Demographics of Feral Cats

The countries in the world with the greatest absolute numbers, in decreasing order, of populating domestic cats are the United States, China, Russia, Brazil, France, Italy, United Kingdom, Ukraine, Japan, Germany, Canada, and Mexico.³³ However, when adjusted for human population, the highest percentages for cat to human population are the United States, followed by most European countries, Russia, Japan, and countries in the Mediterranean basin.⁴⁴ In the United States, the popularity of cats as companion animals has increased to the point that Americans now own more cats than dogs. The situation of cat overpopulation occurs in the United States and to lesser degree in the other countries mentioned. However, the discussion in this chapter centers on the problems encountered in the United States. The information presented can be applied to any country where feral cats have become established.

Despite the enhanced status of cats as human companions, tens of millions of cats in the United States remain homeless and several million unwanted cats are admitted to animal shelters each year.2,39 The vast majority of these are euthanized because of a shortage of available homes and because many cats are too inadequately socialized to be adopted as pets. These facts have caused animal welfare advocates to explore alternatives for nonlethal management of various types of cat populations.

Cat populations can be defined in a variety of ways including by ownership status, lifestyle, and level of socialization. Cats can be defined as “free-roaming” or “stray” if they roam outdoors at least some of the time. This definition is based on confinement rather than ownership or socialization status. Technically, “feral” cats are defined as wild or untamed, a definition based on the degree of socialization toward humans. In most cases, feral cats live in small colonies in loose association with human activities that provide sources of food and shelter, such as schools, restaurants, and neighborhoods. Feral cats are highly adaptable and can also thrive in uninhabited areas in almost every environmental niche around the world. In comparison with their domestic counterparts, they have the greatest chance for interacting and sharing infectious diseases with wildlife.

The lines between loosely owned outdoor cats, friendly stray cats, and feral cats are often blurred. In common usage, the term feral is often understood to include socialized free-roaming stray cats that often share the same space and lifestyle as their unsocialized counterparts. The number of pet cats in the United States was estimated between 82 and 88 million in 2007,⁹ and approximately 60% of owned cats are allowed outdoors. Although an actual figure is unknown, free-roaming homeless cat numbers are suspected to be similar.²⁸ A figure often used for estimating this population is to divide the human population in an area by 6 to yield the number of cats. Using this formula in the United States leads to an estimate of approximately 1700 unowned free-roaming cats for every 10,000 residents in an area.

Debate about the actual impact of free-roaming cats on the environment, on nonfelid and felid wildlife, on domestic feline health, and as a reservoir of both feline and zoonotic diseases is ongoing. This debate is often emotional, fueled largely by a lack of sound scientific data on which to form credible conclusions. Separating the impacts of owned cats that roam outdoors from those of unowned ones is also difficult. Increasing social awareness toward unowned free-roaming cats has resulted in a new concept of “community” or “village” cats. This terminology describes how cats (and dogs) are regarded in much of the world outside of the United States. In addition to cats that clearly have an identified owner and residence, most communities are also populated by colonies of free-roaming cats occupying a wide spectrum of socialization level and interactions with human society. These cats are “owned” by the community, and the community is their “home.” The National Animal Control Association in the United States recognizes these “community cats” as an integral component of the overall cat population and promotes the development of comprehensive management practices that encompass both owned and community cats.³⁸ Controlling the reproduction of both owned and community cats is recognized as a cornerstone strategy for reducing the number of unwanted cats in animal shelters and in the environment.

Determining the most appropriate control method for feral cats has emerged as one of the most controversial issues in animal control and welfare. Historically, feral cats have been largely ignored by both governmental and humane agencies. It is common for specific cats that have been declared a nuisance to be culled, but few agencies have comprehensive programs designed to decrease the number of feral cats in their communities. The most successful examples of enduring community-wide animal control have incorporated high-profile, nonlethal feral cat control programs into integrated plans to reduce animal overpopulation.²⁵ A growing grass-roots movement has promoted control of feral cat populations through sterilization. The strategy of “trap-neuter-return” (TNR) seeks to sterilize large numbers of cats and return them to their colonies.^2,21 Some programs are quite elaborate, including extensive veterinary care, surveillance for infectious diseases, colony registration, monitoring, and adoption of tame cats; others focus solely on sterilization. Whereas most programs are run by small volunteer groups dependent on donations for operating costs, a growing number are operated with public funds by municipal animal control agencies with the belief that sterilization is ultimately more efficient and cost-effective than ongoing extermination.

The risk that feral cats pose to both human and animal health is a topic of much debate, regardless of the management strategy. Although feral cats can carry the same diseases as their owned-pet counterparts, risk of infection transmission is affected by factors such as the cats’ proximity and relationship to humans and other animals, route of transmission, pathogen persistence in the environment, and predation on cats. As nonlethal management programs expand, so too does the need to mitigate risks feral cats pose during handling and colony maintenance. Currently, there are sparse data available to quantify the risks contributed by feral cats compared to that of pet cats. Certain conditions, such as rabies, bite wounds, bartonellosis, and zoonotic enteropathogens, are of particular interest to public health, and infections such as feline leukemia virus (FeLV) and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) are of interest to feline health.

Risks Feral Cats Pose to Humans

One of the dominant concerns regarding unsocialized feral cats is physical injury to those handling them. In their natural environment, feral cats are wary of humans and will seek to hide or escape if approached. However, feral cats are likely to bite defensively in fear when handled, such as when animal control personnel attempt to capture a cat by hand or to place a cat in a carrier for transportation. For these reasons, safe cat-handling techniques must be utilized. Not only does this protect the safety of personnel, but it also prevents the situation in which public health officials require euthanasia of cats, for rabies examination, that have bitten or scratched humans. Anyone who works with stray animals, including feral cats, should receive prophylactic rabies immunizations. Gloves, and preferably gauntlets, should be worn at all times when handling these cats, to reduce exposure to cutaneous pathogens and body secretions.

The safest method for handling feral cats is to require that all cats be captured and contained in escape-proof wire humane traps, thereby avoiding direct human-feral cat contact. A trap designed specifically for trapping and safely holding feral cats has been developed and is used with a trap-divider comb to confine the cat to one side of the trap during cleaning and feeding (TNR Cat Trap, Tomahawk Live Traps, www.livetrap.com). When cats are presented for veterinary care in these traps, the comb can be used to gently restrain the cat at one end of the trap for accurate anesthetic injection. The traps should not be opened until the cat is recumbent. At the completion of surgery or other procedures, the cat is returned to its trap before awakening. With this system, cats are never handled while conscious. Handling systems that involve transferring cats from one container to another or opening a container to restrain a cat only invite escapes. Feral cats have an uncanny ability to slip loose during handling and can inflict serious injuries during recapture attempts. A loose cat can thoroughly damage the inside of a facility in its frantic efforts to escape.

Cat-Bite Wounds and Rabies

Although the dog is the primary vector of rabies worldwide, widespread vaccination of dogs and reduction of the stray dog population since the 1940s has eliminated canine rabies variant and greatly reduced the number of dogs infected with wildlife variants in the United States. Today, more than 90% of rabies cases in the United States are reported in wildlife, primarily in raccoons, skunks, coyotes, foxes, and bats. Since 1981, rabid cats have outnumbered rabid dogs in the United States, with 300 feline cases reported in 2009 compared to 81 canine cases (see Chapter 20).⁶ Most feline rabies cases in the eastern United States are associated with the epizootic of raccoon rabies.³⁶ Although dogs account for three quarters of reported animal bites to humans, rabies postexposure prophylaxis is more commonly administered as a result of stray cat bites.^5,20,20 Most cat bites are reportedly provoked from stray cats, with adult women more likely to be bitten than children and men (see Chapter 51).^20,43,43 This suggests that human exposure to cat bites and cat-associated rabies can be limited by reducing the stray cat population via TNR and by avoiding direct handling of stray cats.³⁶ This is in contrast to dog bites, which can occur when unprovoked pet dogs bite children. Despite continued concern about the role of cats in human rabies exposure, no human cases in the United States have been associated with cats since 1975. However, even when rabies is not a consideration, cat bite wounds are often serious. They most frequently occur on the hands, and risk of infection is highest when puncture wounds occur.¹⁰ Public health recommendations include immediate cleansing of the wound, medical attention, and prophylactic treatment with amoxicillin-clavulanate.³² In addition, cat bites should be reported to local public health or animal control authorities so that animal quarantine and rabies prophylaxis can be implemented as appropriate. See Chapter 20 for additional information.

Feline Leukemia Virus and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus

The American Association of Feline Practitioners (AAFP) recommends that all cats should be tested for FeLV and FIV, but also that a positive test result should not be used as the sole criterion for euthanasia.²⁴ The AAFP further recommends that all positive screening test results undergo confirmation. Large epidemiologic studies indicate that FeLV and FIV are present in a low percentage of feral cats and that the prevalence is not substantially different than that reported for pet cats (Table 98-1).²⁷ As expected, male cats are four times more likely to carry FIV than female cats, because biting is the primary mode of transmission. FeLV, which is most commonly spread from infected queens to their kittens, occurs at nearly the same rate in males and females. Testing recommendations for pet cats are difficult to apply to feral cats for several reasons. Because the accuracy of positive test results decreases when true infection prevalence is low, as is the case for FeLV and FIV, up to 50% of positive test results in feral cats may be false-positive. Confirmatory testing is often impractical because these tests require use of a reference laboratory, and results may not be available for several days. The availability of an FIV vaccine has added an additional complication to testing free-roaming cats with unknown vaccination histories. False-positive results from the available tests for FIV antibodies are induced by the vaccine virus. Of primary importance is the cost-benefit ratio of testing a large number of cats in order to detect the small percentage of seroreactors. Because resources are often limited, feral cat-TNR programs focus on mass sterilization as the primary goal. For these reasons, and because sterilization reduces the behaviors most associated with viral transmission, most large sterilization programs for feral cats do not routinely include testing for FeLV and FIV.⁴⁸ The AAFP retrovirus guidelines acknowledge that testing is optional in TNR programs.²⁴

TABLE 98-1

Prevalence of Exposure to Infectious or Parasitic Agents in Feral Cats and Pet Cats^a

Organism (Diagnostic Test)	Feral Cats		Pet Cats		Region	Reference
	No. Tested	Prevalence	No. Tested	Prevalence
Ancylostoma braziliense (Obs)	94	85.1%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	23
Bartonella henselae (Ab)	553	33.6%			Florida, USA	31
	100	93.0%	76	75.0%	North Carolina, USA	41
	79	41.8%	69	40.6%	UK	3
	36	38.9%	20	20.0%	California, USA	8
Bartonella spp. (Ab)	101	52.5%	75	50.7%	Grenada, West Indies	12
Cryptosporidium spp. (Ag)	87	6.9%	66	6.1%	North Carolina, USA	41
Ctenocephalides felis (Obs)	33	42.4%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
	200	92.5%			Florida, USA	1
Cytauxzoon felis (Obs)	33	48.5%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
Cytauxzoon felis (DNA)	961	0.3%			Florida, USA	18
Dermatophytes (culture)	136	29.4%			Lisbon, Portugal	11
Dipylidium caninum (Obs)	94	85.1%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	23
Dirofilaria immitis (Ab)	553	11.6%			Florida, USA	31
	137	8.0%			Grenada, West Indies	13
Dirofilaria immitis (Ag)	553	1.3%			Florida, USA	31
	137	5.1%			Grenada, West Indies	13
Echidnophaga gallinacea (Obs)	200	5.5%			Florida, USA	1
Ehrlichia spp./Anaplasma spp. (DNA)	484	0.0%			Florida, USA	31
Felicola subrostratus (Obs)	33	39.4%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
	200	1.0%			Florida, USA	1
Feline coronavirus (Ab)	553	18.3%			Florida, USA	31
	49	0.0%	306	34.0%	Sydney, Australia	4
	80	3.8%	70	58.6%	California, USA	26
Feline leukemia virus (Ag)	709	1.7%	9970	2.9%	USA, Canada	27
	20	0.0%	152	2.6%	Ottawa, Canada	30
	553	3.3%			Florida, USA	31
	33	39.4%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
	100	4.0%	76	1.3%	North Carolina, USA	41
	101	0.0%	75	0.0%	Grenada, West Indies	12
	185	6.5%			Prince Edward Island, Canada	16
	49	2.0%			England, UK	37
	80	1.3%	70	0.0%	California, USA	26
	30	16.7%			Peten region, Guatemala	29
Feline immunodeficiency virus (Ab)	709	3.9%	9970	3.1%	USA, Canada	27
	20	5.0%	152	5.9%	Ottawa, Canada	30
	553	5.2%			Florida, USA	31
	33	75.8%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
	68	22.1%	340	7.9%	Sydney, Australia	40
	100	5.0%	76	3.9%	North Carolina, USA	41
	101	21.8%	75	8.0%	Grenada, West Indies	12
	185	7.6%			Prince Edward Island, Canada	16
	49	20.4%			England, UK	37
	56	5.4%	35	2.9%	California, USA	26
	30	3.0%			Peten region, Guatemala	29
Giardia spp. (Ag)	87	5.7%	66	4.5%	North Carolina, USA	41
Helicobacter spp. in feces (DNA)	101	91.1%	64	56.3%	Seoul, South Korea	15
Isospora felis (Obs)	80	12.5%	70	0.0%	California, USA	26
Mycoplasma haemofelis (DNA)	484	8.3%			Florida, USA	31
Mycoplasma haemominutum (DNA)	484	12.2%			Florida, USA	31
Mycoplasma spp. (Obs)	33	72.7%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
Otodectes cynotis (Obs)	200	37.0%			Florida, USA	1
Physaloptera praeputialis (Obs)	94	13.8%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	23
Pulex simulans (Obs)	200	4.5%			Florida, USA	1
Rickettsia akari (Ab)	36	11.1%	20	30.0%	California, USA	8
Rickettsia felis (Ab)	36	8.3%	20	5.0%	California, USA	8
Rickettsia rickettsii (Ab)	36	25.0%	20	10.0%	California, USA	8
Rickettsia typhi (Ab)	36	5.6%	20	5.0%	California, USA	8
Salmonella spp. (culture)	80	1.3%	70	4.3%	California, USA	26
Sarcocystis neurona (Ab)	76	9.2%	80	7.5%	Ohio, USA	47
Ticks (Obs)	200	2.5%			Florida, USA	1
Toxocara cati (Obs)	87	20.7%	66	18.2%	North Carolina, USA	41
	80	53.8%	70	4.3%	California, USA	26
Toxoplasma gondii (Ab)	553	12.1%			Florida, USA	31
	33	60.6%			Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	34
	100	63.0%	76	34.2%	North Carolina, USA	41
	101	27.7%	75	30.7%	Grenada, West Indies	12
	80	20.0%	70	2.9%	California, USA	26
	194	24.2%			Lisbon, Portugal	11
	30	53%			Peten region, Guatemala	29
	59	84.7%			Majorca, Spain	35
Trichomonads (Obs)	100	0.0%	20	0.0%	North Carolina, USA	17

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Related

Related posts:

1. Poxvirus Infections
2. Laboratory Diagnosis of Bacterial Infections
3. Chlamydial Infections
4. Tetanus

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Join