Council proposes criminalising the feeding of feral and stray cats

NEWS AND OPINION: This is another episode in the ongoing saga which troubles America namely how to effectively deal with feral cats. Sometimes these are better described as community cats because they are either semi-feral or even domestic cats recently ejected from their home. That's quite an important point in this discussion.

Meeting to discuss criminalising the feeding of feral cats. Two women for TNR face the meeting's chairperson! Guess who won! Image is a screenshot from the video below.

But historically, in America, councils have struggled with dealing with feral cats because the best way to deal with them is TNR run by volunteers and TNR requires feeding of the cats as this is a humane process. Feeding feral cats is problematic for people who either don't like cats or are unsure about the presence of feral cats.

Regrettably you'll have to watch the video on YouTube as the news media outlet does not want it shown on websites. Please click here to see it. I like it as it shows us the real life struggles in making a decision on dealing with feral cats in the community.

In fact, a lot of people in a community dislike feral cats and want them removed completely whereas on the other hand there are people who see the need to help feral cats. They see their presence as an animal welfare issue whereas the former group see their presence as harming the amenity of the area.

And this background discussion is part of the debate in Strasbourg, Ohio which has proposed criminalising the feeding of feral cats in their community specifically the Tuscarawas County village. Some residents there feel that their community is overrun by feral cats.

The proposed ordinance would stop TNR volunteers feeding feral cats. I can recall, 15 years ago, a big discussion, indeed argument, about feeding feral cats in West Hollywood. At the end of the day, the people who fed feral cats and the TNR program won the day because it is a humane solution.

In this instance, a packed meeting on Tuesday - as I believe you can see in the video - discussed the proposed ordinance at a second reading. It was a chance for community members to voice their concerns.

The video provides a hint as to the outcome of this meeting. It seems that the general community feeling was that criminalising the feeding of feral cats is the wrong thing to do. It is not the best solution. 

One should look at both points of view and one should be sensitive towards those people who don't like to see feral cats being fed because it encourages wildlife to the area. That's the classic issue but overriding that, in my view, is the fact that humankind needs to act humanely towards feral cats because we put them there.

The only humane way to deal with feral cats at the moment is TNR programs hopefully supported by the community and indeed by the local authority, which makes them more effective.

And we have to think of the women (normally) who run these programs. They enjoy doing it. It gives them purpose. They do good work. Let's think of the women volunteers and the occasional man who likes to help reduce the feral cat and community cat population through humane methods as opposed to trapping and killing.

When you watch the video, and you see these wonderful ladies involved in TNR, you simply cannot ignore the strength of the argument that TNR, despite its weaknesses, is the best way forward in a community.

In the video one person spoke up and said that sometimes among the feral cats there is a domestic cat. You cannot trap that cat and kill him or her because you will be committing a true crime that of criminal damage against the property owned by somebody else.

In nearby Dover, the local mayor there said that TNR had made a big impact in the city. TNR has been a success and it can be a success if it is run properly. Here's a quote from News Five Cleveland on "Tusc TNR":

"Since the Tusc TNR program was instituted in the City of Dover 5 years ago, the city has seen a significant reduction in complaints from residents regarding feral cats.  As of October of 2023, the group had trapped, neutered and released 862 cats and adopted out another 228 kittens.  In particular, we previously had an area of town behind several restaurants and other businesses, which we received a number of complaints about.  The TNR program came in and has significantly reduced the number of feral cats in that area.  The TNR group works closely with the city administration to target areas of town as needed and reduce the feral cat population.  The City of Dover has a great working relationship with the Tusc TNR program."

--------

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.

America's pet store owners need to be both ethical and businesslike

Entirely understandably, American's pet store owners, take a commercial stance when running their business. They have to in order to make a profit. The world is highly competitive. But my argument is that they need to temper that objective with the objective to ensure that they run their businesses along ethical lines.

Inherently unhealthy bulldog for sale at Perfect Pets. Image in public domain.

And I'm referring to the acquisition of cats and dogs from puppy mills to supply their pet stores. No doubt these animals are quite cheap because they are bred in a cheap fashion. They are bred in facilities where there is poor regard to healthcare and socialisation normally. I don't want to brand all puppy mills with the same criticism but they are called "puppy mills" for a reason. They churn out puppies which means the pet stores can buy them cheaply.

It also means that the puppies are going to be popular breeds such as dachshunds and French bulldogs. But both of these dog breeds have health problems particularly the French bulldog which I think is the unhealthiest dog breed of them all with a reduced lifespan as a consequence.

RELATED: 21 genetic diseases inherited by the French bulldog. Are they always in pain?

The moral aspect of acquiring cats and dogs from puppy mills is this. They should be selling rescue dogs and cats from local animal shelters because in that way they will save the lives of some animals scheduled for euthanasia because the shelters are oversubscribed. Sometimes there is not enough space for incoming unwanted animals.

And when an animal shelter does not run a no-kill policy with commitment, you get a situation where you have to euthanise healthy animals. Nathan Winograd would argue that if you run a proper no-kill policy there is hardly ever if ever a need to euthanise healthy animals. But it does require a huge amount of commitment and a smart approach to running a shelter.

RELATED: Pet stores in America are unfeasible unless they buy from puppy mills.

Back to the moral point. In Aurora city the council has passed an ordinance to ban the sale of cats and dogs that have been commercially-bred at puppy mills. Pet stores are going to have to sell rescue animals acquired from animal shelters.

And, as expected, the pet store owners are up in arms. They think the decision by the city's administrators is entirely wrong. They state that many pet store owners are good people running good stores and are not evil and overly commercial in disregarding animal welfare.

I get that. But the moral dimension is still there for all to see. It doesn't matter if the pet store is run really well if they are stocking the outlet with puppy mill cats and dogs. That's because in doing so, as mentioned, they are indirectly encouraging the killing of healthy animals are animal shelters, which is unsupportable.

And it is interesting to note that one pet store owner, Jens Larsen of Denver Perfect Pets in Centennial says that the decision to ban the sale of puppy mill dogs and cats as "wrongheaded". He's outspoken but he should keep his head below the parapet - see below.

He said that not all people are evil or wrong that run pet stores. Correct. And he adds that he has never had any violations or citations against him. He says that puppy mills are often licensed and regulated and therefore to ban supply from these facilities to pet stores as "just wrong".

In some ways he is correct but I have to stress once again the moral dimension. The ethics of the current situation in which puppy mills supply pet stores is unsustainable.

Jen Larsen's Perfect Pets

And interestingly, if you go onto the yelp.com website you see that his outlet has two stars out of five from 69 reviews. That definitely points to a problem and if you dig around further you will find a news media story on the Denver 7 ABC website with the headline, "Centennial pet shop accused of selling sick dogs to customers". That is a reference to Jen Larsen's pet store.

Some customers are accusing him of selling sick animals. One of them was a dachshund who was bought by a couple and they said that they "went to bed thinking I might wake up to a dead dog. So how could that get any worse?" Just days after bringing her dog home she said that he flopped and rolled and couldn't stand up on his own.

The dog had giardia, a protozoan parasite that most dogs contract from drinking faeces-contaminated water. The condition was not covered by Perfect Pets' insurance. They took the dog to a veterinarian, one that was not suggested by Larsen. As it happens, Larsen partly paid for the veterinary treatment. The dog needed oxygen but survived.

Denver 7 went to check out Perfect Pets with an undercover camera and noticed lethargic dogs and one that had mucus running out of their nose. An employee said that the place was too dusty. But the point here is that Larsen has been accused of selling sick pets and he is the one who is vociferously against the Aurora city ordinance banning the purchase of puppy mill cats and dogs.

And that's the point of this article. Business people owning pet store outlets need to balance the objectives of being ethical and of making a profit. The former puts a check on the latter and the former should underpin all their activities. In doing so, they will run a better business and it will be more profitable in the long run.

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 😅.

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.

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?

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.