Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 0'~2 <br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: CLAYTON SWEATLANO [claytonsweatland@msn.com] <br /> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 8:28 PM <br /> To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br /> Subject: Animal Legislation --January 23, 2006 <br /> January 22, 2006 <br /> Hawaii County Council <br /> Hilo, HI <br /> Honorable County Councilmembers: <br /> Please consider these suggestions regarding the upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd, 2006. <br /> 1. 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 at <br /> least 24 hours for an owner/feeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 hour <br /> holding period be mandated for cats as well. <br /> 2. Animal redemption fee. The fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. When notified by the <br /> HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped ~i.e.nuetered cat), this redemption fee that must be paid is <br /> high enough after the $65./$50 invested in neutering the animal. Please request that this fee be <br /> waived for AdvoCats because they have voluntarily and with private (not County) funds and volunteer <br /> labor, undertaken a job which should be under the domain of the HIHS. Unfortunately, due to a lack <br /> of resources, these animals are euthanized unnecessarily because it is the "cheapest" option. (This is <br /> a 150% increase in the redemption fee, which comes out of pocket from the person who redeems the <br /> cat and tries to find its rightful owner.) <br /> 3. Penalties for cruelty to animals. Penalties for animal cruelty, which mentions dogs and cats, have <br /> been raised, which is a good thing. However, Section 4-29, regarding "Injury or poisoning of dogs", <br /> should be 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 with <br /> dogs in Measures A and B. <br /> 4. Microchipping. Most of the ordinance and fee changes award the lowest tier of fees to animals <br /> with microchips. There are problems with microchipping that Councilmembers may be unaware of in <br /> that the chips can move internally and are not foolproof for identification. Also, it is difficult, and <br /> sometimes impossible, to scan a terrified, aggressive animal (which may exhibit that behavior <br /> only because it has been traumatized). I believe this "fee bias" to encourage microchipping is <br /> inappropriate. <br /> 5. Licenses. Certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearings about licenses for <br /> cats. Nuisance dogs can be specifcally tied to their behavior, ie, continuous barking, aggression, <br /> attack, and in this category, licenses help trace owners. It is totally impractical and unreliable to <br /> require licenses for cats. Wearing a collar and tag presents a choking danger for outdoor cats, so this <br /> is not an "equality of the species" issue. Thereby I strongly urge you not to consider licenses for cats. <br /> This will be impossible to enforce. The best identification for a cat is a microchip, but that should be <br /> voluntary with the pet owner, not a coerced decision with financial penalties for choosing not to <br /> Cortm. No. Z 2 <br /> Ref. To: <br /> <br /> 1/23/2006 Rof. rsate I <br /> <br />