Pet domestic cat (Felis catus) populations are increasing all around the world, resulting in an increase in contact with humans and wildlife, potentially spreading zoonotic diseases and predating on wildlife. With the recently identified rise in cat populations in remote Indigenous communities in Australia, culturally appropriate cat population management strategies are required. A systematic review process was conducted to review the current global cat population management practices that are suitable for owned, free-roaming cat populations in these communities. Eight articles on in-situ field cat populations and five studies simulating computer modelled cat populations reported results of 66 population management interventions. Surgical Sterilisation (SS) was used in all socialised owned cat articles. The trap–neuter–release (TNR) method was used most frequently on unsocialised cats and gained the best results when the trap–remove (TR) method was used concurrently to adopt out unwanted social cats and euthanise ill or injured cats. The results of this review suggest that long-term TNR/SS programs supplemented with TR provide the current most ethically sound best practice, humane method of managing cat populations in remote Australian Indigenous communities. It is also recognised that no one plan will fit all, and that further research on the micro-level techniques used to deploy both TNR and TR needs to occur, and that culturally appropriate community consultation during all processes is vital in achieving a sustainable management program.

This study examined dog and cat demographics, roaming behaviours, and interspecific interactions in a remote Aboriginal island community using multiple methods. Our results revealed temporal differences between the roaming behaviours of dogs, cats, and wildlife. Dogs showed crepuscular behaviour, being active around dawn (5:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m.) and dusk (6:00 p.m. and 11:35 p.m.). The majority of cats were active between dawn (6:30 a.m.) and dusk (7:30 p.m.) and travelled shorter distances than dogs. However, some cats were also observed roaming between dusk and dawn, and were likely to be hunting since flightless wildlife were also recorded on our remote-sensing cameras during this time. These baseline data provide evidence to suggest that new management programs are needed to reduce the number of roaming cats and therefore their potential impacts on native wildlife. Collaborations between Aboriginal owners and other stakeholders is necessary to design innovative and effective animal management and policy on the island.

Australia’s 2019–2020 bushfires had a devastating impact on animals, humans, and ecosystems. They also demonstrated the lack of evidence or guidance for wildlife provisioning in response to severe fire events when volunteers and wildlife organisations rose to respond. In addition, the unprecedented scale and intensity of the fires and an absence of institutional support for wildlife provisioning meant that well-intentioned interventions were largely uncoordinated and lacked clear short-term, mid-term, and long-term objectives. Fundamentally, a lack of consensus was revealed on whether any such interventions are advisable. Given the strong evidence indicating that future bushfire seasons will become longer and more intense in Australia and elsewhere, the welfare and survival of millions of wild animals are at risk every year. Understanding the impacts of supplementary resource interventions and contributing to the development of best practice information is crucial to inform the response to the next major fire event. Here, we contextualize the arguments for and against provisioning within a ‘One Welfare’ framework that recognizes that animal welfare, biodiversity, and the environment are intertwined with human welfare and community resilience. We propose that the One Welfare approach can facilitate appropriate consideration of the extant scientific and lay literature; local legislation; views of stakeholders; emerging data; and modelling from historic fire events. As a further step, we see merit in engaging with wildlife provisioners and the broader conservation community to build an evidence base for future wildlife provisioning activities. From an informed position, we can encourage beneficial interventions and reduce the risk of negative outcomes. Finally, we propose controlled experiments (e.g., using hazard reduction burns), ongoing data collection using emergent technology, and longitudinal analysis to address shifting research priorities as the climate changes. We conclude that the ordered collection of the necessary evidence relevant to each of the three stakeholder groups in the One Welfare framework has the greatest potential to support an informed policy platform on wildlife provisioning across Australia that is feasible, legal, and sustainable.

Companion animal management in Australian remote Aboriginal communities (rAcs) is a complex problem with multiple stakeholders involved, with differing needs, knowledge, power and resources. The Comm4Unity (Cycle of Multiple Methods for Unity—For Community) approach was designed to address such problems. This study represents the second step of the Comm4Unity framework, where a causal loop analysis (CLA) was adapted and tested as a tool to address the issue of dog overpopulation in Wurrumiyanga, and in particular the systemic causes of the problem and necessary transformational management solutions. Ten focus group discussions (FGDs) were held amongst three of the four stakeholder groups identified during the first step in the analysis. The CLA identified 13 positive feedback loops, which drive vicious cycles and perpetuate the dog overpopulation issue. All three groups agreed and developed 22 solutions to address the causes of dog overpopulation. Despite the differences in the framings of the three groups, “training” and “education” were both the top priority solutions for all three groups. The majority of the solutions discussed by the groups were not only transformational but also social, requiring collaboration. This study was successful in so far as transformational actions were co-developed by all FGDs, which may have also built capacity and agency amongst the local community to implement them as a cohesive group.

Free-roaming cats pose a risk to their own health and welfare, as well as to the health and welfare of wildlife and humans. This study aimed to monitor and quantify area-specific free-roaming cat movement. Two local government areas (LGAs) in Greater Sydney were included, Campbelltown (CT) and the Blue Mountains (BM). Motion-capture cameras were installed on 100 volunteer properties (50 per LGA) to indirectly capture animal movements over two months. Transect drives were completed eight times (four per LGA) to directly observe roaming cats in residential areas. The cameras and transects both identified higher free-roaming cat numbers in CT (density of 0.31 cats per ha, resulting in an estimated abundance of 361 cats in the 1604 ha of residential area) than the BM (density of 0.21 cats per ha, resulting in an estimated abundance of 3365 cats in the 10,000 ha of residential area). More wildlife events were captured in the BM (total = 5580) than CT (total = 2697). However, there was no significant difference between CT and the BM for cat events (p = 0.11) or wildlife events (p = 0.32) observed via the cameras. Temporally, cats were observed via the cameras throughout the entire day with peaks at 9:30 am and 8:00 pm in the BM, and 7:00 am and 12:00 pm in CT. Overlaps in activity times were recorded for free-roaming cats with bandicoots (BM), possums (BM), and small mammals (BM and CT). This study demonstrates that camera monitoring on private property and transect drives are useful methods to quantify free-roaming cat abundance to inform cat management interventions.