From: IN%"aschmitt@moose.uvm.edu" "Abdon L. Schmitt" 1-MAY-1996 08:26:07.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cattle mutilations Dear all, Tue Mar 1, 96 I am forwarding this message, as requested by Noel Bridgeman and Leah Wesolowski. Please, reply directly to Leah . Thanks, Abdon Schmitt > Hello, my name is Leah Wesolowski. I am a freelance writer in Northern > Alabama. In 1993 there were a series of cattle mutilations which > occurred in an area around Fort Payne and Fyfe, Alabama. > Charachteristics of these mutilations were: Portions of the face > removed, tounge, and or traches removed, sex organs removed, and anus > removed, all with a device capable of emmitting "High Heat". Microscopic > study indicates that the hemogoblun near the "incisions" was cooked. > Currently insurance companies are refusing to pay farmers for their > loss; some insurance companies are refusing to cover farm animals in > these areas all together. > > In the past two months there have been more mutilations, with these same > characteristics. In an effort to investigate this issue I would like to > hear from any of your members who may have had a similar problem with > their livestock. Anynominty will be protected. If you have a > newsletter I would be grateful if you would publish this letter along > with my name and address so that your readers can contact me. > Thank You in Advance, > Leah Wesolowski > 95 Indian Creek Road Suite #132 > Huntsville, AL. 35806 > Email address: Leahwes@iquest.com > Abdon Luiz Schmitt Filho "In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of The University of Vermont our decisions on the next seven Pasture Management Outreach Program generations" (From the Great Law Burlington, Vermont, USA of the Iroquois Confederacy). 05405-0082 Fax (802) 656-4656 From: IN%"Iain.Christison@sask.usask.ca" "Iain Christison" 1-MAY-1996 12:56:52.21 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "appl ethol", IN%"leahwest@iquest.com", IN%"aschmitt@moose.uvm.edu" CC: IN%"christison@admin.usask.ca" "Iain Christison" Subj: Mutilations and myth An article titled: Maggots, Mutilations and Myth: Patterns of Postmortem Scavenging of the Bovine Carcass, by P.N. Nation and E.S. Williams appeared in the Canadian Veterinary Journal volume 30, pages 742-747 in September 1989. Their abstract ends: "We conclude that the so-called "mutilation" of cattle in Alberta was due to scavenging of carcasses and further conclude that claims of human involvement in such incidents require, as a first condition, that postmortem scavenging of the carcass be excluded." The Can. Vet. J. article contains several pictures similar to those I have seen on television or in newspapers (or as described by Wesolowski) where the postmortem scavenging is discussed in terms of satanic cults or the supernatural. The most puzzling part of the whole phenomenon is the persistence of fantasy because the real explanation is available and is sometimes reported. Iain Christison Animal and Poultry Science, University of Saskatchewan Christison @ admin. Usask. ca From: IN%"arowan@OPAL.TUFTS.EDU" 1-MAY-1996 14:34:17.95 To: IN%"IN%'leahwes@iquest.com'" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: Cattle mutilations The "cattle mutilations" question was addressed in an article in Alabama Cattlemen, April 1993, pg 45. The author describes an experiment conducted by Alabama investigators. They observed the carcass of a calf that had been known to die of natural causes for 30 hours and photographes what they saw. At the end of this time, they had a classic "mutilated" carcass - its tongue was gone, one of its eyes was missing, its anus had been cored out and its genitalia were gone. After the animal died, its tongue protruded and its anus inverted 3-4 inches. Then the predators came along (a skunk, buzzards and a stray dog) and ate the soft, easily accessible parts. The blowflies also went to work on the chewed and ragged edges leaving clean, "surgical" wounds. As the animal got colder, what was left of the tongue and anus retracted, leaving the appearance of having been cut off deep inside the mouth or anus. When the investigators showed slides of what they had observed to local ranchers, reports of mutilated cattle suddenly stopped. Andrew Rowan Andrew N Rowan Director Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy School of Veterinary Medicine 200 Westboro Rd N. Grafton, MA 01536 Phone: (508) 839 7991; Fax: (508) 839 2953 Email: arowan@opal.tufts.edu From: IN%"gabouryc@EM.AGR.CA" "Chantal Gaboury" 1-MAY-1996 15:52:52.28 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: feeding behaviour in sheep -REPONSE Dear all I am currently running a series of choice feeding experiments in sheep, with the only difference in the diets being the level of sulfur. Initial experiments indicate that selection for requirements is possible. I now want to determine how the sheep are associating the postingestive consequence with the feeds on offer. One way to do this may be to mask, using a strong flavour or odour, a particular flavour or odour that was present in the diets, so that any difference they may have detected before is no longer detectible. By doing this we may be able to determine (in this simplified experimental situation) what senses are more important in enabling appropiate selection to be made. My question is - does anyone know whether it is possible to mask certain odours or flavours in feeds for ruminants, with strong odours (eg mentholated ointment) or flavours (eg garlic) according to human estimations? (I'm trying not to be anthropomorphic!!!!) Thanks in advance James ------------------------------ James Hills Department of Animal Science University of New England Armidale 2351 Email: jhills@metz.une.edu.au Phone: (067) 73 5136 Fax: (067) 73 3275 ------------------------------ <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Hi James, Just an idea in response to your enquiry as to whether anyone had any ideas about how to mask the smell of different feeds.... I heard that the bathroom deodourizer "Lysol" actually numbs the smell receptors in your nose as opposed masking odours. It might be a better control to actually "turn off" the noses of your animals rather than providing an additional odour that might be a confound your results due to individual preferences etc. I would be interested in what you think about this... Chantal Gaboury gabouryc@em.agr.ca From: IN%"gabouryc@EM.AGR.CA" "Chantal Gaboury" 1-MAY-1996 16:22:45.87 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Introduction... Hi all! Well I guess it's abourt time I introduce myself...my name is Chantal Gaboury, I have just started my a masters in Biology at the University of Sherbrooke, Quebec. I am doing my experiments at Agriculture Canada in Lennoxville, Quebec on calves and the factors that motivate them to suckle. Since calves are so highly motivated to suckle, they spend time suckling each other after meals. This can lead to such problems as skin irritation and disease transmission. To avoid this problem, calves are usually housed in separate stalls. This not only reduces the space they have to move around in but it also eliminates social contact. My hypothesis is that if motivation to suckle is satisfied during mealtime, the urge to "cross-suckle" each other after the meal will be reduced or eliminated altogether. If anyone has any comments or questions, I would be very interested in hearing them! Chantal Gaboury gabouryc@em.agr.ca From: IN%"jhills@metz.une.edu.au" 1-MAY-1996 17:23:57.98 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: feeding behaviour in sheep -REPONSE Chantal Gaboury wrote: ><<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >Hi James, >Just an idea in response to your enquiry as to whether anyone had any >ideas about how to mask the smell of different feeds.... >I heard that the bathroom deodourizer "Lysol" actually numbs the smell >receptors in your nose as opposed masking odours. It might be a better >control to actually "turn off" the noses of your animals rather than >providing an additional odour that might be a confound your results due >to individual preferences etc. I would be interested in what you think >about this... >Chantal Gaboury >gabouryc@em.agr.ca > This could be more ideal than trying to mask any odours in the feeds. It is also possible to use a topical anaesthetic aerosol spray (eg Lignocaine) to achieve the same effect. The only problem is that this will only last for 1-3 hours, leading to repeated applications which means that there is excessive disturbance to the animals. This may in itself affect feeding behaviour and preference depending on where the application is made in relation to the troughs that they are feeding from (ie a positional aversion). Masking shouldn't affect individual preferences if both feeds on offer are similarly treated, but it may initially affect total feed intake. James ------------------------------ James Hills Department of Animal Science University of New England Armidale 2351 Email: jhills@metz.une.edu.au Phone: (067) 73 5136 Fax: (067) 73 3275 ------------------------------ From: IN%"Inger.Sjoberg@hhyg.slu.se" 2-MAY-1996 03:12:51.94 To: IN%"APPLIED-ETHOLOGY@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Can anyone who can get in touch with Bo Algers from Sweden (just now visiting Marek Spinka) or Marek Spinka please ask Bo Algers to contact Inger Sjoberg at E-mail Inger.Sjoberg@hhyg.slu.se. Apologies for disturbing the net. Inger Sjoberg From: IN%"lhenley@sunmuw1.MUW.Edu" "Lani Lyman-Henley" 2-MAY-1996 07:30:55.56 To: IN%"jhills@metz.une.edu.au" "James Hills" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: feeding behaviour in sheep -REPONSE Alternatively, if you wanted to completely eliminate effects of odor, you could sever the olfactory nerves. Of course, this may have effects beyond what you are looking for... I'm just glad I work with snakes. You can seal their vomeronasal organs temporarily, if you want to. Can't do that with nostrils ;> *********************************************************************** Lani Lyman-Henley, PhD email: lhenley@sunmuw1.muw.edu Division of Science & Math phone: (601) 329-7245 (office) Mississippi University for Women P.O.Box W 100 Columbus, MS 39701 FAX: (601) 329-7238 WWW: http://www.msstate.edu/Dept/Psychology/lplh.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "God gives some people questionable taste in clothing as penance for buying polyester in a previous life." -unknown *********************************************************************** From: IN%"lhenley@sunmuw1.MUW.Edu" "Lani Lyman-Henley" 2-MAY-1996 07:33:22.96 To: IN%"jhills@metz.une.edu.au" "James Hills" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: feeding behaviour in sheep -REPONSE Alternatively, if you wanted to completely eliminate effects of odor, you could sever the olfactory nerves. Of course, this may have effects beyond what you are looking for... I'm just glad I work with snakes. You can seal their vomeronasal organs temporarily, if you want to. Can't do that with nostrils ;> *********************************************************************** Lani Lyman-Henley, PhD email: lhenley@sunmuw1.muw.edu Division of Science & Math phone: (601) 329-7245 (office) Mississippi University for Women P.O.Box W 100 Columbus, MS 39701 FAX: (601) 329-7238 WWW: http://www.msstate.edu/Dept/Psychology/lplh.html ----------------------------------------------------------------------- "God gives some people questionable taste in clothing as penance for buying polyester in a previous life." -unknown *********************************************************************** From: IN%"sed168@ed.sac.ac.uk" 2-MAY-1996 08:44:22.54 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: eradication programmes and behaviour dear Applied Ethologists Part of my dissertation work for my MSc in Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare will be on the effects of eradication programmes of wildlife (or pests depending on your point of view) on the behaviour of the survivors (from the same species or from different species which occupy a similar niche). I will be doing a project on the effects of eradication programmes on badger behaviour after some of the population has been eradicated (in TBC areas in England). I am looking for information of similar studies done on other species (eg wolves and coyotes in North America, rats, foxes, insects...you name it). Behaviour and welfare consequences interest me most! Thank you for any help! Nathalie PS Mike, I am not going to Africa after all! ####################################################### "Man has a great power of speech, which is to a large measure vain and false. The animals have little, but that little is useful and true, and a small and sure thing is better than a great lie." dixit Leonardo da Vinci Nathalie Van Moeffaert MSc Applied Animal Behaviour and Animal Welfare School of Agriculture University of Edinburgh ###################################################### From: IN%"dmills@dmu.ac.uk" "Daniel Simon Mills" 3-MAY-1996 01:35:41.06 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology" CC: Subj: Vaccinating wolves I was recently approached by a client with wolf hybrid pups who was concerned about their vaccination. They had been told to avoid vaccinating against hepatitis as they may react badly. Also they were told that they would need parvo twice yearly. Has anyone heard of this before? Up until now I've been vaccinating wolf pups and crosses in the normal way for dogs and haven't had any litigation filed that I know of! An ethology net may not be the best place to send this - any alternative suggestions would be gratefully received as I'm new to all this. Ta, Daniel Mills dmills@dmu.ac.uk From: IN%"William_R_STRICKLIN@umail.umd.edu" 3-MAY-1996 08:47:00.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: to U.S.A. persons Dear U.S. Members, Recently, a posting on this network by Janet Brown provoked me to feel both optimism and pessimism about the status of applied ethology in the U.S. On the bright side, we should be pleased that the leadership of the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS) today recognizes, supports and promotes educational and research endeavors of applied ethologists including those activities related to cognition. However, I do wonder if we U.S. applied ethologists collectively are stronger or weaker today than we were say 10 years ago. Ten years ago, the NCR-131 Committee on Animal Care and Behavior actively discussed topics such as cognition, brought in outside "experts" to meetings, provided the backbone for the development of the "Guide for Ag Animals...", etc. The activities within NCR-131 carried over into functions of ASAS and animal agriculture in general - including providing input to policy issues. As an example of the level of activity in the past, below is a listing of a symposium held at Lexington, Kentucky at the _1989_ ASAS annual meeting: COGNITION AND AWARENESS IN ANIMALS: DO FARM ANIMALS' PERCEPTIONS AFFECT THEIR PRODUCTION OR WELL-BEING? The importance of animal cognition in animal agricultural production systems: an overview. S.E. Curtis and W.R. Stricklin Neural processing of individual recognition in animals. K.M. Kendrick Environmental cues that influence awareness and well-being in animals. M. Novak. Social aspects of cognition among animals. W.A. Mason The implications of cognitive processes for animal welfare. I.J.H. Duncan. I strongly endorse the 1996 Cognition Symposium and believe the two invited speakers will provide a strong program, but I would also suggest the program in 1989 (listed above) was a stronger program - certainly stronger in terms of number of speakers. And it is my contention that if we are truly progressing in applied ethology in the U.S. then the 1996 ASAS symposium on cognition should have U.S. animal scientists-applied ethologists on the program rather than continuing to look to the outside for expertise on this topic. (We in fact do have researchers with CRIS projects indicating work in cognition.) Certainly, I personally am much better funded in research than I was ten years ago. I believe that my funding (and that of other U.S. applied ethology reseachers) is very much the result of the early activities of NCR-131 and spin-off events such as the 1989 ASAS symposium listed above. FAIR-95 was the event that brought together earlier ideas and planning and raised animal welfare to a research interest level considered to be derserving of funding at the federal level. But the year of the Kansas City FAIR-95 meeting (Oct '92) was in my opinion the last year that NCR-131 played a strong role in animal welfare/behavior activities in the U.S. and it is now increasingly becoming a less influencial committee. It appears to me that today NCR-131 is even at some risk of being absorbed into the Stress Physiology group (W-173). This causes me considerable distress for NCR-131 was formed before W-173, but the administrators of NCR-131 (for reasons I have never been able to understand) always thwarted the efforts to elevate NCR-131 from the status of a Committee to the level of a funded Project. W-173 made this transition and is thus now in a much stronger position than is NCR-131 - eventhough NCR-131 played a much larger role overall in animal welfare activities in the U.S. I believe that there exists a void in U.S. farm animal welfare/applied ethology with the demise of NCR-131. There is _not_ an annual meeting today that is attended by all (or even a significant plurality) of the persons active in policy, research, teaching, etc. of animal care and behavior (and welfare). We are becoming increasingly parochial with some institutions competing with others for funds to develop what some call Centers of Excellence. With this competition has come a shift of decisions about welfare from the persons actually engaged in applied ethology activities to administors who now tend to be increasingly setting the agenda in animal welfare. Overall, I believe that this shift has resulted in a weaker effort in the true animal welfare research effort (less applied ethology) than what existed previously. It appears to me that some programs are simply indentifying previously existing physiology programs as new "Animal Welfare" programs and in some cases moving toward _decreasing_ the overall emphasis on behavior. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I am right - at least for the short-term. Optimistically, there does seem to total increase in new hires in "animal welfare," especially in the teaching area. Pessimistically, the new hires in research seem to focus more on physiology than behavior as the research methodology to be used to investigate "animal welfare." I believe our (applied ethologists) current fragmented and unfocused status is very much too our collective long-term detriment. I believe that we are in need of an annual meeting such as NCR-131 once played. Today, I see the NA-ISAE annual meeting as being the best hope for such a meeting - but this regional meeting is currently a long a way from serving such a role. I would endorse a strengthened and revived NCR-131 - by which I mean an elevation to the level of a Regional Project with direction and focus. But I pessimistically do not forsee this happening. Optimistically, the number of programs at the annual ASAS meeting that contain topics on Animal Welfare has increased compared to ten years ago. But there is less overall coordination of effort and in some cases "the wheel is being rediscovered." I again attribute this problem to be primiarily the result of the demise of NCR-131. Overall, I believe that there have been positive developments in the last ten years. However, I do fear that our future is at some risk due to a lack of a collective effort coordinated through an annual meeting. Ray Stricklin Department of Animal Sciences University of Maryland P.S. My apologies to those persons around the world whose mailboxes have been bombed with this long message not relevant to their interests. Joe, maybe there could an address list developed for each of the different regions? From: IN%"mrclarke@mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu" "Margaret R Clarke" 3-MAY-1996 13:33:02.06 To: IN%"primate-talk@primate.wisc.edu", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca", IN%"primatology@mailbase.ac.uk", IN%"compmed@wuvmd.wustl.edu" CC: Subj: ASP Bulletin Please send information (job or meeting announcements, reports, etc) for the June issue of the Bulletin of the American Society of Primatologists to the Executive Secretary by MAY 20, 1996. This is an absolute deadline. If you do not receive the Bulletin and wish to get it, contact the Treasurer Jeff French, or his assistant, Beth MacDonald for membership in the ASP. (epscor@unomaha.edu or Dept of Psychology Univ. Nebraska, Omaha NE 68182). ----------------------------------- Margaret R. Clarke, Ph.D. Executive Secretary American Society of Primatologists Tulane Primate Center 18703 Three Rivers Rd. Covington LA 70433 mrclarke@rs6000.tcs.tulane.edu From: IN%"WayneH42@aol.com" 4-MAY-1996 18:17:23.17 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Vaccinating wolves In a message dated 96-05-03 04:39:32 EDT, you write: >I was recently approached by a client with wolf hybrid pups who was >concerned about their vaccination. They had been told to avoid >vaccinating against hepatitis as they may react badly. Also they were >told that they would need parvo twice yearly. Has anyone heard of this >before? Up until now I've been vaccinating wolf pups and crosses in the >normal way for dogs and haven't had any litigation filed that I know of! >An ethology net may not be the best place to send this - any alternative >suggestions would be gratefully received as I'm new to all this. > >Ta, Daniel Mills At one time or another, over the past ten years we have up to two dozen wold hybrids in our practice. We initially gave both DHLP-P and Rabies vaccine but discontinued giving Rabies vaccine 5 to 6 years ago because no Rabies vaccine was currently labeled for use in wolf hybrids and since it seemed apparent that AVMA Liability Insurance might not cover any liability arising from this off label use of Rabies vaccine. We rarely see wolf hybrids anymore because we discourage their adiption and because they have been outlawed in many municipalities around here. We have had no problems related to vaccinating against hepatitis and I am not aware of any research supporting the use of Parvo vacc every 6 months. Wayne Hunthausen, DVM From: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" "HANS HAUSSMANN" 6-MAY-1996 03:28:13.59 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: breed differences in calves' drinking behaviour Simmental calves seem to do harder to learn to drink from a bucket than Holsteins. Is there any literature on this question? ___________________ ,--¬_ Hans Haussmann haussman@hh.as.uni-hohenheim.de ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ Institute for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding ;; ( )___, ) ' (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) ,' // V\__ University of Hohenheim, Germany _ / \ / \ Fax 0711-459-3290 ¬ ¬ ' Fon 0711-459-2476 (-3006) ___________________ Mail Uni Hohenheim, 470/HG, D-70593 Stuttgart From: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" "HANS HAUSSMANN" 6-MAY-1996 06:06:58.35 To: IN%"breeders@chuck.AgSci.ColoState.EDU", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Are there herds of cattle kept with all bulls Does anybody know of herds which are kept outdoor the year round in large fenced fields and where all males kept up to the age of 3-4 years? Has behaviour under such conditions been studied before? ___________________ ,--¬_ Hans Haussmann haussman@hh.as.uni-hohenheim.de ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ Institute for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding ;; ( )___, ) ' (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) ,' // V\__ University of Hohenheim, Germany _ / \ / \ Fax 0711-459-3290 ¬ ¬ ' Fon 0711-459-2476 (-3006) ___________________ Mail Uni Hohenheim, 470/HG, D-70593 Stuttgart From: IN%"serpell@pobox.upenn.edu" 6-MAY-1996 07:41:28.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: cows kept with bulls To Hans Haussmann et al. The so-called 'wild' Chillingham cattle living on the estates of the Earls of Tankerville in Northumberland, England, have been kept in mixed-sex herds since at least the eighteenth century. Their behavioral ecology and social behavior have been studied by Dr. Stephen Hall, Dept of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, UK. References: Hall, S.J.G. 1989. Chillingham cattle: social and maintenance behaviour in an ungulate that breeds all year round. Animal Behaviour, 38: 215. James Serpell From: IN%"serpell@pobox.upenn.edu" 6-MAY-1996 08:53:10.41 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: pet bird welfare Is anybody out there doing research on the welfare problems of pet birds (or knows of anyone who is)? I would much appreciate hearing from you. Many thanks in advance. James Serpell From: IN%"CROWELL-DAVIS.S@calc.vet.uga.edu" "Sharon Crowell-Davis" 6-MAY-1996 10:01:07.57 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Horse breeds and behavior Dear All Is anyone out there aware of any scientific, empirical studies comparing the behavior of Arabian horses with the behavior of any other breed? I'm specifically looking for real data, not the personal opinions which the popular "horse behavior" literature is full of, or individual case reports. Thanks in advance for any references. Sharon Crowell-Davis ********************************************** Sharon L. Crowell-Davis DVM, PhD Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Behaviorists College of Veterinary Medicine University of Georgia Athens, Georgia 30602 706-542-8343 FAX 706-542-0051 Email crowell-davis.s@calc.vet.uga.edu From: IN%"eoprice@ucdavis.edu" "Edward O. Price" 6-MAY-1996 10:18:07.86 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-error" CC: Subj: RE: Are there herds of cattle kept with all bulls Dear Hans: I may be able to help you but I'm not sure of your question. Are you asking if anyone has studied the behavior of bulls that have been kept together in an all-male group from weaning to 3-4 years of age? Ed Price eoprice@ucdavis.edu ---------- >From: applied-ethology-error >To: breeders; Applied-ethology >Subject: Are there herds of cattle kept with all bulls >Date: Monday, May 06, 1996 2:04PM > >Does anybody know of herds which are kept outdoor the year round=20 >in large fenced fields and where all males kept up to the age of >3-4 years? > >Has behaviour under such conditions been studied before? > > > ___________________ > ,--=AC_ Hans Haussmann haussman@hh.as.uni-hohen= >heim.de > ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ Institute for Animal Husbandry and Animal Bre= >eding > ;; ( )___, ) ' (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) > ,' // V\__ University of Hohenheim, Germany =20 > _ / \ / \ Fax 0711-459-3290 > =AC =AC ' Fon 0711-459-2476 (-3006) > ___________________ Mail Uni Hohenheim, 470/HG, D-70593 Stuttga= >rt > > From: IN%"bssimpsn@nando.net" "Barbara S. Simpson" 6-MAY-1996 21:09:21.92 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Equine behavior in disasters Does anyone have any information, references on 1) The behavioral responses to horses during emergency/disaster conditions, such as fires, floods, trailering/shipping accidents, etc. 2) Optimal methods of handling horses under such conditions. Thanks in advance for any information. Sincerely, Barbara Simpson Barbara S. Simpson, PhD, DVM, Dipl. ACVB The Veterinary Behavior Clinic 6045 U.S. Hwy 1 North Southern Pines, NC 28387 910-692-2801 Ph 910-692-1860 Fx From: IN%"Frank.Odberg@rug.ac.be" "Frank Odberg" 7-MAY-1996 02:56:22.57 To: IN%"serpell@pobox.upenn.edu" "James Serpell" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: pet bird welfare I don't know of anybody now. I only remember the work of Ron Keiper from Penn State on stereotypies in the canary in the late 60-ties. Call me if you need the references. However, I will ADD a problem: in this country song competition between finches is very popular and rests on an old tradition. The number of given songs are counted by marks on a stick during the meetings. However, birds have to be visually isolated in a very small cage during a certain time (I don't know how long). It has never been investigated to what extent this is a welfare problem. Regards, Frank On Mon, 6 May 1996, James Serpell wrote: > Is anybody out there doing research on the welfare problems of pet birds > (or knows of anyone who is)? I would much appreciate hearing from you. > > Many thanks in advance. > > James Serpell > > > From: IN%"bwechsler@esh.unibe.ch" 7-MAY-1996 05:12:08.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Conference CALL FOR ABSTRACTS (deadline 15 June 1996) German Veterinary Society - Section of Applied Ethology 28th International Congress on Applied Ethology Freiburg / Germany / 7 - 9 November 1996 This annual congress usually comprises approx. 20-24 oral contributions (15 min presentation, 15 min discussion) including 1 or 2 invited key lectures. Posters are not accepted. Traditionally the congress language is German. However, this year a limited number of English spoken contributions (i.e. approx. 8) will be accepted. The programme will include sessions on the following themes: 1) The role of the individual animal within a group 2) Perception and communication in farm animals 3) Animals in a transitional stage (domestication, wild animals in captivity) 4) Free papers Deadline for the submission of abstracts (1 page; no figures, tables or references) containing sufficient information on the objectives, methods, sample size, results and conclusions of the study is 15 June 1996. The abstract should be sent in 4 copies to: Deutsche Vet.-Med. Gesellschaft Prof. Dr. K. Zeeb Am Moosweiher 2 D - 79108 Freiburg Germany A congress committee will select 20-24 contributions based on the information provided in the abstracts. Studies that have already been published will not be considered. All accepted contributions will be published (max. 10 pages, in German or English) in a conference report by KTBL/Darmstadt/Germany. Please contact Prof. Dr. K. Zeeb for further information. From: IN%"zanella@pilot.msu.edu" "Adroaldo J Zanella" 7-MAY-1996 15:58:16.07 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: register Dear colleagues ! Could you please put me back in the applied ethology network ? I am looking for references about feedlot design, particularly regarding behavioral studies addressing cattle welfare in this systema. Thanks. Adroaldo J. Zanella Assistant Professor Ethology/Environmental Physiolgy Department of Animal Science Michigan State University Anthony Hall East Lansing, MI 48824-1225 From: IN%"haussman@rs4703.ansc1.uni-hohenheim.de" "HANS HAUSSMANN" 8-MAY-1996 07:16:35.90 To: IN%"ETHOLOGY@SEARN.SUNET.SE", IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Literature on haviour of wild boar Hints on basic and/or new literature on the haviour of the wild boar would be appreciated by ___________________ ,--¬_ Hans Haussmann haussman@hh.as.uni-hohenheim.de ,;;,_ ____/ /|/ Institute for Animal Husbandry and Animal Breeding ;; ( )___, ) ' (Institut fuer Tierhaltung und Tierzuechtung) ,' // V\__ University of Hohenheim, Germany _ / \ / \ Fax 0711-459-3290 ¬ ¬ ' Fon 0711-459-2476 (-3006) ___________________ Mail Uni Hohenheim, 470/HG, D-70593 Stuttgart From: IN%"STOOKEY@sask.usask.ca" 8-MAY-1996 08:37:24.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare Below is a request sent to me from a publisher asking for your input. Please respond to me at stookey@sask.usask.ca or to T.Hardwick@cabi.org =========================================================================== I would like to ask your help through the applied ethology network. I am currently in discussion with Professor Don Broom at the University of Cambridge about the possibility of CAB International reprinting the third edition of the textbook he wrote with Andrew Fraser, "Farm Animal Behaviour and Welfare". Apparently during last year the previous publishers, Bailliere Tindall, ran out of stock and decided not to reprint the book. It is therefore not currently available, or technically "out of print". This surprised me as I know several people who have recommended the book to their students. I suspect the decision was made because Bailliere is focussing mainly on the veterinary market, and is not marketing to the animal science or applied animal behaviour markets. In contrast, CABI is active in all these markets. In order to make a decision about reprinting the book, and about how many copies should be reprinted, I obviously want to guage the potential further use for the book. I would like to know from people teaching farm animal behaviour and welfare whether they would continue to recommend this book to their students, and whether this would be for essential purchase or supplementary reading only. I would also like to know what people think their students would pay for this book. Is this something you could broadcast around the network and ask people to respond to me? It is sort of a commercial question, but on the other hand I know some people will be disappointed if the book is no longer available. So hopefully it is a legitimate request to put round the network. Of course, if you know the book, I would be interested in your opinion of it. At a later date, Professor Broom will probably write a new edition, but this is not on the agenda at present. Many thanks for any help you can give me. Best wishes Tim Hardwick CAB International Wallingford Oxon OX10 8DE UK e-mail: t.hardwick@cabi.org From: IN%"M.B.M.BRACKE@imag.dlo.nl" "Marc Bracke, IMAG-DLO tel. 03147-476554" 8-MAY-1996 09:13:28.60 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: introduction L.S. My name is Marc Bracke. I work at the IMAG-dlo in the Netherlands (Wageningen), which it an institute for agricultural and environmental engeneering. I also work as a veterinarian practitioner in a mixed large animal - companian animal practice. My training background consists, besides veterinary medicine, in a university degree in philosophy (practical ethics and philosophy of mind as main subjects) and a Master's degree in applied animal behaviour and welfare. This latter study in Edinburgh introduced me to the field of applied animal behaviour where I now work. The project I presently work on is called 'modeling animal welfare'. My supervisor is Dr. J. Metz. We try to develop standards to assess animal welfare of farm animal housing systems. We are working on a decision support system for assessing animal welfare. The information we use comes from the scientific literature and interviews with experts (in various fields) in which we aim at consensus opinions. Our starting point is making an MSE (multifacetted structured entity) model of the structure of the concept of animal welfare. An MSE model is a tree like graph in which an entity is decomposed into its components according to aspects. In a later phase we hope to be able to assign weighing factors and calculation rules in order to make an animal welfare assessment. We start this work with pigs as example species. Looking forward to a fruitful participation in the applied ethology newsgroup, Sincerely yours, Marc Bracke. From: IN%"alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk" 9-MAY-1996 02:59:48.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Frightening Hi kids, Just some info on ISAZ '96 which may interest some of you. ISAZ '96 The Animal Contract Exploring the relationships between humans and other animals July 24th to 26th, 1996 Downing College Cambridge, UK There will be six plenary talks plus over 50 talks and posters by researchers in the field. The plenary speakers are: Dr. Andrew Rowan (Tufts University, USA) 'Anthrozoology, Red Herrings, March Hares and Other Beings' Dr James Serpell (University of Pennsylvania, USA) 'Creatures of the Unconsious: Companion Animals as Mediators' Dr Grahame Coleman (La Trobe University, Australia) 'Human-Animal Interactions : Implications for Intensive Farming' Prof. Hal Herzog (Western Carolina University, USA) 'Public Attitudes and Animal Research: The Social Psychology of a Moral Issue' Dr John Robinson (Wildlife Conservation Society, USA) 'The Nature of Conservation: Intervening in the Lives of Wild Animals' Prof. Don Broom (University of Cambridge, UK) 'Effects of Changing Human Attitudes and Human-Animal Interactions on Animal Welfare' There will also be a talk organized by the Society for Companion Animal Studies (SCAS): Prof. Sam Ahmedzai (University of Sheffield, UK) 'Companion Animals for Health and Social Care: Towards an Evidence-Based Approach' So, for fun (definitely), intrigue (absolutely) and sun (well, maybe), come to Cambridge - where not everyone is a toffee-nose! You'll be welcome! For more information, including the registration/ accommodation form, please contact: Dr A.L. Podberscek, ISAZ '96, Dept. of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0ES, UK. ph: (01223) 33 08 46; fax: (01223) 33 08 86 e-mail: alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk The Society gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the RSPCA, Waltham Centre for Pet Nurition, Pedigree Petfoods and UFAW (Universities Federation for Animal Welfare). To view the provisional programme call in at our website: http://www.soton.ac.uk/~azi/isaz2.htm If you can't access the World Wide Web, then e-mail me your postal address and I'll send you a copy of the programme. Ciao now, Anthony Podberscek .......................undeniably ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Anthony L. Podberscek 'We're going to laugh and play, University of Cambridge and fill the house with Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine children' Dangerous Women Madingley Road Cambridge CB3 OES UK ph: (01223) 33 0846 fax: (01223) 33 0886 e-mail: alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" 9-MAY-1996 11:39:51.68 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: canis familiaris visual development Greetings from Oregon, I'm trying to locate pictures or drawings which simulate various stages of visual perceptual development in the domestic dog from birth onward to maturity. Any clues will be appreciated. Bill Campbell URL: http://www.rogueweb/petbehavior/ From: IN%"mplonsky@coredcs.com" "Dr. M. Plonsky" 9-MAY-1996 18:28:33.03 To: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" "Bill Campbell" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: canis familiaris visual development On Thu, 9 May 1996, Bill Campbell wrote: > I'm trying to locate pictures or drawings which simulate various stages of > visual perceptual development in the domestic dog from > birth onward to maturity. Any clues will be appreciated. > > Bill Campbell > > URL: http://www.rogueweb/petbehavior/ Bill, Being very interested in dogs myself, I tried to check out your web page. It appears that there is an error in the URL you have given above. I WAS able to find your page at: http://www.rogueweb.com/petbehavior/ ---- You may be interested in visiting a working dog page that I just started working on at: http://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/dog.htm This summer, I will add some articles that I have written on a biopsychologists view of dog training. Take care, ----- Mark Plonsky, Ph.D. 715-346-3961 wk ----- ----- Psychology Dept. 715-344-0023 hm ----- ----- University of Wisconsin mplonsky@worf.uwsp.edu ----- ----- Stevens Point, WI 54481 ----- ----- http://www.uwsp.edu/acad/psych/mphome.htm ----- From: IN%"tenderly@ltk.unizh.ch" "Matthias Duerschlag" 10-MAY-1996 02:59:29.71 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Diss. Abstr. Int. references Dear all, anybody out there knowing the following 2 thesis` and whether they are already published somewhere else? For the given references seem to be not correct! Corum, C.R. 1976; The effects of escapable and inescapable stress on aggressive behavior in mice Dissertation Abstracts International 37 (1), 486 Belanger, P.C. 1977; Space-dependent changes in the social organization of wild house mice Dissertation Abstracts International 38 (1), 95 Thanks for your time Matthias ___________________________________________________________________ Matthias Duerschlag Department of Animal-Physiology University of Bayreuth / NW 1 95440 Bayreuth / FRGermany phone: x49-921-55.24.04 Fax: x49-921-55.27.94 Email: tenderly@ltk.unizh.ch ___________________________________________________________________ From: IN%"TWIDOWSKI@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "TINA WIDOWSKI" 10-MAY-1996 09:29:51.24 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Do cows wallow? Dear all, Ian J.H. Duncan is away from his computer today and asked that I send this question out to all: Do cattle wallow? PLEASE SEND ALL RESPONSES TO IAN DUNCAN -- not to me. He can be emailed at iduncan@aps.uoguelph.ca Thank you, Tina Widowski From: IN%"billcamp@cdsnet.net" 10-MAY-1996 11:12:26.05 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: canis familiaris visual development Greetings from Oregon, Here's a correction on the URL below from this message, originally sent 5/8/96. Sorry for any possible frustration due to inorrect home page address. I'm trying to locate pictures or drawings which simulate various stages of visual perceptual development in the domestic dog from birth onward to maturity. Any clues will be appreciated. Bill Campbell URL: http://www.rogueweb.com/petbehavior/ From: IN%"eoprice@ucdavis.edu" "Edward O. Price" 10-MAY-1996 17:51:50.00 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-error" CC: Subj: RE: Diss. Abstr. Int. references Dear Matthias: I served as Paul Belanger's major professor 20+ years ago when I was a faculty member at the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry. To my knowledge, Paul never published his thesis. He took a teaching position immediately after finishing his degree and I never heard from him again. Ed Price Department of Animal Science University of California, Davis eoprice@ucdavis.edu ---------- >From: applied-ethology-error >To: applied-ethology >Subject: Diss. Abstr. Int. references >Date: Friday, May 10, 1996 10:58AM > >Dear all, >anybody out there knowing the following 2 thesis` and whether >they are already published somewhere else? >For the given references seem to be not correct! > >Corum, C.R. 1976; The effects of escapable and inescapable >stress on aggressive behavior in mice >Dissertation Abstracts International 37 (1), 486 > >Belanger, P.C. 1977; Space-dependent changes in the social organization >of wild house mice >Dissertation Abstracts International 38 (1), 95 > > >Thanks for your time > > >Matthias > > > >___________________________________________________________________ > > Matthias Duerschlag > > Department of Animal-Physiology > University of Bayreuth / NW 1 > 95440 Bayreuth / FRGermany > > > phone: x49-921-55.24.04 > Fax: x49-921-55.27.94 > Email: tenderly@ltk.unizh.ch > >___________________________________________________________________ > > > From: IN%"xavier@clermont.inra.fr" "BOIVIN Xavier" 13-MAY-1996 00:37:39.71 To: IN%"IDUNCAN@APS.UoGuelph.CA", IN%"Applied-Ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE REGISTRATION Dear Ian, A. Boissy is coming to the ISAE congress in Guelph. However he would know if it is possible for you to make a bill and to be paid by our institut. It would be much more convenient for him. In this case our secretary need a bill including "INRA" and "Alain Boissy" and the details of all the expenses (room, lunch, diner, visit...) that Alain will send you soon. We need also your bank account number and all information necessary to pay you (name, address of the bank...). Thank you very much for all. Xavier Boivin From: IN%"bogliani@ipv36.unipv.it" 13-MAY-1996 00:57:17.10 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: horse milk Dear all, I'm looking for data on horse and donkey milk. 1)Is there any relevant paper dealing with variation in quality and quantity of milk produced by the mare and the she-ass during foal growth? 2)Is there any data on the amount of milk obtained by foals showing two different suckling patterns: 1) many short bouts; 2) few long bouts. 3)Does milk composition vary during a suckling bout? (Is the first milk more or less rich in protein, fat etc.?). 4) Do male and female foals differ as regards the strength of a suckle. These data could help me to understand the different milking pattern shown by feral equid mothers with male and female foals. Thank you. Ciao. Giuseppe Giuseppe Bogliani Dip. Biologia Animale, University of Pavia Piazza Botta 9 27100 Pavia tel ++39.+382.506303 - fax ++39.+382.506290 E-mail Bogliani@ipv36.unipv.it visit us at: http://www.unipv.it/~webbio/welcome.htm From: IN%"HUTSONG@hari.agvic.gov.au" "Geoffrey Hutson" 13-MAY-1996 01:31:26.13 To: IN%"Applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: In from the cold G'day all, A short note to let you all know that I've been brought in from the cold. After spending the last 20 years or so either down the back paddock watching sheep, up on the Bogong High Plains watching cattle, or banished to the piggery watching farrowing sows, the University has decreed that enough is enough and has closed down the farm. My farm. Well, Melbourne University's farm, the Mt Derrimut Field Station. It will probably be sold off soon, either for a prison or more suburbs. The University and the Victorian Department of Agriculture have built a new joint pig research facility at Werribee and I've moved over. The worst thing about the move is that my Australian icon, the 1955 FJ Holden Special sedan, has to drive an extra 32 kilometers a day at high speed on the freeway. The rust barely holds it together. But the best thing is that I have a warm office with a networked computer! For those who don't know me, I was reading that the public perception of a scientist is as "a bearded, stooping, obsessional, dull, prematurely aged male in an ill-fitting white coat". That's me, but I score only 5/6 because of my blue overalls. My current research interests are feeding behaviour and feeder design for grower pigs, and the pre- and post-race behaviour of racehorses and its relationship with performance. Any information on the latter topic, published or unpublished, would be much appreciated. Geoffrey Hutson Tel: +61 3 9742 0454 Fax: +61 3 9742 0400 Email: hutsong@hari.agvic.gov.au From: IN%"xavier@clermont.inra.fr" "BOIVIN Xavier" 13-MAY-1996 02:14:26.47 To: IN%"alp18@cus.cam.ac.uk", IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: Frightening Dear Anthony, You will find in this e-mail the registration/accomodation form and the revised abstract. I have a question about congress payment. I would like to know if it is possible for you to make a bill and to be paid by my institut. It would be much more convenient for me. In this case our secretary need a bill including "INRA" and "Xavier Boivin" and the details of all the expenses (room, lunch, diner,...). We need also your bank account number and all information necessary to pay you (name, address of the bank...).=20 Thank you very much for all. Xavier REGISTRATION /ACCOMMODATION FORM Dr BOIVIN Xavier L.A.H.M. I.N.R.A. de Theix, 63122 St Gen=E9s Champanelle France Telephone (33) 73-62-47-02 Fax (33) 73 62 41 18 e-mail xavier@clermont.inra.fr REGISTRATION before July 1st ISAZ member (non-student) =A350 Lunches Wed Thur Fri 3x=A311 =A33= 3 Conference Dinner =A330 ACCOMMODATION Single Standard room =A330/night Wednesday 24th-Friday 26th 3x=A330 =A39= 0 TOTAL COST =A3203 ABSTRACT BEEF CALVES REACT DIFFERENTLY TO DIFFERENT HANDLERS ACCORDING TO THE TEST SITUATION AND THEIR PREVIOUS INTERACTIONS WITH THEIR CARETAKER X. Boivin (a), J.P. Garel (b), A. Mantes (b) and P. Le Neindre (a) (a) L.A.H.M.; I.N.R.A. de Theix, F-63122, ST Gen=E9s Champanelle, France;= (b) I.N.R.A. Marcenat, Domaine de Laborie, F-15190 Marcenat, France. Because farm animals and caretakers interact regularly, animal responses to humans could be influenced by the familiarity of the handler. However, many experiments have recorded general responses of animals to humans without considering the identity of the handler. The present experiment investigated how beef calves react to different handlers according to the test situation and their previous experience with their caretaker. Twenty-four beef calves (French moutain breed) from both sexes were allocated into two rearing treatments: R1) separation from the mother 24 H after birth, twice a day suckling the mother under human control, one minute per day of stroking the whole body of each calf; R2) no separation from the mother except for cleaning the free stall, no additional human contact. Only one caretaker, always wearing the same type of clothes, was present in the calves' environment. Animals from both treatments were also regularly trained to eat alone from a bucket of concentrates in a 6x2.4 metre test= pen. The first procedure (T1) was designed to test half of the animals with the familiar caretaker and half with a stranger. Two tests were performed over two days for each animal. Each human stood motionless close to the bucket and wore either the familiar overall or a new coat. The same procedure was reproduced the following week, exchanging the identity of the human for each animal. The second procedure (T2) consisted of touching the calf successively on the shoulder and on the head when it was eating. Animals were tested over two days with the familiar caretaker and with a new stranger. The last procedure (T3) was one weighing test a day during two days. The ease of leading each animal onto the scale either by the familiar caretaker or a new stranger was recorded. Match pair t tests and GLM variance analyses were used to analyse the data. Means and Standard Errors are given as results. T1: Calves spent less time far from the bucket when with the familiar caretaker (5.6 =B1 4.0 s) than when with the stranger (21.3 =B1 19.5 s)= during the first week of test (F=3D9.4, P<0.01). Differences between humans during the second week were not significant. The effects of clothes or rearing treatment were also not significant. Animals showed an habituation to the test (first week 13.5 =B115.9 s; second week 4.3 =B1 4.0 s, F=3D19.12,= P<0.01). T2: R1 animals accepted to be touched on the shoulder much more quickly (50.4 =B1 52.4 s) than R2 animals (89.6 =B1 55.5 s) whatever the human= involved (F=3D5.4, P<0.05). However, R2 animals accepted being touched on the head= much sooner by the familiar caretaker (106.7 =B1 64.1 s) than by the stranger= (161. 7 =B1 34.6) (t=3D-3.71, P<0.05). No significant difference (P>0.7) on this criteria was observed for R1 animals with the familiar human (55.8 =B1 61.1= s) or with the stranger (61.8 =B1 64.1s). This interaction between human= identity and rearing treatment is significant (F =3D 5.51, P<0.05). T3: no= significant effect was observed during the weighing test. Results confirm the existence of a variable response to human identity by cattle and highliht the importance of such factors in interaction within the context of the human-animal encounter and the previous experience with= humans. From: IN%"esa017@ed.sac.ac.uk" "Mike Mendl" 13-MAY-1996 03:43:02.79 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: oestrous behaviour in sows Dear all, Does anyone know of any references which state / show that the behaviour of oestrous sows in a group can lead to temporary changes in the social relationships / "rank" of those sows? It's my impression that sows in oestrous become much more socially active- pushing, mounting, investigating others - and that during this period measures of their social behaviour and "rank" might become quite different to those taken during the preceding and following non-oestrous periods. Any info. / observations on this gratefully received. Thanks, Mike Mendl From: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk" 13-MAY-1996 06:13:16.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Causes of death in domestic cats Could anyone direct me to a source of information on the major causes of death in the domestic cat population (I assume that the most important ones would be road trafic accidents, infectious disease and neoplasia) .I would particularly like to know how many cats (or % of the population) are killed in road traffic accidents every year. I realise this data may not be available. Any help is gratefully received. TIA, I. Rochlitz BVSc MSc MRCVS, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK. I. Rochlitz BVSc MSc MRCVS, Department of Clinical Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK. From: IN%"apn6mav@south-01.novell.leeds.ac.uk" "M.A. VARLEY" 13-MAY-1996 07:35:02.51 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: oestrous behaviour in sows Dear Mike and others You posed an interesting question on the social ranking of sows in oestrus (n) or in the interim oestrous (adj) cycles. The behaviours you described in your message however sounds akin to what may normally be seen in immediate pro-oestrus behaviour where they do show restless and exploratory behaviour patterns. Actually in the heat of oestrus, the reactions to other animals may render the bulk of them more stationary (submissive). What I am saying therefore is that the situation may be much more complex than at at first sight and different animals may move up or down the social rank at different times during the progression from pro-oestrus to oestrus and on towards anoestrus. To my knowledge there is no good detailed data to describe this well but power to your elbow. Mike Varley Dr Mike Varley Department of Animal Physiology and Nutrition The University of Leeds Leeds LS2 9JT; tel 01132 333062, Fax 01132 333072 Mobile 0864 102531; apn6mav@leeds.ac.uk Visit with us at: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/apn/apn.html From: IN%"M.Dockery@mmu.ac.uk" "MICHAEL DOCKERY" 13-MAY-1996 09:43:32.65 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ASAB video `Stimulus Response` Dear All The ASAB video, Stimulus Response, is a resource produced for science teachers in schools and colleges in the UK. However, it has been found to be useful in higher education too. Acclaimed as"outstanding" in leading British scientific journals, the video is now available for production overseas at a fraction of the cost of any comparable video. It offers 33 minutes of fascinating, top-quality footage for teaching biology, psychology and animal behaviour to students of 16 and over. This bestselling video, reprinted three times during its first year, has already been translated for schools by the Czech Republic`s Central Commission for Animal Welfare and produced in Switzerland by the Akademie fur Tiernaturheilkunde Ag. ASAB now offers master copies (Betacam S P Pal - master copies in other video standards are also available) of the video (with or without English commentary) at cost price, stlg110, and a royalty of only stlg1 per copy produced. Alternatively, copies in English can be bought, at a cost of stlg10. All prices include the costs of postage and packing. For further details contact: Michael Dockery, ASAB Education Officer, Department of Biological Sciences, John Dalton Building, Manchester Metropolitan University, Chester Street, Manchester M1 5GD [All cheques must be in sterling, or bankers draft in sterling, and should be payable to "ASAB": cash is also perfectly acceptable. Regards Michael Dockery, ASAB Education Officer From: IN%"eoprice@ucdavis.edu" "Edward O. Price" 13-MAY-1996 10:01:03.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology-error@sask.usask.ca" "applied-ethology-error" CC: Subj: RE: In from the cold Dear Geoff: What a pleasant surprise to see your name pop up on my messages this morning! I liked your introduction to the applied ethology list serve. I am also glad to hear that you are gainfully employed and have a spot at the Weribee facility. Let's hope your FJ Holden holds up for a few more years. It sounds like you are still frequenting the race track. Too bad one can't make a living predicting race horse performance on the track. Marti is doing well. We just finished remodeling our kitchen and family room which put us in disarray for about 2 months. We like the final outcome, however. Ted is working for the National Aeronautical & Space Administration on their infrared telescope project. It will be mounted on a 747 jumbo jet. Since the telescope must be steady, they have to figure out a way to make the plane move while keeping the telescope in place. He is living near San Francisco. Lauralee is married and working for an investment firm on a two-year training program. I am still serving as Chair for my department. After 3 years, I am beginning to understand what is going on. My term goes until summer, 1998. I'm only teaching 1 course per year but I am managing to keep a research program going. We are looking at the development of sexual behavior in rams this fall (effects of fenceline contact with ewes during the first year) and one of my students is studying the effects of immunocastration (to GnRH) on the sexual behavior of post-pubertal ram lambs. We will also be looking at the effects of early exposure to females on the sexual behavior of male goats. Is Betsa still teaching? How are the girls doing? Do you still live at the same location? We have many fond memories of our days in Melbourne and at Mt. Derrimut. Ed ---------- >From: applied-ethology-error >To: Applied-ethology >Subject: In from the cold >Date: Monday, May 13, 1996 5:16PM > >G'day all, > >A short note to let you all know that I've been brought in from the >cold. After spending the last 20 years or so either down the back >paddock watching sheep, up on the Bogong High Plains watching cattle, >or banished to the piggery watching farrowing sows, the University >has decreed that enough is enough and has closed down the farm. My >farm. Well, Melbourne University's farm, the Mt Derrimut Field >Station. It will probably be sold off soon, either for a prison or >more suburbs. The University and the Victorian Department of >Agriculture have built a new joint pig research facility at Werribee >and I've moved over. > >The worst thing about the move is that my Australian icon, the 1955 >FJ Holden Special sedan, has to drive an extra 32 kilometers a day at >high speed on the freeway. The rust barely holds it together. But >the best thing is that I have a warm office with a networked computer! > >For those who don't know me, I was reading that the public perception >of a scientist is as "a bearded, stooping, obsessional, dull, >prematurely aged male in an ill-fitting white coat". That's me, but >I score only 5/6 because of my blue overalls. My current research >interests are feeding behaviour and feeder design for grower pigs, >and the pre- and post-race behaviour of racehorses and its >relationship with performance. Any information on the latter topic, >published or unpublished, would be much appreciated. > >Geoffrey Hutson > >Tel: +61 3 9742 0454 >Fax: +61 3 9742 0400 >Email: hutsong@hari.agvic.gov.au > From: IN%"MURN@URIACC.URI.EDU" "Murn Nippo" 13-MAY-1996 11:55:02.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" "Applied Ethology" CC: Subj: ISAE Guelph Meeting Question I am trying to decipher the registration form for the meeting. Can anyone tell me the location of the Arboretum where the Barbecue is being held on August 15? Is it in Guelph or in the Niagra falls region following the social excursion? DR. MURN M. NIPPO PHONE 401-874-2940 DEPT. FISH., ANIMAL & FAX 401-874-4017 Veterinary Science University of Rhode Island Kingston, RI 02881 USA From: IN%"quinlan@bendnet.com" 13-MAY-1996 14:43:39.01 To: IN%"M.Dockery@mmu.ac.uk" "MICHAEL DOCKERY" CC: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" Subj: RE: ASAB video `Stimulus Response` Is the ASAB teaching video Stimulus Response availible in the United States? Regards, George Phillip Quinlan All About Dogs Behavior and Training Center PO Box 7781 Bend Or 97708-7781 Tel/Fax 541-388-8145 E-mail quinlan@bendnet.com From: IN%"TWIDOWSKI@APS.UoGuelph.CA" "TINA WIDOWSKI" 13-MAY-1996 15:39:48.67 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: ISAE: Location of Arboretum In response to Murn Nippo's question: The Arboretum is located on the beautiful University of Guelph campus. It is walking distance from the dorms and hotels, but we will also have a shuttle van available. We are hoping that we will return from the Falls in time to stash your 'I've been to Niagara Falls' souvenirs in your rooms before the BBQ begins. See you soon, Tina Widowski Local Organizer > Date sent: Mon, 13 May 1996 13:48:32 -0400 (EDT) > From: Murn Nippo > Subject: ISAE Guelph Meeting Question > To: Applied Ethology > I am trying to decipher the registration form for the meeting. Can anyone tell > me the location of the Arboretum where the Barbecue is being held on August > 15? Is it in Guelph or in the Niagra falls region following the social > excursion? > > DR. MURN M. NIPPO PHONE 401-874-2940 > DEPT. FISH., ANIMAL & FAX 401-874-4017 > Veterinary Science > University of Rhode Island > Kingston, RI 02881 USA > From: IN%"M.B.M.BRACKE@imag.dlo.nl" "Marc Bracke, IMAG-DLO tel. 03147-476554" 14-MAY-1996 02:24:59.77 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: calf space requirements Does anyone know of any american literature in which the space requirements for calves in groups could be 10% less than calves housed individually? Thank, Marc Bracke From: IN%"B.SAVENIJE@id.dlo.nl" 14-MAY-1996 05:06:45.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: introduction As requested on subscription I will use this mail to introduce myself to everyone on the network. My name is Bart Savenije. I have studied animal science at Wageningen Agricultural University, the Netherlands. At the end of 1993 I got my MSc degree there. My diploma work consisted of a study in ethology and animal physiology on a project about artificial HPA-axis stimulation and acute stress in gilts. My practical period I spent at the Swedish University of Agricultural Science in Skara, Sweden looking at the social dynamics in groups of floor-housed laying hens. In 1994/1995 I worked for a year at the Veterinary Faculty of the State University Utrecht, where I have been looking at several aspects of a newly developped Specific Stress Free housing system for fattening pigs. Recently I have started with a PhD-project on alternative electrical stunning methods for broilers, which is scheduled to keep me busy for the next four years. This project will be carried out at the Institute for Animal Science and Health (ID-DLO) in Lelystad, the Netherlands, with participation of the Department of Biological Psychiatry of the State University Groningen (RUG). Although this project will probably include but a minimum of ethological work, I do like to keep myself informed on this subject. In my work I will be looking at animal welfare and humane slaughter, which I hope are matters that are of interest to members of this network. At this point the project is planned to address the effect of stunning and slaughter on brain functionality and consciousness and in a later stage to develop alternative ways of stunning and to evaluate these methods on animal welfare and meat quality. Best wishes, Bart Savenije From: IN%"kmcn@flyball.org.uk" 14-MAY-1996 07:46:52.32 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Bengal Cats Hello All I have had an inquiry about a Bengal Cat, which is apparently a cross between an Asian Leopard Cat (Felis Bengelensis) and a domestic cat. Any information would be apprciated. Regards Kevin Mc Nicholas 50 Tudor Road Barnet Herts England EN5 5NP Email: kmcn@flyball.org.uk Email: jkm294@soton.ac.uk Tel 0181 449 7539 Tel (from outside UK) 44 181 449 7539 Mobile office hours 0374 754303 Mobile evenings and weekends 0836 747974 From: IN%"lmo132@emil.ruc.dk" 14-MAY-1996 07:59:53.73 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: Cornell Book of Cats Hello all, I was wondering if any of you know when the new 1996 edition of The Cornell Book of Cats, by staff members of Cornell University, is out ? And, if so, how much the cover price is? Thanks in advance. - Lars -------------------------------------------------- Lars M. Olsen |Author of The Scratching Post Basic Science, 13.2 | http://emil.ruc.dk/~lmo132/ Roskilde University | DK-4000 Roskilde |Where felines sharpen their Denmark | claws! -------------------------------------------------- ** E-mail valid until August 1996 ** From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:25:36.63 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com" Subj: Seeking the truth (1) Seeking the truth about feral cats and the people who help them New study yields controversial findings (From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1992) BOSTON, Mass. -- The leading cause of death among homeless cats may be humane euthanasia. Homeless cat colonies exist in almost every American neighborhood--but four out of 10 homeless cats live in just 6% of the colonies, and two-thirds live in only 16%. Over half of all stray and feral female cats are pregnant at any given time. Yet attrition is so high that despite local fluctuations, the national homeless cat population is remarkably stable. These and other challenges to conventional thinking about homeless cats emerge from data gathered by ANIMAL PEOPLE and the Massachusetts SPCA, in the first-ever national survey of cat-feeders and cat-rescuers. The controversial nature of the findings and the complexity of interpreting the data in light of experience became apparent when even the ANIMAL PEOPLE editors strongly differed over what some of the numbers may mean. Some of the findings verify what many people who work with homeless cats have known all along: most of the cats die young; their deaths are often violent or difficult; at least one in cat in three was once a pet; homeless cats are heavily dependent upon human feeding, as well as the refuse and vermin they find near human dwellings; and contrary to the stereotype of cats as independent, homeless cats are anything but solitary, typically living in colonies of six to sixteen members. But the survey also indicates that the homeless cat population is somewhat self-regulating, tending to remain at or near a particular carrying capacity just as a wildlife population would. Getting at the reasons why would appear to be the crux of ending the homeless cat problem. The survey both confirms that widlife population dynamics don't fully apply to homeless cats, and that the factors governing wildlife population growth do need to be considered in addressing feline homelessness. On the one hand, the park pigeon and squirrel populations in many big cities are apparently comparably dependent upon deliberate human feeding and other human-provided food sources. Like feral cats, many of the pigeons had domesticated ancestors--albeit mostly many generations ago. On the other hand, neither the squirrel nor pigeon breeding population is augmented by wandering pets who go back home after mating, and by the abandonment of huge numbers of young animals who have been raised among humans. The squirrel and pigeon breeding populations consist entirely of animals who have grown up and survived under essentially the same conditions their descendents will face. Many of the cats who form the homeless cat breeding population have not survived long away from a home, and probably will not, in view of the extremely high mortality rate (more than one in two) among feral females between kittenhood and two years of age. In terms of practical action, the survey indicates that attempts to remove homeless cats from specific sites without changing the habitat to discourage newcomers would appear to be futile in the long run. If a given site is friendly to cats, with abundant food and shelter, more cats tend to appear. This may be because humans select such sites as dumping places for cats and kittens; because survivors who escape capture breed at a faster pace, encouraged by the temporary reduction in competition for the available food and shelter; or because newcomers from nearby cat colonies wander in and breed, until the carrying capacity is again reached. At most sites, a combination of factors is probably at work. While both abandonments and breeding may continue at a rapid pace after the carrying capacity is reached, mortality then increases to insure that the number of cats at any particular time does not significantly vary--so long as the food and shelter sources remain constant. The components of eradicating a homeless cat colony thus must include not only removing the present breeding population, whether through capture-and-euthanasia or neuter/release, but also responding to the arrival of newcomers, from any source. And ultimately the problem must be dealt with at another level entirely, not on the street but in human homes: the ultimate source of most homeless cats, whether they are deliberately abandoned as either adults or unwanted litters, run away, or breed while outdoors. As ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim Bartlett declares, after extensive experience with neuter/release, "The fertile homeless cats have such short lives and so many kittens die young before breeding that it is obvious the most cost-effective thing to do is to concentrate upon spaying and neutering cats in homes--who may go on having litters and adding cats to the homeless population for 10 years or more." Pointing out that the normal range of such close relatives of the domestic cat as bobcats and lynx tends to be 50 to 300 square miles, ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton observes that if homeless cats lived and reproduced entirely according to the norms governing wildlife, there would be no more than a few hundred thousand in the whole United States, rather than the 30 to 35 million experts commonly estimate. "If the homeless cat population is reduced to the population density of say the Scottish wildcat, the Norwegian forest cat, or the authentic wild Maine coon cats, the ones who aren't living and breeding in barns," Clifton says, "and if it remains stable at that level, then we might start considering that wildlife population models wholly apply. At the present population density, it is clear that humans are having a major influence on how many cats are out there, at both ends of their lives--at reproduction and at death." While the survey results do not make a case that euthanizing homeless cats should be discontinued, they do tend to indicate that euthanasia won't lastingly reduce the homeless cat population if undertaken in a vaccuum, without parallel programs addressing habitat and human behavior. Thus the data tends to suggest something more is needed than the dual-focus eradication-through-euthanasia and spay/neuter-your-pet approach advocated by the Humane Society of the U.S. and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The data also suggests there is a significant place for the neuter/release approach to homeless cat population control, when practicable, as advanced by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare in England and the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy in the United States. In classical neuter/release, cats are altered and vaccinated against distemper and rabies, then are returned to their habitat. This typically diminishes the cat population over a period of two to five years, which enables slower-breeding rival predators such as hawks and owls to take over non-human-supplied food sources as the cats relinquish them. (Human feedings need to be diminished proportionate to the cat population, meanwhile, to avoid encouraging a rapid influx of vermin that might draw more cats, if only because more annoyed humans might drop cats off in the area.) Who Done It? Designed by ANIMAL PEOPLE editor Merritt Clifton and MSPCA humane services director Carter Luke, who arranged for funding, the survey questionaire was anonymously published in the July/August issue of The Animals' Agenda magazine, the last issue assembled by Cifton and ANIMAL PEOPLE publisher Kim Bartlett. The questionaires were collected and tabulated by ANIMAL PEOPLE contributing editor Cathy Young Czapla, while Clifton did the preliminary data refinement and analysis. Anonymity at the survey stage was necessary, the survey coordinators agreed, because if the people receiving the questionaire believed it came from proponents of any particular point of view, the results might be compromised by adherents of other philosophies failing to return completed forms. Agreeing on the need for more information, the survey designers in fact represent generally opposing perspectives: the MSPCA has generally been critical of cat-feeders and neuter/release, while Clifton, who generally favors neuter/release, kept detailed statistics on an experimental neuter/release program that Bartlett formerly directed with the aid of cat-feeders in Fairfield County, Connecticut. In all, 159 cat-feeders and cat-rescuers returned completed survey forms, often accompanied by extensive documentary material. Response came from 38 of the 50 states and the province of Ontario, Canada. The geographic distribution of U.S. survey respondents was only roughly comparable to the population distribution of North America, but since the data indicated that homeless cat populations tended to be concentrated in urban areas, the under-reporting from the largely rural south and west may not significantly affect the findings. Ninety-two percent of the respondents were female, a striking sexual imbalance even given that approximately 80% of the group receiving the questionaire were female. The age distribution of female respondents varied from the national distribution of women in the same age range chiefly in that many more were ages 30-39, and many fewer were over 50--one of several findings that may refute the common perception of cat-feeders and cat-rescuers as elderly, childless, and isolated. It is to be noted, however, that the age range of the group who received the questionaire follows a similar skew. While only 16% of the respondents had children under the age of 18, compared with 38% for the U.S. population as a whole, 58% were married or living with a companion, vs. 60% for the U.S. as a whole; 13% were living with family other than husbands and children, and two percent were living with friends. Only 28% were living alone, not significantly more than the national figure of 25% living alone. The essential normalcy of cat-feeders and rescuers except in the matter of compassion was underscored by what respondents reported about their colleagues. Fully 84% of the respondents know other cat-feeders. The total number of cat-feeders known was 626, with a median per respondent of just over three. Of the 612 whose sex was identified, 101 (17%) were men; 511 (83%) were women. Three percent of the women were under age 21; 61% were ages 22-55; and 36% were 55-plus. Support for the elderly/isolated stereotype came mainly from the male side of the ledger: 55% of the men were ages 22-54, compared with 73% of the male population over age 21; 44% were 55-plus, markedly more than the 27% in that age bracket nationally. A simple explanation is that retired men have more time available to feed cats, a relatively inexpensive pastime for the majority. Income distribution among the population surveyed was markedly higher than the national average in the upper income brackets, and comparable in the middle brackets, but there appeared to be little correlation between expenditures on cat-feeding and personal resources. Although three respondents reported spending more than $100 a week to feed homeless cats, sixty-five percent spend under $10 per week; 15% spend $11 to $20 a week; and only 20% spend more than $20 a week. Obviously the majority are not feeding large numbers of cats. At the time of the survey, respondents were feeding 1,421 homeless cats in all, an average of nine apiece. However, 76% of the feeders were feeding nine cats or fewer, with the median at three; 16% were feeding 10-20 cats; 10% were feeding 20-100 cats; and 4% were feeding 100-plus cats. (The percentages add up to more than 100 because of rounding off.) Other cat-feeders known to the respondents were feeding 1,719 homeless cats at the time of the survey; a median of 35 cats apiece but an average of only three apiece. (The huge gap between the median and the average was because a small number of respondents [6] knew individuals who were feeding over 100 cats apiece.) (continued) From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:41:08.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com" Subj: Neuter/release studies (1) CUTTING EUTHANASIAS WITHOUT CONFLICT (From ANIMAL PEOPLE, March 1996.) SAN DIEGO--Can population control euthanasias be halted? Do homeless cats breed in the woods? New studies by the National Pet Alliance and ANIMAL PEOPLE say yes to both questions--and confirm that the keys to success are first, going where the homeless cats are to do neutering, and second, working to enable renters to adopt cats. Political conflicts erupting in Fort Wayne, Indiana, and Montgomery County, Maryland, demonstrate meanwhile that harassing ordinary pet keepers with regulations and extra fees may lower euthanasia numbers at cost of creating an eventually self-defeating backlash against enforcement of any animal control or animal protection laws. In both cities, animal advocates are digging in to protect nationally noted breeding control ordinances, acclaimed when passed, but easy targets for newly elected fiscal conservatives, who recently took over both civic administrations with a pledge to cut bureaucracy. The Fort Wayne city council is contemplating closing the public animal control agency and contracting services out to the lowest bidder, while Montgomery County has been without an animal control director for more than a year, and is expected to move the animal control agency to be under the not particularly enthused supervision of the police department. San Diego, equally politically conservative, cut dog and cat animal control intakes 26% between fiscal year 1991-1992 and fiscal year 1993-1994--and cut euthanasias by 36%. As in San Francisco, where the goal of zero population control euthanasias was reached in 1994 after 18 years of aggressive San Francisco SPCA support of low-cost neutering and renter adoption, the San Diego progress was achieved without the introduction of major new laws, without tax funding, without public rancor, and indeed with so little public attention that it was well underway almost before anyone realized anything was changing. Moreover, while the SF/SPCA perfected a program from scratch by trial and error, in San Diego results are coming fast just from using already known techniques. NPA founder Karen Johnson and colleague Laura Lewellen set out to discover just what is happening in San Diego, along with what else will be necessary to bring San Diego to zero population control euthanasias. Modeling their study on an influential 1992 study of the cat population of the Santa Clara Valley, in northern California, they hired Nichols Research, of Sunnyvale, California, to do a telephone survey of 1,031 households, randomly selected within representative telephone prefixes. "The number of survey calls made within each prefix was based on the number of households in each prefix, in relation to the number of households in the county," Johnson and Lewellen explain. The findings amount to a resounding endorsement of the work of the nonprofit Feral Cat Coalition, which has neutered more than 4,000 homeless cats since 1992. "Prior to this project," Johnson and Lewellen write, "the San Diego County Animal Management Information System reported an increase of roughly 10% per year in the number of cats handled by San Diego Animal Control shelters from 1988 to 1992. The increase peaked at 13% from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1992, with 19,077 cats handled. After just two years, with no other explanation of the drop, only 12,446 cats were handled. Cat euthanasias plunged 40% from 1991-1992 to 1993-1994." The Feral Cat Coalition found that 54% of the cats they captured for neutering were female and 46% male. Of the 1,639 females, 42% were in heat, 13% were pregnant (3.5 times the rate of pregnancies Johnson and Lewellen found in owned cats), 13% were lactating, and 4% had recently ceased lactating: a combined total of 72% in various reproductive phases. Just three percent had already been neutered. Cost-effective "For a cost of $163,956 (3,153 cats at $52 per cat), San Diego shelter numbers have dropped by at least 6,500 cats [per year]," say Johnson and Lewellen. "The average three-day stay for a cat in a California shelter is estimated at $70. San Diego saved $455,000 over two years. This success shows that in actuality no additional funds need be raised," for a city to move from high-volume euthanasia to high-volume neutering. "The program will pay for itself through less shelter costs. Additional funding for altering could be taken from the shelter budget." Realizing the savings to be obtained through neutering instead of killing is only half of what policymakers must absorb to halt population control euthanasias, Johnson and Lewellen point out. The rest is the dimensions of the dog and cat population itself. In San Diego County, 54% of households keep no pets; 30% keep dogs; 25% keep cats; and an overlapping 9% keep both. These figures are below the national averages; nationally , 38% keep dogs, 32% keep cats, and 15% keep both. The difference probably reflects the tendency of San Diegoans to rent rather than own their housing: 71% of cat keepers and 85% of dog keepers are also homeowners. However, 8.9% of all San Diego County households, renters included, feed homeless cats--an average of 2.6 apiece. The owned dog population of San Diego County comes to 374,732; the owned cat population comes to 371,928; and the number of unowned cats who are known to be fed by someone is 205,345. "Roaming cats make up at least 35.6% of the entire known cat population in the county," Johnson and Lewellen emphasize. "It is important to stress the word 'known' here. This percentage can be considered the minimum number of roaming cats, as many cats are not actively fed by humans. Many more live wild in the countryside or forage in alleys." As in the Santa Clara Valley, and as Carter Luke of the Massachusetts SPCA and Andrew Rowan of the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy found, within a few percentage points, in parallel 1991 studies of pet ownership in greater Boston, in San Diego 67% of owned dogs and 84% of owned cats are neutered. Most of the intact cats at any given time are too young to reproduce. The owned dog population is breeding at approximately replacement level, while the owned cat population is breeding at less than 75% of replacement level. Neither pet reproduction nor stray animals account for much of the present San Diego dog and cat surplus, Johnson and Lewellen discovered. While pets do go astray, "The number of permanently missing dogs, with no hint at to their fate, accounts for only 0.2% of the dog population. Less than one percent either were, or could have been, handled by Animal Control. The number of permanently missing owned cats accounts for less than one percent (0.9%) of the entire owned cat population. Calculating from these figures, roughly 3,500 of the cats handled by San Diego County Animal Control and other shelters are owned, stray, or dead pet cats." This would be about one animal control cat intake in four. In other words, 75% of the San Diego County surplus cat population comes from breeding by homeless cats, many of whom might be adopted by feeders--and neutered--if more landlords were willing to rent to people who keep pets. Interestingly enough, people who adopt cats as strays are far less likely to let them have a litter before neutering than those who get cats from any other source, Johnson and Lewellen found. Of the 19% of San Diego owned female cats who had litters prior to neutering, just 5.6% were ex-strays, compared with 10.7% bought from pet stores, 11.8% bought from breeders, 14.3% adopted from humane societies and animal control shelters, 15.2% received as giveaways from previous owners, and 20.9% from litters born to other cats in the household. In all, Johnson and Lewellan learned, 58.3% of owned feline pregnancies in San Diego County are accidental. [Copies of the complete San Diego County Survey and analysis of the pet population are available for $10.00 from the National Pet Alliance, POB 53385, San Jose, CA 95153.] Our study Johnson and Lewellen didn't do a detailed survey and analysis of the interaction of cat feeders and rescuers with the homeless cat population--but, simultaneously, ANIMAL PEOPLE did, following up on previous work. In July 1992, after incorporating Animal People Inc. to do humane research projects, and just prior to founding the ANIMAL PEOPLE newspaper, editor Merritt Clifton and publisher Kim Bartlett commenced an unprecedented national survey of the methods and sociology of cat rescuers, with financial support from Carter Luke of the Massachusetts SPCA. The survey questionaire was published as a full-page paid advertisement in the July/August 1992 edition of Animals' Agenda magazine. Respondants were asked to return the completed form to freelance writer Cathy Young Czapla, a founding member of the ANIMAL PEOPLE board of directors, who was not identified by any organizational affiliation. The authorship and sponsorship of the survey was not revealed until the data was tabulated by Czapla, analyzed by Clifton and Bartlett, and published in the November 1992 edition of ANIMAL PEOPLE. The published data was based on 169 completed questionaires; more questionaires were received later, bringing the total number of respondants up to 190. In July 1995, with financial support from the Summerlee Foundation, ANIMAL PEOPLE mailed similar questionaires to all 190 of the 1992 respondents to find out how their experience with feral cats and cat rescue might have changed in the interim. In particular, we wanted to know whether the rescuers were handling either more or fewer cats, and to find out if their practices had changed in any manner that might account for differences. Of the 190 questionaires distributed, 44 were returned and matched with the 1992 responses of the same individuals, for an excellent verifiable response rate of 23%. The 44 questionaires in each instance reflected the experience of 51 individuals: four males, 47 females. Thirty lived with a spouse or companion throughout 1992-1995, 16 lived alone, and one who lived alone in 1993 was married by 1995. Questions about living situations found only one important change: in 1992, just three respondants, barely 8%, had children under age 18 living at home. By 1995, eight had children under age 18 living at home. Births accounted for all of the difference. Cat adoption In 1992, 37 respondants kept a total of 263 companion cats, an average of seven apiece, with the median circa five. Three respondants kept more than 20. The same three respondants kept more than 20 in 1995. Overall, by 1995, 45 respondants kept 314 companion cats, an increase of 22% in the number of cat-keepers among the rescuers, and of 19% in the total number of cats kept, as the average number of cats per household remained steady at seven and the median at five. The increase directly reflects the frequency of personally adopting homeless cats, by far the most popular rescue method. Both Carter Luke in a 1992 study of households in greater Boston and Karen Johnson of the National Pet Alliance in a 1992 study of pet ownership in the Santa Clara Valley of California, as well as Johnson and Lewellen in their San Diego County study, have established that just over a fourth of all owned cats are adopted as uninvited strays. As of 1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE survey respondants had personally adopted 559 homeless cats, among whom 225, or 40%, were adult males; 190, or 34%, were kittens; and just 144, or 26%, were adult females. During the next three years, 30 of the 44 respondants (68%) adopted a combined total of 138 more homeless cats, including 37 adult males (27%); 56 kittens (41%); and 45 adult females (33%). The 138 adoptions from the homeless population accounted for 87 replacements of companion cats already in homes, who presumably died during the survey period, and 51 cats added to the respondants' cumulative owned cat population, an average of one cat per respondant. Over the three-year period, the known attrition-and-replacement rate was 33%, or 11% per year. Although the question wasn't specifically asked, in written comments none of the respondants indicated adding cats to their household from any other source. The rate of neutering among cats adopted from the homeless population accelerated from 76% among those adopted before 1992, to 96% of those cats old enough to be neutered who were adopted between 1992 and 1995. Both surveys found that about 2% of adopted homeless cats turned out to have already been neutered. Specific questions about reasons for neutering or not neutering were not asked, but written comments indicate that greater access to low-cost neutering is the most important reason for the increase. The frequency with which adopted adult females turned out to be pregnant was consistent: 34% prior to 1992, 33% between 1992 and 1995. Cat-feeding Cat-feeding remained the second most popular rescue activity, a finding tending to validate the universality of Johnson and Lewellen's findings in the Santa Clara Valley and San Diego County that as many as nine to ten percent of all households include someone who feeds homeless cats. In 1992, 89% of ANIMAL PEOPLE survey respondants (39) had fed homeless cats at one time, at a total of 65 different sites, and 35 (80%) were actively feeding. In 1995, 28 (72%) of the onetime feeders were still actively feeding; those who indicated a reason for stopping mostly said there were no longer homeless cats at their feeding sites. One person had relocated away from a feeding site, for work-related rather than cat-related reasons. The number of feeding sites dipped 10% between the surveys, to 59. At the time of the 1992 survey, active feeders reported feeding 393 homeless cats, including 43 kittens (11%), for an average of 11.2 homeless cats fed per person. At the time of the 1995 survey, active feeders reported feeding 435 cats, including 51 kittens (12%), for an average of 15.5 cats fed per person. The 11% increase in the number of cats fed and the 38% increase in the number of cats fed per person seem to indicate that the homeless cat population may be growing by as much as 4% per year. But the situation is more complicated than that. For instance, the numbers also indicate that "kitten season," among homeless cat colonies, comes later than is generally supposed. Three months prior to the 1992 survey, at the often presumed peak of "kitten season," the respondants remembered feeding only 361 homeless cats, including 23 kittens (5.8%), for an average of 13.9 cats fed per person. In 1995, they fed 357 at the same time of year, indicating virtually no change, but including 29 kittens, or half again as many (9%). The data from each year suggests that while kitten births peak in late spring, resulting in more litter turn-ins at animal shelters, homeless kittens stay hidden longer, and don't become part of a feeder's count until weaned and mobile, circa eight weeks of age. The increase from 1992 to 1995 in the number of kittens discovered during the traditional "kitten season" could either be a fluke, a reflection of the growing trust of homeless mothers in feeders who have shown themselves reliable over three years or more, an indication of increased skill at finding kittens on the part of rescuers, or a reflection of increased abandonments at feeding sites of kittens born in homes. Both the 1992 and 1995 cat feeders' kitten counts are almost certainly low relative to births. A variety of veterinary studies summarized by Ellen Perry Berkeley in her groundbreaking 1980 book Maverick Cats indicate that 50% mortality among kittens before weaning is normal, even among owned cats. Kittens who die this young usually won't be found by rescuers. Further data on homeless cats collected during a 1991-1992 neuter/release demonstration project that Bartlett and Clifton coordinated in northern Fairfield County, Connecticut, involving 320 cats in all, essentially confirmed the estimates of 50% pre-weaning mortality: 32% mortality in kittens rescued during their first 12 weeks of life, plus a strong likelihood that many kittens died before their litters were found. At the midwinter low end of the homeless cat population cycle, in January 1992, 32 respondants fed 357 cats, an average of 15.7 apiece. By January 1995, 30 respondents fed 339 cats, an average of just 11.3 apiece, a drop that seems best explained by the adoption data. As of August 1991, 29 people people reported feeding 381 cats, or 13.1 apiece; by August 1994, the same people were feeding 435 cats, the same as in August 1995, for an average of 15 cats apiece. This would suggest that the homeless cat population actually peaked in 1993 or 1994, and has subsequently leveled off, possibly due to the growing popularity of neuter/release. Neuter-release Neuter/release was the third most popular rescue activity in both surveys, following homeless cat adoption and cat-feeding. In 1992, 14 rescuers had neutered and released 120 homeless cats, for an average of 8.6 apiece. In the interim between the surveys, 17 rescuers neutered and released 77 cats, an average of 4.5 apiece--and one individual, who had neutered and released 50 cats prior to the 1992 survey, reported neutering and releasing 900 between the surveys, including about 400 males and 500 females, of whom 400 total were still alive. This level of activity was so intense that this individual's data had to be dropped from the tabulations to make sense of the rest. As anticipated from study results showing that neutering adds from 20% to 50% to the life expectancy of owned cats, homeless cats seem to live far longer when neutered and therefore not obliged to take risks in search of mates or to get food for kittens. Among the cats neutered and released by the 12 normal-volume neuter/release practitioners during the interim between the 1992 and 1995 surveys, 28 of 39 males (71%) were still alive at the 1995 survey date, of whom 86% had lived at least two years after release; 48 of 56 females (86%) were still alive, of whom 83% had lived at least two years after release. Assuming that the average age of the cats who were neutered and released was one year, 71% of males and 86% of females had already lived longer than all but 17% of the 147 males and 22% of the 173 homeless females picked up during the1991-1992 demonstration neuter/release demonstration project. ANIMAL PEOPLE also asked respondants in 1995 about the fate of cats they neutered and released before July 1992. Of 120 such cats, the fates of 95 (79%) were known. Thirty-four of 42 males were still alive (81%), as were 42 of 53 females (79%). In fact, cats involved in the 1995 survey respondants' neuter/release projects seem to be living longer than owned cats: of 287 living owned cats reported in a separate survey of Animals' Agenda readers that Clifton did in 1991, just 64% had lived three years or longer, and only 56% had lived four years or longer. Only time will tell whether the neutered and released cats will match the other longevity marks found in the 1991 survey: 19% had lived 10 years or longer, and 11% had lived 12 years or longer, while 3% had lived 17 years or longer. Cats vs. wildlife The dramatically increased longevity of homeless cats after neutering suggests that conflicts with conservationists over feline predation on songbirds and other wildlife will only increase, unless both neuter/release practitioners and conservationists get together to establish mutually acceptable criteria for where, when, and how neuter/release should be practiced. From 1992 survey data and personal observation during the 1991-1992 neuter/release demonstration project, Clifton and Bartlett determined that only about 12% of the locations where homeless cats are found are actually suitable sites for maintaining cat colonies. Our position throughout has also been that all homeless cats should be removed from unsuitable habitat as expeditiously as possible, and that the ultimate goal should be no homeless cats, period. This position is not inconsistent with the goals of such organizations as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the National Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, and the California Coastal Conservancy, among many others which oppose the presence of feral cats in wildlife habitat. ANIMAL PEOPLE parts company with these organizations, however, in that because some neuter/release practitioners persist in maintaining colonies at inappropriate sites, they tend to oppose all use of neuter/release. Our argument is that because catch-and-kill is manifestly unpopular with much of the public, as well as within the cat rescuing community, and because catch-and-kill policies demonstrably discourage cooperation between rescuers and people concerned with wildlife protection, it is wiser for all concerned to cooperate in alternatives including neuter/release which recognize and respect the importance of saving the lives of the cats to rescuers. In the long run, we contend, it is more beneficial to wildlife to have the numbers of feral cats controlled and their locations regulated, than to have unknown numbers reproducing at an unknown rate in unknown locations, paying people to exterminate them while people who might be voluntarily capturing them, socializing the socializable for adoption, and neutering the lot are deterred by threats of fines and jail time. On July 5, 1994, ANIMAL PEOPLE proposed to 16 organizations and individual researchers with a strong interest in homeless cats and the impact of cats on wildlife that resources could be combined to compare the population records of closely monitored cat colonies with Audobon Christmas Bird Count and Breeding Bird Survey data from nearby locations to definitively measure the effects of cats vs. birds. We pointed out that the limited data to date from other studies indicates a variety of possibilities, depending upon the type of habitat. Beyond the obvious, that cats eat birds when they can, further issues must be considered. For instance, some of the data most strongly indicting cats for killing birds also indicates that they kill primarily small ground-feeding species, and that their most frequent prey by an overwhelming margin is the English house sparrow, a non-native species in North America which competes with scarcer native species for food and habitat. Since most of the fast-declining neotropical migratory songbirds are not ground-feeders, it may be that homeless cats have much less to do with their decline than is often postulated, and may even be helping them by knocking off some of their competition. Also worth a closer look is the relationship between homeless cats and raptors. Do cats outcompete hawks and owls for prey in suburban environments, or do they merely occupy niches that raptors have abandoned due to loss of nesting habitat? And are homeless cats perhaps important prey for some of the larger raptors when they reoccupy habitat? Certainly homeless cats are believed to be an important food source for suburban coyotes. Would the elimination of homeless cats decrease conflicts between humans and coyotes, or would hungry coyotes become more aggressive about foraging in yards? Researchers Andrew Rowan of the Tufts Center for Animals and Public Policy and James Serpell, who holds the Marie Moore Chair for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, were intensely interested. But, though the proposal has been twice recirculated, none of the groups contacted have bothered to reply, and no one has offered funding. Until such a study is done, the complexity of the relationship between homeless cats and wildlife is likely to be left out of the increasingly rancorous debate between conservationists and neuter/release practitioners, to the detriment of all concerned. (continued) From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:51:08.69 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com" Subj: RE: Causes of death in domestic cats Irene Rochlitz asked for information on causes of death in domestic cats. ANIMAL PEOPLE has produced or assisted in producing three studies of relevance, two of which asked feral cat-feeders and rescuers for information while the third, ongoing, coordinated by Brewster Bartlett (>>BBartlett@VMSVAX.simmons.edu<<) investigates the specific incidence of roadkills. These are appended as "Seeking the truth about feral cats," parts 1, 2, and 3, of which part 3 may be the most directly relevant; Neuter/release studies, parts 1, 2, and 3, which describe follow-up to the study described in "Seeking the truth"; and Roadkills. Best wishes, Merritt Clifton, editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE. From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:51:28.08 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com" Subj: Seeking the truth (3) (continued) What becomes of them? Sixty respondents (37.7%) had captured homeless cats and taken them to an animal shelter. The total number of homeless cats captured and taken to shelters was 751. The median number of homeless cats captured and taken to shelters per respondent was 5.5. Four respondents had taken over 100 cats apiece to shelters. Further, 44% of respondents knew other people (a total of 213) who also take homeless cats to shelters. These people are believed to take 2,604 homeless cats a year to shelters in all. Since the euthanasia rate for cats taken to shelters, nationwide, runs around 80%, and since shelters usually euthanize cats who are sick, injured, or hard to handle as promptly as possible, it is reasonable to assume that virtually all of the cats delivered to shelters by survey respondents were euthanized. Twenty percent of respondents (32) had captured homeless cats expressly for euthanasia. The median was two cats apiece; the total was 848 cats, of whom over 500 were captured by a single individual. Eighteen percent of respondents also knew other people (a total of 83) who capture homeless cats expressly for euthanasia. These people were said to be euthanizing 292 cats a month: 3,504 per year. The significance of euthanasia as a cause of homeless cat mortality was underscored when respondents were asked to quantify the causes of death for as many individual cats as they could. Respondents were able to attest to the causes of death of 2,638 homeless cats. A skew toward euthanasia was expected because these are the deaths that cat rescuers are most likely to know about, inasmuch as they require human involvement, usually the involvement of the person or persons in closest contact with the cats in question. Deaths from other causes are more likely to occur outside the observation of feeders and rescuers. The skew was indeed high: 48.5% of the known homeless cat deaths came via euthanasia. Another 10% of the cats were removed from feeding locations as nuisances; 20% of the remainder after subtracting those euthanized by rescuers. Most or all of these were probably also euthanized, bringing the probable total percentage of euthanasias to 58%. Even if three times as many homeless cats die of each of the other known causes of death as were reported, euthanasia would still be the single leading cause--and that's not even counting the nuisance removals. Although most euthanizers might be appalled to be defined as predators, in ecological terms they are fulfilling the role of top predator in the homeless cat jungle, maintaining a crude balance between the numbers of cats and the amount of food available. Without the euthanizers, the homeless cat population might rise by half; researchers Carol Haspel and Robert Calhoon found in 1981-1982 that at least in two sections of Brooklyn, "The food provided by feeders alone was estimated to support 1.71 to 2.10 cats per acre, a density that is 1.35 times greater than the actual population." Then, at that point or whatever point the homeless cat population actually exceeded the food supply, mortality associated with malnutrition would rise to prevent further growth in numbers. Both the survey and records from the Connecticut neuter/release project indicate that malnutrition presently afflicts about three percent of homeless cats; assuming the Haspel/Calhoon data can be used to project the potential for homeless cat population growth, and that the increase in malnutrition would be exponential rather than linear, relative to other causes of mortality, as many as nine percent of homeless cats would starve without the present rate of preventive euthanasia. In round numbers, available data suggests that if 35 million cats are now homeless, about 1.5 million of them are severely malnourished; 4.5 million would be if the population grew to 50 million. There is the question of whether euthanasia is indeed more humane than the various other ends that homeless cats meet. Only the six percent of euthanasias that were performed by the survey respondents themselves appear likely to have been done on site. The 47% of the euthanasias done by veterinarians and the 41% done by shelters almost certainly required transportation, as well as the trauma of capture, and therefore involved much the same kinds of stress as neuter/release, which is criticized in some quarters as too stressful to be humane. Of the other cited causes of death, those from being hit by cars and predation tend to be swift. But deaths from the remaining causes are more likely to be prolonged and even more stressful than live-trapping and transport. The question of what is humane then becomes a question of what quality of life the cats have, and for how long, before encountering the cause of their eventual demise. It is to be noted, as well, that survey respondents reported six percent of the cats they originally slated for euthanasia were not euthanized after all. Some apparently died first of grievous illness or injuries. Others demonstrated qualities during the capture and transport interval that bought them a reprieve--and in most cases, a home. In all, survey respondents identified only 115 people, including themselves, who captured homeless cats specifically for euthanasia, by far the lowest number involved in any kind of response to the situation. It is clear, though, that these 115 people are exceptionally dedicated to what they are doing, and are correspondingly having a much greater effect upon homeless cat population dynamics than they might imagine. Non-respondents to the survey who are known euthanizers were reportedly less likely than respondents to take the cats to a veterinarian (only 35% did), more likely to take them to a shelter (54% did), and more likely to do the euthanasia themselves (12% did.) One euthanizer reported using chloroform; the others all used lethal injections or other forms of administering barbituates. Neuter/Release Although neuter/release is a relatively new method of addressing the homeless cat problem, 61 respondents said they had attempted it--one more than had taken homeless cats to an animal shelter. The large number of neuter/release practioners in the sample base may, however, reflect the attention paid to neuter/release by Bartlett and Clifton at The Animals' Agenda, which may have encouraged more experimentation that would have been found among non-readers. Still, 35% of the respondents knew other people who have tried neuter/release, and the total number of neuter/release practioners identified (249) was surprisingly close to the total number of people who take homeless cats to humane societies (273). At the time of the survey, they had altered and released 4,714 cats. Forty-five of those who had attempted neuter/release (74%) said it had effectively halted breeding in the habitat. Sixteen percent said it had not, presumably because of a continued influx of fertile cats from other sources. Ten percent didn't answer the question. While critics of neuter/release have often called it "neuter/abandonment," 97% of neuter/release practioners had arranged for the released cats to be fed regularly, and presumably are continuing to monitor their well-being. The survey confirmed that access to low-cost neutering is almost a prerequisite for attempting neuter/release on any serious scale. Seventy-seven percent of neuter/release practioners had only their own money to work with; only 23% got donations from other sources. Sixty-seven percent, however, had access to discount spay/neuter operations. Thirty-four percent, just over a third, got discount rates from a veterinarian, despite the opposition of major veterinary groups to discounting. (Another 23% reported having a supportive veterinarian, even though they didn't get discount rates.) Twenty-nine percent got discount rates from a humane society spay/neuter clinic, indicating that nearly a third of the humane societies with in-house neutering programs are at least willing to give neuter/release a try. Twenty-three percent got discount rates through other nonprofit animal protection groups, while 13% got discount rates through Friends of Animals (the only national animal protection group to fund spay/neuter on a nationwide basis.) The survey confirmed that neuter/release isn't going to work everywhere, no matter how well it works in specific locations. Only 12% of neuter/release practicioners reported a generally supportive public attitude toward feral cat colonies in their community; 43% reported that feral cat colonies are generally viewed as a nuisance; 29% reported general indifference; and 9% reported mixed community response. Thus in up to 88% of the feral cat colony locations, cats released after neutering could encounter hostility. Where the response is mainly indifferent or mixed, colonies might be protected by vigilance for a time while neuter/release practioners work to win greater sympathy. Elsewhere, neuter/release will probably be successful only in large self-contained properties such as warehouses and equipment yards, with limited public access, which are owned and controlled by members of the sympathetic minority. The survey finally confirmed that no matter what methods are used to help homeless cats, plenty of room remains for all hands to try out ideas. Forty percent of respondents were personally aware of only one homeless cat colony, but 19% were aware of two; 18% were aware of three; 10% are aware of four; 4% are aware of five; 4% are aware of 10; and 3% are aware of more than 10. ANIMAL PEOPLE will seek funding for follow-up study to see whether the stability in homeless cat numbers found by this study continues to show up in future years; to compare the longterm success of neuter/release and euthanasia in specific comparable locations; and to answer whatever other questions the first round of findings may raise. (ANIMAL PEOPLE is a nonprofit monthly newspaper providing independent professional coverage of all the news about animal protection, from animal rescue to zoological conservation. We have no alignment or affiliation with any particular ideology, other than "be kind to animals," nor are we in any way associated with any advocacy group. If you give to help animals, you'll especially want our annual report on how each leading group spends donations ($3.00). Subscriptions, U.S. or foreign, are $22/year, $35/2 years, or $50/three years, to POB 205, Shushan, NY 12873. We'll send a free sample issue to anyone who provides a postal address.) From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:51:46.47 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com" Subj: Neuter/release studies (3) (continued - third of three parts) Feeding sites In 1992, 26 (74%) of the cat-feeding respondants reported feeding homeless cats on their doorstep; 12 (34%) fed homeless cats at a public building; six each fed homeless cats in an alley or in a wooded area; and four each fed homeless cats at a shopping center, in a barn, or at work. In 1995, 21 (60%) of the cat-feeding respondants reported feeding homeless cats on their doorstep, and the average number of cats fed on a doorstep had declined from 4.5 to 2.5. Five each fed homeless cats in wooded areas and in barns; four each fed homeless cats at work or in an alley; only two people were still feeding cats at public buildings; only one was still feeding cats at a shopping center; and four were feeding homeless cats in parks or other public-access wildlife areas, up from zero in 1992 and a clear warning of further conflict ahead. Except for the emergence of cat-feeding in wildlife areas, the trend seems to be toward markedly reducing the numbers of cats in the locations of the most contact with humans, such as doorsteps, public buildings, and workplaces, while the numbers found in rural locations, i.e. barns, wooded areas, and wildlife areas, are up 10%. As of 1992, of the 393 cats fed in identified locations, 30% were fed on doorsteps; 22% were fed at public buildings; 20% were fed in barns; 10% were fed in wooded areas; 7% were fed at work; 5% were fed in alleys; 2% were fed at shopping centers; and 4% were fed at other sites. By 1995, of the 435 cats fed in identified locations, 20% were fed on doorsteps; 18% were fed in wooded areas; 9% were fed in barns; 6% were fed in public-access wildlife areas; 5% were fed at shopping centers; 4% were fed at work; and 3% each were fed at public buildings, in alleys, or at other sites. Placing cats The 1995 survey of cat rescuers also asked about experience in adopting out formerly homeless cats. Seventeen respondants had adopted out 70 homeless cats among them, between 1992 and 1995, while another respondant adopted out 165. Those who completed the portion of the form asking about the success of adoptions indicated that 11 males and seven females had remained in adoptive homes since 1992; nine males and six females had remained in adoptive homes since 1993; and 10 males and six females had remained in adoptive homes since 1994. The data is insufficient to determine the percentage of rescuers' adoptions that succeed, but does indicate a consistent bias among adoptors toward male cats. The cost of neutering may be a factor, as could be the sex ratio of homeless cats. The ANIMAL PEOPLE neuter/release demonstration project data found that female kittens outnumbered males two-to-one, but the sex ratio was equal from puberty to age three, and among cats older than three, males outnumbered females by a three-to-two ratio. This is almost the opposite of the sex ratio Johnson and Lewellen found among owned cats older than five in San Diego County. If kitten births among the homeless cat populations with which the survey respondants work are being prevented at a significant rate, the homeless female population is perhaps no longer being replenished in those areas at a high enough rate to maintain the overall ratio of 46% male, 54% female among homeless cats that ANIMAL PEOPLE discovered (and that the Feral Cat Coalition data from San Diego confirms) as the normal ratio. On the other hand, if kitten births are being prevented but females are still dying at a greater rate than males, some factor other than those associated with kitten-rearing must account for the greater female mortality. Since such a factor is not apparent, and since indications are that homeless kitten births overall are still occurring at about the 1992 level, the cost of neutering would appear to be the major and perhaps only reason for adoptors' preference of male cats. The respondant adopting out formerly homeless cats in high volume could have skewed the results all by herself if her responses hadn't been tallied separately. She acknowledged making a deliberate effort to place female cats. Of 120 females she placed in homes between 1992 and 1995, she claimed 117 (98%) were still in their adoptive homes as of the survey date, along with 44 of 45 males (also 98%). Even if this respondant overestimates the success of placements by 15% to 20%, her placement success would compare well to the average among animal shelters that keep comparable records. Steep drop There is a noteworthy exception to the observation that homeless kitten births are holding steady: there seems to have been a steep drop in the number of kittens born in locations monitored by neuter/release practitioners. The peak year for neutering and releasing homeless cats was 1993. Of the 77 cats who were neutered and released between 1992 and 1995 by survey respondants, only 12 (16%) were neutered and released during 1994 and the first half of 1995. Another way to phrase this is that 84% of the cats neutered and released by the 1995 survey respondents during the preceding three years were actually neutered and released during the first 18 months of the survey period, covering just one spring "kitten season." Thereafter, either the neuter/release practioners burned out on the technique--which was not apparent from the responses to any of the other questions, nor from written comments--or neuter/ release was phenomenally effective in preventing colony growth in the neuter/release practitioners' areas of activity. Shelters The fourth most popular rescue option in both 1992 and 1995 was taking cats to animal shelters. Thirteen respondents (30%) were taking homeless cats to animal shelters in 1992; by 1995, 12 were (27%). Of the 12, one reported taking 60 cats to shelters during the previous three years. In 1992, no one rescuer reported taking exceptional numbers of cats to shelters, but the rescuers who did take some cats to shelters reported having taken an average of 7.5 cats apiece. From 1992 to 1995, rescuers--other than the individual who took 60 cats to shelters--took an average of 3.8 cats apiece--about three a year, a hint that the number of homeless cats at large may be indeed be dropping. Capturing homeless cats for euthanasia was not particularly popular in 1992, as only nine respondants reported ever doing it. Only one had captured more than 20 cats for euthanasia. Between 1992 and 1995, only five rescuers reported capturing homeless cats for euthanasia; none reported capturing more than four to be euthanized, and no one cited any reason for euthanasia other than terminal illness or injury. The decline in capturing for euthanasia did not appear in mortality counts. Mortality Respondants were personally aware of the deaths of 228 homeless cats prior to the 1992 survey: 29% roadkills, 18% humanely euthanized, 16% victims of upper respiratory infections, 13% victims of other illnesses (10 of 29 from feline leukemia), 8% killed by nuisance trappers, 6% poisoned, 6% killed by sadists, 4% dead of unknown causes, 3% starved (apparently orphaned kittens), and 0.4% killed by fur trappers. Between 1992 and 1995, respondants became personally aware of the deaths of another 133 homeless cats: 26% roadkills, 22% humanely euthanized, 11% dead of unknown causes, 9% dead of upper respiratory infections, 8% dead of other illnesses (four of seven from feline leukemia), 6% killed by nuisance trappers, 6% killed by dogs, 3% killed by wild predators, none starved, none poisoned, and none killed by fur trappers. Allowing for the small size of the sample, there seems to be no significant change in the causes of mortality among homeless cats, even with the greater longevity of those in neuter/release programs. Somewhere between 25% and 33% of homeless cats are apparently killed by cars, about a third are killed to get rid of them, and about 33% to 40% die from other causes. (ANIMAL PEOPLE is a nonprofit monthly newspaper providing independent professional coverage of all the news about animal protection, from animal rescue to zoological conservation. If you give to help animals, you'll especially want our annual report on how each leading group spends donations ($3.00). Subscriptions, U.S. or foreign, are $22/year, $35/2 years, or $50/three years, to POB 205, Shushan, NY 12873. We'll send a free sample issue to anyone who provides a postal address.) From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:53:10.88 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com", IN%"AR-news@envirolink.org" Subj: Roadkills Cold winter holds down roadkills Peaks coincide with moon phases (From ANIMAL PEOPLE, September 1994, reposted by request. The 1995 data from the ongoing Dr. Splatt survey was insufficiently complete to similarly analyze. The 1996 data is now being collected.) DERRY, New Hampshire--The good news is that roadkills will apparently claim 23% fewer animal lives in 1994 than 1993. The bad news is that the reason is probably not safer driving, but rather the harsh winter of 1993-1994, which thinned the numbers of many of the most vulnerable species. Refinements of the survey method may also account for some of the drop, from an estimated total of 187 million animals killed in 1993 to just 137 million this year. The 1993 statistics were derived exclusively from Dr. Splatt's Roadkill Project, a learning exercise then including students at 31 New England middle schools, coordinated by Dr. Brewster Bartlett of Pinkerton Academy, in Derry, New Hampshire. The students conducted weekly roadkill counts for nine weeks in the spring--obviously an awkward basis for a year-round national projection, but nonetheless the only all-species basis available since 1957, when the Humane Society of the U.S. conducted a comprehensive single-day count that had served as the basis for all other national roadkill estimates. This year the Dr. Splatt project included students at 40 schools, again almost all in New England, who tabulated data on 5,942 dead animals. The Dr. Splatt data was balanced by an overlapping year-round survey done by volunteers in 19 states, coordinated by ANIMAL PEOPLE. Because many Dr. Splatt participants also used the ANIMAL PEOPLE reporting forms, and because participation from Ohio was very strong due to coverage in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the ANIMAL PEOPLE survey was also skewed toward the northeast. Of the 1,736 dead animals the ANIMAL PEOPLE volunteers reported, 772 were found in Ohio and 654 in New Hampshire. The reports could not be properly weighted to achieve good geographical and seasonal balance because other than New Hampshire and Ohio, only Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey provided enough data on enough occasions for their tabulations to be considered representative. Thus the real comparison between the Dr. Splatt and ANIMAL PEOPLE counts is between a spring tally and a set of year-round tallies in similar habitat. Only counts for which good records of road miles covered on foot were kept were used in extrapolating the 1994 total roadkill estimate. Last year, Dr. Splatt participants recorded .93 roadkills per week per mile in both urban and rural areas. This year, counting vacant miles more carefully, Dr. Splatt participants recorded just .36 roadkills per week per mile. ANIMAL PEOPLE participants recorded .63 roadkills per week per mile. ANIMAL PEOPLE participants were asked for details of survey locations. Responses verified that in developed areas, road type is a more important predictor of roadkills than location. Roadkill ratios along routes of similar characteristics were virtually identical in lightly developed and heavily developed areas. Whether roads were lighted or not also seemed to make no difference. However, the reported roadkill ratio more than doubled when the volume of traffic increased from "residential" to "artery." Four-lane roads had fewer roadkills than 2-lane arterials, however, perhaps because they are more likely to be elevated, fenced, and protected by sound barricades--and possibly too because animals may be less tempted to try rushing across four lanes. Possibilities for prevention Last year's Dr. Splatt project produced data suggesting that various species may be most vulnerable to roadkills during repetitively predictable intervals coinciding with young leaving nests, mating activity, and the fruition of favorite food plants. This in turn suggests that seasonally appropriate traffic warnings could significantly reduce roadkills, which are the leading cause of single-car accidents after drunk driving. Peaks by species were less evident this year, but the Dr. Splatt data combined with the ANIMAL PEOPLE data does show an apparent predictable spike for all species combined in April, coinciding with the arrival of spring; a gradual rise in late summer, as squirrels--by far the most vulenrable species--come into roadways to gather nuts; and an abrupt drop for most species in October, when foliage drops, giving animals a better view of the road. Other studies show that deer/car collisions peak in October and November, however, coinciding with both the deer hunting season and the rut. Both hunting and rutting tend to send deer running pell-mell. The Dr. Splatt and ANIMAL PEOPLE data for precisely dated roadkills also shows apparent high risk assocated with the full moon, the first quarter moon, and the new moon, with dips between--evident in both total numbers of roadkills and, to lesser degree, in number of roadkills per report. In general, the volume of roadkills is proportional to the amount of moonlight. The spike at the new moon could reflect the response of animals to the presence of some light after a night of darkness. --Merritt Clifton and Cathy Young Czapla Roadkills by month 1993 1994 (avg. 8.7 RK/report) (avg. 3.3 RK/report) Count % of avg. Count % of avg. March 8.1 .93 2.5 .75 April 12.7 1.46 4.6 1.39 May 7.3 .84 2.7 .82 June 6.3 .72 (insufficient reports) July 9.5 1.09 (insufficient reports) August 9.1 1.05 [insufficient reports) Sept. 10.6 1.22 [no reports) Oct. 5.9 .68 (no reports) Roadkills by species Species %DS %AP Killed/mile Killed /year Italic indicates strong likelihood of regional bias distorting estimates, due to disproportionate distribution of species and reports. "DS" is Dr. Splatt; "AP" is ANIMAL PEOPLE. Amphibians 4.3 5.0 .084 16,908,528 (includes all frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders) Armadillo - - .0004 80,500 Beaver 1.4 1.2 .008 1,610,336 Cat 4.3 4.4 .027 5,434,884 Chipmunk 2.8 0.7 .004 805,168 Deer 1.4 4.8 .030 6,038,760 Dog 0.7 1.0 .006 1,207,750 Fox 0.5 0.4 .004 805,168 Mouse - 0.8 .006 926,000 Muskrat - 0.8 .006 926,000 Opossum 4.0 6.7 .041 8,252,972 Porcupine 1.2 0.5 .003 603,500 Rabbit 2.6 7.4 .045 9,259,432 Raccoon 9.9 12.8 .079 15,902,068 Rat 1.9 - Skunk 6.0 7.5 .045 9,058,140 Snake 1.5 - .011 2,214,212 Squirrel 34.0 28.3 .173 34,823,500 Turtle 0.5 - .008 1,610,336 Woodchuck 1.4 4.2 .025 5,032,300 All birds 11.0 18.0 .119 14,694,316 (The following percentages are of birds only.) Gamebirds 0.3 0.3 44,083 Pigeons 17.5 0.8 .005 1,006,460 Raptors 6.5 0.4 50,000 Seagulls 7.5 2.4 352,664 Songbirds 39.0 48.5 .038 7,649,096 Waterfowl 10.0 41.6 .030 6,038,760 Species reported in insufficient numbers to permit estimates include bat, coyote, mink, mole, moose, otter, and pine martin. Roadkills by moon phase Moon phase Roadkills Reports Average 2 days before new 4 1 4.00 1 day before new 6 3 2.00 New moon 278 86 3.23 1 day past new 3 2 1.50 2 days past new 4 3 1.25 First quarter 161 47 3.42 5 days before full 5 5 1.00 4 days before full 21 15 1.40 3 days before full 21 10 2.10 2 days before full 23 9 2.56 1 day before full 16 6 2.66 Full moon 76 17 4.47 1 day past full 22 7 3.14 2 days past full 39 9 4.33 3 days past full 27 10 2.70 4 days past full 16 11 1.46 5 days past full 69 26 2.65 6 days past full 8 2 4.00 Roadkills by road type Road type Roadkills Reports Average Rural dirt 18 4 4.50 2-lane downtown 7 4 1.75 2-lane paved rural 397 118 3.36 2-lane res. suburb 239 148 1.62 2-lane res. urban 116 72 1.61 2-lane sub. artery 72 19 3.79 2-lane urb. artery 19 5 3.80 4-lane rural 39 14 2.79 4-lane residential 39 14 2.79 Lit, all types 354 97 3.65 Unlit, all types 201 62 3.24 From: IN%"AnmlPeople@aol.com" 14-MAY-1996 10:54:34.27 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: IN%"ir10000@hermes.cam.ac.uk", IN%"black@hercules.calspan.com" Subj: Seeking the truth (2) (continued) Do Feeders Cause Breeding? One of the primary goals of the survey was to find out what effect people who feed homeless cats may have upon the growth of feral cat colonies. Animal control agencies conventionally suppose that cat-feeders attract colonies and stimulate breeding; hence a spate of ordinances against feeding homeless cats in areas where there have been outbreaks of rabies or other problems that might be associated with large unowned cat populations. The survey data demonstrated rather emphatically that on the whole, the homeless cat population is both extraordinarily stable and resiliant. Of 1,381 cats being fed at the time of the survey (summer) by respondents who completed the first of two relevant parts of the questionaire, 160 (11.6%) were kittens. Kittens who were not yet weaned probably escaped the count. Three months earlier (spring), 1,204 cats were being fed, of whom 119 (10%) were kittens. This count, coming after the peak period for attrition, but before the primary birthing season, was the low ebb of the population. At the onset of winter, six months earlier, 1,336 cats were being fed, of whom 128 (10%) were kittens. One year earlier (summer 1991), 1,313 cats were being fed, of whom 164 (12.5%) were kittens. Again, kittens who were not yet weaned don't appear to have been counted. A second set of questions directed at the same issue obtained reliable four-season population counts, including kittens not yet weaned when their presence was known to the respondents, from a total of 68 homeless cat colonies. The fall 1991 count came to 429, including 44 kittens (10%): 98% of the annual high. The winter 1992 count, the low ebb, was 384, including 38 kittens (10%): 88% of the high. The spring 1992 count brought the population back to 425, including 133 kittens (31%): 97% of the high. The peak population was reached in summer 1992: 438, including 148 kittens (34%). Although the summer 1992 population was marginally higher than the summer 1991 population, the variance could be the result of just two more cats raising litters to the age at which they were seen and counted, and does not necessarily indicate that any real growth took place, since two litters might have been missed a year earlier. It is likely that the actual population fluctuations are greater than was recorded, when kitten mortality is taken into consideration. Studies of kittens in both feral colonies and home environments have established that under any circumstances, approximately half of all the kittens born do not survive past weaning. Because kittens born outdoors tend to be sequestered well away from human eyes, only kittens who have survived weaning are likely to have been counted by the majority of respondents. Still, the number of adult cats is so steady as to indicate a quasi-natural carrying capacity, probably closely related in most cases to the amount of food set out by humans to augment refuse and prey. The reported sizes of individual colonies pointed in the same direction: toward a relatively stable number who can congenially and comfortably share a given habitat, a number exceeded only under rare circumstances, the most significant of which seems to be the presence of an extraordinarily dedicated cat-feeder. This does not necessarily mean the feeders have anything to do with the reasons the cats are born. Feeders who do not also spay or neuter will tend to encourage reproduction, but the cats who did not originate in a fed colony would have been somewhere anyway. Except perhaps at some very public locations, feeding cannot be assumed to encourage abandonments--only to encourage cats who have been abandoned to congregate in a particular place. Seven common feeding locations were identified, each with distinctive population characteristics: * 71% of active feeders feed homeless cats on their doorstep. The median doorstep colony is 7.5 cats; the average is five. Information was received on 80 doorstep colonies, including 393 total cats, or 28% of the reported homeless cat population. Although the survey questions did not ask about the rate of adoption per type of colony, doorstep cats would appear to be those most accustomed to human caretakers. Dumped former pets, in particular, would be more likely to head for the nearest doorway than cats born outdoors, away from humans. Doorstep cats are therefore probably those with the greatest likelihood of being adopted Further research is necessary to find out if doorstep cats (and colonies) have greater longevity, being perhaps less likely to be rounded up as nuisances and/or to be captured for euthanasia by someone other than the primary feeder. Many doorstep cats may in fact be quasi-outdoor pets, rather than strays or ferals in the strictest sense of either term. * 31% of active feeders feed homeless cats in/around a public building. The median public building colony is 15 cats; the average is eight. Information was received on 35 public building colonies, including 288 total cats, or 20% of the reported homeless cat population. Like doorstep cats, public building cats would appear to be primarily dependent upon handouts for their food, and would appear also to be primarily dumpees, since a public building is not inherently somewhere a hungry cat unaccustomed to humans would choose to go, but the volume of human traffic does increase a former pet's chances of wangling a handout or adoption. The number of cats tolerated in and around public buildings is significantly high compared with the number found at other workplaces. This may reflect the greater likelihood of public buildings being surrounded by green space, especially in older metropolitan areas. No other explanation comes quickly to mind. * 24% of active feeders feed homeless cats at their workplace. The median workplace colony is 11-12 cats; the average is four. Information was received on 27 workplace colonies, including 112 total cats; just 8% of the reported homeless cat population. Apparently, a small cat population is welcome in the typical workplace, for rodent control and as mascots. Large colonies, however, seem to be actively discouraged. Workplace cats are probably also mainly dumpees, who arrive at a workplace in lieu of finding a sympathetic doorstep or congenial public building. * 23% of active feeders feed homeless cats in wooded areas. The median woods colony is 30 cats; the average is 8.5. Information was received on 26 woods colonies, including 132 total cats; 9% of the reported homeless cat population. The relatively large median size of woods colonies seems surprising at first. However, the average is close to the average for all locations. Further, rural colonies in general are significantly larger than urban colonies. This may be because secure places to sleep are fewer, causing more cats to congregate in the safe places; because prey animals are more abundant in the country; because car traffic is lighter; or because rural colonies are less vulnerable to capture, being more distant from shelters and veterinarians and being typically located on private property without routine public access. Although woods colonies undoubtedly start with dumpees, and seem to be augmented frequently with more dumpees, they probably also include a high percentage of the true ferals--the cats born and raised completely away from humans. * 15% of active feeders feed homeless cats behind a shopping center or restaurant. The median shopping center/restaurant colony is 15 cats; the average is eight. Information was received on 16 shopping center colonies, including 122 total cats, or 9% of the reported homeless cat population. There appear to be three distinct shopping center/restaurant subpopulations, whose relative size and influence upon the colony population dynamics has as yet been quantified only through the Connecticut neuter/release statistics, and then for less than a single year (albeit at five locations). One subpopulation consists of cats who are abandoned at such sites because the abandoners see other cats around, perhaps see feeders, and imagine that the abandoned cats will either find adequate food or be adopted by a passerby. The second subpopulation consists of cats both homeless and owned but wandering, who may be attracted either by the food supply or by the presence of potential mates. These also tend to be essentially tame cats. The third subpopulation consists of true ferals, who might be attracted first by refuse, vermin, and other cats, rather than by human feeders, whose contribution to their diet is initially supplementary. Whatever the population balance, human feeders apparently enable shopping center/restaurant colonies to grow somewhat beyond the level that refuse and vermin alone would support; without them, only some of the true ferals would persist in the vicinity. . * Although homeless cats are stereotypically known as "alley cats," only 11% of active feeders feed homeless cats in an alley. The median alley colony is 16 cats; the average is six. Information was received on 12 alley colonies, including 47 total cats: just three percent of the reported homeless cat population. Alleys may have historically been a more important homeless cat habitat than they are now. A generation ago, many more food stores and restaurants backed up against alleys than were located in shopping plazas and strip developments. Further, more of the human population lived downtown, near alleys, so that more feeders may have frequented alleys for other reasons than simply aiding cats--and more people may have allowed pet cats to wander in alleys. In short, the relative insignificance of alleys as a habitat today probably reflects changing patterns of human dwelling and commerce. Most alley cat colonies today probably form in much the same manner as supermarket/restaurant colonies, but in decades past they might have more closely resembled doorstep, public building, and workplace colonies. It is possible but not documented that some alley colonies might have existed for very long periods of time, since many alleys, especially in older cities, predate most other habitats, and historical evidence indicates most cities have had homeless cats almost since they were founded. * 10% of active feeders feed homeless cats in a barn. The median barn colony is 40+ cats; the average is 12. Information was received on 11 barn colonies, including 132 total cats, or nine percent of the homeless cat population. Barn colonies are easily the largest, partly for the same reasons that woods colonies colonies tend to be large, and partly also because barns offer a uniquely favorable combination of safe sleeping quarters and abundant prey, in the mice, rats, and birds who are drawn to stored grain. Most barn colonies are multigenerational; several, in England, Canada, and the U.S., have had documented histories dating back 20 years or more. While newcomers including abandonees make a noteworthy contribution to genetic diversity, barn colonies would appear to be primarily self-sustaining. A case can be made that like cats in doorstep colonies, most cats in barn colonies are outdoor pets rather than either strays or true ferals. * 19% of active feeders feed homeless cats at other locations, including near houses but not actually in yards or on doorsteps; in burned buildings; at vacant houses; in cemeteries; at campgrounds; in playgrounds; under bridges; at country clubs; and at project housing, a variant of the doorstep. Considering that the range of colony sizes was from one to more than 100, the typical cat population of six to sixteen is noteworthy. Nearly a third of the cats (31%) were in colonies of 10 or fewer. About a fourth (24%) were in colonies of 10-20 cats. Although only six percent of the homeless cat colonies included 20 cats or more, such megacolonies included 39% of the feline total--and a full 63% of the cats were in just 16% of the colonies. In all, 20% of the homeless cats fed by survey respondents occupy rural habitat; 37% were in residental areas. 10% were in the vicinity of shopping centers and/or restaurants; and 32% were at other urban locations. This finding somewhat parallels the U.S. human population structure: 27% rural, 73% urban. But the variance may be important. Although rural colonies tend to be larger, they cumulatively include fewer than the expected number of cats, if the feline and human populations are directly parallel. Possibly the shortfall is because the survey failed to reach enough rural cat-feeders and rescuers, especially in the south, where the warmer climate is conducive to year-round reproduction. But again, urban habitat may favor a larger homeless cat population with more abundant shelter, more edible vermin, more feeders in less area, and fewer native predators to compete for food. Motivation Various complex psychological explanations have been advanced as to why cat-feeders and cat-rescuers do what they do, but the simplest and most obvious explanation indicated by the survey data is that they simply love cats. Ninety-two percent of the survey respondents keep pet cats. Some critics of homeless cat-feeders have asserted that they may be little different from animal collectors, but survey responses showed little basis for this belief. Ninety percent keep between two and 20 pet cats, the normal range for cat guardians in the U.S.; 57% have two to five pet cats, closely comparing to the regionally varying average and median among cat-keepers of three to four cats (reported and confirmed by a variety of surveys of pet owners undertaken over the past decade). Another 28% keep six to twelve cats. Only four percent keep more than 20. There were several suspected animal collectors among the respondents, whose data was vague, involved huge numbers of cats, and was anonymously provided. However, even if all of them actually are collectors, they would still make up under 2% of the sample. Of all the one-time homeless cat-feeders who responded to the survey, 73% are still feeding. Those who quit usually cited burnout; changes of residence and/or workplace that separated them from the colonies they formerly served; and financial stress, usually caused by job loss. None said they quit because they had doubts about the value of cat-feeding. Among the active homeless cat-feeders, feeding seems to be part of a lifelong devotion to cats. Twenty-seven percent had fed homeless cats for two years or less--approximately the same percentage as were age 25 or younger. Another 27% had fed homeless cats for three to seven years; 18% had fed homeless cats for eight to ten years; 16% had fed homeless cats for 11 to 20 years; and 19% had fed homeless cats for more than 20 years, approximately the same percentage as were age 55 or older. Age similarly seemed to be the main determinant with respect to the length of time respondents had been helping cats in any capacity. Sixty-three of respondents had helped cats for at least 10 years; 34% for at least 20 years; 22% for at least 30 years; 9% for at least 40 years; and 4% for at least 50 years. Feed a cat and she's yours? The most popular manner of helping homeless cats, other than feeding them, seems to be adoption. Eighty-nine percent of respondents (142 of 159) had adopted strays or ferals other than from shelters. The median number of strays and ferals adopted other than from shelters was four, two males and two females, which is interestingly close to the median number of homeless cats being fed by doorstep feeders at the time of the survey. These numbers tend to confirm the impression that feeding a homeless cat is often the first step toward adoption, and that becoming part of a fed colony is the surest route into a home for a cat without one. Eighty-one percent of respondents knew other people who have adopted homeless cats, other than from shelters. The combined figures indicate that adopting homeless cats might even be more commonplace than feeding them: in all, 838 adopters were identified, compared with 779 feeders. The combined total of feeders were reportedly feeding exactly 4,000 cats at the time of the survey, while the combined total of adopters had taken in 5,096 homeless cats. The 696 adopters who were not part of the survey had reportedly adopted a median of 2.8 cats apiece, slightly under the adoption rate among survey participants. Of the 2,114 homeless cats adopted by the survey participants, 575 (27%) were still in kittenhood. The sexes of 804 of the former strays and ferals were identified: 388 (45%) were toms, while 466 (55%) were queens. Two hundred sixty-six of the queens were pregnant at adoption. These figures all coincide with the data ANIMAL PEOPLE gathered on the homeless cat population of Fairfield County, Connecticut, as well as with various behavioral studies of individual feral cat colonies. Regardless of source, the available information agrees that approximately twice as many females as males are born, but that females suffer such heavy mortality within the first year, probably due to early pregnancy, that the sex ratio is nearly equal among feral cats of more than one year of age, and is skewed toward males among feral cats of more than two years of age. Ninety-two percent of the respondents who have adopted homeless cats have had some or all of the adoptees spayed or neutered. Eighty-one percent of the homeless cats (1,708) who were adopted were subsequently spayed or neutered, while another 4.3% (91) had already been spayed or neutered when picked up. The majority of the 15.7% who were not spayed or neutered would appear to have been taken in by the same individuals who reported having the largest numbers of pet cats--the two or three suspected animal collectors among the respondents. The adoption statistics provided important clues to the ratio of strays, including abandonees, to ferals (among them the wild-born offspring of some cats who have homes). The Humane Society of the U.S. has long contended that the majority of homeless cats are abandoned former pets (strays). Many neuter/release proponents counter that the self-sustaining nature of homeless cat colonies indicates that while the progenitors may have been former pets, the majority now are feral. The limited available data from humane society pickup records is inherently unreliable because most humane societies don't actively attempt to round up whole feral cat colonies; rather, they see mainly the sick and injured cats that patrons bring in. These may be the cats who are least able to cope with independent living, by reason of having been raised as pets--whereas the true ferals may be sufficiently able to cope that they are rarely taken to humane societies; if sick or injured, they crawl off to die or recover, rather than seeking human aid. It is similarly possible that homeless cats who are adopted tend to be the most sociable: the former pets, who may also be those most drawn to doorsteps, while the ferals prefer feeding sites with less proximity to people. However, because at least a third of the feeders who responded to the survey are feeding at multiple sites, and because they go where the cats are, survey respondents are likely to see a better cross-section of the homeless cat population that anyone else who has tried to quantify strays vs. ferals. As noted above, 4.3% of the homeless cats who were adopted had already been spayed or neutered. Since neuter/release hasn't been practiced on any great scale in the U.S. yet, in all likelihood these were former pets. Thirty-two percent of respondents, moreover, had adopted at least one previously altered cat; they weren't all coming from the same few locations, where a neuter/release project might have been undertaken by someone else. In addition, 78% of the respondents had adopted homeless cats who seemed used to human handling--an indicator , if not infalliable, of cats who had been pets. A total of 626 cats fell into this category; 30% of the the adoptees. Thirty-four percent of the homeless cats who were adopted became socialized in less than one week. This neatly equals the number of cats who were previously altered plus the number who seemed used to human handling, but those two statistics really can't be tallied up into one, because they might overlap. Still, the confluence of all the numbers suggests that about a third of the homeless cat population are strays, while the balance are ferals (who may have tame mothers). Some might also want to count as probable former pets the 27% who required more than a week of socialization, but became socialized in less than one month, a number that coincides with the percentage of adoptees who were kittens. Maybe. The Connecticut neuter/release project statistics tend to indicate otherwise, and the most conservative interpretation of the data is that the 61% of the adoptees who were socialized in a month or less include both the overwhelming majority of strays and the overwhelming majority of kittens, who tend to be more easily socialized than adult cats no matter where they're born. Almost certain to have been ferals were the 18% who required more than a month of socialization, but became socialized in less than one year, together with the 2% who eventually became socialized, but required more than one year of socialization to adapt, and the 9% who never became socialized. These totals combined come to 29%. Socialization time was not reported for 10% of the adoptees, who were presumably still in the socialization process at the time the survey was taken. (continued) From: IN%"R0039586@haac.ac.uk" "PEARCE G" 14-MAY-1996 12:22:45.23 To: IN%"applied-ethology@sask.usask.ca" CC: Subj: RE: oestrous behaviour in sows Dear Mike et al, On Monday 13 May Mike Mendle wrote: > Does anyone know of any references which state / show that > the behaviour of oestrous sows in a group can lead to temporary > changes in the social relationships / "rank" of those sows? There have been a few reports which may be relevant to this area. Signoret, J.P (1972), in his classic paper 'The mating behaviour of the sow' in 'Pig Production' (Ed. D.J.A.Cole) pp295-314. Buttterworths, London, stated that " the average rank when going out of the home pen is reduced during heat". He also made a number of observations on proceptive behaviour in the sow which may be relevant to your considerations, Mike. Atlmann, M. (1941) Interrelations of the sex cycle and behaviour of the sow. J.Comp. Psychol. 31; 473-479 stated that in the oestrous sow, spontaneous motor and exploratory activity increased twofold during oestrus, and there have been many studies confirming and extending this type of work since. However, for original classic observations and thoughts in this area I would suggest re-reading Signoret's paper in 'Pig Production'. Hope this may be of some help. Gareth Pearce Dr Gareth Pearce BSc(Agr), PhD, BVSc, MRCVS Senior Lecturer in Animal Health, Harper Adams College, Newport, Shropshire, TF10 8NB, U.K. e-mail: gpearce@haac.ac.uk fax:UK 01952-814783