CAT ISSUES
In the past, MPM has concentrated mainly on dog management.
While this will most likely continue to be its main focus in the
years ahead, cats are now on the agenda also. Both South Australia
and Victoria have introduced legislation in the last few years
that changes the status of cats in those States. 1
2
Other Australian states are looking at the cat options. In New
Zealand, cat matters are becoming more important. A careful
analysis of the issue at this time seems appropriate.
In addressing cat ownership in the context of municipal
management, we are dealing with a very complex issue. At the heart
of this complexity is the same pet paradox that bedevils dog
management: while access to the companionship of pet cats may be
held dear by many people, at the other end of the public spectrum
is a group of people that thinks the only good cat is a dead cat.
All shades of opinion lie between. If we donít, as a community,
find some way to balance these interests, then pet owners may lose
out.
This, in principle, is the same scenario that Allen and
Westbrook wrote about when they first used the term pet
paradox. 3
While dog ownership at that time in the U.S. was seen by many as a
healthy part of American family culture, not everyone agreed.
Poorly controlled dogs were causing community problems right
across the land. In Australia and New Zealand as in North America,
pressure was being exerted from all kinds of directions for
somebody to do something to sort the dog paradox out. From these
beginnings, modern municipal dog management has gradually evolved.
And our communities are the better for it. Now people are calling
for somebody to sort out the cat paradox as well.
Despite increasing pressure over recent years for ways to
manage municipal cat problems, as yet we have little reliable
information about:
ï the nature or causes of community cat problems
ï the real extent of public interest in these issues
ï practical cat management options
Because there is so little information, the cat management
debate is often more emotional than rational. It is littered with
ideological goblins that have a habit of running off with the
agenda.
One result is that there are no right answers yet; best
practice for municipal cat management is still evolving. Even so,
public pressure on this issue has forced the hand of government in
some places. The nationally fragmented approach to cat management
that has eventuated is not ideal and most observers are hoping for
more consensus in the years ahead.
In Chapter 4, we pointed out local governmentís central role
in the implementation of pet management legislation. Even with
uniform state or federal legislation specifically designed for cat
management, MPM is always going to be something that either does
or doesnít happen at the local community level. In other words,
cat management priorities will, to a large degree, be shaped in
hundreds of city halls right across Australia and New Zealand.
MPM involves a heady mixture of both pet and people management;
it has earned a reputation for being particularly tricky stuff to
deal with. Experience with dog management over two or three
decades suggests that all sorts of vested interests, including
both pro- and anti-lobby groups, are likely to do their best to
influence what councils do by way of cat management. This kind of
sectional community pressure on the cat management issue is to be
expected, and ëexpertsí will abound. One commonly-held
position is likely to be that councils should adopt exactly the
same MPM measures for cats as they do for dogs. But cats are not
dogs.
For local government to get the best outcomes, decision makers
will need to be as clear as possible about what cat management is
really all about. They will need to take account of the different
types of cats, cat ecology and the
impact cats have on quality of life. In
the next chapter, we will look at how these realities can be
translated into effective management strategies for urban cats.
1.
South Australia. Dog and Cat Management Act 1995.
2.
Victoria. Domestic (Feral and Nuisance) Animals Act 1994.
3.
Allen RD, Westbrook WH. 1979. The pet paradox. In: Allen RD, Westbrook WH, editors. The Handbook of Animal Welfare: biomedical, psychological and ecological aspects of pet problems and control. New York: Garland STPM Press: 3-13.
|