Background: We all have the common objective of wanting less stray cats on the streets. Strays are easy targets for abuse and are susceptible to illness and injury. Some people may find them an inconvenience and a nuisance. Culling has been used for decades, without success, in an attempt to control the stray cat population. This method has not been effective and after more than 20 years, the stray cat population has remained the same or even increased. Because of their territorial behaviour new cats rapidly move into vacuums left by cats taken away to be killed. These new cats continue to breed and the cycle continues unabated. The AVA recognised this and initiated the Stray Cat Rehabilitation Scheme in 1998 which was based on the Trap-Neuter-Release (TNS) model used successfully to control stray populations worldwide. This Scheme was gaining momentum and a following of many volunteers, animal welfare organisations and Town councils. However, in May 2003, the SCRS was abruptly suspended because it was felt that it did not achieve its objectives, and culling was intensified. We believe this is a huge step backwards. We have to recognise that the issue of stray cat population management is an environmental and social issue that cannot be completely eradicated, and that a long-term, multi-pronged approach, with sustained involvement in and support for management initiatives is required. Aim: To come up with effective and humane solutions to keep the stray cat population at a manageable and acceptable number in the long-term. Proposal:

• To encourage more people to adopt stray cats into their homes and to set up a temporary shelter to house some of the strays sterilised under the SCRS
• To refine and improve the SCRS by identifying and dealing with its limitations
• To put a stop to irresponsible feeding practices which provoke more complaints and bring negative attention to the cats
• To explore ways in which we can stop irresponsible pet ownership and abandonment including the amendment of the HDB ruling about cats

I. Re-homing stray cats and sheltering them Although we have started to do this, we have been able to protect only a very small percentage of cats from being killed. This may not be sufficient to have an immediate impact on the number of cats on the streets but we will continue to bring as many of them indoors as possible. A huge limiting factor is that the HDB does not officially allow cats in flats. This limits us to finding homes within only the 15% of the population who do not live in HDB flats. A large shelter may be a possibility but as a small organisation, we will be limited by lack of human resources and funds. II. Stray Cat Rehabilitaion Scheme Did the SCRS really not “achieve its objectives”? The AVA states that the SCRS has not achieved its objective. However these objectives were never made public, so it is difficult to address any misapprehension of how the SCRS works as a concept. What criteria were used to assess failure? 1. It is too short a time to make an assessment and too short for any real impact to be made. The scheme may have been started in 1998 but has only gathered momentum in the last 3 years because it was implemented in a staggered way. Only one Town Council participated in 1998; today the SCRS includes 16 Town Councils involving 170 areas, 500 volunteers and 10000 well-managed sterilised cats that can no longer add to the population. The fact that the scheme's result could have been better doesn't mean it had no effect at all, and should not be the reason to suspend it. 2. The burden of convincing each of the town councils to participate in the SCRS lay mainly in the hands of the volunteer organizations. If all town councils were directed by the AVA to participate in the Scheme from the very start, the Scheme may have proven more successful. There was also the problem of communication and we found that the concept of the SCRS and its aims were not consistently disseminated amongst all levels of officers in the TCs. 3. The number of sterilisations done per week was about15. This works out to about 2 cats per day as compared to 35 cats per day that are killed. Obviously, the AVA is much more efficient in rounding up strays for culling. If such efficiency was directed towards the rounding up of strays for sterilisation, the Scheme may have been more successful. 4. The number of cats killed dropped from 13000 cats killed each year for over 20 years to about 10000 last year. This may be an indication that the scheme is slowly starting to work. 5. Was the scheme deemed to have failed as a result of an increased number of complaints being made? Were they repeat complaints and how many were anonymous? CWS and volunteers on the scheme work hard to help Town Councils address cat-related complaints. The majority of mediations are successful and the complainant is satisfied. However, we have found that many people are ignorant about the scheme and the work involved. We also realised that people who complain have a certain negative attitude and mindset about cats, often based on misconceptions, and they want the animals removed immediately. Since the SCRS is a long term plan involving sterilising and then returning cats to their original territory, these people will continue to complain as long as they see any cat. 6. In how many of the 16 town councils /170 areas was the Scheme considered not to have been effective? Was feedback given to the volunteers working with those town councils that the Scheme was not going well, so that an opportunity could be given for it to work? Suggestions to improve the SCRS and ensure success We believe the SCRS has the potential to succeed. We propose not only that the SCRS be reinstated, we need to take the SCRS to a new level for it to succeed. One of the most important issues limiting the success of the SCRS is the number of new cats being abandoned daily. This has to be addressed and we have done so on page 4 section IV. Speaking as volunteers with hard-earned experience who are fundamentally committed to making the scheme work, the ultimate success or failure also rests on several other factors. a. More Resources The demand for sterilisation slots has always far exceeded availability and the scheme has always depended heavily on the limited resources of animal welfare groups and vets who volunteer their services occasionally. See point (3) above b. More Publicity and Awareness Publicising the SCRS widely to all residents in the areas involved is crucial. All stakeholders have to understand the concept and rationale of the SCRS. This would foster more tolerance and patience because they will understand that results will not be instantaneous. We have come to realise mediating with so many people that most do not want to the cats killed as they feel it is cruel. But they mistakenly think that there is no alternative because they were not aware of the SCRS. When the SCRS was explained to them, most were satisfied just knowing that the “problem” was being addressed. Knowledge and information would significantly reduce complaints and unhappiness. c. More Cooperation In areas where the SCRS worked, there was a high level of cooperation, understanding and goodwill between TCs, AVA, animal welfare groups, volunteers and residents. This can only be achieved with greater awareness and commitment. See point (6) above d. More Commitment All involved parties must believe the SCRS can work or at least be willing to give it an honest try. Cooperation and trust between all parties must also exist so that the Scheme will not be abandoned at the at when small hiccups of difficulties are faced. Any long term project would require persistence, patience and total commitment. e. Setting Targets and Goals Targets have to be set both in the short and long term so that progress can be easily tracked. Having targets would allow us to fine tune our efforts or change tactics if we had to. Being able to show small incremental successes would also keep volunteers as well as town councils encouraged and motivated. f. Dealing with complaints more effectively and productively There should be a standardised way of dealing with cat-related complaints. Many have been because of personal vendettas against their neighbour and the cat is the easy target. Town councils in registered areas can continue to forward genuine complaints with contact numbers and addresses to CWS. The CWS and volunteer caregivers will address these complaints via mediation and report back to the town council. Anonymous complaints should be verified first by the town council and if these are not valid, they should be dismissed. Furthermore, if they are anonymous and vague, they should not be taken too seriously. Complaints also provide valuable feedback and this should be made known to all parties. Note: The CWS has seen cat populations stabilise and decline in many areas where cooperation and a mutual understanding exists between the volunteers, town councils and residents. In these areas, the people involved and residents knew about sterilisation and the work being carried out. This underscores the importance of disseminating information, publicising efforts and the high level of commitment involved. III. Designated Feeding Stations Designated stray cat feeding points have to be established in housing estates to properly manage the stray cat population and discourage random, irresponsible feeding practices. This organised, hygienic practice could be integrated into the Singapore’s OK campaign Problem One of the main complaints is leftover food thrown randomly by irresponsible but well-meaning people who want to feed the stray cats. This littering only serves to stir up more negative emotions about cats and worry about hygiene. It also adds to the “visibility” of cats, which leads to more complaints. Flyers published by the town council telling the public to stop feeding the cats and saying that feeding strays will spread diseases send out wrong, confusing and conflicting information. Instead, the SCRS should be publicised and the presence of registered caregivers who feed responsibly should be highlighted. Increased public awareness and openness about the matter would lessen the tendency for “ghost” feeders to surface i.e. scared people (because of conflicting information in the flyers) who feel sorry for the animals, don’t know about registered caregivers, and so throw food randomly before quickly disappearing from the scene because they are frightened of being caught. Solution The town councils have to cooperate by disseminating accurate public information and openly acknowledging registered, responsible caregivers who are doing a great community service. Well-fed strays will not scavenge for food in dustbins or congregate around hawker centres. Littering and irresponsible feeding should be actively discouraged and punished. Flyers could instead tell people not feed cats because there are already registered caregivers doing so. Once people know that the cats are being fed, most will no longer feel sorry for them and will stop throwing food secretly. Having designated feeding points is an extension of the above argument. Make stray cat feeding an open thing but allow it to be done only at certain designated spots where there is low human traffic and at specific times. These areas will be cleaned and maintained by the volunteer caregivers. This way, the people who like cats can feed, play and watch them at the feeding point, and the people who dislike them will be happy that they are out of sight. On the other hand, anybody caught throwing food anywhere else should be fined under the littering laws. Advantages of designated feeding points:

• This will keep help keep the environment clean and reduce the visibility of strays within the estates.
• Responsible feeding is ensured and enforceable. Likewise, the public can be informed and instructed not to feed stray cats as there already are responsible care-givers doing so.
• As these feeding points become the only easy source of food for strays, shy or wild unneutered stray cats can be lured towards these places and become more easily caught and sterilised.

IV. Adoption of Cats into Homes / Amending the HDB Ruling about Cats The irresponsible ownership of cats in flats is a major factor for the continued presence of stray cats in housing estates despite volunteers actively sterilising them. With the supply unchecked, the SCRS was only fire fighting and the volunteers’ work was endless. It is virtually impossible to maintain a stable well-managed population in an area where new cats appear (mostly from upstairs) ever so often. Unsterilised pet cats not kept indoors might also irritate neighbours by their caterwauling or by dirtying the environment. Amendment of existing HDB ruling to allow cats in flats, only on the premise that certain criteria are met, would force tenants to keep cats in a responsible and accountable manner. The most effective way to keep the stray cat population down and to minimise complaints from the community is for them to be taken into homes as pets. Currently, 85% of Singaporeans or 800 000 households live in HDB flats. If they are allowed to keep cats, and if only 10% of the households adopt just one stray cat each, 80 0000 strays will be taken off our streets. With active sterilisation of the remaining strays, Singapore would have solved its stray cat “problem”. Furthermore, because it would be made compulsory that these adopted cats are sterilised and microchipped, owners would be made responsible and accountable, and abandonment could be abolished or at least reduced significantly. At present the fact that cats are not legally allowed in flats acts as a strong disincentive for the tenants to be responsible pet owners. We recommend that cats can be allowed in HDB flats ONLY IF these conditions are met:

• that the cat be microchipped or electronically tagged, so that its owner can be easily traced. This will make the enforcement of anti-abandonment laws much more effective as proper ownership can now be easily ascertained.
• that the cat be sterilised
• that the cat NEVER be allowed to roam outdoors

The legalisation of responsible pet-cat ownership in flats would therefore attack the problem of the continued presence of strays at the source. Irresponsible and recalcitrant cat owners would remain subject to the existing HDB Nuisance by-laws as well as the Anti-Abandonment law.