Integrated Return-To-Field and Targeted Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return Programs Result in Reductions of Feline Intake and Euthanasia at Six Municipal Animal Shelters

Abstract

For decades, animal shelters in the U.S. have sought to reduce the number of cats that are impounded and euthanized. Since the 1990s, low-cost sterilization campaigns aimed at owned cats have achieved varying levels of success in meeting these objectives. Over a similar time period, the use of trap-neuter-vaccinate-return (TNVR), as a humane alternative to the lethal management of stray and feral cats, has proliferated. Because of the limited scope of many TNVR programs, the impacts of such efforts on shelter metrics have often proven difficult to measure. In the past decade, two new variants of TNVR, return-to-field (RTF) and high-impact targeting, have exhibited the capacity to contribute to significant reductions in shelter intake and euthanasia. The present study examines changes in feline intake and euthanasia, as well as impacts on associated metrics, at municipal shelters located in six diverse U.S. communities after integrated programs of RTF and targeted TNVR (collectively termed “community cat programs,” CCPs) were implemented. A total of 72,970 cats were enrolled in six 3-year CCPs, 71,311 of whom (98%) were sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to their location of capture or adopted. A median reduction of 32% in feline intake, as well as a median decline of 83% in feline euthanasia occurred across the six CCPs; median feline live-release rate increased by 53% as a result of these simultaneous declines in cat admissions and euthanasia. The integration of RTF and targeted TNVR protocols appears to result in greater feline intake and euthanasia reductions than programs lacking such an integrated approach.

The Impact of Return-to-Field and Targeted Trap-Neuter-Return on Feline Intake and Euthanasia at a Municipal Animal Shelter in Jefferson County, Kentucky

“…In addition, the feline euthanasia rate (calculated by dividing the number of cats euthanized for reasons other than owner request by the total number of feline intakes) decreased by 89.7%. This decline exceeded the median decline in euthanasia rate observed at the six shelters enrolled in the CCPs, which experienced a median reduction of 74% [11]. A euthanasia rate of 55.6% existed at LMAS in 2011, before implementation of their RTF program; the same metric for 2019 was 5.7%.…”

“…Impact of LMAS RTF and ACA TNR programs in terms of feline euthanasia per 1000 human residents, and comparison to similar programs in other communities. Sources of data: Jacksonville, FL [14,28]; San José, CA [27]; Albuquerque, NM, Baltimore, MD, Columbus, GA, Philadelphia, PA, San Antonio, TX, and Tucson, AZ [11]. In addition, the feline euthanasia rate (calculated by dividing the number of cats euthanized for reasons other than owner request by the total number of feline intakes) decreased by 89.7%.…”

“…A growing number of shelters are instituting shelter-based neuter-return programs, commonly known as return-to-field (RTF), but sometimes referred to as shelter-neuter-return (SNR). These programs are intended to provide live outcomes for cats designated as "strays" upon shelter admission (either brought by residents or impounded by field services staff) [11]. After enrollment, cats in RTF programs are sterilized, vaccinated, and ear tipped before being returned to their locations of origin [12].…”

“…RTF programs, such as community-based TNR programs, are implemented with the same two-fold objective of reducing (1) the number of cats who, either due to temperament or lack of space, would otherwise likely be euthanized, and (2) community cat populations. A number of RTF programs, particularly those implemented in combination with high-intensity, targeted TNR, have been effective at reducing both feline intake and euthanasia at municipal shelters [11,13,14].…”

“…The present study examines changes in feline euthanasia and intake, and other metrics, over an eight-year period at a municipal shelter in Jefferson County, Kentucky, after implementation of a two-pronged initiative that paired an RTF program with an ongoing community-based TNR program. Unlike the integrated RTF/TNR programs previously reported in the peer-reviewed literature, which were jointly conducted by shelter personnel and the staff of a national animal welfare organization [11,13], the Jefferson County programs were operated on a concurrent, yet independent basis-the RTF program operated by municipal shelter staff and the TNR program, including the sustained targeting of specific zip codes, conducted by a private community cat advocacy organization. Because the coexistent RTF and TNR programs in Jefferson County were operated separately, rather than integrated, as had been carried out elsewhere, and lacked some of the resources available to previously documented programs (e.g., TNR program staff working directly with shelter staff), it was unclear whether similar reductions in euthanasia and intake could be achieved.…”