Response from the Town of Colma
The City Council of the Town of Colma acknowledges receipt of the 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report and responds to it as follows:
The Town agrees with the finding that the Pet Overpopulation Plan has laudable goals and objectives. However, the Town disagrees with the remaining findings, including the implied finding that adoption of the entire San Mateo County POP ordinance promotes public health and safety. There is insufficient evidence in the Report to support these findings.
The Town of Colma disagrees with Recommendation 3.7 that the Town adopt the San Mateo County POP ordinance in its entirety.
Clearly, mandatory cat licensing is a controversial proposal that is opposed by other animal rights groups, such as "Pets in Need," Another Life for Animals," "Homeless Cat Network," "Cats Are Truly Special," and "Cat Fanciers Alliance."
.These groups claim that the San Mateo County POP has been a failure, that the POP ordinance will not encourage responsible behavior, and that the costs far outweigh any benefits of the ordinance. Their claims appear to be supported by empirical evidence.
While the 1999 Grand Jury did not recommend cat licensing, the 2000 Grand Jury recommended in favor of mandatory cat licensing. Yet, the 2000 Grand Jury did not give any explanations or reasons for the change in position.
Given the widespread, reasoned opposition to cat licensing and the lack of evidence in support of its recommendation, the City Council of the Town of Colma has determined that the recommendation for mandatory cat licensing does not appear to be warranted.