Research Note Survival, Fecundity, and Movements of Free-Roaming Cats PAIGE M. SCHMIDT, 1 Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2258 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA ROEL R. LOPEZ, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2258 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA BRET A. COLLIER, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, 2258 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2258, USA ABSTRACT Free-roaming cats (e.g., owned, semi-feral, and feral) impact wildlife worldwide through predation, competition, and disease transmission. Baseline ecological information necessary for population management is lacking. We radiocollared free-roaming cats (feral, n ¼ 30; semi-feral, n ¼ 14; owned, n ¼ 10) in Caldwell, Texas, USA between October 2004 and November 2005 and compared population demographics among sex and ownership classification. We found ranges and movements declined across ownership classes whereas survival and fecundity increased. Our findings suggest that human interactions (e.g., feeding) may result in high, localized free-roaming cat densities, which may concentrate feral cat impacts and should be considered when evaluating population control strategies. ( JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 71(3):915–919; 2007) DOI: 10.2193/2006-066 KEY WORDS annual range, fecundity, Felis catus, feral cats, movement, radiotagged, survival. The United States cat population exceeds 100 million (Clarke and Pacin 2002), with about 73 million owned cats (Slater 2002) and between 10–50 million unowned cats (Mahlow and Slater 1996). Domestic cats have been introduced globally and Jarvis (1990) estimated 400 million domestic cats worldwide. Free-roaming cat populations include owned cats allowed outdoors, recently lost or abandoned cats, and feral cats (Slater 2002). Here we define semi-feral as unowned cats directly fed by a resident and feral as unowned cats not directly fed. Problems that arise from large and ubiquitous free- roaming cat populations in both urban and rural areas are well-documented and include animal welfare concerns (starvation, disease, abuse, or depredation), public health and nuisance concerns, as well as impacts on native wildlife through predation, competition, and disease transmission (Patronek 1998, Slater 2002). In the United States, proposed population control strategies for free-roaming cats include euthanasia, hunting, and trap–neuter–release (TNR) programs. Ideally, evaluation of population control methods should be conducted a priori using appropriate estimates of vital rates for unmanaged, free-roaming cat populations (White 2000). Evaluating the effectiveness of such measures (i.e., method of control, frequency of control, and associated costs) in reducing free-roaming cat numbers and associated impacts can be accomplished using population models (Slater 2002, Anderson et al. 2004). Previous research on free-roaming cats has focused on their associated impacts (Tideman et al. 1994, Hall et al. 2000, Ash 2001, Hutchings 2003) and the ecology of different types of free-roaming cats (e.g., feral, semi-feral, owned; Warner 1985, Apps 1986, Genovesi et al. 1995, Hall et al. 2000). Attempts to evaluate and compare population dynamics of free-roaming cats are important. We predict that 1) distinct subpopulations of free-roaming cats may arise from different sources, 2) free- roaming cat subpopulations may be demographically distinct and produce different impacts, and 3) free-roaming cat subpopulations may respond differently to various control measures. To date, no studies have evaluated the population dynamics of unmanaged, free-roaming cats using radio- telemetry, particularly the effects of ownership. Thus, our study objective was to compare survival, fecundity, annual ranges, and movements of free-roaming cats by sex and ownership classifications. STUDY AREA The City of Caldwell was a small, suburban community of approximately 3,400 residents located in Burleson County, Texas, USA. We conducted our study in the center of the city in an area approximately 822 ha. Caldwell had no zoning laws and was highly heterogeneous with single- and multi-family dwellings (6–10 houses/ha) intermixed with commercial, industrial, and agricultural development (Marzluff et al. 2000). METHODS We trapped unowned cats using Tomahawk live traps (Model 608, 91.4 3 25.4 3 30.5 cm; Tomahawk Live Trap Company, Tomahawk, WI) intermittently between October 2004 through August of 2005. We anaesthetized captured individuals (0.08 mg/kg Domitor [Orion Corporation, Espoo, Finland] þ 0.2 Butorphanol [Fort Dodge Animal Health, Overland Park, KS] given intramuscularly with 0.08 mg/kg Antisedan [Orion] given intramuscularly for reversal) and fit them with mortality-sensitive transmitters (150–152 MHz, 30 g; Advanced Telemetry Systems, Isanti, MN) on break-away collars. Transmitters were ,3% of each cat’s body weight within the 5% threshold recommended by the American Society of Mammalogists (1998). Upon capture, we weighed, sexed, aged, and checked cats for neuter scars. We solicited residents to voluntarily enroll their cats in the study, which we processed at their residence. 1 E-mail: pmhill@neo.tamu.edu Schmidt et al.  Population Dynamics of Free-Roaming Cats 915