Responsible ownership and care of domestic cats in Scotland: report

7. Outcomes of evidence gathering

Microchipping: There appear to be many positive welfare impacts from microchipping domestic cats as with other domestic species, although this should be coupled with a requirement for a suitable (ideally centralised) database and regular updates of information. There is little evidence of any significant welfare disbenefits and the experience of other countries, where there have been moves to require compulsory microchipping, does not suggest that this is problematic for animal welfare. Implanting a microchip at an early age, for example by 12-20 weeks of age in different jurisdictions, but ideally before the first transfer of ownership from the breeder/shelter to the new owner, would ensure that this becomes a routine part of acquiring a cat for new owners.

Over the whole of the UK, 75% of cats have been microchipped and this seems to be relatively consistent over the last three years. In Scotland the figure (71%) is slightly lower than the UK average, which may relate to the higher proportion of indoor cats in Scotland.

Vaccination and prophylactic treatment: Despite the well-known welfare benefits of protecting cats from disease and the unpleasant welfare consequences of infection and infestation with parasites, there is still evidence of a considerable number of cats in Scotland that are unprotected. In Scotland at least a quarter of cats are reported by their owners to not be up to date with vaccinations, although this appears to have slightly decreased over the last three years^[1], and Scottish cats are slightly more likely to have been vaccinated than for the UK as a whole. As discussed above these figures may be a significant underestimation of the true number of unprotected cats.

These can be a welfare risk for these unvaccinated animals, but they may also contribute to zoonotic transfer of diseases to humans and to other vulnerable animal populations (such as wildcats). Although vaccine hesitancy is a well described phenomenon for human uptake of vaccination, whether this extends to companion animals is less well known. Perhaps a more relevant consideration may be the availability and perceived affordability of veterinary treatments, which have been widely cited as reasons for animals not to visit the vets. These can be problematic to overcome, and are the subject of a current consultation, but the economic and emotional costs of treating disease are far greater than the costs of providing timely vaccination and prophylactic care.

An additional reason given for not attending veterinary clinics is that cats find capture, restraint in a cat carrier, transport and exposure to novel sights and smells of veterinary clinics stressful and this may also prevent owners from taking cats to clinics. More veterinary clinics are now aware of these issues and have started to take steps to make veterinary clinics less stressful for owners and cats (e.g. Cat Friendly Clinics), as well as advising on methods to habituate cats to components of the visit.

There is increasing concern about the development of resistance to parasiticides, which may also be a concern in the use of these prophylactics. However, assessment of the risks for different cats is more common in veterinary practices, and better owner education would also be valuable to ensure that these products are used in a way that does not contribute to resistance.

Neutering: PDSA^[8] and Cats Protection^[3] estimates of neutering in UK owned cats suggests around 85-90% of cats are neutered and this figure is unchanged over the last three years. Rates of neutering in Scotland are equivalent to the UK average^[1]. The Cats Protection report (2023)^[3] suggests that 6% of female cats had a litter in the last 12 months, less than half the number seen in 2020 and 2021. Although nearly 50% of these litters were unplanned, this is considerably reduced compared to 77% in 2020 and 76% in 2021. Whether this is will be sustained, represents a blip, or is a continued downwards trend, needs to be confirmed, but does suggest that fewer unplanned litters of kittens have been produced. Of planned litters in the last 12 months 65% were from pedigree cats, which supports the picture of an increase in pure-breed cats and a decrease in moggies in cat breeding.

Evidence from other countries suggests that compulsory neutering is rarely the only method used to constrain cat reproduction, and this is usually part of a mixed set of measures, including cat containment, micro-chipping and restrictions on cat movements, although this may depend on the main goal of limiting cat reproduction (e.g., population control or to reduce impacts on local fauna). In general, most jurisdictions support neutering of feral or unowned cats (usually via TNVR programmes), sometimes coupled with trapping and killing of feral cats, whereas compulsory neutering of owned cats is not commonly part of legislation. However, a number of countries do require either containment or compulsory neutering of free-roaming cats. A modelling study of cat population management simulated the numbers of cats in a population with different management strategies, including the number of preventable deaths of kittens^[123]. This exercise concluded that lack of management (no action) resulted in the highest number of preventable kitten deaths, and that high intensity removal (50% of the population) or high intensity sterilisation (75% of intact cats sterilised) were more effective than culling (at high or low intensity), or low intensity removal or neutering, in reducing preventable deaths.

From a welfare perspective it is clear that the welfare of feral cats can be very poor, resulting in high kitten mortality and a drastically reduced lifespan. The welfare of wildlife prey caught and consumed by feral (and owned) cats can also be poor, because of the typical hunting responses of cats, which may ‘play’ with prey before killing. The presence of feral cats may also impact on wildcat welfare, by competing for the same resources (food and shelter), as well as their impact on the conservation status of wildcats through hybridisation and acting as a reservoir for diseases. Therefore, steps to reduce the number of feral cats would be beneficial in improving welfare of feral cats, wildlife and wildcats.

Evidence that owned cats would benefit from being neutered is more mixed. There is some evidence for an improvement in lifespan and protection from some cancers, while neutered cats are less likely to engage in risky behaviours, so avoiding injuries. However, this must be balanced against the impacts of a surgical procedure, pain management, and an increased risk of obesity and some diseases, such as diabetes. There is also now evidence of an increase in breeding of pure-breed cats, which may be specifically selected for aesthetic characteristics that can be associated with welfare harms. For example, the CATS report 2023^[3] suggests an increase in the numbers of Ragdoll and Persian cats, and a sustained number of Scottish Fold cats, which can be associated with disability and welfare problems. Requiring neutering of all cats, except those for breeding (as is the case in Belgium, the only country to require this), may move the cat population towards more pure-breed animals and away from moggys, with impacts on cat health and welfare.