WA Cat Laws; the truth starts to seep through the spin

A Cat Haven vet “spends most days putting animals down”
[image removed due to copyright report – original image here]

WA has one of the lowest cat impound rates in Australia. I did a quick survey of local council pounds and found the following rate of cat impoundment (and killing) for the 2010/11 year.

Armadale – not disclosed
Bassendean – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Bayswater – not disclosed
Belmont – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Cambridge – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Canning – 6 impounded (6 killed via Cat Haven)
Claremont – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Cockburn – 0 impounded (0 killed)
East Fremantle – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Fremantle – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Gosnells – not disclosed
Joondalup – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Kalamunda – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Kwinana – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Mandurah – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Melville – not disclosed
Mosman Park – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Nedlands – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Peppermint Grove – not disclosed
Perth City – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Rockingham – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Serpentine/Jarrahdale – 0 impounded (0 killed)
South Metropolitan Regional Council – not disclosed
South Perth – not disclosed
Stirling – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Subiaco – not disclosed
Swan – not disclosed
Victoria Park – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Vincent – 0 impounded (0 killed)
Wanneroo – not disclosed
TOTAL – 6 impounded (6 killed)

Most council rangers simply refer the public’s cat enquiries to the RSPCA WA or Cat Haven.

The RSPCA isn’t ‘open admission’ and only takes surrenders as they have room, so in 2010/11 they impounded 1,001 cats (276 killed).

Leaving the Cat Haven operating essentially for the entire state, impounding 8,111 (killing 5,000 give or take).

Making the grand total of cats killed in urban pounds about 5,300

Now for a city of 1.7 million people, that ain’t so bad. That’s just one cat killed for every 320 people.

According to the Consultation Document for the new laws, there are approximately 217,000 owned cats in WA. So even with NO CAT LAWS AT ALL, Western Australia is impounding and killing just 2% of the owned cat population annually.

So if the killing is so low, what’s the point of the new laws?

Today, we find out. This article, promoted by the Cat Haven, details exactly what the cat laws are designed to do;

The aim is to reduce stray and feral cat numbers and prevent damage due to predation on native wildlife.

The aim of the new laws are, and have always been, to increase the number of cats impounded and killed. Not, as is sometimes purported, to reduce the number of cats killed in shelters. (By definition, a law designed to reduce the numbers of cats killed in shelters, would be working to keep cats OUT of shelters).

By expanding council powers to allow them to impound and hold stray and free-roaming cats, more councils will be able to sweep, remove and kill those cats living without owners. As we know ‘catch and kill’ does little to reduce the overall population of cats, or increase the desexing rate amongst unowned animals, why would any group claiming to advocate for animal welfare support it? (Especially one whose slogan is ‘Cat Haven – every cat matters’ and who serves as a member of the ‘Getting to Zero’ initiative?)

Money

Local Government Minister, Mr John Castrilli, recently announced a $3 million grant program to support the Cat Act introduced in November 2011.
….
The grants will also help provide and extend existing cat management facilities and enable local government funding for the purchase of microchip readers, cat traps and ranger training.

Mr Castrilli suggested that local governments should work with non-government organisations to share facilities.

“Local governments may be able to work with organisations like vet surgeries or catteries to enhance the facilities already in place within a district, such as increasing the number of cages available,” he says.

Cat Haven has adopted the suggestion, inviting local councils to set up pounds on its Shenton Park site.

“We are planning to construct purpose-built pound facilities which will place animal welfare at the centre of their operations,” says Mr Settlemaier.

The Cat Haven is sick of being poor. It is sick of taking in stray cats from all urban councils – essentially for free. So while the cat intake and kill rate will increase exponentially once the new laws are passed, the Cat Haven will suddenly be able to demand large amounts of cash for the collection (yes, they’ll collect the cats on behalf of councils), processing, care, killing of and the disposal of the cats bodies.

More cats = more cash. There’s no requirement to save these animals, as they will be unowned and therefore ‘feral and unsavable’. If they’re swamped, it’s ‘overpopulation’ and they can blame ‘the irresponsible public’. They can build bigger pound facilities, buy a fleet of impound vehicles, even expand their veterinary services… all from the proceeds generated by dead cats.

The RSPCA is being more subtle about their drive to profit from the new laws, maybe sensing that the community isn’t as gullible as it once was. They’ve enjoyed the benefits of having a low kill rate, so to overnight become a high-kill facility is a difficult decision strategically.

But the Cat Haven is comfortable to use killing as a tool to make their intake problems go away, so expansion in both intakes and killing – if it means more money – presents no problem at all.

Lil’ Kitty ‘saved’ by the Cat Haven after a successful social media campaign. She was later killed for having ringworm. The kill rate for the ‘save’ was 100%.
Every single ‘saved’ cat was killed.