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.

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.