Importantly for the current prominent perceptions of cat impacts to wildlife: “all animal attacks combined accounted for 4.4% of threatened species rescues; dog-related rescues were more than three times greater than cat-related rescues, with cat-related rescues comprising 0.6% of all threatened species rescues”.
The current strong public focus on cats and impacts to wildlife “risks diverting attention away from other more major and preventable impacts on wildlife in urban areas. These include habitat loss and fragmentation, vehicle collisions, extreme weather, and hazards linked to roads, buildings, and other human structures”.
APWF Position Paper
From Australian wildlife hospitals, past studies have shown consistent patterns: road/traffic collisions, “orphaned or dependent young, disease, and environmental displacement” usually lead the reasons for wildlife entering a hospital.
This is the first state-wide analysis from the NSW Wildlife Rehabilitation Data Dashboard records used from 2013 through 2024. Points of interest follow.
[Note – this new research is under review]
Conclusion include:
Companion animal attacks were causing “a small proportion of rescues overall, with dog-related rescues more than three times as common as cat-related rescues”
Gains in conservation “are likely to come from preventing harm before it occurs and increasing survival through early intervention”
Prevention efforts should be focused “on the major human-related drivers identified in this study offers the strongest opportunity to reduce wildlife rescues and improve outcomes for threatened species and wildlife rescuers”
Acknowledging and responding to these factors and drivers “will be essential if conservation policy is to achieve meaningful reductions in threatened wildlife injury and mortality and protect human wellbeing.”
“Overall, threatened species most often entered care due to adverse weather events, unsuitable environment, hazardous materials, and vehicle collisions—suggesting that prevention efforts targeting these causes are likely to avert more harm than a primary focus on pet cats.”
About this new study:
Data gathered from 52,475 individuals and 158 threatened species
Outcomes include
24.1% of threatened animals were released,
58.5% died, and
17.5% had other outcomes
Rescues due to largely human-related causes:
11.6% Entanglement
11.4% Weather–Drought
10.1% Abandoned/Orphaned
7.3% Unsuitable Environment
5.8% Motor-Vehicle Collision,
although many were Unknown (21.9%).
these six making up 82.1% of threatened species rescues.
LRC offers a brief summary of the negative consequences and outcomes for the cat trapping and culling approach to reduce cat populations.
This approach is found to be costly, inhumane and ineffective as this approach does not address the root causes, i.e. the “start of the supply chain” with new kittens being born or more cats/ kittens being abandoned. Findings are from domestic cat experts based on Aussie experiences and research.
Trapping and culling in Australia is usually applied where mandatory cat containment legislation is being enforced, and in smaller numbers where cat may be causing a nuisance on private property. Trapping cats in large numbers will be traumatic to the cats as primary and secondary trauma.
From lived experiences of expert trappers, the majority of cats who have been failed to be trapped in one instance will be extremely wary of humans and traps, will be more difficult to trap again, impacts a cat’s behaviour for sociability assessment, and reduces the rehoming opportunities for these cats.
The 2020 culling at Newcastle Stockon breakwater was traumatic to the community cats and the rescuers and carers who were managing and rehoming this group of cats.
For consideration by all authorities/ decision makers: “the severity of the adverse psychological impacts, and the morbidity rate amongst the cat caregivers we interviewed, was far greater than would be expected as a risk to the community if the cats had remained at the site. We therefore suggest that potential legal ramifications should be considered before authorities intentionally choose a method of management that is likely to inflict substantial harm on community members.”
The Impact of Lethal, Enforcement-Centred Cat Management on Human Wellbeing: Exploring Lived Experiences of Cat Carers Affected by Cat Culling at the Port of Newcastle https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/2/271
Four Paws Australia NSW cat Inquiry
Four Paws Australia provided to the Inquiry for Management of Cat Populations NSW “TNVR [Trap Neuter-Vaccinate-Return] is widely acknowledged by experts as the most humane and effective strategy for reducing stray cat numbers over time’, particularly in urban and semi urban areas”.
This approach (and other variations e of TNR) is considered the most humane and effective approach for managing cat populations. This view is supported by a number of Australian domestic cat experts, and many from other countries.
Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) cat Inquiry
“Efforts to reduce the domestic cat population through culling or adoption alone have proven ineffective …because 30% to 50% of the stray cat population would need to be trapped and killed every 6 months for at least 10 years… which is clearly not economically feasible or acceptable to the community.”
“Mandated containment is proven to be ineffective and is a barrier to solving the issue of cat overpopulation…” accomplished with trapping and culling / euthanasia at council pounds will increase “costs to council and increases killing of healthy and treatable cats, increasing exposure of staff to the subsequent negative mental health impacts.”
“Cats trapped as a result of a complaint about nuisance behaviours are, by definition, domestic cats because a complaint implies the cat is living around where humans live or frequent. Sociability and adoptability cannot be judged in a highly stressful environment, such as in a trap cage; frightened pet cats may display more aggressive behaviours towards humans than truly feral cats… A minimum of 3 to 5 days, and up to 14 days or longer, are required for many pet cats to habituate to a new environment and for accurate assessment of sociability.”
The outcomes of a legislative compliance-based approach such as mandatory containment, includes “compliance-based approach are that “excessive numbers of cats are impounded nationally, exceeding the capacity to rehome them, resulting in approximately 46% of cats entering local government facilities (pounds) in Australia being euthanized [4]. The worst-performing quartile of local governments impounding more than 50 cats in a year euthanized between 67% and 100%. Because many shelter and pound staff are required to regularly kill healthy and treatable cats and kittens, it negatively impacts their job satisfaction and mental health. This increases their risk of depression, traumatic stress, substance abuse, high blood pressure, sleeplessness, and suicide [29,30,31,32,33,34]. This legislative and enforcement-based approach has not substantially reduced cat-related complaints or impoundments because it does not address the underlying causes [4].”
“An additional issue is that enforcement officers may mistakenly impose fines and penalties intended for pet cat owners on the caregivers of semi-owned and stray cats. The misapplication of domestic animal legislation to semi-owners is ineffective and costly, especially if this is disputed in a magistrate’s court process because, when a responsible owner cannot be definitively linked to the cat, the charge cannot be proven and is dismissed, but the council still incurs the costs.”
The researchers added an acknowledgement “We extend our gratitude to all the semi-owners who have embraced full ownership of community cats and placed their trust in us to support them throughout this journey.”
RSPCA NSW raised under the NSW Inquiry Management of Cat Populations that mandating cat containment may lead to deliberate acts in harming roaming cats, for example:
“members of the public taking matters into their own hands”
“cat trapping by individuals… resulting in higher rates of harm, neglect, and cruelty against cats”
RSPCA Australia mandatory containment negative consequences
“Support for the introduction of mandatory 24/7 cat containment would need to be based on evidence that it can achieve the stated objectives for cats, wildlife, and the broader community, and that the potential negative consequences can be eliminated or effectively mitigated. The RSPCA supports and encourages such research.
If mandatory 24/7 cat containment is introduced, effective monitoring is needed that will provide evidence of outcomes (positive and negative) and inform a better understanding of potential negative consequences and strategies to eliminate or effectively mitigate these.” https://kb.rspca.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/PP-A8-Cat-Containment-2024.pdf
The LRC team is providing a webpage for trusted long-term rescuers to have their rescue name (brand) listed, to assist with these being found in searches.
Please note, this is a WIP, we are volunteers, and this page will be under a trial. We reserve the right to decide on who will be added and when this can be done.
Recently in Sydney there has been two incidents of new rescuers using very similar names of long term established groups and organisations. We are providing this page just to list some (not all, not a paid/ subscription service, not a government service, and not a certification etc) to avoid similar issues in the future.
We strongly suggest that community cat rescuers and carers list their names on more than just Facebook pages. Use other free services such as:
Instagram
Youtube
Others to be suggested over time.
This page is for those who are not able to set up, nor can afford a webpage service.
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.”
LRC 