),exceptneutering,
whichwa sw id el ya cc ep te d;98%di sagreedwithperm an en tconfi ne ‐
ment. A s in Thomas et al.'s (2012) s tudy, a substant ial propor tion
(60%) did not consider catstobeharmfultowildlife.McDonaldet
al.'s (2015) stud y did not find own er opinions to b e influenced by
theircats’predatorybehaviour.
Theseearlyfindingssuggestthat,intheUnitedKingdom,catim‐
pactsonwildlifehavelowculturalsaliencecomparedwithAustralia,
NewZealand, andtheUSA, andthatpublic supportforanyform of
cat manage ment is relati vely low. This is supp orted by Ha ll et al.’s
(2 016)i n ter n a tion a lsu r v ey,wh i c hfo u n dt h a tow n ersf r omt h e Uni t ed
Kingdom we re the least li kely to consider c ats a threat to wi ldlife
(exceptinnaturereserves)andtheleastlikelytosupportmostman‐
agementoptions(exceptneutering).Currentadviceandguidanceon
cathusbandr yintheUnitedKingdomreflectsthis, with unconfined
cats acceptedasthenorm,includingamong conser vationorganisa‐
tions,manyofwhichdonotofficiallyreportcathuntingbehaviouras
asignificantthreattowildlife (e.g., Royal SocietyfortheProtection
of Birds, 2018). Re cently, however, resear chers have pro posed the
introduction of cat exclusion “bufferzones” aroundareas inhabited
byvulnerablespecies(Hanmer,Thomas,&Fellowes,2017).
2 | METHODS
A key aim of this ex ploratory st udy was to identif y the perspec‐
tives of a dive rse group of cat own ers implement ing a variety of
husbandry practices. To achieve this diversity, 48 participants
from37householdswererecruitedthroughseveraldifferentchan‐
nels. We distributed leaflets in pet shops and veterinary practices
in south‐we st and centr al Cornwall , and posted a n electro nic ver‐
sionoftheleafletoncommunityinterest(notcat‐related)Facebook
groups bas ed in Cornwal l and Greater O xford. This e nabled us to
target cat ownersfrom urban, suburban, andruralareas while not
restricting our sampleto,forexample,themembers of cat interest
groups or ownerswhose pets are registered witha vet.Toinclude
owners practicing lesscommon management methods (e.g.,those
with whollyoutdoororspatiallyconfinedc ats), we purposively re‐
cruited additionalparticipants:two households withfarm cat sand
three where “ProtectaPet” (https://protectapet.com) fencing had
been inst alled around the property.Table1 provides summary de‐
tailsaboutpar ticipantsandtheircats;additionaldetailsareprovided
asSupportingInformationTable S1.Although wewerenotseeking
arepresentativesample, and there are more femalecat owners in
theUnited Kingdom(58%: PDSA ,2017),it is worthnotingthatthe
majorityofourrespondents(almost80%)were female.Thisiscon‐
sistent withother studies investigating similarissues (e.g., Wald et
al., 2013;Harrodetal.,2016;Halletal., 2016),thoughtheprecise
reasonsforsuchabiasinresponserateareunknown.
ThisstudyreceivedethicalapprovalfromtheUniversityofExeter
(Ref:2017/2058).Participant swereprimarily interviewed at their
ho m e s(t h reew e rei n ter vi e wed a ta g r e eda l tern a t ive l ocat i o ns) .SL C
conductedallinterviews,followingasemi‐structuredschedule(see
SupportingInformationDataS1).Participantsreadaninformation
TABLE 1 Summarytableofparticipantsincludingkey
demographicinformationanddetailsoftheamount,sex,andbreed
ofownedcat sinthestudy.Afulltablewiththedetailsofall
participantsandcatsisprovidedasSupportingInformationTable
S1
Participants
Region
Cornwall/Devon 35
GreaterOxford 13
Areatype
City 13
Rural 8
Village 12
Tow n 15
Gender
Female 38
Male 10
Tot a l 48
|
5
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
sheetexplainingthetopicofstudyandsignedconsentformsprior
to their inte rview. Part icipants were i nformed that t hey had the
righttowithdraw atanytime.Allinterviewswereaudio‐recorded
and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed withthe as‐
sistanceofNVivoforMac(v11).Following aninitialread‐through,
asingle codercategorizedsectionsoftranscripts by response re‐
garding(a)perceptionsofcathuntingbehaviour;(b)perceptionsof
owner responsibility for hunting behaviour;and (c) views andex‐
perienceofpossiblemitigationmeasures.Thesegroupswerethen
furthercodedinto thematicresponsesand interpretedinrelation
totheexistingliteratureandwiderdiscussionwithowners.Coded
identifiersareusedheretoprotectparticipants’identities.
3 | RESULTS
3.1 | Docatownersconsiderhuntingbehavioura
problem?
We identifi ed six differe nt perspec tives on cat hu nting behaviou r
(Figure2),whicharenotnecessarilymutuallyexclusive.
3.1.1 | Huntingisnotaproblem,becauseit
is desirable
Fewowners expressed the opinionthat cat huntingbehaviourwas
desira ble or a positive asp ect of cat owners hip. The two nota ble
exceptionsto this were the owners of farm cats (“I do want them
hunting onthefarm,keepingthevermin down” [17])and an owner
whofelt proudof theircatfor their hunting prowess.Hunting was
interpretedasanexpressionofthecat'sskillandauthenticity:“Iwas
almostthinking,youknow,ifyoubringapheasantbackI'llbereally
proud of you. Not that I actually wantedhimtokill it, but because
hewasbeingacat”(33).Similarly,19a,thoughnotproudofhunting
perse,oneownerneverthelessfeltasenseofreassurancefromtheir
cat'shuntingbehaviour:
When she di d bring in a vole or a m ole, I reall y felt
shewassettlingintoherenvironment,andshewasn’t
scared . I thought well t hat’s a good thin g, she’s out
there, doinga bit ofhunting. Youknow,she’sfeeling
comfort able,relaxedandsafe.(19a)
3.1.2 | Huntingisnotaproblem,becauseitisnatural
Anothergroupofowners,whilenotnecess arilyview inghuntingbe‐
haviourpositively,didnotperceiveitasaproblem;itwasconsidered
an acceptable, normal, “natural” component ofcat behaviour: “It's
wh at anima lsd o, is n't it , hu ntoth era ni mal s?So ,n o,I 'm notbo the red
byit atall”(24);“I don'tac tuallymindas long as they havenotgot
maggotsallover them.It's nature.Theyarenature” (37a).Multiple
participantscommented that hunting was“what cats do”, and felt
that accept ing this was pa rt and parce l of cat ownersh ip. Indeed,
several went fur ther and suggested that,“Youknowfullwellwhat
catsarelikewhenyougetacat,soanybodythatkeepstheminfor
[hunting],Ialsofindannoying.Don'tgetacat,basically”(07).
3.1.3 | Huntingisaproblem,butitisnatural
The most prominent viewpoint appears somewhat paradoxical.
Manypar ticipantsdidnotliketheirpets’huntingbehaviourforrea‐
sons incl uding, but not l imited to, its p otential effe cts on wil dlife.
Nevertheless, hunting was tolerated because it was perceived as
“natural.”Here,weneedtoteaseapartdifferentconnotationsofthe
term “natural.”Inmost cases,owners’useoftheterm implied that
hunting behaviour isa normal component of catbehaviour; some‐
thing that catsaredriventodoandfindrewarding(e.g.,“ Youcan't
really ch ange what they do an d what's par t of their genes , I sup‐
pose…par toftheirmakeupistohunt”[20]).Inothercases,cathunt‐
ingbehaviourwasconsideredanormalecologicalprocess,partofa
natural o rder of thing s: “it's just n ature unfor tunately ” (04). The se
ownersthereforethoughtcathuntingbehaviourlegitimate,ifunde‐
sirable,eitherbecauseitwaspartofcats’behaviouralrepertoirethat
they “couldn' t” or “woul dn't want to” cur tail, and /orbe cause they
sawcatpredationasanaturalecologicalprocessthattheyneednot
interve ne in. Many owne rs were confli cted, tho ugh, by what th ey
perceivedasnaturalbehaviourbutalsoapotentialproblem:
Interviewer:Whenyouthinkaboutyourcatsashunt‐
ersorpredators,howdoesthatmakeyoufeel?
06: It's a k ind of mixture. Li ke, it's acceptan ce that
that's in t heir nature to d o it, but, yo u know... I still
feelabitcrosswiththem.
FIGURE 2 Schematicshowingrange
ofowners’perspectivesondomesticcat
huntingbehaviour.Seetextfordet ailsand
examples
6
|
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
22: I know it's their instinct,it's a hunting instinct, I
understandthat.Stillyouthink‘ohGodno’,youknow,
andyoutryandrescuethem.
Related to th is view was a percep tion that, alt hough huntin g by
catscouldposeathreattowildlife,inthecontextofotherfactorsthis
was (compar atively) minor: “ there's lots of thin gs that are affec ting
wildlife,certainlycan'tblameitprimarilyonacat,canyou?”(08).
3.1.4 | Huntingisaproblem,becauseitiscrueland/
or unnecessary
Amorespecific versionofthisperspective was the view that hunting
behaviour, while naturalfor cats, seemed unnecessary and/or cruel.
Thisreflectsrecognition thatowneddomesticcat shuntdespitebeing
wellfed:“Iknowit'sinstinct,butitdoesannoyyoubecauseyouknow
they'renothungrysothey'rejustdoingit,Idon'tknowwhy”(14).One
par ti cipantfurt herexplainedt hat,“Ife elt hatwithourstheydon' tne ed
tohunt itto eatit.Itisjustplay.AndIknowit'stheirinstinctsand na‐
ture,butIjustdon'tlikedeath.Animalsdyingfornoreason,beingtor‐
mentedandscared”(23).Participantsexpresseddistasteattheideaof
killing for pleasure, severalnoting the mannerinwhich catsplaywith
and disreg ard prey: “He do esn't kill th em quickly… I know tha t they
don'tmeanitlike that butit'sabout thisuncaringnature”(08).Others
weredist ressedatth esufferin gofthepr ey:“Idon'tliketoseeanyt hing
sufferingtobehonest,nomatterwhatitis,andwhenit'sdeadit 'sstill
upsettingbecausethatpoorlittlecreaturedidn'thavemuchofachance
anditjustseemsabitpointlessbecausethey'renothungr y”(20).Here,
theconcern forwildlifewas focusedonwelfareoftheindividualprey
animal,ratherthanconsiderationofathreattowildpopulations.
3.1.5 | Huntingisaproblem,becauseitaffectswild
(bird) populations
Mostparticipant swhoidentifiedhunting behaviour asproblematic
duetoitspotentialimpactsonwildlifedifferentiatedbet weentypes
ofp rey,wi thpar t ic ipa nt spr ima ri lycon ce rne dab ou tth ei rc atsc at ch ‐
ingbirds.Several wereawareofwiderissues surroundingsongbird
declineandwereconcernedthatcatscouldcontributetothis;afew
indicatedaparticularfondnessfor,interestin,or“affinitywith”birds
comparedwith otherpreyspecies, and farming participants noted
thatbirdswerenot pests:“thebirdsdon'tgiveusanytrouble”(17).
Othersreportedfeelingdifferentlyaboutbirds,butstruggledtoar‐
ticulatewhy:“Idon' tknowwhy...justsomethingaboutbirds”(05);“a
birdismoreupsettingbutthere'snotlogicinthat”(08).
Parti cipants re ferred to pop ulation size of sm all mammals as a
factoraffectingtheirviews,butthisvariedindirection,from“Idon't
thinkwe'lleverbeshortofmice”(12)to“littleshrewsandfieldmice,
some of the m are in declin e, aren't th ey?”(15a). Th e classific ation
ofmice, rats,andrabbits as“vermin”wasalsogivenas areasonfor
less concern about these species, and their predation was consid‐
eredmoreacceptablegiven cats’traditionalroleaspestcontrollers
(“that'swhatpeopleusedtohavecatsfor,wasn'tit?”[09]).However,
some par ticipants were equally concerned about birds and small
mammals , especiall y in terms of welfa re and defencel essness (se e
Section3.1.4above),andoneparticipantwas moregenerallycon‐
cernedthatcatpresencewas“unnatural”,statingthat:
03: [Wildlife has]got more right, I think to be there
thanthecat.
Interviewer:Whyisthat?
03:Well,[catsare]domesticated,aren'tthey?They're
notawildthing…Ijustthink,wellifyou'regoingtolet
yourcat out,itwill kill animals. Andthat is…the one
thingthatIstruggleabitwith.
3.1.6 | Huntingisaproblem,becauseit
is unpleasant
Some owne rs reported no sp ecific concern ab out populations or
welfareofwildlife,butstillconsideredhuntingproblematicbecause
cats br ought prey into t he home, crea ting an unple asant situat ion
fortheowner: “Absolutely the worstthing…is thehunting because
obviouslythat 'sabitgrossandyouendup,occasionally,withalive
mouseorwhatever…”(28).Manyparticipantsvividly recalledocca‐
sionswhentheircat shadbroughtdead,mauled,orlivelypreyhome:
“Theworst everwasalivevole…I wokeup with itrunning through
myhairandthatwashorrible”(34).Again,however,concernsabout
thiswereof tenqualifiedwithrecognitionthathavingpreybrought
inwasaconstituentpartofcatownership.
3.2 | Ownerperceptionsofresponsibilityfortheir
cats’ hunting behaviour
Weasked about hunting behaviour as part of aseries ofquestions re‐
gar dingowne rs’responsibilitie stoandforth eircats .Cons equentl y,so me
oftheresponsesinthissectionadditionallyrefertoownerresponsibility
forotherissuesassociatedwithcatsroaming outdoors, particularlynui‐
sance behaviours (e.g., fighting, toileting)andrisks to cat safety.Among
ourparticipants,weidentifiedfivedifferentperspectivesrelatingtoown‐
ers’responsibilitiesformanagingtheircats’huntingbehaviour(Figure3).
3.2.1 | Catownershavenoresponsibilityfor
managinghunting,becausehuntingdoesnotneedto
be managed
Participantswhodidnot considercathuntingbehaviouraproblem,
orwhodesiredhuntingbehaviour,werecorrespondinglyunlikelyto
believe themselves—or anyone else—responsible for managing it.
Additionally,someowners,thoughnotnecessarilyhappywiththeir
cats’hunting,hadnotconsideredwhethertheyheldanyresponsibil‐
ity for it asowners (e.g., “I hadn't reallythoughtabout birds being
endangeredandtherefore[hunting]beingabadthing”[32]).
|
7
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
3.2.2 | Catownershavenoresponsibility
formanaginghuntingbehaviour,because
cats are autonomous
Themostimpor tantbarriertoassumingresponsibility,however,
wasowners’perceptionsthat itwouldbeeitherextremelydif‐
ficult , or impossible, to c ontrol their cat s’ behaviour. For one
group of par ticipants, this barrier was sufficient for them to
assume no responsibility for their cat when roaming, for ex‐
ample,“Idon'tthinkcatownersshouldhavethatmuchrespon‐
sibility…it's reallydif ficult,whentheygooutof yoursightyou
don't know wherethey are, andyoudon't know what theyare
doing”(22).Thisviewwasinformedbyakeyperceptionofcats
as somewhat wildand independent, and therefore (compared
to dogs and other pets) exempt from tight control: “They're
notfully domesticated. I mean, thereisquite a lot of wildin a
cat” (33). There was also aview—consistent with common law
intheUnitedKingdom—that itissociallyacceptableforcatsto
roamandthathuntingandotherbehaviourswereencompassed
within that: “I thinkthere's a general perception…thatcats are
independent bynature and they'lldoexactlywhattheylike.In
someways,that'swhywelikethem,becausetheydothat”(09).
Indeed, independence and autonomy were regularly given as
keyreasonsfor choosing and preferring c ats over other, more
closelycontrolled,pets.
3.2.3 | Catownershavesomeresponsibilityfor
managinghunting,butcatbehaviourischallenging
to control
Another group of par ticipants was conflicted about this same
issue; they didfeel some responsibility for theircat'sbehaviour,
but also fe lt that this was ext remely challen ging to control ef‐
fectively:“Ithinkyoucan take personalresponsibilitytoapoint,
whe nyouc an”(31).T hisgr oupprop os edarang eofpossi bl estrat‐
egiesfor taking someresponsibility,including “restrict[ing] their
access to certain things,whetheritwouldbeacollar with a bell
onitorkeep[ing]theminatnightwhentheirhuntingseemstobe
worse”(20).Still,manyparticipantsdid not suggest—orbelieve—
that they co uld fully curt ail this behaviour, as it was ge nerally
assumed that this would involve permanently confiningcats, an
unpopularmanagementoption.
3.2.4 | Catownershavesomeresponsibilityfor
managinghunting,butthisconflictswithother
responsibilities
Our findings suggest thatthe practiceofallowing cats to roamis
associatedwith a widespread belief that confining cats has nega‐
tivewelfare implications,particularly in relation to cats’ ability to
express “natural” or normal behaviours including exploration, out‐
door rela xation (e.g., ba sking in sunshi ne), and hunting. A s noted
above,someownerswereconcernedabouttheircats’predationon
wildlife,whichconflictedwiththeirpreferenceforallowingcatsto
roam:“Isupposeitismyresponsibilitytotryandstopthat.Butit's
difficult… Icould shut the catflapatnightsohe doesn't getout…
ButthenformeI'mdenyinghimhisnaturalinstincts”(04).Amore
prevale nt view, however, was that owner s were conflic ted about
allowingroamingduetoconcernforthecats’safet y(particularlyas
regardsroadtraffic).Ownerswere,therefore,requiredtoweighup
theris kofroa mi ng ag ainst th er isk sofconfi ne ment, whichformany
pa r tic ipa nts’wa sas soc iat edw ith alo we rqu ali t yofli fe, for exa mpl e ,
“IdofeelresponsiblebutthereisnothingIcandoaboutthatother
than not lettingit out and I think its freedom is more important”
(35); “Ther e's the risk of them get ting knocked d own…or gettin g
lost whe n going outsid e, but I think t he quality of l ife outweig hs
thatrisk,forme”(28).
3.2.5 | Catownershavesomeresponsibility,asa
collective,formitigatingtheimpactsofhuntingby
reducing cat numbers
Finally,afewparticipant sviewedthemitigationofhuntingbehaviour
asacollective(ratherthanindividual)responsibility:“you'llreadthe
incrediblefigureofhowmanywildcreaturesthatc atswillkilland,to
alargeex tentthat'sb ecausewe'vegotah ugep opulationofcat s.So,
let'sstopbreedingthecats…”(10).Thispositionwasassociatedwith
aperceptionthat,inurban–suburbanareas,individualcatswereun‐
likelytosubstantiallyeffectwildlifepopulations,butthathighdensi‐
tiesofcatscouldplaceunduepressureonvulnerablewildlife.
FIGURE 3 Schematicshowing
variationinparticipant sviewsonc at
ownerresponsibilitiesformanaging
huntingbehaviourindomesticcats.See
textfordetailsandexamples
8
|
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
3.3 | Catowners’perceptionsofhunting
mitigation methods
Inthisfinalsection,wediscusshowparticipantsperceiveddifferent
kinds of met hods for miti gating hunti ng behaviour i n cats, incl ud‐
ing both wel l‐known strateg ies (e.g., contain ment, collar‐mounted
devices),but alsoindirectmeasuressuchasremoving bird feeders
toreduceopportunitiesforpredation(Figure4).Manyparticipants
didnotperceivetheircats’huntingtobesufficientlyproblematicfor
them to inte rvene, bo th for reason s discussed a bove and also be ‐
causeownersoftenperceivedthattheircatwasnotkillingasignifi‐
cantquantit yofwildlife, orasignificantenoughspecies,torequire
intervention. Never theless,theyoften went ontoconcludethat“if
Ihadacatthatwaskillingstuf fallthetimeIwouldmakesureitwas
shutup…atnight”(01);and“Wildlife...Iguessitisanissue.Iguessif
theystartedbringingloadsandloadsofstuffin…Iwouldkeepthem
inatnight”(34).Ofthoseownerswhoused,orhadpreviouslyused,
mitigationmeasures,thefollowingstrategieswerereported.
3.3.1 | Temporalandspatialconfinement
Participantswhokept their cat sin atnightsometimesdidsotore‐
ducetheir cat'shunting, althoughthisoften ser vedadualfunction
ofminimizingrisksfromroadtraffic.Onehouseholdonlykepttheir
catinatnightduring springwhentheyhadfoundhunting offledg‐
lings to be a par ticularproblem.Twohouseholds keptcats indoor‐
onlyorfullyconfined(inruns)which,althoughprimarilyforthecats’
protection,also preventedany hunting.Anotherthree households
had fence d their gardens , which enable d their pets to go o utside
without roaming and reportedly limited their hunting. However,
manyownersperceived strong ethical and practical barriers to cat
confinementandparticularlypermanentindoorconfinement(which
was conside red unfair or “comp letely agai nst a cat's nat ure” [27]).
Confinement is also not a realistic option for those people who
keep cat s for pest contr ol purposes , and who are inde ed unlikely
tocontemplate anymeasuresto mitigatehunting,as this isthepri‐
mary p urpose of thei r keeping cats . Temporary conf inement (e.g .,
keeping cats in overnight), while not necessarily opposed by own‐
ers, was sometimes considered difficult to implement in practice,
with repo rts of cat s previously all owed outdoor acce ss becoming
stressedanddisruptiveiftheirroutineswerechanged.
3.3.2 | Collar‐mounteddevices
Ownerswerebroadlyawareofthepracticeofusingcollar‐mounted
devices,and par ticularlybells, asameansofreducingcats’success
rate when hunting. Several participants had usedcollarswith bells
andbelievedthesetobeeffective.However,othershadtrialledcol‐
lar‐mounted devices unsuccessfully, either because cats rejected
wearing a collar (“Iputit on him and he justwentberserk”[04])or
bell(“evenifIjustringthebellawayfromthem…Theygomad”[29]).
Therewasalsoconcern aboutthewelfareimplications ofbothcol‐
larsanddevices;severalownershadexperienced,orknewof,inci‐
dences of cat sbeing injured by their collar.A few wereconcerned
thatthepersistentnoise made by bellswouldbestressfulforcats.
Finally,several ownerswerenotconvincedthatcollars were an ef‐
fectivemitigationmethod: “If we could justputabellonhercollar
andknowthatshewouldneverbeableto hunt againwe would do
iteventhoughIknowit'sabitannoyingforher.Butitdoesn'treally
seemto work”(30). Ownerscomfortableusingquick‐releasesafety
collarsneverthelessfoundthischallenging,ascollarswerereported
to be frequently lost or, in some cases, “pinged off” by the cat s
themselves:“We'veputcollarsonhim"(25b)"andhe'sgotthemoff
withinseconds”(25a).Someparticipantsalsobelievedthattheircats
hadlearnedtostalkwithoutthebellsounding,reducingthedevice's
effectiveness.
3.3.3 | “Rescuing”prey
When prey w as returned to t he home stil l alive, owners r egularly
repor ted attemptin g to intervene an d stop the cat fro m killing it.
Reporteddriversfor this behaviour wereconcern forprey welfare
and, morepragmatically,wishing to avoidhaving live animalsand/
or the mess of “maimed” animals in the house. Participants fre‐
quently acknowledged,however,thatremovingpreydidnotneces‐
sarily guaranteeits sur vival. A coupleofowners reportedwarning
orotherwisedistractingtheircatswhentheyobservedthemhunt‐
ing: “I shout at themwhen I seethem st alking” (29); which c an be
FIGURE 4 Directandindirect
interventionsparticipantsreportusing,
orhavingtried,asmeansofmitigating
huntingbehaviourindomesticcats.
Althoughownersreportedemploying
thesemethodswithvaryingdegrees
ofsuccess,theireffectivenesshasnot
necessarilybeenevaluatedfroman
ecologicalperspective
|
9
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
interpretedaseitheraneffort todirectlyintervenein cats’hunting
behaviour,orasa casualattempt tomoregenerallydiscouragethis
behaviourthroughaversiontraining.
3.3.4 | Indirectmitigationmethods
Providing supplementary food forwild birds is a common practice
inthe UnitedKingdom.Oneregularlyreported,indirectmitigation
strategy involved owners avoiding attracting birds into their gar‐
denbyremoving,orintentionallynotinstalling,birdfeedersornest
boxes.However,a coupleof participantsconverselyexplainedthat
theyactivelyfedbirds,eitherasacounterpointor“balance”against
thedetrimentaleffectofcatpredation,orduetoabeliefthat“ifyou
feedbirds,ifyougetmorebirdsinyourgarden[...]they'relesslikely
tobehuntedbecauseofthevolumeofthem”(08).
One ownerwho did notconsider her cat a prolific hunter sug‐
gested th at: “maybe it's b ecause I… play with him a lot an d enter‐
tainhim...Iwonderwhetherifyouspendenoughtimewithyourpet,
thatthatcanpossiblymakeadifference”(11).However,otherswere
scepticalaboutthe potentialfortoysand otherenrichmentstrate‐
gies to eff ectivel y replace hunt ing behaviou r: “We give the m toys
butatthe end of thedaytheir toys don't do anything, andthey're
cats an d [hunting is] what cat s do” (36). One owner rep orted re‐
searchingcat breedsthat were lesslikely toroam and huntbefore
gettingacat.
4 | DISCUSSION
4.1 | Huntingasaproblematicbehaviour
Forcatownerstoconsidermitigatingtheirpets’huntingbehaviour,
theyfirstneedtoperceive it as eitheranactual or potential prob‐
le m .W eid e nti f ied asp e c t rum ofv i ew s amo n gou rpa r t i cip a nts, f rom
those whosaw hunting as desirable to those who found it deeply
concerning.Akeyperspective,however,wasaccept anceofhunting
asanormal,“natural”behaviourthat,regardlessofowners’feelings
about it, wasunder stoodas a constituent element ofc atowner‐
ship. If prospective cat owners were strongly concerned about
wildlife impacts, therefore, they maybeless likely to obtain a cat;
conversely,acceptanceofhuntingbehaviourmaybemorecommon
amongcatowners.Thiswouldbeconsistentwithexistingresearch
indicating that non‐owners are more likely to consider domestic
catsathreattowildlife(Graysonetal.,20 02;Lilithetal.,2006;Hall
etal.,2016).However,non‐ownershavealsobeenfoundtobemore
likelytohavenegative attitudestocatsin general(Toukhsatietal.,
2012),sowhetherornothuntingbehaviourspecificallyisagenuine
orwidespreadbarriertocatownershipremainsunknown.
Althoughsomeowners hadbroaderconcernsaboutcats’po‐
tential(ingeneral)tonegativelyimpactwildlife,participantsoften
didnotconsidertheirown catstobeprolificenough,ortargeting
therel ev antspec ie s,tobeaprob lem .Itmayth er eforebeth at on ly
owners wh ose cats are p rolific hunter s, or who have par ticular,
competinginterests in wildlife (andespecially bird) conservation
and/or welfare are likely to consider hunting behaviour suffi‐
cientlyproblematictointervene.Someofourparticipant s,having
beenalertedtothepotentialthreat towildlifeby wordofmouth
ormediareport s,hadsubsequentlyresearchedtheissuebuthad
foundlittleevidencetoconvincethemthattheircatposedarisk
worthyofintervention.
Concern for thewelfare ofindividualwild animalsmay,insome
cases, be a strongerdriver ofintervention thanconcernforwildlife
populationsatlargerscales.Even ifownersdo notseetheir catsas
havingaparticulareffectonpopulations,theyareoftenforcedtoob‐
servecat scausingpreytosufferandmayempathise.Formany,how‐
ever,predation by cats is thought of as “natural”, not onlyinterms
of cat behaviour but also as a self‐regulating ecological process.
Veryfewpar ticipantsraisedor(whenprompted)hadconsideredthe
potential effects of catdensity or conceptualised domestic cats as
particularly distinct from native wildlife. Most participant s there‐
foreconsideredhunting behaviour an acceptable,ifnotnecessarily
desirable, aspec tofcat behaviour.Furthermore, therewereindica‐
tionsthatcats’independenceand“wildness”arepart of their appeal;
catswereconsideredmoreautonomousthandogs,andparticipants
regularlyreferredtothecomparativelackofcommitmentandatten‐
tion they fe lt cats re quired. Thi s autonomy par tially re lies on cat s’
territor ial behaviour a nd accompanyin g ability to sel f‐exercise and
self‐entertainthrough roaming. Predationonwildlifeis dependent
onaccesstotheoutdoors,anditisthereforedifficulttodisentangle
theper ce ivedben ef itsofroam in gf romth ea pp arentrisk so fh un ting.
4.2 | Responsibilityformanagingbehaviour
Inthe UnitedKingdom,anyimpacts ofdomesticcatsonwildlifewill
likely be related to cat density and overall numbers. Consequently,
unless theyareparticularlysuccessful orenthusiastichunters orare
roaming insensitive habitats (e.g., nature reserves),individual cats
are unlikely tos trongly impact wildlife populations. Minimising cat
impact smight therefore be considered a shared,ratherthansimply
an individual,responsibility. However,as with other environmental
issuesthatarisefromdetrimentalcumulativeactions(e.g.,waste,en‐
ergy consumption), individuals may not feel thatchanging theirper‐
sonalbehaviourcanmakeapalpabledifference.Furthermore,there
arehighdegrees of individual variation in cat roamingandhunting
behaviour.Ourfindings suggest thatwhereownersrecognise their
catasaprolifichunter(andareconcerned abouthunting), they may
bemorein clinedtota kemitigatingac tio n.However,ifowner sdon ot
seetheirpet'sbehaviourasunusualorproblematic,theymaybeless
likely tovoluntarily assumeresponsibilityformanaging it.Thisphe‐
nomenon isheightened by the broader societal acceptance,in the
Un i tedK i n gdom , ofu n c onstr a i n edr o a m ing b yow n e dcat s ( M cDo n a l d
etal.,2015;Thomas etal.,2012),evenwhencomparedtoculturally
similarcountriessuchastheUSAandAustralia(Halletal.,2016).
Many owners did, however, perceive themselves as at least
partlyresponsible forreducing theircats’potentialtocauseprivate
nuisance,particularlyifthisinvolvedriskstoothers’petsorproperty
(i.e., cat–cat ag gression or c ats enterin g people's home s). In these
10
|
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
instances,ownersweremorewillingtotakereparativeresponsibility
fortheircats’behaviour(e.g.,bycoveringcostsofveterinarybillsor
damage).However,thiswasgenerallydrivenbyadesiretomaintain
goodcommunityrelationships,ratherthanasenseofmoralrespon‐
sibilityfortheircats’behaviour,indicatingthepotentialimportance
ofsocialnormsandexpectationsasinfluencesonownerbehaviour.
There was lessconcern aboutcats urinating and defecatingingar‐
dens,somethingmostparticipantsthoughtunrealistictocontrol(the
onuswas generallyplacedon garden ownerstohumanely protect
theirpropertyfromcats).Culturalfactorsarerelevantagainhere,as
thepresenceofcat singardensandpublicspaces,whilenotalways
appreciated,retainsahighlevelofsocialacceptabilityintheUnited
Kingdom (com pared with th e USA, where m ost public ordi nances
relating tocatsare implemented to manage such private nuisance
behaviours:Halletal.,2016).
4.3 | Mitigationstrategies
Cat safety—and particularly road safety—was a strongerdriver for
ownerstorestricttheircats’roamingthanwildlifeimpacts,asmost
participantsdidfeelresponsibleforprotectingthehealthandwell‐
being of their cats. It is therefore wor th recognizing that, in some
cases, cat ownersmaybe unintentionallymanaging huntingbehav‐
iour as a cons equence of th eir protec tive behavio ur towards the ir
cats; t hat is, owners do not n ecessarily n eed to perceive hunt ing
asa problem,orassume personal responsibility for managing it, to
practice cat confinement. Simultaneously, however, many owners
recognis edthatexplorat io n,ter ri torialroamin g,andhu ntingareno r‐
mal cat be haviours and wi shed to avoid rest ricting the se. A com‐
monconclusionamongparticipantswasthatthebenefitsprovided
tocats by roaming outweighed the potential risks of injury,death,
orloss(despite suchrisksbeingrelativelyhigh,especiallyforyoung
cats: O'Neill, Church, McGreevy, Thomson, & Brodbelt, 2015).
Consequently, although Australasian and North American cam‐
paignsadvocatecatcontainmentas ameasureofimprovinganimal
welfare,thisisnotasstraightforwardadriverasitmayseem,andis
complicatedbythewelfareimplicationsofpermanentconfinement.
Indoorcatsaremorelikelytosufferfromobesityandstress‐induced
pathologies, especiallyif insufficientenrichment is provided (Alho,
Pontes, & Pomba, 2016).This and other,morepractical barriersto
confinement(suchasthechallengesofchangingadultcat s’routines)
arerarelyconsideredbyadvocatesofrestrictingcatroaming,butare
significantininformingthedecisionsofcatowners.Itshouldalsobe
notedthatriskstocatsinNorthAmerica,forexample,includerabies
andpredationofcats by wildlife, neitherofwhich are per tinentto
manycatowners in the UnitedKingdom (thoughsomereportcon‐
cernsaboutpredationbyredfoxesVulpes vulpes).
Use of collar s may be limited by resi dual concerns abo ut their
safety(despitetherelativeinfrequencywithwhichquick‐releasecol‐
larshavebeenfoundtocauseinjury;Calver,Adams,Clark,&Pollock,
2013),p ra ct ic alconce rnsab ou tthee xp enseofco nsisten tl yrepl acing
quick‐releasecollars,lackofacceptance bycats, orperceivedinef fi‐
ca c yat pre ve n tin ghu nti n g.T her eis cle a rly an e edf orm ore rob u sty et
reliablysafequick‐releasecollarstobedeveloped, andalthoughcol‐
lar‐mounted devicescanreduce huntingefficiency (Calver,Thomas,
Bradley, & McC utcheon, 20 07; Gordon, Mat thaei, & He ezik, 2010;
Hall, Font aine, Br yant, & Cal ver,2015; N elson, Evans, & B radbur y,
2005;Ruxton,Thomas,&Wright ,2002;Willson,Okunlola,&Novak,
2015),furtherwork tocompare theef fectivenessandsafety of dif‐
ferent devices would be beneficial. There are also multiple other
strategies,somelessdirect,bywhichcathuntingbehaviourmightbe
reducedormitigated,andwhicharecomparativelyunder‐researched.
Theseincludeenhancedenrichment(tosatisfybehaviouraldriversof
hunting),differentmodelsoftemporaryconfinement(e.g.,overnight,
dusk/dawn, day time), breed a nd early‐life ef fects, a nd dietary f ac‐
tors.Inadditiontoresearchingtheeffectivenessofthesealternative
management strategies, social research should be simultaneously
conductedtoidentifyincentivesandbarrierstotheirimplementation
(e.g.,McLeodetal.,2015;Harrodetal.,2016).
5 | CONCLUSION
We have (a) highlighted the diversity of UK cat owners’ percep‐
tions of their pets’ hunting behaviour and their responsibility, or
other wise, for it; an d (b) identified a nd explored so me of the key
issues surroundingincentives andbarrierstomanaging thisbehav‐
iour.Particularly,wehaveidentifiedthatalthoughownersareoften
unhappy abouttheir cats’ hunting,they may feelunable to control
iteffectively without compromisingcat welfare. It is therefore im‐
portantthatanyinitiativesintendedtoalterbehaviourconsiderthat
catownershavetodealwithmultiple,complexfactors,andcompet‐
ingprioritiesintheirdecision‐making. When itcomestohusbandry
decisions, immediate concerns about cat safety and welfare—an
owner'slegalaswellasmoralresponsibilit y—arelikelytotakeprec‐
edence overbroader,more abstract ethicalresponsibilitiestowild‐
life.Consequently,proposed management interventions, aswellas
being ef fective, s hould ideal ly improve, and a t worst not comp ro‐
mise,catsafetyandwelfare.Itisalsovitalthatresearchtodevelop
andtrialmanagementinterventionsisconductedinpartnershipwith
catowners,whowillbekeytotheiruptakeandeffec tiveimplemen‐
tation (forasimilarargumentfroma NewZealandperspective,see
Kikillu s, Chamber s, Farnworth , & Hare, 2017). Given t he diversit y
ofviewsidentifiedinthisexploratorystudy,furtherresearchisalso
warrantedtobetterunderstandtheprevalenceof,andrelationships
between,differentcatownerperspectivesonthisissue.
Globally,domesticcats,andparticularlyferalpopulations,are
considered a significant threat to vulnerable wildlife (Medina et
al.,2 011;Losset al .,2013;Dohe rty etal.,2017;IUCNIS SG ,2018).
However,thereissubstantialvariation in howcats are perceived
indifferentsocioculturalcontexts.TheUnitedKingdomprovides
aparticularlyinterestingexamplebecause(despiteferalcatsbeing
formallyclassifiedas non‐native)domesticcats are not generally
characterized as an introduced species, and indeed are often
treated akin to native, wild fauna. There is widespread accep‐
tance ofroamingcatsin gardensandpublicspaces, and conflicts
|
11
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
surrounding individual catmanagement tend to revolve around
nuisance behaviours rather than predationper se. Nevertheless,
cultura l norms are sub ject to chang e. The United K ingdom's cat
population has already undergone substantial changes in hus‐
bandryover the past century,including both asteady increasein
overallpopulationnumbersand,reportedly,agrowingproportion
ofcats being kept partiallyorwholly indoors (20%: PDSA , 2016,
andseeInternationalCat Care,2017). Thiscorrespondswiththe
developm ent of commercial c at food, cat lit ter,a nd the growth
ofcats ascompanions, as opposed to free labour on rural prop‐
ertie s. These shif ts potentially have b oth positive and ne gative
implications for catimpact sonwildlife.The growingcat popula‐
tionmay placemorepressureon vulnerable species, particularly
whereoutdoorcatsarefoundinhighdensities,buttherehasalso
been an increase in owner attachment to andinvestment in pet
cats. Ahighproportionofownedcat sin the United Kingdomare
now neuter ed, for example (Ha ll et al., 2016; Sánchez‐Vizca íno
et al., 2017), which theoretically helps minimize the incidence
of unwanted k ittens and t he estab lishment of fer al populati ons.
Oneareainwhichuncontrolledbreedingisstillanissueisamong
farm cats. Animal welfare and conservation charities both advo‐
cate conce rted effor ts to reduce unn eutered and inter breeding
farmpopulations,andthereisvaluablepotentialforcollaboration
andcapacitybuildingin thisarea.Greatercollaboration between
welfare,veterinary,andconservationorganizationsmayalsohelp
identif yconstruc tiveandpra cticalmeasuresthatownerscantake
toreducetheriskdomesticcatsposetovulnerablewildlife.
IntheUnitedKingdom,anyregulatoryinterventionsincatown‐
ershipormanagementonthesolegroundsofreducinghuntingbe‐
haviour would runcountertocurrentlywidespreadsocietalvalues
and could place unnecessary restrictions on owners whose cats
either do not huntorarevaluedforpest control. However,action
tomitigate hunting behaviour should be encouraged as a positive,
valuable, and practical component of responsiblepet ownership.
Despite their different priorities, cat welfare, veterinar y,and con‐
serva tion organi zations oft en agree on the i mport ance of neuter‐
ing,vaccinations,worming,andmicrochipping.Ensuringthatthese
responsibleownershippracticesbecomesocialnormsmayserveto
(a) reduce the n umber of str ay and unwante d cats, (b) re duce the
riskandincidenceofdisease,includingzoonoses,and(c)encourage
owners to recognize and takeresponsibilit y for theircats (shifting
attitudes away from an underlyingperceptionofcats as compara‐
tively commitment‐free,or even disposable).Par ticularly,compul‐
sorymicrochipping(whichhasrecentlybeenlegislatedfordogs,and
of whi c hma nyp a r t ici p ant s were sup p o r tive)w o uld cons t itut eas t ep
towardsformalizing owners’ responsibilities for their cats,regard‐
lessoftheirwhereaboutsandactivities. Althoughnotcontributing
directlytomitigationofpredation,promotingresponsiblepetown‐
ershipencourages acultureofgreaterattentivenessandaccount‐
ability,the benefits of whichmayextend to widerissues including
ecologicaland environmental health. Encouraging ownersto take
responsibilityfortheircatswillthereforebekeytobothimproving
catwelfareandminimizingcats’nuisanceandwildlifeimpacts.
COMPETINGINTERESTS
TheprojectofwhichthisresearchformspartisfundedbySongBird
Surv ival. The fund er was involved in th e conceptualiz ation of the
project,buthadnoroleindesign,datacollection,analysis,decision
topublish,orpreparationofthemanuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Wethankallourparticipantsfortheir time andcontributions. Weare
grateful to theprojectsponsor, SongBird Survival, forfunding thisre‐
search. We al so thank Protect aPet for assisting wi th recruitment of
ownerswithcatenclosures,themembersofourProjectAdvisoryGroup
forvaluableguidanceandfeedbackonthisstudy,andMarkFarnworth
andAshleyA.Dayerfortheirconstructiveandsuppor tivereviews.
AUTHORCONTRIBUTIONS
S.C. and R .M. conceived theideas and designed the methodology;
S.C .collec te da nd an al ys edthed at aandledthewritingoft hema nu ‐
script.R.M. and M.C. contributedcriticallyto the draf ts and all au‐
thorsgavefinalapprovalforpublication.
DATAACCESSIBILITY
Raw (redacted, anonymized) transcripts: Zenodo entr y http://doi.
org/10.5281/zenodo.1493301 (Crowley, Cecchetti, McDonald,
2018).
ORCID
Sarah L. Crowley https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐4854‐0925
Martina Cecchetti https://orcid.org/0000‐0003‐3962‐8834
Robbie A. McDonald https://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐6922‐3195
REFERENCES
Alho, A . M., Pontes, J., & Pomba, C. (2016).Guardians’ knowledge and
husbandrypractices offeline environmentalenrichment.Journal of
Applied Animal Welfare Science,19,115–125.https://doi.org/10.1080
/10888705.2015.1117976
Ash,S.,&Adams,C.(2003). Publicpreferencesforfree‐rangingdomes‐
ticcat(Felis catus)managementoptions.Wildlife Society Bulletin,31,
334–339.
Blancher,P.(2013).Estimatednumberofbirdskilledbyhousecats(Felis
catus) i n Canada. Avian Conser vation and Ecology, 8, 3. ht tps://do i.
org /10.5751/ACE‐0 0557‐08 020 3
Bonnin gton, C. , Gaston, K . J., & Evans, K . L. (2013). Fear ing the fe‐
line: Domestic c ats reduce avian fecundity through trait‐me‐
diated indirect effects that increase nest predation by other
species. Journal of Applied Ecology, 50, 15–24. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1365‐2664.12025
Calver, M. C ., Adams , G., Clar k, W., & Pollock , K. H. (2013). A ssessi ng
the safet y of collars used to attach predation deterrent devices
and ID tags to pet cats. Animal Welfare, 22, 95–105. ht tps://doi.
org/10.7120/0 9627286.2 2.1. 095
12
|
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
Calver, M., Thomas, S., Bradley, S., & McCutcheon, H. (20 07).
Reducin g the rate of pr edation on w ildlife by pe t cats: Th e effi‐
cacy and prac ticability of collar‐mounted pounce protectors.
Biological Conservation, 137, 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biocon.2007.02.015
Cr o w le y, S .L . , C ec c h et t i ,M . , &M c Do n a ld , R .A .( 2 01 8 ). H un t i ng b e ha v io u r
in domestic cat s: An exploratory study of risk and responsibility
amongcatowners .Zenodo,http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1493301
Dickman,C .R .,&Newsome, T.M. (2015). Individual huntingbehaviour
andprey specialisationinthe house catFelis catus: Implicationsfor
conservation and management. Applied Animal Behaviour Science,
173,76–87.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.09.021
Doher ty,T.S.,Dickman,C.R.,Johnson,C.N.,Legge,S.M.,Ritchie,E.G.,
&Woinarski,J. C.Z.(2017).Impacts and management of feralc ats
Felis catusinAustralia.Mammal Review,47,83–97.
Dombrosky,J.,&Wolvlerton,S.(2014).TNRandconservationon auni‐
versity campus: A political ecological perspective. Pe erJ , 2, e312.
https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.312
Farnworth, M. J., Wat son, H., & Adams, N . J. (2014). Understanding
attitudes toward the control of nonnative wild and feral mammals:
Similaritiesanddifferencesintheopinionsofthegeneralpublic,an‐
imalprotectionists,andconservationistsinNewZealand(Aotearoa).
Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science,17,1–17.
Gordon,J.K.,Matthaei,C.,&vanHeezik,Y.(2010).Belledcollarsreduce
catchofdomesticcats inNewZealandbyhalf.Wildlife Research,37,
372–378.https://doi.org/10.1071/WR09127
Gramza,A.,Teel,T.,VandeWoude,S.,&Crooks,K.(2016).Understanding
publicperceptionsofriskregardingoutdoorpetcatstoinformcon‐
servation action. Conservation Biology, 30, 276–286. ht tps://doi.
org /10.1111/cobi.12631
Grayson,J.,Calver,M.,&Styles,I.(2002).AttitudesofsuburbanWestern
Australians toproposedcatcontrollegislation. Australian Veterinary
Journal, 80, 536–543. htt ps://doi. org/10 .1111/j.1751‐0 813 .20 02.
tb11030.x
Hall, C. M., Adams, N. A., Bradley, J. S., Br yant, K. A., Davis, A. A.,
Dickma n, C. R., … Ca lver, M. C. (2016). Commu nity attitu des and
prac ticesofurbanresident sregardingpredationbypetcatsonwild‐
life:Aninternationalcomparison.PLoS ONE, 11, e0151962.https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0151962
Hall, C. M., Fontaine, J. B., Bryant, K. A., & Calver, M. C. (2015).
AssessingtheeffectivenessoftheBirdsbesafe®anti‐predation col‐
lar cover in re ducing pre dation on wild life by pet cat s in Western
Australia.Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 173, 40–51.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.applanim.2015.01.004
Hanmer,H .J., Thomas,R.L.,&Fellowes, M.D.(2017). Urbanisationin‐
fluences range sizeofthe domestic cat (Felis catus):Consequences
for conservation. Journal of Urban Ecolog y, 3, jux014. https://doi.
org/10.1093/jue/jux014
Harrod,M.,Keown,A .J.,&Farnworth,M.J.(2016).Useandperception
ofcollarsforcompanioncatsinNewZealand.New Zealand Veterinar y
Journal,64,121–124.htt ps://doi.org/10.10 80/00 48 0169.2015.1110
064
Hillier, J., & Byrne, J. (2016). Is extermination to be the legacy of
Mary Gilber t’s cat? Organization, 23(3), 387–406. https://doi.
org /10.117 7/1350508416629455
International Cat Care. (2017). Indoors vs Outdoors. Available from:
https://icatcare.org/advice/keeping‐your‐cat‐happy/indoors‐
versus‐outdoors
IUCNISSG(InternationalUnionfortheConser vationofNatureInvasive
SpeciesSpecalistG roup). (2018). GlobalInvasive SpeciesDatabase.
Speciesprofile.Felis catus.Availablefrom:http://www.iucngisd.org/
gisd/speciesname/Felis+catus
Kikillus,K.H., Chambers, G. K.,Farnworth ,M.J.,& Hare, K.M.(2017).
Research challenges and conservation implications for urban cat
managementinNewZealand.Pacific Conservation Biology,23,15–24.
Kingborough Council (Tasmania). (2017). Report on Bruny Island Cat
OwnerSurvey.
Lilith, M., Calver, M., Styles, I., & Garkaklis, M. (2006). Protecting
wildlife from predation by owned domestic cats: Application
of a precautionary approach to the accept abilit y of pro‐
posed cat regulations. Austral Ecology, 31, 176–189. https://doi.
org /10.1111/j .1442‐9993. 200 6. 01582.x
Loss, S. R ., & Marra, P.P.(2018). Merchant sofdoubt in thefree‐rang‐
ing cat conflict. Conservation Biology, 32, 265–266. https://doi.
org /10.1111/cobi.130 85
Loss, S. R ., Will, T., Lon gcore, T., & Marra , P. P. (2018). Resp onding to
misinformation and criticisms regarding United States cat pre‐
dation estimates. Biological Invasions, http s://doi.org /10.10 07/
s10530‐018‐1796‐y
Loss,S .R.,Will,T.,&Mar ra,P.P.(2013).Theimpactoffree‐rangingdo‐
mesticcatsonwildlifeoftheUnitedSt ates.Nature Communications,
4,1396.
Loyd,K.A.T.,&Hernandez,S.M.(2015).Publicperceptionsofdomestic
cats and preferencesforferal cat managementin thesoutheastern
UnitedStates.Anthrozoös,25,337–351.
Loyd,K.A.T.,Hernandez,S.M.,Carroll,J.P.,Abernathy,K.J.,&Marshall,
G.J. (2013).Quantif ying free‐roamingdomestic catpredationusing
animal‐borne video cameras. Biological Conservation,160 , 183–189.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.01.008
Loyd,K.A.T.,&Miller,C.A.(2010).Influenceofdemographics,experi‐
enceandvalueorientationsonpreferencesforlethalmanagementof
feralcats.Human Dimensions of Wildlife,15,262–273.https://doi.org
/10.108 0/10871209.2010. 491846
Mahlaba,T.A .M.,Monadjem, A.,McCleer y,R., &Belmain,S. R.(2017).
Domesticc ats and dogs create alandsc apeoffearforpestrodents
around rural homesteads. PLoS ONE, 12, e0171953. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171593
McDonal d, J. L., Macle an, M., Evans, M . R., & Hodgso n, D. J. (2015).
Reconciling actual and perceived rates of predation by domestic
cats.Ecology and Evolution, 5, 2745–2753. https://doi. org /10.10 02/
ece3.1553
McLeod, L. J., Hine, D. W., & Bengsen, A. J. (2015). Born to roam?
Surveying cat owner sinTasmania,Australia, to identify the drivers
andbarrierstocatcontainment.Preventive Veterinary Medicine,122,
339–344.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.11.007
Medina,F.M.,Bonnaud,E.,Vidal,E.,Tershy,B.R.,Zavaleta,E.S.,Josh
Donlan, C., …Nogales, M. (2011).A global review ofthe impacts
of invasive c ats on islan d endanger ed vertebr ates. Global Change
Biology,17,350 3–3510.ht tps://doi .org /10.1111 /j.1365 ‐248 6. 2011.
02464.x
Nelson , S. H., Evans, A . D., & Bradbur y, R. B. (2005 ). The effic acy of
collar‐mounte ddevices in reducing the rate of predation of wildlife
by domestic cat s. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 94, 273–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2005.04.003
Nogales,M.,Vidal,E.,Medina,F.M.,Bonnaud,E.,Tershy,B.R.,Campbell,
K. J., &Zavalet a, E. S. (2013). Feralc ats and biodiversity conserva‐
tion:Theurgentprioritiz ationofislandmanagement .BioScience,63,
804–810.ht tps ://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2013.6 3.10.7
Nurse, A.,&Ryland,D. (2014).Catsandthelaw.InternationalCatCare
onbehalfofTheCatG roup.
O’Neill,D.G.,Church,D.B.,McGreevy,P.D.,Thomson,P.C.,&Brodbelt,
D.C.(2015).Longevity andmortalityofcatsattendingprimar ycare
veterinarypracticesinEngland.Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery,
17,125–133.https://doi.org/10.1177/1098612X14536176
PDSA (People’s Dispensar y for Sick Animals) (2016). PDSA animal well-
being report.Availablefrom:https://www.pdsa.org.uk/media/2627/
pdsa‐paw‐repor t‐2016‐printable.pdf
PDSA (People’s Dispensar y for Sick Animals) (2017). PDSA animal well-
being report.Availablefrom:https://www.pdsa.org.uk/media/3291/
pdsa‐paw‐report‐2017_printable‐1.pdf
|
13
People and Nature
CROWLE Y Et aL.
PDSA (People’s Dispensar y for Sick Animals) (2018). PDSA animal well-
being report.Availablefrom:https://www.pdsa.org.uk/media/4371/
paw‐2018‐full‐web‐ready.pdf
Peterso n, M. N., Ha rtis, B ., Rodrigu ez, S., G reen, M., & L epcz yk, C. A .
(2012). Opinions from the front lines of cat colony management
conflict. PLoS ONE, 7, e44616. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0044616
PFMA (Pet Food Manufacturer’s Association). (2018). Pet Population
2018.Availablefromhttps://www.pfma.org.uk/pet‐population‐2018
Ruxton , G., Thom as, S., & Wright , J. (2002). B ells reduc e predation o f
wildlifebydomestic cats (Felis catus).Journal of Zoology,256,81–83.
htt ps://doi.org/10.1017/S0952836902000109
Sánchez‐Vizcaíno, F.,Noble,P.J.M.,Jones,P.H.,Menacere,T.,Buchan,
I.,Reynolds,S.,…Radford,A.D.(2017).Demographic sofdogs,cats,
and rabbits at tending veterina ry practice s in Great Britain as re‐
corded in their electronic health records. BMC Veterinary Research,
13,1–13.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12917‐017‐1138‐9
The Royal S ociety for the P rotection of Bi rds. (2018). Are cat s caus‐
ing bird declines? Available from https://w ww.rspb.org.uk/birds‐
and‐wildlife/advice/gardening‐for‐wildlife/animal‐deterrents/
cats‐and‐garden‐birds/are‐cats‐causing‐bird‐declines/
Thomas,R.L .,Fellowes,M.D. E., &Baker,P.J. (2012). Spatio‐temporal
variati on in predati on by urban dom estic cat s (Felis catus)an d the
acceptabilityofpossiblemanagementactionsintheUK.PLoS ONE,7,
20–23.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049369
Touk hsa ti ,S .R .,Ben ne tt, P.C.,& Co le man ,G .J .(20 07 ). Be haviorsan dat‐
titudestowardssemi‐ownedcats.Anthrozoös, 20,131–142.ht tps://
doi.org/10. 2752/1753 03707X 207927
Toukhsati, S. R., Young, E ., Bennett, P. C., & Coleman, G. J. (2012).
Wandering cats: Attitudes and behaviors towards cat containment
inAustralia.Anthrozoös,25, 61–74.h ttps://doi.org/10. 2752/175303
712X13240 472427195
Travaglia,M.,& Miller,K.K .(2017).Cat sin theAustralianenvironment:
What’s your purr‐spec tive? Australasian Journal of Environmental
Management, 1–21. ht tps://doi .org /10.108 0/1448 6563. 2017.13694
65
Tschanz, B., Hegglin,D., Gloor,S.,&Bontadina, F. (2011). Hunters and
non‐hunters: Skewed predation rate by domestic cats in a rural
village. European Journal of W ildlife Research, 57,597–602. ht tps://
doi.org/10.10 07/s1034 4‐ 010‐0 470‐1
van Heez ik, Y., Smyth, A ., Adams , A., & Go rdon, J. (2010). D o domes‐
ticcatsimposean unsustainablehar vest onurbanbirdpopulations?
Biological Conservation, 143, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
bi o co n . 2 0 09.0 9. 013
Wald,D.M.,Jacobson,S.K.,&Levy,J.K.(2013).Outdoorcats:Identif ying
differences between stakeholder beliefs, perceived impacts, risk
andmanagement.Biological Conservation,167,414–424.https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.034
Willson ,S.K., Okunlola, I.A ., &Novak, J. A .(2015). Birds be safe:Can
a novel cat collar reduce avian mortality by domestic cats (Felis
catus)? Global Ecology and Conservation, 3, 359–366 . https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gecco.2015.01.004
Woods,M.,McDonald,R.A .,&Harris,S.(2003).Predationofwildlifeby
domesticcatsFelis catusinG reat Brit ain. Mammal Review, 33, 174–
188.https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365‐2907.2003.00017.x
Zito,S.,Vankan, D.,Bennett,P.,Paterson ,M.,&Phillips,C .J. C. (2015).
Ca town er sh ippercept io na nd ca ret ak in ge xp lor ed inanintern et su r‐
veyofpeopleassociatedwithcat s.PLoS ONE,10,e0133293 .ht tps: //
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133293
SUPPORTINGINFORMATION
Additional supporting information may be found online in the
Suppor tingInformationsectionattheendofthearticle.
How to cite this article:CrowleySL,CecchettiM,McDonald
RA.Huntingbehaviourindomesticcats:Anexplorator y
studyofriskandresponsibilityamongcatowners.People
Nat. 2019;00:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.6
