Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.032 2004-2006 red 14 Ub uB:Ulp Richard Hceflinger (8081992-7324 p.2 RK:eiveii tl ~1me~~'ZU B~ per,, ~I~SIc'S Y w.~~>a! ~!Pcil , v ~I~t'a~d ~ ;ate i;~ ~ ~ ;ate HCR I Box 5±-14, Keaau, Hawaii 967$9 Telephrnle (808) 98?-5094 Gmaif hilodik~a~aoLcom February 14, 2005 To: Gary Safaric, Chairman, and Members of the Flawaii County Council Subject: Hawaii County Bi114, Relating to Animal Control Dear Chairman Safaric and Council Members: My name is Richard Hoeflinger. I am the founder a~td president of Big Island Gun Dogs, an organization dedicated to training upland bird hunting dogs of the pointing breeds. I have trained and handled dogs in numerous field trials and hunt tests, and have hunted game birds over these dogs for over 50 years. I am a past president of Ptg Hunters of Hawaii (2000-2002), and have held leadership positions in Big Island Bird Hunters, and the Hawaii Hunting Advisory Council. I chaired the state-wide Hawaii Hunting Forum in 2002. I was appointed to the Pu'u Wa'awa'a Ahupa'a Advisory Council in that same year, and continue to represent hunting interests with that body. In 2001, I was invited by Mr. Flynn to meet with, and discuss animal control issues from a hunting perspective with personnel from the National Animal Control Association. I am in receipt of their subsequent report to the Hawaii County Council dated September, 2001. I recently reviewed Dratt 3 of Bi114, a Hawaii County Ordinance relating to animal control I have discussed the subject draft with our membership, and provide the following comments from our organization for your consideration: Li. 3 t Comm. No. Ref. To: -~re-~~e-~ete/- K._f. C.`aYe rip rao ~Y uo uri:uip Kicn.ar~5 Hoef'linger (80819'12-7324 p.3 GEiv'ERAL COMMENTS: Reference is made to the term "humane society" throughout the draft document; specifically, on page 2, 10 times on page 3, I 1 tunes on page 4, on page 5 and 6, 3 times on page 7, twice on page 9, on page 10, and twice each on pages 1 1 and 12. ht most usage, 1t is followed by "or animal care center". Use of both terms is redundant. Animal care center is the more generic term in the context of the ordinance. Humane society expressed in lower case has little specitic meaning; it could refer to almost anything. Most references to the term "humane society" are associated with organizations affiliated with the Humane Society of the United States. The Humane Society of the United States is one of the most extreme anti-hunting organizations in the country. It recently allied with another extremist group, the Fund for Animals. Their combined budget is $g0 million, much of which will be spent fighting hunters in an effort to end hunting in our country. A few short years ago, the Hawaii Island Humane Society instituted a policy that prohibited dog adoption to hunters, based on the anti-hunting agenda of the Humane Society of the United States. In meetings with then Director Fowler, it was confirmed that the HIHS preferred to euthanize animals rather than adopt them out to hunters. It was only under threat of a hunter class action discrimination lawsuit, and loss of Hawaii County financial subsidy by Councilman Yagong, that subsequent Director Hashida reluctantly rescinded the policy. It needs to be clearly stated that we have no problem whatsoever with the working staff of the Hawaii Island Humane Society. They have been most helpful in the return of lost dogs to members of the hunting community. We remain wary and vigilant however, with the HIHS administration, because of its ties to the national organization, and influence of its anti-hunting agenda. Because it is both redundant in the context of the proposed ordinance, and raises concern within a significant segment of the Hawaii County population, it is suggested that the stated references to "humane society" be removed entirely from the draft document. SPECIFIC COMMENTS: 2 Feb 14 O5 08:O1p Richard Hoeflinger [8081982-7324 p.4 Section 1 -Would this not be more correctly stated as follows: "The purpose of this measure is to increase County revenue to offset animal control costs by amending Chapter ~l, ,Mimals, with increased fines, and authorization for an animal care center to eonG•act with the county to provide services for animal control and care." The purpose is to increase revenue. The means is to amend the code. Section 4-] (a) - There is no definition of animal in section 4-31 ('assuming that is what 431 means) Section 4-] (e) - Do you mean to limit the definition of "attack" to that of a dog alone, and not include other animals? Section 4-1(v) (11-Duplicates definition presented in subsection (w), following page. Section 4-1(v) (3) -Refers to lead 8 feet in length. Section 4-29(a); page 8, refers to lead 6 feet in length. It is suggested that a consistent length of 6 feet be used, since that is a common commercially available lead length. Section 4-1(x) -I would add to the exception of vicious behavior, "...or defending its owner, owner's property, or its own litter offspring". Section a-18(b) -The generally accepted te11n for dogs that assist handicapped persons is "Service Dugs". Section 4-25(c) -1 know of no "obedience school" that can teach a dog not to bark. The most common means employed to curtail barking is to fit the dog with an electronic bark limiting device, usually contained in a neck collar. Section 4-27(b) -The penalty for intentionally poisoning a dog is grossly inadequate. The value of a trained pure bred hunting dog would be in the thousazlds of dollars, more if it was imported from the mainland. It is questionable whether the fine indicated would even match the veterinary charges the dog owner would incur if the animal survived. Any individual who poisons dogs is not a stellar citizen of our community, and deserves more severe pw~ishment than that indicated. Section 4-29(a) - As suggested previously, change lead length to 6 feet. 3 Feb 14 OS 08: 02p Rieh.arrJ Hoeflinger 18081982-7324 p,s Section 4-29(b) -Remove the second word (hunting). There is a hunting dog with a license, but no such thing as a licensed hunting dog. Section 4-31(d) (5) - In the past, tattoos were the stlrldard for dog identification. You may want to include prominent tattoos as an alternative for microchips. Section 4-31(fl -Needs clarification. The statement that an enforcement officer has power of arrest may be inconsistent with section 4-1(i), which states that only a police officer has such power. Section 4-31.1(a~ -Same comment as preceding, regarding power of arrest. Section 4-32 -Are hearings limited to the third circuit court? DISCUSSION: "The most serious concern with this draft document from a hunting perspective is the large increase in the cost of licensing the number of dogs that many hunters maintain. It is one thing to charge Fluffy's owner $25 every other year to license her pet, but something else to increase a hunter's cost by $150 for the dogs in his kennels. Unreasonable demands invite noncompliance. Section 4-I(a) refers to dogs as "customa.ry pets, maintained solely for persona] enjoyment and companionship". That may define Fluffy, but not a hunting dog. Unlike a pet, hunting dogs are bred for, and expected to work for their keep. In many homes on the Big Island, they put meat on the table. It is recommended that the ordinance recognize the difference between hunting dogs and pets, and suggest that the term "working dog" be used to describe hunting dogs, cattle dogs, etc. It is further recommended that a reduced fee schedule be established for such animals. These animals have value, and rarely run free. They are not the cause of the problems that the proposed ordinance is directed to correct. A valid hunting license or a farmer's or rancher's business license might be nsed as proof of animal use. [t is assumed that part of the cost of animal control involves animal and owner identification. Installation of microchips should reduce that cost 4 ren 14 u~ U~:u~p Kich.ard Hoeflinger (8081982-7324 p.g element. Perhaps that cost saving could be passed on to those responsible owners that install microchips in their animals. The cost of implanting a microchip in a dog is in the range of $Z5. Hunters have an investment in their animals, and vo~ant a lost: dog returned. It is believed they would be receptive to chipping their dogs, particularly if it resulted in reduced licensing fees. It would seem that such action would benefit both the owner and the County. RECOMMENDATION: Several issues of concern have been identif ed in our review of the draft ordinance. It is likely that others have similar, and/or additional matters that should be aired before Council action is taken on the proposed bill. Most of us are unable to participate in Council matters that are conducted during normal business hours. It is recommended and requested that pudic hearings be held throughout the island on this proposed ordinance, since, as proposed, it will have a large financial impact on island residents. Such hearings should be scheduled at times and locations that will enable maximum citizen participation in such a significant change to current iaw. Thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns in this matter. Sincerely, Richard Hoefl ger, Pre id 1 5