Geelong City Council’s short memory to fuel cat killings

A volunteer cat trapper in Geelong

 

In accordance with Section 68A of the Domestic Animals Act 1994, every Council in Victoria must prepare a Domestic Animal Management Plan (DAM Plan). This plan must be updated every four years.

The Greater Geelong City Council have just released their plan for 2013-2017 and, when it comes to cats, seems they haven’t learnt anything from past mistakes, and are instead choosing to continue with a failed model which kills cats by the thousands.

 

A little bit of history

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).

Then, in December 2009, cat welfare groups supported the council’s introduction of a 24hr curfew for cats.

The Cat Curfew Order required all cats to be confined to the residence, or a cat enclosure, between sunset and sunrise. Also, it made it an offence for a cat to enter the yard of another person unless they have been invited.

Nine months later, Council had completely reversed this trend of dropping impounds. 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 (free) cat registration to increase compliance, driving the number of registered cats up from around 9,000 to nearly 11,000.

By the time the year was done, more than 3,700 cats had been impounded (graph below).

 

Which brings us to today.

The Geelong City Council has released their new Domestic Animal Management Plan showing that after the 2009/10 spike after the introduction of a cat curfew (where a breathtaking 5,000 cats lost their lives in just two years), the numbers of cats impounded had again been coming down.

 

So low in fact, that the impound rate was down to about 2,500 and kills to less than 1,500. Not great, but certainly an improvement on the ‘bad old days’.

But it seems both local animal welfare groups and the Council themselves have short memories. Rather than recall that this ‘big stick’ approach bit them in the ass last time, Council is set to have history repeat.

… Mandatory desexing will apply to cats only, which is in response to the substantial overpopulation of unwanted cats.

… The DAM Plan introduces the mandatory desexing of all new cat registrations, and the desexing of all registered cats over the four year period of the plan. This is to address the over-population of cats in the community, and high rates of impoundments.

… Compulsory desexing of cats may increase “dumping” in the short term, however the mandatory desexing of all cats will ensure a reduction in unwanted litters in future. Animals can be surrendered to the pound at no cost

… The 2013-2017 DAM Plan will also require all newly registered cats to be desexed, and all other cats to be desexed over the next four years

 

What kind of impact can they expect to have on the owned cat population?

The municipality has the follow numbers of registered cats:

2009 – 10,950
2010 – 10,717
2011 – 10,912
2012 – 10,958

According to the DAMP, of these registered cats – 96% are already desexed.

Continuing to use the cat owners as a scapegoat for the City’s high impound rate for cats is simply absurd. Even without a law requiring them to do so, cat owners are nearly universally ‘responsible’.

If we know that the laws can only increase compliance fragments of a percent – why have them?

 

These laws are not innocuous

Expanded powers for animal management officers is always the aim of initiatives like this – not as is often purported,  a drive to a decrease in impoundments.

Animal management departments increase their revenue the ‘larger’ the animal ‘problem’ they are seeming to solve.

Pounds make their money impounding animals.

Neither are in the ‘business’ of reducing intakes.

If they were, they would be looking at programs which reduce intakes. Not expanding powers for animal management officers and the public to impound.

Council will be providing “‘loan’ cat traps (free of charge) for residents experiencing trespassing cats, complete with operating and well being instructions for the cat”, and they will “…purchase additional cat cages that are compliant with POCTA Regulations on confinement”.

Even though they are fully aware, that most cats entering their shelters simply aren’t owned and can not expect to have owners come and claim them.

The extremely low rate of impounded cats being claimed by their owners indicates that most are not registered and microchipped.

While it is difficult to determine whether a cat which cannot be identified is “owned” or not, the majority of impounded cats show a degree of socialisation with people that suggests previous contact either through being an unwanted litter from an owned cat, or a litter from a stray or semi-owned cat.

 

Their solution – even more failed thinking – the ‘Who’s for Cats’ program;

Support the “Who’s for cats?” campaign and encourage the community to take ownership of semi-owned cats. Provide link to “Who’s for cats?” Produce information regarding the challenges posed by semi-owned cats.

 

Even though the one thing we know the ‘Who’s for Cats’ program failed to do, was change the behaviour of semi-owners;

With the majority of people responding to campaign messages choosing to impound rather than take ownership of stray cats, it seems that ‘non’ owners have had the biggest impact by getting un-owned cats off the street.

Focus group research results provide further evidence that the majority of people taking action were not the semi-owners of cats themselves, but rather members of the wider community who were experiencing nuisance associated with un-owned cats. Focus group participants thought the ‘Who’s for cats?’ campaign gave people ‘moral permission’ to have stray cats impounded.

Since the launch of the campaign, evidence of behavioural change has become apparent through an increase in the number of cats entering shelters and pounds, and in the number of public queries about cats that have been received by government and welfare organisations.

 

Things are set to get much worse for the cats of Geelong – again. A great shame when the lead animal welfare group in the region – Geelong Animal Welfare Society – should and could have been driving the city towards No Kill programs and goals, rather than continuing the failed ‘catch and kill’ model.

What an absolute missed opportunity.