Reducing the rate of predation on wildlife by pet cats: the efficacy and practicability of collar-mounted pounce protectors
-
Published source details
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.
Published source details 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.
Actions
This study is summarised as evidence for the following.
| Action | Category | |
|---|---|---|
|
Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation Action Link |
 |
|
|
Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals Action Link |
 |
-
Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation
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.
-
Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals
A replicated, randomized, controlled study in 2005 in a residential area in Perth, Australia (Calver et al. 2007) found that domestic cats Felis catus wearing a collar with a ‘CatBib™’ “pounce protector” (a neoprene flap that hangs from the collar) brought home fewer mammals than did cats without a ‘CatBib™’. When equipped with a ‘CatBib™’, cats brought home fewer mammals (total of 59) than when not wearing a collar (total of 105). Adding a bell to the ‘CatBib™’ did not further reduce the number of mammals returned (with bell: 26, without bell: 33). Wearing a ‘CatBib™’ stopped 45% of cats from catching mammals altogether. In November–December 2005, in a random order, 56 cats underwent a period of three weeks wearing a ‘CatBib™’ and three weeks without a ‘CatBib™’. For the three weeks with a ‘CatBib™’, cats were randomly assigned either a ‘CatBib™’ only or a ‘CatBib™’ and bell. Only cats that frequently brought home intact prey were included in the study. Owners collected dead prey items and recorded live prey before release.
(Summarised by: Ricardo Rocha )
