The LRC team provides a range of quotes and references on key approaches and techniques.
- Mandated cat controlling approaches have not been successful
- Mandatory / legislated practices are not effective
- Domestic cat containment: mandatory containment has not proven successful nor have cat curfews
- Mandated desexing has not proven successful
- Negative impacts on staff and volunteers at council pounds & shelters with high euthanasia rates
- Negative impacts on cat carers where lethal methods have been used to kill cats
- Cat Management – successful approaches
- 1080, the Felixer Machine and the Minister’s promotion of the draft TAP
Mandated cat controlling approaches have not been successful
Mandatory / legislated practices are not effective
It is of great concern for any “mandatory” legislated practices for pet/owned cats as they have not been proven to be successful for a range of reasons. Domestic cat management practices which have not been proven to be successful include “mandatory registration, identification [microchipping], desexing and containment to the owner’s property (or equivalent control… and… mandatory cat prohibition zones” (refer APWF). Continuing to promote these in government documents (such as the draft Threat Abatement Plan, Invasive Species Council documents and council documents) as strong mandates is misleading without the scientific evidence-based research as proof these are effective and cost efficient.
We view these unsuccessful legislated mandates as inefficient and a waste of funds/ not as value for money, which will take a toll in not applying effective and proven techniques to achieve reducing the numbers of all cats.
The APWF assessment is fully supported: “The draft TAP reflects lack of consultation with expert scientists in contemporary urban cat management. The proposed actions in the plan regarding cat curfews, caps on cat ownership and restricting ownership of cats in local government areas demonstrates a lack of understanding of the cause of the free-roaming cat problem in our cities and towns based on current Australian research. Therefore, the proposed solutions are highly flawed, will be costly to enforce and will be ineffective at protecting wildlife populations of concern.” APWF Response to draft TAP https://petwelfare.org.au/response-to-draft-tap/
The APWF is strongly supported in their assessment and recommendations in relation to cat management approaches for stray cats, being semi owned and unowned domestic cats, which includes:
“Changes to state and local government bylaws are urgently required to allow management of owned, semi-owned and unowned cats using scientifically proven, best-practice methodologies.” (page 19)
“Notably, there are no reports in the Australian or international literature of high intensity trapadopt-or kill programs being successful at the city or suburb level.” (page 20)
Click to access APWF-Submission-to-Inquiry-of-Feral-Domestic-Cats-2020.22.jr_.n-t.pdf
Domestic cat containment: mandatory containment has not proven successful nor have cat curfews
Mandated desexing has not proven successful
https://www.ava.com.au/policy-advocacy/advocacy/unwanted-companion-animals/mandatory-desexing/
Click to access Mandatory%20Desexing%20in%20the%20ACT%20-%20Has%20it%20worked,%20Dr%20Michael%20Hayward.pdf
Negative impacts on staff and volunteers at council pounds & shelters with high euthanasia rates
[references to be included]
Negative impacts on cat carers where lethal methods have been used to kill cats
[references to be included]
Cat Management – successful approaches
“The scientific basis for contemporary community cat programs shows that when high intensity desexing of all cats, targeted to areas of high cat impoundments or complaints, is combined with components of trap-adopt-or-return home methods, this can be successful in managing semi-owned and unowned cats in urban areas. There are now half a dozen publications documenting the basis for successful trap-adopt-or-return home programs at the suburb or city level (Levy et al. 2014, Spehar 2017, 2018a, 2018b & 2019, Kreisler et al. 2019). And in contrast to lethal programs that have little public support, non-lethal programs attract support from welfare agencies, rescue groups and individuals who help contribute to the cost.” (page 20)
NSW Pound Inquiry submissions webpage / https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/APWF-Submission-to-Inquiry-of-Feral-Domestic-Cats-2020.22.jr_.n-t.pdf
Community Cat Programs have proven successful
Return to field (RTF) and Trap Neuter Return programs have proven successful
[references to be included]
High intensity (mass) free desexing programs have proven successful
“In Banyule City Council (Melbourne, Victoria) in the third year after implementing a high-intensity
free desexing program (a community cat program) targeted to where cat-related calls and
impoundments were occurring in Banyule (typically the low socio-economic areas):
- impoundments decreased by 61%
- euthanasia decreased by 74%
- cat-related calls decreased by 64% (from 11 to 4 cat calls/1000 residents)
Since 2013, Banyule has spent $60,000 on its free desexing program and saved $397,500 on cat
impoundment costs alone (Cotterell 2021, Banyule City Council 2020).”
APWF Submission for the NSW Pound Inquiry https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Inquiry-into-pounds-in-NSW-APWF-submission-final.pdf
In 2020 Jenny Cotterell, then the Animal Management Officer (AMO) for Banyule Council recommended to the Australian government:
“To implement free cat desexing programs throughout Australia. The cost of the program itself is considerably less than the price that cats, vets, shelter workers and AMOs currently pay for running trap, impound and adopt or kill programs.”
This was based on the successful cat desexing program Jenny championed at Banyule over a number of years which started with a wish list involving:
- “Completely free cat desexing
- The implantation of a microchip so the cats could be traced back to an owner
- Free council registration for the first year
- A transport service provided by council AMOs for those that had none”.
Submission #141 Inquiry into the problem of feral and domestic cats in Australia https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Former_Committees/Environment_and_Energy/Feralanddomesticcats/Submissions
One Welfare approaches for solutions rather than negative enforcement
One welfare approaches delivering support to communities and their pets have proven successful (rather than enforcement and kill approaches) and aligns with council Animal Management Officers evolving to proactive community support over enforcement of legislation etc
“Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement” https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/10/1902
1080, the Felixer Machine and the Minister’s promotion of the draft TAP
It appears that the inhumane techniques for poisoning feral and now stray cats (proposed in the draft TAP) is, in our opinion, hitting new heights of misleading information and lows for humane treatment of feral and now stray cats. These draft TAP and related proposals are strongly opposed.
1080
1080 is an inhumane poison that is not instant and not painless, likened to being electrocuted for days and will kill native animals as well as introduced species, It has been banned in other countries for decades, our governments must cease using 1080 (RSPCA, Howard Ralph Veterinarian, Animal Liberation Australia),
The FELIXER Machine
The Felixer Machine, inappropriately named after a domestic cat icon, for which developers admit there are faults / software bugs, likelihood of hitting other native animals (quolls, dingo pups), and constraints with AI and photo identifications being based on human intervention, with potential to be used on domestic cats in suburban areas (PetSmart/Invasive Species Solutions, Thylation the developers)
The Minister’s presentation to launch the new draft TAP (video) promoting 1080 and the Felix Machine on Channel 9
- The blurring of the lines between feral cats and domestic cats, mainly in the form of the images used, and the lack of mentioning that the feral cat term in the draft TAP is proposed to be expanded for stray cats who are domestic semi owned and domestic unowned cats, ie that stray cats may also be targets for the Felixer Machine, shooting programs and increased baiting
- Video of a domestic cat in a typical suburban backyard is used during the initial discussion of the Felixer Machine to lure feral cats
- Multiple images of cats used throughout the program are likely domestic cats, as feral cats avoid humans and would not be still even for a photo
- The Thylaton representative describing that a cat hit with the highly toxic poison “dies quite peacefully” which is incorrect
- Tanya confidently claiming “cats kill about six million animals every night in Australia” repeating the misleading figures based on assumptions rather than evidence based science
- The program also includes that feral cat shooting programs, increased use of baiting will be used without any further explanation
LRC 