Saving Pets » mandatory desexing

Kingston; mandatory desexing, registration, confinement… abuse?

savingpets — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 04:11:17 +0000

Like all councils in Victoria, Kingston has had compulsory pet microchipping and registration since 2007. In 2008/09 Council had 6,529 registered cats in their area and were impounding less than one cat a day (266). Despite the low number of cats ending up in the pound, cat welfare groups pressured the council to look at introducing cat management legislation targeting cat owners; requiring compulsory registration of pets over 3 months old and that all pets be desexed before registration… or mandatory desexing by stealth.

Have all these shiny, shiny new laws solved their cat ‘problems’? Of course not. As we’ve seen time and time again, mandates which target owners do little to improve outcomes for cats as overwhelmingly, cats who have owners aren’t the ‘problem’. It’s the large population of unowned cats who need help.

It did have an effect however; by 2009/10 – just one year later – the number of registered cats dropped to 5,920, putting more cats at risk of being killed at the pound by being unregistered.

Unsatisfied, the council in 2010 added a night time curfew to their cat management laws;

Kingston cat owners who let their moggies roam the streets at night will face a $60 fine from next month. The council’s controversial cat curfew comes into effect from Monday, November 1, grounding cats from dusk till dawn.

The curfew supported by the RSPCA and the Cat Protection Society;

Cat Protection Society executive director Dr Carole Webb said a curfew, already adopted by several Melbourne councils, was in the animals’ interests because it cut the risk of injury and spread of diseases such as feline AIDS.

So now they had their curfew, what happened next?

Once the curfew is official… the council will issue warning notices and ads before starting an after-hours’ trapping program.

Council acknowledged that the introduction of the curfew enables Council to more effectively target wild cat colonies and remove them from the community, minimising the chance of trapping owned domestic cats.
Council Annual Report 2009/10

Council was given the blessing of animal welfare groups to trap and kill cats without owners.

And they aren’t only trapping neighbourhood strays, they’re encouraging people to lure cats onto their property with food;

If you have a nuisance cat that you’d like us to remove from your property, your cooperation will be needed to establish a regular feeding time. To ensure the cat can be easily found when officers come to your property, you should feed it during business hours at the same time, and place each day. A feeding pattern should be established over a minimum period of at least 7 DAYS. The cat should NOT to be fed for 24 HOURS before the day the officers are to attend for trapping.

Kingston Council website

Remember, this council is being held up by cat ‘welfare’ as a council doing right by cat welfare;

Cat Protection Society executive director Dr Carole Webb said the (Kingston) curfew benefited the community and protected cats…

“I think all-round night containment is a win-win situation for everyone,” Dr Webb said.

So after all these moves to improve cat ‘welfare’, what’s the situation for cats in Kingston?

Well, the impound rate for cats remained constant;
2008/09 – 266
2009/10 – 295
2010/11 – 254
(Council Annual Reports)

(Whether ‘colony culls’ are included in these figures is unclear – the idea that anything trapped ‘after hours’ can be classified as unowned/feral and able to be killed immediately, certainly leaves this figure open to interpretation.)

And despite assertions that these laws would somehow improve cat health, feline ‘AIDS’ or FIV is still a problem the cat community.

But most worryingly, the community’s feelings around cats have changed. Having set the communities expectation that cats should be confined or removed;

Cruelty against cats in the area seem to be on the increase;

Our pet hate is cruelty in Kingston

Kingston pet owners are under fire after the number of animal cruelty complaints rose by almost 60 per cent during the past financial year…

And all cats are at risk from the newly empowered cat trappers;

Benjamin, 5, from Mordialloc with his severely injured cat Spotty, who was doused with an unknown chemical.

The two-year-old cat was taken to the pound on December 16 with pus seeping from her nose and face after a White St resident alerted Kingston Council to Spotty’s capture.

‘‘We let her out in the morning (December 15) and she didn’t come home, which was a bit strange.’’
….
The RSPCA warned against residents taking matters into their own hands regarding animal cruelty. “If people are concerned they should contact their local authorities to ensure the most effective and humane method of control is used,” senior inspector Simon Primrose said.

Seems cats have two choices; death in the hands of council, or torture at the hands of cat haters – things go from bad to worse for the cats of Kingston.

How do you enforce cat laws?

savingpets — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 03:42:51 +0000

How do you enforce cat laws? You can’t ask a cat if it is desexed, so do you check the ear of the cat for a tattoo? Check the undercarriage for harblz?

Well, often you won’t be able to catch said cat, so you’ll just have to start heavying people you suspect may be the cat’s owners;

“The State Government’s cat registration laws will turn council workers into “feline fascists” by giving them more powers than police to collect evidence from suspects…

The legislation includes a clause that empowers council workers, once lawfully in a home, to “examine, seize, copy or take extracts from any documents relevant to an offence” or “take photographs, films and audio, video or other recordings”.

It also allows the worker to direct a person to answer questions and take “any other reasonable action” necessary to collect evidence.”

Do councils get these extraordinary powers based on enormous success with these laws in other states? Notsomuch…

Does anyone else see a trend towards extraordinary powers for use against pet owners?

Why I don’t debate mandatory desexing advocates anymore…

savingpets — Wed, 23 Mar 2011 06:19:25 +0000

From Brandon Scott Gorrell @ Thought Catalog

Are the new ‘Greens’ ACT animal laws, all that?

savingpets — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 03:04:02 +0000

Animal advocates are rumbling about the new ‘Greens supported’ companion animal welfare laws in the ACT as being some of the most important in the country. Those who dare question it, they say, are simply against good animal welfare policy, or are in league with the puppy farmers, or just want to see pets to continue to die in shelters. It’s just one big o’ conspiracy theory.

But what is the actual potential of the legislation in saving lives? To find out, first, we need to get familiar with the laws surrounding keeping domestic animals in the ACT already in existence.

The Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires that along with registration for cats and dogs;

You can’t keep an undesexed dog without a permit (Part 3, 74-1)
You can’t keep an undesexed cat without a permit (Part 3, 74-2)
Dogs must be desexed before 6 months of age (Part 3, 74-4)
Cats must be desexed before 3 months of age (Part 3, 74-4)
You must apply for a permit to keep an entire animal for breeding (Part 3, 75)
All dogs over six months of age and cats over 3 months of age, must be desexed before sale (Part 3, 74A)

While the Domestic Animals Regulation 2001, made under the Domestic Animals Act 2000 requires;

That dogs that are at least 12 weeks old, or at point of sale, must be microchipped (Part 2, 7-3)
That cats that are at least 12 weeks old, or at point of sale, must be microchipped (Part 3, 8-1)

So we have laws which say you can’t keep an undesexed adult animal. We have laws which say you must apply for a a permit to breed. We have laws which mandate only very young animals can be sold undesexed (under 6 months for dogs and 3 months for cats) and that all pets must be microchipped before sale.

These are a lot of the laws that groups in other states are beavering away to enact as the ‘solution to pet overpopulation’ in their communities – how’s it worked out here?

Are these laws working in the ACT?

Well, cat numbers have remained high, with ten years of mandatory desexing failing to decrease cat numbers;

“That figure has been growing, 5, 10, 15 per cent per annum over the last five years, so there’s a significant issue with regard to kitten desexing or cat desexing in Canberra”.
Michael Linke – ABC: RSPCA ACT overrun with kittens

And realising that there are genuine hurdles to desexing, and probably a not insignificant number of unowned cats, they have called for more support services.

“We need the Government to police the legislation that’s in place and we need them to work with the local veterinary community to try to make desexing more accessible.”

The conclusion that compulsory desexing does not reduce cat intakes mirrors a report by By Dr. Linda Marston, Dr. Pauleen Bennett, Vanessa Rohlf and Kate Mornement in 2008 which showed the following intake information for the ACT:

Corresponding data for cats show that the number of cats that were euthanised closely paralleled the number admitted.

There was a decreasing trend in cat admissions observed between 1997 and 2000, which was accompanied by a reduction in euthanasia (49.2% in 1997 1998 and 38.1% in 2000-2001).

Importantly, in 2001-2002, the year after the DAA (2000) legislation was introduced, the euthanasia rate jumped to 62%, although it decreased back to 36.3% in the subsequent year. This may indicate that a temporary increase in cat euthanasia is likely to follow the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation.

Since 2002, admissions have increased and the number of cats that are euthanised has increased accordingly, although not to quite the same extent. This is due to an increased number of cats being rehomed over the last two years. However, the proportion of cats’ euthanised has risen in recent years, perhaps because 474 feral cats were admitted in 2007. This is an 8% increase on 2006, when 440 feral animals were admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm.). Reclaim rates have remained relatively low compared to dogs.

While in the case of dogs,

(The graph shows) an overall decrease in the number of dogs admitted to shelters in the ACT each year for the past decade. This trend commenced two years before the introduction of the DAA (2000) legislation but was temporarily interrupted by a substantial increase in dog admissions which occurred just before the legislation was introduced.

In the first 18 months of implementation there was a dramatic decrease in admissions, but this has slowed somewhat since then. Generally, the patterns for rehoming and euthanasia parallel the admission data, although there was a spike in the number of dogs reclaimed in 2001-2002. This can be attributed to greater public awareness resulting from the publicity associated with the new legislation (M. Linke, pers.comm.). At this time there was also a reduction in the number of dogs rehomed, which mirrored the spike in reclaims. This is important data. Even though there were fewer dogs for potential adopters to choose from, the fact that numbers rehomed decreased may indicate that those available for adoption may not have been suitable to rehome.

Current euthanasia rates at the RSPCA (ACT) are about half the level they were in 1997-1998 i.e. decreasing from 26% in 1997-1998 to 13% in 2006-2007.

So the RSPCA ACT, who balance animals between their shelter and the major pound (DAS), have a euthanasia rate of around 13%,

“Our homing rate is based on the formula whereby animals put to sleep are divided by all animals received. Some animals that go to DAS are included in this number, but not all as in some cases the animal goes directly to DAS from our holding kennels and does not enter our computer system. DAS’s homing rate is also in the 90% range.”
Michael Linke – DOL forums April 2010

These impressive dog figures could be attributed directly to this legislation, except that is not the conclusion drawn by the by the Marston report:

The ACT experience has also shown that the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation may affect the euthanasia rate of dogs, although this may also be explained by other initiatives put in place by the two shelters in this region in the past decade. It does not appear to have affected the euthanasia rate for cats. The numbers of kittens admitted has not decreased and the admission rate of feral cats has increased. This observation could be attributed to the following factors:

1) The reduction in shelter admissions of dogs resulted from a pre-existing trend and the temporary increase in admission rates resulted from the introduction of the legislation.

2) The large numbers of stray kittens admitted to the RSPCA in the last two years suggests that mandatory desexing is not targeting the source of the cats admitted. This hypothesis is supported by the increase in the number of feral kittens admitted (M.Linke, pers.comm).

3) The reduction in dog euthanasia rates may be due to better rehoming practices and greater commitment to maintaining the health and well-being of the animals impounded.

Both governmental and welfare agencies stressed that the introduction of mandatory desexing without appropriate resources made the legislation virtually unenforceable.

So that is where we are in the ACT – where are we looking at going?

What new laws are the Greens proposing and are they necessary?

(RSPCA ACT) CEO Michael Linke says thousands of animals are offered for sale in classifieds and on the internet each year in Canberra.

He says 5,000 animals were listed in the classifieds of one local publication in 2009.
…..

“It’s just making a mockery of the laws in place in Canberra where we have compulsory microchipping, compulsory desexing and licences available for breeders.”

“The laws are good, we’re got some of the strongest animal welfare laws in Australia … but there is no policing, there is no follow-up,” he said.
Pet laws need policing – ABC

Enforcement has always proven to be an issue with these kinds of laws, not only because cat laws are largely unenforcable, but because funding this enforcement becomes a major issue for local council. If you have a council with animal laws that aren’t being enforced and add more laws, the result is simply more laws not being enforced.

But despite this experience, more laws is where they’re planning on going anyway. In December last year, the Greens supported bill in question, was introduced into the ACT Assembly with the backing of the RSPCA. The bill would:

Ban puppies and kittens being displayed in the front windows of pet shops – shops could still sell pets, they just have restrictions on the way they can be displayed
Ban the sale of pets at markets – which is probably a good thing, though conclusions about the influence on animal euthanasia rates would be speculative
Prohibit the sale of pets to children – good, but probably a negligible problem in relation to euthanasia
‘Mandatory desexing’ of all pets at point of sale – effectively mandating ‘early age desexing’ for all pets. Which may be fine, if the surgery was risk free, but it’s not. Animals can also be sold under a ‘desexing voucher’, further reducing any potential effectiveness of this mandate.

Having recognised these kinds of laws are ineffective in targeting cats, and the low rate of euthanasia for dogs… not to mention ongoing problems with enforcement, it seems these small and incremental changes seem to be based on hype and politics, rather than a genuine desire to improve animal welfare outcomes.

From the Australian Companion Animal Council:

“Experience has shown that an over-reliance on a purely regulatory response to animal management issues results in disappointing outcomes for both the animals and the people who care about them. This is particularly the case when the underlying drivers are not well understood as is the case with shelter overpopulation.”

Keeping on doing what doesn’t work (but with more gusto!)

We know what the solutions are to eliminating the killing of animals in animal shelters. None of these proven solutions have been based on a creative new laws punishing the community, or incrementally enacting more and more draconian legislation targeting owners and their animals. Almost despite their laws – thanks to innovative animal sheltering and the setting of No Kill goals – shelter animals in the ACT are probably safer here than anywhere else in the country. And yet the ‘punishment-based’ thinking is so entrenched, that animal advocates still champion the idea that the public is the problem, that their community will buck the trend and create an utopian set of laws, that will drive them to No Kill.

There seems to be an overwhelming focus on emotions, rather than solid deliverables in this ‘Greens’ legislation debate. Polarising and branding people as ‘for the animals’ or simply ‘profit motivated’ depending on whether they support, or question, the effectiveness of these new laws. While it can make for exciting advocacy, popular politics and satisfying opportunities to sling mud at the pet industry… seems none of these pastimes are based on improving animal outcomes, or getting pets out of shelters alive.

The legislation in the ACT is already incredibly restrictive and largely unenforced, which would surely leave anyone asking; could improving services to help the community comply and improved enforcement of existing legislation, be more effective that pumping even more resources into shiny new laws?

That’s no conspiracy – it’s simply common sense.

The Cat Crisis Coalition and mandatory desexing – how’s it working out for cats?

savingpets — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 22:02:09 +0000

The Victoria initiative The Cat Crisis Coalition was created in early 2006 and focused on driving local councils to introduce mandatory desexing for all cats over the age of 12 weeks (with breeder exclusions) and at point of sale. Featuring “all major Victorian shelters” – the Cat Protection Society of Victoria, The Australian Animal Protection Society (AAPS), The Lost Dogs’ Home and Cat Shelter, The Humane Society for Animal Welfare Inc. (HSAW), The Lort Smith Animal Hospital, The RSPCA and the Victorian Animal Aid Trust – and the organisation claimed to be working “to reduce cat overpopulation and stop the heartbreaking destruction of so many cats each year”.

According to their website, 21 of the municipalities have mandated cat desexing thanks to the organisation’s persistence; Banyule, Bass Coast, Brimbank, Campaspe, Cardinia, Frankston, Greater Dandenong, Greater Geelong, Greater Shepparton, Kingston, Knox, Latrobe, Melton, Moorabool, Mornington Peninsula, Pyrenees, Strathbogie, Wodonga, Yarra, Yarra Ranges and Yarriambiack

They are then looking at taking their legislation state-wide – “Once we have a majority of councils on board we plan to take our case back to the Victorian State Government and urge their further consideration.”

So, while the Cat Crisis Coalition is claiming enormous success with the implementation of this legislation, how’s it actually working out for the cats?

Banyule

Council’s website states, from 2007 all animals over three months of age must be microchipped and registered with council (this is a statewide requirement under ‘The Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994′). Cats are impounded at the Cat Protection Society.

The Banyule Domestic Animal Management Plan 2008-11 shows the council is home to 6,770 registered cats, 6,518 of these are desexed (96%).

While the Cat Protection Society VIC continued to lobby Banyule Council throughout 2010 (here, here and here), so far council has not passed legislation to mandate desexing, preferring to approach the issue using a combination of smart desexing programs and education, with a focus on semi-owneds:

In Banyule the number of registered cats that have not been de-sexed is very small, approximately 252 cats out of a total registration number of 6,770. This means that the vast majority of cats which are not de-sexed are also not registered with Council and as such Council Officers have little knowledge of their whereabouts.

However, the Council Officers are kept extremely busy with cat trapping in response to complaints, particularly during kitten season. The number of cats impounded every year remains significant and the unfortunate reality is that many will be put down.

Very few Council’s have taken the compulsory approach to de-sexing of animals, with Cardinia, Mornington Peninsula, Greater Shepparton, LaTrobe and Wangaratta being the only councils to have introduced mandatory cat de-sexing so far. None of Council’s neighbouring councils are planning to introduce compulsory de-sexing, with the preferred option being education, encouragement and incentives.
Banyule Domestic Animal Management Plan

The Council figures show 741 cats impounded, with 197 rehomed and 471 killed (63%).

Plans to introduce the requirement for desexing for all new cat registrations is presently being considered by council, thanks to strong lobbying by the Cat Protection Society:

As the deadline for the DAMP to be submitted approached, our own municipal Council Banyule surprised us with a plan that did not include compulsory desexing. As we have reported, we have been actively lobbying in our area collecting some 2500 signatures on the petition. We protested very strongly to the Councillors with the result that Banyule will introduce compulsory desexing for all new registrations and we thank them for their enlightened decision.

Conclusion: While Banyule is about to get on the compulsory desexing merry-go-round, its high rate of desexing amongst owned animals (96%) and relatively low cat impound rate (less than 800 per year) shows the existing outreach desexing programs are pretty effective. To be truly useful, programs for free-roaming cats would need to be expanded to include those animals without any owner at all, however thanks to lobbying by cat ‘welfare’ groups these kinds of programs are actually illegal in Victoria (desex and release is ‘abandonment’, while feeding is illegal), making this unlikely.

With free-roaming cats the major loser with the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation (undesexed animals = those with out owners, fall foul of the new laws), we can expect their cat impound rates to rise over the coming years.

Bass Coast

Bass Coast Council has a two cat limit and pets over the age of three months must be registered and microchipped. Council works with South Gippsland Animal Aid to rehome pets.

Their Domestic Animal Management Plan 2008-10 shows 1,191 registered cats, with just 84 cat impoundments. They don’t seem to feel that mandatory desexing is necessary in their community;

Bass Coast Shire’s own registration records (as of April 2008) indicate that only 56 of 1191 registered cats are not desexed and Pound statistics indicate that 63% of cats that enter the pound are un-owned.

During the development of this Plan, concerns were expressed by AMOs that restrictive legislation may cause adverse impacts on animal registration compliance rates.

There is no argument that there is a need to reduce the number of stray, feral and unwanted cats.

Conclusion: This small location doesn’t seem to have either a cat impound problem (less than 100 per year), nor be requiring desexing as law. In fact I can’t find much information about their cat ‘issues’ at all!

While this Council is being counted as a ’success’ by the Cat Crisis Coalition, there isn’t much evidence that they are better or worse off since the creation of the lobby group.

Brimbank

Brimbank’s Domestic Animal Management Plan is dated 2007. They cite 4,592 registered cats, while they impounded 1,788 cats annually of which 92% (1,644) were killed. Cats are impounded at the Lost Dogs Home.

All Brimbank Council cats over the age of three months must be microchipped and registered with council. Council have also resolved that as from 10 April 2009 all dogs and cats being registered for the first time must be desexed, meaning all cats must be desexed before 12 weeks to be compliant with local law.

In 2009, “Animal Management Officers collect 6.2 cats on average per day” (around 2,200 per year), so the intake rate was slightly increased in the three years since the DAMP was released.

In 2010, Council spent $800,000 on animal management issues for the year, with around $200,000 being spent on cats. More than 100 Brimbank residents have outstanding fines owing to council for failing to register an animal, with human welfare groups in the area calling for compassion:

“Thirty per cent of Brimbank residents have an income of $30,000 a year or less, so it’s obvious that many people just can’t afford to pay their fines,” (Community West legal centre executive officer Robyn Shilton) said.

“It’s terribly sad.”

Conclusion: Cat laws are expensive, but are also ineffective in communities with areas of disadvantage. When the community can’t afford desexing, issuing fines for non-compliance does little to help them comply. The pressure of mandatory desexing has also been shown to reduce participation with other responsible pet ownership practices like registration; and while cats who are registered cat go home safely, those that aren’t become shelter statistics, driving up shelter kill rates.

Overall statistics for cat impoundments seem to have them remaining steady at best, continuing to climb at worst. However, with the legislation only being in existence since mid 2009, it’s probably still too early to draw many conclusions about their effectiveness.

Campaspe

Campaspe council have a two cat limit and a requirement that all animals over the age of three months are desexed. Cats are impounded at the newly built $1.3 million dollar Campaspe shelter, operated by the Lost Dogs Home since May 2009.

Since 2008 all newly registered pets need to be desexed prior to being registered. Council’s 2008 Domestic Animal Management Plan shows the council is home to 1,850 registered cats. Council impound 755 cats for the year, with 383 killed.

In 2009/10, 629 cats were impounded, with 447 killed, so while impoundments are down, killing is up 15%, since the LDH took over the reins.

Conclusion: I have no idea why the Cat Crisis Coalition is claiming this Council as a victory. Despite having mandatory desexing for more than two years, killing is up from 383 cats per year to 447 cats per year. If the main measure of ’success’ for legislation is a reduction in killing, this council gets a FAIL.

Cardinia

Cats in Cardina are required to be microchipped and registered by three months of age. Due to it’s rural location, cat limits in Cardinia are between 2 and 4 animals, depending on property size. All cats are required to be kept secured to the premises of the owner at all times and the council offers a trap-and-kill service for free-roaming cats at council expense.

Cardinia Shire enacted compulsory desexing of cats prior to registration in December 2005. They also door knock to check animal registrations, issuing fines of over $200 to non-compliant owners. They also have a 24hr-a-day cat curfew restricting cats to their owners property at all times.

According to their current Domestic Animal Management Plan Cardinia has 3,283 registered cats, and a kill rate of 69%. They fail however to report how many impounds of cats they have, so while claiming this initiative has been successful, it is impossible to compare them to like councils.

And while it would seem this Council have all bases covered, this year the public were warned to expect a large rise in impoundments and killing prior to the 2010/11 kitten season:

Managing director of Cranbourne’s Lost Dogs Home and Cat Shelter, which services the area, Dr Graeme Smith, said stray cat numbers could be expected to increase soon with the new breeding season.

“Collection of strays is something people need to discuss with Cardinia Council, but it’s generally thought not to be a good idea to feed them as it will cause further breeding,” he said.

Conclusion: With compulsory microchipping, desexing, curfews and a heavy enforcement model of door-knocking and fining non-compliant owners, Cardinia is a cat law junkie’s nirvana. So why then do they have the very same kitten season as experienced by other, less law heavy councils? Free-roaming and unowned cats!

Until councils and cat lobby groups can get off the ‘mandatory desexing is the answer’ line of thinking and instead invest energies in working to change legislation which presently blocks programs targeting ‘community cats’, we’re doomed to see the kitten season repeat verbatim.

Frankston

Frankston has the reputation for the ‘toughest town in Victoria’ with door knocks to ensure registration compliance, and mandatory desexing for all animals over three months of age, but also forced desexing for any animal impounded.

But it all started in 1998 when Council introduced a cat curfew. This saw an increase in the numbers of cats impounded by residents with 438 cats being handed in. The number of complaints complaints against cats increased, so to fill demand council purchased additional cat traps.

In 2000, a Council started major trapping programs in ‘cat-free’ areas: 472 cats were impounded for the year while 368 were destroyed (78%).

Skip forward a few years and the number of cats impounded in the municipality in 2006 was 549 (412 killed). During 2007, 657 cats were impounded, with 524 killed.

From the 1st September 2008, all dogs and cats in Frankston must be registered by three months (12 weeks) and be desexed before registration – effectively mandating compulsory desexing. Council impounded 660 cats in 2008, 455 of which were killed (69%).

Since the introduction of their new laws, council has gone mum on their stats, leaving the finer details out of their DAMP and preferring not to give current details to the public. Confirming the effectiveness of this new mandatory desexing legislation is therefore impossible.

Conclusion: While the impound figures kept going up and up after the enactment of each new law, Frankston was and is still continued to be hailed a ’success’ by cat welfare groups. However, with these laws and such a large investment in a strict enforcement model (the holy grail of cat management according to mandatory desexing advocates), why would the Council be reluctant to share the details of their success? It certainly leaves us wondering – just what is going on in Frankston?

Greater Dandenong

The website for Greater Dandenong Council shows that along with compulsory microchipping and registration, they offer discount rates for cats who are desexed. They have their own council pound, with animals being taken to the Lost Dogs Home for rehoming after 8 days.

Their Domestic Animal Management Plan shows them impounding 417 cats, killing nearly 95%.

The Cat Crisis Coalition lobbied Council for mandatory desexing through 2006, through 2009, and although council projected a 2010 date, there is no evidence that this mandate has been passed.

Conclusion; With a low impound rate (less than 500 per year) and an enormously high euthanasia rate of 95%, there is an elephant in the room – why are so many cats dying in the Greater Dandenong area?

While groups like the Cat Crisis Coalition are quick to point the finger at an ‘irresponsible public’, they seem to be much more reluctant to examine whether pounds themselves are doing enough to save the lives of these cats. This council saved just 20 cats for the year. With these laws being passed in the name of ’saving the lives’ all aspects of the animal sheltering process must be critically examined, including the role of pounds in getting animals out alive.

Greater Geelong

In 2007/08 the number of cats impounded in Geelong was 3,401. In 2008/09 the figures were slightly down, with 3,141 cats impounded for the year, despite a state-wide rise in the number of impoundments.

In 2009/10 the cat impound rate was still dropping, with 3,070 cats impounded. (with a 70% kill rate). In December 2009, cat welfare groups supported the council’s introduction of a 24hr curfew for cats.

Nine months later, Geelong recorded their largest number of impounds ever – with a 30% increase in cats entering the local shelter.

In crisis, at the end of 2010, council introduced an amnesty on cat registration to increase compliance, driving the number of registered cats up from around 9,000 to over 11,000.

Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan has no statistics whatsoever on animal impounds. However, having not learned much from the experience of cat curfews, they are looking to mandate microchipping and desexing in year three of the plan.

Conclusion: This council is another being claimed as a ‘victory’ by the Cat Crisis Coalition, but who is yet to enact the desired legislation, nor proved any real success in cat management. Whether new laws will be introduced this year remains to be seen.

Greater Shepparton

Greater Shepparton started considering their options for cat management back in 2005. Their cat stats in 2002/03 saw 597 cats impounded (with 572 killed). And there seemed to be a steady increase each year, with 743 cats impounded in 2003/04 (696 killed) and 702 cats impounded in 2004/05 (631 killed). Council impounded 816 cat impoundments with 735 killed (90%) in 2006/07.

At the end of 2008 Council mandated that all cats are desexed before registration at three months and introduced a cat curfew requiring cats are kept in at night.

In 2009, Council claims “around 1000 unwanted cats are destroyed each year within Greater Shepparton because of irresponsible pet ownership”, suggesting that the impound rate is continuing to rise despite the adoption of mandatory desexing legislation.

Conclusion: The Greater Shepparton Council is now heading into their third year of having compulsory desexing legislation. There is yet to be a release from council showing that these laws have done anything but drive up cat impound rates.

Kingston

In 2006/07 Kingston Council was impounding less than one cat a day, as their Domestic Animal Management Plan showed Council has 6,776 registered cats, yet impounded just 350 cats each year (296 killed)

Since 2008, Kingston Council has has mandatory registration by three months, with the requirement that all pets are desexed before registration. This sees both dogs and cats needing to be desexed by 12 weeks.

When passing this legislation, there was no survey of the number of pet owners already compliant with desexing, or even discussion on whether support for low income cat owner could achieve the aims to reduce the relatively small number of cats entering the pound. Instead their new laws were based on a single unverified but pervasive rescue mantra; “There is a large oversupply of cats and dogs… if they had not been born, they would not need to be euthanased”.

In late 2010, still battling their cat ‘issues’, Kingston introduced a night time cat curfew.

There are no new, publicly available figures since the desexing and curfew laws were passed, making it impossible to compare their results to like councils.

Conclusion: Kingston Council is still battling nuisance complaints about cats, having set the communities expectation that cats should be confined or removed. Of course the cats have other ideas, so trapping services to target those cats without owners in breach of their new curfews, will likely see an increase in impoundments. While mandatory desexing could possibly see those cats with owners being seized. Will they be impounding more than one cat a day moving forward? Only time will tell.

Knox

Knox is a brand new addition to Cat Crisis Coalition’s mandatory desexing recruits. While they already have a dawn to dusk curfew, the deadline for desexing is April 2011. The legislation is less draconian than many, with pets needing to be desexed before their second registration (or more than a year old) and is not retrospective.

Of the Council’s 5,721 registered cats, More than 94.14% of registered cats in Knox are already desexed. According to their Domestic Animal Management Plan, the council impounds just 323 cats a year, with a 48% kill rate (155 cats).

Conclusion: This Council is brand new to mandatory desexing, but with an already low impound rate and high rate of desexing it will be interesting to see whether impounds are seen to increase as the law is enforced, primarily against non-compliant, undesexed, unowned cats.

Latrobe

In 2001 a comparison of Victorian local councils showed Latrobe City council impounded 500 cats for the year. The Council released their Domestic Animal Management Plan in 2008, citing 4,454 registered cats with 3424 desexed (76%). Their included 2007/08 figures showed the number of cats had remain pretty constant since 2001, with 569 cats impounded (488 killed).

From 10 April 2008 Council introduced the mandate that all cats and dogs registered for the first time, and over three months of age, must be registered and desexed.

From 2008 onwards there was a surge in cat impoundments. During 2008/09 Council impounded 1,204 cats (886 killed), a massive 45% increase from the previous year. During 2009/10 Council impounded 1,081 cats (929 killed).

Conclusion: It’s very, very hard not to get angry when results like this are misconstrued as ’successful’ by groups like the Cat Crisis Coalition. Nearly doubling the impound rate of a local pound is not something to be heralded as desirable, nor is it ethical to continue this approach in the face of such terrible results. And yet groups still maintain that mandatory desexing is the ’solution’ to pound killing, misleading the compassionate public with false claims that this has seen success.

Melton

Melton Council is one of my favourites, as I’ve written about them before. Groups lobbied for mandatory desexing, pretty much throughout 2009/10, with the RSPCA weighing in pushing for the legislation, despite Council administrative services manager Peter Bean stating just “150 of the 4000 cats registered in the shire were not desexed”.

One of the key issues that Council need to consider with this is that if the responsibly owned cats are already de-sexed at a rate of 96% based on current registration levels, the introduction of a desexing order will have little effect on the number of cats that are currently entering Council’s pound facility.
Council Meeting Minutes December 2009

But that didn’t stop them from crumbling under pressure from animal welfare groups, introducing mandatory desexing for all newly registered cats in August 2010. This also included the forced desexing of any impounded cat, before it is released.

Melton’s impound rates were quoted as 750 cats in 2008/09 and 784 in 2007/08. Given the short time since the introduction of the legislation, its effectiveness is yet to be proven.

Conclusion: Melton is a new member of the mandatory desexing club, so their results moving forward will definitely be of interest.

Moorabool

According to their current cat care brochure, Moorabool is yet to introduce compulsory desexing.

According to their Domestic Animal Management Plan the council impound just 90 cats per year.

Conclusion: This is another one of those iffy ones – is council considering mandatory desexing? Is that why it’s showing up on the Cat Crisis Coalition victory board? And when the council impounds less than 100 cats per year, why wouldn’t cat ‘welfare’ groups be working to improve the situation for those animals living free-roaming and under the care of semi-owners, rather than looking to bring in mandates which drive up impounds? The mind boggles…

Mornington Peninsula

Since 2005, the Mornington Peninsula have required mandatory desexing before registration for cats over three months old. That means the council has had the legislation for nearly five years. Awesome – if mandatory desexing works the way they say it should, saving the lives of cats, we should have super low impoundments here!

From the Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan, in 2006/07 659 cats were impounded (491 killed). That puts it at the top end of impoundments, but what’s more; the shire is still subject to an ongoing ‘kitten season’:

The summer ‘breeding season’ for cats has resulted in a larger number of cats and kittens than usual being cared for at the Shire’s animal shelter. Volunteer ‘cat rescue’ groups have been of great assistance in helping Officers to find new homes for perfectly healthy cats that would otherwise have been destroyed as ‘unwanted’.
Monthly Report January 2010

While the Council’s 2010/11 budget shows cat impoundments have remained steady, with “around 1,500 dogs and 600 cats impounded annually”, while local vets being “inundated” with large numbers of strays, most of which are killed.

Conclusion: The Mornington Peninsula should be a shining light of effective cat management, after a near half-decade of mandatory desexing legislation. Unfortunately the figures show neither the decrease in impoundments, nor the elimination of annual cat breeding, mandatory desexing advocates promised, but does show that even in the presence of incredibly draconian legislation (with all its disadvantages), free-roaming and unowned cats will continue to breed. Go figure.

Pyrenees

Cats must be desexed (as well as microchipped) before they will be registered in Pyrenees Shire. Both dogs and cats must be registered before three months of age. This mandatory desexing legislation has been in place since 2009.

The Domestic Animal Management Plan for the Shire shows just 84 cats impounded for 2006/07 – so the council’s cat ‘problem’ was incredibly small prior to this legislation was introduced. In 2010 the council has a new problem;

There has been a slow decline in the number of animal registrations in recent years. Revenue in this area has been reasonably static because the increase in registration fees have compensated for the reduction in actual number of registered animals.

With the registration numbers in decline the problem is likely to be exacerbated by recent developments in this area. In the 2009/2010 animal registration period the government legislation and Council’s Local Law in this area were amended. Animals must now be micro chipped when registered for the first time. Furthermore, Council new Local Law– requires that cats must be desexed prior to registration. It is considered that these changes and the resultant costs to owners of these new requirements are likely to make it more difficult to get people to register their animals.

Council has a plan for outreach with a free registration program to try and counteract this unwanted effect.

Conclusion: This would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. Take a council, add regressive legislation and voila! A community who avoid basic responsible pet ownership practices to keep from interacting with council. Which could possibly be justified if the council were killing hundreds of cats, but this tiny town impounded less than 100 cats a year. But don’t forget this case study is still being heralded as a ’successful council’ by the Cat Crisis Coalition.

Strathbogie

Strathbogie Council’s Domestic Animal Management Plan showed just 64 cat impoundments in 2007/08. There is no reference on their website to Council progressing mandatory desexing legislation.

Conclusion: If there is something in the pipeline in the way of mandatory desexing legislation, it’s not yet visible to the community.

Wodonga

Wodonga has a cat curfew between 7pm – 7am, compulsory registration before three months of age, and since April 10 2007 all cats are to be desexed before registration. The Council doesn’t have their Domestic Animal Management Plan available for download.

Conclusion: There is such a small amount of data available on the animal situation in Wodonga, no conclusion can be drawn.

Yarra (City)

Stray cats in Yarra City are impounded with the Lost Dogs Home. Their Domestic Animal Management Plan include the following stats, 2005 – 149 cat impoundments (90% killed), 2006 – 137 cat impoundments (84% killed), 2007 – 150 impoundments (86% killed).

From 1 March 2010, Council mandated that it would not register or renew the registration of a cat unless it is desexed, stating;

While 97% of the 2,844 registered cats in Yarra are desexed, lifting that rate can make a significant difference.

Conclusion: While it’s too early for new statistics reflecting the new legislation to be available, the idea that mandating desexing in a community with a 97% desexing rate, and an impound rate hovering around 150 cat impounds a year, could make a ’significant’ difference is laughable. Results remain to be seen.

Yarra Ranges

In addition to a 8pm – 6am cat curfew, from April 2010, Yarra Ranges adopted a mandate which saw all new cats needing be be desexed before they can be registered.

In 2001 a comparison of Victorian local councils showed Yarra council impounded 250 cats for the year. Between 2003-2006, an average of 326 cats were impounded by the shire annually. They do not have their DAMP on their website for public access.

Conclusion: Yarra Ranges’ desexing legislation hasn’t been around long enough to show results.

Yarriambiack

Yarriambiack pets must be registered at three months of age, but there is no evidence of mandatory desexing legislation being enforced. Their Domestic Animal Management Plan is not available online.

Conclusion: Nil info available

What does it all mean?

Of the 22 councils presented by the Cat Crisis Coalition as ’successful’; some hide their figures from the public, many haven’t had the legislation long enough to prove efficacy, a few have remained constant, and some have actually seen an increase in impoundments. There is not a single example where the introduction of mandatory desexing legislation has brought down impoundment (and therefore kill) rates for cats, therefore ’saving lives’ as promised by lobbyists.

Unfortunately groups supporting this legislation in Victoria aren’t being honest with the community on the law’s usefulness in improving the situation for cats – worse – in many cases councils and animal groups alike actively block the community’s access to data about their effects, preferring instead that we just ‘believe them’. It is up to us as animal advocates to dig a little deeper, challenge unhelpful industry mantras and demand that laws are based and granted on merit, not emotional blackmail.

This is a working reference document, that will be updated as more information becomes available.

2011 – Care for Cats

savingpets — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 01:12:01 +0000

From Canada’s International Summit for Urban Animal Strategies…

THE OPPORTUNITY: Care for Cats and the Year of the Cat are the first major initiatives resulting from ideas born at the International Summit for Urban Animal Strategies. This national program will enable all sectors of the companion animal industry to work together to tackle the cat overpopulation crisis while raising the social status and value of cats in our communities.

Care for Cats is a long-term project that will respond to the cat overpopulation crisis by creating and distributing public education programs and support materials, encouraging community collaboration across all industry sectors; providing accurate resources; and collecting and evaluating national metrics to measure success.

We cannot expect to completely solve the cat crisis in a single year. Care for Cats was formed … Year of the Cat is its first project. Launch date: 5th January 2011.

2011 Year of the Cat (YOC) is a Canada-wide initiative orchestrated by Care for Cats that is intended to “get rid of the myths and give the facts!’ This program will bring a national time-line of events such as adopt-a-thons and an identification week. To facilitate the effective delivery of these programs online tool kits will be provided at no cost to community collaborators across Canada.

THE CATALYST: In October 2009, industry thought leaders from across Canada gathered for the 4th Annual International Summit for Urban Animal Strategies (ISUAS) to focus on the issue of cat overpopulation. Dr. Elizabeth O’Brien was invited to showcase a successful education campaign created by the Hamilton-Burlington SPCA in 2008. It was called The Year of the Cat.

Enthused by the support she received at the ISUAS and the Regional Summits, Dr. O’Brien was asked by delegates to become the spokesperson for a national campaign in 2011, which is officially the Vietnamese Year of the Cat. With the support of an impressive team of industry collaborators, Dr. O’Brien has since traveled across Canada championing the initiative.

THE STRATEGY: With the generous support of its sponsors, and the volunteer commitment of dozens of Canada’s most well-respected industry experts, Care for Cats is working collaboratively to:

Develop a website and online tool kit containing resources to help create awareness by response and education.
Promote collaboration between the sectors within each community and across the country.
Encourage communities across Canada to host YOC events and education campaigns.
Synchronize promotions Animal Health Week, Cat Awareness Week, Cat ID Week and Adopt-a-thon.

YEAR OF THE CAT WILL EDUCATE COMMUNITIES ON:

The importance of spaying and neutering to curb cat over-population and improve cats’ health and well-being
Effective methods of delivering spay/neuter financial assistance programs
Improving existing Trap/Neuter/Release programs and introducing TNR to new communities
Increasing animal shelter ‘Return-to-Owner’ rates through identification, registration and licensing

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Call Dr. Liz O’Brien email: drliz@careforcats.ca
Care for Cats Website

However, what makes this Canadian program so much more exciting than anything we’ve seen in Australia, is those things absent from these progressive and outcomes based programs:

Strategies for getting government to implement mandatory desexing,
Blaming the community for feral cat numbers,
Confinement – killing street cats for the greater good,
How to get those ‘irresponsible’ cat feeders to bring their cats off to the pound to be killed instead.

Australia needs animal welfare leaders to stop championing cat abuse and killing, and start lobbying to implement those programs that are set to solve our cat welfare issues.

Cat laws are unenforceable

savingpets — Mon, 20 Dec 2010 01:45:38 +0000

Wyndham Council are having ongoing trouble with their cat laws;

The council has issued 239 fines for unregistered dogs and just 13 for cats, from April to September this year.

Based on the $227 fine, the total fines for unregistered dogs was almost $55,000 and, for cats, less than $3000.

This council has only tried to introduce a ’small’ law in mandatory microchipping and registration – but the big problem with cat laws has been revealed – just how do you enforce them?

I often have discussions with cat advocates; “we need mandatory desexing/registration/microchipping/confinement!”, they’ll say; “if we had then the shelters wouldn’t be full of cats!”

My response is; if you want to keep cats out of shelters, why not offer services which help the small groups of people who are not already compliant, and unowned cats? To which I always get;

YEAH, BUT WHO’S GOING TO PAY FOR THAT?

And therein lies the rub – in their minds, cat laws are considered ‘free’, while services obviously cost money.

But laws aren’t free

Many communities claim their new laws haven’t worked because of a lack of enforcement. Obviously if you create a law that has no budget or resources allocated to ensuring the law is complied with, then your law isn’t going to be very effective. And if you’re looking to get compliance up around 80-90%, you’re going to need a really strong mode of enforcement to be successful.

So, you’re going to need an enforcement budget. At least one staff member plus whatever resources/systems they need. But one person isn’t going to be very effective; you’ll probably need more. Could you add it to other, existing staff’s duties? Maybe. But with cat laws, you’re going to need to literally go door to door, looking for non-compliant cat owners. Most councils don’t have the resources for this. So the easiest and most common way to ‘enforce’ these laws? At the point of impoundment:

When asked why more dog owners than cat owners had been fined, the council said fines were often issued to people picking up their unregistered dogs from the local pound and that, unfortunately, many cats were never collected.

About 1100 cats were impounded in Wyndham in 2009-10, with 935 of these put down.

The current fine for a unregistered cat (hence the collection fee) in Wyndham = $227. A new cat from the newspaper? Probably free.

By using this vulnerable time to try and enforce our laws, we ensure a cat will die in a shelter who has an owner. We should never do anything which impedes or discourages a person from collecting their animal, and instead do everything we can to try and send the animal home.

So short of paying a government department a huge sum to create a program to go door to door (pulling resources away from other programs like outreach desexing), cat laws are unenforceable.

Ok, you have your enforcement budget – now what?

Your council has bucked the trend and has promised to work to enforce their new cat laws, so they have a chance of success. Great!

But is it?

Assuming the aim of the law is to keep cats out of shelters (you can stop reading now, if the law you’re designing is simply to ‘punish cat owners’ or ‘get cats off the street at any cost’) we need to understand what happens when we do try to ‘enforce’ our new laws.

Where do kittens come from?

It is generally accepted that the owned cat population is in negative growth (ie. less cats are born from owned parents, than are needed to replace them);

“The number of owned cats in Australia has been in steady decline for 20 years.”

“There’s no evidence that owned cats replenish the unowned population. It is more likely that the net movement is in the other direction, due to the differential desexing rates – in fact we’re getting them moving from the unowned, into the owned population.”
Kersti Seksel

People who are ‘good’ owners, already microchip and desex. Kittens have very little perceived value (unlike puppies), so most litters from this group of people are ‘oops’ litters. Truly ‘accidental’ litters make up a tiny fraction of the number of the kittens born each year

In most cases, owners who have an ‘oops’ litter are generally nice people and work to find these kittens homes themselves, so they don’t enter the shelter system. (ref) They then get their cat desexed.

People who are ‘bad’ (irresponsible) owners genuinely don’t care about the cat’s welfare. They likely acquired the cat through passive means and do not undertake other ‘good’ owner behaviours (taking the cat to the vet etc). When the cat has its first litter, mother cat and litter end up at the shelter. These guys are the ‘owned’ kittens/cats entering shelters and make up around 21% of intakes. (ref)

Disadvantaged owners, unowned and semi owned cats. I’ve put these guys all together, because they’re our biggest ‘target’ for positive change.

Disadvantaged owners often fall foul of cat laws. In the case of mandatory desexing, they can’t afford or access the surgery. They’re elderly, or they’re mentally ill or they’re otherwise disengaged from society.

Semi-owned cats are free-roaming with varying levels of human care (it lives in their shed, they just give it food because it’s hungry, it just showed up, they assumed it has another owner).

While unowned cats are obviously completely without a human carer, but may live in close proximity to humans (rubbish tips, schools, supermarkets, restaurants)

When these cats have litters, either all go to the shelter, or the kittens remain in the environment to continue the breeding cycle. These guys are large contributors to shelter cat numbers as urban cats are generally well fed and healthy (“80% of cats entering shelters were non-owned or semi-owned” ref)

How does an enforcement model of cat laws effect each of these groups? (or why cat laws are unenforceable)

Targeting ‘good’ owners isn’t necessary, as the contribution they make is minimal.

Targeting ‘bad’ owners is labour intensive/expensive. First you have to know where to look (we’re back to door knocking everyone). When you confront the owner, the cat will likely be handed over as there is no bond between pet and owner. If you do this on any kind of scale you increase shelter intakes (bad). Plus, since there is clearly the resources to support a cat, another cat will likely move in and chances are it will be undesexed and the cycle will continue.

Targeting disadvantaged owners doesn’t help them. If you fine them, they can’t afford to pay you. In the case of mandatory desexing, it can force them to give up their cat. Given they’re pet lovers, they’ll probably get another. So now you have one loved cat in the shelter, and a new cat in the home that is likely still not compliant with your laws.

Some semi-owners may be happy to comply with cat laws (excluding confinement) if they don’t already have the prescribed number of cats/can afford desexing. Other semi-owners may not have the resources to do more than feed, but we should encourage them to continue to do that and support them with accessible cat desexing surgery. To punish them for non-compliance ensures the cat either – loses its carer – or enters the shelter – or both. After impoundment, we can almost certainly guarantee another cat another moves in, continuing the cycle.

While unowned cats don’t give a hoot about your new laws and will continue doing that thing cats do. Do they now fall foul of the new laws? Then they’ll probably be trapped and killed in the shelter.

So which one of these groups do our cat laws really target effectively? Go back and read them again if you’re not sure.

The answer is none of them. If anything, it targets the cats. More cats entering the shelter, not less. More cats remaining unclaimed, not less. More cats being killed, not less.

Our ‘not free’ cat laws, the ones we were using as the ’solution’ to our cat management issues have backfired and caused even more cats to lose their lives. Without a long-term strategy, these laws are unenforceable.

We understand there will be some initial carnage, but won’t it stop after a time?

Some cat advocates understand all of this, but push ahead anyway. “Any law is better than keeping the status quo”, they’ll say. “We understand that there will initially be a spike in impounds/killing, but for the greater good we must restrict cat ownership today, to get a better result tomorrow”. It’s the old ‘kill them to be kind’ mentality.

But the truth is, there are no examples where the pursuit of these laws has seen a positive outcome for cats. There is no evidence that any variation has worked, ever. The ACT has had mandatory desexing for more than ten years, with impounds still going up. The City of Casey has confinement, registration, mandatory desexing and door knock, and their cat impounds remain constant (40% higher than other councils). City after city after city has struggled with cat laws unsuccessfully.

If we are to truly begin to see a reduction in the killing of cats in Australia, then we need to stop chasing a failed model and start looking at those programs which do work to keep cats from dying in shelters. We need to recognise that when even so called ‘cat protection’ groups save less than 9 in 100, a shelter is the worst place for a cat to be. Especially a cat who is anything but a house pet.

We must finally discard the myth that by ‘punishing owners’ we’re somehow helping cats. We must choose not to remain stuck in a system based on killing. Effective cat management takes more than simply dreaming up new cat laws; it’s going to take compassion and a completely different approach to put us on a new, successful path.

Incentives v disincentives

savingpets — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 05:46:30 +0000

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
~Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Animal welfare groups often talk about using ‘incentives’ to change owner behaviour and improve the situation for pets. And used correctly, incentives do have a powerful effect on human behaviour. But often we mix up and misunderstand the difference between what we think we’re offering – an incentive to ‘good’ behaviour – and what we’re actually offering – a disincentive to ‘bad’ behaviour. This mistake in our approach, can have disastrous results.

If you encourage or reward something (incentive), you get more of it. If you discourage or punish something (disincentive), you get less of it. Simple.

But its it’s actually not really that simple. Whether dog training, kid wrangling or sorting out the mother-in-law, incentives and disincentives work differently.

How?

Incentives (rewards) can be small if the behaviour you want is easy, palatable and your ‘target’ motivated to please you/comply. Incentives have to be large if the behaviour you want is hard, inconvenient or your target doesn’t really care to do what you want them to do.

If you use disincentives (punishment) against your ‘target’ when they are motivated to comply, you can actually reduce compliance as they rebel against you. When you use disincentives against unmotivated targets, the punishment has to be so large and so unpleasant so as to make not complying, less pleasant than complying.

Disincentives are generally less effective, since they involve ‘enforcement’ (ongoing punishment) which is labour and energy intensive. There is also the potential for the situation to get worse if your target becomes resentful to your punishment and you can need stronger and stronger punishment to get the same level of compliance in future.

For example; You need your teenager to clean his bedroom. If he’s a tidy kid, a small reward (like a please and thank you) may be enough. If he’s unmotivated, a larger reward (like the promise of being able to do something fun later) would be needed to get him off the couch. To punish a compliant teenager makes no sense whatsoever and may very well lead to resentment and less room cleaning in future. While a punishment for an unmotivated teenager, would conceivably need to be so enormous and well crafted, that the effort expended might actually be more than that needed to clean the room in the first place. The cost is more than the result!

Improving owner behaviour

In the animal welfare field, things get even more murky.

Let’s look at Mandatory Desexing. It is often billed as an ‘incentive for people to get their pets sterilised’; it’s not. What it actually is, is a disincentive to people having an undesexed pet.

A true ‘incentive for people to get their pets desexed’ would be something positive to inspire people to comply. Free or discount desexing would be an incentive for people who wouldn’t normally get their pet desexed. A discount on pet registration, would be an incentive for people who already get their pets desexed, when they register it. Rewards for responsible pet owners in the community like a raffle for movie tickets or some other kind of recognition can be used to motivate. Using incentives can bring about changes in behaviour, or reinforce existing behaviour.

The problem with using disincentives to achieve the same outcomes is thus; motivated individuals don’t need punishing, they need help with overcoming obstacles to compliance, while unmotivated individuals need such a large punishment, that its hard to think of one that would do the job.

What could you conceivably do to an owner who doesn’t comply with your mandatory desexing directive?

Take their pet away? Will they care? Do you really need more impounds?
Fine them? Can they just deny that the animal is theirs? Will it just lead to the pet being impounded?
Berate them? Shame them? Do they care what you think?

This is where these kinds of initiatives fail and why mandatory desexing is often billed as ‘unenforceable’. You cannot reasonably make the punishment so large and so unpleasant so as to make not doing, less pleasant than doing.

Another example is Nillumbik Council’s decision to refuse to register undesexed cats. This is deemed as ‘an incentive for owners to desex their cats’ – but there is absolutely no incentive (reward) offered! What it actually is, is a ‘disincentive for owners of undesexed cats to register them’. Surely, the intention should be to get more cats registered, and more cats desexed. More compliance with responsible pet ownership behaviour, not less.

Mostly carrots; sometimes sticks

Using disincentives definitely has a place in animal welfare law. In the case of serious breaches of welfare or abuse, then laws should be in place to make disincentives (punishments) large for transgressors. A large enough disincentive can act as a warning to others.

But in the case of small or incremental improvements in owner behaviour, disincentives are ineffective, simply because the resources available for enforcement is generally small, the disincentives (punishments) are minor and those most negatively effected are motivated, but non-compliant owners (those people who would comply if someone would help them to). Meanwhile, seriously non-motivated pet owners (the truly ‘irresponsible’) are very unlikely to care what law you dream up.

Take the time to think hard about the laws you advocate for; are you really advocating for is an ‘incentive to pet owner behaviour improvements’, or are you really trying to push through an impotent ‘disincentive, punishment-based mandate’, which will drive a wedge between you and your community, and likely fail to achieve its aims.

Knowing can make the world of difference.

Victoria keeps on mandating killing

savingpets — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 01:48:54 +0000

Many cat ‘welfare’ campaigners advocate for things that are counterintuitive to improving cat welfare. For example, supporting Councils efforts to round up and kill free-roaming cats. Or advocating to punish disadvantaged pet owners and see their cats impounded, rather than the services to help them become compliant. The kinds of things which increase intakes and drive a wedge between the community and animal shelters.

These ‘welfare’ campaigners are often so caught up in a culture of killing and then blaming the public for the killing, that they’ve lost all ability to think outside those parameters. So by extension they often design and advocate for nonsensical laws which do two things, drive up intakes (killing) and give further opportunity to blame. The result is a vicious cycle that can go on for decades.

Take Nillumbik Council in Victoria. In 2008, with support from the RSPCA, the council proposed a 24hr cat curfew for the 3,000 owned and registered cats in the shire. Owned cats indoors – outdoor cats culled. One can only imagine the sheer volume of ‘unavoidable’ cat killing that would have come next. Thankfully a few months later, after a roar of disapproval from cat lovers, the proposal was scrapped.

But today an equally head-scratching proposal. After declaring that mandatory desexing would be ineffective:

Banyule Mayor Wayne Phillips: “As the bulk of desexed (sic) cats are currently those that are not registered, council has no knowledge of the owners to be able to enforce such an order.”

(I suspect this was supposed to read “undesexed cats are those that are not registered”, however, the premise remains the same; you can’t enforce the law on an unowned cat)

The council has proposed the following;

… to refuse registration for cats that have not been desexed from April next year.

So knowing that the ‘problem’ cats are those that are either unregistered, or unowned AND unregistered – Council have gone ahead and put up a hurdle to cat owners registering their pets. It’s like genius, but not.

In a state where 90%+ of the cats who enter the shelter system are killed, the smart thing would be to be getting as many cats as possible identified and registered. Because then they go home, instead of into a crematory.

So are local cat welfare groups outraged at council? Are they demanding that council offer FREE cat registration (and maybe even microchipping) to ALL cats so that the fewest number possible end up unclaimed at the pound? Nope.

A leading Greensborough animal welfare group has applauded Nillumbik Council’s decision to introduce mandatory desexing for cats.

Cat Protection Society director Dr Carole Webb said she was “absolutely delighted”…

And just like that we’re back to the counterintuitive, killing and blaming cycle.

People can’t register their cats >> cats get impounded >> cats get killed >> owners get blamed.

All to chase the holy grail of ‘mandatory desexing’ which continues to fail everywhere.

There are solutions to the cat issues in Australia. There are communities who are moving their cat impoundment and killing numbers in the right direction… down. But after decades of failure, we’re still choosing to listen to those cat advocates who want to kill and then blame us for the killing.

And the cycle of failure continues in Victoria.

Circle of blame

savingpets — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 23:51:33 +0000

Circle of Blame
Step 1. Have your community alert you to unacceptably high cat kill rates.
Step 2. Blame ‘the irresponsible public’ for the numbers
Step 2. Provide cat traps
Step 3. Blame ‘the irresponsible public’ for the surge in impounds
Step 4. Send cats to pounds with a 90%+ kill rate
Step 5. Blame ‘the irresponsible public’ for the killing
Step 6. (See step 1.)
Repeat

Moreland (VIC) pet-owners are urged to desex cats and dogs to help arrest the problem of illegal pet dumping.

After collecting more than 1000 animals off the streets since July 2009, Moreland Council said it is alarmed by the number of pets being dumped in the municipality.

The council handed residents some 800 cat cages to trap stray and feral cats over the period.

Lost or abandoned pets are sent to the Lost Dogs Home or Cat Protection Society where they must be destroyed if unclaimed within 28 days under a state Code of Practice.

While those caught dumping an animal can face 12 months in prison and up to $14,000 fines, RSPCA Victoria Senior Inspector Simon Primrose said there was still about half a million stray cats.

“The community should be taking more responsibility in this regard and cutting the problem off at the source by getting their pets desexed,” said Insp Primrose.

“If these animals are not able to indiscriminately breed, we would see far fewer unwanted animals being abandoned.”

It’s genius. At no point does the council have to actually address the ‘half a million’ stray, breeding animals with humane solutions, but it can be seen to be taking action by lending traps and maybe even punishing the ‘irresponsible public’ in the coming months with some new cat laws.

Speaking of cat laws, an update from Wyndham (VIC). After being criticised last year for not providing any enforcement for their dusk to dawn curfew, and with 1200 cats impounded by council for the year (781 killed), the Council did what councils often do – not terribly much. This year celebrates the 10th anniversary of their cat curfew with the news that not a single person has been fined under the law in a decade. Cat impoundments however remain steady at 1100 cats impounded in 2009-10 (935 killed).

The council could not say how many complaints it was taking about cats wandering at night, saying these were not recorded.

On why no one had been fined under the curfew, prohibiting cats being off their owners’ property from 10pm and 6am and banning them from public areas, the council said most residents did not know where wandering cats came from.

It also said most trapped cats had no identification and were never claimed, meaning there was no one to fine.

The only cats effected by laws like curfews are those animals unfortunate enough to be living without owners, meaning we’re not punishing an ‘irresponsible public’ with these laws… but the cats themselves.

Whether its registration, curfews or mandatory desexing, the laws are proving not only unenforceable, but ineffective. If you genuinely are a cat lover, only support those initiatives that help and protect cats. Cat laws fail to do either.