COM 0376.001 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

OCT-16-01 04:31 PM HIHS 8083294618 P. 03 '1°he report recommends coordination of 13adging Cusses by s specific County Department. fi1HS lass been limited in its ability to provide the necessary badging trainin$s due to a lack of coordination within the County ants. V6~e strongly support the establishrrtent of a County entity to organic and ttsandate par<eieipati®n by all requires County agencies involved itt the training process. 'ti?e believe this will more effectively faca7itate training classes in a timely manner, (2-25) For many years, H1HS been under attack from a west ~iawaii group that wattle to obtain the contract for animal control ott the west side. `The NACA report states, however, that the animal conb of contract should not be split between east and west Hawaii: `°'The Study Team would not recoaaltnend ~ division of current contract responsibilities until such tune as the new Meld program has been established." p 9-7 The NACA evaluation concurs with what HIHS has been saying for years, "The hlaevaii County Animal Code (~ICAC) appears to be poorly organized and lacking in major areas..." (pg. la-1). ;HIHS supports, in concept, most of the changes and recomenea~dations outlined in Chapter 10 ,'regarding Hawaii County ®rdinances. 1~Iost of these necomntendations should undergo careful and >extensive legal research. Public discussions should be o~'ered on certain proposed changes, 'especially those recomrttendations that HIHS believes will generate tremendous feedback fibm the public (i.e. laws relating to cart licensing and animal ownership limits). HII~IS further suggests that various law enforcement, legal representative and representatives from ;public interest groups work together an a collaborative effort to draft a review of the Hawaii County ®rdinances based on the NACA review. Unlike anost of the recommendations in the NACA report, upgrading the rude would cost very little, and the benefits would be great. ~6~Ve support the recotrtrrtendation that an Animal Control Advisory Board be establis6~ed according to ,the guidelines outlined on p. 9-3 of the report. This would be a far more efficient way of dealing ~?ith appeals, cotttplaittts, etc, than the current system. '!n response to NACA' s coanments on public complaints (]-I), ~l1HS responds to approxin'ately ;7,000 animal related calls per year. Copnp]aints printed in newspaper editorials, addressed in written ;form to the executive ®irecte?r or board of Directors, and cotrtplaints to the Mayor's office equal topproxitnately ] 00 per year, ~llten looking at public complaints, HIHS believes it is important tQ ;consider the nuartber of animal situations HIHS resolves relative to the cotrtplaints it receivt,~s. as well as the validity of each of those complaints. °1 he report also takes issue with the HIHS response times to animal control calls (2-16). alt; believe this is an issue that needs further clarification with ATACA. HIHS is cotrtmitted in our goal tc? inrtiase ;response to priority one calls immediately. ~fowever, the logistics of driving and covering alt island of this size limits our ability to be at she scene of the anirnat control situation irrtmediatcly, esp~ially for the many rural areas of our comanunity. In further review of H1FfS hssadIing of aaaianml control situations, NACA reports that a citati®n nc;ed not be issued for every redeemed animal (4-19). `The I°IIHS supports this view and it a current pxaeticc of i~€IEIS.