http://mv-voice.com/square/print/index.php?i=3&d=1&t=5543


Town Square

You got a license for that cat, Mister?

Original post made on Jun 6, 2013

For the first time, the city of Mountain View is poised to require that pet cats be licensed. The City Council voted Tuesday to replace its 1972 animal control ordinance with one requiring that cats, just like dogs, be licensed, among other rules.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Thursday, June 6, 2013, 10:25 AM

Comments

 +   Like this comment
Posted by Georgie
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 11:14 am

"It was a bright cold day in June, and the clocks were striking thirteen."

Good luck enforcing this!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Coot
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 6, 2013 at 11:43 am

" Soszynski said "break-away" collars are available that come off in such situations."
So...
When the critter needs to be identified, the collar's hanging on a fence.
Brilliant!

I attempted to put one of the "break-aways" on my old cat. He did not cotton to it and promptly hooked it with a hind leg and popped it off. Then he gave me a nasty look.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Intern
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 11:47 am

They could easily enforce it. Animal control gets a list of dog's owners who get rabies vaccines in the county(Vets have to provide these to the county). Animal control then cross references that with the list if licensed dogs. Any unlicensed dog owner got notice of the need to lic and the fines involved for not licensing.
I spent a summer doing this tedious work as a summer job one year, in a different county though.

The same tactic would work well for cats too. Besides, most pet owners actually are responsible and want to abide by the law, esp if it will also aid them in finding their pet if lost.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Intern
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 11:50 am

They don't care about catching a cat w/out a tag around its neck. All they want is for people to pay the fees to license their cat. Weather or not there is visual evidence of an actual tag is meaningless.
Animal Control needs funding and this is a ne revenue stream.
I think micro-chips are the best ay of getting bck a pet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Feline Owner
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2013 at 11:53 am

Don't think the cats are going to like this news... as they drag them selves across the floor..."Get this heavy thing off me" Akk akk


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Teddy Nugent
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 6, 2013 at 1:03 pm

This is why I buy all my cats at the farmers market in Campbell.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:07 pm

"I'm not sure what problem we are trying to solve."

Classic.

That is so true of so many of the nanny regulations.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Purrr
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Cats are cute.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:09 pm

No doubt, the self-appointed do-gooders are crafting an outright ban on assault cats and high-capacity litter boxes.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Carter Coleman
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:23 pm

Unlike dog collars, cat collars break off. Every cat owner knows this. This is law that can't work. A better law would be for cats to be vaccinated and implanted with a scan-able chip. My cat is.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by George
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:24 pm

Read the book "Agenda 21"... a view of the future. This is just one more example of govt. control. Over time, the public will be so used to one regulation/law after another over all areas of our lives, that more and more rules will be set until the govt. (City/State/Fed) will control all things in our life, our behavior, our records, our movements...
Believe it folks, we should resist virtually every new reg/law that comes down. Control Cats? Egads... How many goldfish can one have?

Do it folks


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:29 pm

Mtn View is run just like any for-profit enterprise, and any new source of potential revenue must be exploited.
It's a simple formula: We citizens represent revenue, and are therefore exploited.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rossta
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:32 pm

Rossta is a registered user.

I am ashamed of our council members who have passed a law that is not to solve a particular problem - seemingly just because it is "best practices". Thank you Mayor Inks for voting against it. Mr. Siegel, you questioned it, but then voted for it? Almost good.
Unenforcible and needless laws make us question all laws and lead to lawlessness. This is a step backwards for our city.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ann
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:40 pm

Ok, so I purchase the license, put the tag on my cat, who gets outside and loses his/her breakaway collar, now my cat has not tag, gets picked up by humane society. How does the now lost tag help the SPCA or SVACA let me know that my cat has been picked up?

Does the SVACA have the technology to read micro chips. My cats are micro chipped. But years ago, my Sister's microchipped cat jumped out of the car, never to be seen or heard from again. When they checked with the animal authorities in Milpitas they were told that cats weren't scanned so they would have to come daily to see if the cat was picked up.

While I don't mind licensing my cats if it will help others become more responsible for too many cats, I don't see a collar/tag as the answer for cats. Requiring micro-chipping should be a requirement. Requiring SPCA, SVACA and police to scan lost/scared animals should be a requirement.

San Mateo County started this a couple of years ago and send out very nasty letters to cat owners. The letters from a company in Texas with whom the county had subcontracted this task. Now paying a Texas firm to care for my animals, that I object to. If the county or city is to do this, the jobs should stay in California. I sure hope Mtn. View isn't using this same incompetent company from Texas,with whom for my Mom's feral cat I had spend 6 letters arguing with them about a rabies shot. Sadly or luckily the kitty died and that finally stopped the Texas firm from hassling my Mom over a cat that couldn't be caught.

Mtn.View, I think you need to rethink the process, expecting a cat to wear a collar doesn't work.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jay
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:43 pm

My cats are strictly indoor and I am adamantly opposed to rabies shots - do some research to discover how toxic they are to cats. Microchip, yes; collars, NO!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Susan
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:48 pm

Both of my cats came from the Humane Society, have had their shots and have a microchip. Additionally they are strictly house cats and never even try to go out the door. A license is ridiculous.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Not too much of a cat lover
a resident of Willowgate
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:50 pm

Will the licensing stop my neighbor's numerous cats from coming into my yard where my kids play? I'm talking about cat poop here. That's a problem I'd like to solve.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:55 pm

Another tax... wait, bad word, I mean fee...


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Tina
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm

Can we get a waiver on making the cats wear a collar if they are chipped? Who will be enforcing the new rules? Do the police really have that much free time on their hands what with all the pedestrians running into cars these days?

BTW, saw a pedestrian (engrossed in her digital device) meandering up the Shoreline overpass in the bike lane this morning during rush hour, hardly paying attention to traffic. Why is it that in this technologically-savvy city some people are such prime Darwin candidates?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Pat
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 2:57 pm

Ahhhhhh, a fool is born ever minute! People who own cats would NEVER impose such a foolish requirement. For outside cats, it actually poses feline risks of hanging on tree limbs, increased trauma if involved in cat fights and lost collars. Losing these collars really does defeat ANY intended purposes. We ALL know this is a revenue stream. Probably added job time to the lucky clerk who will undoubtedly get an earful a few times a week!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by wally
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 3:16 pm

at least this does something. Gives more money to the city and shelter.

Unlike the stupid plastic bag rule, where now I (and other's i'm guessing) have to buy plastic bags instead of just getting them from the store.

So now the made from recycled bags that I used to use for trash are replaced by not-recycled bags I had to buy--which come in a box made from trees.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by beelia
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2013 at 3:20 pm

Yes, it's a new revenue stream, and I for one want to know what it might be used for.

Would the proceeds go to Animal Welfare? If so, what are they going to do with it? Cruise around and pick up feral cats, and deliver them to a "kill" sanctuary? My cat got picked up and almost got destroyed because a cranky old neighbor trapped him. (I have an indoor cat, but occasionally he gets out.)

I wouldn't mind licensing my cat if the money went to solve a problem, but we've determined that no one knows what that is. If the unspoken complaint is feral cats, why not use the proceeds to start a trap-neuter-return program? It's not expensive, but they are very effective in reducing the size of colonies. Check out alleycat.org for details.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 6, 2013 at 3:25 pm

My first vet recommended against the rabies vaccine as they cause really bad cancers in cats. Now my cat is 14 and my current vet at Adobe also recommended against both the feline leukemiea and rabies vaccines so as not to compromise her immune system. She's mainly an indoor cat and only goes outside in the backyard anyway---for this she needs a license!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 6, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Show up to the Council meeting on Tuesday, June 11, if you want this stopped.
It would only take 10 to 20 people taking our 3 minutes to stop this foolishness.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 6, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Wow. I didn't think it was possible to see my 'respect' for the city council fall any lower. Keep digging that hole.

Admitting there is no problem being solved and passing a law to impose a "fee" on a large number of people is just plain crazy. This won't solve the larger stray-cat problem. This won't slow down traffic on congested streets. This won't reduce the number of break-in robberies in our city. This won't add parks or stores around the massive city-approved condo complexes.

Three are _real_ problems that our council needs to address. _Real_ issues with completely plausible solutions. Cat licensing is idiocracy at its best.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 4:09 pm

Mountain View is becoming silly, cats roam free and hate anything around their necks. Hopefully this will not pass on the second reading.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Jerry
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 6, 2013 at 4:16 pm

I call BS. This is not even a thinly-veiled attempt by the nannies to find another way to make a buck. Sure it could help a small handful of people but at the expense and inconvenience of the many.

And you know it won't stop there. They'll start imposing limits because of one extreme case even though there are already laws on the books to cover that case.

If you're a 2A supporter, this all sounds very familiar. At the very least, they're consistent.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resident
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 6, 2013 at 4:17 pm

Nothing new to post, but I'll throw my support with the this-is-ridiculous crowd. My cats do not go outside, therefore they do not wear collars or get rabies shots. I'll be da**ed if the City Council is going to force me to do either of those things.

On the other hand, our garage was broken into within the past year. Perhaps we can address some of the real problems?

Looks like I now have plans for Tuesday, June 11. Spread the word and stop this foolishness.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by IndoorCatOwner
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Like many people in MV, I live in a condo. On the second floor. My cat can't get out. Yet, he is chipped just in case. If the licenses were tied in a database to the registered chip numbers, and police, fire &/or animal control personnel were provided with scanners and had access to this database of local chips and could return a lost animal directly TO THE OWNER rather than the shelter that's 10 miles away in a different city, then there is a remote chance that this is a good idea.

But since it has not worked for dogs (chipped dogs are transfered to the shelter without anyone even checking for a chip) then having a license is POINTLESS, especially for an indoor only cat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Voter
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 5:19 pm

Can I just give the city $50 bucks and call it good? This way they don't have to spend any of the profits to enforce/collect.

Please use common sense, I don't want to get fined for my cat losing his collar and getting picked up by the cat police. And then have to pay for the replacement license/tag. Use the microchip ID. We are in the middle of the silicon valley ... technology is out there for us to use.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathy
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 5:21 pm

Licensing cats is another scam to extort money from the residents of Mountain View. And bees? Really? OMG! Where will it stop? I am speechless.

I am surprised to hear that animal shelters don't scan for chips. Why wouldn't they? How hard can it be? It would save the shelters tons of money. It should be a requirement. Vote on that City Council! There's your extra money.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by VoteThemAllOut
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 6, 2013 at 5:25 pm

This is what our council deems important business? Leave it to government to find a solution to a non-problem that takes more money from hard working tax payers. Shame on you all.

Time for a new city council. Vote them all out.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Hilda
a resident of Castro City
on Jun 6, 2013 at 5:41 pm

is the vaccine business down in the city?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Michael
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 6, 2013 at 6:11 pm

I would encourage those opposed to this legislation to write or email members of the city council. Their email addresses can be found at:

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OMG
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 6:56 pm

WHAT?

My cat is smarter than these people....


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Question for MV Voice
a resident of another community
on Jun 6, 2013 at 7:43 pm

What will be the cost of running/enforcing such a feline licensing program?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MountainViewatHeart
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 7:58 pm

Good luck running after the roaming cats! Then what next - licensing squirrels and applying the stray-hold hours? It is reasonable for the owner of the squirrels to be the city. I hope the city will have better ideas to bring on the table - for example, modernizing the colors of the village.... Oh, what a brown color... Oh no, that's not important. How about discussing and finding solutions to the ridiculous rent increases in Mountain View?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Neil
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 6, 2013 at 8:05 pm

I just finished e-mailing the entire council. Excellent suggestion Michael!
Here are the email addresses for Mountain View's City council. Love it, hate it, or confused by it, let them know what you think about the new ordinance!

John Inks (Mayor): johninks@sbcglobal.net
Chris Clark (Vice Mayor): chris.clark@mountainview.gov
Margaret Abe-Koga: margaret.abekoga@mountainview.gov
Ronit Bryant: ronit.bryant@mountainview.gov
Michael Kasperzak Jr.: mkasperzak@mediates.com
John McAlister: john.mcalister@mountainview.gov
Jac Siegel: jacsharonsiegel@comcast.net


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MTViewFan
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 6, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Cats sleep for at least 20 hours, so it is the less than four hours that the city is bothered with. So what next - Leashing cats? Then for the city to build a cat park.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by CatLady
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 6, 2013 at 8:22 pm

Is the cat ordinance a way to raise funds? Please re-focus on the no plastic bag rule as your sales tax revenue are coming down. People are purchasing what they can carry in the hands. Anyway, thanks for helping me on saving the wallet.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Enough
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 8:45 pm

I've officially had it with the Mountain View City Council. Enough is enough! I'm ready to run for city council just to undo everything they have put into effect. Enough government intrusion into our lives!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by the_punnisher
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 6, 2013 at 9:03 pm

As I said before: the inmates are running the asylum called Mountain View.

I have a better idea: put a ( slave ) collar on every city representative, give them a rabies shot ( it might be the reason for this insane behavior ), microchip them AND MAKE THEM PAY FOR THE RIGHT TO DICTATE TO THE REST OF THE CITIZENS OF MOUNTAIN VIEW WHAT THEY MUST DO!

I don't need to watch M$M to get a dose of entertainment, I just have to read the Palo Alto and Mountain View e-papers!

Will Hanger One get resided? Will NASA ever make the change to 21st Century Thinking? What new outrageous plan will City Hall inmates dream up next?

Stay tuned to this channel!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cat Widow
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 6, 2013 at 9:32 pm

I lost a cat due to vaccine-associated cancer. A routine rabies vaccine became bone cancer on her shoulder. She lived only 6 months after diagnosis and dropped from 11 pounds to 5.

I'm not so sure I want to vaccinate my new cat, a former stray, against a disease that's only been seen once in Northern California since the 1990's.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by incognito
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jun 6, 2013 at 10:35 pm

A quick internet search and look at statewide data for reported cases annually in California gives a pretty good indicator of the urgency of this situation here in Mountain View...

Nearly all these cases are in bats, with an occasional skunk, raccoon, or other wildlife.

Perhaps the Voice could elaborate on the rationale for this new regulation?

Web Link

CA Dept of Public Health, "Reported Animal Rabies Data"

(not sure if this is the number of rabid animals identified, or the number of humans infected by what kind of animal, but doesn't seem to matter much)

2013 provisional data, Jan thru May - 38 cases reported, all bats except 1 skunk in Mariposa county and 1 cat in Sonoma county

2012 - 252 cases total, 1 cat in Kern county
2011 - 223 cases total, 0 cats
2010 - 175 cases total, 0 cats
2009 - 226 cases total, 0 cats
2008 - 178 cases total, 1 cat in Humboldt county
2007 - 188 cases total, 1 cat in Trinity county


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 6, 2013 at 11:18 pm

I have a better idea. Let's round up the political tax parasites that run this godforsaken excuse of a town, and put them in shelters. If no one claims them after three days, we get to put them to sleep.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A cat owner and Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:01 am

The proposals to require licensing and rabies vaccination are absurd, and are merely attempts to grab revenue. But the requiring of all cats to be vaccinated for rabies -- including those kept strictly indoors -- may jeopardize their health.

The American Veterinary Medical Association (the veterinary equivalent of the American Medical Association) formed the Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force (VAFSTF) in November 1996 in response to the increased incidence of soft tissue sarcomas occurring at vaccination sites. See Web Link

An update of this research can be found at Web Link

"The study's results also imply that the rabies vaccine may be the most oncogenic."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Robert
a resident of another community
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:24 am

Okay, I'm totally not cool with government getting up in my business if I have an indoor cat...

But bringing up this whole anti-vaccination nonsense? Really?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A cat owner and Residen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:43 am

You obviously do not understand the issue. It is not being "anti-vaccine" -- sarcomas at the injection site are a serious issue. The issue is requiring indoor-only cats to have rabies vaccinations, since the rabies vaccine has been implicated as the primary cause of sarcomas at the injection site. This is why vaccinations are now given in the legs instead of the scruff, so that if a sarcoma develops, the limb can be amputated (and the life saved).

This is not nonsense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by A cat owner and Residen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:47 am

And while we're at it, where is the revenue going that will be generated from the licensing?

I cannot find any financial statements on SVACA's website. What is Dan's compensation package?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by The Solver
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jun 7, 2013 at 7:37 am

Just tax Google instead. Maybe institute a multi-colored bicycle tax.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rich
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 7, 2013 at 8:15 am

Seigel had it right, there is no real reason for this. The only stated benefit is reuniting cats with owners. Responsible law-abiding owners are already getting the micro-chips installed, and the other kind of owners won't bother with the licensing anyway, so we're left with punishing the responsible people. Yuck.

Regarding the vaccination, the *only* reason the government should be telling anyone what vaccine they *must* use is a demonstrable clear and present public health risk. There does not seem to be evidence of that in this case.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Leash your dog!
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 7, 2013 at 8:53 am

How about enforcing the existing laws about dogs being on a leash before you make new laws that also won't be enforced. My understanding is that MV already requires dogs to be on a leash in parks, yet we are always at parks where dog owners let their dogs run free. My two year old child is very frightened of dogs, especially big ones and it irritates me to no end that she can't just go to the park and play without a dog running up to her and scaring her into crying. And most dog owners think it's nothing, they hardly even say sorry. The arrogance drives me crazy. Add more dog parks if that's what people want, but kids have a right to play without being intimidated by a strange animal 4x their size.

I like the new requirements for owners of dangerous animals, but the rest is just bogus. The city (and police) will never enforce anyway.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rainbow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:45 am

This is a waste of resources, is basically unenforceable wouldn't guarantee that a lost cat would be returned to its owner, and has bad consequences. Requiring all cats, including those that are indoor only, to be inoculated with chemicals that can be deadly is unwise. Will the City reimburse the cat owner for the cost of vet care needed and for pain and suffering of both the cat and its owner if the cat develops an untreatable tumor? Probably not. It also makes it difficult for cats to be adopted or kept by people with low or fixed incomes. The reduced adoption rate and increase in abandoned and relinquished cats would put increased pressure on already overcrowded shelters so more would end up being killed. This is not acceptable! Requiring a registered microchip and that the shelters scan for one makes more sense. Also, the City needs to specify how the money will be used.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Whisman
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 7, 2013 at 10:59 am

Seriously. Licensing cats? I hope the city council members abide by this if this is passed. This is all about bringing in more revenue for the city, yet isn't it bringing in enough with all the new construction developments currently taking place in regards to permits, etc?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Rainbow
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 11:48 am

In my previous comment, I forgot to suggest that mandatory neuter/spay would be a good idea for all cats, including those that are indoor only since they can get out. That and finding and fining people who are backyard breeders would help reduce the homeless cat situation.

If the City is looking for new sources of revenue, requiring a biking safety class and bike license for bikers 18 and over is something that should be given serious consideration. It would also be enforceable.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Garfield
a resident of another community
on Jun 7, 2013 at 1:08 pm

What's next? A special tax on lasagna?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kathy
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 2:26 pm

The City Council should have bigger fish to fry then licensing cats. Both of ours are micro chipped which is a far better way to ID a lost animal. This is just a ploy to bring $$ into city coffers IMO. Dogs will run away, bark incessantly and some can be dangerous. Cats stick close to home and pose no risk to the citizens of Mountain View. Truly ridiculous, good luck catching our wily semi-outdoor cat.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 2:53 pm

This concept is so far beyond absurd that it's funny. But while we're focusing on this bit of stupidity... What is city staff really up to that they don't want us to notice?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by incognito
a resident of Waverly Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 3:13 pm

What's troubling about the entire process with elected officials (city council, school boards, Congress?) is that they seem to do so little fact-finding about the very issues they are voting on. Repeatedly I've seen school board and council members blindly go along with whatever "staff" recommends, and this is yet one more example of that. I mean, look at all the info about rabies, cancer in cats, etc that is offered up here! Were all those factors seriously considered before the vote? I do know for a fact that many council members never personally visited the animal shelters before they voted to pull out of Palo Alto Animal Services and go with the current one. Just take staff's word on it! The same staff that gets cushy post-retirement pensions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Paul
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:37 pm

Are we missing something here? Jac is on the animal control board. Conflict of interest? Revenue search for animal control? Please abstain if one has a direct interest invested.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Curious Observer
a resident of Jackson Park
on Jun 7, 2013 at 4:53 pm

Curious Observer is a registered user.

@ Rainbow. Aren't bicycle licenses/registration already required? I have one on my bike and have had it for awhile. In fact, I've always registered my bike. I think there's a lot of people out there who don't know they should register their bikes.

I'd like to see a story from the MV Voice on what areas of our lives the City Council hasn't stuck their nose into.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Cat Owner
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 7, 2013 at 5:21 pm

I'm confused. I went to the shelter's (SVACA) website, and it sure looks as if licensing is already required of Mountain View residents:
Web Link

It says "Licensing is mandated by State and City law. State laws and local ordinances mandate that all dogs and cats over four months of age must be vaccinated for rabies and licensed. Licenses are not transferable from one owner to the next. "

This is NOT true -- Mountain View has no ordinance requiring licensing of cats or that cats receive rabies vaccinations:
see Web Link
(go to Chapter 5)

Which leads me to ask: What the heck is going on?
Are the people at SVACA accountable for their actions?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Feline Disobediance
a resident of another community
on Jun 7, 2013 at 6:09 pm

@Cat Owner

Furthermore, there is no State requirement for anti-rabies vaccine for cats.

See here: Web Link

"Cats are not required under state law to be vaccinated against rabies".




 +   Like this comment
Posted by cats unite
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm

I hearby propose to all other cats in mt view to march
our little paws down to the city council and meow the hell out of their meeting, then lets go down castro street peeing and pooping all over the the humans sidewalks.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ericka c
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 7, 2013 at 9:30 pm

They should put a ban on cats in Mt. View


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deb
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 8, 2013 at 1:48 am

Kinda reminds me of when they decided to ban white plastic chairs.

My cat is microchipped, neutered and has had his shots. Even if I get a license for him he would not keep it on long due to his breakaway collar.

Just out of curiosity... How bout all the ferrel cats? And the raccoons?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 8, 2013 at 5:40 am

It isn't safe to walk on the sidewalk or sit on a bench waiting for a bus in this town because of the lousy drivers. Burglaries and armed robberies are going up. Prometheus is overdeveloping Mountain View to the point where you won't recognize it in five years.

And the City Council wants to license cats.

They should hire a fiddler for these City Council meetings, they really should.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by KT
a resident of Rex Manor
on Jun 8, 2013 at 8:23 am

The ironic thing is is that we will pay to license our animals, but then when an animal gets run over by a car they won't pick up the dead carcass. A dead cat lay in the middle of Middlefield Rd for over a week until some neighbor put its carcass in the dumpster. This is absolutely absurd.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 8, 2013 at 9:52 am

Maybe we can get a law passed requiring all politicians to be spayed and neutered, to keep them from polluting the human gene pool.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Woodsman
a resident of another community
on Jun 8, 2013 at 6:25 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Woodsman
a resident of another community
on Jun 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Woodsman
a resident of another community
on Jun 8, 2013 at 6:30 pm

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 9, 2013 at 8:00 am

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Deb
a resident of Whisman Station
on Jun 10, 2013 at 12:33 am

Ummmm... How did a conversation about cat taxes/lisense deteriorate into How to kill you neighbors cat in a few easy steps?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Kman
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 10, 2013 at 1:34 pm

I think we need a Union for the Cats, how about it SIEU?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mark
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 10, 2013 at 2:14 pm

As an original land owner of Mtn View (25ac west of Calderon Ave from 1920s-1960s), this is the last straw! Me and my 4 cats are moving out of town!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 10, 2013 at 4:38 pm

@Cat Owner -

"State laws and local ordinances mandate that all dogs and cats over four months of age must be vaccinated for rabies and licensed."

They have clarified the wording on their website.
It's the local laws they are talking about for cats. The cities of Santa Clara, Monte Sereno and Campbell have laws regarding cats. Mountain View does not (yet).


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 10, 2013 at 4:39 pm

"Even if I get a license for him he would not keep it on long"

The requirement is to *buy* a license. Not make your cat wear it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Steve
a resident of Shoreline West
on Jun 10, 2013 at 4:44 pm

@Robert

"Okay, I'm totally not cool with government getting up in my business if I have an indoor cat..."

Then don't buy the license. If your cat is truly an indoor cat then it will never end up at the shelter and you will never be fined for not having a license. Is that so hard?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by ric
a resident of Monta Loma
on Jun 10, 2013 at 6:18 pm

Jeebus! (that's my indoor/outdoor cat talking...)

A chip is the better solution. Indoor or out it never falls off.

Scanners are not that expensive anymore, even for low margin shelters.
Any revenues derived by a licensing measure could be used to help defray the purchase of any scanners the city's animal control services contractor incurs.



O


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Political Insider
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 10, 2013 at 6:44 pm

This is how govt gets bored and tries to regulate and tax everything it can think of. It starts at the local level and then goes up the chain to the county, state, and federal level.

This will cost more to enforce than the revenue it provides and will impose more costs on society with little benefit.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Ronnie - Vincent Drive
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 10, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Opposed. Some cats cannot keep collars on. Rabies is not a problem in Mountain View. If we start treating cats and dogs equally, we'll have to build cat parks. If the City Council is looking for problems to solve, start working on the raccoon population.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Purrr
a resident of Cuernavaca
on Jun 10, 2013 at 10:29 pm

A cat park sounds cute at first, but would be very challenging to build and a disastorous place to take your cat. Cats are territorial so they'd all be fighting over putting their scents on it. Other states require rabies licensing for cats so it's not that out there. I think the spay and neuter portion of this law is very good and could reduce the number of homeless, unwanted cats.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Mr. Nice
a resident of Blossom Valley
on Jun 12, 2013 at 5:40 am

So I'm assuming that Cat Houses will be licensed!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Responsible Cat Owner
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 12, 2013 at 9:54 am

Rabies Vaccine is linked to cancer at the incision point.
This is the reason it is given at the hind leg, so it can be amputated.

If you cat is indoors only this vaccine is not necessary.

A collar does not help re-united your cat - but microchipping (and registration with the chip database) DOES re-unite pets.

This law is unnecessary, untimely and useless - I think this became clear to the council at last nights meeting where many citizens expressed their disapproval of the cat vaccine and license. Wish they had pulled this section as per council members Alister original move, now resources might go to waste and people have to show up again when this gets reviewed, updated and comes back for another vote in fall.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mvResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:18 am

NFW will I be vaccinating my cats which have immune mediated conditions, as per my vets recommendation. They are indoor cats for a reason. My cats are neutered and chipped, you will have to sue me to get me to pay a licensing fee to the city. Go for it.

Completely ridiculous revenue generating scheme.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by mvResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 10:24 am

Oh, and while the city is busying itself rubber stamping any/all development proposals that land in front of city council, and wasting time debating the merits of requiring all cats have rabies vaccinations and licenses...how about using some of our tax payor dollars to catch the burglars and other criminals who seem to be having a field day in Mountain View lately. How about I bill the city for the alarm system I need to install in my dwelling because these criminals are running amok here?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dontlicenseyourcatsthen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 12, 2013 at 12:34 pm

All of these cat owners are crying for no reason. They say that they have indoor cats that do not need rabies vaccine because they are never outside. Fine. The only time you will get this law enforced is if you prove to be a liar and let your cat outside to be picked up. When you go to claim it you might get a fine. But since you never let your cat out, this will never happen, right?

Also these cat people are liars. They say they microchip their pet but then that they don't need collars or vaccines since they never let their cat out. Why microchip then?

Explain please. Cat got your tongue?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 12:52 pm

@dontlicenseyourcatsthen,

I don't know about other cat owners here, but my cats are rescue cats and the neutering & micro-chipping was done prior to my adopting them. Also, the contract I signed when I adopted the cats had a clause stipulating that they were to be indoor cats only...which mine are. I gather the micro-chipping is done as a sort of insurance measure JUST IN CASE the cat gets out. Also, I didn't say my cats don't need vaccines because they don't go out, I said my vet advised me that because my cats have immune mediated conditions AND they are also indoor only cats - with no other animals in the house - then the vet recommends NO vaccinations.

In theory my cats would probably not get caught up in the city's licensing scheme, but that does not mean I think the cat tax is a good idea. It's clearly an ill-advised and completely unwarranted revenue generating scheme for the city.


BTW, thank you for calling numerous commenters here "liars"...I find that a little abusive and offensive.

Web Link


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Resentful
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 1:05 pm

I have a 20 ft boat, they charge me an annual "luxury" tax. PLUS a registration fee for the boat and a separate fee for the trailer. It sits in my drive way. WTF is a "luxury" tax and how did they justify that? "Oh you own something nice? That's going to cost you." That takes a lot of huevos AND they get away with it.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dontlicenseyourcatsthen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 12, 2013 at 1:21 pm

@MVResident6

cat owners each have an excuse why they should not pay. you claim the rabies problem... Go license your cats and give them letter from vet about medical condition. no problem!

you pay adoption fee so why not license fee? you buy cat food and pay vet bills, but do not care about the city paying animal control to clean up cat owners mess? so many pet cats go feral like yours. you need to pay your fair share for owning cats.



 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 1:40 pm

@dontlicenseyourcatsthen,

Actually I don't believe rabies in cats IS a problem, and that's the rub. to quote councilman Jac Siegel, who is also now the chair of SVACA's board. "There hasn't been a rabies outbreak or situation in Santa Clara County caused by a dog or cat. I'm not sure what problem we are trying to solve." BINGO.

If my cat winds up requiring city services, I will pay at the time of service...you know, kind of like how I paid the shelter when I adopted my cats, and how I pay the pet food store when I purchase my pet food and how I pay the vet, after the vet has treated my cat...all fees paid at the time of service.

Again, a cat license fee is a completely unwarranted revenue generating scheme for the city.

BTW, just because my cats were rescue cats does not mean they were feral cats. You might want to do a little homework about the various reasons cats (and animals in general) wind up in a rescue shelter.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dontlicenseyourcatsthen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 12, 2013 at 2:28 pm

@MVResident67:

"If my cat winds up requiring city services, I will pay at the time of service..."

great! i think they should charge you $1000 to get your cat back, since that is what it will cost if none of the cat owners share the cost before needing it. you clearly do not understand how community services are financed.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 2:31 pm

@dontlicenseyourcatsthen

"great! i think they should charge you $1000 to get your cat back, since that is what it will cost if none of the cat owners share the cost before needing it."

Deal.

Next.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by dontlicenseyourcatsthen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Jun 12, 2013 at 3:49 pm

@MVResident67:

Great! I'm happy that you can afford the $1,000--not everybody in the community can. Typical elitist attitude.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 4:26 pm

@dontlicenseyourcatsthen,

It was your proposal. I didn't say whether or not I could afford it, just that I was okay with the way the fee for service set up.

Good job!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OldtimerMV
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 12, 2013 at 5:20 pm

1000!!! only costs 50 dollars for lifetime fee!

mvresident67, not all live in cuesta!!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Scullywags
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 12, 2013 at 8:24 pm

Thought this city was corrupt and now they're proving it. They're not sure why they wanted to license cats in the 1st place. Lets try to divert our city to priorities of public safety , hmmmm. How about crosswalk alert lights!!! We have about 20+ that need them. Apparently our city doesn't have the funds, maybe we should petition Google for these!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 13, 2013 at 8:03 am

@OldtimerMV,

You said: "1000!!! only costs 50 dollars for lifetime fee!"

A) I didn't suggest a $1,000.00 fee, but I agreed - in principle - with a fee for service approach, as opposed to any flat tax approach that was being considered by city council.

B) I vehemently disagree with the entire concept mandating rabies vaccinations and licensing for all cats.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Jun 13, 2013 at 8:15 am

@ dontlicenseyourcatsthen,

You said: "you clearly do not understand how community services are financed."

You have no idea how incorrect that statement is. It's laughably inaccurate. Again, good job!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by OldtimerMV
a resident of North Whisman
on Jun 13, 2013 at 10:23 pm

flat tax?! cuesta people are rich but not too smart. Flat tax is what we have now where i and all mountain vw pay for your cat. you should pay!