The perennial issue of cat containment in Australia has resurfaced. The Conversation, in collaboration with Monash University, conducted a study to gauge the support among 3,400 participants for cat containment policies. These policies would mandate that cat owners confine their pets to their property, presumably indoors or within a designated outdoor enclosure. The study revealed that a significant majority, 66%, are in favor of such measures. The Conversation’s initiative to undertake this study is commendable. Here is my analysis of their findings.
A small proportion, 8%, were opposed to cat containment while 26% were unsure. Previous surveys indicate that around 42% of Australia’s pet cats are already contained inside the home or within a containment facility attached to the home.
The conclusion of the study indicates that the general Australian sentiment is currently in favor of domestic cat containment to safeguard wildlife and enhance cat safety (acknowledging that home environments also pose risks). This topic has been debated extensively over time. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) leads this initiative with existing legislation mandating continuous cat containment. They assert that the data supports a marked enhancement in both cat health and welfare, as well as the preservation of indigenous wildlife.
Those are the two objectives. The survey indicates that the public supports it but can it be made to work? And is it fair on the domestic cats?
I know almost nobody who is converting the inside of their home to make it environmentally stimulating for their domestic cat companions.
Secure fences
And I’m sure that in Australia there are very few people who have taken the time, trouble and expense to build a cat containment fence around their backyard which is 100% secure. And the problem here is that cat containment fences are not always 100% secure because they require maintenance and some determined athletic cats can escape these carefully constructed enclosures.
Enrichment
The big problem is environmental enrichment for full-time indoor cats and those cats contained to backyards. Not enough people are ensuring that it happens.
The people who favour cat containment say, as mentioned, that it benefits both cats and wildlife but is this true? It certainly protects wildlife. The problem I have with this commonsense suggestion is that cat owners do not do enough to compensate domestic cats for the lack of environmental stimulation that they suffer when kept confined.
That’s a big issue for me because we have to look at domestic cat welfare which is more than just about preventing road traffic accidents or being injured by a predator of which there are very few in Australia as far as I know.
Legality
The Conversation tells me that some councils can’t even legally demand that there is cat containment within their jurisdiction. This problem occurs in New South Wales and Western Australia were state laws prevent local councils from demanding cat containment.
Enforcement
A significant issue, which I have consistently highlighted, is the gap between the establishment of laws intended to modify the human-to-cat relationship through restrictions on cat ownership and the actual enforcement of these laws. The critical challenge with these commendable goals is ensuring their implementation, which necessitates effective enforcement.
If the capacity to enforce laws is lacking, reliance on voluntary compliance becomes necessary. It is known that 42% of Australians consent to keeping their cats indoors full-time, a commendable figure, yet insufficient for authorities. Enforcing a law that mandates indoor confinement for cats poses a significant challenge.
When I think about it I don’t see it being enforceable. It’s going to require too much manpower and an approach which is too authoritarian. The public won’t like it. And I don’t think the public will participate by spying on neighbours.
Zoonoses
The Conversation speaks of a public health due to roaming cats. They say that reducing the number of roaming cats reduces cat-borne diseases. They refer to toxoplasmosis. This, I think, is incorrect. Most toxoplasmosis infections occur when cats or people eat raw foods such as unpasteurised milk. Or raw meat contaminated with Toxoplasma gondii oocysts
While there may be a high human infection rate of toxoplasmosis, it cannot be assumed that these infections stem solely from free-ranging cats. Raw foods are a more probable source of infection. The Conversation has reported that diseases transmitted by cats cause significant harm to communities, citing an “estimated 8,500 hospitalisations and 550 deaths from acute infections.” However, hard facts supporting these figures, particularly the rate of transmission of cat-borne diseases to humans in Australia from free-ranging and stray cats, seem to be lacking in their reporting.
Indoctrination
I understand the Australians’ commitment to protecting native species, but realism is essential. It could be argued that public support for cat containment stems from years of indoctrination by authorities, who have portrayed feral cats as a national enemy responsible for the annual deaths of hundreds of millions, if not billions, of small native mammals and marsupials.
Australia don’t know how many feral cats there are and therefore they can’t estimate the predation rates. But I get the point. They want to stop the creation of more feral cats and you can do that by keeping domestic cats indoors in ensuring that they are all sterilised and have no chance to get outside to procreate.
The Conversation supports the idea of local authorities encouraging cat containment by providing subsidies such as a grant to provide window screens so that indoor cats can sit on windowsills and enjoy the outside and smell the air with the window open without the opportunity of walking through it.
Conclusion
Perhaps acknowledging that less than perfect compliance with cat containment across jurisdictions may be acceptable is the solution. Jurisdictions should pursue cat containment as it is desired by the public. They should recognize that while complete compliance may not be achievable, it will significantly enhance the protection of native species. The issue of insufficient environmental enrichment for contained cats must be addressed, a point overlooked by The Conversation.
