COM 0022.092 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Broennimann, Anita ;Bowman, Bob ; Bobq, Clare ; Bellak, Katrina ;Banks, Joy ;Ayers Automotive ;Aureola, Willow ;Animal Rescue Coalition of Hawaii ; Almer, Torun Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:34 PM Subject: "form" letter re animal control and add'I issues This kind lady put it in a workable format. And I added a suggestion regarding the microchip ID based on what I learned at the meeting today. Also please include a negative on the suggestion brought up at hearings about this bill (by pig hunters mostly) requiring cats to have licenses as well. Mahalo Shirley for doing this. -----Original Message From: Shirley Stoller To: Thalia Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 8:49 PM Subject: Re: URGENT! ANIMAL CONTROL CHANGES Send this email to counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us by January 23rd, 2006 Please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd, 2006. Thank you very much, Name Address -Section 4-22, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding period for impounded stray dogs, but mentions nothing about cats. Currently the holding period for cats is 24 hours. It usually takes at least 24 hours for an owner/feeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 hour holding period be mandated for cats as well -The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. You may or may not know that when notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped (i.e.nuetered cat), this redemption fee that we must pay is hardship enough after the $65./$50. invested in neutering the animal. Please request that this fee should be waived for AdvoCats because they have voluntarily and with private (not county) funds and volunteer labor, undertaken a job which should be under the domain of the HIHS, but due to a lack of resources, these animals are euthanized unnecessarily because it is the "cheapest" option. (This is a 150% increase in the redemption fee, which comes out of pocket from the person who redeems the cat and tries to find its rightful owner.) -Penalties for cruelty to animals which mentions dogs and cats have been raised, which is a good thing, however, Section 4-29, regarding "Injury or poisoning of dogs", should be reworded to include cats as well. We are well aware of the rash of cat poisonings and the hangings of poisoned feral cats at Honokohau Harbor last year. Cats should be included along with dogs in BOTH measures A and B. -most of the ordinance and fee changes award the lowest tier of fees to animals with microchips. There are problems with microchipping that council members may be unaware of in that the chips can move internally and are not foolproof for identification. Also, it is difficult ,and sometimes impossible to scan a terrified, aggressive animal (which may be that way only because it has been traumatized). I believe this "fee bias" to encourage microchipping is inappropriate. - certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses for cats. Nuisance dogs can be specifically tied to their behaviour , i'e' continuous barking, aggression, attack, and in this category, licenses help trace owners. This is totally impractical, and unreliable to require licenses for cats. Wearing a collar and tag presents a choking danger for outdoor cats, so this is not an "equality of the species" kind of issue. Thereby I strongly urge you NOT to consider licenses for cats. This will be impossible to enforce. The best identification for a cat is a microchip, but that should be voluntary with the pet owner, not a coerced decision with financial penalties for choosing not to microchip. °---°---------0-------------'-0-------------~ ~--------------0 Shirley Scoffer email: Shirley@konaweb.com KONAWEB Magazine http://www.konaweb.com Phone: 808/322-4714 PO Box 531, Holualoa, HI 96725 2/6/2006