Problem framing and the proposed Animal Protection, Rights and Welfare Law
Last February, the Cabinet approved a Preliminary Project for an Animal Protection, Rights and Welfare Law. The proposal splits into two main sections to set a legal framework for managing cat colonies with an emphasis on ethical practices. It guides public authorities to pursue goals that include capturing, sterilizing, and returning or reintroducing cats that form these colonies using the CER method and the CES method respectively.
This draft has sparked debates among diverse groups, including many conservation scientists who worry that protecting stray cats could threaten biodiversity. Some advocate a ban on breeding and care for these cats and even call for their removal from all public spaces.
Others argue in favor of legal protection for cats, provided animal welfare is ensured. They believe that lawful protection, combined with humane management, is essential to reducing homeless cat populations and safeguarding biodiversity at the same time.
The core problem
Humans and cats have shared a relationship for more than 9,000 years. The bond is strong: humans supply resources cats need to survive, while cats help suppress pests that can bother people and carry threats to crops and property.
Today there are about 4 million cats in households in Spain. Each year roughly 120,000 are abandoned on the streets, and many do not survive. Those that live often group together, multiply, and create a cascade of challenges for communities and ecosystems alike.
The street cats must find food for themselves and their many litters. They scavenge from waste and hunt, typically preying on rodents but occasionally affecting local wildlife. Their presence can bring issues such as waste, noise, parasites, diseases, and other nuisances. This reality makes many people feel sympathy and provide aid, though not always in ideal ways.
Why simple eradication seldom works
Efforts to wipe out feral cats have repeatedly failed in densely populated areas. The street population tends to rebound because removing cats creates a vacancy that new cats rapidly fill.
The gap effect is a central factor. When resources disappear, new cats arrive to take their place. Even with significant effort, it is nearly impossible to remove all cats from a given area, so remnants often reproduce, recolonize, and outpace the losses. Abandonment continues to feed the streets, extending withdrawal cycles indefinitely.
Eradication programs are costly and frequently unpopular within communities. Widespread social rejection and a lack of sustained support from authorities often doom these efforts to fail in the long run.
A path forward through protection and coexistence
The only way to avoid the null effect is to acknowledge that cats will continue to live on the streets. The aim is to improve welfare while shaping how coexistence among cats, humans, and biodiversity is managed through law.
Starting points include rethinking how people interact with animals. Well-meaning individuals often contribute resources informally, yet not always in the most appropriate places. Bans on feeding are common in many municipalities, and despite that, neighbors continue to help street cats quietly, recognizing their daily hardships.
The new law would compel municipalities to regulate this issue. Currently only a minority of municipalities have formal feral-cat management plans, with many doing nothing. Inaction allows the problem to grow unchecked.
The new municipal obligations will include education and training for those responsible for neighborhood caretaking. The aim is to teach proper feeding, cleaning, and care. Recent studies show that providing adequate food and environmental enrichment can reduce predatory pressure from colony cats as their needs are better met.
Likewise, ethical colony management will emphasize the CER method involving capture, sterilization, and return. Adoption programs for kittens and more sociable cats, including those recently abandoned, will be encouraged to reduce street populations. Unlike outright eradication, CER enjoys broad social acceptance and can mobilize volunteers, often with minimal public funding. Laws should address problems while remaining economically viable.
Controlled colonies and biodiversity safeguards
Science supports the CER approach when applied comprehensively and with broad geographic coverage. When cats are sterilized in large numbers and across extensive areas, the threat they pose to biodiversity can be mitigated. Neutered cats hunt less, and with food resources stabilized, their density declines. Neutered females no longer need to hunt to feed offspring that no longer exist.
Management plans will also aim to place colonies away from sensitive ecosystems and to direct them toward areas where their impact is less harmful to wildlife.
Responsible ownership and prevention of abandonment are highlighted as crucial steps toward a lasting solution. The law envisions a comprehensive framework that reduces harm and fosters humane stewardship.
Reducing poisoning and protecting biodiversity
A troubling trend involves the spread of harmful rhetoric on social media about cat colonies and increasing cases of mistreatment, including poisoning. A rise in poisoning has been noted, affecting wildlife that fall victim to similar toxins. Reducing conflict with cats helps safeguard biodiversity by lowering the use of poisonous baits.
Realistically, no single solution can perfectly fix a problem as complex as cat overpopulation. Yet delaying animal protection legislation only delays progress toward a safer, healthier balance for both cats and the surrounding ecosystem. Without protective laws, cats may endure continued hardship and biodiversity may suffer as a consequence.
Cited observation: Octavio Perez Luzardo, Professor of Toxicology at the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria. This analysis resonates with contemporary research on humane management of urban cat populations. (Citation: Octavio Perez Luzardo)
Reference discussion appears in a public article that contextualizes cat protection as a biodiversity safeguard. (Citation: The Conversation)
Environment department contact address has been omitted in this version for privacy and safety considerations.
The above considerations reflect ongoing debates about how best to balance compassion for animals with the protection of native species and habitats. The aim is to move toward practical, humane, and sustainable solutions that communities can support over the long term.