Trap-Neuter-Return: A Study of the Practice in Switzerland

dA.Derecho Animal (Forum of Animal Law Studies) 2021, vol. 12/2 54-104

Trap-Neuter-Return: A Study of the Practice in Switzerland

Elizabeth Umlas

PhD, Yale University (Political Science)

MA, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona (Animal Law & Society)

Independent researcher, Switzerland

Received: March 2021 Accepted: April 2021

Abstract

Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) is well-established in many countries and increasingly considered to be the most effective and humane way to manage feral and stray cat populations. Nonetheless, it confronts major challenges everywhere it is practiced. Although Switzerland has an impressive TNR system carried out mainly by private, non-profit organizations and individual citizens, the management of feline overpopulation could be strengthened by improvements on a number of fronts, including legal and governance changes, education and modifications in mentality, and operational adjustments such as data management and analysis. TNR faces a number of common challenges worldwide, and given that it is still relatively young, lessons from one country can be valuable for another. Because little has been written about TNR in Switzerland, this article seeks to fill this gap by providing a preliminary analysis of the case through the prism of existing analytical work done on TNR in other countries.

Keywords: trap-neuter-return (TNR); feline overpopulation; community cats; Switzerland.

Resumen - Captura-Esterilización-Suelta: estudio sobre su aplicación en Suiza

El método Captura-Esterilización-Suelta (CES) está implementado en muchos países y está cada vez más considerado como la forma más eficaz y ética de gestionar las colonias de gatos callejeros y ferales. Sin embargo, todavía se enfrenta a grandes desafíos en aquellos lugares donde se practica. Aunque en Suiza se lleva a cabo un impresionante método CES por parte de la ciudadanía y de organizaciones privadas sin ánimo de lucro, dicha gestión de la sobrepoblación felina podría mejorarse con diversas modificaciones legales y políticas, educacionales y de concienciación, además de ajustes como la gestión y el análisis de los datos existentes. El método CES enfrenta una serie de desafíos comunes en todo el mundo y, dado que aún es relativamente joven, las acciones de ciertos países pueden ser ejemplo para otros. Debido a las escasas publicaciones sobre el método CES en Suiza, este artículo pretende proporcionar un análisis preliminar de la situación a través del análisis ya existente sobre el mismo en otros países.

Palabras clave: Captura-Esterilización-Suelta (CES); sobrepoblación felina; gatos comunitarios; Suiza.

Section 1. Introduction

Feline overpopulation – the excessive or uncontrolled breeding of primarily unowned, stray or feral cats – is a problem worldwide. Not only does it cause animal suffering; it also brings conflict between animal and human populations. One reaction to this problem, still practiced in many areas,¹ is to try to control overpopulation by culling feral or stray cats through methods such as trapping and killing them, poisoning or shooting them, or introducing feline diseases into feral populations. These methods have rightly been criticized in both animal welfare and efficacy terms: they are increasingly rejected as inhumane, and they have not been proven to stop overpopulation. What is more, they have been accused of being a “bandaid” solution: an attempt to address the symptom without confronting key contributors to the problem, such as pet owners’ abandonment of their cats or people’s tendency to allow their intact cats to roam and breed freely with unowned cats.

Beginning in the 1980s and increasing in the ensuing three decades, the method of “trap-neuter-return” (TNR) has gained stature as a humane way to tackle feline overpopulation. In TNR, unowned cats living in urban or rural areas are trapped, neutered or spayed and sometimes vaccinated by veterinarians, their ear tips surgically removed for identification, and the cats returned to where they were found, with the goal being an eventual reduction in the cats’ numbers as they no longer reproduce (feral cats are often unadoptable, hence the logic of returning them to live out their lives where they were found; adoption of “socializable” stray cats, on the other hand, is an important part of TNR). Ongoing monitoring of the released cats is carried out, often by volunteers, to ensure new arrivals are also neutered to prevent more breeding. As will be discussed in section 2, the method is growing in popularity with the public; articles in scientific journals present evidence of successful TNR programs; and municipalities in multiple countries are beginning to support TNR, including through formal accords and the creation of local ordinances.

But while TNR is well-established in many countries, it still faces major challenges everywhere it is practiced. Switzerland is one of a handful of countries with active and well-run TNR programs. Although much has been written about TNR in the United States, including in scientific journals, and articles, case studies and reports have been published on several other countries’ TNR programs (including Spain, the United Kingdom, Italy, Portugal, Australia, and Israel), very little has been written about Switzerland, outside of the public materials of TNR practitioners and various press articles. Yet there is much to learn from Switzerland’s experience.

This article seeks to contribute to the literature on TNR by providing a preliminary analysis of the Swiss case – both innovative aspects of its TNR and major challenges these programs continue to face – through the prism of existing analytical work done on TNR in other countries. The working hypothesis is that although Switzerland has an impressive TNR system carried out mainly by private, non-profit organizations and individual citizens, the success of this method – and thus better management of the feral and stray cat population in Switzerland – will depend on changes on a number of fronts, including legal and governance changes, education and modifications in mentality, and operational adjustments such as data management and analysis. In fact, these areas align to a significant degree with the continued challenges and lessons learned so far from other countries’ TNR programs. These other experiences, while not a blueprint for Switzerland, could therefore provide inspiration and perhaps guidance for Swiss TNR. Every country is different and therefore TNR approaches will, and should, differ from one place to another. Nonetheless, TNR has certain shared features and confronts a number of common challenges worldwide, and because it is still a relatively young practice (dating back only to the 1980s or 1990s, in most cases), lessons from one country can be valuable for another.

The article starts from a perspective that rejects lethal methods of community cat management in favor of methods that take account of the welfare of individual animals. It accepts that TNR is the only humane and effective way to address feline overpopulation. One goal of the article is to bring an understudied case to light; a related goal is to use this case to further the learning around TNR and how it can be strengthened both as a method of animal population control that can reduce animal suffering and as a way to address human-animal conflict.

The structure of the remaining sections is as follows: section 2 provides a general discussion of what TNR entails, citing the growing literature on successful cases in multiple countries as well as increasing support for the practice in different quarters (the general public, professional associations, municipalities). It also briefly presents key criticisms of TNR and some of the responses to these by proponents and experts, and — S. 56 —touches on unanswered but valid questions surrounding TNR. Section 3 introduces the Swiss case, first setting out why this case was chosen and providing a brief overview of the situation of owned, stray and feral cats in the country. It proceeds to a discussion of Swiss animal welfare law and relevant laws relating to feral and stray cats. Section 4 lays out the landscape of TNR in Switzerland, and explores its strengths and innovative features. Section 5 contains a discussion of the changes needed to improve TNR and the management of community cats in Switzerland, at the same time calling on lessons that have begun to emerge from TNR programs in various countries that are addressing similar challenges. The concluding section enumerates limitations of the study and suggests areas for further research.

Regarding methodology, the research for the article included an extensive review of secondary materials, supplemented by primary research in the form of interviews of several key informants.² The informants interviewed in Switzerland represented a range of organizations working in the area of animal welfare, including the headquarters of the Swiss Society for the Protection of Animals, some of its sections or partners, other NGOs carrying out TNR, an animal welfare foundation, a leading Swiss animal law foundation, a women’s farmer organization and a veterinarian. An attempt was made to consult experts who have worked on TNR in different parts of the country, and representing both French and German-speaking cantons, as there are political and cultural differences across these entities (including approaches to animal welfare). Due to limitations of time and research as well as linguistic constraints, only a selection of Swiss cantons are represented in the interviews. That said, some of the organizations interviewed work in multiple cantons or even at the national level. An attempt was also made to consult organizations working with community cats in both urban and rural areas.

A first set of interviews of organizations and individuals led to further recommended contacts, who were then interviewed. In a small number of cases, interviewees responded in writing to a limited set of questions, but in most instances, semi-structured interviews were carried out in person or by telephone. The data sought (and analyzed) were mostly qualitative in nature, not quantitative. The Swiss key informant interviews were supplemented by an interview of the staff attorney of Alley Cat Alleys, a US NGO with one of the oldest and best-known TNR programs in that country.

Definitions

Because of the multiplicity of terms related to TNR, it is worth setting out some definitions before proceeding to the substance. TNR operations generally target unowned domestic cats, but that group itself encompasses cats with a range of behaviors, lifestyles and relationships with human beings. The following definitions, drawn from several sources, are meant to clarify terms that will be used in subsequent sections of the article:

•Cat colony: “Stable, and generally amicable, group of cats living together in the same environment”³ or “a feeding area and shelter frequented by an apparently stable population of cats”⁴

•Community cat: “[A]ny free-roaming cat or kitten, whether abandoned, stray, lost or feral, that may be cared for by one or more known or unknown residents…and that may live on its own or in a colony of other such felines”⁵

•Feral cats: “unowned and unsocialized cats”⁶; feral cats “are either born in the wild and lack socialization or are abandoned to the wild and become untrusting of humans”⁷

•Stray cat: “A cat that was formerly owned as a household pet (spending part of its life within a home) but is now free-living outside of the home. Such cats often accept direct human contact and may be partially or fully dependent on a human care-giver”⁸

•Street cats: “Street cats are similar to ‘community cats’ except that they are not generally specifically cared for by an individual human or group of humans and may thus be less dependent on humans and less accepting of human contact”⁹

An additional category specific to Switzerland and that will be referred to throughout is “farm cat” (“chat de ferme” or “chat à la ferme”), which is a cat ‘living on or around a farm, theoretically where the owner and responsible person is the farmer.”¹⁰ As will be seen, these cats are an important target of Swiss TNR operations. One Swiss veterinarian points out that “these different definitions show that there is not always a sharp difference between these terms; a feral cat can also be an abandoned farm cat that wanders!”¹¹ Or, as Levy and Crawford put it, “the lines between loosely owned outdoor cats, tame strays, and feral cats are often blurred.”¹²

In Switzerland, the term “TNR” (or the equivalent in the local languages) does not seem to be used commonly. Instead, practitioners generally use the term “castration campaigns” (“campagnes de castration”) or “sterilization campaigns” (“campagnes de sterilisation”). For ease of reference, however, and because castration campaigns in Switzerland include trapping, neutering and returning of feral and unowned cats, the article will use “TNR” and “castration campaigns” interchangeably when discussing the Swiss case. In Switzerland the term “castration” is commonly used to refer to both spaying and neutering.

Due to language limitations, much of the research on the Swiss materials was done in French, with occasional reference to German-language materials, and the interviews were carried out mostly in French, and in some cases, in English. As the above definitions of types of domestic cats indicate, there are important differences among these categories. Nevertheless, many of the Swiss animal welfare NGOs’ materials in French use the terms “chat haret” (feral cat), “chat vagabond” (stray or ownerless cat) and “chat errant” (stray cat) interchangeably when discussing TNR. Because this posed some difficulties in defining which type of cat was being discussed, the article will generally refer to “feral or stray cats” or “community cats” (a term that does not seem to be commonly used in Swiss TNR circles), except where it is possible to identify a more specific group, such as farm cats or urban cat colonies. The article thus takes a leaf from Schaffner, who urges use of the term “community cats” because it “both allows for the inclusion of all free-roaming cats, independent of their socialization, and characterizes them as individuals who share our streets and communities.”¹³

Where relevant, the article makes an effort to translate into English the specific terms that a group uses in its print materials, with the original language provided in the footnote for reference. It is also worth noting that in Switzerland one sometimes hears the term “chat sauvage” to refer to feral cats, though this is technically incorrect because “chat sauvage” refers to the wild cat, a protected species in Switzerland.¹⁴

A few other terms warrant definitions at the outset: “hotspots” (sometimes referred to in French as “points chauds”) are “uncontrolled colonies of cats,”¹⁵ wherever they might occur (farms, urban centers, and so forth). “Targeted TNR” refers to the careful definition of a location to carry out TNR for maximum effect; specifically, (when it includes vaccination) it is defined as “a systematic approach whereby efforts to trap,

sterilize, vaccinate and return cats are concentrated in areas known to have a high-density [sic] of community cats.”16 The article will use the term TNR to refer broadly to trap-neuter-return programs because this (or its equivalent in different languages) is the most commonly used acronym in many countries; further, not all TNR programs include vaccination routinely. However, the abbreviation “TNVR”, or trap-neuter-vaccinatereturn, is also sometimes used in the literature. Lastly, brief mention will be made in places to an approach that is on the rise in the United States: shelter-neuter-return (SNR), whereby an animal shelter becomes directly involved in operating a TNR program.17

Disclaimers: the translation into English of legal texts cited throughout the article is not official and serves only to aid understanding in the scope of this work. The author is a volunteer with SOS Chats, one of the organizations interviewed, but has never participated in its TNR program, which is profiled in section 4.

Section 2. TNR: General Discussion

“TNR is the only ethical and scientific method that practically guarantees the five freedoms that must prevail to ensure animal welfare: freedom from hunger (balanced and adequate diet for the species), from thirst and from malnutrition; freedom from injury, disease and pain; freedom from stress, frustration and fear; freedom from physical discomfort; and freedom to express natural behavior.”18

2.1Emergence and Growing Popularity of TNR Globally

A recent article evaluating a 23-year TNR program in Key Largo, Florida captures succinctly several arguments often put forward in favor of TNR:

Trap Neuter Return (TNR) programs exist in large part to reduce population size and growth rate by decreasing reproduction. Reductions in population size are desirable due to concerns regarding wildlife predation, public health and nuisance factors. In addition to reducing population size or growth, TNR is also promoted as a method for improving cat welfare…TNR allows for the provision of veterinary care…and humane euthanasia for animals found to be suffering. It is also a method for promoting humane communities by avoiding euthanasia as a means of population control or nuisance abatement.19

Since the early 2000s, academic researchers, veterinarians and practitioners have published articles, including peer-reviewed works in scientific journals, providing evidence of the effectiveness of TNR in reducing feral cat populations in specific areas.20 Research on TNR in various countries also suggests these programs can bring improvements in public attitudes toward community cats and can lower the incidence of

¹⁶ Spehar, D.D., Wolf, P.J. Integrated Return-to-Field and Targeted Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return Programs Result in Reductions of Feline Intake and Euthanasia at Six Municipal Animal Shelters, in Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6:77 (2019), 2

¹⁷ Alley Cat Allies. Talking About Cats: Helpful Terms and Definitions. https://www.alleycat.org/resources/talking-about-catshelpful-terms-and-definitions/ [Last consulted 17 June 2019]

¹⁸Asociación de Veterinarios Abolicionistas de la Tauromaquia y del Maltrato Animal (AVATMA), Informe veterinario sobre las colonias felinas y su control por el método de Captura, Esterilización y Suelta (CES) (15 October 2016) https://avatma.org/2016/10/15/informe-veterinario-sobre-las-colonias-felinas-y-su-control-por-el-metodo-de-captura-esterilizaciony-suelta-ces/ [Last consulted 20 June 2019] [Translated from the Spanish: “El CES es el único método ético y científico que garantiza prácticamente las cinco libertades que deben prevalecer para garantizar el bienestar animal: Libres de hambre (dieta balanceada y adecuada para su especie), de sed, y de desnutrición; libres de lesión, de enfermedad y de dolor; libres de ansiedad, frustración, y miedo; libres de incomodidad y de molestias físicas; y libres de manifestar su comportamiento natural.”]

¹⁹ Kreisler, R.E., Cornell, H.N., Levy, J.K. Decrease in Population and Increase in Welfare of Community Cats in a Twenty-Three Year Trap-Neuter-Return Program in Key Largo, FL: The ORCAT Program, in Frontiers in Veterinary Science 6:7 (2019)

²⁰ For example, from the U.S., see Nutter, F.B. Evaluation of a Trap-Neuter-Return Management Program for Feral Cat Colonies: Population Dynamics, Home Ranges, and Potentially Zoonotic Diseases. Ph.D. Thesis, North Carolina State University (Raleigh, N.C., 2005); Spehar, D.D., Wolf, P.J. A Case Study in Citizen Science: The Effectiveness of a Trap-Neuter-Return Program in a Chicago Neighborhood, in Animals, 8:14 (2018); Spehar, D.D., Wolf, P.J. An Examination of an Iconic Trap-Neuter-Return Program: The Newburyport, Massachusetts Case Study, in Animals, 7:81 (2017); Levy, J.K., Gale, D.W., Gale, L.A. Evaluation of a Long-term Trap-Neuter-Return and Adoption Program on a Free-roaming Cat Population, in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 222:1 (1 January 2003); and Kreisler, R.E., Cornell, H.N., Levy, J.K. Decrease in Population…,cit. From outside the U.S., see, for example, Natoli, E. et al. Management of Feral Domestic Cats in the Urban Environment of Rome (Italy), in Preventive Veterinary Medicine 77 (2006); Change for Animals Foundation and Animais da Rua. Praia de Faro Dog and Cat Management Project. June 2015 Stage 2.2 Report; and Swarbrick, H., Rand, J. Application of a Protocol Based on Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) to Manage Unowned Urban Cats on an Australian University Campus, in Animals 8:77 (2018) — S. 59 —nuisance complaints lodged about the cats.²¹ An important reason for this is the effect that neutering has on cat behavior. As the Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs (hereafter, ACC&D) notes: “credible studies indicate that neutering reduces urine spraying and roaming in search of mates by male cats, and spaying eliminates estrous-associated behaviors in female cats, including aggression, vocalization and perhaps efforts to escape outdoors in order to mate.”²² In addition, spaying and neutering improves the health of community cats,²³ and TNR presents “an excellent opportunity” for feral and unowned cats “to receive additional veterinary care while they are being sterilized.”²⁴ Further, feral cats are generally not adoptable due to being poorly socialized to humans, and as free-roaming animals, they often cannot tolerate being confined in shelters that might otherwise represent a way-station to finding a human home. TNR therefore represents the only humane alternative for this population. Writing of the United States in 2009, Winograd stated: “To this day, feral cats have a near 100 percent death rate in those shelters that do not endorse or have a TNR program in place…Without TNR, all feral cats who enter shelters are killed.”²⁵ By way of comparison, in Belgium, one source reported a kill rate of 49% for feral cats taken into shelters in 2016.²⁶

It should be noted at the outset that the focus of the article is on TNR and feline population control, and not on TNR’s impact on shelter intake and euthanasia rates. The latter has been the subject of a number of scientific journal articles, with recent studies from the U.S. in particular showing targeted TNR or SNR programs, combined with other elements such as adoption, reducing feline shelter intake and euthanasia rates significantly.²⁷ The impact of TNR (or SNR) on these rates is, however, beyond the scope of this article (and it was not examined for the Swiss case.)

While it is unclear exactly when and where TNR got its start, several sources point to a scientific study published in 1984 on feral cat management in the United Kingdom as providing important early support for the practice.²⁸ According to one overview of feral cats, “Annabell Washburn of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, is generally credited with bringing the concept of Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) to feral cat management in the United States in 1980.”²⁹ The same source cites the founding in 1990 of Alley Cat Allies, a US advocacy organization for cats with a major dedicated TNR program, as marking “the beginning of legitimacy for feral cats and of TNR as a control technique in the United States.³⁰ The way TNR has developed over the years could be described as an organic process. It often starts with individual cat caregivers who sometimes “form networks with others” caring for cats, which in turn may form into a non-profit or “partner with existing grass-roots TNR programs. While it may take months (or years) to build the level of trust needed among the parties, these alliances can be extremely productive.”³¹ This pattern repeats itself in multiple countries where TNR has been studied.

In 2013, Alley Cat Allies reported that over 330 local governments in the U.S. “incorporate TNR into their animal control policies and practices”; this figure did not include “the thousands of feral cat groups and — S. 60 —countless individual caregivers conducting TNR privately” in that country.³² As of this writing, Alley Cat Allies’ “ongoing survey of cities and counties reveals that by January 2017, more than 600 local governments [in the U.S.] have implemented TNR ordinances and policies. From 2003 to 2013 the number increased tenfold, and that number continues to increase.”³³ Interestingly, the organization’s research has shown that a range of local US governments – from liberal to conservative – support TNR.³⁴ In addition, municipal (staterun) animal shelters in a number of major US cities have participated in community cat programs that integrate TNVR or SNR.³⁵ In 2017, the American Bar Association passed a resolution supporting TNVR programs for free-roaming cats, and called on states and local governments to “adopt laws and policies, to allow the implementation and administration of Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return programs for community cats.”³⁶

Over roughly the same period (that is, beginning largely in the 1990s), TNR has also become wellestablished in other countries, and in several instances is supported by law. For example, it has been conducted for almost three decades in Italy, helped along by the passage in 1991 of national Law No. 281 on controlling feral cats through a “no-kill policy.”³⁷ The Italian case showed early and crucial support from the state for TNR, in both the national law and a subsequent regional law in Lazio (where Rome is located). Natoli et al, reviewing 30 years of colony management of urban free-roaming cats in Rome, credit these laws with introducing “a revolutionary perspective” based on “the cats’ right to live free and safe; the compulsory neutering of cats” by governmental veterinary services and “the institutionalization of cat caretakers.”³⁸ Along somewhat similar lines, in 2004, the Israeli Supreme Court banned the use of culling to control feral cats, after which TNR became “frequently used”; in fact, “local municipalities and the Israeli Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development invest millions of dollars in TNR actions each year.”³⁹

In recent years, several municipal governments in Spain, including Barcelona, Ceuta, Zaragoza,⁴⁰ and Madrid⁴¹ have passed ordinances that promote the humane control of cat colonies through programs that include TNR. Most notably, the Barcelona Ordinance of 2014 on the Protection, Possession and Sale of Animals goes into detail on cat colony management. Through this law, the city formally promotes the existence of “controlled feral cat colonies” (“les colònies controlades de gats ferals”) and supports the nonprofit entities that take care of them.⁴² In France, as Dufau notes, Law 99-05 of 1999 provided mayors with “a management alternative to the model of ‘capture-shelter-transfer or sacrifice’: the model of ‘capturesterilization and identification and return.’”⁴³ And following a January 2015 decree, mayors must first try to implement cat colony management programs before trapping and bringing colony cats to a shelter, thus making TNR the “first choice for managing feline overpopulation in France.”⁴⁴ The French municipal governments of Marseille, Nice and Toulouse “have set in motion the management of cat colonies,” taking up the TNR option offered by Law 99-05, and have signed formal accords, in some cases since the early 2000s,

with NGOs that carry out TNR.45 More recently, in 2018 a Chilean regulation on responsible animal ownership made TNR (of both community cats and dogs) mandatory for its municipalities, which are given latitude to enter agreements with animal protection organizations to carry out the operations.46 And as section

4 discusses in detail, multiple NGOs in Switzerland have undertaken TNR campaigns for over 20 years, with individuals practicing it since well before that. In addition, TNR as a method of population control has the support of many animal welfare organizations47 as well as veterinary associations in various countries.48 Myriad NGOs around the world have formed dedicated TNR programs.49 In terms of the wider public, sources point to rising support for TNR and declining tolerance of methods such as capturing and killing feral cats to reduce their population.50 What is more, while there is evidence that “complete eradication” of feral cats through trap-and-kill can work on islands, such programs “often require years to accomplish and hundreds of hours of work and are only successful in closed populations where no new cats can arrive.”51 Otherwise, trapping and killing can lead to a so-called vacuum effect, whereby “new cats will move in from nearby areas, and survivors of the removal program will continue to reproduce until maximum carrying capacity is reached again.”52 Just as important as a method’s effectiveness is the question of whether it is considered morally acceptable by society. Culling is likely to be untenable due to public rejection of the mass killing of healthy animals. As Boone notes, “public opinion in developed countries is unlikely to support a total abandonment of TNR in favor of widespread cat management using lethal methods.”53

⁴⁵Ibid., 89-92 [translated from the Spanish: “han puesto en marcha la gestión de colonias de gatos”]

⁴⁶Chile, Article 40, Decreto 1.007, Reglamento que establece la forma y condiciones en que se aplicarán las normas sobre tenencia responsable de mascotas y animales de compañía y determina las normas que permitirán calificar a ciertos especímenes caninos como potencialmente peligrosos (Regulation establishing the form and conditions under which the norms on responsible ownership of pets and companion animals will be applied and determining the standards that will qualify certain canine specimens as potentially dangerous), published 17 August 2018 https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1121980&idParte=0&idVersion= [Last consulted 2 July 2019]. Decreto 1.007, follows on Chile’s 2017 Ley 21.020 sobre tenencia responsable de mascotas y animales de compañía (Law on Responsible Pet Ownership, also known as the “Ley Cholito”, published 2 August 2017) https://www.leychile.cl/Navegar?idNorma=1106037 [Last consulted 2 July 2019] I am grateful to Molly Armus, Staff Attorney, Alley Cat Allies, for pointing me to this regulation in a written communication, 1 July 2019.

⁴⁷Examples include: American Humane Association. Animal Welfare Policy and Position Statements (2012) http://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/animal-position.pdf [Last consulted 9 May 2019]; American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). Position Statement on Community Cats and Community Cat Programs (n.d.) https://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/position-statement-community-cats-and-community-cat [Last consulted 9 May 2019]; Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Our Position on Cats. https://www.humanesociety.org/resources/our-position-cats#unowned_cats (n.d.) [Last consulted 9 May 2019]; and British Columbia Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Position Statement on Cat Welfare (n.d.) https://spca.bc.ca/programsservices/leaders-in-our-field/position-statements/position-statement-on-cat-welfare/ [Last consulted 9 May 2019]. For a fuller list of US animal welfare organizations that support TNR, see Schaffner, J.E. Community Cats…, cit., n. 20. See Winograd, N.J. Redemption…cit., for a harsh critique of major US animal welfare organizations’ earlier rejection of TNR in favor of killing feral cats.

⁴⁸Association of Shelter Veterinarians. Position Statement. Trap-Neuter-Return of Free-Roaming & Community Cats (April 2015) https://www.sheltervet.org/assets/docs/position-statements/trapneuterreturn.pdf [Last consulted 9 May 2019]; AVATMA, Informe veterinario…cit.; Grupo de Especialidad de Medicina Felina de la Asociación de Veterinarios Españoles Especialistas en Pequeños Animales (GEMFE-AVEPA). Posicionamiento GEMFE-AVEPA sobre las colonias felinas urbanas (n.d.) https://avepa.org/pdf/GRUPOSTRABAJO/POSICIONAMIENTO_Colonias_Felinas.pdf [Last consulted 9 May 2019]. Wolf and Schaffner write that “in 2016 the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) shifted its official position on the issue in a direction more favorable to TNR” to where it now “encourages the use of non-lethal strategies as the initial focus for control of freeroaming abandoned and feral cat populations” (Wolf, P.J., Schaffner, J.E. The Road to TNR: Examining Trap-Neuter-Return through the Lens of our Evolving Ethics, in Frontiers in Veterinary Science 5:341 (2019))

⁴⁹ Examples include Alley Cat Allies, Cats Protection, Change for Animals Foundation, Network for Animal Protection and Vier Pfoten.

⁵⁰ A 2007 poll by Harris Interactive for Alley Cat Allies found that “an overwhelming majority of Americans believe that leaving a stray cat outside to live out his life is more humane than having him caught and put down.” (Chu, K., Anderson, W. US Public Opinion on Humane Treatment of Stray Cats. Law & Policy Brief (Bethesda, MD: Alley Cat Allies, September 2007)). In 2017 Alley Cat Allies commissioned another national poll by Harris Interactive, which found that “84 percent of Americans prefer that their community use tax dollars to adopt sterilization as its cat control policy instead of bringing cats found outdoors into shelters to be killed.” (Molly Armus, Staff Attorney, Alley Cat Allies, written communication to author, 3 April 2019). Wolf and Schaffner write that “the results of public opinion surveys concerning preferred methods of community cat management show strong support for TNR” and “little public support for lethal management methods” (Wolf, P.J., Schaffner, J.E. The Road to TNR…, cit.). Hamilton also reports on how his research “suggest[s] that no municipality can afford, either economically or politically, to continually euthanize the high number of cats that flow into the system” (Hamilton, F.E. Leading and Organizing Social Change…, cit., 288).

⁵¹ Slater, M.R., Shain, S. Feral Cats: An Overview…, cit., 48

⁵² Ibid., citing Tabor, R. The Wild Life of the Domestic Cat (London, 1983). See also Lazenby, B.T., Mooney, N.J., Dickman, C.R. Effects of Low-Level Culling of Feral Cats in Open Populations: A Case Study from the Forests of Southern Tasmania, in Wildlife Research 41:5 (2014), 407-420

⁵³ Boone, J.D. Better Trap-Neuter-Return for Free-Roaming Cats: Using Models and Monitoring to Improve Population Management, — S. 62 —Indeed, Wolf and Schaffner attribute TNR’s growing popularity to a “profound shift away from an anthropocentric utilitarian ethical framework” – that is, one based on trapping and killing community cats – “toward a zoocentric virtue-based ethical framework that recognizes the intrinsic value of animals beyond any instrumental value to humans and our moral obligation to treat them with compassion.”⁵⁴ One could go further and underscore that feline overpopulation stems in large part from human actions, such as abandonment of cats and allowing intact pets to roam and breed outdoors.⁵⁵ Therefore we have a “moral obligation” not only to treat community cats with compassion, as Wolf and Schaffner put it, but also to change our own behavior in order to fix the problem. In this sense, catch-and-kill might indeed be anthropocentric in its focus on getting rid of cats for the benefit of humans, but it is blind to the human responsibility aspect of feline overpopulation

–and any solution that does not recognize this aspect is destined to fail in the long term.

Before turning to key criticisms, it is important to acknowledge, as have many practitioners and experts, that TNR is only one part of managing feline overpopulation. This is made clear in numerous articles that examine the importance and impact of combining TNR with other components such as intensive adoption of socializable cats, behavior management and counseling for owners or residents, legal reform, ongoing monitoring of cat colonies and other components.⁵⁶ It is also recognized by animal welfare organizations that recommend a multi-faceted approach to feline overpopulation and that offer a range of tools to communities, shelters, local authorities, veterinarians and others concerned about community cats.⁵⁷ And it is summarized succinctly by Harry Eckman, whose Change for Animals Foundation has carried out a recent successful TNR program in Praia de Faro, Portugal (see section 5). Eckman argues that a comprehensive cat population management plan includes many tools: education, legislation, registration and identification of cats, TNR, shelters and rehoming centers, vaccination and treatment, and, where necessary to end suffering, euthanasia.⁵⁸ As Dufau notes, TNR alone is not cat colony management; it is an essential part of it, but not sufficient.⁵⁹

2.2Criticisms and Challenges

Despite TNR’s growth in popularity as a mechanism for addressing feline overpopulation, it continues to face controversy.⁶⁰ Critics of TNR include those arguing that it is cruel; that it contributes to public health problems; that it exacerbates the problem of outdoor cats killing wildlife; and that it is of questionable effectiveness in comparison to other methods of reducing feral cat populations. A recent defense of TNR by Schaffner provides a detailed and well-argued rebuttal of these and other criticisms of, or concerns about, TNR, so it will be cited at length here, along with several other sources.

First, in response to claims that TNR is inhumane or cruel because it is predicated on leaving cats outdoors where they could be endangered or live in misery, Schaffner points to studies providing evidence that community cats can and do thrive outside.⁶¹ For his part, Winograd underscores the irony of making the argument, as some opponents of TNR do, that feral cats should be euthanized because they are “better off dead” than living outside; as he writes, “There is no question that cats living outside face risks. But life is — S. 63 —about risks. The contention of TNR opponents that we stop the cat from possibly suffering or possibly dying by killing the cat ourselves is an irreconcilable contradiction.”⁶² Writing in 2004, Levy and Crawford noted already that “the recent growth of the ‘no-kill’ movement has caused some leaders to reexamine traditional beliefs that euthanizing large numbers of healthy animals to prevent potential suffering or as a method of population control can be compatible with the values of a humane society.”⁶³ Further, based on studies indicating decent health conditions among feral cats both before and after sterilization in TNR programs, the same authors write:

Although TNR may not meet the gold standard of care desired for pet cats, it appears that sterilized feral cats can enjoy an extended period of good quality of life while their population dwindles by adoption or natural attrition. As such, is it not necessary to perform prophylactic euthanasia of feral cats simply because they do not share a human address.⁶⁴

In a similar vein, Alley Cat Allies asserts that community cats “live full, healthy lives with their feline families, called colonies, in their outdoor homes…Community cats are used to living outdoors, and are naturally skilled at finding shelter and food on their own. Studies show community cats are just as healthy as indoor cats, with equally low disease rates.”⁶⁵ Taking this a step further, cat colonies deserve humane treatment but they are not simply animals to be pitied. Indeed, the “R” in TNR is an acknowledgment that these cats can thrive if released back to the places where they were trapped. And because TNR is practiced on healthy cats, as Schaffner notes, “there is no reason to believe that returning them to the original location would subject them to pain, suffering or cruelty”.⁶⁶

Regarding concerns that community cats are potential vectors for diseases that could endanger public health, Schaffner argues that “the claims are often exaggerated,” citing sources calling these claims into question and suggesting that managing community cats could, on the contrary, provide a way to lower risks to human populations.⁶⁷ The Spanish veterinary association, Asociación de Veterinarios Abolicionistas de la Tauromaquia y del Maltrato Animal (hereafter, AVATMA), states of TNR: “the control of colonies under the TNR method will allow for greatly reducing the public health concerns that may arise around domestic cats.”⁶⁸ And while Gunther et al argue that free-roaming cats’ “potential to transmit several zoonotic diseases…has been well described in the literature,”⁶⁹ some of the disease risks that they cite (such as rabies, toxoplasmosis and flea-borne typhus) are ones for which Schaffner and others⁷⁰ specifically supply counter-evidence. For rabies in particular, Schaffner notes that TNR programs in the U.S. “evaluate cats and return only healthy cats after vaccinating them for rabies, thereby reducing, for years, the risk of rabies in the returned cats.”⁷¹ Further, she points out, “community cats, many unsocialized to humans, rarely have contact with humans, thus making disease transmission highly unlikely.”⁷² Levy and Crawford argue that “[t]aken together, reports of transmissible diseases in feral cats indicate that, for many diseases, feral cats do not have a greater impact than free-roaming pet cats”, and in any case, “it is clear that widespread vaccination against zoonotic and feline diseases coupled with population reduction via sterilization will address many public health concerns surrounding domestic cats.”⁷³

To those opposing TNR – and sometimes espousing killing feral cats instead – due to claims that community cats are killing wildlife, Schaffner demonstrates that many of these claims have been based on

“flawed science.”74 Bradshaw also notes that the evidence around the impact of cats on wildlife is “equivocal”.75 The wildlife concerns are complex, and beyond the scope of this article. TNR proponents are on perhaps strongest ground, however, when they point out that one of TNR’s central aims, which is to reduce feral cat populations, is in alignment with conservationists’ goal of protecting wildlife from predation by cats.76 What is more, there are prospects for animal welfare and wildlife conservationist groups to work together on specific areas such as better data collection to measure the impact of TNR on cat populations.77 Regarding TNR’s effectiveness in comparison to other (humane) methods to control community cat populations, it is worth noting that the use of non-surgical, contraceptive options has been the subject of discussion in recent years. A 2013 report by the ACC&D noted that “as permanent non-surgical options such as Esterilsol…emerge, they can be expected to play increasing roles in community-based population projects that now rely on surgery.”78 For its part, Alley Cat Allies acknowledges that “there are some promising contraceptive drugs and vaccines” on the horizon but that, at present, these are in the research stage, and surgery remains the safest option for sterilizing cats.79 In addition, a 2013 study by McCarthy et al presented evidence from a simulation model that Trap-Vasectomy-Hysterectomy-Release (TVHR) was significantly more effective than TNR (or lethal control) in reducing feral cat population size.80 In response, the ACC&D published a statement calling the study’s methodology into question, noting that “some of the results presented by McCarthy et al are not consistent with results obtained in our own modeling study.”81 They add that it is “an important consideration that TVHR would likely not address nuisance behaviors, a common reason residents are intolerant of cats and population management efforts are undertaken, and that results seemed to be achieved in this model at the expense of cat welfare.”82 A further humane option, relocation of feral cats – that is, trapping them and moving them to another spot – is not considered feasible as a solution to feline overpopulation because of the “vacuum effect” described earlier. According to Slater and Shain, relocation “is a time-consuming process complicated by the need to locate suitable release sites, and there are relatively limited data on success of relocation.”83 In addition, Alley Cat Allies argues that relocation “endangers cats’ lives and causes them undue stress and suffering”84 and should be used only as a last resort, for example if a site where community cats live is being demolished.85 One form of relocation is to remove feral cats and place them in sanctuaries. This has been tried

⁷⁴ Schaffner, J.E. Community Cats…, cit., 85-88. See also Winograd, N.J. Redemption…, cit., 76-79

⁷⁵ Bradshaw, J. Cat Sense…, cit., 244. Bradshaw points to studies showing that “habitat degradation, and not cats, may have been the major factor” causing wildlife decline in Australia (cit., 245). Likewise, in the United States, National Public Radio reported in September 2019 that a recent study by ornithologists concluded that the “main culprits” in the drop in certain bird populations in North America since 1970 was “probably the loss of their natural habitat, with increased urbanization and agriculture.” Greenfieldboyce, N. North America Has Lost 3 Billion Birds, Scientists Say. National Public Radio. 19 September 2019.

⁷⁶ Schaffner analyzes a lawsuit filed in 2016 in New York by a conservation organization that alleges community cat management near nesting sites of a threatened bird species, the Piping Plover, is in violation of the US Endangered Species Act (ESA). In her analysis, Schaffner demonstrates the flawed reasoning of the suit, and underscores that TNVR operations “are designed to reduce the population of cats” in the area in question, which is “consistent with protecting the Piping Plovers.” Schaffner, J.E. Community Cats…, cit., 106. Elsewhere, Schaffner writes, “most all agree, animalists and conservationists alike, that free-roaming cats may harm individual birds (and other free-living animals) and that it would be best, for the birds and the cats, to reduce the population of freeroaming cats.” Schaffner, J.E. Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Dangerous Book, review of P. Marra and C. Santella, Cat Wars: The Devastating Consequences of a Cuddly Killer, in Journal of Animal Ethics 8:2 (2018), 246.

⁷⁷ One such example of collaborative work is described in Lisnik, K. Reconcilable Differences: Wildlife Biologist Helps Chart a New Path for Cat Advocates and Conservationists. Animal Sheltering Magazine (Fall 2017) https://www.animalsheltering.org/magazine/articles/reconcilable-differences-0 [Last consulted 16 May 2019]

⁷⁸ Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs. Contraception and Fertility Control…, cit. For one review of research on immunocontraception, see Levy, J.K. Contraceptive Vaccines for the Humane Control of Community Cat Populations, in American Journal of Reproductive Immunology 66 (2011), 63-70

⁷⁹ Alley Cat Allies. Non-surgical Sterilization for Cats? Not Yet. https://www.alleycat.org/resources/non-surgical-sterilization-forcats-not-yet/ [Last consulted 14 June 2019] See also Hiby, E., Eckman, H., MacFarlaine, I. Cat Population Management in D.C. Turner and P. Bateson (Eds.), The Domestic Cat: The Biology of its Behaviour (3^rd ed.) (Cambridge University Press, 2014), p. 221.

⁸⁰ McCarthy, R, Levine, S.H., Reed, J.M. Estimation of Effectiveness of Three Methods of Feral Cat Population Control by Use of a Simulation Model in Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 243:4 (15 August 2013)

⁸¹ Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs. Position Statement: Modeling Study Advocating Use of Vasectomies and Hysterectomies in Feral Cat Management (2014) https://www.acc-d.org/resource-library/position-statements/acc-d-positionstatement-on-mccarthy-et-al [Last consulted 14 June 2019]. See also Alley Cat Allies. Trap-Vasectomy-Hysterectomy-Return (TVHR) Is No Substitute for Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR) https://www.alleycat.org/resources/trap-vasectomy-hysterectomy-returntvhr-is-no-substitute-for-trap-neuter-return-tnr/ [Last consulted 14 June 2019]

⁸² Alliance for Contraception in Cats and Dogs. Position Statement: Modeling Study…, cit.

⁸³ Slater, M.R., Shain, S. Feral Cats: An Overview…, cit., 48

⁸⁴ Alley Cat Allies. Why Trap-Neuter-Return…, cit.

⁸⁵Alley Cat Allies. Relocation: A Last Resort. https://www.alleycat.org/community-cat-care/relocation-the-last-resort/ [Last consulted 10 July 2019] — S. 65 —in various places, but a number of experts conclude that these programs cannot be scaled to the level needed to control feral cat populations.⁸⁶

Finally, in response to the financial implications of spaying and neutering community cats, Schaffner cites sources showing that TNR is less expensive than lethal methods of feral cat control.⁸⁷ In addition, “TNVR often is conducted by nonprofits and individual volunteers costing the government little or nothing.”⁸⁸ This point is emphasized by TNR practitioners in many countries, and will be revisited in the context of the Swiss case in section 4.

For the reasons outlined, this article takes the position that, at present, TNR is the most appropriate – that is, both humane and effective – approach to managing feral and stray cat populations. That said, the practice continues to face challenges, several of which will be discussed at length in sections 4 and 5, as well as valid criticisms of its weak points. In the latter category, three are highlighted briefly here. First, to be effective, TNR must be carried out in a targeted fashion, which means it must be applied systematically in a clearly defined area, as opposed to taking a “scattershot” approach.⁸⁹ This includes trapping every cat in a specific area, not just the cats that are easiest to catch. One criticism, however, is that it is not clear how widely this is practiced. Recent articles present strong evidence that targeted TNR is associated with lowering shelter intake and euthanasia,⁹⁰ thus showing the benefits, beyond population control, of a systematic approach carried out in a circumscribed area. The issue of targeted TNR will be taken up again briefly in relation to the Swiss case, as an operational aspect that must be strengthened. In a related vein, critics note that, to be effective, TNR must be carried out on a larger and more systematic scale than is often done.⁹¹ Although some TNR programs are making efforts to address this point,⁹² this, too, remains a persistent criticism and an important challenge.

A second criticism is that the collection, standardization and analysis of data and performance metrics remain weak links in many TNR programs.⁹³ In this vein, Schaffner argues that proponents of TNR must “critically study and document” its efficacy.⁹⁴ Not only will this be useful in pushing back against critics; demonstrations of success can also win over those in a position to advance TNR on a municipal scale.⁹⁵ A number of sources provide guidance and suggestions on TNR data collection and analysis.⁹⁶ Better data can, of course, also help practitioners to carry out the above-mentioned targeted TNR, since “through an assessment of the data for a given community, geographical ‘hotspots’ become visible.”⁹⁷ Section 5 will return to the issue of data in relation to TNR in Switzerland.

Third, it seems to be an open question whether TNR, in providing ongoing food and care to community cats, might encourage abandonment by some cat owners if they think their cats will be taken care of. Schaffner counters this criticism with a reasonable argument: “it is difficult to imagine a responsible owner abandoning their cat because their neighbor is feeding community cats. Arguably, if an irresponsible owner wants to abandon their cat, they will do so with or without knowledge that the cat might be cared for by a caregiver.”⁹⁸ Nonetheless, the possibility that TNR encourages abandonment is raised even in studies that point to the — S. 66 —method’s effectiveness⁹⁹ or that are supportive of addressing the obstacles to TNR.¹⁰⁰ At the very least, therefore, the question warrants further study in the future. It is not an indictment of TNR but rather an acknowledgment that human (mis)behavior is an important factor that must be studied and confronted as part of any feline population management program.

None of the above points calls into fundamental question the notion that TNR is the most humane and effective method currently available for addressing feral cat management. Rather, they are presented here as indications of some of the weaknesses that TNR advocates and practitioners must address in order to strengthen the practice.

Section 3. The Swiss Case: General Background and Legal Landscape

3.1Why the Swiss Case?

There are several reasons to study Switzerland’s experience with TNR. First, it is a country where the method has been carried out by non-profit groups in an organized manner for over two decades (and longer than that by individuals in their own capacity). And yet, outside of public materials produced by TNR practitioners and periodic coverage in the local press, surprisingly little seems to have been written about this case. It is hoped that an exploration of its strengths and continued challenges can ultimately add to existing efforts to strengthen TNR in Switzerland.

Second, given its wealth as a country, and animal welfare laws that are considered relatively progressive by global standards, one might assume Switzerland does not have a problem with feline overpopulation and the suffering of abandoned or feral cats. As section 4 seeks to show, however, this is a false assumption. A closer look at its experience, therefore, and how these problems are being dealt with, is warranted, and could contribute to broader conversations about animal welfare in Switzerland.

Third, as section 2 laid out, although TNR has been around for several decades in multiple countries, it continues to face many challenges, and practitioners and scholars are still learning what works best, how to improve the practice and how to respond to criticisms. The innovative or promising aspects of the Swiss case could prove useful to practitioners elsewhere in the world; further, the case reconfirms some of the lessons that TNR has turned up in other countries, thus corroborating the findings of other researchers. Adding case studies from places where the method has been carried out for years can only help the larger field of study around TNR. As one article on a US community’s efforts to address companion animal overpopulation asserts, “multiple case studies make a strong case toward action.”¹⁰¹

While this section and the next two do not constitute an in-depth study of TNR in Switzerland, they seek nonetheless to provide an overview of a well-established but understudied case for the reasons elaborated above. The analysis presented here is based primarily on an extensive review of publicly available materials (NGO reports and websites, press articles) and key informant interviews with TNR practitioners and NGO personnel from several organizations around the country. The concluding section of the article makes suggestions as to how this preliminary study might be expanded in the future to provide a fuller picture of the Swiss case.

3.2General Background on Switzerland

Switzerland is a country of approximately 8.5 million people,¹⁰² with four official languages and 26 cantons, or member states. About two-thirds of the country is made up of “forests, lakes and mountains,” and agriculture is an important sector of the economy, although it employs less than 10% of the population.¹⁰³ There are three levels of political power in Switzerland: federal (the Confederation), cantonal, and communal — S. 67 —(there are over 2,200 communes, or municipalities).¹⁰⁴ Some cantons are primarily rural and sparsely populated, others are highly urbanized and heavily settled, still others are a combination of both countryside and urban centers. Cantons have their own constitutions as well as their own executive, legislative and judiciary institutions.

For their part, communes (“Gemeinde” in German) are “the basic unit of Swiss politics”, which “enjoy the same sort of semi-sovereignty within the canton that the canton enjoys within the federation.”¹⁰⁵ Communes can range from villages with under 100 people to large cities that have hundreds of thousands of residents.¹⁰⁶

Swiss legislative authority rests with a bicameral parliament (the National Council, or the “lower house,” and the Council of States, or “upper house”). Executive authority is held by the Federal Council, which consists of seven members who are elected by parliament. These seven Federal Councilors serve collectively as the head of state, and they each lead one federal department on a rotating basis (every year a president is elected from among the seven, but the role carries only representational powers.) A distinctive feature of the Swiss political system is its direct democracy, which gives citizens a certain amount of decisionmaking about how the country is run. For example, through the so-called “popular initiative”, citizens can propose laws that can eventually be put to a national vote (they can also challenge newly passed laws through a similar process).

Human and animal health and well-being are overseen at the federal level by the Federal Food Safety and Veterinary Office (hereafter, FSVO). Each canton has a cantonal veterinary office, headed by the Cantonal Veterinary Officer. These offices ensure the enforcement of animal welfare-related regulations.¹⁰⁷ Specific tasks of the Cantonal Veterinary Officers include, among other things, monitoring animal health and animal welfare in the cantons, supervising hygiene in slaughterhouses and issuing permits for animal testing.¹⁰⁸

3.3In Brief: Cats – Owned, Stray and Feral

According to the non-governmental animal welfare organization, Protection des Animaux Suisse (hereafter, PSA – see box below), over one-half of Swiss households have companion animals,¹⁰⁹ and cats are the most popular companion animals in the country, with estimates ranging from 1.3 million¹¹⁰ to 1.7 million¹¹¹ cats owned as pets. One source reports that a third of all Swiss households have at least one cat, but only one-third of those cats are registered in the national companion animal database, ANIS.¹¹² Switzerland does not require microchipping of cats; in contrast, it has required microchipping and registration of dogs since 2006. In an afterword to a practical guide to cat ownership published by the PSA in 2012, Dr. Dennis C. Turner, a renowned expert on domestic cats and behavioral researcher at the University of Zurich, wrote:

Our research shows that the vast majority of Swiss women and men have a positive attitude toward cats (and dogs) and are willing to devote enough time and money to their animals. There are, however, knowledge gaps, especially with regard to free-roaming cats and their problems.¹¹³

Protection des Animaux Suisse (PSA)

The PSA was founded in 1861 and is the oldest national animal protection organization in Switzerland. Its sections cover most of the Swiss cantons as well as Liechtenstein. Most of its funding comes from donor contributions; PSA “does not receive grants or subsidies from public authorities, although it assumes many tasks which, without [the PSA], would fall within the competence of the State.”¹¹⁴ Each section of the PSA is independent of the national entity, has its own funding and decides on its own work projects. The sections pay a small amount in annual dues to the PSA, which subsidizes the organization’s work on behalf of all of the sections (such as federal-level policy advocacy).¹¹⁵ Some of the regional sections are called “SPA” in French (“société pour la protection des animaux”) – for example, SPA Valais or SPA La Côte – not to be confused with PSA, which refers only to the national entity. In German, the PSA is called STS, Schweizer Tierschutz.

Indeed, despite the popularity of cats as pets in Switzerland, the country has a notable problem with both the proliferation of feral and abandoned cats and how they are treated. The Swiss animal welfare organization, Network for Animal Protection (hereafter, NetAP), estimates that there are between 100,000 and 300,000 ownerless or abandoned cats in the country.¹¹⁶ It is not clear what the relative breakdown is, within this figure, of feral cats (that is, non-socialized cats, or cats that have never lived with humans), cats who were lost by their owners, and abandoned cats, though the PSA does publish annual cantonal figures, collected by its sections, of abandoned, confiscated and found cats.¹¹⁷ According to one cantonal veterinary officer, there is no census of cats in Switzerland.¹¹⁸

The latest figures published by the PSA reveal that, of the 18,385 animals (cats, dogs, rodents and rabbits, reptiles and other species) taken in by its 67 sections in 2017, almost 60% were cats, a proportion that, the PSA notes, remains very high.¹¹⁹ For its part, NetAP claims that “an estimated 100,000 unwanted cats are killed each year in Switzerland, that is, killed, drowned, suffocated, slaughtered or euthanized,”¹²⁰ a shocking figure given the country’s reputation as a trailblazer in animal welfare.

Before moving to a discussion of TNR in Switzerland and how its proponents are using it as one way to address this problem, the next sub-section will take a broader look at the legal framework in Switzerland for animal welfare in general, as well as for feral and stray or ownerless cats in particular.

3.4Swiss Law in Relation to Animal Welfare

Switzerland is often held up as a model on animal welfare law, and indeed, animals have gained certain protections in Swiss law in recent decades. But in the estimation of a number of legal scholars, the progress is not always clear-cut, and much work remains to be done. As Michel and Schneider Kayasseh point out, for example, “the situation of animals in Swiss law is at one and the same time a matter of progress and regress.”¹²¹

Gerritsen asserts that while Swiss animal welfare legislation is “progressive” by global standards, principles of fundamental respect for animal welfare “are restricted to a minimum and at times even ignored.”¹²² For his part, Bolliger concludes that, due to weaknesses in animal welfare protection in Switzerland, “the far-reaching conceptual reorganization of Swiss national law has not yet led to a fundamental change in the human-animal relationship in practice.”¹²³

What follows is a brief summary of the main animal welfare provisions in Swiss law, as well as certain laws and regulations pertaining to cats, including stray and feral cats. The focus here is mainly on federal, not cantonal, laws. The sub-section also discusses key criticisms made by several legal experts who have analyzed Swiss law as it relates to animal welfare. Some of these criticisms will be revisited later in the article, in relation specifically to TNR in Switzerland.

In 1992, the Swiss Federal Constitution was amended by a provision protecting “the dignity of living beings”¹²⁴ (“Würde der Kreatur”). The relevant provisions, in Article 120 of Constitution, read:

1.Human beings and their environment shall be protected against the misuse of gene technology.

2.The Confederation shall legislate on the use of reproductive and genetic material from animals, plants and other organisms. In doing so, it shall take account of the dignity of living beings as well as the safety of human beings, animals and the environment, and shall protect the genetic diversity of animal and plant species.¹²⁵

This development was significant because, although the Constitution deals with dignity only in relation to animal reproductive and gene technology, as Bolliger notes, “the protection of animal dignity is recognized as a general constitutional principle in Switzerland.”¹²⁶ It was the first time a national constitution “introduced and guaranteed” non-human dignity,¹²⁷ and in his words, the concept of animal dignity “represents a biocentric expansion of Swiss law granting animals a moral value, irrespective of their sentience.”¹²⁸ Giménez-Candela designates Switzerland “the absolute precursor and pioneering country” on animal protection, not only for its constitutional treatment of animal dignity but also for having been the first country in the world, in 1893, to prohibit the slaughter of animals without stunning.¹²⁹

A discussion of the nuances of non-human versus human dignity in Swiss law is beyond the scope of this article.¹³⁰ It is worth noting here, however, Bolliger’s assertion that the Swiss constitution’s protection of non-human dignity “must signify, for example, that highly cruel treatments (such as brutal catching or killing methods)…are unconstitutional.”¹³¹ This is one potential contact point between the constitutional concept of animal dignity and the question of how community cats are treated in Switzerland. As Michel and Schneider Kayasseh write, although “no single and uniform understanding of the context of the constitutional concept of the dignity of the Creature has as of yet crystallized” in Switzerland, “prevailing legal opinion is that protection of the dignity of the Creature necessitates respect for the inherent value of animals.”¹³² It is important to underscore that while human dignity is absolute in Swiss law, animal dignity is not; in certain circumstances, violations of animal dignity can be “legally justified by prevailing human interests,”¹³³ a point that has come in for criticism by animal law jurists.¹³⁴ Interestingly, Bolliger points out that the “neutering of pets and stray animals” could fall into the category of “underlying values and interests that are deemed legitimate in Switzerland” and could “thus override the protection of animal dignity.”¹³⁵ This is another — S. 70 —potential link between animal dignity and the question of the management of cat colonies, and will be taken up again in section 4.

A further important development was the addition, in 2003, of a provision to the Swiss Civil Code to the effect that “animals are not things” (“Tiere sind keine Sachen”).¹³⁶ Michel and Schneider Kayasseh assert that this provision “delivers an important message: Swiss law recognizes that animals are sentient beings and not just another object like a car or a chair.”¹³⁷ They concede, on the other hand, that animals still do not have a “concrete legal status” under Swiss law, and “have neither gained legal personhood nor do they have human caregivers or guardians instead of owners.”¹³⁸ In their view, “the law states that they are no longer objects; but in most cases they are still treated as such.”¹³⁹

The national Animal Welfare Act (hereafter, AWA) and the national Animal Welfare Ordinance (hereafter, AWO) are the two key pieces of Swiss legislation on animal welfare. The AWA and the AWO, first promulgated in 1981, were revised in 2005 and came into force in 2008.¹⁴⁰ As its first article states, the AWA’s purpose “is to protect the dignity and welfare of animals.”¹⁴¹ The AWA and the AWO together “form[] the core of Swiss animal welfare law,” though animal welfare provisions also appear in other federal statutes such as the Civil and Criminal Codes.¹⁴² Cantons have their own regulations to implement federal animal welfare law. As Bolliger notes, however, “Swiss animal welfare law is exclusively regulated by national legislation. The cantons are responsible for enforcing animal welfare laws but are prohibited from issuing differing or additional substantive provisions regarding animal protection.”¹⁴³

Two important provisions of the AWA are Article 4, para. 2, which prohibits inflicting pain or suffering on an animal “without justification”,¹⁴⁴ and Article 26, which prohibits mistreatment of animals, including deliberately killing an animal in a way that causes suffering, and abandoning an animal “with the intention of disposing of it”,¹⁴⁵ with violators subject to imprisonment or a fine.¹⁴⁶ Article 6(1) of the AWA requires that “anyone who keeps or looks after animals must feed and care for them properly and provide them with the activities and freedom of movement needed for their well-being, as well as shelter where necessary.”¹⁴⁷ Animals that have been neglected can be confiscated by the authorities.¹⁴⁸ In Switzerland, animal cruelty of every kind “qualifies as a misdemeanor – there is no animal welfare crime in the rank of felony under Swiss law.”¹⁴⁹

In the Animal Welfare Ordinance, the general provisions of the AWA are made much more specific and detailed. Where, for example, article 26 of the AWA contains only a general prohibition on the mistreatment of animals, the AWO sets out prohibited acts in relation to several individual species (cattle, pigs, sheep and goats, domestic poultry, horses, dogs, fish and decapods).¹⁵⁰ Article 24 of the AWO, on “other prohibited actions”, mentions cats in particular, and forbids “amputation of the claws of domestic cats and

other felids (Felidae).”151 The AWO’s Section 11, Article 80, deals with domestic cats. Interestingly, the first paragraph of this article requires that “cats kept on their own shall have daily contact with humans or visual contact with members of their own species.”152