COM 0022.071 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

(i.e. cattle, goats, etc.) have their own bill as well. The original bill initially starts out targeting all animals but then focuses on only dogs. Which is not fair to the typical dog owner. That is why we came up with the idea of the separation of all other animals and livestock. We believe that this bill should be designed for subdivisions, gated communities and rural areas separately. They should not be all thrown in together since subdivisions and gated communities have their own associations regulating animals (i.e. dog and/or cat) control. Our new rewrite will focus on dogs and cats only. One of our questions is why do cat owners get off so easily when the main problem on this island is stray feral cats compared to noisy dogs and packs of wild dogs? On the island of Hawaii there is an over population of feral cats as opposed to stray dogs. We always see 4 to ]0 feral cats at transfer stations, public beaches, restaurants and grocery stores. It's not fair that the dog license and spay-neuter fee goes toward cats being spayed and neutered by humane society. We feel that cats at the owners expense should be licensed, micro chipped, spayed and neutered 'just like a dog should be. This would eventually bring down the feral cat population. In addition, the humane society will get more monies with this new regulation of cats being included with dogs in this bill. Along with additional fines made for the dogs the fines would include cats also. Section 4-12 Pees - (a) The sterilization fee should include a microchip fee as well Also, that the spay-neuter special funds be called "spay-neuter and microchip special funds". We think it should be mandatory for dogs and cats to be micro chipped. Micro chipping will help with quick identification of the pet owner(s). It will also help with disputes on whether the dog or cat was stolen or lost. Section 4-14, Section 4-14.01, Section 4-15 -are deleted due to it only talks about livestock. Livestock should have their own bill and not be included with dogs and cats. All livestock's owners should get together and discuss a bill. Livestock's owners know what is best for their animals. Someone who has never owned cattle should not be given the right to tell that livestock's owner what is best for their animal. New Section 4-14 Duty upon striking dogs and cats on roadways - A owner should be fined for allowing their dog or cat running freely on roadways. The dog or cat owner should get the stiff fine not the driver. We agree that a driver should take on some responsibility by trying to contact the owner or humane society. A driver should get a minimrun fine of $10 and a maximum fine of $25 for not reporting this to the humane society. It is the owner's fault that the animal was struck by a vehicle due to the owners negligence (i.e. animal roaming around roadways). We believe that all drivers try to avoid hitting any animals because it can cause damage to their vehicles or cause a serious accident. But, unfortunately it does happen because most unrestrained animals run across the roadways. We also feel it should be stated in this section that the driver will not be responsible for any veterinarian fees even if they fail to report the animal being struck to an owner or humane society. -2-