E impacts of domestic cats (Felis catus; hereafter, “cats”) are the subject of international conservation concern and policy debate. Cats can pose a threat to biodiversity conservation (eg through predation or hybridization: Medina et al. 2011, 2014; Loss and Marra 2017), and are also susceptible to a range of diseases (including zoonoses like toxoplasmosis and rabies); as such, they may also be a hazard to public and animal health (Gerhold and Jessup 2013; Taggart et al. 2019). Feral cats, which are neither controlled nor provisioned by humans (Crowley et al. 2020), are the frequent subject of conservation policy and action, but globally most domestic cats have owners and/or are closely affiliated with people. For such cats, policy recommendations have included implementing population control, regulating ownership and management, and educating owners about impacts (Calver et al. 2011; Loss and Marra 2017; EscobarAguirre et al. 2019). Authoritarian approaches to policy, or those addressing a perceived knowledge deficit, can often be problematic. Such approaches assume that the primary reason that owners fail to regulate their cats’ behaviors is a lack of understanding about the associated impacts, but this is unlikely. Attempting to advance policies prioritizing the values of conservation advocates over those of cat owners produces divisions between these (not mutually exclusive) groups. Such divisions can escalate into conflict, characterized by distrust, animosity, and communication breakdown (Redpath et al. 2013; Crowley et al. 2017). Emergence of conflict on this issue is apparent in scientific and popular discourse (Loss and Marra 2018; Lynn et al. 2019; Strycker 2019), compromising progress in developing effective policy. One emerging alternative approach is to recognize cat owners as key partners in reducing cat impacts (Crowley et al. 2019); engage with owners to understand their priorities and perspectives (Macdonald et al. 2015; McLeod et al. 2017; Linklater et al. 2019); and collaborate with owners and other stakeholders to develop effective, sustainable policy and guidance (McLeod et al. 2015, 2019; Crowley et al. 2020). We analyzed the perspectives of cat owners in the UK on the management of domestic cat roaming and hunting behaviors, and identified multiple, distinct owner perspectives, several of which are consistent with willingness to manage cat behavior, others less so. Consideration of stated values and normative beliefs associated with each perspective highlights both promising opportunities for – and important barriers to – managing cat predation of wildlife.

中文翻译：

---

猫主人的不同观点表明管理猫捕食野生动物的障碍和机会

E 家猫（Felis catus；以下简称“猫”）的影响是国际保护关注和政策辩论的主题。猫可能对生物多样性保护构成威胁（例如通过捕食或杂交：Medina 等人，2011 年，2014 年；Loss 和 Marra，2017 年），并且还容易感染一系列疾病（包括弓形虫病和狂犬病等人畜共患病）；因此，它们也可能对公共和动物健康构成危害（Gerhold 和 Jessup 2013；Taggart 等，2019）。野猫既不受人类控制也不由人类提供（Crowley 等人，2020 年），是保护政策和行动的常见主题，但在全球范围内，大多数家猫都有主人和/或与人有密切关系。对于此类猫，政策建议包括实施种群控制、规范所有权和管理、并就影响对业主进行教育（Calver 等人，2011 年；Loss 和 Marra 2017 年；EscobarAguirre 等人，2019 年）。专制的政策方法，或解决已知知识缺陷的方法，通常会带来问题。这种方法假设主人未能规范猫的行为的主要原因是对相关影响缺乏了解，但这不太可能。试图推进政策优先考虑保护倡导者的价值观而不是猫主人的价值观会导致这些（不相互排斥）群体之间产生分歧。这种分歧会升级为冲突，表现为不信任、敌意和沟通中断（Redpath 等人，2013 年；Crowley 等人，2017 年）。在这个问题上出现的冲突在科学和大众话语中很明显（Loss 和 Marra 2018；Lynn 等人 2019；Strycker 2019），在制定有效政策方面取得进展。一种新兴的替代方法是将猫主人视为减少猫影响的关键合作伙伴（Crowley 等人，2019 年）；与业主接触以了解他们的优先事项和观点（Macdonald 等人，2015 年；McLeod 等人，2017 年；Linklater 等人，2019 年）；并与所有者和其他利益相关者合作制定有效、可持续的政策和指南（McLeod 等人，2015 年，2019 年；Crowley 等人，2020 年）。我们分析了英国猫主人对家猫漫游和狩猎行为管理的观点，并确定了多种不同的主人观点，其中一些与管理猫行为的意愿一致，其他则不太一致。