Around 5% of cats entering U.S. shelters carry FeLV or FIV, a proportion that amounts to over 100,000 infected animals every year when considering national feline intake statistics. Despite these large numbers, contemporary information about how shelters manage retroviral infections—particularly in regions with persistent overpopulation and heavy cat intake, such as the southern United States—remains sparse. This project set out to document how Florida shelters currently approach retrovirus-related decisions. Shelters were queried about which cats they choose to test, what diagnostic methods they rely on, and how they handle cats that receive positive results. Of the 153 known Florida shelters admitting cats, 139 participated: 55 operated by municipalities (40%), 70 privately run (50%), and 14 privately managed but functioning under municipal contracts (10%). Among all respondents, 115 (83%) reported that they perform some form of retrovirus testing, most of them using dual point-of-care tests designed to detect FeLV antigen and FIV antibodies at the same time. Within the facilities that conducted testing, 56 (49%) screened every cat for FeLV, while 52 (45%) screened all cats for both viruses. The most frequent motives for running tests were to assess cats intended for adoption (108; 94%) and those being prepared for transfer (78; 68%). The category in which testing was least common involved cats passing through trap-neuter-return/return-to-field initiatives (21; 18%). For cats confirmed positive, the outcomes most frequently reported were adoption (74; 64%), transfer to other organizations (62; 54%), and euthanasia (49; 43%). Euthanasia occurred more often after a FeLV-positive result (49; 43%) than after an FIV-positive result (29; 25%), and was disproportionately used by municipal programs, rural facilities, shelters with annual admissions below 500, and shelters with feline live-release rates under 70%. Although Florida shelters showed wide variation in how closely they follow national recommendations for identifying and managing FeLV- or FIV-positive cats, many still provided at least one live outcome option for infected animals. Broader access to educational resources and operational tools could help shelters design economical testing strategies, decrease the likelihood of viral spread, and improve the prospects of infected cats.
