Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of~ <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: Weddings A La Heart [weddingsalaheart@hawaii.rr.com] <br /> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:15 PM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi us <br /> Subject: Animal Control and Care Legislation <br /> Please consider these suggestions regarding the upcoming animal legislation, on January 23rd, 2006 <br /> Thank you very much. Mahalo Nui. <br /> Libby Kelson-Fulcher <br /> P.O. Box 4965 <br /> Kailua--Kona Hawaii 96745 <br /> 1. Section 4-22, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding period for impounded stray dogs, but <br /> mentions nothing about cats Currently the holding period for cats is 24 hours. It usually takes <br /> at least 24 hours for an ownerJfeeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 <br /> hour holding period be mandated for cats as well <br /> 2. The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. You may or may net <br /> know that when notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped (i.e.nuetered cat), this <br /> redemption fee that we must pay is hardship enough after the $65./$50. invested in neutering <br /> the animal. Please request that this fee should be waived for AdvoCats because they have <br /> voluntarily and with private (not county) funds and volunteer labor, undertaken a job which <br /> should be under the domain of the HIHS, but due to a lack of resources, these animals are <br /> euthanized unnecessarily because it is the "cheapest" option. (This is a 150% increase in the <br /> redemption fee, which comes out of pocket from the person who redeems the cat and tries to <br /> find its rightful owner.) <br /> 3. Penalties for cruelty to animals which mentions dogs and cats have been raised, which is a <br /> good thing. however, Section 4-29, regarding "Injury or poisoning of dogs", should be <br /> reworded to include cats as well. We are well aware of the rash of cat poisonings and the <br /> hangings of poisoned feral cats at Honokohau Harbor last year. Cats should be included along <br /> with dogs in BOTH measures A and B. <br /> 4. most of the ordinance and fee changes award the lowest tier of fees to animals with <br /> microchips. There are problems with microchipping that council members may be unaware of <br /> in that the chips can move internally and are not foolproof for identification. Also, it is <br /> difficult ,and sometimes impossible to scan a terrified, aggressive animal (which may be that <br /> way only because it has been traumatized). <br /> I believe this "fee bias" to encourage microchipping is inappropriate: <br /> . certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses for cats. <br /> Nuisance dogs can be specifically tied to their behavior , ie. continuous barking, aggression, <br /> attack, and in this category, licenses help trace owners. This is totally impractical, and <br /> unreliable to require licenses for cats. Wearing a collar and tag presents a choking danger for <br /> outdoor cats, so this is not an "equality of the species" kind of issue. <br /> 5. Thereby 1 strongly urge you NOT to consider licenses for cats. This will be impossible to <br /> <br /> enforce. The best identification for a cat is a microchip, but that should be voluntary with the <br /> pet owner, not a coerced decision with financial penalties for choosing not to microchip. <br /> Corum. No. ZZ• ~ <br /> Ref. To: <br /> 1!2312006 Ref. Uate~ <br /> <br />