Â Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing Â :: Topic review - The 12/1/2008 Board of Health meeting minutes have been posted.

Jay T.

I understand the health concerns, but also understand that this law is essentially unenforcable. Unlike dogs people don't walk cats. Nor would it be advisable to place a collar on a cat as there is more danger to the cat then potential for rabies under that scenario. Lastly, I'd hazard most cats that are domestic are indoor only and only get out on a rare occasion. Thus, those owners will not vaccinate the cats.

The best course forward if the board of health is truly concerned would be an education awareness program. Rabies can be transfered through saliva so if you cat has a small cut from a fight there is potential for rabies to infect the owner. I didn't know that until I starte doing some research. I'd rather see an education alert, emailing of the facts out from the town, a briefing, etc...before we see a full tax and license obligation.

Guest

This begs an obvious question or two. What is the base population of cats in NJ? Or, what percentage of domestic cats contract rabies). To my layperson knowledge, a public health crisis this is not. Secondly, what percentage of these 18-20 cats are domestic and entirely kep indoors?

I find it hard to believe that there will be a remarkable public health benefit to follow this license requirement. And yet, there will be a small cost per cat owner, which when aggregated across the many (millions) of cats owned domestically in NJ will be a sizable pool of money. And how will this policy be enforced? A paid official to canvas homes in search of unlicensed felines?

I understand the argument that will likely come from public health officials. Something to the effect of 'how do you place a value on safe guarding public health, etc.). However, do the cost-benefit analysis, ideally with consideration of the above points.

Is this really our most pressing priority?

Unwanted Cat Tax

The County has presented the issue of rabies that seems to be focusing on the wildlife that surrounds us today - bats, raccoons, skunks ect. What does the licensing of cats have to do with that? How will Cranbury township protect it citizens from the root cause - wildlife? Is there a wildlife vaccination program in place? If not, why not?

Concerning the catch and release program for feral cats (unowned and untamed cat) - Feral cats are benefical to our current agricultural environment. They help keep the mice, rats, and other vermin under control. Since they are unowned, they would not require a cat license. BUT, we would still need a catch and release program in place.

It is absolutely clear that the cat licensing is to raise money and not for the protection of Cranbury. It is penalizing a select group, cat owners, for an overall Cranbury proposed issue of rabies. Whether your cat stays indoors or is an indoor/outdoor cat, the Cranbury Board of Health is wants these specific group of people to pay a licensing fee to just raise money for the town and county. This is not only unfair but outrageous. Consider this a cat tax.

Guest

The December 1, 2008 Board of Health meeting minutes have been posted.

"...
Rabies Protocol - Cat Licenses
• A copy of the Ordinance adopted by South Brunswick Township in 1988 was provided. This Ordinance was enacted as a result of a rabid raccoon. –Mr. Stephen Papenberg, Health Officer of South Brunswick Township and Treasurer of the New Jersey Local Boards of Health, spoke to the Board regarding cat licensing. Mr. Papenberg provided the following information:

• An average of 18-20 rabid cats per year are found within the State of New Jersey. So far this year there have been 15 rabid cats. There have only been five (5) rabid dogs within the State over the past 25 years.

• An Ordinance could allow for the waiver of fees in certain instances.

• The South Brunswick Ordinance excludes non-domesticated cats located upon farmlands. These cats were excluded because farm cats are not necessarily among the population.

• An emphasis needs to be made that licensing is mainly to provide proof of rabies vaccine.

• Another positive fact is that cat licensing would allow a lost and picked up cat to be returned to its owner.

• A problem with the catch, neuter and release program is that an initial rabies vaccine is only valid for one (1) year and it is extremely difficult to re-catch and/or verify vaccination of such cats. Another problem with this program is a liability issue; specifically, who becomes the responsible party for the program, for vaccinations, for any injury caused by cats within the program, etc.

• Approximately 1/3 of municipalities within the State have cat licensing ordinances. South Brunswick Township has approximately a 60% compliance rate.

• The State Department of Health, Office of Animal Welfare, supports and would like to see enacted a statewide licensing requirement.

• The major educational push in support of the ordinance is that if a cat is infected, it has a six (6) month quarantine period or it must be euthanized.

• For more information, the Township could consider a presentation, which includes experts such as David Papi, Director of the Middlesex County Public Health Department, and/or Dr. Michael Young, Township Veterinarian. The presentation should raise awareness of rabid raccoons and bats being found in Cranbury.

An issue was raised regarding the danger of cats wearing collars with tags. Dr. Notterman suggested that, as part of any Township program, cat owners could be provided with the opportunity to have digital photographs of their cat(s) placed with the licensing records for identification purposes.

The Board discussed the best way to involve the Cranbury Township Committee in the issue. Pari Stave, Township Committee Liaison, will be contacted. Mr. Van Hise indicated that the Board, via its Chair, could attend a Committee meeting with experts to present information for feedback.

Mr. Papenberg suggested that the Chairwoman send a memorandum to the Township Committee attaching a copy of a model ordinance and asking for comments. Dr. Notterman opined that the memorandum should also include specific provisions being considered by the Board, i.e. fee waiver provision, no collar option, digital photograph consideration, etc.

The Board of Health should ask David Papi and Dr. Michael Young for recommendations and letters of support.

A question was raised if the Board could designate where the money collected from the licensing fees could be applied, i.e. for animal control, upkeep of the database, etc.

General information regarding rabies will be put in the Township’s newsletter. Jessica Smith will provide something from the Middlesex County Public Health Department.
...

http://www.cranburytownship.org/BOH_minutes_2008_dec01.pdf