Analysis of the Office of Attorney General Advisory Opinion relating to Trap-Neuter- Return (TNR) programs fully operated by a locality

1 

Analysis of the Office of Attorney General Advisory Opinion relating to Trap-Neuter- 

Return (TNR) programs fully operated by a locality 

The recent Virginia Attorney General Advisory Opinion (Va. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 12-100 (June 

12, 2013), “Advisory Opinion”) endorses status-quo Trap-Neuter-Return programs in Virginia 

by giving strong support to locality-sponsored sterilization programs for feral cats.  The 

Advisory Opinion confirms the general understanding that, under current Virginia law, feral cats 

captured by animal control officers and confined in a pound cannot be returned by the locality to 

their colonies.  The Advisory Opinion also makes clear that a person humanely trapping a feral 

cat for sterilization is the finder—not the owner—of that cat. 

The Opinion’s conclusion that localities may not return a captured and sterilized feral cat 

does not impact currently operating locality Trap-Neuter-Return programs 

The type of TNR program analyzed by the Advisory Opinion is not one that most, if any, 

localities in Virginia operate.  The Advisory Opinion addressed the permissibility of locality- 

sponsored TNR, where the locality itself, through its animal control officers or other government 

personnel, engages in every aspect of TNR: the capture of outdoor feral cats, the neutering and 

vaccination, and the return to their outdoor home.   

But locality TNR programs in existence today do not operate in the fashion described by the 

Advisory Opinion.  Virginia localities that have TNR programs operate where the locality’s 

contribution, by and large, is merely to provide or coordinate sterilization services.  Private 

citizens, not animal control officers, conduct the actual trapping of cats for TNR. 

This distinction is important because the Advisory Opinion’s conclusion that a locality TNR 

program may not return feral cats after sterilization stems from requirements placed on animal 

control officers who capture feral cats (or indeed, any companion animal) outdoors.  The 

Advisory Opinion states that any authority a law enforcement officer would have to trap a feral 

cat stems from statutes that authorize an officer to “capture and confine” or “seize and impound” 

an animal. See Va. Code Ann. § 3.2-6562 and § 3.2-6569.  Those terms must be read together as 

a phrase: “capture and confine;” “seize and impound.”  As such, if an animal control officer is to 

capture a feral cat, the cat must be confined in a pound.  Confinement in a pound triggers the 

restricted disposition options of § 3.2-6546, which include return-to-owner, adoption, euthanasia 

and transfer to another facility, but does not include return to a feral cat colony. 

It is important to note that private citizens do not face the same prohibition on return-to-colony 

for cats they humanely trap.  Unlike an animal control officer, a private citizen has no duty to 

confine or impound a cat after humanely trapping the cat.  Thus a cat trapped by a private citizen 

need not be placed in a pound and be subject to the restricted disposition framework of § 3.2- 

6546.  The Advisory Opinion’s conclusion that feral cats may not be released “by the locality 

back to the location from whence they came” (Advisory Opinion, 5 (emphasis added)) does not 

hold that similar restrictions follow for private citizens when the cat was not captured by an 

animal control officer.  Private citizens who find a cat are under no requirement—unlike a 

locality—to confine the animal in a pound or animal shelter.  

2 

The Advisory Opinion additionally notes that, for cats trapped by an animal control officer, there 

is another method of disposition: under § 3.2-6562, an animal control officer may deliver the cat 

to any person who will pay the license fee on that animal.  (Many Virginia localities have no 

license fee for cats).  This method of disposition is in addition to the disposition options 

identified in § 3.2-6546. An officer delivering a cat to a person who would pay the license fee 

would otherwise need to comply with § 3.2-6546.  

The Advisory Opinion makes clear that localities have substantial leeway in how they 

conduct sterilization programs for cats and dogs 

Virginia law grants localities substantial authority to conduct sterilization programs for cats and 

dogs.  Indeed, the Advisory Opinion states that localities may “establish a program for and 

provide funding to have feral cats sterilized by a licensed veterinarian.” Advisory Opinion, 3. 

As mentioned above, Virginia localities that currently have programs for feral cats, even if they 

are colloquially called “TNR programs,” are far less comprehensive than full Trap-Neuter- 

Return programs explained in the Advisory Opinion.  In existing programs, localities provide 

sterilization services for cats brought to them by members of the public.  They do not neuter and 

return cats captured by animal control officers.  From the locality’s point of view, the program is 

less “Trap-Neuter-Return” and more “Accept-Neuter-Give Back.”  Essentially, the locality runs 

(or coordinates) a sterilization clinic for feral cats.  This sort of program is well within the 

authority granted to localities by the Virginia code. 

A locality’s authority to sterilize feral cats is wholly separate from its authority to capture feral 

cats.  The authority to sterilize derives from different sections of code than the authority to 

capture.  A locality’s authority to sterilize derives from §§ 3.2-6529, 3.2-6534 and 3.2-6543; the 

authority to capture derives from §§ 3.2-6562 and 3.2-6569.  

Moreover, unlike the authority to capture, the Virginia code does not specifically attach the 

authority to sterilize to any other duty in the code.  The authority to capture is followed by a duty 

to confine. (For example, § 3.2-6562 uses the phrase “capture and confine.”).  But the authority 

to sterilize stands by itself as an authority independent of other duties.  For example, § 3.2-6534 

identifies “[e]fforts to promote sterilization of dogs and cats” as separate from the “care and 

maintenance of a pound.”  

So not only is the authority to sterilize separate from the authority to capture, it is not attached in 

any way to the duty to confine in a pound.  Just as a locality need not operate a sterilization 

program just because animals are “capture[d] and confine[d],” a locality need not “capture and 

confine” feral cats in order to have a sterilization program for feral cats.  

3 

A member of the general public who traps a feral cat for sterilization is the “finder,” not 

the “owner,” of the cat 

The Advisory Opinion is quite clear that a private citizen who humanely traps a feral cat for the 

purpose of sterilization is not automatically the owner of the cat.  The Advisory Opinion notes 

that the “law makes a distinction between an owner … and someone who temporarily takes 

custody of and cares for and/or shelters such an animal” and concludes that a person trapping a 

cat would not become “a de facto or de jure owner thereof through his actions of capturing and 

temporarily harboring, caring for, and otherwise taking temporary custody of the animal.”  

(Advisory Opinion, 5).  That same logic regarding ownership should also apply to a person 

returning a cat after sterilization.  Indeed, there is nothing in the Advisory Opinion to suggest 

ownership would attach after a private citizen returns a feral cat. 

Conclusion 

The Advisory Opinion makes a distinction between a locality-operated “capture and sterilize” 

program, where return back to an outdoor colony is not allowed under § 3.2-6546, and a locality- 

operated sterilization program, where no code sections prohibit the locality to accept cats from a 

private citizen and give them back to the citizen at the conclusion of the sterilization procedure.  

A sterilization program, where feral cats humanely trapped by private citizens are given back to 

members of the public following sterilization, is clearly permissible. 

Although currently-operating locality TNR programs comply with the conclusions of the 

Advisory Opinion, there are obvious benefits to amending the Virginia code to allow for full 

locality-operated capture-sterilize-return programs.  Programs where the locality is engaged in all 

aspects of the TNR process allow for synergies not possible under the current system.  These 

sorts of programs hold the promise of proactively neutering the highest number of animals and 

being one of the most effective methods of reducing euthanasia in animal shelters.  Animal 

control officers in jurisdictions such as Spartanburg, South Carolina, who have adopted TNR 

programs have reported overwhelmingly positive outcomes.  Certainly, there are animal control 

officers in Virginia who would like to become more directly involved in TNR.  Amendments to 

the Virginia code to authorize full locality-operated TNR would not undermine protections 

currently afforded companion animals under the comprehensive animal care laws. 

But even though the Virginia code does not permit full locality-sponsored capture-sterilize-return 

programs, it does not follow that localities should not continue—or put in place—sterilization 

programs for feral cats.  As a policy matter, those programs are effective to provide humane care 

to feral cats and to reduce the population of feral cats over time.  Sterilization-alone programs 

can provide significant benefits to communities and can leverage the efforts of volunteers in a 

locality willing to provide assistance to cats.