Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Aug 11;10(8):1395.
doi: 10.3390/ani10081395.

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

Affiliations

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

Daniel D Spehar et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

The number of cats and dogs impounded and euthanized at animal shelters in the USA has declined dramatically in recent decades. The Humane Society of the United States reported that in 1973 an estimated 13.5 million cats and dogs were euthanized nationwide; according to Best Friends Animal Society, in 2018 that number had been reduced to approximately 733,000. A disproportionate number of animals euthanized at shelters today are free-roaming feral and stray cats, who most often face euthanasia due to their temperament or a lack of shelter space. Over the past decade, two new management tactics-return-to-field (RTF) and targeted trap-neuter-return (TNR)-have exhibited the capacity to contribute to significant reductions in feline euthanasia and intake. The present study examines changes in feline euthanasia and intake, as well as impacts on additional metrics, at a municipal animal shelter in Jefferson County, KY, USA, after an RTF program was added to an ongoing community-based TNR program. A combined total of 24,697 cats were trapped, sterilized, vaccinated, and returned over 8 years as part of the concurrent RTF and TNR programs. Feline euthanasia at Louisville Metro Animal Services (LMAS) declined by 94.1% and feline intake dropped by 42.8%; the live-release rate (LRR) increased by 147.6% due primarily to reductions in both intake and euthanasia. The results of the present study corroborate prior research on the effectiveness of combining RTF and TNR and exemplify the flexibility available to communities in configuring such programs to align with their particular needs and resources.

Keywords: animal sheltering; community cats; feline euthanasia; feline intake; feral cats; return-to-field (RTF); stray cats; targeted TNR; trap-neuter-return (TNR); urban free-roaming cats.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

In recognition of MDPI policy and our ethical obligations as researchers, the authors acknowledge that one of us (P.J.W.) is employed by Best Friends Animal Society, advocating for the protection of domestic cats via public policy initiatives. The authors acknowledge that the funding sponsors provided general guidance for the design of the study and were periodically apprised of project status during data collection, analysis, interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Visual representations of trap-neuter-return (TNR) and return-to-field (RTF) programs, adapted from [11].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Timeline of key events reported in the present study. A: Alley Cat Advocates (ACA)’s trap-neuter-return (TNR) county-wide program (beginning in 1999); B: ACA’s targeted TNR in zip code 40215; C: Louisville Metro, KY, USA, approves TNR ordinance; D: LMAS implements return-to-field (RTF) program for service area; E: ACA focuses TNR efforts on 10 zip code target area.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Map of Jefferson County, KY, USA, showing target (orange) and non-target (white) areas corresponding to different sterilization efforts.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overall, stray, and owner-surrendered feline intake for each year of the LMAS/ACA program. LMAS: Louisville Metro Animal Services; ACA: Alley Cat Advocates.
Figure 5
Figure 5
In-county (target and non-target zip code area) sterilization surgeries, stray feline intake, and feline euthanasia per 1000 residents for each year of the LMAS/ACA program. LMAS: Louisville Metro Animal Services; ACA: Alley Cat Advocates.
Figure 6
Figure 6
In-county (target and non-target zip code area) sterilization surgeries, stray feline intake, and feline euthanasia for each year of the LMAS/ACA program. LMAS: Louisville Metro Animal Services; ACA: Alley Cat Advocates.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Reductions in feline euthanasia per 1000 residents over three years, across different communities and programs.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Reductions in feline intake per 1000 residents over three years, across different communities and programs.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Feline euthanasia per 1000 residents vs. average length of stay (LOS) for cats admitted as strays.

References

    1. Clancy E.A., Rowan A.N. Companion Animal Demographics in the United States: A Historical Perspective. In: Salem D.J., Rowan A.N., editors. The State of the Animals II. Humane Society Press; Washington, DC, USA: 2003. pp. 9–26.
    1. Zawistowski S. 2013 National Council on Pet Population Research Symposium Presentations: CATS: The ins and Outs: Improving their Future Through Research. Society of Animal Welfare Administrators; Tempe, AZ, USA: 2013. Simulating different approaches for managing free-roaming cat populations.
    1. Rowan A., Kartal T. Dog Population & Dog Sheltering Trends in the United States of America. Animals. 2018;8:68. doi: 10.3390/ani8050068. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Best Friends Animal Society A New Digital Tool for Saving Dogs and Cats: Is Your Community No-Kill? [(accessed on 13 September 2019)]; Available online: https://bestfriends.org/2025-goal.
    1. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. [(accessed on 13 September 2019)]; Available online: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218.

LinkOut - more resources