January 22, 2010Comments are closed.cats, mandatory desexing
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 have read before of Dr. Webb’s ‘quiet deaths’ and the insidious implication that it is somehow the fault of the public or because the councils will not introduce mandatory desexing, or that veterinarians in general are ‘greedy’ and want to fuel their surgeries with an overabundant quantity of cats or that catfood supply companies want to keep the cats producing to keep up their sales.
If her ‘conspiracy theories’ were correct it puzzles me to know what great results the veterinarians and the cat food suppliers could hope to achieve after seeing their meal tickets being destroyed by organizations such as her own. Not only, but can you imagine the thousands of street cats sitting in drains each evening and opening their tins of Whiskas whilst the lineup to local veterinary surgeries stretches around the block for cats wanting to give the business their money to be spay/neutered and immunised?
I can tell you that when I read the article in the Leader which you quote, or others like it, my blood runs cold.
There is yet to be a response by her to anyone who disagrees with what she says. Dr. Webb sails on regardless, gathering momentum from her supporters to challenge the decisions made by councils and ignoring the facts or twisting them to underpin her own.
Your warning is timely. We cannot stand back without challenging what is happening. The whole situation is thoroughly pernicious.