Cat management is a tricky issue. In fact, this arguably one of the most challenging topics we've debated in our Council. Cat management is a complex and as a council failing to manage it properly can make the situation worse.
In our last Council meeting, we debated the implementation of a cat management plan. That proposed that the Council amend the Dog and Cat Management Act to:
Declare times where a cat must be confined for;
Introduce offences for cats wandering at large or attacking other animals;
Allow Council to trap and seize owned cats;
Introduce a limit on the amount cats allowed on a property without a special permit;
Allow Council to issue a permit for more than two cats should the circumstances allow it;
Make the registration and payment of registration fees mandatory for cat owners.
The proposed motion also requested that the Minister for Environment and Water formally recognises and consults the City of Burnside if cat management by-laws end up becoming a state government issue.
Pebbles - one of our our foster kittens
The motion ended up failing, and we decided not to pass it. There were a lot of reasons why it did not carry, and we debated it for a significant portion of our meeting.
If I had a choice, I would have a dog, actually two huskies would be my preference. Avril, my wife, prefers cats and I really like the little tacker called Toothless who is now an important member of our family. Having a cat suits our living arrangements better than two huskies. As a councillor and a tax lawyer I doubt I’d keep up with the maintenance of two huskies.
I have been an RSPCA volunteer and have fostered cats for years. We keep Toothless inside or when he goes outside he is on a leash. Feral cats kill about 2 billion native wildlife per year; however, any precaution we take has to be discussed and researched thoroughly to prevent the risk of harming both cats and our native animals.
By nature, cats are killers with a high repercussion rate. They are also incredibly territorial. The bigger the cat, the more territory it will take up, and thus the fewer animals overall will be killed. Let me explain.
Say a cat needs to consume 10-12 small animals a day to live. A cat with a large territory will only kill 10-12 animals in that area. However, if you were to remove that cat permanently, more meek cats may move into that same territory. This would lead to a higher density of cats who all need to consume the same amount of animals to survive, thus causing more wildlife deaths in that particular area. Under the proposed motion, the cats would be removed from their territory permanently. More cats could then occupy the same amount of land, causing more animal deaths. At this point, you may be asking, 'why can't we just remove EVERY cat that wanders a particular area?' While that is a valid question, it is, unfortunately, a very simplistic solution. Here's why:
When compared to dogs (which they often are in these debates), cats are a lot less visible. They are quieter, more reserved, and are more likely to hide away where they are often unseen, making cats very hard to catch. Cats also, in their own unique way, can act as a pest control against other animals who pose a risk to native wildlife. Cats eat rats and mice, who eat bird eggs and attract snakes to local areas. If you have a chicken coop, foxes are one problem, rats and mice are another. Rats can chew through concrete… Snakes pose a real risk to residents. If you are walking through Ferguson Conservation Park, could removing cats lead to snakes as they look to hunt rodents? Maybe. The presence of cats also scares away snakes, who get intimidated by their fast movements, sharp claws and teeth, and their size. Snakes are scared of cats; true story, google it! By aiming to remove cats from wandering around Burnside neighbourhoods completely, we will remove a predator that is keeping a far more dangerous animal at bay.
However, this isn't the only reason why the motion failed. There is a significant lack of data regarding the effect that implementing these by-laws will have on Burnside. In fact, it could be argued that the lack of data is so significant it renders our ability even to consider the motion for debate as we actually have no idea we're even discussing. For example:
● We have no specific data on the actual population of cats in the Burnside community. We can make rough estimates using census data (aka, if 40% of Australian households nationally owned at least one cat and there are roughly 20,000 households in Burnside, then we can estimate there are at least 5,400 owned cats in the City Council); however, this provides us with nothing about how many cats there are per household or whether they are allowed to roam, Toothless isn’t allowed out. This is important, as one of the provisions involves limiting the number of cats per household to know more than three. However, without any actual data on how many cats there truly are per household, we are unable to assess how this will affect cat owners in Burnside.
● How many complaints has the Council received regarding cats? In the past five years, we have had only seven complaints - an average of less than two per year. Of course, we have to acknowledge that the number of cats causing nuisances in our city is probably significantly higher if we assume many residents are just choosing not to make complaints. However, until we gather the exact data, we also have no idea how many residents this motion will affect. This means we have no idea regarding the relevance of the issue.
● We have no data about the impact these by-laws will have. Little research has been conducted regarding how these laws will actually work to preserve native wildlife, meaning we have no idea if these measures will even be useful in their primary purpose. Say we did enact these measures, yet saw little improvement in the preservation of wildlife. We have then arguably used punitive measures to practically punish cat owners for a problem that may not even be theirs in the first place.
● Finally implementing such by-laws could cause inconsistency between Councils - an inconsistency which could render any by-laws we introduce ineffective. Councils share soft borders, meaning there is absolutely nothing stopping a cat whose owner may live in one Council from entering ours. We share borders with the cities of Mitcham, Unley, Adelaide City, Norwood Payneham and St. Peters, Campbelltown, and the Adelaide Hills, who all have significantly different management plans. Suppose we start seizing every cat who wanders around our neighbourhood. In that case, we could potentially end up trapping and seizing cats who belong to people who are not bound by our Council by-laws, thus rendering them ineffective.
Suppose we really want to take cat management seriously (which I believe we absolutely should). In that case, we need to advocate strongly for a statewide approach. The best way of doing this would be to appeal to the state government who can implement legislation that automatically binds cat owners everywhere in our state, regardless of their Council. This will create a far more consistent and uniform approach, which will lead to greater effectiveness. The state government also has far greater access to resources that will allow them to carry out the necessary research to assess the significance of wandering cats on residents and wildlife.
That is not to say that we as a Council should sit back and do nothing; just because I believe we should advocate for a strong state approach does not mean we should be inactive. There are many things that we can do to encourage residents to improve cat management.
*My mum Gail Davis isn't so sure she she likes Toothless
We can encourage residents to microchip and register their cats with the Council so that we can keep track as to where cats are and who they belong to, reducing the number of strays. We can also offer resources and education campaigns to encourage cat owners to train their cats to be more domesticated and educate them of the harm wandering cats can cause in the community. Thoothless, can sit, stay, highfive, come on demand, spin in a circle and jump up on his back feet… didn’t get a dog so close enough.
I would also recommend looking deeper into the suggestions mentioned in the Cat Management Plan outlined by the RSPCA. The RSPCA recommends desexing and returning cats to their original location. This would see wandering cats caught before being health checked, desexed and vaccinated before being returned to where they were found if healthy. When enacted on a long-term basis, evidence suggests that these programs can reduce the number of free-roaming cats in the community. Combined with state legislation allowing for councils to trap owned cats and return them to their owners, this could be a useful measure in reducing the number of cats wandering and attacking native wildlife.
Cat management is a very complex yet important issue to the City of Burnside Council. I hope that this article made cat owners more aware of the problem as well as opened up a discussion within your own social circles on what you can do to help in the day-to-day management of your cats. In the meantime, we'll keep debating and discussing what we can do on our end to minimise the impact of wandering cats. The problem with domestic cat isn’t clearly defined and neither is the solution. I do however know we can make things worse.
Comments