Legal Status of Wildcats and their hybrids

HERITAGE, S. N. 2015. Legal Status of Wildcats and their hybrids.

This paper highlights new research into levels of hybridisation in wild-living cats in Scotland.
It describes the methods being used to select wildcats suitable for conservation breeding
and how we plan to distinguish wildcats from feral cats and hybrids in the field and for the
trap, neuter, vaccinate and release (TNVR) programme under Scottish Wildcat Action. It
recognises that most wild-living and captive ‘wildcats’ appear to have some domestic
ancestry and that this poses challenges for their legal protection.

Owners attitude towards cat predation on wildlife

MacDonald, E., T. Milfont and M. Gavin, 2015.What drives cat-owner behaviour? First steps towards limiting domestic-cat impacts on native wildlife. Wildlife Research - http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WR14164
Context: Cats can have substantial negative impacts on native wildlife. To harness the collective conservation impact of owners keeping cats inside, advocacy campaigns need to be based on empirical evidence regarding potential drivers to change cat-owner behaviour.

Aims: We assessed the degree to which different socio-psychological factors (attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioural control), past cat owner behaviour, demographics and group membership explained intentions of zoo visitors to bring cats inside.

Methods: A self-report questionnaire was distributed to zoo visitors based on the theory of planned behaviour. Visitors rated 24 belief statements and four behavioural-intention questions on a scale of one to seven. We adopted an information-theoretic approach to make inferences about the drivers of intention to bring cats inside.

Key results: Attitude and normative beliefs were strong predictors of intention. Specifically, attitudinal beliefs focussed on the benefits to the cat of being inside or the positive impact on the owner were correlated with intention. Bringing cats inside for the benefit of native species was weakly correlated with intention. We found an interaction between normative beliefs (injunctive and descriptive) and past behaviour. For respondents who were intermittently bringing their cat inside, veterinarians were a key injunctive normative influence. In contrast, respondents who kept their cat outside exclusively rated descriptive norms as influential on their own behaviour.

Conclusions: Our results indicated a way forward for future advocacy campaigns. To increase the frequency of visitors bringing cats inside, future research should look at campaigns using veterinarians to advocate messages that emphasise the benefits to the cat of being inside or the positive impact on the owner. To target visitors who keep their cat outside exclusively, a normative campaign highlighting the actions of others bringing their cats inside at night may prove successful.

Implications: Given the impacts cats have on wildlife, conservation campaigns need to properly design communication campaigns to have the best chance at altering cat-owner behaviour. Our results can help guide this process.

The policies of stray pet population control in Lithuania

Taruskaite-Vanebo, S. (2013). The policies of stray pet population control in Lithuania: a study of government contractors as opposed to non-profit volunteer based organizations. Master Thesis. Norvegian University of Life Sciences.

Within the thesis, the trending methods of stray pet population care and control are considered, the emphasis put on the differences between governmentally funded institutions of sanitation and the non-governmental animal shelters; significant attention paid to the implementation and overall effectiveness of both systems, with the differentiation of financial success and their effectiveness in saving animals and finding new homes. Within the framework of the thesis, the relationship between those two types of organizations is considered with an attempt to put some light on the impact they have on each other and how such dynamics enforce the evolution in the methods and planning for the future. Furthermore, the expansion of the non-governmental animal shelter policies considered with comparisons to the municipally funded policies that rely on mass extermination of stray pets. Finally, the main reasons for establishment of non-governmental shelters are examined as well as possible implementations on the legal basis in conjunction to propagating the expansion and future of such shelters. The main comparison framework has been set for two main cities in Lithuania, Vilnius and Kaunas as they are the most representative of the current situation, providing the perfect medium since the beginning of the no-kill shelter establishment that competes with the municipally contracted institutions which still control the vast majority of the stray animal population care and control market.

Legal status of wolf-hybrids

Trouwborst, A. (2014). Exploring the legal status of wolf‐dog hybrids and other dubious animals: International and EU law and the wildlife conservation problem of hybridization with domestic and alien species. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law.

Hybridization with domestic or alien species poses a threat to many species of wild fauna. However, hybridization is not explicitly addressed in the provisions of the principal international legal instruments on nature conservation. This article reviews the relevance, scope and substance of wildlife protection obligations under the Bern Convention on European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and the European Union's Habitats Directive with respect to this issue. The problem of wolf-dog hybridization is singled out as a case study. The article concludes that addressing hybridization through preventive and mitigation measures is in conformity with the obligations of States under the Convention and the Directive, and may indeed be essential in order to comply with these obligations. In the wolf-dog context, this includes dealing with feral and stray dogs and captive hybrids, and removing hybrid animals from the wild. At the same time, it appears that the national prohibitions on the killing and capturing of wolves and other strictly protected species, as prescribed by the Convention and the Directive, also cover free-ranging wolf-dog hybrids and similar hybrids living in the wild. This entails that the removal of such hybrid animals from the wild is subject to the rules concerning derogations from strict protection. These rules, however, do not appear to stand in the way of such removal. The article's central recommendation is for the Standing Committee of the Bern Convention and the European Commission to adopt express guidance concerning hybridization.

Mandatory spay ordinance as the solution to San Francisco dog problem

Lang, D. (2013). A Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance in San Francisco: The Solution to San Francisco’s Other Homeless Problem. Master's Capstone Projects.Paper 6. University of San Francisco

The dog overpopulation in San Francisco has been straining San Francisco’s Department of Animal Care & Control’s already limited resources with the increase in dog impoundments and animal cruelty cases, particularly ones involving dogs. At least 33 local governments around the United States have implemented mandatory spay/neuter laws for all dogs as a way to curb the companion animal overpopulation. San Francisco should adopt a similar mandatory spay/neuter law, in which all dogs over the age of six months, with certain exceptions, must be spayed or neutered. This will relieve the strain on Animal Care & Control, will save the City money, and will decrease pain, suffering, and even death among San Francisco’s dog population.

Humans have a responsibility to care for companion animals because we domesticated them and allow them to breed in a world where there are not enough homes for them. So humans should take action to decease breeding, especially accidental breeding, so as to decrease the population of unwanted dogs. This human action should be in the form of implementing a mandatory spay/neuter law, so the majority of dogs will be unable to reproduce and so that breeders are restricted to one litter per year to minimize their contribution to the companion animal overpopulation. Not only is spaying and neutering crucial to reducing the population of unwanted dogs, but it also has many health, behavioral, and societal benefits. Spaying and neutering will increase the health of dogs by reducing their chances of developing certain cancers; it will increase their life span; and it will increase public safety and public health byreducing aggression, making them less likely to bite, and reducing the number of stray dogs wandering the streets.

Even though most veterinarians, most members of the animal shelter community, and most animal welfare/rights activists agree that spaying/neutering is vital to decreasing the companion animal overpopulation, they disagree on whether spaying/neutering should be mandatory or simply encouraged. Proponents of mandatory spay/neuter laws argue that they will save local governments money, produce more revenue, and improve public safety and public health. On the other hand, opponents argue that low-cost spay/neuter programs are more effective at decreasing the companion animal overpopulation, mandatory spay/neuter laws punish poor people and will result in more companion animals being abandoned in shelters, they discourage people from taking their animals to the vet or to the animal shelter for fear of being reported to authorities for having an unaltered animal, they punish responsible companion animal guardians and breeders, they waste public resources, and they are difficult to enforce.

An analysis of shelter data from two municipalities—Clark County, Nevada, and Los Angeles County, California—that have implemented mandatory spay/neuter laws reveals that recent dog intake and euthanasia rates are the lowest they have been in the past two decades, indicating that these laws are successful at reducing the unwanted dog population. In 2005, San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Welfare considered implementing a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for all dogs, but it never went past Commission meetings. However, in 2006, San Francisco implemented a mandatory spay/neuter law for Pit Bulls, which resulted in a decrease in Pit Bull euthanasia rates. The success of this law can be partly attributed to the free spay/neuter services for Pit Bulls offered by the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SF SPCA). Other free spay/neuter services for any breed of dog are also offered in various locations in San Francisco, which would help ensure the success of a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance for all dogs.

San Francisco should implement a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance that requires that all dogs six months or older must be spayed or neutered, with exemptions for dogs who are too old or sick to undergo the spay/neuter surgery and dogs whose health would be threatened by the spay/neuter surgery. In addition, guardians who do not want to spay or neuter their dogs must obtain an intact dog license or a breeding license. Animal Care & Control can enforce the mandatory spay/neuter law by modifying its dog licensing system to assign different colored tags for different licenses—regular dog licenses, intake dog license, and breeding license.

Furthermore, breeders must show proof that they have a breeding license by putting the license number on their advertisements or sales receipts, and they must be restricted to one litter per year and the number of unaltered animals they are allowed to have should be limited, as well, so as to not further contribute to the companion animal overpopulation problem. And finally, penalties for violations of the mandatory spay/neuter law should be civil, rather than criminal.

Acceptability of proposed cat regulations in Australia

Lilith, M., Calver, M., Styles, I., & 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.


While it is undeniable that owned domestic cats Felis catus (Mammalia: Felidae) kill large numbers of wildlife, it is contentious if this has significant impacts on wildlife populations. Under the precautionary principle such uncertainty does not preclude measures to reduce putative risk, but action should follow consultation with stakeholders. To initiate such consultation for the City of Armadale, Western Australia, we surveyed urban and rural residents to determine their opinions regarding putative impacts of owned cats on wildlife and the acceptability of proposed regulations. Key statements accepted by 70% or more of respondents, irrespective of their residence, gender or cat ownership status, included: (i) there is a need to regulate owned domestic cats; (ii) the presence of cats in nature reserves is harmful to wildlife; (iii) cats not owned by licensed breeders should be desexed; and (iv) local councils should be empowered to restrict the maximum number of cats per household. Seventy per cent or more of owners agreed to keep their cats on their property from sunset to sunrise and to register them if these measures became compulsory. All groups except urban men also indicated 70% or greater willingness to keep their cats on their property constantly if required. However, fewer than 40% of owners supported empowering local councils to enforce cat-free zones. In this community, cat regulation excluding cat-free zones should enjoy support. Similar approaches should be effective wherever the environmental impacts of owned domestic cats are debated, because compliance with such regulations should be high.

Legal status of cats in NZ

Farnworth, M. J., Dye, N. G., & Keown, N. (2010). The legal status of cats in New Zealand: A perspective on the welfare of companion, stray, and feral domestic cats (Felis catus). Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 13 (2): 180-188

Pinpointing and safeguarding the welfare status of domestic cats is problematic, especially in New Zealand where cats are introduced predators with significant impact on indigenous fauna. Usually the identification of welfare status depends on conservational, legal, and public attitudes that are often contrasting. Cats may rapidly transgress definitions placed on them, confounding attempts to categorize them. In 1 generation, cats can move from a human-dependent state (“stray” or “companion”) to wild (“feral”). Often this categorization uses arbitrary behavioral and or situational parameters; consequent treatment and welfare protection for these cats are similarly affected. Terminology used to describe cats is not equitable across research. However, the New Zealand Animal Welfare (Companion Cats) Code of Welfare 2007 seeks to create a new definition of the terms companion, stray, and feral. It distinguishes between cats who live within and without human social constructs. This legislation mandates that cats in human environments or indirectly dependent on humans cannot be classified as feral. Such definitions may prove vital when safeguarding the welfare of free-living domestic cats and cat colonies.

Companion animal management programs

Rowan, A. N., & Williams, J. (1987). The success of companion animal management programs: A review. Anthrozoos: A Multidisciplinary Journal of The Interactions of People & Animals, 1(2), 110-122.

In the early 1970s, a surge of interest in and attention to pet overpopulation led to a revamping of animal control programs around the country and to the promotion of an approach known as LES (legislation, education, sterilization). Concern about pet overpopulation and the killing of healthy animals in shelters continues to be high, but little is known about the effectiveness of LES over the past few years. The present paper reviews the available data and concludes that the pet overpopulation problem has improved in the last ten to fifteen years with only 10% of the national dog and cat population being euthanized in shelters today as compared to 20% in 1973. The data are insufficient to determine which of legislation, education, or enforcement has been the most important factor. Questions are, however, raised about the effectiveness of a sterilization program in the absence of good animal control.

Precautionary principle applied to predation by pet cats

Calver, M. C., Grayson, J., Lilith, M., & Dickman, C. R. (2011). Applying the precautionary principle to the issue of impacts by pet cats on urban wildlife.Biological Conservation, 144(6), 1895-1901.

Despite evidence that pet cats prey on urban wildlife and may transmit disease, there is uncertainty over whether they cause declines in wildlife populations. The uncertainty fosters disagreement about whether and how pet cats should be managed, and hampers the implementation of regulations. We suggest that the precautionary principle could be used in this context. The principle mandates action to protect the environment when there is a scientifically plausible but unproven risk, and provides a rationale for immediate intervention to protect wildlife from pet cats while we await definitive studies. In applying a 4-step guide for implementing the precautionary principle, we argue that: (i) current data documenting wildlife mortality caused by pet cats satisfy the precautionary trigger of scientifically plausible risk; (ii) the risk of significant declines or local extinctions of threatened wildlife, coupled with uncertainty in establishing population declines in response to pet cats, argue for strong levels of precaution; (iii) precautionary measures that should be considered include, but are not limited to, restrictions on the maximum number of cats allowed/household, mandatory sterilisation and registration of pet cats, curfews, requiring pet cats roaming outdoors to wear collar-mounted predation-deterrents or compulsory confinement of cats to their owners’ premises; and (iv) the principle’s requirement for extensive consultation in implementing precautionary measures should encourage collaborations involving conservation biologists, veterinarians, animal welfare activists, concerned citizens and municipal officers. Adherence to these steps should assist in choosing actions that have broad support and are applicable to unique local circumstances.


Highlights

► The precautionary principle justifies protecting wildlife from pet cats. ► Deaths caused by pet cats show scientifically plausible risk of population declines. ► Risk, plus uncertainty of wildlife decline from cat predation, support precaution. ► Specialists and the community must collaborate to implement precaution. ► Implementation should follow adaptive management principles to reduce uncertainty.

Regulation of cat ownership based on precautionary principle

Grayson, J. and Calver, M.C. (2004) Regulation of domestic cat ownership to protect urban wildlife: a justification based on the precautionary principle. In: Lunney, D. and Burgin, S., (eds.) Urban wildlife: more than meets the eye. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp. 169-178.

While it is undeniable that both feral cats and owned domestic cats prey on native wildlife, evidence that this is a threat to the viability of wildlife populations is contentious, particularly in the suburbs. Where uncertainty is great or the risks are high, the precautionary principle is a guide as to whether or not action should be taken to regulate domestic cats This involves an evaluation of the available evidence and the extent of uncertainty, as well as consideration of the viewpoints of major stakeholders. Applying this approach leads to the conclusion that wildlife can be protected while improving cat welfare, Containing cats at night not only separates cats and nocturnal wildlife, but minimises trauma from both cat fights and road accidents while reducing nuisance to neighbours from caterwauling and fighting. Desexed cats no longer contribute toward unwanted stray and feral cat populations that depredate native wildlife populations and are often less of a nuisance to neighbours and themselves as spraying and fighting are reduced. Cats with identification can be returned to their owners should they be found lost or injured, while problem cats can be identified. Therefore, the cat welfare issue is the key to a successful precautionary approach because it achieves wildlife protection while respecting the interests of cat owners.

Feral cat in UK

From GWCT

Legislation

Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002
Animal Welfare Act 2006
Welfare of Animals Act Northern Ireland 2011
Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996 
Hunting Act 2004
Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006
Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011

Distribution and abundance

Feral cats are most conspicuous in areas of urban development, but also occur widely in the countryside. They have been introduced to many offshore islands to control rats and rabbits. The scarcity of mapped records outside urban areas probably reflects the difficulty in separating feral from dependent domestic cats.

Estimates of feral cat abundance (numbers of individuals in the spring) across the UK, from Harriset al. (1995):

United Kingdom	813,000
England	625,000
Scotland	130,000
Wales	58,000
N Ireland	no estimate

Recent trends from the National Gamebag Census

Human attitudes towards proposed cat legistalion

Grayson, J., Calver, M., & Styles, I. (2002). Attitudes of suburban Western Australians to proposed cat control legislation. Australian veterinary journal,80(9), 536-543.

Objective To determine the knowledge, attitudes and practices of cat-owners and non-owners in suburban Perth, Western Australia, on issues relating to proposed local government regulation of cat-ownership.

Design The 1261 respondents to a mailed survey were ranked on issues regarding restrictions on cat-ownership and cat roaming (control scale), attitudes to wildlife in suburbia and putative impacts of cats on wildlife (wildlife scale), knowledge of cat behaviour and husbandry (knowledge scale) and attitudes and practices regarding cat sterilisation (sterilisation scale). Age, gender and cat-ownership status of the survey respondents were explored to see if any of these factors influenced the position of respondents on the scales.

Results Cat-owners, particularly female owners, scored significantly higher on the knowledge scale than non-owners, whilst non-owners scored significantly higher than cat-owners on the control and wildlife scales. Women were more likely to favour compulsory sterilisation of pet cats than men, but men were more willing to implement controls on cat-ownership. Age was also a significant factor, with older people more willing to implement controls. Analysis of specific questions showed that both cat-owners and non-owners agreed that there was a need for cat control legislation and supported measures such as compulsory sterilisation, registering of cats, restricting cats' ability to roam and stipulating a maximum number of cats per property. Nevertheless, both groups rejected the idea that local governments should enforce cat-free zones.

Conclusion Cat legislation that avoids or educates about the contentious issue of cat-free zones should receive solid community support.

Cat ownership regulation

Grayson, J. and Calver, M.C. (2004) Regulation of domestic cat ownership to protect urban wildlife: a justification based on the precautionary principle. In: Lunney, D. and Burgin, S., (eds.) Urban wildlife: more than meets the eye. Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales, Mosman, pp. 169-178.

While it is undeniable that both feral cats and owned domestic cats prey on native wildlife, evidence that this is a threat to the viability of wildlife populations is contentious, particularly in the suburbs. Where uncertainty is great or the risks are high, the precautionary principle is a guide as to whether or not action should be taken to regulate domestic cats This involves an evaluation of the available evidence and the extent of uncertainty, as well as consideration of the viewpoints of major stakeholders. Applying this approach leads to the conclusion that wildlife can be protected while improving cat welfare, Containing cats at night not only separates cats and nocturnal wildlife, but minimises trauma from both cat fights and road accidents while reducing nuisance to neighbours from caterwauling and fighting. Desexed cats no longer contribute toward unwanted stray and feral cat populations that depredate native wildlife populations and are often less of a nuisance to neighbours and themselves as spraying and fighting are reduced. Cats with identification can be returned to their owners should they be found lost or injured, while problem cats can be identified. Therefore, the cat welfare issue is the key to a successful precautionary approach because it achieves wildlife protection while respecting the interests of cat owners.

Cat Act: Aussie legislation on pet cats

Western Australia legislates on responsible cat ownership:

The Cat Act 2011 requires the identification, registration and sterilisation of domestic cats, and gives local governments the power to administer and enforce the legislation.

The legislation will take full effect from 1 November 2013 and provide for better management of the unwanted impacts of cats on the community and the environment, as well as encourage responsible cat ownership.

From 1 November 2012, some provisions of the Act will commence to allow local governments to prepare to administer and enforce the legislation.

From 1 November 2013, the full Cat Act 2011 takes effect and will require all cats that have reached six months of age to be:

1. Microchipped;
2. Sterilised; and
3. Registered with the relevant local government. Cats will be required to wear a collar and registration tag to ensure that owned cats can be easily identified and returned to their owner.

What do the new laws mean for you and your feline friend?

Breeding Cats

The legislation requires that a person who chooses to breed cats must apply to their local government for a permit.

When a cat is sold, the seller must ensure the cat is microchipped and sterilised prior to transfer. If the cat cannot be sterilised due to its young age, a voucher must be issued to the new owner.

Limits on cat numbers

The legislation does not limit the number of cats that can be owned. This will fall to local governments who may choose to introduce a local law.

If a local government introduces a local law limiting cat numbers, it will not apply to cats currently owned. However an owner will not be able to replace a cat if it is sold, given away or dies, until they are down to the required number.

Responsible cat ownership checklist

Even though the laws do not commence until November 2013, as a responsible pet owner you are still encouraged to:

1. Keep your cat confined to your property, especially at night.
2. Ensure your cat is easily identifiable with a collar and a name tag.
3. Microchip your cat.
4. Sterilise your cat.
5. Vaccinate your cat.

Apparent lack of influence of cat regulations on small size mammals abundance in urban bushland

Lilith, M., Calver, M., & Garkaklis, M. (2010). Do cat restrictions lead to increased species diversity or abundance of small and medium-sized mammals in remnant urban bushland?. Pacific Conservation Biology, 16(3), 162.

We took advantage of cat regulations enacted within differing subdivisions in the City of Armadale, Western Australia, to test the hypotheses that the species diversity (measured by the Shannon-Weiner index) and abundance of small and medium-sized mammals should be higher in native bushland within or adjacent to subdivisions where cats are restricted compared to similar areas where cats are not restricted. There were three different regimes of cat regulation: no-cat zone (strict prohibition of cat ownership applying in one site), compulsory belling of cats and night curfew at one site, and unregulated zones (free-roaming cats applying at two sites). Both sets of cat regulations were in place for approximately 10 years prior to our survey. We also measured structural and floristic features of the vegetation at each site that might influence the species diversity and abundance of small and medium-sized mammals independently or interactively with cat activity.

No significant differences in species diversity were found across the sites and KTBA (known-to-be-alive) statistics for Brushtail Possums Trichosurus vulpecula and Southern Brown Bandicoots Isoodon obesulus, the two most abundant medium-sized mammals present, were similar across all sites. The smaller Mardo Antechinus flavipes, which could be regarded as the most susceptible to cat predation of all the native species trapped because of its size, was trapped mostly at an unregulated cat site. Total mammals trapped at the unregulated cat sites exceeded those caught at the two sites with restrictions, but these unregulated sites also had significantly denser vegetation and there was a borderline (p = 0.05) rank correlation between vegetation density and mammal captures across all sites. It appears that pet cats are not the major influence on the species diversity or abundance of small and medium-sized mammals at these sites and that vegetation characteristics may be more important.

Read a short review about belling effectiveness

Cats vs. birds in Japan

[PDF] de unh.edu

Takahashi, M. A. (2004). Cats v. Birds in Japan: How to Reconcile Wildlife Conservation and Animal Protection. Geo. Int'l Envtl. L. Rev., 17, 135.