Linda K Lord1. 1. Department of Veterinary Preventive Medicine, College of Veterinary Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Households in Ohio. PROCEDURES: A random-digit-dial telephone survey was performed, and 1,250 households were contacted. RESULTS: 703 of the 1,250 (56.2%) households completed interviews. Five hundred fifty-three (78.7%) participants reported seeing free-roaming cats at least occasionally, and 184 (26.2%) reported having fed free-roaming cats during the previous year. However, only 42 (22.8%) participants who fed free-roaming cats had ever taken one to a veterinarian, and 43 (23.4%) participants who fed free-roaming cats reported that at least one of the free-roaming cats had produced a litter in the preceding year. Differences existed between cat owners and other participants and among urban, suburban, and rural residents in regard to their attitudes toward free-roaming cats and the need for government regulations. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that free-roaming cats were common in Ohio, but that attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats differed between cat owners and other participants and among participants grouped on the basis of residential area. Thus, developing statewide approaches for regulating free-roaming cats may be challenging or unrealistic.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats among individuals living in Ohio. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SAMPLE POPULATION: Households in Ohio. PROCEDURES: A random-digit-dial telephone survey was performed, and 1,250 households were contacted. RESULTS: 703 of the 1,250 (56.2%) households completed interviews. Five hundred fifty-three (78.7%) participants reported seeing free-roaming cats at least occasionally, and 184 (26.2%) reported having fed free-roaming cats during the previous year. However, only 42 (22.8%) participants who fed free-roaming cats had ever taken one to a veterinarian, and 43 (23.4%) participants who fed free-roaming cats reported that at least one of the free-roaming cats had produced a litter in the preceding year. Differences existed between cat owners and other participants and among urban, suburban, and rural residents in regard to their attitudes toward free-roaming cats and the need for government regulations. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Results suggested that free-roaming cats were common in Ohio, but that attitudes toward and perceptions of free-roaming cats differed between cat owners and other participants and among participants grouped on the basis of residential area. Thus, developing statewide approaches for regulating free-roaming cats may be challenging or unrealistic.
Authors: Lauren Van Patter; Tyler Flockhart; Jason Coe; Olaf Berke; Rodrigo Goller; Alice Hovorka; Shane Bateman Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Lauren Van Patter; Tyler Flockhart; Jason Coe; Olaf Berke; Rodrigo Goller; Alice Hovorka; Shane Bateman Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 1.008
Authors: Lori R Kogan; Susan E Little; Peter W Hellyer; Regina Schoenfeld-Tacher; Rebecca Ruch-Gallie Journal: Can Vet J Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 1.008