Laserfiche WebLink
ANIMAL CONTROI, CHAN( ~liS Pagc ' of 2 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: Joy Banks [joybanks@earthlink.net] <br /> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:24 PM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: ANIMAL CONTROL CHANGES <br /> Please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on <br /> January 23rd, 2006. <br /> <br /> Thank you very much, <br /> Name_Joy Banks _ <br /> Address P.O. Box 1021, Kailua-Kona, HI 96745_ <br /> -Section 4-22, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding period for impounded stray <br /> dogs, but mentions nothing about cats. Currently the holding period for cats is 24 <br /> hours. It usually takes at least 24 hours for an owner/feeder to notice if a cat is <br /> missing. Please request that this 48 hour holding period be mandated for cats as <br /> wel I <br /> -The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. You may or <br /> may not know that when notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped <br /> (i.e.nuetered cat), this redemption fee that we must pay is hardship enough after <br /> the $65./$50. invested in neutering the animal. Please request that this fee should <br /> be waived for AdvoCats because they have voluntarily and with private (not county) <br /> funds and volunteer labor, undertaken a job which should be under the domain of <br /> the HIHS, but due to a lack of resources, these animals are euthanized <br /> 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 <br /> and tries to find its rightful owner.) <br /> -Penalties for cruelty to animals which mentions dogs and cats have been raised, <br /> which is a good thing, however, Section 4-29, regarding "Injury or poisoning of <br /> dogs", should be reworded to include cats as well. We are well aware of the rash of <br /> cat poisonings and the hangings of poisoned feral cats at Honokohau Harbor last <br /> year. Cats should be included along with dogs in BOTH measures A and B. <br /> -most of the ordinance and fee changes award the lowest tier of fees to animals <br /> with microchips. There are problems with microchipping that council members may <br /> be unaware of in that the chips can move internally and are not foolproof for <br /> identification. Also, it is difficult ,and sometimes impossible to scan a terrified, <br /> aggressive animal (which may be that way only because it has been traumatized). I <br /> believe this "fee bias" to encourage microchipping is inappropriate. <br /> . certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses <br /> Cornet 1~l0. 8Z. <br /> Ref. To: <br /> Rsf. l>pte <br /> ]/23/2006 <br /> <br />