Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.014 2004-2006 West Hawaii Humane Society ~ P.O. Box 2695 •Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96745 (808) 329-2051 Fax: (808) 329-6721 Email - towle@kona.net January 30, 2005 To -Committee Meeting -Animal Control Chapter 4 revisions Testimony -Communication 22.1, Bill #4, Draft 2 & 3 From -Ginger Towle, President, West Hawaii Humane Society 75-5788 Nele Place Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 Phone 329-2051 E-mail towle@kona.net I wish to thank Bob Jacobson for spearheading this review, however, I do consider it as work in progress. Many issues can be handled in the contract to fine tune what the community needs. So... I realize that some of the suggestions Madelyn Barrea and I are going to make are costly, however, they should be required if we want an informed educated animal control staff. This should become a career path. These people inter act with the community and should be knowledgeable. They are the police of the animal world. Madelyn Barrea, a past Animal Control Manager for Hawaii Island Humane Society has requested I add this section. This is an Animal Control contract thus: All animal control staff, including and especially the Executive Director shall attend and successfully complete the National Animal Control Officers Training Course before being allowed to obtain a badge and enforce the law. This training is in addition to passing a written exam on the Sate and County of Hawaii animal related laws. (We have experienced the effect of untrained executive directors.) Specific classes in the handling of large animals should also be required. There should be mandatory drug testing and background check. While it is probably logical that fines should be raised, the truth of the matter is that if the laws are not enforced and warnings instead of citations continue to be given, nothing will change. Prior to 1990 West Hawaii Humane Society gave between 250 and 400 citations for half the island and we were severely understaffed as always seems to be the case in animal control. That is why I took the training and assisted my officers in the field. Currently the number of citations is around 100 more or less for the whole island and there is a much larger population now. Maui gave 500 last year and have given as many as 600 in a year. For more information on Maui call Ami Anderson, Animal Control & Cruelty Investigator. 808-877-3680 Ext. 33. She has been there about 20 years. They have the best animal control program in the state. Officers need to be given a fine schedule; each officer should not decide the fines given each time, as it seems to indicate. What is the point of saying a fine of $75.00 to $500? Or $1,00.00 if there are no graduated fines and no indication as to what the officer should do? If it ends up in Court the Judge makes a decision and everything should not go to court! I also feel that graduated fines would be especially appropriate for straying and barking dogs. It should be made a law that tape-recorded testimony, for barking dogs, should be accepted in court. The person recording would identify themselves the time of day and location and would have to appear in court. To lie in court is perjury. Without such a law nothing is going to change! The court accepts testimony from people who are witness to other crimes. The police anim c ntr I cannot be everywhere. Comm. J0. Ref. To: Pte~eeq/ L Ref. Uote It should be established and a firm policy that the day the animal is checked in and the day it is released does not count in the time period of 2 or 7 days. All animals should fall under the 2 to 7 days. For instance -cats with I D 7 days, strays 2 days. Feral cat colony managers, such as Karen Klein with Advo cats should be called and cats held for pickup. (Which I believe Kona is doing now.) Section 4-12 should note that all dogs over 3 months are required to be licensed. (State law). The question is always asked, "How old do they have to be?" In writing our County laws we have to (by law) be at least as strict as the State, however, we can be strider. Section 4-17, Cruelty to animals is inadequate. It should simply refer to HRS 711-1109 or include the complete text in the County code. I would also suggest adding a section that requires that complete restitution for injuries to human or animal and replacement of animal should be included if animal dies. There should also be a requirement that the offender attended anger management classes or other appropriate education programs. If this is a case of abusing his own animals they should be removed. (Review 711-1109 and related sections for clarification some copies attached.) If the above suggestion is not considered than I suggest an itemized list of fines for certain behavior. Abandoning, beating an animal to death or assisting someone else in the ad etc. or not properly tying your dog in your truck should certainly require a different fine! AN OFFICER MUST NEVER ASK A RESIDENT THAT HAS BEEN ATTACTED OR A PET KILLED BY A STRAY DOG..."DO YOU WANT TO PURSUE THE DANGEROUS DOG CITATION"! The continual use of the phrase "animals, dogs and cats" is unnecessary. Dogs and cats are included under the definition of animals. Other recommended changes in existing Draft: Under 4-3 add another section 4-3.1 because the cooperation of all agencies is extremely important and critical to accomplish our goals of animal welfare and control. I propose the following: 4-3.1 The contractor or contractors shall work with all other animal welfare societies giving special assistance and cooperation to those animal care agencies who house and or adopt out animals and managers of feral cat colonies. The following sections 4-16 (e), 4-18 (d), 4-19 (d), 4-21 4-23 (d), 4-25 (b), 4-26 (c) ali have this statement: An enforcement officer issuing a citation for a first violation of this section may set a fine of $75.00 to be paid before the court date set in the complaint or summons. However, if the fine is not paid by the initial court date, a judge will not be bound to the $75.00. This is an unnecessary phrase because judges are never bound by the citation amount listed unless there is a specific law stating, "This fine cannot be suspended" or some other law covering sentencing. Judges routinely ignore the fine schedule. The cow cruelty case this year is an excellent example. The judge dropped all charges in this proven case. In cruelty cases there should be some decision as to the minimum fine with a statement that this fine cannot be suspended. (See Maui law) Under 4-34 Failure to obey summons or citation. The following statement is unnecessary "However, if the minimum payment set by the issuing officer is paid in full prior to the scheduled court date, then this section will not apply" Well of course not!!! Section 4-36 Disposition of fines etc. Just where do they go? The state receives the fines, even though Section 4-36 says they go to the County General fund. How does that work? I feel the law should be correct. Under Section 4-37 Reference to State Law Add the following which is really pertinent to animal welfare and control. Section 711-1109, Hawaii Revised Statues: Cruelty to animals TO SUMMERIZE: REMEMBER -THIS IS AN ANIMAL CONTROL CONTRACT DOG OWNERS ARE ADULTS AND THEY MANAGE TO OBEY TRAFFIC LAWS, PAY TAXES ETC. THEY CAN LEARN TO KEEP THEIR DOGS ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY, THEY KNOW THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO AND THEY JUST DO AS THEY PLEASE BECAUSE NOTHING IS EVER DONE. THERE ISNT A BETTER TEACHER WITH ADULTS THEN A STIFF FINE! WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THEIR RESPONSIBILTY FOR YEARS! SAVE THE EDUCATION PROGRAMS FOR THE KIDS WHERE WE MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE!! ALL THE STAFF SHOULD KNOW THE LAWS. THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING ACCURATE RECORDS, INCLUDING THOSE HANDLED BY THE POLICE. A REVIEW SYSTEM SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR TO MONITOR THOSE DOGS DECLARED DANGERIOUS OR VICIOUS, INCLUDING THOSE HANDLED BY THE POLICE. CATS AND OTHER ANIMALS SHOULD FALL UNDER THE SAME PROTECTION AS DOGS. ALL STAFF SHOULD WEAR COMPLETE PROFESSIONAL UNIFORMS. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MADE TO ESTABLISH ACOOPERATIVE-WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS. WE ARE IN THE SAME BUSINESS!! THIS DOESNT MEAN INTERMINGLING OF FUNDS, )UST DAY TO DAY WORK!! THE CONTRACTOR NEEDS MORE FUNDS TO BE SUCCESSFUL. NOT ONLY FOR STAFF SALARIES AND TRAINING BUT ALSO EQUIPMENT SUCH AS COMPUTER PROGRAMS. CRUELTY LAW NEEDS SERIOUS WORK Page 1 of 1 §711-1109 Cruelty to animals. (1) A person commits the offense of cruelty to animals if the person intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly: (a) Overdrives, overloads, tortures, torments, cruelly beats or starves any animal, or causes or procures the overdriving, overloading, torture, torment, cruel beating or starving of any animal, or deprives a pet animal of necessary sustenance or causes such deprivation; (b) Mutilates, poisons, or kills without need any animal other than insects, vermin, or other pests; (c) Keeps, uses, or in any way is connected with or interested in the management of, or receives money for the admission of any person to, any place kept or used for the purpose of fighting or baiting any bull, bear, dog, cock, or other animal, and every person who encourages, aids, or assists therein, or who permits or suffers any place to be so kept or used; (d) Carries or causes to be carried, in or upon any vehicle or other conveyance, any animal in a cruel or inhumane manner; or (e) Assists another in the commission of any act of cruelty to any animal. (2) Subsection (1)(a), (b), (d), (e) and the following subsection (3) are not applicable to accepted veterinary practices and to activities carried on for scientific research governed by standards of accepted educational or medicinal practices. (3) Whenever any domestic animal is so severely injured that there is no reasonable probability that its life or usefulness can be saved, the animal may be immediately destroyed. (9) Cruelty to animals is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of ~1; am L 1986, c 192, §~1, 2; am L 1998, c 173, §2] Previous Next HRS 0711-1110_0005 ANNOTATIONS Page 1 of 1 HRS 0711-1110 0005 ANNOTATIONS COMD~NTARY ON §711-1110.5 Act 262, Session Laws 1985, requires the defendant convicted of cruelty to animals to surrender: (1) the animal whose abuse led to the conviction; and (2) any other animal if there is evidence of its abuse or neglect. The Legislature felt that a court- ordered hiatus in the custody of the abused animal would accomplish the clear intent of this measure to protect abused animals from further harm. House Standing Committee Report No. 421, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 897. Previous N cxt Page 1 of 1 [§711-1110.5] Surrender or Forfeiture of animals. Upon conviction for any violation of section 711-1109 or 711-1109.3: (1) The court may order the defendant to surrender or forfeit the animal whose treatment was the basis of the conviction to the custody of a duly incorporated humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals for such time and under such conditions as the court shall order. (2) The court also may order the defendant to surrender or forfeit any other animals under the possession, custody, or control of the defendant to the custody of a duly incorporated humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals for such a time and under such conditions as the court shall order, if there is substantial evidence that such animals are being abused or neglected. [L 1985, c 262, ~l] Previous Next HRS 0711-I 110 ANNOTATIONS Page 1 of 2 HRS 071 ]-1 110 ANNOTATIONS COMMENTARY ON §§711-1109 TO 1110 When the Legislature adopted the Code in 1972, it declined to accept the Proposed Draft's treatment of the offense of cruelty to animals. Section 711-1109 as adopted clarifies the existing law relating to the offense of "cruelty to animals." It makes it a crime to "knowingly or recklessly" overdrive, overload, torture, torment, deprive of necessary sustenance, cruelly beat, or needlessly mutilate or kill any living creature. The section prohibits the keeping, using, management, or receipt of money for admission for fighting or baiting any "bull, bear, dog, cock, or other creature." It also bars the carrying of any creature in a cruel or inhumane manner, and bars any other act towards the furtherance of any act of cruelty to animals. The section provides that if a domestic animal is so severely injured that there is no reasonable probability that its life or usefulness can be saved, the animal may be immediately destroyed. The section also states that the provisions do not apply to "accepted veterinary practices" and "scientific research" activities. Section 711-1110 is a new section which was not contained in the Proposed Draft. It authorizes agents of any society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to make arrests for violations of X711-1109. The Code basically retains the prior existing Hawaii law relating to this subject. Thus the provisions set forth in HRS Chapter 722, with updating, appear to be restated in substantial part in the Code. The Code treatment thus differs from the brief provision recommended by the Proposed Draft. The Legislature felt that the provision was too vague to prevent some types of mistreatment of animals. Conference Committee Report No. 2 (1972). SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTARY ON §§711-1109 TO 1110 Act 173, Session Laws 1998, amended X711-1109 to provide that depriving pet animals of necessary sustenance constitutes the crime of cruelty to animals. The legislature noted that the statute identified only those acts which were the most heinous and extreme, such as beating, mutilation, poisoning, starvation, and torture. However, on a daily basis, other less overt acts such as daily neglect also resulted in the inhumane treatment of animals. Thus, the legislature agreed that pet animals deserved a minimum level of care including adequate food, water, and shelter. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 3222, Conference Committee Report No. 87. HRS 0711-1110 ANNOTATIONS Page 2 of 2 Act 192, Session Laws 1986, amended X711-1109 to provide that the intentional, knowing, or reckless poisoning of an animal, except insects and vermin, constitutes the offense of cruelty to animals. The prohibition was enacted in light of the increasing incidences of paraquat poisoning of animals and because of the uncertainty of whether the present law applied to such acts. House Conference Committee Report No. 37-86, Senate Conference Committee Report No. 27-86, and House Standing Committee Report No. 392. Section 711-1109.3 was added by Act 129, Session Laws 1983, to prohibit the practice of dog fighting and its related activities. While those activities could be prosecuted under X711-1109, the legislature felt the need to impose a more severe sanction than the misdemeanor penalty imposed in that section. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 397, House Standing Committee Report No. 1054. Act 259, Session Laws 2002, added ~~711-1109.4 and 711-1109.5, creating criminal offenses for causing injury or death to a guide dog, signal dog, or service animal, and for intentional interference with the use of a guide dog, signal dog, or service animal. Act 259 recognized the unique skills of guide dogs, signal dogs, and service animals that have completed lengthy and specialized training to serve their owners with disabilities. The dogs have become the object of taunting and injury from people or from other dogs. Conference Committee Report No. 58-02. Previous Nest Page 1 of 1 §143-2 License required. It shall be unlawful for any person to own or harbor a dog unless the dog is licensed as provided by this chapter, provided that the legislative bodies of the several counties may, by ordinance, dispense with or modify the licensing requirements of this chapter. This chapter shall not apply to dogs under the age of three months which do not run at large, dogs in quarantine and dogs brought into the State exclusively for the purpose of entering them in a dog show or dog exhibition and not allowed to run at large. [L 1941, c 268, §2; RL 1945, §152; RL 1955, X156-2; HRS §143-2; am L 1973, c 146, ~l] Next Previous Next Previous Y 6.04.1 ] 0 Penalties. Page 1 of 1 Tltle 6. Animals Chapter 6.04 AfVIMAL CONTROL 6.04.110 Penalties. A. Any person convicted of a violation of any section or provision of this chapter, except the provisions relating to excessive barking dogs and dangerous dogs, shall be fined not more than $500. The minimum fine shall be as follows: for a first violation, a fine of not less than $50; for a second violation within five years after a prior violation under this section, a fine of not less than $100; and, for a third violation within five years after two prior violations under this section, a fine of not less than $200. B. Any person convicted of a violation of any section or provision of this chapter relating to excessive barking dogs shall be fined not more than $500. The minimum fine shall be as follows: for a first violation, a fine of not less than $100; for a second violation within five years after a prior violation under this section, a fine of not less than $200; and, for a third violation within five years after two prior violations under this section, a fine of not less than $500. C. Any person convicted of a violation of any section or provision of this chapter relating to dangerous dogs shall be fined not more than $1,000 and imprisoned not more than thirty days. The minimum sentence shall be as follows: for a first violation, a fine of not less than $200; for a second violation within five years after a prior violation under this section, a fine of not less than $500; and, for a third violation within five years after two prior violations under this section, a fine of not less than $1,000. In addition, a court may require restitution for damages caused by a dangerous dog; provided, that this section shall not preclude a person damaged by a dangerous dog from pursuing a civil remedy. D. The portion of the fine equal to the minimum fine shall not be suspended. E. A successive violation of the same owner involving different dogs shall be considered a subsequent and not a first violation. F. For purposes of this Section 6.04.110, a violation is defined to include the payment of a fine directly to the district court or the finding of guilt by a court after a contested hearing. (Ord. 3094 § 3, 2002; Ord. 2922 § 8, 2000; Ord. 2785 § 1, 1999: Ord. 2578 § 8, 1997: Ord. 1914 § 9, 1990)