Laughing stock

With regards to Clause 4.1 of Order 1/2013:
1. What are council’s recommendations for changing established behaviour and territories of existing cats without causing stress to the animals who may have difficulties understanding the order. I have explained the order to a cat and, although he assured me he would respect it, I don’t think he was serious. Typical teenager. I’d put it down to hormones, but council rightly put the chop to those early on.
2. In cases where confining a cat within a dwelling on the property would be unduly stressful to the cat and certainly result in injury to the owner, does council recommend erecting physical barriers around the entire property? Would three metre high fences be sufficient or should I consider four metres?
Or would a water moat around the property be more appropriate? Will council be fast-tracking building permits for these constructions and would they comply with the BMO now being inflicted on residents.
If my neighbours own cats, are they required to share the costs? The neighbours I mean, not their cats.
3. If my cat is within an existing relationship with another cat on a different property can it apply for special dispensation? Does council recognise same-sex relationships in this context?
I am not implying anything about the cat’s sexuality, but I respect his right to choose.
4. In what alternative reality did council think such an order on cats would be:
a) Realistically enforceable on pre-existing cats;
b) Unlikely to upset cat owners, let alone the cats;
c) Not seen by the majority of residents as a bone-head decision, regardless of how well intentioned and with only support from 134 in a Shire of 140,000;
d) How is an elderly pensioner with only a cat for a companion supposed to afford the $1000 for an electronic confinement system?
Council has not thought this through rationally and has now become a laughing stock.
Ron Lipari,
Upwey.