PEPSI STOPPED USING A COVERED LITTER TRAY
Pepsi was an adult female neutered domestic shorthair ( DSH ), in general good health other than being overweight ( body condition score 6 / 9 ). She was kept indoors , and was a part of a multi-cat household ( five individuals at the time ). The owner sought advice when Pepsi began toileting outside her usual covered litter tray . Initial history gathering revealed that the issue involved both urination and defaecation of a normal volume / amount , and the eliminations remained in the general area of the litter tray . The household had multiple litter trays available , but Pepsi only used this specific tray . While the cats appeared to be living harmoniously , there was little evidence of affiliative behaviour involving Pepsi , suggesting an underlying issue relating to the number of cats in the household .
The owner was reluctant to take Pepsi into the practice for examination , describing her as a ‘ stressy ’ cat . While this was not ideal , the owner ' s next revelation provided a significant clue warranting further investigation . As outlined in Part 1 of this series , a diary can be a useful tool in determining events that may have contributed to a behavioural issue . In this case , when discussing the timeline of events , the owner mentioned that Pepsi had been spooked the previous week , when a broom fell over and clipped the lid of her litter tray while she was using it .
As prey species themselves , cats are predisposed to be vigilant when eliminating . Loud noises innately induce fear and , as Pepsi had been unable to see the cause of the noise , this led to a subsequent aversion to using that litter tray . It is likely that Pepsi had connected the noise with the tray , and developed a litter-tray aversion as a way of avoiding a repeat of the trauma of the incident . She continued to eliminate in the same area , but in a location from which she could see her surroundings . It was therefore suggested that her covered litter tray was replaced with an open one . While not ideal from the owner ' s perspective , as the covered tray decreased associated odour , the change was made . Pepsi began to use the tray once again and , in time , the covered litter tray was reintroduced alongside the open one , and she was encouraged to begin using it again .
TOBY WAS ELIMINATING OUTSIDE THE LITTER TRAY
Toby was a geriatric male neutered DSH , with no apparent health problems according to the owners , other than slowing down as he got older . He had begun to toilet outside his litter tray occasionally , a few months before the owners contacted the practice , but they were prompted to ask for help when this began to become more frequent , with incidents occurring most days . The pet ’ s age and the owners ' mention of ‘ slowing down ’ suggested he perhaps had an underlying medical condition , such as arthritis .
While gathering a behavioural history from the owners , specific questions were asked about the design of Toby ’ s litter tray . It transpired that the tray was approximately 10 cm deep because , as a younger cat , Toby had liked a deep covering of litter in his tray . However , given his ageing , and the suggestion of developing arthritis , it was possible that he was struggling to get into the litter tray .
Toby was due for his annual vaccinations , so the owners were advised to make an appointment for the vaccinations and to discuss the issues further with the VS . It was suggested that , in the meantime , Toby might benefit from a shallower litter tray , or some sort of ramp or step to help him access the existing litter tray ( which would also then support his preference for deep litter ). The owner made the necessary changes at home and , by the time of the appointment ( and the VS ’ s diagnosis of arthritis ), the inappropriate elimination had been resolved .
Conclusion
Inappropriate elimination not only accounts for the majority of cases referred to pet behaviour counsellors ( APBC , 2014 ) but is a common question directed to veterinary staff in first opinion practice . Support from the veterinary team is invaluable in these cases , as they are potentially very distressing to the owner and can result in a breakdown of the human – animal bond .
A sound understanding of normal elimination behaviour is beneficial in first opinion practice , to help in advising in cases of inappropriate elimination as well as to complement understanding of urinary conditions .
REFERENCES
APBC ( 2014 ) Annual Review of Cases 2012 [ Report ]. Available from : https :// www . apbc . org . uk / wp-content / uploads / apbc _ annual _ report _ 2012 . pdf [ Accessed 19 September 2022 )
Bowen , J . ( 2018 ) Successful management of multi-cat households . Lecture session presented at the ISFM Nurse Conference ( September 2018 ), Stratfordupon-Avon .
ISFM ( 2017 ) Soiling indoors [ Advice sheet ]. Available at : https :// icatcare . org / advice / problem-behaviour / soiling-indoors [ Accessed 19 September 2022 ].
RCVS ( n . d .) Code of Professional Conduct for Veterinary Nurses . Available from : https :// www . rcvs . org . uk / setting-standards / advice-and-guidance / codeof-professional-conduct-for-veterinary-nurses / [ Accessed 18 September 2022 ].
Seksel , K . ( 2016 ) House soiling problems . In : Rodan , I . & Heath , S . ( eds .) Feline Behavioural Health and Welfare . St . Louis , Elsevier , pp . 331 – 343 .
40 Veterinary Nursing Journal