FAQ NSW Inquiry Mgmt of Cat Populations

Significant evidence, findings and recommendations were provided by a range of animal welfare experts in their submissions, hearing sessions, and further documents, including: the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF), the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) NSW, the Cat Protection Society (CPS) NSW, and Animal Welfare League (AWL) NSW, and many others.

1. Why was voluntary cat containment supported instead of mandatory containment?
2. Why were the impacts to wildlife from domestic cats questioned?
3. Was there a lack of evidence to consider mandatory cat containment?

“A major issue that emerged throughout the inquiry was cat containment or cat curfews, and whether or not this should be mandatory. Overall, many believed that there are benefits to voluntary cat containment, but that the potential negative consequences of mandatory or punitive cat containment laws make them unworkable in New South Wales at present. It was apparent to the committee that there is currently insufficient evidence that mandatory cat containment and cat curfew laws are effective, and in fact they could have adverse consequences including the costs imposed on councils and significant increases in euthanasia rates. The committee encourages the Government to fund educational and behaviour-change programs so as to foster the voluntary adoption of cat containment within the community.” https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3011#tab-reportsandgovernmentresponses

The RSPCA NSW provided evidence from the Keeping Cats Safe at Home program for the effectiveness in rapidly increasing cat containment across a number of NSW councils through an owner change behaviour program involving a number of initiatives.

The RSPCA “Answers to Supplementary Questions” response is summarised as it contained a significant amount of information, with justification for their recommendations for not supporting mandatory cat containment. This is a very information document covering many related subjects. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3011#tab-otherdocuments

KCSAH positive outcomes exceeded many targets:

• Significant reductions in roaming cat populations in key council areas:
  o Blue Mountains: 25% reduction
  o Campbelltown: 35% reduction
  o Tweed Shire: 50% reduction
• Decrease in nuisance complaints related to roaming cats:
  o Over 40% decrease in seven project councils.
  o Over 60% decrease in four project councils.
• Reductions in the number of cats impounded by councils:
  o Blue Mountains: 54% decrease
  o Campbelltown: 59% decrease
  o Parramatta: 73% decrease
  o Kyogle & Walgett: 100% decrease”

RSPCA NSW KCSAH beyond desexing, involved holistic human behaviour change program initiatives included:

• “A tailored behaviour change strategy was developed in consultation with expert Dr
  Lynette McLeod.
• A dedicated email newsletter (“The Cat-ch Up!”) with over 4,000 subscribers providing
  ongoing cat care advice and support.
• A comprehensive social marketing campaign, including radio, TV, and social media
  outreach reached more than 3.5 million people.
• School-based education programs engaged over 1,400 children and normalised
  responsible cat ownership from an early age.
• More than 30 community events directly engaging over 36,000 people.
• Information resources distributed through more than 80 partner veterinary clinics,
  councils, and rehoming organisations.”

The RSPCA opposes mandatory containment for a number of reasons, including:

“Lack of evidence that containment laws are effective“.

“There is an unacceptable welfare impost on cats. Not all cats can be contained without
suffering poor welfare. Some cats struggle with full-time containment due to their
behavioural needs.

Not all cat caregivers can contain cats where they live. Renters, and people with less
disposable income are likely to be disproportionately affected, as many landlords do not allow indoor cats or pet modifications, and containment infrastructure (e.g. catios, secure fencing) can be costly.

Mandatory containment is likely to lead to increased surrenders and abandonment. Pet
owners who cannot comply due to financial or housing constraints may be forced
to surrender or abandon their cats, placing greater burdens on council pounds and animal
welfare organisations that are already struggling with overpopulation.

Mandating cat containment undermines unowned cat management efforts. Many unowned cats (semi-owned cats) rely on informal caregivers who provide food and care but do not consider themselves owners. Adding legal containment requirements will discourage these caregivers from taking on ownership responsibility, undermining interventions designed to manage and reduce unowned cat populations through desexing and support programs.”

AND detailed additional concerns related to the cost of living crisis, including:

“Financial burden on pet owners“

“Disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups“

“Increased pressure on pounds & rescue organisations“

Why were the impacts to wildlife from domestic cats questioned?

Was there a lack of evidence to consider mandatory cat containment?