BioOne sees sustainable scholarly publishing as an inherently collaborative enterprise connecting authors, nonprofit publishers,academic institutions, research libraries, and research funders in the common goal of maximizing access to critical research.

Public Perceptions of Feral Cats within an Urban Conservancy ona Campus of the University of KwaZulu-NatalAuthor(s): Jaclyn K. Tannent, Colleen T. Downs, Dara M. Wald & Helen K. WatsonSource: South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 40(1):16-26. 2010.Published By: Southern African Wildlife Management AssociationDOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3957/056.040.0112URL: http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.3957/056.040.0112

BioOne (www.bioone.org) is a nonprofit, online aggregation of core research in thebiological, ecological, and environmental sciences. BioOne provides a sustainable onlineplatform for over 170 journals and books published by nonprofit societies, associations,museums, institutions, and presses.

Your use of this PDF, the BioOne Web site, and all posted and associated content indicatesyour acceptance of BioOne’s Terms of Use, available at www.bioone.org/page/terms_of_use.

Usage of BioOne content is strictly limited to personal, educational, and non-commercial use.Commercial inquiries or rights and permissions requests should be directed to the individualpublisher as copyright holder.

Public perceptions of feral cats withinan urban conservancy on a campus of

the University of KwaZulu-NatalJaclyn K. Tennent1, Colleen T. Downs1*, Dara M. Wald1 & Helen K. Watson2

1School of Biological and Conservation Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville,Pietermaritzburg, 3209 South Africa

2School of Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X54001, Durban,4000 South Africa

Received 12 September 2009. Accepted 11 March 2010

The Howard College Campus (HCC) of the University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, is aregistered Conservancy and houses the Msinsi Nature Reserve. A resident population offeral cats (Felis catus) resides on campus. There are two opposing views about theseanimals; one is that, by killing birds, lizards and small mammals, they negatively affect nativewildlife, another is that management efforts, such as feeding and sterilization, minimizepredation on wildlife and control cat numbers. The outcome of this debate is crucial indeveloping long-term management goals for the campus Conservancy. This studyrepresents an assessment of stakeholder perceptions regarding the feral cat population.Participants observed feral cats in areas with feeding stations. Feeding was the main activityobserved. Feelings towards the cats were generally positive. There was strong opposition tothe eradication of the entire population; respondents did not consider feral cats an invasivealien species, rather a benign exotic species. The management implications of these find-ings are significant and these views should be considered in developing a managementstrategy. Further research should explore the use of feeding stations and sterilization, butadditional research is necessary to determine the impact of feral cats on wildlife in andaround the Conservancy.

Key words: conservancy, Felis catus, feral cats, management, public perceptions, survey.

INTRODUCTIONInteractions between cats (Felis catus) and humanshave occurred for thousands of years.Cats’cohab-itation with man is traced back to the Egyptianempire about 3600–4000 years ago (Lumpkin1993; Serpell 2000), although there is evidence ofearlier contact at a Neolithic site in Cyprusbetween 7000–8000 years ago (Clutton-Brock1988; Serpell 2000).

Over thousands of years, the relationshipbetween humans and cats has evolved as well.Cats began their early domestic existence beingworshipped and assuming the status of minordeities (Smith 1999;Serpell 2000).Later they wererecognized as vermin catchers and were eitheraccidentally or deliberately introduced to controlrodent populations in various parts of the world(Fitzgerald & Turner 2000; Serpell 2000). Duringthe Middle Ages, attitudes towards cats moved tothe other extreme and they were denounced as anagent of the devil (Clutton-Brock 1988; Smith

1999). The domestic cat was introduced to Britainin 300 AD. In the mid-eighteenth century petbreeding became fashionable amongst the upperclasses of Europe (Smith 1999), producing variousbreeds of cat that were unambiguously classifiedas ‘domesticated’ (Bradshaw et al. 1999).

In recent decades the popularity of the domesticcat has steadily increased (Levy et al. 2003). Theyare now the most popular pet found in Westernhouseholds (Bradshaw et al. 1999; Levy et al.2003). While current attitudes towards domesticcats can border on worship, this adoration doesnot apply to all small felines. Feral cats are one ofthe many invasive species currently infestingecosystems throughout the world (Bergstrom et al.2009; Dickman 2009); with an estimated globalstray/feral cat population between 25–40 million(Langham & Porter 1991; Patronek & Rowan1995; Paltridge et al. 1997; Kays & Dewan 2004).There is no single definition for the term ‘feral.’ It isderived from the Latin word meaning ‘wild,’ but,today it refers to those animals descended fromdomesticated parents that are now free-ranging,

*To whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail: downs@ukzn.ac.za

South African Journal of Wildlife Research 40(1): 16–26 (April 2010)

untamed and unowned (Tabor 1980; Levy &Crawford 2004). Most feral populations compriseunwanted pet cats or cats born into a feral colony(Griffiths et al. 2004). Feral cats may scavenge onhuman garbage, or accept food from humans(Gunter & Terkel 2002). Unlike their domesticcounterparts, feral cats are considered pestsbecause they threaten the livelihood of indigenousanimals (Smith 1999; Dickman 2009; Bergstromet al. 2009) and because they can be a financial,emotional and health burden to communities(Levy et al. 2003). Both domestic and feral catscan have negative effects on the environments theyinhabit (Fitzgerald & Karl 1978; Hutchings 2003;Wallace & Levy 2006). Studies have documentedextensive predation on a variety of wildlife speciesincluding native birds, amphibians, and smallmammals (Nogales et al. 2004; Dickman 2009).

The Howard College Campus (HCC) of theUniversity of KwaZulu-Natal is located in Durban,a subtropical city on the east coast of South Africa.The campus contains the Msinsi Nature Reserveand serves as a key link in the metropolitan naturaland open areas system. In 1996 the reservebecame a Conservancy, defined as ‘the voluntary,cooperative management of an area by its commu-nity and users, and in respect of which registrationhas been granted by the relevant authority’ (UKZNwebsite http://www.ukzn.ac.za). An EnvironmentalCommittee was established to oversee, forexmple, waste recycling, invasive species eradica-tion, the reintroduction of native vegetation andnew developments.

Feral cats are one of the many invasive speciescurrently infesting ecosystems throughout theworld (Bergstrom et al. 2009; Dickman 2009). Theissue of how best to manage the campus’s feral catpopulation has repeatedly challenged the Environ-mental Committee. A small group of departmentalsecretaries accessed funds from waste recycling,set up a donation system and implemented a feed-ing and ad hoc sterilization programme. Calls forthe eradication of cats have persisted from a smallgroup of staff who are concerned about the catsinfluence on the Conservancy’s indigenous fauna,particularly birds, lizards and small mammals(Tennent 2005).

Feral cats have been on HCC for many years, butit is only recently that issues such as the number offeral cats and their status as a potential pest havebeen raised (Smith 1999; Tennent & Downs 2008).The project goal was to evaluate HCC staff andstudent attitudes towards the campus feral cat

population. We were interested in how these catsfit into the conservation and the managementgoals of the urban Conservancy. We expectedattitudes and suggested management solutionsto differ between student and staff participants.Academic staff members should have a greaterunderstanding of the Conservancy and theimplications for the University in terms of enforce-ment.

METHODS

QuestionnairesA draft questionnaire was prepared to assess

staff and student attitudes about feral cats on HCC(S29.867; E30.981), UKZN, Durban, South Africa.A month prior to the main study, selected studentsfrom the nearby Pietermaritzburg campus ofUKZN participated in a pilot study. These studentspreviously attended HCC and therefore hadknowledge of the campus. The pilot studyassessed question wording, layout and the amountof time necessary to complete the draft question-naire. Responses from this exercise were notincluded in the final data analysis. Using feedbackfrom the pilot study, two survey questionnaireswere finalized. The surveys attempted to elicitattitudes and opinions about the feral cat populationon the HCC, as well as suggestions for manage-ment initiatives; one survey targeted staff members(both academic and technical but not maintenancestaff such as security, gardening and cleaningstaff) and one was directed at students. Most of thequestions were similar; a few were occupation-specific, both questionnaires had the same layout.

Questions elicited information on where and howoften feral cats were observed on campus, as wellas their noticeable activities. They also enquiredabout possible management strategies for theferal cat population. Attached to each question-naire was a cover letter explaining the reasons forthe survey as well as a return address whereparticipants could send completed forms throughthe university internal mailing system.

For the purpose of the study, we divided thecampus into seven sub-habitats (Fig. 1). Area Ahad a large area of indigenous vegetation andmost of the University’s student residences withtwo permanent cat-feeding sites. Areas B, D, Gand F formed the central part of HCC and includedthe lecture venues, administration buildings,residences etc. and several permanent feedingstations at various sites. Area C, the Msinsi Nature

Tennent et al.: Public perceptions of feral cats within an urban conservancy 17

Reserve had no feeding stations. Area E includedstudent residences and sporting facilities with nofeeding stations. Construction occurred in thelatter area during the study period with some of theopen grass areas converted into parking lots.Area H included non-university research facilitiesbased on the campus.

The survey was distributed throughout thecampus. Initially, we posted questionnaires on the

university electronic notice board to all currentacademic and technical staff and students. Thenotice ran for two consecutive 21-day periods,during the university semester. Initial responserate was low; consequently, we e-mailed the ques-tionnaires to every school/departmental secretaryof the university, to distribute to their staff andstudents via their electronic mailing lists. In addi-tion, all the HCC student residences received hard

18 South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 40, No. 1, April 2010

Fig. 1.Howard College Campus, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, showing the entire campus grounds.Thecampus was divided into alphabetized blocks for ease of reference.

copies of the survey; student researchers alsorandomly approached students on campus andasked them to complete the questionnaire. Allreturned questionnaires were anonymous.

The interviewsWe conducted personal interviews with mem-

bers of the HCC Environmental Committee, aswell as HCC maintenance staff (security, garden-ing and cleaning staff). Of special interest werethose who worked the night shift and universityemployees of three years or more, as we expectedthey would be more familiar with the feral cats. TheEnvironmental Committee members representedall five UKZN campuses. Appointments with mem-bers were organized via e-mail or telephone.In-depth, in-person interviews with committeemembers were conducted by the same interviewerover a two-week period (n = 9). The staff question-naire scaffolded the interviews but allowed mem-bers to elaborate or expand their answers. From2004 to 2005, we carried out in-person interviewswith HCC security, gardening and cleaning staff. Inan effort to minimize the possibility of error due to alanguage barrier, two bilingual research assistantsconducted the interviews. Interviews occurredduring normal staff shifts.The initial staff question-naire was simplified and used to direct the inter-views in the latter two.

Data analysisAll responses to survey questionnaires and

interviews were collated electronically in a data-base. Qualitative responses were categorized andranked. Using descriptive statistics and Pearson’sChi-square analysis, researchers compared re-sponses. Results from survey questionnaires andthe interviews were analysed separately. Environ-mental Committee member’s responses were in-cluded in the questionnaire analyses, as theirinterviews followed the format of the survey ques-tionnaire.

RESULTS

Survey questionnaires

ResponsesA total of 114 members of the University commu-

nity responded to the survey, including 79 studentsand 35 academic and technical staff (includingnine Environmental Committee members) respon-ded to the survey. Of the students, 27% replied tothe electronic version while the rest completedhard copies. Of those students approacheddirectly, most (72.2%) completed the survey. Morefemales responded to the questionnaire thanmales, but there was no significant differencebetween the two groups’ response rate (χ2, P >0.2).

Most of the students that responded lived oncampus (72.2%) compared with the majority ofstaff members (91.2%) who, as expected, lived offcampus. Most student respondents (88.6%) werebetween 17 and 25 years old compared with only asmall number in the next three age categories:26–32, 33–40, 41–48 years. This was significantlydifferent than the staff (χ2, P < 0.001), which had adistribution across the six age groups (17–25,26–32, 33–40, 41–48, 49–55, 56–63); the majorityof whom were between 41 and 48 years of age(31.3%).

Most staff respondents (81.3%) had been on theHCC for more than three years while most studentshad only been there between one and four years(Table 1). This contrast was reflected in the re-ceived responses and acknowledged attitudespertaining to the HCC feral cat population. Moststudents (83.3%) and staff (71.4%) made use ofthe campus facilities after hours. Staff were mainlyin their offices. However, students spent most oftheir time in the campus area around the cafeteriaand library (48.7%), around the lecture venues(19.3%), administration buildings (19.2%), andstudent residences and sporting facilities (12.8%).None of the students had spent any significant

Tennent et al.: Public perceptions of feral cats within an urban conservancy 19

Table 1. Number of years that the different surveyed groups have beenpresent on the Howard College Campus, UKZN. Results expressed inpercentages and compiled from both the survey questionnaires and thepersonal interviews.

Students Staff Security Gardeners Cleaners

<1 yr 29.1 3.1 55.2 21.1 21.41–2 yrs 21.5 9.4 17.2 0.0 0.02–3 yrs 40.5 6.3 20.7 15.8 21.4>3 yrs 8.9 81.3 6.9 63.1 57.2

amount of time in the Msinsi Nature Reserve(Area C, Fig. 1).

Students from many different disciplines re-sponded to the questionnaire (Fig. 2). While aquarter of the academic staff respondents heldHonours (four-year) degrees, just over a third hada Bachelors (3-year) or Masters degrees and onlya few had a Doctoral degree. Most of the studentrespondents were enrolled in science-relatedcourses (including Engineering). This may explainwhy the majority of cat observations occurred inthe main lecture area on campus and the areasaround the science buildings (F and B in Fig. 1). Inaddition, the high number of student participantsliving in the Albert Luthuli Cluster Residences mayalso elucidate the high incidence of cat observa-tions in this area (A in Fig. 1).

Observations of the feral cat populationOver half the students interviewed (57%) reported

seeing feral cats every day; while 15.2% saw themmultiple times during the week. Staff responseswere significantly different (χ2, P < 0.001);29.4% ofthe respondents reported sightings of cats a fewtimes a week, while 26.5% observed cats a fewtimes a year. Staff reported cats in 3 of the areason campus (Fig. 1), whereas, students observedferal cats in all of the HCC areas, except area C.Other cat congregation areas (Fig. 3) match thoseof known feeding stations (Tennent & Downs2008).

The main feral cat behaviour reported by bothstaff and students was feeding (student observers:34.4%, n = 53; staff observers: 27.3%, n = 21),followed by sitting and sleeping. Staff noted other

20 South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 40, No. 1, April 2010

Fig. 2. The various disciplines of the student respondents on the Howard College Campus, UKZN, regarding the resi-dent feral cat population. ‘Bcomm’refers to all commerce courses; ‘Science’ refers to all courses dealing with physical,biological and computer sciences; ‘SocSci’ includes all social science courses and ‘Eng’ refers to all engineeringcourses.

Table 2. Frequencies (%) of the listed activities of the feral cats that wereobserved by the different surveyed groups on the Howard College Cam-pus, UKZN. Results compiled from both the survey questionnaires andthe interviews.

Observed Student Staff Security Gardening Cleaningcat activities

Sleeping 16.2 15.6 1.9 42.1 10.5Eating 34.4 27.3 21.2 10.5 31.6Hunting 14.3 5.2 23.1 15.8 0.0Sitting 21.4 26.0 9.6 0.0 5.3Fighting 5.8 1.3 5.8 0.0 0.0Other 7.8 24.7 38.5 31.6 52.6

forms of behaviour, reported in Table 2. Accordingto respondents, provisioned food was the mainsource of sustenance for cats (students 59.7%,staff 63.3%), followed by scavenged refuse(students 16.7%, staff 22.2%). A few participantsobserved cats eating wildlife (students 12.5%,staff 6.7%); of these, few could identify specificprey types (students 36.4%, staff 25%). Birdswere the sole prey type identified by staff, whilestudents identified other species such as insects(27.3%), lizards (9.1%), rats/mice (9.1%) andbirds (18.2%).

Sentiments regarding the feral cat populationMost student respondents (83.3%) did not own a

cat. This finding was significantly different (χ2,P < 0.001) than the staff respondents, the majority(51.4%) of whom owned cats. Staff and studentresponses to the statement ‘I love cats ’ weresignificantly different (χ2, P < 0.001), with 82.9% ofstaff and 43% of students in agreement (25%remained neutral or did not comment, comparedwith only 8.6% of staff who did not want to sharetheir opinions). Significantly more staff (28.6% vs8.5% for the previous statement) (χ2, P < 0.001) ob-jected to the statement ‘I love feral cats’; overall(42.9%) sentiments agreed with this statement.Again a high percentage (28.6%) of staff opted notto respond.

The majority (61%) of students were unaware offeral cat issues on HCC (Table 3).When comparedwith staff responses, this finding was significantlydifferent (χ2, P < 0.001). Nearly half (41.2%) of the

staff felt that the cats created problems and 32.4%felt that there were issues related to the manage-ment of the feral cat population. Responses bothwithin and between the two groups varied signifi-cantly when asked whether participants felt it wasthe University’s responsibility to get involved withthe feral cat population and possibly take certainactions (Fig. 4).

Responses to the management options listed inthe survey are reported in Table 4. Overall, staffand students responded negatively to the eradica-tion option; staff responses were significantlyhigher than students (χ2, P < 0.001). A number ofstudents (32.9%) and staff (14.3%) preferred toremain neutral and/or not to comment on thisparticular method of control. In contrast, responseto a suggested sterilization initiative was verypositive. Again, significantly more (74.3%) staffrespondents favoured this option than students(46.8%) (χ2, P = 0.0002).A high percentage of staffand students supported the establishment of a

Tennent et al.: Public perceptions of feral cats within an urban conservancy 21

Table 3. Observations of student and staff questionnairerespondents of whether they believe that there areissues regarding the feral cats on the Howard CollegeCampus, UKZN.

Cat issues on campus Students Staff

Negative 9.1 26.5Positive 0.0 2.9None 18.2 14.7Not sure 61.0 23.5Management 7.8 17.6Negative & management 3.9 14.7

Fig. 3. Areas on the Howard College Campus, UKZN, where feral cats have frequently been seen congregating.Results included all groups surveyed form both the questionnaires and the interviews. See Fig. 1 for descriptions ofcampus areas.

campus-wide feeding programme. Similarly, bothgroups supported the introduction of a combinedsterilization and feeding programme. However,54.4% of students did not indicate a position. Bothstudents (35.4%) and staff (60%) were against themanagement option of no interference. Largeproportions of both students and staff membersdeclined to comment here which may skew ourresults.

Conservancy issuesStaff and students reported varied familiarity

with the term ‘conservancy’. Significantly morestaff (97.1%) were familiar with the term thanstudents (46.7%)(χ2, P < 0.001). Most (91.2%) ofthe staff respondents were aware that HCC wasregistered as a conservancy (Fig. 5). Interpreta-

tions of the meaning of the word were varied andmost staff and students were unable to explain theterm at all. Of the 22.6% of the staff who gave fulldefinitions of the word, the majority were membersof the Environmental Committee.

Most students (66.2%) were unaware of on-going programmes on HCC to plant indigenousvegetation and eradicate alien plants, while 68.8%of staff were aware of this programme and a fewwere either directly or indirectly involved. Moststaff and students indicated programmes suchas the aforementioned were important. Somestudents (34.4%) and staff (41.9%) felt that feralcats posed no potential threats to the wildlife oncampus. Many (57.9%) students who acknowl-edged that feral cats have a negative impact, listedhunting as the main problem.

22 South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 40, No. 1, April 2010

Fig. 4. Responses of students and academic and technical staff from the Howard College Campus, UKZN, regardinga question from the survey which asked whether they believed that the University should take responsibility for themanagement and control of the resident feral cat population.

Table 4.Responses (given as %) to the suggested management options that were listed in the survey questionnairesdistributed to students and some staff members of the Howard College Campus, UKZN, regarding the resident feralcat population.

Management Strongly Partially Neutral Partially Strongly No commentoption support support against against

Eradication Students 16.5 7.6 15.2 8.9 34.2 17.7Staff 11.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 68.6 14.3

Sterilization Students 38.0 8.9 15.2 5.1 13.9 19.0Staff 68.6 5.7 0.0 0.0 11.4 14.3

Feed Students 29.1 16.5 11.4 5.1 16.5 21.5Staff 45.7 5.7 5.7 0.0 20.0 22.9

Sterilize & Feed Students 24.1 6.3 20.3 12.7 2.5 34.2Staff 48.6 5.7 2.9 0.0 20.0 22.9

No interference Students 8.9 10.1 12.7 8.9 26.6 32.9Staff 5.7 0.0 5.7 8.6 51.4 28.6

Many (44%) students were undecided aboutwhether feral cats should be considered exoticanimals and therefore removed from campus(Table 5);a number (37.3%) of other students wereagainst the idea. Most (56.7%) staff respondentswere against feral cat removal.

Although survey question 26 referred only toalien plant species and their removal, the answersto it from many students focused on the removal offeral cats. Their expanded responses focused onconcerns about the treatment and control of cats,or the health threat cats pose to humans.

Interviews

Responses from members of the Universitymaintenance staff

A total of 62 maintenance staff on HCC (security,n = 29; gardening, n = 19; cleaning, n = 14) wereinterviewed. Most (92.9%) security staff weremale, most gardeners and cleaners (52.6% and64.3% respectively) were female. Only 32.3% ofthe maintenance staff interviewed worked nightshifts. All gardeners worked day shifts. Somecleaning staff had, up until the end of December

2004, only worked the night shift and wereincluded as night-shift employees, even thoughthey now work only day shifts. Few (20.7%) securitystaff worked both shifts.

There was a range in the number of years thatmaintenance staff had worked on HCC; thoseworking for longer than three years were primarilypermanent staff (Table 1). Most cleaning andgardening staff were permanent employees (havingworked on campus for more than three years).Security employees spent a considerable amountof time outside, patrolling the campus. Securitypersonnel rotated between different work sitesregularly; thus it was rare that respondents hadthree years of experience on HCC.

Most of campus was covered by security (ontheir patrols) and gardening staff. The cleaningstaff interviewed worked solely on the maincampus area (blocks F and G in Fig. 1).All securitystaff worked four-day shifts with the exception ofthe supervisors. Gardening and cleaning staffworked a 5-day week.

Most ( 83.9%) of the interviewees observed feralcats at least once a day (security 82.8%; gardeners73.7% and cleaners 100%), although some secu-

Tennent et al.: Public perceptions of feral cats within an urban conservancy 23

Table 5. The opinions (%) of the different surveyed groups regarding whether feral cats on the HowardCollege Campus, UKZN, should be considered as an alien invasive species.

Are feral cats aliens? Student Staff Security Gardening Cleaning

Strong NO 18.7 26.7 28.6 29.4 27.3No, don’t cause problems 18.7 30.0 14.3 58.8 0.0Don’t know 44.0 6.7 25.0 5.9 27.3Yes, make a mess 9.3 20.0 17.9 0.0 9.1Strong YES 9.3 16.7 14.3 5.9 36.4

Fig. 5. Responses of all the surveyed groups from the Howard College Campus, UKZN, showing the variation infamiliarity with the term ‘conservancy’.

rity (17.2%) and gardening staff (21.1%) seldom(or never) saw feral cats in the areas they worked.Feral cats were often seen congregating in areasaround the main lecture and office buildings (F inFig. 1; 50%), the Albert Luthuli cluster residences(area A in Fig. 1; 17.7%) and the Jubilee gardens(area G in Fig. 1; 17.7%; Fig. 4). Only 35.5% ofmaintenance staff knew that HCC was a registeredconservancy, and most of these were gardeners(57.9%; n = 19).

Feeding was the main feral cat behaviourobserved by maintenance staff (38.5%; n = 62),followed by walking (33.1%), hunting (13.1%),sleeping (8.5%), sitting (4.6%) and fighting (2.3%)(Table 2). Participants reported cats feeding atsupplementary feeding trays (73.3%), scavengingrefuse (11.1%) and eating leftovers from studentmeals (8.9%). Only 6.7% of maintenance staffhad observed cats feeding on animal prey. Most(85.5%) participants did not feed the cats. How-ever, of those that did, 3.2% (all security staff)shared their food with certain cats.

There was a significant difference betweenattitudes towards feral cats among the differentmaintenance staff (χ2, P < 0.001, Table 6). Most

staff, especially the cleaners, reported negativeattitudes about cats in general. A small percentageof security staff reported no feelings either way.Most (68.4%) gardeners had positive feelingstowards cats and many (52.6%) of them ownedfeline pets. Less than half (46.8%) of those inter-viewed believed that the HCC feral cats should beleft alone; 33.9% of the participants stated that thecats should be removed (Fig. 6).

DISCUSSIONInteractions between cats and people have variedthrough time (Turner & Bateson 2000).According toSmith (1999), ‘human attitudes to animals areprojections of [their] attitudes to ‘others’and [them-selves]’ stemming ‘from the peculiar subject-objectstatus accorded to animals in general.’ Individualattitudes towards feral cats are complex and oftencontradictory; therefore, finding acceptable manage-ment solutions that appeal to diverse stakeholdersis difficult. Responses from HCC staff and studentsillustrated the diversity in knowledge and attitudestowards one resident feral cat population.

Initially there were problems getting a sufficientresponse to the questionnaires. We addressedthis limitation by surveying a broad audience toreach the people most likely to see feral cats. Wealso used different modes, including e-mail, hardcopies of the survey in person survey administra-tion.However, this resulted in additional limitationsto the study including the lack of randomizationand mode effects (e-mail, regular mail, in-personinterviews).

Cats are most active at dusk and dawn (Izawa

24 South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 40, No. 1, April 2010

Fig. 6. Interview responses on how feral cats on the Howard College Campus, UKZN, should be dealt with.

Table 6. Emotional responses (%) of the interviewedmaintenance staff groups regarding cats in general.

Feelings towards Security Gardening Cleaningcats

Negative 41.4 31.6 64.3Positive 51.7 68.4 35.7Neutral 6.9 0.0 0.0

1983; Langham & Porter 1992), which is why se-curity and cleaning staff, who work night shifts,were important to contact. In addition, most stu-dent respondents spent time on campus afterhours, which exposed them to the cats. The main-tenance staff, which were required to be outsideduring the day and night had a good opportunity toobserve cats daily. The difference in sighting fre-quency between students and academic staff maybe the result of different patterns of movement be-tween the two groups. Students may walk thecampus grounds more often than staff, betweenlectures and sporting events. It is also possible thatstudents cover different areas of campus, such asfood areas, where cats are more prevalent.

The majority of the feral cat sightings occurredon the main campus, where the Student Union andfood facilities are located. Availability of food influ-ences cat density patterns (Denny et al. 2002;Gunther & Terkel 2002). On HCC, feral cats alsogathered in areas where people put out supple-mental food. Most HCC cats fed from feeding traysor on refuse. Feeding was the main cat activityobserved by all participants.

Maintenance staff, many of whom worked out-doors, mentioned behaviours such as roamingand hunting; students and other staff often citedlounging and sleeping activities. Rarely witnessedbehaviours included fighting between the cats orhunting/catching prey. However, it is possiblethat these activities occurred away from areasfrequented by staff and students, contributing tothe low number of sightings. Few participantscould identify individual prey caught by cats.Consequently, it is not clear which species (indige-nous, non-native, abundant or rare) are subject topredation.Little is known about species compositionwithin the HCC natural areas and therefore wecannot evaluate the impact of predation on insectsand birds within these areas (Tennent & Downs2008).

Levy et al. (2003) found that cat owners are morelikely to tolerate feral cats and could generally befound to feed them habitually. Among the Univer-sity public surveyed, cat owners were a minority.In spite of this, participants reported generallypositive feelings towards all cats (domestic andferal). Many staff and students supported theestablishment of a campus-wide, University fundedfeeding programme for the feral cats.The high num-ber of students and staff that did not comment onthis question makes it difficult to draw significantconclusions about public support for such an initia-

tive. The issue of feral cats is both controversialand public. It seems that most of the responseswere within the middle of the scale, suggestingthat participants did not want to appear biased,oversensitive or uncaring. However, most of theparticipants expressed strong opposition to thesuggestion of leaving the feral population to fendfor itself. The exception was the maintenance staffmembers, who were in favour of leaving the catsalone.

A number of participants were unaware thatHCC was a registered Conservancy and fewunderstood what the term conservancy meant.Most gardening staff were aware of this probablybecause they are directly involved with removal ofalien invasive flora. It is suggested that the univer-sity management increase awareness of the con-servancy and/or participation in the conservancy.This may increase willingness to support manage-ment and environmental initiatives.

The Conservancy is responsible for restoringindigenous flora and fauna and removing invasivespecies. While members of the EnvironmentalCommittee view cats as a pest species that shouldbe eradicated, public opinion can determine itsoutcome. As a result, the classification of cats asexotic or alien is of utmost importance drivingpublic support or resistance to their removal. Themajority of the public polled did not classify feralcats as exotic nor did they consider them a threatto the indigenous wildlife on campus. Conse-quently, most respondents suggested that propercontrol and management is required while eradi-cation was unnecessary.

In conclusion, there are differing opinions on theHCC regarding the resident feral cat population.However, most of the public agreed that there isa problem. There was little consensus aboutthe methods of management. These views andobservations should be considered with caution.The management implications are potentiallysignificant, particularly as feral cat density on HCCis high, and numbers could continue to increaseunless managed appropriately (Tennent 2005;Tennent & Downs 2008).

Future research should explore baseline speciescomposition within the HCC to help identifyspecies under predation pressure by feral cats.Further research is required to determine if feed-ing stations reduce feral cat predation on wildlife.Finally, researchers should investigate the effec-tiveness and cost of different management toolsincluding sterilization and removal.

Tennent et al.: Public perceptions of feral cats within an urban conservancy 25

26 South African Journal of Wildlife Research Vol. 40, No. 1, April 2010

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSFunding for this project was provided by the

University of KwaZulu-Natal and the NationalResearch Foundation (GUN 2053510). We thankJennifer Houghton for her valuable input into theplanning of the final questionnaires. We thank allresearchers who assisted with data collection.

REFERENCESBRADSHAW, J.W.S., HORSEFIELD, G.F., ALLEN, J.A.

& ROBINSON, I.H. 1999. Feral cats: their role in thepopulation dynamics of Felis catus. Appl. Anim.Behav. Sci. 65: 273–283.

BERGSTROM, D.M., LUCIEER, A., KIEFER, K.,WASLEY, J., BELBIN, L., PEDERSEN, T.K. &CHOWN, S.L. 2009. Indirect effects of invasivespecies removal devastate world heritage site.J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 73–81.

CLUTTON-BROCK, J. 1988. The British Museum bookof cats. British Museum of Natural History, London.

DENNY, E., YAKOVLEVICH, P., ELDRIDGE, M. &DICKMAN, C. 2002. Social and genetic analysis of apopulation of free-living cats exploiting a resource-rich habitat. Wildl. Res. 29: 405–413.

DICKMAN, C.R. 2009. House cats as predators in theAustralian environment: impacts and management.Hum. Wildl. Conflicts 3: 39–46.

FITZGERALD, B.M. & KARL, B.J. 1978. Food of feralhouse cats (Felis catus) in forests on the OrongorongoValley, Wellington. New Zeal. J. Zool. 6:107–126.

FITZGERALD, B.M. & TURNER, D.C. 2000. Huntingbehaviour of domestic cats and their impact on preypopulations. In: D.C. Turner & P. Bateson (eds),The domestic cat, the biology of its behaviour, 2ndedn (pp. 151–175). Cambridge University Press,Cambridge.

GRIFFITHS, H., POULTER, I. & SIBLEY, D. 2004. Feralcats in the city. In: C. Philo & C. Wilbert (eds), Animalspaces, beastly places: New geographies of human–animal relations, pp. 56–70. Routledge, London.

GUNTHER, I. & TERKEL, J. 2002. Regulation of free-roaming cat (Felis silvestris catus) populations:A sur-vey of the literature and its application to Israel. Anim.Welfare 11: 171–188.

HUTCHINGS, S. 2003. The diet of feral house cats (Feliscatus) at a regional rubbish tip, Victoria. Wildl. Res.30: 103–110.

IZAWA, M. 1983. Daily activity of the feral cat Felis catusLinn. J. Mammal Soc. Jpn 9: 219–227.

KAYS, R.W. & DEWAN, A.A. 2004. Ecological impact ofinside/outside house cats around a suburban naturepreserve. Anim. Conserv. 7: 273–283.

LANGHAM, N.P.E. & PORTER, R.E.R. 1991. Feralcats (Felis catus L.) on New Zealand farmland.I. Home range. Wildl. Res. 18: 741–760.

LANGHAM, N.P.E. & PORTER, R.E.R. 1992. Feral cats(Felis catus L.) on New Zealand farmland. II.Seasonal activity. Wildl. Res. 19: 707–720.

LEVY, J.K., WOODS, J.E., TURICK, S.L. & ETHE-RIDGE, D.L. 2003. Number of unowned free-roamingcats in a college community in the southern UnitedStates and characteristics of community residentswho feed them. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 223:202–205.

LEVY, J.K. & CRAWFORD, P.C. 2004. Humane strate-gies for controlling feral cat populations. J. Am. Vet.Med. Assoc. 225: 1354–1360.

LUMPKIN, S.1993.Small cats.Weldon Owen, New York.NOGALES, M., MARTIN, A., TERSHY, B.R., DONLAN,

C.J., WITCH, D., PUERTA, N., WOOD, B. &ALONSO, J.2004.A review of feral cat eradication onislands. Conserv. Biol. 18: 310–319.

PALTRIDGE, R., GIBSON, D. & EDWARDS, G. 1997.Diet of the feral cat (Felis catus) in Central Australia.Wildl. Res. 24: 67–76.

PATRONEK, G.J. & ROWAN, A.N. 1995. Determiningdog and cat numbers and population dynamics.Anthrozoos 8: 199–205.

SERPELL, J.A. 2000. Domestication and history of thecat. In: Turner, D. & Bateson, P. (eds.), The domesticcat: the biology of its behaviour, 2nd edn (pp. 179–192). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

SMITH, N. 1999. The howl and the pussy: feral cats andwild dogs in the Australian imagination. Aust. J.Anthropol. 10: 288–305.

TABOR, R. 1980. General biology of feral cats. In: TheEcology and control of feral cats, pp.5–11.Royal Hol-loway College, University of London: UniversitiesFederation for Animal Welfare, Potters Bar, Hertford-shire.

TENNENT, J.K.2005.Feral cats (Felis catus) in an urbanconservancy: University of KwaZulu-Natal, HowardCollege campus. M.Sc. thesis, University ofKwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg.

TENNENT, J.K. & DOWNS, C.T. 2008. Abundance andhome ranges of feral cats in an urban conservancywhere there is supplemental feeding: a case studyfrom South Africa. Afr. Zool. 43: 218–229.

TURNER, D. & BATESON, P. 2000. The domestic cat:The biology of its behaviour, 2nd edn. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

WALLACE, J.L.& LEVY, J.K.2006.Population character-istics of feral cats admitted to seven trap-neuter-return programs in the United States. J. Feline Med.Surg. 8: 279–284.

Corresponding Editor: J. Bliqnaut