The Million Cat Challenge

One of the sources often cited for the nationwide “Return to Field” (RTF) movement, the policy of making sure outdoor cats remain strays, is “The Million Cat Challenge” (MCC). The well-endowed nonprofit Maddie’s Fund supports the MCC, which was formally and widely launched in 2014. 

Conducted by the UC Davis Koret Shelter Medicine Program (headed by Kate Hurley, DVM) and the University of Florida Maddie’s Shelter Medicine Program, the “challenge” was to reduce euthanasias of cats in animal shelters and increase their live outcomes by one million over five years. The MCC achieved those goals in less than four years.

However, here is one crucial conclusion of the program: “Unidentified, lost cats are far more likely to be reunited with their owners if they remain in the neighborhood where they were found than if they are removed and taken to a shelter.” The only proof or source cited for this statement?: “U.S. Public Opinion on Humane Treatment of Stray Cats,” by K. Chu and W.M. Anderson, published in 2007 and funded by the nonprofit Alley Cat Allies in Bethesda, MD.

And what does this supposed “study” really say? The words “unidentified,” “lost” and “owner” are not even mentioned in it, nor is the question asked about the likelihood of owner reunions. It is really a phone survey of random people, though heavily (and oddly) weighted toward women over 40, asking their opinion on only two possible outcomes: Leave a stray cat where he is or catch him and put him down. Of course, the vast majority of respondees, given only those two choices, chose “leave him where he is,” even, as was made clear in a second question, if he would probably be killed outside within two years by one of many outdoor threats. Incredibly, this is the only (irrelevant) “empirical evidence” given in the MCC that “lost cats are far more likely to be reunited with their owners if they remain in the neighborhood where they were found.” It is, in fact, no evidence at all.

Valid scientific studies have a few basic requirements:

1. They must test and rule out all possible options for disproving a hypothesis.
2. They must be peer-reviewed.
3. They must be reproducible by other, independent researchers.
4. They must not be funded or influenced by parties who might benefit from a particular outcome.
5. They must be published in a widely recognized and rigorously selective academic journal.

If studies are awarded grants by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention they must also follow humane requirements for animal subjects. The “study” supporting RTF did not fulfill even one of these requirements. Research based on the opinions of random strangers is laughably facile and inconsequential. ‘Nuff said.

Conclusion: There is no evidence that friendly stray cats left in the field are more likely to be reunited with their guardians.