Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 ~~1 2 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: tom [dmakai@divemakai.com] <br /> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 11:07 AM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: URGENT! ANIMAL CONTROL CHANGES <br /> <br /> nloha Hawaii County Council Members <br /> Sirs, 1 realize that this is a form letter concerning animal control changes which you will be addressing <br /> on .Tanuary 23, 3006. <br /> "this states my feelings better than [could, this is not a "rani & rave" message but a plea for careful <br /> consideration of the issues. <br /> Please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd, <br /> 2006. <br /> Thank you very much, <br /> Tom Shockley <br /> 73-4370 Huehue St. <br /> Kailua Kona, HI 96740 <br /> 325-5870 <br /> -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 owner/feeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 <br /> hour holding period be mandated for cats as well <br /> -The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. You may or may not <br /> know that when notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped (i.e.neutered 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 /> -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 /> -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). I believe this "fee bias" to encourage <br /> microchipping is inappropriate. 22 g4 <br /> Cornm. No. <br /> Ref. To: U <br /> Rsf. ~ ate I <br /> 1 /23/2006 <br /> <br />