Conference misery::feline_v1

3509.0. "proposed Ohio cat licensing bill" by STAR::PMURPHY (The Paws That Refresh!) Tue Apr 10 1990 14:01

<PRINTED WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM ACT'N LINE: APRIL/MAY 1990
	PUBLISHED BY FRIENDS OF ANIMALS>


	BILL PROVIDES CATS TO VIVISECTORS FOR $3.00

"The debate over whether or not to license cats has been argued since 1949 
when Adlai E. Stevenson, then Governor of Illinois, vetoed a state bill 
requiring cat licensing.  Forty-one years later, the debate continues.

Proponents of cat licensing are quick to believe that licensing is the 
initial step in regulating and providing protection for cats.  The sad 
reality, howver, is that if a cat licensing bill currently pending in the 
Ohio legislature is passed, many impounded cats will end up in research 
laboratories.  Rather than protecting felines, the bill would have the 
opposite effect.

Friends of Animals and animal protectionists in Ohio have waged anall-out 
battle to ensure that the Ohio bill, H.B. 650, is killed before it ever 
comes up for a vote.

The bill, if passed, would require the licensing of cats older than three 
months and would allow for the seizure of cats outside an owner's premises.

The bill also requires that ten cents of each license fee be given to the 
College of Veterinary Medicine of the Ohio State University for research 
and study.

Under the guise of protecting cats, the Ohio licensing bill would actually 
subsidize research on felines, while at the same time assuring there is an 
ample supply of cats to be used in unnecessary lab experiments.

If this bill passes and a cat is not licensed and is impounded, the county 
dog warden would only be required to feed and house the cat for three days 
for the purpose of redemption.  The bill states that any dog or cat that is 
not redeemed within the applicable period may be sold for $3 to any Ohio 
institution or organization that is certified by the Ohio Public Health 
Council as being engaged in teaching or research concerning the prevention 
and treatment of diseases.

Since Ohio has no pound seizure law in effect to prevent cats and dogs from 
being sold to research laboratories, impounded cats will undoubtedly be 
subjected to painful research experiments.

In addition to being the subject of perverse abuse all in the name of 
"science", passage of a cat licensing bill would create many other serious 
hazards for felines.

One of the main objections to licensing cats is that it will place a 
financial burden on low-income families.  It has been estimated that the 
average cat owning household owns 2.5 cats.  The cost of a licensing fee, 
when added to a rabies vaccination, could become prohibitive for those on 
low incomes.  Friends of Animals is afraid that this may cause a panic 
among pet owners who will abandon their cats.

Opponents of cat licensing also believe that because of a cat's hunting and 
exploring activities, putting a collar on a cat could result in the cat 
accidentally hanging itself; for instance, on a fence or branches beneath 
which it prowls.  To collar a cat could be to unintentionally consign it to 
death.  If the collar is the pop-off variety, it will require almost daily 
replacement.  Consequently, the cat cannot wear and display a license tag 
without endangering its life.

Proponents of cat licensing have also tried several times to pass their 
legislation in New Jersey and Connecticut on the premise that cats are 
going to spread rabies.  Cats tend to explore and hunt, but they attack 
primarily a rodent population.  Cats do not attack skunks, raccoons, 
opossums or other such mammals as do dogs.  Therefore, they do not convey 
disease from wildlife to humans.

A cat licensing law would also prohibit the free-roaming of cats.  To 
comply with the terms of legislation, cats would at times have to be 
leased.  This is impractical and unreasonable.  A cat cannot be safely 
confined within an owner's premises by putting up a fence as is done with 
dogs.  Tying a practically defenseless cat outdoors would endanger the 
feline, which would run the risk of hanging itself or being attacked by a 
dog.

Friends of Animals believes that breeding control for pets, through spaying 
and neutering, is the only realistic solution to the prolific birth rate of 
cats and dogs.  In its inability to develop a thoughtful plan for pet 
population control, the nation annually spends about a half-billion dollars 
on dog-pound services while at the same time killing more than 14 million 
healthy animals.

Friends of Animals believes the Ohio cat licensing bill is a prime example 
of how legislation that claims to protect animals can actually harm them.

The cat licensing debate will no doubt continue, but killing the Ohio 
proposal would be a triumph for those who care about protecting cats from 
often painful and abusive research."

[Due to large volume opposition by FoA members and animal protectionists 
statewide, Ohio bill H.B. 650 was withdrawn as Act'ion-Line went to press.]

    Its amazing what they try to slip by!  With the technology
    available today, I no longer see a need for animals to be
    used for most types of research/testing.  We (scientists,
    the government, consumers) know what the results are to
    research animals with most of the ingredients used in
    household products, makeup, food, drugs, etc.  What really
    needs to be done is to cut down on this type of junk.
    The Hairproduct isle alone takes up 1 row in my grocery store.
    Yet they (the manufacturers) still use animals to test with.
    We don't need any more hair sprays, or pine scented cleaners,
    or shampoos, or shaving creams.  The effect of these on the
    environment is bad enough, to cause unnecessary suffering to
    animals by test, re-test, re-re-test, etc. on products that
    the ingredients have already been approved, well that is
    absolutely stupid !!!!
    
    GRRRRRRRRRRRRRR !!  
    
    L- 

    It is important to note that this bill was withdrawn, therefore, and
    never passed.

    Normally, we ask that FELINE not be a forum for animal rights or
    solicitation for political action. We have left this particular note
    in the conference for the *COMBINATION* of the following several reasons.

    	1. It is reprinted from an article of a humane-like society

    	2. It is objective journalism, i.e., it is not written in charged
           language while presenting the facts

        3. It is not directly suggesting/solicitating any political action

    As a result, I'd like to ask that this note not turn into a ranting and
    raging flame session about animal rights.

    Deb
    Co-moderator

    
    
    	Well, I don't think Animal Protectionists are out of
    	the woods on this one yet. What else can happen here
    	(unless they have some SHARP eyed folks watching the
    	legislative process closely) is that this kind of bill
    	can get tacked on as a nice quiet little "amendment"
    	to some other bill that will have an easy time getting
    	passed.  The proponents can slide it right by with 
    	hardly a notice. It's been done before.
    
    	Sounds like what we all need is to get the states to
    	support "line item veto". That will put a stop to the
    	little trick I just mentioned that has worked so many
    	times before.
    
    	Meantime, some stores have special aisles for products
    	that do NOT use animal testing. Keep pushing where you
    	are for that. It's the squeaky wheel...Those of us who
    	care need to keep pushing. 
    
    						kim and the nipper