Stray and Owner-Relinquished Cats in Australia-Estimation of Numbers Entering Municipal Pounds, Shelters and Rescue Groups and Their Outcomes

Impact of a Local Government Funded Free Cat Sterilization Program for Owned and Semi-Owned Cats

In most states of Australia, local governments (councils) are responsible for the enforcement of legislation relating to domestic cats. Traditional methods used for cat management based on trap-adopt or euthanize programs have been ineffective, with cat-related calls and cat impoundments continuing to increase, resulting in many healthy cats being euthanized. This has detrimental effects on the mental health of animal management officers, staff in shelters and council facilities, and cat caregivers. The city of Banyule, Victoria, implemented a free cat sterilization, microchipping, and registration (licensing) program in 2013/14. Initially, it was targeted at three low-socioeconomic suburbs with the highest cat-related calls and intake, and was microtargeted at call locations. An average of 4.1 cats/1000 residents per year were sterilized over eight years. The program included stray cats being fed by caregivers, provided they took ownership. The program was later expanded city-wide. Over eight years, city-wide cat intake decreased by 66%, euthanasia by 82%, and cats reclaimed by owners increased from 6% of intake (2012/13) to 16% (2020/21). Cat-related calls decreased in the target area by 51%, and city-wide by 36%. The council realized cost savings of AU $440,660 associated with reduced costs for cat-related calls to council (AU $137,170) and charges from the contracted welfare agency (AU $303,490), for an outlay of AU $77,490 for sterilization costs. Instead of the traditional management of urban cats, proactive management based on targeted sterilization should be utilized by government and animal welfare agencies in Australia and internationally. These types of programs are effective at reducing cat intake and euthanasia and are cost-effective.

Solutions-Based Approach to Urban Cat Management-Case Studies of a One Welfare Approach to Urban Cat Management

Urban free-roaming cats create concern about their impacts on wildlife and human health, leading to the use of trap-adopt-kill methods to manage these populations. This method is ineffective at decreasing the free-roaming cat population and has a negative impact on cat caregivers' well-being. Using semi-structured interviews, this study explored the relationship that semi-owners (people who feed cats but do not perceive ownership) and owners of multiple cats have with the cats they care for, and the social and psychological impacts of an alternative assistive-centered approach to urban cat management. This approach to semi-owned and owned cats provided free sterilization and preventative healthcare. Our findings demonstrate that the caregivers had a strong emotional bond with the cats they cared for. The caregivers also experienced a positive impact on their quality of life, and indicated an improvement in the cats' welfare after having the cats sterilized through this program. Additionally, the cat caregivers indicated that they had a negative view of agencies, such as the municipal council. It is recommended that an assistive-centered approach to urban cat management be prioritized by local councils and welfare agencies to improve caregivers' quality of life and psychological well-being, whilst also improving cat welfare. The implementation of this assistive-centered management approach could improve the relationship between communities and the agencies involved, leading to the continuous reporting of free-roaming cats for sterilization. This assistive-centered approach has the potential to reduce the free-roaming cat population, their effects on wildlife, nuisance complaints, and council impoundments, and is aligned with the One Welfare philosophy.

Euthanasia of Cats by Australian Veterinarians: A Survey of Current Practices

We sought to document the contemporary feline euthanasia practices among Australian veterinarians and determine the factors associated with the administration of a premedication or sedation prior to euthanasia. Australian veterinarians who had euthanised at least one cat during the previous 12 months were invited to participate in an anonymous online survey. From 615 valid responses, 585 respondents (95.1%) had euthanised at least one cat in the last 12 months, of which 462 respondents (75.1%) had performed an emergency euthanasia. Intravenous (IV) injection (n = 536, 91.6%) of pentobarbitone sodium (n = 584, 99.8%) was the predominant primary method. Premedication or sedation was administered to cats by 415/585 (71.0%) and 242/462 (52.4%) of respondents in non-emergency and emergency euthanasia, respectively. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, for non-emergency euthanasia, being female and working in a metropolitan area were significant predictors for administering a premedication or sedation (p < 0.001 and p = 0.037, respectively). For emergency euthanasia, working in an 'other' type of practice was a significant predictor for administering a premedication or sedation (p < 0.001). Australian veterinarians vary in their approach to feline euthanasia. There is scope for refinement of euthanasia techniques to maximise the welfare of cats, their owners or guardians, and veterinary team members.