Archives

ICAM Conversation : Should sterilisation be mandatory for dogs and cats?

21 August 2025

Introduction

ICAM’s latest Conversation brought together animal welfare professionals from around the world to explore a complex and timely question: should sterilisation be mandatory for owned dogs and cats?

The debate matters because sterilisation is central to humane population management, yet approaches differ widely. Some countries and cities have introduced legal mandates, while others rely on voluntary programmes. The session presented structured arguments both for and against mandatory sterilisation before opening the floor for global perspectives.

Argument in Favour of Mandatory Sterilisation

Key points in the argument in favour of mandatory sterilisation:

• Preventing suffering at scale: With millions of free-roaming dogs and cats globally, uncontrolled reproduction fuels abandonment, shelter overcrowding, and public health risks.
• Moral responsibility: Humans bred companion animals to rely on us; regulating reproduction is part of our duty of care.
• Clear standard with flexibility: Laws set sterilisation as the norm, while exemptions can apply for responsible breeders, working animals, or medical reasons.
• Proven models: Examples from the US and Australia show that mandates, paired with education, subsidies, and fair enforcement, can reduce shelter intake, dog bites, and euthanasia rates.
• Culture shift: Mandates help create new norms, much as seatbelt or microchipping laws did, and can drive investment and political will where voluntary approaches have plateaued.

Argument Against Mandatory Sterilisation

Key points in the argument against mandatory sterilisation:

• The “underground pet” effect: Owners may avoid licensing, vaccination, or veterinary care if they fear penalties, undermining both welfare and public health.
• Equity concerns: Low-income families, often willing but unable to pay for surgery, risk fines, surrendering pets, or criminalisation.
• Enforcement challenges: Identifying unsterilised animals is difficult; policing compliance may divert resources from outreach and subsidised services.
• Unintended outcomes: Confiscations for non-compliance can flood shelters, while enforcement costs may undercut effective prevention programmes.
• Public backlash and trust: For some, compulsory sterilisation feels like overreach, potentially reducing cooperation with animal health campaigns, including rabies vaccination.
• Alternative approach: Voluntary programmes, subsidies, education, and incentives can build social norms without mandates, avoiding enforcement burdens.

Insights from the Open Discussion

Participants shared diverse experiences:

• Middle ground approaches: Many favoured combining voluntary programmes with targeted enforcement or incentives. Mobile clinics, low-cost surgeries, and TNR for cats were cited as effective.
• Mandates as leverage: In Cape Town, a bylaw requiring sterilisation is rarely enforced but provides a useful tool in specific cases, such as reclaiming unsterilised strays.
• Evidence gaps: Contributors from New Zealand noted growing support for cat sterilisation mandates but stressed the need for stronger data on real-world impacts.
• Species differences: Some argued cats and dogs should not be treated identically; community acceptance of sterilisation varies significantly between species.
• Equity and access: Across contexts, participants agreed that services must be accessible and affordable if any policy—mandatory or voluntary—is to succeed.

Key Considerations for Policy and Practice

• Laws may help shift norms, but without robust support services, they risk inequity and non-compliance.
• Voluntary approaches, when well-resourced, can achieve high coverage and build trust with communities.
• Enforcement capacity is often limited; mandates may work better as a supportive tool than a primary strategy.
• The context matters: public attitudes, veterinary infrastructure, and political priorities will determine whether mandates are viable or counterproductive.

Unresolved Questions

The discussion revealed several areas requiring further research:

• Limited evidence on comparative effectiveness of mandatory versus voluntary approaches
• Optimal sterilisation timing, particularly for dogs
• Long-term population management goals and whether universal sterilisation is desirable
• Best practices for enforcement that avoid criminalising vulnerable populations

Conclusion

The debate revealed no single solution but underscored a shared goal: reducing unwanted litters humanely while supporting human–animal bonds. Whether through voluntary programmes, targeted mandates, or blended models, success depends on affordability, accessibility, and community trust.

ICAM Conversation: Responsible Dog and Cat Ownership and Feeding

24-25 October 2024

Introduction

Our ICAM Conversation sessions in October 2024 focused on responsible dog and cat ownership and feeding practices. The sessions brought together practitioners from diverse geographical, cultural, and economic contexts to discuss the complexities of defining and implementing responsible ownership standards globally.

Key Topics Discussed

1. Defining Responsible Ownership Across Contexts

The discussions used WOAH’s Chapter 7.7, Article 7.7.17 as a starting point, which outlines core responsibilities including:

– Providing appropriate care according to the five welfare needs

– Behaviour management and socialisation

– Registration and identification of dogs

– Access to preventive and therapeutic veterinary care

– Prevention of negative community impacts

– Control of reproduction

– Arrangements for care when owners are unable to provide it

Critical Reflections

Systemic vs. Individual Responsibility

Participants emphasised that responsibility should not rest solely on pet owners but should include government support, public health systems, and local welfare organisations

Inclusive Language

Suggestions to use terms like “conscientious” or “compassionate” rather than “responsible” to reduce stigma and avoid labelling less privileged pet owners as “irresponsible”

Realistic Standards

Whilst responsible ownership standards aim high, many participants noted they are often unrealistic for people with limited resources, particularly in regions lacking basic veterinary services

Legal vs. Practical Definitions

Legal definitions of ownership often don’t match local practices, where ownership may be informal community caretaking rather than documented ownership.

Community-Based Models

In many rural areas, pets serve as both companions and community resources, with multiple caretakers sharing responsibilities.

Aspirational vs. Mandatory

Participants suggested treating responsible ownership as an aspirational goal rather than strict enforcement, allowing flexibility for socio-economic constraints

Examples from Practice

Philippines: Effective collaboration between animal welfare organisations and local governments to educate owners whilst government supports veterinary services

Chile: Mandatory microchipping law with only 30% compliance due to cultural resistance and lack of public education

Uganda: Limited animal care resources with community-based care as the norm, making individual responsibility difficult to enforce

Australia: Stricter ownership regulations requiring microchipping, neutering, and confinement, contrasting sharply with practices in economically disadvantaged regions

2. Responsible Feeding Practices and the Ownership Spectrum

Discussions drew from the ICAM blog on responsible feeding, which outlines expectations for responsible feeders.

Key Challenges

Dependency and Public Health

Feeding can create dependency and attract animals to populated areas, increasing risks for both animals and people

Boundaries and Intentional Feeding

Distinguishing between intentional, regular feeding (which may equate to ownership responsibility) and situational feeding at markets or dumpsites

Community Safety

Need to feed animals in safe areas, away from schools and hospitals, to prevent conflict

Innovative Approaches

Registered Feeder Systems

Some regions require feeders to register with local councils, enabling authorities to provide health and sterilisation support

Formalised Feeder Roles

Proposals for feeders to take on minimal healthcare responsibilities, such as ensuring sterilisation

Coordinated Feeding Networks

Use of social media and community meetings to coordinate feeding efforts and avoid duplication

Examples from Practice

India

Some cities issue ID cards to feeders, allowing regulated feeding in designated zones with health tracking

Portugal (Azores)

Legal complications around microchipping stray cats, requiring someone to register as “owner” before microchipping

Nepal (Kathmandu): Structured system where feeders coordinate to manage specific groups of animals with monthly meetings

Singapore: Use of specific feeding containers to reduce litter and health hazards, with WhatsApp groups for coordination

Ghana: Rabies vaccination programmes serving as informal registries for tracking animals

3. Systemic Support and Collaborative Approaches

NGO-Government Collaboration

Essential for sustainable animal management, with NGOs often supplementing limited government capacity

Resource Accessibility

Need for government-funded programmes for sterilisation and vaccination where private veterinary care is inaccessible

Infrastructure Considerations

Open garbage dumps indirectly support stray populations, requiring coordinated waste management solutions

Successful Models:

Low-Cost Veterinary Clinics

Affordable services that encourage responsible ownership without creating financial burden

Community Education Programmes

Public education on responsible ownership and animal welfare to build community support

Subsidised Services

Government assistance for veterinary care, particularly in rural communities where costs are prohibitive

Examples from Practice

Nepal: Low-cost clinics requiring nominal fees for vaccinations, creating sense of value without financial burden

Greece and Portugal: Municipal responsibility for unowned cats and dogs, with successful NGO partnerships for feeding, health checks, and sterilisation

Norway: Agency defining ownership based on caregiving actions (e.g., feeding for 30 days), though enforcement remains challenging

4. Legislation, Enforcement, and Cultural Adaptation

Legislation as Guidance

Laws should provide framework whilst being adaptable to local needs and capabilities

Variable Enforcement

Many countries have animal welfare laws but lack agencies or funding for enforcement

Flexible Definitions

Legal definitions need flexibility to accommodate varying levels of involvement and cultural practices

Microchipping and Identification Challenges

Low compliance rates due to cultural resistance, misunderstanding, or lack of resources

Data Value

Microchipping provides valuable data on relinquishment trends and can aid reunification efforts

Enforcement Limitations

Limited effectiveness in holding owners accountable without strong enforcement mechanisms

Examples from Practice

Chile: 30% compliance with mandatory microchipping due to lack of education and trust

UK: Microchipping providing valuable data on pet relinquishment reasons, particularly housing and financial issues

Iran: Growing public awareness campaigns promoting responsible feeding at appropriate times and places

Key Insights and Recommendations

Moving Beyond “Irresponsible” Labels

Drawing from the SPARC blog on stopping discussion of “irresponsible” pet owners, participants emphasised:

Systemic Support Over Individual Blame

Focus on providing support systems rather than labelling individuals as irresponsible

Positive Reinforcement

Policies should prioritise support over punishment, with registration and identification systems designed to help rather than penalise

Understanding Barriers

Recognition that many perceived “irresponsible” behaviours stem from lack of resources, knowledge, or support rather than lack of care.

Practical Implementation Strategies

Inclusive Policy Development

– Create flexible guidelines that acknowledge cultural and economic variations

– Develop aspirational rather than mandatory standards where appropriate

– Build in systemic support mechanisms to assist individual owners and feeders

Community-Centred Approaches

– Engage local communities in developing appropriate standards for their context

– Build on existing informal care networks rather than replacing them

– Use education and support rather than enforcement as primary tools

Collaborative Models

– Strengthen partnerships between governments, NGOs, and communities

– Develop coordinated systems for feeding, health care, and population management

– Share resources and expertise across organisations and regions

Sustainable Solutions

– Focus on building local capacity and infrastructure

– Develop funding models that support ongoing programmes rather than one-off interventions

– Create systems that can adapt to changing circumstances and needs

Holistic Animal Welfare

– Address both immediate care needs and population management

– Consider environmental and public health impacts alongside animal welfare

– Integrate animal management with broader community development initiatives

Key Takeaways

Our conversations highlighted the complexity of defining and implementing responsible ownership across diverse contexts. Success requires moving beyond rigid standards to develop flexible, culturally appropriate approaches that balance animal welfare, public health, and community needs. Most importantly, effective animal management requires systemic support and collaborative approaches rather than placing responsibility solely on individual owners or feeders.

The discussions revealed that whilst international standards provide important guidance, their implementation must be adapted to local realities, with emphasis on building supportive systems rather than punitive enforcement mechanisms.

Further Reading

Foundation Documents:

– WOAH Chapter 7.7: Stray Dog Population Control:  International standards for dog population management including responsible ownership guidelines

– ICAM Blog: Rethinking Population Control Through Changing Food Resources: Discussion of responsible feeding practices and their role in population management

– SPARC Blog: Stop Talking About Irresponsible Pet Owners – Alternative approaches to addressing pet ownership challenges without stigmatising language

ICAM Conversation: CNVR as Part of Dog Population Management in Asia

15 August 2024

Introduction

Our two conversation sessions in August 2024 focused on Catch, Neuter, Vaccinate, Return (CNVR) programmes for dog population management in Asia.

The sessions brought together practitioners from across Asia and beyond to discuss practical challenges and solutions in implementing CNVR programmes.

Key Topics Discussed

1. Community Tolerance Towards Free-Roaming Dogs

Current Challenges:

• Tolerance levels vary significantly across and within countries due to cultural, religious, and regional factors
• Muslim communities may avoid close contact with dogs for religious reasons
• Urban vs. rural differences in acceptance levels
• Mating seasons, rabies fears, and nuisance behaviours (noise, waste) reduce community tolerance
• Tourist areas often show lower tolerance due to visitor concerns

Successful Strategies:

• Education and Awareness: School visits, public campaigns, and social media outreach to demonstrate CNVR benefits
• Community Engagement: Working with local feeders, caregivers, and religious leaders
• Demonstrating Impact: Showing reductions in dog bite cases and rabies incidents
• Behavioural Education: Teaching communities about normal dog behaviour to reduce misunderstandings
• Visible Improvements: Using identification markers (coloured collars) for sterilised dogs

Long-term Outcomes:

Participants reported that building tolerance is gradual but achievable, with communities showing increased acceptance as dog populations stabilise and become healthier over time.

2. Return vs. Relocation Practices

Pressures for Relocation:

• Government officials and community members often request dog removal
• Particular pressure in tourist areas and high-security locations such as airports
• Low community tolerance can drive relocation demands

Challenges with Relocation:

• Dogs frequently return to original territories
• New locations may lack adequate resources
• Potential for increased aggression in unfamiliar territories
• Ethical concerns about moving dogs without proper community consent

Best Practice Approaches:

• Education First: Explaining the “vacuum effect” – how removing dogs creates space for new, unsterilised dogs
• Selective Removal: Only relocating truly aggressive individuals that pose safety risks
• Careful Assessment: Thorough evaluation before any relocation decisions
• Soft Release: When relocation is necessary, providing monitoring and integration support
• Community-Based Monitoring: Engaging local volunteers to monitor returned dogs

3. Government Collaboration

Critical Factor:

Government support was identified as essential for programme sustainability, legal backing, funding, and scaling up operations.

Common Challenges:

• Frequent turnover of officials disrupting programme continuity
• Limited awareness of CNVR benefits amongst government personnel
• Insufficient budgets allocated to animal welfare
• Conflicting priorities between different departments

Successful Engagement Strategies:

• High-Level Engagement: Building relationships with decision-makers and future leaders
• Public Health Framing: Presenting CNVR as a solution to rabies control and public safety
• Data-Driven Approach: Demonstrating programme impact through surveys and measurable outcomes
• Cost-Effectiveness: Showing long-term savings compared to culling or sheltering
• Legislative Support: Helping draft animal welfare legislation that includes CNVR provisions
• Resource Access: Assisting municipalities in accessing available funding for animal management

Success Stories:

Several participants reported governments now allocating budgets for CNVR, with officials actively promoting programmes and improved policies supporting these initiatives.

4. CNVR Coverage Targets

Target Coverage Levels:
• Most participants aim for 80-90% coverage in target areas
• Focus often on achieving 80% sterilisation of female dogs
• Some pursue 100% coverage as an aspirational goal
• Coverage below 70% generally found insufficient for lasting impact

Strategic Approaches:
• Comprehensive Population Coverage: Addressing both stray and owned dog populations (with some areas seeing 70% of sterilised dogs having some form of ownership)
• Geographic Focus: Concentrating efforts on defined, limited areas for quick, visible results
• Multiple Interventions: Returning to areas repeatedly to capture remaining dogs
• Door-to-Door Outreach: Engaging pet owners directly and providing education
• Data-Driven Targeting: Using detailed population surveys to categorise and target different dog groups

Maintenance Requirements:

Participants emphasised that CNVR is not a one-time intervention but requires ongoing “maintenance” efforts, with some conducting monthly revisits to sustain high coverage levels. Without maintenance, initial progress can be lost within years.

Key Insights and Recommendations

Holistic Approach Required
Success in CNVR programmes requires addressing multiple interconnected factors: community attitudes, government support, technical implementation, and long-term maintenance.

Community-Centred Implementation
Building community tolerance and engagement emerged as fundamental to programme success, with education and demonstration of benefits being more effective than enforcement.

Government Partnership Essential
Sustainable programmes require government collaboration, with successful strategies focusing on public health benefits and cost-effectiveness rather than purely animal welfare arguments.

High Coverage with Maintenance
Achieving and maintaining high sterilisation coverage (80%+) is critical for population impact, but requires sustained commitment and resources for ongoing maintenance efforts.

Cultural Sensitivity
Successful programmes adapt to local cultural and religious contexts whilst working to gradually shift attitudes through education and demonstrated benefits.

Conclusion
The conversations highlighted that whilst CNVR implementation faces similar challenges across Asia, successful programmes combine technical excellence with deep community engagement, government partnership, and long-term commitment to maintenance and sustainability.

ICAM Conversation: Cat Population Management in Europe (July 2024)

Over 60 participants from across Europe joined this ICAM Conversation to discuss the complexities of cat population management. The event was split into two interactive sessions, each designed to prioritise dialogue, share experiences, and reflect on community realities.

Key Themes

💉 Veterinary care challenges – Participants highlighted the barriers faced by low-income communities and elderly cat owners in accessing affordable care. Ideas included community-based animal health workers and greater government responsibility for veterinary services.

🐾 Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) – While TNR remains a widely recognised approach, discussion revealed its limitations when applied in isolation. Concerns were raised about poor implementation, while others emphasised the role of responsible colony feeders and the need for government and public education.

🥫 Feeding practices – From overfeeding in rural Greece to tourist feeding in holiday hotspots, the role of food in shaping cat populations was debated energetically. Participants stressed the importance of working with existing feeders to build knowledge and improve welfare outcomes.

📚 Education and ownership – Speakers emphasised that owned cats are often a source of free-roaming populations. Early neutering, public awareness of the cat lifestyle spectrum (feral to companion), and clear communication with communities were seen as vital.

🏛️ Government perspectives – Laws in Spain and Greece mandating early sterilisation were discussed, alongside the challenges of implementation. Participants from Portugal highlighted shifting community attitudes toward feral cats and the need for cat-inclusive welfare policies.

Shared Learning and Reflections

Across both sessions, a clear message emerged that sustainable cat population management requires more than single interventions.

It needs a combination of:

• education
• responsible ownership
• effective veterinary support
• stakeholder collaboration
• culturally appropriate feeding practices

Explore More

🔗 Watch Vicky Hall’s presentation: Completing the jigsaw puzzle of sustainable and effective cat population management (ICAM Conference 2024)
🔗 Watch International Cat Care’s animation on the spectrum of cat lifestyles