We Advocate for a UK Cat Act
U.K. cats require increased legal protection. Time after time when laws are introduced to regulate or protect animals in the UK, cats are always left behind when preference is given to protecting dogs’ welfare instead. Even microchipping requirements have yet to be legislated for and recently it became evident through Government response to Gizmo legacy petition that there will likely never be any official recognition or protection given them by authorities.
Following Gizmo’s tragic road accident death and subsequent disposal by veterinary surgeon without scanning, his owner launched a petition demanding legal requirements that dead cats must be scanned before disposal by them. Unfortunately, their government’s response is that this legislation is unnecessary: local authorities, veterinarians practices and rehoming centres already encouraged to microchip and scan cats under existing laws; additionaly they already possess scanners due to those laws requiring dogs be microchipped and scanned as well.
Microchipping cats is beneficial to their welfare and publicizing its benefits is important; however, lost or stray cats do not pose the same public safety risks that dogs do so making compulsory cat microchipping not considered necessary at this time”.
No one takes cats’ welfare seriously in the UK. Our only protection comes from antiquated property laws which offer them minimal protection. There is no mandatory need to neuter or vaccinate them, no limit on how many can be kept, no licensing or registration, and no controls over breeding; thus leading to an ongoing “cat crisis” with thousands lost, abandoned and unwanted cats each year spending huge sums trying to be returned home or fighting breeding without considering welfare concerns. Charities spend millions each year working tirelessly on repatriation campaigns against breeding without considering welfare measures taken against cats under negligent ownership by spending millions each year trying to repatriate lost cats back home while fighting off breeding without legal responsibilities from irresponsible owners.
Cats enjoy an exclusive right to roam, which affords them the “right to roam”. This freedom to move allows cats to be freed of being securely confined and roam freely without fear of legal repercussions due to being non-trespassing animals. Unfortunately, however, many people view cats as pests and may take drastic measures against them including shooting poison or killing them outright.
Local authorities usually disregard complaints of cats using gardens as toilets, digging up flowerbeds or causing distress by catching birds as these issues do not require intervention or action unless the situation becomes extreme. Some have gone as far as to suggest local authorities should act under the Human Rights Act, 1998 to combat nuisance cats, since under Article 8 they have the right to enjoy their property and home without interference – this includes cat owners as they also enjoy their cats without interference. A cat owner has an obligation to take reasonable measures to stop their cat causing damage or nuisance and in extreme cases they could receive an anti-social behaviour order (ASBO).
There are similar problems worldwide, especially in the USA, Australia and New Zealand; but in certain parts of Australia they have taken action by passing what some may consider restrictive “Cat Acts”, yet we could learn something from their experience.
Australian leaders could set us an example. In November 2013, Western Australia State Government implemented the Cat Act in order to control and manage cats as well as encourage responsible cat ownership. It aims to decrease unwanted breeding, seize any stray or lost cats found on public or private property and help reunite lost cats with their owners.
Before they are registered with their local authority at 6 months of age, cats must have already been neutered and microchipped. Vets must notify a microchipping company when neutering a cat and give its owner a certificate from that company. When selling or transferring ownership, owners are legally liable to update microchip details accordingly or face fines for failing to do so.
There are similar regulations in Victoria but less stringently, which include microchipping at three months and wearing of registration tags provided by local authorities. Any cat that wanders away from its property without authorisation can be seized as there is no right of roam and fines must be paid when claimed. Local authorities in Victoria can impose restrictions such as being kept indoors during certain hours or areas or restricting ownership or restricting number per household in addition to mandating neutering for all.
No one should suggest restricting cats’ freedom to roam; rather, an all-encompassing law to address cat ownership and welfare concerns would provide long-term solutions that will improve both their health and welfare in Britain.