HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.102 2004-2006 Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
_
From: owlit@netzero.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 2:07 AM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: corrected copy -Animal Control Bill
I just sent my first copy only to find i mispelled a word on the 2nd page. From nuance it should be
nuisance. Please use this corrected copy instead.
Mahalo, Frances Pueo
Comm. ?~q, ?,Z •~Q~r
2/14/2006
Corrected Copy :Please replace copy previously sent. Thank you.
From: Frances Pueo 2/11/06
To: County Council Testimony
Subject: Animal Control Bill, Draft 6, And Animal Control/Against License Cats.
The proposal for cats to be licensed is ludicrous. It seems the anti-cat extremist did so without
fore thought of all the negative ramifications in doing so.
First - It puts cats in jeopardy as the collar and license (Dangling-tags) will cause the
animal to become entangled in the multi-various types of terrain on the Big Island, (i.e. small
brushes, guava trees, fencing, lava holes, etc.,) It just doesn't make sense to put cats in harms
way, as an adult feline stands approximately on average 7-9 inches from the ground,
entanglement is inevitable, and so is death. Cat license may be more applicable in large cities,
where there are fewer things to snare it. Previous testimony from hunters, established that they
take off their dogs collars prior to setting their dogs loose because the collars and license causes
their dogs to become equally "entangled", or "hung-up" in the terrain. Therefore, to mandate a
cat license would be cruel.
2"`~ - Presently, a microchip would serve better for identification and redemption.
3rd - In studies, by the San Francisco SPCA - 1995, is against mandatory cat licensing.
Disclaiming myths of license mandates are:
1. It does not make cat owners more responsible.
2. It will not help raise the status of cats.
3. It will not result in more cats being redeemed at shelters.
4. It will not reduce shelter euthanasia's.
5. It will not pay for itself.
6. It will not raise money to help fund animal agencies. More so, it will increase
additional cost, which will have to be paid for by taxpayers, or cuts in other
services.
Myth: Cats are destroying our bird population. An overly hyped statement! "Through
various studies, bird decline resulted from loss of their nesting habitat and food source. As
destruction of their native forest, converted to agricultural, residential, or industrial lands,
including global climatic changes, and uniquely from volcanic activity of fire and lava. The
Coqui frog, (as yet it is still undetermined if it is competing for the same avian food source.) The
decline of Palila & Hawaiian Crow was birds of prey of the Owl. The Owl(s) and Hawks(s)
population decline can be contributed notjust to habitat loss, but also to consumption of
poisoned rats. (From macadamia growers, farmers, & ranchers setting out poisons.) The
mongoose is also destructive to the bird population. Furthering the decline of the bird population
is the humongous overpopulation of rats, an incredible destructive creature. It readily shimmies
up and down trees eating bird eggs and killing fledglings. That's your culprit!!! (The most
effective means of controlling the rat-offspring's is the cat without dangling license tags.)
1 of 2
2of2
From: Frances Pueo
To: County Council Testimony
Subject: Animal Control Bill, Draft 6, Animal Control/License Cats.
The argument was that dog owners contribute to animal control costs through license fees,
and into the spay & neuter fund, and cats should too. But the unwanted puppies bred for but not
suitable for hunting wind up in the Humane Society, including from other puppy breed mill
kennels, becoming a direct money drain for housing, and euthanasia, since there just isn't enough
homes for these dogs. Also, too frequent, loose aggressive dogs have been creating havoc, harm
and destruction, resulting in attacks that have maimed or killed: humans (adults & children),
livestock, wildlife, including domestic pets as dogs, cats, rabbits, chickens, etc. No one should
have to be afraid to walk in their neighborhood, along pathways, hiking, and or on their own
property. In retrospect, dogs are creating more and more destruction and problems.
I'm not against dogs, and have 3 spayed, micro-chipped, and licensed dogs of my own and
when they bark I know it is for a good reason. They don't bark frivolously or continuously, and
they are not a nuisance or annoying to my neighbors, as they have been trained well. But I am
afraid to walk with them in our subdivision, for their safety and mine because of the loose
aggressive dogs periodically seen.
With all the reasons presented not to mandate cat license, common sense should also
prevail. We cannot call ourselves humane, when knowingly mandating a device as (collar
license) that will cause felines to be entangled, resulting in injury, and starvation because of our
Island terrain. It's jut too cruel.
Sincerely,
Frances Pueo
P.O. Box 943
Mt. View, Hi 96771