Opinions of Dutch veterinarians on domestic cat identification and registration and stray cat prevention: a questionnaire-based study.

Abstract

This study investigates the perspectives of veterinarians in the Netherlands regarding the proposed legislation on mandatory cat identification and registration as a measure to combat stray cat issues. The research aims to determine veterinary opinions on this proposed legislation and explore alternative or supplementary strategies for addressing the challenges associated with stray cats. We used an online questionnaire to assess these opinions and a total of 260 veterinarians responded to 14 statements and we calculated distributions of responses and tested for significance with Pearson Chi-square tests. Most respondents expressed support for the proposed legislation on mandatory cat identification (75%; P<0.001), emphasizing its potential benefits for responsible cat ownership and the mitigation of stray cat problems. Furthermore, a significant majority of respondents (84%; P<0.001) opinioned that the benefits of this mandatory identification and registration outweighed the associated costs and that the veterinarian profession has a role to play in informing (potential) cat owners about the proposed legislation (81%; P<0.001). However, governmental support of the veterinary profession when informing these cat owners seems warranted as nearly all respondents (97%; P<0.001) indicated to opinion this is needed. Government may also consider making the veterinary profession leading in the registering of identification microchips, as our respondents indicated to a high degree (84%; P<0.001) the importance of their profession’s involvement in microchip registering, which may come with expertise and trustworthiness for cat owners as well as the government. Although our respondents seem to opinion generally uniformly regarding aspects of microchipping, their opinions on alternative and supplementary strategies for stray cat prevention seem more varied. An example is in the diverse opinions that emerged regarding the welfare risks of keeping cats indoors. Also, alternative measures’ support was more variedly distributed than the support for the proposed legislation on mandatory cat identification, with capturing and rehoming stray cats receiving the highest support among alternative measures (45%). This suggests that alongside the proposed legislation, the veterinary profession will support a multifaceted approach for addressing stray cat issues and can play an important role in increasing responsible cat ownership. The need for a multifaceted approach is underlined by only 1% of respondents opinioning that mandatory cat identification alone is sufficient to combat stray cat issues. Thus, a multifaceted approach and the role of stakeholders in such an approach warrants further investigations. How the veterinary profession’s involvement and governmental support can be effectively structured, with regard to for instance the provision of information to cat owners on the proposed legislation and potential future measures to combat stray cat issues, are interesting points to address in future studies.