HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.085 2004-2006
Message Page 1 oft
Murashige, Laura
From: Kunzang Yuthok [KunzangYuthok@earthlink.net]
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 3:30 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Recommendations
January 22, 2006
fo: Hawaii County Council:
I am a member of AdvoCats, anon-profit organization comprised of concerned citizens who as
volunteers advocate nn behal f oI the cats in our County, and a voting citizen of the I3ig Island of Hawaii.
It has been brought to my attention that the County Council of Hawaii County is considering some
changes to the County Code pertaining to Animals.
1 strongly urge County Council Members to consider the following recommendations regarding
upcoming animal legislation on .lanuary 23rd, 2006_
's'hank you,
Kunzang D. Yuthok
75-897 Hualalai Road
Kailua Kona, 1II 976740
County Code: Section 4 recommendations:
-Section 4-22: Article d mandates a 48 hour holding period for impounded stray dogs, but mentions
nothing about cats. Currently the holding period for cats is only 24 hours. It usually takes at least 24
hours for an owner/feeder to notice if a cat is missing.
Please make this 48 hour holding period be mandated for cats as well.
-'fhe animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $]0 to $25. You may or may not know that
when notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped (i.c. neutered cat), this redemption fee that we
must pay is hardship enough after the $65 to $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
S25 redemption fee is a 150°/, increase, which comes out of pocket from the AdvoCats Volunteer who
redeems the cat and tries to find its rightful owner.)
Please waive the Animal Redemption Fec for any ear tipped cat.
- 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 arc well aware of the rash of cat poisonings and the hangings of poisoned feral cats at
Honokohau Harbor last year.
Comm. No._ Z 2. fr
Ref. To:
[ ' UU
R~af. ~ p+e
1 /23/2006
Message Page 2 of 2
Please include cats 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
arc problems with micro-chipping that council members may be unaware of in that the chips can move
internally and are not foolproof for identification. Also, it is difSicult and sometimes impossible to scan a
terrified, aggressive animal (which may be that way only because it has been traumatized). [believe this
"lee bias" to encourage micro-chipping is inappropriate.
Please do not penalize animals that are not micro-chipped by charging their owners a higher tier
of fees.
Certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses for cats. Nuisance dogs
can be specifically linked to their behaviour - i.e. continuous barking, aggression, attack, and in this
category, licenses help trace owners. It is totally impracticah 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. "Chic will be
impossible to enforce. The best identification fbr a cat is a microchip, but that should be voluntary with
the pct owner, not a coerced decision with financial penalties for choosing not to microchip.
Please do nut require that cats he licensed.
1 /23/2006