Negative consequences of mandated cat containment

The mandatory containment flaws and negative consequences in brief include:

• mandatory cat containment does not provide a value for money proposition – the costs to implement and enforce are excessive and still do not provide an effective solution as experienced by a number of Australian councils, can be a disincentive and likely will force people on low incomes to abandon their cats and kittens making the cat crisis worse
• mandatory cat containment is not cost/ justified as other humane solutions provide value and benefits for minimising the growing cat populations and impacts on wildlife – it has been proven that it is more cost effective to support funded desexing and human behaviour change programs than a myriad of legislations, policies, processes, management, administration and enforcement teams, refer to the Banyule Council research which showed a four-fold in savings over costs, and achieved payback/ return on investment in around a year or so
• mandatory cat containment systems are viewed as inhumane solutions involving increases in euthanasia rates, removal of people’s pets, mental and emotional impacts to vets and teams, and to rescuers and carers, not aligned with One Welfare approaches and are likely increasing animal cruelty to all roaming cats who will be deemed “illegal”.

1. Flaws and failings of mandatory cat containment
   1. NSW Inquiry major finding
   2. RSPCA NSW significant concerns based on scientific evidence
   3. The APWF significant concerns for mandatory cat containment based on scientific evidence
2. What does work / is most effective for the cat crisis? DESEXING PROGRAMS & BEHAVOUR CHANGE PROGRAMS!
   1. The APWF Submission to NSW Inquiry management of cat populations included successful approaches
   2. The RSPCA KCSAH positive outcomes from desexing and human behaviour change program exceeded many targets

Flaws and failings of mandatory cat containment

The flaws and failings are numerous and sometimes simple, sometimes complex which leads to poor welfare outcomes for cats and the communities.

NSW Inquiry major finding

Under the NSW Inquiry management of cat populations, a number of domestic cat experts raised concerns for the flaws and negative consequences from cat containment.

The Inquiry findings and recommendations are fully supported as it provided the most recent appropriate, effective, humane and proven improvements for cat management, and specifically the proven holistic humane behaviour change program for cat containment, which integrated assist with reducing impacts for wildlife.

“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

RSPCA NSW significant concerns based on scientific evidence

The RSPCA NSW made it very clear they do NOT support mandatory cat containment in their submission, during the hearings and in supplementary documents for the NSW Inquiry.

RSPCA supplementary document includes:

“Rather than rushing to introduce containment laws without proper funding and capacity building in a targeted way across NSW, the focus should be on expanding voluntary containment education, incentive-based programs, and humane management strategies, all of which have already demonstrated successful outcomes in reducing roaming cat populations.”

During the 16 December 2024 hearings for the recent Inquiry Management of Cat Populations NSW, Gemma Ma Project Manager for Keeping Cats Safe At Home program, Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, provided the RSPCA position on mandatory cat containment, including:

• cat owners using enclosures and containment techniques is increasing
• cat containment is becoming a social norm
• the RSPCA KCSAH program included a targeted program for human change in relation to encourage the uptake of containment practices.

RSPCA findings include seeing no value in punitive containment laws

“There is no evidence that education and targeted behaviour change programs are ineffective without containment laws. The results of the KCSAH evaluation (described above and attached herewith) demonstrate the opposite. The important point is that education-based approaches, when coupled with complementary strategies such as subsidised desexing, microchipping, and behaviour change programs, have been shown to be highly effective in increasing voluntary cat containment.”

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

• “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“
  • “Lack of evidence that containment laws are effective“.

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. More examples of key information can be found in our blog RSPCA NSW Cat Containment: Educate & promote, do not mandate – LRC

The APWF significant concerns for mandatory cat containment based on scientific evidence

Traditional and current punitive practices were found to be ineffective, and mandated containment was researched and found ineffective across many Australian councils.

Mandated cat containment was found to be punitive and costly, with higher euthanasia rates putting further burdens on vets, their staff and the community.

“The APWF is strongly opposed to mandated cat containment (night curfews and 24/7) because
it is ineffective in preventing free-roaming cats and therefore unsuccessful at protecting wildlife,
and is a barrier to reducing free-roaming cats and associated issues.”

APWF also includes

• “Cat containment should be encouraged and facilitated, but not mandated”
• “Efforts to reduce the domestic cat population through culling or adoption alone have proven ineffective”
• Mandatory containment laws “fail to address the root cause: the lack of reproductive control among domestic cats”
• “Mandating containment is not effective in increasing cat containment. It also leads to unrealistic expectations in the community that they will not see a wandering cat, resulting in increased cat related complaints. When implemented, mandated containment increases cat-related complaints, cat impoundments, cat euthanasia, and costs to local governments and shelters”
• “In Australia, mandated 24/7 cat containment is already proven to be a failure at reducing wandering cats in both the short, medium and long-term. This is supported by the following data…” and APWF provide information from
  • RSPCA Australia ““Overall, local governments with cat containment regulations have not been able to demonstrate any measurable reduction in cat complaints or cats wandering at large following the introduction of the regulations”
  • the City of Yarra Ranges [detailed data]
  • City of Casey (Victoria) [detailed data]
  • City of Ipswich in Queensland [data]
  • “Most USA jurisdictions have repealed their cat leash laws because they found they were unenforceable (Smithfield Virginia USA 2003, Edmonds City Council Washington USA 2012, Gretna City Council LA USA 2014, Hughes 2002, Alley Cat Allies 2022)”
• “Enforcement of mandated 24/7 cat containment is problematic and essentially impossible for several reasons…” including “Increases exposure to risk of severe mental health impacts for staff and community members, including depression, traumatic stress, and increased suicide risk associated with euthanasia of healthy and treatable cats and kittens”
• “Mandated cat containment creates a significant disincentive for cat ownership, reducing adoptions and increasing euthanasia rates.”
• “Mandated cat containment increases cat relinquishment and abandonment due to the added responsibility and potential penalties imposed on owners (RSPCA SA 2021-2022a).”

“Some local governments recognize that mandatory 24/7 containment is not an effective
strategy for reducing the number of roaming cats and have therefore decided against
implementation, such as city of Greater Geelong Council in Victoria. As quoted by Cr Cadwell “The
financial cost burden the policy would have imposed upon residents on low fixed incomes may
have required them to give up their cat, which in many cases may be their only companion,” Cr
Cadwell said. “That’s not something I could support, particularly in a cost-of-living crisis. There
was a lack of detail in regard to how this would work for registered cat owners living in rental
accommodation, given that there would have been a substantial investment on the part of the
tenant to comply with the policy and still allow for their cat to have time outside.”

These issues have been explained in detail by the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation submission, and for which Jacquie Rand and other animal welfare experts provided further advice during and after the hearings. The APWF submission was significant in content.

For more detailed issues and data from APWF, please refer to their position statement https://petwelfare.org.au/position-statements/cat-containment

Our blog summarises key concerns for rescuers and carers. 2024 Nov APWF Submission NSW Inquiry managing cat populations – LRC

What does work / is most effective for the cat crisis? DESEXING PROGRAMS & BEHAVOUR CHANGE PROGRAMS!

Every domestic cat expert agrees that humane desexing programs and improvements in education and coaching are the way forward to address the cat populations growing.

The APWF Submission to NSW Inquiry management of cat populations included successful approaches

“Instead of mandated desexing and fines for non-compliance, it is highly recommended free and affordable desexing be provided by local governments and animal welfare agencies.”

High intensity desexing initiatives (page 5) includes:

“This is critically important to address the number of free-roaming domestic cats, because more than 50% of cats entering shelters and pounds in Australia were born in the last 6 months…

Australian research suggests that in areas of high cat impoundments and cat-related calls to councils, owned cats and semi-owned cats contribute similarly to number of kittens being born.

Programs for free and highly subsidized cat registration, microchipping and desexing for owned cats, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage are essential. However, stopping litters from semi-owned and unowned cats is also essential.”

APWF also includes:

• “Evidence shows that preventive strategies aimed at decreasing intake are more effective at reducing costs and euthanasia than strategies focused on increasing adoptions”
• Approaches which research have proven to achieve these desired outcomes include Community Cat Programs (CCPs) involving high-intensity cat desexing and microchipping programs targeted to areas with highest impound rates or cat-related calls, coupled with assistive programs to help vulnerable people care for their cats rather than surrender them. These need to be supported by state legislation and local bylaws which facilitate effective management of domestic cats rather than presenting barriers to adoption, microchipping and desexing of stray cats.”
• “To reduce free-roaming domestic cats, legislation and policy need to reflect an understanding of the true causes of the problem and must pursue solutions that are shown scientifically to be effective.”
• “Programs for free and highly subsidized cat registration, microchipping and desexing for owned cats, especially in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage are essential. However, stopping litters from semi-owned and unowned cats is also essential.”
• “Community Cat Programs involve high-intensity free desexing, microchipping and registration of owned, semi-owned and unowned cats targeted to areas of high cat intake and complaints, combined with assisting vulnerable people to keep their cats. Community Cat Programs are proven to be very effective at reducing shelter and pound cat intake and euthanasia, complaints and costs… Community Cat Programs are also very effective at assisting semi-owners to desex and adopt the domestic cats they are feeding and continue to feed and care for their cat, significantly reducing the number of unwanted kittens born.”
• “Recognizing these not-for-profit (NFP) community foster networks and rescue groups and individuals would acknowledge their substantial contributions to managing stray and semi-owned cats that are not typically impounded or cared for by approved rehoming organizations. The overpopulation of cats is a community issue, and many community members are fulfilling roles traditionally assigned to authorised officers. Additionally, community members are generally reluctant to involve officers in trapping programs, fearing that unsocialized and/or ill cats will be impounded and subsequently euthanised. This concern can erode trust in larger animal welfare facilities, underscoring the importance of supporting and legitimising the efforts of smaller, community-driven rescue initiatives.”

https://petwelfare.org.au/government-submissions/new-south-wales

The RSPCA KCSAH positive outcomes from desexing and human behaviour change program 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”