The proposal for Moreland Council to offer cat desexing operations to the community, as an alternative to people surrendering cats to be killed, has been canned… (Cat desexing plan in Moreland is given the chop)
Department of Primary Industries spokeswoman Sarah O’Connor said a trap-neuter-return program, used overseas, “could not be legally carried out in Victoria”.
Ms O’Connor said releasing cats without responsible management was considered abandonment, an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act.
The Cat Protection Society has revealed its kill rate is almost 90 per cent, but executive director Dr Carole Webb said trap-neuter-return was no silver-bullet solution.
She said it raised cat welfare issues.
“It is not sufficient to desex and return a cat to a life of disease and neglect and we do not support such a program,” Dr Webb said.
She said a holistic approach incorporating mandatory desexing was needed to manage the “complex” problem.
By ‘holistic’ she means continuing to kill cats. Because that is the reality of how the Cat Protection Society Victoria ‘helps’ cats – taking the 696 cats that were trapped in Moreland in the last year and killing 626 of them (based on their acknowledged 90% kill rate).
Ironically, a program whereby council offers cat desexing to the wider community is the kind of program we BEG councils to implement. But because it hasn’t been done in the manner favoured by cat charities (with council daring to call it ‘TNR’, rather than ‘desex now!’), these groups have cut off their proverbial noses. Cat welfare groups would rather continue to kill and righteously lobbying for new laws targeting cat owners… than support a council in trying to bring about positive outcomes for cats.
While the cat groups of Victoria argue over the best strategy, the body count continues to climb. There is no ‘third option’ for the near 700 cats impounded each year in Moreland. They are either desexed by the local council under a program like this, OR they are given to the Cat Protection Society to be killed.
Groups in the ‘cat protection’ field, who have slammed this council for looking into offering a program which keep cats out of high kill shelters, AND stops them from breeding, couldn’t be more off-mission. They have helped sure up future of Melton cat management…
… and 700 cats a year are now out of options.
We need to educate Department of Primary Industries spokeswoman Sarah O’Connor. It is time these people were pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century.
If she is so ignorant to think that DPI knows more about TNR than every country, county and town then she needs to be shipped offshore to be introduced to a steep learning curve or demand that she step down and make way for progressive and proactive change. These people have for far too long fed us this drivel and need to go post haste.
Please every person interested in animal welfare email and demand that changes be made.
This is a tragedy, every council should be doing their absolute damnedest to keep the cats alive. Obviously the Cat Protection Society needs an immediate name change to the Cat Kill Society.
Slow handclap for yet another incompetent, short-sighted council, that allows huge numbers of animals to be slaughtered, when so many successful alternatives exist. For shame!
I live in Moreland and the predicament of cats in this area is very relevant to me. Cats do not have many rights in Moreland but they must have the right to Live. I really value Life and I strongly believe that all living creatures are God’s creation and we cannot continue to kill them. Unfortunately, many people do not want to spend money to spay or neuter cats because they know they can call the local council to get them trapped and get rid of unwanted pets. Also many people renting move houses and leave their cats behind. Many people also do not know that shelters like CPS euthanize so many cats. I strongly believe that all animals have the right to live and they do not have to pay the consequences for human ignorance, negligence and selfishness. It would be great to implement the “Trap, Spay/ Neuter and Return Program” – like in many European countries and other more advanced countries in the world – to reduce the number of strays cats born every year. I do believe that if cats are desexed and are protected by local councils people then will change their attitutes towards them and will look after cats as part of their duty. I really hope that very soon better people will be in charge of the Department of Primary Industries and will do what is right thing for animals. Killing cats is never the solution to the problem of overpopulation. The TNR program will reduce dramatically the number of cats born every year and as a result people will value them more.
“Not to hurt our humble brethren [the animals] is our first duty to them, but to stop there is not enough. We have a higher mission: to be of service to them whenever they require it.” ~ St. Francis of Assisi
“The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of a man”. ~ Charles Darwin
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
I completely agree with Maggy, who is my personal friend. We are often doing the work of the Councils and making up for other people’s irresponsibility – people who abandon or fail to desex theit cats. We try to save a few cats but we can’t save them all. We need help of the wider community and the Councils and the politicians to significantly reduce the problems or to solve the problem all together. We can’t pretend to be kind to cats by continuing to kill them. To desex and release is still better than to kill them. We can’t assume that they will become sick – even though they may. Maybe they will get adopted. At least they are given a chance to live which is their right. We can’t punish animals because of people’s irresponsibility. I am of the opinion that people must be educated in a systematic way and Councils and Politicians are those who need to take action to introduce those programs. As a part of the program I think there should also be fines for people who don’t desex their pets – which should be mandatory. If you can’t afford to desex your pet then don’t have one. Pets are not toys for your children to play with for a couple of months while they’re cute and then to be kicked out because they have hairs and they need to eat and go to toilet too. I would introduce licences for owning a pet and just like you have to go for a drivers licence to drive a car you’d have to pass an exam to be able to have a pet. A monitoring system should also be put in place where pet owners are monitored at least once a year for providing at least basic to adequate care to their pets. If they don’t, they could get demerit points and once they get 5 their pet is taken away from them. Sorry – generally speaking I’m all for freedoms and not for control but this is one of those areas where strong legislations and control should be in place. Why do we pay a fine when we don’t park our car in the right place or stay 10 minutes longer? And yet, when we neglect a life to the horror of all other members of community we get away with it so easily? That situation should change. In 21st century it is simply unacceptable and it’s a shame! Those of you who are in charge – if you cannot or don’t want to tackle the issue don’t just put it on the back burner but hand over to those who can make the changes. We cannot wait any longer. We are all responsible and we need to make changes ASAP!
In Victoria the laws are such that it is illegal to not take “full responsibility” for the ownership of the cat.
Moreland had no choice, unfortunately, under the law.
This means that desexing alone is not enough – by law, even though biologically it would solve a HUGE part of the problem.
The law says that you must register, microchip, and take full ownership of the cat. In most councils, you are not permitted to own (register) more than two cats. So the number of cats that can be saved legally is actually capped.
The law is flawed, I would argue, because it ignores biology. And so it won’t “fix” the problem.
Probably because it is based on a dog-centric view of animal management, where in urban Australia encouraging people to desex, register and microchip has almost eliminated the stray dog situation that was prevalent in the first half of the 20th Century.
Cats are quite different, partly because they are good breeders, partly because they cannot be contained easily, and partly because they are hardy creatures that can survive in a built environment without direct “ownership” needed. None of these things are true for dogs.
So while the Victorian laws try to ram cats into one of two categories (“fully owned”) or “not”, there will continue to be non-owned cats killed.
The DPI has been relatively clear about it’s desire to “get these cats off the streets”, but less so on how it intends to reduce overall non-owned cat populations (see Shel’s posts on Who’s For Cats).
(I also question the current model where welfare shelters are paid to take animals IN by council contracts, not paid to get them OUT alive. A clear conflict of interest, I would submit.)
shelters have a vested interest in killing cats, they get paid by council(by us ratepayers) for each cat they kill, they are making a killing in more ways than one, so clearly their opinion/position in not supporting the TNR proposal cannot be taken seriously, it is fully self-interested, a massive conflict of interest. Dr Carol Webb should be ashamed of herself thoroughly so! The shelter’s business model would be seriously imapacted by the TNR proposal if put into place, goodness, they would have to work harder to find homes for cats and sustain their organisation by actually making money from protecting cats and keeping them alive in good homes. What a novel idea that would be, totally new for shelter models – stop killing cats, let them live and free your space, vet resources and other associated facilities in caring for the more adoptable cats and ensuring you find homes for ALL of them. I understand the shelters also eventually kill cats assessed originally as adoptable, who they cannot find homes for over a certain period and in particular when they decide they are full to capacity. They then begin to cull the cats they have been sheltering for some time. All this killing is monstrous to say the least.
By the way, the headline here is wrong. The TNR proposal being put to the Moreland Council is not dead. The journalist at Moreland Leader was basically telling a lie. Just because there were some negative views relayed back on the issue the Leader reporter called it “the chop” where there was no such thing. The plan is not illegal, certain people who do not care about cats are reacting in a Tony Abbott manner, NO NO NO – without a proper platform. Don’t we know yet not to believe what we read in the newspapers! The proposal is still running and a feasability study in progress. Anyone who wants information about this should contact Moreland Councillor Jo Connellan. The issue can and hopefully will be given the green light and the TNR be put into place.
If abandonment is an offence under the Prevention of Cruelty Act then why aren’t people who move house and leave cats behind some pregnant becoming unowned and uncared for, why aren’t these people prosecuted!? In my experience no charges are being laid against people who abandon cats this way. In fact no effort is made to locate these offenders at all. The cats’ welfare, the cats’ lives are clearly worthless in the eyes of the authorities. They may be left to fend for themselves and if compassionate humans do not intervene and take care of these stray cats they and any resulting kittens who have every chance of growing feral, may end up at the CPS pound on death row. The law is a paper tiger in these circumstances, totally useless and the only victims are the cats who are cruelly punished and lose their lives. It is so unfair the humans who illegally abandon them never have to face charges while the cats may be callously executed as a result.
@Vida – simple. Because it’s impossible to prove the ownership of a cat that isn’t already being responsibly cared for.
ie. You say it’s my cat and I abandoned it. I say I’ve never seen the cat before in my life. Checkmate.
Its just one (of the many) reasons cat laws fail in their stated aim to make ‘irresponsible’ people behave more betterer.