COM 0022.065 2004-2006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~f~ Match 30, 2005 c~.~.d ('~ii;l '~I ~ / Councilman Fred Holschuh ~ Councilman Pete Hoffinan & Council Members +,C..;~r<. County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Councilman Holschuh, Rottman, and other Council Members: As a fourth generation citizen of this County, l am writing you today to OBJECT to Bi114, Draft 5 in its revised format. This law doesn't address the true lifestyle of our kamaaina families of this County. I specifically have concerns regarding the proposed hike in licensing fees. Article 3, Section 4- 12 of Bi114, Draft 5 states that monies received from the license fees shall be deposited into the spay-neuter special fund. These dog license fees should be applied to dogs ONLY, and should not be used to spay and neuter CATS. As you aze well awaze, Hawaii County has a problem with cats. Cats are one of the main reasons dogs bark, and they aren't required to be on leash, nor aze they subject to a noisy cat ]aw. This County seems to be anti-dog, yet dogs have always been "man's best friend". There are also many feral cats out there as well as domestic cats. Cats kill birds, including those that are threatened or endangered. Many feral cats kill gamebirds as well as native birds. Have there been provisions to eradicate feral cats considering that they may be a contributing factor to the decline of native bird species? Many years back the sheep on Mauna Kea were eradicated to protect the palila, yet the sheep did not directly kill or eat the palila. Feral cats do kill birds. This bill needs to provide for cat licensing fees as well, and there should be a penalty for feeding and nurturing of feral cats. Section 4-18 states that dogs are not allowed in County parks. Why would we pay license fees for our dogs if the dogs cannot utilize parks to be exercised? Many parks on Oahu allow dogs as long as people clean up after their dogs. Seems like our County is stricter than Honolulu and we live in the country. The noisy dog section also needs to be looked at more carefully. Section 4-24 (b) indicates times when dogs can bark more than other times. That makes no sense considering not everyone sleeps during those hows that are stated. These proposed laws seem to have been changed to benefit a few complainer;,. Most responsible dog owners will not allow their dogs to bark and will check on the reason why the dog is barking. Do not make changes to this section and you need to look at the reasons dogs sometimes bazk. There are many burglaries in this County and dogs may bark at night because strangers are stalking yow neighborhood. Laws should not be changed to suit a few people who have problems, and hurt the vast majority of people who are responsible dog owners. Section 4-25 deals with penalties for noisy dogs. Section (a) should remain on the bill and not be deleted. For years graving up in Hawaii County, neighbors have been just as important as Canm. Na. 2L•6S Ref. To: Ref. Uate