Laserfiche WebLink
Pagc 1 of 1 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: Old Wolfes@aol. com <br /> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:16 PM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: ANIMAL CONTROL CHANGES <br /> Please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd, 2006. <br /> <br /> Thank you very much, <br /> Name Margie Gillman-Wolfe <br /> <br /> Address 77-6502 Leialoha Street Kailua-Kona Hi 96704 <br /> -Section 4-22, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding period for impounded stray dogs, but mentions nothing <br /> about cats. Currently the holding period for cats is 24 hours. It usually takes at least 24 hours for an <br /> owner/feeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 hour holding period be mandated for cats <br /> as well <br /> -The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $2`.i You may or may not know that when <br /> notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped (i.e.nuetered cat), this redemption fee that we must pay is <br /> hardship enough after the $65./$50. invested in neutering the animal. Please request that this fee should be <br /> <br /> waived for AdvoCats because they have voluntarily and with private (not county) funds and volunteer labor, <br /> undertaken a job which should be under the domain of the HIHS, but due to a lack of resources, these animals <br /> are euthanized unnecessarily because it is the "cheapest" option. (This is a 150% increase in the redemption <br /> fee, which comes out of pocket from the person who redeems the cat and tries to find its rightful owner.) <br /> -Penalties for cruelty to animals which mentions dogs and cats have been raised, which is a good thing, <br /> however, Section 4-29, regarding "Injury ~r poisoning of dogs", should be reworded to include cats as well. We <br /> are well aware of the rash of 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 with microchips. There are <br /> problems with microchipping that council members may be unaware of in that the chips can move internally and <br /> are not foolproof for identification. Also, it is difficult ,and sometimes impossible to scan a terrified, aggressive <br /> animal (which may be that way only because it has been traumatized). I believe this "fee bias" to encourage <br /> microchipping is inappropriate. <br /> - certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses for cats. Nuisance dogs can be <br /> specifically tied to their behaviour , i'e' continuous barking, aggression, attack, and in this category, licenses <br /> help trace owners. This is totally impractical, and unreliable to require licenses for cats. Wearing a collar and <br /> tag presents a choking danger for outdoor cats, so this is not an "equality of the species" kind of issue. <br /> Thereby I strongly urge you NOT to consider licenses for cats. This will be impossible to enforce. The best <br /> identification for a cat is a microchip, but that should be voluntary with the pet owner, not a coerced decision <br /> with financial penalties for choosing not to microchip. <br /> Con?m. No. Z • 3 <br /> Ref. To: <br /> Ref, Gate <br /> 1 /23/2006 <br /> <br />