Upload
nguyenquynh
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Policy Review of Cat Containment in the ACTBy Alyssa Roggero and Mengyao [email protected] and [email protected]
Sponsored by Kirilly Dickson from the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment
We declare that this work may be read and used by the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment as they see fit. This work may also be used to develop and inform future academic or policy publications where relevant.
Executive Summary
● Cat containment is an important environmental issue in the ACT. ● Feral cats kill at least five animals a day. Increasingly, however, domestic cats are
being recognised as having significant impacts on local wildlife as well. ● Cat containment is a method of managing domestic cats by restricting their roaming
ability to certain times and spaces - for example, keeping cats indoors at night, or keeping cats on their owners’ properties at all times.
● In the ACT, cat containment areas have been declared in suburbs identified as facing serious nature conservation threat as a result of cats. The containment policy requires cat owners to keep cats on their properties 24-7.
● However, this policy relies on compliance through awareness rather than policing, and there are common complaints that this is not effective.
● The complexity of this issue and its solutions prompts ongoing interest in reviewing the policy over time, including an investigation into how much investment should be allocated to engagement and awareness compared to compliance and policing.
● Our policy analysis draws on best-practice cat management from other states and territories, a case-study of policy instruments employed in Gungahlin, and it considers the impacts of different policy instruments based on compliance and policing methods, and on awareness and engagement methods.
● The analysis suggests that it is best to raise awareness of cat containment policy through multiple communication pathways, including through various education programs, media outlets, surveys, community meetings and announcements, and using support from other organisations, such as the RSPCA. In addition, cat containment compliance could be improved by designing a monitoring-reporting system, potentially using GPS tracking technology, and providing subsidies or information on cat containment methods/tools for cat owners to help them to better contain their cats.
● The viability of these policy options, however, depends on budget. Given low funding, we think that ACT government could consider investing more in the improvement of
people’s awareness and engagement, as compliance and policing would require sufficient investment to be implemented properly.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Statement of Scope 2
Policy Identification and Importance 2
Cat Management in Australia 2
Cat Containment 3
The Contention of Cat Containment 4
Cat Containment in the ACT: a literature review 5
State-Comparison of cat management 7
Policy Analysis 8
Gungahlin Case-Study 8
Compliance and Policing Instruments 11
Awareness and Engagement Instruments 13
Evaluating Best Policy Mix of Compliance, Policing, Awareness and Engagement 16
Policy Options 18
Reference List 18
1
Acknowledgements
Firstly, we would like to thank our sponsor, Kirilly Dickson and her colleagues from the Office
of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment for giving us the opportunity to
work on this policy project. We gained useful new insights into cat containment policy in the
ACT, and we hope that our work will be of use to any future work in this important
environmental policy issue.
Statement of ScopeThe aim of this report is to investigate the optimal policy mix of awareness, engagement,
policing and compliance for cat containment to be effective in the ACT. It draws on scientific
literature on cat containment best-practice, lessons learned from cat management in other states
and territories, as well as a local case-study in Gungahlin. This report focuses on improving
currently implemented cat containment policy in the ACT, and does not investigate future cat
containment policy in other areas of the ACT.
Policy Identification and Importance
This section identifies why this policy issue is arising, including relevant historical background
of cat management in Australia, why cat containment is used as a means of cat management,
which groups are interested in the cat containment agenda, and the current policy situation in the
ACT. This section also includes a literature review of cat containment in the ACT which is
organised using a Policy Cycle framework.
Cat Management in Australia
In Australia, cat management is an important environmental issue.
2
Feral cats kill five to 30 animals every day (AWC, 2012). In addition, the Threat Abatement
Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (2008), lists 81 native animals, including birds, mammals and
reptiles that are threatened by feral cat predation.
Increasingly though, domestic cats have been highlighted as having significant impacts on local
wildlife. Unlike feral cats, which have no or little reliance on humans, domestic cats do not rely
on hunting for food. However, despite daily feeding, hunting remains instinctive behaviour for
domestic cats, and can still have a negative impact on native fauna (RSPCA, 2017; Lilith et al.,
2006; DEWHA, 2008). For example, a study by the CSIRO on house cat predation in Canberra
found that, while introduced species such as mice and rats were common prey, house cats also
targeted locally abundant and patchily distributed native animals in areas near relatively
undisturbed environments (Barratt, 1997).
Various laws have been passed in Australia to manage cats. Feral cat predation is listed as a key
threatening process to Australian biodiversity under the Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). At the Commonwealth level, aside from preventing
importation of wild-domestic cat hybrids into Australia, there is currently no legislation on
domestic cat management. Therefore, cat management is regulated by state and territory
governments and local governments. Cat management policies vary state-to-state and include
things like mandatory registration of cats, microchipping and neutering (RSPCA, 2017).
Cat Containment
Cat containment is another means of managing domestic cats and their impact on the local
environment by limiting their roaming abilities to certain times and spaces. This can be in the
form of keeping cats inside at night, or only allowing cats inside the house and the backyard or
garden, restricting their ability to leave the property using equipment like cages, ‘cat runs’ and
nets (RSPCA, 2017).
Cat containment is used for a variety of reasons.
According to a cat tracking survey by Roetman et al. (2017), the average home-range of roaming
cats is 1.042 hectares. From an environmental perspective, cat containment can reduce the
impact of cats hunting local wildlife, particularly near reserves or areas where endangered or
3
critically endangered species are present (Barratt, 1997; McLeod et al., 2015). Cat containment
is also used to improve cat health and welfare by reducing the risk of injury from fighting, traffic
and acts of cruelty by humans (Rochlitz, 2004; McLeod et al., 2015), and reducing the risk of
unwanted feline pregnancies (Nutter et al., 2004). Restricting the times and areas that cats can
roam can also help reduce the transmission of the disease Toxoplasma gondii (Dabritz and
Conrad, 2010) and cat faecal pollution of waterways (Dabritz et al., 2006).
The Contentiousness of Cat Containment
Policies that involve confining domestic cats are controversial. According to a survey on cat
containment in Victoria, some cat owners think it is “cruel and unnatural to confine a cat for 24
hours to a property” and “were concerned about the welfare and happiness of cats during
confinement” (Toukhsati et al., 2012, p. 63). In Tasmania, cat-owners who sometimes or never
contain cats are more likely to think cats have strong physical and emotional needs to be outside,
and are less confident in their ability to effectively contain their cats (McLeod et al., 2015).
According to an ABC news article, some pet-owners do not see a need for cat containment, and
consider the issue of biodiversity loss because of roaming cats to contain “a certain amount of
‘alternative fact’’ (ABC, 2017).
Cat Containment in the ACT
In Australia, there have been campaigns urging cat owners to contain their cats since the 1990s
(McLeod et al., 2015), however, at the state or territory level, only the ACT has established any
form of cat containment area. In designated areas in the ACT, cat containment requires cat
owners to confine cats to their properties 24-7. If a cat is found outside of their owner’s
property, it can be seized by Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS), and cat owners can be
fined up to $1500. Under Section 81 of the Domestic Animals Act 2000, cat containment has
been declared in 12 suburbs in the ACT, including Crace, Bonner, Coombs, Denman Prospect,
Forde, Jacka, Lawson, Molonglo, Moncrieff, The Fair at Watson, Throsby and Wright. These
suburbs were identified as areas of serious nature conservation threat because of hunting by cats
(ACT Government, 2018).
4
The Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate, and Domestic Animal Services, are
responsible for compliance and enforcement of cat containment in the ACT. However, there has
been little actual policing of cat containment in the ACT (Maxwell, 2016). Although the
Domestic Animals ACT (2000) allows regulating bodies to seize and capture domestic animals
in breach of domestic animal laws, it is rarely done in practice as cat containment policy in the
ACT relies on compliance through awareness rather than policing.
Literature Review of Cat Containment in the ACT using a Policy Cycle Framework
This section includes additional research from journal articles, government surveys, and
government documents. The information is organised using a policy cycle framework (Althaus et
al., 2013).
Table 1. Literature review of cat containment using the policy cycle, including problem framing, policy framing, policy implementation, and policy monitoring and evaluation.
Problem framing
● Cats are opportunistic predators (Loyd et al., 2013). In Canberra, 13% of injured
animals which were brought to an animal shelter in 2008 had been attacked by
cats, compared to only 7% of injured animals which had been attacked by dogs
(Eyles and Mulvaney, 2014).
● Cat owners believe their cats need to wander outdoors to satisfy their basic
instincts, and they often lack confidence in their ability to contain cats all day
(McLeod et al., 2015). A study that tracked cat roaming activity found that the
median size of a cat’s home-range was 1.042 hectares, and the median number of
roads which these cats crossed per day was 3.4 (Roetman et al., 2017).
● Roaming cats are considered a threat to transmit various diseases to wildlife
(Aramini et al., 2013) and to people (Dubey and Hill, 2002).
● Cats are considered a nuisance in some neighbourhoods if allowed to roam freely
(McLeod et al., 2015). In a survey of cat owners in South Australia, 87% of
respondents said that they have cats roaming in their neighbours’ properties and
5
Policy framing
● According to an ACT Government survey (2011), overall, residents in the ACT support
cat containment - 86% of respondents living in ACT agree that cat containment is
beneficial for the community, and 80% of them know that cats are a risk to wildlife.
● Current legislation imposing cat management in ACT and other states of Australia
includes the Domestic Animals Act 2000 (ACT), Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW),
Animal Management (Dogs and Cats) Act 2008 (Qld), Dog and Cat Management Act
1995 (SA), Cat Management Act 2009 (Tas), Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic), and
Cat Act 2011 (WA). Other supplementary programs and strategies are also
implemented to improve people’s acceptability of reducing the threat of domestic cats
(RSPCA, 2017).
Policy implementation
● According to Section 81 of the Domestic Animals Act 2000, Bonner, Crace, Coombs,
Denman Prospect, Forde, Jacka, Lawson, Molonglo, Moncrieff, The Fair at Watson,
Throsby, and Wright have been declared cat containment areas where domestic cats
should be confined all day (ACT Government, 2018). Cat owners may be fined up to
$1500 if they are found not confining their cats in these areas (ACT Government,
2018). In addition, the ACT government also promotes the advantages of cat
containment, such as avoiding suffering from diseases and injuries by other animals or
vehicles (ACT Government, 2018).
● In the ACT, cat containment policy relies on voluntary compliance through education.
For example, the RSPCA provides education campaigns to cat owners each year (Eyles
and Mulvaney, 2014). However, they do not provide territory-wide education, and the
frequency of such community education is low.
● In addition to the RSPCA, the Conservation Council also encourages awareness of the
benefits of cat containment.
8
● The ACT government uses cat containment signage (Fig. 1) to remind people that an
area is a cat containment area (ACT Government, 2018). Some of these signs include
words saying ‘contain at all times’ while others do not.
● Figure 1 Cat Containment Symbol (ACT Government, 2018)
Policy monitoring and evaluation
● The main approach used to monitor cat containment in the ACT is through reports of
roaming cats made by residents (ACT Government, 2018). However, few reports are
made and the reporting process is voluntarily, and complaints are still made to the
Office of the Commissioner of Sustainability and the Environment that cat containment
is ineffective (OCSE, 2017).
State-Comparison Literature Review
The following is a state-comparison of scientific studies on cat-management. Although not
necessarily about containing cats 24-7, these studies provide useful information on containing
and managing domestic cats generally, providing useful insights for the policy analysis in this
report.
Victoria: As is the case in the ACT, cats are required to be registered and microchipped in
Victoria, which is useful for cat management. According to Toukhsati et al (2012)’s study on cat
owners in Victoria, education programs that highlight the potential dangers of roaming cats as
well as the benefits of cat containment can help to ensure cat owners contain cats. The study also
9
emphasises the importance of monitoring community knowledge and attitudes towards
containment issues, including the community response to any education programs.
Tasmania: McLeod et al (2017) conducted surveys on cat-owners in Tasmania. They found that
cat-owners who did not already contain cats were unlikely to be swayed by compliance-based cat
containment regulation. They also highlighted problems with enforcement of regulations that
rely on voluntary compliance, a similar policy situation to that in the ACT. The study advises
governments to offer convenient methods to contain cats, such as personalised advice on cat
containment for each household. The study also advocates having credible and influential people
communicate the benefits of cat containment and highlighting positive local examples.
South Australia: Using GPS, South Australia undertook a citizen science project known as Cat
Tracker, which successfully engaged cat owners and helped them learn about the typical roaming
ranges of their cats (Roetman et al., 2017). This project raised people’s awareness of cat
management and provided a guide for cat owners to better manage and protect their pets.
Policy Analysis
This section identifies policy instruments that could be used or improved upon to make cat
containment in the ACT more effective. It first explores a case-study of cat containment in
Gungahlin, outlining the positive and negative outcomes of the cat containment policy
instruments currently employed in this area. It then investigates the potential impacts of other
policy tools based on compliance and policing, as well as policy tools based on awareness and
engagement. The analysis of these instruments considers not only the welfare of cats but also the
potential impacts on cat owners, as well as their overall cost-efficiency.
Gungahlin Case-Study
This case-study is based on the Independent Audit of the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment (2017)
produced by the Office of the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability. This audit
constitutes the first compliance audit for the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment Biodiversity Plan
10
(2013) - hereafter denoted as GSA - which aims to balance development in Gungahlin’s
residential, employment and conservation areas.
Background
Gungahlin is a fast-developing suburb in Canberra, highlighted as “Australia’s second-fastest
growing district with 71,000 residents, up from 47,000 in 2011” (OCSE, 2017, p. 24). Several
areas within Gungahlin have been declared cat-containment areas, including Moncrief, Throsby
and Taylor. Taylor was declared a cat containment area in 2017 due to its proximity to the
Kinlyside Nature Reserve, to protect species considered to be Matters of National Environmental
Significance (MNES), such as the Golden Sun Moth and the Striped Legless Lizard (OCSE,
2017).
Policy Instruments Employed
The Gungahlin case-study uses a variety of awareness and engagement policy instruments. In
April 2015, the ACT Government issued a media release announcing Throsby as a new cat
containment area, and cat containment signs (Figure 1) were installed throughout Throsby during
2017. The ACT Government website also updated its cat containment information, adding new
Gungahlin areas like Throsby and Taylor to its list of ACT cat containment zones.
In terms of compliance and policing instruments, GSA committed to developing compliance
initiatives and activities in line with the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy, and to
design a Cat Plan to regulate cat containment areas and cat management.
Audit Results
The GSA states that cat containment policy is to be implemented in all urban development areas
in Gungahlin, and that any declarations of cat-containment areas would coincide with funded
compliance programs. Based on these commitments, the Independent Audit of the GSA declared
the cat containment areas in Gungahlin were ‘non-compliant’ because:
● The Gungahlin East Town Centre did not have cat containment policy information
readily available for residents in the area.
11
● Although the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate and the
Transport Canberra and City Services are in the process of developing a comprehensive
Cat Plan, this plan has yet to be published.
● The Animal Welfare and Management Strategy highlights the need for a compliance and
enforcement program focusing on domestic animals. This has not yet been established
and the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy does not include objectives relating to
cat containment.
● In Throsby, cat containment was not signposted before sale, so buyers may not have been
aware of the significance of MNES in the area, which may lead to non-compliance.
Discussion
Cat containment in Gungahlin appears successful on paper but, arguably, this is not the case in
practice. A lack of readily available information at the town centre reveals a breach in
commitment 30 of the GSA which is meant to address educational resources, including signage
and guidelines for Gungahlin residents. There is also a lack of a funded compliance and
enforcement plan (Objective 5 of the GSA, and a recommendation of the Animal Welfare and
Management Strategy). This potentially highlights the difficulty of sourcing funds and
implementing compliance and policing cat containment policy instruments. It also potentially
highlights how the local government did not provide sufficient basic information on the reasons
and benefits of cat containment for residents in cat containment areas.
Conclusion
The Gungahlin case-study demonstrates that a compliance program is difficult to implement
without clear objectives and targeted funding, and that residents need to be aware if their area is
a declared cat containment area, including before they move into the area.
The following sections outline potential policy options for cat containment in the ACT, starting
with compliance and policing instruments, and then focusing on awareness and engagement
instruments.
12
Policy Options for Cat Containment Compliance and Policing for the ACT
There are three types of policy instruments that can be used for ensuring compliance of cat
containment in the ACT. These options range from expensive and labour-intensive methods
involving more monitoring and policing, to less expensive and less labour-intensive methods
which involve more awareness and community-based monitoring systems. These options are
derived from the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy: 2017-2020, and include potential
positive and negative impacts on cats and cat owners, as well as relative cost.
Option 1
The first option is to implement a program of proactive monitoring of cat containment areas,
incorporating monitoring, as part of the compliance and enforcement program. For example,
having Domestic Animal Services formally police suburbs and issue fines to cat owners found in
breach of cat containment. This would help to ensure cats remain contained, with benefits for cat
welfare as well as the local environment. However, it could be costly and likely unachievable
with the current low budget. Without proper consultation, this could also lead to public backlash
from cat containment communities if they are not sufficiently informed of the reasons behind cat
containment policy. As was discussed in the state-comparison case-study, cat owners who did
not already practice cat containment were less likely to be swayed by regulatory policy
instruments.
Option 2
The second option is to investigate ways to enhance cat containment infrastructure. This option
can be less expensive than proactive monitoring and was recommended by the Tasmanian cat
management study, which advised governments to provide personalised information on how
owners can best contain their cats. This would help with cat containment compliance more than
policing, by providing advice on how best to protect the welfare of cats who are kept indoors,
based on scientific research on the physical and mental health requirements of cats in general.
For example, the Cat Containment Steering Committee recommends considering the ‘Five
Freedoms’ of cats to ensure the welfare of contained cats. That is, cat owners should enrich their
cat’s environment to involve physical, social, sensory, and nutritional avenues of play or
diversion (see Eyles and Mulvaney, 2014, cat containment tips).
13
Option 3
The third option is to investigate ways of creating a community reporting system that uses new
technology to better monitor cat containment compliance. For example, a reporting system could
be set up through a phone app, website or social media platform. This type of community
reporting system would be cheaper than active monitoring of cat containment compliance by
empowering community members to police cat containment in their neighbourhoods. It is worth
noting, however, that this may provoke neighbourhood hostility if people are caught dobbing in
cat owner neighbours who are not compliant in cat containment suburbs.
This policy option could also help improve the efficiency of monitoring cat containment by
tracking where cats roam using technology like that employed in the South Australia study.
Using Cat Tracker or similar technology, perhaps with an app platform, cat owners could
monitor their cats’ activity to alert them if they are roaming outside the property boundaries. A
further step might be direct monitoring by government bodies using microchips in registered cats
to collect data and assist compliance. However, there may be issues regarding privacy and cat
owners’ willingness to participate in this type of compliance and policing. Bearing this in mind,
this policy option would require data to be directly received and processed by an automated
system which could provide reminders to cat owners to note their cats roaming activity. Of
course, relevant experts will be needed to solve bugs and other technological problems, so the
cost of improving and researching such technology is an important factor that needs to be
considered.
Table 2. Summary of compliance and policing policy analysis, including the tools required to implement these instruments, and potential positive and negative outcomes of these instruments
Policy Option 1
Implement a program of proactive monitoring of cat containment areas and incorporate measures as part of the compliance and enforcement program
Tools ● Domestic Animal Services formally police areas of cat containment and issue fines to cat owners who are found in breach of cat containment regulations
Positives ● Ensures compliance and policing of cats, which can benefit the welfare of cats and threatened local wildlife
14
Negatives ● Requires extra funding from the ACT government● Difficult to implement● Potential for backlash, especially if not implemented alongside
consultation with cat containment communities
Policy Option 2 Investigate options for enhancing infrastructure to improve custodians’ compliance with requirements to keep environmental amenity high
Tools ● Provide advice to cat owners on methods to contain their cats, such as how to install cat runs, best practice in relation to access to water, food and bedding, as well as enrichment needs like scratching posts and toys
● Provide subsidies for enhancing infrastructure in cat owners’ homes, such as for cat runs and nets
Positives ● Acknowledges need of cats to have stimulating home environment to express natural behaviours when not allowed to roam outside of their owners’ properties
● Helps increase the confidence of cat owners to contain their cats
Negatives ● Expensive for cat owners, and potentially for ACT Government if providing subsidies
● Some cats do not adjust well to confinement even when provided with a stimulating home environment
Policy Option 3 Investigate options for a community reporting system to increase compliance with requirements that protect community safety and environmental amenity
Tools ● Use an app, social media platform or a community reporting website to encourage community monitoring of cat containment compliance within cat containment zones
● Use GPS technology to track where cats roam
Positives ● Less expensive than proactive monitoring for the ACT government● Empowers community to police cat containment● Domestic cats in the ACT are already required to be microchipped,
which makes it easier to implement GPS tracking technology
Negatives ● Not always effective in ensuring compliance of cat containment● May create neighbourhood hostility ● Potential issues with privacy infringement
15
Policy Options for Cat Containment Awareness and Engagement for the ACT
Current cat containment policy in the ACT relies on awareness and engagement campaigns.
These are implemented by both government bodies and non-government bodies such as the
RSPCA. The following includes three main types of cat containment awareness and engagement
policy instruments, ranging from expensive and labour-intensive methods involving more
interactive policy awareness and engagement instruments, to less expensive and less labour-
intensive methods involving more one-way communication strategies using websites and social
media.
Option 1
The first option is to run more engaging and interactive education programs in cat containment
communities or across the whole of the ACT. This could be in the form of surveys, community
meetings, local competitions etc. These programs could be launched by the government and or
local organisations to facilitate people’s engagement in cat containment policy. Such programs
may also be helpful for monitoring community awareness of cat containment, if run regularly.
However, this option is relatively expensive and may need additional funding from the
government or organisations like the RSPCA. In addition, it is uncertain that the desired
audience can be reached by these programs, that is, people who do not support cat containment
regulations.
Option 2
General media outlets are another option to improve the engagement and awareness of cat
containment. For example, using public service announcements, advertisements, community
announcements, newspaper columns and mailed pamphlets. This is less expensive than the first
option, and has the benefit of being able to target residents in cat containment areas. However, it
is not as interactive as the first option, and the messages may not reach or have the desired
impact on all relevant parties.
Option 3
The final option uses more online media methods to raise awareness and engagement of cat
containment policy. Platforms like social media and government websites are cheap and easy to
16
update. This option may not reach all targeted audiences, however, but it can be made more
effective if awareness and engagement messages are broadcast through multiple pathways. For
example, including information on cat containment on local government websites, as well as
emailing registered cat owners.
Table 3. Summary of awareness and engagement policy analysis, including the tools required to implement these instruments, and potential positive and negative outcomes of these instruments
Policy Option 1 Providing more interactive awareness and engagement campaigns using
competitions, meetings and videos
Tools ● Conduct interactive awareness and engagement policies, including
surveys, competitions and community meetings
Positives ● Engages community directly
● Can help to monitor community awareness of education programs
Negatives ● Does not always reach desired audience, including people who do not
support cat containment
● Potentially more expensive for government and community organisations
than alternative options
Policy Option 2 Awareness and engagement campaigns using media outlets
Tools ● Use newspaper columns, mailed pamphlets, advertisements and
community announcements to raise awareness of the benefits of cat
containment.
Positives ● Cheaper than option 1
Negatives ● Does not always reach desired audience, including people who do not
support cat containment
Policy Option 3 Awareness campaigns using online pathways of communication
Tools ● Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook
● Web pages published by the ACT Government, including the
Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, and
17
NGOs such as the RSPCA
Positives ● Targeted audience
● Cheap
● Can be interactive
● RSPCA already has sound social media platforms, including Facebook
and Twitter
Negatives ● Does not always reach desired audience, including people who do not
support cat containment
Evaluating Best Policy Mix of Compliance, Policing, Awareness and Engagement
In terms compliance and policing, there was found to be a lack of cat containment compliance
programs in place in the Gungahlin case-study. The reason behind this is unclear, however, it
does indicate that funding and implementing compliance programs presents significant
challenges. This suggests that implementing any proactive monitoring of cat containment
(compliance and policing option 1) may not be the best option in the ACT, particularly with a
limited budget. Another means of doing this is to establish a more effective and efficient
monitoring system using technology (compliance and policing option 2). However, as discussed
previously, this would require more research into the feasibility of a better technological
monitoring system, and into potential privacy infringement issues. Another instrument to help
ensure compliance is to provide a range of containment methods/tools for cat owners
(compliance and policing option 3). This has been advocated as best-practice in the state-
comparison, as well as the literature review. Circulating information on best practice can also
help enforce compliance by teaching people how to effectively contain their cats if they are not
confident in their ability to contain their cats.
On the engagement and awareness front, more community-wide and territory-wide educational
programs are needed as well. The Gungahlin case-study shows a potential lack of cat
containment compliance as a result of a failure to include relevant information at the town centre.
In addition, as it is a relatively cheap policy method, and by combining awareness and
18
engagement options 2 and 3, the ACT government can continue advocating cat containment
policy through multiple pathways, including through social media, or directly mailed pamphlets
– which helps target cat owners. In Throsby, cat containment was not signposted before sale, so
buyers may not have been aware of the significance of MNES in the area, which may lead to
non-compliance. Although having more interactive awareness and engagement campaigns
(awareness and engagement option 1) can help better engage and inform cat containment
communities directly, they can be very costly, and might be better undertaken in coordination
with non-government institutions such as the RSPCA, which also already has social media
platforms that can help further raise awareness of the benefits of cat containment in the ACT
(awareness and engagement policy option 3).
Policy OptionsThe following policy options are all potentially useful to help improve the effectiveness of policy
implementation and the efficiency of monitoring and evaluating cat containment policy:
For policy compliance and policing
● Policy Option 2 – governments may provide information on how owners may best
contain their cats based on scientific research on the physical and mental health
requirements of cats in general. The ACT Government may also consider providing
subsidies for cat containment infrastructure to help cat owners comply with cat
containment regulations
● Policy Option 3 - to improve the efficiency of monitoring cat containment, GPS tracking
technology could be used to monitor the location of domestic cats and their activity
range. It could also be used by the ACT government to monitor cat containment
compliance. However, there may be issues regarding privacy and cat owners’ willingness
to participate in this type of compliance and policing. In addition, relevant experts would
be needed to solve technological issues, so the cost of researching and improving such
technology is an important factor to consider.
For Policy Awareness and Engagement
19
● Policy Options 2 and 3 - ACT government could provide more cat containment education
programs for residents highlighting the benefits of cat containment, both for cat welfare
and for the local environment. These education programs could be targeted at houses in
suburbs where cat containment policy applies, or more broadly within the ACT. This
would help people better understand this policy and, ideally, would help to change their
attitude and behaviour towards containing cats. Social media and public service
advertisements could also be applied more to promote cat containment in the ACT (not
only in designated cat containment areas).
○ In addition, for home-owners or renters moving into cat containment areas, this
policy should be clearly communicated by the landlord or real-estate agent before
the property is sold or rented. This would require additional regulatory
arrangements.
● Policy Option 1 – There is scope for increased cooperation between the ACT government
and local animal welfare organisations, as well as encouraging local media to run
community-wide and territory-wide educational events on cat containment issues.
Conclusion
This report provides an analysis of the range of opportunities available for improved cat
containment compliance and policing approaches, as well as awareness and engagement. Bearing
funding constraints in mind, it seems useful to place a higher investment priority on awareness
and engagement methods with a focus on the benefits of cat containment, and on educating cat-
owners about how best to contain their cats. Providing subsidies for cat containment
infrastructure, or designing a technology-based monitoring system, could also be useful
approaches, but they would require higher investments to be effectively implemented, and this
may not be the most efficient use of the limited funding available at this time.
Reference List
ACT Government, 2011. Responsible Cat Ownership Community Research, Report prepared for the ACT Government by Micromex Research, Canberra.
20
ACT Government, Transport Canberra and City Services 2018, Cat Containment. Available at: https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/city-living/pets/cats/cat-containment
Aramini, J. J., Stephen, C. and Dubey, J. P., 1998. ‘Toxoplasma gondii in Vancouver Island Cougars (Felis concolor vancouverensis): Serology and Oocyst Shedding’, The Journal of Parasitology, 84(2): 438-440.
Althaus, C., Bridgman, P. and Davis, G., 2013. The Australian policy handbook, 5th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, N.S.W.
AWC, 2012. Feral cats: killing 75 million native animals every night, Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth.
Barratt, D. G., 1997. Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife, Wildlife Research, 24(3): 263-277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR96020
Dabritz, H. A. and Conrad, P. A., 2010. Cats and Toxoplasma: implications for public health, Zoonoses and public health, 57(1): 34-52.
Dabritz, H. A., Atwill, E. R., Gardner, I. A., Miller, M. A. and Conrad, P. A., 2006. Outdoor fecal deposition by free-roaming cats and attitudes of cat owners and nonowners toward stray pets, wildlife, and water pollution, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 229(1): 74-81.
Dabritz, H. A. and Conrad, P. A., 2010. ‘Cats and toxoplasma: implications for public health’, Zoonoses and Public Health, 57(1): 34-52.
Denny, E. A. and Dickman, C. R., 2010. Review of cat ecology and management strategies in Australia, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.
DEWHA, 2008. Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Canberra.
Eyles, K. and Mulvaney, M., 2014. Background paper: options to improve cat management in the ACT. A Background Paper prepared for the ACT Responsible Cat Ownership Steering Committee. Available at: http://conservationcouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Eyles-Mulvaney-Background-Paper-Responsible-Pet-Ownership-and-the-Protection-of-Wildlife-2014.pdf
Gerhold, R. W. and Jessup, D. A., 2013. ‘Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free‐Roaming Cats’, Zoonoses and Public Health, 60(3): 189-195.
21
Hill, D. and Dubey, J. P., 2002. ‘Toxoplasma gondii: transmission, diagnosis and prevention’, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 8(10): 634-640.
Kasbaoui, N., Cooper, J., Mills, D. S. and Burman, O., 2016. Effects of long-term exposure to an electronic containment system on the behaviour and welfare of domestic cats, PloS one, 11(9): e0162073.
Lilith, M., Calver, M., Styles, I. and Garkaklis, M., 2006. Protecting wildlife from predation by owned domestic cats: Application of a precautionary approach to the acceptability of proposed cat regulations, Austral Ecology, 31(2): 176-189.
Loyd, K. A. and Miller, C. A., 2010. ‘Factors related to preferences for Trap-Neuter-Release management of feral cats among Illinois homeowners’, Journal of Wildlife Management, 74: 160-165.
Loyd, K. A. T., Hernandez, S. M., Carroll, J. P., Abernathy, K. J. and Marshall, G. J., 2013. ‘Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras’, Biological Conservation, 160: 183-189.
McLeod, L. J., Hine, D. W. and Bengsen, A. J., 2015. Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 122(3): 339-344. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.11.007
Nutter, F. B., Levine, J. F. and Stoskopf, M. K., 2004. Reproductive capacity of free-roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 225(9): 1399-1402.
OCSE, 2017. Independent Audit of the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment, Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Canberra.
Rochlitz, I., 2004. The effects of road traffic accidents on domestic cats and their owners, Animal Welfare-Potters Bar then Wheathampstead-, 13(1): 51-56.
Roetman, P., Tindle, H., Litchfield, C., Chiera, B., Quinton, G., Kikillus, H., Bruce, D. and Kays, R., 2017. Cat Tracker South Australia: understanding pet cats through citizen science. Discovery Circle initiative, University of South Australia, Adelaide. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4226/78/5892ce70b245a
RSPCA, 2017. Identifying Best Practice Cat Management in Australia: A Discussion Paper, RSPCA, Canberra.
22
Toukhsati, S. R., Young, E., Bennett, P. C. and Coleman, G. J., 2012. Wandering Cats: Attitudes and Behaviors towards Cat Containment in Australia, Anthrozoös, 25(1): 61-74. Available at: 10.2752/175303712X13240472427195
Umwelt, 2013. Gungahlin Strategic Assessment Biodiversity Plan, ACT Economic Development Directorate and the ACT Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, Canberra.
Woinarski, J. C. Z., Murphy, B. P., Legge, S. M., Garnett, S. T., Lawes, M. J., Comer, S., Dickman, C. R., Doherty, T. S., Edwards, G., Nankivell, A., Paton, D., Palmer, R. and Woolley, L. A., 2017. How many birds are killed by cats in Australia?, Biological Conservation, 214: 76-87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.006
23