HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.075 2004-2006 Murashige, Laura
From: Dolphin Journeys [dolphinpod@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 5:11 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Section 4-22, article 4 & section 4-29 impounded stray animals and fees
County Council:
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 Advocats 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 "c:heapest" 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.)
Regarding Section 4-29:
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 behavior, ie: 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.
I advocate my tax payer funds be used to educate. The domestic animal situation on the Big
Island is one of our social challenges with the increasing population. Information on proper care
of food and water for domestic animals is necessary. Education about proper pens and fenced
yards to keep animals safe and free to get exercise and move about while they are left for long
Cornm. No. Z Z.
i
Ref. To:
Rc~f. ante
hours is essential. See animals chained on short leads for hours and days on end is cruel.
Mahalo,
Capt. Nancy Sweatt
z