The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0239.046 2024-2026P / GoundI R Z,140-25 GOMM. 2N From: Jordan Lerma Sent: Monday, May 19, 2025 9:56 PM To: Council Testimony < Subject: Testimony Opposing Resolution 140-25 c� Ire Dear Council Members, -19 My name is Jordan Lerma, Executive Director of Nene.or , a nonprofit dedicated to protecting native species in Hawai'i. I urge you to vote NO on Resolution 140-25, which would award $50,000 in grant funding to Aloha Animal Alliance for a Trap -Neuter -Return -Manage (TNRM) pilot program. C"J TNRM has been tried across the United States —from San Diego and Orange County to New York City, Chicago, and Austin. Millions of public dollars have been spent. The result: feral cat populations persist, native wildlife continues to suffer, and legal liabilities grow. This is not a new idea —it's a failed one. TNRM Has Repeatedly Failed Across the U.S. Despite its widespread promotion, TNRM has not delivered meaningful reductions in feral cat populations: • San Diego (2024-2025): A Superior Courtjudge ruled that the San Diego Humane Society's "Community Cats" program —which involved releasing cats without confirmed caretakers —was unlawful abandonment. The court found that returning adoptable or domesticated cats outdoors without guaranteed care violated California's animal welfare laws. • Orange County (2025): Officials rejected catch -and -release entirely, citing concerns about friendly cats being released without oversight. The county shifted to adoption -based approaches instead. • New York City (2023): TNR failed to reduce urban cat populations due to high immigration and poor colony oversight. The city pivoted to complementary strategies, including stricter spay/neuter requirements and regulation of feeding stations. • Chicago (2015): A University of Illinois study concluded that TNR did not reduce overall cat numbers because of unmanaged migration. Poor oversight also contributed to cat suffering. • Austin (2018): A city audit revealed TNR colonies were overcrowded, unmanaged, and ineffective. The city moved toward increased adoption and stricter regulation of caretakers. These are not edge cases. These are nationally known municipalities with resources, infrastructure, and the same goals we have. If they couldn't make TNR work, how can we expect a small, underfunded pilot program in Hawai'i to succeed? This Pilot Comes at the Cost of Extinction I understand that this may be framed as a limited, exploratory project. But Hawai'i is not like anywhere else. We are the extinction capital of the world. Our islands have lost more native species than anywhere on Earth, and those that remain —like nene—are constantly threatened by toxoplasmosis and cat predation. Comm: � Ref. To. 1 Ref. a��e_Y� 1 2025 We cannot afford to "experiment" with public money on strategies that have failed elsewhere, especially when the cost is measured in species loss. Every dollar spent supporting TNRM is a dollar diverted from proven, effective methods like targeted removal, habitat protection, and recovery actions for endangered species. Legal Risks in Hawaii Mirror San Diego Hawaii has strong animal abandonment laws under HRS § 143-2.6 and § 711-1109.7, making it illegal to desert animals without the intent to return. Any TNRM program that releases cats without a confirmed, registered caretaker risks violating these statutes just as the San Diego Superior Court ruled in 2024- 2025, declaring a similar program unlawful due to the absence of guaranteed post -release care. Without strict, enforceable oversight, this pilot places Hawaii County in direct legal jeopardy. Even if a certification or registration system is implemented, it does not change the ground truth: many current colony caretakers are elderly, physically limited, or do not reside full-time in Hawaii. We routinely see social media posts from caretakers admitting they can no longer care for their colonies. In these cases, cats are left to suffer —starving, untreated, or exposed to harsh conditions. A paper certification does not feed cats, treat illness, or build shelter during a storm. If a cat is released back to an area with vehicle traffic and is later hit and killed by a car, the caretaker, Aloha Animal Alliance, animal control, and the County should all be held liable for animal cruelty. If cats are left without shelter during heavy rains or storms, that is not just poor management —it is criminal neglect under state law. Hawai`i's animal cruelty statutes make clear that causing or permitting -an animal to endure harm — through starvation, untreated injury, or exposure —is unlawful. By enabling and funding a program that systemically produces these outcomes, the County is not just complicit —it becomes a direct participant in that cruelty. Moreover, when unmanaged cats harm endangered species —as they have with nene, wedge-tailed shearwaters, and monk seals —the legal risk extends beyond state cruelty laws to include liability under the federal Endangered Species Act. Kauai and Maui counties are already facing legal scrutiny for failing to prevent such harm. Hawaii County will not be exempt. In fact, funding a program like TNRM, despite repeated warnings and evidence of harm, may constitute willful negligence under federal law. TNRM Doesn't Reflect Public or Conservation Priorities Multiple surveys in Hawaii show that residents overwhelmingly want feral cat numbers reduced and prefer permanent removal over TNR. TNRM is not the public's choice. It is not conservation's choice. And it is not the responsible choice for a county already stretched for resources and battling ecological collapse. Instead of funding a program that has failed elsewhere, this money should be directed toward reopening intake at animal control, building a robust adoption and foster network, offering discounted veterinary care for families seeking companion animals, and responsibly increasing euthanasia rates where necessary. These are the tools needed to prevent suffering, protect public health, and safeguard Hawai`i's native species. If members of the public threaten or harass animal control staff for performing these difficult but essential duties, then it is the responsibility of this Council to pass laws protecting those employees. Compassionate, effective animal management requires public accountability, legal support, and the political will to act in the best interest of people, wildlife, and the animals themselves. Resolution 140-25 is not just a bad investment —it is a predictable failure. It risks wildlife, wastes funds, and opens the County to legal action. I urge you to stand with science, conservation, and fiscal responsibility. Vote NO on Resolution 140-25. Let's fund real solutions, not repeat failed ones. Sincerely, Jordan Lerma