Submissions
Hearing
Agenda – 15 October 2024
3 Reports
3.1 Draft Cat Management Bylaw Deliberations
Decision Required
|
Report
To:
|
Submissions
Hearing
|
|
Meeting
Date:
|
15
October 2024
|
|
Report
Author:
|
Cat Budai,
Community Policy Advisor; Guinevere Coleman, Team Leader Biosecurity &
Biodiversity
|
|
Report
Authorisers:
|
Dwayne
Fletcher, Strategic Policy Manager; Rob Smith, Acting Group Manager -
Information, Science & Technology
|
|
Report
Number:
|
RSH24-10-2
|
1. Purpose
of the Report / Te Take mō te Pūrongo
1.1 The
purpose of this report is to:
1.1.1 summarise the feedback received on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw and provide
staff advice on the issues raised in the feedback;
1.1.2 provide the Council with
an opportunity to discuss the feedback;
1.1.3 seek decisions on
amendments that are to be included in the final Cat Management Bylaw; and
1.1.4 seek a recommendation from
the Panel on whether the final bylaw should be adopted.
1.2 The
final bylaw is scheduled to be presented to the Council on 28 November 2024,
with the Panel’s recommendation on whether the final bylaw should be
adopted.
2. Summary
/ Te Tuhinga Whakarāpoto
2.1 This
report summarises public feedback from the Draft Cat Management Bylaw
consultation process.
2.2 Staff
ask the hearings panel to consider the feedback received and make decisions on
the changes they would like to make to the Cat Management Bylaw prior to its
adoption.
2.3 The
Council received 154 submissions on the Draft Cat Management Bylaw.
At a public hearing on 24 September 2024, 11 submitters presented their
submissions to the Council.
2.4 The
proposed Bylaw was widely supported in the submissions, with over 89%
supporting the microchipping requirement, over 86% supporting the registration
requirement and over 88% supporting the desexing requirement.
2.5 The
main themes of the free text submissions were:
2.5.1 general support for the Cat Management
Bylaw;
2.5.2 cat welfare;
2.5.3 education;
2.5.4 cat containment and curfews;
2.5.5 nuisance issues;
2.5.6 transition timeframe;
2.5.7 limits to cat numbers;
2.5.8 conservation;
2.5.9 feral and stray cats;
2.5.10 enforcement;
2.5.11 financial concerns and subsidies;
2.5.12 opposition to the desexing requirement; and
2.5.13 opposition to the bylaw.
2.6 These
themes are discussed in detail in section 5 of this report, along with an
indication of how prominent the theme was across all feedback received.
2.7 Staff
recommend that the transition period be changed from 2027 to 2026 as a result
of public feedback.
2.8 Staff
are recommending an additional sentence in section 6 to clarify that the
transition period is intended for existing cats.
2.9 Staff
will incorporate changes that the Panel request and prepare the final Bylaw for
consideration by the Council at its meeting on 28 November 2024.
3. Recommendation/s
/ Ngā Tūtohunga
That the Cat Management Bylaw Submissions
Hearing and Deliberations Panel
1. receives
the Draft Cat Management Bylaw Deliberations report RSH24-10-2; and
2. agrees
to the following changes to the draft bylaw, for the reasons set out in section
5.32 of the agenda report:
2.1 Section
6 - change transition time from 1 June 2027 to 1 June 2026; and
3. agrees
to change the title of the Bylaw to the Tasman District Council Cat Management
Bylaw 2024; and
4. agrees
to replace title page information about when the bylaw is made with a table on
the following page documenting the bylaw’s review history; and
5. declines
to change the age requirement for cats to be desexed from six to four months
for the reasons outlined in section 5.14 of the agenda report; and
6. in accordance with section 155 of the Local Government
Act 2002:
6.2 agrees
that the proposed Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw, including the
changes in resolutions 2-4 above, is the most appropriate form of bylaw for
addressing perceived problems relating to the keeping of cats; and
6.3 notes
that the proposed Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw, including the
changes in resolutions 2-4 above, does not give rise to any implications under
the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990; and
7. recommends
that the Council consider the following matters when the bylaw is next
reviewed:
7.4 cat
containment / curfews
7.5 limits
to numbers of cats per household
7.6 feeding
of colony cats; and
8. delegates
authority to the Cat Management Bylaw Submissions Hearing and Deliberations
Panel Chair and the Chief Executive Officer to approve any minor changes or
minor editorial amendments to the proposed Cat Management Bylaw, prior to being
submitted to Tasman District Council.
Recommendation
to the Tasman District Council
That the Tasman District Council:
1. in
accordance with section 155 of the Local Government Act 2002:
1.1 agrees
that the proposed Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw 2024 is the most
appropriate form of bylaw for addressing perceived problems in relation to the
keeping of cats; and
1.2 notes
that the proposed Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw 2024 does not
give rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990;
and
2. pursuant
to section 145 and 146 of the Local Government Act, makes the Tasman District
Council Cat Management Bylaw 2024 (Attachment 1 to the agenda report) with
effect from 1 January 2025; and
3. authorises
staff to publicly notify the Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw 2024
and the date it has effect from; and
4. notes
that the Tasman District Council Cat Management Bylaw 2024 will need to be
reviewed before 28 November 2029; and
5. confirms
the minutes
of the 24 September 2024 Draft Cat Management Bylaw Submissions Hearing meeting
as a true and correct record.
4.1 During
the development of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029
(RPMP), several submissions requested more responsibility for managing
domestic, stray, and feral cats in the region.
4.2 The
Joint Committee agreed that intervention was necessary but decided that
domestic and unowned cats were outside the Biosecurity Act 1993's scope. A
bylaw, like Wellington City Council’s microchipping requirement for cats,
was identified as a potential solution.
4.3 A
Council workshop on 4 August 2020 discussed:
4.3.1 the impacts of cats (both beneficial
and negative);
4.3.2 RPMP submissions and the National Cat
Management Strategy;
4.3.3 regional approaches in Nelson and
Tasman and international practices (e.g., Europe, Australia);
4.3.4 advocacy for national cat management
laws.
4.4 The
primary options for addressing the issues were:
4.4.1 do nothing;
4.4.2 develop a bylaw similar to
Wellington City Council;
4.4.3 implement non-regulatory
programmes;
4.4.4 combine these approaches.
4.5 On
26 November 2020, elected members instructed staff to engage with Local
Government New Zealand (LGNZ) and start developing a Cat Management Bylaw under
the Local Government Act 2002 (LGA).
4.6 LGNZ
later informed the Council that there had been no progress on national cat
management legislation.
4.7 In
2021, the Ministry for Primary Industries updated the "Code of Welfare:
Companion Cats," recommending microchipping as best practice.
4.8 Staff
drafted a Cat Management Bylaw in December 2021, proposing microchipping,
registration, and a ban on feeding cats in public places. The bylaw was not
adopted for consultation.
4.9 On
16 March 2023, the Committee requested a report on feral cat management, while
the RPMP Joint Committee expanded its Terms of Reference to include feral cat
management.
4.10 On
15 June 2023, options for cat management were presented, with support from
veterinarians and the SPCA for a bylaw option. The Committee recommended feral
cats be included in the RPMP scope and for the bylaw to be presented to Full
Council.
4.11 Early
engagement in late 2023 showed strong community support for microchipping,
registration, and de-sexing, leading to a draft bylaw.
4.12 A
workshop with Mayor and Councillors on 21 May 2024 covered the early engagement
results and proposed content for the draft Cat Management Bylaw.
4.13 The draft Cat Management Bylaw was adopted for
consultation at the Environment and Regulatory Committee meeting on 18 July
2024.
4.14 The Bylaw addresses perceived problems in relation to the
keeping of cats. Many cats roam beyond their owner’s property, which
creates a risk of them becoming injured, lost or a nuisance to neighbours.
There is also a risk of domestic cats entering high value conservation
reserves, where feral and stray cats may be managed for pest control reasons,
under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Unless a cat is
microchipped it is difficult to identify it as a domestic cat and be returned
to its owners, rather than treated as a stray or feral cat.
4.15 Another perceived problem is that female cats can have up
to four litters per year, with an average of four to six kittens per litter.
This results in large numbers of unwanted kittens being taken to the SPCA for
rehoming (an average of 155 cats and 152 kittens each year in Nelson) as well
as kittens being left in public areas to become strays (and to continue to
breed with stray and feral cats, further increasing the population). Nearly
half the kittens taken to Nelson SPCA Centre are due to owner surrender, which
is often due to a person not able to keep kittens their domestic cat had. These
are considered unwanted kittens and are often from unplanned breeding. Nearly a
third of the cats that come to the Nelson SPCA Centre are reclaimed.
5. Analysis
and Advice / Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu
Consultation
5.1 The Environment and Regulatory Committee
agreed to undertake consultation on the Bylaw between 26 July and 27 August
2024 at its meeting on 18 July 2024, using a special consultation procedure in
accordance with sections 83 and 87 of the LGA.
5.2 A public communication and consultation
process has been carried out, including:
5.2.1 the Shape Tasman project page
with the Statement of Proposal (including the draft bylaw), a summary of
information, background information and a link to the submission portal was
promoted throughout the consultation;
5.2.2 a Newsline article informing the
public about how to make a submission was published on 26 July 2024; and
5.2.3 hard copies of the Statement of
Proposal and a summary of information were made available at all Council
service centres and public libraries in Tasman throughout the consultation
period.
5.3 The Council received 154 submissions on the
Cat Management Bylaw.
5.4 A public hearing was held on 24 September 2024
to provide the public with the opportunity to provide feedback to the Council
in person and 11 submitters presented their submissions to the Council.
5.5 Submitters were asked whether they supported
the bylaw’s requirements for microchipping, National Companion Animal
Registration, and desexing for cats over six months of age.
5.6 146 submitters answered the question regarding
microchipping. 131 (89.73%) supported this requirement. 10 answered
‘no’ and five answered ‘not sure’.
5.7 145 submitters answered the question regarding
National Companion Animal Registration. 126 (86.9%) supported this requirement.
10 answered ‘no’ and nine answered ‘not sure’.
5.8 146 submitters answered the question regarding
desexing. 129 (88.36%) supported this requirement. 13 answered
‘no’, and four answered ‘not sure.
5.9 114 submitters also opted to provide free text
feedback or an attachment. The key themes of this feedback are discussed below.
Free text feedback themes
General support for the Cat Management
Bylaw
5.10 Many submitters expressed strong support for the proposed
cat bylaw, commending the Council for addressing the issue of cat management.
These submitters, which included veterinary professionals, environmental
advocates, and concerned citizens, emphasised the importance of mandatory
desexing, microchipping, and registration of cats to manage cat populations and
protect native wildlife.
5.11 Several submitters recommended further strengthening the
bylaw by imposing additional measures which are discussed later in the report.
Some also highlighted the rapid breeding of cats and the difficulty of rehoming
unwanted litters, stressing the need for early desexing, ideally before six
months of age.
5.12 Several submitters expressed that desexing,
microchipping, and registering cats would not only benefit the environment but
also enhance the welfare of cats, making it easier to reunite lost pets with
their owners. Submitters praised the bylaw as a positive first step, with some
suggesting that the Council review and strengthen the bylaw within five years
of its adoption.
5.13 Collaborations with other councils and national
legislation on cat management were also encouraged to ensure a consistent and
effective approach across regions.
5.14 Staff Advice: Staff acknowledge that the proposed age of
six months for the desexing requirement is imperfect as this creates a window
where a cat could potentially have a litter from a young age. However,
retaining this requirement as proposed gives owners two additional months to
comply, rather than being in breach of the bylaw as soon as the kitten is four
months old. This also allows for variance of kitten weight and development, as
they are generally required to be big and healthy enough to undergo the
procedure.
Cat welfare
5.15 Some submitters focused on the welfare of cats,
expressing strong support for the proposed bylaw as it aims to improve the
wellbeing of domestic and stray cats. They highlighted concerns about the
negative impacts of unowned or wandering cats, including their exposure to
disease, injury, and stressful conditions while searching for food and mates.
Submitters felt the bylaw would help reduce the number of unwanted kittens and
feral cats, while also preventing road deaths and improving outcomes for lost or
injured cats.
5.16 Submitters emphasised that mandatory microchipping and
registration would make it easier to reunite lost cats with their owners,
reducing the risk of pets being mistakenly euthanised. They also expressed hope
that the financial requirements of the bylaw, such as neutering, microchipping,
and registration, would discourage individuals from taking on kittens without
considering the long-term responsibilities of ownership.
5.17 Concerns were raised about ensuring proper identification
before any actions are taken against feral cats, noting that frightened
domestic cats can behave similarly to feral cats when trapped. Some submitters
stressed the importance of protecting lost or stray companion cats and ensuring
humane treatment throughout the process.
5.18 Staff Advice: Staff acknowledge the feedback regarding cat welfare. The bylaw's
requirements for microchipping, registration, and desexing are anticipated to
have positive impacts on the wellbeing of both domestic and stray cats. These
measures aim to reduce the number of unwanted kittens and feral cats, while
also minimising the risks associated with disease, injury, and road accidents.
Additionally, mandatory microchipping and registration will aid in reuniting
lost cats with their owners, and the financial responsibilities outlined in the
bylaw may encourage more considered decisions around pet ownership. Concerns
regarding proper identification of feral cats are noted, and humane treatment
will be a priority.
Education
5.19 Six submitters emphasised the importance of ongoing
education to promote responsible cat ownership as part of the proposed bylaw.
They noted that many people may not fully understand the significance of
desexing and microchipping, and that public education is key to addressing this
gap. Several submitters suggested that educational campaigns should discourage
harmful practices such as drowning or abandoning cats and should provide
guidance on proper disposal of cat litter to prevent health and environmental
issues.
5.20 Staff Advice: Staff support further education for the
community around responsible cat ownership and the benefits of microchipping,
registration and desexing. This will occur within existing budgets.
Cat containment and curfews
5.21 Of 154 submissions, 43 submitters advocated for stricter
cat containment measures. Many supported the idea that cats should be confined
to their owners' properties, similar to dogs, to protect wildlife and reduce
nuisances like roaming, fighting, and defecating in neighbours' gardens.
Submitters expressed concerns about cats’ impact on native species,
particularly birds, and the spread of diseases such as toxoplasmosis.
5.22 There was strong support for implementing night curfews,
with many suggesting cats be kept indoors from dusk to dawn, as practiced in
some parts of Australia, to protect wildlife and improve cat safety. Submitters
highlighted that indoor or confined cats are less prone to injuries from fights
or accidents.
5.23 Several advocated for the use of catios or cat
enclosures, noting that these setups allow cats to safely enjoy the outdoors
without harming wildlife. A few submitters also suggested promoting containment
practices through education or contests to inspire more cat owners to adopt
these methods.
5.24 Many felt the bylaw did not go far enough, calling for a
gradual move towards full cat containment, with owners required to keep their
cats on their property at all times, whether through enclosures or supervision.
Some proposed that stricter cat containment laws be introduced in sensitive
wildlife areas and new residential subdivisions close to such habitats.
5.25 Some submitters expressed frustration at a societal
double standard where cats are not regulated to the same degree as dogs. They
advocated that cats should be registered with local councils in a similar
manner to dogs and that owners should be accountable for their whereabouts at
all times. This was also expressed in relation to cat owners not currently
being required to clean up after them.
5.26 Staff Advice: While this was a significant theme in the
feedback, staff do not consider cat containment as a viable provision of the
bylaw at this time. 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 regarding cat containment and
curfews in educational resources as described above.
Nuisance issues
5.27 Several submitters expressed concerns about the nuisance
and health risks posed by roaming cats. Issues reported included cats
defecating in gardens, which caused significant damage to landscaping and
vegetable patches, creating a mess and health hazards. Submitters were
particularly worried about the transmission of toxoplasmosis through cat
faeces, which poses serious health risks to humans, farm animals, and wildlife.
5.28 Staff Advice: Highlighting the nuisance factor that
neighbours may be experiencing, along with the significant health risks of
toxoplasmosis can be included in educational resources.
Transition timeframe
5.29 In 11 submissions, there was strong concern about the
length of the proposed transition period for implementing the new cat control
measures. Submitters argued that the timeline until June 2027 is too long and
advocated for an earlier deadline, suggesting June 2026 or even June 2025 as
more reasonable.
5.30 Many felt that the extended transition period delays
necessary action to address the significant damage cats cause to wildlife,
particularly native birds. They highlighted the urgent need to protect
endangered species and mitigate the impact of increasing cat populations on
local wildlife. Concerns were also raised about the rate of cat breeding and
the potential for exacerbating wildlife threats if measures are not implemented
sooner.
5.31 Overall, the sentiment was that while a transition period
is necessary, it should be shortened to ensure timely action and better protect
vulnerable wildlife from the adverse effects of roaming cats.
5.32 Staff Advice: Given that the principles of the bylaw are
widely supported, staff recommend making the change suggested by submitters and
reducing the transition period to June 2026.
Limit to cat numbers
5.33 Nine submissions advocated for implementing a
per-household limit on the number of cats as part of the proposed bylaw.
Submitters recommended setting a cap of two or three cats per household. This
measure aims to address concerns about excessive cat numbers, which can lead to
issues such as hoarding, increased nuisance, and negative impacts on wildlife.
5.34 Submitters emphasised that limiting the number of cats
would help manage and control cat populations effectively. Some suggested that
a licensing or permit system could be introduced for households exceeding the
proposed limit, similar to regulations for dog ownership. This would further
ensure responsible pet ownership and maintain sustainable cat populations.
5.35 Staff Advice: This provision was not included in the
consultation material and would constitute a significant change. Including this
provision would trigger a second round of consultation. Other councils such as
Whanganui have included this provision in their Cat Management Bylaw. Given the
limited number of submitters who raised this issue staff recommend considering
this matter when the bylaw is next reviewed within five years.
Conservation
5.36 In over 45 of the submissions there was advocacy for
addressing the impact of cats on native wildlife, particularly birds, through
the proposed bylaw. Submitters expressed frustration with the ongoing damage
caused by both feral and domestic cats, highlighting the significant threat
they pose to local ecosystems.
5.37 Many submissions argued that the proposal does not go far
enough to address the fundamental issue of cats as natural predators.
5.38 Staff Advice: While staff acknowledge the significant
interest in the Cat Management Bylaw from a conservation perspective, it is
important to note that the LGA does not provide for bylaws to be made for
biodiversity and conservation reasons. Biodiversity concerns are addressed
through the RPMP. The Cat Management Bylaw compliments the RPMP, and will
likely have a positive effect on limiting the impact of cats on wildlife,
however this is not the primary purpose of the bylaw.
Feral and stray cats
5.39 The need for increased funding and support for managing
feral cats was a recurring theme. Submitters advocated for the declaration of
feral cats as a pest species to facilitate their removal and called for more
resources to support control efforts. They also emphasised the importance of
integrating these measures into broader pest management strategies to ensure
long-term effectiveness.
5.40 Some submissions highlighted concerns about the
effectiveness of the proposed bylaw in managing both stray and feral cats,
particularly in rural areas and specific locations such as tips and recycling
centres. While the bylaw is seen as a positive step, some submitters worry it
may not fully address the problems associated with feral cats.
5.41 The distinction between stray and feral cats was also
mentioned in the feedback. Strays, which are more accustomed to human
interaction and found in urban settings, differ from feral cats, which are
typically more elusive and found in rural or wild areas. Submitters stressed
the need for targeted strategies to manage both types of cats effectively. One
submitter raised the issue of feeding cat colonies at the hearing, with
concerns that this well-intentioned act could be further exacerbating the
problem.
5.42 Some submissions proposed incorporating advanced
technologies, such as AI-enhanced traps, to improve the management of feral
cats. These technologies could help in identifying and controlling feral
populations more effectively. Additionally, practical suggestions included
encouraging local hunters to assist in controlling feral cats and exploring new
methods for managing these animals in rural areas.
5.43 Staff Advice: As per 5.37, the feral cats are best
managed through the RPMP. Staff acknowledge that the Cat Management Bylaw will
make it easier to ensure that companion cats are not unintentionally considered
pests. As the regulation of feeding colony cats was not presented in an early
engagement or consultation material staff consider this too significant a
change to make without further consultation. Staff recommend reassessing how
significant this issue may be when the bylaw is reviewed within five years.
Enforcement
5.44 Less than 10 submitters raised concerns around the
enforcement of the proposed bylaw, focusing on various aspects related to
penalties, compliance, and practical implementation. Some submitters stressed
that without strict enforcement and associated financial consequences,
individuals might disregard the regulations.
5.45 Staff Advice: Staff acknowledge the challenges around
enforcement of the bylaw. As in other regions where Cat Management Bylaws have
been adopted, the bylaw would primarily serve as a deterrent and educative tool
for encouraging best practice in responsible cat ownership.
Financial concerns
5.46 Eight out of 154 submitters raised concerns about the
financial burden of desexing and microchipping cats, particularly for those
facing economic hardship. While these submitters generally support the measures
in principle, they emphasised the need for subsidies or financial assistance to
ensure compliance, especially for low-income households, beneficiaries, and
elderly people on fixed incomes.
5.47 Several of these submitters suggested partnerships
between the Council, SPCA, and local vet clinics to provide subsidised desexing
programs, with mentions of expanding the "Snip n Chip" campaign,
though its current availability is limited.
5.48 Some submitters expressed concerns about enforcement,
suggesting that without financial support, the bylaw could lead to
non-compliance. They proposed that all SPCA rescue cats should be desexed and
microchipped as a standard requirement, and that financial barriers be
addressed through funding assistance.
5.49 Staff advice: The possibility of Council funding subsidies,
such as the "Snip n Chip" campaigns, was raised during consultation
for Tasman’s 10 Year Plan. However, the Mayor and Councillors decided not
to allocate a budget for this.
5.50 In
addition, staff have received anecdotal feedback from local veterinarians, who
have expressed concerns about the Council subsidising microchipping,
registration, and desexing costs. Their feedback suggests that if prospective
cat owners are unable to cover these initial expenses, they may not be
well-prepared for the ongoing responsibilities of pet ownership. This
perspective emphasises that financial barriers might not just indicate
short-term challenges but could also reflect a potential lack of capacity to
provide long-term care for pets.
5.51 While
we acknowledge the submitters' concerns about compliance and the potential
financial burden on low-income households, it is important to consider that
subsidies may not address the broader issue of responsible pet ownership.
Opposition to desexing requirement
5.52 Six submitters raised concerns
about the desexing requirement of the proposed bylaw, expressing a range of
objections and suggestions for alternative approaches.
5.53 Some submitters felt that mandating desexing is an
overreach of the Council’s regulatory powers. They argued that
responsible pet owners who microchip and register their cats should not be
compelled to desex their pets.
5.54 There were also concerns about the impact on the
availability of non-pedigree cats, commonly referred to as "moggie"
cats. Submitters questioned whether the bylaw would limit the breeding of
non-pedigree cats and whether breeders would continue to breed these cats. They
expressed concern that the requirement could lead to a shortage of affordable
cats for those who cannot or do not wish to purchase pedigree animals.
5.55 Instead of mandatory desexing, some submitters advocated
for educational initiatives and support programmes. They proposed focusing on
education about responsible pet ownership and offering desexing vouchers to
encourage compliance without imposing strict mandates. They also suggested that
the bylaw should allow for more flexibility, such as permitting at least one
litter before mandatory desexing is enforced.
5.56 Staff Advice: While staff acknowledge the concerns raised
by submitters regarding the desexing requirement, it is important to note that
opposition to this measure was relatively low. Desexing is a key component in
controlling the stray and unwanted cat population, which aligns with the
bylaw’s broader objectives.
Opposition to the proposed Cat
Management Bylaw
5.57 Nine submitters voiced general opposition to the proposed
bylaw, expressing concerns primarily about financial implications, Council
priorities, and the practicality of the policy.
5.58 Submitters criticised the Council for what they perceive
as excessive spending and revenue gathering. They highlighted recent
significant increases in rates, questioning whether additional expenditures on
the proposed bylaw are justified. They also raised issues about potential
unintended consequences, such as increased cat dumping or the financial burden
on pet owners.
5.59 A submitter criticised the Council for not providing
sufficient justification for the bylaw. They argued that the consultation
documents did not clearly outline the problem or the appropriateness of the
proposed solutions. There was a call for increased transparency and public
involvement in the bylaw preparation process.
5.60 Privacy concerns related to microchipping were also
mentioned. A submitter argued that the bylaw could infringe on personal privacy
and impose unnecessary control over pet owners. They expressed ethical
reservations about mandating desexing and questioned whether the policy
adequately considers the welfare of pets.
5.61 Overall, the opposition feedback indicates concern about
the Council’s perceived overreach and the potential misallocation of
resources.
5.62 Staff advice: We acknowledge the concerns raised by a
minority of submitters in opposition to the proposed bylaw. However, the bylaw
is necessary to address significant issues related to the unmanaged cat
population in the District, including public health risks and nuisances caused
by stray cats.
5.63 In response to concerns about the financial burden and
the perception of excessive Council spending, it is important to note that the
long-term costs of managing stray and feral cats—if left
unchecked—can outweigh the initial investment required to implement the
bylaw. Microchipping and desexing are preventive measures that help reduce the
future financial strain.
5.64 While a submitter raised concerns about the consultation
documents not adequately justifying the bylaw, the Council’s rationale is
rooted in addressing the unmanaged cat population's negative impacts on public
health and animal welfare. The bylaw provides clear and proportionate measures
to address these issues, and the public consultation process has allowed for
input and transparency in its development.
5.65 Regarding privacy concerns over microchipping, this
practice is widely recognised as a responsible pet management tool that helps
reunite lost pets with their owners and ensures accountability. The ethical
concerns surrounding desexing are also noted, but the measure is essential for
preventing the overpopulation of cats and the suffering of strays, ensuring a
humane approach to managing the population.
Summary of staff advice
5.66 Staff recommend proceeding with the draft bylaw as per
the consultation, with the only amendment being to adjust the transition time
frame to 2026 as opposed to 2027.
5.67 Other elements raised during the consultation can be
managed through education or addressed when the bylaw is reviewed within five
years.
6.1 The options are outlined in the following
table:
|
Option
|
Advantage
|
Disadvantage
|
|
1.
|
Accept staff recommendations to matters
raised in the submissions.
|
Staff, including subject matter experts,
have considered the submissions and have made recommendations on changes to
make to the bylaw.
|
Some submitters may still feel that their
concerns have not been addressed.
|
|
2.
|
Makes changes to the staff
recommendations on the matters raised in submissions.
|
Elected members demonstrate they have
exercised their governance responsibilities by critically assessing staff recommendations.
Other advantages will depend on the
changes the Council makes.
|
The disadvantages will depend on the
changes the Council makes.
|
|
3
|
Do not make any changes to the draft
bylaw.
|
Administrative ease and no challenges in
communicating proposed changes.
|
The views of submitters following
consultation may not have been adequately addressed.
|
6.2 Option one is recommended.
7.1 At the Environment and Regulatory Committee on
18 July 2024 the Committee adopted the Draft Cat Management Bylaw for
consultation.
7.2 Section 156 of the LGA sets out the
consultation requirements when making a new bylaw. Public consultation on the
bylaw was carried out under the Special Consultative Procedure (SCP), which
satisfies the LGA requirements.
7.3 Section 155(1) of the LGA 2002 requires the
Council to determine whether a bylaw is the most appropriate way of addressing
a perceived problem.
7.4 The bylaw addresses perceived problems in
relation to the keeping of cats. Many cats roam beyond their owner’s
property, which creates a risk of them becoming injured, lost or a nuisance to
neighbours. There is also a risk of domestic cats entering high value
conservation reserves, where feral and stray cats may be managed for pest
control reasons, under the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan. Unless
a cat is microchipped it is difficult to identify it as a domestic cat and be
returned to their owners, rather than treated as a stray or feral cat.
7.5 Another perceived problem addressed by the
Bylaw is that female cats can have up to four litters per year, with an average
of four to six kittens per litter. This results in large numbers of unwanted
kittens being taken to the SPCA for rehoming (an average of 155 cats and 152
kittens each year in Nelson) as well as kittens being left in public areas to
become strays (and to continue to breed with stray and feral cats, further
increasing the population). Nearly half the kittens taken to Nelson SPCA Centre
are due to owner surrender, which is often due to a person not able to keep
kittens their domestic cat had. These are considered unwanted kittens and are
often from unplanned breeding. Nearly a third of the cats that come to the
Nelson SPCA Centre are reclaimed.
7.6 Section 155(2)(b) requires the Council to
determine whether the proposed bylaw is the most
appropriate form of
bylaw and gives rise to any implications under the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act (NZ
BORA) 1990.
7.7 Staff have considered the proposed changes and
remain confident that the bylaw is in the
most appropriate
form. Staff advise that the bylaw does not give rise to any implications or
inconsistencies
under the NZ BORA 1990.
8. Iwi
Engagement / Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Māori
8.1 Iwi were informed of the consultation via the
Council’s Iwi Engagement Portal and encouraged to make a submission. Iwi
that indicated they would like to be involved in this project were also emailed
directly and invited to make a submission.
9. Significance
and Engagement / Hiranga me te Whakawhitiwhiti ā-Hapori Whānui
9.1 At the Environment and Regulatory Committee
meeting on 18 July 2024 it was determined that the provisions of the bylaw
would be of high interest to the general public.
9.2 The decision for the Panel to consider in this
report is whether to make any changes to the draft bylaw as a result of public
feedback, and to recommend to the Council that it makes the Cat Management
Bylaw at its meeting on 28 November 2024.
9.3 These decisions may be of higher significance
to some members of the community and moderately significant to the general
public. However, the decisions have been consulted on through an appropriate
process and the deliberations at this meeting are in response to that
consultation. The changes recommended by staff are not a substantial departure
from what was consulted on. Staff consider that the Panel can make the
amendments without further consultation.
|
|
Issue
|
Level of
Significance
|
Explanation of
Assessment
|
|
1.
|
Is there a high level
of public interest, or is decision likely to be controversial?
|
High
|
The proposed bylaw
attracted significant public attention during the early engagement stage and
a moderate to high number of submissions. Most feedback has been supportive
of the introduction of a Cat Management Bylaw.
|
|
2.
|
Are there impacts on
the social, economic, environmental or cultural aspects of well-being of the
community in the present or future?
|
Moderate
|
The proposed bylaw
will impact current and future cat owners with the cost of de-sexing and
microchipping falling to owners. However, the lead time allows for this cost
to be spread across several years. The medium-term outcome would reduce the
stray cat pressure on rehoming organisations, and allow for faster
identification and reunion for lost cats. The long-term outcome of the bylaw
would reduce the number of feral and stray cats impacting on the environment
and the community.
|
|
3.
|
Is there a
significant impact arising from duration of the effects from the decision?
|
Moderate
|
There are long term
effects of reducing cat nuisance in the community. The bylaw affects the
entire Tasman District.
|
|
4.
|
Does the decision
relate to a strategic asset? (refer Significance and Engagement Policy for
list of strategic assets)
|
No
|
|
|
5.
|
Does the decision
create a substantial change in the level of service provided by Council?
|
No
|
|
|
6.
|
Does the proposal,
activity or decision substantially affect debt, rates or Council finances in
any one year or more of the LTP?
|
No
|
|
|
7.
|
Does the decision
involve the sale of a substantial proportion or controlling interest in a CCO
or CCTO?
|
No
|
|
|
8.
|
Does the proposal or
decision involve entry into a private sector partnership or contract to carry
out the deliver on any Council group of activities?
|
No
|
Although we will be
relying on external agencies to assist with implementation
|
|
9.
|
Does the proposal or
decision involve Council exiting from or entering into a group of
activities?
|
No
|
|
|
10.
|
Does the proposal
require particular consideration of the obligations of Te Mana O Te Wai
(TMOTW) relating to freshwater or particular consideration of current
legislation relating to water supply, wastewater and stormwater
infrastructure and services?
|
No
|
|
10. Communication
/ Whakawhitiwhiti Kōrero
10.1 Public communication and consultation on the bylaw was
carried out under the SCP, as set out in paragraph 5.2 of this report.
10.2 Stakeholders with an interest in the bylaw (including
those who registered their interest on Shape Tasman during early engagement)
were identified and received an email notifying them of the consultation,
encouraging them to make a submission.
10.3 Stakeholders included (but were not limited to) the SPCA,
local vets and conservation advocacy groups.
10.4 If the bylaw is approved for adoption, a public notice
will be issued in Newsline and on the Council’s website that the bylaw
has been adopted. This is sufficient to meet the public notification
requirements for bylaws in section 157 of the LGA.
11. Financial
or Budgetary Implications / Ngā Ritenga ā-Pūtea
11.1 This bylaw does not have any material financial or
budgetary implications for the Council.
12.1 The
key risks are reputational, and litigation risks related to the decisions the
Panel is being asked to make.
12.2 A range of community views were received on the
provisions in the bylaw. The Panel’s role is to consider the views of the
community alongside other advice it received, to make decisions for the final
bylaw.
12.3 If approved, the new bylaw would be reviewed within five
years. This will ensure that the provisions remain fit for purpose and
responsive to community needs.
12.4 Introducing a bylaw that is not realistically enforceable
by the Council carries a level of risk, which could lower trust in local
governance or lead to legal ambiguity and potential challenges. Several other
councils have introduced cat management bylaws without legal challenge. Staff
consider this a low risk. Cooperation and education alongside external agencies
such as vets and the SPCA will be an important factor in encouraging
compliance.
12.5 There is also a reputational risk if the Council decides
not to proceed with the proposed bylaw after receiving significant public
feedback in support of what is proposed. There is evidence that cats do not
remain within their owner’s property, are involved in other nuisance
behaviour and can pose a threat to other cats and animals through fighting and
the spread of toxoplasmosis.
13. Climate
Change Considerations / Whakaaro
Whakaaweawe Āhuarangi
13.1 The bylaw is unlikely to have any impact on the Council
or the Tasman District’s carbon footprint.
13.2 Implementation of the bylaw is not likely to be impacted
by the effects of climate change.
13.3 The bylaw neither aligns or detracts from the Council and
Government’s plans, policies and legal obligations relating to climate
change.
14. Alignment
with Policy and Strategic Plans / Te Hangai ki ngā aupapa Here me ngā
Mahere Rautaki Tūraru
14.1 This proposed bylaw aligns with the Tasman Biodiversity
Strategy and compliments the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan
2019-2029.
15. Conclusion
/ Kupu Whakatepe
15.1 The proposed Cat Management Bylaw 2024 aims to protect
the health and safety of the public, minimise nuisance and the potential for
offensive behaviour in public places across the Tasman District.
15.2 In response to submissions staff have recommended a
change to the transition period for existing cats be made to the bylaw for the
Panel’s consideration.
15.3 Staff will incorporate the changes that the Panel request
and, if the Panel recommends, prepare the final bylaw for adoption by the
Council at its meeting on 28 November 2024.
15.4 The bylaw is a new bylaw and, once adopted, will be
reviewed within five years.
16. Next
Steps and Timeline / Ngā Mahi Whai Ake
|
Date
|
Process
|
|
28 November 2024
|
Final Cat Management Bylaw presented to the Council
meeting for approval and adoption.
|
|
13 December 2024
|
Public notice in Newsline and on the Council’s
website advising that the bylaw has been adopted.
|
|
1.⇩
|
Draft Cat
Management Bylaw - Deliberations Version (for approval changes tracked
|
20
|
