IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN PROGRAM ON 
SELECTED FEATURES OF AUBURN, ALABAMA 
 FERAL CAT COLONIES 
 
 
 
Except where reference is made to the work of others, the work described in this thesis is 
my own or was done in collaboration with my advisory committee. This thesis does not 
include proprietary or classified information. 
 
 
 
____________________________________ 
Kimberly Byrd Subacz 
 
 
 
Certificate of Approval: 
 
 
____________________________   _____________________________ 
Brenda Griffin      H. Lee Stribling, Chair  
Assistant Professor     Associate Professor 
Population Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences Forestry and Wildlife Sciences  
College of Veterinary Medicine 
Cornell University 
 
 
____________________________   ______________________________ 
James B. Armstrong     Joe F. Pittman 
Profesor      Interim Dean 
Forestry and Wildlife Sciences   Graduate School 
 
 
 
 
 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN PROGRAM ON 
SELECTED FEATURES OF AUBURN, ALABAMA 
 FERAL CAT COLONIES 
 
Kimberly Byrd Subacz 
 
 
 
A thesis 
Submitted to 
the Graduate Faculty of  
Auburn University 
in Partial Fulfillment of the  
Requirements for the  
Degree of  
Master of Science 
 
 
 
 
Auburn, Alabama 
May 10, 2008
 iii
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN PROGRAM ON 
SELECTED FEATURES OF AUBURN, ALABAMA  
FERAL CAT COLONIES 
 
 
Kimberly Byrd Subacz 
 
 
Permission is granted to Auburn University to make copies of this thesis at its discretion, 
upon request of individuals or institutions at their expense. The author reserves all 
publication rights. 
 
 
 
______________________________ 
Signature of Author    
 
 
______________________________ 
Date of Graduation    
 
 
 
 
 
 iv
VITA 
 
Kimberly Byrd Subacz, daughter of Jackie and Gilda (Wright) Byrd, was born 
March 16, 1978, in Mobile, Alabama. She attended St. Paul?s Episcopal High School and 
graduated in 1996. She entered Auburn University in 1996 and graduated with a Bachelor 
of Science degree in Wildlife Science in August 2000. She entered Graduate School at 
Auburn University in January 2001. She wed Jonathan Lawrence Subacz, son of 
Lawrence and Theresa (Solowynsky) Subacz on May 17, 2003. They have two sons, 
Matthew Jonathan age 2 and William Jack born November 27, 2007.   
 v
THESIS ABSTRACT 
 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF A TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN PROGRAM ON 
SELECTED FEATURES OF AUBURN, ALABAMA 
FERAL CAT COLONIES 
 
Kimberly Byrd Subacz 
 
Master of Science, May 10, 2008 
(B.S., Auburn University, 2000) 
 
129 Typed Pages 
 
Directed by H. Lee Stribling 
 
Feral cats (Felis catus) are defined here as offspring of domestic cats raised 
without human socialization or cats that were previously owned that have reverted to a 
wild state not trusting humans. A feral cat colony consists of a group of cats that 
regularly reside in a particular area which includes a food source and shelter. A non-
lethal approach to feral cat control known as Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) has been used 
with increasing frequency over the past decade. TNR involves trapping all cats at a 
location for surgical sterilization and subsequently returning them to their respective 
colony site. This investigation?s main focus was to determine what effects TNR has on 
feral cats located on Auburn University?s campus located in Auburn, 
Alabama. Specifically, the influence of TNR on population size, home range size and 
habitat use of 7 colonies of feral cats was evaluated. Population parameters were 
measured for 1 year before and 1 year after initiating treatment to determine the effects of 
TNR on the Auburn feral cat colonies.  
Seven box-style feeding stations were established at 7 pre-existing unmanaged 
feral cat colonies (Graywood, Jennings, Mack?s, Thach Hall, Ingram Hall, Horticulture 
and Theta Xi). Photographic sampling using infrared-triggered cameras from inside each 
feeding box was conducted once every two weeks. During the two-year study, 4,924 
photographs were produced and analyzed. A total of 99 individual cats were identified in 
photographs from the 7 colonies. Total cats identified per colony ranged from 7-30 cats. 
The Chapman model for mark-recapture used a 95% confidence interval to analyze data 
in 3-month intervals. The Chapman model was successful for estimating 4 of the 7 
colony populations due to their larger colony size (n=5-21). Photographic sampling 
results from the 3 smaller colonies (Ingram Hall, Horticulture, and Theta Xi) periodically 
resulted in only 1 cat photographed for weeks at a time. With only 1 cat sited the 
Chapman model produced a population outcome of n=0. Therefore, the smaller colonies 
were not analyzed further. Graywood feral cat colony grew significantly larger (p=0.002) 
from pre-TNR ( X =9.2, SD=2.2, n=4) and post-TNR initiation ( X =15.5, SD=1.1, n=4) 
treatment. Thach Hall had a similar outcome although not significant (p=0.49). Jennings 
and Mack?s had a decrease from pre-TNR to post-TNR initiation however neither 
difference was significant (p=0.34 and p=0.49). Photographic sampling was an accurate 
and reliable way to census these colonies of feral cats. Longer study duration is 
 vi
recommended to determine possible impact of TNR on the population size of feral cat 
colonies.  
The mean home ranges were calculated as minimum convex polygons or (MCP) 
and then categorized by sex and TNR status. The MCPs were compared using the 
proc_glm ANOVA with Tukey?s multiple comparison test. Overall the model was not 
significant (F=2.67) with p=0.0668. There were differences among male ( X =8.5 pre-
TNR and X =3.6 post-TNR initiation) and female ( X =2.5 pre-TNR and X =2.2. post-
TNR initiation) home ranges, but due to a small sample size and high variability the 
results were not significant.   
Lawn, hardscape and structures composed over 65% of the study area with 
roadway, landscaping, woods, scrub, and water composing the other portion of study 
area. The most common habitats in the pre-TNR and post-TNR MCP were hardscape, 
structures, and landscaping. Within the MCP both pre-TNR and post-TNR initiation feral 
cats significantly preferred woods over other habitat types.
 vii
 viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
 
 The author would like to thank Dr. Lee Stribling for his steadfast support 
throughout the author?s term at Auburn University. I would also like to thank Dr. Brenda 
Griffin. I do not believe this project would have continued without her endless support, 
kindness and dedication towards me and the plight of all homeless animals in need today. 
Additional thanks to Drs. Gary Hepp, Jim Armstrong, Henry Baker, and Jim Wright for 
their instruction, knowledge and support during the course of this investigation. A great 
deal of gratitude is due to all of my student technicians and veterinary summer fellows. 
You know who you are and your help was greatly appreciated. A big thank you goes to 
Theron Terhune for his vast help with data analysis. The author wishes to thank the 
following companies whose grants and donations aided this investigation: PETsMART 
Charities, Sweet Bay Foundation, Nestl? Purina PetCare, Schering-Plough Animal Health 
Corporation, Merial Pharmaceuticals, IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. and Moultrie Feeders. 
The author would especially like to thank her dedicated husband Jonathan for the 
countless nights he spent working more on her project than his own thesis. With your 
love and support I was able to complete this thesis and start our family with our two sons 
Matthew and William. Thanks are also due to my parents Jack and Gilda and my brother 
Lee for their loving support during the author?s term at Auburn University.
 ix
Style manual or journal followed: 
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 
Journal of Wildlife Management 
Computer software used: 
Microsoft Office XP: Word 
?
 and Excel 
?
 
ESRI ArcGIS 
?
  version 8.2   
Hawth?s Analysis Tool extension version 2.1 
 
ESRI ArcView
?
 version 3.2  
 
DNR Garmin Extension version 4.01 
 
 Garmin eTrex Vista 
?
 GPS 
 
SAS 
?
 version 8.2 
 Compos Analysis version 5.01 
 
 Python 
?
 version 2.4 
 
 
 x
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... xiii 
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... xiv 
I. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1 
 FERAL CAT BACKGROUND...............................................................................1 
 FERAL CAT CONCERNS......................................................................................5 
 JUSTIFICATION??????????????????????.??   7 
 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES???????????????????.?   8 
 ORGANIZATION?????????????????????.??...   9 
 LITERATURE CITED ????????????????????...?    9 
II. CENSUSING FERAL CAT COLONIES BEFORE AND AFTER INITIATING 
TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN...................................................................................14 
 ABSTRACT ..........................................................................................................14 
 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................15 
MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................20
 xi
 Description of Site ...........................................................................................20 
 Methodology....................................................................................................21 
Feeding station establishment....................................................................21 
Photographic sampling methods................................................................22 
Pre-TNR (year 1) trapping methods ..........................................................23  
Pre-TNR (year 1) laboratory protocol........................................................24 
Anesthesia..................................................................................................24 
Data Collection ..........................................................................................25 
Radio Transmitters and Microchips...........................................................25 
Anesthetic Reversal and Release ...............................................................26 
Post-TNR initiation (year 2) laboratory protocol.......................................26 
Data collection ...........................................................................................26 
 Data Analysis...................................................................................................27 
RESULTS ..............................................................................................................28 
DISCUSSION........................................................................................................30 
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................37 
III. FERAL CAT MOVEMENTS AND HABITAT USE IN AUBURN, ALABAMA ...60 
ABSTRACT...........................................................................................................60 
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................61 
STUDY AREA ......................................................................................................65 
METHODS ............................................................................................................66 
Pre-TNR (year 1) laboratory protocol..............................................................66 
Anesthesia........................................................................................................67 
 xii
Data Collection ................................................................................................67 
Radio Transmitters and Microchips.................................................................68 
Anesthetic Reversal and Release .....................................................................68 
Post-TNR initiation (year2) laboratory protocol..............................................69 
Data collection .................................................................................................69 
Radio Tracking.................................................................................................70 
DATA ANALYSIS................................................................................................71 
RESULTS ..............................................................................................................72 
DISCUSSION........................................................................................................74 
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS .....................................................................76 
LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................77 
IV. CONCLUSIONS..........................................................................................................94 
APPENDIX A. ..................................................................................................................97 
APPENDIX B. ................................................................................................................111 
APPENDIX C. ................................................................................................................114
 xiii
LIST OF TABLES 
CHAPTER I 
CHAPTER II 
TABLE 1        GRAYWOOD PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS..........................................41 
TABLE 2        HORTICULTURE PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS...................................42 
TABLE 3        INGRAM HALL PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS......................................43 
TABLE 4        JENNINGS PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS ..............................................44 
TABLE 5        MACK?S PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS..................................................45 
TABLE 6        THACH HALL PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS........................................46 
TABLE 7        THETA XI PHOTOGRAPHIC RESULTS ...............................................47 
TABLE 8        CATS TRAPPED AND NOT PHOTOGRAPHED...................................48 
CHAPTER III 
TABLE 1        HABITAT TYPE .......................................................................................83 
TABLE 2        SIMPLIFIED RANKING MATRICES OF PRE-TNR CATS..................84 
TABLE 3        SIMPLIFIED RANKING MATRICES OF POST-TNR INITIATION 
CATS ........................................................................................................85 
TABLE 4        SIMPLIFIED RANKING MATRICES POOLED PRE-TNR CATS .......86 
TABLE 5        SIMPLIFIED RANKING MATRICES POOLED POST-TNR 
INITIATION CATS...................................................................................87 
 xiv
LIST OF FIGURES 
CHAPTER I 
CHAPTER II 
FIGURE 1       EAR-TIPPED CAT ..................................................................................49 
FIGURE 2       FEEDING STATION MAP ......................................................................50 
FIGURE 3       FEEDER INSTALLATION .....................................................................51 
FIGURE 4       FEEDING STATION................................................................................52 
FIGURE 5       VIEW OF FEEDER INTERIOR...............................................................53 
FIGURE 6       CAMERA CENSUS..................................................................................54 
FIGURE 7       HOLDING PROCEDURES FOR FERAL CATS ....................................55 
FIGURE 8       GRAYWOOD FERAL CAT POPULATION ESTIMATES AND 
TRAPPING RESULTS..............................................................................56 
FIGURE 9       JENNINGS? FERAL CAT POPULATION ESTIMATES AND 
TRAPPING RESULTS..............................................................................57 
FIGURE 10     MACK?S FERAL CAT POPULATION ESTIMATES AND TRAPPING 
RESULTS ..................................................................................................58 
FIGURE 11     THACH HALL FERAL CAT POPULATION ESTIMATES AND 
TRAPPING RESULTS..............................................................................59 
 
 xv
CHAPTER III 
FIGURE 1       FEEDING STATION MAP ......................................................................88 
FIGURE 2       HOLDING PROCEDURES FOR FERAL CATS ....................................89 
FIGURE 3       FERAL CAT RADIO COLLAR...............................................................90 
FIGURE 4       FERAL CAT HABITAT WITH PRE-TNR HOME RANGES  
 OVERLAY ................................................................................................91 
FIGURE 5       FERAL CAT PRE-TNR HOME RANGES..............................................92 
FIGURE 6       CAT #10 MCP PRE-TNR AND POST-TNR INITIATION ....................93
 1
I. INTRODUCTION 
 
 
FERAL CAT BACKGROUND 
 Feral cats defined 
Feral cats are defined as the ?wild? offspring of domestic cats that have been 
abandoned by their owners (Griffin 2001a). According to Levy et al. (2003b) feral cats 
are offspring born without human socialization or were owned cats returned to the wild 
that do not trust humans. Feral cats generally do not accept handling, will flee if 
approached, and must be trapped to receive veterinary care. Without proper human 
socialization as kittens, primarily between the ages of 2 and 7 weeks of age, a cat may 
never accept handling and may maintain a somewhat feral lifestyle (Turner and Bateson 
2000). Feral cats usually establish colonies around areas that suit their basic needs of 
food and shelter (Griffin 2001b). Some feral cat colonies have a human caretaker who 
oversees the colony. Caretaker duties vary depending on the person, but some 
responsibilities may include: monitoring the cats for illness or any new kittens, feeding 
them regularly, have a general understanding of the colony and its history, and sometimes 
trapping the cats for participation in a feral cat TNR program. 
Feral cat lifestyle 
The classification of cat lifestyles between feral and household pet is often not 
clear cut (Berkeley 2004, Centonze and Levy 2002, Levy et al. 2003a, Patronek 1998). 
Cats can change their status quickly from an owned house cat, to a free-roaming,  
 2
neighborhood stray. Miller (1996) classifies cat lifestyles into four categories: the true 
feral or independent cat, the domesticated household pet, and two intermediate zones of 
interdependent, unowned free-roaming cats (strays) and interdependent, loosely owned 
domestics (neighborhood cats or barn cats). The distinguishing characteristic between the 
latter two categories is what Miller refers to as the ?touch barrier.? A cat that voluntarily 
accepts handling crosses this ?barrier? reverting from a stray lifestyle to more of a loosely 
owned domestic cat. During this study, the author witnessed several examples of the 
flexible and dynamic lifestyles of cats. Perhaps the most dramatic example that was 
observed occurred when a cat that was well documented to possess a truly feral lifestyle 
(study cat #1) accepted handling for the first time after sustaining severe traumatic 
injuries and changed its lifestyle to become a domesticated house cat (Griffin, B., K. B. 
Subacz, and M. Bohling, Auburn University, unpublished data). The author witnessed cat 
#1 (an 11-year old spayed female feral cat named ?Momma Kitty?) revert to a domestic 
lifestyle with her caretaker following surgical correction of multiple severe, pelvic 
injuries which presumably resulted from being hit by a car. In fact, according to the 
caretaker, she became a lap cat and peacefully coexisted with four other cats in her 
household until her death in 2006 from complications due to old age.  
 Feline overpopulation 
Feline overpopulation is a complex and multi-faceted issue that is facing the 
United States. In 2001 there were approximately 70.8 million owned cats in the United 
States surpassing the number of owned dogs (AVMA 2002). Lack of owner commitment 
and responsible pet ownership contribute greatly to the pet overpopulation problem 
(AVMA 2002, Luke 1996, Slater 2000, Griffin 2001a). Manning and Rowan?s (1998) 
 3
surveys conducted in Massachusetts found that 90% of owned cats were sterilized, but 
those sterilized animals had previously given birth to 0.313 litters before the procedure. 
The birth rate of the sterilized animals was similar to those of intact animals at 0.40 litters 
(Manning and Rowan 1998). When owners of non-sterilized pets were asked why they 
had not had the procedure done the top five reasons were that the pet was confined 
(32%), they wanted to breed the pet (24%), the belief that the pet was too young (18%) 
and that sterilization was just inconvenient (11%). Cost of the procedure also plays a 
factor in the sterilization of cats. In Santa Clara County, California a survey indicated 
86.2% percent of owned cats were sterilized, but 16.3% of those had previously had a 
litter before being altered (Johnson et al. 1994). The reasons for these litters were owners 
failing to recognize the signs of cat estrus and owners? lack of knowledge on the age 
when a cat attains puberty. A survey of 12 shelters located in different regions of the 
United States determined that 65-79% of cat owners relinquishing their pet did not know 
how often their cat cycled into heat (Salman et al. 1998). Top risk factors for cats being 
relinquished to shelters included being sexually intact, allowed outdoors, never receiving 
veterinary care and frequent house soiling (Salman et. al 1998). 
It appears that cats are at times treated like second-class pets when compared to 
dogs by receiving less care (Griffin 2001a, Luke 1996, Salman et. al 1998). Cat owners 
are less likely to view their cats as member of the family than dog owners (AVMA 2002). 
Pet owner surveys demonstrate that most often cats are not sought out directly for 
ownership. Often times it is the cat, which finds the people (Luke 1996 and Miller 1996). 
Public policy regarding registration and licensing of cats is lacking (Luke 1996). 
 4
Accurate estimates of the feral cat population do not exist, however it is suspected 
that their population is similar to that of owned cats in the United States (Levy et al. 
2003a).  The free-roaming cat population in Alachua County, Florida (defined here as 
both feral and stray cat populations) was estimated to represent as much as 44% of the 
domestic cat population in that study (Levy et al. 2003b). Santa Clara County, California 
estimates stray cats are 41% of the total known cat population (Johnson et al. 1994). Feral 
and free-roaming cats are a large portion of the cat population in the United States and 
must be included in population control strategies.  
Once symbols of fertility in Ancient Egypt, cats possess prolific reproductive 
capabilities. They are long-day cyclers and their breeding season begins in February and 
ends in late September, with peaks from February to March and May to June (Feldman 
and Nelson 1996). Feral cats attain puberty between 5 and 9 months of age and typically 
produce a mean of 1.4 litters per year, with a mean of 3.6 ? 0.2 or a median of 3 kittens 
per litter (Nutter et al. 2004b and Scott et al. 2002b). The mortality rate of feral kittens is 
75% by 6 months of age (Nutter et al. 2004b).  
Large populations of sexually intact cats are also documented in the clinic records 
of Operation Cat Nap, Auburn University?s feral cat Trap Neuter Return (TNR) program. 
Of the feral cats entering Operation Cat Nap?s surgery clinics from 2000 until 2006, 5.4% 
of the 1101 feral cats were previously sterilized (Griffin, B. and K. B. Subacz, Auburn 
University, unpublished data). This is similar to the 2% of the 11,822 feral cats 
previously sterilized in Alachua County, Florida?s TNR program from 1998 until 2004 
and the 4% of 14,452 feral cats submitted for TNR in San Diego from 1992 until 2003 
(Foley et al. 2005).  
 5
FERAL CAT CONCERNS 
The primary concern to the public surrounding feral cats would be sanitation and 
feline zoonotic diseases. Feline zoonotic diseases can be transmitted from cats to humans 
and include rabies, toxoplasmosis, dermatophytosis and cat scratch disease among others. 
Rabies is the zoonotic disease that receives the most attention since it is fatal once 
symptoms are present. Rabies has a long incubation period and can infect any warm 
blooded animal. The rabies virus is shed in saliva and is spread from a bite or scratch. 
The human rabies vaccine is strongly recommended for anyone working with stray 
animals. Vaccination of feral cats for rabies is recommended in endemic areas (Slater 
2000). 
 Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma gondii) is an intracellular coccidian parasite that is 
spread to humans from undercooked meat or cat feces. Toxoplasmosis can get into fresh 
water sources from cat feces and has been linked to infections in certain wildlife species 
(Dabritz, et al. 2006). Dabritz (2006) found that owned cats being allowed outdoors 
accounted for 72% of the annual outdoor feline fecal composition with feral cats 
contributing the remainder. Toxoplasmosis usually does not cause disease in healthy 
humans, but can affect the immunocompromised and may result in abortion or birth 
defects in pregnant women. The incidence is very low, but individuals at high risk should 
take precautions. Cat scratch disease (Bartonella henselae) and ring worm 
(Dermatophytosis) are non-life-threatening zoonotic diseases associated with both feral 
and pet cats. Nutter et al. (2004a) suggests feral cats have a significantly higher rate of cat 
scratch disease and toxoplasmosis while other diseases (Toxocara cati, Giardia spp, and 
Cryptosporidium spp) were similar to those of owned cats. 
 6
Other issues involving the public are complaints to animal control agencies over 
feline nuisance behaviors often associated with breeding including: roaming, territorial 
marking (spraying and defecating), fighting and yowling. Animal control agencies 
handling feral cat complaints and control are a high cost to taxpayers (Hughes et al 2002, 
Levy et al. 2003b).  
Predation of feral cats on wildlife is a very controversial issue surrounding feral 
cats (Ash 2001, Ash and Adams 2003, Berkeley 2004, Patronek 1998, and Turner and 
Bateson 2000). Rodents make up a majority of prey followed by birds (Berkeley 2004, 
Turner and Bateson 2000), however cats are opportunists and will feed on whatever prey 
item is in abundance (Liberg 1984). Predation is a complicated and emotional issue and 
more scientific studies are needed particularly in the mainland United States to determine 
their impact on wildlife.  
 The welfare of the cats themselves is often a concern. The mortality of feral 
kittens is greater than 75% (Nutter 2004b), however once a kitten makes it to adulthood 
its chances for survival increase. The incidence of diseases such as Feline Leukemia 
Virus (FeLV) and  Feline Immunodifficiency Virus (FIV) in feral cats is very low (<5%) 
and similar to pet cats (Lee et al. 2002, Luria et al. 2004, Levy et al. 2006). Transmission 
of both of these diseases are greatly reduced when a feral cat colony is sterilized. 
Stoskopf and Nutter (2004) conclude feral cats enrolled in TNR programs with 
vaccination and parasite control do not lead a meager existence or have a greater risk of 
zoonotic diseases than owned cats. Scott et al. (2002a) stated that feral cats gain weight 
and body fat after sterilization similar to pet cats.  
 
 7
JUSTIFICATION 
Past feral cat colony control has often been restricted to exterminations attempts, 
but TNR is rapidly becoming a more acceptable control method. Public outcry can be a 
powerful reason not to euthanize feral cat colonies (Passanisi and McDonald 1990) and 
can be influential in policy making. For example, policies protecting wild horses and 
burros in the United States and harp seal pups in Canada directly resulted from pressure 
exerted by the public and animal protection organizations (Levy 2000). Slater (2004) 
states that public dynamic is shifting towards viewing companion animals as more 
valuable than just their monetary value. A recent study determined that the general public 
is slightly more supportive of TNR (54.6%) as opposed to removal (42.2%) for cats 
located on the Texas A&M University campus (Ash 2001). This same study estimated 
that 44% of the public agreed feral cat overpopulation was a serious biological issue but 
did not value the lives of wildlife species more than the lives of the feral cats (Ash and 
Adams 2003). 
TNR has been in practice for over 25 years (Hammond 1981 and Jackson 1981) 
but is relatively new to the United States. Cats are trapped, spayed or neutered, 
vaccinated against disease, and then returned to their home colony. The tip of the left ear 
is cropped as a universal symbol of being enrolled in a TNR program. Caretakers are 
identified and are responsible for monitoring and feeding the cats in their colony. In 
Orange County, Florida TNR is a more cost effective means of animal control than 
impoundment and euthanasia (Hughes et al. 2002). Although more studies (Foley et al. 
2005, Lee et al. 2002, Levy et al. 2003a,b, Nutter et al. 2004b, Scott et al. 2002b) have 
recently been published, much is still unknown about the success of TNR as a method of 
 8
feral cat control. Well-designed studies to document the specific effects of TNR on 
population dynamics of cats are necessary to provide insight into the impact and effects 
of this management method. In addition to preventing reproduction of cats, TNR 
promotes responsible cat stewardship and recognition of the fundamental needs of this 
domestic species. 
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 
The primary objective of this investigation was to determine the effects, if any, 
that feral cat control using TNR has on the population size, home range size, and habitats 
used by existing feral cat colonies before and after TNR. In order to analyze population 
size as the first goal, 7 feeding stations were established in areas where unmanaged feral 
cats were known to reside. These 7 colonies were located on the Auburn University 
campus and the immediate areas surrounding campus in downtown Auburn, Alabama. 
All colonies were monitored for one year before and one year after a TNR program was 
implemented. Population size was monitored by camera census and visual observations, 
as well as results from trapping events. Literature review, methods, results and discussion 
of this portion of the study are presented in Chapter II. 
The second goal was to examine the feral cats? home range and to determine 
preferred habitat and frequency of use. Preferred habitat of individual cats was 
determined using radio telemetry and visual identification. Home range and habitat use 
were compared for the year before and after TNR was implemented. Literature review, 
methods, results and discussion of this portion of the study are presented in Chapter III. 
 
 
 9
ORGANIZATION 
 The organization of this report follows the guidelines for a publication style thesis 
as outlined in the Guide to Preparation and Submission of Theses and Dissertations 
printed by the Auburn University Graduate School. The results of the investigation are 
provided in Chapters 2 ? 3 of this thesis, which are prepared as manuscripts for journal 
submission.  
LITERATURE CITED 
Ash, S. J. 2001. Ecological and sociological considerations of using TTVAR (Trap, Test, 
Vaccinate, Alter, Return) method to control free-ranging domestic cat, Felis 
catus, populations. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA 
Ash, S. J. and C. E. Adams. 2003. Public preferences for free-ranging domestic cat (Felis 
catus) management options. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):334-339. 
AVMA. 2002. U. S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. Schaumburg, Illinois, 
USA. 
Berkeley, E. P. 2004. TNR past, present, and future: a history of the trap-neuter-return 
movement. Alley Cat Allies, Washington, D. C., USA. 100pp. 
Centonze, L. A. and J. K. Levy. 2002. Characteristics of free-roaming cats and their 
caretakers. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 220(11):1627-
1633. 
Dabritz, H. A., E. R. Atwill, I. A. Gardner, M. Miller and P. Conrad. 2006. Outdoor fecal 
deposition by free-roaming cats and attitudes of cat owners and nonowners 
toward stray pets, wildlife, and water pollution. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 229(1):74-81 
 10
Feldman, E. C. and R. W. Nelson. 1996. Feline reproduction. Canine and Feline 
Endocrinology and Reproduction. W. B. Saunders Co, Philadelphia. pp 741-767. 
Foley, P., J. E. Foley, and J. K. Levy. 2005. Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return 
programs on populations of feral cats. Journal of American Veterinary Medical 
Association 227(11):1775-1781. 
Griffin, B. 2001a. Cats, cats, everywhere, in Proceedings. Coll Vet Med Annual 
Conference, Auburn University, AL, USA. 
Griffin, B. 2001b. Prolific cats: the impact of their fertility on the welfare of the species. 
The Compendium on Education for Veterinarians 13(12):1058-1069. 
Hammond, C. 1981. The ecology and control of feral cats. Potters Bar, England: 
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, pp 89-91. 
Hughes, K. L., M. R. Slater, and L. Haller. 2002. The effects of implementing a feral cat 
spay/neuter program in a Florida county animal control service. Journal of 
Applied Animal Welfare Science 5(4):285-298. 
Jackson, M. 1981. The ecology and control of feral cats. Potters Bar, England: 
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, pp 92-94. 
Johnson, K., L. Lewellen, and J. Lewellen. 1994. National Pet Alliance survey report on 
Santa Clara County?s pet population. Cat Fanciers? Almanac Jan:71-77. 
Lee, I. T., J. K. Levy, S. P. Gorman, P. C. Crawford, and M. R. Slater. 2002. Prevalence 
of feline leukemia virus infection and serum antibodies against feline 
immunodeficiency virus in unowned free-roaming cats. Journal of American 
Veterinary Medical Association 220(5):620-622. 
 11
Levy, J. K. 2000. Evaluation of SpayVac? for sterilizing domestic cats. Waltham, 
Massachusetts. Spay/USA Proceedings. 
Levy, J. K., D. W. Gale, and L. A Gale. 2003a. Evaluation of the effect of a long-term 
trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal 
of American Veterinary Medical Association 222(1):42-46. 
Levy, J. K., J. E. Woods, S. L. Turick, and D. L. Etheridge. 2003b. Number of unowned 
free-roaming cats in a college community in the southern United States and 
characteristics of community residents who feed them. Journal of American 
Veterinary Medical Association 223(2):202-205. 
Levy, J. K., H. M. Scott, J. L. Lachtara, P. C. Crawford. 2006. Seroprevalence of feline 
leukemia virus and feline immunodeficiency virus infection among cats in North 
America and risk factors for seropositivity. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 228(3):371-376. 
Liberg, O. 1984. Food habits and prey impact by feral and house-based domestic cats in a 
rural area in southern Sweden. Journal of Mammalogy 65(3)424-432. 
Luke, C. 1996. Animal shelter issues. Animal welfare forum: the welfare of cats. Journal 
of American Veterinary Medical Association 208(4):524-527. 
Luria, B. J. J. K. Levy, M. R. Lappin, E. B. Breitschwerdt, A. M. Legendre, J. A. 
Hernandez, S. P. Gorman, I. T. Lee. 2004. Prevalence of infectious diseases in 
feral cats in Northern Florida. Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery 2004 
Oct;6(5):287-296. 
 12
Manning, A. M. and A. N. Rowan. 1998. Companion animal demographics and 
sterilization status: Results from a survey in four Massachusetts towns. 
Anthrozoos 5:192-201. 
Miller, J. 1996. The domestic cat: Perspective on the nature and diversity of cats. Journal 
of American Veterinary Medical Association 208(4):598-502.  
Nutter, F. B., J. P. Dubey, J. F. Levine, E. B. Breitschwerdt, R. B. Ford, and M. K. 
Stoskopf. 2004a.Seroprevalences of antibodies against Bartonella henselae and 
Toxoplasma gondii and fecal shedding of Cryptosporidium spp, Giardia spp and, 
Toxocara cati in feral and pet domestic cats.  Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 225(9):1394-1398. 
Nutter, F. B. J. F. Levine and M. K. Stoskopf. 2004b. Reproductive capacity of free-
roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 225(9):1399-1402. 
Passanisi, W. C. and D. W. Macdonald. 1990. The fate of controlled feral cat colonies. 
Potters Bar, England: The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. 
Patronek, G. J. 1998. Free-roaming and feral cats ? their impact on wildlife and human 
beings. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 212(2):218-225. 
Salman, M. D., J. G. New Jr., J. M Scarlett, P. H. Kass, R. Ruch-Gallie and S. Hetts. 
1998. Human and animal factors related to relinquishment of dogs and cats in 12 
selected animal shelters in the United States. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare 
Science 1(3):207-226. 
 13
Scott, K. C., J. K. Levy, S. P. Gorman, and S. M. Newell. 2002a. Body Condition of 
Feral Cats and the Effect of Neutering. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare 
Science 5(3):203-213. 
Scott, K. C., J. K. Levy, and P. C Crawford. 2002b. Characteristics of free-roaming cats 
evaluated in a trap-neuter-return program. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 221(8):1136-1138. 
Slater, M. R. August (ed). 2000. Understanding and controlling of feral cat populations. 
Feline Internal Medicine 4:561-570. 
Slater, M. R. 2004. Understanding issues and solutions for unowned, free-roaming cat 
populations. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 225(9):1350-
1354. 
Stoskopf, M. K., and F. B. Nutter. 2004. Analyzing approaches to feral cat manangement 
? one size does not fit all. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 
225(9):1361-1364. 
Turner, D. C. and P. Bateson. 2000. The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour. 
Second Edition. Cambridge University Press.
 14
II. CENSUSING FERAL CAT COLONIES BEFORE AND AFTER INITIATING 
TRAP-NEUTER-RETURN 
ABSTRACT 
Objectives?(1) To determine if infrared-triggered cameras at feeding sites can be used 
to census feral cat colonies and (2) to determine the effect, if any, of Trap-Neuter-Return 
(TNR) on the population size of feral cat colonies.  
Design? Prospective study. 
Sample Population--Seven feral cat colonies located in Auburn, Alabama during 2003-
2005. 
Procedure?Population estimates were made using infrared-triggered cameras mounted 
in each feeding station surveying every 2 weeks for one year before and one year after 
initiating TNR of 7 feral cat colonies (February 2003 - March 2005). Camera census data 
were analyzed using Chapman model for mark-recapture studies. Pre-TNR population 
estimates for 4 locations were averaged and compared to post-TNR estimates using proc-
TTest in SAS ? version 8.2. 
Results-- During the two-year study, 4,924 photographs from the 7 feeding stations were 
produced and analyzed. A total of 123 individual cats were identified in photographs 
from the 7 colonies. Total cats identified per colony ranged from 7-30 cats. The Chapman 
model was successful for estimating 4 of the 7 colony populations due to their larger 
colony size (n=5-21). Photographic sampling results from the 3 smaller colonies 
periodically resulted in only 1 cat photographed for weeks at a time. With only 1 cat sited 
the Chapman model produced a population outcome of n=0. Therefore, the smaller 
colonies were not analyzed further. Graywood feral cat colony grew significantly larger 
(p=.002) from pre-TNR (X=9.2, SD=2.2, n=4) to post-TNR initiation (X=15.5, SD=1.1, 
n=4) treatment. Thach Hall had a similar outcome pre-TNR ( X =7.9, SD=1.6, n=4) to 
post-TNR initiation( X =9, SD=0.6, n=4) although not significant (p=.49). Jennings and 
Mack?s had a decrease from pre-TNR ( X =9.4, SD=3.5, n=4 and X =17, SD=4.3, n=3) 
to post-TNR initiation( X =7.5, SD=1.3, n=4 and X =15, SD=1.6, n=4) however neither 
difference was significant (p=.34 and p=.49). 
Conclusions and Clinical Relevance? The method of photographic sampling was an 
accurate and reliable way to identify individual members in feral cat colonies, however, 
the Chapman model was not effective in estimating colonies with smaller cat populations. 
Longer study duration is recommended to determine the impact of TNR on the 
population size of feral cat colonies.  
Key words: feral, cat, cameras, population, management, trap neuter return 
INTRODUCTION 
In recent years, public awareness regarding the large numbers of feral cats 
residing throughout the United States has increased and interest in controlling them is 
growing. Feral cats are defined here as offspring of domestic cats raised without human 
socialization or cats that were previously owned that have reverted to a wild state not 
trusting humans (Griffin 2001 and Levy et al. 2003b). Feral cats generally do not accept 
handling, will flee if approached, and must be trapped to receive veterinary care. 
 15
 16
Although accurate estimates of the feral cat population do not exist, it is suspected that 
their population size is similar to that of owned cats which was 70.8 million in the United 
States in 2001 (Levy et al. 2003a, AVMA 2002).  
Over the past decade, Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) programs have been used to 
control colonies of feral cats with increasing frequency in the United States. Cats are 
trapped, spayed or neutered, vaccinated against disease, and then returned to their home 
colony. The tip of the left ear is cropped as a standard symbol of being enrolled in a TNR 
program (Figure 1). Caretakers are identified and are responsible for monitoring and 
feeding the cats in their colony.  
TNR is supported by many organizations including the American Association of 
Feline Practitioners (AAFP) and the American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA) as 
a method to control existing colonies of feral cats provided they are not located in 
wildlife refuges. A private non-profit humane organization called Alley Cat Allies (ACA 
2006) serves as a national resource for information on TNR of feral cats. 
Within the last decade an increasing number of universities have used TNR to 
control campus feral cat populations. The transient nature of college students and 
abundance of food and shelter for cats on campuses may lead to feral cat colony 
establishment. Stanford University was a pioneer in the effort to humanely manage its 
campus ferals. The initial 1989 population was estimated at 1,500 and was successfully 
reduced to approximately 200 cats by 2002 through TNR and adoptions (SCN 2002). A 
University of North Texas TNR program reduced their population of over 100 feral cats 
to 34 cats in only 3 years (UNT 2002). Texas A&M also experienced a reduction in 
campus cat numbers using TNR (AFCAT 2002). After management using TNR and 
 17
adoptions for 11 years Levy et al. (2003a) determined this method to successfully reduce 
the feral cat population at the University of Central Florida.  
According to Passanisi and McDonald (1990), past measurements of the effects of 
neuter and return programs are uncertain because a majority of the information available 
is anecdotal and called for further scientific study. Passanisi and McDonald (1990) 
concluded that for TNR programs to be effective, long-term caretaker commitment is 
critical, otherwise, managed colonies will potentially rebound over time.  
A few studies have examined the usefulness of TNR at reducing the population of 
feral cat colonies. One study conducted in a London park successfully controlled the 
population of 2 feral cat colonies. This TNR program decreased the colony numbers, 
reduced aggressive behavior within the colony, and eliminated cat predation of waterfowl 
(Neville and Remfry1984). In contrast, a Miami, Florida study found TNR ineffective at 
controlling feral cat populations over 1 year due to influx of abandoned cats at the site 
(Castillo 2001). This study was conducted at 2 south Florida public parks with highly 
visible, well-fed, and well-publicized feral cat colonies. Levy et al. (2003a) evaluated an 
11-year long TNR and adoption program on the University of Central Florida with the 
following results ?A comprehensive long-term program of neutering followed by 
adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-roaming cat 
populations in urban areas.? After Orange County Florida?s animal control service 
implemented a TNR program, complaints leading to impounded cats and euthanasia of 
impounded cats decreased while surgeries and adoption rates increased, saving the county 
money (Hughes et al. 2002). 
 18
Nutter et al. (2004) studied over 2,300 free-roaming cats in North Carolina and 
determined their reproductive capacity was high with queens producing a mean of 1.4 
litters/year with a median of 3 kittens/litter. Kitten mortality was high (75% by 6 months 
of age) with trauma being the most common cause of death. These results are similar to a 
survey of a Florida TNR program (Scott et al. 2002) with over 5,300 feral cats producing 
a mean litter size of 3.6?0.2 fetuses. Pregnancy rates peaked in March and April in both 
studies (Nutter et al. 2004 and Scott et al. 2002). 
There are many methods used to estimate feral cat populations. A majority of the 
previous studies have used public surveys using either phone interviews or written 
questionnaires to estimate feral populations (Centonze and Levy 2002, Johnson et 
al.1994, Levy et al. 2003b). The free-roaming cat population in Alachua County, Florida 
(defined here as both feral and stray cat populations) was estimated to represent as much 
as 44% of the domestic cat population (Levy et al 2003b). Santa Clara County, California 
estimates stray cats are 41% of their total known cat population (Johnson 1994). Other 
population estimations have been made based on TNR surgery clinic intake data. Levy et 
al. (2003a) used reports from volunteers and caretakers recorded over a period of 11 
years to determine the feral cat population and track its changes at the University of 
Central Florida campus. Foley et al. (2005) created a population model using data from 2 
large-scale TNR clinics. Anderson et al. (2004) used published feral cat vital rates to 
model a comparison of feral cat populations managed with TNR against euthanasia.  
Auburn University?s Operation Cat Nap (OCN) is a TNR program which was 
started January 2000 with support from Auburn University?s College of Veterinary 
Medicine and the Scott-Ritchey Research Center. Operation Cat Nap is endorsed by the 
 19
Dean of College of Veterinary Medicine and by the Office of the Provost as the 
University Program used to control feral cats on main campus. Auburn University had an 
estimated population of 150 feral cats when this study began in 2003. This population 
was estimated using OCN surgery clinic intake forms and corroborated with caretaker 
reports and email requests. In November of 2005 the Auburn University campus cat 
population was approximately 45 feral cats estimated from visual sitings, caretaker 
questionnaires and OCN records.  
Because little information exists to support that TNR is an effective method for 
controlling cat populations, a reliable, non-invasive model for long-term censusing of 
cats would represent a valuable tool in future studies designed to measure the effects of 
TNR on cat populations. A camera census technique has been developed to estimate 
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and bobcat (Lynx rufus) populations (Jacobson 
et al. 1997, Koerth and Kroll 2000, and Heilbrun et al. 2003). In these studies infrared-
triggered cameras were installed at white-tailed deer feeding stations and bobcat scent 
stations to attract the animals in the area and capture them in photographs. To the 
authors? knowledge this method had not been used to estimate feral cat population size. 
The first objective of this study was to determine if this technique could be used with 
feral cat colonies. 
The second objective was to use this census technique to determine the effect, if 
any, of TNR on the affected population size of 7 feral cat colonies in Auburn, Alabama. 
Population size was monitored by photographic sampling, visual observations and results 
from trapping events for 1 year before and 1 year after TNR was implemented. 
 20
Studies are needed to clearly measure the impact TNR has on feral cat 
populations. Involvement of veterinarians is central to TNR programs, therefore such 
studies can aid veterinarians in making informed decisions about the success of TNR as a 
management method.  
MATERIALS AND METHODS 
Description of Site 
Seven feral cat colonies located on the Auburn University campus (Figure 2) and 
the immediate areas surrounding campus in downtown Auburn, Alabama were selected 
for the 2003-2005 study.  These colonies were surrounded by a relatively dense human 
population. On average 23,000 students are present on campus at any time with 3,680 
(16%) of them residing on the 745 hectare campus (AU 2006b). Auburn University 
employs approximately 9,400 faculty and staff. At the time of this study, the combined 
population of Auburn and its adjoining city Opelika was approximately 66,000 (AU 
2006a). Feral cat colonies have been documented on the campus for at least 30 years 
preceding the study (Griffin, B., Auburn University, personal communication).  
The 7 feral colonies (Graywood, Horticulture, Ingram Hall, Jennings, Mack?s, 
Thach Hall and Theta Xi) chosen for this project (Figure 2) were selected because to the 
authors? knowledge they had no regular caretaker or previous management efforts. To aid 
in photographic censusing, a feeding station was installed in the area where these feral 
cats were known to reside. Each colony was assigned a volunteer caretaker. Caretakers 
were provided with basic information about feral cats and TNR as well as a description of 
the project. Appendix A contains the orientation materials and instructions for the 
caretakers. A standardized commercial dry cat food (Purina ONE Salmon and Tuna 
 21
flavor, Nestl? Purina PetCare Company, St. Louis, MO) was provided as needed for the 
duration of the study. Caretakers were told to provide food and fresh water daily, 
preferably in the morning to minimize the amount of food left in the shelter during the 
night when wildlife species were more likely to be present.  Caretakers were also asked to 
record descriptions of cats sited at their feeders. All 7 feeders and colonies were cared for 
and monitored for 1 year before and 1 year after the TNR program began.  Besides 
designated caretakers, feeding stations were maintained and monitored by the authors and 
student assistants as needed.  
Methodology 
Feeding station establishment 
Feeding stations (Figure 3) were installed at the 7 locations in December of 2002. 
The feeding station design (Figure 4) was a modified version of a feral cat shelter design 
from the Alley Cat Allies website (ACA 2002). The design is a (??) plywood base (3? 
wide X 2? deep) covered with vinyl tile flooring with siding 18? high sloping down to 
12? supported by 2? X 4? X 11? (or 17?) supports and an overhanging hinged (??) 
plywood roof (3? 3? wide X 2? 7? deep) covered with asphalt shingles. Cats accessed the 
feed and water through an opening (7? high X 7? wide) in the front of the box. Each 
feeding station was equipped with a commercially available pint-sized pet food bowl or a 
larger reservoir-type automatic feeder and automatic waterer (Figure 5). The quantity of 
food consumed varied among colonies. For colonies where the food supply was 
consumed almost immediately a larger reservoir-type automatic feeder was used in place 
of the bowl to ensure an adequate feed supply. For colonies with less feed consumption, 
pint or quart-sized bowls were maintained to limit the amount of food left in the shelter 
 22
overnight. Shelters were monitored daily for approximately 2 weeks, then checked a 
minimum of 3 times a week. Food and water were replenished as needed by the feral cat 
caretaker, the authors, or student assistants.  
Photographic sampling methods 
Population estimates were made using infrared-triggered cameras (Moultrie 
Gotcha Cam, ? Copyright 2003 ? 2005 EBSCO Industries, Inc., Birmingham, AL) 
mounted in each feeding station. Cats triggered the camera to take a picture by breaking 
the infrared beam emitted from the camera. The cameras may be set for either a shot 
delay interval of 6 seconds or 6 minutes in order to prevent using all frames on one 
individual that remained feeding for several minutes. We selected a shot delay of 6 
seconds for our sampling because cats generally do not devote 6 minutes to feeding and 
new cats entering immediately behind would be missed with the longer setting. The 
camera imprinted the date and time on each picture (Figure 6). As developed for white-
tailed deer and other species, the camera census uses the photos as a mark-recapture 
method of population estimation. During the first round of photographic sampling, cats 
are identified by coat color and pattern and any other distinguishable features. Once a cat 
is photographed and identified it is considered to be a ?marked? individual.  These 
"marked" cats were considered "recaptured" if they were photographed and identified in 
subsequent photographic sampling periods. Additional data obtained from photographs 
included: feeding station location, date, time and number of identifiable cats. In this study 
one author (Subacz) analyzed all photographs. Photographic surveys (one 24-exposure 
film roll) were conducted approximately every 2 weeks from February 2003 through 
March 2005. Length of survey period varied from several minutes to 2 weeks depending 
 23
on how long it took for the 24 exposure film roll to be used. Eighty four percent of the 
surveys were completed within 24 hours. The variability in length of time surveyed was 
inversely correlated to colony population size. The 4 colony locations with larger 
populations (5-21 individuals per colony during a sampling period) and frequent visual 
and photographic sitings (Jennings, Thach Hall, Macks, and Graywood) completed their 
surveys within 24 hrs. >95% of time surveyed. 
Pre-TNR (year 1) trapping methods 
Based on photographic censuses and visual sitings, it was estimated 
approximately 31 cats were regularly seen at the 7 feral cat colonies. During the pre-TNR 
phase of the project, these 31 cats were trapped during 6 different trapping events 
spanning from March through July of 2003. All cats trapped during the study were 
assigned a number (1-90) with the pre-TNR cats being numbers 1-31 respectively. The 
goal was to monitor these 31 initial cats for 1 year before the TNR program and 1 year 
after the TNR program via radio telemetry as part of a companion study to assess home 
range and habitat use. Caretakers were advised to withhold food and empty feeding 
stations of any remaining food 2 days prior to each trapping period. Cats were trapped 
from dusk until dawn over the course of several days according to protocol of the Auburn 
University feral cat TNR program, Operation Cat Nap (Appendix B). Trapping occurred 
around the established feeding stations using baited Tomahawk live traps model #606 
(approximately 26? long X 9? wide X 9? high) (Tomahawk Live Trap Company, 
Tomahawk, WI). Bait used included canned mackerel and a standardized commercial dry 
cat food (Purina ONE Salmon and Tuna flavor, Nestl? Purina PetCare Company, St. 
 24
Louis, MO, USA) the cats were already eating. Other bait techniques such as used kitty 
litter were attempted with unsuccessful results.  
Pre-TNR (year 1) laboratory protocol 
Captured cats were transported to the multi-purpose laboratory of the College of 
Veterinary Medicine (an IACUC approved facility) and held in their cages for the 
duration of each trapping phase and data collection. In order to transport feral cats safely, 
personnel handling the cats were vaccinated against rabies and wore thick leather gloves. 
There were no scratch or bite incidents during this study. Cats were held for no longer 
than 4 days in their traps. Each trap was covered with a thick, waterproof pad, outfitted 
with a food and water bowl, and elevated off the ground for removal of waste during 
holding (Figure 7).  
Anesthesia 
Captured feral cats were anesthetized with an anesthetic cocktail called TKX 
(Telazol + Ketamine + Xylazine) at a dosage of 0.15 - 0.25 mL per cat depending on their 
size (Williams et al. 2002 and Cistola et al. 2004) prior to removal from trap. Cats were 
handled in a humane manner and all procedures complied with the requirements of the 
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for Auburn University (IACUC # 2002-
0137). Cats were injected while in the traps by using a trap divider to confine the cat to 
one end of the trap to allow intramuscular (IM) injection into the hind limb musculature. 
If additional anesthetic time was required, isoflurane and oxygen via mask or 
endotracheal tube were administered as needed. 
 
 
 25
Data Collection 
Once trapped, each cat was assigned a sequential identification number for the 
length of the study (1-90). Individual data on each cat was collected during physical 
examination including: cat #, date trapped, date of data collection, date released, location 
trapped, size of cat (small, medium, large), sex, coat color and pattern, distinguishing 
features, eye color, domestic short hair or domestic long hair (DSH, DLH) coat length, 
estimated age, body weight (lbs), general body condition, reproductive status, 
administration of subcutaneous (SQ) fluids, results of Feline Leukemia Virus and Feline 
Immunodeficiency Virus (FeLV/FIV) testing, rabies vaccination, penicillin injection, 
microchip number, radio collar, and frequency (Appendix C). Coat color and pattern 
were determined using the Cat Coat Color Chart developed by Operation Cat Nap 
(Subacz and Griffin 2002). General body condition was determined using Purina?s Body 
Condition Chart (Purina 2002).  In addition, each cat was photographed to aid in future 
identification. Rabies vaccinations (Imrab 3, Merial Pharmaceuticals, Duluth, GA) were 
administered subcutaneously in the right hind limb of each cat and blood was collected 
via jugular venipuncture and tested for FIV and FeLV (snap IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 
Westbrook, ME). 
Radio Transmitters and Microchips 
As part of a companion study to assess home range and habitat use, cats of 
varying ages (14 weeks to 9 years) were fitted with transmitters attached to adjustable 
collars model TS-24 (Telemetry Solutions, Concord, CA). The radio transmitter batteries 
were designed to last 24 months at 55 pulses/min, weighed 13 grams, and were equipped 
with a mortality/activity switch. Each collar had a nylon covering to protect the built in 
 26
antenna. This nylon cover was spray painted a distinct color to help with identification of 
similar looking cats at the same colony site. The radio collars were visible in the photos 
and frequently helped with cat identification. Finally, all cats were implanted with 
identification microchips subcutaneously on the dorsum between the shoulder blades 
(Home Again, Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation, Kenilworth, NJ).  
Anesthetic Reversal and Release 
Anesthetic reversal was achieved with yohimbine (2mg/ml; 0.5 ml/cat IM or IV). 
An additional dose of yohimbine was given after 30 minutes if reversal results were 
inadequate. The cat was returned to the trap immediately after reversal. Carefully 
monitored heat lamps were used to ensure adequate body warming during recovery. Cats 
were monitored overnight following anesthesia to assess any effects from sedation. Once 
it was determined the cats were awake, alert, and eating they were released at their 
individual colony location. 
Post-TNR initiation (year 2) Laboratory Protocol 
For the study, Trap-Neuter-Return program procedures began in April of 2004. 
Trapping and general laboratory procedures were repeated according to previous methods 
during 9 separate trapping events spanning from April 2004 until April 2005. All cats 
trapped during this period (11 previously radio collared cats and all new cats #32-90) 
were managed according to Operation Cat Nap guidelines as described above.  
Data Collection 
The method of data collection in 2004 was similar to that in 2003. The following 
information was added to the data collection sheets due to management: eartip, sterilize, 
FVRCP, Ivomec, Frontline, packed cell volume, and total solids. Cats were given a 
 27
complete physical examination, Rabies vaccination, Feline Viral Rhinotracheitis, 
Calicivirus, Panleukopenia (FVRCP) vaccination, Ivomec 1% solution 0.1 ml/cat 
subcutaneously (to treat ear mites, round and hook worms), FeLV/FIV testing, Frontline 
Plus Top Spot (for flea control), Procaine Penicillin G dose, the distal tip of the left ear 
was removed (Figure 6), and every cat was surgically sterilized (males underwent 
surgical castration, females ovariohysterectomy). In order to help with the identification 
of cats in locations where several cats had very similar markings, we used different ear 
crops to distinguish these cats. For example, in the case of 2 solid black cats, we cropped 
the left ear on the first cat and the right ear on the second cat. Cats that were pregnant or 
dehydrated also received 150 ml lactated ringers solution subcutaneously. Cats were 
monitored for 24 hours post surgery and then released at their colony locations. At the 
end of the study in 2005, radio collars were removed and data was collected from 5 of the 
14 remaining radio collared cats. The remaining cats with radio collars were too trap 
savvy at this point in the study to capture a third time despite employing alternative 
trapping methods such as a drop traps.  
Data Analysis 
Camera census data was analyzed using Chapman (1951) model with a 95% 
confidence interval (Seber 1982) for mark-recapture studies. Each year was divided into 
4 periods of 3 months. The first 3 month sampling period (n
1
) was compared to the 
following 3 month sampling period (n
2
) and recaptured individuals were determined (m
2
) 
resulting in a population estimation (N) for that 6 month time period. The Chapman 
model for capture-recapture uses the following equation: 
1
1)  (m     
)1 1)(n  (n
?
2
21
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
+
++
=N  
Confidence intervals were calculated using Seber (1982) equation for the variance of N: 
Var( ) = N
?
(n
1
 + 1)(n
2
 + 1)(n
1
 ? m
2
)(n
2
 ? m
2
) 
      (m
2
 + 1)
2
(m
2
 + 2) 
This procedure was repeated throughout the study on all 7 colonies. This method of 
estimation could not be applied to 3 (Horticulture, Ingram Hall, and Theta Xi) of the 7 
colonies due to low population size (only 1-3 cats regularly sited during 2 year study). 
Colonies with only 1 cat sited in 6 month sampling period caused the Chapman formula 
to produce a population outcome of =1 and Var( ) = 0. Those colonies were not 
included in the analysis.  Pre-TNR population estimates for each of the 4 larger (5-21 
individuals) colonies (Graywood, Jennings, Mack?s, and Thach Hall) were averaged and 
compared to post-TNR estimates using PROC_ TTEST in SAS ? version 8.2 (SAS 
Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Camera census began Feb. 14, 2003 and continued until 
March 30, 2005. Photographic sampling was compared to the cat populations trapped in 
those areas, the cats? radio telemetry results, as well as visual cat identification acquired 
within those time periods. 
N
?
N
?
RESULTS 
During the two-year study, 4,924 photographs (3,007 pre-TNR and 1,917 post-
TNR) from the 7 feeding stations were produced and analyzed. Of the 4,924 photographs 
69% were feral cats and 31% were non-target species. Non-target species included 15% 
raccoons (Procyon lotor), 13% opossums (Didelphis virginiana), 1% gray squirrel 
(Sciurus carolinensis), <1% eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and <1% brown 
 28
thrashers (Toxostoma rufum). During the 2-year study, 90 cats were trapped while a total 
of 123 individual cats were captured in photographs. Thirty-one of the 123 cats (25%) 
photographed were not trapped during any of the trapping sessions throughout the study 
(Tables 1-7). Twenty-three of the 90 cats trapped (26%) did not appear in photographs 
taken during the study (Table 8). Four feral cat colonies (Horticulture, Ingram Hall, 
Thach Hall & Theta Xi) were adjacent to areas that were managed using TNR prior to 
this study. Cats captured in photographs that were already managed with TNR prior to 
the study are marked in the tables as ?already TNR?d.? Six of the 31 cats caught in 
photographs but not trapped during the study, were trapped for TNR prior to the study 
and were apparently too trap-savvy to be caught again. The smallest colony 
(Horticulture) had 7 cats sited during the entire two-year study while the largest of the 7 
colonies (Mack?s) had 30 cats sited. Distinction of individual cats within a group that had 
the same coat colors and marking pattern was difficult in some cases, and may represent a 
challenge in this method of population estimation. However, careful study and other 
markings allow differentiation of >99% of feral cats. For example, in our study, 31 of the 
cats were fitted with colored radio collars, which were visible in the photos and helped 
with their identification.  
The population estimates and trapping results for the 4 colonies tested using the 
Chapman model are reflected in Figures 8-11. The only colony of the 4 tested to have a 
significant difference (p=.002) among pre-TNR ( X =9.2, SD=2.2, n=4) and post-TNR 
initiation ( X =15.5, SD=1.1, n=4) treatment was Graywood. Graywood?s feral cat 
population averages during the pre-TNR sampling period increased significantly when 
compared to the post-TNR initiation sampling averages. Thach Hall had a similar 
 29
outcome pre-TNR ( X =7.9, SD=1.6, n=4) and post-TNR initiation ( X =9, SD=0.6, n=4) 
although not significant (p=.49). Jennings and Mack's had a decrease from pre-TNR 
( X =9.4, SD=3.5, n=4 and X =17, SD=4.3, n=3) to post-TNR initiation ( X =7.5, 
SD=1.3, n=4 and X =15, SD=1.6, n=4) however neither difference was significant 
(p=.34 and p=.49).  
DISCUSSION 
In this study, population size was monitored by photographic sampling, visual 
observations and trapping events. Variability was found among these methods. For 
example, 23 (26%) of the 90 cats trapped did not appear in any of the 4,924 photographs 
taken during the study. Evaluation of these 23 cats greatly helps to explain these 
discordant results. Eleven of these 23 cats were actually not trapped at the colony study 
sites, but instead were captured in nearby adjacent areas during year 2. These cats never 
entered the nearby feeding stations for photographing and were not likely to have been 
residents of the study colonies. The reason why traps were set outside of the immediate 
colony sites was that 18 of the initial 31 cats that were identified at the outset of the study 
were known to have migrated to these adjacent areas. These cats were outfitted with radio 
collars as part of a companion study and were being monitored with radio telemetry. 
Traps were set in adjacent areas since a goal of the companion study was to monitor the 
collared cats before and after TNR. In addition to the collared cats (n=18) any other cats 
captured in adjacent areas (n=15) were enrolled in TNR regardless of whether they were 
known to reside at the colony sites. In this study, movement of cats among neighboring 
colony sites was common especially with pre-TNR adult male tomcats.  
 30
 31
Seven of the 23 cats that were trapped but did not appear in photographs were 
tame cats, which were either returned to their owners or adopted during year 2. In 
addition, 2 of the 23 cats that were trapped but did not appear in photographs died in the 
field almost immediately following release due to collar strangulation at the outset of 
year 1. These deaths occurred despite careful, secure fitting of the radio collars. The 
authors strongly recommend that future studies involving the use of radio collars in cats 
include provisions for frequent monitoring of the cats during the initial week following 
collar placement to ensure the safety of the cats. This accounts for a total of 20/23 cats 
that were trapped but never photographed: 11 cats from adjacent areas, 7 adoptions and 2 
deaths. Thus, only 3 cats were actually trapped in the study colonies during year 2 but 
never photographed. These 3 cats were not visually sited by the author at any time and 
may not have been ?regular? inhabitants. Thus, photographic sampling did account for 67 
(96%) of the 70 cats trapped at the colony feeding stations during the 2-year study period. 
When compared to the adjusted trapping results, photographic sampling was an accurate 
method of measuring population size in this study.  
Thirty-one of the 123 cats (25%) photographed were never trapped during any of 
the 17 trapping events throughout the 2-year study. Six of the 31 cats not trapped during 
the study were trapped prior to the study and may have been too trap savvy to have been 
trapped during the study. Twenty-four of the 31 cats photographed, but not trapped were 
not regular residents of the colonies based on visual sitings and photographic surveys. 
Only 1 cat out of the 31 not trapped was a colony regular at Thach Hall, but was elusive 
enough to never be trapped. Thus more cats appeared in photographs than were trapped. 
However, with the exception of those cats that were either trap savvy (n=6) or did not 
 32
regularly reside in the colony (n=24), 99% of the resident cats photographed were trapped 
at some point during the 2 year study.   
Identifying feral cats using photographic surveys was a viable method to 
supplement visual identification and trapping events. The camera census was in the 
author?s opinion a better method of colony surveys than visual sitings alone because the 
census revealed many more cats than those sited by the author. Cats were commonly 
sited by the author at the feeding stations of Ingram Hall, Jennings?, Mack?s, and Thach 
Hall, but the number of cats sited visually were less than the number of cats revealed by 
the photographic sampling results taken over time. The author filled the feeding station 
feeders in the mornings and sited slightly more cats at that time period of the day. Data 
from this study demonstrate that a single photographic survey could give the observer an 
idea of the number of cats in a colony, but multiple photographic surveys must be made 
to estimate colony populations more accurately. Cost of film development and 
maintenance of the cameras over the 2 year period were the largest disadvantages. Use of 
digital cameras would greatly reduce costs for this method. A combination of methods 
similar to this study (using a dedicated daily caretaker, photographic sampling, and 
trapping events) could be the most accurate means to estimate feral cat colony 
populations.  
The Chapman model population estimates for the 4 larger colonies are higher, but 
generally consistent with total trapping captures during each time period. For example, 
Graywood?s year 1 trapping total is 7 cats (Table 1) and the Chapman estimate is 6.5 - 9 
cats during this same time period (Figure 8). Graywood?s year 2 trapping total is 12 cats 
(2 of which did not appear in photographs) and the Chapman estimate is 14 cats and 
 33
peaks at 16.5 cats during this same time period. This may indicate that the second round 
of trapping in year 2 was less effective at capturing all the cats at this location possibly 
because the cats became trap savvy at this point. The Chapman population model was 
unsuccessful with the 3 smaller colonies when n1, n2, or m1 was equal to 1 or 0.  
Keeping an actively participating caretaker for the feral cat colonies represented a 
significant limitation to this study. The author inspected each feeding station every 3 days 
as part of a separate objective to this study, and discovered a lack of consistent feeding by 
some of the caretakers. Food and water were replenished as needed throughout the 2-year 
study by the authors and staff if it was not done by the caretaker. None of the 7 colonies 
had a single caretaker throughout the study, and only 1 caretaker completed cat 
descriptions on the cat identification sheets.  
Each colony site had a small group of cats seen regularly by the author and in 
photographs for a number of months (3-5) in a row. A majority of the cats in the 
photographs were ?regulars? with other cats appearing less frequently (once or twice or 
seasonally). The cats that were regulars in the photographs were also regularly sited by 
the author. Visual sitings by the author usually did not include cats that were captured in 
photographs once or twice seasonally. Some colonies had the same regulars throughout 
the study while other colonies? regulars changed due to emigration and immigration. By 
the end of the study all of the regular cats seen at the feeders, with the exception of cat 
#30 and the ?kitten? at Thach Hall that was never trapped, were participating in the TNR 
program. The author believes cat #30 was not enrolled in the TNR program because she 
was too trap savvy from the initial trapping in 2003 to be trapped for TNR in 2004. On 
rare occasions, some colony regulars were sited at other colony feeding stations and were 
 34
included in the colony population analysis of each location. Eleven cats were 
photographed at more than one location during the study. One cat (#14) was actually 
trapped at more than one location during the study. 
Each colony was unique in its population. The smaller colonies (Horticulture, 
Ingram, and Theta Xi) were located in areas surrounded by previously managed colonies 
on campus. This might have kept these colonies? populations small and under control 
since both immigration of new cats and reproduction may have been less likely. 
Horticulture, for example, had 2 cats that were sited regularly in the photographs from the 
Horticulture feeder, but also were regular members of the Terrell Hall colony located 
nearby. Theta Xi?s colony feeder was in an isolated patch of woods surrounded by 
fraternity houses with resident dogs. This feeding station was the only one that was 
vandalized during the study and the author was shot at with a pellet gun during feeding. 
The author does not recommend maintaining a colony in this location due to the hostile 
environment. The author visually sited 2 cats at this location only 3 times while the 
cameras revealed more cats (n=9) with 2 of the 9 photographed regularly. Ingram Hall 
was home to 5 resident cats sited both visually and in photographs. This colony was 
located on the fringe of campus in downtown Auburn adjacent to a previously managed 
colony. Three of the four larger colonies (Graywood, Jennings & Mack's) were located 
off campus and did not have many managed colonies nearby. The 3 off-campus colonies 
had multiple dumpsters near the feeders. Since these locations were at or near apartment 
complexes, the author speculates the dumpsters were filled with more leftover food than a 
typical dumpster on campus might be. The author noticed the apartments also had the 
occasional occupant that left cat food outside for the feral cats. Jennings and Mack?s 
 35
colony feeding stations were placed in what seemed to the author to be the center of each 
colony. There was shelter (buildings with crawl spaces and wooded vegetation) and 
dumpsters nearby. The cats were almost always visible in the area surrounding the 
feeders when the author arrived at her scheduled visits. The cats at Graywood however, 
were not centered around their feeder and seemed to roam in between different feeders 
and colony areas. Graywood had a significantly larger average population post-TNR 
initiation. This is possibly due to influx of kittens late in 2004 from a cat(s) not 
documented and not enrolled in the TNR program. Our intent for the study was to trap 
out each colony during March and April of 2003 and again in 2004 to be able to compare 
before and after effects of TNR. In reality it took many months (some colonies all year) 
to be able to trap out most or all the cats at each location during year 2. It was particularly 
difficult to re-trap cats that had been trapped previously. A longer study period post-TNR 
initiation is needed to make an assessment of the ?after? effect of TNR on individual feral 
cat colony populations. Overall the Auburn University campus feral cat population did 
decrease from approximately 150 feral cats in 2003 to approximately 45 feral cats by 
April 2005 based on visual sitings, caretaker questionnaires and OCN records. Since 
photographic sampling was not used to census these colonies, it is possible the population 
was underestimated especially at locations where a regular caretaker was not present. 
Only 5/19 campus colonies had consistently active, diligent caretakers, however campus 
cat complaints decreased during this time period as well as reports of new cats. Auburn 
University officials were pleased with the results of the program each year.  
At the 4 large study colonies, kittens were seen in feeders at approximately 4-6 
weeks of age during peak kitten season in March and April of 2003 and 2004. No kittens 
 36
were observed in March 2005. The most probable reason for this is a majority of the feral 
cats were participating in TNR, and therefore did not reproduce. Pregnant queens were 
noted in visual monitoring at three of the larger colonies Jennings, Mack?s, and Thach 
Hall during the pre-TNR phase of the project. Only 2 litters were found by the author 
prior to emerging from their nests. One litter was in a row of bushes between apartments 
and the other was under a set of concrete stairs surrounded by overgrown vegetation. The 
litter in the bushes had 4 kittens: 1 died at 2 days old, 1 was adopted by the author, 1 was 
found dead in the parking lot and the other kitten went missing around the same time 
frame of 3 months of age. Following the initial siting by the author, the mother moved the 
litter under the staircase after the nearby vegetation was cleared by the property manager. 
The mother was sited for another 2 months before her disappearance and the kittens were 
never seen after the initial siting. Often times queens in the same colony were pregnant at 
the same time and multiple kittens would emerge at 12-14 weeks of age.  It would be 
very difficult to quantify the rate of kitten mortality in this study, but the author believes 
it to be similar to those found by Nutter et al (2004) of 75%. Therefore, the authors 
recommend spaying all pregnant queens and taming and adopting all small kittens during 
TNR management. Furthermore, we believe that mortality of all feral cats can vary 
depending on certain factors such as: diligence of the caretaker, location of colony, and 
TNR status. Male cats were the first and most numerous cats to disappear from colonies 
before TNR was implemented. Of the original 20 male cats, 30% of them were still sited 
by the end of the study as compared to 55% of the females. In this study cats that were 
enrolled in TNR at a young age (>3 months and <1 year) had the best chance of survival. 
 37
These cats seemed to stay entrained to the colony feeding station, roam very little, and 
have few if any offspring depending on time of TNR enrollment. 
Initial trapping events were valuable in estimating feral cat populations, but 
subsequent trapping events created trap savvy cats. The author recommends trapping out 
an entire feral cat colony at once to implement TNR so it does not result in intact, trap 
savvy cats being left behind in the colony.  
TNR management during 2004 and 2005 included 33 spays, 32 neuters, 1 
euthanasia, and 11 adoptions (5 kittens and 4 tame adults). By the end of the study the 
author estimates 96% of the cats regularly residing in the area (n=58) were successfully 
managed using TNR (n=56). Continued management using TNR must be maintained in 
order for population control to be effective, but this holds true for any form of population 
management. 
 
REFERENCES 
Aggie Feral Cat Alliance of Texas [AFCAT]. 2002. AFCAT home page. 
<http://www.cvm.tamu.edu/afcat/>. Accessed 10 Oct 2006. 
Alley Cat Allies [ACA]. 2002. Build an inexpensive cat shelter. 
<http://www.alleycat.org/pdf/feral_cat_shelter.pdf>. Accessed 10 Oct 2006. 
Alley Cat Allies [ACA]. 2006. ACA home page. <www.alleycat.org>. Accessed 10 Oct 
2006. 
Anderson, M. C., B. J. Martin, and G. W. Roemer. 2004. Use of matrix population 
models to estimate the efficacy of euthanasia versus trap-neuter-return for 
 38
management of free-roaming cats. Journal of American Veterinary Medical 
Association 225(12):1871-1876. 
Auburn University [AU]. 2006a. About the area. <http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/ 
welcome/aboutthearea.html>. Accessed 10 Oct. 2006.  
Auburn University [AU]. 2006b. Facts and figures. <http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/ 
welcome/factsandfigures.html>. Accessed 10 Oct 2006. 
AVMA. 2002. U. S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. Schaumburg, Illinois, 
USA. 
Castillo, D. 2001. Population estimates and behavioral analyses of managed cat (Felis 
catus) colonies located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Parks. Florida 
International University, Miami, Florida, USA 
Centonze, L. A. and J. K. Levy. 2002. Characteristics of free-roaming cats and their 
caretakers. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 220(11):1627-
1633. 
Chapman, D. G. 1951. Some properties of the hypergeometric distribution with 
applications to zoological sample censuses. University of California Publications 
on Statistics. 1:131-160. 
Foley, P., J. E. Foley, and J. K. Levy. 2005. Analysis of the impact of trap-neuter-return 
programs on populations of feral cats. Journal of American Veterinary Medical 
Association 227(11):1775-1781. 
Griffin, B. 2001. Cats, cats, everywhere, in Proceedings. Coll Vet Med Annual 
Conference, Auburn University, AL, USA. 
 39
Heilbrun, R. D., N. J. Silvy, M. E. Tewes, and M. J Peterson. 2003. Using automatically 
triggered cameras to individually identify bobcats. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 
31(3):748-755. 
Hughes, K. L., M. R. Slater, and L. Haller. 2002. The effects of implementing a feral cat 
spay/neuter program in a Florida county animal control service. Journal of 
Applied Animal Welfare Science. 5(4):285-298. 
Jacobson, H. A. J. C. Kroll, R. W. Browning, B. H. Koerth, and M. H. Conway. 1997. 
Infrared-triggered cameras for censusing white-tailed deer. Wildlife Society 
Bulletin. 25(2):547-556. 
Johnson, K., L. Lewellen, and J. Lewellen. 1994. National Pet Alliance survey report on 
Santa Clara County?s pet population. Cat Fanciers? Almanac Jan:71-77. 
Koerth, B. H., and J. C. Kroll. 2000. Bait type and timing for deer counts using cameras 
triggered by infrared monitors. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 28(3):630-635. 
Levy, J. K., D. W. Gale, and L. A Gale. 2003a. Evaluation of the effect of a long-term 
trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal 
of American Veterinary Medical Association 222(1):42-46. 
Levy, J. K. J. E. Woods, S. L. Turick, and D. L. Etheridge. 2003b. Number of unowned 
free-roaming cats in a college community in the southern United States and 
characteristics of community residents who feed them. Journal of American 
Veterinary Medical Association 223(2):202-205. 
Neville, P. F. and J. Remfry. 1984. Effect of neutering on two groups of feral cats. 
Veterinary Record, 114:447-450. 
 40
Nutter, F. B. J. F. Levine and M. K. Stoskopf. 2004. Reproductive capacity of free-
roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 225(9):1399-1402. 
Passanisi, W. C. and D. W. Macdonald. 1990. The fate of controlled feral cat colonies. 
Potters Bar, England: The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. 
Scott, K. C., J. K. Levy, and P. C Crawford. 2002. Characteristics of free-roaming cats 
evaluated in a trap-neuter-return program. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 221(8):1136-1138. 
Seber, G. A. F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters. 
Second edition. Macmillian Publishing Company, Inc., New York, NY. 653pp. 
Stanford Cat Network [SCN]. 2002. About our program. <http://www.stanford.edu/ 
group/CATNET/about.html>. Accessed 10 Oct 2006. 
University of North Texas Feral Cat Rescue Group [UNT]. 2002. UNT Feral cat rescue 
group home page. <http://orgs.unt.edu/feralcat/>. Accessed 10 Oct 2006. 
 41
Table 1. Graywood Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes. Cat numbers denoted by an 
asterisk were captured at more than one colony site. 
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat #, 
name or 
description) 
Cat trapped  
(year 1) pre-TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
5* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
7* yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
8 yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/12/2004)   
13* yes (4/2/2003) yes (4/8/2004)   
20* yes (5/9/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
23 yes (6/2/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
27 yes (7/17/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
42 no yes (4/8/2004) already TNRd 
47 no yes (5/6/2004)   
48 no yes (5/6/2004)   
50 no yes (5/6/2004)   
73 no yes (7/21/2004)   
74 no yes (7/21/2004)   
75 no yes (10/30/2004) euthanized according to OCN 
protocols 10/30/2004 (poor 
body condition, icteric, FIV+) 
77 no yes (10/30/2004)   
89 no yes (3/12/2005)   
Rocky* no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 11 times during 
year 1, missing from photos by 
year 2 
Mystery* no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 7 times during 
study 
Ash no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 5 times during 
study 
Spots Momma no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 8/29/2004 
Black tuxedo no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 3/25/2005 
Black bicolor no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 3/25/2005 
Total cats trapped 7 12   
 42
Table 2. Horticulture Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes.  
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat 
#, name or 
description) 
Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
Horticulture torti no no already TNRd 
10 yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
55 no yes (5/12/2004)  not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
Nubby no no not a colony "regular", only 
photographed 2/21/2003 
Hunter no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
Black Tuxedo no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/2/2005 
Harlequin no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 3/15/2005 
Total cats trapped 1 2   
 43
Table 3. Ingram Hall Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes. Cat numbers denoted by an 
asterisk were captured at more than one colony site. 
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat 
#, name or 
description) 
Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
Miss Kitty no no already TNRd 
Scratch no no alread TNRd 
Blue Mackeral 
Tabby 
no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/16/2003 
9 yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
14* yes (4/21/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
28 yes (7/17/2003) no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 6/17/2003,      
died 2/16/2004 
39 no yes (4/8/2004)   
78 no yes (10/30/2004)   
Solid black no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/17/2003 
Rogue no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
Black tuxedo no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
Fluff's daddy no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 12/19/2003 
Ansel's baby no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 6/18/2004 
Solid black no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
Total cats trapped 3 4   
 44
Table 4. Jennings Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes. Cat numbers denoted by an 
asterisk were captured at more than one colony site. 
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat 
#, name or 
description) 
Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
2* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
3* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
4* yes (3/28/2003) no died 12/12/2003 
5* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
6 yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
7* yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
24 yes (6/2/2003) yes (4/8/2004)   
25 yes (6/2/2003) no died 10/13/2003 
26* yes (7/17/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
32 no yes (4/8/2004)   
37 no yes (4/8/2004)   
40 no yes (4/8/2004)   
41 no yes (4/8/2004)   
Rocky* no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 12/18/2003 
Mystery* no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 8 times during 
study 
Black tuxedo no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 3/26/2005 
Total cats trapped 9 6   
 45
Table 5. Mack?s Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes. Cat numbers denoted by an 
asterisk were captured at more than one colony site. 
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat 
#, name or 
description) 
Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-
TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for 
TNR  
Comments 
2* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
3* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
4* yes (3/28/2003) no died 12/12/2003 
5* yes (3/28/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
7* yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
13* yes (4/2/2003) yes (4/8/2004)   
16 yes (5/9/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
17 yes (5/9/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
18 yes (5/9/2003) yes (4/8/2004)   
19 yes (5/9/2003) no  last sited 7/30/2004 
20* yes (5/9/2003) no died 10/1/2003 
26* yes (7/17/2003) no missing from photos by year 2 
30 yes (7/29/2003) no   
31 yes (7/29/2003) no died 7/18/2003 
36 no yes (4/8/2004)   
38 no yes (4/8/2004)   
44 no yes (4/8/2004)   
58 no yes (6/5/2004)   
61 no yes (6/5/2004)   
67 no yes (7/20/2004)   
68 no yes (7/20/2004)   
69 no yes (7/20/2004)   
71 no yes (7/20/2004)   
84 no yes (3/5/2005)   
85 no yes (3/5/2005)   
86 no yes (3/5/2005)   
Tuxedo torby no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 3 times during study 
Mystery*  no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 13 times during study 
Blue no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during study 
Brown classic tux 
tabby 
no no not a colony "regular",                
only photographed 1/15/2004 
Total cats trapped 14 15   
 46
Table 6. Thach Hall Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes. Cat numbers denoted by an 
asterisk were captured at more than one colony site. 
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat #, 
name or 
description) 
Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
1 yes (3/28/2003) yes (4/8/2004) already TNRd,  adopted 
5/2004 
Bruiser no no already TNRd 
11 yes (3/30/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
12 yes (3/30/2003) yes (7/20/2004)   
14* yes (4/21/2003) yes (5/6/2004)   
33 no yes (4/8/2004) adopted 4/9/2004 
34 no yes (4/8/2004) adopted 4/9/2004 
35 no yes (4/8/2004)   
43 no yes (4/8/2004)   
45 no yes (5/6/2004)   
49 no yes (5/6/2004)   
52 no yes (5/12/2004)   
DLH classic tabby 
kitten 
no no  
black with locket 
kitten 
no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 3 times during 
study 
red classic tabby no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 1/21/2004 
cream mack tux tabby no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 3/15/2005 
Total cats trapped 4 11   
 47
Table 7. Theta Xi Photographic Results. Individual cats identified in photographs 
compared to trapping records during the study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Cats with 
a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped during pre-TNR (year 1) 
were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR management (year 2) were 
numbered 32-90. All cats that were photographed, but not trapped were named or 
described by their coat patterns for identification purposes. 
 
Cats captured in 
photographs (cat 
#, name or 
description) 
Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
Theta Xi Momma no no already TNRd 
15 yes (4/21/2003) no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
22 yes (5/9/2003) no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 6/5/2004 
56 no yes (6/5/2004)   
81 no yes (3/5/2005)  not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/15/2005 
82 no yes (3/5/2005)  not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/26/2005 
pet cat no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/23/2003 
red smoke mack 
tabby 
no no not a colony "regular",              
only photographed 2/27/2003 
blue tuxedo  no no not a colony "regular", 
photographed 2 times during 
study 
Total cats trapped 2 3   
 
 48
Table 8. Cats Trapped and Not Photographed. Individual cats identified during 
trapping events compared to photographic surveys during the study in Auburn, Alabama 
2003-2005. Cats with a specified number were trapped during the study. Cats trapped 
during pre-TNR (year 1) were numbered 1-31 and additional cats trapped during TNR 
management (year 2) were numbered 32-90.  
 
Cats 
captured in 
photographs 
(cat #, name 
or 
description) 
Location Cat trapped 
(year 1) pre-
TNR 
Cat trapped 
(year 2) for TNR  
Comments 
21 Mack's yes 
(5/9/2003) 
no died from collar 5/2003 
29 Mack's yes 
(5/9/2003) 
no died from collar 5/2003 
46 Terrel Hall no yes (5/6/2004) adjacent to Horticulture 
51 Graywood no yes (5/12/2004) 
not a colony "regular" 
53 Funderburk no yes (5/12/2004) 1 block from Mack's  
54 Funderburk no yes (5/12/2004) 1 block from Mack's  
57 Funderburk no yes (6/5/2004) 1 block from Mack's  
59 Glen Oaks no yes (6/5/2004) next to Mack's, kitten 
adopted 
60 Mack's no yes (6/5/2004) kitten adopted 
62 University 
Gardens 
no yes (6/5/2004) next to Mack's 
63 Business 
Building 
no yes (6/5/2004) 1 block from Thach Hall, 
tame adult adopted 
64 Miller Hall no yes (7/20/2004) 1 block from Thach Hall, cat 
#12's kitten returned 
65 Miller Hall no yes (7/20/2004) 1 block from Thach Hall, cat 
#12's kitten returned 
66 Miller Hall no yes (7/20/2004) 1 block from Thach Hall, cat 
#12's kitten returned 
70 Miller Hall no yes (7/20/2004) 1 block from Thach Hall, cat 
#12's kitten returned 
72 Poultry no yes (7/21/2004) 1 mile from Horticulture, 
kitten returned 
76 Mack's no yes (10/30/2004) kitten adopted 
79 
Graywood 
no yes (10/30/2004) 
not a colony "regular" 
80 Miller Hall no yes (3/5/2005) 1 block from Thach Hall, cat 
#12's kitten returned 
83 RR no yes (3/5/2005) behind Graywood, tame 
adult returned to owner 
87 RR no yes (3/12/2005) behind Graywood, tame 
adult returned to owner 
88 
Mack's 
no yes (3/12/2005) 
not a colony "regular" 
90 
Jennings 
no yes (3/28/2005) 
tame adult adopted 
Total cats trapped  2 21 
  
 49
 
 
Figure 1. Ear-tipped cat. The tip of the left ear is removed as a standard symbol of a cat 
that has been sterilized in a TNR program. This cat (named ?Scratch? by his caretaker), 
was sterilized through Auburn University?s TNR program Operation Cat Nap on July 29, 
2001. 
 
50 
Figure 2. Feeding Station Map. Feral cat feeding station locations in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. 
 
 
Figure 3. Feeder Installation. Establishment of feeding station during December 2002 
at Graywood Apartments? feral cat colony in Auburn, Alabama. All wooden feeders are 
raised off the ground with bricks and securely installed using 4? metal fence posts. 
Feeders are equipped with a reservoir-type waterer, pet food type bowl or reservoir-type 
feeder (not pictured), and an infrared-triggered camera. A latch was used to lock the roof 
down for security. 
 
 51
 
Figure 4. Feeding Station. Feral cats using a feeding station at Thach Hall on the 
Auburn University campus, 2003-2005.
 52
 
 
Figure 5. View of feeder interior. View from above of the interior of a feral cat feeder 
in Auburn, Alabama, 2003-2005. Note the infrared-triggered camera (left) and reservoir-
type waterer and pint-sized pet food bowl (right). 
 53
 
Figure 6. Camera Census.  Representative photograph from a feeding station. In this 
photograph, cat #4 (identified by coat color and radio collar) is recaptured on film on 
April 10
th
, 2003 at 5:41 pm in the Jennings feeding station on the Auburn University 
campus.  
 54
 
 
Figure 7. Holding Procedures for Feral Cats. Feral cats inside Tomahawk traps (model 
#606 and #608) fitted with food and water bowls (waterproof pads to cover traps not 
shown) during holding for study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Note elevation of traps 
above floor for sanitary purposes. 
 
 
 55
Graywood Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
March - April
2003
June - July
2003
Sept - Oct.
2003
Dec. 2003 -
Jan. 2004
March - April
2004
June - July
2004
Sept - Oct.
2004
Dec. 2004 -
Jan. 2005
Average Sampling Periods
Nu
m
b
er
 o
f
 C
a
t
s
Average Population Estimates Cats Trapped
Post-TNR InitiationPre-TNR
 
Figure 8. Graywood Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results. Feral cat 
population estimates using the Chapman model with 95% confidence interval as well as 
trapping results for Graywood feral cat colony in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. A total of 
12 cats were managed by TNR in year 2.  
 
 
 56
Jennings' Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
March - April
2003
June - July
2003
Sept - Oct.
2003
Dec. 2003 -
Jan. 2004
March - April
2004
June - July
2004
Sept - Oct.
2004
Dec. 2004 -
Jan. 2005
Average Sampling Periods
Nu
m
b
er o
f
 
Cats
Average Population Estimates Cats Trapped
Pre-TNR Post-TNR Initiation
 
 
Figure 9. Jennings? Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results. Feral cat 
population estimates using the Chapman model with 95% confidence interval as well as 
trapping results for Graywood feral cat colony in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. A total of 
6 cats were managed by TNR in year 2.  
 57
Mack's Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
June - July
2003
Sept - Oct.
2003
Dec. 2003 -
Jan. 2004
March - April
2004
June - July
2004
Sept - Oct.
2004
Dec. 2004 -
Jan. 2005
Average Sampling Periods
Nu
m
b
er o
f Ca
ts
Average Population Estimates Cats Trapped
Pre-TNR Post-TNR Initiation
 
 
Figure 10. Mack?s Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results. Feral cat 
population estimates using the Chapman model with 95% confidence interval as well as 
trapping results for Graywood feral cat colony in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. A total of 
15 cats were managed by TNR in year 2. 
 
 
 58
Thach Hall Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results
16.00
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
March - April
2003
June - July
2003
Sept - Oct.
2003
Dec. 2003 -
Jan. 2004
March - April
2004
June - July
2004
Sept - Oct.
2004
Dec. 2004 -
Jan. 2005
Average Sampling Periods
Nu
mb
e
r
 o
f
 Cat
s
Average Population Estimates Cats Trapped
Pre-TNR Post-TNR Initiation
 
 
Figure 11. Thach Hall Feral Cat Population Estimates and Trapping Results. Feral 
cat population estimates using the Chapman model with 95% confidence interval as well 
as trapping results for Graywood feral cat colony in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. A total 
of 11 cats were managed by TNR in year 2.
 59
III. FERAL CAT HOME RANGE AND HABITAT USE IN AUBURN, ALABAMA 
Kimberly B. Subacz
1,a,b
, H. Lee Stribling
1
, Brenda Griffin
2
 and Theron Terhune
3 
 
1
 School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849, USA 
2 
College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853-6401, USA 
3
 Daniel B. Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, The University of 
Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-2152, USA 
 
a
 Email: byrdkim@auburn.edu 
b
 Current address: 130 Gold Mill Place, Canton, GA, 30114, USA 
 
Abstract: 
The goal of this study was to examine the feral cat?s home range and determine 
preferred habitat and use frequency in relation to a Trap Neuter Return (TNR) program. 
Home range and habitat use data were compared for 1 year before and 1 year after 
implementing TNR.  
The mean home ranges were calculated as minimum convex polygons or (MCP) 
and then categorized by sex and TNR status. The MCPs were compared using the 
proc_glm ANOVA with Tukey?s multiple comparison test. Overall the model was not 
significant (F=2.67) with p=0.0668. There were differences among male ( X =8.5 pre-
TNR and X =3.6 post-TNR) and female ( X =2.5 pre-TNR and X =2.2. post-TNR) home 
ranges, but due to a small sample size and high variability the results were not significant.   
Preferred habitat of individual cats was determined using radio telemetry and 
visual identification. Lawn, hardscape and structures composed over 65% of the study 
 60
 61
area with roadway, landscaping, woods, scrub, and water composing the other portion of 
study area. The most common habitats in the pre-TNR and post-TNR initiation MCP 
were hardscape, structures, and landscaping. Within the MCP both pre-TNR and post-
TNR initiation feral cats significantly preferred woods over other habitat types.  
Key Words:  feral cat, home range, habitat use, Alabama, Felis catus, trap neuter 
return. 
INTRODUCTION 
Feral cats are defined as ?wild? offspring of domestic cats that have been 
abandoned by their owners (Griffin 2001). According to Levy et al. (2003b) feral cats are 
offspring born without human socialization or were owned cats returned to the wild that 
do not trust humans. Accurate estimates of the feral cat population do not exist, however 
it is suspected that their population is similar to that of owned cats which was 70.8 
million in the United States in 2001 (Levy et al. 2003a, AVMA 2002).  The free-roaming 
cat population (defined here as both feral and stray cat populations) was estimated to 
represent as much as 44% of the domestic cat population in Alachua County, Florida 
study (Levy et al 2003b). Santa Clara County, California estimates stray cats are 41% of 
the total known cat population (Johnson et al. 1994). 
Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) has been in practice for over 25 years (Hammond 
1981 and Jackson 1981) but is relatively new to the United States. Cats are trapped, 
spayed or neutered, checked for and vaccinated against disease, and then returned to their 
home colony. The tip of the left ear is cropped as a standard symbol of being enrolled in a 
TNR program. Caretakers are identified and are responsible for monitoring and feeding 
the cats in their colony. 
 62
Past feral cat colony control has often been restricted to exterminations attempts, 
but TNR is rapidly becoming a more acceptable control method. Public outcry can be a 
powerful reason not to euthanize feral cat colonies (Passanisi and McDonald 1990) and 
can be influential in the policy making. For example, policies protecting wild horses and 
burros in the United States and harp seal pups in Canada directly resulted from pressure 
exerted by the public and animal protection organizations (Levy 2000). Slater (2004) 
states that public dynamic is shifting towards viewing companion animals as more 
valuable than just their monetary value. A recent study determined that the general public 
is slightly more supportive of TNR (54.6%) as opposed to removal (42.2%) for cats 
located on the Texas A&M University campus (Ash 2001). This same questionnaire 
determined the public valued the lives of wildlife and the lives of feral cats with the same 
importance (Ash and Adams 2003). This same study estimated that 44% of the public 
agreed feral cat overpopulation was a serious biological issue but did not value the lives 
of wildlife species more than the lives of the feral cats (Ash and Adams 2003). 
A few studies have examined the usefulness of TNR at reducing the population of 
feral cat colonies. One study conducted in a London park successfully controlled the 
population of 2 feral cat colonies. This TNR program decreased the colony numbers, 
reduced aggressive behavior within the colony, and eliminated cat predation of waterfowl 
(Neville and Remfry1984). In contrast, a Miami, Florida study found TNR ineffective at 
controlling feral cat populations over 1 year due to influx of abandoned cats at the site 
(Castillo 2001). Castillo?s (2001) study was conducted at 2 south Florida public parks 
with highly visible, well-fed, and well-publicized feral cat colonies. Levy et al. (2003a) 
evaluated an 11-year long TNR and adoption program on the University of Central 
 63
Florida with the following results ?A comprehensive long-term program of neutering 
followed by adoption or return to the resident colony can result in reduction of free-
roaming cat populations in urban areas.? After Orange County Florida?s animal control 
service implemented a TNR program, complaints leading to impounded cats and 
euthanasia of impounded cats decreased while surgeries and adoption rates increased, 
saving the county money (Hughes et al. 2002). 
Home ranges and habitat use have been determined on a number of species 
(Conner et al. 1999, Hartke and Hepp 2004, Terhune et. al. 2006 ) including feral cats 
(Ash 2001, Hall et al. 2002, Izawa et al. 1982, Liberg 1980, Page et al. 1992). Liberg 
(1980) investigated home range patterns of a population of feral cats in Sweden using 
visual observations, trapping, and radio tracking. This study found a difference in home 
ranges as minimum convex polygons (MCP) relative to the sex and reproductive status of 
feral cats in Sweden (Liberg 1980).  With abundant resources similar to those found on 
college campuses, feral cats have smaller overlapping home ranges when compared to 
feral cats with low food predictability (Ash, 2001; Izawa et al., 1982; Page et al., 1992).  
Hartke and Hepp (2004) determined habitat use of wood ducks using radio 
telemetry triangulation then plotting MCPs and creating a habitat map in ARCVIEW
?
 
GIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2000a). Habitat use or compositional 
analysis was determined using ArcINFO
?
 GIS (Environmental Systems Research 
Institute 2000b) and MANOVA. Terhune et al. (2006) also used radio telemetry to locate 
bobwhite quail. The quail locations were plotted onto aerial photographs and then 
digitized into ARCVIEW
?
 GIS (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2000a) to 
 64
create 95% MCP home ranges. Hall et al. (2000) was able to calculate home range using 
CALHOME, habitat analysis was determined as well as scat analysis.  
The goal of this study was to examine the feral cat?s home range and determine 
preferred habitat and use frequency for 1 year prior to TNR management and 1 year post 
management. We hope to achieve our objectives through a combination of methods 
similar to Hartke and Hepp (2004) and Terhune et al. (2006) to estimate home range and 
habitat use. The first goal of this study was to examine the feral cat?s home range in 
relation to TNR management. Home range was calculated using GPS locations obtained 
from radio telemetry and visual identification into an individual MCP. Data were 
compared for all cats and then further categorized into gender one year before and one 
year after TNR was implemented. 
The second objective was to determine which habitats were preferred by feral cats 
in relation to TNR management. MCPs of individual cats were determined using GPS 
locations obtained from radio telemetry and visual identification. Preferred habitat of 
individual animals was obtained and data were compared for one year before and one 
year after TNR was implemented. The eight habitats were pooled to determine which 
general habitat areas were favored by feral cats. These data were also compared for 1 
year before and 1 year after TNR was implemented. 
Reducing the feral cat overpopulation problem in a humane manner is the primary 
goal of TNR. Given the growing popularity of this method of feral cat population control, 
more studies are needed to understand its effects not only on the cats, but the surrounding 
environment as well. We hope this study will generate more information on the impacts 
TNR has on feral cat home ranges and habitat use. 
 65
STUDY AREA 
Seven feral cat colonies located on the Auburn University campus (Figure 1) and 
the immediate areas surrounding campus in downtown Auburn, Alabama were selected 
for the 2003-2005 study.  These colonies were surrounded by a relatively dense human 
population. On average 23,000 students are present on campus at any time with 3,680 
(16%) of them residing on the 745 hectare campus (AU 2006b). Auburn University 
employs approximately 9,400 faculty and staff. At the time of this study, the combined 
population of Auburn and its adjoining city Opelika was approximately 66,000 (AU 
2006a). Feral cat colonies have been documented on the campus for at least 30 years 
preceding the study (Griffin, B., Auburn University, personal communication).  
The 7 feral colonies (Graywood, Horticulture, Ingram Hall, Jennings, Mack?s, 
Thach Hall, and Theta Xi) chosen for this project were selected because to the authors? 
knowledge they had no regular caretaker or previous management efforts (Figure 1). A 
feeding station was installed in the area where these feral cats were known to reside. Each 
colony was assigned a volunteer caretaker. Caretakers were provided with basic 
information about feral cats and TNR as well as a description of the project. Appendix A 
contains the orientation materials and instructions for the caretakers. A standardized 
commercial dry cat food (Purina ONE Salmon and Tuna flavor, Nestl? Purina PetCare 
Company, St. Louis, MO) was provided as needed for the duration of the study. 
Caretakers were told to provide food and fresh water daily, preferably in the morning to 
minimize the amount of food left in the shelter during the night when wildlife species 
were more likely to be present. Caretakers were also asked to record descriptions of cats 
sited at their feeders. All 7 feeders and colonies were cared for and monitored for 1 year 
 66
before and 1 year after the TNR program began.  Besides designated caretakers, feeding 
stations were maintained and monitored by the authors and student assistants as needed.  
METHODS 
Feeding stations were installed and cats were entrained to a routine of feeding at a 
minimum of every 3 days by early March 2003. During the pre-TNR phase of the project, 
cats were trapped during 6 different trapping events between March and July, 2003 when 
the majority of the population was captured based on photographic censuses. Using the 
photographic censuses and visual identification, it was estimated approximately 31 cats 
were regularly seen at the 7 feral cat colonies. These 31 initial cats were to be monitored 
for 1 year before the TNR program and 1 year after initiating the TNR program. 
Caretakers were advised to withhold food and empty feeding stations 2 days prior to each 
trapping period. Cats were trapped from dusk until dawn over the course of several days 
according to protocol of the Auburn University feral cat program, Operation Cat Nap 
(Appendix B). Trapping occurred around the established feeding stations using baited 
Tomahawk live traps model #606 (approximately 26? long X 9? wide X 9? high) 
(Tomahawk Live Trap Company, Tomahawk, WI). Bait used included canned mackerel 
and a standardized commercial dry cat food (Purina ONE Salmon and Tuna flavor, Nestl? 
Purina PetCare Company, St. Louis, MO, USA) the cats were already eating. Other bait 
techniques such as used kitty litter were attempted with unsuccessful results.  
Pre-TNR (year 1) laboratory protocol 
Captured cats were transported to the multi-purpose laboratory of the College of 
Veterinary Medicine (an IACUC approved facility) and held in their cages for the 
duration of each trapping phase and data collection. In order to transport feral cats safely, 
 67
personnel handling the cats were vaccinated against rabies and wore thick leather gloves. 
There were no scratch or bite incidents during this study. Cats were held for no longer 
than 4 days in their traps. Each trap was covered with a thick, waterproof pad, outfitted 
with a food and water bowl, and elevated off the ground for removal of waste during 
holding (Figure 2).  
Anesthesia 
Captured feral cats were anesthetized with an anesthetic cocktail called TKX 
(Telazol + Ketamine + Xylazine) at a dosage of 0.15 -0.25 mL per cat depending on the 
size of the cat (Williams et al. 2002 and Cistola et al. 2004) prior to removal from trap. 
Cats were handled in a humane manner and all procedures complied with the 
requirements of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee for Auburn University 
(IACUC # 2002-0137). Cats were injected while in the traps by using a trap divider to 
confine the cat to one end of the trap to allow intramuscular (IM) injection into the hind 
limb musculature. If additional anesthetic time was required, isoflurane and oxygen via 
mask or endotracheal tube were administered as needed. 
Data Collection 
Each cat trapped was assigned a sequential identification number (numbers 1-31 
for year 1). Individual data on each cat was collected during physical examination 
including: cat #, date trapped, date of data collection, date released, location trapped, size 
of cat (small, medium, large), sex, coat color and pattern, distinguishing features, eye 
color, domestic short hair or domestic long hair (DSH, DLH) coat length, estimated age, 
body weight (lbs), general body condition, reproductive status, administration of 
subcutaneous (SQ) fluids, results of Feline Leukemia Virus and Feline 
 68
Immunodeficiency Virus (FeLV/FIV) testing, rabies vaccination, penicillin injection (if 
necessary), microchip number, radio collar, and frequency (Appendix C). Coat color and 
pattern were determined using the Cat Coat Color Chart developed by Operation Cat Nap 
(Subacz and Griffin 2002). General body condition was determined using Purina?s Body 
Condition Chart (Purina 2002).  In addition, each cat was photographed to aid in future 
identification. Rabies vaccinations (Imrab 3, Merial Pharmaceuticals, Duluth, GA) were 
administered subcutaneously in the right hind limb of each cat and blood was collected 
via jugular venipuncture and tested for FIV and FeLV (snap IDEXX Laboratories, Inc., 
Westbrook, ME). 
Radio Transmitters and Microchips 
Cats of varying ages (14 weeks to 9 years) were fitted with transmitters attached 
to adjustable collars model TS-24 (Telemetry Solutions, Concord, CA). The radio 
transmitter batteries were designed to last 24 months at 55 pulses/min, weighed 13 grams, 
and were equipped with a mortality/activity switch. Each collar had a nylon covering to 
protect the built in antenna (Figure 3). This nylon cover was spray painted a distinct color 
to help with identification of similar looking cats at the same colony site. Finally, all cats 
were implanted with identification microchips subcutaneously on the dorsum between the 
shoulder blades (Home Again, Schering-Plough Animal Health Corporation, Kenilworth, 
NJ).  
Anesthetic Reversal and Release 
Anesthetic reversal was achieved with yohimbine (2mg/ml; 0.5 ml/cat IM or IV). 
An additional dose of yohimbine was given after 30 minutes if reversal results were 
inadequate. The cat was returned to the trap immediately after reversal. Carefully 
 69
monitored heat lamps were used to ensure adequate body warming during recovery. Cats 
were monitored overnight following anesthesia to assess any effects from sedation. Once 
it was determined the cats were awake, alert, and eating they were released at their 
individual colony location. 
Post-TNR initiation (year 2) Laboratory Protocol 
For the study, Trap-Neuter-Return program procedures began in April of 2004. 
Trapping and general laboratory procedures were repeated according to previous methods 
during 9 separate trapping events spanning from April 2004 until April 2005. All cats 
trapped during this period (11 previously radio collared cats and all new cats #32-90) 
were managed according to Operation Cat Nap guidelines as described above. Radio 
collars began to fail beginning in July and August 2003 and feral cats were unable to be 
monitored via radio telemetry. By the onset of 2004 TNR management, only 11 cats were 
able to be located via radio telemetry. The remaining 11 original cats were recaptured in 
April and May of 2004 and fitted with new radio collars designed by the same company. 
After the 11 original cats were fitted with new collars 3 surplus radio collars remained 
from the 14 collars purchased for post-TNR monitoring. These 3 extra radio collars were 
assigned to 3 new feral cats managed with TNR in 2004 and monitored via radio 
telemetry for the duration of the study.   
Data Collection 
The data collection in 2004 was similar to the data collection in 2003. The 
following information was added to the data collection sheets due to management: eartip, 
sterilize, FVRCP, Ivomec, Frontline, packed cell volume, and total solids. Cats were 
given a complete physical examination, Rabies vaccination, Feline Viral Rhinotracheitis, 
 70
Calicivirus, Panleukopenia (FVRCP) vaccination, Ivomec 1% solution 0.1 ml/cat 
subcutaneously (to treat ear mites, round and hook worms), FeLV/FIV testing, Frontline 
Plus Top Spot (for flea control), Procaine Penicillin G (if needed), the distal tip of the left 
ear was removed, and every cat was sterilized. Cats that were pregnant or dehydrated also 
received 150 ml lactated ringers solution subcutaneously. Cats were monitored for 24 
hours post surgery and then released at their colony locations. At the end of the study in 
2005, radio collars were removed and data were collected from 5 of the 14 remaining 
radio collared cats. The remaining cats with radio collars were too trap savvy at this point 
in the study to capture a third time despite employing alternative trapping methods such 
as a drop traps.  
Radio Tracking 
Cats were released and monitored using radio telemetry after a 1-week recovery 
period to allow for any effects resulting from capture. Telemetry locations were 
determined using a collapsible Yagi antenna and RX-98E receiver (Televilt, Telemetry 
Solutions, Concord, CA). For 2 years each cat was located, every third day, at a randomly 
selected time. Time periods sampled were morning crepuscular 7-9 am, midday 3-5 pm, 
and evening crepuscular 7-9 pm. When a cat was located, a single point was taken using a 
handheld Global Positioning System or GPS unit (GARMIN eTrex Vista, GARMIN 
International, Inc., Olathe, KS) as close as possible to the cat. Triangulation was not 
necessary because close approach to the majority of cats was possible.  The author could 
get within a few feet of all of the feral cats except when habitat prevented this i.e.: under 
buildings, very thick brush, or fenced in areas. Every effort was made not to disturb the 
cats? normal behavior. Cats were located from April 10
th
, 2003 to March 24
th
, 2005. 
 71
During radio telemetry monitoring, any cats sited visually were noted as well as any 
behaviors of significance i.e.: hunting, fighting, predation, etc. 
DATA ANALYSIS 
We used a the DNR Garmin extension 4.01
?
 (? 2006 Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources) to download GPS locations into ARCVIEW
?
  GIS (Environmental 
Systems Research Institute 2000a) to plot the feral cat and feeding station locations with 
aerial photographs of the area. These data were combined using ARCINFO
?
 
(Environmental Systems Research Institute 2000b) and the Hawth?s Analysis Tool 
extension (Beyer 2004) to calculate feral cat home range and a habitat map for 2003-
2005.  Feral cat home ranges were estimated with the 95% minimum convex polygon 
method. Differences between pre-TNR and post-TNR as well as male and female home 
ranges were conducted using proc_glm ANOVA with Tukey?s multiple comparison test 
in SAS ? version 8.2 (SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC, USA). Differences were considered 
significant when P<0.05.  
Using aerial photos from 1997 of the colony locations, the author was able to 
break down the study area into the following habitat types: structures, lawn, hardscapes, 
scrub, woods, landscaping, roadways, and water (Table 1). These habitat types were 
delineated in ARCINFO
?
 (Environmental Systems Research Institute 2000b) as a habitat 
map which was combined with the feral cat home ranges (Figure 4).  
We used compositional analysis to determine whether habitat use varied with 
TNR treatment (Aebischer et al. 1993). Compositional analysis was determined using 
Compos Analysis (Smith 2004). Second and third order habitat analysis were compared 
for pre-TNR and post-TNR management. Utilized habitat types were then pooled into 3 
catagories: natural areas (scrub and woods), man-made areas (structures, hardscape and 
roads), and a combined category (lawn and landscaping). Second order analysis describes 
the type of habitats found in the feral cat home ranges or MCP (use) within the total study 
area (availability). Third order analysis uses the feral cat GPS locations (use) to 
determine which habitat types are most used within the MCP (availability).  
RESULTS 
Thirty four cats were captured and monitored via radio telemetry collars and 
visual observations producing 2173 GPS locations (1674 pre-TNR and 499 post-TNR 
initiation). Cats were monitored at three different times of the day (7-9 am, 3-5 pm, and 
7-9 pm). We hoped to be able to analyze GPS locations to determine if there was a 
difference in feral cat activity at different times of day. This was not possible due to 
failure of handheld GPS to log date and time with each location. Based on visual 
observations and radio telemetry surveys, the author did not observe a significant 
difference in activity level between diurnal periods and the midday period as seen in 
other works (Haspel and Calhoon 1993 and Conner et al. 1999). Captures of non-target 
species during trapping events included raccoons (Procyon lotor) and opossums 
(Didelphis virginiana). Unfortunately 1 male kitten died in 2003 shortly after release due 
to radio collar strangulation.  
Pre-TNR MCPs (Figure 5) and post-TNR initiation MCPs were determined for 24 
of the 34 cats (10 females and 14 males) monitored with radio collars. Ten cats were 
excluded from calculations due to insufficient numbers of locations (<30). Overall the 
model was not significant (F=2.67) with p=0.0668. There were differences among male 
pre-TNR ( X =8.5, SD=8.2, n=14) and post-TNR ( X =3.6, SD=2.1, n=3) as well as 
 72
female pre-TNR ( X =2.5, SD=2.5, n=9) and post-TNR initiation ( X =2.2, SD=2.1, n=6) 
home ranges (Figure 6). Due to small sample size and high variability the results were not 
significant. Although average home ranges for males did not differ significantly it is 
worth noting that older (>1 year) pre-TNR males had a much larger home ranges 
( X =9.4, n=9) when compared to the older (>1 year) post-TNR initiation males home 
ranges ( X =3.6, n=3). 
Habitat use was analyzed using the same 24 individual cats catagorized into pre-
TNR (N=23) and post-TNR (N=9). The habitat in the study was composed of hardscape 
(22.8%), landscaping (9.6%), lawn (27.3%), roadway (11%), structures (15.6%), water 
(0.3%), woods (10.9%) and scrub (2.5%) (Table 1). The simplified ranking matrix of pre-
TNR cats (Table 2a) ordered the preferred habitat types within the study area as 
hardscape > structures > landscaping > roadway > lawn > scrub > woods with water not 
utilized at all. Hardscape, structures and landscaping composed significantly more in the 
MCP within the study area than lawn, roadway, water and woods habitat types. Pre-TNR 
cats prefered woods > scrub > hardscape > landscaping > structures > lawn with roadway 
not used at all within the MCP (Table 2b). Woods habitat was significantly preferred by 
the cats over lawn and roadway within the pre-TNR cats? home range.  
The simplified ranking matrix of post-TNR initiation cats (Table 3a) ordered the 
preferred habitat types within the study area as landscaping > hardscape > structures > 
roadway > lawn > scrub > woods with water not utilized at all. Landscaping, hardscape, 
and structures composed significantly more in the MCP within the study area than lawn, 
roadway, water and woods habitat types. Post-TNR initiation cats preferred woods > 
hardscape > structures > scrub > landscaping > lawn with roadway not used at all within 
 73
 74
the MCP (Table 3b). Woods habitat was significantly preferred by the cats over lawn 
within the post-TNR initiation cats? home range.  
Second order analysis of pooled habitat use within the study area for pre-TNR 
cats were ranked the same as those for post-TNR initiation cats (Table 4a ? 5a). Man-
made habitats (hardscape, roads, and structures) were significantly preferred habitats over 
natural habitat (scrub and woods) and combination habitat (landscaping and lawn). Third 
order analysis of pooled habitat use within the MCP demonstrates pre-TNR cats preferred 
natural habitats (scrub and woods) over man-made and combination habitat types (Table 
4b). This is slightly different among post-TNR initiation cats as they seem to prefer man-
made habitats (hardscape, roads, and structures) over other habitat types (Table 5b). The 
difference in pre-TNR and post-TNR initiation pooled habitat preference is not 
significant.   
DISCUSSION 
Mean home range size post-TNR initiation was comparable, although somewhat 
smaller than those estimated by Ash (2001). The smaller home range size might be due to 
the different habitats and feeding circumstances between the two different studies. In this 
study, three feeding stations are positioned within 0.5 miles (0.8 km) of each other. These 
feeding stations are supplemented by dumpsters located at the many apartment 
complexes within the study area. Feral cats were frequently observed feeding in 
dumpsters. The 24 cats monitored had a high level of food predictability. Turner and 
Bateson (2000) hypothesized that female home ranges are determined by food abundance 
and distribution. Our results support this theory since the home ranges of females (pre-
TNR and post-TNR initiation) were smaller than those of males (pre-TNR and post-TNR 
 75
initiation) and condensed around the areas of the multiple feeding stations and apartment 
dumpsters. According to Turner and Bateson (2000) and similar studies (Ash 2001, 
Liberg 1980) male home ranges are three times larger than those of females. This was 
also reflected in our results and suggests breeding is a key factor in territory size as found 
by Liberg (1980), and Turner and Bateson (2000). There are 3 times the number of 
locations pre-TNR as those of post-TNR initiation and this must be taken into 
consideration as a possible bias.  
Lawn, hardscape and structures composed over 65% of the study area with 
roadway, landscaping, woods, scrub, and water composing the other portion of study 
area. The most common habitats in the pre-TNR and post-TNR initiation MCP were 
hardscape, structures, and landscaping. Within the MCP both pre-TNR and post-TNR 
initiation feral cats significantly preferred woods over other habitat types.  
Kittens were seen in feeders at approximately 4-6 weeks of age during peak kitten 
season in March and April of 2003 and 2004. No kittens were observed in March 2005. 
The most probable reason for this is a majority of the feral cats were participating in 
TNR, and therefore did not reproduce. Queens preferred to nest in areas inaccessible to 
the author (under buildings, deep in thick woods, in abandoned houses). Pregnant queens 
were noted in visual monitoring, but only 2 litters were found by the author. One litter 
was in a row of bushes between apartments and the other was under a set of concrete 
stairs surrounded by overgrown vegetation. The litter in the bushes had 4 kittens: 1 died 
at 2 days old, 1 was adopted by the author, 1 was found dead in the parking lot and the 
other kitten went missing around the same time frame of 3 months of age. Following the 
initial siting by the author, the mother moved the litter under the staircase after the nearby 
 76
vegetation was cleared by the property manager. The mother was sited for another 2 
months before her disappearance and the kittens were never seen after the initial siting. 
Often times queens in the same colony were pregnant at the same time and multiple 
kittens would emerge at 12-14 weeks of age.  It would be very difficult to quantify the 
rate of kitten mortality in this study, but the author believes it to be similar to those found 
by Nutter et al (2004) of 75%. Therefore, the author recommends spaying all pregnant 
queens and taming and adopting all small kittens during TNR management. The author 
also believes mortality of all feral cats can vary depending on certain factors such as: 
diligence of the caretaker, location of colony, TNR status, etc. Male cats were the first 
and most numerous cats to disappear from colonies before TNR was implemented. Of the 
original 20 male cats, 30% of them were still sited by the end of the study as compared to 
55% of the original 11 females. 
Over the 2 year study aggressive behavior among feral cats was witnessed only 2 
times by the author and no predation was witnessed. Occasionally cats were observed 
stalking prey, but no successful capture of prey was ever witnessed by the author. Most 
cats observed were consistently non-aggressive and seemed to have a social hierarchy 
when feeding and resting.  
MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS 
This method of analysis yielded successful results. Radio transmitter failure was 
the most limiting factor of this study since some failed after only 3 months and a full 2 
years of data could not be used in the analysis. Only 12 collars remained functioning in 
the field by the end of the first year. Feral cat mortality was also a factor. Out of the 
original 31 cats, 14 or 74 % of males and 5 or 42% of females did not complete the 2-
 77
year study. Some cats were known to have been killed while others went missing from 
the colonies and could not be tracked due to collar failure or loss. The author 
recommends radio collars with adjustable bands for a secure fit to prevent cats from 
getting their lower jaw caught in the collar. No difference in habitat use was observed by 
the author during the different times of day and is therefore probably not necessary in 
obtaining unbiased results. TNR significantly decreased the feral cats? home ranges, but 
did not significantly alter their habitat preferences. One could theorize that if TNR 
reduced feral cat home range size, then they are roaming less, have a somewhat smaller 
risk of trauma (such as being struck by a car), and have much fewer nuisance behaviors 
associated with breeding. In the author?s opinion, when TNR was performed on younger 
cats (approximately 3-4 months old) the cats grew up to have a smaller home range and a 
smaller ?touch barrier? making them seem less feral when compared to cats enrolled in 
the TNR program as adults. Some cats (mostly kittens and 1 adult) became tame after 
TNR and were adopted. The author also recommends trapping out an entire colony site at 
once when implementing TNR so it does not result in intact, trap savvy cats being left 
behind in the colony. 
LITERATURE CITED 
Aebischer, N. J., P. A. Robertson and R. E. Kenward. 1993. Compositional analysis of 
habitat use from animal radio-tracking data. Ecology 74(5): 1313-1325. 
Ash, S. J. 2001. Ecological and sociological considerations of using TTVAR (Trap, Test, 
Vaccinate, Alter, Return) method to control free-ranging domestic cat, Felis 
catus, populations. Texas A&M University. 
 78
Ash, S. J. and C. E. Adams. 2003. Public preferences for free-ranging domestic cat (Felis 
catus) management options. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(2):334-339. 
Auburn University [AU]. 2006a. About the area. <http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/ 
welcome/aboutthearea.html>. Accessed 10 Oct. 2006.  
Auburn University [AU]. 2006b. Facts and figures. <http://www.ocm.auburn.edu/ 
welcome/factsandfigures.html>. Accessed 10 Oct 2006. 
AVMA. 2002. U. S. Pet Ownership & Demographics Sourcebook. Schaumburg, Illinois. 
USA. 
Beyer, H. L. 2004. Hawth's Analysis Tools for ArcGIS. 
<http://www.spatialecology.com/htools>. Accessed 13 Oct 2006. 
Castillo, D. 2001. Population estimates and behavioral analyses of managed cat (Felis 
catus) colonies located in Miami-Dade County, Florida, Parks. Florida 
International University, Miami, Florida, USA 
Cistola, A. M., F. J. Golder, L. A. Centonze, L. W. McKay, J. K. Levy. 2004. Anesthetic 
and physiologic effects of tiletamine, zolazepam, ketamine, and xylazine 
combination (TKX) in feral cats undergoing surgical sterilization. Journal of 
Feline Medicine and Surgery. 6(5):297-303. 
Conner, M., B. Plowman, B. D. Leopold, and C. Lovell. 1999. Influence of time-in-
residence on home range and habitat use of bobcats. Journal of Wildlife 
Management 63(1):261-269. 
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2000a. ArcView GIS 3.2a. Environmental 
Systems Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA. 
 79
Environmental Systems Research Institute. 2000b. ArcInfo 8.0.2. Environmental Systems 
Research Institute, Redlands, California, USA. 
Griffin, B. 2001. Cats, cats, everywhere. Auburn University College of Veterinary 
Medicine Annual Conference Proceedings, suppl. 
Hall, L. S., M. A. Kasparian, D. Van Vuren, and D. A. Kelt. 2000. Spatial organization 
and habitat use of feral cats (Felis catus L.) in Mediterranean California. 
Mammalia 64(1):19-28. 
Hammond, C. 1981. The ecology and control of feral cats. Potters Bar, England: 
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, pp 89-91. 
Hartke, K. M., and G. R. Hepp. 2004. Habitat use and preference of breeding female 
wood ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(1):84-93. 
Haspel, C. and R. E. Calhoon. 1993. Activity patterns of free-ranging cats in Brooklyn, 
New York. Journal of Mammalogy 74(1):1-8. 
Hughes, K. L., M. R. Slater, and L. Haller. 2002. The effects of implementing a feral cat 
spay/neuter program in a Florida county animal control service. Journal of 
Applied Animal Welfare Science. 5(4):285-298. 
Izawa, M., T. Doi, and Y. Ono. 1982. Grouping pattern of feral cats (Felis catus) living 
on a small island in Japan. Japanese Journal of Ecology 32(3):373-382. 
Jackson, M. 1981. The ecology and control of feral cats. Potters Bar, England: 
Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, pp 92-94. 
Johnson, K., L. Lewellen, and J. Lewellen. 1994. National Pet Alliance survey report on 
Santa Clara County?s pet population. Cat Fanciers? Almanac Jan:71-77. 
 80
Levy, J. K. 2000. Evaluation of SpayVac? for sterilizing domestic cats. Waltham, 
Massachusetts. Spay/USA Proceedings. 
Levy, J. K., D. W. Gale, and L. A Gale. 2003a. Evaluation of the effect of a long-term 
trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population. Journal 
of American Veterinary Medical Association 222(1):42-46. 
Levy, J. K. J. E. Woods, S. L. Turick, and D. L. Etheridge. 2003b. Number of unowned 
free-roaming cats in a college community in the southern United States and 
characteristics of community residents who feed them. Journal of American 
Veterinary Medical Association 223(2):202-205. 
Levy, J. K. and P. C Crawford. 2004. Humane strategies for controlling feral cat 
populations. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association 225(9): 1354-
1360. 
Liberg, O. 1980. Spacing patterns in a population of rural free roaming domestic cats. 
OIKOS, 39: 336-349. 
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 2006. The Minnesota Department of 
Natural Resources Web Site. <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/sitetools/ 
copyright.html>. Accessed 13 Oct 2006. 
Neville, P. F. and J. Remfry. 1984. Effect of neutering on two groups of feral cats. 
Veterinary Record, 114:447-450. 
Nestl? Purina PetCare Company [Purina]. 2002. Cat Body condition chart. <http://www. 
purina.com/cats/health/BodyCondition.aspx>. Accessed 12 Oct 2006. 
 81
Nutter, F. B. J. F. Levine and M. K. Stoskopf. 2004. Reproductive capacity of free-
roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate. Journal of American Veterinary 
Medical Association 225(9):1399-1402. 
Page, R. J. C., J. Ross, and D. H. Bennett. 1992. A study of home ranges, movements and 
behavior of the feral cat population at Avonmouth Docks. Wildlife Resources, 19: 
263-277. 
Passanisi, W. C. and D. W. Macdonald. 1990. The fate of controlled feral cat colonies. 
Potters Bar, England: The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. 
SAS Institute 2001. Version 8.02. SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA. 
Slater, M. R. 2002. Community Approaches to Feral Cats: Problems, Alternatives, & 
Recommendations. Humane Society Press. Washington, D C USA. 
Smith, P. G. 2004. Automated log-ratio analysis of compositional data: software suited to 
analysis of habitat preference from radio tracking data. Bat Research News 
45(1):16. 
Subacz, K. B. and B. Griffin. 2002. Cat Coat Color Chart. < http://www.vetmed.auburn. 
edu/index.pl/cat_coat_color_chart >. Accessed 11 Oct 2006. 
Terhune, T., D. C. Sisson, H. L. Stribling. J. P. Carroll. 2006. Home range, movement, 
and site fidelity of translocated northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) in 
southwest Georgia, USA. European Journal of Wildlife Research 52(2):119-124. 
Turner, D. C. and P. Bateson. 2000. The Domestic Cat: The biology of its behaviour. 
Second Edition. Cambridge University Press. 
 82
Williams, L. S., J. K. Levy, S. A. Robertson, A. M. Cistola. 2002. Use of the anesthetic 
combination of tiletamine, zolazepam, ketamine, and xylazine for neutering feral 
cats. Journal of American Veterinary Medical Association. 220(10):1491-1495. 
Associate editor: 
 83
Table 1. Habitat Type. Description and percentage of available habitat within the study 
area in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. 
 
Habitat Type Description % of    
Study Area 
Hardscape Parking lots, sidewalks, driveways, tennis courts, etc. 22.8 
Landscaping Landscaped flower beds, lone trees & shrubs that were 
in maintained areas, sandboxes and playgrounds 
9.6 
Lawn Maintained open grass. 27.3 
Roadway Paved, dirt, or rail roads. 11 
Structures Buildings, fencing, feeding structures, ditches & bridge 
supports, power transformers, water cooling towers, 
AC units, walls, and bike racks. 
15.6 
Water Creeks, fountains and swimming pools. 0.3 
Woods Heavily treed areas not otherwise maintained. 10.9 
Scrub Overgrown areas of tall grass and/or light bushes. 2.5 
Table 2. Simplified ranking matrices of pre-TNR cats. Habitat ranking based on (a) 
comparing proportional habitat use within MCP home ranges with proportions of 
available habitat types in the study area, and (b) comparing the proportion of GPS 
locations for each animal in each habitat type with the proportion of each habitat type 
within the animal?s MCP range during 2003-2005 in Auburn, Alabama. Each mean 
element in the matrix was replaced by its sign, a triple sign represents significant 
deviation from random at P < 0.05, n=23. 
 
a. 2nd Order Analysis - pre-TNR MCP home ranges vs. total study area
Habitat Type hardscape Landscaping Lawn Roadway Structures water Woods Scrub Rank
hardscape + +++ +++ + +++ +++ + 7
Landscaping - +++ +++ - +++ + + 5
Lawn --- --- - --- +++ + + 3
Roadway --- --- + --- +++ + + 4
Structures - + +++ +++ +++ + + 6
water --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0
Woods --- - - - - +++ - 1
Scrub - - - - - +++ + 2
b. 3rd Order Analysis - pre-TNR cat GPS locations vs. MCP home ranges
Habitat Type hardscape Landscaping Lawn Roadway Structures Woods Scrub Rank
hardscape + + +++ + - - 4
Landscaping - + +++ + - - 3
Lawn - - +++ - --- - 1
Roadway --- --- --- - --- --- 0
Structures - - + + - - 2
Woods + + +++ +++ + + 6
Scrub + + + +++ + - 5
 84
Table 3. Simplified ranking matrices of post-TNR initiation cats. Habitat ranking 
based on (a) comparing proportional habitat use within MCP home ranges with 
proportions of available habitat types in the study area, and (b) comparing the proportion 
of GPS locations for each animal in each habitat type with the proportion of each habitat 
type within the animal?s MCP range during 2003-2005 in Auburn, Alabama. Each mean 
element in the matrix was replaced by its sign, a triple sign represents significant 
deviation from random at P < 0.05, n=9. Parentheses indicate where significance levels 
from standard t-tests of observed data differ. 
 
a. 2nd Order Analysis - post-TNR initiation cat MCP home ranges vs. total study area
hardscape Landscaping Lawn Roadway Scrub Structures Woods water Rank
hardscape - +++ +++ + + +++ +++ 6
Landscaping + +++ + (+++) + + + (+++) +++ 7
Lawn --- --- - + --- + +++ 3
Roadway --- - (---) + + - + +++ 4
Scrub - - - - - + + 2
Structures - - +++ + + + (+++) +++ 5
Woods --- - (---) - - - - (---) + 1
water --- --- --- --- - --- - 0
b. 3rd Order Analysis - post-TNR initiation cat GPS locations vs. MCP home ranges
hardscape Landscaping Lawn Roadway Scrub Structures Woods Rank
hardscape + + +++ + + - 5
Landscaping - + +++ - - - 2
Lawn - - + - - --- (-) 1
Roadway --- --- - - --- - 0
Scrub - + + + - - 3
Structures - + + +++ + - 4
Woods + + +++ (+) + + + 6
 85
Table 4. Simplified ranking matrices of pooled pre-TNR cats. Habitat ranking based 
on (a) comparing proportional habitat use within MCP home ranges with proportions of 
available habitat types in the study area, and (b) comparing the proportion of GPS 
locations for each animal in each habitat type with the proportion of each habitat type 
within the animal?s MCP range during 2003-2005 in Auburn, Alabama. Each mean 
element in the matrix was replaced by its sign; a triple sign represents significant 
deviation from random at P < 0.05. n=23.  
 
a. 2nd Order Analysis - pooled pre-TNR MCP home ranges vs. total study area
Hard_Rd_Struc Land_Lawn Scrub_Woods Rank
Hard_Rd_Struc +++ + 2
Land_Lawn --- + 1
Scrub_Woods - - 0
b. 3rd Order Analysis - pooled pre-TNR cat GPS locations vs. MCP home ranges
Hard_Rd_Struc Land_Lawn Scrub_Woods Rank
Hard_Rd_Struc + - 1
Land_Lawn - - 0
Scrub_Woods + + 2
 86
 87
a. 2nd Order Analysis - pooled post-TNR initiation cat MCP home ranges vs. total study area
Hard_Rd_Struc Land_Lawn Scrub_Woods Rank
Hard_Rd_Struc +++ + 2
Land_Lawn --- + 1
Scrub_Woods - - 0
b. 3rd Order An ocations vs. MCP home ranges
Scrub_Woods Rank
Hard_Rd_Stru + 2
Land_Lawn + 1
Scrub_Woods 0
alysis-pooled post-TNR initiation cat GPS l
Hard_Rd_Struc Land_Lawn
c +
-
- -
 
 
Table 5. Simplified ranking matrices of pooled post-TNR initiation cats. Habitat 
ranking based on (a) comparing proportional habitat use within MCP home ranges with 
proportions of available habitat types in the study area, and (b) comparing the proportion 
of GPS locations for each animal in each habitat type with the proportion of each habitat 
type within the animal?s MCP range during 2003-2005 in Auburn, Alabama. Each mean 
element in the matrix was replaced by its sign, a triple sign represents significant 
deviation from random at P < 0.05, n=11. 
 
 
88 
Figure 1. Feeding Station Map. Feral cat feeding station locations in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. 
 
 
 
Figure 2. Holding Procedures for Feral Cats. Feral cats inside Tomahawk traps (model 
#606 and #608) fitted with food and water bowls (waterproof pads to cover traps not 
shown) during holding for study in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. Note elevation of traps 
above floor for sanitary purposes. 
 
 
 89
 90
 
 
Figure 3. Feral Cat Radio Collar. Radio transmitter and adjustable metal collar with 
loop antenna used in feral cat home range and habitat use study in Auburn, Alabama 
2003-2005. 
 
91 
 
Figure 4. Feral Cat Habitat with pre-TNR Home Ranges Overlay. Aerial photographs of Auburn, 
Alabama with habitat map and pre-TNR MCP overlay 2003-2005. 
 
 
92 
 
Figure 5. Feral Cat Pre-TNR Home Ranges. Feral cat pre-TNR minimum convex polygon home ranges 
in Auburn, Alabama 2003-2005. 
 
 
93 
 
Figure 6. Cat #10 MCP pre-TNR and post-TNR initiation. Cat #10 (approximately 2 year old male 
DSH) minimum convex polygon home range pre-TNR 2003-2004 and post-TNR 2004-2005 in 
Auburn, Alabama. 
 
 94
IV. CONCLUSIONS 
 
The main focus of this investigation was to determine what effects, if any, feral 
cat management using TNR has on feral cats located on Auburn University?s campus by 
specifically examining its influence on population size, home range size and habitat use. 
Population parameters were measured for 1 year before and 1 year after initiating 
treatment to determine the effects of TNR on feral cat colonies. Seven feeding stations 
were established at pre-existing unmanaged feral cat colonies.  
Identifying feral cats using photographic surveys was a viable method to 
supplement visual identification and trapping events. There was variability found among 
all 3 methods used to estimate feral cat populations. The Chapman model was successful 
in estimating 4 of the 7 colony populations at 3-month intervals. Graywood?s significant 
population growth after TNR initiation was contrary to management outcome. 
Graywood?s colony had a continual (although decreasing) immigration of feral cats into 
the area after TNR management had begun. Since this colony was never completely 
trapped out during TNR management, the author recommends a longer study period to 
assess the ?after? effect of TNR on this colony. Two colonies had larger post-TNR 
initiation population averages while the remaining 2 post-TNR initiation populations 
decreased. Photographic sampling was an accurate and reliable way to census these 
colonies of feral cats, but the Chapman model must have a larger population to yield 
 95
significant results. Longer study duration is needed to determine possible impact of TNR 
on feral cat colonies. A combination of methods similar to this study (using a dedicated 
daily caretaker, photographic sampling, and trapping events) could be the most accurate 
means to estimate feral cat colony populations Initial trapping events were valuable in 
estimating feral cat populations, but subsequent trapping events created trap savvy cats. 
The author recommends trapping out an entire feral cat colony at once to implement TNR 
so it does not result in intact, trap savvy cats being left behind in the colony.  
The mean home ranges (MCP) for pre-TNR and post-TNR cats were determined 
with pre-TNR significantly greater than post-TNR. Pre-TNR male home ranges were 
significantly greater than those of pre-TNR females. Lawn, hardscape and structures 
composed over 65% of the study area with roadway, landscaping, woods, scrub, and 
water composed the other portion of study area. The most common habitats in the MCP 
were hardscape, structures, and landscaping. Within the MCP the feral cats preferred 
woods and scrub over other habitat types.  
TNR management during 2004 and 2005 included 33 spays, 32 neuters, 1 
euthanasia, and 9 adoptions. By the end of the study the author estimates over 90% of the 
cats in the area were successfully managed using TNR. Continued management using 
TNR must be maintained in order for population control to be effective, but this holds 
true for any form of population management. Kitten mortality appeared to be similar to 
the high rates (75%) found in previous studies, therefore the author recommends spaying 
all pregnant queens and taming and adopting all small kittens during TNR management.  
Overall it was determined that TNR does affect feral cat home ranges. More long 
term studies are needed in order to determine TNR?s effect on population size over time. 
 96
Censusing feral cat colonies over a period of years pre-TNR and post-TNR would prove 
provide additional insight into the long-term effect on population size. Censusing feral 
cats using 35 mm. cameras proved costly. The author recommends digital cameras for 
future studies. 
 97
APPENDIX A. 
Dear Jane Smith, 
 
Thank you for agreeing to be a caretaker for the feral cats residing at Theta Xi. You are helping to 
us to better understand feral cat populations and Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR). Your help as a 
caretaker for this feral cat colony is greatly appreciated. In this package you will find: 
 
1. An overview of Operation Cat Nap 
2. Commonly Asked Questions and Answers about Feral Cats 
3. Summary of Graduate Project 
4. Caretaker Instruction Sheet 
5. Caretaker Cat Description Form 
6. Cat Coat Color Chart 
 
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me at the information below. Once again, 
thank you for your willingness to participate in this study and to care for the cats. I am looking 
forward to working with you.  
 
 
Sincerely, 
 
 
 
 
Kimberly B. Subacz 
 
 
 
 
In January, 2000, Auburn University's College of Veterinary Medicine, with the support 
of the Scott-Ritchey Research Center, implemented a feral cat trap-neuter-return (TNR) 
program to control the cat population on campus. This program (called Operation Cat 
Nap) is under the direction of Dr. Brenda Griffin and has been approved by the Dean of 
the College of Veterinary Medicine and the University Provost. This program represents 
a collaborative effort among faculty, staff and students to take responsibility for the cats 
residing on the Auburn University campus.  
 
 
The specific goals of Operation Cat Nap include the following:  
 
1. To humanely control the campus population of cats 
 
2. To raise awareness regarding the awesome importance of responsible cat ownership 
and spay/neuter 
 
3. To contribute descriptive scientific information to the pool of knowledge concerning 
feral cats and the effects of TNR 
 
4. To provide veterinary students and veterinarians with the knowledge required to 
implement a successful TNR program in practice. 
 98
 99
Commonly Asked Questions and Answers About Feral Cats 
 
Kimberly Subacz and Brenda Griffin, DVM 
School of Forestry & Wildlife Sciences 
College of Veterinary Medicine 
Auburn University 
 
Q: What exactly is a feral cat? 
 
A: Feral cats are?wild? offspring of domestic cats and result from pet owners abandoning and/or 
failing to sterilize their pets, allowing them to breed uncontrollably. Feral cats are unsocialized, 
unowned free-roaming cats. They generally do not allow handling by humans and must be 
trapped in order to be presented for veterinary care. They, however, are NOT a wildlife species 
and can not fully fend for themselves. Unattended, they survive, but do not thrive, breed 
prolifically, and lead meager lives shortened by malnutrition, disease, trauma, and high kitten 
mortality. They can become public nuisances and make up a large portion of the cats euthanized 
at animal shelters. Just one pair of breeding cats can produce two or more litters per year can 
exponentially produce 420,000 offspring over a seven year period. 
 
 
Q: What can be done to prevent more feral cats? 
 
A: First and foremost, responsible cat ownership must be promoted, focusing on sterilization, the 
wearing of identification, preventative health care and keeping cats safe at home. 
 
 
Q: Is there a safe, humane and effective method of controlling existing populations of feral 
cats? 
 
A: Yes, it is called Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR). Cats are trapped by caretakers, neutered and then 
returned to their ?home? for release. Caretakers feed and monitor the health and reproductive 
status of the colony. Millions of cat-lovers in the United States feed and care for feral cats. The 
American Veterinary Medical Association supports the use of Trap-Neuter-Return to control 
existing colonies of carefully supervised feral cats, provided they are located in safe areas away 
from wildlife refuges and bird sanctuaries. 
 
 
Q: How does TNR compare to other methods of controlling feral cats? 
 
A: Substantial debate surrounds the appropriate response to the presence of feral and free-
roaming cats. The traditional approach to controlling them has been extermination by trapping 
and euthanasia. However, large scale trap and kill programs have not been widely implemented or 
successful and frequently result in public outcry. TNR has become an increasingly popular 
method of managing existing colonies of feral cats. Neutered cats display fewer ?nuisance? 
behaviors such as spraying and fighting and can not reproduce. Over time, colony size should 
decrease due to attrition. In addition, TNR has been shown to be more cost effective than trapping 
and euthanizing feral cats since most states require impoundment and holding prior to euthanasia 
and since private volunteers are more likely to trap cats for surgery than for euthanasia. 
 100
 
 
Q: What about the wildlife? 
 
A: TNR programs have been the focus of great criticism and controversy concerning the impact 
of feline predation on wildlife species, in particular song birds. Although it is a widely held belief 
that free-roaming cats are detrimental to bird populations, scientific studies that support this belief 
do not exist with the exception of isolated island habitats where cats have contributed 
significantly to bird mortality. Studies to determine the magnitude of feline predation on wildlife 
in relation to population dynamics and size are needed. When considering this controversial issue, 
it is important to keep in mind that the goal of TNR is to control the free-roaming cat population. 
 
 
Q: What if I need to pursue other methods? 
 
A: TNR however beneficial is not always the best option in every circumstance. If you need to 
purse other methods of feral cat management you should contact your local animal control. Our 
local Animal Control agencies can be reached at: Auburn Animal Control 501-3091; Opelika 
Animal Control 705-5400; Lee County Animal Control 745-9835. You can also contact your 
local animal shelter. You can reach Lee County Humane Society at 821-3222. 
 
 
Q: How can graduates of a TNR program be identified? 
 
A: The tip of the left ear is removed. Ears are tipped, rather than notched since notching may 
occur as the result of fighting, especially in tom cats and may be mistaken as a sign of previous 
TNR. 
 
 
Q: What about small kittens? 
 
A: Because the mortality rate of feral kittens is 50% on average, kittens should be tamed and kept 
as pets or humanely euthanized. Kittens older than 3 months of age are difficult to tame. 
Information on taming feral kittens is available at www.feralcat.com or by ordering a video tape 
entitled Socializing Feral Cats (9-Lives video series) from the San Francisco SPCA by calling 1-
800-211-SPCA. More information on raising very young kittens can be found in the kitten care 
handbook at www.kittenrescue.org.  
 
 
Q: What about sick or injured cats? 
 
A:  Unless treatment can be entirely performed at the time of neutering (ex: cleaning a wound), 
humane euthanasia should be performed. Ongoing treatment cannot usually be safely and reliably 
administered to a feral cat. 
 
 
Q: What about relocating feral cats to a new site? 
 
A: Relocation of feral cat colonies is frequently unsuccessful and is not advised since cats possess 
strong homing instincts and will try to return to their original home base or colony site. If 
 101
relocation is necessary, cats must be confined for several weeks at their new ?home? location 
prior to release.  
 
Q:  Is there a national resource for information concerning feral cats and TNR? 
 
A:  Yes, Alley Cat Allies is a national nonprofit organization that actively promotes TNR as the 
accepted method of feral cat population control throughout North America. They serve as a 
national resource and authority on all aspects of feral cat management using TNR. To learn more, 
visit their website at www.alleycat.org. 
 102
Summary of Graduate Project 
 
 
The general goal of this study is to determine the impact that management using TNR has 
on the population of feral cats here at Auburn University. It specifically examines the 
population size and density, home range size, habitat use and physical health for one year 
before and one year after TNR.  
 
We have 7 colonies that will be the focus of this study. Each colony has a caretaker and a 
feeding station with an infrared-triggered camera that takes pictures inside the station. 
The stations are actually modeled after ACA?s cat shelters. 
 
We will be capturing cats and collecting individual data, giving each cat a physical exam, 
testing them for Felv and FIV, microchipping, vaccinating for rabies, and then fitting 
them with radio collars so that I can track their movements. I will be using GIS to analyze 
their home ranges and habitat use over the 2 year study. After one year the cats will be 
captured and go through the full TNR treatment with the tests, all vaccinations, eartipping 
and of course sterilization. Monitoring will begin again for a full year after the TNR 
treatment. 
 
We are also conducting surveys of both established campus caretakers and my project 
caretakers every 4 months for the duration of the study. We hope the survey will provide 
additional population information as well as assess the general attentiveness of each 
caretaker. 
 103
Caretaker Instruction Sheet 
 
Location: Horticulture & Thach Hall Feeders  
 
Caretaker: Jane Smith 
 
1. Feeding instructions: 
 
? Feed and check water daily if possible, preferably at the same time in 
the morning so the cats are accustomed to a routine. This also prevents 
wildlife from eating any leftover food. 
 
? Empty food and water bowl of any dirt, debris or old cat food. 
 
? Fill feeder with food and water as needed. 
 
? If there are ants at the feeding station contact Kim Subacz to treat the 
area. 
 
 
2. Monitoring instructions: 
 
? Use Caretaker Cat Description Form to describe each cat seen on site 
and keep form updated with date, time, location, and any observed 
behavior if possible. 
 
? Note: Some cats will only be in your area for a short period of time. 
Please take note of any newcomers to the colony. 
 104
Caretaker Cat Description Form 
 
Please fill out a description form for every cat you have seen at your location. 
 
Caretaker Name: __________________________ 
 
Location: ________________________________ 
 
Cat Name (if applicable): ____________________ 
 
Please circle one answer for each of the following categories: 
(Refer to Cat Coat Color Chart if needed) 
 
Coat Length: 
 
Short Hair  Long Hair 
 
Coat Color: 
 
Red  Cream  Chocolate Black  Smoke  Blue   
 
White  Fawn  Cinnamon Lilac  
 
Coat pattern: 
 
Mackeral Tabby Classic Tabby  Spotted Tabby  Ticked Tabby  
 
Tortie  Calico  Torbie  Tuxedo  Van  Bicolor  
 
Solid  Harlequin Locket  Mitted  Pointed 
 
Please fill in any sightings to the best of your ability: 
 
Date 
Time Location: Behavior witnessed: 
   
 
   
 
   
 
   
 
Feeding/ Drinking 
Sleeping/Resting - laying down on ground or under bush for a long period of time. 
Fighting - two or more cats participating in growling/howling/biting one another 
Spraying - tail in air with back feet on toes while urinating on object. 
Rubbing - rubbing head or jowls on objects or other cats 
Other ? Please describe 
Cat Coat Color Chart 
 
 105
 
 106
 
 107
 
 108
 
 109
 110
 111
APPENDIX B. 
Operation Cat Nap 
Caretaker Trapping and Release Instructions 
 
Before you trap 
 It is easier to trap a cat that is used to coming to a certain site for food at a regular time. If 
the cats are not used to a routine, it will be much harder to trap them. Try to feed the cats 
according to a routine as far in advance of trapping as possible.  
Prepare a warm, sheltered area for holding the cats before surgery. Garages or well-
ventilated sheds work well. Place newspapers on the floor to catch urine, stool, and food that will 
fall from the trap. Bricks or other convenient items can be used to elevate the traps off the ground 
so that the cats are not sitting in their waste. It may be necessary to spray the area with cat-safe 
flea or ant spray to keep insects away from the cats. Also, you should place a plastic liner in your 
vehicle for the cages to sit on. This will keep urine from damaging your car while traveling to and 
from the trap site and clinic.  
Be sure to contact other people around the area where you intend to trap so that everyone 
in the area understands what you are trying to do and neighbors can keep their pets confined. Stop 
feeding the cats two nights before you begin trapping so that the cats will be hungry. Inform 
anyone else that might be feeding the cats to stop feeding too. 
 
Setting the traps 
 Begin trapping up to two nights before the surgery clinic at your established feeding area. 
Open the traps at dusk then close them at dawn. Traps should never remain open during the day 
due to the heat. Also, do not trap in the rain. Find a good location to put the trap. It should be 
hidden from view so that it will not be noticed by a passerby who might disturb the trapping. 
Bushes are often places where cats hide and provide good camouflage for the trap. The trap 
should be placed on level ground. Cats are unlikely to enter a trap if it wobbles. Check to make 
sure the back door of the trap is correctly latched. Open the front door of the trap by pushing the 
top of the door in and pulling the bottom of the door out. Latch the hook on the top of the trap to 
the small metal cylinder on the door. This will keep the door open and raise the trip plate. The 
trap should be baited with smelly food such as canned mackerel or the dry cat food they are used 
to eating. Place a small trail of food leading from the opening of the trap to the back. Then put a 
larger amount of food in one of the bowls tied to the back of the trap. Make sure the Catnappers 
sign is easily seen on the trap to deter anyone from disturbing the trap. Cover the trap with a large 
towel such that the sides and back are covered but not the front or the Catnappers sign. The cover 
helps to keep the cat calm in the trap and provides camouflage. Any trapped cat must remain 
covered throughout all trapping, transporting, and holding. Always wear leather or thick gloves 
when handling or transporting any animal in the trap. Be sure the trap is covered with a towel 
when you bring the cat to the Operation Cat Nap surgery clinic! 
 112
 
Picking up the traps 
 Don?t wait around to see if a cat enters the trap. Your presence will make the cats wary 
and scare them off. Check the traps once every few hours during the evening and again very early 
in the morning. Be sure to close the traps during the day for the safety of the animal and reopen 
them at night. Never reach into the trap with any caged animal or you risk serious injury. 
Cover the trap completely, make sure the back door is secure, and carry the trap to your holding 
location. If you capture a pet cat wearing a collar, a previously neutered cat (ear-tipped) or a wild 
animal (such as an opossum), wearing thick gloves (heavy leather gloves work best), carefully 
open the back door of the trap, stand back at a safe distance, and allow the animal to leave. If you 
note that you have captured a nursing mother cat, check the area for kittens and remember this 
female should be released as soon as possible after surgery so she can care for and nurse her 
kittens if necessary. 
 
Holding procedures 
 Place the traps in the prepared area. Keep them covered. If it is more than 1 day before 
the surgery clinic, sprinkle dry food from the top of the cage into the food bowl and pour a small 
amount of water into the other bowl. If less than 1 day, just give water. Check the cats 
periodically and change dirty newspaper as needed. The cats will likely stay calm and quiet as 
long as the traps are covered. Be sure they do not get overheated or too cold and that they have 
adequate air ventilation. After transfer of cats to surgery clinic, change all newspaper in the 
holding area before cats are returned so they have a clean area to recover from their surgery. 
 
Recovery 
 The cats will be picked up the same day as their surgery. They may still be recovering 
from anesthesia. Normal behaviors include head bobbing, wobbly movements, fast breathing, 
shivering, and deep sleep. Keep the cats warm and covered. Monitor them periodically. They 
should not be bleeding from the surgery area. Bleeding from the left ear crop is expected but 
should stop before release the next day.  
 
Release 
 If the cats are fully awake the next day, they can be released in the same location from 
which they were trapped. Relocating cats is rarely successful. They will either be driven off by 
territorial cats or other animals or follow their natural instinct to return home. To release the cat, 
point the back of the trap away from danger, such as a busy street. Take off the cover, safely 
unlock the back door, and lift the door away from the trap. Stand back and patiently allow the cat 
to leave at its own pace. Usually it will run away immediately. 
 
Helpful Hints 
? Never put your hands near the trap without wearing gloves. Never reach inside the trap with a 
caged animal. If you are bitten or scratched, contact your doctor immediately.  If your doctor 
is unavailable, contact your local law enforcement agency.  All cat bites and scratches must 
be reported to the Public Health Department as soon as possible. Do not release the cat! 
? Bring a flashlight and a friend to check the traps at night.  
? Bring a spoon for your bait. The smell of fish doesn?t wash off your hands easily. 
? Lactating queens should be spayed and released as soon as possible after surgery. 
? Females with kittens are attracted to the sound of their kittens. Placing a trap next to the 
trapped kittens will encourage the mother to enter. Likewise, kittens will be attracted to a trap 
set next to their trapped mother. 
 113
? Feeding schedule for trapping: 
? Wednesday and Thursday ? don?t feed cats you are going to trap 
? Friday and Saturday ? set traps according to instructions.  Be sure to check every few 
hours during the night.  
? Saturday morning ? Take trapped cats to holding location. Give small amount of food 
and water to trapped cats.  Close empty traps for the day. 
? Saturday evening ? Open/reset traps according to instructions.  Previously trapped 
cats should not be fed, but can receive a small amount of water.  
? Sunday morning ? Check traps a final time, close and pick up all empty traps; bring 
all trapped cats to Operation Cat Nap surgery clinic at the time specified.  *Be sure 
to leave food out at usual locations when you pick up your traps on Sunday 
morning. * 
 
Special Precautions 
 
 Because feral cats are in contact with wildlife, and because they will readily bite and 
scratch, feral cat caretakers and volunteers should consider receiving a 3-shot series of 
rabies vaccinations from the Public Health Department or a physician for their own 
protection. All cat bites and scratches are serious and should receive medical attention.  
 ALWAYS wear thick protective gloves when carrying a trap with a cat inside and 
always keep the trap covered with a towel or blanket during transport. This will serve to 
protect you and to calm the cat. Never open a trap containing a cat or put your exposed 
hands near the trap.  
 
 ALL ANIMAL BITES ARE SERIOUS! IF YOU ARE BITTEN, SEEK MEDICAL 
ATTENTION, AND DO NOT RELEASE THE CAT. The cat must be quarantined. Contact 
your veterinarian for quarantine advice. Cat bites and scratches are extremely painful and 
dangerous, and may require hospitalization to treat serious infection. 
 
 The rabies virus has reached epidemic proportions in the southeastern United States. 
Humans acquire the virus through contact with virus-laden saliva of an infected animal (dog, cat, 
raccoon, bat, skunk, etc.). Blood and other body fluids are a much less common source of 
infection. Bites and scratches are the most common routes of infection from animals to humans. 
The rabies virus is 100% FATAL once a person starts showing infection. There is no known 
treatment for rabies, either in humans or in animals. The only course of action is to give a series 
of post-exposure vaccinations to a person suspected of having been exposed to a rabid animal. 
The only definitive test to detect rabies in an animal is to euthanize the animal, remove the head, 
and inspect the brain tissue for identification of the virus. Human rabies vaccines are 
recommended for anyone who works with stray animals.  
 
 
 114
APPENDIX C. 
 
Subacz Feral Cat Study Paw Tag 
Cat # _____________ 
Trap Color and # __________________ 
Location Trapped:_________________ 
______ Anesthesia (0.25 mL TKX adult cat) 
______ Eye Lube 
Sex _____________ 
DSH/DLH 
Coat Coloration and Pattern: 
___________________________________ 
Distinguishable Features: 
___________________________________ 
Eye Color: _______________ 
Body Weight: _____________ 
Estimated Age: 
    4-6 mo    >6mo-<1 yr    1yr-<2yr    >2yr 
Physical Exam (0 = normal, + = abnormal) 
_____GEN _____EYES _____EARS _____ORAL 
_____NT _____PLN ______HL _____ABD 
_____UG _____MS _____INTEG _____NEURO  
______ General Body Condition 
______ Eartip 
Physical Exam Findings: 
Normal/Unremarkable 
Already Spayed or Neutered 
Already eartipped 
Abscesses/Wounds (Location) 
Other ____________________ 
Spay/Neuter Status: Pregnant  (#feti ____) Lactating Neither Both 
Special Instructions: SQ Fluids  Other (Findings) 
______ FeLV/FIV tests     Results _________ 
______ FVRCP  
______ Rabies vaccination (lot # _____________) 
______ Ivomec (0.1 cc) 
______ Penicillin (0.5 cc) 
______ Frontline 
Microchip # ______________________ 
Radio Collar Color:___________ 
Radio Collar Frequency ______________ 
______ Photograph cat   PCV (30-45% normal) ________ 
______ Reversal    Total Solids (5.7 ? 7.6 g/dl normal) _______