HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.082 2004-2006 ANIMAL CONTROI, CHAN( ~liS Pagc ' of 2
Murashige, Laura
From: Joy Banks [joybanks@earthlink.net]
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 7:24 PM
To: counciltestimony@co hawaii.hi.us
Subject: ANIMAL CONTROL CHANGES
Please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on
January 23rd, 2006.
Thank you very much,
Name_Joy Banks _
Address P.O. Box 1021, Kailua-Kona, HI 96745_
-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
wel I
-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
Cornet 1~l0. 8Z.
Ref. To:
Rsf. l>pte
]/23/2006
AMMAL CONTROL CHANGI?S Pagc 2 0'~2
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.
J
Joy Banks
I /23/2006