Human Behaviour and Perceptions of Outdoor Pet Cats in an Urban Environment
by
Denise S. King
Bachelor of Arts, Simon Fraser University, 1994

A THESIS SUMBITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

in the Faculty of Science

Thesis examining committee:

Peter Tsigaris (PhD), Professor and Thesis Supervisor, Department of Economics, Thompson
Rivers University
Tom Dickinson (PhD), Dean of Science and Committee Member, Faculty of Science,
Thompson Rivers University
Laura Lamb (PhD), Associate Professor and Committee Member, Department of Economics,
Thompson Rivers University
Sara Dubois (PhD), External Examiner, Adjunct Professor, University of British Columbia;
BC SPCA Chief Scientific Officer

ii

Thesis Supervisor: Professor Peter Tsigaris
ABSTRACT
The risks that face both wildlife and cats while cats are outside unsupervised is high
and momentum surrounding the global issue of outdoor domestic cats (Felis catus) and their
impact on wildlife, especially birds, is gaining the attention of experts working in the fields
of wildlife conservation and animal welfare. The purpose of this research is to gain an
understanding of cat owner behaviour, and the views of non-cat owners and their role, with
respect to outdoor pet cats, in the community of Kamloops, BC. The thesis chapters include
views and opinions about wildlife and outdoor pet cats and their owners in general, as well as
an analysis of Kamloops residents’ perceptions of the risks outdoor pet cats impose on the
environment and incur while outdoors. It explores economic theories, such as, the value of a
statistical life of a cat, negative externalities and Coase Theorem. An online survey was used
for data collection; 584 valid survey responses were received and respondents were
comprised of 155 outdoor cat owners, 221 indoor cat owners and 208 non-cat owners. Key
findings include: the outdoor cat owners, despite their perceived risks, see outdoor pet cats
living happier lives, and that they play a useful role as predators; the average value of a
statistical life of a cat in Kamloops is $7,485 to $8,726; nearly 40 percent of the outdoor cat
owners are willing to reduce the number of hours they allow their cat outdoors unrestricted/
unsupervised to keep their cat safe; and 37 percent of non-cat owners are willing to pay to
keep their neighbours cat in the cat owner’s yard. Coase Theorem application suggests the
solution that would create the least conflict in the community, yet still allow the cat owners
to have supervised outdoor cats, is with the application of a bylaw coupled with licensing. In
general, though, cat owners do not see how licensing would be useful. The best immediate
use of limited resources that will be impact-driven and community-specific, will be a
campaign targeting potential cat owners and new cat owners, while working towards a longer
term solution that includes mandatory licensing, a bylaw, and delivery of practical
information for cat owners on how to keep their cat under their care and control while
outdoors.

Key words: cat owner behaviour, outdoor pet cats, value of a statistical life of a cat, negative
externalities, Coase Theorem, conservation, community, licensing

iii

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ v
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. vii
Dedication .............................................................................................................................. viii
Chapter 1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1
Methods and Design .............................................................................................................. 5
Chapter 2 - Kamloops Residents’ Opinions About Wildlife and Outdoor Pet Cats ............... 11
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 11
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 12
Results ................................................................................................................................. 13
Comparing Views on Wildlife and Outdoor Pet Cats ..................................................... 13
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter 3 - Kamloops Residents’ Perceptions of Risk Regarding Outdoor Pet Cats ............. 23
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 23
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 24
Risk Perception Categories .............................................................................................. 24
Results ................................................................................................................................. 26
Cat Owner Versus Non-cat Owner Risk Perceptions ...................................................... 26
Outdoor Cat Owner Versus Indoor Cat Owner Risk Perceptions ................................... 31
Cat Owner Risk Perceptions and Influence of Previous Issues with Outdoor Cats ........ 34
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 42
Chapter 4 - The Value of a Statistical Life of a Cat in Kamloops .......................................... 45
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 45
The Value of a Statistical Life Theory ............................................................................ 47
The VSL Applied to Outdoor Cat Owners ...................................................................... 48
Defensive Measures Supporting VSL ............................................................................. 49

iv

Defensive Measures Applied to Outdoor Cat Owners .................................................... 50
Cat Licensing as a Defensive Measure ........................................................................... 50
Methods ............................................................................................................................... 53
Results ................................................................................................................................. 54
Applying the VSL to Cats ............................................................................................... 54
Reasons For Not WTP ..................................................................................................... 55
Defensive Measures Supporting VSL ............................................................................. 56
Cat Licensing ................................................................................................................... 58
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 59
Chapter 5 - Negative Externalities and Outdoor Pet Cats: Coase Theorem and the Role of
Non-Cat Owners in Outdoor Pet Cat Enforcement................................................................. 66
Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 66
Negative Externalities and Coase Theorem and Outdoor Cat Owners ........................... 69
Cat Owners Behaviour Towards Externality ................................................................... 74
Non-cat Owner Behaviour Towards Externality ............................................................. 75
Results ................................................................................................................................. 76
Cat Owners and Their Cats .............................................................................................. 76
Cat Owners Behaviour Towards Externality ................................................................... 79
Prey Items by Type of Prey ............................................................................................. 80
Non-Cat Owners, Cat Licensing and WTP ..................................................................... 81
Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 82
Chapter 6 – Recommendations ............................................................................................... 85
Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 95
Appendix A: Birds Most at Risk in Kamloops, BC ........................................................... 95
Appendix B: Survey ............................................................................................................ 96
Appendix C: Research Ethics Board Approval ................................................................ 112
Appendix D: Scenario Section Question 3 ....................................................................... 113
Appendix E: Section 5 Question 14 ................................................................................. 117
Appendix F: Section 5 Question 16 ................................................................................. 118
Appendix G: Statement Section Question 3 ..................................................................... 121
Appendix H: Section 6 Question 2 ................................................................................... 123
Appendix I: Section 6 Question 5 .................................................................................... 125
References ............................................................................................................................. 126

v

List of Tables
Table 1-1 Survey Demographics .............................................................................................. 8
Table 2-1 Outdoor and Indoor Cat Owners ............................................................................ 15
Table 2-2 Outdoor Cat Owners and Non-Cat Owners ............................................................ 17
Table 2-3 Indoor Cat Owners and Non-Cat Owners .............................................................. 19
Table 3-1 Risk Perceptions of Cat and Non-Cat Owners ....................................................... 28
Table 3-2 Risk Perceptions of Cat and Non-Cat Owners – Difference in Means .................. 30
Table 3-3 Risk Perceptions of Outdoor Versus Indoor Cat Owners ....................................... 33
Table 3-4 Outdoor Cat Owner Risk Perception Based on History of Cat Issues ................... 36
Table 3-5 Indoor Cat Owner Risk Perceptions Based on History of Cat Issues..................... 38
Table 3-6 Non-Cat Owners Risk Perceptions Based on History of Cat Issues ...................... 40
Table 3-7 Outdoor Cat Issues by Location ............................................................................. 41
Table 3-8 Prey Items by Type and Location ........................................................................... 42
Table 4-1 Descriptive Statistics for the Value of a Statistical Life of a Cat ........................... 55
Table 4-2 Scenario Section; Not Willing to Pay for Controls ............................................... 56
Table 4-3 Restrictions applied to cat(s) being allowed to spend time outdoors ..................... 56
Table 4-4 Risks to Cats and WTP ........................................................................................... 57
Table 4-5 Risks to Outdoor Cats ............................................................................................. 58
Table 4-6 Cat Licensing .......................................................................................................... 59
Table 4-7 Calculation of Costs of Cat Care ............................................................................ 64
Table 5-1 Cat Owners and Cat Care ....................................................................................... 76
Table 5-2 Frequency Outdoors ............................................................................................... 77
Table 5-3 Hours Outdoor Each Day and Each Season ........................................................... 78
Table 5-4 Restrictions ............................................................................................................. 79
Table 5-5 Statement Section - Outdoor Cat Owners .............................................................. 80
Table 5-6 Types of prey brought to house .............................................................................. 80
Table 5-7 Non-Cat Owners WTP ........................................................................................... 81
Table 5-8 Non-cat owners' reasons for not WTP .................................................................... 82
Table 6-1 Defensive Measures and Costs ............................................................................... 87
List of Figures
Figure 1-1 Heubach Cat, before 1924 ....................................................................................... 1
Figure 2-1 Cat raiding nest, 1916 ........................................................................................... 11
Figure 3-1 Cat stalking birds, 1916 ........................................................................................ 23
Figure 3-2 Risks Outdoor Cats Impose on the Environment .................................................. 25
Figure 3-3 Risks Outdoor Cats Incur From the Environment................................................. 26
Figure 4-1 Cat Drawing .......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 4-2 VSL Estimates ....................................................................................................... 48
Figure 4-3 Visual Depiction of VSL Theory .......................................................................... 49
Figure 4-4 Risk Reduction Scenario ....................................................................................... 53

vi

Figure 4-5 Willingness to Pay................................................................................................. 53
Figure 4-6 VSL Frequency Comprisons................................................................................. 53
Figure 4-7 Annual Cost of Caring for a Cat ........................................................................... 63
Figure 5-1 Painting by Yi Am ................................................................................................ 66
Figure 5-2 Coase Theorem - Unsupervised Outdoor Pet Cats ................................................ 71
Figure 5-3 Coase Theorem - All Cats Indoors ........................................................................ 73
Figure 5-4 Coase Theorem - Supervised Outdoor Cats due to Bylaws .................................. 74
Figure 6-1 The domestic cat; bird killer, mouser and destroyer of wild life 1916 ................. 85

vii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Peter Tsigaris for his guidance, mentorship,
and patience on this project. I extend this appreciation to the rest of my advisory committee:
Dr. Tom Dickinson and Dr. Laura Lamb. Your time and feedback was tremendously
valuable. Thank you as well to Dr. Sara Dubois for your review and comments as External
Examiner.
A sincere thank you to the residents of Kamloops who participated in the survey.
A special acknowledgement to the BC SPCA, Nature Canada, Environment Canada, and
the Stewardship Centre for BC who provided guidance to resources specific to outdoor cats.
I also want to thank my family and friends for the stimulating discussions,
challenging questions and endless support.
A final thanks to the TRU Sustainability Office for your financial support.
The work was approved by the Thompson Rivers University’s Research
Ethics for Human Subjects Board, protocol no. 101623.

viii

Dedication

I dedicate this research to all the cats I have had in my life, but most recently to
O’Malley and Purrlene.
O’Malley, you died too young, but your time with me had such great impact.

Purrlene, you are my ‘acrobat chatty cat’ who makes me smile every day. I promise to
enrich your indoor life, and keep you safe while outdoors, for years and years to come.

1

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Figure 1-1 Heubach Cat, before 1924
(Source https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heubach_cat.jpg)

Momentum surrounding the global issue of outdoor domestic cats (Felis catus) and
their impact on wildlife, especially birds, is gaining the attention of experts working in the
fields of wildlife conservation and animal welfare (Wald, Lohr, Lepczyk, Jacobson, & Cox,
2016; Flockhart & Coe, 2018; Cove, Gardner, Simons, Kays, & O’Connell, 2018; Marra &
Santella, 2016; Blancher, 2013; Loss, Will, & Marra, 2013; van Heezik, Smyth, Adams, &
Gordon, 2010; Roetman, Tindle, & Litchfield, 2018; Loss & Marra, 2017). Bringing
conservationists and animal welfare professionals together for consensus on risk-mitigating
strategies is a challenge because of the different perspectives and approaches each stakeholder
brings to issues that involve human behaviour and wildlife (Dubois & Fraser, 2013). Wildlife
conservationists, especially ornithologists, are alarmed by research results which estimates
bird mortality in North America, due to cats, in the range of 1.4 to 4.0 billion per year
(Blancher, 2013; Marra & Santella, 2016; The Stewardship Centre for BC, n.d.). Animal
welfare advocates are equally concerned because outdoor cats, whether pet, stray or feral is
stretching their resources to uphold the welfare of the cats. Clearly, a multi-pronged approach
to reduce the number of cats on the landscape is necessary for the reasons listed above, and
strategies will differ depending on whether the cat is owned, stray or feral. One approach is to
focus on the owned/pet cats, or rather the cat owner, and there are national, provincial and
community initiatives striving to change the behaviour of cat owners in an effort to reduce the
number of unsupervised cats outside (Nature Canada, 2019 a; The Stewardship Centre For
BC, 2016; Guelph Cat Population Task Force, c). With the focus on the cat owner
community-based research becomes even more important. According to Schultz (2011),
conservation is a goal that can only be achieved by changing behaviour.

2

Conversations are occurring between the previously divisive stakeholders in wildlife
conservation and animal welfare, so collaboration is now possible (The Stewardship Centre
for BC, 2018).
Previous research on cat owners’ attitudes, perceptions and views on outdoor pet cats
spans the globe (Mameno, Kubo, & Suzuki, 2017; Kikillus, Chamberes, Farnworth, & Hare,
2016; Hall, et al., 2017; Walker, Bruce, & Dale, 2017; Gramza, Teel, Vande Woude, &
Crook, 2016).
In Canada, an estimated 8.5 million (The Stewardship Centre For BC, 2016) to 9.3
million (Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 2017) households have cats. Of those
household cats, 28 percent of the households with cats allow them outdoors unsupervised
(Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 2017). In addition to the number of birds killed
by outdoor cats (1.4 - 4.0 billion) in North America, by their very presence outdoors, cats
have been proven to alter foraging habits of bird species (Bonnington, Gaston, & Evans,
2013). Wildlife native to the Kamloops area that is at risk from cat predation is extensive and
varied. Rick Howie is Kamloops’ resident bird expert who compiled a list (see Appendix A)
of the types of birds most at risk from cat predation based on their general ecology, ground
feeding habits or tendency to visit bird feeders at certain times of the year (Howie, 2016).
Other species that visit feeders, such as woodpeckers, tend to feed higher up and are less
vulnerable. None of the listed species is considered to be “species at conservation risk” and
are not listed under the Species at Risk Act or by the BC Conservation Data Centre as being
at risk (BC Government, n.d.). Mammal species that could be preyed upon by cats include
Red Squirrels, Yellow Pine Chipmunk, House Mouse, Black Rat, Wandering Shrew,
Montane Vole, Long-tailed Vole, White-footed Mouse and Pocket Gopher. Species at risk of
cat predation depend upon how far out into natural and rural habitats cats roam. They may
even take small garter snakes and small Rubber Boa snakes, as well as butterflies and
grasshoppers.
The risks outdoor cats impose on wildlife is not just about predation, outdoor cats can
spread diseases. Rabies and toxoplasmosis are two of the most common diseases outdoor
cats, pet or otherwise, can spread to other domestic animals, wildlife and humans. Cats that
have not been in the care of a veterinarian and vaccinated for rabies may spread rabies.
Outdoor cats (free-roaming) account for the most cases of human rabies exposure among

3

domestic animals in the US (Gerhold & Jessup, 2013). Cats can become infected with
toxoplasmosis, a parasite, by eating infected rodents, birds, or other small animals and the
parasite can then be passed in the cat's feces. When cat owners change the litter box of a cat
infected by toxoplasmosis, it is important to wash hands to prevent accidental ingestion
(Centre for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). This is of concern especially for pregnant
women.
Outdoor cats contribute to the stray and feral cat populations as well as the number of
cats entering shelters. Based on the latest report from the Canadian Federation of Humane
Societies of the 175 organizations that participated in the survey, 114,131 cats were brought
to the shelters across Canada (Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 2017). Of those
cats 20,753 were euthanized. In understanding the relationship between owned outdoor cat
populations and the number of stray, feral and cats in shelters shows that the “root” of the cat
populations on the landscape comes down to the cat owner. For example, if the owned
outdoor cat is not spayed or neutered (intact), it can mate with other intact cats. If the
pregnant cat has an owner, then that owner now has to find homes for kittens, which reduces
the number of kittens being adopted from a shelter. A kitten adopted from a shelter will be
vaccinated and spayed/neutered at the time of adoption, or a voucher supplied which allows
the new cat owner to get the kitten vaccinated and spayed/neutered. Alternatively, the owner
could surrender the kittens to the animal shelter, thus adding to the burden of the already
overflowing supply of adoptable cats. If the pregnant cat is unowned, then those kittens will
be born outdoors and considered feral, because it is unlikely those kittens will interact or
socialize with people. Socialization of kittens begins early, from 2 to 7 weeks (Bateson &
Turner, 2014). Even if the owned outdoor cat is spayed or neutered, they are susceptible to
getting lost and could potentially end up in a shelter or in a feral cat colony. The cost of cat
care weighs heavily on communities through financial support of animal shelters, the morale
of shelter staff who must make decisions about euthanizing cats, and the management of feral
cat colonies with trap-neuter-return programs.
Despite the years of domestication, cats remain skilled hunters and are praised for
their ability to kill and manage rodent populations, but chastised for preying on birds and
other small mammals in our ecosystem. Wildlife conservationists want to remove outdoor
cats from the landscape (Marra & Santella, 2016) because they deem the problem persists,

4

not only because of stray and feral cat populations, but because cat owners allow their cats to
go outdoors. The risks outdoor cats pose to wildlife and communities is clear, but there is
another aspect of outdoor cats that also needs to be considered, namely the welfare of the cat.
Outdoor cats, whether they are owned or unowned, are at risk of being killed or
injured by predators such as coyotes, wildcats and even large birds. It is difficult to gather
solid data on the number of cats killed by predators. For owned cats, the cat owner may not
know the cat died from a predator and may claim the cat was lost. Any number of outcomes
may occur with a lost cat, especially if the cat has not been licensed or registered or
microchipped/tattooed, such as being killed or injured by a car, being fed by another person,
and becoming part of the stray cat population or ending up in a shelter and being adopted out
or euthanized.
Based on research conducted in England (O'Neill, Churs, McGreevy, Thompson, &
Brodbelt, 2015), 60 percent of premature mortality of cats was due to road traffic accidents
and for cats below the age of five, 47.3 percent of cats died by this means. Again, unless the
driver of the car that hit the cat seeks out the cat owner, or the cat owner sees the cat hit by
the car, the cat may remain “lost or missing” and presumed dead.
Disease is another risk and left untreated will kill the cat. The diseases outdoor cats
are susceptible to contract include: Feline Panleukopenia, Feline Rhinotracheitis and
Calicivirus, Feline Leukemia Virus and Rabies (Canadian Veterinary Medical Association,
2019). The SPCA collects data related to cat mortality, but only if the cat has been registered
with the SPCA (ie. the cat was adopted from the SPCA) or the cat was microchipped with
identification, and the owner updates the data regarding how the cat died. City bylaws
officers who dispose of a cat killed on the road may also have some data, however in
Kamloops, only the number of animals removed from the road is recorded, not the type of
animal (personal communication, City of Kamloops Bylaw Manager; 2018) The next best
method for gathering data will be from the cat owners themselves.
The risks that face both wildlife and cats while cats are outside unsupervised is high.
This research will not only explore the risks outdoor pet cats impose on wildlife, but will also
examine the risks outdoor pet cats incur while being outdoors. The purpose of this research is
gain an understanding of cat owner behaviour and the views of non-cat owners and their role
with respect to outdoor pet cats, to explore economic theories that may shed light on new

5

approaches, and to provide baseline data that will guide future conservation initiatives that
are impact-driven and community-specific. Previous research on cat owner behaviour and
non-cat owners’ views of outdoor pet cats has not been done for Kamloops, BC.

Methods and Design
The methodology for data collection was an online survey modelled after the survey
used in similar research in Colorado, USA with permission granted by the lead researcher,
Ashley Gramza (Gramza, Teel, Vande Woude, & Crook, 2016). This quantitative approach
to descriptive research with a survey was chosen because it is the most effective and efficient
way to gather baseline data from a representative sample of the residents of Kamloops
regarding their beliefs, perspectives or opinions of cat owner behaviour and outdoor pet cats.
The methodology for each of the chapters in this thesis utilizes data gathered from the
survey. Instead of repeating the methodology within each chapter, I will summarize it here as
an overview, and within each chapter a more detailed explanation of the sections that pertain
to the chapter will be described.
The survey is divided into seven sections, with a total of 47 questions (Appendix B).
The sections are identified as follows:
Section 1 - Wildlife
Section 2 - Opinions about Outdoor Pet Cats
Section 3 - Outdoor Pet Cats and Risks to Wildlife
Section 4 - Risk Mitigation for Outdoor Pet Cats
Section 5 - Cat Ownership and Outdoor Cats - Cat Owners Only
Section 6 - Cat License and Enforcement - Non-Cat Owners Only
Section 7 - Sociodemographics
A 5-point Likert scale used for many of the questions with the neutral responses [mean = 3]
suggesting indifference, lack of comfort with personal level of knowledge, or a perceived
lack of information on the topic.
The survey was created using Fluid Survey, an online survey tool, and ethics approval
was received from the TRU Research Ethics Committee (Appendix C). Hard copies, with
postage paid return envelopes, were available upon request to reduce sampling bias. The
target population was the community of Kamloops BC, cat owners and non-cat owners alike.
Participation in this research was voluntary and the distribution of the survey was as

6

widespread throughout the community as possible within the time constraints and budget for
the research.
The representative sample size required, at a 95 percent confidence level and +/-5
percent margin for error, with the number of households listed for Kamloops as 55,722 (BC
Statistics, 2018), is 382. In total, 729 surveys were submitted, however, after removing those
respondents who lived outside of the Kamloops area, and thus ineligible to be part of the
survey, 584 survey responses were utilized for this analysis. Of those 584 responses, 376
were cat owners (155 outdoor cat owners and 221 indoor cat owners) and 208 non-cat
owners. For further details of the demographics see Table 1-1.
Common errors with surveys include sampling error, measurement error, coverage
error and non-response error. Sampling error is always present since the whole population is
not surveyed. Measurement errors occur, but an attempt was made to reduce these errors by
carefully wording the survey questions so they remained neutral. Coverage error indicates the
representative sample does not accurately reflect the population being measured. This was
addressed by distributing the survey through several different methods in an attempt to reach
all demographics. Respondents were solicited through three methods of engagement. First,
interviews took place with local media outlets. Kamloops This Week newspaper (Petruk,
2017), which is distributed to over 30,000 households in Kamloops; Kamloops CBC Radio
morning show hosted by Shelley Joyce (CBC News, 2017), and a follow-up story that
included a link to the survey; and finally, CFJC TV included a clip on the evening news
along with an article on the station website (Donnelly, 2017). Second, the survey was sent to
Thompson Rivers University’s (TRU) employees via email distribution lists for staff, faculty
and administration. TRU has a total of 1,543 employees, including faculty (Thompson Rivers
University, 2019). The email included a brief description of the purpose of the research and a
link was distributed to each of these groups. Thirdly, through community collaboration and
relationships building with the Kamloops Naturalist Club (Kamloops Naturalist Club, 2019),
a research summary was provided with a link to the survey to the executive who then
distributed it to their member list of 41 family memberships (82 people) and 67 single
memberships. Plus, with support from the Kamloops SPCA, and the provincial office in
Vancouver, the research summary and link to the survey was posted on their Facebook page
(BC SPCA Kamloops & District Branch, 2019). Finally, the local North Shore newsletter,

7

The Echo, published a story along with the link to the survey (Edge Publishing, 2019).
Despite all these attempts, the number of female respondents outweighed the male
respondents. This is not uncommon and previous research has demonstrated that females are
more likely to participate in online suveys than males (Smith, 2008). Non-response error is
the final error that is to be considered and that was accommodated for by posting the survey
online, which helps alleviate such an error.
Utilizing non-probability sampling was necessary as resources were not available to
engage a research company to provide a random sample for Kamloops and then direct the
survey accordingly. There is a risk that a representative sample would not be reached,
however many forms of distribution of the survey link were employed to reduce the risk and
the representative sample was achieved. In gathering baseline data for Kamloops part of the
purpose of this research was to gauge the community’s interest in the subject, and gather
their opinions and perceptions, as would be demonstrated by the number of valid survey
received which exceeded the representative sample required. The types of non-probability
sampling utilized include convenience sampling because, as noted earlier, there was no
budget for purchasing a list of all members in Kamloops. Snowball sampling would have
also been an inherent factor when the methods for distributing the survey were media, email
and websites (including Facebook) where “sharing” occurs. It is understood that when
measuring opinions and attitudes there may be an unwillingness to provide honest answers,
which comes from the respondents desire to provide socially acceptable answers. As
mentioned earlier, this research provides baseline data and represents those who deem the
topic of concern or interest.
Minitab 2018 and excel was utilized mainly for analysis of the descriptive statistics,
the t-tests, and Mann Whitney-U tests. By using Minitab, I analysed the data with t-tests to
compare differences in means and Mann Whitney U tests to check for variations around the
median, thus reducing the impact extreme results can have on data. I also utilized descriptive
statistics.

8
Table 1-1 Survey Demographics
Cat Owners

Non-Cat Owners

%

%

Female

83

66

Male

16

33

Other

1

1

18 - 24 years old

7

4

25-39 years old

33

24

40-64 years old

48

56

65-79 years old

11

15

80 years or older

1

0

Less than high school diploma

1

1

High school diploma or equivalent (GED)

12

9

Certificate, diploma, or trade

39

33

4-year university degree

31

31

Post-graduate degree

17

25

Homeowner

72

83

Have a backyard

87

89

Have a dog

41

45

Less than $40,000

22

14

$40,001 to $80,000

30

33

$80,001 to $120,000

25

29

$120,001 or more

22

24

Sex:

Age:

Education:

Income:

This thesis is composed of six chapters inclusive of this introductory chapter. Chapter
two will examine Kamloops residents’ levels of interest and opinions about wildlife in
general, and about outdoor pet cats, in particular. It will analyse the differences and
similarities between outdoor cat owners, indoor cat owners and non-cat owners’ interests and
opinions about wildlife and outdoor pet cats. The question explored in this chapter is whether
there a difference between the three stakeholder groups with respect to their views on
wildlife and opinions about outdoor pet cats. The purpose of this chapter is to present
baseline data in the areas noted above of the residents of Kamloops.

9

Chapter three seeks to understand perception of risks that outdoor pet cats incur and
impose on our environment in Kamloops, and the factors that may be influencing those
perceptions. Understanding peoples’ perceptions of risks that outdoor cats incur and impose
on our ecosystems is an important step to knowing the starting point and focus for risk
mitigation strategies. Results will identify the differences in those perceptions between cat
owners and non-cat owners; and cat owners who allow their cats outdoors versus those with
indoor cats. The evidence indicates that risk perceptions are influenced by the history of
issues with outdoor cats in neighbourhoods (Gramza, Teel, Vande Woude, & Crook, 2016).
These issues are categorized in terms of outdoor cat owners, indoor cat owners, and non-cat
owners. The breakdown of the history of reported issues with outdoor cats by geographical
area may highlight areas of specific concern. Based on prior work, it is anticipated that those
residents, who perceived the risks, both for imposing and/or incurring, to be high, would
keep their cats indoors or implement some form of risk mitigation while their cat is outdoors,
such as a harness, or a cat enclosure. Cat owners can thus reduce the risks outdoor pet cats
impose and incur on the environment, however, that will require a change in behaviour. This
chapter will analyse the results to see if there is a relationship between perception and cat
owner behaviour.
Chapter four will apply the value of the statistical life economic theory to that of a cat
in Kamloops. There is a perception that cats have little value and this perception contributes
to the concerns being raised by wildlife conservationists because despite the risks outdoor pet
cats face, cat owners continue to allow their cats outdoors unsupervised and these
unsupervised outdoor pet cats then have an impact on the environment and neighbourhoods
in Kamloops. The amount Kamloops residents are willing to pay to reduce the risk of a cat
dying prematurely will be assessed, as will views on licensing and the price of licensing. The
focus of this chapter is to explore a unique approach to influencing behaviour change,
namely having people reconsider the value of a statistical life of a cat (VSL).
Chapter five will examine negative externalities, another economic theory, and noncat owners’ role in outdoor cat enforcement. Cat owners who allow their cats outside
unsupervised would appear to not consider the impact their decision to do so has on the
surrounding environment. Numerous campaigns to increase awareness of the impact outdoor
pet cats have on our communities and the environment have been somewhat effective, but

10

there is room for new and innovative approaches which may influence cat owners who allow
their cats outside unsupervised. Coase Theorem provides parameters for exploring scenarios
that measure marginal private benefits and marginal social costs in an effort to determine if a
situation can be resolved without government (in the case of this research, city bylaws)
intervention.
The outdoor cat issue challenges wildlife conservationists and animal welfare
advocates to become allies working on management options that focus on risk-mitigating
behaviour changes in communities. The final chapter will provide an overview of the outdoor
pet cat owner behaviour and provide recommendations for risk mitigation strategies for
Kamloops.

11

Chapter 2 - Kamloops Residents’ Opinions About Wildlife and Outdoor Pet Cats

Figure 2-1 Cat raiding nest, 1916
(Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/
internetarchivebookimages/20803190680/)

Introduction
This chapter will examine Kamloops residents’ levels of interest and opinions about
wildlife in general, and about outdoor pet cats, in particular. It will examine the differences
and similarities between outdoor cat owners, indoor cat owners and non-cat owners’ interests
and opinions about wildlife and outdoor pet cats. The purpose of this chapter is to
understanding Kamloops residents’ views and opinions for baseline data to be considered
when developing conservation, animal welfare and policy initiatives.
It has become clear that human behaviour can both cause and alleviate social
problems in a variety of domains (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010), including conservation.
According to Schultz (2011), conservation is a goal that can only be achieved by changing
behaviour and in order to change behaviour an understanding of the similarities and
differences between the stakeholders may help guide conservation initiatives. Manfredo
(2008) delves into theories regarding feelings, values and attitudes towards wildlife and
suggests that many initiatives “…may depend upon identifying value similarity among
stakeholders and building upon shared values to support engagement and seek
compromise…”. Attitudes have a strong influence on some environmental behaviours, but
the behaviours rely upon the ease of use and/or accessibility (Steel, 1996). Subjective norms
are a culmination of social pressure from others to engage or not engage in the specified

12

behaviour. Research that directly related to subjects bringing in their cats at night looked at
how subjective norms influence behaviour (MacDonald, Milfont, & Gavin, 2015). In the
field of psychology, subjective norms can be divided into two type of norms: descriptive
norms or what is commonly done by others and injunctive norms, what is commonly
approved/disapproved of by others. Injunctive norms, i.e. what others approve of, were more
powerful predictors of intention for the subjects already engaging in the desired behaviour,
but descriptive norms, i.e. what others commonly do, were more predictive of intention for
subjects not already bringing their cats in at night. The research results also indicated that
veterinarians, more than any other normative authoritative figure, are a key injunctive
influence for visitors who intermittently bring cats inside (MacDonald, Milfont, & Gavin,
2015).
Therefore, consideration of the views and opinions that currently are in place with
Kamloops residents who participated in this research may provide guideposts from which to
begin initiatives or campaigns to influence and change behaviours that are having a negative
impact on the environment.
Methods
As noted in the introductory chapters, an online survey was used to collect the data.
For the purposes of this chapter, data from Section 1 was utilized, Wildlife, which gathered
information about how cat owners and non-cat owners felt about wildlife issues and Section
2, Opinions about Outdoor Pet Cats, which asked general questions on interests and opinions
about outdoor pet cats and cat owners who allow their cats outdoors. As a reminder, the 5point Likert scale used with the neutral responses [mean = 3] suggesting indifference, lack of
comfort with personal level of knowledge, or a perceived lack of information on the topic,
was used to rank various questions in sections 1 and 2. All statistical analysis of the survey
data for this chapter is performed using Minitab 2018. By using Minitab I analysed the data
with t-tests to compare differences in means and Mann Whitney U tests to check for
variations around the median, thus reducing the impact extreme results can have on data. I
also utilized descriptive statistics.

13

Results
Comparing Views on Wildlife and Outdoor Pet Cats
Outdoor versus Indoor Cat Owners
Both outdoor cat owners and indoor cat owners (Table 2-1) were interested in local
wildlife issues (mean = 3.91 and 3.75 respectively). They both disagreed with the statement
that humans should manage wildlife population so that humans benefit, as well as with the
statement ‘Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use.’ They agreed that all living
things are part of one big family (outdoor cat owner mean = 4.07 and indoor cat owner mean
= 4.10). The only area with significant differences in the means (-0.26) was with respect to
wildlife being like their family and they want to protect them with the indoor cat owners
agreeing (mean = 4.00) and the outdoor cat owners agreeing less (mean = 3.74).
There were significant differences for each of the questions on opinions about
outdoor pet cats between outdoor and indoor cat owners for Section 1 Question 1 (Table 2-1).
Indoor cat owners claimed to be more informed about outdoor pet cats (mean = 3.97) than
the outdoor cat owners (mean = 3.73), as well the indoor cat owners were more interested in
outdoor pet cat issues in their neighbourhood than outdoor cat owners (means = 3.86 and
3.54 resepctively). Outdoor cat owners viewed having outdoor pet cats in their
neighbourhood as slightly above neutral towards ‘good’ (mean = 3.38) and the indoor cat
owners were skewed in the opposite direction with outdoor pet cats in the neighbourhood as
being just above ‘bad’ towards neutral with a mean = 2.37. With respect to the level of
approval for people allowing their cats outdoors, the outdoor cat owners leaned towards
approve (mean = 3.85) and the indoor cat owners were more disapproving (mean = 2.50).
Section 2 Question 2 presented a series of positive and negative statements regarding
outdoor pet cats, for example, they are a nuisance or they live happier lives. The respondents
could choose on a Likert scale of 1-5 with strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, neutral = 3,
agree = 4 and strongly agree = 5. There were significant differences between the means of
outdoor cat owners and indoor cat owners for all of the statements. The top 3 greatest
differences in means occurred first with the statement that outdoor pet cats in my
neighbourhood live happier lives than cats that remain indoors with outdoor cat owners mean
= 3.72 and the indoor cat owner with a mean of 2.40 (p=<0.001). The second greatest
difference in the means occurred with the statement that outdoor pet cats should be allowed

14

to roam freely without restrictions with the outdoor cat owners mean = 3.11 and the indoor
cat owners mean = 2.10 (p=<0.001). The third greatest difference in means was with the
statement that outdoor pet cats play a useful role as predators in the natural environment with
the outdoor cat owners mean = 3.62 and the indoor cat owners mean = 2.83 (p=<0.001).
Interestingly, out of all the statements presented, the outdoor cat owners agreed mostly with:
outdoor pet cats are at risk of being harmed while outdoors (mean = 4.02) followed by
outdoor pet cats in my neighbourhood are enjoyable to have around (mean = 3.86) and then
outdoor pet cats in my neighbourhood live happier lives than cats that remain indoors with
mean = 3.72. For the indoor cat owners, the statements they agreed most strongly with was
outdoor pet cats are at risk of being harmed while outdoors (mean = 4.51), followed by
outdoor pet cats should be protected by their owners from possible harm while spending time
outdoors with a mean of 4.12 and finally they agreed that outdoor pet cats live shorter lives
than cats that remain indoors (mean = 4.10).

Table 2-1 Outdoor and Indoor Cat Owners

Section 1
Question 1 - Wildlife
Overall, how interested would you say you are in local wildlife
issues?
Humans should manage wildlife populations so that humans
benefit.
I view all living things as part of one big family.
Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use.
Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them.
Section 2
Question 1 - Opinions about Outdoor Pet Cats
How well informed are you on the topic of outdoor pet cats?
How interested are you in outdoor pet cat issues in your
neighborhood?
Overall, do you think having outdoor pet cats in your
neighborhood is good, bad, or neither?
Please rate your overall level of approval of people allowing
their cats to spend time outdoors in your neighborhood.

Outdoor
Cat Owners
(N=155)
Mean

Indoor Cat
Owners
(N=221)
Mean

Differences in
means

t-test for
differences in
means
p-value

Mann-Whitney test
for differences
p-value

3.91

3.75

0.16

0.159

0.158

2.20
4.07
1.54
3.74

2.31
4.10
1.55
4.00

-0.11
-0.03
-0.01
-0.26

0.278
0.722
0.870
0.004

0.475
0.983
0.802
0.007

***

3.73

3.97

-0.24

0.040

0.008

***

3.54

3.86

-0.32

0.007

0.003

***

3.38

2.37

1.01

<0.001

<0.001

***

3.85

2.50

1.34

<0.001

<0.001

***

2.88
3.24
2.83
3.47
3.01
4.51
2.40
4.10

-0.62
0.62
0.79
-0.36
-0.44
-0.49
1.32
-0.72

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***

4.12
2.10

-0.66
1.01

<0.001
<0.001

<0.001
<0.001

***
***

Question 2 - Outdoor pet cats in my neighbourhood…
…are a nuisance (cause problems).
2.26
…are enjoyable to have around.
3.86
...play a useful role as predators in the natural environment.
3.62
...are harmful to wildlife.
3.11
...disrupt the balance of nature.
2.57
...are at risk of being harmed while outdoors.
4.02
...live happier lives than cats that remain indoors.
3.72
...live shorter lives than cats that remain indoors.
3.38
...should be protected by their owners from possible harm
while spending time outdoors.
3.46
...should be allowed to roam freely without restrictions.
3.11
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

Mann-Whitney
test
Significance

15

16

Outdoor Cat Owners versus Non-Cat Owners
There were no significant differences in the means between the outdoor cat owners
and the non-cat owners with respect to views on wildlife, except for the statement that I view
all living things as part of one big family. The non-cat owners were less in agreement (mean
= 3.87) than the outdoor cat owners (mean = 4.07), however that result is still closer to
‘agree’ than ‘neutral’. Not surprising though there were significant differences in the
opinions about outdoor pet cats with respect to how informed they were about the topic of
outdoor pet cats with cat owners claiming to be more informed (mean = 3.72) than non-cat
owners who were more neutral (mean = 3.15); in regards to whether they thought outdoor pet
cats in the neighbour was good, bad or neither, as mentioned earlier, the outdoor cat owners’
mean was slightly above neutral towards good (mean = 3.38), whereas the non-cat owners
was closer to bad (mean = 2.23). Finally, for the overall level of approval of people allowing
their cats to spend time outdoors, the outdoor cat owners leaned towards approve (mean =
3.85) and the non-cat owners were closer to neutral on the disapprove side (mean = 2.40).
For the final question in Section 2, the greatest differences in the means between
outdoor cat owners and non-cat owners occurred with non-cat owners close to agreement
with respect to outdoor pet cats in their neighbourhood being a nuisance (mean = 3.47) and
the outdoor cat owners closer to disagreeing (mean = 2.26), a difference in the means being 1.20 (Table 2-2). The second largest difference in the means (1.18) was with the statement
outdoor pet cats are enjoyable to have around. As noted earlier, the outdoor cat owners were
in agreement (mean = 3.86) whereas the non-cat owners leaned towards disagree with a mean
of 2.68. The third largest difference in the means was 1.13 with the statement regarding
should outdoor pet cats be allowed to roam freely without restrictions. The outdoor cat
owners claimed to be just slightly above neutral with a mean of 3.11, whereas the non-cat
owners were clearly in disagreement with a mean of 1.98. Interestingly, both the outdoor cat
owners and the non-cat owners agreed that the outdoor pet cats are at risk of being harmed
while outdoors with means being 4.02 and 4.08 respectively.

Table 2-2 Outdoor Cat Owners and Non-Cat Owners
Outdoor Cat
Owners
(N=155)
Mean

Non-Cat
Owners
(N=208)
Mean

Differences in
means

t-test for
differences in
means
p-value

Mann-Whitney test
for differences
p-value

3.82

0.09

0.440

0.545

2.35
3.87
1.70
3.68

-0.15
0.20
-0.16
0.05

0.160
0.046
0.053
0.589

0.239
0.042
0.137
0.532

3.73

3.15

0.58

<0.001

<0.001

3.54

3.64

-0.10

0.41

0.259

3.38

2.23

1.15

<0.001

<0.001

***

3.85

2.40

1.45

<0.001

<0.001

***

3.47
2.68
2.65
3.65
3.35
4.08
2.98
3.60

-1.20
1.18
0.97
-0.54
-0.78
-0.06
0.74
-0.22

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.471
<0.001
0.038

<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
0.345
<0.001
0.071

***
***
***
***
***

3.77
1.98

-0.32
1.13

0.005
<0.001

0.005
<0.001

**
***

Section 1
Question 1 - Wildlife
Overall, how interested would you say you are in local wildlife
issues?
3.91
Humans should manage wildlife populations so that humans
benefit.
2.20
I view all living things as part of one big family.
4.07
Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use.
1.54
Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them.
3.74
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%
Section 2
Question 1 - Opinions about Outdoor Pet Cats
How well informed are you on the topic of outdoor pet cats?
How interested are you in outdoor pet cat issues in your
neighborhood?
Overall, do you think having outdoor pet cats in your
neighborhood is good, bad, or neither?
Please rate your overall level of approval of people allowing
their cats to spend time outdoors in your neighborhood.

Question 2 - Outdoor pet cats in my neighbourhood . . .
…are a nuisance (cause problems).
2.26
...are enjoyable to have around.
3.86
...play a useful role as predators in the natural environment.
3.62
...are harmful to wildlife.
3.11
...disrupt the balance of nature.
2.57
...are at risk of being harmed while outdoors.
4.02
...live happier lives than cats that remain indoors.
3.72
...live shorter lives than cats that remain indoors.
3.38
...should be protected by their owners from possible harm
while spending time outdoors.
3.46
...should be allowed to roam freely without restrictions.
3.11
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

Mann-Whitney
test
Significance

**

***

***
*

17

18

Indoor Cat Owners vs Non-Cat Owners
Indoor cat owners and non-cat owners have similar views regarding wildlife with
respect to being quite interested in local wildlife issues and not agreeing the wildlife
populations should be managed by humans nor are wildlife on earth primarily for people to
use (Table 2-3). However, indoor cat owners do agree more so than non-cat owners in the
view that wildlife are like their family and they want to protect them (mean = 4.00 compared
to 3.68 respectively; difference in mean = 0.32). Relatively significant diffference in means
(0.23; p=0.019) for the indoor cat owners viewing all living things as part of one big family
(mean = 4.10) compared to the non-cat owners (mean = 3.87).
On the opinions about outdoor pet cats, the indoor cat owners claimed to be
significantly more informed on the topic of outdoor pet cats than the non-cat owners (mean =
3.97 and 3.15 respectively; difference in means = 0.82). And with the level of interest in
outdoor pet cat issues, the indoor cat owners were more interested (mean = 3.86) than the
non-cat owners (mean = 3.64). The final two opinion statements regarding outdoor pet cats
pertained to firstly, whether the respondents saw them as good, bad or neither and there was
no significan differences for the two groups as both indoor cat owners and non-cat owners
had the opinion that outdoor pet cats were closer to bad than good (mean = 2.37 and 2.23
respectively, where 2 = bad). Plus the level of approval of people allowing their cats to spend
times outdoors was closer to neutral for both groups with the means = 2.50 for indoor cat
owners and slightly closer to disagree with a mean of 2.40 for non-cat owners.
For Section 2 Question 2 (Table 2-3), the statements regarding outdoor pet cats in the
neighbourhood, the non-cat owners were more in agreement that the outdoor pet cats were a
nuisance (mean = 3.47) compared to the indoor cat owners who leaned towards disagreement
with the mean = 2.88 (difference in means = -0.58). The same difference in means (-0.58)
was found with the statement that outdoor pet cats live happier lives than cats that remain
indoors. The indoor cat owners were closer to disgree (mean = 2.40) and the non-cat owners
were closer to neutral with mean = 2.98. The third greatest difference in means occurred with
the statement about outdoor pet cats being enjoyable to have around. Not surprisingly, the
indoor cat owners were only a bit above neutral with mean = 3.24 and the non-cat owners
leaning to disagree with a mean of 2.68.

Table 2-3 Indoor Cat Owners and Non-Cat Owners

Section 1
Question 1 - Wildlife
Overall, how interested would you say you are in local
wildlife issues?
Humans should manage wildlife populations so that
humans benefit.
I view all living things as part of one big family.
Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to use.
Wildlife are like my family and I want to protect them.
Section 2
Question 1 - Opinions about Outdoor Pet Cats
How well informed are you on the topic of outdoor pet
cats?
How interested are you in outdoor pet cat issues in your
neighborhood?
Overall, do you think having outdoor pet cats in your
neighborhood is good, bad, or neither?
Please rate your overall level of approval of people
allowing their cats to spend time outdoors in your
neighborhood.

Indoor Cat
Owners
(N=221)
Mean

Non-Cat
Owners
(N=208)
Mean

t-test for
differences in
means
p-value

MannWhitney test
for differences
p-value

3.75

3.82

-0.07

0.52

0.426

2.31
4.10
1.55
4.00

2.35
3.87
1.70
3.68

-0.03
0.23
-0.15
0.32

0.74
0.01
0.05
<0.001

0.640
0.019
0.166
<0.001

***

3.97

3.15

0.82

<0.001

<0.001

***

3.86

3.64

0.22

0.055

0.079

*

2.37

2.23

0.14

0.180

0.131

2.50

2.40

0.10

0.414

0.191

-0.58
0.56

<0.001
<0.001

<0.001
<0.001

***
***

0.18
-0.19
-0.34
0.43
-0.58
0.51

0.149
0.099
0.003
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

0.151
0.089
0.006
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

***
***
***

0.34
0.11

<0.001
0.334

<0.001
0.167

Question 2 - Outdoor pet cats in my neighbourhood . . .
…are a nuisance (cause problems).
2.88
3.47
...are enjoyable to have around.
3.24
2.68
...play a useful role as predators in the natural
environment.
2.83
2.65
...are harmful to wildlife.
3.47
3.65
...disrupt the balance of nature.
3.01
3.35
...are at risk of being harmed while outdoors.
4.51
4.08
...live happier lives than cats that remain indoors.
2.40
2.98
...live shorter lives than cats that remain indoors.
4.10
3.60
...should be protected by their owners from possible
harm while spending time outdoors.
4.12
3.77
...should be allowed to roam freely without restrictions.
2.10
1.98
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

Differences in
means

Mann-Whitney
test
Significance

**

***

19

20

Discussion
Kamloops residents’ levels of interest and opinions about wildlife in general, and
about outdoor pet cats, in particular have provided interesting results. The similarities and
differences between outdoor cat owners, indoor cat owners and non-cat owners’ interests and
opinions about wildlife and outdoor pet cats provide solid baseline data for consideration.
Outdoor and indoor cat owners have similar views about wildlife in that they are
interested in local wildlife issues and that they agree all living things are part of one big
family. There are significant differences when it comes to opinions about outdoor pet cats.
Indoor cat owners state they are more informed and more interested in outdoor pet cat issues
than outdoor cat owners. Outdoor cat owners don’t see issues with outdoor pet cats in that
they approve of people allowing cats outdoors and don’t see them as bad, whereas indoor cat
owners see them as bad and disapprove of people allowing pet cats outdoors. With respect to
the opinions about outdoor pet cats, outdoor cat owners see outdoor pet cats living happier
lives, they should be allowed to roam, and they play a role as useful predators. However,
outdoor cat owners did recognize there are risks, which would support the view that outdoor
cat owners see the risks, but are of the opinion that because outdoor pet cats live happier lives
that outweighs the risks. These results align with the behaviour of why cat owners choose to
allow their cats outdoors unsupervised. Campaigns to encourage outdoor cat owners to keep
their cats indoors, or under their care and control while outdoors, will need to be paired with
options for allowing the cats outdoors in a safe environment (safe for the cat and safe for the
wildlife), such as a catio, cat run or leash training. It would be beneficial to broaden the scope
of the awareness of the outdoor cat owners to understand “responsible pet ownership”
behaviour in an urban setting.
When it comes to outdoor cat owners and non-cat owners with respect to the views of
wildlife they have similar views about wildlife, namely the viewpoint that wildlife are like
their family and they want to protect them, but when it comes to the view that they view all
living things as part of one big family, the outdoor cat owners were in more agreement with
that statement than the non-cat owners. For the opinions about outdoor pet cats the
differences were significant, but again predictable. The opinions for outdoor cat owners is
already listed above. For the non-cat owners they were less informed about outdoor pet cats,
viewed them as more “bad” and closer to a disapproving of cat owners who allow their cats

21

to spend time outdoors. The opinions are aligned with both groups agreeing that outdoor pet
cats are at risk of being harmed while outdoors. With respect to the other opinion statements
about outdoor pet cats, they are closer in alignment with the indoor cat owners and are
summarized in the following section.
In comparing the indoor cat owners and non-cat owners the results are similar to
those listed with the outdoor cat owners when it comes to views on wildlife, except the
indoor cat owners lean more towards strongly agreeing with the view that all living things are
part of one big family; and they are in solid agreement with the view that wildlife are like my
family and want to protect them. Indoor cat owners are also more informed and more
interested in outdoor pet cat issues. The differences arise with the opinion statements about
outdoor pet cats. Indoor cat owners are closer to neutral with respect to the outdoor pet cats
being a nuisance, than the non-cat owners. Non-cat owners lean towards the neutral position
with the outdoor pet cats living happier lives as compared to indoor cat owners who lean
closer to disagreeing. Both stakeholders agree that the outdoor pet cats are at risk of being
harmed when outdoors, but the indoor cat owners lean more so towards strongly agreeing
with the statement and that is the same with the statement that outdoor pet cats should be
protected by their owners from harm while outdoors. The opinions are aligned between these
two groups with respect to close to neutral opinions for outdoor pet cats playing a useful role
as predators in the natural environment, and they disrupt the balance of nature, and agreeing
that they are harmful to wildlife and disagreeing with the statement that outdoor pet cats
should be allowed to roam freely without restrictions.
In essence, the outdoor, indoor and non-cat owners have similar views about wildlife,
except the cat owners, both outdoor and indoor do see wildlife as part of their family and
they want to protect them, more so than the non-cat owners.
In using the above results as baseline data it is clear that current cat owners who allow
their cats outdoors believe their cat is happier and the risks they face while outdoors is worth
it for their cat’s happiness. The outdoor cat owners don’t view the impact the cats have on
wildlife as of great concern. Research on the impact outdoor pet cats have on wildlife could
be beneficial from a scientific standpoint, however, research in the area of animal welfare
communication indicates that marketing the negative impacts with scientific facts is not an
effective way to change behaviour (Cooney, 2011; McLeod, Driver, Bengsen, & Hine, 2017).

22

Though there is research that does provide evidence that messaging to cat owners regarding
keeping cats indoors that includes both the wildlife benefit and cat protection have a positive
influence, namely the cat owners’ motivation to contain their cat increased (McLeod, Hine,
Bengsen, & Driver, 2017). Influencing a change in behaviour with current cat owners who
allow their cats outdoors is definitely a challenge and requires careful consideration of
resources. It is worth noting that outdoor cat owners responded closer to neutral (mean =
3.11) to the statement ‘cats should be allowed to roam freely without restriction’, which
could be attributed to respondents swayed to answer in a socially responsible way. With that
in mind, it also demonstrates an opportunity to influence behaviour with social pressure with
“nudging” (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009). This concept will be explored more deeply in the final
chapter of the thesis.
Other options will be examined in Chapter 5 including consideration of reducing the
number of hours cat owners allow their cats outdoors. There are plenty of options with
potential and new cat owners to influence behaviour, such as how exactly to be a responsible
cat owner and options for enriching indoor cat’s lives as well as the many ways to allow cats
outdoors supervised like in a catio (like a patio for a cat), or with leash training. As
mentioned earlier, an assessment of resources will influence strategies. Previous research
supports the delivery of the information about responsible cat ownership from veterinarians
to be effective (MacDonald, Milfont, & Gavin, 2015), however that is an avenue that was not
explored in this research, but would be beneficial and possibly a project for research in the
near future.
The results provided here on the viewpoints and opinions are valuable for baseline
data, but more information is needed. Chapter 3 will dig deeper into understanding the
perceptions of the risks outdoor pet cats impose and incur while outdoors, which will provide
even more clarity on the areas where conservation action will be effective.

23

Chapter 3 - Kamloops Residents’ Perceptions of Risk Regarding Outdoor Pet Cats

Figure 3-1 Cat stalking birds, 1916
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cat_stalking_birds.png)

Introduction
This chapter seeks to understand perception of risks that outdoor pet cats incur and
impose on our environment in Kamloops, BC and the factors that influence those perceptions.
Results will identify the differences in those perceptions between cat owners and non-cat
owners; and cat owners who allow their cats outdoors versus those with indoor cats. The
evidence indicates that risk perceptions are influenced by the history of issues with outdoor
cats in neighbourhoods. These issues are categorized in terms of outdoor cat owners, indoor
cat owners, and non-cat owners. The breakdown of the history of reported issues with outdoor
cats by geographical area will assess areas of specific concern. Based on prior work, it is
anticipated that those residents, who perceived the risks, both for imposing and/or incurring,
to be high, would keep their cats indoors or implement some form of risk mitigation while
their cat is outdoors, such as a harness, or a cat enclosure. Cat owners can thus reduce the
risks outdoor pet cats impose and incur on the environment; however, that would require a
change in behaviour or regulations.
The risk-perception items I used were modelled after the Gramza research (Gramza,
Teel, Vande Woude, & Crook, 2016) with slight modifications to the Kamloops area
predators. The risks imposed on the wildlife from outdoor pet cats is identified as predation,
spreading disease, and anthropogenic concerns, such as, cats damaging people’s property or
injuring/killing small farm animals (Figure 3-2). The risks incurred by outdoor pet cats are
predators, contracting disease, and anthropogenic risks, such as, being hit by a car or getting
lost (Figure 3-3). Previous research in this area of cat ownership is growing as understanding
cat owner perceptions and behaviours is gaining in importance for implementing conservation
initiatives or risk mitigation strategies that will be most effective. Conservation social science
(Bennett, et al., 2016) is an area that could provide more in-depth insight into community-

24

based research, especially in this area of outdoor cats and cat owner behaviours. Individual
communities have unique ecosystems to consider, so it’s even more important that each
community conducts its own survey to assess the risks and the residents’ perceptions of that
area (Kikillus, Chamberes, Farnworth, & Hare, 2016; Mameno, Kubo, & Suzuki, 2017;
Walker, Bruce, & Dale, 2017).
Questions this chapter investigates includes: What are the differences in the risk
perceptions of the non-cat owners from the cat owners? What are the differences in the risk
perceptions between the cat owners who allow their cats outdoors compared to those who
keep their cats indoors? And finally, is there an area of Kamloops where the concern
regarding outdoor cats is greater than in other areas? Understanding the factors that influence
the risk perceptions will help guide the next steps for risk mitigation.

Methods
For the purpose of this chapter, for the survey sections, I utilized questions from
sections 3, 5 and 7. Section 3, “Outdoor Pet Cats and Risks to Wildlife”, which addressed
opinions regarding the possible risks associated with pet cats spending time outdoors and
previous issues with outdoor cats. Section 5 Question 13, “Cat Ownership and Outdoor Cats Cat Owners Only”, focused on cat ownership behaviour including the type of prey items
brought by cats to the house. Section 7 Question 17, “Sociodemographics”, identified the
area of Kamloops residents lived.
All statistical analysis of the survey data for this chapter was performed using
Minitab 2018. From the data collected via surveys from the residents, a t-test and a MannWhitney U test, using 95 percent confidence intervals, statistical significance at p ≤ .05 level,
was run on cat owners (n=376) and non-cat owners (n=208) to determine if there were
differences in the means of the risk perceptions of outdoor pet cats.

Risk Perception Categories
The risk-perception items I used were also modelled after the Gramza research
(Gramza, Teel, Vande Woude, & Crook, 2016) with slight modifications to the Kamloops
area predators. Risk perception categories were divided between risks that outdoor pet cats
impose on wildlife and risks pet cats incur while outdoors (Figure 3-2 & 3-3). The risks that
are imposed on wildlife are categorized first as predation of wildlife and includes a decrease
in

25

populations of mice or rats, a decrease in populations of birds and a decrease in populations
of small mammals (examples: squirrels or gophers). Disease giving is identified as cats
giving diseases to other pets, cats giving diseases to wildlife and cats giving diseases to
humans. Anthropogenic risks, such as cats damaging people's property (for example, going to
the bathroom in yards and digging up gardens), and cats injuring or killing small farm
animals like chickens was the third risk.
Figure 3-2 Risks Outdoor Cats Impose on the Environment

Predation of wildlife

Disease
giving

Anthropogenic

…a decrease in
populations of
mice/rats

...cats giving
diseases to other
pets

...cats damaging
people's property

…a decrease in
populations of
birds

...cats giving
diseases to
wildlife

...cats
injuring/killing
small farm
animals

...a decrease in
populations of
small mammals

...cats giving
diseases to
humans

The risks that are incurred by cats being outdoors are categorized as predation from
wildlife, such as cats being injured or killed by coyotes, cats being injured or killed by lynx,
or cats being injured or killed by cougars. Disease getting is the second category for risks
cats incur while outdoors and includes, cats getting diseases from wildlife and cats getting
diseases from other pets like other cats and/or dogs. The final category is anthropogenic,
which looks at the risks of cats being hit by cars, cats being lost or stolen and cats being
injured or killed by other pets (Figure 3-3).

26
Figure 3-3 Risks Outdoor Cats Incur From the Environment
Predation from
wildlife

Disease
getting

Anthropogenic

...cats being
injured/killed
by coyotes

...cats getting
diseases from
wildlife

…cats being
hit by cars

...cats being
injured/killed
by lynx

...cats getting
diseases from
other pets

...cats being
lost/stolen

...cats being
injured/killed
by cougars

…cats being
injured/killed
by other pets

This chapter will also outline history of outdoor cat issues by geography of Kamloops
and summarize how often cat owners’ cats bring home common prey items (whether alive or
dead), such as small mammals, rats, mice and birds.

Results
Cat Owner Versus Non-cat Owner Risk Perceptions
Perception of Risks Outdoor Pet Cats Impose on Environment
Survey results from Section 3 (Table 3-1) indicate that cat owners perceive the
highest risk outdoor pet cats impose on the environment as a decrease in the populations of
mice or rats (mean = 3.93), followed by cats damaging people’s property with a mean of 3.88
and finally a decrease in the population of birds (mean = 3.76). Non-cat owners deemed cats
damaging people’s property as the highest risk cats impose on the environment with a mean
of 4.34, followed by the decrease in population of birds as the next most likely risk with a
mean of 3.96 and finally a decrease in the population of mice/rats with a mean of 3.67.
For cat owners the least likely risk for outdoor pet cats was cats giving diseases to
humans (mean = 2.41) followed by cats injuring or killing farm animals (mean = 2.63) and
next being cats giving diseases to wildlife (mean = 2.74). For non-cat owners the least likely
risk was also cats giving diseases to humans, they were neutral with the statement regarding

27

cats giving diseases to wildlife (mean = 3), followed by cats injuring or killing small farm
animals, which was deemed moderately likely with a mean of 3.06.

Perception of Risks Outdoor Pet Cats Incur by Being Outside
Results from the survey support a similar level of perception of risk when looking at
the three highest risks outdoor pet cats incur while outdoors. Cat owners perceived cats being
hit by cars as the greatest risk (mean = 4.27), followed by cats being injured or killed by
coyotes (mean = 4.17) and cats being lost or stolen with a mean of 3.94. The least likely risk
outdoor pet cats are exposed to while outside was cats being injured or killed by lynx (mean
= 3.13) and cougars (3.2) and then cats getting diseases from wildlife with a mean of 3.35.
For non-cat owners, the highest risk to outdoor pet cats while outside was also cats being hit
by cars with a mean of 4.13 and cats being injured or killed by coyotes (mean = 4.13) and
finally cats being lost or stolen (mean = 3.86). The least likely risk for non-cat owners was
cats being injured or killed by lynx (mean = 3.13) and cats getting diseases from wildlife
with a mean of 3.19 and cats being injured or killed by cougars (mean = 3.25).
To assess the results for risk neutrality, lower and upper bound means were created at
the 5 percent level of significance level (two-tailed test) and if the lower and upper bounds
fell on either of side of neutral (3 = neutral), then neutrality could not be rejected. As noted
earlier, the neutral responses (mean = 3) is defined as suggesting indifference, lack of
comfort with personal level of knowledge, or a perceived lack of information on the topic
was used to rank various questions. For cat owners, risk neutrality was rejected for all levels
of risk perceptions. For non-cat owners neutrality was not rejected for two risk perceptions.
For risks imposed by outdoor pet cats they included cats giving diseases to wildlife (lower
and upper bound means = 2.86 and 3.13 respectively) and cats injuring or killing small farm
animals (lower and upper bound means = 2.91 and 3.22 respectively). For the risks outdoor
pet cats incur, the only risk perception that resulted in a lower and upper bound mean on
either side of 3 was cats being injured or killed by lynx (mean = 2.97 and 3.30 respectively).

Table 3-1 Risk Perceptions of Cat and Non-Cat Owners

Cat Owner (N = 376)
Non-Cat Owners (N = 208)
95% Confidence Interval
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Reject
Lower Upper
Reject
Mean bound bound neutrality Mean bound bound neutrality
3.93
3.82
4.03
Yes
3.67
3.52
3.81
Yes
3.76
3.66
3.86
Yes
3.96
3.81
4.11
Yes

IMPOSE

S3Q1: Pet cats spending time outdoors in my
Risk
neighborhood would result in…
Categories
… a decrease in populations of mice/rats
Predation of
… a decrease in populations of birds
wildlife
... a decrease in populations of small
mammals
3.34
... cats giving diseases to other pets
3.2
Disease giving
... cats giving diseases to wildlife
2.74
... cats giving diseases to humans
2.41
... cats damaging people's property
3.88
Anthropogenic
... cats injuring/killing small farm animals
2.63
... cats being injured/killed by coyotes
4.17
Predation
... cats being injured/killed by lynx
3.13
from wildlife
... cats being injured/killed by cougars
3.2
... cats getting diseases from wildlife
3.35
Disease
getting
... cats getting diseases from other pets
3.49
… cats being hit by cars
4.27
Anthropogenic
... cats being lost/stolen
3.94
… cats being injured/killed by other pets
3.61
Note: Neutrality tested at the 5% level of significance (two-tailed test)
INCUR

3.23
3.10
2.63
2.31
3.78
2.51
4.08
3.01
3.08
3.24
3.39
4.19
3.84
3.51

3.44
3.31
2.85
2.52
3.98
2.74
4.27
3.25
3.32
3.46
3.59
4.36
4.04
3.71

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

3.33
3.23
3
2.73
4.34
3.06
4.13
3.13
3.25
3.19
3.26
4.13
3.86
3.43

3.18
3.10
2.86
2.59
4.22
2.91
4.01
2.97
3.09
3.06
3.13
4.01
3.72
3.29

3.48
3.35
3.13
2.87
4.47
3.22
4.25
3.30
3.42
3.32
3.39
4.25
3.99
3.57

Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

28

29

When addressing the significance of the differences between the means of the two
groups, a t-test and then a Mann-Whitney test were used to see if there were any differences
between the two groups (Table 3-2). There were significant differences between the means of
cat owners and non-cat owners for a majority of the risks cats impose on the environment.
The greatest differences was with cats damaging people’s property with the difference being
-0.46 (p <0.001) with non-cat owners the highest mean at 4.34 compared to cat owners at
3.88. The next largest differences in the means lies with cats injuring or killing small farm
animals (-0.43, p <0.001) and cats giving diseases to humans (-0.32, p < 0.001) which were
both deemed unlikely. The only results that did not have significant differences were the
likelihood that cats would decrease the populations of small mammals (p=0.971) and cats
giving diseases to other pets (p=0.775).
With respect to the risks outdoor pet cats incur, most results had little difference in
the means. The most significant difference was with the cats getting diseases from other pets.
The cat owners perceived the risk to be higher (mean = 3.49) than the non-cat owners (mean
- 3.26) with the differences in means at 0.23 (p=0.005).

Table 3-2 Risk Perceptions of Cat and Non-Cat Owners – Difference in Means

MannCat Non-Cat
t-test for
Whitney
Owners Owners Difference differences
test for
(N=376) (N=208) s in means
in means differences

IMPOSE

S3Q1: Pet cats spending time outdoors in
Risk Categories
my neighborhood would result in…
Mean
Mean
…a decrease in populations of
mice/rats
3.93
3.67
Predation of
…a decrease in populations of birds
3.76
3.96
wildlife
...a decrease in populations of small
mammals
3.34
3.33
...cats giving diseases to other pets
3.2
3.23
Disease giving
...cats giving diseases to wildlife
2.74
3
...cats giving diseases to humans
2.41
2.73
...cats damaging people's property
3.88
4.34
Anthropogenic
...cats injuring/killing small farm
animals
2.63
3.06
...cats being injured/killed by coyotes
4.17
4.13
Predation from
...cats being injured/killed by lynx
3.13
3.13
wildlife
...cats being injured/killed by cougars
3.2
3.25
...cats getting diseases from wildlife
3.35
3.19
Disease getting
...cats getting diseases from other
pets
3.49
3.26
…cats being hit by cars
4.27
4.13
...cats being lost/stolen
3.94
3.86
Anthropogenic
…cats being injured/killed by other
pets
3.61
3.43
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

p-value

MannWhitney
test

p-value Significance

INCUR

0.26
-0.20

0.005
0.026

<0.001
0.004

***
***

0.01
-0.03
-0.26
-0.32
-0.46

0.971
0.775
0.004
<0.001
<0.001

0.987
0.891
0.002
<0.001
<0.001

***
***
***

-0.43
0.04
0
-0.05
0.16

<0.001
0.575
0.987
0.593
0.068

<0.001
0.332
0.968
0.585
0.047

***

0.23
0.14
0.08

0.005
0.055
0.310

0.003
0.022
0.197

***
**

0.18

0.042

0.050

**

**

30

31

Outdoor Cat Owner Versus Indoor Cat Owner Risk Perceptions
Perception of Risks Outdoor Pet Cats Impose on Environment
When analyzing the differences in risk perception between cat owners who allow
their cats outside compared to the cat owners who indicated they have an indoor only cat,
risk perceptions were the highest for the same three risks, however the differences in the
means were significant (Table 3-3).
Cat owners who allow their cats outdoors constitute 41 percent of the cat owners (N =
155), thus cat owners who indicate they have an indoor only cat make up the remaining 59
percent (N = 221). When just comparing the means for the risks outdoor pet cats impose on
the environment, the greatest likelihood of risks for cat owners who allow their cats outdoors
were a decrease in the populations of mice or rates (mean = 4.19), then cats damaging
people’s property (mean = 3.66) and then a decrease in the populations of birds (mean =
3.63). For indoor cat owners the greatest risk cat incur while outdoors was cats damaging
people’s property (mean = 4.03), then a decrease in the populations of birds (mean = 3.85)
and then a decrease in populations of mice or rats (mean = 3.74).
Perception of Risks Outdoor Pet Cats Incur by Being Outside
When it comes to the risks incurred by cats spending time outdoors, the outdoor cat
owners rated the risks as follows, the most likely risk with a mean of 3.96 was cats being hit
by cars, then cats being injured or killed by coyotes (mean = 3.85) and then a mean of 3.59
for cats being lost or stolen. For indoor cat owners, the greatest perceived risk was cats being
hit by cars (mean = 4.49), then cats being injured or killed by coyotes (mean = 4.40) and then
cats being lost or stolen with a mean of 4.19.
Once again, risk neutrality was assessed with the lower and upper bound means tested
at the 5 percent level of significance level (two-tailed test) and if the lower and upper
bounds fell on either of side of neutral (3 = neutral), then neutrality could not be rejected.
Again neutrality is defined as a response that suggests indifference, lack of comfort with
personal level of knowledge, or a perceived lack of information on the topic was used to
rank various questions. For the outdoor cat owners, risk neutrality was deemed neutral for
only one area of the risks outdoor pet cats impose on the environment and that was for cats
giving diseases to other pets (2.71, 3.01). With respect to risk neutrality and the risks
outdoor pet cats incur while outdoors there were more statements that would be deemed

32

neutral and they include (listed in the order they appear in the chart) cats being
injured/killed by lynx (2.67, 3.04), cats being injured/killed by cougars (2.70, 3.08) and cats
getting diseases from wildlife (2.83, 3.15). For the indoor cat owners neutrality could not be
rejected for only one area and that’s in the category of the risks outdoor pet cats impose on
the environment and it’s cats giving diseases to wildlife (lower bound mean = 2.73; and
upper bound mean = 3.02).

Table 3-3 Risk Perceptions of Outdoor Versus Indoor Cat Owners

IMPOSE

S3Q1: Pet cats spending time outdoors
in my neighborhood would result in…
… a decrease in populations of
mice/rats
… a decrease in populations of
birds
... a decrease in populations of
small mammals
... cats giving diseases to other
pets
... cats giving diseases to wildlife
... cats giving diseases to humans
... cats damaging people's
property
... cats injuring/killing small farm
animals
... cats being injured/killed by
coyotes
... cats being injured/killed by
lynx
... cats being injured/killed by
cougars
... cats getting diseases from
wildlife
... cats getting diseases from other
pets
… cats being hit by cars
... cats being lost/stolen
… cats being injured/killed by
other pets

Risk
Categories

Predation of
wildlife

Disease giving

Anthropogenic

Predation
from wildlife

INCUR

Disease
getting

Anthropogenic

Outdoor Cat Owner (N = 155)
Indoor Cat Owners (N = 221)
95% Confidence Interval
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Upper
Reject
Lower Upper
Reject
Mean bound bound neutrality Mean bound bound neutrality
4.19

4.06

4.33

Yes

3.74

3.59

3.89

Yes

3.63

3.47

3.78

Yes

3.85

3.72

3.99

Yes

3.25

3.09

3.41

Yes

3.39

3.25

3.54

Yes

2.86
2.55
2.17

2.71
2.39
2.03

3.01
2.70
2.32

No
Yes
Yes

3.44
2.87
2.58

3.30
2.73
2.44

3.59
3.02
2.73

Yes
No
Yes

3.66

3.52

3.81

Yes

4.03

3.89

4.16

Yes

2.38

2.21

2.55

Yes

2.80

2.65

2.94

Yes

3.85

3.70

3.99

Yes

4.40

4.29

4.51

Yes

2.85

2.67

3.04

No

3.33

3.18

3.48

Yes

2.89

2.70

3.08

No

3.42

3.26

3.57

Yes

2.99

2.83

3.15

No

3.60

3.46

3.74

Yes

3.17
3.96
3.59

3.02
3.84
3.44

3.32
4.09
3.75

Yes
Yes
Yes

3.72
4.49
4.19

3.59
4.38
4.06

3.84
4.60
4.31

Yes
Yes
Yes

3.37

3.21

3.53

Yes

3.77

3.65

3.90

Yes

33

34

Cat Owner Risk Perceptions and Influence of Previous Issues with Outdoor Cats
Outdoor only cats and cat owner risk perceptions
For cat owners who allow their cats outside (41 percent of cat owners), 75 percent
had no previous issues with outdoor cats and 25 percent have had issues in the past with
outdoor cats (Table 3-4). Please note that in these cases there is no distinction between pet
cats, stray or feral cats, merely outdoor cats.
When it comes to the perception of risks outdoor pet cats impose on the environment,
whether the group has had previous issues or not, the ranking of the top three highest risk
perceptions were the same. Namely, a decrease in population of mice or rats with a mean of
4.19 for those without issues (with previous issues: mean = 4.21). Next was cats damaging
people’s property (mean = 3.53 for those without previous issues, and mean = 4.08 for those
with previous issues) and finally a decrease in the population of birds (without previous
issues: mean = 3.47, and with previous issues: mean = 4.08).
When it comes to the risks incurred by cats, cat owners who have not had previous
issues, the highest perception of risk to cats was cats being hit by cars (mean = 3.87) and the
second highest risk incurred by cats when outside are cats being killed or injured by coyotes
(mean = 3.80) and cats being lost/stolen (mean = 3.47). For those who do allow their cats
outside and have had issues with outdoor cats in the past, the highest perception of risk was
cats being hit by cars with a mean of 4.23 and then cats being lost or stolen and cats being
killed or injured by coyotes with means = 3.95 and cats being killed/injured by other pets
(mean = 3.82).
The differences in the means between the outdoor cat owners who have not had
previous issues and those who have had previous issues, demonstrates the greatest difference
in means for the risks outdoor pet cats impose on the environment occurs with: cats giving
diseases to humans (-0.69; p-value = 0.001); cats giving diseases to wildlife (-0.64; p-value =
0.002); cats decreasing the population of birds (-0.60; p-value = 0.001); and cats damaging
people’s property (-0.55; p-value = 0.001). For the category of risks outdoor pet cats incur,
for outdoor cat owners, the greatest differences in means occurs with the perception of risks
for cats getting injured or killed by other pets (-0.60; p-value = 0.001); followed by cats
getting diseases from wildlife (-0.56; p-value = 0.004) and finally cats being lost or stolen (0.48; p-value=0.005). Thus, previous issues with outdoor cats for outdoor cat owners does

35

appears to have an influence on the risk perceptions, except when it comes to decreasing the
population of mice/rats. And previous issues with outdoor cats doesn’t appear to influence
the perception of the risk imposed on outdoor cats when it comes to predation from wildlife,
namely cats being injured/killed by coyotes, lynx or cougars.

Table 3-4 Outdoor Cat Owner Risk Perception Based on History of Cat Issues

No
MannIssues Issues
t-test for
Whitney
(N=116; (N=39; Differences differences
test for
75%)
25%)
in means
in means differences

IMPOSE

S3Q1: Pet cats spending time outdoors in
Risk
my neighborhood would result in…
Categories
Mean
Mean
…a decrease in populations of
mice/rats
4.19
4.21
Predation of
…a decrease in populations of birds
3.47
4.08
wildlife
…a decrease in populations of small
mammals
3.14
3.59
...cats giving diseases to other pets
2.77
3.13
Disease giving
...cats giving diseases to wildlife
2.39
3.03
...cats giving diseases to humans
2.00
2.69
...cats damaging people's property
3.53
4.08
Anthropogenic
...cats injuring or killing small farm
animals
2.22
2.85
...cats being injured/killed by coyotes
3.80
3.97
Predation
...cats being injured/killed by lynx
2.88
2.77
from wildlife
...cats being injured/killed by cougars
2.88
2.92
...cats getting diseases from wildlife
2.85
3.41
Disease
getting
...cats getting diseases from other pets
3.05
3.49
…cats being hit by cars
3.87
4.23
...cats being lost/stolen
3.47
3.95
Anthropogenic
…cats being injured/killed by other
pets
3.22
3.82
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

p-value

MannWhitney
test

p-value Significance

INCUR

-0.01
-0.60

0.921
<0.001

0.978
0.001

***

-0.45
-0.36
-0.64
-0.69
-0.55

0.023
0.077
0.003
0.001
0.001

0.024
0.057
0.002
<0.001
0.001

**
*
***
***
***

-0.63
-0.17
0.11
-0.04
-0.56
-0.43
-0.36
-0.48

0.009
0.329
0.643
0.851
0.006
0.026
0.007
0.012

0.010
0.209
0.529
0.892
0.004
0.016
0.017
0.005

**

***
**
**
***

-0.60

<0.001

0.001

***

36

37

Indoor only cats and cat owner risk perception
For cat owners, 59 percent stated they have an indoor-only cat, and of those indooronly cat owners, 62 percent had no previous issues with outdoor cats, and 38 percent have
had issues in the past with outdoor cats (Table 3-5).
For those indoor-only cat owners who have not had previous issues, when it comes to
the risks outdoor pet cats impose on the environment, the highest perception of risk occurred
with the decrease in population of mice or rats with a mean of 3.92, decreasing the
population of birds (mean = 3.70) and cats damaging people’ s property (mean = 3.65). For
those who have had previous issues with outdoor cats, when it comes to the risks outdoor
cats impose on the environment, the highest perception of risk was cats damaging property
(mean = 4.62) and cats decreasing bird populations (mean = 4.09) and cats giving diseases to
other pets (mean = 3.81).
When it comes to the risks incurred by cats, those indoor-only cat owners who have
not had previous issues with outdoor cats in the past, the highest perception of risk cats being
injured or killed by coyotes (mean = 4.36), the second highest risk incurred by cats when
outside is cats being hit by cars (mean = 4.29) and then cats being lost or stolen with a mean
of 3.96. Those who have had issues, the highest perception of risk was cats being hit by cars
with a mean of 4.81, then cats being lost or stolen (mean = 4.54) and finally cats being
injured/killed by coyotes (mean = 4.47).
The differences in the means between the indoor-only cat owners who have not had
previous issues and those who have had previous issues were significant (at the 1 percent) for
almost every statement with respect to the risks outdoor pet cats impose on the environment.
The one statement where there was significance at the 5 percent was decreasing populations
of small mammals (-0.32; p-value=0.033). For the category of risks outdoor pet cats incur,
there are significant differences in means at the 1 percent for all statements, except for two:
cats being injured/killed by lynx (-0.23; p-value=0.184) and cats being injured/killed by
cougars (-0.12; p-value=0.424). Thus, previous issues with outdoor cats would appear to
influence the risk perceptions for indoor-only cat owners.

Table 3-5 Indoor Cat Owner Risk Perceptions Based on History of Cat Issues

No
Issues
(N=136;
62%)

MannIssues
t-test for
Whitney
(N=85; Differences differences
test for
38%)
in means
in means differences

IMPOSE

S3Q1: Pet cats spending time outdoors in
Risk
my neighborhood would result in…
Categories
Mean
Mean
…a decrease in populations of
mice/or rats
3.93
3.48
Predation of
…a decrease in populations of birds
3.70
4.10
wildlife
…a decrease in populations of small
mammals
3.28
3.59
...cats giving diseases to other pets
3.20
3.82
Disease giving
...cats giving diseases to wildlife
2.65
3.22
...cats giving diseases to humans
2.41
2.85
...cats damaging people's property
3.64
4.60
Anthropogenic
...cats injuring or killing small farm
animals
2.54
3.22
...cats being injured/killed by coyotes
4.35
4.47
Predation
...cats being injured/killed by lynx
3.24
3.44
from wildlife
...cats being injured/killed by cougars
3.36
3.46
...cats getting diseases from wildlife
3.43
3.83
Disease
getting
...cats getting diseases from other pets
3.52
4.05
…cats being hit by cars
4.27
4.80
…cats being lost/stolen
3.95
4.53
Anthropogenic
…cats being injured/killed by other
pets
3.57
4.09
Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

p-value

MannWhitney
test

p-value Significance

INCUR

0.45
-0.40

0.004
0.003

0.001
0.007

***
***

-0.30
-0.61
-0.57
-0.45
-0.96

0.036
<0.001
<0.001
0.003
<0.001

0.033
<0.001
<0.001
0.005
<0.001

**
***
***
***
***

-0.68
-0.12
-0.20
-0.10
-0.39
-0.52
-0.54
-0.58

<0.001
0.289
0.206
0.521
0.005
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

<0.001
0.092
0.184
0.424
0.007
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001

***
*

-0.53

<0.001

<0.001

***

***
***
***
***

38

39

Non-cat owner perception of risk and influence of previous issues with outdoor cats
For non-cat owners, 59 percent of them stated that they have had previous issues with
outdoor cats in their neighbourhood (Table 3-6). Again, please note that in these cases there
is no distinction between pet cats, or stray or feral cats, merely outdoor cats. For those noncat owners who have not had previous issues (41 percent), when it comes to the risks outdoor
cats impose on the environment, the highest risk perception occurred with the decrease in
population of mice or rats with a mean of 3.76, damaging people’s property (mean = 3.74)
and decreasing populations of birds (mean = 3.55). For those who have had previous issues
with outdoor cats, the highest perception of risk was cats damaging property (mean = 4.76)
and cats decreasing bird populations (mean = 4.25) and decreasing population of mice/rats
(mean = 3.61).
When it comes to the risks incurred by cats, those non-cat owners who have not had
previous issues, the highest perception of risk remained with cats being hit by cars (mean =
4.06), the second highest risk incurred by cats when outside is cats being injured or killed by
coyotes (mean = 4.01) and finally cats being lost/stolen (mean = 3.71). For the non-cat
owners who have had previous issues, the highest perception of risks was cats being hit by
cars (mean = 4.18), followed by cats being lost/stolen (mean = 3.96) and then cats being
injured/killed by coyotes (mean = 3.61).
The differences in the means between the non-cat owners who have not had previous
issues and those who have had previous issues were significant (at the 1 percent) for almost
every statement with respect to the risks outdoor pet cats impose on the environment. The
one statement where there was no significant difference was in decreasing populations of
mice/rats (0.15; p-value=0.221). For the category of risks outdoor pet cats incur, it’s
interesting, that the greatest differences in the means, at the 1 percent, for non-cat owners
resides with the cats getting diseases from wildlife (-0.37; p-value=0.005) and cats getting
diseases from other pets (-0.34; p-value=0.010), but the means show responses close to
neutral on those statements.

Table 3-6 Non-Cat Owners Risk Perceptions Based on History of Cat Issues

S3Q1: Pet cats spending time outdoors in my
neighborhood would result in…
…a decrease in populations of mice or
rats

IMPOSE

…a decrease in populations of birds
...a decrease in populations of small
mammals

Risk
Categories
Predation of
wildlife

...cats giving diseases to other pets
...cats giving diseases to wildlife

Disease giving

...cats giving diseases to humans
...cats damaging people's property
...cats injuring or killing small farm
animals
...cats being injured/killed by coyotes
...cats being injured/killed by lynx
INCUR

...cats getting diseases from other pets

Predation
from wildlife
Disease
getting

…cats being hit by cars
...cats being lost/stolen
…cats being injured/killed by other pets

Issues
(N=37;
25%)

t-test for
differences
in means

MannWhitney
test for
differences

Mean

Mean

p-value

p-value

3.76

3.61

0.15

0.320

0.221

3.55

4.25

-0.70

<0.001

<0.001

***

3.00

3.57

-0.57

<0.001

<0.001

***

2.98

3.40

-0.43

0.001

0.001

***

2.74

3.17

-0.43

0.002

0.001

***

2.31

3.02

-0.70

<0.001

0.001

***

3.74

4.76

-1.02

<0.001

<0.001

***

2.69

3.33

-0.64

<0.001

<0.001

***

4.01

3.61

0.40

0.102

0.057

**

2.94

3.27

-0.33

0.053

0.048

**

3.07

3.39

-0.32

0.067

0.074

*

2.98

3.34

-0.37

0.005

0.005

***

3.06

3.40

-0.34

0.010

0.010

***

4.06

4.18

-0.12

0.303

0.153

3.71

3.96

-0.25

0.065

0.044

3.29

3.53

-0.24

0.109

0.116

Differences
in means

MannWhitney
test
Significance

Anthropogenic

...cats being injured/killed by cougars
...cats getting diseases from wildlife

No
Issues
(N=114;
75%)

Anthropogenic

**

Note: *** significant at the 1%, ** significant at the 5%, * significant at the 10%

40

41

Cat owners and non-cat owners with outdoor cat issues by location
From the 17 regions listed in the survey, 6 locations were created based on
geographical groupings and survey respondents. East Kamloops was composed of
Barnhartvale; Dallas; Juniper, Rose Hill/Knutsford; and Valleyview. West Kamloops was
composed of Heffley; Rayleigh; Westmount/Batch; and Westsyde. North Kamloops had
areas Brocklehurst and North Shore. Aberdeen and Dufferin were another area. Lower and
Upper Sahali were aggregated into one. Finally, Downtown and West End were combined.
In all locations, non-cat owners reported more issues with a history with outdoor cats
than cat owners. The locations that reported the most issues with outdoor cats by percentage
was North Kamloops for the cat owners (45.7 percent) and for the non-cat owners it was
West Kamloops at 70.4 percent. The next location with the highest number of respondents
who indicated they had issues with outdoor cats in the past 12 months, was East Kamloops
for the cat owners (37.3 percent) and Aberdeen for non-cat owners (62.5 percent) (Table 37).
Table 3-7 Outdoor Cat Issues by Location

Location

Number
of Cat
Owners

Number of
Cat owners
with History
of Outdoor
Cat Issues

East Kamloops
West Kamloops
North Kamloops
Aberdeen
Sahali
Downtown

67
53
81
45
64
50

25
17
37
8
19
14

Total*
360
120
*8 Cat Owners and 3 Non-Cat Owners did not list a location

Number of
Non-Cat
Owners

Number of
Non-Cat
Owners with
History of
Outdoor Cat
Issues

%

37.3
32.1
45.7
17.8
29.7
28.0

38
27
40
24
42
34

22
19
24
15
18
21

57.9
70.4
60.0
62.5
42.9
61.8

33.3

205

119

58.0

%

Prey items by type and location
Based on the reports of the prey items outdoor cat owner’s cats bring to their house,
the most common prey item is mice with the highest count of mice in East Kamloops (Table
3-8). It is worth noting that previous research states cats only bring 25 percent of their prey
home (The Stewardship Centre for BC, n.d.)

42
Table 3-8 Prey Items by Type and Location

Total

East Kamloops:
Barnhartvale; Dallas; Juniper;
Rose Hill/ Knutsford;
Valleyview
West Kamloops:
Heffley; Rayleigh; Westmount/
Batchelor Heights; Westsyde

North Kamloops:
Brocklehurst; North Shore

Aberdeen:
Aberdeen; Dufferin

Sahali:
Lower Sahali; Upper Sahali

Downtown: Downtown; West
End

Prey
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds
Small Mammals
Rats
Mice
Birds

Never
128
129
47
67
18
22
5
11
19
20
6
13
29
25
11
14
13
13
4
4
12
11
4
5
24

Rarely
18
18
45
58
6
5
7
12
4
3
9
4
1
4
13
14
0
0
3
7
2
4
4
4
0

Occasionally
5
5
16
22
3
0
3
4
1
1
2
6
0
1
3
2
0
1
0
2
1
0
3
5
0

Often
1
0
27
7
0
0
7
1
0
0
4
2
0
0
3
0
1
0
3
1
0
0
3
1
0

Very
Often
1
1
19
0
1
1
6
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
1
0
0

24
10
12

0
5
9

0
5
3

0
4
0

0
0
0

Discussion
The bidirectional risks that outdoor pet cats impose on the environment and incur
while outdoors has an impact on both the wildlife/environment, as well as the welfare of the
cat. Gaining an understanding of the residents of Kamloops’ perceptions of those risks is an
important step in determining risk mitigation strategies that will be effective. This chapter
categorized perceptions of risk into three main areas, predation of/from wildlife; disease
giving/getting; and anthropogenic, for both impose and incur in order to understand the risk

43

perceptions and the differences in those risk perceptions for both cat owners and non-cat
owners. Within the survey respondents who were cat owners, a further breakdown in the
responses was evaluated between the outdoor cat owners and the indoor-only cat owners.
Out of all the risks outdoor cats impose on the environment, the highest perception of
risk for outdoor cat owners was the decrease in the population of mice and for indoor cat
owners it was damaging people’s property. This is interesting in that it could provide insight
into a reason why outdoor cat owners allow their cats outdoors, namely they see cats as
providing a service to the community with rodent control. One can see how decreasing the
population of mice or rats could be seen as a result with positive impact, which aligns with
the evidence from chapter two that showed the outdoor cat owners agree that cats play a
useful role as predators. However, there is research that demonstrates reducing mice or rat
populations is effectively achieved by its natural predator, the owl (Great Horned and Barn
Owls). The indoor cat owners see outdoor cats causing damage to people’s property, thus
perhaps that contributes to why they keep their cat indoors, ie. to reduce the nuisance to
neighbours. Those results do not align with the results regarding indoor cat owners seeing
outdoor cats as a nuisance (in chapter two the mean = 2.88 which is close to 3/neutral). These
variations in results may be an example of respondent inconsistency.
Non-cat owners perceived the risks to be more likely for outdoor pet cats decreasing
bird populations and damaging people’s property, which is understandable given those are
the two highest concerns most mentioned in any dialogue with non-cat owners (Haydee et.
al., 2006). There was no significant differences in the risks of outdoor pet cats being lost or
stolen, or cats being killed or injured by coyotes, both groups deemed those risk to be very
likely.
When looking at the three highest risks outdoor pet cats incur while outdoors. Cat
owners perceived cats being hit by cars as the greatest risk, followed by cats being injured or
killed by coyotes, and cats being lost or stolen. Through analysis of the risk perceptions
based on previous history of issues with outdoor cats in neighbourhoods in the past 12
months, the results indicated significant differences in the risk perceptions for those cat
owners and non-cat owners, which supports it as an influencing factor. As noted in the results
section, the locations which reported the most issues with outdoor cats for the cat owners was
North Kamloops (45.7 percent) and East Kamloops (37.3 percent), and West Kamloops (32.1

44

percent). For the non-cat owners it was West Kamloops at 70.4 percent, Aberdeen (62.5
percent), and then Downtown (61.8 percent). So any kind of education campaign would be
beneficial to most areas in Kamloops.
Outdoor cat owners who perceive risks incurred and imposed by outdoor pet cats are
the cat owners who are putting their cats at the most risk and are potentially having an impact
on the environment with their behaviour. In this research, outdoor cat owners comprised of
41 percent of the respondents (n=155). Of the 155 survey respondents, if each respondent has
only one cat, that’s 155 cats roaming unsupervised. The following chapter will look at the
value of a statistical life of a cat, which may be useful for influencing the behaviour of the
outdoor cat owner and guide risk mitigation strategies.

45

Chapter 4 - The Value of a Statistical Life of a Cat in Kamloops

Figure 4-1 Cat Drawing
(Source: https://www.maxpixel.net/)

Introduction
The Humane Society of Canada reports that even though cats and dogs are the most
popular companion animal, cats don’t receive the same “care and consideration in society”
as dogs (The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 2017). This lack of care and
consideration of the cat, which may be seen as the cat having less value than the dog, may be
demonstrated in the Cats in Canada Report by the number of cats admitted to the shelters,
number of cats reclaimed, the number sterilized, by the estimates of the stray and feral cat
populations, and number of cats euthanized each year. This perception of the value of cats
contributes to the concerns that are being raised by wildlife conservationists because despite
the risks outdoor pet cats face, cat owners continue to allow their cats outdoors unsupervised
and these unsupervised outdoor pet cats then contribute to the issues identified in the Cats in
Canada report listed above. This would lead one to believe that perhaps those cat owners
don’t value their cats, but measuring value of a pet cat is challenging. When it comes to
human behaviour, in relation to their cat, there are several factors to consider. As the results
from chapter two provided, some cat owners believe their cat is happier outside, thus
allowing their cat outdoors would seem to indicate they place a high value on their cat and
their happiness. Some cat owners see cat predation as a positive outcome from the cat being
outdoors, especially when it comes to rodent control, as was demonstrated in both chapter
two and three. Cat owners do see the predation on birds as an issue, but believe that their cat
is not responsible or that their cat does not successfully prey upon enough birds to have a
negative impact (Crowley, Cecchetti, & McDonald, 2019). However, cat owners also
consider the risks their cat faces when outside in terms of dying prematurely due to being hit

46

by a car, getting lost or being preyed upon by coyotes. Cat owners who let their cats outside
must think that the benefits their cat gets from being outside exceeds the costs measured in
the risk their cats faces when roaming outside unsupervised. Cat owners who do not let their
cats outside believe the risk far exceed the benefits otherwise their cats would be also
roaming unsupervised. However, cat owners may be willing to pay to reduce marginally the
risks a cat faces while many other do not. This is the theme of this chapter to determine if cat
owners are willing to pay to reduce the risks of cats dying prematurely.
Implementing risk mitigation strategies to address the above cat owner beliefs about
risks remains a challenge. Campaigns that present the science behind bird mortality and
outdoor cats have been deemed ineffective (McLeod, Driver, Bengsen, & Hine, 2017). Other
campaigns have appealed to the cat owners from the direction that the cat is at risk while
outdoors and if the cat owners want a safe and happy cat, mainly, if the cat owner values
their cat, they will not allow it outdoors unsupervised (Cats and Birds, n.d.). As with a multipronged issue, a multi-pronged approach is necessary.
This chapter will look at a unique approach to finding the value of a statistical life of
pet cats, namely through the application of the economic theory on the value of a statistical
life (VSL) of humans. VSL will be explored within the realm of Kamloops cat owners’
willingness to pay to reduce the risk of outdoor pet cats dying prematurely through cat bylaw
officers or increasing support to a local animal welfare organization. VSL can help assess the
effectiveness of municipality programs that attempt to reduce the risks. The benefits are in
dollars of the benefits of avoided premature deaths and the costs are in terms of
implementing the risk mitigation programs. This chapter also examines the view on cat
licensing for both outdoor and indoor cat owners as well as the defensive measures outdoor
cat owners employ to keep their cat safe while outdoors reducing the risks of their cats. Since
defensive measures cost money, it shows that cat owners are willing to pay to reduce the
risks and hence place a value on the statistical life of a cat. Each of the above strategies may
provide insight into cat owner behaviour and identify unique options that may help guide risk
mitigation campaigns.

47

The Value of a Statistical Life Theory
The value of a statistical life (VSL) theory places a value on how much people are
willing to pay (WTP) for a small reduction in the risk of dying prematurely from any number
of risks (Andersson & Treich, 2008; Viscusi, 2005). This terminology can raise controversy
if misinterpreted, namely people may think it’s about how much individuals are willing to
pay for an identified life. Thus other terms used in literature attempt to clarify the concept by
using the following terms instead: value per statistical life (Howard, 1984), value per life
saved (Jones-Lee, 1976), and value of prevented fatality (Jones-Lee, 2004). The VSL
approach is best applied, according to economists, when changes in the risk are small and
similar among the affected population (Andersson & Treich, 2008). Mortality risk reductions
is a non-marketed good and therefore estimating the VSL relies on non-market valuation
methods. The methods can be divided into two categories, the revealed preference (RP)
method and the stated preference (SP) method (also called contingency valuation method).
The revealed preference method uses information from choices made by individuals, and
stated preferences utilize hypothetical market scenarios.RP is preferred by economists
because they are based on actual behaviour and deemed more consistent, however the
method does assume the respondents are informed on the topic. SP method is useful when
market data does not exist and it is more flexible because it allows the researcher to tailor the
survey questions to gather the necessary data for the topic, thus it’s employed for estimating
VSL for a wide variety of areas (Andersson & Treich, 2008).
Viscusi’s work in this area also discusses how presenting hypothetical questions to
ascertain the willingness to pay amount is often used in the literature on the value of life
(Viscusi, 2005). Once again, he refers to studies that can be classified as contingent valuation
surveys or stated preference surveys. The survey evidence is most useful when addressing
issues that can’t be assessed using market data. Many environmental policies, which may
address standards for air pollution or contaminants in drinking water, conduct analysis to
determine if the costs of the risk mitigation is worth the potential lives saved from those risk
mitigation strategies (Harris & Roach, 2018). Thus, somehow a value of a human life needs
to be calculated. To calculate value of a life, Viscusi explains two principal value-of-life
concepts, namely the optimal insurance amount and the value needed for deterrence.

48

Insurance value is, essentially, how much an individual will be paid following an
accident that is equal to how much they would have earned if the accident hadn’t occurred.
With the value needed for deterrence, Viscusi poses the question: “What value for a fatality
sets the appropriate incentives for those avoiding the accident?” (Viscusi, 2005) or how much
are people willing to pay to prevent a small risk of death? (Schelling, 1968). Government
regulations use VSL to place a dollar value on risk reduction benefits. The example provided
by Viscusi outlines if people are willing to pay $700 to eliminate risk of death of 1/10,000
the VSL is the $700 multiplied by the inverse of 1/10,000 = $7 million. Thus, the value of a
statistical life in this example is $7 million.
In a recent publication by Viscusi, he summarizes representative VSL values used
throughout the world (Viscusi, 2018) (Figure 4-2). In essence, VSL is utilized in many arenas
of decision-making, such as with the policy value for mortality risks, for corporate risk
decisions, in regulatory sanctions, and in personal injury litigation. Given the flexibility and
adaptability of WTP and VSL, it will be interesting to see how it can be adapted to animal
welfare, and for the purposes of this chapter, outdoor pet cats.
Figure 4-2 VSL Estimates

The VSL Applied to Outdoor Cat Owners
The revealed or the stated preference method can be useful to make inference on the
value of a statistical life of a cat. First, by looking at how much households spend to protect
their cat from dying prematurely would fall into revealed preferences methodology. Spending
on defensive measures would be an approach to use to assess the value of a statistical life of a
cat. Alternatively, one can use the stated preference methodology by asking people how
much they are willing to pay to reduce the risk marginally of their pet cat dying prematurely
from risks when outdoors. To illustrate, consider a population of one thousand pet cats

49

roaming outdoors in the city. There is a risk that one will die prematurely from predators.
Control measures, if taken, would avoid this one premature death and thus reduce the risk by
1/1,000. Assume each household has one cat and each is willing to pay $5 on average to
reduce the risk of premature death. Then the value of a statistical life of a cat is $5,000.
Figure 4-3 illustrates.
Figure 4-3 Visual Depiction of VSL Theory

In the above example, the value of a statistical life of a cat is $5,000. Another way of
looking at this $5,000 figure is think of it as the benefits of the control measures undertaken
for each avoided death of a cat from predators. Hence, if control measures taken in a
particular community avoids say one hundred cats from dying prematurely every year, then
the benefits of these measures is $500,000 per year. If the costs of the control measures are
lower than $500,000 per year, then the community should take these measures.

Defensive Measures Supporting VSL
Within the revealed preferences methodology one approach is the use of defensive
measures, or defensive expenditures, to reduce exposure to environmental harm (Harris &
Roach, 2018). Harris & Roach (2018) use the example regarding concerns with drinking
water and how some may purchase bottled water, while others would install a water
purification method. The information gathered from the amount of money spent or time for
improvements to environmental quality can be used to infer the WTP. Another study looked

50

at the averting actions that households take to avoid exposure to arsenic-contaminated water
and used this information to frame the parent's valuation of their own and their child's health
(Aziz, Boyle, & Crocker, 2015). An example of defensive expenditures is demonstrated
through research Lanz & Provins (2016) conducted on England and Wales residents’
purchases of water filter to address the aesthetics of water (taste, colour etc.) or a water
softener to address the issues that arise with hard water (Lanz & Provins, 2016). Yet another
example of this approach is with respect to air pollution and the purchase of air masks. Zhang
and Mu gathered “new empirical evidence of pollution avoidance that Chinese urban
residents purchase particulate-filtering facemasks to protect against ambient air pollution”
(Zhang, 2018). By using the data gathered from the amount the money people spend to
reduce environmental risks, or the time spent to improve conditions, that information can be
used to determine WTP for quality changes. In this chapter, monetary assignment to
defensive measures was not part of the survey, so determining WTP for the changes in the
risks to cats can’t be quantified, however using descriptive statistics to demonstrate the kinds
of defensive measures cat owners take when allowing their cat to roam unsupervised will
assist in understanding the cat owners’ behaviour and potentially the value of a statistical life
they place on a cat.
Defensive Measures Applied to Outdoor Cat Owners
Risk mitigation strategies, or defensive measures, cat owners employ to reduce the
risks their cat faces when outdoors vary from minimal restriction such as an ID collar to
greater restriction as with an outdoor enclosure. In the survey, outdoor cat owners were
provided with seven restrictions to choose from and they could choose more than one, plus
they had the option of revealing their own restriction not listed, as well as no restrictions, in
other words their cat can roam unsupervised. This information provides insight into another
level of value of a cat for Kamloops cat owners.

Cat Licensing as a Defensive Measure
As part of the BC SPCA’s ongoing work in the field of animal welfare they have been
working to improve the laws surrounding care of animals. They have “Partnered with
municipalities to adopt humane bylaws that help to end animal suffering and supporting

51

communities to increase restrictions on exotic pets.” (BC SPCA, n.d.). Included in their work
to improve the laws, the BC SPCA developed a Model Animal Responsibility Bylaw and
within that document is a section on companion animal licensing and identification which
includes details regarding cat registration and licensing (BC SPCA, 2017). The reasons for
the BC SPCA’s push for municipalities to adopt mandatory identification or licensing comes
from a rise in the number of lost or stolen animals who are in shelters and remain unclaimed.
In 2015, the BC SPCA reviewed current bylaws from all of BC’s municipalities and
regional districts and found that “Nearly every B.C. municipality… has bylaws in place for
the following purposes: licensing of dogs, prohibition of dogs at large, operating pounds for
the housing of stray dogs, subsidized licensing of sterilized dogs, requirements for greater
control of dangerous dogs.” (BC SPCA, 2015). It is noted that not only are the number of
cats that come into the shelter higher than that of dogs, but that the number of cats reclaimed
is lower which exacerbates the issue of the number of cats in shelter care. In the BC’s
Municipal Animal Bylaws report the statistics, which are based on 2013 numbers, indicate
that approximately 76 percent of stray dogs are reclaimed by owners from the BC SPCA,
compared to approximately 12.5 percent of stray cats. In the most recent study by the
Humane Society (The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, 2017) in 2016, as a
proportion of total intake, 30 percent of dogs and 5 percent of cats were reclaimed by their
guardian. The report does state that a better indicator of reclaim rates is the percentage of
stray animals returned to their guardians and those percentages were that 63 percent of stray
dogs and 10 percent of stray cats were reclaimed. The BC SPCA 2017 Annual Report
provides only a total number of lost pets reunited with their guardians at 3861 and doesn’t
distinguish between the cats and the dogs, which constitutes 7.88 percent of the total number
of animals assisted across BC (BC SPCA, 2017).
According to the BC SPCA Model Animal Responsibility Bylaw (BC SPCA, 2017),
the BC SPCA takes in more than 14,000 cats each year of which half are stray cats. Few
municipalities require cat licensing. Based on their research cat welfare improves with
regulatory and educational initiatives. Cat licensing has demonstrated numerous benefits
which include higher “return-to-owner” rates, reducing cat overpopulation with incentives to
spay/neuter with differential licensing fees, and licensing raises revenue for a community to
improve animal control services.

52

In Kamloops, there is a general Animal Control Bylaw 34-11, which applies to dogs,
cats, farm animals, urban hens, beekeeping, registered guide dogs and personal assistance
dogs, aggressive dogs, dogs in parks, kennels, pounds, and penalties (City of Kamloops,
2004). Specific bylaw 34-21 applies to cats and refers to voluntary licensing of one cat is $40
for its lifetime. In discussion with the Bylaw Manager, currently no cats are registered
(personal communication, City of Kamloops Bylaw Manager, 2017). The City of Kamloops
does have a bylaw specific for dog licensing which indicates a mandatory licensing of each
dog with rates adjusted based on a neutered dog at $30 per year, un-neutered dog $65 or a
nuisance/potentially dangerous dog at $105 and a dangerous dog at $205 (City of Kamloops,
2019). Based on the research and data collected by animal welfare organizations in Canada it
would appear that mandatory licensing and identification (microchip and tattoo) are measures
that would reduce the risk of cats being harmed due to animal control officers being able to
return the cat to its’ owner, and provide support for the animal control services. However, for
the licensing and identification to be effective there needs to be supports in place to
implement the bylaws and often there is a lack of confidence in the effectiveness of such
regulations.
The Guelph Cat Population Taskforce has key information on their webpage in
relation to identification (Guelph Cat Population Task Force, a) that clearly outlines the need
and the benefits of cat identification.
This chapter will examine the application of VSL to the topic of outdoor pet cats,
explore defensive measures cat owners may take to keep their cat safe which includes cat
owners’ interest in licensing. These strategies may provide a unique perspective for animal
welfare advocates and policy makers to utilize when exploring ways to influence behaviour
change in cat owners. Clearly animal welfare stakeholders support bylaws that would
implement mandatory licensing and some endorse mandatory no roaming bylaw.
Conservation stakeholders obviously would endorse the same, especially the latter. The
barrier remains with municipalities and outdoor cat owners. Kamloops city council was
approached in 2013 by a concerned citizen which garnered little traction (Young, 2013). By
demonstrating the value of a cat through VSL and WTP may appeal to municipalities and cat
owners and sway resistance to bylaws and licensing as conservation initiatives.

53

Methods
For the purposes of this chapter, I utilized the Scenario Section and Section 5 (both
for cat owners only). The Scenario Section presented a case in which cat owners could
reduce the risk of outdoor pet cats dying prematurely for a fee. The reduction was from a risk
of 5 in 1000 dying prematurely to 1 in 1000 a 4/1000 reduction in risk (i.e., a small
reduction). Figure 4-4 and 4-5 illustrates the scenario:
Figure 4-4 Risk Reduction Scenario

Figure 4-5 Willingness to Pay

If the cat owners were not willing to pay a fee, then they were asked to give reasons
as to why this was the case. Reasons respondents could choose from included the following: I
don’t believe outdoor pet cats are at risk while outdoors; I can’t afford to pay for controls;
I’m not interested in paying for controls; I’m not interested in paying for controls, because
I’m only concerned about my indoor cat; and other, please specify. Respondents could
choose more than one and had space to provide their own reason(s). Section 5 Question 7
provides results on situations that have occurred with a cat in their current residence. Namely

54

has their cat been injured or killed by a predator, gotten a disease, or lost/stolen, or
killed/injured by a car etc. Next, WTP answers were compared to answers from Section 5
Question 14, the defensive measures or restrictions.
Using Minitab, I conducted descriptive statistics to determine the average WTP,
which were then utilized in the VSL equation. Excel spreadsheets and the formulas were
applied to lower and upper bounds, calculation of ‘# of’ and “%”.

Results
Applying the VSL to Cats
The outdoor cat owners who were willing to pay for control measures constituted 43
percent of the outdoor cat owners (N=67). For the outdoor cat owners the highest frequency
for the value of a statistical life is $2,500 (N=22), $5,000 and $12,500 (N=17 for both). The
indoor cat owners who were willing to pay constituted 61 percent of the indoor cat owners
(N=103), the highest frequency observed for VSL was $5,000 (N=33), $12,500 (N=27) and
$2,500 (N=22). Comparison of the lowest to the highest VSL value vary significantly from
$2500 to $75000. The average VSL of a cat in Kamloops for outdoor cat owners is $7,485
and 95 percent CI [$6,160, $8,809]. The average WTP was $29.94 to reduce the risk of a cat
dying prematurely by 0.004 or 4/1000. The VSL of a cat in Kamloops for indoor cat owners
is $8,726 (average WTP is $34.90) and 95 percent CI [$6842, 10,610]. The difference in the
means is not statistically significant (p-value 0.286). The median VSL is $5000 for both
owners and a Mann-Whitney U test shows difference in the distributions is not statistically
significant (p-value 0.468). For outdoor cat owners the highest VSL was $30,000, while for
indoor pet cats the highest VSL was $75,000. Figure 4-6 provides the frequency distribution,
which is exponentially declining. Table 4-1 provides a summary.

55
Figure 4-6 VSL Frequency Comparisons

Table 4-1 Descriptive Statistics for the Value of a Statistical Life of a Cat

95% Confidence Interval
Median VSL

Avg VSL Lower Bound Upper Bound

Outdoor Cat Owners

$5000

$7,485

$6,160

$8,809

Indoor Cat Owners

$5000

$8,726

$6,842

$10,610

p-value for differences

0.468

0.286

Reasons For Not WTP
For the outdoor and indoor cat owners who were not willing to pay, the popular
reasons varied and respondents could choose more than one (Table 4-2). Of the outdoor cat
owners, 44 percent chose that they just weren’t interested in paying for controls. Only 14
percent chose that they don’t believe outdoor pet cats are at risk while outdoors. For the
indoor cat owners, 52 percent chose that they weren’t interested in paying for controls
because they are only concerned about their indoor cat and 26 percent chose that they just

56

weren’t interested in paying for controls. As is evident, many of the respondents chose to list
their own reasons for not being willing to pay for enforcement measures - see Appendix D.
Table 4-2 Scenario Section; Not Willing to Pay for Controls

Outdoor Cat
Owners

Indoor Cat
Owners

I don't believe outdoor pet cats are at risk while outdoors
I can't afford to pay for controls
I'm not interested in paying for controls

14%
8%
44%

2%
16%
26%

I'm not interested in paying for controls, because I'm only concerned
about my indoor cat

9%

52%

Other

58%

41%

Reasons for not WTP (respondents can choose more than one)

Defensive Measures Supporting VSL
Taking into consideration the defensive measure method as explained in the chapter
introduction, the method can be applied to cats. If cat owners refuse/resist keeping cats
indoors, risk mitigation strategies can be considered as another way to show that cat owners
value their cat. As outlined in Table 4-3, of the outdoor cat owners who agreed to pay for
measures to reduce the risks outdoor cats face (N=67), 41.8 percent allowed their cats
outdoors during daylight hours, 34.3 percent have a fenced-in yard, and 25.4 percent have an
ID collar on their cat. For those outdoor cat owners who were not willing to pay for measures
(N=88), 38.6 percent indicated that they would not engage in any restrictions and their cat is
allowed to roam freely, 36.4 percent allow their cat out during the daylight hours, and 19.3
percent have a fenced-in yard.

Table 4-3 Restrictions applied to cat(s) being allowed to spend time outdoors

Restrictions (outdoor cat owners only)
…with an ID collar
...with a bell on the collar
…under someone's supervision
…during the daylight hours
…in a fenced-in yard

WTP = Yes
N=67
# of
%
17
25.4
12
17.9
13
19.4
28
41.8
23
34.3

WTP = No
N=88
# of
%
13
14.8
8
9.1
10
11.4
32
36.4
17
19.3

Total
N = 155
# of
%
30
19.4
20
12.9
23
14.8
60
38.7
40
25.8

57
…in an outdoor enclosure (example: a cat run)
…on a leash or harness
Other, please specify…(for comments see
Appendix E)
None of the above: my cat(s) can roam freely
without restrictions

6
7

9.0
10.4

2
3

2.3
3.4

8
10

5.2
6.5

12

17.9

11

12.5

23

14.8

12

17.9

34

38.6

46

29.7

When looking at the outdoor and indoor cat owners and WTP with respect to the risks
incurred by their cats while outdoors in their current residence (keep in mind that the current
cat owners who keep their cat indoors may not have always kept their cat indoors), for the
outdoor cat owners who are willing to pay (43.23 percent), 25.4 percent have had one of their
cats injured/killed by other pets and 11.9 percent have had their cat lost or stolen (Table 4-4).
Of the outdoor cat owners who are not willing to pay, 21.6 percent have had their cat
injured/killed by other pets and 18.2 percent have been injured/killed by predators. Indoor cat
owners who are willing to pay (48.9 percent), 11.1 percent stated they have had one of their
cats injured/killed by other pets and 11.1 percent claimed their cat had been lost or stolen.
For the indoor cat owners who are not willing to pay, 12.4 percent indicated that they have
had one of their cats injured/killed by other pets and 10.6 percent stated they had a cat
inured/killed by predators and 10.6 percent have had their cat lost or stolen.
Table 4-4 Risks to Cats and WTP
Outdoor
WTP
N=67

Outdoor
Not WTP
N=88

Indoor
WTP
N=108

Indoor
Not WTP
N=113

Outdoor and indoor cat owners that
have had the following situations
happen to one of their cats in their
current residence.

# of

%

# of

%

# of

%

# of

%

...been injured/killed by predators.
...gotten a disease from wildlife.
...been injured/killed by other pets.
...been hit by a car.
...been lost or stolen.

4
1
17
3
8

6.0
1.5
25.4
4.5
11.9

16
1
19
7
9

18.2
1.1
21.6
8.0
10.2

9
1
12
4
12

8.3
0.9
11.1
3.7
11.1

12
1
14
8
12

10.6
0.9
12.4
7.1
10.6

Table 4-5 provides the data for just the outdoor cat owners, regardless of WTP or not
WTP. For the respondents who have outdoor cats, and based on the cat ownership in their
current residence, 13 percent have had their cat injured or killed by a predator, 1 percent
had/have a cat that got a disease from wildlife, 23 percent have had/have a cat that’s been
injured or killed by other pets, 6 percent have had/have a cat that’s been hit by a car and 11

58

percent have had a cat that’s been lost or stolen. This demonstrates how, for outdoor cat
owners, a history of cat injury/killed does not seem to impact their current cat owner
behaviour, i.e., they have not changed to supervising their cat while outdoors or keeping their
cat indoors.
Table 4-5 Risks to Outdoor Cats
Have any of the following situations happened to one of your cats in your
current residence? Respondents could choose more than one.
...been injured or killed by predators.
...gotten a disease from wildlife.
...been injured or killed by other pets.
...been hit by a car.
...been lost or stolen.

Yes
# of
20
2
36
10
17

%
12.90
1.29
23.23
6.45
10.97

Cat Licensing
Despite the benefits cat licensing can provide cat owners in a municipality it remains
an option most don’t consider valuable. As per Table 4-6, only 27.7 percent of outdoor cat
owners believe cat owners should license their cats compared to 38.5 percent of indoor cat
owners, while some remained undecided. Of those outdoor cat owners who did not believe
cat owners should license their cats, 64.3 percent indicated that they did not see how
licensing is useful and 52.7 percent chose that they didn’t believe licensing was necessary.
Since survey respondents could choose more than one option, there could be overlap in the
responses. For the indoor cat owners who chose that they didn’t believe Kamloops cat
owners should have to license their cats, the main reason why not was because they don’t
allow their cat outdoors so no need for a license (66.2 percent), followed by not seeing how
licensing was useful (37.5 percent), nor necessary (30.2 percent).

59
Table 4-6 Cat Licensing
Do you believe Kamloops cat owners should have to license their
cats?

Outdoor
N=155
# of
%

Indoor
N=221
# of
%

Yes

43

27.7

85

38.5

No/Undecided

112

72.3

136

61.5

# of

N=112
%

I don’t believe licensing is necessary

59

52.7

41

30.2

I don’t see how licensing is useful

72

64.3

51

37.5

I can’t afford to pay for a license every year

15

13.4

19

14.0

I do not allow my cat(s) outdoors, so no need for a license

5

4.5

90

66.2

Other, please specify... See Appendix F

33

29.5

33

24.3

Please select from the list of reasons why you do not believe (or are
undecided) about whether Kamloops cat owners should have to
license their cats. (more than one option can be chosen)

N=136
# of
%

Discussion
Utilizing the economic theory of the value of a statistical life in the arena of outdoor
pet cats provides information on the value of a statistical life of a cat. Based on the results
from the analysis of the data from the survey completed by Kamloops residents, the median
VSL for both outdoor and indoor cat owners is $5000. The average VSL between the two
groups, though not statistically different, is $7,485 for outdoor cat owners and $8,726 for
indoor cat owners. If the extreme values are considered, for the outdoor cat owners the
highest VSL is $30,000, while for indoor cat owners the highest VSL is $75,000. If the
residents of Kamloops, cat owners and non-cat owners alike, had the above information
perhaps it could influence the perception that cats are disposable, or require less care and
consideration than other pets. In essence, by showing the value of a statistical life of a cat
could raise awareness that as a community the residents are willing to reduce the risk of a
statistical cat dying prematurely. As with a lot of research, comparisons usually provide
perspective, so further research that assesses the value of other pets, based on similar survey
questions, could be interesting. However, the focus of this research is on pet cats and thus the
above information will be useful when considering risk mitigation strategies and introduction
of bylaws that lead to avoided harm to outdoor pet cats. For example, cat owners VSL is
approximately $8,000 per cat saved. If control measures in a particular community avoids
twenty cats from dying prematurely every year, then the benefits of these measures is

60

$160,000. Therefore, if the costs of the control measures is lower than $160,000, then the
community should take these measures. Costs associated with control measures includes
bylaw officer whose expertise is in the area of cat control.
With respect to the reasons why some cat owners are not WTP, the results vary
between the two groups. For the outdoor cat owners, 57 percent were not WTP, and of that 57
percent, the reasons for not WTP (and more than one reason could be chosen) ranged from the

most option chosen as not being interested in paying for controls (44 percent) to the lowest as
not being able to afford to pay for controls (8 percent). On a positive note, only 14 percent
selected that they didn’t believe cats were at risk while outdoors, which aligns with results
from chapters two and three regarding outdoor cat owners deeming risks high for cats
outdoors. We also know that there is a core opinion that outdoor cat owners hold in that
outdoor cats are happier and enjoyable to have around. According to research in evolutionary
psychology it is in our genes from our ancestors that animals domesticated or otherwise
belong outdoors (Driscol, Macdonald, & O'Brien, 2009). Evolutionary psychology is not the
scope of this paper, but it is worth noting and perhaps thinking about how human behaviour
has not adjusted to urbanization with respect to cats. Indoor cats is a new concept that has
arisen in the last 60 to 70 years due to the rise in densely populated urban environments
which bring houses (and neighbours) closer together and that brings more traffic (risk to
outdoor cats); housing developments encroach and occupy natural wildlife habitats and the
risk from predators rises. Add in the advancement of kitten control with spay/neuter
procedures, the invention of cat food and kitty litter, which provides further support for cat
owners to keep cats indoors (Alley Cat Allies, 2017). However, the quest to change cat
owner behaviour, or at least introduce other options for outdoor pet cats, leads us to the
defensive measures method which provides some insight and will be discussed further on.
Keeping on track with respect to understanding Kamloops cat owners’ willingness to
pay, it’s not surprising that half of the indoor cat owners are not interested in paying because
they have an indoor cat. The other half though, are willing to pay and even though the
question wasn’t asked I surmise it’s due to the indoor cat owners hoping for more cat owners
to keep their cats indoors, through whichever means is necessary.
When it comes to cat owners and being willing to pay or not willing to pay and risks
their previous cats incurred while outdoors, the results are interesting. Firstly, for the outdoor

61

cat owners who are willing to pay, 25.4 percent claimed they have had one of their cats
injured/killed by other pets and 11.9 percent have had their cat lost or stolen, so those factors
may be influencing their WTP. However, that would seem to not be the case for outdoor cat
owners who are not WTP, because 21.6 percent have had their cat injured/killed by other pets
and 18.2 percent have been injured/killed by predators. But as noted above the main reason
outdoor cat owners are not WTP is because they just aren’t interested in paying. Some clarity
may be gleaned from the defensive measures, which will be discussed later.
When it comes to the indoor cat owners, it’s important to understand that not all of
the current indoor cat owners always kept their cats indoors. So for the current indoor cat
owners, they may be willing to pay due to previous (bad) experiences with allowing their cat
outdoors. As noted in the results, almost half of the indoor cat owners are willing to pay, and
of those, 11.1 percent stated they have had one of their cats injured/killed by other pets and
11.1 percent claimed their cat had been lost or stolen. So those situations may have been a
factor for keeping their current cat indoors. For the indoor cat owners who are not willing to
pay, 12.4 percent indicated that they have had one of their cats injured/killed by other pets
and 10.6 percent stated they had a cat inured/killed by predators and 10.6 percent have had
their cat lost or stolen. These results support the above noted results that the reasons why
they are not willing to pay is simply because they now have an indoor cat.
Given the results of the risk mitigation strategies (defensive measures) the outdoor cat
owners employ, they believe that allowing the cat outside only during daylight hours and/or
in a fenced yard reduces the risks. One aspect of the survey that could have been changed
would be to separate the risk mitigation strategies between those that could be assigned a
dollar value and those that can’t, which would provide another value to be considered. For
example, $10 for a collar with a bell, $35 for an ID collar, and estimated fencing price etc. In
addition, it would have been beneficial if the survey had distinguished between a fenced yard
and a “cat fenced” yard. Most fenced yards do little to restrict the cat from roaming beyond
their own yard, however a “cat fenced” yard would restrict the cat to its yard, or a portion of
the yard. There are many options for installing fencing that keeps cats in the yard, or in a
portion of the yard (Nature Canada, 2019 d; Audubon Society of Portland and Feral Cat
Coalition of Oregon , n.d.). Despite the above limitations, the responses for the defensive
measures provides some understanding of the outdoor cat owner behaviour and that they do

62

place value on their cat. However, it also provides further support for the lack of awareness
of the impact outdoor cats have on wildlife that is active during the day, namely birds.
Cat licensing as a defensive measure can be explored through the options provided by
the BC SPCA to municipalities (BC SPCA, 2017). In addition to the benefits to the cat and
the cat owner with cat licensing as outlined earlier, licensing can provide a source of funding
for the municipality to pay for enforcement, and there are options to consider when looking
to implement licensing in a municipality, such as paid versus free; mandatory versus
voluntary; lifetime versus annual; tag versus no tag.
In January 2018 cat licensing became mandatory in Guelph (City of Guelph, n.d.).
Guelph has contracted the Guelph Humane Society to enforce animal bylaws in the city,
however currently there are no consequences for not complying with the cat licensing bylaw.
The licensing service provider DocuPet is canvassing door-to-door with information on
mandatory licensing. With this new mandatory licensing there has been considerable media
attention (Seto, 2017), including a letter to the City of Guelph from one of the Guelph Cat
Population Task Force stakeholders, Nature Canada’s Keep Cats Safe and Save Bird Lives
(Nature Canada, 2019 a). This cat licensing initiative has faced a lot of resistance as is
outlined in a news story from 2016 (Hallett, 2016). The Guelph Cat Population Task Force’s
primary goal “…is to facilitate community understanding and decision-making regarding cat
overpopulation in the region” (Guelph Cat Population Task Force, b). Even though progress
to this point has been arduous, hopefully reports in the following year will provide clarity on
the success of instituting mandatory licensing.
Also noted earlier, in BC the only pet registry in place is the BC Pet Registry
(Registry, n.d.) and the fees are $12 per year or $45 for lifetime, so this can be either a yearly
cost or a one-time cost. Based on research done on the annual cost of caring for a cat in
Canada from The Calgary Humane Society, the total is approximately $1,011 per year, plus
554.50 one-time costs (Calgary Humane Society, n.d.) (Figure 4-7). The costs will vary
depending on your cat and it’s health, plus the cost for veterinary care will also fluctuate
depending on the cat owners veterinary fees and some of the cat care costs, such as trimming
nails, cat owners do themselves.

63

Figure 4-7 Annual Cost of Caring for a Cat (Calgary Humane Society, n.d.)
CAT BUDGET
For a spayed female, 12-pound, domestic long haired cat:
Minimum Cost Per Year (Approximate)
Food and Treats
4 cans of cat food (396g) per month @ $2.00 a can

$96.00

4lb bag of dry food per month @ $20.00 each

$240.00

3oz bag of cat treats per month @ $5.00 each

$60.00

Veterinary Care
Yearly visit – exam and vaccinations

$120.00

Nail trimming every 2 months @ $15.00 a trim

$90.00

Litter and Supplies
20lb bag of cat litter per month @ 10.00 a bag

$120.00

1 tube of anti-furball medication

$10.00

City Of Calgary license fee per year

$18.00

License
Vacation
2 weeks cat care @ 15.00 per day

$210.00

Subtotal

$963.00

GST

$48.15

TOTAL

$1,011.15

One Time Costs
Spaying (female) and tattoo (incl. w/ adoption from CHS)

$300.00

Metal food and water dishes

$20.00

Collar, leash and harnesses

$40.00

Brush

$15.00

Litter pan and scoop

$13.00

Scratching post

$45.00

Cat Carrier

$45.00

Toys

$30.00

Cat bed

$20.00

Subtotal

$528.00

GST

$26.40

TOTAL

$554.40

64

One possible way to compare this information to the VSL estimate is to compute the
present value of the costs of a cat living on average for 13 years [calculations are to the lower
end of the spectrum - 13 - 20 years - based on the BC SPCA. Assuming a nominal discount
rate of 6 percent and inflation rate of 2 percent, the present value of the costs of a cat is
approximately $10,500. What this dollar figure means is that by owning a cat you forego
spending $10,500 on other second best choices, and hence reflects the opportunity cost of
having a pet cat over an average lifetime of 13 years. This value is slightly higher than the
VSL of outdoor pet cat owners but within the 95 percent confidence interval of the indoor pet
cat owners of $6,842 and $10,610 (Table 4-7).
Table 4-7 Calculation of Costs of Cat Care

Year

Costs with
2% inflation

Discount factor
with interest rate
at 6%

Present
Value

1

1011.15

0.943

953.92

2

1031.37

0.890

917.92

3

1052.00

0.840

883.28

4

1073.04

0.792

849.95

5

1094.50

0.747

817.88

6

1116.39

0.705

787.01

7

1138.72

0.665

757.31

8

1161.49

0.627

728.74

9

1184.72

0.592

701.24

10

1208.42

0.558

674.77

11

1232.59

0.527

649.31

12

1257.24

0.497

624.81

13

1282.38

0.469

601.23

PV of annual
costs
Add one-time
costs

$9947.36
$10,501.76

It is clear based on the results from the survey that most cat owners do not see why
licensing is necessary or useful so this supports the need for more education on the benefits
of licensing for cat welfare in Kamloops. The comments provided interesting insight into cat
owner views on licensing and further research conducting qualitative analysis on those
comments to find common threads of beliefs would be valuable.

65

As mentioned earlier, the concept of placing value on a statistical life of a cat is
multi-pronged. Given the application in this research, though, perhaps there is a way to
educate the public on the value of a cat and the cost and revenue generated from control
measures, such as licensing, or presenting potential sales of cat fencing for local businesses
that could be undertaken in a community. Understanding the intricacies of assigning value to
a pet, as well as what costs are associated with the control measures aren’t the only factors
that can be considered with respect to outdoor pet cats and impact on the environment. An
interesting future extension to this research would be to conduct a multivariate regression
analysis. For example, the value of a statistical life of a cat could depend on a number of
factors such as the age of the cat, previous issues with outdoor cats, and respondent’s
demographical information (income, gender and education).
In the next chapter, the theory of environmental externalities will be explored.
Environmental externalities is defined as “Impacts that affect the well-being of those outside
of a market transaction.” (Harris & Roach, 2018). This theory could provide further insight
into ways to influence behaviour change in cat owners who allow their cats outdoors
unsupervised.

66

Chapter 5 - Negative Externalities and Outdoor Pet Cats: Coase Theorem and the Role
of Non-Cat Owners in Outdoor Pet Cat Enforcement

Figure 5-1 Painting by Yi Am
(Source: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Fichier:Birds,_Flowers,_Cats_and_Dogs.png)

Introduction
The challenge continues to understand and change the behaviour of the cat owners
who continue to allow their cats outside unsupervised, despite their interest in wildlife,
perceptions of the bidirectional risks, previous issues with outdoor cats and actual incidents
of injury or death of a previous cat, and their “value” of a statistical life of a cat being
significant ($7,485). National campaigns such as Nature Canada’s Keep Cats Safe Save Bird
Lives use a multi-pronged approach to educate cat owners and work to engage communities
across Canada to bring the campaign direct to their cities and towns(Nature Canada, 2019 a).
Provincial projects have been led by The Stewardship Centre for BC, in collaboration with
Nature Canada, to provide educational resources and guides regarding keeping cats and birds
safe (The Stewardship Centre for BC, n.d.). Animal welfare organizations like the Kamloops
and District SPCA are part of the provincial BC SPCA, which has a website with information
on responsible pet ownership (Provincial BC SPCA, n.d.). The Kamloops and District SPCA
recently received $50,000 for a spay and neuter campaign for the North Shore and
Brocklehurst communities because those areas require a targeted campaign to reduce the cat
populations for owned cats (Kamloops and District SPCA, 2019). Nature conservation
groups, such as the Kamloops Naturalist Club sometimes host guest speakers from TRU and
the community on bird conservation. They have shown great interest in this research and
supported the distribution of the survey. Despite efforts of the above noted groups to increase

67

awareness of the impact outdoor pet cats have on our communities and the environment cat
owners continue to allow their cats outdoors unsupervised, so there is room for new and
innovative approaches to conservation initiatives. Another economic theory that could
provide that new and innovative approach is called the theory of externalities.
In environmental economics one of the core concepts is the theory of externalities in
which an externality is defined as “…the impacts that affect the well-being of those outside
of a market transaction” (Harris & Roach, 2018). Externalities can be positive or negative
and the following examples of each will explain the theory in a more concrete manner. A
positive externality will benefit those ‘external’ to the market. For example, if a landowner
plants trees, those trees will provide scenery, absorb carbon dioxide and provide habitat to
wildlife. In essence, the society surrounding the landowner (those external to the market)
benefit from the landowner planting the trees. On the other hand, negative externalities is an
externality which has a negative impact on those not involved in the transaction. Common
examples of negative externalities is evident with industries that produce a product, but in the
process of producing said product the air is polluted or the water is subject to certain levels of
contamination. The product the industry produces is not necessarily consumed/benefited by
all of the folks who live in the area, however all of the folks in the area may be negatively
impacted by the pollution or the contaminated water. With the presence of a negative
externality a competitive market produces too much of the product which results in too much
pollution relative to a social optimum level. The bigger the externality costs, the lower is the
optimum level of production. In order to achieve the socially optimum level, external costs
need to be factored in to the market analysis and environmental economists identify this as
internalizing externalities to correct an inefficient market. The most common method to
internalize externalities is too impose a tax, which is known as a Pigovian (pollution) tax or a
polluter pays principle (Harris & Roach, 2018). Thus those who are responsible for the
pollution pay for the associated external costs. The issue that arises with the above noted tax
is not only that the consumer also pays because the product price will increase, but that
estimating the correct tax amount takes research and analysis, plus administrative costs to
enforce and collect the tax, so such a process is not always viable. Not all negative
externalities can be controlled with Pigovian taxes, and thus other theories rise to address
those situations.

68

Ronald Coase, a Nobel prize winning economist, discusses property rights and
externalities in the situations where business firms have a negative impact on others (Coase,
1960). He uses the example of a factory that produces harmful smoke. Traditional
economists would address the issue in trying to find ways to restrict the factory from
producing the harmful smoke, but Coase argues that the optimal solution depends on the
benefits associated with the factory producing the product with its harmful smoke in relation
to the costs associated with the harmful smoke. If the benefits of producing the product
exceed the costs associated with the harmful smoke, then it is optimal to keep on producing
the product, while if the costs exceed the benefits of producing the harmful product then its
optimal to reduce the harm caused by the product. Coase argues that with well defined
property right, low transaction and negotiation costs the parties involved will solve the
problem through negotiation irrespective of who has the rights. Coase sees the question more
in line with asking: does the factory have the right to produce harmful smoke? For the
factory to stop producing smoke would mean to harm the factory, ie. no production and thus
no income to workers and no profit to the firm. Do the communities inflicted by the harmful
smoke have the right to stop the factory from producing smoke? For example, if the benefits
are less than the costs of the harmful smoke and the factory has the right to emit pollution
then it is in the community’s interest to pay the factory to reduce pollution to the optimum
level. If on the other hand, the community has the right to cleaner air then the factory will
reduce pollution as it will not be able to buy the rights from the community. In both cases,
negotiations, or not, depending on who has rights, will result in the optimal pollution level.
What if the benefits to the factory exceed the costs to the community? Who has the rights? In
this case too it does not matter who has rights. If the community has the right to clean air,
then the factory will pay the community to buy the rights and continue its harmful smoke.
While if the factory has the rights, then it will continue its harmful smoke since the
community will not be able to buy those rights from the factory. The solution lies in welldefined property rights and low transaction and negotiation costs.
Transaction costs are costs involved in reaching an agreement, which could be
administrative costs, research, costs of enforcing an agreement, etc. Negotiations depends on
the number of people involved in the negotiations and also friction and irrationality between
the parties in finding a solution. The larger the number of people involved the higher the cost

69

of negotiations the lower the chances of the private parties finding a solution. Also not well
defined property rights will result in negotiations failing to achieve the socially efficient
outcome. In cases where the property rights are not well defined the government or the courts
will intervene to assign these rights.
Anderson applies the Coase Theorem to land conservation and further emphasises
how the low transaction costs and clear property rights come into play in that arena,
especially when the transactions are private. He explains that “…land conservation is a
matter of demanders of conservation amenities purchasing land or contracting with its
owners for land use” (Anderson, 2004). Ideally, the goal is to conduct private negotiations
with low conflict between the parties.

Negative Externalities and Coase Theorem and Outdoor Cat Owners
In this section, the theory of negative externalities and the Coase Theorem is applied
to outdoor pet cats. In a community with cat owners who allow their cats outdoors
unsupervised, the neighbours face the negative externalities of the unrestricted outdoor pet
cat in that it will come into their yard, may dig in their garden and use it like a kitty litter, and
it may stalk the birds at the bird feeder. The bird and wildlife lovers also see that unrestricted
outdoor pet cats cause harm to wildfire and birds. The action of one creates a negative impact
for others. To internalize the negative externality there is the option of a tax, change in
regulations as in a no-roaming bylaw, such as a few communities in BC have instituted (BC
SPCA, 2015), implementing licensing fees for cat owners, or the neighbours could negotiate.
To illustrate the Coase theorem as an application consider Figure 5-2. The cat owners
that let their cat outdoors are happy. The downward sloping marginal private benefit curve
(blue line) shows cat owners’ happiness for cats being outside. Outdoor cat owners have a
maximum willingness to pay to have their cats outdoors shown by the height of the marginal
benefit curve as a function of the number of hours per day cats are outside unsupervised. The
more a cat stays outside the lower is the maximum willingness to pay for an extra hour of
being outside. The red line shows the marginal social cost in terms of the damages cats inflict
on others. These social costs are assumed to increase the more hours per day cats stay outside
unsupervised.

70

Now assume that the cat owners have the “right” to let their cats roam
unsupervised/unrestricted. The cat owners will continue to let the cats roam freely until their
maximum willingness to pay is zero for the last hour. This occurs where the blue line
intersects the x-axis far to the right. At that level of hours per day for outside roaming cats,
the marginal social cost far exceeds the marginal private benefit. Hence, it is to the interest of
the affected party (the victim/neighbour) to pay the cat owners to reduce the number of hours
cats stay outside since the benefits in terms of reducing damages exceeds the price in terms
of payment per hour a day a cat is outside. In addition, since the marginal private benefit is
zero at the unsupervised level, the cat owners will agree to reduce the number of hours their
cat is outdoors unsupervised with payment since the loss in the marginal private benefit is
less than the price that will be paid from the victims/neighbours. Both parties are better off
with a reduction in the hours cats roam unsupervised. This will continue until the marginal
social cost is equal to the marginal private benefit shown in Figure 5-2 as the corrected price
and the optimal hours is less than the current level. This situation presents the optimal hours
at a level that creates the least conflict between cat owners and their neighbours (who could
be indoor cat owners or non-cat owners).

71

Figure 5-2 Coase Theorem - Unsupervised Outdoor Pet Cats

Coase showed that the solution is unchanged if the neighbors and bird lovers have the
rights to keeping cats indoors. The starting point is that all cats stay inside and at that level of
zero hours per day it is socially inefficient since the marginal private benefit for the first hour
exceeds the marginal social cost for the first hour. Hence, it would be to the interest of cat
owners to pay the bird lovers and neighbors, so they can let their cats outdoors. As long as
their maximum willingness to pay exceeds the marginal social costs which represents the
minimum amount neighbors and bird lovers will accept as a payment to sell their rights, then
a price can be negotiated. The cat owners will benefit since their maximum willingness to
pay exceeds the price they pay, and the neighbors and wildlife lovers will benefit since the
price they receive exceeds the marginal social costs. This increase in the hours cats stay
outside will continue until the marginal social benefit equals the marginal social costs shown
where the two curves intersect. The price negotiated to achieve the efficient level is in the
figure as the “corrected price”. Notice that in this example the optimal hours are not zero.

72

Nor are the optimal hours at the unrestricted free roaming level. The optimal hours are
somewhere in between.
For the optimal hours to be zero and cats should be indoors occurs only if the
marginal social cost of the first hour a cat is allowed to be outdoors exceeds the cat owners
maximum willingness to pay for the first hour. This would be true if the marginal social cost
at zero hours started above the marginal private benefit curve for the first hour. Figure 5-3
shows this case which is advocated by many bird lovers and conservationists claiming that
cats do not belong outside, which is the situation that has been created over time by outdoor
cat owners (Marra & Santella, 2016). This is an unrealistic scenario and hence cats should be
allowed outdoors but only under supervision/restriction of the cat owner.
However, it is unlikely the above negotiations will reach the optimal level, because
property rights may not be well defined, transaction and negotiation costs maybe too high to
find the solution, as there are too many people on both sides to come together for
negotiations to take place. If this is the case, then the government (i.e., the municipality) has
to have bylaws that either reduce the number of hours a cat is outdoors unrestricted or
implement that cats need to be “under the care and control of their owner” bylaw or in other
words, supervised. When bylaws are such that cats are supervised while outdoors this shifts
the marginal social cost curve downwards towards the x-axis. In this case, the optimal hours
per day can be the same as the level of hours when cat owners have rights to let their cats
outdoors, but this imposes a cost to the outdoor cat owners which will shift the marginal
private benefit curve downwards and as a result cats will be outdoors for less hours. This is
illustrated in Figure 5-3.

73
Figure 5-3 Coase Theorem - All Cats Indoors

74
Figure 5-4 Coase Theorem - Supervised Outdoor Cats due to Bylaws

In the Kamloops community there are currently no bylaws restricting cats to their
own yard or indoors. The above theoretical application of the three scenarios provides
interesting insight into supporting a bylaw that would have cat owners only allow their cat
outdoors under supervision or with a restriction such as a catio, a cat run or on a leash. This
chapter will examine cat owner behaviour and possible changes in behaviour by analysing
the number of hours outdoor cat owners allow their cat to roam freely outdoors depending on
time of day and seasonal influences. This chapter will also assess the role non-cat owners
play with respect to cat control enforcement to keep their neighbours’ cat contained in the
owner’s yard.

Cat Owners Behaviour Towards Externality
With respect to outdoor cat owners, this chapter utilized the data gathered from the
Statement section, which provided cat owners with the statement:

75

Animal welfare advocates encourage cat owners to keep their cats indoors so
they will be safe. Alternatively, if cat owners allow their cats outdoors, they
strongly recommended the cat is kept under the care and control of their
owner (on a leash or in an enclosure).
Following the statement, the respondents were asked if they would decrease the number of
hours they allowed their cat to roam freely outdoors in order to keep their cat safer. Three
options were provided: yes, no, and not applicable - I have an indoor only cat. Those who
had an indoor only cat were then directed to Section 7 - Sociodemographics. Those that
answer yes were prompted to the next part which asked the respondents to choose from 4
options: 1 hour less; 2 hours less; 3 hours less; and other, to which they could respond with
their own number of hours. Those respondents who answered no to reducing the number of
hours they would allow their cat to roam freely were then prompted to number 3 which asked
for them to select from a list of reasons why they would not decrease the number of hours
their cat spends outside, such as: I don’t believe my cat is at risk while outdoors; I believe my
cat needs time outside; Not applicable: I do not allow my cat(s) outdoors; and Other reasons,
to which respondents could provide their own answer.
Section 5 examines cat owner’s behaviour with respect to the average number of
hours cat owners allow their cat outdoors and further breaks it down on a daily basis by the
time of day, such as dawn, day, dusk and night; and again looks at the changes in outdoor cat
activity based on seasons. This information will provide baseline data in order to assist in
areas where behaviour change is the greatest.

Non-cat Owner Behaviour Towards Externality
Section 6 was the only section dedicated to non-cat owners. In that section non-cat
owners were asked about cat licensing and paying for enforcement to ensure their
neighbour’s cat would be contained in the owner’s yard. Data from the survey was analyzed
using descriptive statistics in Minitab.

76

Results
Cat Owners and Their Cats
The cat owners who allow their cats outdoors are the main source of the impact on the
environment. The following is a brief description of the outdoor cat owners and their cats. On
average they have 1.5 cats. Of the outdoor cat owner respondents who answered Section 5
Question 6A: If you have male cats are they neutered (N=135; please note, some cat owners
have more than one cat), 67 percent claimed yes, and 38 percent take their male cats to the
veterinarian for annual check-ups. Of the respondents who answered Section 5 Question 6B:
If you have female cats are they spayed (N=134), 65 percent claimed yes, and 35 percent take
their female cats to the veterinarian for annual check-ups. Indoor cat owner data is included
here merely for comparison as it’s clear that the indoor cat owners have a higher percentage
for each question (Table 5-1; data for indoor and a total for all cat owners is included here as
it will be necessary for the discussion section).
Table 5-1 Cat Owners and Cat Care

If you have male cats, are they neutered?
Do you take your male cat(s) to the veterinarian
for annual check-ups?

Outdoor
N = 135*
# of
%

Indoor
N = 185*
# of
%

All Cat
Owners
N = 320*
# of
%

91

67.4

131

70.8

222

69.4

51

37.8

96

51.9

147

45.9

N = 134
If you have female cat(s), are they spayed?
Do you take your female cat(s) to the veterinarian
for annual check-ups?
*numbers vary from total respondents (due
to non-response)

N = 195

N = 319

87

64.9

142

72.8

229

71.8

47

35.1

100

51.3

147

46.1

Of the outdoor cat owners who answered the question regarding how often their cat is
outdoors, 77 percent claimed to do so “very often”, namely more than 5 times per week
(Table 5-2).

77
Table 5-2 Frequency Outdoors
N = 150

95% CI
Lower
Upper
bound
bound

In a typical week, how often does your cat(s) go
outdoors?

# of

%

Rarely (< 1 time/week)

11

7.3

3.1

11.5

Occasionally (1-2 times/week)

7

4.7

1.2

8.1

Often (3-5 times/week)

17

11.3

6.2

16.5

Very Often (>5 times/week)

115

76.7

69.8

83.5

Of all the cat owners who allow their cats outdoors, the number of hours per time of
day varies. On average, based on all outdoor cat owners (N=155) cats are outdoors 43
minutes at dawn, 2 hours and 40 minutes during the day, 50 minutes at dusk and 1 hour and
32 minutes during the night. If the outdoor time is assessed on average per person and as a
percent of the actually amount of time per time of day, the percent data is interesting in that
the outdoor cat owners allow their cats outdoors for 22.8 percent of the time during dawn,
28.7 percent during the day, 30.1 percent at dusk and 20.1 percent during the night.
Seasonally, on average based on all the outdoor cat owners, the cats are outdoors, on a daily
basis 4 hours and 35 minutes during the Fall, 2 hours and 20 minutes in the Winter, 4 hours
and 43 minutes in the Spring and 5 hours and 56 minutes in the Summer. Assessing the same
data but on a per person basis, the time for each season increases to 5 hours and 7 minutes
during the Fall, 3 hours and 5 minutes during the Winter, 5 hours and 21 minutes in the
Spring and 6 hours and 40 minutes during the Summer (Table 5-3).
With respect to restrictions while the cats are outdoors, the most common option
selected was during daylight hours (39 percent) followed by allowing the cat to roam without
restrictions (30 percent), next popular choice was in a fenced yard (26 percent), followed by
with an ID collar (19 percent) and then 13 percent have their cat with a bell on its collar
(Table 5-4).

Table 5-3 Hours Outdoor Each Day and Each Season

Total
hrs

total/155

Avg min/hrs

Mode

Median

Avg hrs/
person

Avg min/
person

Avg min/hrs/
person

In a typical week, how often does
your cat(s) go outdoors?
Dawn (3 hours) 4 AM - 7 AM
Day (10 hours) 7 AM - 5 PM
Dusk (3 hours) 5 PM - 8 PM
Night (8 hours) 8 PM - 4 AM

3.57
101.71
416.6
130.8
238

0.66
2.69
0.84
1.54

43 mins
2 hrs 40 mins
50 mins
1 hr 32 mins

0
1
0
0

0
2
1
0

0.68
2.87
0.90
1.61

41.0
172.4
54.1
96.5

41 min
2 hrs 52 min
54 min
1 hr 36 min

Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer

710.75
363.86
732.05
919.9

4.59
2.35
4.72
5.93

4 hrs 35 mins
2 hrs 20 mins
4 hrs 43 mins
5 hrs 56 mins

4
1
4
6

5.11
2.58
5.34
6.67

307
155
321
400

5 hrs 7 min
3 hrs 5 min
5 hrs 21 min
6 hrs 40 min

As a % of the
amount of
hours/time of
day

22.8
28.7
30.1
20.1

78

79
Table 5-4 Restrictions
We are now interested in knowing whether any restrictions apply
to your cat(s) being allowed to spend time outdoors.

# of

%

…with an ID collar

30

19.4

...with a bell on the collar

20

12.9

…under someone's supervision

23

14.8

…during the daylight hours

60

38.7

…in a fenced-in yard

40

25.8

…in an outdoor enclosure (example: a cat run)

8

5.2

…on a leash or harness

10

6.5

Other, please specify…(for comments see Appendix E)
None of the above: my cat(s) can roam freely without
restrictions

23

14.8

46

29.7

N = 155

Cat Owners Behaviour Towards Externality
Of the outdoor cat owners who answered yes to decreasing the number of hours they
allowed their cat to roam freely outdoors (N = 61; 39.35 percent), 29.51 percent said they
would decrease the time by one hour, 20 percent by 2 hours and 10 percent by 3 hours. For
those who answered no (N = 85; 54.84 percent), the reasons why they would not decrease the
number of hours their cat is allowed to roam freely outdoors is as follows (respondents could
choose more than one): 64 (75.29 percent) chose I believe my cat needs time outside; 13
(15.29 percent) chose the statement: I don’t believe my cat is at risk while outdoors; and 35
chose other reasons (Table 5-5). The other reasons are listed in Appendix G.

80
Table 5-5 Statement Section - Outdoor Cat Owners
Animal welfare advocates encourage cat owners to keep their cats indoors so they will be
safe. Alternatively, if cat owners allow their cats outdoors, they strongly recommended the cat
is kept under the care and control of the owner (on a leash or in an enclosure).
N=155

To keep your cat safer would you decrease the number of hours you
allow your cat to roam freely outdoors?

# of

%

Yes

61

39.35

No

85

54.84

Not applicable - I have an indoor-only cat

9

5.81
N=61*

Please indicate the decrease in the number of hours you would
allow your cat to roam freely outdoors:
1 hour less

# of

%

18

29.51

2 hours less

12

19.67

3 hours less

6
9.84
Other**:
24
39.34
* 1 respondent didn’t answer question 2 despite indicating yes to question 1
** Respondents answers in this field was not usable, so no appendix provided
Please select from the list of reasons why you would not decrease
N=85
the number of hours your cat spends outdoors (more than one can
# of
be chosen)
%
I don't believe my cat is at risk while outdoors

13

15.29

I believe my cat needs time outside

64

75.29

Not applicable: I do not allow my cat outdoors

2

2.35

Other reasons (see Appendix G)

35

41.18

Prey Items by Type of Prey
For the outdoor cat owners, the prey item brought very often and often to the house is
mice and occasionally is birds and mice. Please note that based on previous research, cats
only bring 25 percent of their prey to the house (Table 5-6).
Table 5-6 Types of prey brought to house
Prey

Never

Rarely

Occasionally

Often

Very Often

Small Mammals

128

18

5

1

1

Rats

129

18

5

0

1

Mice

47

45

16

27

19

Birds

67

58

22

7

0

81

Non-Cat Owners, Cat Licensing and WTP
Section 6 was designated to non-cat owners only and the questions focused on cat
licensing and if they would be willing to pay anything towards enforcement to ensure their
neighbour’s cat was contained in its yard. For the non-cat owners, 145 agreed with the
question as to whether they believe Kamloops cat owners should have to license their cats,
whereas there were 30 who stated no and 33 undecided.
When asked about the reasons why they didn’t agree with licensing, a majority of the
66 who answered no or undecided chose that they didn’t see how licensing was useful (46),
followed by they didn’t believe licensing was necessary (24) and 4 respondents stated they
don’t have free roaming cats in their neighbourhood. Of the other option which allowed the
respondents to list their own reasons, the claims were varied (see Appendix H).
The next question was in regards to whether the non-cat owners were willing to pay
(WTP) anything towards enforcement to ensure their neighbour’s cat was contained in the cat
owner’s yard. Based on the responses, 77 (37 percent) were willing to pay towards
enforcement with a majority, 27 of the 77, willing to pay $20 (Table 5-7).
Table 5-7 Non-Cat Owners WTP
N = 77
# of

$

%

15

$5

19.48

18

$10

23.38

3

$15

3.90

27

$20

35.06

Avg WTP

$10.91

With respect to the reasons why the non-cat owners were not willing to pay to keep
their neighbour’s cat contained in the cat owner’s yard, the highest number of respondents
(96) chose that they don’t believe non-cat owners should have to pay for any kind of cat
control (Table 5-8). 40 non-cat owners provided other reasons for not WTP and the responses
are listed in Appendix I.

82
Table 5-8 Non-cat owners' reasons for not WTP
Please select from the list of reasons why you would not be
willing to pay for your neighbour to keep their cat indoors
(more than one reason can be chosen):
I don't believe my neighbour's cat is at risk while outdoors

# of

%

29

22.13

I don't think the wildlife is at risk from my neighbour's cat

26

19.84

I think cats should be allowed to roam freely

45

34.35

I don't have free-roaming cats in my neighbourhood
I don't think non-cat owners should pay for any kind of cat
control

10

7.63

96

73.28

N = 131

Discussion
Cat owners who allow their cats outside unsupervised would appear to not consider
the impact their decision has on the surrounding environment. The surrounding environment
is inclusive of their neighbours and the neighbourhood, the wildlife, and the landscape. Some
of the markers for a responsible pet owner, other than the five freedoms all animals have the
right to (BC SPCA, n.d.), which are: freedom from hunger and thirst; freedom from pain,
injury and disease; freedom from distress; freedom from discomfort; freedom to express
behaviours that promote well-being, is annual visits to the veterinarian for vaccinations and
ensuring cats are spayed/neutered. Based on the Cats in Canada report, 94 percent of catowning respondents spay/neuter their cats. In this research the results from the survey
indicate that the percentage of outdoor cat owners who have spayed/neutered their cat is
lower than the indoor cat owners and combined the average is lower than the national
average. As noted earlier, the Kamloops and District SPCA will be spearheading a
spay/neuter campaign in the North Shore and Brocklehurst areas of Kamloops, so that will
indeed help.
When it comes to the number of hours cats are on the landscape in Kamloops, the
results are interesting. As would be expected more cats are outdoors during the day and
during Fall, Spring and Summer, with Summer having the greatest number of hours per day.
If we compare the results of the time of day and the seasons with bird activity, the impact can
be predicted to be quite high. Rick Howie, Kamloops’ resident bird expert, provided
information regarding the types of birds most at risk from cat predation based on their
general ecology, ground feeding habits or tendency to visit bird feeders at certain times of the
year (personal communication December 2016) (Appendix A). Based on the list there are

83

quite a few birds that are at risk of predation by cats. The listed local birds are most
vulnerable because they will feed on the ground and be at risk from a cat attack. There are
other species that visit feeders such as woodpeckers, but they tend to feed higher up and are
less vulnerable to ground attacks. None of the species on the list are considered to be species
at conservation risk and are not listed under the Species at Risk Act or by the BC
Conservation Data Centre as being at risk. Given the number of hours cats are roaming
unsupervised, reducing the number of cats outside and the number of hours they are outside
is imperative to ensure the bird populations remain off the “at risk” list.
Belief systems are challenging to change and the results from Section 5 Question 14
regarding restrictions reinforces some of the belief systems people hold regarding outdoor
cats. The highest percentage of outdoor cat owners claimed as a restriction was: allowing
their cat outdoors during daylight hours, and in a fenced-in yard, a further third of the
respondents don’t practice any type of restriction and allow their cat outdoors unsupervised.
There is hope though with the results from the Statement Section where outdoor cat owners
can choose to reduce the hours their cat is outdoors in order to keep the cat safer. Nearly 40
percent are willing to reduce the number of hours they allow their cat outdoors
unrestricted/unsupervised. Of those 40 percent, almost 30 percent are willing to decrease
their cat’s outdoor time by one hour and 20 percent are willing to decrease their cat’s outdoor
time by two hours. It’s important to keep in mind the possibility of survey bias when
reviewing these results. For those outdoor cat owners who are not willing to reduce the
number of hours their cat is outdoors, 75 percent claim their cat needs time outside. This is a
long-standing belief that is challenging to change. When looking at how cat owners value
their cats, the outdoor cat owners would say they place high value on their cat’s happiness
and thus they allow their cat outdoors.
The non-cat owners in this survey provided some thought provoking results. Non-cat
owners are willing to pay to keep their neighbours cat in the cat owner’s yard. Despite the
fact that only 37 percent are willing to pay, the results are truly interesting and lends to the
fact that in a community the interest in cat-related issues is not confined to cat owners only.
For those non-cat owners who are not willing to pay, 73 percent stated it was because they
don’t believe it is the responsibility of non-cat owners to pay. A surprising result is that 34
percent of the non-cat owners who were not willing to pay chose the option that they

84

believed cats should be allowed to roam. Another demonstration that beliefs are truly hard to
change. Though beliefs of non-cat owners does not carry the same implication to the
environment as does similar beliefs of cat owners.
Findings that a sizeable number of non-cat owners are willing to pay to keep cats
safer supports Coase’s theorem in that the victim/neighbour is willing to pay to have a
reduction in the damages outdoor cats impose on their interest. Since many non-cat owners
are willing to pay to have cats more controlled and others believe cats should be allowed to
roam freely, outdoor cat owners seem to have the right to let their cats roam freely. Since
negotiations are not feasible due to transaction and negotiation costs, and the fact that there
are many people involved on both sides, the optimal solution through private negotiations, as
illustrated by the Coase Theorem, will not materialize. According to the theoretical
application of the Coase Theorem, the solution that would create the least conflict in the
community, yet still allow the cat owners to have outdoor cats, albeit supervised/restricted, is
with the application of a bylaw coupled with licensing. Specifically, it’s deemed most
reasonable to have the municipality create a bylaw that enforces cat owners keep their cats
under their care and control coupled with licensing, much like dog owners. Cat owners would
have the flexibility to choose how they wish to keep their cat under their care and control,
whether it’s with a catio, cat run, leash training, or cat fencing. This option would ideally
decrease the cats on the landscape, and provide funding for enforcement. Looking to Guelph
or Calgary as a guide to implementing these measures, it’s clear that a step-by-step, gradual
approach is necessary for such a contentious issue.

85

Chapter 6 – Recommendations

Figure 6-1 The domestic cat; bird killer,
mouser and destroyer of wild life 1916
(Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/
wiki/File: 20804489779)

The outdoor cat issue challenges wildlife conservationists, animal welfare advocates,
and municipal governments to become allies working on management options that focus on
risk-mitigating behaviour and changes in communities. This chapter provides a summary of
the results and the implication of the results from this research to provide evidence and
baseline data for the final suggested action items stakeholders may utilize for developing a
long-term plan for Kamloops and the outdoor pet cat population.
Chapter two examines the views and opinions about wildlife and outdoor pet cats and
their owners. The similarities between the cat owners and the non-cat owners provides a solid
basis from which to start as it is clear that all the groups are interested in wildlife issues in
Kamloops and see all living things as part of one group/family that is to be protected. The
outdoor cat owners do not view outdoor pet cats in the same way that the indoor cat owners
and the non-cat owners do. The outdoor cat owners see outdoor pet cats: living happier lives;
that they should be allowed outside unsupervised; and that they play a useful role as
predators (for mice and rats). Outdoor cat owners did recognize there are risks, which would
support the view that outdoor cat owners see the risks, but are of the opinion that because

86

outdoor pet cats live happier lives that outweighs the risks. For the indoor cat owners, it is
clear why they have their cats indoors because the results show their views are as follows:
outdoor pet cats are at risk while outdoors; pet cats should be protected by their owners when
outside; and outdoor pet cats live shorter lives than cats that remain indoors. Non-cat owners’
results were not surprising in that they: are less informed than the cat owners about outdoor
pet cats; see outdoor pet cats as close to bad on the 5-point Likert scale; and lean towards
neutral (on the disapprove side) in regards to people allowing their cats to spend time
outdoors. In summary, on the positive side, these results demonstrate residents of Kamloops
value wildlife, and the negative outcome is that the outdoor cat owners do not view their cat
being outside as an issue.
Chapter three provides insight into the perceptions of the bidirectional risks for
outdoor and indoor cat owners and non-cat owners. The results demonstrate for those risks
that cats impose on the environment the most commonly deemed as the highest risk (for all
three groups) includes predation on mice/rats, predation on birds, and damage or annoyance
to neighbours property. For the risks cats incur those include predation of coyotes or fighting
with other outdoor pets, getting hit by a car or going missing. The level of risk perception for
the diseases cats impose and incur continues to rate low and that may be because it is hard to
identify how the disease they contract or spread is directly related to their outdoor activity. In
summary, Kamloops residents’ perceptions of risks are in line with other research on
perceptions of risk, for both impose and incur, are in line with challenges other communities
face and their animal control services work to address.
The two economic theories presented in chapters four and five provide interesting and
unique perspectives on cat owner behaviour and non-cat owners’ views of outdoor pet cats.
Chapter four demonstrates how the average value of a statistical life of a cat is between
$7,485 and $8,726. This value is determined by how much people are willing to pay to
reduce the risk of a cat dying prematurely. This value also provides a measure of the benefit
from public authorities taking action to reduce such risks. The benefits of public action are in
the range of $8000 per cat saved or death avoided. Implementing a program that saves 100
cats per year from dying prematurely has a benefit of $800,000 per year to the community. If
the cost of the program is less than the benefits, then the program should be implemented.
Determining the cost of a program for Kamloops is an area that needs further exploration as

87

it was not covered in this research and would involve the municipal government and animal
control services. Presenting the value of the statistical life of a cat does provide an
opportunity to discuss and consider the statistical value of a cat and hopefully give cat
owners and potential cat owners pause prior to allowing their cat outside unsupervised.
Licensing was also considered in chapter four, but most cat owners do not see why licensing
is necessary or useful, so if stakeholders wish to implement licensing as a risk-mitigation
strategy for Kamloops there would need to be more education on the benefits of licensing for
cat welfare in Kamloops. The benefits of licensing include higher “return-to-owner” rates,
reducing cat overpopulation with incentives to spay/neuter through differential licensing fees,
and licensing raises revenue for a community to improve animal control services.
Chapter four also addressed the defensive measures most outdoor cat owners engage
in to keep their cat safe while outdoors. In the survey, respondents could choose from seven
options. Of the seven options, four can be assigned an estimated explicit cost (see Table 6-1).
I have also included the results from the survey with respect to the number of respondents
who chose which option to provide insight into those options that may be easier to promote.
Table 6-1 Defensive Measures and Costs
Defensive Measures (outdoor cat owners)

Costs per
unit

N = 155
#of %

…with a bell on the collar

5 - 20

20

12.9

…on a leash or harness

10 - 30

10

6.5

…in an outdoor enclosure

100 - 5000

8

5.2

…in a fenced-in yard ($15-60/foot; based on city backyard: 60-130 lft)

900 - 7800

40

25.8

When trying to determine which defensive measure may be embraced more readily by the
community it is helpful to demonstrate the different costs with the corresponding benefits to
the cat, the cat owner, and the environment. A full analysis of the different options with the
corresponding impact levels for the risks outdoor pet cats impose and incur was not
addressed in this research, but it does pose an avenue for further exploration. For example,
with Table 6-1, by simply comparing the estimated costs of the defensive measures, the most
popular option chosen was a fenced-in yard, which is also the most expensive option, and the
least popular option is the outdoor enclosure. It is interesting that the two most costly items
are on the opposite ends of the choice spectrum for outdoor cat owners. It is important to
keep in mind, though, that it is much more common for urban lots to have fencing already in

88

place, compared to the less common outdoor enclosure. Research on the number of outdoor
cat enclosures that currently exist in Kamloops would be valuable data to have for any kind
of campaign that encourages cat owners to consider it as an option for risk mitigation. It is
clear that the leash and harness option is not popular and again this may be due to a lack of
knowledge that such an option exists, but even if the information is presented to cat owners,
engaging in such a risk mitigation strategy requires time from the outdoor cat owner. As
noted above, a full analysis that includes calculating the cost of cat owner’s time is a factor
for consideration with defensive measures, such as, the time spent building an outdoor
enclosure or a fence or leash training your cat. The bell on the collar option is the least
expensive option, and research has shown that belled collars on cats does reduce predation
rates (Willson, Okunlola, & Novak, 2015), but it does little to reduce risks cats incur while
outdoors. In summary, the value of the statistical life of a cat opens up the possibilities for a
program that reduces the risks of cats dying prematurely in a community, clarity on licensing
and it’s benefits, and the defensive measures which could gather traction more readily in the
community.
Chapter five examines the economic theory of negative externalities and the Coase
Theorem to examine the impact outdoor pet cats impose on our environment. The results
demonstrate that outdoor pet cats impose a negative externality on their neighbour’s
property, on birds and other wildlife. This implies that without regulation outdoor pet cats
roam outside for a lot longer than is socially optimum. It is highly unlikely that the social
optimum is one where cats are kept inside all the time as this would imply that cats inflict a
huge external cost to society even for an hour being left outside. The evidence is not
supportive of such extreme external damages from cats roaming outside unsupervised. The
social optimum is for cats to roam outside for the length of time that is less than the current
level. The good news from the survey is that cat owners are willing to reduce the number of
hours their cat is outdoors, in an effort to keep their cat safe. This is encouraging and
provides an opportunity for small changes in behaviour, but action needs to happen. With
respect to application of the Coase Theorem to outdoor pet cats, it won’t be surprising to
have outdoor cat owners push back on those concepts and applications presented, because of
the difficulty of defining property rights, as well as frictionless negotiations to find a
solution. It is difficult to have outdoor cat owners negotiate with their neighbours to find a

89

balanced solution where both benefit from reducing the amount of time cats roam
unsupervised outside. What is very interesting is the result that shows some non-cat owners
are willing to pay to keep their neighbours cat in the cat owners yard, though in reality that
would be challenging to implement, but will hopefully show the outdoor cat owners that their
actions have an impact beyond themselves and their cat.
The best-case scenario is to move away from a market that is unregulated and
introduce bylaws to reduce the social marginal costs as well as the private benefits cat
owners get from having cats roam unsupervised. There needs to be a means to cover the extra
costs incurred for implementation of bylaws, thus licensing comes into play. Current outdoor
cat owners are not going to embrace any kind of risk-mitigation that restricts their cat’s
outdoor activity, especially leash training, thus there is even greater need to present other
options such as cat fencing or catio’s which doesn’t conflict with the “cats are happier
outdoors” view. However, success in that arena would require simple, affordable options
backed by clear explanation of what it means to keep your cat from roaming the
neighbourhood. As is listed above, the cost of a catio may be too much of a financial burden
to some households. As part of the City of Victoria bylaw, there is a clause that indicates cats
are to not trespass on private property without permission of the owner/occupier of the
private lands (City of Victoria, 2019). This bylaw makes clear the property rights of
neighbors which allows Coase’s solution to evolve which is also the socially optimal solution
to the problem. Cat owners will not let their cats roam unsupervised to the other people’s
private property with the bylaw except if the property owners accept a payment from the cat
owners through a negotiated solution.
In using the above results as baseline data it is clear that current cat owners who allow
their cats outdoors believe their cat is happier and the risks they face while outdoors is worth
it for their cat’s happiness. The outdoor cat owners don’t view the impact the cats have on
wildlife as of great concern. Research on the impact outdoor pet cats have on wildlife could
be beneficial from a scientific standpoint, however, research in the area of animal welfare
communication indicates that marketing the negative impacts with scientific facts is not an
effective way to change behaviour (Cooney, 2011; McLeod, Driver, Bengsen, & Hine, 2017).
What does have a positive influence, namely the cat owners’ motivation to contain their cat
increased, is messaging to cat owners regarding keeping cats indoors that includes both the

90

wildlife benefit and cat protection (McLeod, Hine, Bengsen, & Driver, 2017). There is
evidence that cat bibs or collars deter and decrease the predation rate on birds and wildlife
(Willson, Okunlola, & Novak, 2015).
In Kamloops, influencing a change in behaviour with current cat owners who allow
their cats outdoors is definitely a barrier and requires careful consideration of resources.
There are plenty of options with potential and new cat owners to influence behaviour, such as
how exactly to be a responsible cat owner and options for enriching indoor cat’s lives as well
as the many ways to allow cats outdoors supervised like in a catio, or with leash training. As
mentioned earlier, an assessment of resources will influence strategies. Previous research
supports the delivery of the information about responsible cat ownership from veterinarians
to be effective (MacDonald, Milfont, & Gavin, 2015), however that is an avenue that was not
explored in this research, but would be beneficial and possibly a project for research in the
near future.
There is research that supports cat owners who believe cats are happier outside with
the “it’s in our genes” theory, which is research not examined in this paper, however it is
worth noting that the evolution of our thinking and views may not be keeping pace with the
reality of our urban environments (Driscol, Macdonald, & O'Brien, 2009). Namely, even
though few urban environments have barns full of grain or hay or other produce that requires
rat or mice control for maintaining a level of livelihood, cat owners continue to view cat
predation on rodents as something good and necessary. There is research that cat predation
on such wildlife interferes with the food supply for other predators, such as owls or hawks,
however it would be challenging to convince anyone that the supply of rats or mice in
Kamloops is diminishing and there isn’t enough for “everyone”. Promotion of alternative
ways to reduce the rats or mice populations in Kamloops neighbourhoods would be
beneficial and divert the resistance to risk-mitigation strategies.
At the outset there would appear to be a strong case for Kamloops to implement
licensing and bylaws for cats. There are communities in other provinces who have embarked
upon a similar path for bylaws and responsible cat owner policies, such as Calgary, AB
(Nature Canada, 2019 b) and Guelph, ON (Nature Canada, 2019 c). Victoria, BC most
recently implemented a no roaming/trespassing bylaw and mandatory licensing. In reading
the comments section of the news articles in relation to this city decision provides a snapshot

91

of the familiar challenges and standard negative reactions in those communities (CBC, 2019;
CTV News Vancouver Island, 2019; Victoria News, 2019). Guelph took a step-by-step
approach with introducing voluntary licensing in 2017 and then mandatory licensing in 2018
(no collar or license tag be required if cat is microchipped and info is kept current). The $25
annual fee allotted $5 of that fee to Animal Control Working Group, Guelph Humane Society
and City Staff to address health and welfare issues for cats. They will review the option of no
cats roaming free/at large in 5 years. In Kamloops, collaborative work with the Kamloops
and District Branch of the SPCA would be beneficial because they already have the BC Pet
Registry program in place for the adopted cats, which may serve as a cost-effective way to
license cats not adopted through the SPCA.
Creative solutions that could reduce negative reactions to licensing and bylaws is
possible with the Nudge Theory (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009), which incorporates subtle cues
and positive reinforcement to engage the community. The Nudge Theory outlines that in
order for this theory to be effective, campaigns need to tap into the instinctive/subconscious
mindset of people by making the desired behaviour really easy, socially acceptable and/or
attractive. Nudge Theory aligns with the importance of the language used in messaging
surrounding outdoor pet cats and encouraging responsible cat owner behaviour. For example,
compare the two questions: Do you allow your cat to roam free? Do you allow your cat to
trespasses? Certainly most would concur that the tone of “roam free” is much more positive
than “trespasses”, thus the choice of words can have an influence on behaviour in a very
simple, and subtle manner. The Victoria bylaw incorporates this language in their
regulations: “Cats must not trespass on private property without permission of the
owner/occupier of the private lands” (City of Victoria, 2019).
Nudge Theory is also about freedom of choice within the confines of the behaviour a
campaign is designed to encourage. Thus, providing outdoor cat owners options that allow
their cats outdoors, but keeps them in their yard, is an example of choices within a desired
outcome. As mentioned earlier with the defensive measures, the least costly measure is the
bell on a cat collar and leash/harness options, but again the benefits of each option needs to
be weighed in light of the risks imposed and incurred. Namely, the bell on a cat collar does
little to keep the cat in the yard or protect the cat while it is outdoors, and the leash/harness

92

option does keep the cat in the yard thus protecting the cat, but a factor for consideration is the
cat owner’s time.
Community engagement projects are also an effective method for creating positive
conversations around a contentious issue. A good example of a community engagement
project are the catio tours that are gaining attention. Great success with such an initiative is
evident in Portland, Oregon (Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon, 2019). Most recently the
Vancouver SPCA announced it is hosting its inaugural catio tour on June 9, 2019 in Kitsilano
and Mount Pleasant neighbourhoods. It would be worthwhile to find out how those
communities inspired cat owners to build the catios in the first place, as obviously to have a
successful catio tour there needs to be catios already in place. Perhaps there are cat owners in
Kamloops who have catios, so finding that out would be beneficial.
At the outset of this research, I had hoped to compare the perceptions of the risks to the
reality of the risks for Kamloops, however, gathering the data on the reality of the risks facing
wildlife and outdoor pet cats proved to be a research project in and of itself. Perhaps that
project could be pursued given appropriate resources.
It is worth noting some of the limitations of this research as was noted in the
introduction. Namely, with any kind of survey, a sampling error occurs since only one sample
drawing is used to make an inference about the population. Measurement errors play a factor
and was addressed by carefully wording the survey questions so they remained neutral.
Coverage error was addressed by distributing the survey through several different methods in
an attempt to reach all demographics. Despite all these attempts, the number of female
respondents outweighed the male respondents. This is not uncommon and previous research
has demonstrated that females are more likely to participate in online suveys than males
(Smith, 2008). Non-response error is the final error to take into consideration and that was
accommodated for by posting the survey online, which may alleviate such an error.
As noted earlier, due to a lack of resources, and to execute the survey in a timely
manner, utilizing non-probability sampling was necessary. There is a risk that a representative
sample would not be reached, however many forms of distribution of the survey link were
employed to reduce the risk and the representative sample was achieved. In gathering baseline
data for Kamloops part of the purpose of this research was to gauge the community’s interest
in the subject and gather their opinions and perceptions as would be demonstrated by the

93

number of valid survey received, which exceeded the representative sample required. The
types of non-probability sampling utilized included convenience sampling because there was
no budget for purchasing a list of all members in Kamloops. Snowball sampling would have
also been an inherent factor when the methods for distributing the survey were media, email
and websites (including Facebook) where “sharing” occurs. It is understood that when
measuring opinions and attitudes there may be an unwillingness to provide honest answers,
which comes from the respondents desire to provide socially acceptable answers. As
mentioned earlier, this research can only provide baseline data and provide a representation
of those who deem the topic of concern or interest.
Also mentioned earlier, an interesting future extension to this research would be to
conduct a multivariate regression analysis for variables of interest including, but not limited
to, the value of a statistical of a cat, the willingness to pay by non-cat owners, the perception
of risks. For example, the value of a statistical life of a cat could depend on a number of
factors such as the age of the cat, previous issues with outdoor cats, respondent’s
demographical information (income, gender and education). An exciting part of research is
that more often than not it leads to more research.
The first order of action with this research is to distribute it to the key stakeholders in
Kamloops, such as City of Kamloops Bylaws and Environment & Sustainability
Departments, Kamloops and District SPCA, and BC members of the Stewardship Roundtable
who participated in the Cats and Birds Living in Harmony theme. During the distribution of
the survey, respondents asked for an executive summary of the results, so I will need to
honour those requests. Following distribution of the results to key stakeholders, a meeting
could be called to determine what action is most feasible within the next year. Shelley Joyce
of the CBC Morning Show in Kamloops suggested I return to the show with the results. It
would be beneficial at that time to have some kind of a plan in place, even if it is prioritizing
further research. If we are to learn from other municipalities, such as Victoria BC, Guelph
ON and Calgary AB, the key to moving forward requires all the stakeholders to work
collaboratively and develop a plan for implementing initiatives specific to their communities.
A goal will be to engage the community in risk-mitigation driven by the quest to create a safe
and enriching environment for cats and to protect the wildlife, which we, as residents of
Kamloops, have shown to have an interest in protecting. Bringing the expertise of the

94

wildlife conservationists, animal welfare advocates and this research to the public is sure to
elicit meaningful conversations and act as a springboard for action that achieves the
overarching goal, namely to protect the wildlife and reduce the outdoor pet cat population.

95

Appendices
Appendix A: Birds Most at Risk in Kamloops, BC (Howie, 2016)

American Goldfinch
American Robin
Bohemian Waxwing
Cassin's Finch
Chipping Sparrow
Chukar - predation of young
Common Redpoll
Dark-eyed Junco
Eurasian Collared Dove
European Starling
Evening Grosbeak
Fox Sparrow (rare in winter)
Harris's Sparrow (rare in winter)
House Finch

House Sparrow
Mourning Dove
Northern Flicker
Pine Grosbeak (winter only)
Pine Siskin
Red Crossbill
Red-winged Blackbird
Ring-necked Pheasant - predation of young (very low
local populations)
Rock Pigeon
Ruffed Grouse - predation of young but low valley
bottom grouse populations
Song Sparrow
Spotted Towhee
Varied Thrush
White-crowned Sparrow

96

Appendix B: Survey
Outdoor Pet Cats and Wildlife
Exploring the Bidirectional Risks and the Value of Conservation
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
I am a student at Thompson Rivers University in the Master of Science in Environmental Science (MSc)
program requesting your participation in this survey as part of my thesis for the MSc degree. The purpose of
this study is to understand how people feel about outdoor pet cats in their neighborhoods, as well as how these
cats and their interactions with wildlife, especially birds, may be managed. In this survey, when we refer to
outdoor pet cats, we mean pet cats that spend at least some of their time outdoors.
Please note, you must be 18 years or older to complete the survey.
The results from this survey will contribute to understanding Kamloops residents’ cat ownership behaviour and
perception of risks for both pet cats and wildlife.
Your feedback is important to us. Your participation is voluntary and the survey should take about 15 minutes
to complete. Your answers will be completely confidential.
Thank you for your participation.
If you wish to receive an executive summary of the results please feel free to contact my thesis supervisor, TRU
Research Ethics Board Chair, or myself.
Denise S King, MSc Candidate - Thompson Rivers University. Contact email: dking@tru.ca
Faculty supervisor: Dr. Peter Tsigaris. Contact email: ptsigaris@tru.ca
TRU Research Ethics Board approval (June 27, 2017). Contact information TRU-REB@tru.ca; 250.828.5000
Consent, Risk, Privacy and Right to Refuse
Consent: By completing the survey questionnaire, you the participant are providing your consent for the
information you provided to be used for the purpose of this study.
The Stewardship Centre of BC (a subsidiary organization of Nature Canada) will also utilize data gathered from
questions in this survey.
Risk: There are no risks associated with completing the survey.
Privacy and storage: No identifying information will be collected. Information you provide will be filed and
stored in a cabinet at the office of the supervising faculty and after the conclusion of the study, kept for 5 years
and then destroyed.
Right to refuse: You have the right to refuse or cease participation at any time during the survey.
If you agree to participate and understand the purpose of the study, please select yes.
Yes

97
Section 1 - Wildlife
The first section of this survey is to understand, in general, how you feel about wildlife issues.
Not at all
interested

Somewhat
interested

Interested

Quite
interested

Very
interested

Overall, how interested would
you say you are in local wildlife
issues?
Below are statements representing different ways that people might think about wildlife. Even if you don’t
know or care much about wildlife, we are interested in your opinions.
Strongly
disagree

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
agree

Humans should manage wildlife populations
so that humans benefit.
I view all living things as part of one big
family.
Wildlife are on earth primarily for people to
use.
Wildlife are like my family and I want to
protect them.

Section 2 - Opinions about Outdoor Pet Cats
There is a wide range of opinions about outdoor pet cats. For example, some people feel that pet cats live
happier, healthier lives outside, while others feel that outdoor pet cats have negative effects on wildlife and the
environment. Even if you are uninterested or unaware of the topic of outdoor pet cats, we’re interested in
knowing how you feel about these issues.
Not at all
informed

Somewhat
informed

Neutral

Informed

Very
informed

Not at all
interested

Somewhat
interested

Neutral

Interested

Very
interested

Very bad

Bad

Neutral

Good

Very good

How well informed are you on the topic
of outdoor pet cats?

How interested are you in outdoor pet
cat issues in your neighborhood?

Overall, do you think having outdoor
pet cats in your neighborhood is good,
bad, or neither?

98
Strongly
disapprove

Disapprove

Neutral

Approve

Strongly
approve

Please rate your overall level of approval
of people allowing their cats to spend time
outdoors in your neighborhood.
Below are statements representing different ways that people might think about outdoor pet cats. We are
interested in knowing your opinions about outdoor pet cats in your neighborhood.
Outdoor pet cats in my neighborhood...
Strongly
disagree
…are a nuisance (cause problems).
...are enjoyable to have around.
...play a useful role as predators in the natural
environment.
...are harmful to wildlife.
...disrupt the balance of nature.
...are at risk of being harmed while outdoors.
...live happier lives than cats that remain
indoors.
...live shorter lives than cats that remain indoors.
...should be protected by their owners from
possible harm while spending time outdoors.
...should be allowed to roam freely without
restrictions.

Disagree

Neutral

Agree

Strongly
Agree

99
SECTION 3 – Outdoor Pet Cats and Risks to Wildlife
We are now interested in learning more about your opinions regarding the possible risks associated with pet cats
spending time outdoors in your neighborhood. These could include risks that pet cats may pose to wildlife,
people, and other pets, as well as risks that pet cats may encounter while they are outdoors.
How unlikely or likely do you think it is that the following would occur as a result of pet cats spending time
outdoors in your neighborhood?

Pet cats spending time outdoors in my neighborhood would result in…
Very
unlikely

Unlikely

Neutral

Likely

Very
likely

…a decrease in populations of mice or rats
…a decrease in populations of birds.
...a decrease in populations of small mammals
(examples: squirrels or gophers).
...cats getting diseases from wildlife.
...cats getting diseases from other pets (examples:
other cats, dogs).
...cats giving diseases to other pets.
...cats giving diseases to wildlife.
...cats giving diseases to humans.
...cats being injured or killed by coyotes.
...cats being injured or killed by lynx.
...cats being injured or killed by cougars.
…cats being injured or killed by other pets
(examples: other cats, dogs).
…cats being hit by cars.
...cats being lost or stolen.
...cats damaging people's property (examples: going
to the bathroom in yards, digging up gardens).
...cats injuring or killing small farm animals
(example: chickens).
In the past 12 months, have you experienced problems with outdoor pet cats in your neighborhood?
Yes

No

If yes, please briefly explain the problem(s) and how often it occurred (once during the year, once a month,
once a week, etc.), in the space below:

100
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 4 – Risks to Outdoor Pet Cats
Now, we want to know how you feel about certain actions to address possible risks associated with pet cats
spending time outdoors in your neighborhood.
Is it unacceptable or acceptable to …
Very
unacceptable
...require pet cats to be kept indoors
at all times?
...require pet cats to be restrained
when outdoors (for example: on a
leash or in a cat enclosure)?
...require owners to obtain a license
for outdoor pet cats?
...require owners to vaccinate
outdoor pet cats?
...require owners to spay or neuter
outdoor pet cats?
...require owners to spay or neuter all
pet cats, regardless of whether they
are indoor or indoor/outdoor cats?
Do you currently own one or more cats?
Yes – proceed to SECTION 5, page 7.
No – proceed to SECTION 6, page 14.

Unacceptable

Neutral

Acceptable

Very
acceptable

101
SECTION 5 – Cat Ownership and Outdoor Cats – cat owners only
How many cats do you currently own?
1
2
3
4
4 or more

How many of your cats are male?
0
1
2
3
4 or more

How many of your cats are female?
0
1
2
3
4 or more

Answer the following question, if and only if, you have 3 or less male cats?
Birth to

7 months

3 to 6

7 to 10

11 to 14

6 months

to 2 years

years

years

years

Age of male cat 1
Age of male cat 2
Age of male cat 3

Answer the following question, if and only if, you have 3 or less female cats?

15 years plus

102
Birth to

7 months

6 months

to 2 years

3 to 6 years

7 to 10
years

11 to 14 years

Yes

No

15
years
plus

Age of female
cat 1
Age of female
cat 2
Age of female
cat 3

Not
applicable

If you have male cats, are they neutered?
Do you take your male cat(s) to the veterinarian for annual
check-ups?
If you have female cat(s), are they spayed?
Do you take your female cat(s) to the veterinarian for
annual check-ups?
Have any of the following situations happened to one of your cats in your current residence?
Yes
...been injured or killed by predators (examples: coyotes, lynx, cougars).
...gotten a disease from wildlife.
...been injured or killed by other pets (examples: other cats, dogs).
...been hit by a car.
...been lost or stolen.
In a typical day, how often do you play with your cat(s)?
Number of times per day:
Number of minutes per day:
Do you have an "indoor-only" cat?
Yes - proceed to page 11.
No – proceed to the next page – page 9.

In a typical week, how often does your cat(s) go outdoors?

No

I don't know

103
Rarely (less than once/week)
Occasionally (once or twice/week)
Often (3-5 times/week)
Very Often (more than 5 times/week)
Approximately how many hours per day does your cat(s) spend outdoors during the following timeframes?
(IF NONE, ENTER “0”.)
Dawn (3 hours) 4 AM - 7 AM
Day (10 hours) 7 AM - 5 PM
Dusk (3 hours) 5 PM - 8 PM
Night (8 hours) 8 PM - 4 AM
If you let your cat(s) outdoors, do the seasons affect how much time they spend outdoors each day? (IF NONE,
ENTER “0”.)
Please indicate how many hours per day in the space provided.
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
How often are the following prey items (whether alive or dead) brought by your cat(s) to your house? If you
own more than one cat that spends time outdoors, estimate an average for one cat.
Never

Small mammals
(chipmunks
squirrels,
gophers)
Rats
Mice
Birds

Rarely
(Once every
2-3 months)

Occasionally
(Once per
month)

Often
(Once
per
week)

Very Often
(More than
once per
week)

Not Applicable
(Cat does not
spend time
outdoors)

104
We are now interested in knowing whether any restrictions apply to your cat(s) being allowed to spend time
outdoors. Restrictions could include, for example, keeping your cat indoors or allowing your cat to spend time
outdoors only under certain circumstances such as during the day, under your supervision, on a leash, etc.
(Check all restrictions that apply.)

I only allow my cat(s) outside…
…with an ID collar
...with a bell on the collar
…under someone's supervision
…during the daylight hours
…in a fenced-in yard
…in an outdoor enclosure (example: a cat run)
…on a leash or harness
Other, please specify... ______________________
None of the above: my cat(s) can roam freely without restrictions

Do you believe Kamloops cat owners should have to license their cats?
Yes - skip the next question and proceed to the SCENARIO SECTION, page 12.
No - proceed to the next question.
Undecided - proceed to the next question.
Please select from the list of reasons why you do not believe (or are undecided) about whether Kamloops cat
owners should have to license their cats - you may choose more than one, or provide your own explanation.
I don’t believe licensing is necessary
I don’t see how licensing is useful
I can’t afford to pay for a license every year
I do not allow my cat(s) outdoors so no need for a license
Other, please specify... _____________________________________________
Please proceed to the SCENARIO SECTION, page 12.

105
SCENARIO SECTION - Please answer the following in relation to the scenario.
Across Canada the risk to outdoor pet cats dying prematurely from any cause is approximately 5 in 1000.
Suppose controls would reduce the risk to 1 in 1000 (or by 20%).
Would you be willing to pay to reduce the risk of outdoor pet cats dying prematurely?
Yes - proceed to question 2.
No - proceed to question 3.
How much more per year would you be willing to pay to reduce the risk of outdoor pet cats dying prematurely
(for example, through the hiring cat bylaws officers or increasing support to a local animal welfare
organization)?
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
Other amount ______________________
Please select from the list of reasons why you are not willing to pay to reduce the risk of outdoor pet cats dying
prematurely - you may choose more than one or provide your own explanation.
I don’t believe outdoor pet cats are at risk while outdoors
I can’t afford to pay for controls
I’m not interested in paying for controls
I'm not interested in paying for controls, because I'm only concerned about my indoor cat.
Other, please specify:
_____________________________________________________________________________
_
STATEMENT SECTION - Please answer the following in relation to the statement.
Animal welfare advocates encourage cat owners to keep their cats indoors so they will be safe. Alternatively, if
cat owners allow their cats outdoors, they strongly recommended the cat is kept under the care and control of
the owner (on a leash or in an enclosure).
To keep your cat safer would you decrease the number of hours you allow your cat to roam freely outdoors?
Yes - proceed to question 2.
No - proceed to question 3.
Not applicable - I have an indoor-only cat -

Please proceed to SECTION 7 - page 16.

Please indicate the decrease in the number of hours you would allow your cat to roam freely outdoors:
1 hour less

106
2 hours less
3 hours less
Other, please specify: ______________________

Please proceed to SECTION 7 - page 16.
Please select from the list of reasons why you would not decrease the number of hours your cat spends outdoors
- you may choose more than one, or provide your own explanation.
I don’t believe my cat is at risk while outdoors
I believe my cat needs time outside
Not applicable: I do not allow my cat(s) outdoors
Other reason(s): ______________________

Please proceed to SECTION 7 - page 16.

107
SECTION 6 (for non-cat owners only)
Do you believe Kamloops cat owners should have to license their cats?
Yes - skip question 2 and proceed to question 3.
No - proceed to question 2.
Undecided - proceed to question 2.
Please select from the list of reasons why you do not believe (or are undecided) about whether Kamloops cat
owners should have to license their cats - you may choose more than one, or provide your own explanation.
I don’t believe licensing is necessary
I don’t see how licensing is useful
I don’t have free-roaming cats in my neighbourhood
Other, please specify: ______________________
Would you be willing to pay anything towards enforcement to ensure your neighbour’s cat is contained in its
yard?
Yes - proceed to question 4.
No - skip question 4 and proceed to question 5 - page 15.
How much are you willing to pay per year for cat control enforcement?
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
Other, please specify: ______________________

Please proceed to SECTION 7 - page 16.

108

Please select from the list of reasons why you would not be willing to pay for your neighbour to keep their cat
indoors - you may choose more than one, or provide your own explanation.
I don’t believe my neighbour’s cat is at risk while outdoors
I don’t think the wildlife is at risk from my neighbour’s cat
I think cats should be allowed to roam freely
I don’t have free-roaming cats in my neighbourhood
I don’t think non-cat owners should pay for any kind of cat control
Other, please specify: ______________________

Please proceed to SECTION 7 - page 16.

109
SECTION 7 (for cat owners and non-cat owners)
The following background information will be used to help make general conclusions about residents in your
area. Your responses will remain completely confidential.
What is your gender?
Female
Male
Other

What is your age?
18-24 years old
25-39 years old
40-64 years old
65-79 years old
80 years or older

What is the highest level of education you have achieved?
Less than high school diploma
High school diploma or equivalent (GED)
Certificate, diploma, or trade
4-year university degree
Post-graduate degree

Do you rent or own your home?
Rent
Own

Please indicate the total number of individuals in your household (including yourself):
1
2
3
4
5 or more, please specify: ______________________

110
Do you have children below the age of 18 residing in your household?
Yes - please specify how many: ______________________
No
Are you or another member of your household retired?
Yes
No
Do you have a backyard?
Yes
No
Do you have a dog?
Yes
No
How many cats do you see roaming freely in your neighbourhood on average a day?
0
1
2
3
4
5 or more, please specify: ______________________
Which part of Kamloops do you currently live?
Aberdeen
Barnhartvale
Brocklehurst
Dallas
Downtown
Heffley Creek
Juniper
Lower Sahali
Mount Dufferin
North Shore
Rayleigh

111
Rose Hill/Knutsford
Upper Sahali
Valleyview
West End
Westmount/Batchelor Heights
Westsyde
None of the above.

If you answered "none of the above", please provide the part of Kamloops you currently live in the space below:

Please indicate your total annual pre - tax household income
Less than $40,000
$40,001 to $80,000
$80,001 to $120,000
$120,001 or more

Please provide any other comments you may have about outdoor pet cat issues in the space provided below.

Thank you for participating in this study!

112

Appendix C: Research Ethics Board Approval

June 27, 2017
Mrs. Denise King
Faculty of Science
Thompson Rivers University
File Number: 101623
Approval Date: June 27, 2017
Expiry Date: June 26, 2018
Dear Mrs. Denise King,
The Research Ethics Board has reviewed your application titled 'Outdoor Pet Cats and
Wildlife: Exploring the Bidirectional Risks and the Value of Conservation'. Your application
has been approved. You may begin the proposed research. This REB approval, dated June
27, 2017, is valid for one year less a day: June 26, 2018.
Throughout the duration of this REB approval, all requests for modifications, renewals and
serious adverse event reports are submitted via the Research Portal. To continue your
proposed research beyond June 26, 2018, you must submit a Renewal Form before June 26,
2018. If your research ends before June 26, 2018, please submit a Final Report Form to close
out REB approval monitoring efforts.
If you have any questions about the REB review & approval process, please contact the
Research Ethics Office via 250.852.7122. If you encounter any issues when working in the
Research Portal, please contact the Research Office at 250.371.5586.
Sincerely,

Andrew Fergus
Chair, Research Ethics Board

113

Appendix D: Scenario Section Question 3
Please select from the list of reasons why you are not willing to pay to reduce the risk of
outdoor pet cats dying prematurely - you may choose more than one or provide your own
explanation.
Indoor cat owners
I think all cats should be contained!
I have and provide care for my indoor cats. I feel that people who have outdoor cats, who
choose to put them at risk, should pay for these reduction of risks, licensing, and nuisance
fees.
I believe the burden of an outdoor cats should be on the owner and not on the general
public.
They should not be allowed to roam freely, just as dogs aren't
When I allow my cat outside I keep a watch on it as I would on a toddler.
I look after and am responsible for all my pets. I do not want to pay for someone who is
too lazy to be responsible
I'm not paying to look after someone else's cat
I feel it is the owners responsibility for financing if they are allowing their cats to go out
I'm not interested in paying for other people’s ignorance or inability to look after their pets
properly.
The reduction from 5 to 1/1000 is not really a big enough reduction. I would rather pay for
more education throughout people's lives so they understand outdoor living is not good for
the cats or the wildlife.
Who decides what controls and at what cost.
I shouldn’t have to pay for other people's poor choices
Not convinced that controls would be effective. Cats are able to roam further - they can
scale fences, etc.
It is not a societal problem to have outdoor cats who are at risk of harm.
Pet owners should pay for their own pets, as I do. Perhaps I'm not understanding the
previous question.
People who let their cats outside should pay or keep cats indoors.
my cats are indoor cats now
People who allow their cats outdoors are responsible for their own cats
If I had an outdoor cat I would pay, but my cat is indoor only. Why should I pay for
someone else’s cat?
Not sure how to answer that question
This question is manipulative. You want us to answer yes so that you can justify paying
someone to trap and kill outdoor cats. CAT LICENSING DOES NOT WORK!!!! A LOT
of cats died when Calgary brought in their misguided licensing laws.
A cat's life its own responsibility if it is an outdoor cat.
Control cat colonies is the way to go and no one seems to understand the need for them.
If a cat is allowed outside, it is at risk of dying young, and the owner should know this and
accept it. There is no shortage of cats in the world. I don't see why anyone should want to

114

save more cats while still allowing them to roam free outside. If anything, we should
reduce cats being allowed outside in order to increase birds and small mammals from
dying prematurely.
They have tried to get rid of the feral colony in the Tranquille market for years with no
success. They being municipal government.
This is a hypothetical situation with no proof, therefore how can I pay for something that
may or may not be a result of someone "paying" to decrease risk of cats dying
prematurely....
If you don't want your cat to be at risk, don't let it outside.
Cat licensing does not protect cats from the dangers of outdoor life because they don't have
to stay indoors. This is ridiculous.
We budget our modest income carefully. Why should we pay for the indifference of
others?
Owner should be responsible and not have outdoor cats
People should keep their cats indoors
Outdoor cat owners
A fenced yard won't keep my cats in. They know how to better protect themselves because
they are outside cats.
Individuals should look after their own pets
This question makes no sense
Cats are not dogs. We cannot contain them in homes like cats. They are curious and need
to explore, and be in nature. it is their instincts. Keeping them inside is like prison
I understand the risks
I wouldn’t change anything I am doing now or have been for 30 years. My cats have all
been indoor/outdoor cats and they all have lived for 15 or more yrs with a good life. I don’t
need to pay for changes.
Risk is a part of nature
I think Cat Owners should be responsible enough to do the best for their cats and keep
them inside. This is less expensive for the owner in the long run.
What are the controls? How much?
I know the risk is higher to outdoor cats. My cats are happy outside and it's a risk that I'm
ok with.
People who are in control of their cat(s) should not have to pay the same fee as people who
allow their cat(s) to roam free. I do not mind paying a small fee that could potentially be
given to SPCA in the form of a donation.
I accept the risks of my cat going outdoors. My first cat passed away at 17 yrs... he was an
indoor/outdoor cat
I think your stats are wrong... how would you know how many outdoor cats die without
there being a control on what cats are out there? Are you taking into account people who
have barns full of them? Our neighbourhood is rampant with feral cats. How do you know
how long they live? I think you need to revise your questionnaire. When I'm responsible
for my animals, why should I pay for those who aren't? That's where changes need to be
made.

115

I don’t know what kind of controls we could use
Would want more information regarding what the controls are and the cost
There are risks of having cats remain in or allowing them out. The risks are just different.
Having animals in your life also means you lose them eventually. Let them be as natural
as possible
Paying who for what?
What controls? some are acceptable, some are not
I would pay but not if it means taking away the ability of cats to go outdoors, I feel that
may lead to a reduced quality of life
There are always risks in life, not everything requires licensing and regulation. When we
start licensing panhandlers I’ll consider licensing my cat.
I don't mind paying for my cat but would not subsidize others. More interested in ensuring
animals are spayed or neutered.
Natural selection
Had cats all my life. Life happens whether they’re indoor or outdoor cats.
A cats life is not that valuable
They take their chances. Just like we do in a car every time we drive. There are lots of cats
and there is no need to reduce their premature death.
Over-regulation
If I want to reduce the risk of my cat dying pre-maturely, I will keep my cat in the house. I
have no idea how paying for something will keep my cat safer. It may satisfy the dog
owners who have to pay a license, but it has nothing to do with keeping my cat safe. I love
my cats like family and believe it is cruel to keep a cat locked in a house. They are an
animal and animals deserve to experience life out doors, even if their safety is
compromised. At least they lived, not caged in a house for their existence. Quality over
quantity. .
I already pay for tattoo and chipping. That’s enough ID. There are better thing to spend
money on. Cats as a rule do not attack people like dogs.
It is not necessary. All life faces risk that is part of nature.
I think that outdoor cats have a better quality of life which compensated for the risks
My cat grew up rural and is quite happy
Too many extra charges already
I don't believe it is going to reduce risk by buying a license.
I don't see that paying anything to anybody would reduce the risk
We have had cats in our neighborhood since 1990. All these indoor/ outdoor cats lived
until age 15 or older, a good and happy life.
The risk is too small to be a cash cow for someone/some company
My cat is happier outside and if he lives a shorter life and he is happy hunting I’m ok with
that
Another waste of money. Also not explained well. What would I be paying for exactly?
Where would the money go? How would it directly benefit my cat?
I believe outdoor cats live fuller cat lives
There are far too many cats as there is

116

I'd like it to be clearer how the controls will reduce harm to both wildlife and my cat e.g.
every cat that goes outdoors has to wear one of the large frilly, colourful colours that the
TRU student found helpful for birds
Both my cats are indoor/outdoor cats but spend most of their time indoors. I live in a rural
area where having a cat is all but essential else one is soon swimming in mice. My cats
rarely roam outside my acreage; even my neighbours say they never see them except
when, in the evening, I take them for a walk, something I've trained them to do from
kittens. As noted, both are neutered.
Quantity of life isn't quality of life.

117

Appendix E: Section 5 Question 14
(Restrictions - Other Comments)
Outdoor Cat Owners
after 10 to 5am
Cat fence. But one cat meows non-stop if not allowed out front. Other remain in back yard in
cat fence so, they can go out whenever they want.
Cat lives in garage, may come and go as she pleases during the day, locked in at night. Usually
stays in during the winter.
Cats are trained to come when called, they stick to about a 1-2 block radius of our area
Electric collar
He has his own door so he does as he pleases.
He'll walk beside me when I walk down the street sometimes (no leash)
I create a water grid with the sprinklers as I water my lawn in the summer. They won't run
through it, but can roam freely within the dry space.
In the summer with a neoprene bib to restrict hunting. She learned work arounds on bells.
Most of his outdoor time is spent in our fenced back yard, though occasionally he will climb
over the fence and go for a short tour around the neighbourhood.
my cat is free to go in and out in an enclosed pen at his pleasure - never allowed to roam free
Never
Never in negative degree weather
Not in the winter typically unless observed.
Not overnight
Only at night
She has almost always stayed in our yard, and seldom wandered.
Tried ID collars and they did not work - were always falling off
Try to have him inside for the night when we go to bed
Try to keep cats indoors at night
We've lost many collars as they come home without them
When camping in a large carrier
with tattoo

118

Appendix F: Section 5 Question 16
Other Reasons (Why cat owners should not have to license their cat)
Outdoor Cat Owners
Absolute waste of time, effort, and money for both the animal owner and the government.
Administration costs better used on spay/neuter subsidy
All cats should be microchipped and owners fined if their cats are caught roaming
Already having to pay for chips and tattoos. I think that’s enough
Cash grab
Cat not allowed to wander.
Cats provide a useful service by killing rodents
Cats, especially scared cats, are very sneaky creatures. I doubt most people have the ability to
catch such a cat to see if it's licenced.
Collecting a licencing fee would not change the anything about outdoor cats expect the city
budget gets a boost. Just another tax that goes into general revenue. How does the fee change
the outdoor cat situation?
Come on we know the reason why cats will never be licensed...it saved the world from the
black plague many many, many years ago....hellllo
Disapprove of over-regulation
Don't know much about licensing
Helpful in identifying lost cats, but virtually unenforceable so I don't see any point.
I am undecided because I don't fully know the pro/cons for licensing
I believe collars on cats are dangerous - even break always - and thus having them licences
could only work via microchip number or tattoos
I don’t want to pay to licence them. It’s ridiculous.
I don't care either way.
I feel it is unsafe to put a collar on a cat and puts them at great risk of harm/death
I live on a farm (in the City) so my circumstances are different
If we were to licence, I would like to know what the value would be other than the city
collecting more money from me.
I'm not exactly sure what licensing a cat would accomplish?
It is a stupid idea people won’t pay for it
Licensing is hard to regulate and I don't believe outdoor pets actually cause that much harm.
licensing is just a way for the city to make money
Licensing would be unenforceable
My cats do not roam outside of my yard so I see no reason to license.
Not sure the point?
One more tax...
There is British Common Law that forbids licensing of cats.
Veterinarians routinely tattoo the inner portion of the ear and can be used as reference. This
practise should be mandatory.

119

What good is a license when bylaw officers can’t keep up with the number of bylaws we have?
An exercise in futility!
Indoor Cat Owners
Arbitrary 2 cat per household limit could then be enforced
Cat licensing does not work. Compliance is low and costs to the city are very high. Licensing
does not mean that cats will be kept indoors so it will have no effect on the cat's interaction
with wildlife. The purpose of this survey seems to be that we need to license cats in order to
save wildlife. It doesn't work that way.
Cats that go outdoors should be licensed. They have been in Calgary for years now.
Difficult to enforce, lots of backlash in the community
difficult to enforce, probably impossible to enforce
Dog owners get pound services for their license fees. The city does not keep cats. There would
be no services provided for the fees paid. If the city provided pound services for cats, I would
consider it.
he would not like to wear a collar and could get hung up on something if roaming around
I do not believe most cat owners would comply. More bylaw staff. More govt. intrusion in our
lives. Dogs are licensed and yet problems abound
I don’t believe the money you would pay to the city for licensing has any benefit to the owner.
At least with dog licences there is some benefits (dog parks, re uniting me if he runs off and
gets lost) but charging a fee for my indoor only cat is just a money grab
I don't know that licensing would be effective - difficult to enforce
I don't see how it will change anything or make anything better???
I don't think it's anybody's business to force this on anybody!!
I have not heard any discussion in Kamloops city council on the topic
I think this is over-regulation - we have enough licences to buy!
I'd like to see the pros and cons of a licensing scheme
If it is an outside cat, then yes
Impossible to monitor this.
It would be difficult to enforce so is it worth the time and money
It would just be a money grab by the city.
It’s not enforceable. Tattoo them all instead.
Licencing leads to a lot of cats being euthanized. Also, the municipality will have to pay to
have a special building where all of these fugitive felines can be housed. Cat licensing DOES
NOT WORK!!!!
Licensing is government thievery of its population
Licensing should be necessary for outdoor cats only
Micro managing by municipal government and a way to generate money for a city within a
province that has provided extremely limited ways for municipalities to generate income. Feel
it would be a poor urban planning decision and a multi-disciplinary approach would be
necessary to determine if this was actually a good idea.
Mine are tattooed and microchipped already
my cat has a microchip and she is tattooed

120

No point in licencing an indoor cat as by-laws would not be aware of it.
Our cats go out on a catio or on a leash...if they ran away accidentally a license would not help
locate them...their tattoos/chips will
Pet ownership should not be profitable for others
Too difficult to enforce
Undecided, I can see both points of view, licenses are good to lead to more spaying/neutering
maybe
We've tried it here before. Major belly flop. Enforcement is problematic, and therefore no one
bothered to do it.
What would the funds be used for? What would the city do with information? I see no benefits
for cats or their owners.

121

Appendix G: Statement Section Question 3
Other Comments (Reasons why you would not decrease the number of hours your cat spends
outdoors)
I can't control when they come back
Have already completely reduced to no outside time, due to one cat disappearing.
On average my cat is outside less than 15 minutes a day - always under my supervision. She
stays in our backyard during that time.
Mine is only out 1-2 hours max
it wouldn't be specific to amount of time but to time of day, ie. no outdoor time at and after
dark
If I could afford to enclose my yard l would do so to minimize risk.
They go outside w/ me for approx 15 mins a time just during day light hrs.
Daylight hours
None unless it is in a compound
Not outside at night
We live on Peterson Creek (ravine) with bountiful wildlife. I do not let my outdoor loving cat
go outside overnight when it is dark. Evening prancing around is okay as I leave my big dog
outside to protect him and scare away wildlife.
They aren't allowed to roam freely outdoors
I don’t let her out, and when i do its on a leash
Fewer days outside...fewer hours is not an option
My cats are always supervised outside.
My cats are only allowed out under supervision
N/A as my cat is an indoor cat
depends on the day
My cats are never allowed free roaming.
Daytime
Cat never roams freely
I would keep my cat indoors at night if I lived in a neighbourhood where coyotes/lynx were
likely to be.
Depends on season
Keeping them in at night less chance of coyotes / other predator (owls) getting them
depends on the season
I already keep it to a minimum
they already spend little time outdoors unless in enclosure
Only when I'm outside with her
keep them in at night
would not allow her to roam freely
as I now do, try to keep them in during night and early morning when wildlife predators are
more likely to be around
Reduce time to zero if I can convince other family member.

122

I am handicapped and cannot stop my cat from getting out when I open a door from a
wheelchair, otherwise it would never get out

123

Appendix H: Section 6 Question 2
Non-Cat Owners - Please select from the list of reasons why you would not be willing to pay
for your neighbour to keep their cat indoors - you may choose more than one, or provide your
own explanation.
I wouldn't expect non dog owners to pay any fees for the control of my dog. But when
there are licensing rules as well as leash rules etc. for dogs, the same should go for cats.
Not just because both can be potentially dangerous for humans if they are unattended, but
also for the safety of the animal.
Too difficult to enforce
it's the owner responsibility to keep his/her pet in check
Wouldn’t licensing fees help with this?
I think cat owners should pay for enforcement through their licensing fee
It’s a money grab, and would be extremely hard to enforce.
It’s the owners responsibility to look after their cat(s), including litter box and food so it
can be kept indoors. The owner is also responsible to exercise the cat indoors, putting it
outside for "exercise" is not responsible behaviour for the owner.
It is my neighbour’s responsibility co cover all costs associated with owning a cat.
My neighbour doesn't pay to keep my dog enclosed in the yard or leashed so why would I
pay for them to keep their cat safe?
I think that cats should be monitored/leashed while outside
I pay for my fence to keep my dog in my yard, I pay for a license for my dog which does
not roam free, I pay to have shots to keep my dog up to date - why don’t cat owners?
I think cats are at risk but to some degree that's nature. Should we say deer have to be kept
inside to protect them?
It’s their cat, we pay to license our dogs. Their cat, their responsibility.
I feel money from Cat licenses could go towards this cost, although I see it being hard to
enforce a cat staying in it's own yard (and unlikely)
I would rather funds go to education
I don't feel it is my responsibility to pay for my neighbour’s choice to have a pet. Pets are a
responsibility - if you take one on you must accept that responsibility and the bills that
come with it not your neighbor!
The whole idea of licensing cat is ridiculous and impossible to in force.
While cats may be more at risk outdoors, I do not believe we should dictate that a cat must
remain indoors.
I think it would be helpful to have rules in place, but don’t feel there needs to be an added
expense involved.
Cat owners need to take responsibility, just like dog owners
I do not believe this would require more Bylaw officers or increased costs
We have 3 farrow cats that we have made houses for. We feed and water them daily
I have to care confine and license my dogs. Cat owners should be required to do the same.
There is plenty of budget room in city coffers - budgets just need to be realigned to ensure
bylaw has funds required.
Cat owners should pay

124

I really believe people should be responsible for their own cats (or other pets) and I think
bylaws can't really manage all the dog problems - and we already pay for that - I think it
would be to overwhelming
Dog owners have to be financially responsible for their pets, (and license them) so I
believe the same rules should apply to cat owners.
It is not my choice for my neighbour to have a cat. I think cat licensing fees should be used
to increase enforcement.
The money could come from licensing cats
I don't believe I should pay for my neighbour’s cat. If they choose to have one, payment
should be from them
22's are cheap. 3 cats permanently solved per penny!
The cost of pet ownership and management should be the responsibility of the pet owners
(i.e., through licenses, fines, registration, or taxes on acquiring a pet or perhaps pet-related
services or purchases).
Unenforceable
Cat owners need to be responsible for their pets
Cat owners should’ve responsible for ensuring their animals are not allowed to roam the
neighbourhood of different that dog owners.
It is their choice to have a cat and need to be responsible for it. By law, I am not allowed to
harm the songbirds in my back yard, yet they knowingly allow their cats to kill songbirds.
Outdoor cats pose minimal risk for all concerned including mice and birds
Not my responsibility and don't recognize a material benefit
We probably already pay for dog control.

125

Appendix I: Section 6 Question 5
Other Comments - Please select from the list of reasons why you do not believe (or are
undecided) about whether Kamloops cat owners should have to license their cats - you may
choose more than one, or provide your own explanation.
Non-Cat Owners
Unsure about implementation
Strictly indoor cats, especially those in high rise apartments may be fine left unregistered
It’s a money grab.
I don't think cats in my neighborhood is an issue
Don't really care
I have found licensing does not meet needs as well as programs like the SPCA spay and
neuter program.
this is simply another money grab for pet owners - I would rather see pet owners put this
investment towards better vet care, pit tagging, and creating a happy environment for their
pets. My cat of 17 plus years just recently passed away - she was an indoor cat with outdoor
access while on a lead...she was a happy cat, and a healthy cat her entire life.
I do not have enough information or knowledge about why licensing would be beneficial.
outdoor cats should be licensed, but I do not think indoor pets should require licensing
then again, dogs have to be licensed, why not cats?
Very unsafe for cats to wear collars and license tags.
It's unenforceable. How would you catch the cat, or identify the owner?
cats are part of our outdoor wildlife
undecided

126

References

Alley Cat Allies. (2017). The Natural History of the Cat. Retrieved from Resources:
http://4fi8v2446i0sw2rpq2a3fg51-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wpcontent/uploads/2015/12/Natural-History-of-the-Cat_317P.pdf
Anderson, T. (2004). Viewing Land Conservation Through Coase-Colored Glasses. Natural Resources
Journal, 361-381.
Andersson, H., & Treich, N. (2008). The Value of a Statistical Life.
Audubon Society of Portland and Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon . (n.d.). Catio Construction Resources.
Retrieved from Cats Safe at Home: https://www.catssafeathome.org/catioresources#anchor-fencing+doors
Aziz, S., Boyle, K., & Crocker, T. (2015). Parental decisions, child health and valuation of avoiding
arsenic in drinking water in rural Bangladesh. Journal of Water & Health, 152-167.
Bateson, P., & Turner, D. (2014). The Domestic Cat: The Biology of Its Behaviour. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
BC Government. (n.d.). BC Species & Ecosystems Explorer. Retrieved from Environmental Protection
and Sustainability: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/plants-animalsecosystems/conservation-data-centre/explore-cdc-data/species-and-ecosystems-explorer
BC SPCA. (2015). BC's Municipal Animal Bylaw: Summary of the BC SPCA Review. Retrieved from BC
SPCA: https://spca.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/bc-municipal-animal-bylaw.pdf
BC SPCA. (2017). Model Municipal Bylaws. Retrieved from BC SPCA: https://spca.bc.ca/programsservices/working-for-better-laws/model-municipal-bylaws/
BC SPCA. (2017, November 1). News. Retrieved from https://spca.bc.ca/news/free-kittens-projectfocuses-on-b-c-s-cat-overpopulation-problem/
BC SPCA. (2017). Reports. Retrieved from BC SPCA: https://spca.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017annual-report.pdf
BC SPCA Kamloops & District Branch. (2019). BC SPCA Kamloops & District Branch. Retrieved from
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BCSPCA.Kamloops/
BC SPCA. (n.d.). Working for Better Laws. Retrieved from BC SPCA: https://spca.bc.ca/programsservices/working-for-better-laws/
BC Statistics. (2018). Sub-Provincial Population Projections 2016. Retrieved from BC Statistics:
https://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/apps/PopulationProjections.aspx

127
Bennett, J., Roth, R., Klain, S., Chan, K. C., Clark, D., Cullman, G. C., . . . Wyborn, C. (2016).
Conservation Social Science: Understanding and Integrating Human Dimensions to Improve
Conservation. Biological Conservation, 94-101. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006
Blancher, P. (2013). Estimated Number of Birds Killed by House Cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian
Conservation and Ecology. doi:10.5751/ACE-00557-080203
Bonnington, C., Gaston, K., & Evans, K. (2013). Fearing the Feline: Domestic Cats Reduce Avian
Fecundity Through Trait-mediated Indirect Effects that Increase Nest Predation by Other
Species. Journal of Applied Econlogy, 15-24. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12025
Calgary Humane Society. (n.d.). Pet Budget. Retrieved from Calgary Humane Society:
https://www.calgaryhumane.ca/adopt/pet-calculators/
Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. (2017). Cats In Canada 2017: A Five-year Review of Cat
Overpopulation. Retrieved from Humane Canada:
https://www.humanecanada.ca/cats_in_canada_2017
Canadian Veterinary Medical Association. (2019). Animal Owners: Cats. Retrieved from Canadian
Veterinary Medical Association: https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/resources/animalowners-cats
Cats and Birds. (n.d.). Retrieved from www.catsandbirds.ca
CBC. (2019). News. Retrieved from CBC: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/catlicense-victoria-1.4981510
CBC News. (2017, November 27). TRU Researcher to Study Consequences of Keeping Cats Outside.
Kamloops, BC, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/truresearcher-wants-input-for-cat-study-1.23219180
Centre for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Epidemiology and Risk Factors. Retrieved from
Parasites - Toxoplasmosis (Toxoplasma infection):
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/epi.html
City of Guelph. (n.d.). Animal Licensing. Retrieved from City of Guelph: https://guelph.ca/living/petsand-animals/animal-licensing/
City of Kamloops. (2004). Animal Control Bylaw 34-11. Retrieved from City of Kamloops:
https://kamloops.civicweb.net/document/8206
City of Kamloops. (2019). Dog Licenses & Pet Ownership. Retrieved from City of Kamloops:
https://www.kamloops.ca/safety-bylaws/bylaws-enforcement/dog-licences-pet-ownership
City of Victoria. (2019). Retrieved from Bylaw Regulations: http://www.vacs.ca/bylawregulations/cats
Coase, R. (1960). The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law & Economics, 1-44.
Cooney, N. (2011). Change of Heart: What Psychology Can Teach Us About Spreading Social Change.
Brooklyn: Lantern Books.

128
Cove, M., Gardner, B., Simons, T., Kays, R., & O’Connell, A. (2018). Free-ranging domestic cats (Felis
catus) on public lands: estimating density, activity, and diet in the Florida Keys. Biological
Invasions, 333-344. doi:10.1007/s10530-017-1534-x
Crowley, S., Cecchetti, M., & McDonald, R. (2019). Hunting Behaviour in Domestic Cats: An
Exploratory Study of Risk and Responsibility Among Cat Owners. People and Nature, 1-13.
doi:10.1002/pan3.6
CTV News Vancouver Island. (2019, January 18). CTV News. Retrieved from CTV News Vancouver
Island: https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/cats-should-be-licensed-and-on-leash-just-likedogs-group-1.4260071
Donnelly, A. (2017, November 2017). TRU Researcher Investigating Impact of Outside Cats.
Kamloops, BC, Canada. Retrieved from http://cfjctoday.com/article/599022/tru-researcherinvestigating-impact-outside-cats
Driscol, C., Macdonald, D., & O'Brien, S. (2009). From Wild Animals to Domestic Pets, An
Evolutionary View of Domestication. PNAS, 106, 9971-9978. doi:10.1073
Dubois, S., & Fraser, D. (2013). Rating Harms to Wildlife: A Survey Showing Convergence Between
Conservation and Animal Welfare Views. The Humane Society Institute for Science and
Policy: Animal Studies Repository, 49-55.
Edge Publishing. (2019). North Shore Echo. Retrieved from https://www.kamloopscity.com/localpublication/north-shore-echo/
Feral Cat Coalition of Oregon. (2019). Get Inspired: Portland Catio Tours. Retrieved from Feral Cat
Coalition of Oregon: http://www.feralcats.com/catio
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach.
New York: Psychology Press.
Flockhart, T., & Coe, J. (2018). Multistat Matrix Population Model to Assess the Contributions andn
Impacts on Population Abundance of Domestic Cats in Urban Areas Including Owned Cats,
Unowned Cats and Cats in SHeters. PloS one. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0192139
Gerhold, R., & Jessup, D. (2013). Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free-roaming Cats. Zoonoses and
Public Health, 189-195.
Gramza, A., Teel, T., Vande Woude, S., & Crook, K. (2016). Understanding Public Perceptions of Risk
regarding Outdoor Pet Cats to Inform Conservation Action. Conservation Biology, 276-286.
doi:10.1111/cobi.12631
Guelph Cat Population Task Force. (a). Identification. Retrieved from Guelph Cats:
http://www.guelphcats.org/strategies/identification
Guelph Cat Population Task Force. (b). About Us. Retrieved from Guelph Cats:
http://www.guelphcats.org/home/about-us
Guelph Cat Population Task Force. (c). Retrieved from Guelph Cat Population Task Force:
http://www.guelphcats.org/home

129
Hall, C., Adams, N., Bradley, J., Bryant, K., Davis, A., Dickman, C., & Calver, M. (2017). Communitiy
Attitudes and Practices of Urban Residents Regarding Predation by Pet Cats on Wildlife: An
International Comparison. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation, 11-31.
Hallett, D. (2016, December 6). News Story. Retrieved from Guelph Mercury:
https://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/7006013-divisions-remain-on-cat-roamingissue-in-guelph/
Harris, J., & Roach, B. (2018). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Howard, R. A. (1984). On Fates Comparable to Death. Management Science, 407-422. Retrieved
from https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.4.407
Howie, R. (2016, December). Birds of Kamloops. (D. King, Interviewer)
Jones-Lee, M. (1976). The Value of Life: An Economic Analysis. Chicago IL USA: University Press.
Jones-Lee, M. (2004). Valuing International Safety Externalities: Does the 'Golden Rule' Apply?
Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 277-287.
Kamloops and District SPCA. (2019). Retrieved from News: https://spca.bc.ca/news/kamloops-catoverpopulation-petsmart-charities-grant/
Kamloops Naturalist Club. (2019). About Us. Retrieved from Kamloops Naturalist Club:
http://kamloopsnaturalistclub.com/about-us/
Kelowna Now. (2019, January 25). Water Cooler News. Retrieved from Kelowna Now Stuff that
Matters:
https://www.kelownanow.com/watercooler/news/news/Kelowna/No_plans_in_Central_Ok
anagan_to_force_cats_to_wear_leashes_and_be_licensed/
Kikillus, K., Chamberes, G., Farnworth, M., & Hare, K. (2016). Research Challenges and Conservation
Implications for Urban Cat Management in New Zealand. Pacific Conservation Biology, 1524. doi:10.1071/PC16022
Lanz, B., & Provins, A. (2016). The demand for tap water quality: Survey evidence on water hardness
and aesthetic quality. Water Resources and Economics, 52-63.
Lepczyk, C., Mertig, A., & Liu, J. (2004). Landowners and Cat Predation Across Rural-to-Urban
Landscapes. Biological Conservation, 191-201. doi:10.1016/S0006-3207(03)00107-1
Loss, S., & Marra, P. (2017). Population Impacts of Free-ranging Domestic Cats on Mainland
Vertebrates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. doi:10.1002/fee.1633
Loss, S., Will, T., & Marra, P. (2013). The Imact of Free-ranging Domestic Cats on Wildlife of the
United States. Nature Communications.
MacDonald, E., Milfont, T., & Gavin, M. (2015). What Drives Cat-Owner Behaviour? First Steps
Towards Domestic-Cat Impacts on Native Wildlife. Wildlife Research, 257-265.
doi:10.1071/WR14164

130
Mameno, K., Kubo, T., & Suzuki, M. (2017). Social Challenges of Spatial Planning for Outdoor Cat
Management in Amami Oshima Island, Japan. Global Ecology And Conservation, 184-193.
doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2017.03.007
Manfredo, M. (2008). Who Cares About Wildlife. New York: Springer.
Marra, P., & Santella, C. (2016). Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
McLeod, L., Driver, A., Bengsen, A., & Hine, D. (2017). Refining Online Communication Strategies for
Domestic Cat Management. Anthrozoös, 30(4), 635-649.
doi:10.1080/08927936.2017.1370237
McLeod, L., Hine, D., Bengsen, A., & Driver, A. (2017). Assessing the Impact of Different Persuasive
Messages on the Intention and Behaviour of Cat Owernes: A Randomised Control Trial.
Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 136-142.
Nature Canada. (2019 a). Keep Cats Safe and Save Bird Lives. Retrieved from Cats and Birds:
https://catsandbirds.ca/
Nature Canada. (2019 b). The Calgary Model: Encouraging Responsible Pet Ownership. Retrieved
from Blog: https://catsandbirds.ca/blog/the-calgary-model/
Nature Canada. (2019 c). Media. Retrieved from Cats and Birds: http://catsandbirds.ca/catsmatter/open-letter-to-guelph/#sthash.RXWfsCgB.dpbs
Nature Canada. (2019 d). Cat Fencing. Retrieved from Research and Resources:
http://catsandbirds.ca/research/cat-fencing/#sthash.k9wQM7xd.dpbs
O'Neill, D., Churs, D., McGreevy, P., Thompson, P., & Brodbelt, D. (2015). Longevity and Mortality of
Cats Attending Primary Care Veterinary Practices in England. Journal of Feline Medicine and
Surgery, 125-133.
Petruk, T. (2017, November 25). TRU Researcher Wants Input for Cat Study. Kamloops This Week.
Kamloops, BC, Canada. Retrieved from https://www.kamloopsthisweek.com/news/truresearcher-wants-input-for-cat-study-1.23219180
Provincial BC SPCA. (n.d.). Caring for Cats. Retrieved from SPCA: https://spca.bc.ca/faqs/cats/
Registry, B. P. (n.d.). BC Pet Registry. Retrieved from BC Pet Registry: https://bcpetregistry.ca/
Roetman, P., Tindle, H., & Litchfield, C. (2018). Management of Pet Cats: The Impact of the Cat
Tracker Citizen Science Project in South Australia. Animals, 190. doi:10.3390/ani8110190

131
Schelling, T. (1968). The life you save may be your own. In S. Chase (Ed.), Problems in Publich
Expenditure Analysis (pp. 127-62). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Schultz, P. (2011). Conservation Means Behaviour. Conservation Biology, 1080-1083.
Seto, C. (2017, November 17). Community Story. Retrieved from Guelph Mercury:
https://www.guelphmercury.com/community-story/7928580-cat-licences-to-becomemandatory-in-guelph-in-2018/
Steel, B. (1996). Thinking Globally and Acting Locally?: Environmental Attitudes, Behaviour and
Activism. Journal of Environmental Management, 47(1), 27-36. doi:10.1006/jema.1996.0033
Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2009). Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Welath, and Happiness.
New York: Penguin Books.
The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies. (2017). Cats In Canada: A Five Year Review of Cat
Overpopulation. Ottawa: Humane Canada.
The Lacombe Globe. (2019, March 11). The Lacombe Globe. Retrieved from News:
https://www.lacombeglobe.com/news/local-news/lacombe-passes-responsible-animalownership-bylaw
The Stewardship Centre For BC. (2016). Resources. Retrieved from The Stewardship Centre For BC:
https://www.stewardshipcentrebc.ca/PDF_docs/CatsBirds/SPGuide_ReducingImpactCatsBir
dsWildlife2016.pdf
The Stewardship Centre for BC. (2018). Stewardship Roundtable Action Plan. Retrieved from The
Stewardship Centre for BC: https://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/srtatioc-action-plan/
The Stewardship Centre for BC. (n.d.). Cats and Birds. Retrieved from The Stewardship Centre for BC:
http://stewardshipcentrebc.ca/cats-and-birds/
Thompson Rivers University. (2019). Facts and Figures. Retrieved from Thompson Rivers University:
https://www.tru.ca/about/facts.html
van Heezik, Y., Smyth, A., Adams, A., & Gordon, J. (2010). Do Domestic Cats Impose an
Unsustainable Harvest on Urban Bird Populations? Biological Conservation, 121-130.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2009.09.013
Victoria News. (2019, January 24). News. Retrieved from Victoria News:
https://www.vicnews.com/news/leash-your-cat-or-face-a-150-fine-in-victoria/
Viscusi, W. (2005). The Value of Life. The Harvard John M. Olin Disccussion Paper Series.
Viscusi, W. (2018). Pricing Lives: International Guideposts for Safety. Economic Record, Special
Edition, 1-10.
Viscusi, W., & Aldy, J. (2003). The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates
throughout the world. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5-76.

132
Wald, D., Jacobson, S., & Levy, J. (2013). Outdoor Cats: Identifying Differences between Stakeholder
Beliefs, Perceived Impacts, Risk and Management. Biological Conservation, 414-424.
doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2013.07.034
Wald, D., Lohr, C., Lepczyk, C., Jacobson, S., & Cox, L. (2016). A Comparison of Cat-related Risk
Perceptions and Tolerance for Outdoor Cats in Florida and Hawaii. Conservation Biology,
1233-1244. doi:10.1111/cobi.12671
Walker, J., Bruce, S., & Dale, A. (2017). A Survey of Public Opionion on Cat (Felis catus) Predation and
the Future Direction of Cat Management in New Zealand. Animals, 49.
doi:10.3390/ani7070049
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Economic Equilibrium. Retrieved from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_equilibrium
Willson, S., Okunlola, I., & Novak, J. (2015). Bird Be Safe: Can a Novel Cat Collar Reduce Avian
Mortality by Domestic Cats (Felis catus)? Global Ecology and Conservation.
doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2015.01.004
Young, M. (2013, March 27). Kamloops Daily News. Retrieved from Kamloops Daily News:
www.kamloopsnews.ca/news/city-region/cat-control-would-be-costly-kamloops-counciltold-1.1231951
Zhang, J. &. (2018). Air pollution and defensive expenditures: Evidence from particulate-filtering
facemasks. . Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 517-536.