Gold Coast breeder licences – triumph or turkey?

 

Cat laws were big on the agenda of the Getting 2 Zero (G2Z) conference in September. I have already blogged the details of the presentation from the RSPCA ‘Dispelling the myth that mandatory desexing doesn’t help with cat overpopulation’ (which was strong on rhetoric, but light on evidence, and whose only case study for ‘success’ was the rather unsuccessful ACT program), but what I was hoping to take a closer look at, was the AWL Queensland (AWLQ) assertion that they had a working model of successful cat legislation. Researching this model has taken a bit of extra time, as the full Gold Coast City stats weren’t available as part of the presentation.

The G2z have now released their National Cat Action Plan Discussion Paper for feedback;

The paper proposes a way forward to achieve national consistency in effective domestic cat management and welfare strategies in Australia. (Feral cat management will be addressed in a separate process).
…
The objectives of this National Cat Action Plan are:

• To seek agreement on the need for common legislation and policies which make it easier for communities to understand and is better for the welfare and management of domestic cats.
• To work towards effective breeding legislation and policies in line with an ethical approach that improves the well-being of domestic cats, other animals, and communities.

 

Fixing cat shelter overpopulation is a noble aim. The majority of cats entering the sheltering system, don’t survive the process. And if the AWLQ has a model which could do it, then I am all for embracing whatever they had put together.

The G2z National Cat Action Plan Discussion Paper focusses on two ‘better’ models;

 

Now again, I’ve written about the RSPCA ACT experience here. But the Gold Coast City results seem excellent – a 40% reduction in incoming strays and a 50% reduction in euthanasia. Wonderful!

 

How do they say they did it?

According to the G2z National Cat Action Plan Discussion Paper, the Gold Coast City Council used a state governmet grant to develop a breeder permit system:

 

Developed a coalition to roll out the new laws:

 

Developed the new codes:

 

Including breeder numbers:

 

Microchipping:

 

Desexing before sale:

 

Worked out a ‘breeder pays’ enforcement system:

 

*phew*

And all of these efforts then equalled success. This is the graph used in the National Cat Action Plan Discussion Paper demonstrating the drop in incoming numbers:

 

But is that really how it happened?

The answer is not really.

Firstly, the graph above is for kittens only. Of course a reduction of kittens is excellent, but the overall intakes (as provided to me by AWLQ) looks more like this:

 

From 3,263 in 2005/06 to 1,731 in 2011/12. Or a reduction of about 300-500 cat intakes per year most years (not all), and an overall drop in intakes of 1,500 after five years.

Hey, but that’s pretty good – I hear you say. And yup, I’d agree. But – and here’s where I think the G2z is not giving all the relevant information, to those they’re asking to give feedback on their National Cat Action Plan Discussion Paper:

– In 2009/10, under the Queensland Government Pilot Projects, 4 Local governments were paid to trial desexing strategies.

– Gold Coast City Council won $75,000 to develop their Breeder Permits and Code of Practice and it was rolled out at the end of 2010/start of 2011. Meaning the laws have only been in effect for this much of the graph;

 

 

Or just one year.

At the very most, breeder permits could be attributable to a drop from 2,162 cat intakes in 2010/11, to 1,731 in 2011/12 – or about 400 cats that year.

And with only a single year’s data, obviously we need a few more data points before we can draw any real conclusions about the law’s effectiveness (and unfortunately 2012/13 stats will not be being made available – I’ve already asked), so we have no way of knowing if the decline continued.

We’d also need to allow for the ongoing decline in cat intakes for the five years prior to the laws being introduced, and subtract those from the results, to give a truly representative picture of the laws actual effectiveness.

The results are also nowhere near ‘zero’. If the aim of a program was to reduce cat intakes to a negligible level (and as a result of this, reducing kill rates to zero, or practically zero), then the program after five years of implementation, has not achieved these goals. The city is still taking in an enormous 1,700 cats per year. When there are other models which have demonstrated the ability to save all cats and keep cats out of shelters, this program’s results pale in comparison.

So while the G2Z is heralding that other regions should follow in their footsteps, they’re yet to produce a working model which saves lives.

 

What has really been keeping cats out of pounds on the Gold Coast?

It could probably be summed up thusly – supporting the community to desex their pets.

The AWL Qld have been making a significant investment into desexing in the city. Their community vet clinic, since 2001/02 have booked four female and four male low cost cat desexing per day (or more than 2,000 a year).

In 2002 ‘Desexing Month’ saw the beginning of relationships with local vets, allowing an additional 600 cats desexed each year.

Also, a yearly investment by Gold Coast City council of $10,000 a year, sees 250 discount cat desexing surgeries. Along with an ongoing community push promoting these programs in the local community.

Basically, what No Kill advocates have been saying all along – if you support your community, offer them the programs and services they need to overcome obstacles and comply with desexing their pets – then overwhelmingly they will.

As we’ve seen time and time again, the community doesn’t need more laws, more finger waggling and more fines and impoundments. It needs more services protecting the most vulnerable animals and owners.

Cat laws or breeder licenses are often heralded as a quick fix to cat shelter overpopulation. Unfortunately, the G2Z experience shows again that in execution they fail to live up to claims. That doesn’t stop those who push for them from continuing to laud their effectiveness however – even when it means presenting just snippets of information, rather than the whole picture.