March 30, 2010Comments are closed.cats, resistance
Mitcham Council’s cat bylaw was passed by a 9-4 vote this week. The bylaw “aims to reduce feral cat numbers” and requires cats to be microchipped and registered, and introduces a two cat limit.
So again for clarity;
the bylaw aims to reduce feral cat numbers…
… by targeting owned cats.
I’m sorry, wha?
As I heard someone say so succinctly recently ‘it’s like trying to reduce the rabbit problem by bringing a law to register pet rabbits’. While some are moving ahead with effective, humane programs, Mitcham has decided to ignore the experience of other councils, who have introduced various cat management legislation only to see cat complaints and impoundments increase, and go with the ‘we’ve seen it doesn’t make a difference, but we need to punish owners so this will do’ approach.
Meanwhile, the council was criticised by the RSPCA for not going far enough;
RSPCA spokeswoman Tracey Taylor said the bylaw “won’t make an enormous difference” to protecting birds and animals from cat attacks.
“Limiting ownership numbers doesn’t correlate necessarily to responsible cat ownership you can still have two cats that go out every night, kill wildlife and fight with each other.”
Keep in mind, this is the representative from the organisation who is lobbying ON BEHALF OF THE CATS – yikes!
The Australian Veterinary Association agrees the plan will be ineffective. From their media statement;
Dr Warren Foreman, South Australian President of the AVA, says that the Mitcham Council bylaw limiting the number of cats per household and imposing mandatory registration will not solve the problem.
…..
“Councils need to invest in education programmes to stop the feeding of un-owned cats and to assist residents to control unwanted cats on their properties.”
Catch and kill. Turning cat-feeders into the enemy. Haven’t we been here before? Was anyone lobbying for these cats to be offered protection, rather than blaming them for all of societies ills? Was anyone proposing something proven effective?
Cr Judith Weaver put forward an alternative motion for a two-year pilot program with Cats Assistance To Sterilise (CATS), focusing on education and desexing.
“The community is being duped into thinking this is going to work. Ninety-five per cent of the problem is desexing … the bylaw does not address desexing,” she said.
So when presented with a plan that incorporates the one thing that could make a difference to free roaming cat numbers, community cat desexing programs, this council chose killing instead.
Make no mistake; In 2010, with what we know about cat populations and the sources of shelter cats, to champion policies that increase impoundments, that is a choice.
To target free-roaming cats for removal via laws which see all unowned cats fall outside council legislation, that is a choice.
When ‘animal experts’, recognise that 95% of owned cats are already desexed, but still advocate for laws which target owners, rather than embrace live-saving programs, that is a choice.
When cat groups recognise that unowned cats are being cared for by the community, but still advocate for laws which require these animals to be trapped and killed, that is a choice.
When councils, reject the one thing that could make a difference; desexing programs which both reduce population and save lives, that is a choice.
Killing can no longer be ‘blamed’ on the public. Those who continue to promote programs that increase impoundment the face of alternatives, must do so fully in the knowledge that they will be remembered as those who resisted life-saving policies, in preference for killing.
They were the ones who made the choice to kill.
