April 2026, and there is an introduced bill essentially for mandatory cat containment, with a review of the NSW Companion Animal Act underway, with lack of transparency for all stakeholders.
What could possibly go wrong?
Especially for stray / domestic semi owned and unowned cats for which there is little definition in the current CA Act with a bill introduced by Sue Higgens which is flawed and lacks detail, and a flawed Greens NSW Cat Management Plan that appears to be back in their team for “more work”.
The NSW Inquiry included extensive evidence from a range of domestic cat experts, and from conservationists and wildlife rescuers.
There is no clarification as to which evidence-based recommendations were excluded or why.
Animal welfare experts did not agree with this suggestion.
Animal welfare experts did not agree with this suggestion for companion animals.
Extensive concerns were raised by a number of domestic cat experts on the negative consequences associated with mandatory cat containment.
Mandated cat containment “looks like a good idea” but fails on multiple levels and consequences. Cat containment is promoted and used by many.
RSPCA NSW findings include that already cat containment is becoming a social norm and the number of cat owners using enclosures and containment techniques is increasing.
The recent NSW Inquiry found “there are benefits to voluntary cat containment, but that the potential negative consequences of mandatory or punitive cat containment laws make them unworkable… there is currently insufficient evidence that mandatory cat containment and cat curfew laws are effective, and in fact they could have adverse consequences“.
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”.
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
Aussie Research: Rethinking Urban Cat Management—Limitations and Unintended Consequences of Traditional Cat Management
“”Australia’s management of free-roaming cats has traditionally relied on legislative mandates requiring cat owners to confine, sterilize, register, and microchip their cats, with penalties for non-compliance. However, these enforcement-driven policies face significant challenges. They are costly for local governments, resource-intensive, and fail to address the root causes of free-roaming cat populations, such as financial barriers and the prevalence of semi-owned or stray cats, particularly in disadvantaged areas.”
“Animal management officers are central to enforcing these measures, often issuing fines and trapping cats identified as causing a nuisance. Despite these efforts, compliance remains low, and issues like high shelter intakes, cat-related complaints, and euthanasia persist. Moreover, the punitive nature of these policies can place additional financial strain on vulnerable communities and negatively impact the mental health of animal management officers and shelter staff. This approach, focused on penalties, addresses symptoms rather than systemic issues. A shift toward addressing the root causes—through financial support, including support for cat sterilization, resource accessibility, and community engagement—presents a more effective and compassionate solution. Such strategies benefit both the cats and their caregivers while reducing the burden on local governments, promoting sustainable and humane outcomes for communities while better protecting wildlife.” https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/15/7/1005
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 [data provided by APWF]
City of Casey (Victoria) [data provided by APWF]
City of Ipswich in Queensland [data provided by APWF]
“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.
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.
Aussie Research: Urban Cat Management in Australia—Evidence-Based Strategies for Success
“Traditional management strategies, such as containment laws, impounding, and fines, have proven ineffective, particularly in low-income areas, where most free-roaming cats are found. Some are unidentified owned cats, but many are stray cats being cared for by semi-owners—community members who care for them without formally adopting them. Financial barriers to sterilization and cat containment in these communities contribute to unplanned litters, the maintenance of free-roaming cat populations, and continuing complaints. This paper explores the limitations of enforcement-based cat management through the lens of the One Welfare framework, underscoring the holistic benefits of an assistive approach. Offering free cat sterilization, microchipping, and registration services to owners and semi-owners, especially in disadvantaged areas, promotes a more effective, humane solution that advances animal welfare while addressing social and community well-being and decreasing the risk to wildlife. Such programs have significantly reduced the numbers of cats impounded and euthanized, lowered cat-related complaints, enhanced cat welfare, and strengthened trust and cooperation between authorities and communities. Legislative changes are required to optimize the effectiveness of these programs.” https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/15/8/1083
The RSPCAKCSAH 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”
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.”
Across Australia many rescuers and carers as volunteers are providing assistance to the once abandoned cats in urban areas. With care, food, and desexing, these little ones have opportunities to be rehomed. This involves the hierarchy of organisations from rescue groups, veterinary practices, rehoming organisations and animal welfare organisations too.
The latter in New South Wales includes the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) NSW, Animal Welfare League (AWL) NSW and the Cat Protection Society (CPS) NSW.
There are many domestic cat experts who have provided evidence and recommendations to the recent Inquiry for Management of Cat Populations NSW, and experts from other countries with highly relevant experiences applicable to the current review of legislation. This is a small sample of the advice and benefits for improving legislation to assist and enable to processes and the hard grunt by many volunteers in supporting animal welfare for the once abandoned community cats in urban areas.
Sydney cat rescuers’ recommendation to NSW government
In a request for increased funding and related initiatives to achieve more rapid results in addressing cat management issues, the following recommendation was included.
“It is strongly recommended that the NSW Review of the Companion Animals Act include the definition as, or close to as, proposed by ACA for community cats, caregivers, and TNR or desexing community cats, etc. Legal clarification across the whole state of NSW is essential. It is critical that humane care and other activities with community cats are deemed legal. This will also enable individuals, organisations and charities assist with support and funding with these activities, and provide a sound base for councils with rescuers and carers.”
APWF Recommendations for legislative Improvements for community cats and programs
“Legislation should explicitly recognise and enable Community Cat Programs, which provide humane, cost-effective solutions for managing semi-owned and unowned cats while reducing nuisance complaints and shelter intake. Case studies show that when carers are supported rather than penalised, outcomes improve for animals, residents, and local governments alike. The outcomes need to be aligned with One Welfare principles and balance and optimise the well-being of animals, people, and the environment.”
“Abolish registration for cats and increase the effectiveness of microchipping for returning lost cats home.”
“Recognise and support the role of managed community cat programs, including in urban areas with highest cat impoundments and complaints, farms and in Indigenous and remote communities, as essential to both animal and environmental health.”
“We recommend urgent reform of current laws to ensure cats are classified using the RSPCA Australia (2018) definitions of ‘domestic’ cats, as those who rely on humans for food and/or shelter, whether owned, semi-owned, or unowned. Classification must be based on how and where the cat lives, not behaviour exhibited after capture, as stress responses are common and should not be misinterpreted as indicators of temperament, sociability, or whether the cat is feral or domestic.”
“Additionally, removing legislative barriers is essential; this involves permitting the sterilization of cats cared for by semi-owners without requiring formal ownership, with cats microchipped and the secondary contact and phone numbers are for an organisation (welfare or rescue group) or business (for farm and factory cats)(Crawford 2025) and allowing Return to Field (RTF) programs in areas without conservation concerns. These return to field programs involve returning unclaimed, healthy stray cats that would otherwise be euthanised, to the address they were found, after desexing, microchipping and ear-tipping.”
International Cat Care recommendation for community cats and TNR
It is strongly recommended that this ICatCare Australia 18-month strategies and initiatives are incorporated in to the NSW review of the Companion Animal Act, and associated strategy planning for cat management. ICC recognise the value of improving upstream initiatives to address root causes of cats being abandoned and surrendered, or left un desexed. Leveraging the ICatCare strategy recommendations will improve the animal welfare and minimise the growing cat populations.
The key strategic objectives and phases (steps) for community cats, and their rescuers and carers include the following, though all areas are of interest and value to consider.
“5. Promote, support, and help scale effective TNR models [noting a primary model is desexing of community cats under managed colonies in a semi owned arrangement]: Identify and strengthen existing TNR programmes, support best practice, and lay the groundwork for legal recognition of regulated TNR as part of mainstream cat population management where appropriate and effective.”
It is strongly recommended that the NSW Review of the Companion Animals Act include the definition as, or close to as, proposed by ACA for community cats, caregivers, and TNR or desexing community cats, etc, which includes their groundbreaking laws to save cats’ lives.
Refer to Alley Cats Allies webpage for guidance on cat ordnance / legal specifications. For decades, ACA has been assisting improving legal obligations to provide best outcomes for cats and those who care for them. They have provided a guideline which is beneficial for assessing and improving existing specifications and practices. This includes definitions for community cats, caregivers and TNR [most commonly used for desexing of community cats in urban areas].
Legal clarification across the while state of NSW is essential. It is critical that humane care and other activities with community cats are deemed legal. This will also enable individuals, organisations and charities assist with support and funding with these activities, and provide a sound base for councils with rescuers and carers.
Flatbush Cats NYC improvement with Mayor Mamdani
The Flatbush organisation is well known and respected, based around New York city they seek to humanly end the cat overpopulation crisis with cats being abandoned, over crowded shelters and community cats on the streets. They have three main focus areas: “Access to Veterinary Care” with a nonprofit clinic, “Community Cat Support” TNR predominantly desexing of street/ community cats, and “Foster & Adoption” meaning rehoming for the once abandoned cats.
Flatbush has been addressing the cat crisis in New York , and recently produced ground breaking podcasts titled Underfoot covering the issues and the approaches needed for improvements.
The team has also produced an additional episode “What Mayor Mamdani Can Do to Fix NYC’s Animal Welfare Crisis” . This is significantly relevant to our NSW cat crisis covering cost-of-living, housing, and that the number of intact non-desexed pets has been growing. The major issue is funding, significant investments in affordable vet care (especially for desexing). Community outreach and education / communication is also key in building connections and aligning community pet owners with the resources.
These issues are being raised with the new Mayor Zohran Mamdani. In NSW, we need to shift the mind set of traditional ineffective methods to be open to leveraging techniques being proven in New York the biggest municipality in the USA, such as low costs clinics (which has commenced but is limited in NSW at this time) and specifically desexing.
Legislative improvements will benefit addressing the hate towards cats and cat rescuers & carers
Minister Ron Hoenig spoke during parliament on responding to hate following the horrific attack in Bondi. We believe that the concern for hate is appreciated to all classes of people. Minister Ron included:
“There is no place for hate, fear, intimidation or violence in this state… If you propose to incite hate, fear, intimidation or violence towards another person or class of persons you will be met with the most severe consequences. The priority of all levels of government is to ensure the safety of its citizens regardless of their individual characteristics or their religion.” https://www.facebook.com/reel/1645976230106800
Community cat caregivers (rescuers and carers) are similar in their compassion and characteristics in volunteering their time, finances and efforts to rescue and rehome community cats.
Hate towards all cats and domestic cats in urban areas still continues and appears to have increased with the lodging and communications of the Control of Cats bill and its mandatory cat containment change.
If cat culling in targeted LGAs/ councils begins then it will definitely encourage more harm and violence to cats and their caregivers everywhere in NSW. Cat haters will not respect LGA boundaries, especially as these are generally unmarked. There are examples of cat haters boasting to treat domestic cats as feral cats (shoot, poison etc) or take roaming cats from their suburbs and abandon the cats is native bushland or suburbs far from an owner’s property.
Legislative improvements will also assist with addressing cat hate and hate towards the class of volunteers we call cat rescuers and carers.
Currently, there appears unabated division across communities, with vastly different council approaches and disparate cat welfare systems contributing to, rather than addressing hate towards cats, owners and caregivers.
February 2025 Recent new research has evidence that TNR & feeding does assist in reducing impacts to wildlife.
TinyKittens group played an integral part in this leading research.
This was based in a farm and provides the controls to determine the benefits of a colony or group of community cats.
These are domestic cats, commonly known as “strays” or “semi owned” in Australia. See our last image as to why this is relevant to Australia.
TinyKittens group played an integral part in this leading research.
The impacts to wildlife are a significant concern in Australia.
Most stray / semi owned / community cats reside in urban areas.
LRC recommends that instead of broad brushing impacts, each Local Government Area should complete studies of the wildlife which is at risk and the community cats in their areas to provide specific priorities and plans to address the issues.
Stray or semi owned cats are domestic cats, who once being abandoned, have come under the care of other people. This is usually for food, then also desexing and medical care, and rehoming.
It is something that is commonsense that for many (maybe not all) cats, if you feed them well, then they are less likely to hunt for their own food. Remember this are domestic cats who are used to being fed by humans and continue to be reliant on people in urban landscapes.
This research provides evidence that this is the case.
This research provides the proof / evidence that managed colonies including TNR (desexing and returning to a location) and feeding, assist with minimising impacts to wildlife.
In Australia, one of the main concerns to dismiss TNR for semi owned cats in urban areas is often the view that “all cats hunt”.
This research proves that that is not true for all cats. We do not dispute that some cats may still hunt. LRC supports a number of initiatives for effective and efficient cat management.
It is rational to recognise that humans changing, replacing or removing native landscapes will impact all native species. A new study confirms that impacting natural native landscapes affects the stability of bird species and communities including in urban areas. The scientists recommend protecting and restoring functional resilience of bird species and assemblages – for example, protecting native habitats and restoring degraded (developed) environments.
This new study brings together a vast set of information to date, including “3,696 bird species in 1,281 focal assemblages worldwide, sampled across land-use gradients from primary vegetation to urban habitats”.
The authors suggest “that the long-term impacts of land-use change may be underestimated” and recommend further research.
Human developments that involve significant change to natural native environments are the primary driver of bird biodiversity decline and turnover.
Though in some places birds may appear to be in adequate numbers, their role in the holistic ecosystems is significantly at risk.
Birds play an important role with dispersing seeds and controlling insect populations. As bird populations decline so do these beneficial influences on ecosystems.
While several species may share these roles, as birds decline so too does the collaborative and cumulative efforts. These are viewed as declines in surplus or buffer species, which places the bird communities at risk.
The authors view that these risks in even small declines may result in major functional changes.
Frequently asked questions, and responses to dispel myths and misunderstandings about the findings, recommendations and outcomes from the Inquiry Management of Cat Populations New South Wales (NSW).
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.
Why was voluntary cat containment supported instead of mandatory containment?
In summary, there was evidence that proved education with a targeted human (owner) change behaviour program provided a rapid uptake on cat containment in studied councils. There was a range of proven negative outcomes with mandating cat containment including excessive costs, lack of effectiveness(cats still roamed, unchipped), likely increase in abandoning due to punitive fines/ charges, likely increase in cruelty to roaming cats.
“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.
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? [WIP]
Was there a lack of evidence to consider mandatory cat containment? [WIP]
The Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) New South Wales (NSW) clearly indicated support for containing cats, but NOT for mandatory cat containment for many reasons, which was provided in their submission to the recent Inquiry Management of Cat Populations NSW.
This position was based on research including their own with a focus on the recent years of the Keeping Cats Safe At Home (KCSAH) program across over ten NSW councils.
This blog page has been created to assist with clarifying misleading interpretations that the RSPCA does support mandatory containment.
There is a wealth of substantiated information provided in the RSPCA submission for the Inquiry.
The RSPCA has shown increased uptake of cat containment through multiple initiatives in the KCSAH program over years with over ten NSW councils.
This proactive human behaviour change approach aligns with One Welfare approaches aligning human and animal welfare improvements.
RSPCA Representatives at Inquiry Hearings
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 Answers to Supplementary Questions
The RSPCA team were asked for further information on their cat containment change program under the Keeping Cats Safe at Home program funded by the NSW government, and associated findings.
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,
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:
“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“.
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.”
RSPCA does not support councils being given power to introduce cat containment laws at this time, with concerns including:
“an inherent unfairness in legislating when residents in one LGA will be subject to strict enforcement” while others are not
“legislation to promote behaviour change… cannot be at the risk of significant unintended consequences, including poor animal welfare outcomes”
RSPCA provides that “Mandating cat containment without adequate resourcing and preparation risks a range of negative outcomes” and detailed under the following:
“Increased deliberate harm and cruelty to roaming cats”
“Increased abandonment and surrender of owned cats”
“Increased “stray” cat intake and euthanasia at council pounds”
“Additional barriers to humane management of unowned cat populations”
RSPCA concludes with:
“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.”
Is Sue Higginson using similar propaganda techniques on domestic cats, as spread by Invasive Species Council, that then further negatively influences impacts and cruelty to animals? As aren’t these similar misleading techniques now appearing in her cat containment webpage and email generator together supporting for the Greens NSW Control of Cats bill?https://www.suehigginson.org/support_cat_containment_bill
During the Inquiry Management of Cat Populations hearing 1 April 2025, Sue Higginson requested a response to a Question on Notice to provide evidence “anything that links the work of the Invasive Species Council to what you’re suggesting is an increase or a prevalence of animal cruelty”. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3011
Sue Higgenson appears to be providing very misleading information to the public on her webpage & email generator to the Premier & Ministers
It is a significant concern that just like the Invasive Species Council, Sue has used overstated cat impacts, misleading information, blurring lines with general benefits of cat containment, misrepresenting a number of animal advocates who oppose mandatory cat containment, lack of understanding of actual number of wildlife in urban areas, and more to promote the Greens NSW bill. https://www.suehigginson.org/support_cat_containment_bill
Similar flaws are included in the template email that is addressed to yourself, available on Sue’s webpage for the public’s use.
Both the webpage and email webpage:
fail to be transparent that the intent of the Greens NSW bill is for mass culling of stray cats, regardless of these cats being recently unchipped lost or abandoned domestic cats, and the cats likely being assisted by carers and rescuers, and
significantly ignore the NSW Inquiry scientific evidence from experts, the findings and recommendations, including the positive and rapid outcomes form the RSPAC NSW holistic human behaviour change program increasing cat containment.
It appears that Sue’s claims that the bill is compassionate and balanced is fairly outrageous.
The Greens NSW Companion Animals Amendment (Control of Cats) Bill 2025 is in stark contrast and contrary with the recent Parliament Inquiry Management of cat populations in New South Wales with its proven rapid approach to increase cat containment and other proactive One Welfare solutionsunder its scope.
The NSW Government is taking the issue of cat management very seriously with a number of related Inquiries and reviews, including the shortage of vets, improving the performance of council pounds, cat management and review of the overly complex yet open to interpretation Companion Animals Act etc.
The recent formal Inquiry Management of Cat Populations, which included Greens NSW and other representatives, involved extensive engagement with leading domestic cat welfare experts, with their substantial scientifically proven evidence and outcomes, peer-reviewed formal research and cost/benefit analysis. During the hearings it was incredibly disturbing that Sue Higginson proposed “a different body or different people” to complete massive culling instead of professional vets under council pounds. Policy should follow animal welfare standards, evidence, effectiveness, ethics, and the Inquiry provided these, where the Greens NSW bill contains major flaws in all of these obligations.
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.https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3011
The Greens NSW bill is NOT supported as it will take our animal welfare approaches back decades with researched and proven failed techniques and outcomes. It does not represent a “a clear but simple legal duty on cat owners”. It represents a deadly intention for ALL roaming unchipped/registered cats, likely ceases most efforts to rescue and rehome semi owned and unowned cats (strays), and likely increases cruelty to all roaming cats.https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/bills/Pages/bill-details.aspx?pk=18825
NSW deserves evidence-based, compassionate, and effective cat management. The Greens NSW bill fails that test and will divert resources away from proven solutions, and punish vulnerable cat owners.
It appears the Greens NSW bill is NOT just to “prevent cats from escaping from places or from leaving places”. During the hearings Sue Higginson, Scott Barrett and Susan Carter raised mass cullings. There are further harsh flow-on implications as if all unchipped roaming cats are deemed illegal then so too for the efforts of many thousands of individuals and organisations who currently assist and rehome abandoned cats and kittens across NSW. may also be deemed illegal. Directly assisting roaming unchipped cats may cease for the Animal Welfare League NSW, Cat Protection Society NSW, over 100 rehoming organisations, and many thousands of independent community cat rescuers. Further, with pounds and rehoming organisations already at capacity, the Greens NSW bill effectively removes the community safety net that currently saves countless cats from euthanasia every year.
Under the Inquiry, cat management and containment to reduce impacts to wildlife was significantly considered with the most recent extensive evidence by a number of trusted organisations in the field, proven to reduce roaming and population size by treating root causes, and included in the Inquiry final report. These approaches were both humane and community supported, and cost-effective compared with enforcement and euthanasia-based systems.
It is understood our government is committed to assessing the policy implications to owners and communities, and provide better outcomes for both endangered native species and companion animals. In summary in relation to the Greens NSW bill, the Inquiry key findings were based on substantial evidence from relevant domestic cat experts and their organisations, including:
traditional and current punitive practices were found to be ineffective, and mandated containment was researched and found as ineffective across many Australian councils, as it is punitive and costly, with higher euthanasia rates putting further burdens on vets, their staff and the community. 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 https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/88514/0068%20Australian%20Pet%20Welfare%20Foundation.pdf
the leading effective humane One Welfare solutions to minimise the number of cats, rapidly increase cat containment, and therefore minimise impacts to wildlife included:
high intensity desexing, which has been substantiated by many animal welfare organisations across many councils in NSW, Queensland, and Victoria including APWF community cat programs, RSPCA NSW Keeping Cats Safe at Home desexing programs, Cat Protection Society NSW desexing services, Animal Welfare League NSW, etc and included as evidence in submissions etc under the Inquiry https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/committees/inquiries/Pages/inquiry-details.aspx?pk=3011#tab-submissions and
Greens NSW & cohorts appeared to have preset aims for culling cats / mass euthanasia
Disturbingly, during the Inquiry hearings, it became evident that a few committee representatives clearly had the intent for archaic mass culling, potentially with alternatives to the current animal welfare standards for humane euthanasia by council pound vets. Specific example comments from committee members Sue Higginson, Scott Barrett and Susan Carter are included below, which also include animal welfare experts strongly rejecting these ineffective and inhumane approaches.
From Sue Higginson’s comments during the Inquiry hearings, it appears there is a Greens NSW aim to target all roaming unchipped cats for mass euthanasia, in a manner potentially different to current humane standards by professional vets under our councils.
A traditional mass euthanasia approach by council pounds takes our animal welfare system back decades.
The Inquiry included evidence that these traditional culling methods are not effective.
The focus on mass culling cats appears strongly supported by Scott Barrett committee representative at the Inquiry hearings.
Animal welfare representatives at the hearing did not agree with culling roaming cats and were concerned about this focus. The approach of mass culling has not been effective including when triggered by mandatory cat containment under a cat management approach in urban and peri urban areas.
It appears the focus on mass culling cats was also supported by Sue Cater committee representative at the Inquiry hearings, and clearly not open to seeking a balanced approach and outcomes.
At the Inquiry, a number of animal welfare experts provided proven examples of the success of targeted domestic cat desexing programs which minimise cat populations and impacts to wildlife.
Funding for desexing programs is justified on a cost/benefit assessment, and if considered less cost than other negative approaches.
Greens NSW bill motivated by questionable generic wildlife impacts, while Inquiry evidence indicates more research is required for domestic cat impacts in specific conditions and target areas
Policy should be formed from science and not politics, nor fear.
The often quoted, dramatic wildlife impacts of domestic cats are derived from studies which have been analysed which identified a number of flaws and issues.
The most significant concern is that there have been few Australian based scientific studies on domestic cats, which has been augmented by many questionable assumptions based on feral cat research and selected studies from other countries.
The range of flaws and issues highlight the limitations of the to-date studies with domestic cats in urban and peri urban areas.
A number of animal welfare representatives are aware of the questionable cat impacts to wildlife.
Currently the flawed estimated impacts are applied uniformly across our nation and not tailored for the lack of native habitat conditions or wildlife densities in different cities, towns or Local Government Areas (LGAs).
It is not unusual for the national overstated estimates to be quoted at state/ territory level or even separate LGAs to incentivise the need for harsh treatment of all cats.
WIRES provided their view that other factors such as habitat loss have a worse impact to wildlife than cats. This aligns with Australia’s State of the Environment Report 2021) https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/biodiversity/key-findings.
The Greens NSW bill directly aimed at cats is being justified by dramatic impacts to wildlife which have not been justified in urban and peri urban areas of significantly compromised native habitat and native species.
During the Inquiry:
commitment to wildlife was shared by animal welfare organisations and advocates; and
a number of animal welfare advocates raised the need for more targeted Australian based domestic cat research to provide specific impacts to prioritise the areas of concern and to tailor and design appropriate and effective responses at a local level.
Greens NSW bill dismisses Inquiry evidence for voluntary cat containment rapidly increasing with education & change programs, and evidence for mandatory containment not being effective
During the Inquiry, containment was supported by many, research was provided on the effectiveness of human change approaches to rapidly increase uptake of cat containment, and evidence was provided where mandatory containment was not being effective and was costly.
Cost of living pressures mean more cats are being abandoned and adoption rates have dropped significantly. The council pounds and animal welfare shelters are limited in capacity and resources. There is a significant burden on volunteer community cat rescuers and carers.
These and other factors were included in the NSW Inquiry which advised against supporting mandatory containmentat this time due to negative consequences and costs, andincluded evidence on the success of increasing voluntary containment with positive and proactive education initiatives.
RSPCA NSW provided evidence from their Keeping Cats Safe at Home program across a number of NSW councils for its effective improvements with desexing, resulting in reducing cat nuisance complaints, impound numbers, and in increasing cat containment across NSW.
These desexing programs were accompanied with a range of human behaviour change program initiatives.
The Greens bill is contrary to the proven proactive human change program approach that rapidly increased cat containment across NSW, which was comprised of a range of proactive engagement activities developed with science
The RSPCA NSW achieved these results without punitive legislation, fines and penalties to cat owners.
RSPCA NSW provided information to the Inquiry in their submission, at the hearings, and further documents in relation to the Questions on Notice and Supplementary Questions. The latter was requested in response to a specific criticism by another hearing attendee, which the RSPCA NSW considered to “grossly misrepresents the program’s scope, activities, and outcomes”.
Greens NSW bill ignores that negative propaganda & mandatory containment influences increasing cruelty to cats
The significant concern for increasing cruelty towards cats was raised during the Inquiry, which is predominantly delivered from wildlife lobby groups demonising all cats, and then in response, community members expressing anger about roaming cats as they are certain the cats should already be contained.
The Sue Higginson requested evidence about the work of Invasive Species to the increase or prevalence of animal cruelty to cats as a Question on Notice following the hearing 1 April 2025.
The Greens NSW representatives, and presumably all committee members, received a documented set of examples indicating the trail similar to a waterfall of repetition of overstated misleading information from Invasive Species webpages and social media, that was negatively enhanced by other parties.
This trail of traditional and social media items, results with the internet being flooded with adverse views on all cats, which then affects search engines and Artificial Intelligence (AI) interpretations that are not able to discern quality versus flawed (shaky science) information.
Many cases of animal cruelty include justification of pet cats not staying on their own properties, e.g. Coffs Harbour. Recently in Sydney and Goulburn, there are repeated incidents of cats taken from their own properties to be harmed, and likely tortured, and killed. Current NSW Prevention of Cruelty to Animals legislation and funding is not adequate to address many of these cases where just boasted on social media with minimal evidence or where children are involved.
The Greens bill shows inadequacies and a lack of social licensing for the impacts of mandatory containment influencing cat haters to take actions into their own hands which has been seen in cat haters own social media posts on destroying cats in inhumane ways, and the inadequacies in POCTA responses to address these.
Greens NSW bill ignores and stops high intensity desexing solutions for semi owned cats, instead condemning these cats to die with trauma to semi owners
The Inquiry recommendations are underpinned by evidence of a number of successful Australian desexing programs, including those involving semi owned cats were provided to the Inquiry in submissions, and discussed in the hearings which were attended by Greens NSW committee members.
If mandatory containment is implemented for all cats then stray or semi owned and unowned cats will be deemed “illegal”, trapped and impounded and likely euthanased ASAP.
The Greens NSW bill ignores the Inquiry findings and recommendations that were based on “sound, peer-reviewed scientific evidence etc” and is aimed at culling all roaming unchipped cats in urban and peri urban areas. This is regardless of most of these cats being under the care of a community member and/or rescuer, and the bond that will be destroyed and the trauma caused to these people.
Currently we are waiting for the New South Wales government Ministers to declare the future intentions for managing cat populations amid the cat crisis.
While we see the potential for high intensity desexing in the “hardest” areas with significant numbers of undesexed cats, it is unknown how many councils will receive funding assistance, and the number who will not or what alternatives will be put in place.
We provide a brief guide to information that may assist residents of councils in approaching councils to self-fund and plan for their own initiatives.
Kickoff a conversation with your Mayor & Councillors
We strongly suggest you start at the top: your Mayor and Councillors. You will find their email contact information on your council webpage.
We suggest you get to know and follow your Mayor and local ward Councillors with events and on their social media and leverage any of their posts in relation to responsible pet ownership.
We also suggest you attach the LRC document on the compelling evidence on desexing programs in other Australia councils., and consider being prepared to discuss related topics.
Does your council already have a cat management plan / strategy? It may be embedded in a companion animal management plan or a dog and cat management plan. What is also available on your council website re pets? What does it currently explain? Are there off leash dog parks? Has the council designated any cat parks? Search your council website for this information.
What have been the reported statistics on the cats impounded and rehomed? All NSW councils’ pound data can be found under Animal Seizures – Pound Data from this webpage. Reported per year, a bit if a cumbersome document to access and read your council pound information, each year in a separate spreadsheet.
The LRC team have provided a subset of the most recent four years (draft a WIP) – refer subsection in this post.
Are you aware of your council’s reports/findings on biodiversity, including
which native animals that are most at risk and any specific council actions such as conservation fencing?
are you aware of the NSW Native Parks and Wild Life Protection Areas (WLPAs) where cats are not allowed to roam? WLPAs are usually council parks which are predominantly for people recreation that may contain native vegetation that is designated important for local native wildlife.
Are you aware of the following NSW government assessments, and did you and/or your council make submissions? ie are you aware of your council’s views on managing cats?
LRC Compelling Evidence of Australian Desexing Initiatives
The following summary of a number and range if Australian desexing initiatives is provided to be downloaded and attached to communications with Australian councils. We believe this provides:
We will appreciate if this document is sent as an attachment to your communications with your own council, and please highlight in your communication the councils and programs which will align with the characteristics / aspects of your council.
compelling evidence of the success of desexing programs
the underlying research of these programs indicates that the desexing programs are cost effective (achieving greater savings over costs), and
desexing programs are significantly less cost than traditional and ineffective culling approaches.
LRC Combined Councils’ Pound Cat Stats Reporting
The LRC team provide this combined spreadsheet for the most recent four years. This is a WIP and currently incorporating formatting from the original spreadsheets. Further tailoring and analysis is intended. The first file an Excel spreadsheet, the second is a PDF view.
NSW report from inquiry management of cat populations
The committee report was published 18 August 2025 and contains Findings and Recommendations. The recommendations in relation to desexing programs include the following. It is not yet known if the NSW state government is supporting and funding these recommendations. However, this will be of interest to local government/ councils and their cat management initiatives.
Recommendation 2 page 53 That the Government provide grants to councils and rescue and rehoming organisations to carry out free and subsidised desexing programs throughout the state, including desexing of ‘owned’ cats for those on lower incomes, and large-scale, targeted community cat desexing programs.
Recommendation 3 page 53 That the Government expand the capacity for high-volume desexing in New South Wales through animal welfare agencies, veterinary schools, and private veterinary practices.
Recommendation 4 page 53 To assist rural and regional councils with desexing programs, the NSW Government should investigate ways to provide additional support including but not limited to encouraging metropolitan veterinarians and mobile desexing programs to regularly visit rural and regional areas, providing this does not have a negative impact on local service providers.
Recommendation 5 page 53 That the Government, as part of its review of the Companion Animals Act 1998, consider legislative, regulatory and policy changes necessary to support the effectiveness and operation of community cat desexing programs.
Recommendation 6 page 54 That the Government provide funding to cat rescue and rehoming organisations to support desexing, care and rehoming costs.
On a cool windy Saturday morning in Martin Place near Parliament House, a group of like-minded cat rescuers and carers attended a rally to raise recognition of community cats, the burden that is currently carried by these volunteers across the state, and to seek to be integrated with state and local government initiatives, all for better outcomes for domestic cats
If you are communicating with your local councils, then please feel welcome to reference this rally event which has been raised with Minister Ron Hoenig.
The rally included messages of support from Emma Hurst AJP NSW, Jacquie Rand APWF, Kristina Vesk CPS NSW and Gemma Ma RSPCA NSW. Phots and videos are available, and more.
LRC 