Using Free Adoptions to Reduce Crowding and Euthanasia at Cat Shelters: An Australian Case Study

SIMPLE SUMMARY: Waiving adoption fees to encourage adoptions and reduce euthanasias of healthy adult cats in crowded shelters is controversial because of concerns that people attracted to free adoptions may be less responsible owners. An extremely busy kitten season in 2015 left no shelter or foster vacancies for incoming cats at Western Australia’s largest cat shelter. Instead of euthanasing healthy cats, the shelter held a three day adoption-drive where cats ≥1 year were free. Public response to the event was extremely high (weekly adoptions increased >5-fold). Post-adoption surveys were carried out and results compared with surveys of cat adopters who paid normal-fees during non-promotional periods. No differences were found between free and normal-fee adopter demographics, cat demographics, cat fate post-adoption, incidence of medical and behavioural issues, and likelihood of attaching collars, registering with local councils or allowing cats to roam freely. Mixed-media promotion of the adoption-drive attracted more first-time adopters compared with normal-fee adopters. Overall, we found no evidence for adverse outcomes associated with free adoptions. Animal shelters should not be dissuaded from occasional free adoption-drives during overflow periods. ABSTRACT: Many healthy adult cats are euthanised annually in shelters, and novel approaches are required to reduce euthanasia rates. Waiving adoption fees is one such approach. However, concerns that less responsible owners will be attracted to free events persist among welfare groups. We evaluated evidence for differences in cat fate, health, and adherence to husbandry legislation via a case-study of a free adoption-drive for cats ≥1 year at a Western Australian shelter. Post-adoption outcomes were compared between free adopters and a control group of normal-fee adopters. The free adoption-drive rehomed 137 cats, increasing average weekly adoptions by 533%. First-time adopters were a significantly larger portion of the free cohort, as a result of mixed-media promotions. Both adopter groups selected cats of similar age; sex and pelage. Post-adoption, both groups retained >90% cats, reporting near identical incidences of medical and behavioural problems. Adopters did not differ in legislative compliance regarding fitting collars, registering cats, or allowing cats to roam. The shelter reported satisfaction with the adoption-drive, because in addition to relieving crowding of healthy adults, adoption of full-fee kittens increased 381%. Overall, we found no evidence for adverse outcomes associated with free adoptions. Shelters should not be dissuaded from occasional free adoption-drives during overflow periods.