Missing Pet Partnership
Search Report
Case #08-003
DATE: 05/20/2008
PET NAME: Brandy
SPECIES: Feline
DESCRIPTION: 10-year-old longhaired female calico cat (no collar, no chip)
LOCATION: 21st Ave SW, Burien, WA
DATE & TIME LAST SEEN: Saturday night 05/17/2008
DATE & TIME OF INVESTIGATION: Tuesday 05/20/2008 7:30 p.m.
BACKGROUND
BRANDY was an outdoor-access cat who lived with two other cats for several years. Because of a spraying problem with their cats and no previous problems with predators, BRANDY lived for several years on the back patio of her home where she primarily stayed in her own yard. BRANDY occasionally crossed the street into the yard of the house directly across the street. On Sunday 5/18/08 the GUARDIAN walked outdoors and found a 4' diameter area filled with several tufts of fur. The color of the fur (dark brown, tan, white, orange) matched BRANDY'S fur. The GUARDIAN searched the area, hoping that Brandy was simply injured and hoping the fur she found was caused by an encounter with a raccoon (instead of a fox or coyote).
INVESTIGATION:
On 05/20/2008 I (KAT ALBRECHT) along with MPP Volunteer PAM O'BRIEN and cat detection dog SADIE responded to Burien, WA. We started by examining the fur. We noted that there was a significant amount of fur and the clumps were large, a clear indication that these were not results of a cat fight.
We ruled out raccoons because we knew that raccoons often co-exist with cats and sometimes even share food. We also knew that while raccoons can (and will) fight cats when protecting their young, they are omnivores (they eat plans and meat) and not carnivores. This means that their modality of obtaining food is different from predators like foxes and coyotes (who move silently and kill their prey without making noise). A raccoon would have fought with a cat and there would have been noise. On the night that BRANDY vanished, the GUARDIAN had slept with the windows open, and she never heard a sound. We also ruled out raccoons because the large amount of fur clumps were an indication that something spent time pulling out fur, which is usually a sign that a predator has killed an animal and is attempting to consume it. In addition, the distribution of the hair fibers also indicated an immobile victim since the fur was concentrated in a 4' circle. If a fight had taken place, hair fibers would have been scattered. And finally, several of the clumps of fur showed indications that they had been compressed and dampened with saliva, even further evidence that this was caused by a predator. We ruled out that a dog caused this because in those cases typically a carcass (not always intact) is found.
We brought cat detection dog SADIE out and had her begin to search the yard. Sadie gave a live cat alert near the back deck when she picked up the scent of the GUARDIAN'S second cat. Sadie worked on the lawn over to the area where the tufts of fur had been found. She sniffed the center of the spot, squatted, and urinated (natural decomposition alert). Sadie showed interest in a second area of the lawn approximately five feet from the first spot. We marked both of these spots for further forensic testing.
We searched the entire yard and the detached garage but did not find signs of BRANDY. We then examined the tuft of fur and fence area on the north side of the property where the owner found the stray tuft of fur leading out of the yard. The clump of fur was consistent with the other tufts of fur. Using a flashlight, I was able to observe tiny hair fibers on the fence board next to where the tuft of fur was found. We were not certain if this fur was caused by the predator or by the cats traveling back and forth (to the house across the street). I collected the fibers for potential future analysis. We then searched the house directly across (north) the street where BRANDY was known to spend time. SADIE gave a live cat alert on some bushes and flushed one of the GUARDIAN'S other cats. We did not find any evidence that BRANDY was in this yard.
We moved back towards the GUARDIAN'S home (on the south side of the street) when volunteer O'BRIEN discovered a new tuft of fur along the roadside in front of the house next door (west) of the GUARDIAN'S home. This tuft was not anywhere near the pile of fur and it was not the same tuft found by the fence. We realized this was an indication that BRANDY had been carried away.
We split into four search teams (GUARDIAN'S partner joined in the search) and conducted a methodical, thorough search of the roadsides looking for more tufts of fur. O'BRIEN located one more tuft of fur a block west from the GUARDIAN'S home. She also located two small bones. The bones appeared brittle and old, but we collected them for further analysis (potential analysis by a forensic anthropologist). Our detailed search of the area did not recover any further evidence.
By this time it was dark and we returned to the GUARDIAN'S yard in order to analyze the grass area where the tufts of fur were found. The GUARDIAN told me they had not seen any blood but said they had smelled an awful odor where the fur was found. She also mentioned that a next-door neighbor's dog had come over and defecated on top of the fur (natural decomposition alert in some dogs).
We prepared a spray bottle with Luminol in order to determine whether there was any blood present. Luminol reacts to the presence of hemoglobin in blood (but will not react to urine or feces). We sprayed the grass area at the location where the fur was found, where SADIE urinated, and where the neighbor dog had defecated. It tested positive for the presence of blood, illuminating an approximate 4-inch diameter bloodstain. We sprayed the second area where SADIE showed interest (on the lawn) but it did not test positive for blood.
By this time, the GUARDIAN realized that it was highly unlikely that BRANDY was alive. Although we could not positively confirm this, we knew that there was a preponderance of evidence to lead to this conclusion. We discussed potential forensic testing, including a DNA test to confirm that BRANDY was the source of the fur (the GUARDIAN declined this because she knew it was BRANDY'S fur). The GUARDIAN was interested in pursuing a DNA test of the saliva on the fur to determine the source of the predator (i.e. coyote or fox). We advised her we would check into prices for this test as well as options for analysis of the bones by a forensic anthropologist.
FOLLOW UP:
On 05/27/2008 I received confirmation that a forensic anthropologist from the University of California, Santa Cruz anthropology department has agreed to examine the recovered bones as a student project. The bones were packaged and sent off for analysis. We are awaiting response from a wildlife forensics lab as to whether they will test the saliva on the fur tufts to determine the species of the predator.
STATUS:
Open pending forensic testing.
*Our pages are copyright-protected. To share our lost pet information with others, please link or refer people to our website. To request permission to reprint material from our site, please contact us.