Behavior and adoptability of hoarded cats admitted to an animal shelter

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to analyze the behavioral characteristics and success of adoption for previously hoarded cats. Methods Shelter records and post-adoption surveys were analyzed for hoarded cats ⩾6 months old at intake. A non-standard scoring system was used. Intake scores were allocated contemporaneously and socialization scores were applied retrospectively for three time points (TPs): 5–10 days post-intake (shelter TP), ⩽1 week post-adoption (home TP1) and >1 week post-adoption (home TP2). Adoption returns were compared between hoarded and non-hoarded cats. Results The study included 195 hoarded cats, of which 174 were adopted. Of 164 cats with intake scores, 86 (52%) were scored as ‘friendly’ at intake. Forty-five cats had socialization scores for all of the TPs, and of these, the percentages of ‘supersocial’ or ‘social’ decreased from 87% at the shelter TP to 47% at home TP1, then increased to 84% at home TP2. Most cats that scored as ‘tense’ at intake had supersocial or social scores at home TP2. Nine of the 88 cats with survey results had out-of-box (OOB) elimination in either the shelter or home but only 1/88 in both. Adopters expressed positive feelings for 42/43 cats for which feelings-based language was used in their survey responses. Notable behaviors, such as neediness, were recorded for 48/88 cats. Relationships with other household pets were typically positive. Eighteen of 174 hoarded (10%) and 188/2662 non-hoarded (7.1%) cats were returned post-adoption. Of these, six hoarded and 87 non-hoarded returns included behavioral reasons. There were no significant differences between hoarded and non-hoarded cats for total or behavioral returns. Conclusions and relevance Hoarded cats had high adoption rates, high adopter satisfaction and the potential for good emotional well-being in adoptive homes. Behavior at intake and OOB elimination in the shelter may not reflect post-adoption behavior. Behavior-based outcome decisions for these vulnerable animals should be deferred to allow time for habituation.

Beyond “Doing Better”: Ordinal Rating Scales to Monitor Behavioural Indicators of Well-Being in Cats

“…Vojtkovskáa et al’s [ 27 ] 0–5 scale represented the behaviour exhibited by cats in response to approach and attempts at contact by a person, and used this score to investigate how these scores changed over time and their relationship with parameters such as length of stay. Jacobson et al’s [ 28 ] scale classified cats into four groups based on their level of fear in general and in response to human contact both in shelter and in adoptive homes to investigate the post-adoption success of cats from a hoarding environment. Both authors’ socialization scales benefited from operational definitions, but neither were validated by comparing their scores to known socialization status prior to admission (as was performed for the Feline Spectrum Assessment [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]).…”

“…Both authors’ socialization scales benefited from operational definitions, but neither were validated by comparing their scores to known socialization status prior to admission (as was performed for the Feline Spectrum Assessment [ 29 , 30 , 31 ]). Furthermore Zeiler et al’s [ 25 ] scale did not investigate interobserver reliability (although they used only one rater, so this would have been impossible/unnecessary) and although Jacobson et al’s [ 28 ] scale achieved substantial to almost perfect agreement (κ = 0.78–0.83) depending on the time point, scores were made retrospectively through interpretation of volunteer and adopter written descriptions and it is unclear if agreement would be as good based on live observation of behaviour.…”

The Impact of Lethal, Enforcement-Centred Cat Management on Human Wellbeing: Exploring Lived Experiences of Cat Carers Affected by Cat Culling at the Port of Newcastle

“…In contrast, domestic cats are defined as cats with some dependence (direct or indirect) on humans. Despite these definitions, local government and animal management officers often determine a cat is feral based on behaviour and appearance, which allows the cat to be killed immediately after being trapped [24][25][26][27][28] or through shooting when it is not considered a risk to humans or pets. We believe this is inappropriate if cats are living in the vicinity of humans.…”

“…However, research clearly demonstrates that it is not possible to distinguish between feral and domestic cats or their adoptability based on behaviour. Many cats are fearful and stressed in local government animal facilities (municipal pounds) and animal welfare shelters where trapped cats are taken, and appear aggressive or timid, resulting in high kill rates for healthy cats [1,11,[25][26][27][28]. Even owned pets can appear fearful and stressed when trapped, resulting in incorrect classification [19,22,[25][26][27][29][30][31].…”

“…Many cats are fearful and stressed in local government animal facilities (municipal pounds) and animal welfare shelters where trapped cats are taken, and appear aggressive or timid, resulting in high kill rates for healthy cats [1,11,[25][26][27][28]. Even owned pets can appear fearful and stressed when trapped, resulting in incorrect classification [19,22,[25][26][27][29][30][31]. To address this issue, the peak animal welfare organization in Australia, the Royal Society for Prevention to Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), and some federal [19] and state government documents [22,32] recommend definitions based on how and where cats live.…”