HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.086 2004-2006 Pagc 1 0l' 1
Murashige, Laura
From: BaliKaiHi@aol com
Sent: Sunday, January 22. 2006 8:18 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Animal Legislation
I am asking that you please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd
2006.
Mahalo nui loo
Judy Kocon
76-6246 Alii Drive, 309
Kailua-Kona, HI 96740
-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 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.
Corm. No. Z 2- • ~o
Ref. 7o:~Z~~
L/23/2006 ~ a'°