Laserfiche WebLink
Page 1 of <br />Murashige, Laura <br />From: Ferol Kolons [ferolkat@yahoo com] <br />Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2006 12:58 PM <br />To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us <br />Subject: Animal Issues <br />Please consider these suggestions regarding upcoming animal legislation on January 23rd, 2006. <br />Thank you very much, <br />Name: Ferol Kolons <br />Address : POBox 383334, Waikoloa, I It <br />-Section 4-22, article 4 mandates a 48 hour holding period fbr impounded stray dogs, but <br />mentions nothing about cats Currently the holding period for cats is 24 hours. It usually takes at <br />least 24 hours for an owner/Ieeder to notice if a cat is missing. Please request that this 48 hour <br />holding period be mandated for cats as well <br />-The animal redemption fee is proposed to be raised from $10 to $25. You may or may not <br />know that when notified by the HIHS of the holding of an ear tipped (i.e.nuetered cat), this <br />redemption fee that we must pay is hardship enough after the $65./$50. invested in neutering the <br />animal. Please request that this fee should be waived for AdvoCats because they have <br />voluntarily and with private (not county) funds and volunteer labor, undertaken a job which <br />should be under the domain of the HIHS, but due to a lack of resources, these animals are <br />cuthanized unnecessarily because it is the "cheapest" option. (This is a 150% increase in the <br />redemption fee, which comes out of pocket from the person who redeems the cat and tries to <br />find its rightful owner.) <br />-Penalties liar cruelty to animals which mentions dogs and cats have been raised, which is a good <br />thing, however, Section 4-21t, regarding "Injury or poisoning of dogs", should be reworded to <br />include cats as well. We are well aware of the rash of cat poisonings and the hangings of' <br />poisoned feral cats at Honokohau Harbor last year. Cats should be included along with dogs in <br />BOTi I measures A and B. <br />-most of the ordinance and fee changes award the lowest tier of fees to animals with microchips. <br />There are problems with microchipping that council members may be unaware of in that the <br />chips can move internally and are not foolproof Cor identification. Also, it is difficult ,and <br />sometimes impossible to scan a terrified, aggressive animal (which may be that way only <br />because it has been traumatized). I believe this "fee bias" to encourage microchipping is <br />inappropriate. <br />- certain factions of dog owners have raised the issue at hearing about licenses for cats. Nuisance <br />dogs can be specifically tied to their behaviour , iV continuous barking, aggression, attack, and <br />in this category, licenses help trace owners. This is totally impractical, and unreliable to require <br />licenses for cats. Wearing a collar and tag presents a choking danger for outdoor cats, so this is <br />not an "equality of the species" kind of issue. Thereby I strongly urge you NOT to consider <br />Comm. No. 2 z.n^ <br />Ref. To: <br />1/25/2006 k -f. `�°'^ <br />