Rethinking Urban Cat Management-Limitations and Unintended Consequences of Traditional Cat Management

Abstract

Traditional methods for managing free-roaming cats in Australia primarily depend on legislation and enforcement to achieve compliance. State laws and local regulations mandate confinement, sterilization, registration, and identification and limit the number of cats kept, with penalties for breaches. However, these strategies fail to address underlying issues like financial constraints in low-income areas and the prevalence of semi-owned cats. Containment mandates often result in increased complaints, shelter intake, and euthanasia, without effectively reducing cat-related problems. Research shows that these approaches are expensive, difficult to enforce, and place a disproportionate burden on disadvantaged communities. Moreover, they negatively affect the mental health of shelter staff and animal management officers, who are frequently exposed to euthanasia and ongoing challenges. An alternative "One Welfare" framework, which recognizes the interconnectedness of animal, human, and environmental welfare, has proven more effective. Programs that provide support and resources, particularly for cat sterilization and microchipping, while fostering the human-animal bond improve outcomes for both cats and caregivers. Shifting from punitive measures to collaborative, community-driven strategies is crucial for managing free-roaming cats in a way that benefits animals, people, and the broader community, while protecting wildlife.

Keywords: One Welfare; animal management officers; community-based solutions; domestic cats; enforcement; feral cats; free-roaming cats; legislation; semi-owned cats; urban cat management.