Introduction: Some local governments have implemented subsidy projects for neutering domestic cats to promote trap-neuter-return (TNR) of free-roaming cats in Japan. Our purpose was to examine effectiveness of such subsidy projects on the population control of free-roaming cats in an urban city area in Tokyo by comparing information on feral cat management collected through questionnaire for subsidy users and population data of cats living in the corresponding area found by field survey.
Materials and Methods: Questionnaires were distributed either to those applied for the subsidy at Adachi ward office (n=75) or to members of a local animal protection organization who engaged in TNR projects (n=16). The questionnaire asked locations, time periods, and numbers of free-roaming cats neutered where the respondents were involved in management. Proportions of neutered cats and densities of cats per hectare were calculated for each district of the ward, and four representative areas were chosen; Neuter-High (NH), Neuter-Low (NL), Density-High(DH), Density-Low(DL). Route census of cats was conducted twice in four areas and the results were compared among areas by one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's multiple comparison.
Results: By questionnaire 653 cats (508 neutered and 145 unneutered) were grasped in the 31.2% of whole area of Adachi ward. The order of cat densities was DH>NH>NL>DL, while neutering rates was highest in NH and DL, DH follows, and the lowest in NL. The route census found 51 cats in 4 areas (DH:7, DL: 8, NH:18, NL:18), of which only 2 kittens were found in NL and 15 cats having ear tipped (NH:12, others:1). There was no significant difference in numbers of cats among areas (P = 0.131). The order of average densities of cats were; NL>NH>DL>DH, but no significant difference was found (P = 0.249). The neutering rate was highest in NH (12/18) and there were significant differences with other areas (P = 0.002, ANOVA; P<0.01 by Scheffe’s multiple comparisons).
Discussions and Conclusions: The neutering ratio suggested by questionnaire survey was actually reflected in the proportion of ear-tipped cats found in the route census, whereas the numbers and densities of cats found by field survey were not well correlated with situation suggested by questionnaire survey.