Mandated cat controlling approaches have not been successful
Mandatory / legislated practices are not effective
It is of great concern for any “mandatory” legislated practices for pet/owned cats as they have not been proven to be successful for a range of reasons. Domestic cat management practices which have not been proven to be successful include “mandatory registration, identification [microchipping], desexing and containment to the owner’s property (or equivalent control… and… mandatory cat prohibition zones” (refer APWF). Continuing to promote these in government documents (such as the draft Threat Abatement Plan, Invasive Species Council documents and council documents) as strong mandates is misleading without the scientific evidence-based research as proof these are effective and cost efficient.
We view these unsuccessful legislated mandates as inefficient and a waste of funds/ not as value for money, which will take a toll in not applying effective and proven techniques to achieve reducing the numbers of all cats.
The APWF assessment is fully supported: “The draft TAP reflects lack of consultation with expert scientists in contemporary urban cat management. 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 APWF is strongly supported in their assessment and recommendations in relation to cat management approaches for stray cats, being semi owned and unowned domestic cats, which 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 trapadopt-or kill programs being successful at the city or suburb level.” (page 20)
Negative impacts on staff and volunteers at council pounds & shelters with high euthanasia rates
[references to be included]
Negative impacts on cat carers where lethal methods have been used to kill cats
[references to be included]
Cat Management – successful approaches
“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)
Return to field (RTF) and Trap Neuter Return programs have proven successful
[references to be included]
High intensity (mass) free desexing programs have proven successful
“In Banyule City Council (Melbourne, Victoria) in the third year after implementing a high-intensity free desexing program (a community cat program) targeted to where cat-related calls and impoundments were occurring in Banyule (typically the low socio-economic areas):
impoundments decreased by 61%
euthanasia decreased by 74%
cat-related calls decreased by 64% (from 11 to 4 cat calls/1000 residents)
Since 2013, Banyule has spent $60,000 on its free desexing program and saved $397,500 on cat impoundment costs alone (Cotterell 2021, Banyule City Council 2020).”
In 2020 Jenny 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”.
One Welfare approaches for solutions rather than negative enforcement
One welfare approaches delivering support to communities and their pets have proven successful (rather than enforcement and kill approaches) and aligns with council Animal Management Officers evolving to proactive community support over enforcement of legislation etc
It appears that the inhumane techniques for poisoning feral and now stray cats (proposed in the draft TAP) is, in our opinion, hitting new heights of misleading information and lows for humane treatment of feral and now stray cats. These draft TAP and related proposals are strongly opposed.
1080
1080 is an inhumane poison that is not instant and not painless, likened to being electrocuted for days and will kill native animals as well as introduced species, It has been banned in other countries for decades, our governments must cease using 1080 (RSPCA, Howard Ralph Veterinarian, Animal Liberation Australia),
The FELIXER Machine
The Felixer Machine, inappropriately named after a domestic cat icon, for which developers admit there are faults / software bugs, likelihood of hitting other native animals (quolls, dingo pups), and constraints with AI and photo identifications being based on human intervention, with potential to be used on domestic cats in suburban areas (PetSmart/Invasive Species Solutions, Thylation the developers)
The Minister’s presentation to launch the new draft TAP (video) promoting 1080 and the Felix Machine on Channel 9
The blurring of the lines between feral cats and domestic cats, mainly in the form of the images used, and the lack of mentioning that the feral cat term in the draft TAP is proposed to be expanded for stray cats who are domestic semi owned and domestic unowned cats, ie that stray cats may also be targets for the Felixer Machine, shooting programs and increased baiting
Video of a domestic cat in a typical suburban backyard is used during the initial discussion of the Felixer Machine to lure feral cats
Multiple images of cats used throughout the program are likely domestic cats, as feral cats avoid humans and would not be still even for a photo
The Thylaton representative describing that a cat hit with the highly toxic poison “dies quite peacefully” which is incorrect
Tanya confidently claiming “cats kill about six million animals every night in Australia” repeating the misleading figures based on assumptions rather than evidence based science
The program also includes that feral cat shooting programs, increased use of baiting will be used without any further explanation
Treating illnesses with cats is very important for each cat’s health and to limit any contagious diseases. However, we need to not demonise cats for the diseases.
The LRC team provides references and quotes from trusted organisations and experts.
[This page is “under construction” and more information on separate topics will be added soon.]
While toxo is a major concern for people with immune deficiencies, it appears people with strong immunity are much less likely to be infected.
The research “2019 The One Health Approach to Toxoplasmosis: Epidemiology, Control, and Prevention Strategies”, includes some relevant factors and recommendations, including
Undetected transmissions are of concern and more rigorous testing should be instigated
People and animals are more likely to be infected from raw or undercooked meat, contaminated water, soil or vegetables etc and addressed with basic hygiene and cooking/ preparation of meals
A vaccine for cats has been developed
Integration of human health, animal health and ecosystems is required to generate new approaches and manage this disease.
“Recent studies have demonstrated that undetected environmental oocyst transmission is the major route of T. gondii transmission presenting a direct public and animal health problem (Tenter et al. 2000, Dabritz and Conrad 2010, Boyer et al. 2011, Hill et al. 2005, 2011, Torrey and Yolken 2013; VanWormer et al. 2016). The risk factors for human and animal infection include consuming infected raw or undercooked meat; ingestion of contaminated water, soil, vegetables, or anything contaminated with oocysts shed in feces; blood transfusion or organ transplants; intrauterine or transplacental transmission; and drinking infected unpasteurized milk. The majority (78%) of congenital toxoplasmosis cases from four epidemics in North America originated from oocyst exposure, though only 49% of these cases could be confirmed as foodborne. Two public health studies in Chile evaluated oocyst-acquired infections in pregnant women and in swine, which are a primary food source; T. gondii oocyst-specific IgG antibodies were determined in 193/490 (43%) of serum samples from pregnant women and in 24/30 (80%) of 30/340 (8.8%) the swine (Muñoz-Zanzi et al. 2010, 2012). Oocysts can also contaminate drinking water sources, both small-scale wells (Sroka et al. 2006) and larger reservoirs (Bowie et al. 1997), and can contaminate surfaces, such as dog fur (Frenkel et al. 2003) or keypads (Bik et al. 2016).”
“Future research should also focus on vaccine development. A vaccine is available for sheep in some countries, but no vaccine exists for other livestock, humans, or wildlife. A vaccine for domestic cats was produced, but its implementation has been limited by high costs of production, short shelf life, and lack of interest from domestic cat owners (Dubey 2010).”
“The increasing demand for food safety together with the potential economic impact of legislation aimed at risk reduction has brought attention to the need for the development and standardization of diagnostic tests for Toxoplasma infection. Such tests will need to provide an accurate estimate of risks of transmission of toxoplasmosis to humans and must perform with comparable specificity and sensitivity across a range of animal species. Despite the lack of widespread, effective screening processes are in place for consumer meats, with new standardized tests which may be useful for disease monitoring and control (Nunes Mecca et al. 2011).”
“One Health has emphasized the need to bridge disciplines linking human health, animal health, and ecosystem health. Toxoplasmosis demands integrative approaches breaching disciplinary boundaries. This integration is needed to generate new approaches to manage and control the disease. The complexity of toxoplasmosis requires the development of a dashboard system of measures that are a combination of health and ecological indicators, that is, an easy set of indicators for quick reference to identify prevention and management needs.
Transdisciplinarity, integrative research, and capacity building are core elements in establishing One Health interventions that address toxoplasmosis.”
It is strongly recommended that free cat vaccinations for toxo are assessed for offering as a proven way of reducing this disease considering the quoted figures for impacts to businesses.
This blog is a summary of the evolution of the terms and definitions for cats in Australia, ie how do we categorise cats largely by their behaviours. These terms (however poorly defined) are critical as they dictate or imply legal obligations – whether you agree with them or not. Our LRC post references:
“The Good” being the latest industry expert knowledge from APWF & others
“The Bad” being our current government terms & confusions/ misunderstandings
“The Ugly” being the recent proposal in the Australian draft Threat Abatement Plan that proposed stray cats be a subclass of feral cats
Feral cats versus Domestic Cats: Owned; Semi owned; Unownedcats
APWF response to the draft TAP,
note the definitions, more is available in the APWF position statement on cat definitions
Note:
use multi-cat or other terms than colonies
eg semi owned such as community cats; & community cat rescuers/ carers
The LRC team considers Jacquie Rand and her team at APWF are leaders in Australian for domestic cat management, and their work is presented overseas and aligned with international organisations. Therefore well considered the latest & the best!
The strategies for managing cat issues need to be customised based on the categories.
The best categories for cats have been developed based on shared behaviours and are clearly mutually exclusive, ie it is easy to distinguish what category a cat is assigned to.
The LRC team notes that various state/ territory, local government and animal welfare organisations use the terms and definitions from RSPCA Australia (2018) and since then the APWF (2023 and earlier).
“The Bad”: current government terms
The feral and stray terms are embedded in various legislation and related documents: Commonwealth, state/ territory and local government (councils). However, there are few definitions. The terms in legislation etc describe the legal obligations for how cats are to be treated and managed. Without shared Australian definitions for these terms, it leads to different interpretations and confusion.
2015 Feral cats declared a pest animal
“At the Meeting of Environment Ministers (Melbourne, 15 July 2015), Ministers endorsed the National declaration of feral cats as pests. As part of this declaration, Ministers agreed to review arrangements within their respective jurisdictions and, where necessary, to remove unnecessary barriers to effective and humane control of feral cats.”
Please note, the LRTC team does not provide legal advice, and the following is our view on complex and vague legislation.
NSW Feral Cats
NSW has a Biodiversity Act and separate protocol document for feral cats.
The NSW Companion Animal (CA) Act 1998 includes a reference to feral cats and it did contain reference to stray cats which appears to have been removed since 2020.
NSW Companion Animal Cats
Section 30 of the CA Act includes where cats may be removed from prohibited areas, and may involved: “any person… may seize a cat that is in a place in which cats are prohibited under this section for the cat’s own protection” providing the cat’s owner is not present; otherwise only authorised persons may remove a cat.
Prohibited areas include food preparation (but not the roadway or walkway next to one of these), and Wildlife Protection Areas (WPA) that each council may designate, and may designate which of these do not allow roaming cats. Therefore, each council WPA needs to be checked. Interestingly in many situations, each council may allow dogs on leashes and it is not rare for dog owners to be found at fault walking dogs off leashes for which there is just a penalty, the dogs are not impounded like cats.
Section 31 includes information on nuisance cats, to be responded by an authorised officer of a council.
Section 32 provides information on actions which may be taken to protect persons and animals against cats, including: ”(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”; ”(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”; and “(6) An authorised officer is not to give a direction under this section for the purpose of causing a cat to be taken to a council pound unless the authorised officer is satisfied that the owner of the cat cannot be identified”.
We note that the CA Act does include definitions for animals (which in some cases, does not mean humans, insects nor birds), nor farmed animals. It is questionable that introduced animals that are considered pests are included. It is also questionable that community cats (singles or groups) may be Semi Owned under community cat rescuers/ carers. At this time (January 2024), it is noted that Green NSW are proposing recognition of Semi Owned cats in alignment with the NSW Pound Inquiry for which the final findings and recommendations have yet to be published.
Rehoming Organisations and Community Rescuers / Carers
It has been and still remains confusing for citizens and designated Rehoming Organisations and community rescue groups in relation to obligations for stray cats being domestic semi owned (eg community cats) or unowned), and for citizens who believe they may seize/ trap a cat.
In 2020 stray cats were included in the Companion Animals Act under section 62. This was referenced and still is referenced in the NSW Rehoming Organisation application form – an obligation that new applicants are still required to sign/agree to:
“I understand that it may be a breach of the Companion Animals Act 1998 for staff or carers of the organisation to accept an animal into care if the animal has been brought in as a stray or surrendered by someone other than the animal’s owner, rather than being surrendered by the animals’ owner or supplied from a council pound, either directly or via another animal welfare organisation (see section 62 of the Act).” was included in the NSW Rehoming Organisation application forms versions June and November 2022.
The previous scheme for 17(c) exemption organisations included “stray/feral and/or colony cat”:
“I understand that it may be a breach of the Companion Animals Act 1998for staff or carers of the organisation to accept an animal into care if the animal has been brought in as a stray/feral and/or colony cat or surrendered by someone other than the animal’s owner, rather than being surrendered by the animals’ owner or supplied from a council pound, either directly or via another animal welfare organisation (see section 62 of the CA Act).”
This was also confirmed in 2020 by NSW OLG in response to a query on this obligation:
“I can confirm that, if you are an Approved Person (which is something that is approved by our Program Delivery Team), then yes you are able to scan the details of a microchipped animal to enable you to return the stray animal to its rightful owners. If you are NOT an Approved Person, then you must deliver that animal to the closest pound to enable the pound to return the stray animal.
If you wish to apply for a clause 17(1)(c) exemption (previously clause 16(d) exemption), you are not allowed to rehome stray animals under this exemption. Any stray animals, must be delivered to a pound OR as mentioned above, if you are an Approved Person, you may scan the animal and return it to its rightful owner. “
Assessment Officer -Performance Team, Office of Local Government email Oct 6 2020
It appears that this obligation has been repealed/ removed/ replaced under the NSW Companion Animal Act,
These obligations for designated Rehoming Organisations or community rescue groups are vague and confusing, as it is not clear:
that rehoming organisations are prohibited from rehoming cats removed from non-prohibited places, or perhaps even prohibited places (provided they have not been seized from such places as indicated elsewhere in the Act),
if a person removes a cat from a non-prohibited area, or perhaps a prohibited area without ‘seizing’ the animal under the Act, then the cat would not need to delivered to the owner, a pound or approved premises,
how the obligation in the application declaration may be effective if the Act no longer includes the specific stray cat term and obligations.
AWL QLD Assessment in 2020
LRC support the AWL QLD assessment across jurisdictions provided to the government in 2020 (we are waiting on the submissions in 2023) – does it appear that little has changed?
“Currently many Councils are refusing to help local communities desex the unowned cats which live and breed in cities and towns, because most State Government laws identify unowned cats as “feral” cats and make it an offence to feed or manage these cats…
With reclassification of unowned cats in cities and towns as “domestic” cats not “feral”, our Cooperative Desexing Program could be expanded to incorporate desexing and management of these cats to also reduce their numbers ethically and sustainably.”
“…the Commonwealth Government has avoided the issue of unwanted and unowned cats in urban and suburban areas or in rural towns and farming areas (despite AWLQ and others discussing and urging this with the Threatened Species Commissioner in 2017). This is counterproductive as state and local governments have struggled to provide a consistent message or develop consistent supportive policies to prevent the breeding, wandering and abandonment of cats in Australia.”
“Current legislative and regulatory approaches to cat management by federal, state and local governments have been largely reactive rather than preventative. In some states, local government has ignored cat management, and expected private not-for-profits to manage an overload of unwanted cats. In other states local government are using punitive and ineffective animal control strategies e.g. fines for people who feed cats or extra charges for people who take in too many abandoned cats.”
“The prevalence of unowned domestic cats has largely been ignored by many Councils as well as state and federal governments. Little work has been put into assessing how many cats there are and ways to prevent these two groups of cats which can contribute to predation and the breeding of unwanted cats.“
“Compassionate members of the community have been left struggling to feed and manage these cats and are often ineffective in reducing their numbers due to limited resources. However, evidence suggests numbers of unowned cats can be reduced if assisted with desexing and monitoring for any further undesexed cat immigration. Because community efforts are sometimes subverted by Councils who conduct random trapping and killing without consultation, compassionate people will not report the location of these cats. According to a Brisbane survey, most people prefer non-lethal management of stray cats by desexing, than by killing, or leaving the cats as they are.” AWL QLD 2020
“The Ugly”: Australian draft TAP proposal
There were two key issues with the 2023 Australian draft Threat Abatement Plan for feral cats:
Proposing for stray cats to be a subclass of feral cats, which
is not logical as stray cats are better known as domestic owned, semi owned or unowned cats
implies stray cats will be destroyed as are feral cats
Not yet consulting with domestic cat experts and using evidence based research in the strategies, steps and responses for feral cats to be applied to stray cats (domestic owned, semi owned or unowned).
The APWF summarised the impacts of this proposed approach.
“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. As cat definitions are non-existent or loose in each state/territory legislation, it may also be implied that from the date the TAP is approved by the Minister, the TAP cat definitions will flow down to all legislation in states/territories and all local governments.” APWF response to draft TAP
The draft TAP includes a change which has a significant impact for stray cats.
Feral cats are to be destroyed and not rescued nor rehomed.
Overview of differences in government versus industry terms for key terms (eg stray cats)
The diagram below highlights over the last several years, the views of classes or categories of cats. Take note of the Australian government’s definitions, which so far have failed to take into account the cat industry experts knowledge and recommendations, including
The definitions for these key terms are shown in the next diagram (zoom in 😉 )
The term for “stray” cats has been replaced by experts with domestic semi owned or domestic unowned cats, yet the government has a different view
The 2023 draft Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) for feral cats proposed that stray cats be a subclass of feral cats – neither a logical nor appropriate proposal, nor aligned with domestic cat experts.
The 2018 RSPCA cat terms and definitions have been supported by many trusted and respected animal welfare organisations: the Australian Institute of Animal Management (AIAM); Animal Welfare League QLD; Cat Welfare Society Inc. T/A Cat Haven; Australian Veterinary Association (AVA). This foundation has been evolved under the APWF based on Australian evidence based research.
LRC provides a range of quotes and reference sources to clarify the impacts of cats on wildlife. The majority of these are based on scientific evidence, however some views are also included (and the distinction between the two is made obvious). These quotes and reference sources are provided due to the assumptions and misunderstandings that have been included in media and “studies”, and some of our governments’ views in the Australian draft Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) on feral cats. https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/draft-updated-threat-abatement-plan-for-predation-by-feral-cats
It has been recognised by our government that the biggest threat to wildlife is habitat loss most often due to land clearing for developments (Australia’s State of the Environment Report 2021). https://soe.dcceew.gov.au/biodiversity/key-findings
“Habitat loss and clearing has caused the extinction of 62 Australian terrestrial species since European colonisation… The state of the environment in Australia is deteriorating as a result of cumulative and increasing pressures from climate change, habitat loss, invasive species, pollution and resource extraction. The massive scale of impacts, for example from the 2019-20 bushfires that burnt more than 8 million hectares of native vegetation, may leave ecosystems susceptible to collapse. We can expect many ecosystems to undergo sudden, unpredictable and often irreversible transitions to new states leading to biodiversity decline, erosion, loss of soil fertility and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions.” https://www.dcceew.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/6.%20DCCEEW-SOE_factsheet_Habitat%20and%20Natural%20Capital.pdf
Questionable opinion that cats occur across 99.9% of Australia very often quoted as a fact
The federal government’s draft TAP Background document includes an explanation that feral cats occur in 99.9% of Australia, and that this was calculated by subtracting the percentage of the limited known areas of cat free locations from 100% for the whole nation. That feral cats are prevalent is agreed, however, it is highly questionable that without evidence-based proof, as to why this misinformation spread?
“Based on the total areas of enclosures and the maximum number of islands without cats, the total extent of areas in Australia without feral cats is less than 8681 km2, meaning that feral cats occur in 99.9% of Australia”. https://consult.dcceew.gov.au/draft-updated-threat-abatement-plan-for-predation-by-feral-cats
It is noted that this estimated figure is provided by the Threatened Species Recovery Hub, and they choose to present this estimated assumption in in their material labelled “Science” and “fact”.
Estimates of feral cats are a significant range as feral cats have not been effectively counted
It is of great concern that the federal government’s draft TAP includes the statement that there “are 1.4 to 5.6 million feral cats in natural environments (with the number fluctuating depending on environmental conditions), over 0.7 million feral cats in heavily modified habitats, and 5.3 million pet cats (2022 estimate)”, without providing context of how this estimate has been calculated, which has most likely been heavily based on assumptions. These figures are often used by many other media publications.
It is noted that the TSRH only view two categories of cats being feral and pet/owned. This implies all abandoned / stray domestic cats, either unowned or semi owned (eg in managed colonies or community cats) have been incorporated and classed as feral in behaviour, which is not valid nor logical.
The TSRH have a different view from industry experts on the category of cats and their behaviours. The behaviour and impacts of stray domestic cats predominantly under the care of people are entirely different to true feral / wild cats.
In reality, domestic semi owned cats are usually fed by carers/ rescuers, and even domestic unowned cats may seek food as scraps as left as rubbish from people.
Estimates of owned / pet cats do not reflect the significant fluctuations from recent events
The TSRH provides just one number for the number of pet cats, though the numbers have fluctuated greatly over the last few years.
The TSRH confuses feral cats with stray domestic cats with an also confused understanding of cat colonies.
Therefore, with the “extrapolation and modelling”, their estimates are highly questionable.
These figures are often used by many other media publications.
It is noted that the Animal Medicines Australia provided new figures on the numbers of pets. However this was produced around the peak of pet adoptions during the first two years of Covid home based restrictions, and since then we are all very aware of now experiencing the worst ever period of pets being surrendered and abandoned.
The difference between causing versus contributing to species extinctions
It is of great concern that the Federal government’s draft TAP includes “Cats have caused profound species loss in Australia” when this it not proved by evidence. Was it just only one situation on an island where cats were able to be identified as the cause of intinction of one species? In other publications it is noted that the impacts of cats is a contributing factor, however, this appears to be often misquoted by many across the internet and social media.
Other contributing factors tend to be habitat loss (the top impact for wildlife), drought, bushfires especially increased in intensity and frequency due to climate change.
[to include references]
Debunking the questionable “generalisations” on all cats across Australia re prey (introduced or wildlife)
Recent Vic Wildlife Report includes habitat loss, road accidents and illegal pet keeping as main causes of harm to wildlife
Sad news for Vic wildlife of record of injuries in 2023 – this is likely similar for all other states & territories. Major causes include:
– climate change & loss of habitat (aligns with the 2021 State of the Environment Report)
– accidents, mostly road / vehicle injuries
– people intentionally causing harming or death, mainly roos and possums
– health deteriorations due to being illegally kept as pets by people
“…it is important to note that there is actually no scientific evidence that domestic cats living in the vicinity of people, impact Australian native wildlife populations. In fact, population studies have not found a measurable effect of domestic cats on native birds and mammals (Barratt 1998, Grayson 2007, Lilith 2010, Maclagan 2018). In addition, there is no evidence that cat restrictions in urban areas benefit native wildlife populations.”
“The estimates of wildlife predation by pet and stray cats are also very flawed. For example, it is frequently quoted that pet cats predate 61 million birds each year. This was based on extrapolation of surveys of cat owners 20 to 30 years ago, and the majority of studies (4/6) were not published in peer-reviewed literature. Based on these surveys, the authors concluded the average pet cat predates 15.6 birds per year (the peer-reviewed studies estimated a median of 1.5 birds a year). The researchers then multiplied 15.6 birds by the total number of pet cats, regardless of whether they were confined inside or were elderly or never seen to predate. They then imply pet cats cause devastating effects on native wildlife in our towns and cities. However, the published population studies from urban areas of Australia have not been able to document a population effect on birds or mammals (reptiles and amphibians have not been studied).
Importantly, banning cats from some suburbs has been shown to have no beneficial effect on native mammals in adjacent bushland. Similarly, the presence of cats had no effect on the density and diversity of birds, but density of housing, distance from bushland and decreasing size of remnant bushland had a strong negative effect on bird populations.” https://petwelfare.org.au/response-to-draft-tap/
“Despite the lack of scientific evidence, domestic cats in Australia still receive significant blame for negative impacts on native wildlife populations. False blame for wildlife impacts directed at domestic cats is harmful because it contributes to the implementation of ineffective domestic cat management strategies and can be used as a justification for lethal approaches to domestic cats…
“An ongoing issue is that 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. The impact of feral cats on native wildlife in natural environments is well-documented. Surprisingly, however, limited research exists on domestic cat wildlife impacts. The impacts (if any) of domestic cats on native wildlife populations is largely unknown. Contrary to popular belief, 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. Despite this lack of evidence, domestic cats in Australia still receive significant blame for negative impacts on native wildlife populations.” https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Data-to-Support-Position-Statement-on-Domestic-cats-and-native-wildlife.10jn.n-t.pdf
Do Pet Cats Deserve the Disproportionate Blame for Wildlife Predation Compared to Pet Dogs?
“…substantial attention and blame directed at domestic cats for their hunting behavior is disproportionately large compared to that directed toward domestic dogs, given that our results show that of dogs and cats that catch prey, dogs are more likely to catch native species… hunting by domestic dogs and cats appears to be of relatively minor conservation concern compared with issues such as habitat loss and urban development” https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fvets.2021.731689/full
“The number of native Australian animals killed by feral cats each night is also difficult to calculate”
It is noted that even several years ago that the range of findings vary between many different studies of the contents of cats’ stomachs which it appears have predominantly been from feral cats in arid areas. This situation does not appear to have changed in these years with balancing across various studies and gathering more evidence in Australia for domestic cats and drawing findings for all and domestic cats.
There exists research which indicates other factors have a greater impact than feral cats. Without addressing these factors, then the approach of killing / eradicating cats cannot be effectively measured and is unlikely to greatly benefit the wildlife.
“The mystery of the Top End’s vanishing wildlife, and the unexpected culprits”
“The mystery of the Top End’s vanishing wildlife, and the unexpected culprits” includes it was “found that the collective influence of feral livestock — such as buffaloes, horses, cattle and donkeys — has been largely underestimated. Even at quite low numbers, feral livestock can have a big impact on our high-value conservation areas and the wildlife they support.”
“The isolated areas where mammals are persisting have retained good-quality habitat, with a greater variety of plant species and dense shrubs and grasses.”
Researched across the very north of Australia where fires are seldom experienced and including in national parks, native animals such as tree dwelling creatures eg brushtail possums, plus bandicoots and native rodents and more, have dramatically diminished. While feral cats have had an impact, it is the buffalo, horses, etc who though in small numbers have had a much more significant impact on habitat and impacts to native species. Based on the same research as the point above, however highlights habitat loss where fires are not a contributing factor.
“Feral animals in NT putting native wildlife in peril”
“…managing herbivores and fire rather than culling cats, is likely a more effective way of protecting small mammals”
Further comments on this same piece of research include “Cats play a role in mammal declines, but the impact of cats is greatly magnified in areas where vegetation has been degraded by frequent fire and over grazing.”
“…no evidence that culling has reduced overall numbers of feral cats in Australia”
“Despite culling of cats over many years, there is no evidence that culling has reduced overall numbers of feral cats in Australia, which is difficult in vast, remote landscapes (Stobo-Wilson et al. 2020).” [https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/APWF-Submission-to-Inquiry-of-Feral-Domestic-Cats-2020.22.jr_.n-t.pdf]
What do urban cats mainly eat?
For urban cats it is rats and mice that are more preferred over other animals/mammals.
For example, the domestic cat stomach content analysis study (Brisbane, Qld) includes that the stomach contents analysis provided evidence of introduced black rats.
“The preliminary findings from a recent UQ study show that pet cats overwhelmingly catch mice followed by rats and small lizards, and only infrequently native birds, which are common species such as Noisy Mynahs (Franklin & Rand unpublished data). These findings are consistent with data from many studies which report the main component of feral cats’ diet consists of mice, rats and rabbits (Dickman 2009). This is also consistent with the findings from Macquarie Island where cats had a positive effect on wildlife because of their predation of introduced rabbits (Bergstrom 2009).”
Don’t judge habitat on its novelty: Assessing the value of novel habitats for an endangered mammal in a peri-urban landscape
Sarah J. Maclagan, Terry Coates, Euan G. Ritchie “…bandicoot abundance was higher at novel than remnant sites, with the highest abundance at the novel site with the most urbanised surroundings …The majority of bandicoots at novel sites were resident, and breeding activity, recruitment of first-year adults, and survival of mature adults were observed at all novel sites.
Our results demonstrate the potential significance of novel habitats for conserving threatened species within heavily-modified landscapes, and encourage us not to judge the quality of habitats on their novelty alone.” https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320717321262e
Species richness and community composition of passerine birds in suburban Perth: is predation by pet cats the most important factor?
Do cat restrictions lead to increased species diversity or abundance of small and medium sized mammals in remnant urban bushland?
Maggie Lilith, Michael Calver, Mark Garkaklis “It appears that pet cats are not the major influence on the species diversity or abundance of small and medium-sized mammals at these sites and that vegetation characteristics may be more important.” https://www.publish.csiro.au/PC/PC100162
Other related evidence based research
Barratt DG (1998) Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife, Wildlife Research, 1998, 25, 475–487.
Lazenby B.T., Mooney N.J. and Dickman C.R. (2015) “Effects of low-level culling of feral cats in open populations: a case study from the forests of southern Tasmania”, Wildlife Research, 41(5), 407.
Leis L (2021) What effect does diet have on body condition of unowned cats in the Southern Downs Region, Queensland? A thesis submitted In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science (Honours) Submitted: November 2021
Lilith M, Calver M, Styles I, Garkaklis M (2006) Protecting wildlife from predation by owned domestic cats: Application of a precautionary approach to the acceptability of proposed cat regulations Austral Ecology 31 (2), 176-189.
Matthews A., Dickman C.R. and Major R.E. (1999) “The influence of fragment size and edge on nest predation in urban bushland”, Ecography, 22(4), 349-356.
Miller, P.S., Boone, J.D., Briggs, J.R., Lawler, D.F., Levy, J.K., Nutter, F.B., Slater, M. and Zawistowski, S. (2014) “Simulating free-roaming cat population management options in open demographic environments”, PLoS ONE, 9, e113553.
Interested in helping our native wildlife to have safer lives? Here are a number of the small to major options to help wildlife safe in their rightful homes, i.e. their natural habitat. Some of the small options are useful in urban areas too. Hopefully, these options provide a starting point for a discussion with your councillors and council team if you seek to improve conditions for wildlife.
Also, there is usually a need for assisting with counting and monitoring wildlife too in your local area. Please also take the time to check if your council already has a biodiversity report for the wildlife most in need in your LGA. If not, then ask why not? and look for your state advice / reports.
Some councils already have a few wildlife sky bridges / other solutions – why not ask your council team about these and locations? Most often, cost is the most prohibitive factor, and to change and improve situations for our wildlife will take lobbying your council and state/ territory government.
Help your local wildlife enjoy a safer life in their home / natural habitat.
A very recent rope bridge for a range of wildlife has been installed on an often used road that runs alongside a native park in Sydney, and then the major part through a number of very leafy north shore suburbs.
If this can be achieved in one council local government area, let’s see if we can find out the costs to build, and then promote a business case/ proposal for more in every council area?
Some councils already have a few wildlife sky bridges / other solutions – why not ask your council team about these and locations? Usually cost is the most prohibitive factor, and to change and improve situations for our wildlife will take lobbying your council and state/ territory government.
Virtual fences – trial at Eurobodalla proving effective (<80km & after dark)
23 September 2023 the Eurobodalla council provided an update which includes:
“It was the first road in NSW where the virtual fencing was trialled. In the eight months after installation of the virtual fence, only five animals were killed. Recently, the fence had some teething issues and lost power, most likely caused by insufficient solar charging in winter because of overshadowing by trees. In just two weeks four animals were killed, highlighting how effective it is when fully operational…
“One unfortunate limitation of the virtual fence is they don’t work in areas where the speed limit is faster than 80 km/hr because cars pass too quickly for the virtual fence to be effective.”
There are benefits in reducing the number of animals injured or killed, however, there are constraints to these fences:
these only operate after dark when cars have their headlights on to trigger the devices
there is a constraint that vehicles are travelling under 80km/hour
there is limited opportunities for wildlife to “learn” as if the wildlife doesn’t respond to the warning sound the consequences are often lethal.
Fauna Crossings offer a range of tunnel and bridge solutions
The LRC team has been following this Aussie company for a few years – they provide a range of solutions, one of the largest was a sky bridge across 80 metres! Showing that a range of solutions is possible for a range of our wildlife.
They have a “brochure”, which may be a great starting point with local councils and discussing with native wildlife support groups to assess where is the most need?
Conservation Fencing, “please fence us in!”
“Standing at 1.8m tall, the steel fences initially look unfinished – but it is all part of the purpose. …“the top of the fence is deliberately floppy. It’s designed this way to stop cats from getting in. If one was to climb the fence, the floppy top is unstable, and their body weight is enough to make the floppy top sag down and they will strike the two energized wires.”
(Note: the latter likely impacts other animals not just feral cats)
There is also another supplier Waratah, and possibly more providing appropriate fencing.
Major infrastructure wildlife overpasses & under passes
Interestingly, there have been major overpasses and underpasses built in regional areas, and this first one in Sydney is still currently being built.
Cost is a significant factor, and to retrograde is allegedly even more expensive. However, what options were considered? Were simpler options considered?
Contrary to our federal government proposal, the animal welfare experts define stray cats as domestic semi owned (eg community cats, colony cats etc) and unowned (many being recently abandoned) & that stray cats are NOT feral cats.
If this changes it means no more rescuing nor rehoming for stray cats labelled as a PEST animal as are feral cats & foxes.
The LRC team is offering help to respond to the draft Threat Abatement Plan (TAP) focused on feral cats. Of greatest concern is that this draft TAP includes a significant scope creep to treat stray cats as feral cats with the same lethal approaches, which has not been transparent, and the draft TAP was developed without the engagement of key experts in domestic cat management.
Here’s a TOC for this BLOG – we are updating information in steps
Stop the designation of stray cats as a subset of feral cats, as this means all “street” cats (be they abandoned or under care in colonies, community programs, etc) will be destroyed as a pest animal. There will be no rescue nor rehoming by any organisation or individual, these cats will now be treated like foxes.
For those with just mobile access or other limited online access
Here is suggested wording for you to customise a simple response due 4pm Monday 11 Dec 2023. If you reside in Australia, complete the following submission linked below.
Scroll down to the HAVE YOUR SAY, and click on the TAKE THE SURVEY button
STEP 2: Complete the personal information
STEP 3: You MUST complete the first 5 mandatory questions of the survey:
1. Have you referred to and / or used the current (2015) threat abatement plan for predation by feral cats?select YES
How have you referred to / used the 2015 plan? E.G. To confirm that stray cats were a separate category
2.Do you support the objectives and actions listed in the drafted updated threat abatement plan select NO
3.Do you have any specific comments on or additional ideas for the objectives and actions outlined in the draft updated threat abatement plan for feral cats?select YES
Please provide specific comments or other ideas here [EG below, plus more at the end of this guide if you are able to add more]
I oppose the stray cat category being changed to be a subclass of the feral cat category, if classed as a feral cat pest animal then all stray cats will be also be killed, and not rescued nor rehomed. This is not clearly explained.
4.Do you see a role for yourself / your organisation in contributing to the objectives and actions of the draft updated threat abatement plan for feral cats?select YES
In what ways do you see a role for yourself / your organisation?
E.G. Community engagement, education, community cat rescue and rehoming, adoption of stray cats
5.Do you have any ideas or suggestions for ways to mobilise stakeholder engagement and action in implementing the draft updated threat abatement plan for feral cats?select YES
Please share your ideas with us about ways to mobilise stakeholder engagement and action in implementing the draft updated threat abatement plan for feral cats
E.G. I support reducing the number of domestic cats with free targeted high intensity desexing, APWF Community Cat Programs, Oscar’s Law, supporting community rescuers & vets with grants for desexing and rehoming cats
STEP 4: (skip question 6 subsections these are optional responses) complete 7 and 8 questions
7. Do you have any feedback to provide on the background document? select NO (unless you have read it)
8 – Rate your overall impression of the draft Updated Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats Select Very Poor for all 3 areas
as the draft TAP and its consultation process are flawed & lack relevant information
STEP 5: SUBMIT your survey 😊
————————
OTHER CONCERNS FOR STEP 3, Q 3 if you are able to easily add:
The draft TAP lacks transparency on the significant change to stray cats, as the stray category has “disappeared” and each reader is left to interpret the outcomes of this.
I support our council pounds, animal welfare organisations, community rescue groups, and any individual to continue to rehome abandoned stray cats/kittens, many tens of thousands of abandoned stray cats find new owners each year. Stray cats are domestic cats: semi owned or unowned (RSPCA, APWF).
Domestic cat management policies and practices need to include experts such as APWF, AVA, AIAM, AWL QLD, must be in a separate group and plan not under the Feral Cat Taskforce nor Invasive Species, and be based on proven scientific evidence based research.
The draft TAP lacks domestic cat management information that should be acknowledged for the best proven solutions for responding to domestic semi owned and unowned cats.
I oppose community based enabled trapping as there is no possible enforcement of controls for the humane treatment of the cats, and it is likely to further incite cat haters to trap roaming cats, regardless of the cats being owned or semi owned or other, with potentially lethal consequences (animal cruelty).
Poisoning and shooting actions are not humane treatments for cats. I oppose a) engaging with shooting clubs/organisations b) 1080 and the Felixer Machine as these kill native and other animals, and are likened to being electrocuted for days by a vet.
The draft TAP lacks clarity on the legal implications for stray cats at/from the date the draft TAP is approved.
The Have Your Say process is not effective nor efficient, it is difficult for engagement with citizens & those on mobile phone devices, with no simple way to provide a reasonable submission, beyond this.
Here’s our simple guide to raising the essential issues that stray cats should not be a subset of feral cats & domestic cat management should not be under the feral cat plan. In MS Word and PDF formats. We also offer a more comprehensive guide below. Perhaps you have adopted a stray cat? at the end of the online survey you may upload a file which may be a photo of the cats you have helped 🙂
Our next guide with Top Issues is a little bit more, which contains other important points is below. We provide suggestions for responses, please feel welcome to add your own words, including your background and experience with saving, rescuing, and rehoming stray cats (abandoned domestic cats to the streets, managed community cats or colony cats, or just one or more in a group for which you provide care). The top issues are described below in our BLOG, if you would like to know more on these.
Scroll down the same page to find the “Have your say” with its Survey button.
Don’t forget Q8 to rate your overall impression of the draft TAP: “Very Poor”?
3 ways to provide a submission
There is no simple way to provide a submission. It is suggested you draft a response and keep a copy yourself.
Provide your response/ submission via the online “Survey”, noting that it includes three sections: your personal information & privacy needs; 5 survey questions for which any free form responses have a limited length in characters indicated; and the sections of the draft TAP which appears not to be limited. And you may at the end, upload a document and associated files.
Provide the bulk of your response in say a MS Word document/ PDF, but only at the end of the survey process, therefore you still need to complete the personal information & privacy needs; for the first 5 questions you still need to enter responses there; though you may skip over responses to the draft TAP headings/sections.
Send an email or hardcopy, with a privacy & personal information form (which will need to be printed, completed by hand, then scanned/photo-ed) :
“Complete this form and submit it to invasivespecies@dcceew.gov.au if you are providing a submission via email, or post it with your hardcopy submission to: Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water Attention: Threatened Species Commissioner Branch / Threat Policy and Planning Section (invasivespecies@dcceew.gov.au) GPO Box 3090 Canberra ACT 2601 Australia”
(Skipping the personal information & privacy choices.)
LRC Top Issues for those with very limited time
Background on the proposed re-classing of strays cats as feral cats
Look into the fine print in the draft TAP section 3.1 to find that stray cats have become a subset of feral cats.
The Department of Environment (DoE) removed the separate category for stray cats, and removed other references in the draft TAP that existed in the 2015 TAP . In this new draft, this is now the ONLY place where the “stray cats” term is used.
The 2015 TAP shows stray cats as a separate category, separate from domestic owned cats, and separate from feral cats.
2015 Threat Abatement Plan for feral cats can be found here:
LRC Top Issue #1 : Stray cats should NOT be classed as feral cats!
In response to the draft TAP section 3.1 Cat definitions, the reclassing of stray cats to be a subset of feral cats and applying the same lethal approaches is strongly opposed. Stray cats are domestic cats, and have been identified as domestic semi owned and domestic unowned cats since 2018, by the Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) Australia for the Threatened Species Commissioner. Since then the Australian Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) has been promoting and evolving these same terms, with community cats and others being subclasses of the domestic semi owned cats category based on scientific evidence. It is strongly recommended that the term for stray cats must be reinstated and renamed to domestic semi owned and unowned cats, aligning with the RSPCA and APWF expert advice.
If you would like to add more… feral cats are classed as “pest” animals and are to be destroyed, and not rehomed nor rescued
“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. As cat definitions are non-existent or loose in each state/territory legislation, it may also be implied that from the date the TAP is approved by the Minister, the TAP cat definitions will flow down to all legislation in states/territories and all local governments.” APWF response to draft TAP
The 2018 RSPCA cat terms and definitions have also been supported by many trsuted and respected animal welfare organisations: the Australian Institute of Animal Management (AIAM); Animal Welfare League QLD; Cat Welfare Society Inc. T/A Cat Haven; Australian Veterinary Association (AVA).
Stray cats are domestic semi owned or unowned cats do not deserve to be poisoned, shot or trapped to be killed immediately on site like feral cats.
Tens of thousands, if not over one hundred thousand stray cats are taken in and rehomed each year around our nation, from council pounds through community based rescue groups. Domestic semi owned and unowned cats deserve the opportunity to be rehomed, not killed asap.
Carers & community rescuers of stray / semi owned and unowned cats do not deserve to be treated as providing illegal assistance to a “pest” animal – groups and even cat Rehoming Organisations may be shut down or worse.
Vets and council staff do not deserve to be engaged in killing/ euthanasing tens of thousands of stray cats per year.
Encouraging citizens in self trapping and destroying stray cats is viewed as negligent due to the lack of controls and enforcement, and likely to encourage animal cruelty. The guidelines for destroying feral cats are not monitored effectively in action nor are there enforcement roles.
LRC Top Issue #2 : Domestic cat management should NOT be under the scope of feral cat management!
In relation to the draft TAP section 5 Cat management, for the management of feral cats must not include domestic cat management responsibilities. It confusingly and wrongly presents lethal cat management options for ALL cats, including “poison-baiting (deployed from the ground or air)” and “Trapping, hunting and shooting”. Domestic cats includes: owned cats; and semi owned and unowned cats ( terms supported by RSPCA, APWF, AWL QLD, AVA for stray cats). Different approaches and strategies are required for each different cat category as supported and promoted by experts in the animal welfare field to the federal government in the past (RSPCA, APWF, AVA, AIAM, AWL QLD, etc). Stray cats are domestic not feral cats. Roaming or abandoned domestic cats do not immediately become feral cats in nature and behaviour. It is recommended that cat management policies, processes and procedures for ALL domestic cats be the responsibility under an independent office of animal welfare, with a national group, heavily involving expert stakeholders in domestic cat knowledge and scientificevidence-based research.
The APWF assessment is fully supported: “The draft plan reflects lack of consultation with expert scientists in contemporary urban cat management. 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
What does work? and what doesn’t? “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). …Notably, there are no reports in the Australian or international literature of high intensity trapadopt-or kill programs being successful at the city or suburb level.” (APWF https://petwelfare.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/APWF-Submission-to-Inquiry-of-Feral-Domestic-Cats-2020.22.jr_.n-t.pdf)
If you would like to add more… further supporting expert advice
The AIAM assessment is fully supported:
“These two distinct populations of cats [domestic and feral cats] require different approaches to their management.
Cultural norms are quickly becoming more critical and less accepting of traditional methods of cat management. The community is placing considerable pressure on Local Government that wholesale euthanasia is not acceptable in 2020 and beyond.
Domestic cats who are accessible to humans and veterinary resources can and should be managed more ethically and effectively with other methods than those being used currently for feral cats i.e. baiting, shooting.
Now is the time to explore alternative management options that fit with community expectations and respects the human-cat bond.”
The Animal Welfare League Qld assessment is fully supported:
“Revise definitions of domestic cats to be consistent across local, state and federal governments to include owned, semi-owned and unowned cats in urban and suburban environments and living within several kilometres of rural homes and barns. This is to enable legislation and policy for these domestic cats to be separate from feral cats.
Define stray cats in urban, suburban and farm areas as wandering cats who may be owned, semi-owned or unowned.
Prioritise ethical, acceptable and effective strategies i.e. those which maximise well-being of people and minimise death, harm and suffering, rather than negative categorising of cats as “pests” to enable more harmful behaviours.”
The Cat Welfare Society Inc. T/A Cat Haven assessment is fully supported:
“Domestic cats do not become “feral”, the link between feral and domestic cats can be attributed to an unsterilized domestic cat wandering, and as a result breeding, with the resulting offspring not receiving any human contact. A domestic cat can fall into three categories: a cat that is owned, a cat that is semiowned, or an unowned domesticated cat. These cats are vastly found within urban areas, and are the overwhelming majority that are successfully rehomed through community-based rescue groups and shelters such as Cat Haven.”
The AVA Cat Management policies are fully supported:
“The management of cats in Australia must be evidence-based, must prioritise animal welfare, use practices that mitigate negative impacts to animals, and have clear measurable outcome-based objectives which are reported transparently.
Effective cat management programs involve all stakeholders working together in a coordinated collaborative manner. Appropriate stakeholder engagement and education is also essential.
Practices used to manage cats need to be targeted to the specific cat population (i.e. owned, semi-owned, unowned or feral cats). They should aim to improve cat welfare, minimise cats’ negative impacts and, where possible, use non-lethal management.
Adequately funded research to continually improve knowledge and to advance best-practice cat management is essential.“
LRC Top Issue #3 : Stop the killing instead of rehoming of many tens of thousands stray domestic cats each year, and impacts to their carers / rescuers
In response to the draft TAP section 5 Cat management, if stray domestic cats are a subclass of feral cats, and like feral cats are to be destroyed without the opportunity to be rehomed, then this significantly impacts many tens of thousands of cats nationally, as well as the people who care for them. Council pounds, shelters and vets will become killing machines rather than rehoming facilities. This also takes a psychological impact to pound, shelter, vet and community based rescuers. Killing tens of thousands of domestic cats nationally each year, takes Australia back several decades. It also is recognised that the mental health toll on vets, shelter staff and community rescuers may lead to significant issues for our governments. It is recommended that instead, our government invest in One Welfare, proven rehoming practices, and proven approaches for semi owned and unowned cats. Refer to Australian Pet Welfare Foundation for best cat management practices [https://petwelfare.org.au/2017/07/13/best-practice-communities-shelters-pounds/]
If you would like to add more… who is involved in rehoming abandoned / found domestic cats and how significant is the impact to cat carers/ rescuers when they are under threat
Potential impacts to stray cats & rehoming organisations and individuals
The diagram from the draft report for the NSW review to increase rehoming and reduce euthanasia performance by council pounds, was updated by our team and also submitted to the NSW Pound Inquiry. It was annotated with the community (small) rescuers and vets who help abandoned cats from the streets etc. In NSW it is estimated that there are over 100 community rescuers and vets who assist collectively with taking in and rehoming thousands of stray / semi owned and unowned cats per year. The diagram reflects dog and cats numbers.
It is further estimated that currently many tens of thousands of abandoned / stray cats are being rehomed around the nation (all states and territories). This estimate also takes into account that several years ago, it was not uncommon for around 250,000 cats to be euthanised around the nation each year by the large animal welfare organisations and council pounds.
It is believed that under the draft TAP, each yearmany tens of thousands of cats who are semi owned or unowned cats across our states and territories will no longer be given the opportunity to be rehomed and find new families, instead these cats will be poisoned, shot or trapped to be killed / euthanased.
By just shifting the stray cat category to be a subset of feral cats rather than as a separate category as in the 2015 TAP, this implies that if and once the new draft TAP is approved, then as in each state and territory as there are “loose” or non existent definitions for categories of cats, that:
the existing feral cat legislation and supporting protocols, processes/ procedures will then apply to stray cats, both semi owned domestic cats (eg in communities or colonies managed by carers), or unowned domestic cats (eg roaming abandoned cats)
both feral cats and stray cats (semi owned and unowned cats), must be destroyed and not rescued and rehomed(as a “pest” animal, like a fox)
the activities to care for, take in and rehome stray / semi owned and unowned domestic cats may be seen as illegal (eg in the past the Qld authorities have already charged feral cat feeders)
across our nation, all council pounds, the large animal welfare organisations (eg RSPCA, AWL, CPS, etc), hundreds of vets, and hundreds if not thousands of largely volunteer based cat rehoming and community based rescue groups and individuals (carers), will need to cease caring for, and taking in strays as semi owned or unowned domestic cats for rehoming etc.
Impacts to community based cat carers and rescuers when their cats are under threat or harmed
Killing semi owned and unowned cats, deeming rescue and rehoming as illegal activities, and closing down rescue and rehoming outcomes for abandoned domestic cats will also have a significant devastating impact on rescue/ carer groups and individuals. Carers and rescuers have an extremely strong bond with the cats under their care.
In NSW alone, each year tens of thousands of cats are rehomed by the council pounds, the large animal welfare organisations, designated rehoming organisations, which in 2019/2020 provided new families for over 30,000 cats and dogs in NSW. In addition to these organisations who provide reports to the NSW government, there are veterinarians, and small community-based rescue organisations and individuals (sometimes considered carers), who also take in, desex etc and rehome cats. In NSW alone, there are hundreds of these groups and individuals across the state, who are believed to collectively rehome thousands of cats each year. and may no longer do so as the stray cats are to be killed.
For example, the impact of the shooting “cull” incident on the Newcastle Stockton breakwall cats (domestic semi owned cats) and their rescuers/ rehomers/ carers has been researched, including:
“caregivers described the scene they were met with on the morning after the event using words such as ‘horrific’ and ‘bloodbath’. In response to this event, caregivers described their immediate emotional responses using words such as ‘traumatic’, ‘mortified’, ‘disbelief’, and ‘shock’. Their immediate responses to the cull also included feelings of betrayal”
“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.” [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/2/271]
LRC Top Issue #4: Tanya’s news video with domestic cat images, the Felixer Machine which has software bugs & kills other animals, and 1080 the inhumane poison
In response to section 5 Cat Management (poison baiting, trapping, hunting and shooting techniques), there are a number of significant concerns with the Tanya Plibersek MP promotion of the draft TAP for feral cats, using multiple images of likely domestic cats, showing the Felixer Machine for which the developers admit has software faults and hits other animals, and the use of the extremely toxic inhumane 1080 poison which is likened by a vet as being electrocuted for days and is not at all like the big fat lie that animals go away to die quietly.
It is recommended to cease use of 1080, the Felixer Machine and to invest in other approaches such as “accepting the cats are here to stay in some form for a while, and building the capacity for our native animals to cope” (Doctor Katherine Moseby).
Domestic stray cats are not feral cats, domestic cats should not be treated with the same lethal solutions. There should be different strategies and actions to reduce their numbers as defined under a separate domestic cat management plan, which the draft TAP should recognise. These draft TAP and related proposals are strongly opposed:
1080 is an inhumane poison that is not instant and not painless, likened to being electrocuted for days and will kill native animals as well as introduced species. It has been banned in other countries for decades, our governments must cease using 1080 (RSPCA, Howard Ralph Veterinarian, Animal Liberation Australia).
The Felixer Machine, inappropriately named after a domestic cat icon, for which developers admit there are faults / software bugs, has a likelihood of hitting other native animals (quolls, dingo pups), includes constraints with AI and photo identifications being based on human intervention, with the potential to be used on domestic cats in suburban areas (PetSmart/Invasive Species Solutions, Thylation the developers).
Tanya promotion to launch the new draft TAP (video) promoting 1080 and the Felix Machine on Channel 9 [https://youtu.be/4iHJa7W7t94] includes:
The Thylaton representative describing that a cat hit with the highly toxic poison “dies quite peacefully” which is incorrect, as 1080 causes an excruciating death.
The blurring of the lines between feral cats and domestic cats, mainly in the form of the images used, and the lack of mentioning that the feral cat term in the draft TAP is proposed to be expanded for stray cats who are domestic semi owned and domestic unowned cats, ie that stray cats may also be targets for the Felixer Machine, shooting programs and increased baiting, shooting etc.
Video of a domestic cat in a typical suburban backyard is used during the initial discussion of the Felixer Machine to lure feral cats. Multiple images of cats used throughout the program are likely domestic cats, as feral cats avoid humans and would not be still even for a photo.
Tanya confidently claiming “cats kill about six million animals every night in Australia” repeating the misleading figures based on assumptions rather than evidence based science.
The promotion video also includes that feral cat shooting programs, increased use of baiting will be used without any further explanation, nor that this will impact stray cats as a subclass of feral cats.
If you would like to add more…
1080 an Inhumane Poison
1080 is not humane, not instant, not painless, it kills all animals: natives and introduced.
“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.”
Wild Woman Wildlife Rescue on native animals being killed with baits
‘Signs “Warning 1080 bait laid here” and instantly I knew . My poor babies did suffer ! They had died a long agonizing death . It didnt seem fair ..
Now Ive never been one to care what other people do , unless of course it affects me or my children. Well I believe THIS affects ALL of us . This is one of our rarely seen extremely special natives !
Through the first lot of baiting I lost a total of 12 bandicoots , entire families went down. I had to lift their helpless little bodies , some still just hanging on and either bury them or attempt to save them once again . Not 1 survived and I can no longer release from my property … I have no bandicoots left , none . I used to sit on my verandah at night and watch them as they came into the joeys yard for pellets but I have not seen even 1 for months .. I cannot understand how 1080 is still legal to use . It targets every species and rarely gets the one they say they are targetting .. ‘
The ABC report on tests in SA included that the device “uses lasers and poison gel to kill feral cats and foxes” in a trials “on Kangaroo Island and the remote Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands, …[and] Arid Recovery nature reserve, near the state’s Roxby Downs”.
This report also interestingly included:
“Some of the other trials around Australia have had very low levels of non-target firings”
“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”
Felix Machine Developers and Invasive Species Solutions webpages include:
Misinformation on impacts of cats on wildlife eg “Cats have driven many mammals and some birds to extinction”, when this cannot be conclusively proved.
Admit that other animals may be targeted eg potentially the larger spotted-tail quoll, dingo pups, or other animals of this size.
Admit there are bugs “software faults” and software upgrades “fixes” for problems, and the machine is not perfect.
There is no way to differentiate a feral cat from a domestic cat, though the AI software version claims it is to minimise false positive targeting… and its weakness may be the gathering of photos that need to be verified by humans who likely cannot tell a photo of a feral cat from a domestic cat from a photo.
Further research is needed to confirm or optimise efficacy at fox control (meaning the machine and software need further work).
“Thylation received $1.2M in grant funding from the Australian Government’s Environment Restoration Fund to support the commercialisation of Felixers” in 2020
Biased information in “studies”/ reference works against cats is included under the developers webpage.
Below is a very brief list of interesting aspects presented, with words to the effect presented/ spoken during the video.
Around 10 secs: “the federal government plan which may affect your pet cat”
17 secs: “the Felixer which lures in feral cats”
20 secs: a short video clip of a domestic cat going through a broken wooden fence, the type which is often used in suburban residences, with the presenter referring to a feral cat
28 secs: a tabby cat cut out image is moved in front of the machine (likely a domestic tabby as a feral cat would avoid all human contact for a photo for the image)
29 secs: presenter “the machine detects the shape of a cat, firing a toxic gel”
34 secs: the Thylaton representative :”the cat then will walk off, lick it… in a couple of hours it starts getting the symptoms it dies quite peacefully” contrary to all knowledge and research of the effects of 1080 and other poisons.
44 secs: taxidermy tabby with a parrot stuffed in its mouth.
48 secs: Tanya “cats kill about six million animals every night in Australia” repeating the misleading figures based on assumptions rather than evidence based science.
54 secs: presenter “the federal governments draft plan to tame the population of feral cats in Australia also includes a trial of feral cat shooting programs, increased use of baiting, and expanding cat free fenced off areas. For those with domestic cats, the plan is looking at desexing requirements, a household limit on numbers of cats, and a nation wide curfew to keep pet cats inside at night.
1:18: Tanya “about two thirds of animals that have gone extinct in Australia, have had cats as a factor” (gets cut short, and “factor” is not explained, eg where other contributing factors have played a bigger factor such as habitat clearing, fires etc)
1:26: video shows Tanya with a range of wildlife eg wombats, blue tongues, and a wallaby(?), noting these are not common prey of cats who generally prefer vermin (rats and mice).
1:39 : another tabby (most likely domestic rather than feral as feral cats would not choose to be physically close to humans)
1:41 : a still image of a cat with a small possum in its mouth (most likely domestic rather than feral as feral cats would not choose to be physically close to humans), and possums are not a threatened species and very common in suburban areas having become accustomed to urban environments with non native gardens and food sources from humans.
[Note, the LRC promotes cat enclosures by all cat owners, we do not agree with mandatory / legislation requirements as it is not easy nor easily affordable for every cat owner.]
The Australian Pet Welfare Foundation top issues & to which draft TAP sections these apply
In relation to sections 3 and 5 of the draft TAP, this PDF can be attached to your submission either as a PDF or a reference link, with you indicating in your submission that your fully support the APWF advice on the draft TAP.
It contains information on the following: 1. Cat Definitions, 2. Management of Domestic Cats, 3 Language, 4. Non-lethal Methods of Cat Management, 5. Evidence-based strategies to protect native wildlife of conservation concern, and 6. Targeted desexing.
The APWF response to the draft TAP also contains links to more detailed position statements on the following:
Cat Curfews are not successful with the APWF position on Mandated Cat Containment
Cat Definitions for domestic and feral cats, with a position statement
Wildlife and owned and stray cats, with a position statement
Then scroll down for even more information on each of these.
Objective 2 and Object 9 include actions including shooting, baiting and enabling community member to complete trapping. These are included in our email simple guide near the top of this blog.
Soon to go up on the Australia Pet Welfare Foundation (APWF) webpage, we share the End of Financial Year 2023 Report. If you go to their webpage you may see how easy it is to support their work, and receive these updates via email.
Please respect the intellectual property and copywrite.
We offer four selected pages – and have added to each the title of the report in the image. These and other pages may be useful for submissions to any / all levels of government.
The South Australia (SA) government has a Dog and Cat Management Board. Their “responsibilities include planning for, promoting and providing advice on dog and cat management practices” & “oversees the administration and enforcement of the state’s dog and cat management laws”.
At this time in SA, there is a review of the legislation.
Championed by a volunteer at the Cat Adoption Foundation, 14 rescue groups collaboratively worked with authorities to raise:
a proposal/ plan for free desexing programs
a supporting petition to parliament.
Their work also raised recognition of the valuable work by rescue groups and the strain these people are under!!
The proposed / plan for free desexing included highlighting the semi owned and unowned cats, ie abandoned social cats, street cats, groups of cats, community cats, colony cats... (these are NOT feral cats).
The petition includes the key recommendation:
Note, the petition includes:
what doesn’t work (council pound killing)
&
what does work: TARGETED FREE DESEXING!
“A simple solution which has proven successful in other parts of Australia
such as the Banyule Council in Victoria is funding free desexing programs.
The Banyule Council’s pound saw a 60% reduction in intake thanks to such
program.
Free desexing programs must be targeted to problematic areas to be
effective. Typically, a handful of postcodes make up the shelters’ intake.“
On May 17 2023, the issues and recommendations were raised in SA parliament by Hon Tammy Franks, for which a video & transcript may be viewed.
This includes raising:
“The funding also needs to be targeted to the areas of highest need. It is clearly an unsustainable situation for organisations such as the RSPCA and the AWL and the many rescues who rely predominantly on community goodwill and community donations. One of the main contributing factors in the continued growth of the unwanted cat population and subsequent intake into rescues and shelters is likely to be the failure to desex cats in low income households and semi-owned and unowned cats.
Targeted, low-cost desexing programs have been shown to be effective in increasing desexing rates, and they also receive strong community support. Ongoing low-cost desexing programs have helped achieve what is called zero euthanasia of all healthy and treatable stray and surrendered cats and dogs in places like the Gold Coast, the second largest council in our country.
Our community have made it clear that they want to see parliaments take action regarding wandering cats and the first step to solving that problem is of course desexing. Desexing not only helps to ensure fewer unwanted animals but also helps to reduce their desire to roam in search of a mate or get into fights. Desexed animals can also live longer and healthier lives. It is time for our government to work with councils and provide leadership and also to invest in our shelters and rescues and fund free desexing programs for cats right across the state.“
Another benefit of this work by the SA rescues is that they have raised the significant workload and funding crisis rescuers are under, in providing a community service alongside the large animal welfare organisations and council pounds/ shelters.
For animal rescuers, working with different community groups to improve outcomes for their companion animals can be challenging. But we are not alone, this is a challenge shared around the world. In our view, One Welfare in a nutshell focuses on providing solutions for pets to stay with owners, instead of trying to enforce punitive laws and more often remove pets from owners, with the pets likely being euthanased.
Australia has a few great examples with: the free desexing program completed within the Banyule Council Vic, where an Animal Management Officer engaged and supported the local community with desexing their pets; and anecdotally we are aware that in Campbelltown NSW local volunteers in a rescue group have performed a similar engagement and assistance for pet owners in a low socio economic area to ensure pets are desexed.
This blog provides an introduction (slim overview) to the One Welfare initiatives and some of the interesting research underway. Think of this blog as a skipping stone, skipping across the top of some of the reference material available.
We’ll start with some more recent interesting findings, which explain why this focus area is of interest. Then, back to basics of explanations by various organisations.
DECISION MAKERS NEED TO CONSIDER SUPPORT SERVICES RATHER THAN ENFORCEMENT
LRC provided a link to a study from the USA in 2020 in an earlier post:
The study (reference below) recommends that is it far better practice to offer support services to enable solutions, rather than enforcing laws/legislation which may be seen as brutal in taking away and euthanasing loved pets. This is important in communities involving low socio economic categories, and/or ethnic groups implying different country of origin cultural backgrounds.
“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“
ONE WELFARE FUNDAMENTALS FOR PET OWNERS
“One Welfare serves to highlight the interconnections between animal welfare, human wellbeing and the environment.”
“A One Welfare approach promotes the direct and indirect links of animal welfare to human welfare and environmentally friendly animal-keeping systems.“
One of their initiatives includes “One Welfare Phoenix is a new project designed to support the sustainable development goals and global reduction of violence by supporting the production and dissemination of practical guides to professionals to help identify and report the link between animal and human abuse and neglect, including the relation to their environment.”
RSPCA AUSTRALIA ON ONE WELFARE FOR THE COMMUNITIES / PET OWNERS
“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.”
Note that animal owners are an integral role in the approach.
“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.”
REFERENCED INFORMATION
Punishment to Support: The Need to Align Animal Control Enforcement with the Human Social Justice Movement
is not support for mandatory desexing in legislation,
are better ways to approach improving desexing rates and reduce the number of abandoned animals, animals allowed to roam and the number surrendered and euthanased in council pounds and shelters, by vets and rescue groups.
The ASPCA supports desexing, however explains that to justify mandatory desexing, an authority needs to be gathering performance measurements for years before and after these rules come into effect to show benefits, but where is this evidence?
Mandatory desexing has been implemented in a number of Australian states and the ACT, and councils, where is there proof of success? When will a council provide evidence before and after these approaches are implemented?
SUPPORT FOR DESEXING (NEUTURING & SPAYING) COMPANION ANIMALS
Many organisations and ourselves support desexing for companion animals (cats and dogs), and we recommend that
desexing should be free for those in financial need and low socio economic areas,
it is critical that free desexing is provided in hot spot urban areas (targeted areas) where there is a significant number of cats breeding.
However, there are issues with making desexing mandatory under legislation, as this approach fails to deliver the expected outcomes.
IS MANDATORY DESEXING EFFECTIVE?
NO from the Australian Veterinary Association (AVA)
NO from Dr Michael Hayward, Veterinarian, Gungahlin Veterinary Clinic, ACT and Australian Veterinary Association Centre for Companion Animals in the Community (Chair)
NO from American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA)
NO from Encyclopedia Britannica Saving Earth, Andrea Toback on Should Neutering Pets Be Mandatory?
NO from PAWS4CHANGE
The are many more animal welfare organisations who agree with these views in Australia and other countries.
Special recognition to Australia’s Saving Pets who raised similar points and relevant references in their blogs including 2018.
WHAT’S A BETTER APPROACH? WHAT DOES WORK & IS SUPPORTED
low-cost desexing (spay/neuter) clinics
free desexing in high intensity in targeted low socio economic areas (eg Banyule council in Victoria)
“The most important step a humane community can take to decrease companion animal overpopulation is to make a safe, effective, voluntary spay/neuter program available and readily accessible to the community, and create programs and incentives targeted to the populations known to be contributing disproportionately to shelter intake and euthanasia.” ASPCA
We have yet to see a targeted program for areas where there are significant cultural differences, ie people from other countries retain their country of origin attitudes to animals. When will we see this “elephant in the room” addressed effectively?
(It is covered in the advice from ASPCA.)
ONE WELFARE APPROACH: PROVIDE SOLUTIONS NOT PUNITIVE ENFORCEMENT
This research confirms that for areas of low socio economics, that hard enforcement is not beneficial to the health outcomes for animals and their owners, it is better to provide support services to assist with proactive animal welfare services.
SUMMARY
The majority of these views have been formed for several years, and not questioned nor put into doubt. Mandatory desexing is likely to:
increase pets being abandoned,
increased intakes to pounds/shelters and rescue groups,
ultimately increase euthanasia rates and costs,
increase compassion fatigue (secondary trauma) with staff and volunteers in such establishments with increased euthanasia rates.
Many animal welfare organisations support that implemented mandatory desexing legislation has not proven worthwhile.
Those organisations or politicians who propose mandatory desexing have yet to provide evidence/ proof of beneficial outcomes. Just why does this topic get raised?
Again, special recognition to Saving Pets who raised similar points and relevant references in their blogs including 2018, and several years before.
Better to invest in free and subsidised desexing for owners and pets in need.
This includes the stray or abandoned cats, who in the USA are often also termed feral cats.
LRC 