Laserfiche WebLink
Message Page 2 of 2 <br /> Please include cats 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 <br /> <br /> arc problems with micro-chipping that council members may be unaware of in that the chips can move <br /> internally and are not foolproof for identification. Also, it is difSicult and sometimes impossible to scan a <br /> terrified, aggressive animal (which may be that way only because it has been traumatized). [believe this <br /> "lee bias" to encourage micro-chipping is inappropriate. <br /> Please do not penalize animals that are not micro-chipped by charging their owners a higher tier <br /> of fees. <br /> Certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses for cats. Nuisance dogs <br /> can be specifically linked to their behaviour - i.e. continuous barking, aggression, attack, and in this <br /> category, licenses help trace owners. It is totally impracticah and unreliable to require licenses for cats. <br /> Wearing a collar and tag presents a choking danger for outdoor cats, so this is not an "equality of the <br /> species" kind of issue. Thereby I strongly urge you NOT to consider licenses for cats. "Chic will be <br /> impossible to enforce. The best identification fbr a cat is a microchip, but that should be voluntary with <br /> the pct owner, not a coerced decision with financial penalties for choosing not to microchip. <br /> Please do nut require that cats he licensed. <br /> 1 /23/2006 <br /> <br />