Kate Emery: The double requirements between cat and canine homeowners wants to alter | USAEMALL.com

Cat and dog owners love to spar over which pet is smarter, when the real question is whether cat or dog owners have more going on upstairs.

Obviously it’s cat owners.

But, before the pit-bull parents come for me with a choke chain, let me hasten to my point, which is this: if dog owners were so smart, they wouldn’t tolerate the double standards for cat v dog owners.

Dog owners must keep their pets at home unless accompanied, leash them in public and carry their poo like the modern equivalent of King Henry VIII’s Groom of the Stool (look it up or, better yet, don’t).

Meanwhile, cat owners are getting away with murder. About 110 of them each year, which is one estimate of how many native animals are killed by every Fluffy, Coco or Mr Muggles.

Most pet cats are allowed to roam freely, crapping in the flowerbeds of perfect strangers, spreading diseases, starting fights and generally living the life of a serial killer in a small town where everyone leaves their doors unlocked and to whom the cops have decided to turn a blind eye.

As a cat owner it pains me to say that this needs to change.

Calls for laws that would confine pet cats at home have been growing louder for years but nobody wants to do anything about it, possibly because cat people can be, well, let’s go with “passionate”.

Unfortunately, the case for keeping cats indoors or in an enclosed outside space is compelling.

Pet cats are estimated to kill 390-500 million animals every year in Australia.

Just as Ted Bundy charmed victims to their death, cats have convinced us they’re not ruthless killers by also being gorgeous little fluffballs whose idea of heaven is a tummy rub in the sun.

As I write, my own cat is dozing in the flowerbeds, as innocent as a nun at prayer. But I have seen this elderly sook dismember a dove with all the emotion of a mafia boss ordering a hit.

I said that nobody wants to do anything about this. That’s not true.

It’s just that most of those who want to act lack the power to do so.

Some councils have introduced rules requiring cats are kept at home. But not in WA, where the WA Cat Act essentially stops them from doing so.

Changing the Act would be one way the WA Government could address the problem, while directing the ire of cat owners towards local government instead of itself.

The Government has started on its latest statutory review of the Act, which Local Government Minister Hannah Beazley said would be an opportunity for “public input” and to “further consider how we can support the work of local government, rescue groups, and other organisations involved in caring for companion animals”.

The last review had a fair amount of “public input”, with 73 per cent backing the idea of restricting cats at home (dropping to 49 per cent for cat owners).

Asked if the Act could be tweaked to let councils restrict roaming cats, the minister was faster than a firefighter in hosing down expectations, pointing out certain areas, like parks or nature reserves, could already be designated no-go zones for cats.

“Local governments do not need legislative change to undertake proactive work in this space, and many are, including through ‘build your own catio’ workshops and associated grant programs for their ratepayers.,” she said.

The prospect of bans on roaming cats coming in overnight isn’t realistic and would likely lead to a spike in cats being dumped by owners unable or unwilling to keep them at home.

But a staged introduction that begins with new cat owners would be both more palatable and a good start.

Someone, somewhere, reading this column is begging me to mention feral cats.

It’s true that feral cats kill way more native animals than pets: they’re probably responsible for about three-quarters of all cat-related native animal deaths. The Government is already doing a fair bit to eradicate (bureaucratic speak for kill, sounds nicer) feral cats, including dropping baits and spraying toxic gels.

But suggesting pet cats should be let alone while the feral menace is dealt with is like suggesting cops prosecute only male killers, who account for most homicides, and give lady murderers a free pass.

Don’t let a pretty face fool you: a killer is a killer.