If you’ve ever tried to engage a mandatory desexing zealot in a reasonable discussion of the population dynamics of cats in Australia, you’ll know the meaning of pointless. They are driven to show the world that everyone else is wrong, that the public is evil and the only path to salvation is the legislated removal of the reproductive organs of every owned animal.

No matter how. much. evidence. you are able to present on just where stray cats come from – they consider their methodology unquestionable; “of course it will work, you silly person,” they chant. “more desexed cats mean less kittens born and less have to be killed in shelters!“. All animal lovers must join them in their fight to target the ‘irresponsible masses’.

But ‘punishment dogmatists’ choose to ignore a truth, that those who study pets and their owners are able to measure time and time again; Australian pet owners are incredibly compliant and compassionate towards companion animals.

Last year, a report for the Victorian Bureau of Animal Welfare, by The Animal Welfare Science Centre, sampled Victorian veterinarians and their clients profiling owners, pets and ownership practices, especially in how they manage the reproductive behaviour of their pets. ‘Characteristics of pets who visit veterinarians’ (Martson, Bennett), interviewed 51 veterinarian surgeries and 588 owners and found the majority of pet owners are doing what we asked them to;

Overall, the level of desexing was high, with a greater percentage of cats (94%) being desexed than dogs (89.7%).

And that they are also remarkably considerate to those cats that they don’t own;

37.9% of the sample fed cats that they did not own (cat semi owners), indicating not only that responsible cat owners engage in this behaviour, but that they may do so at a greater level than the general population.

Despite what is commonly claimed, the small number of owned cat litters that happen ‘accidentally’ aren’t abandoned, but are considerately placed;

Very few litters were presented at the participating clinics. Most of the progeny of these owned animals were rehomed directly by their owner in some way. Very few were taken to shelters. This suggests that the progeny of veterinary clients are not contributing significantly to shelter admissions.

47.7% of cats were obtained at no cost, from the stray population, from friends, relatives and neighbours.

Cats acquired at no cost were likely to be owned for as long as those that had been acquired at considerable cost.

Meaning cat owners are not only not contributing to the ‘kitten flood’ but are actually pretty efficiently absorbing cats from the unowned population by adopting neighbourhood strays. They are helping, not hindering cat welfare in Australia.

Rather than legislation targeting owners, the study pointed towards targeted desexing programs as the key to reducing strays and ferals;

Rural and regional practices saw significantly more unowned, feral cats compared to urban practices. Lower client income levels were associated with a higher percentage of feral cats being presented at clinics which suggests that providing low cost/no cost desexing in low income areas might be effective in reducing feral cat numbers.

As most of the cats which enter shelters as strays display some evidence of having been socialised to humans, it is likely that many of them are semi-owned cats. Increasing the proportion of cat semi-owners who desex the animals they feed therefore could reduce shelter admissions.

Outreach, not criticism. Support and assistance, not fire and brimstone. It’s only when animal welfare groups stop taking a ‘moral high ground’ with cat owners and start working with them as partners will there be any hope to reduce cat problems here in Australia.

While ‘mandatory desexing’ targeting owners sounds constructive; what is suggested by this study is that, like many other previous studies, cat owners are the solution, not the problem when it comes to caring for cats. And since their compassion extends to the stray and ferals in their community, if we engage them and simply ask for their help we can start to reduce the flow of cats and kittens into shelters.

Cat owners are our allies, not our enemies.

See also: Last of 300 strong managed cat colony dies

One of the most frequently used measures of the success of suburbs and cities is the is the income earning capacity of its residents. Basically, a good income can provide a ‘buffer’ against natural, societal or personal disaster and determine a communities capacity to cope with adversity. Without this buffer, there can be a dangerously fine line for individuals to cross into loss of health, loss of income, mental health problems or poverty.

So what do you call a law that is used to target these vulnerable and disadvantaged people? One that effects those people living in poorer suburbs exponentially more, because they are overrepresented as to be breaking the law?

Discrimination.

The WA government is calling for new cat legislation, requiring cat owners to desex their pets. They’re doing this because the local Cat Haven is swamped with cats;

The eastern Perth suburb of Cannington reported nearly twice the number of dumped cats and kittens in the peak month of December than the next worst performing suburb of Willagee.

According to statistics collected by the Cat Haven, 63 felines were dumped in Cannington, 32 in the southern suburb of Willagee, and 31 in the northern suburb of Balga.

In December, the Cat Haven was inundated with almost 1000 unwanted felines during the biggest cat dumping period of the year.

Cat dumping rife in Perth’s eastern suburbs

But to put these ‘eastern suburbs’ in context, they are some of the poorest suburbs in Perth. According to REIWA real estate profiles WA,, the mentioned suburbs had the following median weekly household income;

Cannington ($794)
Willagee ($750)
Balga ($644)

For comparison, the Perth median weekly household income is $1,086, and my own suburb, a relatively average place, is $1,235 (Karrinyup). While a ‘exclusive’ suburb like Subiaco is $1,502.

Comparing the major sources of cats, with the communities they are coming from, it’s obvious that this is a law that primarily targets the poor and disadvantaged; pensioners, low income families and people with mental or physical health issues.

What’s more, studies have shown the primary reason people don’t desex their pets is cost. To target poor owners with legislation, does little to help them afford the surgery.

A study conducted by Harris Interactive for Alley Cat Allies came up with some interesting data. To start with, nearly all pets cats in America — more than 80 percent — are already desexed (note for Australians: studies here have shown we Aussies are up around 95% of owned cats being desexed). And the ones that aren’t didn’t have the misfortune of being owned by deadbeat, idiotic, irresponsible or callous people. No, they’re owned by poor people.

In fact, the single most influential predictor of whether or not a cat is altered is the income level of his or her owner.

Eighty percent of cats in U.S. households are neutered, according to a new, nationally representative study conducted by Alley Cat Allies and published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association, a leading peer-reviewed scientific journal.

The study, “Population characteristics and neuter status of cats living in households in the United States,” found that family income was the single strongest predictor of whether pet cats living in households are neutered. Over 90% of cats in households earning $35,000 or more per year were neutered, compared to 51% of cats in households earning less than $35,000.

As the study points out, it’s not pet cats (the only ones who would be affected by a mandatory desexing law) who aren’t being altered; it’s unowned strays. And cats represent the largest group of animals being killed in shelters.

It’s worth noting there is no large scale, low cost cat desexing program in WA.

Identifying these sections of society, and offering extra support from government to ensure the populations basic needs are met are always going to have more success than just slapping a new law on a section of the community already struggling with hardship. If we really wanted to cut down on shelter deaths, how about looking to funding targeted desexing Community Cat programs and mandatory assistance to low income pet owners.

If that doesn’t work THEN get giddy with legislation. Chances are it won’t be needed. But don’t put the cart before the horse by bringing in legislation, before enacting the community support to ensure that the poor aren’t targeted and their pets seized and killed for a lack of personal resources.

Thanks to Margaret for the tip!

With the now irrefutable evidence that it’s the unowned cat population that is the major cause of cat shelter overpopulation, and the growing failure of mandatory desexing to reduce shelter kill rates as promised, mandatory desexing advocates are on the hunt for another ‘good reason’ to be allowed to have the legislation they so desire.

So they’ve made up another theoretical benefit;

According to Canobolas Family Pet Hospital veterinarian Geoff Freeth, brawling undesexed cats help spread diseases such as feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), the cat equivalent of human AIDS.

“The incidences of FIV sits at around 15 to 20 per cent in Australia, although there are places such as Goulburn where 30 per cent of cats have FIV so it’s impossible to know how many local cats have the disease,” he said.

“The majority of people see it as the responsible thing to get their cats desexed, however there is a small percentage of people who don’t do it because they’re lazy or lack education (on the issue).”

Dr Freeth says feral cats are also an increasing problem in the region and while desexing won’t have an immediate impact on feral cat numbers, he believes there will be long-term benefits.

Mandatory desexing purr-fect – Central Western Daily

I really don’t understand how the straw man argument that cat owners are to blame for ongoing feral cat problems continues to be given credence. Of course there are health and behavioural benefits to cats if they are desexed; that was never under debate. But oversimplifying the issue by suggesting that targeting ‘lazy and uneducated owners’ is the key to curing all of the ills of cat kind, is just so, so unhelpful, keeping the public all looking to the government for a legislative solution, rather than empowering them to take genuine action that would reduce the number of homeless cats.

We need to stop all these efforts to ‘get’ owners. And start real discussion about how we can ‘get’ some solutions to the actual problem – a large population of breeding, unowned animals.

Vets and pet research advisory groups resisted cat legislation in various forms throughout the nineties and noughties.

Research study after research study showed the ineffectiveness of owner-targeted legislation, demonstrated that the population dynamics of cats entering shelters meant few had ever had owners and explained that while it sounds lovely rolling off the tongue in a soundbite, “compulsory desexing” is little more than a free pass for councils to round up unowned cats.

After nearly two decades, nothing much has changed except that the debate has gotten old. In 2010 science is nice, but dead cats and emotional blackmail speak volumes;

It is a small and sparse room, no bigger than 3m by 4m with a small bed in the centre.

It is here where up to 11,000 cats are destroyed each year.

Dr Carol Webb, executive director of the Cat Protection Society of Victoria, is quiet when she takes the Diamond Valley Leader to the room as part of a tour of the organisation.

“Cats who are deemed as wild, suffering of serious injuries and ill are taken here and we put them to sleep,” Dr Webb said.

She said this in a matter of fact way and indeed, the way cats are euthanased in the centre is similar to falling asleep.

One cat at a time is placed on the bench.

The veterinary assistant would raise the cat’s leg, exposing the necessary vein where Dr Webb would inject an overdose of barbiturates.

It only takes a moment and the cat is dead.

No anguished moan or pleading purrs.

The cat’s eyes close and silence returns to the room. (ref)

And that my friends is the how animal welfare groups get legislation without proving efficacy.

Landcare has this month put together an anti-cat article outlining cat legislation Australia wide. What is really interesting is the obvious the march towards more and more draconian legislation. There is no such thing as ‘a cat-friendly compromise’; once one piece of legislation is enacted, and the kill rooms stay as full as ever, cat groups go right on advocating for more laws.

Just starting out

Western Australia – no statewide laws

Western Australia has no state-wide legislation specifically addressing domestic cat management. However, the Local Government Act 1995 provides for councils to enact their own local laws. Of the 141 council areas in WA, 13 have introduced cat laws relating to various issues including desexing, confining, microchipping, trapping and limiting the number of cats an individual may own.
….

However, it is anticipated that all councils will soon have the obligation to administer compulsory sterilisation regulations. Joe Francis, Jandakot MLA, is currently drafting a Bill which would require cat owners across the state to sterilise and microchip their pets by the time the animals are six months old.

With no statewide laws it’s been up to individual councils to take the heat from the community when enacting new laws. When Joondalup attempted compulsory desexing, the backlash was so strong it was forced to abandon its efforts. Groups working in the community have been able to lobby their individual councils to bring about the best results for the cats in their community

An attempt at statewide cat legislation means, if passed, councils will be forced to bring in compulsory desexing legislation, regardless of their local requirements. The result will be much less ability for local advocacy groups working with free-roaming cats (and against laws that target cats without owners) to influence local law outcomes.

On the merry-go-round

Queensland – new statewide compulsory registration

The Animal Management (Cats and Dogs) Act 2008 was passed on December 11 2008 and is designed to encourage responsible pet ownership by introducing compulsory registration and identification. The Act took effect throughout south-east Queensland councils on July 1 2009, with the rest of the state scheduled to come in line within two years.

Along with this new legislation are the trialing of approved breeder schemes and the emphasis on cat containment, but animal welfare groups are already beginning to up the ante. The AWL QLD is calling for “compulsory desexing in all pounds and shelters, compulsory confinement (unless under effective control) of all undesexed animals and pilot studies in compulsory desexing and compulsory desexing prior to sale or transfer”. While the RSPCA says it will continue to lobby for compulsory desexing.

Giving powers to council

South Australia – statewide legislation, leads to desexing and confinement

In South Australia laws relating to the management of cats generally come under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. The Act provides for non-compulsory identification of cats and enables councils to introduce laws to manage cats in ways consistent with the needs of their area. The Dog and Cat Management Board of South Australia, the only statutory authority of its kind in Australia, was also established under the Act.

Once being handed free reign, councils in South Australia rapidly developed more and more draconian legislation. Kangaroo Island Council has enacted by-laws requiring that a cat be confined desexed, microchipped and registered. Roxby Downs Council requires that cats be registered, microchipped and desexed, confined, plus a two cats limit. The City of Tea Tree Gully and the Council of the City of Mitcham have sought bylaws which would require cat owners to microchip their pet and would limit the number of cats that could be owned.

South Australia is rapidly heading towards a future where free-roaming cats fall foul of the law. With protection for these animals removed, we can expect to see many more sweeps by animal management departments targeting cats without owners and an increase in shelter killing.

Actively taking out colony care

Victoria – councils with unlimited powers target unowned cats

In Victoria the Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994 gives councils the responsibility for registering and controlling cats. The Act promotes the responsible ownership of cats and the protection of the environment by providing for the registration and identification of cats and for the implementation of a scheme to protect the community and the environment from feral and nuisance cats.

Individual councils can also introduce local laws to further enhance domestic cat management.

Of the 79 Victorian councils, 24 have made cat confinement laws, five have made microchipping laws and 10 have introduced mandatory desexing. The former Shire of Sherbrooke (now part of the Yarra Ranges Shire Council) was the first in Australia to introduce a cat curfew. Yarra Ranges has additional local laws requiring that cats be confined at night. Two cats per person.

In addition, an offence has been created to the effect that it is unlawful for people to feed or encourage feral or stray animals onto their property. This eliminates the potential for cat colony care and allows them no protection at all from council as they are collected as strays.

Not content with the devastation variations on compulsory registration, desexing and confinement legislation has caused, with some of the highest kill pounds in the country and a 40% increase in cat impoundments in 2008, animal welfare groups in Victoria are now campaigning local councils for the mandatory desexing for all domestic cats over 12 weeks of age, effectively removing an owners right to choose to listen to the advice of their vet on matters of their cats reproductive welfare. And with the planned continuation of the Who’s for Cats campaign in 2010, they’re also targeting unowned cats for removal.

It’s a slippery slope

When you start ignoring science and start giving weight to personal belief – then start mandating those personal beliefs into law, then you’re on a very slippery slope to giving a few people ultimate power without accountability or audit. “Because we say so” should never be the basis for legislation.

It’s worth noting that none of the councils above have seen any noticable drop in pound euthanasia rates of cats. And all have rolled out new legislation, on top of the legislation before it that failed to work.

Unless start demanding groups calling for these regressive laws to show some proof of the soundness of their ideas, we will never get out of this endless loop of killing. Because something that doesn’t work yesterday, won’t work today and won’t work tomorrow, but it may just wrap us up so tightly in ineffective legislation it will be nearly impossible to get the whole lot undone. We’re headed towards a future where owned cats are indoors and outdoors cats are fair game.

Don’t go quietly into the legislative approach thinking that ‘a little bit of necessary legislation’ now will lead to a future where we all hold hands and sing koom-by-ya. Those who lobby for their beliefs to be made into law now – need to be challenged. And we must know that the law of unintended consequences means no new piece of legislation comes cost free.

And the cost might ultimately be to programs that do have a chance of being effective.

I’ve blogged about Bill Bruce and the City of Calgary before, but this video although nearly two hours long, is a must see, as every word of it is pure genuis.

Bill Bruce is the Director of Animal and Bylaw Services at the City of Calgary, whose animal control department has achieved a +90% level of dog licencing compliance. Using the revenue from pet registrations they are able to run an open admission, self-funding shelter which saves 82% of cats and 94% of dogs… and they’ve done it without mandatory desexing, without breed specific legislation and without pet number limit laws.

Recognising that animal management’s core business is “returning pets to owners” and calling its dog licences ‘a ticket home’, if a pet is found wandering in Calgary and is registered, it will be taken home without being impounded. Calgary’s phenomenal success comes from offering a high level of service to pet owners who in turn see licensing as something of value to them and their pets.

However, it didn’t start off this way. Originally the city adopted the popular ‘heavy-handed, enforcement’ model. With extensive policing they were able to get dog licencing compliance up to around 80% but, forced to hammer people each renewal year to get them to comply, it was expensive and hard to maintain.

Understanding people

Calgary now works with it community, rather than trying to punish it into compliance. They key, says Bill Bruce, is studying people;

90% of people, sometimes 95%, will comply with things they agree with, understand and feel consulted on.

Less than 30% of us ‘do what we’re told’

The goal is to achieve that level of voluntary compliance where people willingly licencing their dog. You’re not chasing it, you’re becoming more efficient, your revenue is up and then you can invest those dollars back into service that ads value, not investing in chasing people down.

By engaging pet owners whose pet has escaped in a dialogue about why it happened, future problems can be avoided. And with dogs going straight home rather than be impounded, shelter overcrowding is reduced.

Making it easy for people

The advantages to near universally registered dog population are obvious;

- Enables animal services to quickly reunite missing pets with their owners
- Identifies that a lost animal has a caregiver
- A licenced animal is only one phone call away from going home.

Without pet limit laws, breed specific laws and mandatory desexing Calgary removed hurdles to compliance with licencing and the need for people to ‘hide’ their dogs and cats from the city. They also make it easy to register a pet and keep it registered – renewals sent out annually and can be paid online, in person or through a 24hr payment telephone hotline. They also follow up on non-payments with a friendly phonecall from their office.

Supporting responsible ownership

They have 138 off-leash areas, patrolled by animal management officers on bikes spruiking responsible pet ownership – even giving out free dog pooh bags! Through this positive dialogue with owners, they are able to take on the role of educator; correcting myths and removing misconceptions about animal control. This engagement has helped develop ’social capital’ which sees the whole community care about animal welfare, helped them develop into knowledgeable pet owners and become “partners in compliance”.

Positivity and positive re-enforcement

Instead of putting money from licencing into government coffers (just another tax) it is spent on caring for pets in the community. The revenue stream from dog licences covers the $4.2 million dollar operating budget of the shelter. While funds from their new cat licencing program (which deliberately excludes unowned cats, allowing for TNR), are being put towards a community vet clinic which will offer free pet desexing for those who can’t afford the surgery (an estimated 8,000 – 10,000 surgeries per year). People like the idea that their money is going to help less fortunate pets and want to support the program and they are at 45% compliance without any enforcement of the cat licencing program (they simply can’t process any more applications).

They use positive media to tell their community that they are doing a great job “you guys are the most responsible guys anywhere!”, focusing on the excellent statistics the community have achieved.

The staff in the animal control department at the City of Calgary are happy and enjoy coming to work because they’re having success. The change in public perception from ‘dog catcher’ to ‘community support’ has removed barriers between the department and their community. Instead of stray animals being killed (and compassionate people keeping lost pets, rather than dropping them at the shelter) Calgary proudly promotes the fact their shelter is low kill, because so many animals go home.

The animal control process

If the pet can’t be taken straight home it will be delivered to the shelter. A photo of the pet is up on the website 15 mins after arrival, helping owners to locate their lost pet. Convenient opening hours help owners collect their animals

Having a good income stream from pet registrations, means great resources in the shelter. Excellent ventilation and individual cat kennels ensure flu isn’t spread and a high tech waste management system has meant no parvo outbreaks. Calgary boasts that the shelter has no smell, is very quiet and the animals are relaxed. Dangerous dog management kennels allow dogs to be moved without poles.

If an animal is not collected, its desexed vaccinated and moved out of the shelter to an off-site adoption centre.

Dogs with issues (slight dog aggression, food aggression or whom need to recover from surgery), go to specially trained foster homes who help rehabilitate the pet. They have 220 of these homes.

Feral cats are managed by a group who has ’secret’ colonies and carers. Dogs who are aggressive go to a sanctuary. The breeders of purebred animals are contacted to see if they can take the pet for rehoming.

Calgary also work with all stakeholders in the community, including local humane societies and cat rescue/TNR groups. By sharing the load, focusing on each groups strengths and sharing the successes, a truly compassionate animal control system has been created, with an emphasis on saving every life.

How can your community have the same level of success?

You must watch this video

Even with a machine gun question and answer session at the end of his talk, not once does Bill Bruce lose his passion for the positive. He believes he has the answer. And judging by his results, he may just be right.





More about Calgary

A gem from Dr Kersti Seksel at the Cat Alliance of Australia’s yearly symposium – as always astoundingly fascinating and genuinely entertaining:

At the end is the full video, but here are some snippets of goodness:

Mandatory cat desexing

We talk about cat overpopulation, I think that’s a misnomer. It’s shelter overpopulation. I’ll show you some figures that show there is no pet overpopulation in Australia at all. But while we figure on that pet overpopulation we’re not going to be getting to the bottom of where the problem really is.

…

There is a need to reduce the number of unwanted, stray and feral cats. Everybody agrees with that. However on the surface there seems like an obvious solution. Make it compulsory for every cat to be desexed, prior to reaching breeding age. From the surface that looks like the obvious solution to the problem. But it’s just not that simple.

It’s the unowned cat population that is the problem, and compulsory desexing will do nothing to reduce the unowned cats in our community. Because if you don’t own them, who’s going to take them to the vet to get them desexed?

But what it will do is increase the cost of animal management and local government. And its going to increase non-compliance in areas such as licencing and microchipping and vaccination. And this has been shown by lots of studies overseas.

If we want to look after the welfare of the cat, we have to look at it from all perspectives.

…

So lets look at the facts;

- Owned cats are not the problem – the vast majority of owned cats, well over 90% are desexed and are a valued part of the household. Voluntary desexing of owned cats is occurring at rates which cause 0% population growth within these groups of animals.

- 95% of owned cats and dogs never enter the animal welfare system – they never go to shelters.

- 79% of cats entering three of Victoria’s largest shelters were unowned. Studies in Victoria and Queensland suggest that owner relinquished cats represent less than 20% of all cat admissions to shelters. And that 80% of cats entering shelters had never had an owner.

- Statistics gathered in counties in the USA, show when mandatory desexing has been introduced there has been a decline in compliance with pet licencing requirements of up to 50%. There has also been an increase in animal management costs of 56% against a revenue increase of only 43% and as a result, some counties have repealled their mandatory desexing legislation because it wasn’t going where they wanted it to go.

- In 2001 the ACT government made it compulsory for all cats and dogs to be desexed by 6 months of age. Statistics have been collated for the five years prior to 2001, and six years since, and they show there has been no positive impact from the introduction of compulsory desexing. And the sad thing is, significantly more cats were euthanased in 2006, than in 2001, when compulsory desexing was introduced.

- The unowned cat population is self-sustaining, because very few are desexed. So no matter what we do about the owned population, the unowned population will just keep on doing what they’re doing.

…

Compulsory legislation from a scientific perspective is flawed.

The solution is multifaceted and it really must include several things. Targeting the stray and feral cat population with new programs which are acceptable to the community and effective in reducing overall numbers is the number one thing we should be doing.

The owned cat population is being capped by very high rates of desexing. We know the owned cat population has been in decline for the last 20 years. Non-owned cats are a self-sustaining population, the rates of desexing are extremely low.

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.

Mandatory desexing has been unsuccessful as a method to reduce shelter euthanasia.

If you are interested in an educated approach to cat management, then I can’t recommend this video enough!

When animal welfare groups lobby for cat welfare, we generally campaign to enact a host of cat control measures; compulsory registration, microchipping, desexing and confinement laws. These we say, are the key to reducing cat euthanasia and neglect.

But what happens in a community when everything we wish for… comes true?

One council in Victoria could be considered a nirvana for cat-law junkies. The City of Casey falls under the 1994 Victorian Domestic Animals Act, which requires the owner of any cat over 3 months of age to be registered with the Council.

And since 2007, all cats in the City of Casey must be microchipped and desexed prior to being registered, effectively bringing about compulsory desexing surreptitiously.

Also in Casey since 1999, has been a 24-hour cat curfew requiring cats be contained to their owner’s property at all times. Residents can use free, council provided cages to trap nuisance, unowned or feral cats in their neighbourhood, the council promotes the “Who’s for Cats” program and go door to door annually checking cat registrations.

So are the community supportive? A 2008 survey of households revealed an extremely high level of compliance, with 99.0% of dogs and 95.4% of cats reported as registered. Over 9,000 cats are registered with the Council.

Every trick in the book

Registration, microchipping, desexing, 24hr cat confinement, and council door knocks to check compliance – The City of Casey have every single cat control law there is, plus huge community support. Have cat euthanasia rates plummeted? Is the City of Casey being lauded by animal welfare groups as the single most successful shire council in the whole of Australia? Can shelter workers pack up their bags and establish new careers as bus drivers and baristas?

Not so much.

From the City of Casey Animal Management Plan 2008 – 2011

Number of Impoundments (Cats) – 783
Cats returned to owner – 102
Cats rehomed – 47
Cats euthanased – 589

Of the 634 cats who weren’t returned or rehomed, 589 were killed. Or over 92%

92%! I’ll just let you have a moment to consider that number.

But it gets worse.

The report goes on to state:

- The number of cat impoundments is 40% higher than the Outer Metropolitan Council Averages.

- Casey has a higher euthanasia rate and lower rehousing rate for cats than Outer Metropolitan Council Averages

Fail.

In fact, when we compare it to another Victorian council, Melton, who without this regressive legislation also kill 92% of their (536) unclaimed/unrehomed cats, there seems to be absolutely no advantage to the cats who fall under The City of Casey’s legislation. Nevertheless, Melton is considering following in Casey’s footsteps in 2010.

And as for the claimed reduction in cat impoundments (and therefore euthanasia), even with compulsory legislation up the wazoo Casey’s impounds are not decreasing.

Dogs and cats impounded
2001/02 – 1,799
2002/03 – 1,074
2003/04 – 2,016
2004/05 – 2,017
2005/06 – 2,230
2006/07 – 2,444
2007/08 – 2,670
2008/09 – 3,317

Instead, it seems impounds are increasing at the constant rate you’d expect from any growing community.

The fantasy of legal solution

If you’re someone that argues that ‘compulsory legislation will bring down impounds’, then you need to spend some time looking closer at the dozens of local examples to find the truth. Even with every single piece of owner targeted legislation ever invented; registration, microchipping, desexing, 24hr cat confinement, and council door knocks to check compliance, the City of Casey has been unable to solve their cat problem.

Draconian legislation targeting owners was never about actual effectiveness, an improvement in cat welfare, or even saving lives. These laws have never worked to reduce the cat euthanasia rate, ever. Worse, stray and semi-owned animals are targeted, driving up pound killing. We need to stop rolling out programs of this kind that have never produced a successful outcome and start listening to the experience of those groups who are doing things that actually work.

Free cat desexing for disadvantaged owners, community cat support and initiatives which help keep pets in their homes, rather than target them for removal.

Proponents of mandatory desexing legislation seem to be of the opinion that anyone who opposes it must be somehow disconnected from animal sheltering, an animal hater or just plain ignorant. So Dr Harry Corbett got referred to as all of these things when he pointed out to Melton compulsory desexing supporters, that applying laws to owned cats in an attempt to reduce the feral population is well… incredibly stupid.

Melton cats law ‘won’t work’

A Melbourne veterinarian has urged Melton Council not to rush into following the populous view of making cat desexing mandatory.

Bayswater veterinarian Dr Harry Corbett says mandatory desexing is not the answer to curbing the shire’s spiralling cat population.

Leader has been inundated by messages of support for mandatory desexing laws for Melton shire during the past fortnight.

Melton Council is reviewing local laws and expects to strongly advocate mandatory desexing of newly registered dogs and cats next year.

But Dr Corbett says a change in the law was a short-sighted response.

“Over 95 per cent of female house cats are desexed,” he said.

“What the animal welfare people are wanting is a law that forces people to do what they are already doing. Mandatory desexing laws can only work if it is the progeny of household cats that are ending up in the pound.

“We know this is not the case.”

Dr Corbett said 80 per cent of all cats admitted to pounds and shelters were street cats.

Melton Council’s administrative services manager Peter Bean said council officers would investigate all options available before putting forward its recommendations.

He agreed that most of the cat problems were due to feral cats and said it was important not to disadvantage law-abiding owners.

“We have 4000 registered cats, of which only 150 aren’t desexed,” he said.

Melton, as a shire in Victoria, is in the privileged position that it doesn’t need to ‘guess’ the dynamics of the cat population entering its pounds and shelters – there have been university studies done on that population, based in Victoria. (I know – great huh?) These found that 80% of cats entering shelters were non-owned or semi-owned and of the owned cat population 93% are already desexed.

Unfortunately those driving these laws aren’t interested in these figures. Neither are they interested in the fact that mandatory desexing has failed to bring down cat euthanasia rates every single place it’s been tried. They don’t care that compulsory desexing results in more animals dying in shelters as people are pressured into giving up their animals, or that precious resources that could be spent on desexing programs that have been shown to be effective, end up diverted into the expense of enforcement. Nor do they care that the only people who are effected by these laws are poor people, as the pets of people who can afford the surgery are already desexed at near universal rates.

They don’t care and are not interested in any of these things because they’re not looking for, you know solutions.

The ugly truth is, they want to punish people. They honestly believe that with their new legislation they will be able to coerce and bully the public into behaving the way they want. The great irony being that overwhelmingly, people are already doing what they want them to do, and that with a little support, the few remaining would too.

But blustering with self-righteousness, the evidence that cat owners are actually not the problem is not able to be processed. Advocates argue that the laws weren’t enforced enough, or on a large enough scale… you know, when something isn’t working – do it harder (or the definition of insanity),

“Of course this law will work!” they declare. “If people are made desex their cats, then more cats can’t be born and then have to die in shelters.”

And then my favourite;
“If you are anti-compulsory desexing legislation, maybe you should go to your local shelter and kill some kittens; then you’ll see!”

Well, I work in a shelter AND I’m anti-compulsory desexing. If I thought for one moment it would work, then I’d be the biggest advocate around; I’d shout it across the interwebs. But it doesn’t work and has never worked. It fails to protect pets and drives more of them into shelters.

But worst if all, it makes those other programs, the ones that do work, like free pet desexing for low income earners, semi-owned community cats and multiple cat households nearly impossible.

Its time we stopped listening to those who are driven by their ‘feelings’, look at the facts and start rolling out programs that are actually effective.

The cats lives depend on it.

The National Squalor Conference is the first international conference of its kind and is being held in Sydney tomorrow. Focusing on addressing the community impacts of social isolation, poverty, accommodation problems and mental health, disability and aged care issues, it looks to move beyond ‘blaming’ people for their situation and instead offer support to the most vulnerable in the community.

Featuring speakers from legal, health care and psychiatric backgrounds it deals extensively with the issues surrounding hoarding and hoarding treatments and the cost to the individual, their family and any animals that may be involved.

Squalor and hoarding: a secret epidemic in the spotlight

The first National Squalor Conference, being held in Sydney this week, aims to highlight the growing number of people living in squalor in Australia. The conference will examine the links between squalor, hoarding, mental health issues and social isolation.

Confronting statistics collected by a number of agencies in relation to people living with compulsive hoarding and severe domestic squalor, emphasise the number of Australians living in squalor is far greater than previously thought. Over 1 in 1,000 elderly people are thought to live in severe domestic squalor and of course it doesn’t just affect the elderly.
……..

RSPCA NSW estimates that there are approximately 700 animal hoarders in NSW, owning an average of 30 animals each. There are potentially around 20,000 animals in the hands of animal hoarders in NSW alone. And the RSPCA sees approximately 200 new cases every year.

“Animal hoarding results in extreme suffering, affecting large numbers of animals for prolonged periods. The extent of abuse, neglect and social deprivation is such that euthanasia is often the only practical option for many of the animals rescued from these situations,” says RSPCA NSW CEO Steve Coleman.

“Last year over 130 small dogs were seized from a property in the south of the state. Large seizures like this place enormous emotional and financial strain on the RSPCA.”
Media Release

… and…

The Government provided $375,000 in funding for the pilot project following a study by Professor John Snowdon from the University of Sydney. The study found at least one in 1000 elderly NSW people are living in severe domestic squalor – twice as many as previously believed.

New data from the pilot project shows the issue of squalor is not just related to the elderly. Referrals have been made for people aged from 28 to 94 years, so the issue may be much greater than originally considered.

Mr Lynch said the project was addressing a complex and hidden social problem.

“This project is bringing hope to some of the most marginalised and disadvantaged people in our communities,” he said.

Mr Lynch said most people living in squalor were reclusive and had little contact with their families, friends or neighbours.

“The 200 referrals to date have poured in from all areas of the community, from both private and public housing,” he said.

“Significantly, all socio-economic groups are represented across the squalor client base and all cases referred present a high degree of complexity,” Mr Lynch said.
Media Release

As animal welfare advocates, we love to find someone to blame when society fails to protect animals. That’s why we’re so in love with the idea of compulsory cat desexing, in the face of studies which show 9 out of 10 people already desex their cats.

But when we’re rallying to bring in a law to make people be ‘more responsible’, we need to think seriously about who we’re really targeting. Often the last 10% of people, the outliers to social norms, aren’t irresponsible or evil, but simply disadvantaged and in need of help.

New laws don’t help these owners, or their animals. Sure, punishment feels nice and when it comes down to it, getting a law is easy. However, if we’re truly working for the benefit of animals, we need to dig a little deeper, see where the problem really lays and recognise that supporting people to do the right thing, is always going to be more effective than punishing them for doing the wrong one.