Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation

Overall effectiveness category Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)
Number of studies: 2
Share Tweet Email

View assessment score

How is the evidence assessed?

Effectiveness

48%
Certainty

35%
Harms

not assessed

Calculating overall effectiveness category

Background information and definitions

Cat collars can be modified to carry either simple bells or more complex sonic alerts which scare birds before cats can catch them. Another option is a ‘bib’ which hangs in front of the cat’s legs, preventing them from hunting effectively.

Source countries

Key messages

Two replicated randomised and controlled studies in the UK and Australia found that significantly fewer birds were returned by cats wearing collars with various anti-hunting devices, compared to controls.
A replicated, randomised and controlled study from the UK found no significant differences between different devices.
Both UK studies found that collars were easily lost.

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

A replicated, randomised and controlled study in Perth, Australia in November-December 2005 (Calver et al. 2007) found that wearing a ‘CatBib™’ “pounce protector” (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) for three weeks, reduced the number of cats catching birds by 81% compared to when the same cats were not wearing the ‘CatBib™’ (5 vs. 26; n = 56 cats). The average number of birds captured per cat was also significantly lower (0.29 vs. 0.88). Adding a bell to the ‘CatBib™’ did not further reduce hunting.
Study and other actions tested
Referenced paper
Calver M., Thomas S., Bradley S. & McCutcheon H. (2007) Reducing the rate of predation on wildlife by pet cats: the efficacy and practicability of collar-mounted pounce protectors. Biological Conservation, 137, 341-348

Please cite as:

Williams, D.R., Child, M.F., Dicks, L.V., Ockendon, N., Pople, R.G., Showler, D.A., Walsh, J.C., zu Ermgassen, E.K.H.J. & Sutherland, W.J. (2020) Bird Conservation. Pages 137-281 in: W.J. Sutherland, L.V. Dicks, S.O. Petrovan & R.K. Smith (eds) What Works in Conservation 2020. Open Book Publishers, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Bird Conservation

Related Actions

Actions	Effectiveness	Studies	Category
Use aversive conditioning to reduce nest predation by avian predators Action Link	Unlikely to be beneficial	7	Synopsis Link
Reduce predation by translocating nest boxes Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	2	Synopsis Link
Use supplementary feeding to reduce predation Action Link	Unknown effectiveness (limited evidence)	3	Synopsis Link