With the introduction of the Cat By-law, Mitcham Council is now becoming widely recognised as a leader in cat management controls and other Councils are considering following Mitcham Council’s example given the successful outcomes being achieved.
… Mitcham Council is being seen by many as a leader in this area.
**By-law No. 6 – Cats; Report (to Council) on Activities, April 2013
‘By-law No. 6 – Cats’, which require all cats to be registered and microchipped, caps the number of cats per household at two and stipulates cats be confined to their owner’s property, was enacted by Council in August 2010. That’s about 2.5 years (or 31 months) ago. So the law is pretty bedded down. In that time, according to the council’s report;
– 70 people have been ‘warned’ (or about 2 a month), and 2 have been fined (about 1 a year).
– Some brochures went out to householders. And a school program “reenforced the need for a cat to be confined to the cat owner’s residence to prevent the cat becoming a nuisance to neighbours” (translation; continued to demonise the free-roaming cat).
– Council offered discount microchipping days, resulting in 500 pets being microchipped (no breakdown for cats v dogs available).
– Also during that time, a push on cat registration (really, the whole point of the new laws) saw 1,016 extra cats registered – 1,172* in 2010/11 to 2,188** today (or about 1 a day).
– And the expected income at the end of the financial year is $33,500** – with the program running at a $10,000pa loss.
Are you jumping about with excitement at this amazing program yet?
But the largest ‘success’ of the program? Increasing complaints about cats.
Prior to the introduction of the cat By-Law there were very few complaints as Council did not have the resources nor legislation to directly assist them. Since the introduction of the Cat By-Law residents have become aware (mainly through word of mouth and publicity) of the assistance Council is able to provide and consequently there has been a dramatic increase in the number of cat complaints.
294 complaints received so far, detail below;
Cat complaints*
1st year (10/11) – 95
2nd year (11/12) – 126
In most cases where the cat is not claimed by the rightful owner, then every endeavour is made to find a new home for the cat. Only in extreme circumstances will a cat be euthanized (usually due to health reasons)**.
This is an interesting claim. But it is false.
For a start, the number of dead cats is not even a metric being measured by Council.
When I asked the current Cat Management Officer of the Mitcham Council about the numbers of impounded cats, this was his response;
“The Council (unlike dogs) does not impound cats. We provide advice to residents on what they can do to capture a cat and convey it to the RSPCA (at Lonsdale SA).
Statistical data relating to surrendered cats can be found in the RSPCA Annual Report… I would suggest you contact the RSPCA at Lonsdale who maintain statistics and should be able to provide you with information you require. You could also contact the Dog and Cat Management Board (www.dogandcatboard.com) in Adelaide who also keep statistical records.”
You read that right. Council have implemented these laws, then are not only not impounding cats themselves, but are simply referring community members to places where they can get a cat trap, and sending all cats to a local charity. Voila! Cat management sorted.
Contrary to belief the Council Officers are not responsible for the capture and removal of stray cats. Any problem relating to stray cats is the responsibility of the residents.**
No wonder other Councils are thinking this might be a good deal.
There are three places Council recommend to get your traps (Hollard and Sons, RSPCA Lonsdale and the AWL) and according to the new laws, a cat can be dropped at “an animal welfare agency, the RSPCA or a veterinarian”, so basically any dead cats killed privately by vets or animal welfare are simply not counted.
Again voila! Makes it very hard to for those pesky cat lovers to protest your high kill rates, if the numbers simply don’t exist.
While council and local agencies proclaiming these laws are a boon to cats:
RSPCA spokeswoman Kerriann Campbell said the number of stray and surrendered cats at the Lonsdale animal shelter from the Mitcham Council area had dropped 30 per cent in the past 12 months.
That sounds great, huh? Especially after those pesky cat welfare advocates predicted a surge in killing. Seems they were wrong.
Or were they?
Cat bylaws are working (Feb 2011)
Mitcham’s cat bylaws have seen a sharp rise in feral cats being trapped by residents and sent to the RSPCA Lonsdale shelter.
Cat intakes (taken to the RSPCA*)
1st year (2010/11) – unavailable
2nd year (2011/12) – 219 (Killed – 109, or 50%)
So while the RSPCA a claiming this current year has seen a decrease in intakes, that decrease is simply on the increase caused by the laws being introduced.
The numbers that are available, don’t support the notion that only in ‘extreme’ circumstances cats are being killed.
Council are also claiming**;
The RPCA are in full support of the Mitcham Council’s Cat Management Program and Cat By-Law and have reported that since the introduction of compulsory micro-chipping there has been a 50% increase in the number of cats in the Mitcham Council area that have been able to be identified and returned to their owner.
Again, this is a pretty tragic stat as, the original reclaim rate was a measly 8 cats.
Cat reclaims (from the RSPCA*)
1st year (2010/11) – unavailable
2nd year (2011/12) – 8
Now claiming a decrease, when it is a decrease on an increase seems non-genuine. But to claim the laws are good for cats because 50%!! increase in reclaims when you’re lifting your reclaim rate up from 8 to, say 16 – when the laws themselves drove up impounds by several times that – seems like outright misdirection.
Don’t be silly**.
There has been some public support for the proposition that stray cats should be captured, de-sexed and returned to their location as a means of reducing the number of stray cats. Importantly such action is in breach of legislation (Section 179 Natural Resources Management Act 2004) and research has found that this will not resolve cat problems. These cats can continue to spread diseases and cause a nuisance.
Seems according to Council, the only good cat is a dead cat.
A surge in impoundment and killing, a huge increase in complaints about cats, only small increases in registrations and reclaims. Surely the animal welfare industry has seen through the spin to the core failure of this program? ‘fraid not**.
The RPCA are in full support of the Mitcham Council’s Cat Management Program and Cat By-Law… With the introduction of the Cat By-law, Mitcham Council is now becoming widely recognised as a leader in cat management controls and other Councils are considering following Mitcham Council’s example given the successful outcomes being achieved.
This is supported by comments made by the Chairperson at the recent Parliamentary Select Committee Hearing where favourable comments were made in regards to the performance of Mitcham Council’s cat By-Law (March 2013);
favourable comments by the Dog and Cat Management Board’s Chair person at the launch of the “Living safely with Pets” School Educational Program (March 2013)
and comments by the Hon. Bob Such in the Messenger Press (March 2013) stating other Councils should follow Mitcham
Council’s example regarding cat management…Mitcham Council’s By-Law is being examined by other Councils. Other Councils (Burnside; Marion; Holdfast; Salisbury; Gawler) have had discussions with Mitcham Council regarding the introduction of a cat By-Law.
*whistles*
You can also experience the ‘success’ of dead cats. Just simply follow animal welfare and government blindly, fail to apply any critical reasoning skills and sure enough they will roll out the Mitcham plan in your community too.
Shame about all the dead cats.
|
UPDATE: I’ve been able to source the Mitcham cat intake statistics from the RSPCA.
2009/10 – unavailable S0 for the first year since the law, I can’t tell if the number went up, or down. But the second year it definitely went up. Third year is down, but it is impossible to know whether it is lower than before the laws were passed. So to be declaring any kind of reduction is premature at best. Its also worth noting that 150 cats in any city, isn’t a big cat problem. So one wonders if that $40,000 a year could have been spent more effectively, than in driving down shelter intakes by 30 or so cats a year…. |
References
* Mitcham 2012 – Animal Management Stats
** By-law No. 6 – Cats; Report (to Council) on Activities, April 2013
See also: Vilifying the victims: Mitcham’s cat laws pass
What are mandatory desexing advocates lobbying for really? #2
