Section 32 of the New South Wales (NSW) Companion Animal (CA) Act 1998 describes obligations for when a cat may be seized. But much of it is open to interpretation.
Community cat rescuers/ carers conform to these obligations when assisting abandoned cats. Unfortunately, the cat haters may also use some of the clauses for trapping roaming cats, even neighbours pet cats.
Concerns & Issues
The current legislation appears open to interpretation by community members and different councils. Worst situations are community members against roaming cats who appear to use these clauses to trap cats but often it is not known if they follow the legal obligations to assure a cat’s welfare. What happens to many cats being trapped?
Some councils are requesting through NSW Local Government to change section 32 (raised during the 16 December 2024 hearing for the NSW Inquiry Management of Cat Populations. However, we are unsure of the exact changes they are seeking. It is concerning if these changes are to make trapping easier by “concerned citizens” as there is already a significant risk to the welfare of all roaming cats being harmed or worse.
APWF Related Recommendations
Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) include recommendations to improve the nuisance cat obligations and processes, instead of mandatory containment.
RSPCA Australia
Councils not supporting community trapping
Examples of cats being trapped will ill intentions
Updated October 2025 Hate speech towards groups of people is well known, but how did it become disturbingly acceptable towards all cats in Australia and their rescuers & carers, and even cat owners?
Articles and social media posts with overstated impacts, misleading content and extreme language, followed with comments of hate/ violence towards all cats, are major factors which have influenced the physical violence towards cats and their rescuers/carers.
Tired of the overstated impacts of cats, the misunderstanding information, the demonising almost hysterics against domestic cats? We are starting to build a kitbag / tool kit to help cat owners, supporters, rescuers & carers raise their voices & call out where Aussie domestic cats are being targeted with cat hate.
Invasive Species misleading information influences cat hate and cruelty to cats
Feel welcome to download our view based on many examples and assessments based on facts and factors from experts. The trail commences with overstated and questionable studies, which are emotionally charged and demonising across media, and social media comments which are not moderated that fuel others with a freedom to express acts of cruelty to animals and people. Repeated copies and similar pitched articles are proliferated across internet pages which floods the searches and AI summaries providing a false narrative.
It is believed this wave of anger and violence has grown from the combination of the following:
the national “War on Cats” initiated a decade ago, now blurring the lines between feral and domestic cats,
articles providing overstated impacts, dramatised headlines, language demonising cats, and more misleading approaches,
that many councils will not acknowledge volunteer cat carers and rescuers in their local government area, and
the social media posts and comments of hate speech towards all cats.
Very recent research across hate expressed in online and in traditional media includes:
the significant negative impact published forms of hate may have on individuals and groups,
that unchecked forms of hate have the potential to “grow”,
the importance of responding to these findings within policymaking, prevention, and intervention strategies.
Exposure to hate in online and traditional media: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of the impact of this exposure on individuals and communities https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11736891/
Facebook’s standards include prohibiting criminal or harmful activities targeted at people, businesses, property or animals.
However, we do not have great confidence in its ability to assess hate speech beyond simple single statements.
In traditional and online media, cat hate speech can be drawn from a single overstatement of impacts to wildlife through combinations producing misleading context and views.
Another issue, is that the Facebook etc tools do not or cannot distinguish when harming or killing animals is not acceptable.
We too often see FB pages and groups where the administrators/ moderators do not include automated tools, nor appear to respond to reports from viewers on valid concerns for harming or killing cats.
Declaring a War on the War on Domestic Cats
The Aussie Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for predation by feral cats is inappropriately grouping “stray” cats as a subclass of “feral” cats allegedly for documentation purposes. This blurs the lines between quite distinct categories of cats, and will likely cause much confusion, which likely will influence domestic cats being harmed / destroyed by community members who dislike cats.
Below we take a look at the TAP versus the appropriate and trusted definitions by Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Australia.
Overstating all cat & domestic cat impacts on wildlife
There is trusted analysis by the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) of the current weaknesses in the research which is proliferated on the national impacts of all cats and domestic cats on our precious wildlife.
The data gathered and methods are validly questionable.
Quotes from the APWF position statement include:
“impacts of feral cats on wildlife are often wrongly attributed to domestic cats, even though they are two distinct and geographically separate populations with different behaviour and ecology”
“impacts (if any) of domestic cats on native wildlife populations is largely unknown …there is actually no definitive scientific evidence demonstrating viability or conservation impacts at a population level on Australian native wildlife by domestic cats living around people”
“Australian studies were unable to detect a measurable impact in urban areas of domestic cats on native mammals (Maclagan 2018, Lilith 2010), or birds (Barratt 1998, Grayson 2007), but found that vegetation quality, housing density, distance from bushland and size of bushland were significant factors”
“studies demonstrate the positive impact cat predation has by reducing the numbers of rats that predate bird nests (Matthews 1999)”
“domestic cats that are obtaining food intentionally or unintentionally from humans predate significantly fewer animals than feral cats, which have to hunt to supply all their nutritional needs (Murphy 2019, Woinarski 2017)”
APWF’s recent submission to the NSW government included a number of concerns on the research that is widely published and publicised in traditional media articles and social media posts.
The APWF submission included specific examples of limitations, and flaws in the assumptions applied to overstate national and average totals of the impacts of domestic cats and then all cats (where feral and domestic cats impacts are combined).
LRC are building up references to examples of cat colonies being maintained on university campuses – from NSW Australia running a program for well over 10 years, through USA and other countries. This “model” works well on private campus grounds where cats may roam, an understanding private organisation, and with kind young volunteers helping out.
“The aim is for the Act to strengthen the social licence for keeping companion animals, while also holding pet owners accountable for the care and management of their pets. The Act must also address the urgent need to prevent companion animals from needlessly entering the council pound and rehoming system.” Discussion paper
Please note, that this blog is a WIP, adding information as developed.
Compelling evidence on Australian desexing initiatives involving community cats & their rescuers
We provide a summary of initiatives from RSPCA NSW, CPS NSW, APWF, Banyule Council Vic, plus others and vet programs. This has been produced as a flyer which may be downloaded in PDF format.
APWF Analysis & Questions re common misconceptions of numbers etc
Note, the leading explanation:
“An ongoing issue is that feral cat impacts are often wrongly attributed to domestic cats, even though these are two distinct and geographically separate populations of cats with different behaviour and ecology. In addition, the estimates of pet and stray cat predation of wildlife are based on flawed theoretical calculations that assume all pet cats predate similarly, even if contained inside, and that stray cats being fed by people predate similarly to cats in rubbish dumps in small rural towns or in parks with bushland (Woinarski 2017, Coman 1972).” APWF Inquiry into the Management of Cat Populations in NSW https://petwelfare.org.au/government-submissions
LRC Summary of APWF points for questioning XXL estimates
Latest research on sterilizing abandoned cats: Rethinking Urban Cat Management—Limitations and Unintended Consequences of Traditional Cat Management
This latest research brings together many key topics, such as the failures of mandatory containment and desexing, and the benefits of desexing under community cat programs including TNR and RTF. The research also recognises the impacts to all of those involved including the community and cat rescuers/carers with mental and emotional impacts, not just the council and etc staff.
Q group 1: Strategic framework for encouraging responsible ownership of companion animals
Q 1.a Do you support the Companion Animals Act being amended to focus more on encouraging responsible pet ownership outcomes over strict compliance processes?
A proactive approach over punitive legislation is supported, However, there are significant concerns to ensure that every NSW council adheres to humane treatments for domestic cats in urban environments. Domestic cat experts should be respected and their advice incorporated. It is essential the roles of community cat rescuers and carers are included in thie framework (not just Rehoming Organisations).
[WIP]
Q 1.b How can responsible pet ownership education be used to manage menacing or dangerous dogs?
Once a dog has been declared menacing or dangerous, then training and reconditioning, and the owner’s behaviour need to be addressed under the council AMO and Police roles.
Q 1.c How could the legislation be improved to motivate better dog owner behaviour and encourage owners to manage their dogs more responsibly? (For example, what does responsible dog control in public look like?)
Similar for cats, the roles of AMO need to “grow” into proactive roles engaging with the communities face to face / on the ground. [refer APWF]
Stop Back Yard Breeding – refer Oscar’s Laws already implemented in Victoria… [tbc]
Breeders for dogs and cats need to be regulated – not self-regulated.
Dog trainers, especially for “security purposes” need to be regulated, not a self-regulated industry.
Allocate funding and more resources to dog and puppy training, which should be a mandatory activity / responsibility for dog owners.
Allocate funding and more resources to NSW Police to break illegal dog fighting rings.
Allocate funding and more resources to NSW Police to break illegal live animal baiting in the greyhound racing industry.
Q 1.d How could the legislation be improved to motivate better cat owner behaviour and encourage owners to manage their cats more responsibly? (For example, cat containment).
Mandatory containment is ineffective, and this has been proven across Victorian councils who have backed out or not taken up this policy. The costs in council staff labour (addressing complaints, intakes to pounds, high euthanasia rates) outweigh the benefits.
Better outcomes may be achieved by proactive One Welfare solutions, including funding desexing programs offered free to residents (owners and semi owners), and promoting, offering assistance with acquiring (e.g. subsidies in Bunbury and Bayside councils WA) and installing cat enclosures with advice and support from council AMOs.
Refer APWF research in this topic which is supported: Rethinking Urban Cat Management—Limitations and Unintended Consequences of Traditional Cat Management https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/15/7/1005
Q 1.e Are there other matters that should be considered?
Cat definitions and terms
The NSW framework needs to follow and incorporate the 2018 RSPCA definitions for feral versus domestic cats, the latter being owned, semi owned and unowned.
The NSW framework should incorporate further details definitions from APWF for…
Abandoned domestic cats are not to be treated as feral cats who are truly wild.
[APWF plus other links]
The advise of domestic cat experts needs to be followed, domestic cat knowledge and experiences are not to be defined by NSW government departments whose primary purposes ate to support primary industries or native environments.
[links]
Establish a NSW independent animal welfare officer & office
[links etc]
CA Act clause 32.1 seizing a cat
The CA Act needs to be improved to clarify the situations when and where community members may seize a cat – the current clause 32.1 is misinterpreted/misused, not controlled nor monitored, and the welfare of the cats is then not assured and at risk. Very few NSW council clarify that Rangers should be involved for nuisance calls.
Q group 2: Compliance and enforcement role of councils
What changes to NSW laws, regulations, codes or guidelines could be provided to councils and other enforcement authorities to better support responsible pet ownership?
How could NSW laws, regulations, codes or guidelines be improved to support councils to better manage dangerous and restricted dogs?
Are the current enforcement provisions under the Act (including penalties for offences – see Appendix B of the discussion paper) appropriate? If not, what enforcement provisions should be changed?
Are there other compliance and enforcement matters that should be considered?
Q group 3. Companion animal population and rehoming
What more could be done to reduce stray and homeless cats and dogs in NSW?
What changes can be made to NSW laws, regulations, codes or guidelines to reduce the number of companion animals entering the pound and rehoming system in the first place?
For companion animals needing to enter the ‘pound’ system, what could be done to increase rehoming?
Are there other dog and cat population and rehoming matters that should be considered?
The LRC team provides key up-to-date information related to Trap Neuter Return (and other variations), as we wait for the NSW government recommendations on the NSW Inquiry for managing cat populations. A number of organisations have provided views, research and recommendations in support of TNR etc as effective approaches for managing cat populations.
Large scale (mass / high intensity) desexing programs for owned, semi owned and unowned cats are supported for their effectiveness in minimising cat populations. This is achieved by significantly limiting the breeding of cats, which also benefits each cat and the communities.
The research and studies of highly successful free cat desexing programs were completed in a number of Australian councils including:
the APWF Community Cat Programs in Ipswich Queensland,
Banyule Council in Victoria, and
the Keeping Cats Safe at Home (KCSAH) program managed by RSPCA for the NSW government.
The semi owned cats were returned to managed colonies or groups.
The LRC summary of desexing programs assisting semi owned cats & rescuers
The Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) Community Cat programs in Queensland in a number of Ipswich suburbs have been operating since 2021 targeting stray cats, including:
“…desexing of urban stray cats… provided with other veterinary care, such as vaccinations and microchipping… if they are healthy and have been thriving outdoors, the cats are returned to where they live in their home territories… will also desex pet cats if their owners cannot afford to do so themselves… [and] adopting friendly cats and kittens found outdoors, increasing responsible pet cat ownership, decreasing abandonment and mediating resident conflicts involving outdoor cats”, “desexed over 2750 cats… achieved >30% reduction in cat intake & >50% less euthanasia”, and provided several evidence-based findings for research papers, international conference papers, a number of Australian submissions. https://petwelfare.org.au/community-cat-program-faq/, https://petwelfare.org.au/community-cat-program-news-2/, https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Aust-Community-Cat-Program-2024-Report.pdf
The highly successful Community Cat Programs operated over several years by the APWF which provide evidence with managing cat populations are supported:
“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. CCPs are proven to be very effective at reducing stray cat numbers, pound intake and euthanasia, complaints and costs. CCPs are also very effective at assisting semi-owners to desex and adopt the stray cat they are feeding and continue to feed and care for their cat, significantly reducing the number of unwanted kittens born. Semi-owners represent a large pool of potential cat adopters, particularly for shy and timid cats, and are integral to resolving the stray cat issue and associated high intake and high euthanasia rates of cats in pounds and shelters. Community Cat Programs proactively manage stray cats in the community keeping cats with their owners, and because they are non-lethal they do not cause devastating mental health impacts to staff or community members, consistent with a One Welfare approach which optimises the well-being of people, animals and their environment.”https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/81381/0132%20Australian%20Pet%20Welfare%20Foundation.pdf
The Banyule free desexing program was cost effective by council funding offset by savings and achieved significant results in minimising the cat population. For owned and semi-owned cats this included “decreases in impoundments by 66%, euthanasia by 82%, and cat-related calls by 36% over 8 years, with savings to council of AU $440,660 for an outlay of AU $77,490”.
This program critically involved AMO roles in effective face-to-face, coal-face engagement with the community, and included owned and stray (semi owned and unowned) cats.
“The program proposed and approved by the city of Banyule was that sterilization, microchipping, and the first year of registration would be funded by the council. The purpose of this program was to increase ownership responsibilities for owned and stray cats being fed by residents (semi-owned cats) and to reduce unwanted kittens being born and, therefore, the number of cats and kittens killed in the council-contracted facility (CPS). This was provided at no cost for all owned cats and semi-owned cats in the target areas.”
“When the medium-intensity targeted program resumed in 2017/18, and the trapping process changed from enforcement-orientated to assistive, cats impounded city-wide decreased by 51% over four years, from 284 in 2016/17 to 134 in 2020/21”.
“…the traditional methods of trapping wandering and nuisance cats have not resulted in long-term reductions in cat-related calls to councils. However, following the implementation of a microtargeted free sterilization program for owned and semi-owned cats, marked reductions in cat-related calls, impoundments, euthanasia, and costs were realized, similar to that reported in US programs. It is recommended that urban cat management policies and programs are revised and, instead of being focused on a traditional compliance-based approach, are focused on being assistive, helping owners and semi-owners have their cats sterilized and identified with a microchip.”
The Keeping Cats Safe at Home (KCSAH) in NSW included key desexing programs where approaches under specific councils achieved high results with managing cat populations.
The Weddin Council KCSAH desexing program offered free microchipping and desexing which included: collaboratively working to achieve results for over 100 cats, the view this approach “represents the future of local cat management, it is the answer to reducing cat euthanasia rates and keeping cats out of pounds and shelters”. https://weddinlandcare.com.au/milestone-for-keeping-cats-safe-at-home-project
The Parramatta Council KCSAH desexing program included: an aim “to locate unowned cat hotspots and engage with overwhelmed cat carers and volunteer cat rescue groups”; and results where cat-related nuisance complaints decreased by 49% and cats arriving at the council pound decreased by 41%.https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:4d1d5b58-63b5-4a70-8196-212fded377d1
Anecdotally, Campbelltown and Hornsby KCSAH desexing programs also critically included local carers and rescuers for semi owned and unowned cats. With these community cat rescuers (volunteers) a high take up of desexing was arranged with cat owners, supported transport and scheduling. These roles are critical to achieve a high number of desexing procedures to minimise cat populations with community engagement.
At the AIAM conference a KCSH presentation was provided – noting pages 12-14 for targeted desexing including semi owned cats and semi owners (community cat rescuers and carers). https://aiam.org.au/page-18158
RSPCA SA Proposed TDAR
“In TDAR, unowned or semi-owned cats are trapped, heath checked, desexed, vaccinated and then either rehomed or returned to their original location. Cats who are unsuitable for rehoming, unhealthy and unfit for release are humanely euthanised.”
“Action 23: Reduce strays taken to shelters by helping community members understand that sometimes cats are better left where they are. Promote the approach of “leave a healthy cat where they are and monitor” to stray cats.
Action 24: Undertake a ‘trap, desex and adopt or return’ (TDAR) trial in a selected area of SA, as an attempt to reduce uncontrolled breeding in urban stray cat populations.
Action 25: Educate the public about semi-owned cats as a separate category of cats, helping members of the public who feed stray cats to understand the importance of desexing and microchipping.”
It is strongly recommended that Australian governments invest funding into more intensive programs of desexing including Trap Neuter Return, Trap Neuter Vaccinate Return, Return To Field, and Shelter Neuter Return which are adequately researched over years. The evidence gathered from NSW, Queensland, and Victorian councils indicated benefits with minimising cat populations including stray cats, and therefore continuing with similar efforts will provide benefits across NSW. It is noted that both the Qld CCPs and NSW KCSAHs involved semi owned and unowned cats under community cat rescuers. The success of TNR, TNVR, RTF, and SNR techniques have also been documented in a number of other studies.
Please refer to the earlier section for information on the Queensland, NSW and Victorian desexing programs. These included desexing of stray cats (semi owned and unowned) where these cats were under managed colonies operated by community cat rescuers. The following are just a small sample of the evidence-based research in these techniques.
“We conclude that trap, neuter and return associated with high desexing rates in colonies, and adoption of kittens and friendly adults substantially reduces colony size, and improves the welfare of cats and kittens. This model is cost-effective for municipalities, and should be legalized in Australia.”https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/6/46
“Colony populations, when grouped by the number of years enrolled in the program, declined by a mean of 54% from entry and 82% from peak levels. Results from coexistent TNR programs in the Chicago area are consistent with these findings.”https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29346278/
“Available evidence indicates that an estimated 300 free-roaming cats were essentially unmanaged prior to the commencement of the TNR program; a quick reduction of up to one-third of the cats on the waterfront was attributed to the adoption of sociable cats and kittens; the elimination of the remaining population; over a 17-year period; was ascribed to attrition.”https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/11/81
“New approaches, including return-to-field (RTF) and targeted trap-neuter-return (TNR) appear to have transformative potential. …formal RTF and targeted TNR protocols, collectively referred to as a community cat program (CCP), were added to ongoing community-based TNR efforts and a pilot RTF initiative. As part of the three-year CCP, 11,746 cats were trapped, sterilized, vaccinated and returned or adopted. Feline euthanasia at the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Department (AAWD) declined by 84.1% and feline intake dropped by 37.6%; the live release rate (LRR) increased by 47.7% due primarily to these reductions in both intake and euthanasia. Modest increases in the percentage of cats returned to owner (RTO) and the adoption rate were also observed, although both metrics decreased on an absolute basis, while the number of calls to the city about dead cats declined.”https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Impact-of-an-Integrated-Program-of-and-Targeted-Spehar-Wolf/473bbf487fce3cf6a3743f73e2c1ca7b431d25a1
Integrated Return-To-Field and Targeted Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return Programs Result in Reductions of Feline Intake and Euthanasia at Six Municipal Animal Shelters
“In the past decade, two new variants of TNVR, return-to-field (RTF) and high-impact targeting, have exhibited the capacity to contribute to significant reductions in shelter intake and euthanasia. The present study examines changes in feline intake and euthanasia, as well as impacts on associated metrics, at municipal shelters located in six diverse U.S. communities after integrated programs of RTF and targeted TNVR (collectively termed “community cat programs,” CCPs) were implemented. A total of 72,970 cats were enrolled in six 3-year CCPs, 71,311 of whom (98%) were sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to their location of capture or adopted. A median reduction of 32% in feline intake, as well as a median decline of 83% in feline euthanasia occurred across the six CCPs; median feline live-release rate increased by 53% as a result of these simultaneous declines in cat admissions and euthanasia. The integration of RTF and targeted TNVR protocols appears to result in greater feline intake and euthanasia reductions than programs lacking such an integrated approach.”https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00077/full
Association between a shelter-neuter-return program and cat health at a large municipal animal shelter
“RESULTS Number of cats admitted to the shelter each year decreased significantly over 8 years; beginning in 2010, duration of stay decreased. Proportion of cats euthanized decreased from 66.6% (28,976/43,517) in the pre-SNR period to 34.9% (11,999/34,380) in the post-SNR period, whereas prevalence of URI increased from 5.5% to 6.8%, and median duration of shelter stay decreased from 6 to 5 days for cats < 4 months of age and from 8 to 6 days for older cats. With implementation of the SNR program and a new treatment policy for cats with URI, more cats received treatment with less medication, yielding cost savings.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26799109/
This blog includes key points and quoted sections of the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation submission. Images are included which may be of value to use in discussions with levels of government and communities. LRC provides images of quotes from the APWF findings and recommendations on a variety of focus areas, including rescuers & carers, their executive summary, impacts on wildlife etc.
Why does it appear that the NSW government with our councils do not recognise community cat rescuers? The community cat rescuers’ efforts assist with collectively thousands of abandoned cats being desexed and rehomed each year, and directly minimise the burden of pets entering the council pound systems and large animal welfare shelters. It is critical that rescuers speak up and complete a submission by Friday 22 November 2024 – you can enter information in a free form entry or upload as documents (many formats will be accepted).
We offer a four page flyer covering the ten Terms of Reference (TOR) topics, starting with “other related matters” which set the context for responses to include community cats (semi owned or unowned “strays”) and the community cat rescuers and Good Samaritans who show care for these cats. You are welcome to consider these and leverage the referenced quotes and URLs.
Community Cat Rescuers Response Guide & Suggestions
It is a significant concern that community cat rescuers appear not to be recognised in the NSW Pound Inquiry and it appears similar in this inquiry (i.e. those not listed as Approved Rehoming Organisations).
If your time / capacity is limited, we suggest you focus on just three of the Terms of Reference topics (b), (f) and (j).
PLEASE CUSTIOMISE e.g. add: a) your personal experiences; b) examples of rescuers, you can refer to “friends” in rescues or specifically name rescues; and c) use references to expert organisations (many provided to assist you).
TOR (b) the effectiveness of cat containment policies including potential barriers
Promoting cat containment is fully supported, however mandatory containment is not supported. The views, research and findings of the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation are supported in that mandatory cat containment in forms of curfews, 24/7 or banning cats from selected suburbs or Local Government Areas (LGAs) is not effective, nor will achieve value for money in terms of outcomes for the costs.
The APWF findings are based on review of a number of Australian councils which indicates complaints and costs rise under mandatory cat containment.
It is also recognised that cat haters may be incited to increase levels of cruelty under any open trapping and culling policies which are not effectively monitored, and harass or harm community cat rescuers who are actively helping abandoned cats.
“Mandated cat containment has been proven to be an ineffective strategy; a failure at reducing wandering cats in the short and long term, both in Australia and internationally. Mandated cat containment is not an effective strategy to reduce wandering cats because most wandering cats are strays with no owner to contain them. Even for cats with an owner, containment is often not achievable due to factors such as housing limitations, lack of financial resources and concerns about the welfare of confined cats.”https://petwelfare.org.au/2022/08/31/australian-pet-welfare-foundation-position-statement-on-cat-containment/
TOR (f) the effectiveness and benefits to implementing large scale cat desexing programs
Large scale (mass / high intensity) desexing programs for owned, semi owned and unowned cats are supported for their effectiveness in minimising cat populations. This is achieved by significantly limiting the breeding of cats, which also benefits each cat and the communities.
These funded programs should be offered free for those on low incomes, carers and rescuers of semi owned and unowned cats (community cat rescuers), and areas of high intensity cat populations to make a rapid and effective reduction in numbers of cats.
The research and studies of highly successful free cat desexing programs were completed in a number of councils involving the APWF in Queensland, Banyule Council in Victoria, and the Keeping Cats Safe at Home (KCSAH) program managed by RSPCA for the NSW government.
The Banyule free desexing program offered over several years is supported, it was cost effective by council funding offset by savings and achieved significant results in minimising the cat population. For owned and semi-owned cats this included “decreases in impoundments by 66%, euthanasia by 82%, and cat-related calls by 36% over 8 years, with savings to council of AU $440,660 for an outlay of AU $77,490”.
This program critically involved AMO roles in effective face-to-face, coal-face engagement with the community, and included owned and stray (semi owned and unowned) cats.
It is strongly recommended that community cat rescuers are recognised as: 1) their collective efforts save thousands of cats each year across NSW; 2) they complement and relieve the council pound systems, and should receive government funding support; and 3) any future pound assessments for capacity and funding and the management of cat populations must take into account the numbers of cats and kittens for which these volunteers and Good Samaritans are unfairly burdened, and provide care, desexing and rehoming solutions.
Community Cat Rescuers work alongside and take the burden of abandoned domestic cats from council pounds
These rescues may be vet practices, and/or registered charities (with Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission) and registered businesses (with Australian Business Numbers under the Australian Taxation Office). Many are small-home based volunteers. These rescuers take in animals from “the streets”, or as surrenders from the public.
It is strongly recommended that community cat rescuers are offered support for free desexing and vaccinations through initiatives such as:
a) the RSPCA NSW Weddin, Campbelltown and Hornsby councils’ initiatives; and
b) with grants for councils and vets who have historically and directly rescued abandoned animals and may then help rescuers with reduced vet charges.
The Australian Veterinary Association raised “formal provisions for veterinary practices reimbursement when receiving stray cats” plus more in their AVA Rehoming Review submissions. www.ava.com.au/member-updates/nsw/ava-submission-to-nsw-rehoming-practices-review/
Devastating impact on Community Cat Rescuers when community cats are cruelly culled
The trap and culling/killing approach not only may be seen to be cruel to community cats, it also raises a significant likelihood of having a devastating impact to the community members or community cat rescuers who have been taking care of these cats/ kittens.
It is strongly recommended that the Australian research into the Newcastle breakwater cats culling is taken into consideration for the advice that authorities considering potential legal ramifications based on the devastating impacts to the community cat rescuers which were considered worse than the negative impacts of the cats.
“…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.”
“It is strongly recommended that a care-centred management approach be taken, whereby authorities identify and assist caregivers to implement neutering and, if possible, adoption.”
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
Inquiry & Submission Information
On the 11 October the New South Wales (NSW) government opened an inquiry into managing cat populations, for submissions by Friday 22 November 2024. In our opinion, this inquiry and the previous related NSW Pound Inquiry are failing to recognise community cat rescuers and the valuable work they achieve as volunteers in assisting abandoned domestic cats to be rescued, desexed and rehomed.
A submission will be easier to assess by the government team if your issues and recommendations are sorted under each of the provided Terms of Reference topics.
However, you are not required to respond to each and every TOR topic – just select the ones most important to you. Do not feel intimidated if you just choose TOR (j) any other related matters, or if you don’t use any of the TOR topics.
We suggest you use a format where there are two distinct points, sentences or paragraphs, e.g.
It is a concern that… [issue and its negative impact]
It is strongly recommended to… [improvement/ change and its benefit]
Sources of information you may find helpful
These trusted sources of information provide a range of issues and recommendations which you may quote and reference in your submissions. Further, you are able to show your support for these organisations and their expertise, findings and successful approaches.
the terms and definitions from the RSPCA are accepted and used in NSW, which provide two classes of cat: feral and domestic, with three subclasses of domestic being owned, semi owned, and unowned, it is long overdue to replace the stray cat term, and the semi owned cats term recognises community cat rescuers and carers,
the ongoing evolution of terms based on evidence-based research by the APWF is incorporated, including their Community Cat Programs findings,
a NSW strategic cat management committee is established (similar to Victoria’s) including: RSPCA, APWF, AVA, AIAM, and representatives from key stakeholders includes veterinary practice representatives and community cat rescuers and approved rehoming organisations who help manage owned, semi owned and unowned cats,
for development of a cat management plan including separate management strategies for each of these classes as though “the populations overlap to varying extents, each requires a distinct management strategy” AVA, and AIAM copy of KCSH presentation – noting pages 12-14 for targeted desexing including semi owned cats and semi owners (community cat rescuers and carers).
AIAM Presentations from Panel Members, RSPCA NSW The Keeping Cats Safe at Home experience https://aiam.org.au/page-18158
Community Cat Rescuers work alongside and take the burden of abandoned domestic cats from council pounds
It is strongly recommended that community cat rescuers are recognised as: 1) their collective efforts save thousands of cats each year across NSW; 2) they complement and relieve the council pound systems, and should receive government funding support; and 3) any future pound assessments for capacity and funding and the management of cat populations must take into account the numbers of cats and kittens for which these volunteers and Good Samaritans are unfairly burdened, and provide care, desexing and rehoming solutions.
These rescues may be vet practices, and/or registered charities (with Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission) and registered businesses (with Australian Business Numbers under the Australian Taxation Office). Many are small-home based volunteers. These rescuers take in animals from “the streets”, or as surrenders from the public.
It is strongly recommended that community cat rescuers are offered support for free desexing and vaccinations through initiatives such as:
a) the RSPCA NSW Weddin, Campbelltown and Hornsby councils’ initiatives; and
b) with grants for councils and vets who have historically and directly rescued abandoned animals and may then help rescuers with reduced vet charges.
The Australian Veterinary Association raised “formal provisions for veterinary practices reimbursement when receiving stray cats” plus more in their AVA Rehoming Review submissions. www.ava.com.au/member-updates/nsw/ava-submission-to-nsw-rehoming-practices-review/
Devastating impact on Community Cat Rescuers when community cats are cruelly culled
The trap and culling/killing approach not only may be seen to be cruel to community cats, it also raises a significant likelihood of having a devastating impact to the community members or community cat rescuers who have been taking care of these cats/ kittens.
It is strongly recommended that the Australian research into the Newcastle breakwater cats culling is taken into consideration for the advice that authorities considering potential legal ramifications based on the devastating impacts to the community cat rescuers which were considered worse than the negative impacts of the cats.
The relationships between the community cat rescuers (cat care givers) has also been researched and shows the significant bond between the rescuers, who were extracting social cats to desex and rehome, and the cats with whom they had invested time, effort and financial resources.
It appears that community cat rescuers / care givers do not so much choose not to be formal owners of the semi owned and unowned cats, it can easily be seen that these rescuers are limited by their own resources and finances to formally take on ownership of many cats abandoned by others.
Supporting information:
“…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.”
“It is strongly recommended that a care-centred management approach be taken, whereby authorities identify and assist caregivers to implement neutering and, if possible, adoption.”
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
“Published research demonstrates very strong bonds between semi-owners and their stray cats, and positive psychological impacts on semi-owners from this unique human-animal bond (HAB), similar to the positive well-being impacts owners derive from companionship with their pet cats (Zito 2015, Centonze and Levy 2002; Khor 2018, Scotney 2023, Finkler and Terkel 2011). For example, caregivers state they are “attached” to the stray cat they are feeding and that feeding the stray cat makes them.”
TOR (a) the impact of cats on threatened native animals in metropolitan and regional settings
The widely used and often quoted, generalised extreme numbers of wildlife impacts should be considered misinformation as these appear based on inappropriate studies with flawed numbers involving many estimates and assumptions, producing wildlife populations effects implied rather than investigated. There are many researched findings that are evidence-based that have been ignored when these show that the impact of cats, especially domestic cats in urban areas is not as drastic nor significant.
It is a significant concern that very few NSW councils have gathered evidence of cat impacts to wildlife in their Local Government Areas (LGAs). This information is critical for informed decision-making and should be included in each council’s Biodiversity Report and Cat Management Plans, which would both involve consultation with local communities.
It is recommended for each NSW council to deliver a Biodiversity Report and Cat Management Plan with evidence of impacts to wildlife, and in perspective of other major contributing factors and councils’ responses to those e.g. habitat loss, climate change impacts in terms of bush fires, floods, droughts and vegetation/food constraints, car accidents and other human actions. These local evidence-based studies will complement evidence-based research across LGAs.
It is a significant concern that the generalised and exaggerated estimates of the impacts of cats to wildlife have been broadly published over several years. From evidence on social media and in the communities, this contributes/ encourages a negative focus on cats (cat haters boasting of harming and killing cats) and physical and social media abuse to community cat rescuers and carers. This takes the focus away from proactive and successful actions to assist wildlife, especially in urban areas.
It is recommended that our NSW government and all councils provide an ethical and evidence-based view and fulfil social licensing obligations in the interests of all stakeholders, including community cat rescuers and carers.
AJP Australia includes “claim of 2 billion animals killed by cats is exaggerated as it is not based on sound counting methodologies” and recommends to
“Develop more stringent and scientific methods for determining the impacts of cats on wildlife before developing plans based on guess-work and unscientifically derived data”
“Acknowledge the significant impact that land clearing, especially for grazing, has on compounding the effect that cats have on the environment by giving them an unfair advantage over native animals, who become much more vulnerable to threats such as predation.”
“Consider the full range of factors known to impact the survival of native species when developing management plans. Consider research in northern Australia that indicates that across most of these landscapes, managing herbivores and fire rather than culling cats, is likely a more effective way of protecting small mammals.”
“Prioritise maintaining habitat for native species by significantly reducing land clearing and re-wilding areas to convert previously-cleared land back into habitat.”
“RSPCA advocates that further research is undertaken to provide evidence of the positive and negative outcomes of cat containment before 24/7 containment can be adequately assessed.”
“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…
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.”
Invasive Species Council social media condones cruelty to all cats, e.g. 17 March 2024 FB post comments: “Time to destroy all cats”, “To be shot in sight !”, “Kill em all”, “Eels like cats”, “Neighbourhood cats make great hats”, “Targets”, “You need to put up photos of some of the cats that have been shot and tell them when their cat doesn’t come home doesn’t mean it has found a new family”, “they are also supposed to taste like Rabbit!”, “chute the cat”
TOR (b) the effectiveness of cat containment policies including potential barriers
Promoting cat containment is fully supported, however mandatory containment is not supported. The views, research and findings of the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation are supported that mandatory cat containment in forms of curfews, 24/7 or banning cats from selected suburbs or Local Government Areas (LGAs) is not effective, nor will achieve value for money in terms of outcomes for the costs. The APWF findings are based on review of a number of councils which indicates complaints and costs rise under mandatory cat containment.
There are many barriers to owners containing cats, and not all cat owners are able to contain their cats for a number of reasons, including:
housing limitations on leased properties by landlords, body corporate in strata managed apartments, and complaints from neighbours;
homes do not have air conditioning, nor are owners able to afford air con operating throughout the very long and more humid summers (increasing due to climate change);
not being able to afford outdoor cat enclosures;
the lack of acceptance of cat enclosures by neighbours putting owned cats at risk in their own backyards;
concerns about the welfare of cats as not all accept being in small enclosures.
Stray cats (semi owned and unowned cats) are likely the most common roaming cat and also found to have been abandoned in the most recent 12 months. However, mandated containment usually cannot be achieved, and the causes and problems with abandoned cats are not addressed, which means the “supply chain” of new abandoned cats continues. Mandated containment with punitive enforcement involving and high intensity euthanasia gives a false sense of actions for roaming stray cats, and high intensity euthanasia, is not an effective response nor cost effective.
Mandated cat containment becomes a barrier to those assisting stray cats, it may be interpreted that all roaming cats are “illegal” which may also mean the community members and specifically community cat rescuers are also seen to be “illegal”. This can halt all efforts to save, desex and rehome/ adopt abandoned cats.
It is also recognised that cat haters may be incited to increase levels of cruelty under any open trapping and culling policies which are not effectively monitored and harass or harm community cat rescuers who are actively helping abandoned cats.
A number of councils in ACT, WA, SA, Vic, Qld have mandated cat containment, but where is the evidence of measured impacts and improvements on wildlife? Halls Gap has totally banned cats for 30 years, but they have no measurements and it has not stopped feral cats impacting wildlife. It appears the number of cats being abandoned is not decreasing, and there still remains a need for community cat rescuers who take on the burden of abandoned cats.
Supporting information
The APWF position provides: “…the APWF is strongly opposed to mandated cat containment (night curfews and 24/7) because it leads to increased cat nuisance complaints, increased cat impoundments, increased cat and kitten euthanasia, increased costs and enforcement difficulties for local governments, increased mental health damage to veterinary staff and community residents caused by euthanasing healthy cats and kittens and no reduction in the overall number of wandering cats.”
“Mandated cat containment has been proven to be an ineffective strategy; a failure at reducing wandering cats in the short and long term, both in Australia and internationally. Mandated cat containment is not an effective strategy to reduce wandering cats because most wandering cats are strays with no owner to contain them. Even for cats with an owner, containment is often not achievable due to factors such as housing limitations, lack of financial resources and concerns about the welfare of confined cats.”https://petwelfare.org.au/2022/08/31/australian-pet-welfare-foundation-position-statement-on-cat-containment/
“Even for cats with an owner, containment is sometimes not achievable due to factors such as housing limitations (e.g., rental properties), lack of financial resources and concerns about the welfare of confined cats.
Mandatory cat containment actively prevents resolution of the longstanding free-roaming stray cat issue because it creates a major barrier to cat semi-owners adopting the stray cat they are feeding.”
The APWF information “Key issues to consider related to mandated 24 7 cat containment” includes the following.
“RSPCA Australia Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management in Australia 2018 report acknowledges:Overall, councils with cat containment regulations have not been able to demonstrate anymeasurable reduction in cat complaints or cats wandering at large following the introduction of theregulations.”
“In the City of Yarra Ranges (Victoria), in the 3rd year after mandating 24/7 cat containment: …cat-related complaints increased by 143%; …Yarra Ranges Council acknowledged that the significant increase in cat complaints, is likely to be aresult of the introduction of a 24-hour cat curfew in 2014; …impoundments increased by 68%; [and] …euthanasia increased by 18% (human population only increased by 2%) (Yarra Ranges 2021).
“In the City of Casey (Victoria), 20 years after introducing mandated 24/7 cat containment: …the number of cats impounded was still 296% higher than baseline (from 264 cats in 1998 to 1,047cats in 2019/20), more than double the rate of the human population increase.“
“In 2000, Casey received 349 cat nuisance and related complaints which had increased to 376 complaints in 2020/2021 (Casey Council 2001 & 2021”
“Stray cats are usually overlooked when mandated 24/7 cat containment is proposed, even though stray cats represent the majority of wandering cats. Most cats entering animal welfare shelters and council pounds are classed as strays, originate from low socio-economic areas and were born in the preceding 6 to 12 months (Kerr 2018, Alberthsen 2013 & 2016, Miller 2014, Ly 2021, Rinzin 2008, Zito 2016).”
“…high level culling is cost prohibitive for local governments and unacceptable to the majority of the community (Rand 2019) and there are no published reports of high-level culling at the suburb or city level being successful (Boone 2019).”
Mandated containment: “Increases risks of cruelty towards cats, increasing animal pain and suffering.”
“…in the 30 years since the Halls Gap cat ban was introduced, there has yet to be any sort of survey conducted by local or state government bodies to determine whether or not the ban has actually been a success”
TOR (c) welfare outcomes for cats under contained conditions
Similar to council pounds and animal welfare shelters, contained housing for owned cats is often limited by financial budgets, resources, space / capacity of properties, and legal obligations for owned or leased properties in urban or other zoned areas.
While a number of animal welfare organisations (e.g. RSPCA), experts (AVA, APWF, Jackson Galaxy) and cat rescue groups provide advice on keeping a cat happy and healthy being contained, only a proportion of cat owners can achieve these steps, and some cats, especially cats who have been free roaming will not instantly take to being contained. RSPCA Australia includes that some cats will not cope with containment and that mandatory containment may increase negative animal welfare impacts. APWF includes mandatory containment negatively impacts “the welfare, quality of life, and health of some contained cats which can include obesity, immobility, lower urinary tract disease and behaviour problems increasing risk of relinquishment or abandonment (RSPCA Australia 2018, Palmer & Sandoe 2014)“.
Cats have natural instincts to explore and hunt, although both of these vary per domestic cat based on a number of factors, such as their heritage/breed/genes, early conditioning from a mother and father cat, and just plain personality characteristics of each cat (just like humans).
It is recommended that any implementations of containment should:
be promoted and encouraged (not made mandatory) through effective face to face community engagement to understand local community issues and challenges,
be initially recommended for kittens rather than the acquisition of older cats who likely have preset conditioning (Grandfather clause),
include adequate planning based on evidence of the need in local evidence-based quantified research, have quantified measurable benefits for cats and their owners, and mitigate risks of negative consequences as recommended by RSPCA Australia.
Supporting information:
“You want to create spaces that really satisfy your cat’s primal instinct and challenge them the way being outdoors does… chances are you need to create additional spaces for them to do this… If your cat is showing signs of aggression or behavioral issue, it might be because one (or several) of their primal needs aren’t being met.”https://www.jacksongalaxy.com/blogs/news/what-is-catification
For owned cats: “Contained cats require an appropriate environment with enrichment that meets the cats’ physical and mental needs, allows expression of natural behaviours, promotes good health and welfare and minimises stress. This should include controlled outdoor access where possible. Significant further research is required to optimise the health and welfare of contained cats.” https://www.ava.com.au/policy-advocacy/policies/companion-animals-management-and-welfare/management-of-cats-in-australia/
“There are some circumstances under which a cat’s physical and mental needs will not be successfully met in containment due to a range of factors including the presence of other animals, space available, human factors, and ability to modify the property. There are also some cats who are unable to cope with containment. In situations where the cat is unable to be contained, alternate strategies should be implemented.
Mandatory 24/7 containment may increase the potential for negative impacts on animal welfare and the community, compared to voluntary implementation of 24/7 containment on an individual basis, by imposing it on people and cats who are not suited or capable of implementing it appropriately (see 4.2).
Due to the ambiguity surrounding the risks and effectiveness of 24/7 containment, the RSPCA advocates that further research is undertaken to provide evidence of the positive and negative outcomes of cat containment before 24/7 containment can be adequately assessed.”
“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.”
“A ‘grandfathering’ clause: a transition period that exempts existing companion cats from mandatory 24/7 cat containment by implementing the requirements only for new cats acquired after a determined date.”
“Criminalises cat ownership for low-income households and people with ‘door-dasher’ cats. Mandated 24/7 cat containment ignores social justice of legislation and the inability of low-income households and those with difficult to contain door-dasher cats to comply. Even an expensive containment enclosure does not prevent door-dasher cats from escaping. “
“Increases cat relinquishment and abandonment due to the imposition of an added responsibility and potential penalty to cat ownership (RSPCA SA 2022a).”
“Negatively impacts the welfare, quality of life, and health of some contained cats which can include obesity, immobility, lower urinary tract disease and behaviour problems increasing risk of relinquishment or abandonment (RSPCA Australia 2018, Palmer & Sandoe 2014).”
2021 research includes “there is growing evidence of environmental contamination from home furnishings and dust affecting cat health (16, 17). Keeping cats indoors can cause frustration and unwanted behavioral challenges leading to stress and compromised health, especially in multi-cat homes (4, 18).”
“One potential solution is to allow cats controlled outdoor access through a property-based containment system, such as a cat-proof fence. However, there is a lack of research on the impact of these devices on cat welfare and owner perceptions of well-being.”
“Time spent outside after installation had a significant effect on positivity and, to a lesser extent, maintenance behaviors. Overall, installation was associated with positive changes in both owner and cat quality of life, which seem to be particularly associated with an increased sense of security. This suggests that housing cats within a controlled outside environment with physical barriers can provide a practical solution for many of the problems associated with cats being allowed out.“
TOR (d) the effectiveness of community education programs and responsible pet ownership initiatives
Education and obligations for responsible pet ownership on webpages, brochures, and social media is fairly static and low on engagement levels. This may be due to the predominant “serious” nature preferred by many government and animal welfare organisations. Jackson Galaxy has identified that the use of humour and charm (including realistic love for cats) draws people to his advice and his guidance.
It appears our state government and local councils have a punitive and minimalistic approach to animal welfare, including companion animals / pets of all kinds. When a council can approve paying $400k for a single adult palm tree for landscaping in one area where $millions are spent, it is questionable why it is so difficult to prioritise to spend $100k/year on funding free and subsidies desexing and vaccinations, free registration to help reduce the populations of both cats and dogs.
Further, it is clear from either low socio economic and/or multi-cultural areas (different cultural backgrounds) that there is low regard for an animal’s welfare and/or lack of financial ability to afford the high costs for desexing and containing pets. This is obvious from the community and pet pages on social media, for which council teams rarely officially will engage.
It is strongly recommended that new face to face engagement activities in the community parks etc be funded to achieve better outcomes than in the past. Working groups involving Animal Management Officers (AMOs) and community cat rescuers should be established under the One Welfare approach for providing solutions in collaborations with community stakeholders. The community cat rescuers have established relationships with the community members and with roaming and stray cats. However, they need recognition from the state government and councils, and support dealing with the cat haters.
The current scope of animal management and pound services appear to have become minimal and enforcement oriented, for which the value to residents and community is questionable.
It is acknowledged that pets are considered of great value to people, especially to those alone, vulnerable or with physical or mental challenges. It appears that few councils do more than the very minimal with a focus on warnings or enforcement of legal obligations.
Yet some of our councils have outsourced their pet days with the community, instead of ramping up their involvement, many councils do not operate activities of engagement with their communities.
In contrast have been two councils in Western Australia (WA) Sunbury and Bayswater to encourage cat containment which included market days with cat enclosure suppliers and installers, and smaller $100 to $200 subsidies towards cat enclosures for many residents. These approaches appear much more successful over the NSW KCSAH $1k subsidies for just ten residents with conditions and without active physical engagement.
The highly successful Vic Banyule Council desexing programs was critically dependent on the AMO roles being active in the community and assisting owners and unowned cats in achieving desexing procedures. The NSW KCSAH programs that were most successful in Campbelltown, Hornsby and Parramatta were dependent on working with AMOs and community cat rescuers. The Qld APWF Community Cat Programs were critically dependent on working with cat care givers (rescuers where cats were successfully rehomed to the public). [Refer to other sections in this submission]
It is recommended:
Funding from the state and local governments should be invested in transforming council services to assist pet owners, and offer solutions when individual pet ownership problems arise. This aligns with the One Welfare approach in providing solutions over punitive enforcements. This will be most beneficial to the vulnerable, and those in the low socio-economic bracket who are financially constrained when seeking help/ options.
The NSW government lead, and each council delivers face-to-face cultural education and change management programs to respect and care for companion animals. The councils and their animal management officers (AMOs) may work collaboratively with community cat rescuers andcommunity leaders on solutions for the vulnerable / low incomes and for cultural groups where respect for animals is currently not a priority nor meeting our NSW legal obligations.
Supporting information
“Person-centered and culturally competent policies and programs that focus resources on addressing root causes of pet health and welfare issues as opposed to an emphasis on code enforcement can create more positive, scalable, and sustainable improvements in human, other animal, and environmental health and welfare outcomes. This shift from punishment-oriented approaches to support-based models of animal control aligns the animal welfare field with the modern human social justice movement.”
“There are substantial barriers to implementing animal control policies that promote One Health and One Welfare, including inherent biases regarding how and why individuals living in poverty may require additional support resources (e.g., they are just “lazy” and need to get a job so they can pay for their pet’s care on their own, rather than relying on government handouts); the animal welfare field’s historic commitment to a specific definition of “responsible pet ownership” that is driven by racism, classism, and the White dominant culture; an absence of strategies for engaging with marginalized populations in a culturally competent manner; over-policing in communities of color; lack of transparency and oversight in data regarding enforcement; lack of a concerted effort to address structural barriers to accessing pet support services; lack of animal control officer training to perform basic animal handling and zoonoses prevention tasks or in de-escalation strategies; and limited funding opportunities for projects aimed at achieving One Health and One Welfare outcomes [4,5,25,26,27,28,29,30]. Without identifying specific strategies for overcoming each of these barriers, the implicit bias that is present in animal control policy will continue, resulting in disproportionately negative impacts on the pet owners of color and their pets that live in low-income communities.”
Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement www .mdpi.com/2076-2615/10/10/1902
“Introduce NSW pound and shelter initiatives to support vulnerable or at-risk animal owners or caregivers during periods of intense need, in order to keep animals in homes and ensure the welfare and wellbeing of both humans and animals” www .al.org.au/nsw-pound-shelter-reform/
“A One Welfare approach promotes the direct and indirect links of animal welfare to human welfare and environmentally friendly animal-keeping systems.“https://www.onewelfareworld.org/
One Welfare “In practice, this concept calls for veterinarians and related animal services such as trainers, an animal’s owner, environmental scientists and human psychiatrists to collaborate and share expertise in order to care for the welfare of both animals and their owners.”
“Community health programs for pet owners – The bond between owners and their pets can decrease social isolation, increase a person’s sense of purpose and bring joy to someone’s life. This is especially true for more socially isolated groups such as elderly people or people struggling with homelessness. However, these circumstances can also make it difficult for these people to give their pets adequate care.”https://kb. rspca.org.au/knowledge-base/what-is-one-welfare/
TOR (e) implications for local councils in implementing and enforcing cat containment policies
Implications for councils in implementing and enforcing cat containment policies include the following (these summary points are supported by 16 evidence-based points from the APWF):
escalating cat nuisance and new roaming cat complaints,
additional costs, effort and resources to manage a higher number of captured roaming cats,
additional monitoring and reporting to be able to measure results, which to date have not provided value for money in several councils who have just basic information,
escalating euthanasia rates (due to the limit of rehoming by each council based on their funding/ budgets and facilities),
traumatic impacts to council and pound staff due to very high rates of euthanasing healthy adoptable animals,
traumatic impacts to the communities, community cat rescuers, also care givers, and feeders seeing their cats in colonies decimated by either authorities or cat haters (which can happen now, but certainly will escalate under any mandated containment obligations to any roaming or semi owned or unowned cat (stray)
taking responsibility for, and managing cat haters falsely interpreting cat containment legislation and regulations to empower themselves to trap and harm/ cull cats with inhuman methods – all state and council communications (and the Companion Animal Act with focus on clause 32, and Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act) need to be improved and provide clear interpretation of clauses.
Supporting Information
“32 Action to protect persons and animals against cats
(1) Any person may lawfully seize a cat if that action is reasonable and necessary for the protection of any person or animal (other than vermin) from injury or death.
(2) (Repealed)
(3) If a cat that is not under the effective control of some competent person enters any inclosed lands within the meaning of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 and approaches any animal being farmed on the land, the occupier of the land or any person authorised by the occupier can lawfully injure or destroy the cat if he or she reasonably believes that the cat will molest, attack or cause injury to any of those animals.
(4) An authorised officer who finds a cat attacking or harassing an animal (other than vermin) within a wildlife protection area (as defined in section 30 (1) (b)) can lawfully injure or destroy the cat if there is no other reasonably practicable way of protecting the animal.
“Based on the evidence, mandated 24/7 cat containment has many negative consequences including:
(1) Increases well-documented and life-threatening mental health damage to staff and community residents caused by the euthanasia of healthy cats and kittens including depression, traumatic stress and increased suicide risk (Baran 2009, Reeve 2005, Rohlf 2005, Rollin 2011, Tiesman 2015, Whiting 2011).
(2) Increases cat nuisance complaints to local governments because an expectation is created in the community that cats should not be seen.
(3) Increases cat impoundments because increased nuisance complaints and community expectations that cats should not be seen both lead to increased cat trapping and impoundment (Yarra Ranges 2021, RSPCA SA 2022b).
(4) Increases euthanasia of healthy and treatable cats and kittens in council pounds, shelters and veterinary clinics because the more cats impounded, the more cats euthanased (Kreisler 2022, Marsh 2010).
(5) Increases costs to local government for cat trapping and management. Costs of impounding, returning to owner, rehoming or euthanasing cats are typically $500/cat ($250 to $750 or more per cat). Trapping, impounding and managing 100 more cats per year costs approximately $500,000, ultimately paid by rate-payers.
(6) Increases staff burnout, staff turnover and attrition rates associated with the euthanasia of healthy and treatable cats and kittens (Australian Veterinary Association 2022, Rogelberg 2007).
(7) Promotes continuation of the reactive and ineffective typical approach to domestic cats in Australia known as Trap, adopt or kill which has failed to reduce the number of wandering cats over many decades (Boone 2019, NSW Animal Seizures – Pound Data Reports, RSPCA Australia 2021).
(8) Creates a major disincentive for cat ownership, reducing cat adoption and increasing euthanasia.
(9) Actively prevents resolution of the wandering cat issue because it creates a significant barrier to semi-owners taking full ownership of the stray cat they are feeding – this is the key solution to significantly reduce the number of unwanted kittens born and the number of wandering cats and associated issues (Banyule City Council 2020, Cotterell 2021, APWF 2021).
Semi-owners represent a huge pool of potential cat adopters for shy and timid stray cats which are difficult to adopt and are at high risk of euthanasia in shelters, pounds and veterinary clinics. Semi-ownership of cats is common with 3% to 9% of Australian adults feeding daily an average of 1.5 cats they do not perceive they own (Rand 2019, Zito 2015).
Cost is the main barrier to desexing, not lack of education or knowledge about the benefits of desexing. Most semi-owners will take full ownership of the stray cats they are feeding, registering their details on the cat’s microchip and registration databases if offered free desexing and microchipping as part of Community Cat Programs (please see below).
But mandated containment is a major barrier to this process because most semi-owners are in low socio-economic areas in low-income households unable to afford containment system costs ($700-$2000+), and many are in rental properties. On average across Australia, 20% of households (2.4 people) live on less than $650 per week (Rand 2021, ABS data 2022).
(10) Criminalises cat ownership for low-income households and people with ‘door-dasher’ cats. Mandated 24/7 cat containment ignores social justice of legislation and the inability of low-income households and those with difficult to contain door-dasher cats to comply. Even an expensive containment enclosure does not prevent door-dasher cats from escaping.
(11) Increases cat relinquishment and abandonment due to the imposition of an added responsibility and potential penalty to cat ownership (RSPCA SA 2022a).
(12) Places semi-owned stray cats being fed by people who have an emotional attachment to the cat at significant risk of being impounded and killed. 42% of all cats impounded by Australian councils are euthanased (Chua 2022 MPhil thesis).
(13) Increases risks to pet cats of being trapped and killed.
One third of cat owners lose their pet at least once in the pet’s lifetime and 41% of lost cats are indoor-only cats, as pet cats can still become lost through windows or doors accidently left open.
Even microchipped pet cats aren’t guaranteed to be safe as microchips are not necessarily found on the first scan of a cat, and it is recommended that if no microchip is found, that cats should be scanned over 3 consecutive days. Even then, microchips can be faulty or move around the cat’s body and may not be found, leading to pet cats being killed (Lord 2008, Lancaster 2015).
(14) Negatively impacts the welfare, quality of life, and health of some contained cats which can include obesity, immobility, lower urinary tract disease and behaviour problems increasing risk of relinquishment or abandonment (RSPCA Australia 2018, Palmer & Sandoe 2014).
(15) Increases risks of cruelty towards cats, increasing animal pain and suffering.
(16) Increases the number of wandering cats due to influxes of new cats after dominant resident cats are trapped and removed and increased survival of juveniles (Lazenby 2015, Miller 2014).”
…
“Based on the evidence in Australia and internationally, mandated 24/7 cat containment is essentially unenforceable, rendering mandated 24/7 cat containment impractical and unfeasible. Hume City Council in Melbourne Victoria stated in 2018 that ‘cat impoundment statistics and learnings from other councils demonstrate that a cat curfew would be largely unenforceable’ (Hume Council 2018). The City of Hobsons Bay (Victoria) also acknowledged in 2014 that introduction of mandated cat containment would lead to community expectations about enforcement that cannot be delivered (RSPCA Australia 2018, Hobsons Bay 2014). This is consistent with findings from USA (Smithfield Virginia USA 2003, Edmonds City Council Washington USA 2012, Greta City Council LA USA 2014, Police Chief Rowland Payson City Council Utah USA 2003, Alley Cat Allies 2022).”
TOR (f) the effectiveness and benefits to implementing large scale cat desexing programs
There is more than adequate and relevant evidence from Australian councils in New South Wales, Queensland, and Victoria that targeted and intense desexing of cats (owned, semi owned and unowned) can achieve results in minimising and reducing cat populations. This is supported by successful evidence from other countries.
Large scale (mass / high intensity) desexing programs for owned, semi owned and unowned cats are supported for their effectiveness in minimising cat populations. This is achieved by significantly limiting the breeding of cats, which also benefits each cat and the communities. There are benefits to councils in terms of reduced complaints, intakes to pounds, euthanasia numbers, less stress on staff. Australian examples include:
the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) Community Cat programs in Queensland in a number of Ipswich suburbs have been operating since 2021 targeting stray cats;
the highly successful desexing program operated over several years in Banyule council Victoria that provided evidence with minimising cat populations for owned and stary cats; and
the Keeping Cats Safe at Home (KCSAH) in NSW included key desexing programs coordinated by RSPCA NSW in a number of councils where approaches under the Weddin, Parramatta, Hornsby and Campbelltown councils achieved high results with minimising cat populations with targeted desexing including semi owned cats and semi owners (community cat rescuers and carers).
It is strongly recommended that evidence-based research of highly successful programs offering free desexing for owned, semi owned, and unowned cats should be considered an integral part of cat management plans for NSW.
These desexing programs provide value for money, and return on investment (e.g. Banyul financial metrics), in reducing the number of cats, roaming cats, abandoned stray cats (semi owned or unowned), and impacts to wildlife.
It is critical that these are implemented in high volume and high intensity, which is understood to mean the number of cats being desexed will exceed the breeding rate in a local area or group or colony of cats. These areas may have several causes behind the high populations i.e. due to human behaviours rather than just free roaming undesexed cats. And these causes need to be addressed in parallel with desexing programs to stem the supply chain.
It is noted that RSPCA SA is aiming to embark on a “TDAR (trap, desex, adopt or return) trial in a selected area in South Australia to trial its effectiveness” with associated actions
It is strongly recommended
for an immediate rapid and intense response across NSW to be implemented in parallel methods desexing programs for owned, semi owned and unowned cats, which have already been proven: APWF Community Cat Programs; RSPCA NSW supported programs across councils; and Council/Vet/Community Cat Rescuers collaborative efforts,
that funded intense and high-volume desexing programs should be offered free for those on low incomes, carers and rescuers of semi owned cats (community cat rescuers), and areas of high intensity cat populations,
that targeted desex and vaccinate programs are also implemented in areas with high cat impoundment rates – i.e. ‘hot spots’”,
that free desexing programs for semi owned and unowned cats be coordinated by council AMOs and community cat rescuers who have the existing closest face to face relationships with communities,
to improve the training, obligations and processes for behaviour assessments in council pound facilities to stop euthanasing cats who have not had adequate time to decompress and are likely scared domestic cats rather than feral cats, to request assistance from approved rehoming organisations and community cat rescuers with assessments and rehoming,
to improve and be transparent with the council policies and processes for the range of illnesses / health concerns and appropriately fund facilities and staff to care for cats who may then be available for adoption.
The research and studies of highly successful free cat desexing programs is supported in specific Australian councils from the APWF in Queensland, Banyule Council in Victoria, and RSPCA in NSW. This is supported by evidence from a number of similar programs from other countries.
The Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) Community Cat programs in Queensland in a number of Ipswich suburbs have been operating since 2021 targeting stray cats, including:
“…desexing of urban stray cats… provided with other veterinary care, such as vaccinations and microchipping… if they are healthy and have been thriving outdoors, the cats are returned to where they live in their home territories… will also desex pet cats if their owners cannot afford to do so themselves… [and] adopting friendly cats and kittens found outdoors, increasing responsible pet cat ownership, decreasing abandonment and mediating resident conflicts involving outdoor cats”, “desexed over 2750 cats… achieved >30% reduction in cat intake & >50% less euthanasia”, and provided several evidence-based findings for research papers, international conference papers, a number of Australian submissions. https://petwelfare.org.au/community-cat-program-faq/, https://petwelfare.org.au/community-cat-program-news-2/, https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Aust-Community-Cat-Program-2024-Report.pdf
The highly successful Community Cat Programs operated over several years by the APWF which provide evidence with managing cat populations are supported:
“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. CCPs are proven to be very effective at reducing stray cat numbers, pound intake and euthanasia, complaints and costs. CCPs are also very effective at assisting semi-owners to desex and adopt the stray cat they are feeding and continue to feed and care for their cat, significantly reducing the number of unwanted kittens born. Semi-owners represent a large pool of potential cat adopters, particularly for shy and timid cats, and are integral to resolving the stray cat issue and associated high intake and high euthanasia rates of cats in pounds and shelters. Community Cat Programs proactively manage stray cats in the community keeping cats with their owners, and because they are non-lethal they do not cause devastating mental health impacts to staff or community members, consistent with a One Welfare approach which optimises the well-being of people, animals and their environment.”https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/submissions/81381/0132%20Australian%20Pet%20Welfare%20Foundation.pdf
“The program proposed and approved by the city of Banyule was that sterilization, microchipping, and the first year of registration would be funded by the council. The purpose of this program was to increase ownership responsibilities for owned and stray cats being fed by residents (semi-owned cats) and to reduce unwanted kittens being born and, therefore, the number of cats and kittens killed in the council-contracted facility (CPS). This was provided at no cost for all owned cats and semi-owned cats in the target areas.”
“When the medium-intensity targeted program resumed in 2017/18, and the trapping process changed from enforcement-orientated to assistive, cats impounded city-wide decreased by 51% over four years, from 284 in 2016/17 to 134 in 2020/21”.
“…the traditional methods of trapping wandering and nuisance cats have not resulted in long-term reductions in cat-related calls to councils. However, following the implementation of a microtargeted free sterilization program for owned and semi-owned cats, marked reductions in cat-related calls, impoundments, euthanasia, and costs were realized, similar to that reported in US programs. It is recommended that urban cat management policies and programs are revised and, instead of being focused on a traditional compliance-based approach, are focused on being assistive, helping owners and semi-owners have their cats sterilized and identified with a microchip.”
The Keeping Cats Safe at Home (KCSAH) in NSW included key desexing programs where approaches under specific councils achieved high results with managing cat populations.
The Weddin Council KCSAH desexing program offered free microchipping and desexing which included: collaboratively working to achieve results for over 100 cats, the view this approach “represents the future of local cat management, it is the answer to reducing cat euthanasia rates and keeping cats out of pounds and shelters”. https://weddinlandcare.com.au/milestone-for-keeping-cats-safe-at-home-project
The Parramatta Council KCSAH desexing program included: an aim “to locate unowned cat hotspots and engage with overwhelmed cat carers and volunteer cat rescue groups”; and results where cat-related nuisance complaints decreased by 49% and cats arriving at the council pound decreased by 41%.https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:AP:4d1d5b58-63b5-4a70-8196-212fded377d1
Anecdotally, Campbelltown and Hornsby KCSAH desexing programs also critically included local carers and rescuers for semi owned and unowned cats. With these community cat rescuers (volunteers) a high take up of desexing was arranged with cat owners, supported transport and scheduling. These roles are critical to achieve a high number of desexing procedures to minimise cat populations with community engagement.
At the AIAM conference a KCSH presentation was provided – noting pages 12-14 for targeted desexing including semi owned cats and semi owners (community cat rescuers and carers). https://aiam.org.au/page-18158
RSPCA SA Proposed TDAR
“In TDAR, unowned or semi-owned cats are trapped, heath checked, desexed, vaccinated and then either rehomed or returned to their original location. Cats who are unsuitable for rehoming, unhealthy and unfit for release are humanely euthanised.”
“Action 23: Reduce strays taken to shelters by helping community members understand that sometimes cats are better left where they are. Promote the approach of “leave a healthy cat where they are and monitor” to stray cats.
Action 24: Undertake a ‘trap, desex and adopt or return’ (TDAR) trial in a selected area of SA, as an attempt to reduce uncontrolled breeding in urban stray cat populations.
Action 25: Educate the public about semi-owned cats as a separate category of cats, helping members of the public who feed stray cats to understand the importance of desexing and microchipping.”
It is strongly recommended that the NSW government invest funding into more intensive programs of desexing including Trap Neuter Return, Trap Neuter Vaccinate Return, Return To Field, and Shelter Neuter Return which are adequately researched over years. The evidence gathered from NSW, Queensland, and Victorian councils indicated benefits with minimising cat populations including stray cats, and therefore continuing with similar efforts will provide benefits across NSW. It is noted that both the Qld CCPs and NSW KCSAHs involved semi owned and unowned cats under community cat rescuers. The success of TNR, TNVR, RTF, and SNR techniques have also been documented in a number of studies.
Please refer to the section Evidence on desexing programs assisting with managing cat populations, of this submission document for information on the Queensland, NSW and Victorian desexing programs. These included desexing of stray cats (semi owned and unowned) where these cats were under managed colonies operated by community cat rescuers. The following are just a small sample of the evidence-based research in these techniques.
“We conclude that trap, neuter and return associated with high desexing rates in colonies, and adoption of kittens and friendly adults substantially reduces colony size, and improves the welfare of cats and kittens. This model is cost-effective for municipalities, and should be legalized in Australia.”https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/6/46
“Colony populations, when grouped by the number of years enrolled in the program, declined by a mean of 54% from entry and 82% from peak levels. Results from coexistent TNR programs in the Chicago area are consistent with these findings.”https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29346278/
“Available evidence indicates that an estimated 300 free-roaming cats were essentially unmanaged prior to the commencement of the TNR program; a quick reduction of up to one-third of the cats on the waterfront was attributed to the adoption of sociable cats and kittens; the elimination of the remaining population; over a 17-year period; was ascribed to attrition.”https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/7/11/81
“New approaches, including return-to-field (RTF) and targeted trap-neuter-return (TNR) appear to have transformative potential. …formal RTF and targeted TNR protocols, collectively referred to as a community cat program (CCP), were added to ongoing community-based TNR efforts and a pilot RTF initiative. As part of the three-year CCP, 11,746 cats were trapped, sterilized, vaccinated and returned or adopted. Feline euthanasia at the Albuquerque Animal Welfare Department (AAWD) declined by 84.1% and feline intake dropped by 37.6%; the live release rate (LRR) increased by 47.7% due primarily to these reductions in both intake and euthanasia. Modest increases in the percentage of cats returned to owner (RTO) and the adoption rate were also observed, although both metrics decreased on an absolute basis, while the number of calls to the city about dead cats declined.”https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Impact-of-an-Integrated-Program-of-and-Targeted-Spehar-Wolf/473bbf487fce3cf6a3743f73e2c1ca7b431d25a1
Integrated Return-To-Field and Targeted Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return Programs Result in Reductions of Feline Intake and Euthanasia at Six Municipal Animal Shelters
“In the past decade, two new variants of TNVR, return-to-field (RTF) and high-impact targeting, have exhibited the capacity to contribute to significant reductions in shelter intake and euthanasia. The present study examines changes in feline intake and euthanasia, as well as impacts on associated metrics, at municipal shelters located in six diverse U.S. communities after integrated programs of RTF and targeted TNVR (collectively termed “community cat programs,” CCPs) were implemented. A total of 72,970 cats were enrolled in six 3-year CCPs, 71,311 of whom (98%) were sterilized, vaccinated, and returned to their location of capture or adopted. A median reduction of 32% in feline intake, as well as a median decline of 83% in feline euthanasia occurred across the six CCPs; median feline live-release rate increased by 53% as a result of these simultaneous declines in cat admissions and euthanasia. The integration of RTF and targeted TNVR protocols appears to result in greater feline intake and euthanasia reductions than programs lacking such an integrated approach.”https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2019.00077/full
Association between a shelter-neuter-return program and cat health at a large municipal animal shelter
“RESULTS Number of cats admitted to the shelter each year decreased significantly over 8 years; beginning in 2010, duration of stay decreased. Proportion of cats euthanized decreased from 66.6% (28,976/43,517) in the pre-SNR period to 34.9% (11,999/34,380) in the post-SNR period, whereas prevalence of URI increased from 5.5% to 6.8%, and median duration of shelter stay decreased from 6 to 5 days for cats < 4 months of age and from 8 to 6 days for older cats. With implementation of the SNR program and a new treatment policy for cats with URI, more cats received treatment with less medication, yielding cost savings.” https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26799109/
TOR (g) the impact of potential cat containment measures on the pound system
The impacts to council pounds is strongly related to the section: TOR (e) implications for local councils in implementing and enforcing cat containment policies.
It is strongly recommended that council pound systems and resources will need to be significantly increased based on an assessment of the additional needs from the number of: the estimated un-microchipped yet owned cats allowed to roam and b) the domestic semi owned and unowned cats (strays).
The largest numbers will be represented by latter group. If mandatory cat containment is implemented, then it significantly impacts the community cats – semi owned and unowned, who are likely being assisted by community cat rescuers and carers, and Good Samaritans in the local government area.
Local councils and their pounds must be ready for a large influx of semi owned and unowned cats., which includes policies and priorities for addressing health issues, desexing, vaccinating and rehoming these cats, policies which will have been agreed by the stakeholders in the community.
It is strongly recommended that each council consult extensively with their communities on the council pound budget/finances/ additional staff for key aspects including:
council pounds to support and increase rehoming, and temporary care for pet owners going through difficulties e.g. financial, domestic violence, and the housing and rental crisis,
escalating euthanasia rates and additional resources needed to humanely process higher numbers of unwanted pets, and to ensure council pound staff are supported through compassion fatigue and secondary trauma for destroying healthy adoptable animals,
communication with stakeholders and the whole community, including community cat rescuers, care givers, and feeders seeing their cats in colonies decimated, through compassion fatigue and potential primary trauma themselves,
communication and engagement in addressing and repressing cat hate and cat haters who may be encouraged to take matters into their own hands with uncontrolled and unmonitored cat trapping and harming/ killing with inhumane methods, which happens now but certainly will escalate under any mandated containment obligations to any roaming or semi owned or unowned cat (stray), and repressing cat haters surrendering cats to ensure cats are treated humanely, meeting social licensing and governmental obligations,
planning for increased administrations, customer service representatives, AMO and Ranger roles being staffed and trained to cater for the above and punitive actions to try to enforce mandatory containment legislation and regulations, rather than proactively engaging with the communities.
Supporting Information
The APWF information “Key issues to consider related to mandated 24 7 cat containment” includes the following.
“RSPCA Australia Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management in Australia 2018 report acknowledges:Overall, councils with cat containment regulations have not been able to demonstrate anymeasurable reduction in cat complaints or cats wandering at large following the introduction of theregulations.”
“In the City of Yarra Ranges (Victoria), in the 3rd year after mandating 24/7 cat containment: …cat-related complaints increased by 143%; …Yarra Ranges Council acknowledged that the significant increase in cat complaints, is likely to be aresult of the introduction of a 24-hour cat curfew in 2014; …impoundments increased by 68%; [and] …euthanasia increased by 18% (human population only increased by 2%) (Yarra Ranges 2021).
“In the City of Casey (Victoria), 20 years after introducing mandated 24/7 cat containment: …the number of cats impounded was still 296% higher than baseline (from 264 cats in 1998 to 1,047cats in 2019/20), more than double the rate of the human population increase.“
“In 2000, Casey received 349 cat nuisance and related complaints which had increased to 376 complaints in 2020/2021 (Casey Council 2001 & 2021”
“Stray cats are usually overlooked when mandated 24/7 cat containment is proposed, even though stray cats represent the majority of wandering cats. Most cats entering animal welfare shelters and council pounds are classed as strays, originate from low socio-economic areas and were born in the preceding 6 to 12 months (Kerr 2018, Alberthsen 2013 & 2016, Miller 2014, Ly 2021, Rinzin 2008, Zito 2016).”
“…high level culling is cost prohibitive for local governments and unacceptable to the majority of the community (Rand 2019) and there are no published reports of high-level culling at the suburb or city level being successful (Boone 2019).”
Mandated containment: “Increases risks of cruelty towards cats, increasing animal pain and suffering.”
“…euthanasia was a common practice in shelters, averaging 869 dogs and cats annually per shelter. In response to performing euthanasia, sadness (83.3%), crying (68.5%), anger (57.4%), and depression (57.4%) were the most commonly reported staff reactions. Most shelter managers (74.0%) agreed that euthanasia contributed to burnout in staff… Shelter managers indicated that support programs were important for staff who perform euthanasia services. The most commonly offered support programs were training and education (offered in 48.1% of shelters), staff rotation (38.9%), informal peer support (38.9%), and breaks after euthanasia (35.1%). The vast majority of managers (74.0%) identified funding as the primary barrier to offering support programs.”
“At the heart of the ethical debate is the question of when, if ever, euthanasia is justified. On one side of the argument are those who believe that euthanasia can be a compassionate choice, sparing animals from unnecessary suffering. They argue that in cases where an animal is terminally ill or experiencing extreme pain, euthanasia may be the most humane option available.
On the other side of the coin are those who advocate for a more optimistic approach, one that prioritizes finding alternative solutions to euthanasia. They argue that every animal deserves a chance at life, regardless of their medical condition or behavioral issues. Instead of resorting to euthanasia, they believe that shelters should invest in resources such as medical care, behavior training, and adoption programs to give animals the best possible chance at finding a loving home.“
TOR (h) the outcomes of similar policies on cat containment in other Australian states or territories
It is understood that cat containment obligations have been mandated in a number of councils in other states and territories, including: Western Australian (WA), South Australia (SA), Victoria (Vic), the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), and Queensland (QLD).
However, there is no strong evidence provided that these obligations are successful. Refer the APWF summary across a number of Victorian councils (e.g. Hobsons Bay, Hume, Casey, Yarra Ranges) where the costs have not been justified in terms of minimal measured outcomes. The total ban on cats in Halls Gap Vic has never provided evidence in the 30 years this ban has been operating (reported by the Mayor).
It is also noted that there are many community cat rescuers and groups who continue to operate given many cats and kittens are still being abandoned as “strays”, and colonies (semi owned groups of cats) continue to operate in every state/ territory (refer Pet Rescue listings, and social media activities).
It is questionable that safety for cats and wildlife results, or better, may be achieved by proactive promotion and face to face community engagement for effective education and addressing local and cultural issues, and root causes for cats roaming and not desexed (supported by APWF).
It is strongly recommended that before a council chooses to apply mandated cat containment, effective quantified measurements should be completed to acknowledge the real impact of domestic cats on wildlife, the quantified risks to wildlife, with a detailed plan for monitoring and further measuring of effectiveness (supported by RSPCA Australia).
Supporting Information
“Based on the evidence in Australia and internationally, mandated 24/7 cat containment is essentially unenforceable, rendering mandated 24/7 cat containment impractical and unfeasible. Hume City Council in Melbourne Victoria stated in 2018 that ‘cat impoundment statistics and learnings from other councils demonstrate that a cat curfew would be largely unenforceable’ (Hume Council 2018). The City of Hobsons Bay (Victoria) also acknowledged in 2014 that introduction of mandated cat containment would lead to community expectations about enforcement that cannot be delivered (RSPCA Australia 2018, Hobsons Bay 2014). This is consistent with findings from USA (Smithfield Virginia USA 2003, Edmonds City Council Washington USA 2012, Greta City Council LA USA 2014, Police Chief Rowland Payson City Council Utah USA 2003, Alley Cat Allies 2022).”https://petwelfare.org.au/2022/09/02/key-issues-to-consider-related-to-mandated-24-7-cat-containment/
The APWF information “Key issues to consider related to mandated 24 7 cat containment” includes the following.
“RSPCA Australia Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management in Australia 2018 report acknowledges:Overall, councils with cat containment regulations have not been able to demonstrate anymeasurable reduction in cat complaints or cats wandering at large following the introduction of theregulations.”
“In the City of Yarra Ranges (Victoria), in the 3rd year after mandating 24/7 cat containment: …cat-related complaints increased by 143%; …Yarra Ranges Council acknowledged that the significant increase in cat complaints, is likely to be aresult of the introduction of a 24-hour cat curfew in 2014; …impoundments increased by 68%; [and] …euthanasia increased by 18% (human population only increased by 2%) (Yarra Ranges 2021).
“In the City of Casey (Victoria), 20 years after introducing mandated 24/7 cat containment: …the number of cats impounded was still 296% higher than baseline (from 264 cats in 1998 to 1,047cats in 2019/20), more than double the rate of the human population increase.“
“In 2000, Casey received 349 cat nuisance and related complaints which had increased to 376 complaints in 2020/2021 (Casey Council 2001 & 2021”
“Stray cats are usually overlooked when mandated 24/7 cat containment is proposed, even though stray cats represent the majority of wandering cats. Most cats entering animal welfare shelters and council pounds are classed as strays, originate from low socio-economic areas and were born in the preceding 6 to 12 months (Kerr 2018, Alberthsen 2013 & 2016, Miller 2014, Ly 2021, Rinzin 2008, Zito 2016).”
“…high level culling is cost prohibitive for local governments and unacceptable to the majority of the community (Rand 2019) and there are no published reports of high-level culling at the suburb or city level being successful (Boone 2019).”
“…in the 30 years since the Halls Gap cat ban was introduced, there has yet to be any sort of survey conducted by local or state government bodies to determine whether or not the ban has actually been a success”
“The ban on domestic cats has done little to dissuade feral cats from hunting”
“Due to the ambiguity surrounding the risks and effectiveness of 24/7 containment, the RSPCA advocates that further research is undertaken to provide evidence of the positive and negative outcomes of cat containment before 24/7 containment can be adequately assessed.”
“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
TOR (i) options for reducing the feral cat population
Feral cats represent the class of cats “are unowned, unsocialised, have no relationship with or dependence on humans and reproduce in the wild“. This definition from RSPCA in 2018 is widely accepted by government authorities and leading animal welfare organisations including APWF, AVA and AIAM. Feral cats do not include domestic semi owned and unowned cats (out of date stray cat term).
It is strongly recommended that different approaches for feral cats should be developed according to the geographical and climatic regions and the density of feral cat populations. Humane techniques such as conservation fencing, gene technology for effectively “desexing”, are supported. Inhumane techniques such as 1080 poisoning need to cease, including as 1080 indiscriminately poisons other animals including native animals.
Time to revisit the use of TNR with selected areas of feral cats since the 2014 NSW Bill
It recommended it is timely to review and update position of the 2014 NSW bill in relation to feral cats: a) as cat terms need to be more tightly classed in line with the RSPCA 2018 definitions etc, b) new evidence-based science is gathered on feral cats near urban areas (peri-urban areas), c) new evidence-based research is gathered on impacts to wildlife in specific LGAs and locations, and d) communities expecting humane methods for feral cats where they most recently were domestic cats and it is difficult to assess if they are generation-old feral cats or recent domestic abandoned cats.
“A major feature of the Animal Welfare (Population Control Programs) Bill 2014 is that it provides legal certainty for participants in TNR programs. As for the practical effectiveness of TNR programs for feral cats, the evidence is far from conclusive. It suggests high adoption rates, high sterilisation rates, small and stable cat populations and confined locations removed from native wildlife are necessary requirements for successful TNR programs. If that is the case, it begs the question whether feral cat TNR programs should only be sponsored in prescribed circumstances; for example, where they: – Operate only in metropolitan Sydney? – Manage small stable populations of cats? – Sterilise a high proportion of adult cats? – Adopt cats to responsible homes? -Identify and sterilise any new cats that enter the population? – Provide an indication of their likely impact on wildlife? 100 – Have the resources to operate over many years?”
Neither the RSPCA nor Animal Liberation considers 1080 a humane approach to killing any animal. Other animal welfare organisations agree such as the APWF and the Animal Justice Party. The impacts of 1080 include convulsions likened by a vet to be electrocuted for up to 2 days.
It is strongly recommended that the use of 1080 ceases.
Conservation fencing to keep feral cats away from at risk native animals
Conservation fencing is the most effective way to protect native animals. For native animals most at risk, then the removal of feral cats should be the priority, rather than broad techniques under processes which are not effectively monitored nor controlled for being humane.
The Australian Wildlife Conservancy is leading the establishment of feral predator-free areas with conservation fencing, with relocation and reintroduction of native wildlife. These have been shown to effectively keep feral animals out of these areas.
It is strongly recommended that our governments including NSW provides more funding for conservation fencing projects to be implemented and operated where rare native animals are most at risk, and that these will be priority areas for the humane removal of feral cats.
Conservation fencing areas also include a “training” zone
In conjunction with areas excluding all predators, the Australian Wildlife Conservancy projects are increasingly including training zones where a small number of predators are allowed. The objective is to train native animals to manage (learning defensive skills) with introduced predators. This has been active for a number of years and reported by the ABC news in 2020.
It is strongly recommended that our governments including NSW provides more funding for the conservation fenced training zones and the associated work in establishing, operating and reporting on these.
Genetic technologies
The AWC and other organisations are investigating gene technologies to reduce the populations of feral cats. Where feral cats are in very high densities these approach offers many benefits over traditional shooting and culling approaches, in a humane method.
It is strongly recommended that our governments including NSW provides more funding for assisting more rapid development of gene technologies which appear to offer the most effective and humane approach.
“The available evidence on the effect of 1080 on affected species indicates that it is not a humane poison.
A review of Sherley 2007 reported that animals who suffer convulsions are not unconscious during or between convulsions so they are able to perceive pain and experience fear and distress [1]. Other signs observed include manic behaviour (including running into objects risking injury), vomiting, whimpering and muscle spasms. The welfare concerns associated with the use of 1080 in different species have also been identified by others [2, 3] and that it causes moderate to severe suffering [4].”
“Veterinarian, Howard Ralph, stated “1080 poisoning is like being electrocuted for two-plus days””
“…has been banned in most countries, due to concerns for humans and non-target species. Its use was banned in the United States in the early 1970s after people died. Australia and New Zealand use 95% of the world’s 1080″
“1080 poison is a chemical used to kill unwanted or unwelcome wildlife across Australia. It is a white, odourless, and tasteless poison and is considered a chemical of national security concern by the Federal Australian government, based on its fatality to all lifeforms. It is one of the most toxic substances found anywhere on earth and is in the same restricted regulatory schedule as other notorious poisons like arsenic and cyanide.”
Death “…can take anywhere from half an hour to up to 48 hours. During this time, the victim experiences severe suffering and stress. They endure prolonged seizures, bleeding from bodily orifices, including the eyes, mouth, and anus. There is no antidote to 1080 poisoning. Scientists from the RSPCA have concluded that 1080 is not a humane poison.”
“…1080 targets the body’s natural functioning and disrupts the animal’s CNS and heart. Animals who ingest 1080, exhibit signs of extreme distress and pain. They are noted to scream, cry, vomit, defecate, and suffer violent and prolonged seizures [8]. People who have witnessed animals dying of 1080 state that they often run into walls or objects and lose control of their limbs [9]. They die with a final convulsion up to 48 hours (two entire days) after ingesting the poison”
“Governments across the country use it to kill dingoes, possums, wallabies, pademelons, rabbits, foxes, pigs, and cats.”
“A critical strategy for reducing the impact of foxes and cats on native wildlife is the establishment of large feral predator-free areas, surrounded by conservation fences…
Wildlife translocation and reintroduction programs conducted inside these fenced reserves are proven to be the most effective way of keeping native fauna safe and ecosystems intact.”
“We’re trying to train native animals to cope with a certain number of feral cats because we’d like to have bilbies and bettongs surviving outside fences one day” (Doctor Katherine Moseby)
“…we’re being practical about it, accepting the cats are here to stay in some form for a while, and building the capacity for our native animals to cope”.
“AWC has signed an agreement with CSIRO to explore whether emerging genetic technologies can be used to effectively remove feral cats from the landscape. Initial priorities include sequencing and mapping sex chromosomes of feral cats, and undertaking the extensive research required to better understand the population ecology and mating behaviour of feral cats.
This information is critical to ensure the spread of any genetic control. Gene drive technology is a long-term prospect requiring years of research and development, but may represent our best chance at dealing with the scourge of feral cats.”
We call on the Minister for Environment, Tanya Plibersek to correct the cruel 2023 draft Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for predation by feral cats, which intends to incorporate all stray cats as feral cats and apply the same lethal approaches to ALL urban domestic cats. This also implies there will be an end to rescue and rehoming efforts for all domestic abandoned cats: cats left behind in properties, left in parks, schools, churches, etc. as feral cats are not to be rescued nor rehomed.
2023 Draft Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) Key Sections
Summary of how eradicating stray domestic cats is included in the 2023 draft TAP
The STRAY cat definition as a separate class or category in the current Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) 2015 has been removed from the draft TAP, with the 2015 recognised need for different management strategies to FERAL cats
STRAY cats have been proposed to be a subclass of the FERAL cat term in the definition section of the draft TAP 2023.
The STRAY cat term is not clearly and separately used throughout the draft TAP as wherever the FERAL term is used is also applies to the STRAY cat subclass
Where the FERAL cat term is used, then FERAL cat response approaches / treatments are provided, which now implies these will apply to the proposed subclass of STRAY cats.
Current TAP 2015 includes stray cats as a separate class/ category needing different approaches to feral cats
The draft TAP 2023 proposes a major shift away from the previous TAP 2015 three separate categories, including the term and definition for ‘stray cats’, where such semi owned cats and unowned cats were obviously and more strongly aligned with domestic owned cats.
“Cats can be grouped into categories according to how and where they live…
feral cats are those that live and reproduce in the wild (e.g. forests, woodlands, grasslands, deserts) and survive by hunting or scavenging; none of their needs are satisfied intentionally by humans;
stray cats are those found in and around cities, towns and rural properties; they may depend on some resources provided by humans but are not owned; and
domestic cats are those owned by an individual, a household, a business or corporation; most or all of their needs are supplied by their owners. If the confinement of domestic cats becomes more common, the category of a domestic cat may need to be divided to confined and unconfined cats because the potential for these two groups to impact on native fauna is different.”
“Management of stray cats often requires a combination of technical and social approaches… the complex relationships between people, families, groups and their companion animals may require a different approach to addressing the problem of predation by feral cats” and “will need to be developed in consultation with the communities.”
Draft TAP 2023 proposes significant changes for stray cats
Section 3 Definitions in the draft TAP 2023 includes the separate “stray” cat term will become a subset of “feral” cats, and then throughout the draft TAP where the term “feral cat” is used the intention is that the scope, e.g. responses/ treatments also applies to the subset “stray cats”.
“A subset of feral cats is found in and around cities, towns and rural properties; these cats may rely on resources that are inadvertently or deliberately provided by people, such as rubbish tips or abundant rodent populations. These cats are sometimes called ‘stray cats’.”
“In this plan, ‘cat’ is used to refer to pet and feral cats collectively, whilst the terms ‘pet cat’ and ‘feral cat’ are used to refer to those specific subsets of cats.Feral cats may be further described as those livingin natural environments, and those living in or around human infrastructure or heavily modified environments.”
Lack of transparency in draft TAP 2023 for significant change in scope to stray cats
The draft TAP does not include a document change history to summarise changes from the current TAP 2015.
The document title remains “Threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats 2023”, it does not reflect the change in scope of the draft TAP to pet/ owned cats, nor stray cats (semi owned or unowned) being a subclass of feral cats and now within scope.
Section 1 Summary does not include recognition of the significant change to the “stray cats” class/ category.
Section 2 Introduction does not include recognition of the significant change to the “stray cats” class/ category.
Section 2.3 The review of the 2015 threat abatement plan does not explicitly indicate the significant change to the “stray cats” class/ category, noting this change was not included in the inquiry into the problem of feral and domestic cats.
“This document replaces the previous threat abatement plan published in 2015; it incorporates the knowledge gained since 2015, and has been modified in light of the recommendations from the review of the 2015 plan, and the report from the House of Representatives inquiry into the problem of feral and domestic cats.”
“Tackling the feral cat pandemic: a plan to save Australian wildlife, Report of the inquiry into the problem of feral and domestic cats in Australia” 2020
The report includes the following references and recommendations for stray cats.
The Forward by the Chair includes a number of references to “feral, stray and domestic cats”.
RSPCA Key Points
We agree with and support the 2024 views of the RSPCA Australia:
the “Feral cat plan targets the wrong cats”
the proposed draft TAP “means that unowned and semi-owned cats — cats who live alongside humans and have some form of contact with and reliance on people — will now be classed as ‘feral’… cats who are provided with care by someone, often multiple people” and the “cat who stops by your neighbours’ houses for a pat and to get fed is not the same as a cat who lives completely wild — but this plan treats them the same”
“Vilifying cats and declaring ‘war’ on them shifts the focus away from what should be the key objective — to protect and conserve vulnerable native species — to instead promoting the killing of as many cats as possible”
APWF Key Points
We agree with and support the views of the APWF:
“In 2015, environment ministers made a commitment to the national declaration of feral cats as a pest, and most jurisdictions accordingly now recognise feral cats as a pest. Feral pest species are to be destroyed (not rescued and rehomed). Throughout the draft TAP, wherever the feral cat term is used, the same responses and actions would then appear to apply to stray cats. ”
“The proposed actions in the plan regarding cat curfews, caps on cat ownership and restricting ownership of cats in local government areas demonstrates a lack of understanding of the cause of the free-roaming cat problem in our cities and towns based on current Australian research… the proposed solutions are highly flawed, will be costly to enforce and will be ineffective at protecting wildlife populations of concern”
“Australian research shows that Community Cat Programs based on free desexing of cats in areas with high numbers of free-roaming cats are very effective in reducing complaints, reducing free-roaming cats being impounded, reducing the number of healthy cats being killed and reducing council costs. In these programs”
AJP NSW Key Points
We agree with and support the views of Emma Hurst Animal Justice Party (AJP) NSW:
Under the draft TAP “cats will become the victims of unforgivable cruelty… A bloodbath on cats is never the answer”
“Research has shown that killing programs don’t work – they are cruel, and why would you when there are better options?”
“The science shows that the best way to reduce the number of homeless cats is to run large scale free desexing programs. The Government should also properly fund education programs about the benefits of keeping cats inside.”
Do you sometimes need a short summary of a hot topic with animal welfare? Where experts will be referenced, quite often providing detailed evidence-based research to backup recommendations?
The LRC team is creating briefs: one-page based information to share with others on some hot topics for community pet rescuers. These briefs may be downloaded and are highly dependent on reference information from a range of trusted sources – quoting the experts. Over time, we will be adding to these, initially these will be NSW and cat focused.
It is critical that everyone involved with cat welfare, especially community cat rescuers & feeders, provide a submission as feedback to this strategy. The draft Victorian Cat Management Strategy (the draft strategy) fails to include intrinsic stakeholders in the “main group” for formulation, including domestic cat management experts (eg APWF), the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA) representatives, Australian Institute of Animal Management (AIAM) representatives, and community cat rescuers and carers.
To provide feedback on the draft strategy, you may either
upload a document (.doc or .docx, no free form entry), OR
complete a survey which has specific questions and usually only one free form entry per topic of only 350 characters.
The LRC guide provides help on the following aspects & draft strategy topics.
On that same webpage you can: download the documents, and provide either a survey or a submission response.
We have yet to assess the limitations in the survey tool, though it indicates you can continue editing over time. However, we always suggest you keep your own notes, which is suitable for an upload and an easy function is available for that.
IF you would like to do your own assessment & response, then please start NOW as the strategy document is 27 pages long, and there is a summary document too.
IF your time is limited then perhaps focus on the key themes which are of most interest to you. We have highlighted some we view as critical to assess.
There is a summary of Vic’s key issues & themes, that is on page 5.
Each of the themes start on page 16, and each is covered in one page each. Therefore if your time is very limited we suggest you focus on just these pages.
The LRC team is working with others to collaborate on our view of the top issues.
We will provide updates in this blog – however initially it appears that there are gaps related to:
domestic cat management best practices (mandatory cat containment is not effective)
The OVERVIEW tab information includes the source documents in Word and PDF for both the Summary and Strategy documents, which may be downloaded.
The OVERVIEW tab also contains FAQs.
Quick Guide to Survey
We view that the survey is very limited based on a) set discussion questions from actions in the draft strategy (some actions are worded differently in the survey to the draft strategy), and b) limited to just 350 characters (not words, includes spaces) for the few free form responses, mainly one per draft strategy “Theme”.
If possible, and you can create .doc or .docx files, then please write submissions with out these constraints 🙂 and enabling you to include URL/links to quoted findings by other.
The theme pages from the strategy document are included in this blog – a section for each Theme and the top issues in our opinion.
We proved the following images of the survey questions for each pages with
examples of the free form text responses – you will need to customise these, and
for all the specific questions with options for you to select – we suggest you choose the last option “No answer / prefer not to say” if you have very limited time and have not read the draft strategy page that is referenced.
The first page of the survey is general FYI etc. Then there is basically an image for each survey page on each Theme. We have highlighted in red any key words in the survey which we believe should be brought to your attention.
The LRC example wording is from the view of community cat rescuers. Everyone is welcome to respond as to their own priorities.
Quick guide & hints for submissions / responses
HINT
EXAMPLE
Start with a reference to the Vic documents.
I provide my submission in response to the Victorian Cat Management Strategy, dated December 2023, and Draft Victorian Cat Management Strategy Summary – Key themes and actions, for your consideration.
Include a summary of your background for context of your concerns.
For many years I have assisted community cat rescuers, animal welfare organisations, and council pounds, with taking in, fostering, and rehoming cats. [feel welcome to add more with “numbers” such as years, numbers of animals that each year or in total you have assisted.]
Refer to the sections of the documents to which your feedback relates.
Theme 1. Promote cat welfare and responsible cat ownership (as a heading) or In relation to Theme 1… etc
Add your concerns & recommendations, use a simple structure for each that you can repeat 🙂
I am concerned about [issue]. This causes [one or more negative outcomes].
I strongly recommend [a change or improvement]. This will provide benefits [describe tangible and intangible benefits].
Add references to trusted sources/ research, include a quote, and URL (links).
Introduction, Managing cats in Victoria (page 6) – gaps with “main groups”
Other key stakeholders and those who deliver animal welfare services should be recognised and incorporated in the development of the framework, strategy, “laws, codes of practice, policies and plans”, including:
APWF the peak body for pet animal welfare approaches & practices,
the AVA, and
community cat rescuers and carers.
Example of very short response [<350 characters]
Other key stakeholders and key deliverers of animal welfare services should be recognised and involved in the development of the framework, strategy, “laws, codes of practice, policies and plans”, including: APWF the peak body for pet animal welfare approaches & practices; the AVA; the AIAM; and community cat rescuers and carers.
Areas of concerns & recommendations
Leading experts in domestic cat management APWF
The APWF provides advice and evidence based research (Australian and from overseas), representatives should be actively involved in the “main group” for formulation of the framework, the strategy etc to provide the best outcomes for animals. . https://petwelfare.org.au/
The APWF research assesses holistic cat management approaches, that are effective and proactive to minimise negative outcomes for animals and people. The APWF representatives also participate in advisory committees at the federal and state levels. They work at the local government/ council level “with shelters, pounds and local communities to provide proven methods that help save animals’ lives”, their “research-based strategies provide pounds & shelters with the knowledge they need to get to zero euthanasia of treatable and adoptable dogs and cats”.
Australian Institute of Animal Management (AIAM)
Considering the intrinsic value and support that the AIAM provides to all levels of government and to Animal Management Officers (AMOs), the AIAM should be considered one of the main groups of stakeholders for key consultation during the formulation of the framework etc.
It is noted that the AIAM was not included in the strategy section for Roles and Responsibilities.
Australian Veterinary Association (AVA)
Representatives from the AVA should be included as stakeholders in the “main group” with the formulation of the draft strategy and the framework components, for their expertise in animal welfare, and as many vets and their practices offer assistance with semi owned and unowned cats including rehoming services for the community. The involved vet practices relieve the burden on the local government / council pound animal welfare systems.
Community Cat Rescuers & Carers
Community cat rescuers and carers are generally volunteers providing a critical service to communities for animal welfare outcomes including rehoming, desexing, responding to health issues etc. This community services reduces the number of animals entering council pounds and shelters operated by animal welfare organisations and others.
Community cat rescuers and carers are a critical stakeholder group who need to be effectively engaged in the development of the animal welfare framework etc and delivery of associated services.
The following diagram has been provided to the NSW government from the LRC team as it amended a government consultant funded diagram to include community rescuers for both cats and dogs to the NSW overview of its systems. This amended diagram includes “small rescuers” in comparison to large animal welfare and rehoming organisations. This includes community groups and vet practices avoiding burdening the council pound systems. It is relevant to Victoria and other states and territories within Australia.
The strategy has: omitted peak advisory organisations eg APWF & AIAM; understated AVA responsibilities; vet practices need to be recognised for treating & rehoming unowned cats/kittens, & subsidised services for rescuers; rescue groups need to be recognised for independent rehoming efforts & financial burden which relieves council pound systems.
[the paragraph above is around 347 characters]
Areas of concerns & recommendations
The strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities omits experts in domestic cat management. A number of organisations and their representatives should be explicitly included with their deliverables and interactions with others forming the cat management framework, monitoring operational performance and escalating needed improvements.
Leading experts in domestic cat management APWF
The strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities needs to include the APWF.
The APWF provides advice and evidence based research (Australian and from overseas), representatives should be actively involved in the “main group” for formulation of the framework, the strategy etc to provide the best outcomes for animals. . https://petwelfare.org.au/
The APWF research assesses holistic cat management approaches, that are effective and proactive to minimise negative outcomes for animals and people. The APWF representatives also participate in advisory committees at the federal and state levels. They work at the local government/ council level “with shelters, pounds and local communities to provide proven methods that help save animals’ lives”, their “research-based strategies provide pounds & shelters with the knowledge they need to get to zero euthanasia of treatable and adoptable dogs and cats”.
AIAM
The AIAM provides support to all levels of government and to council Animal Management Officers (AMOs), the AIAM should be considered one of the main groups of stakeholders for key consultation during the formulation of the framework etc.
The strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities needs to include the AIAM, for their important role and activities, which ultimately are focused on improving outcomes for animals with the improvements to the AMO role in each council.
“The Institute seeks to support those engaged in the business of animal management by promoting:
Animal Management Officer training
Consistency of legislation
Recognition of the value of the Animal Management Officer’s role to society
Support for Animal Management Officer’s from employers and community
Consultation in the creation and development of legislation and workplace processes
Resource and network availability and access
Professionally operated Council shelter facilities with best practice animal care
Strong healthy relationships with external stakeholders”
Veterinary Practitioners
The draft strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities omits recognition that Veterinary Practitioners: take in stray/ abandoned cats (semi owned or unowned), desex, treat, and rehome to families; and some provide subsidised services to community cat rescuers performing a similar role.
The draft strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities for Veterinary Practitioners needs to recognise these essential services for companion animals, and that these efforts relieve the effort and financial burden on the council pound systems. This is a critical component for the cat management strategy for semi owned and unowned cats.
Community Cat Rescuers & Carers
The draft strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities omits recognition that “Rescue Groups and Community Foster Care Networks” with taking in and rehoming surrendered or abandoned cats/kittens, relieve the burden on the state/council animal welfare systems and resources. And that community cat rescuers and carers are performing a key role: alongside the recognised organisations being council pounds and animal welfare organisations; and these community services dramatically reduce the number of animals entering council pounds and shelters operated by animal welfare organisations and others.
The draft strategy section on Roles and Responsibilities for Rescue Groups and Community Foster Care Networks, needs to include the understanding that that community cat rescuers and carers are providing critical services to semi owned and unowned cats, assisting in these becoming owned pets once more.
This is likely a factor for gaps in other sections of the draft strategy document.
Top Issues with Theme 1 Promote cat welfare and responsible cat ownership
The traditional approaches of passive “education” and punitive legislation with negative consequences ($fines etc) are not effective, we need a transformation in approaches to achieve improvements in animal welfare and to minimise the number of abandoned cats/ kittens.
The advice and research from the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) should be followed and incorporated in the Vic strategy document. The APWF promotes “evidence-based solutions to save the lives of pets and people”. https://petwelfare.org.au/
Example of very short response [<350 characters]
Traditional approaches of passive education and punitive legislation with negative consequences ($fines etc) aren’t effective. The APWF advice for better people and animal welfare should be incorporated in this strategy. Mandatory confinement, the Trap/adopt or kill, Trap/kill, or Kill programs, are ineffective. https://petwelfare.org.au/
[The above paragraph is 340 characters]
Areas of concern & recommendations
Legislation & punishment-based approaches are not effective
The benefits of microchipping and registration are supported. However, when other legislative obligations are enforced with punitive costs and actions (potentially removing an animal from their owner and transferring to a pound where euthanasia is likely) then the community cat owners may avoid both microchipping and registration.
“Based on the evidence, the current reactive punishment-based model of domestic animal management should be replaced with a proactive support-based model to reduce costs.”
“Legislation and regulation should be amended to remove registration fees for cats and annual permit fees for undesexed cats.” The costs are a disincentive especially for those on low incomes.
“Legislation and regulation should be amended to allow cats to be registered and identified via microchip to an “organisation” rather than only to an individual person” as this assists owners and community cat rescuers and carers of semi owned cats.
“The current punishment-approach of requiring an owner to pay a fine or fee before returning the pet to the owner should be avoided” and “pets should be returned to identified owners and reasonable payment plans for any impoundment fines and fees (where needed) should be organised, instead of continuing to hold the animal after the owner is identified”.
“Legislation and regulation should be amended to prohibit deeming domestic cats that are trapped around where people live or frequent or are admitted to pounds, shelters or similar facilities as being ‘feral’. Cats trapped in response to nuisance complaints or those entering pounds should clearly be defined as domestic cats, regardless of their behaviour.” This also applies to the culture in communities with regarding all roaming cats as “feral” cats.
Proactive coal-face engagement with communities
Communication and cultural change programs should be funded to assist with solutions to increase the rate for desexing, minimise freely roaming pets, and minimise the abandonment of cats and kittens.
The following “hard issues” need to be addressed in the communities with the coal-face teams of Council Animal Management Officers and community cat rescuers:
low socio economic residents will require assistance with solutions including free desexing, transporting animals, and completing registration processes (One Welfare Approach);
different country or religious cultures impeding desexing and confinement where possible;
promotion of cat enclosures and confinement to properties (without legislation), with assistance in addressing the challenges such as strata bylaws, rental agreements with landlords, neighbour disputes with uses of fences etc.
“The current punishment-orientated domestic animal management model should be replaced with a support-based model consistent with the One Welfare concept which optimises the well-being of people, animals and their social and physical environment. Support-based strategies prevent impoundment and reduce council costs for e.g., assisting owners to build dog fencing, providing free pet identification, returning pets to identified owners and organising reasonable payment plans (where needed) instead of continuing to hold the animal after the owner is identified. Please see support-based strategies for reducing intake and euthanasia in pounds detailed throughout this submission.”
“Implement ‘Pets for Life’ concept strategies where dog and cat owners and stray cat semi-owners are supported to keep their pet or stray cat (versus relinquishment), which is a cost-effective. This should include funding for programs to help disadvantaged pet owners to keep pets with their families by assisting with veterinary costs, registration costs, and fencing.”
“Legislation and regulation to prohibit ‘No pets’ clauses in tenancy agreements in the same way it is illegal to discriminate against tenants with children, to ensure pet friendly rental accommodation matches demand across Australia.”
“Funding to promote Bed-time feeding of cats which is a highly effective way for cat owners to keep pet cats safely inside at night voluntarily (but mandatory cat containment should be rejected because it increases cat intake and euthanasia in pounds without reducing stray cats overtime).”
Desexing is the most effective approach to minimise the number of kittens being born each year, and our state and local governments need to assist with solutions beyond webpages with recommendations and occasionally offering subsidised desexing programs with “handcuffs” to microchipping and registration ie waiting for residents to be responsible.
Example of very short response [<350 characters]
The strategy needs to explicitly include: free high intensity desexing with assisted transport in low socio economic areas; free desexing for semi owned and unowned cats under community cat rescuers/carers, and council AMOs; subsidised desexing for owned cats. These approaches are proven effective by APWF research. https://petwelfare.org.au
[The above paragraph is 342 characters]
Areas of concern & recommendations
[Example, customise with your words]
Explicitly include in the draft strategy
free high intensity desexing with assisted transport in low socio-economic areas such as the Banyule program over several years;
free desexing for semi owned and unowned cats under community cat rescuers/carers and council AMOs;
subsidised desexing for owned cats.
These approaches including Banyule council program and APWF Community Cat Programs are proven effective by the APWF and with evidence based research.
Supporting Information
[quotes & references may be directly used]
In 2020 Jennifer Cotterell, then the Animal Management Officer (AMO) for Banyule Council recommended to the Australian government:
“To implement free cat desexing programs throughout Australia. The cost of the program itself is considerably less than the price that cats, vets, shelter workers and AMOs currently pay for running trap, impound and adopt or kill programs.”
This was based on the successful cat desexing program Jenny championed at Banyule over a number of years which started with a wish list involving:
“Completely free cat desexing
The implantation of a microchip so the cats could be traced back to an owner
Free council registration for the first year
A transport service provided by council AMOs for those that had none”.
2024 preliminary publication of Banyule desexing program research includes:
“Instead of traditional trap-adopt-kill, proactive management of urban cats based on targeted sterilization should be utilized by government and animal welfare agencies in Australia and internationally. These types of programs are effective at reducing intake and euthanasia and are cost-effective.”
“In Australia, traditional methods of cat management by local government (councils) animal management officers (AMO) have been ineffective, with cat-related calls and cat impoundments continuing to increase, resulting in many healthy cats being euthanized. This has detrimental effects on the mental health of AMOs, pound and shelter staff and veterinarians.”
“The City of Banyule, Victoria implemented a free cat sterilization, microchipping and registration (licensing) program in 2013-14. Initially targeted to three low socioeconomic suburbs with the highest cat-related calls and intake, where enforcement action had little effect.”
“The program was available to all cats in the area, including stray cats being fed by caregivers, provided they took ownership of the cats. There were no limitations on the number of cats enrolled per household and free transport was provided if required. The program was later expanded city-wide. Over eight years, city-wide cat intake decreased by 66%, euthanasia by 82%, with an increase in proportion of cats reclaimed by owners from a baseline of 6% of intake (2012-13) to 16% (2020-21). Cat-related calls decreased in the target area by 51% and city-wide by 36%. The council’s financial outlay was 84,000,which [resulted in decreased costs associated with cat−related calls of] 266,225.00. Instead of traditional trap-adopt- kill, proactive management of urban cats based on targeted sterilization should be utilized by government and animal welfare agencies in Australia and internationally. These types of programs are effective at reducing intake and euthanasia and are cost-effective.”
APWF Summary on community cat programs & desexing programs includes:
“The scientific basis for contemporary community cat programs shows that when high intensity desexing of all cats, targeted to areas of high cat impoundments or complaints, is combined with components of trap-adopt-or-return home methods, this can be successful in managing semi-owned and unowned cats in urban areas. There are now half a dozen publications documenting the basis for successful trap-adopt-or-return home programs at the suburb or city level (Levy et al. 2014, Spehar 2017, 2018a, 2018b & 2019, Kreisler et al. 2019). And in contrast to lethal programs that have little public support, non-lethal programs attract support from welfare agencies, rescue groups and individuals who help contribute to the cost.” (page 20) NSW Pound Inquiry submissions webpage /
Mandated cat containment/curfews have not been proven effective by councils. Free or heavily subsidised and assisted desexing programs have been proved effective in minimising the numbers of cats, roaming cats, and impacts to wildlife. Both of these have been researched by APWF. Desexing support needs to be provided to semi owned and unowned cats.
Supporting Information
[quotes & references may be directly used]
“The proposed actions in the plan regarding cat curfews, caps on cat ownership and restricting ownership of cats in local government areas demonstrates a lack of understanding of the cause of the free-roaming cat problem in our cities and towns based on current Australian research. Therefore, the proposed solutions are highly flawed, will be costly to enforce and will be ineffective at protecting wildlife populations of concern.” APWF Response to draft TAP https://petwelfare.org.au/response-to-draft-tap/
“The Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) strongly encourages inside containment of cats at night, and where possible, contained to the owner’s property during the day in a comfortable environment which meets the cat’s physical and mental needs.
However, the APWF is strongly opposed to mandated cat containment (night curfews and 24/7) because it leads to increased cat nuisance complaints, increased cat impoundments, increased cat and kitten euthanasia, increased costs and enforcement difficulties for local governments, increased mental health damage to veterinary staff and community residents caused by euthanasing healthy cats and kittens and no reduction in the overall number of wandering cats.”
“Mandated cat containment has been proven to be an ineffective strategy; a failure at reducing wandering cats in the short and long term, both in Australia and internationally. Mandated cat containment is not an effective strategy to reduce wandering cats because most wandering cats are strays with no owner to contain them. Even for cats with an owner, containment is often not achievable due to factors such as housing limitations, lack of financial resources and concerns about the welfare of confined cats.
Mandated cat containment actively prevents the resolution of the problem of wandering cats because it presents a huge barrier to cat semi-owners taking full ownership of the stray cat they are feeding.”
The APWF information on key issues with cat containment include the following.
“RSPCA Australia Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management in Australia 2018 report acknowledges:
“Overall, councils 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”.
In the City of Yarra Ranges (Victoria), in the 3rd year after mandating 24/7 cat containment:
• cat-related complaints increased by 143%
• Yarra Ranges Council acknowledged that the significant increase in cat complaints, is likely to be a
result of the introduction of a 24-hour cat curfew in 2014.
• impoundments increased by 68%
• euthanasia increased by 18% (human population only increased by 2%) (Yarra Ranges 2021)
…
In the City of Casey (Victoria), 20 years after introducing mandated 24/7 cat containment:
• the number of cats impounded was still 296% higher than baseline (from 264 cats in 1998 to 1,047
cats in 2019/20), more than double the rate of the human population increase.
• In 2000, Casey received 349 cat nuisance and related complaints which had increased to 376
complaints in 2020/2021 (Casey Council 2001 & 2021a, b)
…
The number of cat nuisance complaints and impoundments are important parameters because they reflect the size of the wandering cat population in the surrounding area.
The City of Hobsons Bay (Melbourne, Victoria) has publicly acknowledged that mandated 24/7 cat
containment is not an effective strategy for reducing the number of wandering cats or associated issues and has rejected cat curfews (Hobsons Bay 2014).
Some USA jurisdictions have introduced mandated 24/7 cat containment known as cat “leash laws” which have proven to be ineffective and impossible to enforce. When leash laws are passed, animal control impound more stray cats because they do not have an “owner” to contain them. This results in more cats being impounded and then killed but without reducing the overall number of roaming cats in the area. A number of 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).
Based on data from councils, 24/7 cat containment regulations would not provide any measurable benefit in reducing complaints, cat impoundments, potential wildlife predation or cat-related costs and would instead increase costs to local governments”
Desexing is the most effective approach for managing semi owned and unowned cats.
Action (A) 10 also implies shorter time to euthanase besides shorter times to adopt or transfer an animal. Reduced times for euthanasia are not agreed with.
A 12 does not indicate what happens to the cats who are not adopted. There needs to be explicitly stated alternatives such as supporting community cats under semi owned arrangements.
A 13 is vague and could at worst represent anything including trapping, shooting, poisoning owned, semi owned, unowned domestic cats who wander / roam onto a property. There needs to be transparency in the strategy with explicit intended approaches that will be considered.
[Refer to Theme 2 for effective desexing programs eg Banyule free desexing and APWF community cat programs.]
Community cat rescuers/ carers and the cats under their assistance need support, including free desexing, and establishing safe environments for the cats and people.
The prevention of cruelty to animals legislation etc needs to incorporate exemptions to assist community cat rescuers / carers, researchers etc to enable desexing and feeding etc without fear of being charged with abandoning an animal, an animal abandoned by its original owner. [Refer to Theme 7]
Causes of pets being abandoned need to be addressed at the source, ie the original owners with One Welfare solutions rather than punitive actions usually resulting in deaths of animals at council pounds.
TNR and RTF techniques have proven successful. In Australia, the APWF and other community cat programs have used these techniques.
Supporting Information
[quotes & references may be directly used]
[Refer to Theme 2 for supporting information (quotes and reference links) for effective desexing programs eg Banyule free desexing and APWF community cat programs.]
APWF advice includes:
“Changes to state and local government bylaws are urgently required to allow management of owned, semi-owned and unowned cats using scientifically proven, best-practice methodologies.” (page 19)
“Notably, there are no reports in the Australian or international literature of high intensity trap adopt-or kill programs being successful at the city or suburb level.” (page 20)
The research into the Newcastle cull of semi owed cats, 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, includes:
“The results demonstrates strong relationships between the caregivers and the cats, and negative impacts on caregiver mental health and quality of life associated with this lethal cat management practice. It is recommended that a care-centred management approach be taken, whereby authorities identify and assist caregivers to implement neutering and, if possible, adoption.”
“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.”
Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement, includes:
“Person-centered and culturally competent policies and programs that focus resources on addressing root causes of pet health and welfare issues as opposed to an emphasis on code enforcement can create more positive, scalable, and sustainable improvements in human, other animal, and environmental health and welfare outcomes. This shift from punishment-oriented approaches to support-based models of animal control aligns the animal welfare field with the modern human social justice movement.”
“…Shifting animal control policies from punishment to support is intended to act on the recognition of the physical and emotional benefits of the human–animal bond and incorporating animal control agencies into a more robust system that supports pet ownership“
How and when will humane approaches be used for feral cats, as a pest animal does the prevention of cruelty to animals legislation apply? 1080 poisons are not humane.
Techniques for feral cats need to be tailored to the geographical areas and animals under threat. A broad-brush mass killing approach across all of Australia is not appropriate, and there are tendencies for the community to apply lethal approaches to any roaming cat.
Conservation fencing is the most effective way to protect native animals.
Trial TNR in areas of low threat to wildlife, eg farms, industry based environments.
Supporting Information
[quotes & references may be directly used]
RSPCA Australia advises:
“All jurisdictions should define all cats with some dependence (direct or indirect)
on humans as domestic cats. Cats who are unowned, unsocialised, have no
relationship with or dependence on humans and reproduce in the wild should
“Veterinarian, Howard Ralph, stated “1080 poisoning is like being electrocuted for two-plus days”.”
“…has been banned in most countries, due to concerns for humans and non-target species. Its use was banned in the United States in the early 1970s after people died. Australia and New Zealand use 95% of the world’s 1080″
“1080 poison is a chemical used to kill unwanted or unwelcome wildlife across Australia. It is a white, odourless, and tasteless poison and is considered a chemical of national security concern by the Federal Australian government, based on its fatality to all lifeforms. It is one of the most toxic substances found anywhere on earth and is in the same restricted regulatory schedule as other notorious poisons like arsenic and cyanide.”
Death “…can take anywhere from half an hour to up to 48 hours. During this time, the victim experiences severe suffering and stress. They endure prolonged seizures, bleeding from bodily orifices, including the eyes, mouth, and anus. There is no antidote to 1080 poisoning. Scientists from the RSPCA have concluded that 1080 is not a humane poison.”
“…1080 targets the body’s natural functioning and disrupts the animal’s CNS and heart. Animals who ingest 1080, exhibit signs of extreme distress and pain. They are noted to scream, cry, vomit, defecate, and suffer violent and prolonged seizures [8]. People who have witnessed animals dying of 1080 state that they often run into walls or objects and lose control of their limbs [9]. They die with a final convulsion up to 48 hours (two entire days) after ingesting the poison”
“Governments across the country use it to kill dingoes, possums, wallabies, pademelons, rabbits, foxes, pigs, and cats.”
Animal Liberation Australia [https://www.al.org.au/ban-1080#gsc.tab=0]
DR Katherine Moseby advises on feral cat management and wildlife and includes”
“We’re trying to train native animals to cope with a certain number of feral cats because we’d like to have bilbies and bettongs surviving outside fences one day” (Doctor Katherine Moseby)
“…we’re being practical about it, accepting the cats are here to stay in some form for a while, and building the capacity for our native animals to cope”
Australian Wildlife Conservation organisation advises:
“A critical strategy for reducing the impact of foxes and cats on native wildlife is the establishment of large feral predator-free areas, surrounded by conservation fences…
Wildlife translocation and reintroduction programs conducted inside these fenced reserves are proven to be the most effective way of keeping native fauna safe and ecosystems intact.”
Other key stakeholders should be involved in the strategy “main group” and working group including:
APWF the peak body for pet animal welfare approaches & practices;
the AIAM with expert AMOs; the AVA; and
representatives from vet practitioners and community cat rescuers who are taking in and rehoming both semi owned and unowned cats.
Collaboration approaches need to include face to face engagement with various segment of pet owners and communities where cats reside. It is strongly suggested that a matrix of relationships is established for target animal welfare stakeholders, with a detailed communication plan developed to provide the best outcomes for animals and people.
[Refer to the responses to Theme 1 for more information on these critical stakeholders.]
Supporting Information
[quotes & references may be directly used]
[Refer to the responses to Theme 1 for more information on these critical stakeholders.]
RSPCA advices on One Welfare including an example of isolated and vulnerable cat owners:
“Community health programs for pet owners – The bond between owners and their pets can decrease social isolation, increase a person’s sense of purpose and bring joy to someone’s life. This is especially true for more socially isolated groups such as elderly people or people struggling with homelessness. However, these circumstances can also make it difficult for these people to give their pets adequate care.”
Registration should be free, as any cost disincentives registration. Punitive legislation and costly stays in council pounds also disincentives people registering their pets and being held accountable.
Cats should be able to be microchipped & registered to an organisation rather than an individual person to help management of semi owned cats.
Rectify the existing legislation where community cat rescuers/ carers are at threat of being charged with abandonment for assisting semi owned and unowned cats.
Respectfully recognise the efforts of community cat rescuers/ carers who take in, desex and rehome these cats and need funding assistance especially for desexing and other vet treatments.
Supporting Information
[quotes & references may be directly used]
In response to the recent NSW inquiry, APWF recommended a number of legislative imporvements, these include the following.
“Recommendation 3
Domestic cats (owned, semi-owned and unowned) should be excluded from the legal definition of feral cats in legislation and regulation. Feral cats should be defined as having no relationship with or dependence on humans (neither direct nor indirect), surviving by hunting or scavenging for food (not fed intentionally or unintentionally by humans), and living and reproducing in the wild (e.g., forests, woodlands, grasslands, deserts).
Recommendation 4
Legislation and regulation should be amended to allow cats to be registered and identified via microchip to an “organisation” rather than only to an individual person.
Recommendation 5
Legislation and regulation should be amended to remove registration fees for cats and annual permit fees for undesexed cats.
Recommendation 6
Legislation and regulation should be amended to prohibit deeming domestic cats that are trapped around where people live or frequent or are admitted to pounds, shelters or similar facilities as being ‘feral’. Cats trapped in response to nuisance complaints or those entering pounds should clearly be defined as domestic cats, regardless of their behaviour.
Recommendation 9
Legislation and regulation should be amended to prohibit deeming domestic cats that are in traps or entering pounds, shelters or similar facilities as being ‘less socialised’ ‘unsocialised’ ‘feral’ or ‘unsuitable for adoption’ based on fear behaviours exhibited prior to habituation, and prior to providing the cat with reasonable habituation time (based on science) in a non-stressful environment.
Recommendation 11
Legislation and regulation should require cats be given sufficient habituation time (at least 8 days) in a non-stressful environment before behavioural assessment begins. Based on science, the average time for cats to habituate is 5 days to 5 weeks and ranges from a minimum of 3 days to 5 weeks or longer to habituate. Euthanasing cats based on behaviour before sufficient habituation time has been provided in a non-stressful environment and continuous multiple behavioural assessments made, should be prohibited in legislation and regulation.
Recommendation 12
Euthanasing cats based on WHS reasons should be prohibited in legislation and regulation. Cats do not present a WHS concern when staff are trained and proper equipment is used. Proper equipment enables staff to avoid direct handling of any cat (including cats that are exhibiting fear behaviours – for e.g., hissing, growling, striking or hiding).
Recommendation 19
Legislation and regulation should be amended to enable Return-To-Field (RTF) for healthy or
treatable cats (desexed and microchipped).
Recommendation 20
Legislation and regulation should continue to prohibit mandatory cat containment (night and 24/7 mandatory cat containment) because it increases cat intake and euthanasia in pounds without reducing stray cats overtime.
Recommendation 22
Cat feeding bans should be prohibited in legislation and regulation and replaced with effective solutions including Community Cat Programs.
Recommendation 27
In legislation and regulation and in the relevant enforceable Code, the minimum legal requirement for euthanasia and method of euthanasia should be as follows: Euthanasia must only be performed by a registered veterinarian using barbiturate overdose (which may be in combination with sedation and analgesia).”
LRC 
