Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Well, this is NEWS for the cat owners isn't it? What a shame. {bad}{bad}{bad}

SEREMBAN: Cat owners living in parts of Seremban and eight other sub-districts will be required to license them if authorities continue to get complaints that the felines are becoming a nuisance to neighbours.

Nilai Municipal Council (MPN) president Datuk Abd Halim Abd Latif said although there were no laws stating how many cats a person could own, it would have no qualms in formulating new legislation for it.

“We know some families keep too many cats and this has become a nuisance to their neighbours,” he said.

“If we get more complaints on this, we will not hesitate to introduce new provisions in our by-laws requiring them to license their cats.”

If implemented, the MPN would be the first local council in the country to have such a provision in their by-laws.

Abd Halim was commenting on complaints from residents on a new law requiring dog owners to get their neighbours’ written permission before they were allowed to keep them.

MPN had gazetted the new law – Dog Licensing By-laws 2008 – which came into force last month.

Those living in areas under the jurisdiction of the council such as parts of Rasah, Ampangan, Mantin, Nilai, Lenggeng, Pantai, Rantau, Labu and Senawang were affected by the move.

The MPN said those caught contravening provisions under the by-law can be fined up to RM1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months or both.

Several residents’ associations had voiced displeasure over the new ruling as it was discriminatory because it only targeted dog owners.

Many felt there were residents who had up to 10 cats which caused them misery.

Asked how were neighbours who wished to own dogs were to get their neighbours’ written permission when they were not on talking terms, Abd Latif said they could always ap- proach the council and it would act as an intermediary to get the approval.

Asked whether the ruling on dog ownership would be extended to those living in the Seremban Municipal Council (MPS), Abd Latif said this would be possible after a merger between MPN and MPS takes place.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

My answer to Nilai council is this...{nah}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

aiyakkkkkkkkkkk

me stay nilai....dont like dat la....poor me & my kittes...{cry}{cry}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

If you ever need to let any of them go, I'll take your Daddy....{shy}{shy}{shy}{grin}{grin}
*sorry, sorry, wrong time to joke, slapping myself*

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

aiyoo..daddy kenot..all kenot la....
eeh...this law oredi effective ke?
I'hv got 11cats la...
so far...my next jiran mmg kosong...

aiyoo...scary movies like this...where to put my kids...{ohmygod}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

this only at nilai & seremban only aaa??? haiya... later in PD also impose the same rule how... haiya... {cry2}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Shhhhhhh......Imann....don't let them know how many cats you got.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

ya la...shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Lucky jiran kosong....but don't let anyone know lor......definitely cannot get license approved klu so many, so better not try to get license for even one cat in case they come and check your home. {sick}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

council no money la....that is why

so cats must wear license collar liao

imagine Blackie with that collar thingy.... {happy}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

... moved out of rumah rakit separuh tenggelam dalam Sungai Chitichat ... {grin}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Vivien, Blackie don't need a license collar because he's already a legitimate Malaysian citizen.....dah ada MyKad mah.....we M'sians don't wear license collars kan? {catlaugh}{catlaugh}


Well said, Jimmy. {good}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Can, no problem, Jimmy. Just pass me your cats' photos, & their date of birth, and I'll get it done at Jabatan Pendaftaran Haiwan, department anak kucing at Jalan Kuching. {catlaugh}{catlaugh}{catlaugh} The first one to get a MyKad would be your 007. {shy}{shy}{grin}{grin}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Yup, 2 registered 007 in Malaysia...{catwink}{catlaugh}{catlaugh}
oh ya, I just remembered....his photo is in your felis wonder gallery....when's his birthday? he has to be 007 celup, though, since it's fair that a maine coon celup should not be 2 times celup. {catlaugh}{catlaugh}{catlaugh} *runnnnnnnn*

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Awwh...still no wife? Eh, how come ah? Poor Sean. Is it because he's always hiding behind curtains that you forgot to give him a wife? {shy}{shy}{shy}

If you neuter him, send him to me. I'll jaga him for you, free of charge, with weekly visitation rights. {cattongue}{catlaugh}{catlaugh}{catlaugh}

His Mykad will be posted in your gallery once it's done! You can download it from there, then. {catwink}

Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Jimmy, your story giving kopi money to the cleaner man similar to my story.heheheh!! In our apartment area got 2 Indian men clean up the garbage & apartment area everyday.They were very nasty in the beginning. They smack the strays that I fed everyday with their broom and always give me sour face. They were also the one who put net trap for cats. {sick} Luckily I found that net first. At 3 am in the morning my hubby and me like pencuri taking off the net and quietly ran back to our unit. Then my hubby said,why don't we give them kopi money so that they will not hit the stray cats.I agree and we gave him RM30-RM50 every month.I told them "ini duit kasih uncle sebab sd bersih2 ini tempat. sori klu kasih uncle susah".After that every time we bump to each he grin from ear to ear and greet me good morning. {grin}

yeah, I agree with you,we cat owner must be responsble with our pets.Don't let them roam around poo and pee every where. I'll very angry too if I see cat or dog poo in front of my house. Luckily all my cats are indoor {victory}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

I'd like to see Nilai council try to catch stray cats :P

Have fun man

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

San Francisco SPCA Position Statement, January 3, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cat Licensing: Analysis of Claims



CLAIM: Cat Licensing will make cat owners more responsible.

Caring can't be mandated, and a licensing mandate will only end up punishing those who care. There are millions of compassionate people who provide abandoned cats with food, love, and shelter in their own homes. Others put aside their own needs in order to care for a beloved pet or make sure a shy and reclusive neighborhood cat has daily sustenance and medical attention. Still others work tirelessly to feed foster and rehabilitate feral cats and kittens, all at their own personal expense. For every one of these caregivers, mandatory cat licensing will exact a heavy toll. These people will either have to pay the license fees - or face citations, fines, penalties, and possible confiscation of the animals they love. These new burdens, inflicted on the very people who are doing the most to help cats in their communities, will force many to stop caring for these animals, or at least force them to care for fewer cats, with the net result being more cats left to fend for themselves and fewer people able to provide them with any kind of safety net at all.

In response to these concerns, some cat licensing proponents have said that enforcement won't be stressed, or will only be "complaint driven." In our view, passing laws that aren't enforced or are enforced sporadically is just as unfair and counterproductive: Few people are likely to comply with a cat licensing mandate that isn't enforced. (In Los Angeles, for instance, compliance rates of less than 1% were reported, in spite of a canvassing program.) And people who "voluntarily" comply can probably be counted among the most responsible (and affluent) pet owners in the community. We see little equity or sense in enacting a law that only ends up penalizing through a licensing tax the very people whose behavior is already exemplary.

Needless to say, truly irresponsible cat owners won't be affected. If the law isn't enforced, they are free to ignore it. If it is enforced against them, they are likely to surrender or abandon their animals, which will only add to the number of cats killed.
CLAIM: Cat Licensing will help raise the status of cats.

In our view this claim is on a par with the suggesting that licensing poor people or the homeless will help raise their "status." Of course, cat licensing proponents aren't making a comparison to people, but to dogs: if cats are licensed like dogs they will apparently enjoy the same "status" as dogs. Unfortunately, dog licensing didn't confer any beneficial "status" on canines: it was and is a tool for protecting livestock, enforcing rabies laws, and ridding the public streets of the perceived threat posed by unowned, free-roaming dogs. Indeed, since 1933 California dog licensing laws have explicitly authorized the impoundment of unlicensed dogs, and millions of dogs have been impounded and killed by animal control agencies throughout the state as a result of these mandatory licensing laws.

This is the precedent to which proponents of cat licensing appeal when they claim that licensing will raise the "status" of cats. We doubt, however, whether cats would choose such a status for themselves. They might well prefer to retain the unlicensed status they now share with humans. And the dogs may want to join them.

CLAIM: Cat licensing will result in more cats being redeemed at shelters.

Unfortunately, the evidence suggests that cat redemptions are just as likely, if not more likely, to decline once voluntary cat identification efforts are replaced with a coercive licensing mandate. In Los Angeles County, for instance, the number of stray cats redeemed by their owners was reported to be down 32% following implementation of mandatory laws.

Proponents have tended to ignore evidence like this, and instead point to the fact that dogs, who have been subject to licensing laws for years, enjoy higher redemption rates than cats. But dogs differ from cats in many ways, and there is no reason to think licensing is the factor that results in the higher redemption rate for dogs. Indeed, San Francisco 63% of the stray dogs at the City's Animal Care and Control Department were redeemed by their owners in the 1993-94 fiscal year. Yet less that 4% of the dogs impounded during that time were licensed. It seems clear, then, that factors other than licensing are responsible for the high redemption rate for dogs.

The most obvious reason for the difference between dog and cat redemption rates is the fact that a much higher proportion of the dogs who are impounded are "owned" in the first place. Few dogs are found, for instance, in the type of feral or doorstep colonies that thousands of cats call home, nor are there many unowned neighborhood dogs. Since most dogs impounded are likely to be "owned" by someone, it makes sense that many more would be redeemed. And since a much smaller proportion of impounded cats are "owned" - a Santa Clara study estimated that less than 9% of all stray cats handled by that county's animal control agency were owned - it makes sense that far fewer cats are redeemed. A licensing program obviously can't change that, unless, of course, it is accomplished by concentrated efforts to round up and kill all unowned cats in a community.

CLAIM: Cat licensing will help reduce the number of stray and abandoned cats.

The only way cat licensing will reduce the number of stray and abandoned cats is if it is enforced by rounding up unlicensed cats and taking them to the local animal control agency where the vast majority will be killed. And this, we fear, is exactly what will happen. Many individuals and groups openly advocate for cat control measures like licensing as a vehicle for round-up-and-kill measures. And even animal control agencies that disclaim any intention of initiating round-up-and-kill programs will have to respond to complaints about cats from these individuals and groups, which will inevitably result in cats being rounded up and killed.

Without round-up-and-kill measures it seems apparent that cat licensing will only work to increase, not decrease, the number of homeless cats. Faced with citations and penalties for not complying cat caretakers who can't afford the new license fees will be forced to surrender their animals to the local shelter or abandon them to fend for themselves. Neighborhood cats, cats in doorstep colonies or multi-cat households, cherished pets owned by seniors on restricted incomes, feral cats with caretakers on limited budgets. These are the kinds of cats who will be most at risk, and for whom a licensing mandate could well be fatal. Of course, for the stray and abandoned cats already in the community, licensing will do nothing.

CLAIM: Cat licensing will help decrease shelter euthanasia.

Since cat licensing will likely result in more cats being surrendered to shelters and abandoned in the community, since it will not appreciably affect redemptions, and since it may very well become a vehicle for round-up-and-kill campaigns, it is difficult for us to see how it would result in a decrease in shelter euthanasia.

CLAIM: Cat licensing will raise money to help fund animal control agencies.

Cat licensing will cost local governments and taxpayers money, not raise it, resulting in a net loss to animal control and/or other vital government services. Indeed, we doubt whether revenues raised would even cover basic administrative expenses. For example, each license fee collected - and most proposals we've seen set the fee between $5 and $10 - will have to cover the costs of manufacturing, handling, storing and mailing the actual licenses (and/or implanting microchips), handling the checks and cash received, issuing receipts, recording and filing the necessary data on each cat and owner, updating the data as needed, responding to public questions and comments, mailing out renewal notices and reminders, preparing accounting statements and annual program reports, etc. This list doesn't include overhead or initial start- up expenses, like hiring and training staff to run the new program and developing ne computer programs and databases.

And if the fees collected won't cover basic administrative expenses, they certainly won't cover the enormous costs of public awareness campaigns and enforcement. As noted above, "voluntary" compliance with cat licensing mandates is notoriously low. To raise compliance rates, the community will have to be made aware of the new mandate: door-to-door canvassing, city and countywide mailings, advertisements in local print media - all bear significant costs. And these campaigns will have to be repeated on a regular basis to maintain public awareness. Of course, these efforts alone won't ensure compliance, and they will have to be backed by meaningful enforcement. New enforcement staff will have to be hired, or existing staff taken away from other essential duties, in order to patrol the community for unlicensed cats, respond to complaints, issue citations, prepare reports,etc. And all these costs will have to be paid by local taxpayers, either through higher taxes or through cuts in other vital government services.

CLAIM: Dog owners contribute to animal control costs through licensing fees; it's time cat owners pay their fair share.

Just as licensing fees aren't likely to cover the real costs of a cat licensing program, we strongly doubt whether the fees now paid by dog owners cover much more than the basic costs of administering dog licensing programs. From a fiscal standpoint, therefore, local governments and taxpayers, not to mention dog owners, may well be better off if mandatory dog licensing were simply abolished. In any event, enacting another costly government program that won't pay for itself isn't the way to give dog owners the equity they seek.

No doubt there will be animal control agencies and contracting humane organizations who dispute our analysis and offer projections to show that cat licensing will make money for animal control services in their communities. we believe these agencies should be willing to stand behind these projections by having their taxpayer- financed budgets cut by the projected amount. Without this or a similar mechanism for accountability, we fear cat licensing will become yet another expensive government program that only works to inappropriately expand government bureaucracies at the expense of local taxpayers, responsible cat caretakers, and the animals themselves.

CLAIM: Regulating cat owners through licensing and other mandates is the only way to solve cat problems.

In our view, the way to teach people to be responsible pet owners and help the cats in a communit community at large through coercive mandates, when it is the local shelters who are the primary source of animals and whose policies and practices have the greatest impact, for better or worse, on local animal welfare issues.

We realize, however that in some cases local shelter policies may have failed and animal problems may be worsening in a community. In such cases, government intervention might be warranted, provided it is carefully focused to have the greatest impact. For instance, requiring shelters to alter animals before adoption and to devote a substantial proportion of their annual animal control and shelter budgets (e.g., 10-20%) to offering free spay/neuter services would do far more to help cats and reduce pet overpopulation than cat licensing and other punitive mandates.*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: CAT FANCIERS' ALMANAC, Volume 12 Number 2 June 1995 page

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

The San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animais
2500 16th Street • San Francisco, CA 94103-6589 • (415) 554-3000

Position Statement
January 3,1995

Against Mandatory Cat Licensing

Can licensing wipe out homelessness, raise the status of the underprivileged, eliminate the budget crisis, and make people more caring and responsible?

Few would believe these claims, if they were being made about a program to license people. {grin}{grin}{grin}{grin}{grin}{grin}{grin}{grin}

Yet, when it comes to cats, we are asked to believe all these claims are true.

According to proponents, mandatory cat licensing will put an end to the problem of stray and abandoned cats, raise the status of felines, increase funding for budget-strapped animal control agencies, and make cat owners more responsible.

Unfortunately, licensing cats, like licensing people, won't do any of these things.

The San Francisco SPCA has considered the various claims made for mandatory cat licensing legislation and has found little in the way of evidence — or even, in some cases, common sense—to support them.

In our view, rather than helping cats or their caretakers, the primary effects of mandatory cat licensing legislation would be to:

1. put the lives and well-being of cats at risk and serve as a tool for round-up-and-kill campaigns;
   
   
2. penalize responsible cat owners and force many compassionate caretakers to stop providing for homeless and abandoned cats;
   
   
3. cost local governments and taxpayers money; and
   
   
4. inappropriately expand the power and reach of government bureaucracies and enforcement agencies.

Indeed, the most vocal proponents of cat licensing have been municipal animal control agencies and humane organizations that hold contracts to perform animal control services—the very agencies and organizations that stand to gain the most in terms of more staff, larger budgets, and expanded enforcement and community oversight powers.

Since none of these broad new powers will help cats, their caretakers, or the local taxpayers (who will ultimately have to foot the bill), we cannot escape the conclusion that the call for cat licensing legislation has more to do with increasing bureaucratic powers, than with compassion, saving lives, and providing a helping hand to those who care.

Our analysis of each of the claims made for mandatory cat licensing is attached.

For further information on The San Francisco SPCA and its programs to help cats and cat caretakers, please contact us at 2500 -16th Street, San Francisco, California 94103-6589, (415) 554-3000.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Licensing cats will make their wallet full of $$$$$, drive more people to dump their cats on the streets, cats lovers will not take or rescue stray cats, in the end the poor cats suffer the most just because of the so called cat license. These council people are not animal lovers.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

he needs...you need to get one that state - master blackie call 007 {shy}

then got bell...awww then he will look like a doll {shy}

Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

True,more people will dump their pet on the street after this {cry2} people like us (the pet rescuer) yg suffer. we have to take all the shit.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

No, not you suffer, you can just dump all the extra cats into the longkang and walk away ... diorang yang akan suffer sebab pet rescuers can no longer give them shelter.

Johor tak ada SPCA ke? SPCA kita senyap aje ke? Untung kucing San Francisco sebab ada SPCA yang gigih memperjuangkan nasib mereka.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Besok aku jadi Datuk Bandar aku nak implement "Lesen Bini". Setiap bini kena dapatkan lesen. Bini-bini yang tak ada lesen kat leher, saya punya orang enforcement akan tangkap taroh dalam kandang kat zoo .... huhuhuhuuuuu!!!!! {scared}{scared}{scared}{scared}{scared}

Pastu aku akan laksanakan "Lesen Anak". Budak mana yang berkeliaran luar umah tak pakai lesen akan orang-orang penguatkuasaan saya tangkap dan heret naik lori bawa ke zoo juga ... {sick}{sick}{sick}{sick}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Johor ada SPCA...SPCA {zzz}{zzz}{zzz} Verrry quiet....no sound one.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Oi....Ini de new Datuk bandar very aggressive....everything want lesen. Finally everything kena lesen....he'll be laughing to the bank. Sleep also laugh.

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Tujuan utk wujudkan "Responsible Husbands" and "Responsible Parenting" out of all our men (using the same logic) ... wakakakakakahhhhhhhhh!!!!

Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Wah!! good ideat u Furkid.sapa2 yg nak tambah bini kena fikir beribu kali.klu tak skrg ni bini & anak suma durang chunk je klu dah tak suka.heheheheh!!

buat masa ni kucing yg warganegara rmh ni takde apa2.bayar saja lesen.tp kesianlah kucing2 org yg tak mau bayar lesen.mesti buang kat tepi jln,longkang,pasar mcm piece of kain buruk {angry}

Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

I agree 100% lelaki zaman skrg take easy way out.nak kahwin dgn career woman so durang tak payah tanggung bini dan anak.eh,real story one.aku ada kawan mcm tu.klu my hubby buat lagu tu,aku zassss!!! sekali.baru tau.tak payah jadi jantan biar mandul mcm kucing jantan {shy}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Nanti wujud kerjaya baru iaitu "Bini Rescuer", tapi jangan rescue janda muda yang lawa dan kaya ajer, ya?

Pastu Andy Tai Koh dan Ezer akan wujudkan forum "Binifinder" lak utk orang-orang cari bini ... {scared}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Please do not menyeleweng here, June, this is a serious thread (all Hall of Shame threads are serious, many heart rending).

Even though I mention about "Lesen Bini" and "Lesen Anak", and you laugh at it, the point is, (just like cat licensing): what does such actions achieve if at all they achieve something besides filling up the pockets of certain individuals of interest while at the same time emptying taxpayers' pockets?

Does it make the man more responsible towards his wife/wives and children? If yes, how much more and how effective? Sekarang dah ada sijil perkahwinan dan sijil beranak ... are men and women good responsible parents and spouses?

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

My pretty Mama sudah dapat lesen ...

Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

it is a serioud thread my friend but I'm not the one who start the bini and man's joke. {victory}

What I have to say here,the cat licensing things is created by certain politician to divert our attention on other serious matters so I do not want to make my head explode.In 6 mths time story abt cat licensing will disappear in thin air {sick}

Re: Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

Bukan joke nie, June, I was giving example to illustrate the San Francisco SPCA's very true statement in
Post #23 that says " Few would believe these claims, if they were being made about a program to license people. Yet, when it comes to cats, we are asked to believe all these claims are true ... " emphasising the incredulousness of the rationale behind the move to license cats. {victory}

No brain, kan? {mtired}

Now, Nilai council may impose licensing for cats
 

huhuhuhu!!! tgk berapa lama durang blh bertahan with the cat license issue {victory}org politik ni pandai cakap je tp tak tau kerja.suma sibuk nak kayakan poket masing2 {sick}