Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Murashige, Laura <br /> From: l_ARANN SASAKI (larannm@yahoo.com] <br /> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2006 9:17 PM <br /> <br /> To: counci (testimony@co. hawaii, h i. us <br /> Subject: animal legislation changes <br /> Concerns shared by many.....Please consider theses <br /> issues for improvement. Especially the cruelty matter! <br /> -Section 4-Z2, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding <br /> period for impounded stray dogs, but mentions nothing <br /> about cats. Currently the holding period for cats is <br /> 24 hours. It usually takes at least 24 hours for an <br /> owner/feeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please <br /> request that this 48 hour holding period be mandated <br /> for cats as well <br /> -The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised <br /> from $10 to $25. You may or may not know that when <br /> notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped <br /> (i.e.nuetered cat), this redemption fee that we must <br /> pay is hardship enough after the $65./$50. invested in <br /> neutering the animal. Please request that this fee <br /> should be waived for AdvoCats because they have <br /> voluntarily and with private {not county) funds and <br /> volunteer labor, undertaken a job which should be <br /> under the domain of the HIHS, but due to a lack of <br /> resources, these animals are euthanized unnecessarily <br /> because it is the "cheapest" option. (This is a 150% <br /> increase in the redemption fee, which comes out of <br /> pocket from [he person who redeems the cat and tries <br /> to find its rightful owner.) <br /> -Penalties for cruelty to animals which mentions dogs <br /> and cats have been raised, which is a good thing, <br /> however, Section 4-29, regarding "Injury or poisoning <br /> of dogs", should be reworded to include cats as well. <br /> We are well aware of the rash of cat poisonings and <br /> the hangings of poisoned feral cats at Honokohau <br /> Harbor last year. Cats should be included along with <br /> dogs in BOTH measures A and B. <br /> -most of the ordinance and fee changes award the <br /> lowest tier of fees to animals with microchips. There <br /> are problems with microchipping that council members <br /> may be unaware of in that the chips can move <br /> internally and are not foolproof for identification. <br /> Also, it is difficult ,and sometimes impossible to <br /> scan a terrified, aggressive animal (which may be that <br /> way only because it has been traumatized). I believe <br /> this "fee bias" to encourage microchipping is <br /> inappropriate. <br /> - certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue <br /> at hearing about licenses for cats. Nuisance dogs can <br /> be specifically tied to their behaviour i'e' <br /> continuous barking, aggression, attack, and in This <br /> category, licenses help trace owners. This is totally Z Z• ~8' <br /> impractical, and unreliable to require licenses for Comm. No. <br /> 1 Ref. To: CIM'~ <br /> Ref. o'^ <br /> <br />