TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Halifax Passes Cat Licensing Bylaw
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Halifax Passes Cat Licensing Bylaw

post #1 of 45
10/24/07 at 3:33pm
Thread Starter 
It seems that if you live in Halifax you must now license your cats whether they are strictly indoors or not.

http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/200.../cats-hrm.html

I disagree with having to license a strictly indoor animal.
Reply
post #2 of 45
10/24/07 at 3:59pm
I don't because people will say they are indoor only to get out of paying - the whole idea of licensing is to make it easier for AC to return the animal to you and know which ones are wild / strays. All animals wearing a city tag will help them do that and help the shelters and rescues by them not having to house and feed an animal for up to 7 days to see if it is claimed.

Mine are licensed, I put on their tags when they are going outside and don't make them wear collars on a regular basis. But when they do go out they have their microchip tag, rabies tag and license on that collar. At the moment there is no bylaw that states cats have to be tagged, just that they should. But if one them was to get out of its carrier when we are out, the AC shelter is full and are euthanising quickly these days, I don't want to take the chance that happens to one of mine because the volunteers don't have an accurate description of found animals and you can't go in and just see the found ones until they are up for adoption.
Reply
post #3 of 45
10/24/07 at 6:04pm
Supposedly the law is to help control roaming cats. Okay, I can understand that, and also charging more for unneutered pets to help prevent unwanted litters - but what does that have to do with indoor-only cats
Reply
post #4 of 45
10/24/07 at 6:36pm
I was going to post about this here (seeing as it's where I live); you beat me to it!

I don't have a problem licensing my cats, although it does seem silly considering they're strictly indoors. Dog owners here are supposed to license them (although I have a feeling most don't), so why not cats? I just wonder how they are going to enforce it. Considering they can't seem to keep the crime rate down, enforcing something like this isn't going to happen.

The fact that they are planning to build a new shelter is great, but I will be very surprised if it actually happens. Of course, I don't know how much sheltering will be done. Sure they'll be there for the minimum number of days (to see if they're claimed), but I'm willing to bet after that's up, they'll be euthanised to make room for more. And I doubt the money they get from the licensing will go back into helping the homeless cats. It would be nice, especially if they used it towards funding low-cost spay/neuters, or even TNR, but I can't see that happening either. (can you tell I have no faith in our city officials?! )

I don't know, I'm just fed up about hearing about this; they've been talking about this thing for so long. We have so many more pressing issues that need to be looked at, but for some reason they thought this was the most important.
Reply
post #5 of 45
10/24/07 at 7:47pm
I guess I see it as a benefit so that incase the indoor-only cat DOES get outside and gets lost. In our last house, Whitey would constantly try to go with us when we left for work in the morning. I think it was purely game, but there were a couple of times that he "snuck" outside when my hands were full. Luckilly he never ran off, but still if he had we may have lost him.

IMO though I think they should raise the fees for the non-fixed animals. Make the cost of it more than actually getting the procedure done in hopes to encourage spaying/neutering.
Reply
post #6 of 45
10/24/07 at 7:52pm
http://www.cfainc.org/articles/sfspca.html

I hope the city where I live never requires licensing of cats.
Reply
post #7 of 45
10/25/07 at 5:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chester&Piper View Post
Dog owners here are supposed to license them (although I have a feeling most don't), so why not cats?
I don't have a problem with it.
Reply
post #8 of 45
10/25/07 at 6:17am
"Many councillors are hoping Tuesday's decision finally ends years of debate on how to control roaming cats."

I don't see how licensing is going to control roaming cats???
Reply
post #9 of 45
10/25/07 at 10:28am
I don't have a problem with it either. Since our incident where Bijou was lost for 4 days, he now wears a collar with his microchip tag and a name tag with our phone number. I agree with Eithne, if licensing our kitties help get them returned to us quickly should they get out, get lost and turned in, then that's a good thing IMO.
Reply
post #10 of 45
10/25/07 at 10:39am
Has anybody read the link I provided above? I always wonder if links are posted in vain. I don't see anything wrong with licensing if it's voluntary but not mandatory.
Reply
post #11 of 45
10/25/07 at 10:43am
Ours are both licensed, indoor only, and do not wear collars. I would love them to, but I had some bad experiences with collars and feel like it is more of a risk than going without.

I think that if we ever had to go to a shelter (for a hurricane or other disaster) that only licensed pets are allowed.
Reply
post #12 of 45
10/25/07 at 1:00pm
How are they going to enforce this?? Go into people's homes? My cat never wears a collar, he gets it stuck on his lower jaw every time he wears one. Outdoor cats I can understand, but why indoor cats?? That's a bit much.
Reply
post #13 of 45
10/25/07 at 2:37pm
According to the licensing in cities in Canada (that have moved to licensing for cats) the collars only have to be worn when the cat is outdoors, if you have an indoor only cat, they will never know and so don't pretend to be able to enforce it. However, whether the license tag is worn or not does not change the fact that the animal is licensed.

Quote:
Has anybody read the link I provided above? I always wonder if links are posted in vain. I don't see anything wrong with licensing if it's voluntary but not mandatory.
Yes I read the link, but I have also seen first hand evidence of a cat having licensing tags doing good, it makes our job at the shelter a lot easier if the cat has a license as it is updated yearly while people tend to forget to call the microchip company when they move.

Quote:
"Many councillors are hoping Tuesday's decision finally ends years of debate on how to control roaming cats."

I don't see how licensing is going to control roaming cats???
Part of the problem with controlling roaming cats is that any animal a shelter or AC pick up, they have to hold for a certain amount of time to see if it is claimed as owned. By requiring licensing, any animal found without a license can be seen as stray and immediately vetted, PTS, TNRed or whatever the city chooses to do without leaving it at a vets or shelter paying boarding fees for a week before anything can be done.
Reply
post #14 of 45
10/25/07 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by eburgess View Post
How are they going to enforce this?? Go into people's homes? My cat never wears a collar, he gets it stuck on his lower jaw every time he wears one. Outdoor cats I can understand, but why indoor cats?? That's a bit much.
The city we are moving back to has a contract with area veterinarians. The veterinarians send the city your information, the city sends you a notice to license your pets. I found this out when I first adopted Raven and Nabu. I thought it stunk. It sure doesn't control the roaming cat problem. After living there for a while, I did learn that the money actually goes to Animal Control, and that area has the best Animal Control of anywhere I have ever lived. In town and several other areas of the county, if you find a kitty, say at 10pm for example. If you can confine the animal, an officer will pick up the kitty, take it to the shelter where it gets fresh food, water, clean litterbox and a warm bed.

If your cat is unwell, you can get a rabies vaccine waiver, which we will be doing for Raven before we move.
Reply
post #15 of 45
10/25/07 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by lunasmom View Post
IMO though I think they should raise the fees for the non-fixed animals. Make the cost of it more than actually getting the procedure done in hopes to encourage spaying/neutering.
They are planning on making the fee higher for cats that aren't spayed or neutered. According to this report it will be $35 for unspayed/unneutered cats, and $10 for spayed/neutered. Which, since my three are, it isn't a lot. But there are some people out there who would feel that it is, and my concern is that instead of paying the fee, they'll just take their cats to a shelter, or let them outside to fend for themselves until AC gets them. Of course, people like that obviously aren't responsible pet owners!

It will make it easier for AC and the shelter to determine whether a cat stays or not. According to the report I linked to the shelter is expected to make an effort to contact the owners when their cat is brought in. I can imagine it would be a huge relief for the person who's cat is missing when they get that call!

Like you said Eithne, they really can't do much about enforcing indoor cats being licensed; they certainly aren't going to go knocking on everyone's door to find out!
Reply
post #16 of 45
10/25/07 at 8:04pm
Do you have any idea how many stray cats come into our shelter every year?

And how many do you suspect were claimed by owners this year?

ONE! We are talking 400 or so cats, 98% of which were strays....and only one claimed by an owner? IMO, licensing would help some. Even if it reunites a few more cats with their owners, I would be a million times happier. To see those guys in cages, the ones who are fixed & declawed, breaks my heart....because deep down I wonder if someone is missing them...or thinks them dead.
Reply
post #17 of 45
10/26/07 at 4:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by white cat lover View Post
Do you have any idea how many stray cats come into our shelter every year?

And how many do you suspect were claimed by owners this year?

ONE! We are talking 400 or so cats, 98% of which were strays....and only one claimed by an owner? IMO, licensing would help some. Even if it reunites a few more cats with their owners, I would be a million times happier. To see those guys in cages, the ones who are fixed & declawed, breaks my heart....because deep down I wonder if someone is missing them...or thinks them dead.
Licensing does help a little with stray cats, at least if they are wearing their tags. While I worked at the shelter, animals that came in with just a license tag could be tracked through a database we got from the city. Mostly dogs wore them though. My kitties always wore their ID, License and Rabies tags when we lived in that city. When we move back they will again. Even a Rabies tag can be tracked back to the vet they use and an owner found that way. I remember a small handful of cats being reunited with their owners, but they were the lucky ones wearing tags. That was before the shelter had a chip reader, close to when I left they finally got one donated. So hopefully that means more cats get reunited.
Reply
post #18 of 45
10/26/07 at 5:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
Part of the problem with controlling roaming cats is that any animal a shelter or AC pick up, they have to hold for a certain amount of time to see if it is claimed as owned. By requiring licensing, any animal found without a license can be seen as stray and immediately vetted, PTS, TNRed or whatever the city chooses to do without leaving it at a vets or shelter paying boarding fees for a week before anything can be done.
So an animal without a license can be put to sleep sooner. So the faster we can pts animals the faster we can control the population.
Reply
post #19 of 45
10/26/07 at 5:54am
I thought about this a little more. How is licensing going to help reduce the hold time? What if the pets license fell off or broke off? What if the owner didn't license the pet?

Here in my area dogs must be licensed but shelters are still required to hold them, with or without a license, for a certain amount of days anyways. Many dogs are still returned and the owners are just fined for not having them licensed.

Plus how will licensing help the crowding of shelters? Aren't something like 50% of shelter animals owner surrendered?
Reply
post #20 of 45
10/26/07 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by littleraven7726 View Post
The city we are moving back to has a contract with area veterinarians. The veterinarians send the city your information, the city sends you a notice to license your pets.
That's how they do it here too.
Reply
post #21 of 45
10/26/07 at 5:31pm
I don't have a problem with licensing and/or permanent ID (branding, tattooing, microchipping, etc.) because I don't think domestic animals (and their owners) should be afforded the same leeway as wildlife. If you own a cat/dog/whatever, you need to be responsible for it. You need to be so responsible for it that you will answer to the authorities if it is running loose, mauling people, damaging property, etc. If you aren't willing to be responsible for it, or you claim you don't own it, I don't see why it shouldn't be treated like any other stray.

I live in the United States, so my opinion on the issue is limited to the United States, but I don't believe in roaming cats any more than I believe in roaming dog packs (this is my opinion, and this is the IMO forum). It's just not something I can wrap my brain around and support.

I am all for licensing domestic animals by identifying them with something permanent. I don't see the point in licensing them by issuing them a tag, though. Tags can be lost or removed. I want the authorities to be able to identify the owners of the domestic animal(s) that are causing problems for people.

If you give the animal away and don't want to be responsible for it any longer, get a bill of sale or adoption contract or whatever you want. This is not hard.
Reply
post #22 of 45
10/27/07 at 4:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitytize View Post
So an animal without a license can be put to sleep sooner. So the faster we can pts animals the faster we can control the population.
Pretty much, the sad fact is that the city does not have the money to control it by other means.

We have a great TNR program run through the city's private shelters and rescues and yet we still have many strays and ferals. By licensing the city can deal with the 'obvious' ferals who would be unadoptable in a reasonable timeline without paying over $100 to wait out the claiming period because they can't have a feral in the shelter where the volunteers could be hurt so they pay boarding fees.

They still keep the ones that look healthy for the claiming period (although the city's claim period is based on the law and shorter than the chosen claim period of some of the private shelters and rescues).

Personally since I have been at the shelter more (and I only work on the desk once a week), I have seen 5 owners reunited with their pets because of proper licensing information. That is since early summer. It doesn't sound like that is anywhere near the norm for shelters where the county or city does not have licensing for cats.
Reply
post #23 of 45
10/27/07 at 1:01pm
The EU has introduced "pet passports" for dogs, cats, and ferrets, which means microchipping, and the next logical step is to make microchipping mandatory for all pets, whether they travel or not. The idea, which I welcome, is to be able to prosecute people who abandon their pets.
Reply
post #24 of 45
10/27/07 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
The idea, which I welcome, is to be able to prosecute people who abandon their pets.
That's fine in theory but what if a person rehomes a pet and the new owner doesn't contact the microchip company to change the owner information?
Reply
post #25 of 45
10/27/07 at 7:15pm
That is why licensing is great, it needs to be renewed yearly and you give them the microchip number as part of the paperwork. That way the city updates the information yearly even if the person doesn't update it with the chip company - and the old owner would be able to say who they rehomed to (and would hopefully have signed some kind of contract)
Reply
post #26 of 45
10/27/07 at 7:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by icklemiss21 View Post
That is why licensing is great, it needs to be renewed yearly and you give them the microchip number as part of the paperwork. That way the city updates the information yearly even if the person doesn't update it with the chip company - and the old owner would be able to say who they rehomed to (and would hopefully have signed some kind of contract)
Well I'm sorry but to me this is just another example of penalizing responsible pet owners and feral cat caretakers for the irresponsibility of others. I know if I had to license and microchip every animal I take care of it would cost a small fortune. So much for TNR. Couldn't afford to keep doing that! It costs enough as it is just to speuter and vaccinate them.
Reply
post #27 of 45
10/28/07 at 2:12pm
catcaregiver,

While I certainly respect your views on TNR and feral cats, I don't see why the government should have to make a distinction between feral and stray cats. Tax dollars pay for animal control services, so it is an issue they have to address (no matter how pathetic their attempts may be). I, for one, would be okay with a one-time license as long as the animal had permanent identification (tattoo, microchip, something I'm not thinking of, etc.) I don't really see the need for annual licensing.

If you, as an individual, or within a larger organization, want to take on feral cats (and dictate what can/should happen to them), shouldn't you have the same obligations to them as any other owner?

People on TCS frequently encourage people to go to great lengths to care for their pets (expensive food, vet care, etc.) and the indoor/outdoor debate rages on, but it seems like a lot of people "look the other way" when it comes to feral cats.

I just don't understand the double standard.
Reply
post #28 of 45
10/28/07 at 2:17pm
You don't have to have the chip, just if you do, you give the information on the license form (which can be done in the local pet stores too).

It may be penalising responsible owners, but as I said before, if it means my cat gets returned to me for the sake of $10 rather than PTS after 72 hours in the impound (and yes I would call the impound before that but working in the shelter, I know the descriptions given by owners and Animal control rarely match) I am happy to pay it.

We also have license and rabies tags for animals we TNR here though
Reply
post #29 of 45
10/28/07 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by catcaregiver View Post
That's fine in theory but what if a person rehomes a pet and the new owner doesn't contact the microchip company to change the owner information?
Why would you leave it up to the new owner? I change the info all the time for cats adopted from our local shelter, and have done it for the (stray/feral) cats I've had vetted and then found homes for. That way I know the cat is entered in both national registries (no charge) and one international registry (fees are paid when the chip is implanted, and alterations are free of charge). Three of the cats I've found homes for have both the new owners' details, as well as my own as a backup.

Microchipping is relatively cheap here, at roughly €15 (CAD 20.79 / USD 21.62).
Reply
post #30 of 45
10/28/07 at 4:09pm
Microchipping is roughly $35 CDN here, and the optional cat licenses are $25 each and $10 renewal, all of mine are chipped and licensed, and Autumn was chipped at the shelter and they changed the chip info to mine, so I just licensed her.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Halifax Passes Cat Licensing Bylaw