Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.015 2004-2006 ~ l9 1."": F i r. , ~ 't' ~ r~ ii' J SANCTUAR i P. O. Box 944 Hilo, Hawaii 96721 (808)982-5110 FAX: (808) 982-6160 2rainbow@ilhawaii. net http://www.rainbowfriends. org January 31, 2005 Comments on Draft 3 of Bi114 The following comments are submitted by Rainbow Friends Animal Sanctuary. Preliminary comments: l . There is an absence of any required holding time for cats similar to the 48 hours for dogs. There would seem to be no basis for not also providing 48 hours for the family of a cat to claim the cat. 2. There seems to be no distinction between the fines for offenses that constitute lack of adequate containment (stray) and acts that constitute animal cruehy. All penalties, except for those involving a dog that inflicts bodily harm, are fines ranging from $75 to $1,000. It would seem appropriate for penalties to be more significant for acts of cruelty to animals. A minimal step would be to raise the lower end of the penalty. Providing for more substantial punishments than monetary sanctions might also be appropriate. 3. Section 4-1. Definitions (r) Provocation We have had an instance where a dog in extreme pain from a dislocated hip bit one of our dog caretakers. While subsection (5) provides that pain or injury can be considered as provocation, that subsection also requires that the pain or injury be inflicted by the person or animal attacked. Our dog with the dislocated hip would not fit into that subsection. The inclusion of the clause "but not limited to" may allow for such a situation to be presented as a defense or perhaps subsection (5) could be written more broadly. 4. Section 4-1 Definition (x) Vicious Dog Subsection (2) raises a similar concern by defining a vicious dog as one who has bitten any person or animal. A dog in pain or injured may bite without consciously intending to do so; the same dog in a healthy state might never have bitten anyone. The only exception is when the dog is "being tormented, assaulted, or otherwise abuses by the victim of the vicious behavior." There is no "but not limited to" clause in this subsection. The subsection should either include that clause or be written more broadly to indttde Comm. N0. Z Z • ~S Ref. To: Pt~w~- R~f. Uate exceptions that evidence a lack of intent on the part of the dog. 5. Section 4-4. Power to seize and impound dogs, cats, and small domesticated animals This section empowers an enforcement officer to seize any "stray." One of the definitions of "stray" is 4-I (v)(1) "an unlicensed dog or dog without a license for the current yeaz." The definition would seem to mean that an enforcement officer can seize any dog found without a current license, whether on the property of its family or not. The law does not seem intended to be that broadly written. Note: The problem is highlighted by the heading of Section 4-20(b) "Seizure of Licensed Stray Dogs" as repeated in subsection "any licensed stray doe." (emphasis added) The definition of"stray" specifically excludes currently licensed dogs. 6. Section 4-12 Fees. (a) Raising the fees for licenses is a big mistake. We already face the situation where people lack the funds to spay and neuter. If the fees for licenses are raised, people will just stop getting licenses. If the purpose of the law is to protect the animals as well as people, the tags are one means of helping animals find their way back home. The securing of such a tag should be made as easy as possible. We currently request a donation of $60 for a dog adoption. We spay and neuter, provide medical check ups and vaccinations, and secure a tag for the animal before adoption. These services cost far more than the adoption donation. At the same time, the donation helps to defray the costs and demonstrate some financial capacity on the part of the adopting family. To increase the tag from $2 to $10 reduces the amount of the donation available to operate the Sanctuary by the amount of the increase. 7. Section 4-12 Fees (c) Rather than have the money received for licenses go into the general fund, we suggest such monies be placed in a dedicated fund to help people pay for spay and neuter. Every report and organization involved in this field has concluded that only a major spay and neuter program can truly address the abundance of homeless animals. Using fees generated under this law to reduce the animal population would contribute to that long term solution. 8. Section 4-16 Duty upon striking animals, including dogs and cats. We are very supportive of people taking action when they strike a dog or cat that might save the life of the animal. Subsection (b), however, is perhaps too vague to be enforceable. The requirement to "[h]ave the animal's owner located" does not provide sufficient detail to know what actions fulfill that responsibility, i.e. asking at nearby houses, taking a tag number of tracing the owner, etc. We are also concerned about whether our Sanctuary falls within the definition of "animal care center." We are an incorporated, non-profit organization that provides homes for homeless animals and seeks to adopt them out. One of our goals is certainly to prevent cruelty to animals. We are not certain whether that means someone can fulfill their responsibility under this section by calling us to say that they have struck an animal on the road. We lack the resources to respond directly to such a call and frequemly as so busy during the day that we let the telephone take messages that we return hours later or the next day. While we would want to help in such a situation, we would not want to be considered the appropriate place to notify of such an accident both because we cannot respond and because we might not learn of the incident until well after the accident. Section 4-1 S Places prohibited to animals, including dogs and cats We find it unfortunate to ban dogs from all County beach parks. We would prefer to see requirements that allow dogs to go to the beach and their families to ensure the dogs do not disturb others at the beach or leave behind any fecal matter. 9. Section 4-20 Seizure of dogs by officers. (a) Seizure of Unlicensed Dogs (1) Again we are concerned with the effects of raising the fees. To raise the impoundment fee to $25 only makes it less likely that the dog's family will reclaim the dog. To reclaim an unlicensed dog that is not spayed or neutered would cost a minimum of $50 under the new provisions. The less likely the family will reclaim the dog, the more likely the dog will be euthanized. Raising fees is, therefore, not in the best interest of the dog. (2) This subsection provides for an enforcement officer to sell a seized dog. The law in general, however, does not make the enforcement officer directly responsible for the animal once seized. Normally, the officer would deliver the dog to a pound. The pound, not the officer, would be the responsible party from that point forward. Another concern about this subsection is that the amount to be paid for the dog does not seem to include spay and neuter should the dog be in tact when seized. Currently the Humane Society requires a dog be spayed or neutered before leaving their facility and charges accordingly. This section would seem to allow the selling of impounded dogs for the amount of the license and impoundment fee, whether spayed and neutered or not. A third concern is that we believe an improvement in the relationship between people and domestic animals, particularly dogs and cats, would take place if the idea of"selling" is replaced with "adopting." (4) We make a similar suggestion regarding the fees collected pursuant to this subsection that the fees be placed in a fund dedicated to spay and neuter assistance. (b) Seizure of Licensed Stray Dogs We have already noted above that the term "licensed stray dogs" contradicts the definition of "stray." (2) Again, we are concerned that raising fees is not in the best interest of the animals. (5) As above, we support dedicating fees to a spay and neuter fund. 10. Section 4-21 Seizure of stray dogs by persons other than officers. This section is the most troubling in the current and revised law. We receive calls from people all the time who have found a dog and do not want to turn it into the Humane Society because they know it has no chance of adoption and will be euthanized. We encourage them to file a found dog report with the Humane Society and to place a free classified ad in the newspaper under Lost and Found. We also encourage them to ask in the neighborhood where the animal was found, to put up posters, and to otherwise try to find the animal's family. Right now, we have a dog in residence named Champ. A person familiar with the Sanctuary called to say she had found a badly injured dog that had climbed into her car. She could not take the dog in herself and asked that we help him. We asked her to deliver the dog to a veterinarian who cleaned out the extensively infected wound and otherwise treated him. Champ has a wound, probably from a pig, that opened up his leg from the top to the ankle. He cannot be sutured because the wound is too wide and the risk of infection too great. We change his bandages every day in a process that will probably take months for his leg to heal. He is a wonderful dog and would not have had a moment's chance at life had we turned him in to the Humane Society because they do not have the resources to provide such intensive treatment. At the Sanctuary, we will stick with him until he is healed and then try to find him a good home. Should we be fined $75 to $1,000 for not simply turning Champ over to the Humane Society? There simply has to be a better way to address found dogs than to require they be turned over to the Humane Society when we all know that they are overloaded with animals every day and have to euthanize thousands a yeaz. If there aze people (or sanctuaries) willing to take in a lost dog, they should be allowed to do so with a requirement that they perform certain functions to find the family of the lost animal, e.g. the report filed at the Humane Society, the classified advertisement, notification to veterinary offices, or some similar requirements. Perhaps Research and Development could make a small grant to develop aLost/Found Animal Response that would instruct people on how to respond to a found dog and to help reunite people with their animals or to find alternative homes. 11. Section 4-24/4-25 It appears that the subsections of 4-25 should be incorporated into 4-24 starting with (e). 12. Section 4-26 Harboring, holding for rewazd, or licensing of strayed or stolen dogs. Our concerns about this section are the same concerns expressed in Comment 10 above. We fully intend to "harbor" Champ and to procure a license for him while doing whatever we can to locate his family. If we do find his family, we will ask for a donation to cover our expenses without requiring them to pay anything, if they choose not to, in order to get