Responsible ownership and care of domestic cats in Scotland: report

6. SAWC evidence-gathering and analysis

In preparing this report SAWC relied on evidence presented by various experts in the field of cat welfare, stray cat management and wildcat conservation (see Appendix 1 for full list). We also made use of the scientific and grey literature to obtain data on cat numbers, welfare issues and the main responses made to control cat populations. Cat numbers in different categories are estimations, with some variation based on the source of the numbers^[1,3,4], and with some variation from year to year. However, these do provide a reasonable estimation of the likely numbers of cats in the UK and Scotland from year to year, as well as trends in owner behaviour towards owned cats.

The focus of much of the scientific literature has been on the welfare of owned cats and cats in shelters. There is also some literature that addresses feral cat populations, although this is largely not in the UK and concentrated on urban cat populations, particularly in countries that provide feeding stations. Few data are specific to Scotland for owned or unowned populations, other than the ‘CATS Scotland’ reports^[1], but these can be extrapolated from other literature. There does appear to be a considerable degree of uncertainty around the numbers and welfare issues associated with rural feral cats in Scotland, which reflects the degree of difficulty in observing and collecting information on this sub-population. We recommend that specific research be conducted to provide more robust estimates of feral cat populations, including those that are classified as ‘farm cats’, which may represent an important reservoir of unneutered and unvaccinated cats in rural locations.

In addition, we were unable to find reliable evidence for the flows of cats from one population to another, although this information would be very valuable to understanding how one population of cats can contribute to animals in other populations, in order to determine the most appropriate response to deal with feral cat issues. Whilst it is clear that rural cats, if allowed to roam freely and are unneutered, would likely contribute to the population of rural, feral cats, it is less clear how likely it is that unneutered indoor cats, living in an urban environment, have an impact on feral cat populations. We would welcome better information in this area and recommend that further research is conducted to ensure a better understanding of the dynamic movements of cats from one population to another. A programme of mandatory microchipping of owned cats would likely help to achieve a better understanding of this area.

Legal status of cats in Scotland

Animal welfare

Part 2 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 applies

to vertebrate animals which are (1) of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands, or (2) under the control of man (sic) on a permanent or temporary basis, or (3) not living in a wild state (ss 16(1), 17(1)). An animal is required to meet only one of these conditions to fall within the scope of the Act. The term “kind” is not further defined in the statute and it has not been possible to find any relevant judicial authority as to its meaning in this context.

Felis catus is the name for the domestic cat originally given by Linnaeus. Significantly, Felis domesticus is also used, although the former is generally preferred. Although it has been argued that Felis catus do not fulfil all the criteria for domestication (due to cats’ flexibility in their living arrangement with humans)^[2], the species is widely regarded as being domesticated in contrast, for example, to Felis silvestris. Further, the ‘Act for the More Effectual Protection of Animals from Cruelty in Scotland’ (1850) which, despite its title, was the first animal cruelty legislation to apply north of the border, expressly included “Dog, Cat or any other domestic Animal” within its scope (s xl). Similarly, “cat” was also included in the definition of “domestic animal” in the statute which replaced the 1850 Act, the Protection of Animals (Scotland) Act 1912 (s 13(b)). Although the respective terms “domestic” and “domesticated” are not entirely synonymous, there is no evidence that the Scottish Parliament intended to narrow the class of cats to which the 2006 Act applies in comparison with what had gone before and, while the issue is not mentioned in the explanatory notes to accompany the Scottish Act, those published in relation to the identically worded provision in the English statute specifically state that “stray dogs and feral cats are covered”; again, there is no evidence that the Scottish Parliament intended the term to be interpreted differently in Scotland. Only a court is able to provide an authoritative interpretation of the phrase “of a kind commonly domesticated in the British Islands” but, in the meantime, on the basis of the foregoing, it is submitted that all members of the species Felis catus are properly to be regarded as a “protected animal” in the context of the 2006 Act, including feral and semi-feral individuals, who may have adopted a more independent lifestyle. It follows that it is an offence for any person to cause a cat unnecessary suffering by an act in circumstances where the person knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act would cause suffering or be likely to do so (s 19(1).

Where a person has assumed responsibility for a cat - by means of ownership, taking charge of it, or having control of it on either a permanent or temporary basis – they commit an offence if they cause it unnecessary suffering by means of either an act or an omission. In addition, they have an ongoing duty for so long as they remain responsible for the animal to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to ensure that its needs are met to the extent required by good practice (ss 18, 19(2), 24). The Scottish Government has issued a Code of Practice for the Welfare of Cats^[111]. Failing to comply with the Code does not in itself constitute an offence, but can be used in evidence in proceedings brought under Part 2 of the 2006 Act (s 37(8)(9)). In addition, unlike England, Scotland has retained an offence of abandonment. Thus, a person responsible for a cat commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, they either abandon the animal in circumstances likely to cause it unnecessary suffering or leaves it unattended and fails to make adequate provision for its welfare (s 29(1)(2)).

Property status and value

Whether a cat is owned and, if so, by whom, is a question of fact to be determined in the light of the particular circumstances. Proof of purchase or rehoming, details on a microchip register, and registration with a veterinary practice are examples of evidence establishing ownership. That said, given the itinerant lifestyle of some cats, there may well be circumstances in which an apparently stray cat has taken up regular residence with more than one household, each of which considers that they have adopted the animal as their own.

Domestic dogs and cats are both defined as property under common law, but even here there are differences of approach, reflecting both the greater positive value historically placed on dogs, with their greater utility to humans and, on the negative side, their greater potential to cause nuisance or injury.

The longstanding permissive tendency to allow owned cats to roam freely seems to be based on two slightly conflicting assumptions; that they are of lesser material, and possibly emotional, value to their owners (and therefore their loss matters less) and are less likely to cause damage to people, property or other animals. The differing values placed on dogs and cats are also reflected in the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 170 which requires a driver to stop and report an accident involving ‘damage’ to livestock and dogs, but the same does not apply to cats (or other companion animals). Responding to Petition PE1938 lodged by Carlie Power in the Scottish Parliament in 2022, the Scottish Government stated: ‘Cats […] have a much lesser impact on their surrounding environment than dogs, will often go about their locale unnoticed and are unlikely to pose a danger to a member of the public.’

Nowadays, some of these assumptions are questioned. There is a greater acknowledgment of the companionship and emotional value that a cat can provide to its owner, but also increasing concern about the toll on wildlife caused by cats’ predatory nature and highly developed hunting skills as well as the potential to harbour zoonotic diseases harmful to humans and other animals.

Conservation issues, damage and nuisance

The Scottish wildcat, a European Protected Species, is the only native member of the cat family still wild in Britain and it is fully protected under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended). Domestic cats are descended from the North African wildcat, Felis l. lybica, and were introduced to Europe during the expansion of the Roman Empire and are therefore non-native. It is an offence under s.14(1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to release or allow a non-native species to escape from captivity in Scotland. NatureScot advises that releasing a feral domestic cat requires a licence, irrespective of whether it is neutered or not, and that land managers are allowed to use appropriate lethal methods to control feral domestic cats. The Code of Practice on Non-Native Species, issued under the s.14C of the 1981 Act, clarifies that cats allowed out of the house for exercise are not considered to be released, even though no longer under physical control, as they are expected to return and remain dependent on their owner for food and other requirements.

The Animals (Scotland) Act 1987, which provides civil remedies for damage done by certain animals, does not include cats on its list of animals. Only dogs and livestock are considered likely to cause damage to property and/or injure people. This is generally interpreted as meaning that the law does not require owners to confine their cats within their property and that normal behaviours, such as roaming and predation, are accepted.

However, cat owners do have a general duty of care towards others not to cause injury or damage and this is often cited where a cat has been attacking others, fouling gardens or damaging property by scratching. These cases can be the cause of significant neighbourhood disputes, sometimes requiring the local authority to resort to an anti-social behaviour order (on the owner).

Cats are covered by section 79(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which requires local authorities to respond to and investigate complaints about nuisances caused by animals. In an English case some decades ago, large numbers of cats straying from nearby premises and fouling neighbours’ properties were held to constitute a nuisance (R v Walden-Jones ex parte Coton 1963), but this was an exceptional case.

Identification and registration All dogs, other than working dogs, must wear a collar with the owner’s name and address when on a highway or in a public place, and dog owners are required to keep dogs under control in public (Control of Dogs Order 1992). Since April 2016 every keeper of a dog in Scotland older than 8 weeks must ensure that it is microchipped, and the microchips registered with an accredited database (Microchipping of Dogs (Scotland) Regulations 2016).

Neither of the above measures currently applies to cats in Scotland. In England the Microchipping of Cats and Dogs (England) Regulations 2023 now provide that from 10 June 2024 cats must be implanted with a microchip before they reach the age of 20 weeks, and their contact details stored and kept up to date in a pet microchipping database.

The Scottish Government’s code of practice for the welfare of cats does identify microchipping as the preferred method of identification for cats, but there is currently no proposal to make this mandatory in Scotland.

In 2022, Petition PE1938, lodged by Carlie Power, called on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to introduce mandatory microchipping of cats in Scotland and to assess the effectiveness of current microchip-scanning processes. In its response the Scottish Government stated that it did not currently consider that microchipping or the scanning of microchips should be made compulsory for cats at that time. It also said that it shared concerns expressed by UK counterparts that compulsory scanning could inadvertently place an enforcement role on veterinary surgeons, putting them in a difficult situation that would detract from their principal focus of providing treatment and care for the animal.

On 8 March 2023 the Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee closed the petition on the understanding that the microchipping of domestic cats featured in the SAWC work plan as a medium-term issue.

Learning from other jurisdictions

Identification, registration, neutering and containment

Many administrations around the world have statutory measures in place to promote responsible cat ownership through compulsory identification (usually via microchip) and registration schemes, compulsory sterilisation and cat containment measures. Some of these are motivated by animal welfare, whereas others focus more on controlling feral and domestic cat populations, in order to protect wildlife.

Identification and registration of pet cats are interdependent. Without databases to record owner information, the insertion of a microchip is of little value. Equally, while registration may theoretically be possible without a means of permanent identification, in practice all the legislation examined by SAWC required either a microchip or a tattoo as part of the process.

Some regimes depend on the owner to carry out the registration after the microchip has been inserted by a veterinary surgeon or other authorised implanter, whereas in others the onus is on the vet to supply the initial registration. Some countries have national databases, while others rely on a number of commercial or voluntary services. Europetnet, a Europe (and UK-) wide umbrella group, combines data from national databases to locate pets across different countries, however membership of this scheme is still limited in the UK and is not compulsory. Member databases are listed on its website^[112].

Since the introduction of measures to ease the non-commercial movement of pets in the European Union (Regulation (EU) No 576/2013), a growing illegal trade has seen many young animals travelling with microchips, but accompanied by fraudulent passports, which provide false information on their origin. Animal welfare advocates now recommend an EU-wide regulation, requiring the identification and registration of dogs and cats, as a measure to address the illegal trade in pets. Current legislation for the movement of pets only requires microchipping, not that the animal is also registered on a database.

In the absence of an EU regulation, several member states have introduced domestic legislation either directly mandating identification, registration and/or breeding control of domestic cats, or permitting regional or local authorities to do so. At the time of writing, Belgium, France, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and England have national or regional measures on compulsory identification and registration of cats, with measures at local-authority level in some other member states and a proposal for legislation in The Netherlands. Austria, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Slovakia, Spain and Sweden have measures, requiring owners to control their cats’ reproduction, generally by sterilisation, although containment was also encouraged (some of the fertility-control requirements applied only to cats allowed to roam outside). In some cases, reproduction was permitted, as long as the owners ensured that they found homes for all kittens or kept them.

The approaches taken in Belgium, Germany and Sweden are described in more detail below, largely based on information supplied to SAWC in 2023 by representatives of countries in membership of EuroFAWC. While the questions we posed to EuroFAWC only covered policies and legislation on cat sterilisation, the responses we received linked those issues with identification and registration, highlighting the importance of traceability for both welfare and population control.

We have also looked at the provisions in Australia. SAWC is grateful to all colleagues who have supplied us with information.

Belgium

Animal welfare was regulated at federal level until 2014, when the competence was devolved to the three regional governments – Brussels, Flanders and Wallonia. The legislation covering cat welfare and population control is broadly similar across the three regions, with some slight variations. The purpose of the legislation is to protect cat welfare and reduce the level of strays and overcrowded shelters.

In the Brussels and Wallonia regions, owners and keepers must have their cats sterilised before they reach the age of six months, or are traded, or within 30 days of entering either region, if a cat is more than five months old. A derogation for authorised breeders applies, but cats must be sterilised once they are no longer intended for breeding.

In Flanders, all domestic cats must be neutered by the age of five months. Flanders also requires local municipal authorities to implement TNR schemes for stray cats, with subsidy from the regional authority for nature protection, as a wildlife protection measure.

In all three regions domestic cats must be identified by microchips and registered before the age of 12 weeks and/or before the cat is traded. The requirement extends to cats transferred free of charge (although shelters may take in unidentified cats), as well as to cats coming from abroad. The City of Brussels subsidises both microchipping and sterilisation costs in the municipality.

Unidentified cats being returned to their owners by shelters must be identified and registered at the owner’s expense.

Data concerning the cat and its owner must be registered in a central database (CAT ID) common to the three regions of the country. Initial registration is by the veterinarian, who implants the microchip and issues a certificate to the owner.

The database collects the following information:

• the cat's data: a) identification number; b) date of birth; c) identification date; d) sex; e) sterilisation date; f) breed; g) coat colour and type; h) name; i) status: lost, stolen, dead, exported.
• the details of the owner or keeper: a) first and last name; b) national register number; c) full address; d) telephone number; e) email address; f) for shelters and recognised breeders, the approval number.
• the details of the veterinarian.

Germany

The federal Animal Welfare Act 2006 places a duty on owners to ensure that their cats do not reproduce uncontrollably. It devolves powers for controlling cat populations to state governments and, by extension, to municipal authorities. A single national measure for the compulsory neutering of all cats was considered disproportionate as the underlying animal welfare problem of stray and homeless cats varies greatly from region to region.

Article 13b of the Act empowers state governments to issue ordinances for the protection of stray and feral cats (‘freilebender Katzen’), where cats are suffering due to overpopulation and where a reduction in numbers in the area can improve their welfare. State governments may delegate these powers to municipal authorities. Ten federal states (Baden-Württemberg, Schleswig-Holstein, Bavaria, Hesse, Rhineland-Palatinate, North Rhine-Westphalia, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Thuringia, Lower Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt) have created state ordinances, while hundreds of cities and municipalities have also made regulations covering identification, registration and sterilisation.

Ordinances must define the areas where measures to reduce populations will apply; prohibit or restrict the free roaming of owned cats that are not neutered or otherwise prevented from reproducing; and require that all free-roaming owned cats are identified and registered. Regulations may only be made if other measures are insufficient to address the problem.

It is generally not compulsory in Germany to identify owned cats, but state ordinances can also include the obligation to microchip and register cats in a database.

There is also a competence to require containment, although this appears less common. A temporary annual ‘lockdown’ of pet cats in one town in Baden-Württemberg, to protect ground-nesting crested larks, Galerida cristata, during their breeding season, proved controversial and divided opinion locally^[113].

Sweden

There are estimated to be approximately 1.4 million cats in Sweden and strays are regarded as a problem. Traditionally, owned cats in Sweden have been allowed to roam free, whether neutered or not. In recent years uncontrolled reproduction has been identified as an animal welfare problem, with female cats producing frequent litters, kittens unlikely to experience good welfare, and shelters often overcrowded with stray and unwanted cats.

The main animal welfare legislation in Sweden is the Animal Welfare Act 2018 (SFS 2018:1192), supplemented by the Animal Protection Ordinance (2019:66). In 2020, the Swedish Board for Agriculture (SBA) issued animal welfare regulations and general advice on the keeping of dogs and cats under the Act and the Ordinance (SJVFS 2020:8). Under these regulations cats that move freely outdoors should be spayed or neutered or prevented in another way from being able to breed uncontrollably. Effectively, the provision does not make spaying/neutering mandatory as long as breeding is controlled.

SBA guidance on the requirement to prevent out-of-control breeding is that:

‘Castration is one example of how to follow the requirement. For example, there may be other ways to prevent mating, such as contraceptives (e.g. birth control pills) for female cats, chemical neutering of male cats, keeping female cats indoors for certain periods or organizing suitable fenced outdoor enclosures (where animals are kept in approved and escape-proof spaces).’

It has been established through litigation that owners are permitted to let cats out without full supervision. If the owner of a female cat wants to breed from her or accepts that the cat may become pregnant when roaming free, the pregnancy does not need to be prevented (the terms of the regulation aim to prevent unwanted reproduction). However, the owner must be aware of the risk of pregnancy and have a plan to take care of any kittens.

The SBA guidance includes advice on the needs of sentient animals and states: ‘it is not appropriate to allow the female cat to become pregnant repeatedly and deal with the situation by euthanizing the kittens. It is physically stressful for the female cat to repeatedly go through one in a short time pregnancy and the handling may therefore mean that the animal keeper does not comply with the animal welfare legislation seen from the perspective that animals should not be exposed to unnecessary suffering and be treated with respect according to the Animal Welfare Act (SFS 2018:1192).’

Responses to the non-mandatory nature of the neutering provisions have been mixed.

County Administrative Boards (CABs), which report to the SBA, find enforcement difficult when an owner claims that a pregnancy was planned and the CAB cannot prove the contrary. Given the relatively low number of planned CAB inspections (most are generated by complaints), the overall compliance rate for the measures is not known.

With regard to identification, a specific law (SFS 2007:1150) on the supervision of dogs and cats was amended in 2022 to require the permanent marking and registration of dogs and cats (2022:186).

As of 1 January 2023, all cats aged four months or over must be permanently identified and registered with the SBA. Owners of cats that are already registered on voluntary databases must transfer the information to the national register. CABs are responsible for enforcement of the legislation.

Following implementation of the law in 2023, about 400,000 cats have been microchipped and registered in the central cat register.

In 2022, the SBA National Animal Welfare Report^[114] noted that stray cats were still a significant problem in Sweden.

Australia

The information given in this section is, of necessity, rather selective due to the size of the country, the variety of environments and habitats, and the different levels of authority involved in wildlife protection and cat population control. States and territories regulate animal welfare in their jurisdictions, while protection of biodiversity and the environment is subject to federal legislation. The involvement of different levels of government, combined with growing concern about the impact of both pet and feral cats on native wildlife, has led to the emergence of varying regimes across Australia.

Cats arrived in Australia as pets of European settlers and were later introduced to help control rabbits and rodents. Being highly adaptable to different environments, feral cats spread rapidly across Australia from alpine areas through deserts to the coast and to over 100 offshore islands^[115].

The Australian Government considers feral cats to be a serious vertebrate pest with ‘severe to devastating’ effects on native fauna. Feral cats are listed as a key threatening process under the Endangered Species Protection Act 1992 and included on the list of Key Threatening Processes of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999^[116].

Feral cats are subject to a national threat abatement plan^[117]. The Australian Government also funds a National Feral Cat and Fox Management Coordinator programme under the aegis of the Centre for Invasive Species Solutions.

Different states permit different methods of control for feral cats, including poisoning, trapping and shooting, and these measures are supported by the national government.

Sodium fluoroacetate (commonly known as ‘1080’) is used extensively as a vertebrate pesticide^[119]. In some relatively small areas, fencing is used to exclude predators. Otherwise, according to Comer et al. (2020)^[118], ‘the vast majority of Australia has no effective management of invasive predators’. Pet cats are also seen as having a major impact on wildlife. It has been estimated that the annual per capita predation toll shared across all pet cats in Australia is 103 mammals, birds and reptiles, (50.3 mammals, 31.2 birds and 22 reptiles), which is between 14% and 25% of the predation by feral cats^[119].

The management of pet cats is the responsibility of local councils. However, councils depend on state legislation, which can be more limited in its scope and can actually disallow council provisions. Some councils, conservation bodies and animal welfare organisations have called for a review of state and national laws, saying these are acting as a brake on legitimate control measures proposed by councils^[120,121].

Several states, but not all, have microchipping and registration legislation, which in some cases requires registration to be renewed annually. Many also promote a policy of containment, requiring owners to ensure that their cats do not leave the property, either by keeping cats indoors, providing outdoor runs or only taking them out on a leash. These measures can be replicated at local level, with many local councils, particularly in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), introducing cat curfew laws^[122], some of which only apply after dark and others round the clock.

Most areas will make an exception and allow cats onto council land, if they are on a leash or in a carrier^[122]. In the ACT cats born before 1 July 2022 do not have to be contained, unless they live in one of 17 currently declared cat containment suburbs. Some states, such as the ACT and Tasmania, limit the numbers of cats that may be kept in any one household. Again, local authorities may also impose such measures, for example, the cities of Gold Coast in Queensland and Darwin in the Northern Territory require a permit for more than two cats in a household; other authorities set the threshold at three or four.

South Australia has a dedicated Dog and Cat Management Board, a state government body, whose responsibilities include planning for, promoting and providing advice on dog and cat management practices. It oversees the administration and enforcement of the state’s dog and cat management laws. A single state register, Dogs and Cats Online, is used and promoted by the RSPCA Australia, the Animal Welfare League and vets. Substantial registration rebates apply for cats that are microchipped and desexed. Other states, such as Victoria, license a number of commercial domestic animal registry services.

Summary of experience from overseas

Experience from other countries tends to suggest that attempting to deal at national level with cat welfare problems and threats to native wildlife is difficult for large countries with widely varying habitats and multiple levels of government. These problems would be unlikely to arise in Scotland. On the other hand, the differences between issues in urban and rural areas are likely to be common to all countries, including Scotland, suggesting that local implementation is appropriate.

While SAWC has largely focused on identification, registration and neutering of pet cats as part of responsible cat ownership, it is notable that a number of administrations mandate or recommend different degrees of containment – from keeping cats indoors at all times, to allowing them outside only during the day, or only on a leash, or in a secure outdoor run. Such measures are expected to reduce predation by pet cats, but have obvious implications for cat welfare, which need to be evaluated.