HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.044 2004-2006 IiCl2 1 R~~~ ~+-1-l.licaau. Ila~~aii'~~~4'>
I~clc~hrnic lR(IRl 9$?-if19~
}~-mail hilodik~a~l.com
Testimony Presented At a Public Hearing On
Bill 4 (Draft 5), Relating To Animal Control
March 10, 2005
Mr. Chairman and Council Members:
My name is Richard Hoeflinger. I am the founder and 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
the past 50 years.
I am a past president of Pig Hunters of Hawaii, and have held leadership
positions in other Big Island hunting organizations. I am speaking today on
behalf of both myself and the members of the organization I currently
represent.
In a letter to the Council on February 14,1 submitted comments on a prior
version (Draft 3) of the proposed ordinance amendments. We have several
issues we would like to discuss relative to the current draft:
1. The proposed bill continues to make numerous references to "humane
society". As we pointed out previously, hunters were subject to
discrimination by the Hawaii Island Humane Society when its director
invoked the anti-hunting policies of the Humane Society of the United
States and refused animal adoption to hunters. We suggested that the
dual reference to "humane society or animal care center" was
redundant, and that the former should be dropped in favor of the latter
generic term. If this is not desirable, then it is requested that a non
discrimination policy that addresses our concern be inserted in the
amended ordinance. I'
Comm. No. 2 • f
Ref. To: P?esedM P
~ Ref. Uate
2. The amended ordinance prohibits specified behavior to and by such
animals as defined therein, but the bulk of the fines and fees will be
borne by dog owners. As proposed, the dog licensing fee reflects a
400 percent increase over the current rate. Most hunters maintain
more than one dog in their kennels. Whether by design or not, the
proposed ordinance places an inordinate cost burden on individuals
who are the least likely to contribute to problems attributable to
irresponsible dog owners. Hunting dogs have value, and do not run
free. We have suggested a reduced fee structure for "working dogs",
which would include ranch and farm dogs. The reduced fee could
require a means of permanent identification such as an implanted
microchip, which seemingly should reduce the cost of ordinance
enforcement by having readily available dog ownership information.
3. Section 4-1 of the proposed ordinance amendment specifies the term
"dog" throughout, whereas the term "animal" is more appropriate. It is
suggested that subsections (e), (g), (o), (r), and (v) be reworded with
the term "animal" to be more inclusive.
4. In Section 4-20, in two instances under seizure of dogs, it states that
"every officer shall seize" (unlicensed and stray dogs). This wording
would imply that this is a priority action for all police officers and
other enforcement officers. It is suggested that the wording
"enforcement officers may seize" be substituted.
5. In Section 4-25, it is stated that a judge may order the owner of a
noisy dog to attend obedience school, presumably to curtail that
behavior. There is no "obedience school" that we are aware of that
can cure a barking dog. The accepted remedial action is to fit the dog
with avoice-activated electronic collar.
6. The magnitude of the fine levied under Section 4-27 for injuring or
poisoning dogs is grossly inadequate. It is difficult to imagine a more
premeditated, cruel, and despicable action than intentionally
poisoning a dog. Anyone who does so should be severely punished.
7. Section 4-31 specifies dog identification by "microchip". That is one
of the current means of permanent identification for animals.
Tattooing is another method. It is suggested that generic wording,
such as "permanent identification, such as implanted microchip" be
employed, so as to accommodate current and future identification
technology.
We thank you for the opportunity to express our views at this hearing.
2