Tap a topic to read more. We'll keep adding to this page over time as the project grows.
Report Animal Harm exists because of a gap — a definitional gap at the heart of New Zealand's Predator Free 2050 programme.
When feral cats were added to the target list, the policy arrived without clear definitions distinguishing feral cats from stray, community, and companion cats, and without clearly defined areas where control is appropriate. Rural New Zealand has long been a hotspot for the abandonment and dumping of animals, and the cats left behind there are now too easily swept up under the same "feral" label.
This map is our response. Data is the most persuasive evidence there is, so we have built an open, public record of where animals are being harmed and killed across Aotearoa. It is free for anyone to view and contribute to.
While our primary focus is cats, this map is for all animals — a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. Our hope is that communities will use it to see where harm is concentrated, to recognise where targeted killings may be happening in their own neighbourhoods, and to stay vigilant in keeping their companion animals safe.
Community trapping groups do not routinely scan for microchips, and the data they produce relies largely on an honour system. Platforms such as Trap.NZ and the Predator Free mapping tools record catches the same way: a trapper or administrator logs whatever they choose against a record, with no verification step, no photo requirement, and no audit trail that cross-checks entries. Nothing in the system itself prevents someone from logging a neighbour's cat — or anything else — as "other," or from leaving the detail blank. In practice, this means there is no reliable mechanism to detect misuse.
The hardest cases sit in a genuine grey zone: a cat that is owned but unchipped, unidentified, and roaming, where a person could claim they believed it was feral even when that is not true. That ambiguity is real, and it is precisely where companion animals are being lost.
To be clear, we do not dispute that feral cats can, in some places and at some times, harm populations of native wildlife. But not everywhere, and not always. The current approach treats a complex ecological question as a simple one. An indiscriminate focus on killing introduced predators is politically convenient — it meets little resistance and offers visible activity — but it is not the same as rigorous, science-led conservation, and it overlooks the many other drivers of biodiversity loss and habitat degradation.
The most pressing problem is this: companion cats and community or stray cats were deliberately not added to the Predator Free target list, and for good reason. Yet many supporters of the programme do not understand the difference between feral, stray, and companion cats — and that misunderstanding is now costing animals their lives, as people trap and kill cats that belong to their neighbours.
Every cat deserves better than this, including those who, through no fault of their own, have been abandoned or lost and have become stray. They are the product of gaps in our care as a society, not targets to be eliminated.
This project is about bringing evidence, clarity, and accountability to a conversation that badly needs all three.
Tauranga cat owners, you need to see this.
Tauranga City Council and Predator Free are gearing up to rewrite the rules on cats in the city — mandatory microchipping and desexing, limits on how many cats a household can own, and restrictions on people feeding cat colonies.
And here's the part that should make everyone's jaw drop. According to NZ Herald reporting, under the draft Dog Management Bylaw 2026 dogs would be prohibited from the dunes unless on-leash and passing through to the beach — yet one submitter at the council hearing argued the opposite: that dogs should be allowed to roam the dunes, on the basis it might help keep cats away.
The timing is staggering. The Herald has reported four cats mauled to death by roaming dogs in just 23 days in Tauranga — the very same species now being floated for more freedom on the beaches. If you're looking for tone-deaf, this is it.
Cats get punished, while a suggestion to give dogs more freedom in the dunes is floated as a fix for cats. Four cats are dead from dog attacks in under a month, and someone thinks more roaming dogs is the answer.
This isn't decided yet. Council staff are now analysing submissions before reporting back to councillors, who'll decide what makes it into the final bylaw. Written submissions have closed, but deliberations and final adoption aren't until late 2026 / early 2027. If this doesn't sit right with you, tell your ward councillor the double standard on cats versus dogs isn't good enough.
Contact the councils and tell them what you think:
It's been a grim run for cats lately — trappers drowning cats in drums, cats shot in residential streets, traps set in close lifestyle-block and orchard communities, and dog attacks severe enough to hospitalise both people and pets.
Everything here is national legislation. Wherever you are in New Zealand, it applies to you. So here's a reminder of where the law actually stands.
Under the Animal Welfare Act 1999, a cat is only legally "feral" if it has none of its needs met by humans, doesn't live near people, and is self-sustaining — a narrow, specific category. A stray or colony cat living near houses, even one nobody claims, is still legally a "cat" with full protection under the Act. Deciding a cat is fair game because it isn't wearing a collar is not how the law works, anywhere in the country.
Trap rules aren't optional, and they don't bend for rural or lifestyle properties, wherever those properties are. These duties sit in the Animal Welfare Act 1999, which MPI administers — this is national law, not a council bylaw, and it applies everywhere in NZ right now, regardless of what any individual council decides.
Feral cats were only added to the Predator Free 2050 target list by the Conservation Minister / DOC late last year — that's a separate eradication strategy, and it doesn't touch or loosen any of the Animal Welfare Act duties above.
Under section 48 of the Arms Act 1983, it's an offence — up to 6 months' imprisonment or a $10,000 fine — to discharge a firearm in or near a dwelling or public place without reasonable excuse, in a way that endangers property or endangers, annoys or frightens any person. There's no "far enough away" exemption for any populated area: if you can't be certain of your full firing zone with houses, streets, and people nearby, you don't have a lawful excuse to fire at all.
Even Predator Free NZ Trust's own feral-cat guidance only lists night shooting as an option "in rural, open landscapes" — and that doesn't stretch to cover lifestyle blocks and small orchards, wherever they are. "Open landscape" means big, genuinely clear farmland with long sightlines and no neighbours for hundreds of metres — not a subdivided lifestyle-block community, or an orchard with houses, sheds and workers close together and rows of trees blocking your view of what's behind the target.
That's exactly why Te Tari Pūreke, the Firearms Safety Authority, singles out "rural lifestyle properties and small holdings" as their own category, telling shooters there to personally assess their firing zone and the round's full trajectory: "if you cannot ensure your firing zone is safe, do not fire." Shoot a cat on a lifestyle block, in an orchard, or anywhere in town, and it turns out to be someone's companion cat — that's its own offence under section 12 of the Animal Welfare Act, on top of the Arms Act charge.
Under the Dog Control Act 1996, you're required to keep your dog under control at all times — including on your own property. If your dog attacks or even rushes at a person, another dog, or someone's pet or livestock, that's an offence in its own right: standard attacks carry fines up to $3,000 plus liability for the damage and vet bills, and where a dog causes serious injury to a person the penalties jump to up to 3 years' imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. Courts must generally order the dog destroyed after a serious attack unless there are genuinely special circumstances. This applies whether it's a person, a cat, or another dog on the receiving end — and it's the same law that makes "using dogs to flush cats up trees to be shot" (advice that's actually circulated as feral-cat control guidance) a real legal risk for the dog's owner too, on top of whatever happens to the cat.
This isn't a grey area — it's already an offence, whether or not your local council's bylaw ever gets updated. Councils around the country are still writing or rewriting their own cat bylaws, but that has no bearing on any of the above. These are national Animal Welfare Act, Arms Act, and Dog Control Act obligations that already apply everywhere in NZ, right now.
Please don't confront anyone yourself — that puts you at legal risk too, and won't get a prosecution. Instead:
In practice, the SPCA often can't act without a body, the evidence, and the perpetrator identified — so documentation matters more than anything.
Our pets and our kids deserve better than this, wherever in the country you are. Please share, so people actually know the law before they decide to take it into their own hands.
A ready-made letter any resident or ratepayer, in any region, can adapt and send to their councillors about cat bylaws, cat colonies and animal welfare law.
It's written from an ordinary resident's point of view, and it argues with the law, not against the council — grounding every request in the Animal Welfare Act 1999, the Code of Welfare: Companion Cats, the Arms Act 1983 and the Dog Control Act 1996. A calm, specific, well-referenced letter is far harder to dismiss than an angry one.
In short, the letter asks a council to:
This is a template for personal use, written from a resident's point of view. It is not legal advice, and nothing in it should be presented as a legal opinion or on behalf of any organisation unless you say so yourself.
Inside the Predator Free 2050 submission numbers.
When Conservation Minister Tama Potaka announced on 21 November 2025 that feral cats would be added to the Predator Free 2050 strategy, he framed it as a clear democratic mandate: New Zealanders had made their views known, and the government was acting on them. It's a good line. It's also worth asking what actually sat behind it.
According to the Department of Conservation's own Summary of Submissions report, 3,398 submissions were received during the consultation period (5 May – 30 June 2025). Here's the breakdown DOC itself published:
| Submission channel | Count |
|---|---|
| Free-form submissions (print/email) | 138 |
| Print or online surveys direct to DOC | 765 |
| Predator Free NZ Trust's own online template | 2,495 |
| Total | 3,398 |
Of the 2,495 that came in through the Predator Free NZ Trust's own portal, DOC's report notes 2,027 were identical template responses, with a smaller number adding their own comments on top of the template.
Against a national population of roughly 5.36 million, the entire consultation — including that mobilised block — represents a little over 0.06% of New Zealanders. None of that is hidden; it's sitting in DOC's own published report. But it wasn't the headline. Coverage focused on the feral cat decision itself and drew a "large number of submissions, the majority in favour" framing from the Minister's office, without surfacing where the bulk of that volume actually came from.
Is that "fair"? That's a judgment call, and reasonable people can land differently. Predator Free NZ Trust running its own submission drive isn't unusual — advocacy-led submission templates are a long-standing, entirely ordinary part of how public consultations work in New Zealand, used across the political spectrum on everything from farming regulation to firearms law. Nothing about it breaks the rules, and DOC's report treated the volume transparently rather than disguising it.
The sharper question isn't whether the Trust was allowed to do this — it plainly was — but whether it's accurate for the government to hold up the raw total as evidence that "New Zealanders have spoken," when nearly three-quarters of that total was one organisation successfully mobilising its own supporter base rather than a broad cross-section of unprompted public opinion.
DOC's own report adds a further wrinkle. On the specific survey question about the target species list — the very list feral cats have now been added to — that proposal drew the least support and the highest opposition of anything consulted on: of 740 respondents, 50% supported retaining the existing list and 35% opposed. DOC notes submitters read this question in mixed ways (some opposed retaining the list precisely because feral cats were excluded), so it doesn't resolve neatly either way — but it's a reminder that the underlying feedback was more divided than "New Zealanders were clear" suggests.
There's another layer that DOC's report and the Minister's release both leave out entirely. The following is drawn from published, on-the-record reporting.
Predator Free NZ Trust's current Chief Executive is Jessi Morgan. Its current board of Trustees includes Gareth Morgan — economist, businessman, and the person behind New Zealand's most internationally covered anti-cat campaign. As reported by TIME (23 January 2013), Morgan's "Cats to Go" campaign called on New Zealanders not to replace their pet cats when they died, and floated euthanasia as "an option" for the country's cat population — coverage that also reached NBC News and Fox News. That same year, Morgan co-founded the Predator Free New Zealand Trust, and he remains a Trustee today.
Stuff's reporting from a June 2016 Horizons Regional Council pest-management hearing identifies Jessi Morgan as "daughter of businessman Gareth Morgan," at the time working as a Morgan Foundation project manager and pushing the council for tougher regional cat controls.
Put the timeline together: a family with over a decade of public, on-the-record advocacy for stronger cat controls now sits on both the board and in the chief executive's chair of the one organisation whose own submission template generated 73.4% of the total submissions to a consultation that resulted in feral cats being added to the national predator-eradication strategy. None of that context appeared in DOC's summary or the Minister's media release when the result was announced as evidence that "New Zealanders were clear. They want action."
In fairness to the Trust's current public position: its own materials distinguish feral cats from pet cats — "feral cats are not the same as your cuddly pet cat" — and Jessi Morgan has publicly framed the organisation's current stance as "humane, targeted solutions" for feral cat management, not calling for pet cats to be eliminated. That's a real and worth-noting difference from her father's 2013 position, even given the family and organisational overlap above.
This isn't about relitigating the feral cat decision — it's about whether the public was given an accurate picture of who actually spoke, and how much weight "New Zealanders have spoken" should carry next time.
Send to: t.potaka@ministers.govt.nz — or via the Beehive contact form at beehive.govt.nz/feedback
This piece is fair comment on a matter of public interest, drawn from published sources listed below. It is not legal advice. Every claim about named individuals is attributed to on-the-record reporting.
Councils are moving toward bylaws requiring cat owners to microchip and register their cats. Before that becomes the norm, here's a question that hasn't had a real public answer: how safe is the database it all runs through?
The register most commonly used — the NZ Companion Animal Register (NZCAR) — is owned and managed by Companion Animals New Zealand (CANZ), a single animal-welfare charity. It's a private organisation's platform, not a neutral, government-run system.
That matters, because CANZ has itself pointed to the register's existence as a reason to press ahead with legislation. In its submission on cat management, CANZ argued the register "should give confidence to regulators regarding one major barrier to a National Cat Management Act," and that decision-makers "should not let the potential cost or difficulties of establishing a database dissuade them" from recommending cat-management legislation.
In other words, part of the case for new law rests on the fact that this particular private database already exists — which means one organisation's infrastructure could quietly become the default backbone of a national scheme.
CANZ has also been open about the cultural goal. It states that mandatory desexing and microchipping bylaws "normalise these procedures and assist in changing the culture" of responsible cat ownership, and that it "will continue to advocate for mandatory desexing, microchipping and registration in bylaws." That's a legitimate advocacy position — but it is an advocacy position, and residents are entitled to weigh it as such.
Then there's the "agent" access model, where people outside CANZ can be granted access to guardians' personal details for scanning and lookups. Concerns have been raised within the cat community about how that access is vetted and what happens when it's misused. Whether or not every detail of any one account holds up, the underlying questions stand: what vetting happens before someone gets access to this data, what happens when access is abused, and who holds the register accountable?
And this isn't only about reuniting lost cats. Predator Free NZ Trust has publicly said it is "asking for a National Cat Act similar to the Dog Act," and has been candid about why microchipping matters to that goal. On its own website, the Trust states that "without compulsory microchipping, we can't tell what cats are private property — what cats are owned and what cats are unowned," and that they "struggle to identify if [a live trapped cat is] an owned cat or a feral cat."
That's a significant statement. It means the same identification system framed around reuniting lost pets is also being sought as a way to tell which trapped cats are "owned" — which raises the stakes on how this data is governed, and what it will ultimately be used for.
None of this is an argument against responsible cat ownership, or against microchipping your own cat — chipping a pet you love is a good thing. It's an argument for asking the right questions before a private database becomes a legal requirement. If mandatory microchipping is coming to your area, or is already a bylaw, cat owners deserve real answers on data governance, audit trails and complaint processes — not just an assurance that the database already exists and everyone using it can be trusted.
Don't wait until it's law to ask the questions.
The letter below puts these questions in a ready-to-send form.
This piece is fair comment on a matter of public interest. Quotes are taken from the organisations' own published submission and website and are attributed to them. It is not legal advice. Concerns about data access are described in general terms and name no individual.
Cash-prize cat killing competitions are being held around New Zealand — some marketed to children. This open letter to councils and candidates calls for them to end, and for humane, science-backed policy instead. You can read it, add your name, or send your own.
The letter is led by Anne Batley Burton, Founder & Chair of The New Zealand Cat Foundation, a registered charity caring for stray and abandoned cats across Aotearoa. It has been sent to councils and to candidates seeking office this election.
In short, it asks councils and candidates to support three reforms:
Read the letter
The New Zealand Cat Foundation
Registered Charity | Caring for stray and abandoned cats in Aotearoa New Zealand
Dear Councillor,
RE: National concerns over feral cat identification guidance, animal welfare, and firearms safety — seeking your support
I write to you as the Founder and Chair of The New Zealand Cat Foundation, a registered charity dedicated to the welfare of stray and abandoned cats throughout New Zealand. I am writing to every local council and every candidate seeking public office this election, because the issue below is not confined to one district — it is a national problem playing out in communities like yours.
Current MPI and DOC guidance on "feral" and "unwanted" cats cannot reliably distinguish a feral cat from a companion, stray, colony or stud cat before a shot is fired. I have written formally to both MPI and DOC setting out, in detail, how this guidance contradicts the agencies' own public statements, fails the Firearms Safety Code's "identify your target beyond all doubt" standard, and is fuelling a rapid escalation in the trapping, shooting and killing of companion, stray and displaced cats — not only feral ones. I enclose both letters, together with a supporting statement setting out the identification and firearms safety analysis in further technical and legal detail, for your reference.
This is already playing out in real communities: publicly promoted cat hunting competitions have been held in North Canterbury (Hurunui), Mid Canterbury and South Canterbury (Waihaorunga), some explicitly marketed to children, with methods including night shooting at range and retrospective identification — checking for a microchip only after an animal has already been shot. Companion cats have been reported stolen from their own homes and properties to be entered into these events. Missing cat statistics rise rapidly within the area of these competitions. The same flawed guidance that makes this possible applies nationwide, meaning a lifestyle block owner, a semi-rural resident, or a similar event organiser in your own district could rely on exactly the same reasoning to justify shooting a cat that is, in reality, someone's pet.
I am not asking you to resolve a matter that sits with central government agencies alone — I am asking you to use the position you hold, or are seeking, to commit to science-backed, humane policy reform. Specifically, I ask you to support: a ban on cash-prize killing competitions; funding for humane alternatives including Trap-Neuter-Return and support for rescues and colony carers; and licensed pest control only, confined to the genuinely wild, deep bush areas MPI and DOC themselves say feral cat control should be limited to — never in urban, lifestyle-block or semi-rural areas.
If you are a sitting councillor, I also ask you to consider whether any bylaws your council administers — firearms discharge, animal control, or the use of council or public land for organised events — and the Animal Welfare Act 1999 bear on hunting competitions of this kind being held or promoted in your district, and to raise this with your council colleagues and your local Member of Parliament. If you are seeking office, please read the enclosed letters and let me know where you stand on the three reforms above.
Yours faithfully,
Anne Batley Burton
Founder & Chair, The New Zealand Cat Foundation (Registered Charity)
You can send this letter to your own councillors or candidates under your own name. Copy or download the version below, fill in the brackets, and send it. It carries the same three asks, with the campaign's own claims attributed to the Foundation.
This is the open letter of The New Zealand Cat Foundation, published with permission. It reflects the Foundation's stated position on a matter of public interest. It is not legal advice.
These are the two formal letters The New Zealand Cat Foundation sent to the Ministers responsible — the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister of Conservation — along with the technical supporting statement referenced in the open letter above. You can send them under your own name.
Both letters challenge the same core failure: that current MPI and DOC guidance cannot reliably tell a feral cat from a companion, stray, colony or displaced cat before a shot is fired — and that this is fuelling the killing of companion cats. Each letter comes with the supporting statement bundled in automatically, so it always travels with the letter.
Addressed to Hon Andrew Hoggard. In short, it argues:
Addressed to Hon Tama Potaka. In short, it argues:
Each download and each copy already includes the supporting statement — the detailed firearms-safety and identification analysis prepared by The New Zealand Cat Foundation — so it's sent together with the letter.
Recipients (public ministerial addresses): MPI — Andrew.Hoggard@parliament.govt.nz · DOC — tama.potaka@parliament.govt.nz. Fill in the bracketed [Your name] and [Your email] before sending.
These letters and supporting statement are the correspondence of The New Zealand Cat Foundation, published with permission. They set out the Foundation's stated concerns on a matter of public interest, drawn from publicly available sources. This is not legal advice.