Policy Review of Cat Containment in the ACTBy Alyssa Roggero and Mengyao WuAlyssa.Roggero@anu.edu.au and Mengyao.Wu@anu.edu.au

Sponsored by Kirilly Dickson from the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment

We declare that this work may be read and used by the Office of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment as they see fit. This work may also be used to develop and inform future academic or policy publications where relevant.

Executive Summary

● Cat containment is an important environmental issue in the ACT. ● Feral cats kill at least five animals a day. Increasingly, however, domestic cats are

being recognised as having significant impacts on local wildlife as well. ● Cat containment is a method of managing domestic cats by restricting their roaming

ability to certain times and spaces - for example, keeping cats indoors at night, or keeping cats on their owners’ properties at all times.

● In the ACT, cat containment areas have been declared in suburbs identified as facing serious nature conservation threat as a result of cats. The containment policy requires cat owners to keep cats on their properties 24-7.

● However, this policy relies on compliance through awareness rather than policing, and there are common complaints that this is not effective.

● The complexity of this issue and its solutions prompts ongoing interest in reviewing the policy over time, including an investigation into how much investment should be allocated to engagement and awareness compared to compliance and policing.

● Our policy analysis draws on best-practice cat management from other states and territories, a case-study of policy instruments employed in Gungahlin, and it considers the impacts of different policy instruments based on compliance and policing methods, and on awareness and engagement methods.

● The analysis suggests that it is best to raise awareness of cat containment policy through multiple communication pathways, including through various education programs, media outlets, surveys, community meetings and announcements, and using support from other organisations, such as the RSPCA. In addition, cat containment compliance could be improved by designing a monitoring-reporting system, potentially using GPS tracking technology, and providing subsidies or information on cat containment methods/tools for cat owners to help them to better contain their cats.

● The viability of these policy options, however, depends on budget. Given low funding, we think that ACT government could consider investing more in the improvement of

people’s awareness and engagement, as compliance and policing would require sufficient investment to be implemented properly.

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements 2

Statement of Scope 2

Policy Identification and Importance 2

Cat Management in Australia 2

Cat Containment 3

The Contention of Cat Containment 4

Cat Containment in the ACT: a literature review 5

State-Comparison of cat management 7

Policy Analysis 8

Gungahlin Case-Study 8

Compliance and Policing Instruments 11

Awareness and Engagement Instruments 13

Evaluating Best Policy Mix of Compliance, Policing, Awareness and Engagement 16

Policy Options 18

Reference List 18

1

Acknowledgements

Firstly, we would like to thank our sponsor, Kirilly Dickson and her colleagues from the Office

of the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment for giving us the opportunity to

work on this policy project. We gained useful new insights into cat containment policy in the

ACT, and we hope that our work will be of use to any future work in this important

environmental policy issue.

Statement of ScopeThe aim of this report is to investigate the optimal policy mix of awareness, engagement,

policing and compliance for cat containment to be effective in the ACT. It draws on scientific

literature on cat containment best-practice, lessons learned from cat management in other states

and territories, as well as a local case-study in Gungahlin. This report focuses on improving

currently implemented cat containment policy in the ACT, and does not investigate future cat

containment policy in other areas of the ACT.

Policy Identification and Importance

This section identifies why this policy issue is arising, including relevant historical background

of cat management in Australia, why cat containment is used as a means of cat management,

which groups are interested in the cat containment agenda, and the current policy situation in the

ACT. This section also includes a literature review of cat containment in the ACT which is

organised using a Policy Cycle framework.

Cat Management in Australia

In Australia, cat management is an important environmental issue.

2

Feral cats kill five to 30 animals every day (AWC, 2012). In addition, the Threat Abatement

Plan for Predation by Feral Cats (2008), lists 81 native animals, including birds, mammals and

reptiles that are threatened by feral cat predation.

Increasingly though, domestic cats have been highlighted as having significant impacts on local

wildlife. Unlike feral cats, which have no or little reliance on humans, domestic cats do not rely

on hunting for food. However, despite daily feeding, hunting remains instinctive behaviour for

domestic cats, and can still have a negative impact on native fauna (RSPCA, 2017; Lilith et al.,

2006; DEWHA, 2008). For example, a study by the CSIRO on house cat predation in Canberra

found that, while introduced species such as mice and rats were common prey, house cats also

targeted locally abundant and patchily distributed native animals in areas near relatively

undisturbed environments (Barratt, 1997).

Various laws have been passed in Australia to manage cats. Feral cat predation is listed as a key

threatening process to Australian biodiversity under the Environment Protection and

Biodiversity Conservation Act (1999). At the Commonwealth level, aside from preventing

importation of wild-domestic cat hybrids into Australia, there is currently no legislation on

domestic cat management. Therefore, cat management is regulated by state and territory

governments and local governments. Cat management policies vary state-to-state and include

things like mandatory registration of cats, microchipping and neutering (RSPCA, 2017).

Cat Containment

Cat containment is another means of managing domestic cats and their impact on the local

environment by limiting their roaming abilities to certain times and spaces. This can be in the

form of keeping cats inside at night, or only allowing cats inside the house and the backyard or

garden, restricting their ability to leave the property using equipment like cages, ‘cat runs’ and

nets (RSPCA, 2017).

Cat containment is used for a variety of reasons.

According to a cat tracking survey by Roetman et al. (2017), the average home-range of roaming

cats is 1.042 hectares. From an environmental perspective, cat containment can reduce the

impact of cats hunting local wildlife, particularly near reserves or areas where endangered or

3

critically endangered species are present (Barratt, 1997; McLeod et al., 2015). Cat containment

is also used to improve cat health and welfare by reducing the risk of injury from fighting, traffic

and acts of cruelty by humans (Rochlitz, 2004; McLeod et al., 2015), and reducing the risk of

unwanted feline pregnancies (Nutter et al., 2004). Restricting the times and areas that cats can

roam can also help reduce the transmission of the disease Toxoplasma gondii (Dabritz and

Conrad, 2010) and cat faecal pollution of waterways (Dabritz et al., 2006).

The Contentiousness of Cat Containment

Policies that involve confining domestic cats are controversial. According to a survey on cat

containment in Victoria, some cat owners think it is “cruel and unnatural to confine a cat for 24

hours to a property” and “were concerned about the welfare and happiness of cats during

confinement” (Toukhsati et al., 2012, p. 63). In Tasmania, cat-owners who sometimes or never

contain cats are more likely to think cats have strong physical and emotional needs to be outside,

and are less confident in their ability to effectively contain their cats (McLeod et al., 2015).

According to an ABC news article, some pet-owners do not see a need for cat containment, and

consider the issue of biodiversity loss because of roaming cats to contain “a certain amount of

‘alternative fact’’ (ABC, 2017).

Cat Containment in the ACT

In Australia, there have been campaigns urging cat owners to contain their cats since the 1990s

(McLeod et al., 2015), however, at the state or territory level, only the ACT has established any

form of cat containment area. In designated areas in the ACT, cat containment requires cat

owners to confine cats to their properties 24-7. If a cat is found outside of their owner’s

property, it can be seized by Territory and Municipal Services (TAMS), and cat owners can be

fined up to $1500. Under Section 81 of the Domestic Animals Act 2000, cat containment has

been declared in 12 suburbs in the ACT, including Crace, Bonner, Coombs, Denman Prospect,

Forde, Jacka, Lawson, Molonglo, Moncrieff, The Fair at Watson, Throsby and Wright. These

suburbs were identified as areas of serious nature conservation threat because of hunting by cats

(ACT Government, 2018).

4

The Transport Canberra and City Services Directorate, and Domestic Animal Services, are

responsible for compliance and enforcement of cat containment in the ACT. However, there has

been little actual policing of cat containment in the ACT (Maxwell, 2016). Although the

Domestic Animals ACT (2000) allows regulating bodies to seize and capture domestic animals

in breach of domestic animal laws, it is rarely done in practice as cat containment policy in the

ACT relies on compliance through awareness rather than policing.

Literature Review of Cat Containment in the ACT using a Policy Cycle Framework

This section includes additional research from journal articles, government surveys, and

government documents. The information is organised using a policy cycle framework (Althaus et

al., 2013).

Table 1. Literature review of cat containment using the policy cycle, including problem framing, policy framing, policy implementation, and policy monitoring and evaluation.

Problem framing

● Cats are opportunistic predators (Loyd et al., 2013). In Canberra, 13% of injured

animals which were brought to an animal shelter in 2008 had been attacked by

cats, compared to only 7% of injured animals which had been attacked by dogs

(Eyles and Mulvaney, 2014).

● Cat owners believe their cats need to wander outdoors to satisfy their basic

instincts, and they often lack confidence in their ability to contain cats all day

(McLeod et al., 2015). A study that tracked cat roaming activity found that the

median size of a cat’s home-range was 1.042 hectares, and the median number of

roads which these cats crossed per day was 3.4 (Roetman et al., 2017).

● Roaming cats are considered a threat to transmit various diseases to wildlife

(Aramini et al., 2013) and to people (Dubey and Hill, 2002).

● Cats are considered a nuisance in some neighbourhoods if allowed to roam freely

(McLeod et al., 2015). In a survey of cat owners in South Australia, 87% of

respondents said that they have cats roaming in their neighbours’ properties and

5

40% of them agreed that they were a nuisance (Roetman et al., 2017).

6

7

Policy framing

● According to an ACT Government survey (2011), overall, residents in the ACT support

cat containment - 86% of respondents living in ACT agree that cat containment is

beneficial for the community, and 80% of them know that cats are a risk to wildlife.

● Current legislation imposing cat management in ACT and other states of Australia

includes the Domestic Animals Act 2000 (ACT), Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW),

Animal Management (Dogs and Cats) Act 2008 (Qld), Dog and Cat Management Act

1995 (SA), Cat Management Act 2009 (Tas), Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic), and

Cat Act 2011 (WA). Other supplementary programs and strategies are also

implemented to improve people’s acceptability of reducing the threat of domestic cats

(RSPCA, 2017).

Policy implementation

● According to Section 81 of the Domestic Animals Act 2000, Bonner, Crace, Coombs,

Denman Prospect, Forde, Jacka, Lawson, Molonglo, Moncrieff, The Fair at Watson,

Throsby, and Wright have been declared cat containment areas where domestic cats

should be confined all day (ACT Government, 2018). Cat owners may be fined up to

$1500 if they are found not confining their cats in these areas (ACT Government,

2018). In addition, the ACT government also promotes the advantages of cat

containment, such as avoiding suffering from diseases and injuries by other animals or

vehicles (ACT Government, 2018).

● In the ACT, cat containment policy relies on voluntary compliance through education.

For example, the RSPCA provides education campaigns to cat owners each year (Eyles

and Mulvaney, 2014). However, they do not provide territory-wide education, and the

frequency of such community education is low.

● In addition to the RSPCA, the Conservation Council also encourages awareness of the

benefits of cat containment.

8

● The ACT government uses cat containment signage (Fig. 1) to remind people that an

area is a cat containment area (ACT Government, 2018). Some of these signs include

words saying ‘contain at all times’ while others do not.

● Figure 1 Cat Containment Symbol (ACT Government, 2018)

Policy monitoring and evaluation

● The main approach used to monitor cat containment in the ACT is through reports of

roaming cats made by residents (ACT Government, 2018). However, few reports are

made and the reporting process is voluntarily, and complaints are still made to the

Office of the Commissioner of Sustainability and the Environment that cat containment

is ineffective (OCSE, 2017).

State-Comparison Literature Review

The following is a state-comparison of scientific studies on cat-management. Although not

necessarily about containing cats 24-7, these studies provide useful information on containing

and managing domestic cats generally, providing useful insights for the policy analysis in this

report.

Victoria: As is the case in the ACT, cats are required to be registered and microchipped in

Victoria, which is useful for cat management. According to Toukhsati et al (2012)’s study on cat

owners in Victoria, education programs that highlight the potential dangers of roaming cats as

well as the benefits of cat containment can help to ensure cat owners contain cats. The study also

9

emphasises the importance of monitoring community knowledge and attitudes towards

containment issues, including the community response to any education programs.

Tasmania: McLeod et al (2017) conducted surveys on cat-owners in Tasmania. They found that

cat-owners who did not already contain cats were unlikely to be swayed by compliance-based cat

containment regulation. They also highlighted problems with enforcement of regulations that

rely on voluntary compliance, a similar policy situation to that in the ACT. The study advises

governments to offer convenient methods to contain cats, such as personalised advice on cat

containment for each household. The study also advocates having credible and influential people

communicate the benefits of cat containment and highlighting positive local examples.

South Australia: Using GPS, South Australia undertook a citizen science project known as Cat

Tracker, which successfully engaged cat owners and helped them learn about the typical roaming

ranges of their cats (Roetman et al., 2017). This project raised people’s awareness of cat

management and provided a guide for cat owners to better manage and protect their pets.

Policy Analysis

This section identifies policy instruments that could be used or improved upon to make cat

containment in the ACT more effective. It first explores a case-study of cat containment in

Gungahlin, outlining the positive and negative outcomes of the cat containment policy

instruments currently employed in this area. It then investigates the potential impacts of other

policy tools based on compliance and policing, as well as policy tools based on awareness and

engagement. The analysis of these instruments considers not only the welfare of cats but also the

potential impacts on cat owners, as well as their overall cost-efficiency.

Gungahlin Case-Study

This case-study is based on the Independent Audit of the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment (2017)

produced by the Office of the Commissioner for Environment and Sustainability. This audit

constitutes the first compliance audit for the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment Biodiversity Plan

10

(2013) - hereafter denoted as GSA - which aims to balance development in Gungahlin’s

residential, employment and conservation areas.

Background

Gungahlin is a fast-developing suburb in Canberra, highlighted as “Australia’s second-fastest

growing district with 71,000 residents, up from 47,000 in 2011” (OCSE, 2017, p. 24). Several

areas within Gungahlin have been declared cat-containment areas, including Moncrief, Throsby

and Taylor. Taylor was declared a cat containment area in 2017 due to its proximity to the

Kinlyside Nature Reserve, to protect species considered to be Matters of National Environmental

Significance (MNES), such as the Golden Sun Moth and the Striped Legless Lizard (OCSE,

2017).

Policy Instruments Employed

The Gungahlin case-study uses a variety of awareness and engagement policy instruments. In

April 2015, the ACT Government issued a media release announcing Throsby as a new cat

containment area, and cat containment signs (Figure 1) were installed throughout Throsby during

2017. The ACT Government website also updated its cat containment information, adding new

Gungahlin areas like Throsby and Taylor to its list of ACT cat containment zones.

In terms of compliance and policing instruments, GSA committed to developing compliance

initiatives and activities in line with the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy, and to

design a Cat Plan to regulate cat containment areas and cat management.

Audit Results

The GSA states that cat containment policy is to be implemented in all urban development areas

in Gungahlin, and that any declarations of cat-containment areas would coincide with funded

compliance programs. Based on these commitments, the Independent Audit of the GSA declared

the cat containment areas in Gungahlin were ‘non-compliant’ because:

● The Gungahlin East Town Centre did not have cat containment policy information

readily available for residents in the area.

11

● Although the Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate and the

Transport Canberra and City Services are in the process of developing a comprehensive

Cat Plan, this plan has yet to be published.

● The Animal Welfare and Management Strategy highlights the need for a compliance and

enforcement program focusing on domestic animals. This has not yet been established

and the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy does not include objectives relating to

cat containment.

● In Throsby, cat containment was not signposted before sale, so buyers may not have been

aware of the significance of MNES in the area, which may lead to non-compliance.

Discussion

Cat containment in Gungahlin appears successful on paper but, arguably, this is not the case in

practice. A lack of readily available information at the town centre reveals a breach in

commitment 30 of the GSA which is meant to address educational resources, including signage

and guidelines for Gungahlin residents. There is also a lack of a funded compliance and

enforcement plan (Objective 5 of the GSA, and a recommendation of the Animal Welfare and

Management Strategy). This potentially highlights the difficulty of sourcing funds and

implementing compliance and policing cat containment policy instruments. It also potentially

highlights how the local government did not provide sufficient basic information on the reasons

and benefits of cat containment for residents in cat containment areas.

Conclusion

The Gungahlin case-study demonstrates that a compliance program is difficult to implement

without clear objectives and targeted funding, and that residents need to be aware if their area is

a declared cat containment area, including before they move into the area.

The following sections outline potential policy options for cat containment in the ACT, starting

with compliance and policing instruments, and then focusing on awareness and engagement

instruments.

12

Policy Options for Cat Containment Compliance and Policing for the ACT

There are three types of policy instruments that can be used for ensuring compliance of cat

containment in the ACT. These options range from expensive and labour-intensive methods

involving more monitoring and policing, to less expensive and less labour-intensive methods

which involve more awareness and community-based monitoring systems. These options are

derived from the Animal Welfare and Management Strategy: 2017-2020, and include potential

positive and negative impacts on cats and cat owners, as well as relative cost.

Option 1

The first option is to implement a program of proactive monitoring of cat containment areas,

incorporating monitoring, as part of the compliance and enforcement program. For example,

having Domestic Animal Services formally police suburbs and issue fines to cat owners found in

breach of cat containment. This would help to ensure cats remain contained, with benefits for cat

welfare as well as the local environment. However, it could be costly and likely unachievable

with the current low budget. Without proper consultation, this could also lead to public backlash

from cat containment communities if they are not sufficiently informed of the reasons behind cat

containment policy. As was discussed in the state-comparison case-study, cat owners who did

not already practice cat containment were less likely to be swayed by regulatory policy

instruments.

Option 2

The second option is to investigate ways to enhance cat containment infrastructure. This option

can be less expensive than proactive monitoring and was recommended by the Tasmanian cat

management study, which advised governments to provide personalised information on how

owners can best contain their cats. This would help with cat containment compliance more than

policing, by providing advice on how best to protect the welfare of cats who are kept indoors,

based on scientific research on the physical and mental health requirements of cats in general.

For example, the Cat Containment Steering Committee recommends considering the ‘Five

Freedoms’ of cats to ensure the welfare of contained cats. That is, cat owners should enrich their

cat’s environment to involve physical, social, sensory, and nutritional avenues of play or

diversion (see Eyles and Mulvaney, 2014, cat containment tips).

13

Option 3

The third option is to investigate ways of creating a community reporting system that uses new

technology to better monitor cat containment compliance. For example, a reporting system could

be set up through a phone app, website or social media platform. This type of community

reporting system would be cheaper than active monitoring of cat containment compliance by

empowering community members to police cat containment in their neighbourhoods. It is worth

noting, however, that this may provoke neighbourhood hostility if people are caught dobbing in

cat owner neighbours who are not compliant in cat containment suburbs.

This policy option could also help improve the efficiency of monitoring cat containment by

tracking where cats roam using technology like that employed in the South Australia study.

Using Cat Tracker or similar technology, perhaps with an app platform, cat owners could

monitor their cats’ activity to alert them if they are roaming outside the property boundaries. A

further step might be direct monitoring by government bodies using microchips in registered cats

to collect data and assist compliance. However, there may be issues regarding privacy and cat

owners’ willingness to participate in this type of compliance and policing. Bearing this in mind,

this policy option would require data to be directly received and processed by an automated

system which could provide reminders to cat owners to note their cats roaming activity. Of

course, relevant experts will be needed to solve bugs and other technological problems, so the

cost of improving and researching such technology is an important factor that needs to be

considered.

Table 2. Summary of compliance and policing policy analysis, including the tools required to implement these instruments, and potential positive and negative outcomes of these instruments

Policy Option 1

Implement a program of proactive monitoring of cat containment areas and incorporate measures as part of the compliance and enforcement program

Tools ● Domestic Animal Services formally police areas of cat containment and issue fines to cat owners who are found in breach of cat containment regulations

Positives ● Ensures compliance and policing of cats, which can benefit the welfare of cats and threatened local wildlife

14

Negatives ● Requires extra funding from the ACT government● Difficult to implement● Potential for backlash, especially if not implemented alongside

consultation with cat containment communities

Policy Option 2 Investigate options for enhancing infrastructure to improve custodians’ compliance with requirements to keep environmental amenity high

Tools ● Provide advice to cat owners on methods to contain their cats, such as how to install cat runs, best practice in relation to access to water, food and bedding, as well as enrichment needs like scratching posts and toys

● Provide subsidies for enhancing infrastructure in cat owners’ homes, such as for cat runs and nets

Positives ● Acknowledges need of cats to have stimulating home environment to express natural behaviours when not allowed to roam outside of their owners’ properties

● Helps increase the confidence of cat owners to contain their cats

Negatives ● Expensive for cat owners, and potentially for ACT Government if providing subsidies

● Some cats do not adjust well to confinement even when provided with a stimulating home environment

Policy Option 3 Investigate options for a community reporting system to increase compliance with requirements that protect community safety and environmental amenity

Tools ● Use an app, social media platform or a community reporting website to encourage community monitoring of cat containment compliance within cat containment zones

● Use GPS technology to track where cats roam

Positives ● Less expensive than proactive monitoring for the ACT government● Empowers community to police cat containment● Domestic cats in the ACT are already required to be microchipped,

which makes it easier to implement GPS tracking technology

Negatives ● Not always effective in ensuring compliance of cat containment● May create neighbourhood hostility ● Potential issues with privacy infringement

15

Policy Options for Cat Containment Awareness and Engagement for the ACT

Current cat containment policy in the ACT relies on awareness and engagement campaigns.

These are implemented by both government bodies and non-government bodies such as the

RSPCA. The following includes three main types of cat containment awareness and engagement

policy instruments, ranging from expensive and labour-intensive methods involving more

interactive policy awareness and engagement instruments, to less expensive and less labour-

intensive methods involving more one-way communication strategies using websites and social

media.

Option 1

The first option is to run more engaging and interactive education programs in cat containment

communities or across the whole of the ACT. This could be in the form of surveys, community

meetings, local competitions etc. These programs could be launched by the government and or

local organisations to facilitate people’s engagement in cat containment policy. Such programs

may also be helpful for monitoring community awareness of cat containment, if run regularly.

However, this option is relatively expensive and may need additional funding from the

government or organisations like the RSPCA. In addition, it is uncertain that the desired

audience can be reached by these programs, that is, people who do not support cat containment

regulations.

Option 2

General media outlets are another option to improve the engagement and awareness of cat

containment. For example, using public service announcements, advertisements, community

announcements, newspaper columns and mailed pamphlets. This is less expensive than the first

option, and has the benefit of being able to target residents in cat containment areas. However, it

is not as interactive as the first option, and the messages may not reach or have the desired

impact on all relevant parties.

Option 3

The final option uses more online media methods to raise awareness and engagement of cat

containment policy. Platforms like social media and government websites are cheap and easy to

16

update. This option may not reach all targeted audiences, however, but it can be made more

effective if awareness and engagement messages are broadcast through multiple pathways. For

example, including information on cat containment on local government websites, as well as

emailing registered cat owners.

Table 3. Summary of awareness and engagement policy analysis, including the tools required to implement these instruments, and potential positive and negative outcomes of these instruments

Policy Option 1 Providing more interactive awareness and engagement campaigns using

competitions, meetings and videos

Tools ● Conduct interactive awareness and engagement policies, including

surveys, competitions and community meetings

Positives ● Engages community directly

● Can help to monitor community awareness of education programs

Negatives ● Does not always reach desired audience, including people who do not

support cat containment

● Potentially more expensive for government and community organisations

than alternative options

Policy Option 2 Awareness and engagement campaigns using media outlets

Tools ● Use newspaper columns, mailed pamphlets, advertisements and

community announcements to raise awareness of the benefits of cat

containment.

Positives ● Cheaper than option 1

Negatives ● Does not always reach desired audience, including people who do not

support cat containment

Policy Option 3 Awareness campaigns using online pathways of communication

Tools ● Social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook

● Web pages published by the ACT Government, including the

Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate, and

17

NGOs such as the RSPCA

Positives ● Targeted audience

● Cheap

● Can be interactive

● RSPCA already has sound social media platforms, including Facebook

and Twitter

Negatives ● Does not always reach desired audience, including people who do not

support cat containment

Evaluating Best Policy Mix of Compliance, Policing, Awareness and Engagement

In terms compliance and policing, there was found to be a lack of cat containment compliance

programs in place in the Gungahlin case-study. The reason behind this is unclear, however, it

does indicate that funding and implementing compliance programs presents significant

challenges. This suggests that implementing any proactive monitoring of cat containment

(compliance and policing option 1) may not be the best option in the ACT, particularly with a

limited budget. Another means of doing this is to establish a more effective and efficient

monitoring system using technology (compliance and policing option 2). However, as discussed

previously, this would require more research into the feasibility of a better technological

monitoring system, and into potential privacy infringement issues. Another instrument to help

ensure compliance is to provide a range of containment methods/tools for cat owners

(compliance and policing option 3). This has been advocated as best-practice in the state-

comparison, as well as the literature review. Circulating information on best practice can also

help enforce compliance by teaching people how to effectively contain their cats if they are not

confident in their ability to contain their cats.

On the engagement and awareness front, more community-wide and territory-wide educational

programs are needed as well. The Gungahlin case-study shows a potential lack of cat

containment compliance as a result of a failure to include relevant information at the town centre.

In addition, as it is a relatively cheap policy method, and by combining awareness and

18

engagement options 2 and 3, the ACT government can continue advocating cat containment

policy through multiple pathways, including through social media, or directly mailed pamphlets

– which helps target cat owners. In Throsby, cat containment was not signposted before sale, so

buyers may not have been aware of the significance of MNES in the area, which may lead to

non-compliance. Although having more interactive awareness and engagement campaigns

(awareness and engagement option 1) can help better engage and inform cat containment

communities directly, they can be very costly, and might be better undertaken in coordination

with non-government institutions such as the RSPCA, which also already has social media

platforms that can help further raise awareness of the benefits of cat containment in the ACT

(awareness and engagement policy option 3).

Policy OptionsThe following policy options are all potentially useful to help improve the effectiveness of policy

implementation and the efficiency of monitoring and evaluating cat containment policy:

For policy compliance and policing

● Policy Option 2 – governments may provide information on how owners may best

contain their cats based on scientific research on the physical and mental health

requirements of cats in general. The ACT Government may also consider providing

subsidies for cat containment infrastructure to help cat owners comply with cat

containment regulations

● Policy Option 3 - to improve the efficiency of monitoring cat containment, GPS tracking

technology could be used to monitor the location of domestic cats and their activity

range. It could also be used by the ACT government to monitor cat containment

compliance. However, there may be issues regarding privacy and cat owners’ willingness

to participate in this type of compliance and policing. In addition, relevant experts would

be needed to solve technological issues, so the cost of researching and improving such

technology is an important factor to consider.

For Policy Awareness and Engagement

19

● Policy Options 2 and 3 - ACT government could provide more cat containment education

programs for residents highlighting the benefits of cat containment, both for cat welfare

and for the local environment. These education programs could be targeted at houses in

suburbs where cat containment policy applies, or more broadly within the ACT. This

would help people better understand this policy and, ideally, would help to change their

attitude and behaviour towards containing cats. Social media and public service

advertisements could also be applied more to promote cat containment in the ACT (not

only in designated cat containment areas).

○ In addition, for home-owners or renters moving into cat containment areas, this

policy should be clearly communicated by the landlord or real-estate agent before

the property is sold or rented. This would require additional regulatory

arrangements.

● Policy Option 1 – There is scope for increased cooperation between the ACT government

and local animal welfare organisations, as well as encouraging local media to run

community-wide and territory-wide educational events on cat containment issues.

Conclusion

This report provides an analysis of the range of opportunities available for improved cat

containment compliance and policing approaches, as well as awareness and engagement. Bearing

funding constraints in mind, it seems useful to place a higher investment priority on awareness

and engagement methods with a focus on the benefits of cat containment, and on educating cat-

owners about how best to contain their cats. Providing subsidies for cat containment

infrastructure, or designing a technology-based monitoring system, could also be useful

approaches, but they would require higher investments to be effectively implemented, and this

may not be the most efficient use of the limited funding available at this time.

Reference List

ACT Government, 2011. Responsible Cat Ownership Community Research, Report prepared for the ACT Government by Micromex Research, Canberra.

20

ACT Government, Transport Canberra and City Services 2018, Cat Containment. Available at: https://www.tccs.act.gov.au/city-living/pets/cats/cat-containment

Aramini, J. J., Stephen, C. and Dubey, J. P., 1998. ‘Toxoplasma gondii in Vancouver Island Cougars (Felis concolor vancouverensis): Serology and Oocyst Shedding’, The Journal of Parasitology, 84(2): 438-440.

Althaus, C., Bridgman, P. and Davis, G., 2013. The Australian policy handbook, 5th edn, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest, N.S.W.

AWC, 2012. Feral cats: killing 75 million native animals every night, Australian Wildlife Conservancy, Perth.

Barratt, D. G., 1997. Predation by house cats, Felis catus (L.), in Canberra, Australia. II. Factors affecting the amount of prey caught and estimates of the impact on wildlife, Wildlife Research, 24(3): 263-277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1071/WR96020

Dabritz, H. A. and Conrad, P. A., 2010. Cats and Toxoplasma: implications for public health, Zoonoses and public health, 57(1): 34-52.

Dabritz, H. A., Atwill, E. R., Gardner, I. A., Miller, M. A. and Conrad, P. A., 2006. Outdoor fecal deposition by free-roaming cats and attitudes of cat owners and nonowners toward stray pets, wildlife, and water pollution, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 229(1): 74-81.

Dabritz, H. A. and Conrad, P. A., 2010. ‘Cats and toxoplasma: implications for public health’, Zoonoses and Public Health, 57(1): 34-52.

Denny, E. A. and Dickman, C. R., 2010. Review of cat ecology and management strategies in Australia, Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre, Canberra.

DEWHA, 2008. Threat Abatement Plan for Predation by Feral Cats, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts Canberra.

Eyles, K. and Mulvaney, M., 2014. Background paper: options to improve cat management in the ACT. A Background Paper prepared for the ACT Responsible Cat Ownership Steering Committee. Available at: http://conservationcouncil.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Eyles-Mulvaney-Background-Paper-Responsible-Pet-Ownership-and-the-Protection-of-Wildlife-2014.pdf

Gerhold, R. W. and Jessup, D. A., 2013. ‘Zoonotic Diseases Associated with Free‐Roaming Cats’, Zoonoses and Public Health, 60(3): 189-195.

21

Hill, D. and Dubey, J. P., 2002. ‘Toxoplasma gondii: transmission, diagnosis and prevention’, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 8(10): 634-640.

Kasbaoui, N., Cooper, J., Mills, D. S. and Burman, O., 2016. Effects of long-term exposure to an electronic containment system on the behaviour and welfare of domestic cats, PloS one, 11(9): e0162073.

Lilith, M., Calver, M., Styles, I. and 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.

Loyd, K. A. and Miller, C. A., 2010. ‘Factors related to preferences for Trap-Neuter-Release management of feral cats among Illinois homeowners’, Journal of Wildlife Management, 74: 160-165.

Loyd, K. A. T., Hernandez, S. M., Carroll, J. P., Abernathy, K. J. and Marshall, G. J., 2013. ‘Quantifying free-roaming domestic cat predation using animal-borne video cameras’, Biological Conservation, 160: 183-189.

McLeod, L. J., Hine, D. W. and Bengsen, A. J., 2015. Born to roam? Surveying cat owners in Tasmania, Australia, to identify the drivers and barriers to cat containment, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 122(3): 339-344. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2015.11.007

Nutter, F. B., Levine, J. F. and Stoskopf, M. K., 2004. Reproductive capacity of free-roaming domestic cats and kitten survival rate, Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 225(9): 1399-1402.

OCSE, 2017. Independent Audit of the Gungahlin Strategic Assessment, Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Canberra.

Rochlitz, I., 2004. The effects of road traffic accidents on domestic cats and their owners, Animal Welfare-Potters Bar then Wheathampstead-, 13(1): 51-56.

Roetman, P., Tindle, H., Litchfield, C., Chiera, B., Quinton, G., Kikillus, H., Bruce, D. and Kays, R., 2017. Cat Tracker South Australia: understanding pet cats through citizen science. Discovery Circle initiative, University of South Australia, Adelaide. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4226/78/5892ce70b245a

RSPCA, 2017. Identifying Best Practice Cat Management in Australia: A Discussion Paper, RSPCA, Canberra.

22

Toukhsati, S. R., Young, E., Bennett, P. C. and Coleman, G. J., 2012. Wandering Cats: Attitudes and Behaviors towards Cat Containment in Australia, Anthrozoös, 25(1): 61-74. Available at: 10.2752/175303712X13240472427195

Umwelt, 2013. Gungahlin Strategic Assessment Biodiversity Plan, ACT Economic Development Directorate and the ACT Environment and Sustainable Development Directorate, Canberra.

Woinarski, J. C. Z., Murphy, B. P., Legge, S. M., Garnett, S. T., Lawes, M. J., Comer, S., Dickman, C. R., Doherty, T. S., Edwards, G., Nankivell, A., Paton, D., Palmer, R. and Woolley, L. A., 2017. How many birds are killed by cats in Australia?, Biological Conservation, 214: 76-87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2017.08.006

23