30% of New Zealand cat owners are opposed to cat confinement and almost 50% are ambivalent

NEWS AND OPINION: This is a recent study from New Zealand about confining cats to the home i.e. full-time indoor cats. It's a modern trend and one that is being discussed in New Zealand as it is in many other developed countries. The objective is twofold (1) to keep the cats safe and (2) to keep wildlife safe from cat predation.

The New Zealand government and local governments within the country are particularly concerned about cat predation on wildlife - native species. They have a mentality which is similar to that found in Australia. It's one in which a focus is placed on protecting native species. The free-roaming domestic cat undermines that objective. But what do the citizens of New Zealand think about domestic cat confinement?

A survey of 395 cat owners as reported online on the Newshub website tells us that 30% of New Zealanders are opposed to keeping their cat inside the home full-time. Only 6% of cat owners in New Zealand do it at the moment while 17% are open to the possibility and 48% are unsure about the concept of full-time indoor cats.

This is not resounding support from cat-owning citizens for keeping cats inside the home. It doesn't surprise me. I've written in the past about the motivation of cat owners in keeping their cats indoors all the time and the prime objective is not to protect wildlife but to protect their cats. And in protecting their cats they avoid the emotional distress of their cat being harmed outside perhaps on the road.

RELATED: Places where domestic cats are confined to the home by law.

Ultimately, the bottom line is that normally cat owners keep their cats inside to avoid the distress that they will suffer if their cat is harmed on the road for instance. To use a long word it is an example of anthropocentrism.

This, I would argue, explains why the percentages from this study are rather poor for those people in authority who wants to keep cats inside to protect wildlife.

The general trend in New Zealand and Australia is for the authorities to want to change the law or make demands on cat owners to keep their cats inside. This survey represents somewhat of a pushback from that desire.

Cat advocates in New Zealand think that it is impractical to demand that all cat owners keep their cats inside all-time and it might be too expensive in for example having to build a catio or a cat confinement fence all around the back yard (£4,000). Both these options are fairly expensive. Although a mini-catio is cheap and better than no catio:

RELATED: Mini-catio is better than no catio.

You can't keep a cat locked up inside your home full-time unless you do something to entertain them which means enriching their environment. Hence the need for a catio. Even then it wouldn't be as good as allowing your cat outside in terms of mental stimulation.

The survey doesn't say this but a lot of cat owners want the best for their cat which means they want them to be happy and a domestic cat is happiest when they are out hunting! That sounds very anti-conservation and it is but if you are focusing on the cat only that is your objective.

New Zealand's cat advocates say that making micro-chipping and sterilisation obligatory would be effective over the long term in protecting wildlife. The problem with that plan is that it will take a very long time and it is difficult to enforce. Both these weaknesses in their plan will upset the authorities because they want something tangible quite quickly because they are elected officials and they need to demonstrate results i.e. success.

My personal view is that it's good that New Zealand is discussing these things but the problem is very hard to totally fix. One plank in the solution that has not been discussed in this news media article is education. If every cat owner was perfect they would microchip their cat, they would sterilise their cat, and they would take their cat outside on a lead or if they confine their cat to the home they would make sure that it was thoroughly enriched for their cat's entertainment. Many cat owners are far from perfect of course.

One issue is a lack of knowledge despite many years of discussion about cat caregiving on the internet. Things have improved by there is work to do.

I think education about cat ownership needs to be in the frame here. I would like to see domestic cat husbandry introduced into schools. It could be wider than that. You could have a course about companion animal husbandry for schoolkids. That should and could be part of the curriculum.

-------------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania has passed a law banning the retail sale of commercially bred cats

Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, USA, has passed a law (ordinance) which bans the retail sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores. People should understand that pet stores generally acquire animals from Commercial Reading Enterprises (CBEs). A more common term for these businesses is "puppy mills" or "kitten mills". A description which signifies that the animals are churned out with little regard for their health and for ethical breeding standards.

Image courtesy Nathan Winograd's newsletter.

Nathan Winograd writes that, "CBEs engage in systematic neglect and abuse of animals, leaving severe emotional and physical scars on the victims. One in four breeding dogs have significant health problems, are more likely to suffer from aggression, and are psychologically and emotionally shut down, compulsively staring at nothing."

He paints a horror story and thankfully under the new law pet shops can partner with rescue organisations if they want to stock animals for sale/adoption.

The law that is mentioned is one which is becoming increasingly commonplace across America in an acceptance that it is unethical to allow pet shops to purchase dogs from abusive breeders when there are many unwanted companion animals at shelters nearby.

This law will help to encourage people to adopt and rescue animals rather than purchase them, to educate the community about dog and cat puppy mills and kitten mills and thirdly to stop the abuse of these animals.

I'm told that the number of CBEs has declined by 30% across America. In Nebraska, the Nebraska Department of Agriculture's records show that 50% of the state's commercial dog and cat breeders have left the business.

Bethlehem City Council unanimously passed the new ordinance last Tuesday. News media reports that there are no current pet sellers affected by the law but it will stop future businesses doing deals with puppy mills and kitten mills. And of course it sends a very strong message to the community.

The ordinance states: "A significant number of dogs and cats sold at pet stores come from large-scale, commercial breeding facilities where the health and welfare of the animals are not adequately provided for.”

A council member, Grace Smith, said: "I know our furry friends in Bethlehem and throughout the communities, as well as their families, are very grateful."

The penalty for a pet store from selling or offering to sell a cat, dog or rabbit will be a $500 dollar fine for every animal offered in violation of the new ordinance.

--------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

District Council in New Zealand abandon the idea of mandatory micro-chipping

NEWS AND COMMENT-TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL, NEW ZEALAND: This is an interesting story in the light of the UK government committing itself to making cat micro-chipping compulsory by 2023. Failure to microchip a cat after that date in the UK will result in a £500 fine. That's the plan in outline. No doubt there will be some more details. It's a firm commitment to do this and it was in the Conservative manifesto. It is already compulsory to microchip dogs in the UK.

Microchipping a cat. Photo: Pixabay

So, it a little surprising to hear that the Tasman District Council have abandoned a cat management bylaw which was scheduled to go out for public feedback in early 2022. Quite a lot of work had been gone into this after submitters to the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-29 called for the Tasman District and Nelson City council to do more to manage cats.

Obligatory micro-chipping is considered to be beneficial in terms of reuniting cats with owners, reuniting deceased cats after a traffic accident with owners, the overall management and improvement of cat ownership and to generally have a handle on domestic cat ownership in an region to better protect wildlife and ultimately to ensure that all cats are sterilised. It creates a structure around which you can build beneficial processes.

However, after a lengthy discussion the council, on Thursday, voted against the proposal for a bylaw and for it to go out to consultation. They voted for a non-regulatory approach to micro-chipping and want to rely on better education in cat ownership instead.

It seems that some committee members didn't think it can be justified. One said that it was "essentially an identification bylaw". I'm not sure what point is being made. The proposal was for a $20,000 fine for a breach of the proposed bylaw which would have been too severe.

The councillors appear to have balked at the possible expense of it at the time when Covid is piling on expenses to the community. This is a difficult time to introduce a new bylaw which they think has marginal benefits and is not worth the trouble. They feel it would be hard to enforce too.

That's my reading of it. It's in complete contrast to Britain where, as mentioned, there is a commitment to follow through on the manifesto.

Greater Bendigo, Australia order cats to be "contained to the property 24/7"

NEWS AND COMMENT: The city administrators i.e. councillors of the City of Greater Bendigo, Australia have voted that domestic cats "must be contained to the property 24/7". One councillor, Julie Sloan, said that it is important to make a distinction between "restrict cats to indoors 24/7" and "contain to the property 24/7". That's a fine distinction which I had to think about for a while to work out the difference. The difference must be this: they have ordered that domestic cats should be kept within the bounds of the property which means inside the home and/or the front and back yards. 

Greater Bendigo, Australia order cats to be "contained to the property 24/7". Image: MikeB

The cats don't have to be confined to the indoors i.e. inside the home. They can wander into the back garden front garden but clearly if they do those areas must be fenced in a way which prevents domestic cats escaping to the outside. That is my interpretation.

It's a progression for this city from an earlier curfew which required cats to be kept inside the owner's property between sunset and sunrise. So the screws are gradually being turned tighter on cat owners in terms of restrictions. This is one of the few total curfews that I know about in the world of domestic cat ownership. It's about as restrictive as you can get. Although, there have been lots of discussions about confining cats to the boundaries of the owner's property 24/7 in many jurisdictions on the planet, primarily in America and Australia.

These countries lead the world in terms of legislation to control cat ownership. What is the purpose of the curfew? The usual reasons: to prevent predation on wildlife and, in their words, "less fighting and transfer of diseases and breeding between cats and would reduce nuisance issues between neighbours".

The councillors surveyed the residents of the area. The feedback was 80% in favour of confining domestic cats to their homes. Under the legislation, cat owners have to pay up to AU$120 to reclaim their cat if it is held between five and eight days by the local authority.

The residents will be given time to get themselves organised to comply with the new restrictions. It'll take a bit of work. The cat confinement fence manufacturers will do a roaring trade 😅.

Big Valley council has passed a by-law on cat registration

NEWS AND COMMENT-BIG VALLEY, CANADA: Councillors, the ladies and gentlemen who run the village (which I'm told that it is), have decided to pass a by-law which makes it mandatory to register your cat with the council or some other agency appointed by the council. This is not a world first as far as I am aware but it is very rare indeed to introduce cat registration in line with dog registration.

Big Valley Council passed a by-law on cat registration. Image: MikeB

And it is reported that the reason why the council has introduced cat registration is so they can identify the owners of cats which citizens regard as troublesome because, for example, they damage people's property. This can lead to retaliation in which cats are harmed or even killed resulting in police involvement.

They say that concerned residents who don't like to see stray cats wandering around can use traps to contain them and take them, I presume, to a pound or shelter but they still don't know who owns the cat at least initially until they are scanned for a microchip. But sometimes cats aren't microchipped.

The strong argument is that if cats are registered, they will know who owns each cat. The mayor of the village, Clark German, was in favour of the new bylaw because the cats should be under the control of their owner. One councillor said that free range cats help to control the mouse population and that it is the owners who are to blame for any nuisance not the cats.

Despite this counterargument the councillors passed the law. So, there you have it: there will be cat registration in line with dog registration in the village of Big Valley!

Comment: registration of cats without micro-chipping might not work! You can't necessarily identify a cat by their appearance. I would have thought obligatory micro-chipping should go hand in hand with registration. And micro-chipping should be kept up to date because often the details become out of date as the owner moves home. Or the cat belongs to somebody else in due course.

This little story is very typical of much wider issues concerning cat ownership and whether cats should be allowed free access to the outside at their will. It is an ongoing debate in many jurisdictions in Canada, America, Europe, the UK and other countries. Australia probably leads the way in this debate. 

As I recall, one Aussie jurisdiction has introduced registration with limited success. Another problem is that you don't know who the cat owners are at the moment. If they don't come forward to register the cats you don't know that they haven't come forward.

This would particularly apply if in response to knowing about this new bylaw some people kept their cats inside for a while. Therefore, the law might be difficult to enforce accurately. It is the same with obligatory micro-chipping. How many people will volunteer their cats to be microchip? And if they don't what does the council do about it?

California earmarks another $45,000,000 to reduce killing in animal shelters

This comes on the heels of a prior commitment of $10,000,000. Unfortunately, its allocation is a missed opportunity to maximize lifesaving according to Nathan Winograd who gave me the heads up in an email.

What no-kill means. Image: MikeB

In a Facebook post, Nathan Winograd reports on the signing by the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, of legislation that provides $45 million to help animal shelters reduce killing. You can read legislation if you wish by clicking the following link: https://bit.ly/3zMqJ8v

You got to be a bit of a nerd to read it but it is educational. Having read Winograd's Facebook post I was interested to read that initiatives like this one to save the lives of animals at shelters and to drive them to a no-kill status benefit the economy of the state, city or county concerned. 

They are 'revenue positive' as he calls it. He refers to a University of Denver study as an example which found that one city's no-kill initiative yielded over $157 million in a positive economic impact to the community over the first six years, which represented a more than 400% return on investment by the city.

He says that other studies have come to similar conclusions. There are direct cost savings apparently in not killing animals at shelters. In California a provision of the Animal Shelter Law 1998 saved 85,000 animals annually which corresponded with cost savings of over $3 million. These costs relate to the killing process and the destruction of the remains of the animals. Saving such as this have been backed up in the states of Florida, Michigan, Oklahoma and Minnesota.

Attaining statewide no-kill status in all shelters would appear to benefit the economy of that state as well as save countless thousands of lives of unwanted animals who become wanted and loved. That seems to be a win-win situation to me.

Cleburne City, Texas bans the feeding of stray cats

CLEBURNE CITY, TEXAS-NEWS AND COMMENT: Well, this is a very big step by a city council. To ban the feeding of stray cats in the city under the law is a rare move by a city council. Other city councils in America have thought about it but these proposed laws rarely get past the debating stage because they are inherently cruel. 

 Cleburne City, Texas bans the feeding of stray cats. Photo of Cleburne in the public domain.

They are cruel because in many cities there are volunteers who care for stray and feral cats under TNR programs. TNR programs incorporate feeding. If you stop feeding the cats you stop TNR programs and then you are left with more feral cats because they procreate. And the feral and stray cat starve because they are used to being fed. These are the negative aspects to this sort of law.

They've introduced a law because they claim that when you feed feral cats, they produce more kittens and it attracts animals to the area. Comment: this argument seems weak because of the reasons I've mentioned above namely that feeding is part of a TNR program and TNR prevents creation of litters of cats. Secondly, if you put food down for a set period of time and then take it up promptly you minimize the problem of the food attracting wild animals. Therefore, that objection can be dealt with.

I don't have any more substantive information about this law, sadly. The news media refer to the feeding of stray cats in Hulen Park. The city council want to stop it. There is no information on the Cleburne Animal Shelter Facebook webpage about this. The law has been passed into effect and I would expect that there is somebody in Cleburne carrying out a TNR program and feeding feral cats who is going to be very upset.

In the past, in other local jurisdictions I've seen volunteers become highly upset because they see these sorts of laws as causing feral cats to starve. Sometimes volunteers have been feeding stray and feral cats for many years which results in a colony of cats who are dependent on being fed. Stop it and it is a cruel act.

The only place on the planet were domestic cats have to stay in the home?

You may have noticed, there is one place (?) on this planet where domestic cats will have to stay in the home under the law which commences in October 1, 2021. That place is Knox in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne. I know of no other place in the world where the local administrators have decided to bite the bullet and do something very big which is a 24/7 curfew on domestic cats under the law which forces cat owners to keep their cats either in their home or the backyard (but see below).

Knox council wants their citizens to build these. This catio in Abu Dhabi. Photo: Evelyn Lau - The National.

There is a website for Knox which succinctly tells us, away from the glare of social media, about the cat curfew. It states that cat owners will be required to keep their cats on their premises at all times from 1 October 2021. The curfew will be in place to protect local wildlife and cats and prevent a nuisance to neighbours. The curfew means that cats must be confined to the house, shed, garage, yard, or enclosure or something similar. Can your cat still go outside? Cats can go outside but it has to be on the property so it is not going outside in the conventional sense, meaning into public places.

The city administrators expect cat owners to build enclosures and cat proof fencing around their properties. It is something I've been promoting for a long time actually, which is cat enclosures. The catio is a small version of a cat enclosure. It's a great compromise between allowing your cat the opportunity to express natural behaviours while protecting the cat and wildlife. I believe that it is a compromise which will gradually be expanded into many metropolitan areas in various countries.

SOME PAGES ON CATIO CAT ENCLOSURES

It just took a very courageous decision by these administrators to do it now. Of course, there's been a big backlash by resident cat owners within the jurisdiction. Social media describes it as "outrage". However, the council run a survey of 720 residents, 50% of which are cat owners. A large 86% supported some kind of curfew with apparently the majority referring a 24-hour curfew. This indicates that there is consent. I have interviewed an Australian lady and she is for destroying feral cats - the same objective.

Set against this apparent consent, there is an online petition requesting that the council reviews their decision. Detractors say that the science does not support a curfew and that the cats will be stressed by being confined.

I've just discovered that the Yarra Ranges Council introduced a 24/7 cat curfew earlier. So. the Knox Council curfew is the second in Australia and I would argue that makes them the second in the world because no other country has done this. It's been discussed in America but no action has been taken. Americans love their freedoms under the constitution. They are very vocal about it understandably.

Australia's citizens are perhaps more compliant. Also, Australia's administrators are more concerned about wildlife predation by domestic and feral cats than in America. The balance has shifted between allowing cats the freedom to roam, which they've enjoyed for centuries, towards protection of wildlife. That is the main reason why this curfew is in place. They say that it also protects the cats but 90% of this is to do with stopping domestic cat preying on wildlife.

There is enormous pressure on wildlife in Australia mainly because of human behaviour which destroys habitat and causes climate change. People can't change their behaviour so they change the behaviour of cats instead. It's much easier and it looks like politicians are doing something positive. A much greater positive impact on the protection of wildlife would take place if people changed their ways.

Plum, Pennsylvania puts the squeeze on cat ownership and feral cat care

PLUM, WESTERN PENNSYLVANIA, USA-NEWS AND COMMENT: Plum is a borough in Allegheny County in the US state of Pennsylvania. The administrators have taken that big step in interfering in cat ownership and feral cat care. They want to manage cats and until now pretty well anywhere on the planet, domestic and feral cats are generally unmanaged. They have extraordinary freedom of movement. Domestic cats can't trespass. This is in contrast to dogs but dogs are more dangerous than cats.

TNR volunteer, File photo.

I sense, reading the cat news as I do on a daily basis, that local authorities are enacting bylaws i.e. local ordinances to manage both feral and domestic cats within their jurisdiction. This indicates a general trend towards tightening up domestic cat ownership to improve standards in conjunction with attempts to reduce the number of feral cats in a community.

The local authority has created a new law which stops residents from taking care of feral cats on their property. The underlined words are very important because they protect TNR programs. And cat hoarding is strictly prohibited. And they going to make it illegal for any cat owner to allow their cat to run free outside the boundary of their property unless they've been sterilised. And the cat must be inoculated against rabies. Interestingly, my reading of this new law indicates that domestic cats must be ear tipped if they are allowed outside to indicate that they have been sterilised and immunised.

Ear tipping which is the cutting off of the tip of the left ear is exclusively carried out on feral cats when they are part of a TNR program and they have been sterilised and sometimes vaccinated and then return to where they came from.

The council voted 6-0 to make it illegal for anyone to provide food and water or any other form of sustenance to stray, feral, free-roaming or homeless cats or dogs. And it will be illegal to allow any other person to engage in such activities on their property. Well, my reading of that seems to state that it does not forbid TNR programs on public property. This seems to be correct because I think this council wants to be involved in TNR programs, which by the way is the best way to do things. When the local authority is involved in TNR it gives those programs a status and a moral authority which encourages others to leave them alone and let volunteers get on with the work.

This law would seem to protect the regular TNR programs on public land which are very popular among many people in America because they actually work to stabilise the feral cat population in many communities. There is currently nothing better in terms of stabilising feral cat numbers. Although, detractors will always criticise TNR arguing that it is too slow and it puts feral cat back on the street where they came from to do what they been doing before which is spread disease and be a nuisance to residents. They forget that the citizens of America put them there in the first place but that is another story.

Anybody in violation of this new ordinance could face a fine between $100 and $1000 and may even be sentenced to a jail term.

There has been a general resistance to this law. There was an attempt to bring it into action in 2018 but there were objections on the basis that it would be unfair.

Link to the original article.

The original reporting is not great as it leaves so aspects of the story unclear. If you can clarify or add please leave a comment.

Residents of Knox City, Melbourne ordered to keep cats inside 24/7

KNOX CITY, MELBOURNE - NEWS AND COMMENT: This might be a world first but if not, it is one of the very few city councils to order that their citizens keep their domestic cat companions inside the home 24/7. And it seems that the order to do this will go on indefinitely unless somebody changes the ordinance or local law. The mayor of the city council disagrees with it as you can see in the Facebook post below.

Knox City. Pic in public domain.

The reason is to protect wildlife and that is always the reason in Australia for confining cats. The authorities across the continent, to varying degrees, have become somewhat obsessed with protecting native species and I can understand that because humankind is destroying native species with global warming and other human activities. They have to do something about it and as they can't change themselves, they force change upon the cat.

Note: the embedded FB post below may stop working one day. If so, I am sorry.

Dear Residents, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me and express your views in relation to the new...

Posted by Mayor Lisa Cooper - Knox City Council on Wednesday, June 30, 2021

I have read that the owl kills more wildlife than the cat! I'm not sure that that is true but it's a thought. The cat is cast as the culprit in the decimation of native wild species as the Australian authorities see it. But the feral cat does more damage than the domestic cat and you can't confine feral cats but you can shoot them, poison them and kill them in any way you want, which is exactly what happens in Australia according to the news media.

The 24/7 cat confinement in Knox City which is a suburb of Melbourne begins on October 1, 2021. It will no doubt result in some cat owners building enclosures in their backyards for their cats as a substitute which I think is a good idea. It is perhaps the beginning of the end of allowing cats to roam freely. There will probably come a time, in Australia initially, but in other countries eventually when the concept of 24/7 cat confinement becomes a norm in society.

The council rules state that cats can still go outside as long as they remain on the property of their owner. From October 1 there will be a transition period during which time owners will receive a warning if their cat is found in someone else's property. After the transition period cat owners will be fined AU$91 if their cat is found away from the property. Repeated breaches of the rule will result in a fine of more than AU$500.

The Mayor of Knox City would have preferred a compromise solution namely a 7 PM to 7 AM overnight cat curfew but it did not get the council vote. The mayor is disappointed and it is her who said that on her understanding owls are the biggest predators of wildlife and yet domestic cats are continually blamed.

Her argument is that as cats do most of their hunting at night a night-time curfew would do the job to protect animals. Although many non-cat owning residents of the suburb are happy with the 24/7 confinement order.