HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.081 2004-2006 Page 1 of~
Murashige, Laura
From: Weddings A La Heart [weddingsalaheart@hawaii.rr.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:15 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi us
Subject: Animal Control and Care Legislation
Please consider these suggestions regarding the upcoming animal legislation, on January 23rd, 2006
Thank you very much. Mahalo Nui.
Libby Kelson-Fulcher
P.O. Box 4965
Kailua--Kona Hawaii 96745
1. 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 ownerJfeeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48
hour holding period be mandated for cats as well
2. The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. You may or may net
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.)
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Thereby 1 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.
Corum. No. ZZ• ~
Ref. To:
1!2312006 Ref. Uate~
Page 2 of 2
6. In closing, I would like to add my strong support for legislation, that criminalizes cruelty io
any animals.
With Warmest Aloha
Rev Libby Kelson-Fulcher, DD
Weddings A La Heart
www.weddingsalaheart.com
wedd ingsalaheart@hawaii. «.com
P O Box 4965
Kailua--Kona HI 96745
(808) 322-3322 Tel
(866) 321-3321 Toll-Free USA Only
(808)325-3445 Fax
1 /23/2006