Letters for Nov. 4, 2015

Letters for Nov. 4, 2015

It is time to (re)define ‘feral’ on Kauai

For three months, a large feral cat has been wandering into our yard to the displeasure of our own cat. We contacted the good people at Kauai Community Cat Project to assist with trapping, neutering, and returning the cat to the neighborhood. Unfortunately, the cat was too smart for traditional trapping methods so I began a long and frustrating process to establish trust with the cat. Thursday evening, I was able to secure him in a crate and planned to take him to the Kauai Humane Society to be neutered.

I arrived at 8 a.m. Friday and shared my story with the KHS employee. She asked, “Can you pet the cat?” I said “yes.” “Is the cat non-aggressive?” Again, I said “yes.” “Then the cat is not a feral,” asserted the employee. Not a feral?

This is the criteria the KHS utilizes to determine whether a cat is a feral or not? The employee then explained they would not neuter the cat without an appointment since he was not a feral. Obviously, I protested this absurd rationale. Ultimately, KHS relented and agreed to neuter the cat that day, but “not at the feral rate,” I had to “pay the full price.” Fine, I will pay the higher fee. I was not looking for a handout from KHS. I was simply trying to do the right thing for this feral cat and other cats in our neighborhood.

The mission of the Kauai Humane Society “is dedicated to ensuring compassionate, informed care of all Kauai’s animals and promoting the human-animal bond.” Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, KHS is not “informed” enough about the feral cat problem on Kauai. Their so-called “litmus” test to determine what is a feral cat is totally subjective and fails to support those who are trying to aid in controlling the feral cat population. I ask that Penny Cistaro and her team begin working with organizations like Kauai Community Cat Project to define what is a “feral” cat and how the various animal protection organizations can work more in partnership to care for all of God’s creatures on Kauai.

The Reverend Ryan D. Newman

Kapaa

Rule change makes sense

As usual, Carol Bain made some interesting points in her Forum letter (“Question the no question rule,” TGI Oct. 30) about the amendment to the council rule regarding council members questioning witnesses. However, she missed a central point and made some unwarranted assumptions.

All public testimony is time limited. In some instances council questions were used to extend testimony time for favored witnesses. The majority of the council felt that this was unfair to witnesses who were not so favored, and the rule amendment was adopted.

Public testimony is accepted on any item on the agenda at the council meeting. Ms. Bain’s contentions seem limited to testimony on topics involving proposed legislation. They constitute only a small minority of the number of agenda items. Maybe a rule allowance for questions on items relating to proposed laws should be permitted to assure a full dialogue, but that exception was not considered.

Ms. Bain does not seem concerned about council meeting time. Many council meetings are marathons extending to undue lengths. The council is properly concerned about meeting time and reasonable steps that might limit them. The fact that meetings may be shorter does not necessarily mean that councilmember work is reduced. Most of councilmember business time is outside of meeting hours.

The rule amendment seems to me, on balance, to serve a useful purpose.

Walter Lewis

Lihue