Over the last couple of days, my inbox has taken an interesting turn. I have received a growing number of emails asking Cats Protection to campaign for the mandatory neutering of owned pet cats. They come from different people and addresses, but the text is identical. This is clearly a coordinated campaign, although despite some searching we have not yet established where the template originated.
There may be some clues as to why it is happening now. There is currently a Parliamentary petition calling for all owned cats to be neutered, closing on 16 August, and there have been similar petitions before. We are also in kitten season, when unplanned litters are particularly visible and many rescue organisations are under pressure. None of that proves where this campaign has come from, but it helps explain why the issue may have acquired renewed urgency.
And I understand that urgency. People involved in cat rescue see unwanted kittens, cats living as strays and organisations struggling to find space for yet another cat needing help. The apparently straightforward answer is to prevent those kittens being born in the first place.
There is much in that argument with which Cats Protection agrees. Neutering has been central to our work for many years. We recommend neutering at around four months and invest substantially in helping people access it, particularly where cost might otherwise be a barrier. We also work with veterinary practices and communities, and Trap-Neuter-Return is an important part of managing populations of unowned cats. Neutering is unquestionably one of our most important tools for preventing avoidable suffering.
Where we differ is on whether the next logical step is to make it compulsory for almost every owned cat. That sounds like a relatively small extension of what we already advocate, but it raises a much bigger question: what do we want the UK cat population to look like in ten, twenty or fifty years?
At Cats Protection, we increasingly think about this in terms of achieving a balanced cat population: one where the number, distribution and characteristics of cats are compatible with good welfare, and where appropriate homes, care and resources are available. Our objective cannot simply be fewer cats. It must be the right population of cats experiencing good welfare.
This is where mandatory neutering becomes more complicated. If almost every ordinary pet cat had to be neutered, with exemptions principally for breeding animals, where would future generations come from? We could gradually create a population increasingly produced through deliberate breeding, while the wonderful diversity of Britain’s ordinary non-pedigree cats diminished.
Moggies are not simply pedigree cats without paperwork. Their broad genetic diversity is a strength, and maintaining a wide and resilient gene pool matters for the future health of cats. We therefore need to distinguish between irresponsible breeding, which can undoubtedly cause suffering, and reproduction itself. If we want cats to share our homes in generations to come, some cats obviously have to reproduce.
And some of the breeding that should concern us most is entirely deliberate. Cats bred for extreme physical characteristics which compromise their welfare are a growing concern, as are some aspects of hybridisation. A kitten is not automatically responsibly bred because someone deliberately produced it, any more than a healthy moggie is automatically a welfare problem because its parents weren’t registered breeding cats.
The campaign template also draws a comparison with compulsory microchipping, for which Cats Protection successfully campaigned. It is a reasonable comparison, but not a complete one. Microchipping identifies an individual cat. Neutering permanently prevents reproduction and, if applied across almost an entire population, could affect the future composition and genetic diversity of that population. That doesn’t rule out legislation, but it does mean we should understand the consequences before advocating it.
Nor should we make this simply about owner compliance. Cost, access to veterinary services and awareness can all be barriers to neutering. Britain’s cats also include owned, stray, community and feral cats, requiring different approaches. That is why accessibility, education, support for owners and Trap-Neuter-Return matter alongside promoting neutering itself.
We also need better evidence. Knowing how many cats are unneutered is important, but we need to understand how many actually reproduce, how many litters are planned or unplanned, where population pressures occur, how people acquire cats and what different interventions would mean over the longer term. Better evidence helps us intervene where we can make the greatest sustainable difference.
So, we are responding properly to everyone taking part in this campaign. The fact that people are using an identical template doesn’t make their concern any less genuine. Each has chosen to send it and deserves an explanation of our position.
Where we may differ is on the solution, not the ambition. I want fewer unwanted litters and fewer cats experiencing poor welfare. I want responsible breeding, action against extreme characteristics, effective management of unowned populations and future generations to inherit a healthy and diverse population of cats, including plenty of wonderful moggies.
That is what a balanced cat population means. Neutering is fundamental to achieving it, but it isn’t the whole answer. Mandatory neutering offers an attractively simple response to a very visible problem, but decisions we make now could shape our cat population for generations. We owe it to cats to understand the whole system, think about the long-term consequences and be prepared to embrace some complexity.
The people filling my inbox and Cats Protection ultimately want the same thing: fewer cats suffering unnecessarily and a healthier future for cats. The important debate is how, together, we best achieve it.
