Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management

The purpose of this report is to identify current best practice approaches to domestic cat management, to help address poor welfare and high euthanasia rates of domestic cats and mitigate their impacts on humans and wildlife. This document builds on knowledge gained from previous cat management strategies,including examining the effectiveness of existing legislation, reviewing current research, and considering relevant aspects of feral cat management. Although considerable efforts have been made to reduce the unwanted domestic cat population, the complexity of the problem makes effective cat management very difficult. Effective cat management requires a high level of government and community support, and communication and coordination between all stakeholders; aspects which are often difficult to achieve and maintain over time. A number of reports and papers have been produced that discuss the problems associated with cat management (Toukhsati 2007; Denny and Dickman 2010; Zito et al. 2015a) and in recent years several state jurisdictions have either introduced or reviewed their cat management legislation. Despite this, evaluation of previous initiatives and coordination of a consistent national approach is lacking. Over recent years the Australian community’s acceptance of cat management measures such as desexing, cat containment, registration and microchipping has increased, as has public concern over the adverse impact of cats on wildlife as well as the euthanasia of healthy cats. With this shift in the level of public understanding of the significance of cat related issues and the urgent need for solutions, it is hoped that this report will help identify more effective, consistent and humane strategies for the management of domestic cats in the future

Understanding the Relationship between Intention and Cat Containment Behaviour: A Case Study of Kitten and Cat Adopters from RSPCA Queensland

In Australia, cat owners are encouraged to keep their pet cats contained on their property at all times. This study explores the relationship between the intentions and behaviours of 72 kitten and cat adopters from a RSPCA Queensland animal shelter, to provide a more in-depth understanding of the factors influencing the adoption of cat containment behaviours. At the time of adoption, 64 participants (89%) indicated they were intending to keep their cat fully contained. Eight weeks after adoption, 63 participants (87%) reported they were doing so (59 who had stated their intention at the time of adoption, and 4 who had not). We found cat owner containment behaviour was moderately correlated with containment intentions. For some of the participants when it came to enacting this behaviour, their intentions and the provided education information was not enough to overcome the more compelling capability, opportunity and motivational factors which presented themselves once they got home. We were able to identify these factors and suggest additional behaviour change strategies that would assist. Although it is important to provide cat adopters with advice about how to contain their cats properly, these results also highlight the importance of focusing attention on other behaviour change strategies that address the particular barriers faced by some cat-owners who are unsuccessful in keeping their cat contained on their property

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects. These affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. Each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal

Longitudinal trends in the frequency of medium and fast race winning times in Australian harness racing: Relationships with rules moderating whip use - Fig 1

<p>Long-term trend in fast (<1:55 minute) winning times (A) and fast and medium (<2:00 minute) winning times (B) in Australian Harness Racing. Vertical dotted lines denote a change in the whip handling code. Green lines denote a change positive to welfare compared to the preceding period, Red lines denote a change negative to welfare compared to the preceding period.</p

Longitudinal trends in the frequency of medium and fast race winning times in Australian harness racing: Relationships with rules moderating whip use

<div><p>The use of whips in racing is subject to current debate, not least because the prospect that fatigued horses cannot respond renders the practice futile and inhumane. The racing industries maintain whip use is a form of encouragement and that the rules of racing that govern whip use safeguard horse welfare. The current study examined longitudinal trends in the frequency of medium and fast race winning times in Australian harness racing between September 2007 and August 2016 to explore relationships with a series of changes that moderated whip use. The first change, introduced January 2010, moderated whip action so that horses were struck with less force. Subsequent amendments reversed this change for the final 200m of the race except in one racing jurisdiction. However, those amendments were eventually reversed, restoring the first rule change in all geographic locations. Despite whip use being regulated from January 2010, a long-term trend of increased frequency of both fast and medium winning times over 1609m (~1 mile) was noted. Even after adjusting for this trend, all whip handling codes were associated with greater odds of winning times being less than 1:55 minutes compared with the pre-2010 period. A similar finding for times less than 2:00 minutes did not reach statistical significance. Additionally, the periods immediately before and after introducing the most stringent regulations were compared. This revealed that, when introduced in 2010, these regulations were associated with faster winning times. Their re-introduction in 2016, was associated with no significant differences. Despite concerns that tightening of whip regulations might reduce performance, none of our analyses revealed any significant reduction in either fast or medium winning times in races following the tightening of regulations governing the use of the whip. These findings question the putative need for whips to improve racing performance.</p></div

A Critical Analysis of the British Horseracing Authority’s Review of the Use of the Whip in Horseracing

There is increasing controversy about the use of the whip as a performance aid in Thoroughbred horseracing and its impact on horse welfare. This paper offers a critical analysis of the British Horseracing Authority’s (BHA) 2011 Report Responsible Regulation: A Review of the Use of the Whip in Horseracing. It examines the BHA’s process of consultation and use of science and public opinion research through the application of current scientific literature and legal analysis. This analysis suggests that the BHA’s findings on the welfare impact and justification for whip use are insufficiently defended by the report. These findings indicate that the report is an inadequate basis from which to draw any definitive conclusions on the impact of whips on racehorse welfare. Further review is needed, undertaken by an independent scientific body, to advance this debate

Fit of two logistic regressions model of fast race winning times.

<p>The full model included the median month of the time periods considered and the whip handling code of the period (blue line). The reduced model considered only the median month of the time period (black line). Green dotted lines represent changes in whip handling code which are hypothetically positive for welfare; red dotted represent changes in whip handling code which are hypothetically negative with respect to welfare.</p

The Welfare of Animals in Australian Filmed Media

Animals play a significant role in the production of film and television in Australia and globally. Given this, regulating and monitoring their welfare on- and off-set is imperative. We therefore aim to compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate potential deficiencies. We reviewed archived media for animal welfare incidents on and off production sets. We demonstrate a lack of uniformity, with 37.5% (3/8) of states and territories providing targeted Codes of Practice for animals in filmed media, and partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state within the Five Domains Model. Three themes of welfare concerns were identified including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation. Further research should quantify the number of animals used in productions, describe the type and duration of the work the animals undertake, investigate the frequency of animal welfare incidents, and explore alternative methods to the use of live animals in film and television

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human–Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal&rsquo;s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body&rsquo;s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects, and these affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body&rsquo;s internal stability. As each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal, the affects associated with them are collectively referred to as &ldquo;survival-critical affects&rdquo;. In contrast, Domain 4, now named Behavioural Interactions, focusses on evidence of animals consciously seeking specific goals when interacting behaviourally with (1) the environment, (2) other non-human animals and (3) as a new feature of the Model outlined here, humans. The associated affects, evaluated via Domain 5, are mainly generated by brain processing of sensory inputs elicited by external stimuli. The success of the animals&rsquo; behavioural attempts to achieve their chosen goals is reflected in whether the associated affects are negative or positive. Collectively referred to as &ldquo;situation-related affects&rdquo;, these outcomes are understood to contribute to animals&rsquo; perceptions of their external circumstances. These observations reveal a key distinction between the way survival-critical and situation-related affects influence animals&rsquo; aligned behaviours. The former mainly reflect compelling motivations to engage in genetically embedded behavioural responses, whereas the latter mainly involve conscious behavioural choices which are the hallmarks of agency. Finally, numerous examples of human&ndash;animal interactions and their attendant affects are described, and the qualitative grading of interactions that generate negative or positive affect is also illustrated

The 2020 Five Domains Model: Including Human-Animal Interactions in Assessments of Animal Welfare

Throughout its 25-year history, the Five Domains Model for animal welfare assessment has been regularly updated to include at each stage the latest authenticated developments in animal welfare science thinking. The domains of the most up-to-date Model described here are: 1 Nutrition, 2 Physical Environment, 3 Health, 4 Behavioural Interactions and 5 Mental State. The first four domains focus attention on factors that give rise to specific negative or positive subjective experiences (affects), which contribute to the animal’s mental state, as evaluated in Domain 5. More specifically, the first three domains focus mainly on factors that disturb or disrupt particular features of the body’s internal stability. Each disturbed or disrupted feature generates sensory inputs which are processed by the brain to form specific negative affects. These affects are associated with behaviours that act to restore the body’s internal stability. Each such behaviour is essential for the survival of the animal