{
    "v1_Abstract": "A prospective cross-sectional study of 1000 households was implemented in 2005 to evaluate characteristics of the owned and unowned population of dogs and cats in Santa Clara County, California. The same population was previously studied 12 years earlier. During this time period, the county instituted in 1994 and then subsequently disestablished a municipal spay/neuter voucher program for cats. Dog and cat intakes declined from 1992-2005, as they similarly did for an adjacent county (San Mateo). Time series analysis showed a greater than expected decline in the number of cats surrendered to shelters in Santa Clara County during the years the voucher program was in effect (1994-2005). The net savings to the county by reducing the number of cat shelter intakes was estimated at approximately $1.5 million.",
    "v2_Abstract": "A prospective cross-sectional study of 1000 households was implemented in 2005 to evaluate characteristics of the owned and unowned population of dogs and cats in Santa Clara County, California. The same population was previously studied 12 years earlier. During this time period, the county instituted in 1994 and then subsequently disestablished a municipal spay/neuter voucher program for cats. Dog intakes declined from 1992-2005, as they similarly did for an adjacent county (San Mateo). However, cat intakes declined significantly more in Santa Clara County than San Mateo, with an average annual decline of approximately 700 cats for the 12 year period. Time series analysis showed a greater than expected decline in the number of cats surrendered to shelters in Santa Clara County during the years the voucher program was in effect (1994-2005). The net savings to the county by reducing the number of cat shelter intakes was estimated at approximately $1.5 million.",
    "v1_text": "materials and methods : results : acknowledgements : We are grateful to Beth Ward and Chris Benninger at the Humane Society of Silicon Valley, Greg VanWassenhove at County of Santa Clara, and Jon Cicirelli at the City of San Jose for providing annual shelter statistics. 18 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts discussion : This study documents the positive impacts publically subsidized low-cost spay and neuter programs can have that often go unmet in communities: pet population control, leading to the prevention of the proliferation of feral dog and cat populations, slowing the flow of animals into shelters both voluntarily and through field services, and reduction in the incidence of humane destruction of animals. But they also extend to other issues of economic importance to communities; namely, reduction in capital and ongoing animal control expenditures that come under a municipality\u2019s jurisdiction. In contrast, the implication of cessation of such programs can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 when the decline in shelter admissions of dogs and cats became attenuated. The problem could be exacerbated over time as the human (and hence pet-owning) population increases. The finding that there were over 15,000 dogs (4.7% of the county\u2019s dog population) estimated to be transiently or permanently stray throughout the county is troubling from societal and public health standpoints. The absence of a domestic environment can lead stray dogs, which are by nature gregarious, to form packs that can become aggressive and endanger other animals and even humans. The origin of such a large number of dogs is worthy of further 14 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts research, as this study did not explore whether these were free-roaming dogs or those kept in temporary foster or rescue care. Specific breed information was not available for dogs in Santa Clara County animal shelters. Respondents claimed 51% of their dogs were registered and unregistered purebred dogs. This stands in contrast to a 1996 national survey that found 30% of dogs relinquished to shelters were purebred (Salman et al. 1998), and the Humane Society of the United States estimates that 25-30% of shelter dogs are purebred (The Humane Society of the United States 2011). Nationally, purebred dogs are substantially less likely to be relinquished to animal shelters than dogs of mixed breed (Salman et al. 1998). The dogs with greatest likelihood of successful adoption from county animal shelters are puppies (Lepper, Kass & Hart 2002). By the time dogs reach the age of one year, though, their risk of unsuccessful adoption following relinquishment rises considerably; again, particularly true in pit bull-like breeds (Lepper, Kass & Hart 2002). Aggressive dog behavior is a major reason dogs are euthanized at the county shelters (Kass et al. 2001). To reduce dog intakes, municipalities should consider how the establishment of free or low cost puppy training programs (potentially mandatory for shelter adoptions) might impact shelter populations. A collaborative effort among multiple community agencies, including animal control, non-profits, and local pet industry businesses should be explored. Another important finding is the enumeration of the substantial unowned cat population in Santa Clara County, two-thirds of which are feral. Also notable is that the majority of unowned cats entering the animal shelters in the study were arguably unsuitable for adoption, with over 50% being feral or unweaned kittens. Such cats are often quickly euthanized. Preventing such input defies simplistic solutions, because although 93% of cat owners were 15 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts willing to have their own pets surgically sterilized, it is unrealistic to expect the 7% of the population that feeds an average of 3 stray cats to assume the hundreds of dollars necessary to surgically alter these cats. Conversely, the cost of not altering the cats is to add 3.5 kittens per year for each stray female, which at the cost to a shelter of approximately $250 per cat would cost a shelter almost $900 in husbandry expenses for those 3.5 kittens; were they not sheltered, the kittens would be expected to have 75% mortality (Table 1). The underscores why low-cost spay and neuter programs directed to reducing the un-owned and feral cat populations continue to be integral to not only reducing cat mortality at the shelters, but also to managing the cost to the various municipalities to handle and house the stray cats. Santa Clara County\u2019s contribution of $45 to alter a stray cat under its separate feral spay/neuter program created an immediate savings of over $200 for just the first litter that permanently results in non-reproducing cats. The county program also subsidized shots, and for a time, FELV testing. The earlier such cats can be sterilized, the greater the potential savings to municipalities. The savings would be expected to grow over additional years. Moreover, under all plausible scenarios shown in Table 2 the voucher program would have resulted in a net savings in expenditure. If stray cat-feeding citizens can be convinced through public education to avail themselves of population control options by making them more affordable and they are provided with instructions and resources as to how to accomplish this activity, the savings in costs and lives will be substantial. This study shows approximately 93% of county residents did not make an effort to sterilize unowned cats. Only 5.5% of the unowned but fed cats were surgically sterilized. Efforts should be focused on removing barriers and finding ways to encourage those who feed free-roaming cats to take this important step. Because the study shows that 62% of 16 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts unowned but fed cats are fed in people\u2019s yards, efforts should be intensified to sterilize cats living in close proximity to homes, rather than less accessible colonies. This study\u2019s limitations include the assumption that the participating individuals are representative of the county\u2019s population. Interviews were conducted via telephone, with the non-telephone-owning segment of the county excluded by design, and to the extent that this subgroup differs in their pet ownership and practices the findings cannot be generalized to them. However, calls were made to each zip code in the county, and the number of respondents completing the survey in each zip code, were proportionate to their share of the county population. Although the finding that shelter intake declined in association with the inception of the voucher program, the presence of extraneous (confounding) factors associated both with time and shelter intake cannot be ruled out, including migration into and out of the county (although the human population actually increased during the study period). At the time of the study, two additional smaller shelters existed in the county: a county facility in San Martin, which served the 5% of the population not living within cities, and a city facility in Palo Alto, which only served Palo Alto residents; these shelters were not expected to have any meaningful impact on intake changes in the shelters in this study. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the financial and societal value of instituting a low-cost voucher program on a county-wide scale. Although the parameters utilized in the projections and models in this research (e.g., fecundity and mortality) will vary, perhaps substantially, from county to county, they are realistic and based on published observations. It is therefore likely that the qualitative \u2013 if not the precise quantitative -- benefits of the voucher program in Santa Clara County will be of significance if incepted elsewhere. 17 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts study population : The same private survey firm used in 1993 was commissioned to conduct a similar random telephone survey of 1,000 households throughout Santa Clara County except Palo Alto (which has its own small shelter and did not participate in 1993). An equal probability of selection method (EPSEM) phone list of residential landline telephone numbers for the survey 5 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts was purchased from a private company.1 Three attempts were made at each number over successive nights. Over 7,000 calls (including disconnected lines, no answers, refusals) were attempted to reach 1000 respondents. People who agreed to be questioned were asked whether or not they owned dogs or cats, fed stray dogs or cats, whether or not the animals had been altered, if they had reproduced, if cats had been declawed, how they obtained their pets, whether or not cats were allowed outside, purebred status, city of residence, and residence type. Data was initially recorded on written interview forms, and manually entered into a Microsoft Excel 2007 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) spreadsheet for statistical analysis. Animal shelter entry information was provided by Santa Clara County Animal Control, Humane Society of Silicon Valley, San Jose Animal Care and Services, and for comparative purposes the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA in neighboring San Mateo County and Los Angeles County Animal Control. Spay/neuter voucher program information, costs and statistics were obtained from the City of San Jose, and County of Santa Clara. San Mateo County was chosen for comparative purposes, as it most closely resembled Santa Clara County, as opposed to the other four more rural surrounding counties. statistical analysis : The 1982-1993 Santa Clara County shelter intake records (from before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program) were used for projecting the expected numbers of shelter intakes from 1994 to 2005. US Census data was used to determine the number of county households, which was used with survey-derived estimates of the average number of dogs and cats per household and proportion of households that owned dogs and cats to estimate the number of owned dogs and cats in the county, and with survey-derived estimates of the percentage of 6 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts households feeding stray dogs and the average number of unowned but fed dogs and cats per household to estimate the number of stray dogs and cats in the county. Data from the survey was initially described using proportions. Pearson\u2019s chi-square test was used to compare proportions; p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The observed numbers of shelter intakes between 1994 and 2005, during which the spay/neuter program was in place, were compared with projected numbers based on varying the proportion of cats in the voucher program that were owned versus unowned to assess the program\u2019s effect (i.e., change in numbers of shelter intakes). Autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA (p, q, d, where p = order of autoregression, q = order of moving averages, and d = order of differencing)) models were fit to the data before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program (1982 to 1993). Autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial autocorrelation function (PACF) plots were used to select the best-fit ARIMA models and to evaluate the model fit. The selected ARIMA models were then used to estimate and project the trend in number of shelter intakes after the implementation of spay/neuter program (1994 to 2005) with corresponding 95% confidence limits of the ARIMA projections. In addition, we constructed a stochastic model to estimate the number of additional cats that would have been born and taken into the shelters between 1994 and 2005 had the spay/neuter program never been implemented. The key parameters, their corresponding probability distributions for owned and unowned cats, and the data sources are listed in Table 1. This model was also used for benefit-cost analysis of the voucher program. The software program @Risk (version 5.0.0, Palisade Corp., Ithaca, New York) was used for the simulation, using Latin Hypercube sampling and Mersenne Twister generator with a fixed initial seed of 12345 for 10,000 iterations. Median and the 5th and 95th percentiles were reported. 7 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts dog survey results : Twenty nine percent of responding county households reported that they owned dogs (unchanged from 1993); the average household owned 1.9 dogs, representing an increase from 1.3 dogs in 1993. Using US census data led to an estimate of 332,000 owned dogs in Santa Clara County (assuming Palo Alto has the same ownership frequency). Registered and unregistered purebred dogs were 33% and 18% (total = 51%) of the dog population, respectively; the remainder (49%) of dogs was either mixed or unknown breeds. Dogs were acquired from a variety of sources; the most common were friends or relatives (30%), breeders (25%), public or private animal shelter (15%), with the remainder (less than 10% each) coming from a breed rescue group, a newspaper advertisement, found as stray, being born at home, acquired from a pet store, and rare other sources (Fig.1). Seventy five percent (75%) of owners reported surgically sterilizing their dogs. Among those that declined to alter them, 28% of owners said this was a deliberate decision, and none claimed that cost was a justification for not sterilizing. Thirty three percent (33%) of the unaltered dogs were intended for breeding purposes, and 17% were puppies too young for surgery. Of the 99 unaltered dogs, 70 (70.7%) were male and 29 (29.3%) were female. Twenty one households (2%) in the survey acknowledged feeding dogs they did not own, with an average of 2.3 dogs per feeding household. An examination of zip codes indicated that the majority of these dogs were found in the downtown and north and east sides of the city of San Jose. With some exceptions, these areas are in the lower socio-economic range of households in San Jose. Using US census data, this leads to an estimate of approximately 15,650 8 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts transiently or permanently stray dogs throughout the county, or 4.7% of the county\u2019s dog population. cat survey results : Twenty five percent of households reported owning cats, representing a decrease from 30% in 1993 (p = 0.013). With an average of 1.7 owned cats per household (a figure unchanged since 1993), the county\u2019s owned cat population was estimated at 256,000 cats. Most cats (85%) were characterized as domestic varieties; only 3% were claimed to be registered pedigree (a figure unchanged since 1993), while others were described as unregistered pedigreed or unknown breed. The percentage of cats kept strictly indoors rose from 33% in 1993 to 49% in 2005 (p < 0.001); only 8% were currently described as strictly outdoors, down from 14% in 1993 (p < 0.001). The most common source of owned cats was from a friend or relative (42% in 2005 versus 33% in 1993), followed by being found as a free-roaming homeless cat (20% in 2005 versus 32% in 1993), a public or private animal shelter (16% in 2005 versus 12% in 1993), a breed rescue group (9% in 2005 versus 2% in 1993), a breeder (4% in both years), an ad in a newspaper or adopted or purchased in a pet store (2% in 2005 versus 6% in 1993), a negligible percentage born at home (<1% in 2005 versus 6% in 1993), and the remainder coming from various minor or unknown sources. The p-value comparing the source distribution of owned cats between 2005 and 1993 was < 0.001. In 2005 most cat owners (92.8%) had their cats surgically sterilized, compared to 86% in 1993 (p < 0.001). Within the 7.2% of cats not spayed or neutered, 48% had owners that deliberately did not want their cats to be sterilized, 13% had owners who wanted to retain the cat 9 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts for breeding, 13% were kittens, 13% had owners claiming that the costs were prohibitive, and the remainder gave two or more reasons (the most common of which was lack of time to transport the cat for surgery). Thus, only approximately 6% of owned cats were sexually mature and capable of breeding, approximately half of which were female. However, less than one-half of 1% of owners of sterilized female cats allowed their cats to have a litter prior to sterilization. The rate of reproduction of owned cats in Santa Clara County was 89 cats per 1000 households, in contrast to the higher rate of 112 kittens per 1000 households in the 1996 National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (Salman et al., 1998). This may be attributable to the high proportion of altered cats in the county (93%) relative to the comparable 1993 figure and the 2005 national average of 86%. In addition, while in 1993 16% of owned cats had a litter prior to altering, in the current study this figure was less than one-half of 1%. While it was beyond the scope of this study to determine the reasons for this change in attitude, it is likely that greater awareness prompted by considerable multimedia public education about the county-sponsored voucher program instituted in 1993 bore at least some responsibility. When owners were asked about whether their cats were declawed, 8% stated that they were, but 29% of them obtained the cat in that condition. The most common reason given by owners (84%) for declawing was to protect furniture. Owners not electing to declaw their cats protected their furniture through a variety of means, including having scratching posts and mats, using a spray bottle, clipping the claws, applying double-sided tape, and making loud deterrent noises. Many individuals fed stray cats: 7% of household respondents admitted to feeding an average of 3.2 cats, a decrease from 10% with an average of 3.4 cats in 1993. Relying on U.S. census data, the estimated fed stray cat population is therefore approximately 135,000 cats, or 10 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts approximately 35% of the total owned and fed free-roaming/unowned cat population in the county (391,000 cats, which represents a drop from 416,000 in 1993). Only 5.5% of these cats were either trapped or taken to be surgically sterilized by their people feeding them. Fifty six percent of the cats were fed daily, while the remaining cats were fed from once every other day to only occasionally. The cats were most commonly fed on the doorstep of a person\u2019s home (62%), followed by an office (15%), a park (12%), and a shopping center (<1%). Fed stray cats were either alone or belonged to colonies ranging in size from 2 to 25 cats. Two-thirds of the fed stray cats were too wild to be picked up and were defined as feral; the remaining third were classified as unowned (although some of these may have had owners unknown to the survey respondent). Forty seven percent of the female stray cats were known to have had at least one litter, which is probably a conservative estimate. Over half of the known litters were allowed to remain free and disperse into their neighborhoods. Of the remaining kittens, half were kept by the feeder, while the others were given away or taken to an animal shelter. Of the females who had litters, 58% were not trapped or taken to a veterinarian after having a litter, remaining free to potentially breed again. population changes at santa clara county animal shelters : Changes in dog shelter intakes for Santa Clara County (and the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA shelter in adjacent San Mateo County for comparison) are shown in Fig. 2. Dog intakes declined 13,643 to 8,441 (38.1%) from 1992-2005 in Santa Clara County. An external explanation for the observed trend is supported by the findings in adjacent San Mateo County, where dog intakes declined by a similar 35.7% between 1990 and 2004. These proportions were not significantly different (p = 0.11). 11 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts A substantially different picture emerged when examining changes in cat shelter intakes in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (Figs. 3 and 4). Intakes in Santa Clara County dropped 22,473 to 16,369 (27.2%) from 1993 to 2004 and 22,473 to 16,807 (25.2%) from 1993 to 2005, compared to a drop of 8,252 to 6,078 (26.3%) in San Mateo County from 1993 to 2004. Although the two 1993 to 2004 proportions were similar (p = 0.16), there was an overall decline in annual intakes in Santa Clara County of 6,104 cats to 2004 (509 cats per year) for the 12 year period, compared to 2,174 cats in the same 12 year period for San Mateo County (181 cats per year). The absolute changes are economically more germane to counties with respect to shelter expenses because expenditures are based on the per diem cost of maintaining individual cats. The results of the ARIMA (1,0,1) projections indicated a higher-than-expected cat intake to shelters in Santa Clara County during the years when the voucher program was in effect, i.e., 1994-2005 (Fig.5). The ARIMA (1,0,1) projections further showed that the observed numbers of cats brought in by the field service did not substantially differ from the expected numbers during the same time period (Fig.6). Information provided by the HSSV shelter indicated that the majority of cats entering the shelter were unweaned kittens and feral cats. From 2000 to 2004, the HSSV euthanized 53,419 cats deemed unadoptable: 14,406 were too young (under four weeks of age), 7,912 were unsociable, and 7,595 were feral. Under the voucher program, 20,419 cats were surgically sterilized from 1994-2001 and an additional 6,231 cats were sterilized from 2001-2003. While the program was initiated at the end of 1994, public interest did not start until mid-1995, when a local television station and newspaper ran a story about it. 12 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts The San Jose program was initially free to the public; however, various program changes over time were instituted. Veterinarians were reimbursed at a set fee of $25 female and $15 male. Pregnancies could add to the veterinarian reimbursement up to $50, and anatomical issues adjusted the price to as high as $150. In 1996 modifications included requiring a $5 co-pay, and a requirement that cat owners obtain a $5 license and rabies inoculation. While these changes increased the veterinarian reimbursement, they also created a negative effect on the program, as voucher requests declined from 5,600 in the first 16 months of the program to only 2,800 for the year following the changes. The San Jose voucher program ended in 2003, but the county program continued. Utilizing assumptions in Table 1, if no voucher program had been initiated, the same cats enrolled in the voucher program (assuming that 65% were owned, based on the 2005 survey results) would have produced approximately 312,000 kittens between 1994 and 2005, and approximately 8,600 additional cats would have entered (6,200 surrendered and 2,500 brought in by the field service) the shelters in Santa Clara County. This would have incurred an additional cost of approximately $2.15 million, with the HSSV charge to cities for stray cat services under their contract cost of $250 per cat. If the cost per cat for spay/neuter surgery in 2001-2002 ($23.21 average for all surgeries) can be assumed to be constant from 1994-2005, then the expected cost of the HSSV voucher program was approximately $620,000. Thus, the net gain of the program from reducing the number of cat shelter intakes was approximately $1.53 million. Not counted would be the added burden of approximately 44,000 cats to the stray population in the county. The proportion of feral cats actually altered in the program considerably fluctuated: from 77% in 2006 to 82% in 2007 to 48% in 2008 (the latter data is from San Jose only). Table 2 13 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts contains projections of how county cat and shelter populations would be expected to change in the absence of the voucher program under different owned versus feral cat ratios. Under all plausible scenarios, ranging from 20% to 80% of the altered cats being feral, the costs to the shelters would have likely exceeded $2 million over the 12-year life of the program, and at the higher proportion of feral cats the costs would have likely exceeded $6 million. footnotes : 1 Scientific Telephone Samples, Foothill Ranch, California 22 439 440 441 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Table 1(on next page) Information used in modeling cat population dynamics from 1994 to 2005 if no spay/neuter voucher program had been initiated in Santa Clara County, California. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Parameter Owned cats Unowned cats References Kittens/litter 4.25 3.6 Pedersen, 1991; Scott et al., 2002 Kitten mortality rate (%) 30 75 Jemmett and Evans, 1977; Nutter et al., 2004; Scott et al., 1978 Life expectancy (years) 12 4.7 Levy et al., 2003; New et al. 2004 Litters per female per year 2.1 1.4 Pedersen, 1991, Nutter et al., 2004; Levy et al., 2003; Scott et al., 2002 Percent female 55 45 Levy et al., 2003 Sexually intact (%) 14 94.5 1993 and 2005 surveys Surrendered to shelter (%) 3.0 7.3 1993 survey and shelter statistics Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Table 2(on next page) Projected impact of hypothetical absence of the 12 year spay/neuter program on cat populations, shelter intake, and municipal cost in Santa Clara County. Median and the 5th and 95th percentiles (in parentheses) are reported (x $1,000). Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Percentage of surgeries performed on owned cats Additional number of owned cats Additional number of stray cats Cats voluntarily surrendered to shelter Cats brought in by field service Total additional shelter cat intake Cost to shelter for additional surrendered and stray cats 20 193 265 6 20 25 $6,333 (110, 388) (131, 593) (3, 12) (10, 44) (13, 55) (3,242, 13,817) 30 226 181 7 13 20 $5,034 (140, 412) (98, 367) (4, 13) (7, 27) (11, 40) (2,867, 9,893) 40 239 124 7 9 16 $4,078 (159, 398) (73, 226) (5, 12) (5, 17) (10, 28) (2,549, 7,089) 50 242 84 7 6 13 $3,351 (173, 368) (54, 138) (5, 11) (4, 10) (9, 21) (2,282, 5,291) 60 241 55 7 4 11 $2,823 (180, 342) (38, 85) (5, 10) (3, 6) (8, 17) (2,035, 4,135) 70 236 35 7 3 10 $2,411 (182, 319) (25, 50) (5, 10) (2, 4) (7, 13) (1,814, 3,324) 80 231 20 7 1 8 $2,099 (182, 303) (15, 27) (5, 9) (1, 2) (6, 11) (1,625, 2,792) Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 1 Source of acquisition of dogs from Santa Clara County survey, 2005. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 2 Regression analysis of intake of dogs at shelters in Santa Clara County (r = 0.95) and San Mateo County (r = 0.97) over time (1990 \u2013 2005). Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 3 Secular changes in cat intakes in Santa Clara County, 1982 \u2013 2007, indexed by historically relevant events. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 4 Regression analysis of intake of cats at shelters in Santa Clara (r=0.98) and San Mateo Counties (r>0.99), 1990 \u2013 2006. Field services in Santa Clara County ended in 1992; at that time 60% of cats were brought in through field services. Field services resumed in November 1993 in some cities. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 5 Observed numbers of cats surrendered to the shelters in Santa Clara County versus autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) projected numbers of surrendered cats. Figure uses the 1982-1993 data (before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program) shelter data. The lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits of the ARIMA projection are also presented. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 6 Observed numbers of cats brought to the shelters in Santa Clara County by the field service versus the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) projected numbers of cats. Figure shows cats brought in by field service using the 1982-1993 (before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program, shelter data). The lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits of the ARIMA projection are also presented. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts",
    "v2_text": "materials and methods : results : discussion : This study documents the multiple positive impacts publically subsidized low-cost spay and neuter programs can have on animal welfare and society needs. These impacts fulfill societal needs that often go unmet in communities: pet population control, prevention of the proliferation of feral dog and cat populations, reduction of communicable (including zoonotic) disease, slowing the flow of animals into shelters both voluntarily and through field services, and reduction in the incidence of humane destruction of animals. But they also extend to issues presumably of more immediate importance to the economic viability of communities; namely, reduction in capital and ongoing expenditures when the latter are proportional to the number of cats that come under a municipality\u2019s immediate jurisdiction and care. In contrast, the implication of cessation of such programs is clear, as can be seen in Figures 2 and 3 when the decline in shelter admissions of dogs and cats became attenuated. The problem can only be exacerbated over time as the human (and hence pet-owning) population increases, as in California counties historically experiencing net population growth. The finding that there were over 15,000 dogs (4.7% of the county\u2019s dog population) estimated to be transiently or permanently stray throughout the county is troubling from societal and public health standpoints. The absence of a domestic environment can lead stray dogs, which are by nature gregarious, to form packs that can become aggressive and endanger other animals and even humans. The origin of such a large number of dogs is worthy of further 14 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts research, as this study did not explore whether these were free-roaming dogs or those kept in temporary foster or rescue care. Specific breed information was not available for dogs in Santa Clara County animal shelters. Respondents claimed 51% of their dogs were registered and unregistered purebred dogs. This stands in contrast to a 1996 national survey that found 30% of dogs relinquished to shelters were purebred (Salman et al., 1998), and the Humane Society of the United States estimates that 25-30% of shelter dogs are purebred (The Humane Society of the United States, 2011). Nationally, purebred dogs are substantially less likely to be relinquished to animal shelters than dogs of mixed breed (Salman et al., 1998). The dogs with greatest likelihood of successful adoption from county animal shelters are puppies (with pit bull-like breeds an exception). By the time dogs reach the age of one year, though, their risk of unsuccessful adoption following relinquishment rises considerably; again, particularly true in pit bull-like breeds. Aggressive dog behavior is the primary reason dogs are euthanized at the county shelters. To reduce dog intakes, municipalities should consider how the establishment of free or low cost puppy training programs (potentially mandatory for shelter adoptions) might impact shelter populations. A collaborative effort among multiple community agencies, including animal control, non-profits, and local pet industry businesses should be explored. Another important finding is the enumeration of the substantial unowned cat population in Santa Clara County, two-thirds of which are feral. Also notable is that the majority of unowned cats entering the animal shelters in the study were arguably unsuitable for adoption, with over 50% being feral or unweaned kittens. Such cats are often quickly euthanized. Preventing such input defies simplistic solutions, because although 93% of cat owners were 15 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts willing to have their own pets surgically sterilized, it is unrealistic to expect the 7% of the population that feeds an average of 3 stray cats to assume the hundreds of dollars necessary to surgically alter these cats. Conversely, the cost of not altering the cats is to add 3.5 kittens per year for each stray female, which at the cost to a shelter of approximately $250 per cat would cost a shelter almost $900 in husbandry expenses for those 3.5 kittens. The underscores why low-cost spay and neuter programs directed to reducing the un-owned and feral cat populations continue to be integral to not only reducing cat mortality at the shelters, but also to managing the cost to the various municipalities to handle and house the stray cats. Santa Clara County\u2019s contribution of $45 to alter a stray cat under its separate feral spay/neuter program created , an immediate savings of over $200 for just the first litter that permanently results in non-reproducing cats. The county program also subsidized shots, and for a time, FELV testing. The earlier such cats can be sterilized, the greater the potential savings to municipalities. Moreover, if stray cat-feeding citizens can be convinced through public education to avail themselves of population control options by making them more affordable and they are provided with instructions and resources as to how to accomplish this activity, the savings in costs and lives will be substantial. This study shows approximately 93% of county residents did not make an effort to sterilize unowned cats. Only 5.5% of the unowned but fed cats were surgically sterilized. Efforts should be focused on removing barriers and finding ways to encourage those who feed free-roaming cats to take this important step. Because the study shows that 62% of stray cats are fed in people\u2019s yards, efforts should be intensified to sterilize cats living in close proximity to homes, rather than less accessible colonies. 16 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts This study\u2019s limitations include the assumption that the participating individuals are representative of the county\u2019s population. Interviews were conducted via telephone, with the non-telephone-owning segment of the county excluded by design, and to the extent that this subgroup differs in their pet ownership and practices the findings cannot be generalized to them. However, calls were made to each zip code in the county, and the number of respondents completing the survey in each zip code, were proportionate to their share of the county population. Although the finding that shelter intake declined in association with the inception of the voucher program, the presence of extraneous (confounding) factors associated both with time and shelter intake cannot be ruled out. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the financial and societal value of instituting a low-cost voucher program on a county-wide scale. Although the parameters utilized in the projections and models in this research (e.g., fecundity and mortality) will vary, perhaps substantially, from county to county, they are realistic and based on published observations. It is therefore likely that the qualitative \u2013 if not the precise quantitative -- benefits of the voucher program in Santa Clara County will be of significance if incepted elsewhere. 17 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts study population : The same private survey firm used in 1993 was commissioned to conduct a similar random telephone survey of 1,000 households throughout Santa Clara County except Palo Alto (which has its own small shelter and did not participate in 1993). An EPSEM (equal probability of selection method) phone list of residential landline telephone numbers for the survey was purchased from a private company.1 Three attempts were made at each number over successive nights. Over 7,000 calls were attempted to reach 1000 respondents. People who agreed to be questioned were asked about pet ownership, pet characteristics, method of pet acquisition, indoor versus outdoor status, neutering and cat declawing status, feeding of unowned cats and dogs, and city of residence within county. Animal shelter entry information was obtained from Santa Clara County Animal Control, Humane Society of Silicon Valley, San Jose Animal Care and Services, and for comparative purposes the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA in neighboring San Mateo County and Los Angeles County Animal Control. San Mateo County was chosen for comparative purposes, as it most closely resembled Santa Clara County, as opposed to the other four more rural surrounding counties. 6 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts statistical analysis : An autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) time series analysis was used to estimate and project the trend in number of shelter intakes. The 1982-1993 Santa Clara County shelter intake records (from before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program) were used for projecting the expected numbers of shelter intakes from 1994 to 2005. The observed numbers of shelter intakes between 1994 and 2005, during which the spay/neuter program was in place, were then compared with the projected numbers to assess the effect (i.e., change in numbers of shelter intakes) of the spay/neuter voucher program. Autocorrelation function (ACF) and partial autocorrelation function (PACF) plots were used to select appropriate ARIMA models and to evaluate the model fit. Corresponding 95% confidence limit of the ARIMA projections were also presented. A stochastic model was constructed to estimate the number of additional cats that would have been born and taken into the shelters between 1994 and 2005 had the spay/neuter program never been implemented. The key parameters, their corresponding probability distributions for owned and unowned cats, and the data sources are listed in Table 1. This model was also used for benefit-cost analysis of the voucher program. The software program @Risk (version 5.0.0, Palisade Corp., Ithaca, New York) was used for the simulation with 10,000 iterations. Median and the 5th and 95th percentiles were reported. dogs : Twenty nine percent of responding county households resported that they owned dogs (unchanged from 1993); the average household owned 1.9 dogs, representing an increase from 7 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts 1.3 dogs in 1993. Using US census data led to an estimate of 332,000 owned dogs in Santa Clara County (assuming Palo Alto has the same ownership frequency). Registered and unregistered purebred dogs were 33% and 18% (total = 51%) of the dog population, respectively; the remainder (49%) of dogs was either mixed or unknown breeds. Dogs were acquired from a variety of sources; the most common were friends or relatives (30%), breeders (25%), public or private animal shelter (15%), with the remainder (less than 10% each) coming from a breed rescue group, a newspaper advertisement, found as stray, being born at home, acquired from a pet store, and rare other sources (Fig.1). Seventy five percent (75%) of owners reported surgically sterilizing their dogs. Among those that declined to alter them, 28% of owners said this was a deliberate decision, and none claimed that cost was a justification for not sterilizing. Thirty three percent (33%) of the unaltered dogs were intended for breeding purposes, and 17% were puppies too young for surgery. Of the 99 unaltered dogs, 70 (70.7%) were male and 29 (29.3%) were female. Twenty one households (2%) in the survey acknowledged feeding dogs they did not own, with an average of 2.3 dogs per feeding household. An examination of zip codes indicated that these dogs were predominantly found in the downtown and north and east sides of the city of San Jose. With some exceptions, these areas are in the lower socio-economic range of households in San Jose. Using US census data, this leads to an estimate of approximately 15,650 transiently or permanently stray dogs throughout the county, or 4.7% of the county\u2019s dog population. cats : Twenty five percent of households reported owning cats, representing a decrease from 30% in 1993 (p = 0.013). With an average of 1.7 owned cats per household (a figure unchanged 8 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts since 1993), the county\u2019s owned cat population was estimated at 256,000 cats. Most cats (85%) were characterized as domestic varieties; only 3% were claimed to be registered pedigree (a figure unchanged since 1993), while others were described as unregistered pedigreed or unknown breed. The percentage of cats kept strictly indoors rose from 33% in 1993 to 49% in 2005 (p < 0.001); only 8% were currently described as strictly outdoors, down from 14% in 1993 (p < 0.001). The most common source of owned cats was from a friend or relative (42% in 2005 versus 33% in 1993), followed by being found as a free-roaming homeless cat (20% in 2005 versus 32% in 1993), a public or private animal shelter (16% in 2005 versus 12% in 1993), a breed rescue group (9% in 2005 versus 2% in 1993), a breeder (4% in both years), an ad in a newspaper or adopted or purchased in a pet store (2% in 2005 versus 6% in 1993), a negligible percentage born at home (<1% in 2005 versus 6% in 1993), and the remainder coming from various minor or unknown sources. The p-value comparing the source distribution of owned cats between 2005 and 1993 was < 0.001. In 2005 most cat owners (92.8%) had their cats surgically sterilized, compared to 86% in 1993 (p < 0.001). Within the 7.2% of cats not spayed or neutered, 48% had owners that deliberately did not want their cats to be sterilized, 13% had owners who wanted to retain the cat for breeding, 13% were kittens, 13% had owners claiming that the costs were prohibitive, and the remainder gave two or more reasons (the most common of which was lack of time to transport the cat for surgery). Thus, only approximately 6% of owned cats were sexually mature and capable of breeding, approximately half of which were female. However, less than one-half of 1% of owners of sterilized female cats allowed their cats to have a litter prior to sterilization. 9 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts The rate of reproduction of owned cats in Santa Clara County was 89 cats per 1000 households, in contrast to the higher rate of 112 kittens per 1000 households in the 1996 National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy (Salman et al., 1998). This may be attributable to the high proportion of altered cats in the county (93%) relative to the comparable 1993 figure and the 2005 national average of 86%. In addition, while in 1993 16% of owned cats had a litter prior to altering, in the current study this figure was less than one-half of 1%. While it was beyond the scope of this study to determine the reasons for this change in attitude, it is likely that greater awareness prompted by considerable multimedia public education about the county-sponsored voucher program instituted in 1993 bore at least some responsibility. When owners were asked about whether their cats were declawed, 8% stated that they were, but 29% of them obtained the cat in that condition. The most common reason given by owners (84%) for declawing was to protect furniture. Owners not electing to declaw their cats protected their furniture through a variety of means, including having scratching posts and mats, using a spray bottle, clipping the claws, applying double-sided tape, and making loud deterrent noises. Many individuals fed stray cats: 7% of household respondents admitted to feeding an average of 3.2 cats, a decrease from 10% with an average of 3.4 cats in 1993. Relying on U.S. census data, the estimated fed stray cat population is therefore approximately 135,000 cats, or approximately 35% of the total owned and fed free-roaming/unowned cat population in the county (391,000 cats, which represents a drop from 416,000 in 1993). Only 5.5% of these cats were either trapped or taken to be surgically sterilized by their people feeding them. Fifty six percent of the cats were fed daily, while the remaining cats were fed from once every other day to only occasionally. The cats were most commonly fed on the doorstep of a person\u2019s home 10 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts (62%), followed by an office (15%), a park (12%), and a shopping center (<1%). Fed stray cats were either alone or belonged to colonies ranging in size from 2 to 25 cats. Two-thirds of the fed stray cats were too wild to be picked up and were defined as feral; the remaining third were classified as unowned (although some of these may have had owners unknown to the survey respondent). Forty seven percent of the female stray cats were known to have had at least one litter, which is probably a conservative estimate. Over half of the known litters were allowed to remain free and disperse into their neighborhoods. Of the remaining kittens, half were kept by the feeder, while the others were given away or taken to an animal shelter. Of the females who had litters, 58% were not trapped or taken to a veterinarian after having a litter, remaining free to potentially breed again. population changes at santa clara county animal shelters : Changes in dog shelter intakes for Santa Clara County (and the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA shelter in adjacent San Mateo County for comparison) are shown in Fig. 2. Dog intakes declined 13,643 to 8,441 (38.1%) from 1992-2005 in Santa Clara County in the absence of a widely promoted municipally funded spay/neuter program, indicating that other external factors played an important role in the number of stray and surrendered dogs brought to shelters. An external explanation for the observed trend is supported by the findings in adjacent San Mateo County, where dog intakes declined by a similar 35.7% between 1990 and 2004. These proportions were not significantly different (p = 0.11). A substantially different picture emerged when examining changes in cat shelter intakes in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties (Figs. 3 and 4). Intakes in Santa Clara County dropped 22,473 to 16,369 (27.2%) from 1993 to 2004 and 22,473 to 16,807 (25.2%) from 1993 to 2005, 11 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts compared to a drop of 8,252 to 6,078 (26.3%) in San Mateo County from 1993 to 2004. Although the two proportions were similar, there was an overall decline in annual intakes in Santa Clara County of 6,104 cats to 2004 (509 cats per year) for the 12 year period, compared to 2,174 cats in the same 12 year period for San Mateo County (181 cats per year). The absolute changes are economically more germane to counties with respect to shelter expenses because expenditures are based on the per diem cost of maintaining individual cats. The results of the ARIMA projections indicated a higher-than-expected decline in the number of cats being surrendered to the shelters in Santa Clara County during the years when the voucher program was in effect, i.e., 1994-2005 (Fig.5). The ARIMA projections further showed that the observed numbers of cats brought in by the field service did not substantially differ from the expected numbers during the same time period (Fig.6). Under the voucher program, 20,419 cats were surgically sterilized from 1994-2001 and an additional 6,231 cats were sterilized from 2001-2003. While the program was initiated at the end of 1994, public interest did not start until mid-1995, when a local television station and newspaper ran a story about it. The San Jose program was initially free to the public; however, various program changes over time were instituted. Veterinarians were reimbursed at a set fee of $25 female and $15 male. Pregnancies could add to the veterinarian reimbursement up to $50, and anatomical issues adjusted the price to as high as $150. In 1996 modifications included requiring a $5 co-pay, and a requirement that cat owners obtain a $5 license and rabies inoculation. While these changes increased the veterinarian reimbursement, they also created a negative effect on the program, as voucher requests declined from 5,600 in the first 16 months of the program to only 2,800 for the year following the changes. 12 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts The San Jose voucher program ended in 2003, but the county program continued. Utilizing assumptions in Table 1, if no voucher program had been initiated, these cats (assuming that 65% were owned, based on the 2005 survey results) would have produced approximately 312,000 kittens between 1994 and 2005, and approximately 8,600 additional cats would have entered (6,200 surrendered and 2,500 brought in by the field service) the shelters in Santa Clara County. This would have incurred an additional cost of approximately $2.15 million, with the HSSV charge to cities for stray cat services under their contract cost of $250 per cat. If the cost per cat for spay/neuter surgery in 2001-2002 ($23.21 average for all surgeries) can be assumed to be constant from 1994-2005, then the expected cost of the HSSV voucher program was approximately $620,000. Thus, the net gain of the program from reducing the number of cat shelter intakes was approximately $1.53 million. Not counted would be the added burden of approximately 44,000 cats to the stray population in the county. However, a different picture emerges if the proportion of owned cats surgically altered under the voucher program varied from the 65% figure utilized above. In fact, the proportion of feral cats actually altered in the program considerably fluctuated: from 77% in 2006 to 82% in 2007 to 48% in 2008 (the latter data is from San Jose only). Table 2 provides an estimate of how county cat and shelter populations would be expected to change in the absence of the voucher program under different owned versus feral cat ratios. Under all plausible scenarios, ranging from 20% to 80% of the altered cats being feral, the costs to the shelters would have likely exceeded $2 million over the 12-year life of the program, and at the higher proportion of feral cats the costs would have likely exceeded $6 million. The savings would be expected to grow over additional years. This underscores that voucher programs have not only had a restraining effect for the population control of unowned cats, but for owned cats as well. Moreover, under 13 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts all such plausible scenarios the voucher program would have resulted in a net savings in expenditure. footnotes : 1 Scientific Telephone Samples, Foothill Ranch, California 21 417 418 419 Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Table 1(on next page) Key parameters, their values for owned and unowned cats, and the data sources used in modeling cat population dynamics from 1994 to 2005 if no spay/neuter voucher program had been initiated in Santa C Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Parameter Owned cats Unowned cats References Kittens/litter 4.25 3.6 Pedersen, 1991; Scott et al., 2002 Kitten mortality rate (%) 30 75 Jemmett and Evans, 1977; Nutter et al., 2004; Scott et al., 1978 Life expectancy (years) 12 4.7 Levy et al., 2003; New et al. 2004 Litters per female per year 2.1 1.4 Pedersen, 1991, Nutter et al., 2004; Levy et al., 2003; Scott et al., 2002 Percent female 55 45 Levy et al., 2003 Sexually intact (%) 14 94.5 1993 and 2005 surveys Surrendered to shelter (%) 3.0 7.3 1993 survey and shelter statistics Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Table 2(on next page) Projected impact of hypothetical absence of the 12 year spay/neuter program on cat populations, shelter intake, and municipal cost in Santa Clara County. Median and the 5th and 95th percentiles (in parentheses) are reported (x $1,000). Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Percentage of surgeries performed on owned cats Additional number of owned cats Additional number of stray cats Cats voluntarily surrendered to shelter Cats brought in by field service Total additional shelter cat intake Cost to shelter for additional surrendered and stray cats 20 193 265 6 20 25 $6,333 (110, 388) (131, 593) (3, 12) (10, 44) (13, 55) (3,242, 13,817) 30 226 181 7 13 20 $5,034 (140, 412) (98, 367) (4, 13) (7, 27) (11, 40) (2,867, 9,893) 40 239 124 7 9 16 $4,078 (159, 398) (73, 226) (5, 12) (5, 17) (10, 28) (2,549, 7,089) 50 242 84 7 6 13 $3,351 (173, 368) (54, 138) (5, 11) (4, 10) (9, 21) (2,282, 5,291) 60 241 55 7 4 11 $2,823 (180, 342) (38, 85) (5, 10) (3, 6) (8, 17) (2,035, 4,135) 70 236 35 7 3 10 $2,411 (182, 319) (25, 50) (5, 10) (2, 4) (7, 13) (1,814, 3,324) 80 231 20 7 1 8 $2,099 (182, 303) (15, 27) (5, 9) (1, 2) (6, 11) (1,625, 2,792) Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 1 Source of acquisition of dogs from Santa Clara County survey, 2005. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 2 Regression analysis of intake of dogs at shelters in Santa Clara County (r = 0.95) and San Mateo County (r = 0.97) over time (1990 \u2013 2005). Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 3 Secular changes in cat intakes in Santa Clara County, 1982 \u2013 2007, indexed by historically relevant events. SC = Santa Clara; SJ = San Jose; S/N = spay/neuter voucher program. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 4 Regression analysis of intake of cats at shelters in Santa Clara (r=0.98) and San Mateo Counties (r>0.99), 1990 \u2013 2006. Field services in Santa Clara County ended in 1992; at that time 60% of cats were brought in through field services. Field services resumed in November 1993 in some cities. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 5 Observed numbers of cats surrendered to the shelters in Santa Clara County versus autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) projected numbers of surrendered cats. Figure uses the 1982-1993 data (before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program) shelter data. The lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits of the ARIMA projection are also presented. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts Figure 6 Observed numbers of cats brought to the shelters in Santa Clara County by the field service versus the autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) projected numbers of cats. Figure shows cats brought in by field service using the 1982-1993 (before the launch of the spay/neuter voucher program, shelter data). The lower (LCL) and upper (UCL) 95% confidence limits of the ARIMA projection are also presented. Pre Prin ts Pre Prin ts",
    "url": "https://peerj.com/articles/19/reviews/",
    "review_1": "David Reser \u00b7 Jan 5, 2013 \u00b7 Academic Editor\nACCEPT\nCongratulations, and I appreciate the quick turnaround on the most recent version. I look forward to seeing the published document.",
    "review_2": "David Reser \u00b7 Jan 4, 2013 \u00b7 Academic Editor\nMINOR REVISIONS\nThank you for your thorough response to the points raised in the previous reviews. I believe this manuscript will be acceptable, pending amendment/explanation of the point raised by Reviewer 1 regarding the statistical values in the Results section of the amended manuscript.",
    "review_3": "Reviewer 1 \u00b7 Jan 4, 2013\nBasic reporting\nI am satisfied that the author's of this manuscript have addressed my earlier concerns.\nExperimental design\nI am satisfied that the author's of this manuscript have addressed my earlier concerns.\nValidity of the findings\nI am satisfied that the author's of this manuscript have addressed my earlier concerns.\n\nI want to point out that in the Results-> Perceptual Reports section, all of the chi-square and AUC values are identical despite different significance levels. I am not sure if this is intended, if not the author's should consider correcting the values prior to publication.\nCite this review as\nAnonymous Reviewer (2013) Peer Review #1 of \"Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller\u2019s \u201cCups and Balls\u201d magic trick (v0.2)\". PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.19v0.2/reviews/1",
    "review_4": "David Reser \u00b7 Dec 18, 2012 \u00b7 Academic Editor\nMAJOR REVISIONS\nBoth reviewers requested substantive changes to the figures and methods description, and Reviewer 1 identifies several potential problem areas in the statistical analysis. In your reply letter, please explicitly identify the changes in the manuscript which address these concerns.\nReviewer 2 points out that the magician's own expectation of what elements were important for misdirection of the viewer was inconsistent with the data, which is briefly addressed in the Discussion. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to expand this point in the discussion beyond the single paragraph in the original submitted manuscript, and clarify which perceptual or cognitive elements contribute to the expectations of the viewer, especially the naive viewer. Please note that I leave this suggestion to the discretion of the authors, and this specific point will not affect my final decision if the other issues called out by the reviewers are adequately addressed.\nPlease ensure that the revised manuscript conforms to the PeerJ policy regarding data and materials sharing:\nData and Materials Sharing\n1 PeerJ is committed to improving scholarly communications and as part of this commitment, all authors are responsible for making materials, data and associated protocols available to readers without delay. The preferred way to meet this requirement is to publicly deposit as noted below. Cases of non-compliance will be investigated by PeerJ, which reserves the right to act on the results of the investigation.\n...\n- Where suitable domain-specific repositories do not exist, authors may deposit in either Dryad or an institutional repository and provide the access information with the manuscript. Alternately, authors may choose to deposit non-standard data (including figures, posters, rich media) on Figshare or PeerJ PrePrints, for example. In all cases, the DOI reference (where applicable) should be provided in the article.\n- Any supporting data sets for which there are no suitable repositories must be made available as publishable Supplemental Information files by PeerJ.\n...\n\nThe full policy is viewable in Policy and Procedures page at: https://peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/#data-materials-sharing.",
    "pdf_1": "https://peerj.com/articles/19v0.3/submission",
    "pdf_2": "https://peerj.com/articles/19v0.2/submission",
    "review_5": "Reviewer 1 \u00b7 Dec 18, 2012\nBasic reporting\nNo comments.\nExperimental design\nA lot of the points I make with regard to \"Experimental Design\" have flow on effects to the \"Validity of the Findings\". I keep them together in one section for clarity.\n\nMethods & Results:\n\u2022 Please provide more detail as to the experimental equipment setup. What was the resolution of the stimulus (in pixels and in degrees of visual angle), What was the luminance, and contrast of the stimulus? Was the experiment conducted in a controlled environment (dark, quiet?).\n\u2022 Eye movements: You note that blink periods were removed. Were the subjects told to fixate on a particular part of the stimulus? If so then, how can you generalise your findings to a natural viewing of the magic trick. If not, then given that saccadic suppression is a very well known and studied phenomenon did you attempt to assess whether the key frames of the video that contained the manipulation occurred during a saccadic eye movement?\n\u2022 Given that one of your measures of interest was reaction time, were removals (button 1) and placings (button 2) equally easy to press?\n\u2022 How was the order of stimuli determined? If it was random was the same order used for each subject? This has profound implications for the validity of your learning findings.\n\u2022 Data analysis. Please provide more details about the results of your data analysis. For regression analyses please provide measures of goodness of fit.\n\u2022 Given that you are using the Newman-Kuels method to do pair-wise comparisons, please explain how you are controlling for the increasing experiment-wise alpha level given the number of independent variables you are testing.\n\u2022 You mention that your \u201cstatistical models determined main effects and first order interactions\u201d but you don\u2019t report these anywhere.\n\u2022 In several places throughout the paper you mention performance without qualifying which of the several measures of performance you tested you are referring to.\n\u2022 Given that you suggest that there was a learning effect how did you deal with this in the main analysis. Did you average all trials? Na\u00efve trials (such as would be most relevant to a person seeing a trick for the first time)?, learned trials?\nFigures\n\u2022 Please be consistent with your error-bars, you switch from 95% confidence intervals (figure 2) to SEM (Figures 3-4) and this can lead to a cursory reader assuming that later figures have more significance than they actually do.\n\u2022 Figure 2ABC) Please indicate where chance performance would be on these figures. Are the subjects worse than chance when tested with opaque cups?\n\u2022 Figure 3. Please indicate in the figure caption that dva refers to degrees of visual angle? or change the axis label to reflect this.\n\u2022 Figure4a. Please indicate what number the # of late findings is in relation to.\n\u2022 Please explain why you don't present the graph for opaque cups in Figure 4B&C.\n\u2022 I am concerned that given the findings concerning your other variables, comparisons of trial number to your dependent variables are potentially confounded by order effects. Without knowing how the conditions were ordered it is not possible to evaluate the data being presented in Figure 4.\nValidity of the findings\nSee my comments in the \"Experimental Design\" section.\nCite this review as\nAnonymous Reviewer (2013) Peer Review #1 of \"Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller\u2019s \u201cCups and Balls\u201d magic trick (v0.1)\". PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.19v0.1/reviews/1",
    "pdf_3": "https://peerj.com/articles/19v0.1/submission",
    "review 6": "Hsin-Hao Yu \u00b7 Dec 11, 2012\nBasic reporting\nThe scientific part of the paper is well-written, but I found the non-scientific part, namely the description of the the performance of the magic, difficult to comprehend. Maybe I am simply not familiar with stage magic but it took me a long time to get a sense of what the magician actually did. The inclusion of a video clip will greatly improve the readability of the paper. If that is not possible due to copyright or technical issues, I think the introduction needs to be revised to give more detailed and precise description of the performance. Since I was not familiar with Cups and Balls, I turned to youtube, hoping to see how Penn and Teller perform the Cups and Balls magic. This probably was not such a good idea because Cups and Balls, as performed in Penn and Teller\u2019s various stage shows and television programs, appeared to be not exactly the same Cups and Balls magic studied in the paper (in the youtube clips, the magician does not tilt the transparent cup to make the ball fall into his hand). This is a source of confusion that can be avoided if the introduction provides more background information. The second paragraph of Introduction describes how the magic was invented. According to the description, the magician was surprised by how effective the illusion was. The falling of the ball distracted the attention of the magician such that he himself did not see the loading of the cup. However, Figure 2 clearly shows that the subjects could reliably detect the loading of the cup, thus showing that the magic was not magical, after all! How can a successful magician be so wrong about the effectiveness of his performance? I\u2019m puzzled. The description of the magician\u2019s invention of the magic, rather than helping to motivate the experiment, only confused this reviewer.\nExperimental design\nThe design of the experiment is appropriate for the research question. I have a few suggestions on the presentation: 1. The description of the experiment lacks some information: a) the running length of the video; b) randomization of the conditions, if any; and c) The exact instruction that was given to the subject. 2. In \u201cData analysis\u201d section, \u201cplaced or removed\u201d was written as \u201cplaced OUR removed\u201d. 3. The Results section begins with a summary figure (Figure 2). This is inadequate. I\u2019d like to see how the subject actually performed in the detection task. A few examples of \u201craw\u201d data (time points of button press in relationship to the time points where the magician placed or removed the balls) should be provided. 4. The subjects were asked to detect two events (removal and placing of the ball) but Figure 2A collapsed them into one single measure (probability of correct report). The analysis should separate the two, because the two events have different significance. The stated goal of the experiment was to determine \u201cwhether the falling ball in Penn & Teller's Cups and Balls generated stronger misdirection, as hypothesized by Teller, than alternative manipulations.\u201d In this context, the \u201cloading\u201d of the cup (ie. placement of the ball) more directly reflects the effectiveness of the illusion than the removal of the ball. Recall that in the introduction, the magician was said to be surprised that he did not see the load, thus making the load the more important. Either that, or I have misunderstood the research question. If the separating Figure 2A into two turns out to be less than insightful, the authors should at least briefly report the results or make a comment on it.\nValidity of the findings\nThe research question is: how effective was the illusion? Figure 2 answers the question: the falling of the ball was not as effective as the magician suspected. However, the authors found a learning effect. The more the subjects viewed the magic, the less effective the illusion was. Given that, the interpretation of Figure 2A becomes complicated. It is still possible that the magician's manipulation was effective, but only for the first time. This question is not addressed in the manuscript. The manuscript therefore fails to give a compelling answer to the research question expressed in Introduction. This unsatisfactory situation is difficult to avoid given the subject matter. I don't think it makes the findings invalid but the authors should either try to see if it can be addressed in some way from the experimental data, express the research question differently, or acknowledge the problem in discussion. A second issue is with Figure 2C. The effect is acknowledged in the text but its significance is never commented upon. Since it is difficult to detect the load in the opaque cup condition, how can the no load condition affect the results? What does this mean?\nCite this review as\nYu H (2013) Peer Review #2 of \"Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller\u2019s \u201cCups and Balls\u201d magic trick (v0.1)\". PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.19v0.1/reviews/2",
    "all_reviews": "Review 1: David Reser \u00b7 Jan 5, 2013 \u00b7 Academic Editor\nACCEPT\nCongratulations, and I appreciate the quick turnaround on the most recent version. I look forward to seeing the published document.\nReview 2: David Reser \u00b7 Jan 4, 2013 \u00b7 Academic Editor\nMINOR REVISIONS\nThank you for your thorough response to the points raised in the previous reviews. I believe this manuscript will be acceptable, pending amendment/explanation of the point raised by Reviewer 1 regarding the statistical values in the Results section of the amended manuscript.\nReview 3: Reviewer 1 \u00b7 Jan 4, 2013\nBasic reporting\nI am satisfied that the author's of this manuscript have addressed my earlier concerns.\nExperimental design\nI am satisfied that the author's of this manuscript have addressed my earlier concerns.\nValidity of the findings\nI am satisfied that the author's of this manuscript have addressed my earlier concerns.\n\nI want to point out that in the Results-> Perceptual Reports section, all of the chi-square and AUC values are identical despite different significance levels. I am not sure if this is intended, if not the author's should consider correcting the values prior to publication.\nCite this review as\nAnonymous Reviewer (2013) Peer Review #1 of \"Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller\u2019s \u201cCups and Balls\u201d magic trick (v0.2)\". PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.19v0.2/reviews/1\nReview 4: David Reser \u00b7 Dec 18, 2012 \u00b7 Academic Editor\nMAJOR REVISIONS\nBoth reviewers requested substantive changes to the figures and methods description, and Reviewer 1 identifies several potential problem areas in the statistical analysis. In your reply letter, please explicitly identify the changes in the manuscript which address these concerns.\nReviewer 2 points out that the magician's own expectation of what elements were important for misdirection of the viewer was inconsistent with the data, which is briefly addressed in the Discussion. In my opinion, it would be worthwhile to expand this point in the discussion beyond the single paragraph in the original submitted manuscript, and clarify which perceptual or cognitive elements contribute to the expectations of the viewer, especially the naive viewer. Please note that I leave this suggestion to the discretion of the authors, and this specific point will not affect my final decision if the other issues called out by the reviewers are adequately addressed.\nPlease ensure that the revised manuscript conforms to the PeerJ policy regarding data and materials sharing:\nData and Materials Sharing\n1 PeerJ is committed to improving scholarly communications and as part of this commitment, all authors are responsible for making materials, data and associated protocols available to readers without delay. The preferred way to meet this requirement is to publicly deposit as noted below. Cases of non-compliance will be investigated by PeerJ, which reserves the right to act on the results of the investigation.\n...\n- Where suitable domain-specific repositories do not exist, authors may deposit in either Dryad or an institutional repository and provide the access information with the manuscript. Alternately, authors may choose to deposit non-standard data (including figures, posters, rich media) on Figshare or PeerJ PrePrints, for example. In all cases, the DOI reference (where applicable) should be provided in the article.\n- Any supporting data sets for which there are no suitable repositories must be made available as publishable Supplemental Information files by PeerJ.\n...\n\nThe full policy is viewable in Policy and Procedures page at: https://peerj.com/about/policies-and-procedures/#data-materials-sharing.\nReview 5: Reviewer 1 \u00b7 Dec 18, 2012\nBasic reporting\nNo comments.\nExperimental design\nA lot of the points I make with regard to \"Experimental Design\" have flow on effects to the \"Validity of the Findings\". I keep them together in one section for clarity.\n\nMethods & Results:\n\u2022 Please provide more detail as to the experimental equipment setup. What was the resolution of the stimulus (in pixels and in degrees of visual angle), What was the luminance, and contrast of the stimulus? Was the experiment conducted in a controlled environment (dark, quiet?).\n\u2022 Eye movements: You note that blink periods were removed. Were the subjects told to fixate on a particular part of the stimulus? If so then, how can you generalise your findings to a natural viewing of the magic trick. If not, then given that saccadic suppression is a very well known and studied phenomenon did you attempt to assess whether the key frames of the video that contained the manipulation occurred during a saccadic eye movement?\n\u2022 Given that one of your measures of interest was reaction time, were removals (button 1) and placings (button 2) equally easy to press?\n\u2022 How was the order of stimuli determined? If it was random was the same order used for each subject? This has profound implications for the validity of your learning findings.\n\u2022 Data analysis. Please provide more details about the results of your data analysis. For regression analyses please provide measures of goodness of fit.\n\u2022 Given that you are using the Newman-Kuels method to do pair-wise comparisons, please explain how you are controlling for the increasing experiment-wise alpha level given the number of independent variables you are testing.\n\u2022 You mention that your \u201cstatistical models determined main effects and first order interactions\u201d but you don\u2019t report these anywhere.\n\u2022 In several places throughout the paper you mention performance without qualifying which of the several measures of performance you tested you are referring to.\n\u2022 Given that you suggest that there was a learning effect how did you deal with this in the main analysis. Did you average all trials? Na\u00efve trials (such as would be most relevant to a person seeing a trick for the first time)?, learned trials?\nFigures\n\u2022 Please be consistent with your error-bars, you switch from 95% confidence intervals (figure 2) to SEM (Figures 3-4) and this can lead to a cursory reader assuming that later figures have more significance than they actually do.\n\u2022 Figure 2ABC) Please indicate where chance performance would be on these figures. Are the subjects worse than chance when tested with opaque cups?\n\u2022 Figure 3. Please indicate in the figure caption that dva refers to degrees of visual angle? or change the axis label to reflect this.\n\u2022 Figure4a. Please indicate what number the # of late findings is in relation to.\n\u2022 Please explain why you don't present the graph for opaque cups in Figure 4B&C.\n\u2022 I am concerned that given the findings concerning your other variables, comparisons of trial number to your dependent variables are potentially confounded by order effects. Without knowing how the conditions were ordered it is not possible to evaluate the data being presented in Figure 4.\nValidity of the findings\nSee my comments in the \"Experimental Design\" section.\nCite this review as\nAnonymous Reviewer (2013) Peer Review #1 of \"Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller\u2019s \u201cCups and Balls\u201d magic trick (v0.1)\". PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.19v0.1/reviews/1\nReview 6: Hsin-Hao Yu \u00b7 Dec 11, 2012\nBasic reporting\nThe scientific part of the paper is well-written, but I found the non-scientific part, namely the description of the the performance of the magic, difficult to comprehend. Maybe I am simply not familiar with stage magic but it took me a long time to get a sense of what the magician actually did. The inclusion of a video clip will greatly improve the readability of the paper. If that is not possible due to copyright or technical issues, I think the introduction needs to be revised to give more detailed and precise description of the performance. Since I was not familiar with Cups and Balls, I turned to youtube, hoping to see how Penn and Teller perform the Cups and Balls magic. This probably was not such a good idea because Cups and Balls, as performed in Penn and Teller\u2019s various stage shows and television programs, appeared to be not exactly the same Cups and Balls magic studied in the paper (in the youtube clips, the magician does not tilt the transparent cup to make the ball fall into his hand). This is a source of confusion that can be avoided if the introduction provides more background information. The second paragraph of Introduction describes how the magic was invented. According to the description, the magician was surprised by how effective the illusion was. The falling of the ball distracted the attention of the magician such that he himself did not see the loading of the cup. However, Figure 2 clearly shows that the subjects could reliably detect the loading of the cup, thus showing that the magic was not magical, after all! How can a successful magician be so wrong about the effectiveness of his performance? I\u2019m puzzled. The description of the magician\u2019s invention of the magic, rather than helping to motivate the experiment, only confused this reviewer.\nExperimental design\nThe design of the experiment is appropriate for the research question. I have a few suggestions on the presentation: 1. The description of the experiment lacks some information: a) the running length of the video; b) randomization of the conditions, if any; and c) The exact instruction that was given to the subject. 2. In \u201cData analysis\u201d section, \u201cplaced or removed\u201d was written as \u201cplaced OUR removed\u201d. 3. The Results section begins with a summary figure (Figure 2). This is inadequate. I\u2019d like to see how the subject actually performed in the detection task. A few examples of \u201craw\u201d data (time points of button press in relationship to the time points where the magician placed or removed the balls) should be provided. 4. The subjects were asked to detect two events (removal and placing of the ball) but Figure 2A collapsed them into one single measure (probability of correct report). The analysis should separate the two, because the two events have different significance. The stated goal of the experiment was to determine \u201cwhether the falling ball in Penn & Teller's Cups and Balls generated stronger misdirection, as hypothesized by Teller, than alternative manipulations.\u201d In this context, the \u201cloading\u201d of the cup (ie. placement of the ball) more directly reflects the effectiveness of the illusion than the removal of the ball. Recall that in the introduction, the magician was said to be surprised that he did not see the load, thus making the load the more important. Either that, or I have misunderstood the research question. If the separating Figure 2A into two turns out to be less than insightful, the authors should at least briefly report the results or make a comment on it.\nValidity of the findings\nThe research question is: how effective was the illusion? Figure 2 answers the question: the falling of the ball was not as effective as the magician suspected. However, the authors found a learning effect. The more the subjects viewed the magic, the less effective the illusion was. Given that, the interpretation of Figure 2A becomes complicated. It is still possible that the magician's manipulation was effective, but only for the first time. This question is not addressed in the manuscript. The manuscript therefore fails to give a compelling answer to the research question expressed in Introduction. This unsatisfactory situation is difficult to avoid given the subject matter. I don't think it makes the findings invalid but the authors should either try to see if it can be addressed in some way from the experimental data, express the research question differently, or acknowledge the problem in discussion. A second issue is with Figure 2C. The effect is acknowledged in the text but its significance is never commented upon. Since it is difficult to detect the load in the opaque cup condition, how can the no load condition affect the results? What does this mean?\nCite this review as\nYu H (2013) Peer Review #2 of \"Perceptual elements in Penn & Teller\u2019s \u201cCups and Balls\u201d magic trick (v0.1)\". PeerJ https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.19v0.1/reviews/2\n",
    "LLM_extracted_review": "[\"Review 1: Congratulations, and I appreciate the quick turnaround on the most recent version. I look forward to seeing the published document.\\n\\nReview 2: Thank you for your thorough response to the points raised in the previous reviews. I believe this manuscript will be acceptable, pending amendment/explanation of the point raised by Reviewer 1 regarding the statistical values in the Results section of the amended manuscript.\\n\\nReview 3: I want to point out that in the Results-> Perceptual Reports section, all of the chi-square and AUC values are identical despite different significance levels. I am not sure if this is intended; if not, the authors should consider correcting the values prior to publication.\\n\\nReview 4: Both reviewers requested substantive changes to the figures and methods description, and Reviewer 1 identifies several potential problem areas in the statistical analysis. Reviewer 2 points out that the magician's own expectation of what elements were important for misdirection of the viewer was inconsistent with the data, which is briefly addressed in the Discussion. It would be worthwhile to expand this point in the discussion beyond the single paragraph in the original submitted manuscript. Please ensure that the revised manuscript conforms to the PeerJ policy regarding data and materials sharing.\\n\\nReview 5: Please provide more detail as to the experimental equipment setup. What was the resolution of the stimulus (in pixels and in degrees of visual angle), what was the luminance, and contrast of the stimulus? Was the experiment conducted in a controlled environment (dark, quiet)? Were the subjects told to fixate on a particular part of the stimulus? If so, how can you generalize your findings to a natural viewing of the magic trick? If not, did you attempt to assess whether the key frames of the video that contained the manipulation occurred during a saccadic eye movement? Given that one of your measures of interest was reaction time, were removals (button 1) and placings (button 2) equally easy to press? How was the order of stimuli determined? If it was random, was the same order used for each subject? This has profound implications for the validity of your learning findings. Please provide more details about the results of your data analysis. For regression analyses, please provide measures of goodness of fit. Please explain how you are controlling for the increasing experiment-wise alpha level given the number of independent variables you are testing. You mention that your \u201cstatistical models determined main effects and first order interactions\u201d but you don\u2019t report these anywhere. In several places throughout the paper, you mention performance without qualifying which of the several measures of performance you tested you are referring to. Given that you suggest that there was a learning effect, how did you deal with this in the main analysis? Did you average all trials? Na\u00efve trials? Please be consistent with your error-bars; you switch from 95% confidence intervals to SEM, which can lead to a cursory reader assuming that later figures have more significance than they actually do. Please indicate where chance performance would be on these figures. Are the subjects worse than chance when tested with opaque cups? Please indicate in the figure caption that dva refers to degrees of visual angle or change the axis label to reflect this. Please explain why you don't present the graph for opaque cups in Figure 4B&C. I am concerned that given the findings concerning your other variables, comparisons of trial number to your dependent variables are potentially confounded by order effects.\\n\\nReview 6: The scientific part of the paper is well-written, but I found the non-scientific part, namely the description of the performance of the magic, difficult to comprehend. The inclusion of a video clip will greatly improve the readability of the paper. If that is not possible, I think the introduction needs to be revised to give more detailed and precise description of the performance. The description of the magician\u2019s invention of the magic, rather than helping to motivate the experiment, only confused this reviewer. The description of the experiment lacks some information: a) the running length of the video; b) randomization of the conditions, if any; and c) the exact instruction that was given to the subject. The Results section begins with a summary figure (Figure 2). This is inadequate. I\u2019d like to see how the subject actually performed in the detection task. A few examples of \u201craw\u201d data should be provided. The analysis should separate the two events (removal and placing of the ball), because the two events have different significance. The manuscript fails to give a compelling answer to the research question expressed in Introduction. The interpretation of Figure 2A becomes complicated. The authors should either try to see if it can be addressed in some way from the experimental data, express the research question differently, or acknowledge the problem in discussion. Since it is difficult to detect the load in the opaque cup condition, how can the no load condition affect the results? What does this mean?\"]"
}