Adelaide has become a city of a 200,000 private zoos

Adelaide, South Australia, have placed the ultimate restrictions of cat ownership. They lead the world in this regard.

Aussies see cats both domestic and feral as a pest when it comes to their relationship with native flora and fauna. Some local authorities are ahead of others in restricting cat ownership freedoms in order to protect native species and the administrators of Adelaide, Australia have probably gone as far as any jurisdiction can to restriction cat ownership. 

The long-suffering cats and their owners have to desex, microchip, register with the authorities and confine to their home all domestic cats.

We all understand the rules but are they genuinely enforceable? They probably don't have to be as 99% of Adelaide's residents will probably willingly comply because they've been indoctrinated with the notion that domestic cats are a massive threat to native species while ignoring the greater threat from humans (increased human population leading to more settlements and activity destroying habitat).

Adelaide's cats have to be registered once they are 3 months old. I think Adelaide is one of only a handful of councils anywhere in the world where they have compulsory registration. It may be the only council with this requirement. It is that rare.

The fees for registration are as follows:

CATEGORY	FEE
Non-standard cat	$100.00
Standard cat (desexed and microchipped)	$30.00
Concession non-standard cat	$50.00
Concession standard cat (desexed and microchipped)	$15.00

A cat owner can take their cat out on a lead but few will as it is a tricky process. Violation of the local law leads to a fine of $187.50.

The big prob

The council have overlooked one enormous problem with their ordinance. None of these confined cats will enjoy a substitute that matches the fun of their freedoms when allowed outside. They'll become bored and fed up. They'll moan to their owners and meow to be let out. They'll torment their owners.

The big flaw that is never admitted in keeping cats indoors full-time.

They'll eventually give up and settle in to a life or boredom and pleasure eating, leading to obesity. I understand the local laws and am sympathetic but they should be extended to mandate that cat owners provide an enriched confined environment such as an obligatory garden enclosure.

That would be asking far too much of course. So, they just bang-up (imprison) the cats. Adelaide has become a city of a 200,000 private zoos based on the rough estimate that there are that number of households with a pet cat.

Cats in backpacks banned from Mount Taranaki, New Zealand

NEWS AND COMMENT: Mount Taranaki also known as Mount Egmont is a dormant volcano on the west coast of New Zealand's North Island. It is in the Egmont National Park. It is a place where Aucklanders like to take hike and there are those people with cats who like to hike with their cat companions in a large and appropriate backpack customized for convenient cat travel. It is a growing aspect of cat ownership and I like it because it gets the cats outside when often nowadays, they are confined to the inside.

Cat in backpack while owner is hiking. Image in public domain.

However, the staff of the Department of Conservation of New Zealand did not like what they saw: cats being carried in backpacks. 😎 A senior ranger, Dave Rogers, couldn't quite believe his eyes because cats and other domestic animals are forbidden from the park as they pose a threat to endangered birds like the Kiwi and other native species including geckos and insects.

Apparently, there was more than one cat owner with a cat backpack and they were spotted putting their cats into them in the car park. Mr Rogers said: "Bringing a pet into the park may seem a harmless thing to do but it has potentially deadly consequences for our native wildlife, particularly should the pets run loose or escape from their owners' control".

I think they are being unduly harsh. These cats are secure in a backpack and they are often wearing harnesses with a lead so that when they are removed from the backpack they are on a lead. That is not to say that they are going to be taken for a walk in this park. I am simply saying that the owner is taking a lot of precautions to keep their cats safe and to stop them roaming freely.

I'm sure that the rules applying to Egmont National Park concern free-roaming cats or other animals. But these are cats which are well and truly secured. I don't really see an issue unless the Rangers believe that the owners are going to be careless and set them free, which I can't envisage.

I have a feeling that the rules don't really accommodate cats in backpacks and therefore they been extended to include backpacks by these rangers in an ad hoc manner. They could amend the rules to allow cats in secured and commercially manufactured backpacks.

RELATED: Catastrophic loss of wildlife hits Australia. Cause? Humans.

After all cats have equal rights to kiwis or they should have. A compromise could be found. The trouble is that the New Zealand authorities don't like domestic cats that are allowed outside and it's the same in neighbouring Australia. The authorities have so screwed up wildlife conservation that they are responding by attacking the cat and not criticising themselves.

No pets are permitted in the park unless with written approval. Anyone found with pets in the park can be fined up to NZ$800. Repeat offenders can be fined up to NZ$100,000 or up to a year in prison. Pets can be seized and impounded.

New Delhi, India: controversy over keeping pets in a luxury apartment complex

There is a luxury apartment and house complex in New Delhi, in the prime East Delhi area of Mayur Vihar I. It is called IFS Apartments. It was built by a co-operative society formed by IFS officers.

They've had a rule there since 2011 that leaseholders of the flats i.e. the owners, and the tenants who rent their flats cannot keep cats and dogs or other pets. They let this rule become a little bit slack by which I mean they appear not to have enforced it very carefully. This has allowed some apartment dwellers to keep cats for instance and in one case a woman living there has had a cat for three years. She found the cat particularly helpful during the Covid pandemic lockdown. 

Delhi’s IFS Apartments. Image in public domain.

New tenants who rent from landlords have to sign an agreement that they are fully aware that they cannot keep pets.

The residents of the complex say that the rules governing the keeping of pets are unconstitutional because the Animal Welfare Board of India said, in a circular of 2014, that the ban interfered with a fundamental freedom which was guaranteed to all citizens of India. There is a clash of rules, one at a apartment complex level, and one had a higher level.

I have not checked out the argument. Certainly, the management company who run the apartment complex appear to have ignored the Animal Welfare Board of India circular and continuing with the ban after the circular was issued. I have to say that no constitution states that citizens have a right to keep pets. I belive that the circular is ineffective in this instance.

Some tenants and leaseholders are moving out of the complex. They are aggrieved with the anti-pet policy. One of them is a lawyer, Vasudha Mehta, who is moving out with her husband and two children. They have lived there since 2014. They appear to have rented initially and then they bought their home in 2016. They signed the agreement not to keep pets but didn't really apply their minds to it.

During the lockdown period and with children in the home constantly they decided to get a puppy to ease the mental strain, she said. They found that the management committee started to harass them by reminding them of the agreement that they signed.

On August 29, 2020, there was a problem with dog poop at the complex and a notice was put up by the management committee saying, in capital letters, “NO NEW DOGS MAY BE BROUGHT INTO THE COMPLEX BY RESIDENTS. DOG-OWNERS ARE REQUESTED TO SHOW CONSIDERATION FOR OTHER RESIDENTS AND RESPECT THE NEED FOR KEEPING THE COMPLEX CLEAN.”

The problem here is that in the past it wasn't an issue to keep pets despite the rule. Now the rules are being enforced and the residents don't like it. On the basis that the Animal Welfare Board of India circular is not enforceable (and I don't think it is) then I'm afraid the residents will have to put up with the rule or leave if they want to keep a pet.

The difficulties of creating bylaws which ban feeding feral cats and keeping certain animals

Raleigh in the USA, an expanding city, is facing the difficulties of creating local ordinances which control the keeping of certain animals and also bans the feeding of feral cats. These sorts of attempts to create local ordinances occur all over the USA. Councillors are often in discussion with how to manage the relationship between people and animals. Expanding towns and cities encroach on the habitats of wild animals bringing humans and animals into conflict.

Montage of Raleigh, the capital of N. Carolina. Image: Wikipedia.

In this instance the councillors decided to ban the keeping of certain animals and also ban the feeding of feral cats unless it is carried out under unauthorised TNR program. The full list of the banned animals can be seen in the screenshot below. They are described as wild and dangerous animals. The fine for a violation of the proposed law would be $100.

The incumbent mayor of Raleigh, Mary-Ann Baldwin said that if the law was in place at the moment, she would be in violation of it because she feeds a feral cat. She loves this cat and she makes it clear that she would continue to feed him and pay the fine on a regular basis. She regards her feral cat as one of the family and she would adopt him if she could but he is insistent that he wants to remain feral and won't come into her home.

CLICK FOR MORE ARTICLES ON FEEDING FERAL CATS.

Baldwin believes that the current proposals have gone too far and it is like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. She says it's wrong to stop people keeping ducks in their back yard for example. And there lies the problem really; there will always be a decent person who cannot walk by when a stray cat needs help.

An ordinance which stops the feeding of stray and feral cats looks like good sense because it stops (the people believe) the spread of disease and nuisance animals but you can't expect people to ignore animals in need. Some can but a lot of people can't and to get an ordinance through a city administration and have compliance you need the consent of the people.

Associated page: Order banning 74-year-old woman from feeding feral cats was rescinded.

This sort of ordinance must be humane for it to work. By the look of it, it isn't at the moment. The whole problem was kicked off by an escaped pet snake which was captured two days later. One council member, David Knight, spotted the venomous zebra cobra and decided to introduce some sort of laws which curtail the keeping of such an animal.

The feeding of feral cats under TNR programs authorised by city administrators works very well. The volunteers don't seek payment and they spend a lot of their money willingly to help the cats. When they feed the cats for a limited time it helps prevent nuisance animals. It is a nice balance between humans behaving humanely while not spoiling the amenities of the community.