Agenda of Consultation Panel - Friday, 15 November 2024

Item 6: Draft Cat Management Bylaw Deliberations

Consultation Panel

15 November 2024

Report Title: Draft Cat Management Bylaw Deliberations

Report Author: Richard Frizzell - Environmental Programmes Officer

Report Authoriser: Mandy Bishop - Group Manager Environmental Management

Report Number: R28873

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To summarise the feedback received on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and provide staff advice on the issues raised in the feedback.

1.2 To recommend an amended Cat Management Bylaw for adoption by Council.

2. Summary

2.1 Council established a Consultation Panel at its meeting on 5 September 2024 to consider written and oral submissions on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw (Draft Bylaw) and to make recommendations to the full Council.

2.2 This report provides the Consultation Panel with a summary of the written and oral feedback received during the Draft Bylaw consultation process; and officer recommendations related to the feedback. The recommendations align with the approach being taken by Tasman District Council (TDC), which held its deliberations meeting on 15 October 2024.

3. Recommendation

That the Consultation Panel

1. Receives the report Draft Cat Management Bylaw – Deliberations Report (R28873) and its attachments; and

2. Delegates the Chair of the Consultation Panel and the Group Manager Environmental Management to approve minor editorial corrections or amendments to the Cat Management Bylaw (NDOCS 596364813-11984) prior to adoption by Council.

Recommendation to Council

That the Council

1. Notes that:

a) the recommended amendment to the Cat Management Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28873 in relation to the transition period, differs from the proposed bylaw clause in the Statement of Proposal; and

b) the recommended amendment to the Cat Management Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28873 responds to views presented on the proposed bylaw clause in the Statement of Proposal; and

2. Agrees that the recommended clause in the Cat Management Bylaw in Attachment 2 of report R28873 in relation to the transition period:

a) does not require additional consultation; and

b) is within the scope of decisions that can be taken following consideration of views presented on the Statement of Proposal; and

3. Determines that the amended Cat Management Bylaw is the most appropriate way to address the perceived problems related to the keeping of cats; it is the most appropriate form of Bylaw; and any limits under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 are reasonable and proportional, for the reasons set out in this report (R28873); and

4. Adopts the amended Cat Management Bylaw (596364813-11984); and

5. Determines that the amended Cat Management Bylaw will commence on 19 Dec 2024.

4. Background

4.1 On 5 September 2024, Council approved a Statement of Proposal for a Draft Cat Management Bylaw for public consultation. Public consultation, using the Special Consultative Procedure, was undertaken from 9 September to 9 October 2024. A hearing was held on 1 November. A summary of the 141 submissions received is provided in Attachment 1 and a full copy of the submissions are available in the Consultation Panel Agenda on Council’s website http://meetings.nelson.govt.nz/.

4.2 Four submitters gave oral submissions at the hearing on 1 November 2024: Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society, Predator Free New Zealand Trust, Tasman Environmental Trust, and the SPCA. All organisations supported the Bylaw with some suggested changes. The Draft Bylaw was widely supported with 128 (more than 91%) in support and 13 opposed (9%).

4.3 Submitters’ feedback focused on nuisance, health, and wildlife impacts associated with cats roaming beyond cat owners’ properties. Some submitters sought additional controls related to:

· requiring cat curfews/containment on the cat owner’s property

· limiting the number of cats per household

· bringing forward the date by which existing cats need to be microchipped and desexed (from 1 June 2027 to 1 June 2026)

· including restrictions on feeding stray cats on public property to avoid the establishment of stray cat colonies

· lowering the age at which desexing is required (from six months to four months) and

· lowering the age at which microchipping and registration of the microchip is required (from six months to four months).

5. Discussion

5.1 An amended Cat Management Bylaw that reflects the recommendations in this report is included in Attachment 2. (Recommended changes from the proposed version that went out for consultation are highlighted in yellow.)

Submissions summary

5.2 A total of 141 submissions were received on the Statement of Proposal for a Draft Cat Management Bylaw. (These are numbered from 1–142 as there is no submission number 99.) Most of the submissions (128) supported the Draft Cat Management Bylaw (Draft Bylaw) and 13 submitters opposed it. The requested changes to the Draft Bylaw which are within the scope of Council’s bylaw-making powers are listed in the following table:

Request	Number of submitters
Require all cats to be kept indoors at night.	7
Require cat containment to the owner’s property.	8
Limit the number of cats per household.	7
Bring forward the date for all existing cats to be microchipped and desexed (to 1 June 2026 instead of 1 June 2027).	4
Include restrictions around feeding stray cats on public land.	2
Change the age for desexing to four months.	3
Change the age for microchipping and registering of the microchip to four months.	1

5.3 The other requests for changes to the Draft Bylaw included:

· requiring cats to wear a bell

· impounding wandering cats and

· issuing fines to owners of wandering cats.

5.4 A few submissions sought exemptions for cat breeders (two submissions) and for cats which are medically unfit to be desexed (one submission). Both of these exemptions are already provided for in the Draft Bylaw in clauses 5.1(b)(i) and 5.1(b)(ii).

5.5 In addition to the general bylaw-making power related to keeping of animals, Council has the power to make bylaws related to nuisance and public health and safety. Submitter feedback related to these matters is discussed in section 6 of this report, followed by other matters.

6. Matters relating to nuisance and public health and safety

6.1 The Draft Bylaw requires any cat over six months of age to be:

· microchipped and the cat’s microchip registered with the New Zealand Companion Animal Register and

· desexed.

6.2 Exemptions apply for cats kept for breeding purposes and registered with a nationally recognised cat breeders body, and for cats that a vet has certified as being unable to be desexed due to health and/or welfare concerns. While the Draft Bylaw would apply immediately for kittens born after the Bylaw commences, a transition period for existing cats applies until 1 June 2027.

Nuisance and public health

6.3 Thirteen of the 128 submitters in support of the Draft Bylaw described the nuisance and public health-related impacts of wandering cats, including:

· Unspayed/neutered cats spraying on furniture and curtains, and terrorising the neighbourhood cats (submission 11)

· Fighting (submissions 11 and 52)

· Cats defecating in soil, sandpits and gardens, including vegetable gardens – which is both a nuisance and a public health hazard, and is a risk factor for transmission of toxoplasmosis to people and other animals (submissions 36, 38, 55, 76, 78, 94, 98, 101, 125 and 142)

· Digging up seedlings (submission 78)

· Intruding on private property (submission 98)

· Having to keep doors shut in hot weather to prevent cats entering the house (submission 36)

· Public health issues for owners and neighbours due to over-population of cats in an area (submission 105).

6.4 The SPCA (submission 142) asked Council to improve its tracking of nuisance associated with roaming cats, including property damage, spraying and defecating on neighbouring properties, and fighting with other cats, causing injuries that require veterinary treatment.

6.5 The SPCA is concerned that the true scale of nuisance related to un-desexed and roaming companion cats is not fully communicated to local councils. It regularly receives emails and calls from the public about cat nuisance, and about predation on native wildlife and spread of disease. It considers cat owners should be responsible for preventing nuisance.

Officer recommendations

6.6 Retain the requirements for microchipping and registration, and for desexing, which will help to address the nuisance and public health concerns listed above. Public communications about the Draft Bylaw will include details on how to report cat nuisance issues to the Council (that will be shared with the SPCA) and provide information on how to be responsible cat owners.

Curfews and containment of cats

6.7 The Draft Bylaw does not include requirements for cat owners to prevent their cats from wandering beyond their property. Eight submitters requested overnight containment (submissions 20, 43, 49, 52, 55, 107) or full-time containment of cats on the owner’s property (submissions 106, 107 and 142). One submitter (141) recommended future controls restricting the physical space cats can occupy.

6.8 The submission from the SPCA (142) advised that cats can have positive welfare and their physical, health, behavioural, emotional and mental needs met whilst keeping them at home as indoor-only cats or with access to a secure outdoor enclosure or a garden with an escape-proof fence. Keeping cats at home can reduce the risk of welfare harm from disease, injury, fighting, vehicle accidents, and becoming lost – and help minimise their negative impact on people and animals in communities.

Officer recommendations

6.9 Imposing a requirement for cats to remain on the owner’s property would be a significant change which was not discussed during the consultation process. Considering this matter again when the bylaw is next reviewed in five years’ time, may allow time for social expectations related to responsible cat management to change. This approach aligns with TDC’s approach on this issue.

6.10 As noted in TDC’s Cat Management Bylaw Deliberations Agenda, dated 15 October 2024, if legislative measures continue to develop at a national level this could be revisited when the bylaw is reviewed within five years. In the meantime, staff can incorporate information about cat containment in educational resources.

6.11 Eight submissions requested overnight containment of cats (or a curfew). However, Australia’s night-time curfew is less relevant to New Zealand conditions. Hunting of birds, reptiles and invertebrates occurs at all hours in New Zealand, whereas Australia’s nocturnal mammals are more vulnerable to overnight predation by cats.

The number of cats per household

6.12 The Draft Bylaw does not set limits on the number of cats per household. Six submitters asked Council to set a limit on the number of cats per household (submissions 52, 85, 97, 98, 101, 105 and 142). The reasons for this request included reducing cat nuisance and the development of cat colonies. One submitter (141) recommended placing restrictions on the number of cats per property/owner in the future.

6.13 The submission from the SPCA (142) advised the limit should be set no lower than three cats per dwelling, with criteria such as microchipping, desexing and keeping cats on the owner’s property. At the hearing, the Royal Forest & Bird Society (98) advised that 18 councils have a limit on the number of cats per household, with three cats generally being the maximum. This provision could act as a backstop in situations where nuisance issues were occurring.

6.14 Predator Free New Zealand Trust (105) also supported limiting the number of cats per households at the hearing, noting that the ability to limit cat numbers is particularly important in areas with large numbers of cats. Without a limit per household, Council is unable to respond to nuisance impacts on neighbours.

Officer recommendation

6.15 Setting a limit on the number of cats permitted per household would be a significant change from the proposed bylaw that has not been discussed with the community and is likely to cause significant concern for people with more than three cats. Reconsidering this issue when the bylaw is next reviewed in five years’ time would align with TDC’s approach.

Transition period for existing cats

6.16 The Draft Bylaw includes a transition period for existing cats (at the time the amended Draft Bylaw is adopted) to be microchipped and desexed by 1 June 2027. Four submitters (76, 98, 105 and 111) asked Council to bring forward the date by when all existing cats must be microchipped and desexed by one year (by 1 June 2026 rather than 1 June 2027) to avoid unnecessary delays in implementing the Draft Bylaw.

6.17 At the hearing Predator Free New Zealand (105) requested that the requirement for microchipping and desexing apply as soon as the Draft Bylaw takes effect for any young cats.

Officer recommendation

6.18 Change the transition date for existing cats from 1 June 2027 to 1 June 2026. This change provides 1.5 years for cat owners to arrange for microchipping and desexing of their existing cats, which is a reasonable length of time. It also means the benefits from the Draft Bylaw provisions will take effect sooner, while continuing to align with TDC’s approach.

6.19 The public communications about this Draft Bylaw will make it clear that the bylaw provisions apply immediately to cats born after the bylaw is adopted, while current owners will have until 1 June 2026 to arrange the desexing and microchipping for their existing cats.

Restrictions on feeding stray cats

6.20 The Draft Bylaw does not include a restriction on feeding stray cats. Two submitters (101 and 105) asked Council to include restrictions on feeding stray cats on public land.

6.21 At the hearing, the Tasman Environmental Trust (101) discussed areas in Tasman where people are known to drop off kittens, and people understandably feel sorry for them and feed them. However, a much better way to help the kittens is to tell the SPCA and councils have an important role in communicating this message.

Officer recommendation

6.22 Include messages about reporting abandoned kittens to the SPCA in public communications campaigns about the Bylaw provisions. Reassessing how significant this issue is when the bylaw is reviewed within five years would align with TDC’s approach.

Desexing age

6.23 The Draft Bylaw requires desexing to be completed by the time cats are six months old. Three submitters (16, 141 and 142) asked Council to drop the age for desexing to four months because females can be already pregnant by four months.

6.24 At the hearing, the SPCA (142) noted that half of the kittens surrendered to the Nelson SPCA centre are the result of unplanned breeding. The SPCA submission advised that kittens can be safely desexed earlier than the traditional age of four to six months. The SPCA regularly desexes kittens at the age of eight weeks. Early desexing does not adversely affect the physiological or behavioural development in cats; it is a faster procedure with a quicker recovery time for the kitten; and it reduces the likelihood of some cat behaviours such as spraying, straying and vocalising later in life.

6.25 In response to a question at the hearing, the Predator Free New Zealand Trust (105) advised that both the SPCA and vets recommend that desexing be carried out by the time a kitten is four months old.

Officer recommendation

6.26 Retain the proposed age of six months for the desexing requirement. It is possible for female cats to have kittens before they are six months old, and it would be ideal to lower the desexing age to four months. However, retaining the six-month limit provides consistency in Nelson and Tasman, and it gives owners two extra months to comply with the Bylaw.

Microchipping age

6.27 The Draft Bylaw requires microchipping and registration of the microchip to be completed by the time cats are six months old. One submission (142) requested a change to this requirement from six months to four months to help ensure kittens benefit from having a registered microchip at a young age.

Officer recommendation

6.28 Retaining the six-month limit provides consistency in Nelson and Tasman, and it gives owners two extra months to comply with the Bylaw.

Opposition to the Draft Bylaw

6.29 Thirteen submitters opposed some or all aspects of the Draft Bylaw (submissions 13, 18, 30, 47, 53, 68, 72, 74, 75, 83, 89, 95 and 140). The concerns are:

· Most cats are already microchipped and desexed, and the remaining 12% of cat owners will ignore the Bylaw.

· There will be a lack of kittens to adopt if all cats are desexed. If cat breeding is to be allowed only by registered breeders, it promotes the commercialisation of pet cats. As most professional breeders already sell kittens for over $1,000, this makes a cat an expensive pet. In response to a question at the hearing, the SPCA advised that even with the Draft Bylaw in place it’s unlikely there will be no low-cost kittens to adopt in future, due to the high breeding rates of cats.

· For low-income residents $252 plus $75 quoted for desexing, microchipping and registration of the microchip could be half their wages or all their benefit. Subsidised Snip ‘n’ Chip campaigns need to be held in Nelson.

· Vets may be regarded as likely to report owners of unchipped cats so medical treatment may be avoided for pets, causing welfare issues.

· Education is preferred to regulation.

· Council should be focusing on more important matters.

Officer comments

6.30 Making microchipping and desexing of cats a requirement rather than an option will enable vets and the SPCA to communicate a stronger message about what cat owners need to do. Officers consider the issue of fewer low-cost kittens being available in future is outweighed by the animal welfare impacts, the demands on the SPCA, the nuisance effects for the wider community, and the impacts on wildlife from uncontrolled breeding of cats.

6.31 If prospective cat owners are unable to cover the initial expenses, they may not be well-prepared for the ongoing responsibilities of pet ownership, including paying for pet food and future veterinary care. The SPCA (submission 142) advised it is happy to support and work with Council to provide comprehensive services for cat owners to help cat owners overcome the cost barriers to desexing and microchipping cats. Details about the SPCA’s Snip ‘n’ Chip Council Package are included with the submission and provides detailed information about how the organisation works with local councils to promote more responsible cat ownership.

6.32 The existing content on Council’s website about responsible cat ownership will be complemented by an awareness campaign about the new bylaw provisions, and other initiatives to raise awareness of the impacts of roaming cats and to educate owners to manage their cat responsibly.

6.33 Adopting the Draft Bylaw is appropriate as it is strongly supported by the community, it complements the adopted provisions in the recently reviewed Tasman-Nelson Pest Management Plan, and it aligns with TDC’s adoption of a Cat Management Bylaw in November 2024.

7. Other matters

Animal welfare and wildlife

7.1 Eight submissions appreciated the animal welfare and wildlife benefits of the Draft Bylaw (submitters 22, 34, 41, 61, 79, 82, 101 and 142).

7.2 The SPCA (submission 142) advised that desexing can reduce the risk of certain diseases, reduce the likelihood of roaming (which can increase risks of harm such as disease and infection, injury and becoming lost), and increase lifespan. Desexing can also prevent the mortality of unplanned kittens which is often overlooked as a welfare problem.

7.3 Impacts on wildlife was an issue for 25 submitters, who have the following concerns:

· Cats are predators of native birds (submissions 38, 40, 43, 46, 52, 56, 58, 66, 67, 88, 93, 94, 97, 98, 101, 103, 105, 109, 113, 125, 127 and 138)

· Cats are also predators of other wildlife including lizards, skinks, bats and invertebrates (submissions 40, 46, 58, 66, 67, 84, 98, 101, 103, 105, 114 and 127)

· Three submitters noted some specific impacts: kittens being dumped in the Maitai Valley which then became feral (submission 66), a NCC Halo area lacks bird song due to the presence of cats (submission 80) and loss of weka in Marsden Valley as residential development has led to an increase in cat and dogs (submitter 125).

Stray and feral cats

7.4 The impacts of feral cats was discussed by 16 submitters (submissions 10, 40, 58, 64, 67, 77, 79, 88, 94, 97, 98, 101, 105, 114, 125 and 138). In response to questions at the hearing about wild cat numbers:

· the Royal Forest & Bird Society (98) advised that there are likely to be more wild cats than owned cats in New Zealand. The extent of the problem had only become fully apparent in recent years through the use of trail cameras.

· the Predator Free New Zealand Trust (105) said the number of wild cats in New Zealand is unknown and could be between two million and 14 million. The numbers in any particular area depend on food availability (particularly rabbits), which drives population growth.

7.5 At the hearing the Predator Free New Zealand Trust (105) explained that cat management in areas near homes is not currently possible due to the risk of pet cat trapping which would undermines the predator control being carried out by councils and community groups.

7.6 Tasman Environmental Trust (101) also discussed at the hearing a Tasman project where site-led cat control is occurring (with live capture to differentiate between companion and feral cats) in collaboration with the SPCA and with support from the community.

7.7 Stray and feral cats are not directly managed through the Draft Bylaw – but Council does have powers to manage feral populations through the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan, under the Biosecurity Act 1993.

7.8 Unfortunately, Nelson’s feral cat population is self-sustaining due to uncontrolled breeding within that population. However, the Draft Bylaw and Regional Pest Management Plan provisions are complementary because:

· Limiting the number of unwanted litters of companion kittens reduces the risk of them becoming strays and going on to have multiple litters of cats which then prey on indigenous wildlife to survive.

· Requiring companion cats to be microchipped and have the microchip registered will enable Council and community to distinguish between companion cats and feral cats in high-value conservation areas.

Advocacy to central government

7.9 At the hearing, the Predator Free New Zealand Trust (105) asked Council to advocate for a National Cat Act through its forums and connections with central government. It could include provisions to be able to have ‘no cat wandering’ zones at a local level.

7.10 The Royal Forest & Bird Society (98) said at the hearing that local bylaws are a useful first step towards having a National Cat Act, and advised that following a national select committee, two private members bills (from two different parties) have been submitted.

Implementation costs for the Draft Bylaw

7.11 The primary cost for Council will be the staff time required to run an education and awareness campaign about the adopted Bylaw provisions. This can include consistent messaging with Tasman District, and ‘joined up’ information about the Cat Management Bylaw and the cat-related provisions in the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan.

7.12 Council currently has a memorandum of understanding with the SPCA on how the two organisations will work together. Council provides an annual grant to the SPCA, consisting of $8,800 for dog management and $5,300 for other animals. This funding is fully allocated, so additional budget would be required if Council wishes to run a Snip ‘n’ Chip campaign with the SPCA.

8. Options

8.1 The Consultation Panel has two options:

· Recommend adoption of the Draft Bylaw, with the proposed amendment (this is the preferred option); or

· Do not recommend adoption of the Draft Bylaw.

Option 1: Recommend adoption of the Draft Bylaw, with the amendment (preferred option)
Advantages	· The Draft Bylaw is supported by 91% of submitters, aligns with TDC’s approach to companion cat management, and is complementary to the management of feral and stray cats under the Tasman–Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. · The Draft Bylaw supports responsible cat ownership to reduce nuisance and health impacts, with co-benefits related to animal welfare and biodiversity. · Adoption of the Draft Bylaw provides a good opportunity to raise awareness about responsible cat ownership.
Risks and Disadvantages	· The LGA02 does not provide for infringement fines associated with this Bylaw, which limits the actions Council can take to more formal steps if cat owners choose to ignore the Bylaw.
Option 2: Do not recommend adoption of the Draft Bylaw.
Advantages	· Not adopting the Draft Bylaw would free up some staff time to focus on Council’s other priorities.
Risks and Disadvantages	· Does not address the ongoing nuisance and public health issues associated with wandering cats. · Fails to address issues associated with lost and injured cats; and unwanted litters of kittens. · Fails to do anything in response to the community’s concerns about the impacts of cats on local wildlife. · No microchipping requirement limits Council’s ability to differentiate between companion cats and feral cats in high-value conservation reserves, impeding implementation of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. · Inconsistency with TDC.

Legal requirements

8.2 If the Consultation Panel selects Option 1 officers consider the bylaw-making requirements outlined in section 155 of the LGA02 have been met, as these were addressed in the previous report to Council about the Proposed Draft Cat Management Bylaw (Report R28725) considered on 5 September 2024, and the proposed change to the Draft Bylaw does not alter that.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The Draft Cat Management Bylaw aims to minimise nuisance and protect public health associated with wandering cats.

9.2 In response to submissions, staff have recommended requiring existing cats to be microchipped and desexed by 1 June 2026 (rather than 1 June 2027) and that the Bylaw provisions apply to all companion cats born after 5 December 2024.

9.3 The Panel’s recommended changes will be reflected in the final Bylaw for adoption by Council at its meeting on 5 December 2024.

9.4 The Bylaw is a new bylaw and, once adopted, will be reviewed within five years.

10. Next Steps

10.1 The Draft Bylaw will be presented to the Council meeting on 5 December 2024 for approval and adoption.

10.2 Adoption and the proposed operative date of the bylaw will be publicly notified.

Attachments

Attachment 1: Draft Cat Management Bylaw Submission Summary ⇩

Attachment 2: 596364813-11984 - Amended Cat Management Bylaw ⇩

Important considerations for decision making

Fit with Purpose of Local Government

The Draft Cat Management Bylaw supports the social wellbeing of the Nelson community by managing activities with the potential to cause nuisance and to impact on public health.

It also has co-benefits for environmental wellbeing related to reduced predation on birds and other wildlife, and more ability to manage feral cats in high value conservation areas.

Consistency with Community Outcomes and Council Policy

The Draft Cat Management Bylaw supports the following community outcomes:

· Our unique natural environment is healthy and protected.

· Our communities are healthy, safe, inclusive and resilient.

Our Council provides leadership and fosters partnerships, a regional perspective, and community engagement.

Risk

There is a reputational risk if Council decides not to proceed with the Draft Bylaw after receiving significant public feedback in support of what was proposed during both the informal engagement and formal consultation processes. There is evidence that cats do not remain within their owner’s property, are involved in nuisance behaviour, and can pose a threat to other cats and animals through fighting and the spread of toxoplasmosis.

Financial impact

There are no funding implications associated with the Draft Bylaw once it has been adopted, other than public communications about the requirements.

Degree of significance and level of engagement

The Draft Cat Management Bylaw is of high significance due to the high numbers of cat owners in Nelson.

The Draft Bylaw potentially affects the proportion of the population who have cats which aren’t already microchipped and desexed and is also of significant interest to Nelson residents who are concerned about the impacts of cats on the wider environment.

Consultation through a special consultative procedure has been undertaken.

Climate Impact

Climate change has been considered in relation to the Draft Bylaw. However, the scope of its provisions do not have the capacity to assist with (or to affect) climate change mitigation or adaptation.

Inclusion of Māori in the decision making process

No engagement with Māori has been undertaken in preparing this report.

Delegations

Council is responsible for final adoption of a bylaw but can delegate the following matters:

· Reviewing and determining whether a bylaw or amendment, revocation or replacement of a bylaw is appropriate.

· Undertaking community engagement, including all steps relating to Special Consultative Procedures or other formal consultation processes other than final approval.