Halifax Passes Cat Licensing Bylaw - Page 2

Generally the annual licensing allows for cheaper prices ($10 a year compared to say $100 up front) and means more people will actually do it, as well as ensuring people update their information annually so it is rarely out of date.

I don't either and I'm not asking them to. In fact I'm asking that the government keep their nose out of it and their fingers out of my pocket. Animal Control here does not pick up cats, cats are considered free roaming animals. The only time they pick up cats are if they're dead/injured on the road or posing a danger to somebody. Licenses have been required for dogs for many years yet there are still strays with no licenses being turned in to Animal Control daily. It hasn't solved that problem and it's not going to solve any problem with stray/feral cats. As I have stated, I have no problem with voluntary licensing. If people are worried about their cat escaping then by all means they can license, tattoo, microchip it; do whatever they think necessary to get their cat returned. Just don't make it mandatory for me to do it too! Mandatory licensing will solve nothing. I know you and others disagree, that is your opinion, this is mine.

I am one person and I don't have a money tree in the back yard. I have limited resources. My point is that if mandatory licensing was required I would not be "taking on" feral cats because I couldn't afford it. So what is better? An unlicensed sterilized feral cat running around or an unlicensed intact one?

I haven't heard any debate pertaining to whether feral cats should be kept indoors or outdoors. There is always debate on whether tame domestic cats should be kept indoors or not but the two are different subjects, not a double standard.
I encountered many feral cat haters when I was a volunteer which is one of the reasons I'm not a volunteer any longer so I understand this attitude. As I said, cats are considered free roaming. Feral cats can't exactly be kept indoors, so ya, I guess you could say we "look the other way" because what else are we supposed to do? I guess I could turn my back on the ferals and let them fend for themselves and reproduce at will but that is something I'm not going to do unless they change the laws the way some people here want.

Honestly I hadn't thought about the current owner doing the paperwork for the new owner. I don't have experience with rehoming microchipped pets (I usually keep my pets) except for one and the person who took my dog is a co-worker/friend. I gave her the paperwork and she paid the fee to have the information changed. Avid does charge a fee.

I haven't seen any prices here that cheap but even if it was when you are caring for as many cats as I am $21.62 would add up pretty quickly; then throw in this nonsense of mandatory licensing and forget it. Some folks on this forum must be a lot wealthier than I am!

My husband has often said that my earnings go exclusively to cats and cigarettes!
I find the price for microchips in North America extreme, especially when you consider that they're not ones that can be "universally read".

catcaregiver,

As long as cats are considered free-roaming animals, it presents additional problems. I just disagree with (at the very least, urban and suburban) municipalities allowing cats to roam freely, be they stray, feral, or owned.

In my county, free-roaming cats are picked up all the time. Lucy was picked up as a stray. No one claimed her, so she was put up for adoption.

If counties want to take licensing seriously (as long as they also require permanent identification), do away with these stray holding periods. If the animal is a stray, euthanize it or adopt it out. If the animal is licensed, notify the owner and bill them for the costs associated with picking up and housing their animal. Whether they pick it up or not, you can still bill them (and attach it to their DMV records, put a judgment on their house, etc.)

In the above scenario, veterinarians should have to verify animals are licensed and permanently identified whenever they receive treatment. Boarding facilities, trainers, etc. should also have the same requirements. Will some people slip by under the radar? Sure. As long as they're keeping their animals inside, away from everything, maybe no one will ever be the wiser. People who don't care might just not care if their animals are euthanized immediately upon being picked up and taken to a shelter. If you go to any number of municipal shelters nearby, you'll see plenty of dogs waiting around to be euthanized at the end of their holding period. It's sad, but it would save tax dollars to just do the deed right away (not to mention, it's arguably more humane than keeping an animal in 99% of shelter environments for any length of time just to euthanize them anyway). If privately funded organizations want to take those animals, they'd be free to do so.

For the poster who mentioned that a one-time license would have to be more expensive than annual licenses, I don't see why. The overhead involved with keeping a tiny bit of information in a database shouldn't be so obscene that everyone has to pay a hundred bucks just to get their animals entered one time.

I have a 14 year old cat I have had since kittenhood, never got her a license or vaccinations and don't plan too. Inside only, spayed.

I have trouble accepting the idea of immediate euthanization. Granted, I now live in a country where all shelters are "no kill". A great many people wait until their kitten is old/big enough to be altered to have a microchip implanted, and thus might wait until after that is done to have the cat licensed.

I'm not particularly pleased about it either but the fact remains that they are. Spayed/neutered ferals are ear-tipped to show that they are a part of a managed colony. Licensing is unnecessary. Even if the law was changed to say that cats are no longer classified as free roaming what is your solution? To trap and kill all ferals? That is the only conclusion I can come to because licensing/microchipping doesn't change the fact that ferals are going to roam freely. So what is the point of licensing them?


Where I live, Animal Control has a mandatory 72 hour holding period for dogs; there is no such holding period for cats. Cats that arrive in traps and appear feral are euthanized immediately in most cases. If it appears that the cat may be tame but is just scared, it may be held for observation to see if it will calm down. Cats that are obviously friendly are available for adoption from the moment they arrive.

This is unacceptable for feral cat caretakers. It doesn't even make sense. Let's see, mandatory licensing for all cats including ferals. Feral cat is trapped, "owner" is called and fined, "owner" releases feral cat back to its colony. Feral cat is trapped again, "owner" is called and fined........wow, what a nice cash cow for the City! I hope my City Officials don't catch wind of this!

I am thankful that nobody of this mindset are currently in power in my City Government and hopefully they never will be. I can just imagine all of the feral cat caretakers cringe at the thought of their colony being trapped and killed, and I don't imagine anybody relishes the thought of being perpetually fined for reclaiming their licensed roaming feral cats.

Where I live is is mandatory to microchip your cat or dog, irrepspective of whether it lives indoors or not - You then must register the animal with council (life time registration) for a nominal fee - Cheaper if the animal is desexed.

IMO this is a great thing to do - If my cats ever escape outside, as they are indoors only, I have a much greater chance of getting them back because they can be identified.

I agree that having a tag that must be worn on a collar is unneccesary, but I think microchipping is a must.

Our AC is aware of the work that the TNR people do in the area and as long as a feral has it's ear tipped and is not causing a problem, they don't pick them up. However they do get calls about animals that are biting other animals, etc and they are picked up.

The law however does state that once you have given medical attention to an animal or had it in your possession for 72 hours, it is yours, and there are plenty of people who will see feral colony caretakers as owners and should therefore be subject to the same laws and other pet owners. Not saying I agree but the fact remains that legislators are not going to make the distinction when making the laws and leave it up to Animal Control to police themselves in what they pick up

If one of my ferals is posing a danger to somebody AC will attempt to catch it. If somebody goes to AC and complains about my ferals, AC will rent them a trap if they request one. There is nothing I can do about either of those situations. I have done the best I can for the cats.

Perhaps that's the law where you are but it's not a universal law. I brought home a friend's kitten yesterday and I will be taking him to my Vet this evening. He will be staying with me for 3-4 days so I can make sure he is ok (his tail was somehow injured). If that law is true then this kitten will belong to me. I'd love to have this kitten, he's a joy. He even likes riding in the truck. He's an outside kitty who lives on a mini-ranch. I worry constantly about his future. But I digress.

This thread is about licensing and I still don't see the point to licensing feral cats.

My point is that the licensing law posted is in Canada where the 72 hour rule does apply and that is why it also applies to feral caregivers - if you feed them, they are yours.

Well, it's not really my opinion that it should be used to repeatedly fine TNR individuals over and over again. However, I also don't think feral cats should exist (in their free-roaming state, anyway). If an organization is able to house them in some sort of enclosure (or on enough privately owned land that they don't venture off of it), I don't have any problem with it. I do have a problem with feral cats in parking lots, parks, etc. I guess I just don't understand why millions of tame animals should be euthanized while ferals continue to be released. Why not release the tame ones after they have been neutered?

Like I said, as long as a municipality is going to accept cats as free-roaming animals, this doesn't work. There are places where leash laws are in place for cats, as well as dogs. In those places, I think they should have every right to enforce it, even if it means displacing ferals.

You are talking about two different situations and two different kinds of cats again, and I don't really understand what you mean by ferals being "released". Are you talking about the hypothetical "cash cow" from my previous post?

Feral cats are used to living by their wits on the streets. I don't feel guilty for spaying/neutering a feral cat and releasing it. I would however feel guilty if I took a completely tame cat and released it onto the streets when it has never had to live that way.

I have never said that a municipality that currently has those laws in place shouldn't be able to enforce them. I have only said I hope the city where I live doesn't implement laws such as mandatory licensing, especially for feral cats.

Or killing them, right? Why are you avoiding saying it? There is no place to move feral cats.

I'm going to start a new thread. I think I have already caused a hijack of this thread, but I'll put this discussion under a more appropriately titled thread.