The answer lies in three main areas

1. We need to consider the real price of “free” desexing.
   When funding is made available it may appear to be “free”, but the real facts are that this is a service never previously provided for in any budget so additional funding will be needed and it has to come from somewhere. So who will really bear the cost? For it to be sustainable the government will be sure to enshrine statewide cat registration. This is a tax C.A.T.S. has fought to push back and has so far been successful in holding off on a state level, although individual councils have started to bring it in. The mechanisms now in place as stated by Susan Close (former SA Minister for Environment) on ABC Radio Sept 2024 is that the Federal government provides the funds and State Gov. encourages Council to formulate the plans. This system is not generally transparent to the resident who is suddenly hit with the cost for every cat they own and assist with desexing. The initial saving becomes a burden in annual registration fees which in some councils are matched to various compliances. That is to say the registration fee would be less if you have also microchipped (an unwise law now in SA which should remain a choice) and vaccinated, which is a procedure you may or may not desire. Now multiply that with your number of cats and think about paying for it every year.
2. The government will require, as they do now, for every desexed cat to be lodged on the DACO data base.
   Councils can assess this data base to see if you have actually performed these additional procedures whether you agree with them or not.
3. Council can also see if you have registered all of your cats.
   This disables anyone assisting an unowned cat with a place to live in their back yard if they already have the pet household limit that any council with bylaws stipulate. This would usually be 2 cats. Additional cats will be frowned upon and you will be asked to rehome or surrender them or else go into a long legal battle with your council, no matter if you have spent much money on these cared for cats or not, whether you have put up expensive cat netting or not, whether you have put up additional expensive high fencing or not, your efforts to assist in reducing the free living cat population will be punished rather than rewarded. C.A.T.S. Inc has seen this many times.

The Cats Bylaw 2024 was passed virtually behind your backs.
(see actions you can take below)

After stating in the Agendas for weeks that the Cat Bylaw was laying on the table and that…

“1. This information is provided to Council to assist in managing motions lying on the table. This report sits as a record on the agenda for information purposes only, and is not intended to be a matter considered at the meeting.
3. Process for retrieving motion
3.1 Only a record of the motion lying on the table will be placed on the Council Meeting Agenda (rather than the full report). This will be provided for the purposes of transparency in identifying that there is still a motion lying on the table.
3.2 While there is no formal requirement that notice be given to retrieve this motion from the table, legal advice provides guidance on and that when taking into account the Guiding Principles in Regulation 5 of the Local Government (Procedures at Meetings) Regulations 2013, it would be considered most appropriate for this to occur through a written Notice of Motion.“

In spite of this statement inferring that constituents will be advised in the Agenda that the debate and vote for the Cats Bylaw 2024, there was no warning at all and the Motion was moved from the floor by Cr Lucas Jones, debated and passed.
This was in spite of a request for a deputation by at least one resident and ratepayer who had already written her speech and formally applied to speak when the Cat Bylaw was to be on the Agenda.
After 35 years of donating our services for free, costing the ratepayers nothing, working in the Tea Tree Gully Council area, much of this in a partnership with the Council which was recorded in detailed paperwork, the agreement with C.A.T.S. has been broken by the Council, as it was under the condition that no cat bylaw would be imposed.
Thousands of cats have been desexed from the TTGC area and thousands of residents have been helped via our Hotline, both residents with cats and those who are inconvenienced by cats, with amicable solutions negotiated through free mediation with C.A.T.S.
As far as C.A.T.S. is concerned we are absolutely disgusted and outraged that this is the way Council has treated its residents and as this is the situation now we have no trust whatsoever in this Council.

If this is the way the Council treats its residents, who could trust it to have anything to do with the cats.

Our formal resignation has been submitted to Council and we wish to advise residents and cat supporters that we will be having no further contact with the Council. When trust is broken it cannot be restored and as C.A.T.S. is an ethical organisation built on trust, honesty and truthfulness this kind of behaviour cannot be acceptable to us.

All our records are and have always been confidential as we never disclose any private details of names and addresses and we do not keep any records of microchips.
We are not the Cat Police and our loyalty is to the cats and the people who care for the cats and the residents who need help in finding amicable solutions to issues which concern them about cats.

Although C.A.T.S. cannot advise anybody to break the law regarding these cat bylaws, it is very hard for Councils to actually enforce them.
C.A.T.S. has campaigned for years to have the diabolical cat trapping cages banned to the public and it is clear now that Council could risk litigation if they let people use these cages.
Council will also risk litigation by mandating the use of collars and promoting collars with leashes which endanger both cats and those walking the cats.
If food is put out for the native wildlife, which is legal, and the cats eat it then how can you be held responsible?
If a cat is on your property it could be one which just comes and how can you stop it if you don’t have a cat-proof fence?
Also, remember that if you have a microchipped cat which is recorded on Dogs and Cats Online (DACO) the Council can track you down by getting your private details from DACO and when the cat bylaw is imposed and has an added registration fee you will be fined if you do not register on the Council database and pay the fee and any fines associated with breaking the cat bylaw.
When this happens I will be interested to know how many cats have “died” or “run away” as has been the case in Campbelltown Council. I also fail to see how Council will ascertain if they haven’t!!!
Residents without owned cats have also been badly treated as cat bylaws can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars and compliance is so low that obviously the ratepayers foot most of the bill. So do the renters as the landlords raise the rents.
There is no tangible evidence that cat bylaws have been successful but there is plenty of evidence-based data to prove that they are failing and a disaster.

Finally, and importantly, there were two councillors who were opposed to the way this behind your backs deceit was undertaken and these were Councillors Champion and Drozdoff who insisted that warning of the resumption of the cat bylaw laying on the table should be included in writing in an agenda before it was debated and voted upon. It was obvious that they did not consider that what has happened was following moral, due process, as had been inferred.

Take Action

If you want to try and stop this Cat Bylaw 2024 before it is passed by Parliament you can…

1.  Email the Legislative Review Committee and tell them that you were deceived by Council because you understood that warning was to be given before the cat bylaw was debated and voted upon (email: seclrc@parliament.sa.gov.au)
2.  Email the State Ombudsman (email: ombudsman@ombudsman.sa.gov.au)

What this Council has done is disgraceful, disgusting and totally unacceptable. Don’t let them get away with it.
Christine Pierson
President

Submission to the Dog and Cat Management (Cat Management) Amendment Bill 2024

This email Section precedes our Submission at Attachment 1, but is also part of our full response.

From – C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc
Suburb – All areas in South Australia
Interests – Cat Management and reduction in cat numbers, cat-related problems and impact on Wildlife
Public Viewing – YES and including our name and postal address

C.A.T.S. Assistance To Sterilise Inc is submitting this response to the Public Consultation for two main reasons.
Firstly to address the proposals presented for the public consultation and
Secondly to provide a non-legislative template for successful cat management which is supported by most of the wider-community who have actually done the necessary research.

It is obvious that the introduction of the state-wide cat legislation of 2018, making microchipping mandatory, and threatening fines, fees and seizure of cats has failed. This legislation has caused a catastrophe, as most residents would not have the microchips and therefore many stopped desexing cats, both their owned cats, and even more so, unowned cats which they were feeding.

In addition, making desexing mandatory has not shown any evidence that cat desexing has increased: Indeed it has not increased. On the contrary, desexing has decreased for cats. The only reason desexing has increased for kittens is because there have been tens of thousands more kittens born due to the massive drop in the desexing of their mothers. As stated, this drop in desexing was due to making microchipping mandatory.

”Overbreeding is the root of the problem”

C.A.T.S. Recommendations to address these main reasons for overbreeding can be solved by changing the mandatory microchipping of cats to a matter of choice and ceasing the threats of fines, fees and limitation of numbers of owned cats.

1. This would immediately result in the resumption of mass desexing, particularly the mass desexing of unowned cats that people are feeding. It is obvious that Dogs and Cats Online (DACO) has failed by the low percentage of the estimated 400,000 owned SA cats recoded, and without microchips ownership of cats cannot be proved.

Letters of support for C.A.T.S. mass desexing

“The Advertiser” 29/7/2024
Vets doing good work
Regarding “Deadly bite to rising vet bills”, (“The Advertiser”, 26/7), thank goodness for Cats Assistance To Sterilise (CATS) and the wonderful vets who donate their time to CATS to help us with getting our cats desexed. Where would we be without them?
John Markham, Henley Beach South
————————————————
“The Advertiser” 31/7/2024
Keeping cats in check
I agree, a big thank you to CATS (Cats Assistance To Sterilise) and the “Vets doing good work” (Letters, 29/7) to help get the cats desexed at affordable rates, by donating their time.
Over-breeding is the root of the problem and if we desex the cats in large enough numbers we can surmount the over-breeding and reduce the feline population, which reduces the problems and impact of wildlife.
None of the other so-called controls do any good at all.
In fact the laws have made everything far worse – just look at the mass increase in cat numbers since the cat legislation! CATS have got it right.
——————————————————————-

2. Can be almost immediately solved by banning cat breeders and preventing the sale of cats.

“The Advertiser” 30/7/2023
Breeding must stop
I agree with “Collar farms” (Letters, SM, 23/7). It is ludicrous to be deliberately breeding more dogs and cats when the shelters can’t cope with the abandoned pets, and cruel people are dumping them.
Why has this not been banned in the so-called review of the Act covering dogs and cats?
At least with felines there is help available as stated, as the Cats Assistance To Sterilise people are also helping residents in my council of Onkaparinga.
Our council/RSPCA ceased desexing them, due to overflowing cat numbers
What upsets me is that while CATS are donating their time and money to preventing thousands of kitten births, the government is selling permits to almost anybody to breed thousands more.
What can we do to stop them?
Albert Peters, Woodcroft
—————————————-
“The Advertiser” 30/8/2023
Curbing kittens
What can we do to stop the government selling permits to breeders, increasing the overflowing cat population with thousands more kittens? (Letters, SM, 30/7).
The only way to reduce cat numbers is to stop the deliberate breeding of cats and promote mass desexing with cats returned to their homes to keep new undesexed cats out.
This desex and return to home method proved a significant success in the early 1990s: Records showing a massive drop in cats received and destroyed when Cats Assistance To Sterilise (CATS) pioneered its program involving tens of thousands of both owned and unowned cats.
We need people like the CATS organisation to solve the cat problems, not bureaucrats who know virtually nothing about cat management.
Kate Clayton, president Cat Protection Society of SA
————————————————————–

3. Can also be solved by repealing Council cat bylaws which, as the RSPCA has stated don’t work. RSPCA quote, “Although some councils have introduced cat bylaws, there is no tangible evidence of success”.
No cat laws work for cats.

“The Advertiser” 20/5/2023
Cat laws don’t work
Responding to “Pet fury” and “Free desexing” (Letters, The Advertiser Wednesday), I have been helping people with sterilising cats for more than 35 years and know that before the cat laws, residents were keen to desex.
Since the legislation was imposed five years ago, and also since some councils have imposed cat bylaws, many residents no longer want to desex the cats because of the threats of fines and registration fees.
In fact, every time another cat law is passed, fewer cats are desexed.
Re-homing is not sustainable, because there are not enough good homes available.
Desexing cats and returning them to their homes is sustainable, efficient and cost effective, with cats fed and cared for by residents.

The 2022 Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 simply ignores all this evidence-based information, and continues promoting its failed cat policy.
B.B. Foster, Daw Park
—————————————-
“The Sunday Mail” 3/8/2023
Desex your cats
RSPCA and AWL are correct, by refusing to take any more cats and kittens.
Why, you ask? Because until they stop, residents think that there are plenty of homes for kittens and they stop desexing cats.
Ever since the statewide legislation was imposed five years ago, forcing microchipping and registration, numbers of cats at the shelters have been doubling every year.
As the RSPCA says, overbreeding of cats is the root problem. Desexing is the only solution.
This problem will never be solved by re-homing cats through shelters and adoption agencies.
Despite the increasing number of foster carers, there are just not enough good homes to take the kittens.
Killing cats is not the answer either, as evidence shows that new undesexed cats from the estimated 200,000 unowned supply, simply restock the vacated spaces and breed more. Until the government admits that its legislative methods cannot be enforced for cats and rewrites its “Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995” for cats, the catastrophe we now have will double and triple.
Cats cannot be controlled through legislative force. Cats are not dogs.
Christine Pierson, Kensington Park
———————————————

Some of these diabolical cat bylaws actually place councils at risk of litigation, as C.A.T.S. has campaigned to prove, and has succeeded in preventing councils from using them. Particularly the cat trapping cages.

Positive moves in the public consultation

This is one positive thing which the government has accepted, as these diabolical weapons of torture in the wrong hands has been acknowledged and now addressed, but it must now legislate for exemption for animal orientated organisations which have proved to be trusted to be used for humane Desex and Return to Home programs (DRH).

Letters of support for C.A.T.S. campaign

“The Advertise” 9/8/2024
Cage fight over
It has taken many years of lobbying but people power has won, so yes, “Cat cage ban welcome”, (“Letters” 7/8).
The many comments from CATS Inc and RSPCA I have read in your paper, show the cruelty and death caused by these traps when in the wrong hands.
They must only be used for transportation and return to home for vet desexing and treatment, where cats can’t be handled, and must only be with animal orientated organisations like CATS.
Ryan Davies is correct. Desexing is the only solution required for cat management, as legislation does not work for cats and never has. We only have to look at the last 30 years to see that the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 has failed.
Richard Justice, Unley
———————————————————————-
“The Advertiser” 8/8/2024
To cage or not to cage
It’s great that the illegality of providing cat trapping cages to the public has been exposed (“Pesky cats are free to roam”, Letters, 3/8).
I have read many letters to The Advertiser from the CATS Inc organisation, calling on the government to ban these traps.
The RSPCA stopped providing the cages 10 years ago due to the terrible injuries inflicted on animals from incorrect use.
The Dog and Cat Management Act is under review with public consultation for cats now current.
We need to protest against the review document’s plan to kill cats. Killing cats has never and will never reduce numbers, as recolonisation and breeding of remaining cats will ensure numbers will be restored.
The only way to reduce numbers is to desex the cats and return them to their homes where they keep other undesexed cats out.
This significantly and humanely decreases cat numbers and problems. This method is the only reason for using these cages, where frightened cats need to be transported to the vet for desexing and treatment and returned to home, where they are loved and cared for – and it must be through animal-orientated organisations like CATS.
Luke Forrester, Burnside.
——————————————

– Re the chaining of cats to posts as stated in some cat bylaws: A positive result when Parliament voted to disallow the first attempt by the
Campbelltown Council to chain cats to fixed objects, eg posts. C.A.T.S. opposition to this appalling cruelty was supplied to Connie Bonaros MP of SA BEST which enabled her to have her Motion to disallow carried.

– By not including state-wide confinement/containment of cats in the legislation this has also been a positive move.

Preventing desexed cats from holding their territories, not necessarily on the owners/carers property restricts these cats from keeping other undesexed cats out. Desexed cats do not cause the problems of undesexed cats, such as spraying tomcat urine, caterwauling all night over mates and being more likely to leave their droppings in gardens as they can stay for days while mating, as well as females having unwanted litters of kittens. The bigger the area held by a desexed cat, the lower the ratio of cats per area is achieved.

– By not including cat registration fees, this is also a positive approach as charging registration fees would have been the last straw and reduced cat desexing to the lowest level for 30 years. Who would want to desex any cat, owned or unowned, if they were to have to pay a registration fee? Some may, but most wouldn’t, especially if it were an unowned cat: Verified by the extremely low compliance rate for recording on Dogs and Cats Online (DACO) and for registration under council cat bylaws which have registration fees.

– Not limiting cats to a specified number per household is also a positive move as the more cats that residents can get desexed and care for, from the estimated 200,000 unowned cats the better. Having residents take responsibility for these unowned cats and getting them desexed is the only way the cat population will be reduced, as killing, removing and confining them does not reduce their number, due to the Vacuum Effect.

“The Advertiser”12/8/2024
Cats in the vacuum
Regarding “Control cats, please” (The Advertiser, 9/8), documented scientific evidence proves that trapping cats and removing them from where they are not wanted achieves nothing constructive.
This is due to the phenomenon of nature known as the “vacuum effect”, which ensures another lot of new cats will move into the vacated spaces and breed to not only restore but increase original numbers.
If, however, the cats are desexed and returned to home, they will hold the territory and keep other undesexed cats away.
This results in reducing cats to the minimum required and stops further breeding while controlling the rats and mice thus deterring snakes.
Kyle Langdon, Mt Barker

Negative recommendations

Planning to encourage councils to introduce cat bylaws when the state government knows full well that enforcement of this legislation is unenforceable, is deceptive.

Cats cannot be successfully managed or controlled by legislation, already proved by the failure of Dogs and Cats Online (DACO) showing that compliance is minuscule with less than a quarter of the estimated owned SA cats being recorded. This low compliance rate is also reflected in cat bylaws where any council has introduced them.

Without a microchip, ownership cannot be proved and without proof the courts will not convict. So the few cats that are actually recorded and the few registration fees and fines that are actually paid will nowhere near cover costs, leaving the residents and ratepayers’ to foot the bill. This is not the way to win votes at the next election.

Stating that cats are considered to be owned if residents provide shelter or food to these cats, also cannot be proved as ownership: Given that cats can’t be kept out of a property without a cat-proof fence or barrier, and given that it is legal to feed birds, there is no way to prove that a cat seen on a property is owned by that resident or that the food is provided for the cat and not a bird.

It can be seen the futility of trying to hoodwink cat supporters who do have excellent brains and have had 30 years to outwit and avoid any ridiculous so-called controls specified in the Dog and Cat Management Act.

Furthermore, imposing these cat bylaws can place councils at risk of litigation as forcing cats to be collared creates risk of causing death and serious injuries: Multiple cats have suffered horrendous injuries from collars being caught across the mouth requiring expensive vet treatment including stitches, (Advertiser article with photo) eating into the flesh of the neck, caught under the forelegs and cutting into the body resulting in amputation of the leg, and also euthanasia, and death by hanging.

So it is definitely a negative move to pass the buck of cat management to the councils as they cannot enforce unenforceable cat bylaws.

The proposed plan to kill the estimated 200,000 unowned cats is simply fantasy. It has been clearly shown, multiple times, that eradication of cats in an open system will never be accomplished: This is due to the scientifically proven phenomenon of nature known as the Vacuum Effect, which ensures that new cats will move into the vacated spaces and breed to recolonise the area: Furthermore, it has been noted by scientific studies that culling results in, not only numbers being restored, but increased.

The even more ludicrous plan to kill all cats which are not deemed domesticated, including the much loved, free-living cats which tens of thousands of residents have had desexed through the C.A.T.S. scheme, is not only horrendous but has caused an enormous amount of anger and hatred towards the government which has been made very clear in about 30 or more letters published in “The Advertiser” and “The Sunday Mail” since about the time of the “Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 was written.

The following include a few of the many letters from those who discovered the contents of the Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act.

First letter in “The Advertiser” 8/1/2024
Scratch cat laws

The last five years under the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 and Amendments have proved cats cannot be managed by legislative force with threats of fines, fees and seizure of cats.
The more laws imposed, the fewer cats are desexed, proved by C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc records. C.A.T.S. desexes more cats for the general public than any organisation in SA – currently 135,000. (The main shelters do not desex for the general public.)
After the statewide cat legislation was imposed on July 1, 2018, cat desexing plummeted to half, as residents refused to have mandatory microchips and record on Dogs and Cats Online (DACO).
This was proved by the low percentage of the estimated 400,000 SA cats recorded. As undesexed cat numbers skyrocketed, so did massive problems at shelters, until the current catastrophe when RSPCA and AWL overflowed.
Our government has no idea how to manage cats or cat supporters, and until it learns that working with the people who care for the cats and not against them, nothing desirable will be achieved.
C.A.T.S. was incorporated on November 1, 1989, before any cat laws at all, and proved that co-operation, correct education and assistance with desexing for all moggies, and returning them to their homes to keep out new, undesexed, intruder cats, halved the numbers of felines received and destroyed at the main shelter, within five years. (Records confirm this.)
And Reark research found in 1992 that SA had the highest rate of desexed cats for any state surveyed: 94 per cent. If C.A.T.S. – on its minuscule budget and run by animal supporters who donate their time and money, with the support of wonderful cooperating vets – halved the cat numbers in five years, while the government, on its billion-dollar budget, has doubled the cat numbers in five years, then why should this failed cat legislation be supported?
And as Mayor Glenn Docherty said, (Playford) Council was not considering a cat curfew. “It is (already) an expiable offence under the Local Nuisance and Litter Control Act for cats to cause local nuisance, including wandering.”
So why do we need any more laws specifically for cats?
Christine Pierson, president, C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc
—————————————————————————————-
“The Advertiser” 19/6/2023
Change needed
I agree with “Review catastrophe” (The Advertiser, 14/6). We need to go back to the drawing board, but not the Dog and Cat Management Board, to rectify the catastrophe caused by the 2018 act.
During public consultation, prior to 1995, the numerous submissions sent to the government stating legislation for cats would fail, were ignored.
Managing cats cannot be compared with managing dogs.
We don’t have an estimated 200,000 wild dogs living in populated areas as with cats.
The proposed Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 solution is to confine the domesticated cats and kill all the others.
Removal, confinement and killing of the “others” would result in recolonisation by new undesexed cats and increases in numbers, not decreases.
Before cat laws, SA had the highest percentage of desexed cats in Australia (REARK research survey) and mass desexing of cats, owned and unowned, through the low-priced CATS scheme had reduced cats received and destroyed to half at the main shelter.
As more cat laws were passed, fewer cats were desexed, and numbers gradually rose until the catastrophe since 2018, when RSPCA stated they were “the highest we have held in our memory” (Channel 9 News, 10/6/2019) and then were “double to 5 years ago” and the CEO told The Advertiser that the RSPCA could take no more (11/3 ).
SA needs to follow the Queensland government which has repealed its cat management legislation, citing it as “ineffective and costly for local government”.
James M. Richardson, Waterloo Corner
———————————————————–
“The Advertiser” 18/6/2023
Don’t cage cats
I refer to veterinarian Mark Reeve’s pet advice column “Could our cherished animal friends be making us sick?” (Sunday Mail, June 11).
This is the case if cats are permanently confined in houses and small cat-runs.
Already cats are becoming unhealthy from lack of exercise and unable to fulfil their basic needs of running, jumping, eating grass in the garden.
Cats not able to satisfy their insatiable curiosity are becoming stressed and anxious and hospital reports show a significant increase in attacks on owners from confined cats.
When cats become obese, lack fresh air, sunshine and freedom, they become sick. Isn’t it obvious that keeping cats permanently inside with smelly litter trays, fleas that accumulate when cats are confined, and parasites, is not in the best interests of human beings either?
This is simple common sense. We have already seen the spread of avian flu and shocking pandemics from animals which are confined in factory farms.
We should be getting animals out of cages, not passing laws to imprison them. The Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 needs to be reviewed.
Christine Pierson, Kensington Park
————————————————-
“The Advertiser” 14/6/2023
Review catastrophe
Where is the review in the Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 regarding cats?
Nothing has been reviewed regarding the massive failure of this Act, and the plummeting of cat desexing, as residents will not comply, have microchips and record on Dog And Cat Online (DACO) and, for fear of fines, fees and seizure of their cats, they don’t desex them either.
Nothing has been reviewed to stop the catastrophic skyrocketing of undesexed cats due to this huge drop in desexing, with the RSPCA refusing to accept anymore.
All that the section on cats includes is ridiculous plans that will exacerbate the problem caused by the legislation imposed five years ago.
Hasn’t Susan Close got anybody on her Dog and Cat Management Board who knows anything about cats?
Carol Patricia James Kensington Park
———————————————————
“The Advertiser”
Know cat instincts
Cats are not dogs and until the government understands cat behaviour it will never successfully manage cats.
So its aim in “Claws are out for roaming pet cats” is pointless (The Advertiser, 5/1). The letter “Scratch cat laws” (The Advertiser, 8/1) from CATS (Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc) speaks volumes, all evidence-based on their own 35-year studies, with both hands-on personal involvement with cats and the cat supporters in areas where the cats live, in both rural and urban locations.
Most importantly, cats don’t “roam”, which means “to move about or travel aimlessly or unsystematically”.
Cats travel with a purpose and until this purpose is understood as a basis for a cat management plan, nothing constructive will be achieved.
Cats travel to find mates, solved by desexing; cats travel to find food, solved by correct feeding; and cats travel to find a place to do their business, solved by feeders providing cat toilets at home with clean leaves and freshly dug earth, or a covered, outside litter tray.
Recognising these three reasons why cats leave their homes and addressing them, provides the solution to almost all of the complaints reported to councils.
One of the many examples illustrating this success is my own Council of Norwood Payneham & St Peters, where the partnership between council and CATS has resulted in free desexing for all moggie residents.
While government pushes its counterproductive legislative approach and increases its unenforceable threats of fines and fees, plus plans to kill the cats, it drives the cat supporters underground, and mass desexing of cats, which was so successful before the cat laws, will plummet even further with an even further increase in undesexed cats.
The idea that all cats be confined to home areas and all cats not deemed domesticated killed, ignores the phenomenon of nature, the Vacuum Effect, as the estimated 200,000 unowned cats will restock the vacated spaces.
But even worse, this cruelty has so infuriated the cat-supporting community that no likelihood of any acceptance by the public will be forthcoming to support the government’s plans.
Without the support of the people who care for the cats there will be no progress in reducing cat numbers, problems or impact on wildlife.
Jason P. Sanderson, Norwood
————————————————-

This outpouring of opposition has made it quite clear that the government will never get any help from the genuine cat supporters who have simply gone underground.

Many of these supporters will never send you submissions or respond to surveys as they will not provide their names and addresses, similar to the way they will not record their details on Dogs and Cats Online (DACO).

These one-sided surveys and responses mainly reflect the anti-cat minority who have nothing to lose by including their names and addresses and no doubt there will be many, as the whole public consultation presentation was blatantly aimed at getting such responses by featuring cats as savage, wildlife killers. The cat with its mouth open was a terrified cat caught in cage with the bars photoshopped out. This was a coercive and despicable attempt to sway the public opinion against cats, and not honest. In addition the cat with the bird in its mouth represents possibly 15% of its prey, while a cat with an introduced species; rat, mouse or rabbit, would make up at least 85% of the cat’s prey; proved by scientific studies: Another despicable misrepresentation. So this presentation has also caused an huge amount of anger and resentment towards not only your legislation, but your government.

Before the cat legislation of 1995

It needs to be seriously noted that before any cat legislation in SA, C.A.T.S. through mass desexing of all cats, owned and unowned, reduced the numbers of cats being destroyed at the Animal Welfare League, the main shelter for cats at that time (as it was accepting 3 to 4 times as many cats as the RSPCA), to virtually half, within 5 years: This graph below, shows the results that can be achieved by working with the residents through co-operation, education and assistance with desexing.

C.A.T.S. Inc was incorporated in late 1989. Note the significant drop in cats being destroyed after C.A.T.S. began its mass desexing of all cats, owned and unowned in the 5 years after C.A.T.S. was incorporated on 1 November 1989.

The 1992, REARK Research conducted a survey which found that SA had the highest rate of desexed cats for any state surveyed in the country.

This was also due to the mass desexing of all cats, owned and unowned, conducted by C.A.T.S. through wonderful cooperating vets. No cat bylaws were operating at this time.

Using our template, Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council has been so successful in controlling its cats through the partnership with C.A.T.S. that it has now had free cat desexing for all resident moggies, owned and unowned for over 2 years. (please see the second link below) and Council stating that “No expiation notices have been issued for cat related offences”.

A simple guide to all that is required in C.A.T.S. state-wide Booklet can also be found in this easy to read publication which is suitable for any age, at the first link below.
catassist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/CATS_A5Booklet_20pg.pdf

FREE Cat Desexing for Norwood Payneham & St Peters Council – C.A.T.S. (catassist.org.au) (Click on the wording – Read our full PDF Booklet )

The Submission, Attachment 1, therefore addresses all that is required to solve the main overbreeding of cats in South Australia, as the methods used have been tried and tested for over 35 years and, in those areas where this program has been applied en masse, have the proven results: Cat numbers have reduced, as have the cat-related problems and complaints, and also the impact on wildlife: This reduction, although successful, however, has been severely reduced by the legislation of 2018. (please see Attachment 2: Vice President’s letter)

We respectfully ask that you read our Submission and seriously reconsider your current legislative approach to Cat Management which has failed to successfully accomplish any of its aims or achieve any of its goals, regarding reducing cat numbers, cat-related problems and impact on native wildlife.

C.A.T.S. template however, has proved that all its aims have been successful and all its goals have been achieved. Our method of Desex and Return to Home of all cats, wherever possible, which rely on food provided directly or indirectly from human sources has been well received by the community. These cats include, friendly, non-friendly, farm, cats in factories and industrial sites, and cats which simply turn up in the gardens begging for food. Over 135,000 cat desexings have been organised through the C.A.T.S. low-priced desexing scheme.

Our goals of reducing cat numbers, cat-related problems and impact on wildlife had also been achieved and were working well before the cat legislation was introduced as the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995. This can be verified by reading the graph on page one of the attachment.

This is the template that needs to be adopted by State government and expanded on a large scale. C.A.T.S. will assist to help in any way we can to achieve this, now our ultimate goal, of making non-legislative cat management a state-wide success.

Our full Submission follows at Attachment 1 which provides a fully proven and successful template for managing cats WITHOUT legislation.

Attachment 1: Submission to the Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act
Attachment 2: Vice President’s letter

The South Australia State Government is now accepting your feedback on improving cat management. We look for your support with submissions and answering the survey questions. Public consultation closes September 4th 2024.

Your Action is Needed

• You can write a submission and send to this email address: DEW.DogAndCatReform@sa.gov.au
• You can answer the online survey found on the YourSAy website
• We’d love for you to do both. We’ve provided some guides to help you below.

Guides to Assist with your Submission/Survey

These guides are in PDF format

• Submission Sample
• Survey Guide

C.A.T.S. has made an official submission to the Public Consultation

You can view our official submission in PDF format below

• C.A.T.S. Submission to YourSAy Cat Management draft Bill 2024

We write the content in this submission with a view to outlining the alternative method to the Federal Government’s Threat Abatement Plan, being the only plan acceptable to an awakened and aware public on all the issues we outline.

WARNING – The Tea Tree Gully Council is considering a cat bylaw which would encourage cat-haters to trap and kill your cats.

You only have until MONDAY 3 July 2023 to get your opposition to the Council. Just a few days!

•  Cats bylaws do NOT solve problems, they create bigger ones.
• Cats are NOT dogs and cannot be managed like dogs.
• If a cat bylaw is imposed, it can have a limit of 2 cats per property.
• This will stop residents from taking responsibility for the unowned cats and getting them desexed.
• The cat bylaw can force cats to be registered and make you pay a fee every year.
• The cat bylaw can force you to confine your cats and charge you a fine if they trespass.
• Campbelltown Council is charging a fine of $312-50 if a cat trespass or breaks the cat bylaw.
• Cat bylaws encourage cat-haters to trap and kill your cats.

If you are not good at writing a submission you only have to send one sentence and say you do NOT support the cat bylaws and that Tea Tree Gully Council already has a good cat management program with low priced desexing and a good information Hotline through C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise on 8331 0476. That is enough and it will count.
Send it to Brooke
communityengagement@cttg.sa.gov.au

Or you can copy the following and send that…
To Brooke
email   communityengagement@cttg.sa.gov.au

Dear Community Engagement Officer
Tea Tree Gully Council

I am writing to oppose the Cat Bylaw which is being considered by the Council, as cat laws do not work.

They do not solve cat related problems but create bigger ones.

Cats are not dogs and cannot be managed like dogs.

Limiting cat numbers per household is not fair as some people only have cats and no other pets. Some also have big gardens while some only live in a block of units.

Having registration for cats and charging fees stop residents from taking responsibility for the unowned cats and getting them desexed. They will still feed the cats but they will be left to breed, so there will be even more cats and problems.

Forcing people to confine cats is cruel as some cats cannot be shut inside and no cats should be permanently confined.

Tea Tree Gully does not have a cat problem in any case. Thousands of cats, including former unowned cats, have been desexed through the C.A.T.S. Low Priced Desexing Scheme which has been running for over 30 years. There is also Hotline for anyone who needs help with cat care and good cat management information, which is free.

Please do not undermine the good cat management and high desexing rates we already have in Tea Tree Gully Council, because cat laws alienate the people who care for the cats and without their support nothing constructive will be achieved.

Yours faithfully
Put email address

Following is more information for those who want to write their own submission…

ATTENTION: Brooke 

Community Engagement Officer
City of Tea Tree Gully
communityengagement@cttg.sa.gov.au

Submission to the Tea Tree Gully Public Consultation for Cat Management 

Helping to desex owned cats and providing asistance for residents to take responsibility for unowned cats which they feed and care for and then get them desexed, and let them live in their gardens, is the solution to reducing the numbers of cats, the cat related problems and the threat to wildlife.

This is the only method which has proven to reduce cat numbers, problems and impact on wildlife.

Cat bylaws do not solve problems they simply undermine good cat management.

If cats are re-homed, removed, killed or confined, it simply creates a vacuum which is soon filled by new, usually undesexed cats, which breed to excess and actually increase the numbers per area.

This is a phenomenon of nature, called “The Vacuum Effect”, which obviously the state government has not understood or it would not have tabled the “Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995” in Parliament. This “Review” will not solve any of the catastrophic problems we now have, which have been caused by its previous legislative controls of 5 years ago, as most cat supporters will not comply with cat laws.

This failure to comply with legislative cat controls is also well documented by lack of any success in councils which have imposed cat bylaws: The RSPCA stating that “although some councils have introduced cat bylaws there is no tangible evidence of success”.

On the other hand, there is significant evidence of success that the “Desex and Return to Home” method does show tangible evidence of success, as it has reduced cat numbers, cat related problems and impact on wildlife in the areas where it has been applied.

One excellent example of this is the Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council (NP&SP) which has been working with the organisation Cats Assistance To Sterilise (CATS) for over 30 years. The NP&SP/CATS partnership has never had a cat bylaw, does not fine or threaten its constituents but assists with a good cat management policy and has been providing low priced cat desexing for over 30 years. It has now reduced its cat numbers and problems to such a degree that this partnership has been offering FREE cat desexing for all cats, owned and unowned, (except pedigree cats and from breeders) for the financial year 2022-2023. The result has been so amazing that this FREE cat desexing partnership has already been passed by Council to continue.

State government and councils should be investigating the success of the “Desex and Return to Home” program which is based on the Vacuum Effect and adheres to this scientifically proved phenomenon that if you remove one lot of cats, in an open system that supports cats, then a new lot of cats will recolonise and breed. (Unless there is something 24/7 to keep them out)

The government’s “Review”, however, is not evidence–based and includes nothing which will solve any of the problems we now have with the cat catastrophe: This massive drop in cat desexing and skyrocketing in cat numbers was caused by the state-wide mandatory microchipping and forcing of  recording on Dog And Cat Online (DACO) as most cat supporters have not complied and many have ceased desexing as well, for fear of being fined.

I therefore ask the question  

What is Tea Tree Gully Council trying to achieve with cat management? 

If it is to reduce cat numbers and cat-related problems and save wildlife, then this will not be achieved through cat laws.

Cat management laws don’t work, have never worked and there is no scientific evidence to prove that they could work. If Council wants a long and short-term-result with fewer cats, fewer problems and a stable ecosystem for wildlife, it should not waste staff time and ratepayers’ money on a cat bylaw..

Providing evidence of cat registration and enforcement is difficult and requires an enormous amount of staff time. The cost to ratepayers would also run into the tens of thousands of dollars to comply. Cat bylaws cost all ratepayers, not just cat owners. Registration fees do not cover costs because compliance is low, as shown by the Adelaide Hills Council which has stated on a recent zoom meeting, that “only 9% of its cats have been registered and that they are manly designer cats and not moggies”.

Regarding Permanent Cat Confinement 

There is no such thing as a cat-free zone in an open system that can sustain cats, unless there is something 24/7 to keep them out. Tea Tree Gully Council is in an open system and it does sustain cats.

The idea that all tame, owned cats can be confined and all free-living cats can be removed is pie in the sky. Removal of one lot of cats simply leaves a vacuum for another lot of cats to move in and breed.

This is a proved scientific fact. 

In addition, this constant removal of resident cats and infiltration of new cats destabilises the ecosystem and this creates a dangerous situation for native wildlife.

Given that having no cats is unattainable, the best solution is to have well fed, desexed and managed cats holding the territory and preventing new undesexed cats from infiltrating and breeding.

The more desexed cats, the fewer undesexed cats can infiltrate. 

Numbers then reduce to the minimum required, while controlling the rats and mice and deterring snakes.

There is no doubt that without enough cats there is an increase in the population of rodents and an influx of snakes. Records show that paramedics have been treating victims of snakebite every second day in the warmer weather.

Using baits to kill the rodents is polluting the environment, seeping into the waterways and poisoning the food chain.

There are no safe poisons. Example, such as Roundup, which was promoted as being safe, has now been shown to cause Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, with resulting massive compensation payouts. The Messenger records show that rat baits have already poisoned native wildlife and endangered children who could have found the poisoned food.

Permanent Cat Confinement also raises many problems which I feel have not been considered.

Most properties do not have enough space to build cat enclosures that are large enough to provide for the needs of cats. Even if they do, the cost is usually prohibiting.

These enclosures often contravene the building laws.

Confining cats in small cages or houses results in a build-up of fleas, requiring expensive flea control.  Costly cat litter is essential and continual cleaning of cat trays by the elderly and infirm is a constant worry. Dirty cat trays result in insanitary living- conditions. Cats also vomit on the carpets.

Confining undesexed female cats attracts tom cats into the area to caterwaul, spray and cause nuisance to neighbours.

Permanent confinement also prevents the cats from doing their job of keeping out new undesexed cats, controlling the rodents, and deterring snakes.

And the cats of course, suffer from being prevented from living their lives as nature intended, which is cruel.

Most cats suffer both physically and psychologically from permanent confinement. Injuries from cat attacks have escalated and hospital records show a significant increase in the number of people being admitted for these attacks by frustrated, confined cats.

Cats are already becoming obese and reports by vets of diabetes, heart disease and arthritis are increasing with cats not being able to have adequate exercise: Similar problems to humans who do not have adequate exercise.

The rental accommodation position is also in crisis and hard enough for tenants to get any homes: Forcing cats to be confined in houses, as in most cases there is no other choice of keeping cats on a set property, will exacerbate the problems of even getting a rental property. And most landlords will not allow cat-runs to be built on their financial asset.

Night Curfews also raise serious problems. 

Shift workers cannot be expected to be home at the given hours imposed by a cat curfew.

Elderly people are put at risk, wandering in the dark trying to find their beloved pets which won’t come inside for the curfew. This causes an enormous strain on people who continually worry about confining their cats in time. What happens when a disabled person in a wheelchair or on a walking frame can’t get their wayward cat inside?

Many cats do not adjust to being confined and create havoc by being locked in a house or run. Some literally climb the walls, spray on the TV and electrical appliances and rip up carpets.

Owners can be encouraged to keep their tame pets inside at night for the cats’ own safety, but this does not “save” native wildlife, because new cats infiltrate the vacated space.

Furthermore, when cats are let out in the morning, they catch the early birds off-guard. So,it is far better to keep the ecosystem stable.

Regarding Cat Registration 

The state government cat legislation has superseded any requirement for individual councils to have cat registration bylaws. Cats are required to have a microchip which is registered on Dog And Cat Online (DACO). This records names and addresses of owners and details of the cats. Owners wishing to retrieve their cats can use this free service.

However, this state legislation has also failed as the low percentage of the estimated 400,000 owned cats shows that most residents will not comply to microchipping cats and recording on Dog and Cat Online (DACO).

We need to remember that DACO is also FREE, and with this low compliance rate for free recording, how does Tea Tree Gully Council expect to get a higher percentage if it charges a fee?

At last check there are only about 9 SA councils out of 68 that have been unwise enough to have cat registration.

The Adelaide Hills Council is one of these Councils with a draconian cat bylaw which has caused complaints to the RSPCA, and also on-going problems for the Council. On a zoom presentation the Team Leader Matt Ahern stated that only 9% of the cats were registered and most of these were designer cats and not moggies: Another example of low compliance.

In addition, the cost for housing the trapped and surrendered cats is enormous and now the RSPCA won’t take any more as its shelters are overflowing.

The RSPCA states “Although some councils have introduced mandatory registration, there are no reports of its successful implementation”. 

Limiting cats to 2 per household is pointless and unfair. It is the way the cats are managed that matters, not the numbers. Some residents have properties with large gardens which require more than 2 cats to patrol and hold this area, while other residents live in blocks of units with no gardens. This means a block of 6 units can have 12 cats while a large property can have only 2 cats.

Some owners have multiple animals such as cats, dogs, rabbits, guinea pigs and birds, while some owners only have cats.

Furthermore, the existing Local Government Act already covers multiple nuisance animals, so why do we need to duplicate this?

With regard to the cruel practice of hiring out cat trapping cages to any Tom Dick or cat-hater, I find this appalling.

With escalating violence towards cats, such as the two pets that have been found with their heads decapitated, and those with arrows sticking out of them, how can Council justify hiring out these cages with no supervision as to their use or what happens to the cats. It is obvious from feedback that some of these trapped cats are being taken to the Adelaide hills and dumped. This is extremely cruel as these poor cats try to find their way back home, and usually die or get back home skin and bone. It is also a threat to the native wildlife as the cats have to kill in their struggle to survive, without their regular food supplied.

There is no guarantee that microchips will save the cats as microchips can fail to be read, move about in the cats’ bodies and cease to work. Cats can also be badly hurt in these unsupervised cages and have been known to hang by the collar on the mechanism, injure themselves requiring veterinary surgery and be destroyed at the shelters because microchips have not identified them.

Furthermore, trapping cages set on trappers’ properties lure the cats from their homes from up to at least 3 houses away with the smell from the baited cages. This is entrapment and abduction.

The RSPCA has banned the hiring of cat traps to the public stating that “owners are trapping their neighbors’ cats” If the RSPCA has banned this cruel practice, then why would the Tea Tree Gully Council want to have a cat bylaw and, as enforcement is required to manage it, provide cat trapping cages?

Attitudes are now changing and animal supporters have started world-wide opposition against the Australian government regarding its persecution and killing of cats and now the wheel is turning. Violence against animals is a forerunner of violence against humans and fines of 50 thousand dollars and 4 years in jail can be opposed. Hiring out cat trapping cages to the public facilitates cruelty, and leaves Council open to litigation as well.

Almost all complaints to Councils are solved by desexing the cats 

Almost all complaints to councils are cause by undesexed cats. The answer to these complaints is to desex the cats and return them to their homes, as trapping and removal exacerbates the problem.

Desexing solves up to 95% of cat related problems by preventing mating and breeding, stopping cats travelling in search of mates and caterwauling and fighting all night over them, stopping tomcat urine, and encouraging cats to stay at home.

Some cats do attack some wildlife but scientific studies show that most prey of cats consists of introduced species, mainly rats and mice. In addition, many anecdotal reports and unsubstantiated statements by people blaming cats for attacking wildlife are incorrect. The SA Museum stated that people are mistaking attacks by birds for cat attacks because cats hide with their prey. Cats do not leave feathers and fur in the open but Birds of Prey do. More birds are killed by Birds of Prey than are by cats and we don’t have bylaws to confine Birds of Prey.

The Solution is to provide education on the importance of desexing and information on what is needed to keep cats happy at home, without confinement.

This erroneous idea that cats “roam” needs to be addressed. “Roam” means to travel aimlessly and unsystematically” which cats do NOT do. Cats patrol with a purpose and it is this purpose that needs to be addressed.

1. Cats travel to patrol and hold their territory against intruder cats.
2. Cats travel to control rats and mice and deter snakes.
3. Cats travel in search of mates and breed.
4. Cats travel to find food.

We need cats to patrol to keep other undesexed cats from infiltrating.

We need cats to control the rodents and deter snakes.

We feed cats so they don’t need to travel to find food.

So what we need to do is desex the cats so that they do not travel in search of mates and breed, which is what causes the problems. It is the undesexed cats that cause the complaints so the answer is to concentrate on assisting with desexing the undesexed cats and educating residents regarding good cat management and providing for the needs of their cats.

We all need to be working together in harmony instead of alienating residents with threats of fines and seizure of cats, and exacerbating feuds between neighbors by hiring out cat trapping cages to lure their beloved pets to their death.

It is essential to work with the people who look after the cats as without their help, nothing constructive will be achieved. Using force, with threats of fees and fines, trapping and killing of cats will simply send the whole cat movement underground which is already happening in Councils with cat bylaws.

Thank you for the opportunity to send you my submission and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions.

Please make sure that you do this NOW as we only have a few days until the Public Consultation closes on Monday 3 July 2023.

Your cats’ lives may depend on your submissions.

Thanking you for supporting the cats of Tea Tree Gully Council

Cats will be trapped, injured and killed

The Campbelltown Council SA has imposed a diabolical cat bylaw on its residents and is promoting the trapping and killing of their cats.
We need every cat supporter to try and stop this cat bylaw.
There is a Motion on the Parliament Agenda to have this cat bylaw disallowed and we need lots of people to email pangallo.office@parliament.sa,gov,au and say you want the Campbelltown Council cat bylaw disallowed. Please do it to save the cats and do it now. It does not have to be a long email. Just a few words will do. Thank you.

18th March 2023

Update

The Motion by the SA Legislative Review Committee formerly on the Parliamentary Agenda to disallow the Campbelltown Council Cats By-Law 2023 has been withdrawn which we consider is extremely poor and find suspicious, but we don’t consider that this was a unanimous decision of the whole LRC. Currently there is still a Motion posted by Frank Pangallo MP (SA BEST) to disallow this diabolical cat bylaw. We consider that SA BEST is now literally the BEST and now deserves our support and votes.

31st January 2023

Christmas Day Cat Catastrophe

Currently there is a Motion by the SA Legislative Review Committee on the Parliamentary Agenda to disallow the Campbelltown Council Cats By-Law 2023. This is to be debated shortly when Parliament resumes.

If this is not disallowed then…
Cats will be trapped, injured and killed. Microchips won’t guarantee return.

Council cannot deliver cat-free yards and stop wildlife attacks as new cats infiltrate. (“Vacuum Effect”)

Council’s Animal Management Plan states. “Even if Council was to be effective in confining pet cats, ‘unprotected spaces’ would be subject to visitation from feral cats. Officers provide advice and guidance to cat owners to be responsible by promoting the desexing of cats through the CATS (Cats Assistance To Sterilise) program.”

The introduction of cat bylaws in 2018 which sought to reduce cat numbers has resulted in the opposite. This was a predictable outcome – forecast by C.A.T.S. Inc and other cat experts.

In spite of this catastrophe, the 2022 Review of Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 just tabled in Parliament, states plans to continue treating cats like dogs, so nothing will be gained”, said Ms Christine Pierson, President of C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc.

“ The cat registration fees and confinement will result in an economic hit to cat owners already reeling from high inflation, home mortgage costs and record homelessness,” added Ms Pierson, “and since the government plans to destroy all cats which can’t be domesticated, many pet cats will be killed in the cull, with owners devastated at losing their beloved moggies, as microchips fail to save them in many cases.

Also, if these measures are introduced, there will be more dumping of cats as owners struggle to pay the costs of confining cats and registration fees, as well as the difficulties of shutting up cats inside which are used to living in the gardens.

Pensioners and low-income people will be particularly hard hit as the companionship of a cat is often important for elderly, isolated, vulnerable and/or low-income people.  Making it harder for residents to enjoy the company of a cat will be a cruel decision of State Parliament if this legislation is passed”, she added.

“The greatest omissions in the review include

• the lack of scientific evidence to back up the effectiveness of the plan (confining pet cats and killing the rest) in reducing cat numbers and predation on wildlife
• no details included regarding the failure and devastating effects of cat containment plans in interstate councils (see attachment)
• ignoring the failure of 2018 amendments to the Act which imposed compulsory microchipping on owned cats which resulted in a huge drop in the number of cats being desexed, despite the Governments claim that 83% of pet cats have been desexed. If we look at the 85,770 desexed cats recorded on DACO (Dog and Cat Online) over the estimated 400,000 estimated pet cats actually owned (RSPCA estimate) that only gives us close to 21.5% – a big disparity in figures. Most people are simply not registering on DACO., so the law cannot be enforced.
• To date, no open and transparent public consultation for the review, except for breeders and a few selected organisations.
• the fact that there are an estimated 200,000 unowned cats ready to move into the vacated gardens and surrounding spaces and breed, if owned cats are confined, removed or killed, (The Vacuum Effect, a scientifically proved phenomenon of nature which ensures the cat population is restored as nature abhors a vacuum)

Cats are not dogs and cannot be managed in the same way.  Cats cannot be managed by legislation.  The failure of the 2018 Legislative changes to reduce cat numbers show legislative approaches do not work.  Unfortunately, State authorities have decided to double down on the legislative attack and their efforts are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past”, Ms Pierson added.

“The only method which has resulted in tangible evidence of success , in reducing cat numbers and cat-related problems, is to desex all cats owned and unowned and return them to hold their home territory against an influx of new, undesexed cats, (Desex and Return to Home) as pioneered by C.A.T.S. An example of this success is Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council which now has FREE cat desexing across its whole district”, concluded Ms Pierson.

Media Release

C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc

For further information and interviews please contact:
C.A.T.S. ph: (08) 8331 0476
Website: catassist.org.au

Authorised by Christine Pierson, President C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc.
– Cat Behaviourist and Cat Consultant
– Former Councillor Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council
– Former member State Government Cat Consultative Committee to the Dog and Cat Management Board
– Former TAFE instructor in Cat Management to Council staff and the public
– Former teacher Dip KTC
– Recipient of State Government Award for C.A.T.S. for “Service to Councils”

Further Information

• C.A.T.S. Submission to the 2022 Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (PDF)
  – Which compares the success of NON-legislative cat management with failure of the legislative approach
• Copy of the State Government 2022 Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act 1995 (PDF)
  – See specifically pages 15 and 16 “Power to destroy cats”
• KEY POINT UPDATE 2023 – evidence-based (DOCX)
  – Regarding failure of cat confinement/containment and evidence-based information
• Also: From the Cat’s Eye View

NB It needs to be noted that Rob Lucas on behalf of the SA State Liberal Party, voted against us and supported tethering cats by chains to fixed objects, which means using a collar which did not come off, a chain, and fastening it to a post.

This incredible cruelty has got to be opposed and we need to remember that this government is currently in power and will be conducting the Review of the Dog and Cat Management Act in 2022.
Legislation for cat management has failed in SA. Cats are not dogs and cannot be managed like dogs and the two species should never have been put into the same Act.
In the last three years, since the state-wide, State Government Cat Legislation was imposed, requests for desexing have dropped to half,  the numbers of undesexed cats and kittens have​ escalated, and dumping of felines has increased.

Anyone who would like to be kept up to date on this Review and how they can help, can list their emails at the following email address: animalsassistant@outlook.com

 South Australia’s Legislative Council’s Hon Connie Bonaros MLC of SA BEST has disallowed the proposed Campbelltown Council cat bylaw.

“This Motion was successful and the Council has been sent away with its tail between its legs” said Ms Christine Pierson, the President of C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc. 

So too has a similar proposed cat bylaw by the Town of Gawler.

“This, now quashed, proposed City of Campbelltown cat bylaw was totally and utterly unjustified, extreme in its requirements, unrealistic in its objectives, unsupported by the science of cat behaviour and had detrimental consequences to both the cats, and the owners and carers, with its application!” 

“The draft cat bylaw was dumped because it included, demands for horrendous cruelty of tethering cats by a fixed collar and chain to a post, plus the following massive grievance list against inadequate consultation and overbearing and intimidating demands… “, she added.

“most residents and ratepayers did not know about the proposed cat bylaw and it was done during the time that they were excluded from the public gallery because of the COVID19  

• absolute minimum of notification; questionable that even the minimum was carried out during the full stated public consultation period
• little – chance of constituents finding out about the public consultation as most people were trying to stay at home and still many do not have access to the internet and did not know about it in any case
•  that it undermines a 30-year, long-term Community/Council C.A.T.S. Cat Management Program as set out in Council’s Animal Management Plan, unanimously supported by previous City of Campbelltown elected members, which has been extremely successful in reducing the cat numbers and cat related problems by, desexing over 5,000 cats and controlling unowned cats, also strongly supported by the wider community
•  no demonstrated need for the bylaw as complaints about cats are minimal, and the few pockets where the cats are coming from the Adelaide Hills Council are already being addressed by residents
• minimal substantiated evidence to prove that cats have been a significant threat to wildlife as sightings stated of feathers in the open are obviously attacked by Birds of Prey (stated by the Adelaide Museum) and almost never can complainants prove that cats were responsible for attacks on wildlife when asked to substantiate their claims
• no evidence has been provided that the bylaw would or could save native wildlife in any case, and the mass desexing of both owned and unowned cats and keeping these cats well fed are the best way to minimise such threats, as removal results in new undesexed, hungry cats infiltrating and breeding to excess
•  no clear indication of the aims and goals of the proposed cat bylaw as required under the Dog and Cat Management Act
• no details provided of the methods to be used to achieve any assumed goals of the Cat Bylaw as stated as a requirement in the Dog and Cat Management Act
•  no evidence provided that the assumed goals could realistically or would ever be achieved
• no details of the costs of the fines were provided in the information to residents
•  no details of the fees to be charged for registration of cats or if the fees were going to be charged
• against the wishes of the community who have made it clear that the proposed cat bylaw is not wanted by the majority (62% of respondents to the public consultation opposed the cat bylaw and 83% of respondents opposed the Cat Bylaw in the previous “Roaming Cats Survey” on which the Cat Bylaw was based)
•  Council has withheld information of residents’ rights to complain under their democratic right and constituents were not told that they could complain to the Legislative Review Committee and the State Ombudsman about their grievances , when they asked elected members and Council staff whom can they contact with their grievances
• lack of support from Ward Councillors and inadequate representation
•  the cat bylaw would cause extreme emotional and financial hardship for those cat owners who cannot comply with the requirements of the bylaw
•  extreme stress and difficulties for the many, especially the elderly, infirmed and disabled ratepayers regarding caring for and managing confined cats
• impossible for shift workers to comply with the requirements of the by-law
• almost impossible, even for pet cats to be retrained into the specific, restrictive and unnatural requirements of the bylaw and impossible for most cats to be fully confined, particularly those not accustomed to being kept inside
•  Vets are now confirming that cats are becoming obese and their health is being affected by confinement
•  cats are becoming depressed and anxious and Vets are having to prescribe anti-depression drugs which is not acceptable
•  anxiety caused by confinement is causing aggression and big increases in attacks on owners by confine cats; hospital records prove this
•  cats are not like dogs and cannot be managed like dogs
•  cats cannot be adequately exercised on leashes ; leashes are not recommended by the RSPCA
•  the RSPCA has stated that cat trapping cages should not be provided to the general public
•  the unintended consequences of unowned cat numbers increasing rapidly resulting from the confinement of owned, desexed cats being prevented from maintaining their territories; the “Vacuum Effect a scientifically proved phenomenon of nature as noted in the current Campbelltown Council Animal Management Plan as “The management of domestic and feral cats cannot be considered in isolation due to the territorial nature of cats. Even if Council was to be effective in confining pet cats, ‘unprotected spaces’ would be subject to visitation from feral cats.”
• confinement and removal of desexed cats resulting in an influx of new undesexed cats, less likely to be well fed, constitutes a far greater threat to native wildlife
•  concerns expressed by residents in adjoining councils that their cats may visit neighbours who live across the boundary and get caught in the traps and injured or killed. Campbelltown Council provides these trapping cages without any supervision as to what happens to the trapped cats
• the by-law defies the science of cat behaviour and is a recipe for an environmental and economic disaster,” Ms Pierson confirmed.

“C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc, Campbelltown Cat Management and Welfare Group, Cat Protection Society of SA Inc, Cat Support Group of SA, Campbelltown Council constituents. Animals Australia, Animal Justice Party and other organisations and individuals combined to concentrate for the last 12 months on finding sufficient evidence to support having this proposed cat bylaw quashed.”

“Our heartfelt thanks to Connie Bonaros for her courageous stand to right the wrongs that were threatening upon the constituents and cats of Campbelltown Council.”

“The City of Campbelltown already has a highly successful mass desexing and good cat management Plan which has been strongly supported by the previous Campbelltown Councils (until mainly new councillors and a new Mayor were elected) which has resulted in an excellent example of amicably managing cats and reducing cat numbers and cat related problems on a large and wide-scale basis, with many thousands of cats being desexed through the Low Priced C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Desexing Scheme.” 

As stated – “This, now quashed, proposed City of Campbelltown cat bylaw was totally and utterly unjustified, extreme in its requirements, unrealistic in its objectives, unsupported by the science of cat behaviour and had detrimental consequences to both the cats, and the owners and carers, with its application!” 

Media Release

C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc

PO Box 160 Kensington Park SA 5068

For further information please contact:
Christine Pierson at animalsassistant@outlook .com
– C.A.T.S. Cats Assistance To Sterilise Inc
– Cat Behaviourist and Cat Consultant
– Former Councillor Norwood Payneham and St Peters Council
– Former member State Government Cat Consultative Committee to the Dog and Cat Management Board
– Former TAFE instructor in Cat Management to Council staff and the public
– Former teacher Dip KTC
– Recipient of State Government Award for C.A.T.S. for “Service to Councils