Laserfiche WebLink
Pagc 1 0l' 1 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: BaliKaiHi@aol com <br /> Sent: Sunday, January 22. 2006 8:18 PM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: Animal Legislation <br /> I am asking that you please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd <br /> 2006. <br /> Mahalo nui loo <br /> Judy Kocon <br /> 76-6246 Alii Drive, 309 <br /> Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 <br /> -Section 4-22, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding period for impounded stray dogs, but mentions nothing about <br /> cats. Currently the holding period for cats is 24 hours. It usually takes at least 24 hours for an owner/feeder to <br /> notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 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 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 be waived for <br /> <br /> AdvoCats because they have voluntarily and with private (not county) funds and volunteer labor, undertaken a job <br /> <br /> which should be under the domain of 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 redemption fee, which comes <br /> 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, however, <br /> Section 4-29, regarding "Injury or poisoning of dogs", should be reworded to include cats as well. We are well <br /> aware of the rash of cat poisonings and the hangings of poisoned feral cats at Honokohau Harbor last year. Cats <br /> 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 help <br /> trace owners. This is totally impractical, and unreliable to require licenses for cats. Wearing a collar and tag <br /> presents a choking danger for outdoor cats, so this is not an "equality of the species" kind of issue. Thereby I <br /> strongly urge you NOT to consider licenses for cats. This will be impossible to enforce. The best identification for <br /> a cat is a microchip, but that should be voluntary with the pet owner, not a coerced decision with financial <br /> penalties for choosing not to microchip. <br /> Corm. No. Z 2- • ~o <br /> Ref. 7o:~Z~~ <br /> L/23/2006 ~ a'° <br /> <br />