Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Two studies evaluated the effects of using collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals on reptile populations. Both studies were in Australia.



  • Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated, randomized studies (including one before-and-after and one controlled study) in Australia found that cats wearing collar mounted neoprene bibs, with or without a bell, caught a similar number of combined reptiles and amphibians compared to cats not wearing them. The other study found that cats wearing collar mounted ruffs brought home fewer combined reptiles and amphibians than cats not wearing them.


About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, randomized, before-and-after study in 2005 in urban areas in Western Australia, Australia (Calver et al. 2007) found that putting a ‘CatBib™’ on domestic cats Felis catus to inhibit pouncing, with or without a bell, did not decrease capture rates of reptiles and amphibians (combined). There was no difference in the number of cats that caught reptiles and amphibians when they wore the ‘pounce protector’ (10/56 cats) compared to when the same cats did not wear one (15/56 cats). The number of reptiles and amphibians captured was similar when wearing the protector (0.5/cat, 29 individuals) compared to when not wearing one (0.7/cat, 38 individuals). Changing the colour of the pounce protector did not reduce capture rates (teal: 2–3 reptiles/amphibians caught; purple: 2–4 reptiles/amphibians). Adding a bell to the pounce protector did not reduce capture rates (with bell: 1–4 reptiles/amphibians caught; no bell: 2–3 reptiles/amphibians). Reptiles caught included native skinks, geckos and lizards. The CatBib™ pounce protector is a neoprene flap that hangs from a collar in front of a cat’s front legs, acting either as a visual warning or as a barrier to pouncing. Cats (male = 34, female = 28) were randomly allocated to one of four treatments: wearing a teal-coloured pounce protector, a teal pounce protector with a bell, a purple pounce protector, or a purple pounce protector with a bell. Cat owners monitored dead and live prey caught by cats for six weeks (three weeks each with and without the device) in November–December 2005. Half of the cats in each treatment were monitored wearing the device first followed by no device and the other half were monitored without the device first.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2012–2014 in suburbs in Western Australia, Australia (Hall et al. 2015) found that cats Felis catus wearing ruff Birdsbesafe® collars brought home fewer reptile and amphibian prey (combined) compared to uncollared cats. Cats wearing Birdbesafe® collars brought home fewer reptiles and amphibians (red: 4 individuals, yellow: 2, rainbow: 1–26) than cats without collars (9, 8, 24–31). Collar colour did not significantly affect the reduction in reptiles and amphibians brought home, although overall captures of prey vertebrates with full colour vision (reptiles, amphibians and birds combined) were more reduced when rainbow-coloured collars were worn compared to vertebrates with limited colour vision (mammals). The effectiveness of red, yellow and rainbow-patterned Birdsbesafe® collars (5 cm wide ruff fitted over standard cat collars) were tested in 2012–2014 by randomly assigning colours to cats and monitoring prey captures for three-week periods with or without the collar (2012–2013: 39 cat households, 2013–2014: 43 new cat households). Only rainbow collars were tested in 2013–2014. Cat owners recorded dead and live prey captures.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Sainsbury K.A., Morgan W.H., Watson M., Rotem G., Bouskila A., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Reptile Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions for reptiles. Conservation Evidence Series Synopsis. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Reptile Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Reptile Conservation
Reptile Conservation

Reptile Conservation - Published 2021

Reptile synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust