Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.071 2004-2006 Page 1 of 1 Murashige, Laura From: Michelle Smith [IoveBball@msn.com] Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2005 3:03 PM To: Jacobson, Bob; Safarik, Gary; Arakaki, James; Him,-Stacy; Hoffmann, Pete; Holschuh, Fred; Isbell, Virginia; Pilago, K. Angel; Ikeda, Donald; Miwa, Amy Subject: STATEMENTS & OPINIONS OF BILL 4, DRAFT 5 Dear Council Members: Attached are our statements and opinions regarding your bill 4, draft 5. If there are any questions, please contact us at 808-929-8397 or via email at love8ball@msn.com. We would appreciate any type of response as soon as possible. Thank you in advance, Roger Dagdag, Sr. Michelle T. Smith Ocean View/Kealakekua, HI (Ka'u District 6) Comm. No. L. Ref. To: Ref. Date APR ~ R ~nn5 4/17/2005 April 16, 2005 Bob Jacobson, Council Member Ka'u District 6 Hawaii County Building 25 Aupuni St., Suite 209 Hilo, HI 96720 Subject: Rewrite of Bill 4, Drafr 5 -Relating to Animals Reference: 1) Chapter 4, of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (1995 edition) 2) Conversation with Mitchell D. Roth, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, on 04/11/2005 at Keaau Community Center meeting 3) New Rewrite of Bill 4, Draft 5 dated 04/12/2005 (attached) Attn: Bob Jacobson Per a conversation with Mitchell D. Roth at the Keaau Community Center meeting, he had suggested that if anyone does not agree with this bill, that they would be given the opportunity to "rewrite" or "assist in rewriting" the bill to voice any and all community concerns from previous meetings regarding this matter. Due to the increasing population growth on the island of Hawaii, this growth means an increase of pet owners (i.e. dogs and/or cats). Therefore, this bill must be written very carefully and implemented. We feel that biannually this bill should be reviewed because of the ongoing influx of new Hawaii residents and that the bill should be updated accordingly. We believe that it is imperative that all county council members, aides, legislative assistants, prosecutors and any other relevant staff members should consult with dog and cat experts (i.e. veterinarians, canine clubs, feline clubs, breeders, ASPCA, dog and cat sanctuary staff and dog/cat handlers). This would educate and enhance members in drafring a better bill to suit dog and/or cat owners and the public of the island of Hawaii fairly. We attended three(3) public hearings regarding this bill and we know for a fact that there many dog and cat owners out there, however only a handful of people attended these meetings. We believe that the public announcement was not enough to reach all pet owners (dog and/or cat). That handful of people is not enough to get this bill passed. More people should have attended these public hearings. We came up with changes and opinions (see attachment of our Rewrite of Bill 4, Draft 5), they are summarized as follows: Section 4-1 Definitions - (a) Animals is changed to solely dogs and cats. We feel that all other animals (i.e. rabbits, birds, etc.) should be put in a separate bill and that livestock -1- (i.e. cattle, goats, etc.) have their own bill as well. The original bill initially starts out targeting all animals but then focuses on only dogs. Which is not fair to the typical dog owner. That is why we came up with the idea of the separation of all other animals and livestock. We believe that this bill should be designed for subdivisions, gated communities and rural areas separately. They should not be all thrown in together since subdivisions and gated communities have their own associations regulating animals (i.e. dog and/or cat) control. Our new rewrite will focus on dogs and cats only. One of our questions is why do cat owners get off so easily when the main problem on this island is stray feral cats compared to noisy dogs and packs of wild dogs? On the island of Hawaii there is an over population of feral cats as opposed to stray dogs. We always see 4 to ]0 feral cats at transfer stations, public beaches, restaurants and grocery stores. It's not fair that the dog license and spay-neuter fee goes toward cats being spayed and neutered by humane society. We feel that cats at the owners expense should be licensed, micro chipped, spayed and neutered 'just like a dog should be. This would eventually bring down the feral cat population. In addition, the humane society will get more monies with this new regulation of cats being included with dogs in this bill. Along with additional fines made for the dogs the fines would include cats also. Section 4-12 Pees - (a) The sterilization fee should include a microchip fee as well Also, that the spay-neuter special funds be called "spay-neuter and microchip special funds". We think it should be mandatory for dogs and cats to be micro chipped. Micro chipping will help with quick identification of the pet owner(s). It will also help with disputes on whether the dog or cat was stolen or lost. Section 4-14, Section 4-14.01, Section 4-15 -are deleted due to it only talks about livestock. Livestock should have their own bill and not be included with dogs and cats. All livestock's owners should get together and discuss a bill. Livestock's owners know what is best for their animals. Someone who has never owned cattle should not be given the right to tell that livestock's owner what is best for their animal. New Section 4-14 Duty upon striking dogs and cats on roadways - A owner should be fined for allowing their dog or cat running freely on roadways. The dog or cat owner should get the stiff fine not the driver. We agree that a driver should take on some responsibility by trying to contact the owner or humane society. A driver should get a minimrun fine of $10 and a maximum fine of $25 for not reporting this to the humane society. It is the owner's fault that the animal was struck by a vehicle due to the owners negligence (i.e. animal roaming around roadways). We believe that all drivers try to avoid hitting any animals because it can cause damage to their vehicles or cause a serious accident. But, unfortunately it does happen because most unrestrained animals run across the roadways. We also feel it should be stated in this section that the driver will not be responsible for any veterinarian fees even if they fail to report the animal being struck to an owner or humane society. -2- New Section 4-16 Places prohibited to dogs and cats - It should be separate for public areas (i.e town limits) and rural areas. This is a common sense matter. New Section 4-17 Defecation and nuisance prohibited -This section should also be separate for public areas (i.e. town limits) compared to rural areas. This new rewrite should be obvious. New Section 4-18 Seizure of dogs and cats by humane society or animal care center -All fees are changed and instead of stating "selling" the dog or cat, we stated "adopted". By having the word "sell," that shows that a dog or cat is considered real property and not part of someone's family. Also, a new owner (i.e. a new adopter) should not be liable for impoundment fees, but the previous owner who failed to pick up the dog or cat should be fined. [f a dog or cat is micro chipped and does not have a license which atypically falls off a dog or cat collar the current owner should only have to pay an impoundment fee to retrieve their dog or cat. New Section 4-19 Seizure of stray dogs and/or cats by persons other than officers -There should be a stipulation for someone who maliciously and/or intentionally removed the animal off the owner's property. This is considered stealing. We think that a stiff fine should be put into effect for that. New Section 4-20 Redemption of seized dogs and/or cats after adoption -The time frame should be a maximum of seven days not thirty due to the fact the new owner has already fallen in love with their new family member (i.e. dog or cat). Especially, if you seek to adopt a dog and/or cat and bring them to your home. One of our questions is, would this not deter a much needed adoption of a dog and/or cat if the previous owner is allowed to get their animal at any time? By reducing the maximum days time fume this would ensure that the new owner would not have a considerable heartbreak of giving up their new adoptee. This is also a common sense matter. New Section 4-21 Female dogs and/or cats -The penalty should be less. It is hard to keep a female in heat away from a male or vice versa. That is what is called natures process of procreation. New Section 4-22 Noisy Dogs or Cats in Town Limits and Rural Areas -There should be separate limits for town (i.e. subdivisions or gated communities) and rural areas. This also is an obvious statement. Noisy cats (can be renamed) are put in this section because a cat that is allowed to roam free from its home will cause dogs to bark. Cats especially feral cats will sometimes fight throughout the night and cause dogs to bark. The cat owner should get the same stiff fine that the noisy dog owner gets. But, if it is found, that the reason a dog is barking excessively is because of the licensed/micro chipped cat, then the dog owner should not be given a fine at all. This section needs a lot of work. There arc so many things that would make a dog bark (i.e. parties, music, loud people) and there -3- are a lot of things that would cause cats to fight (i.e. fighting for food or mating). One question we have is how can you control your dog when you are not at home? We have added that a person found feeding a feral cat and not reporting the stray feral cat to the humane society should get a fine as well. These people are not helping the situation. We have witnessed, many times at Keauhou Bay, an elderly woman feeding the abundance of feral cats there. New Section 4-27 Leash requirement - If a dog must be on a leash then a cat should have to go by the same rules. New Section 4-28 Penalty for permitting a dog or cat to stray - A cat owner should be fined the same as a dog owner. There should not be a double standard. A cat owner seems to have more privilege than a dog owner. In regards to enforcement, a humane society or animal care officer should not be allowed to come onto your property and take the animal without the dog or cat owner present. The officer should also show proof what violation the dog or cat owner has committed. Only after numerous attempts to contact the owner with no avail will the officer have the right with a "warrant" to seize the animal. For safety reasons, we believe that law enforcement officers should also be present when a warrant is served. As an additional note, in our opinion this Bill 4, Dratt 5 was not properly advertised enough for all dog and cat owners to attend all of the meetings in their area. All dog and cat associations should have been notified. It should have been put in the newspaper daily until the meeting dates were met acid radio stations should have been given the meeting(s), date(s) and time(s) to pass on to people who do not receive or read the newspaper. By reading this bill thoroughly it seems this bill is targeted to dog owners solely. The dog owner should not be the sole target. All cat owners should have to abide by the same provisions. We state again that other animals be put into a separate bill and that livestock should have their own bill as well. As a final note, if dogs and cats are included together then the fines should be reduced. One suggestion would be reducing the maximum fine of $1,000 to $500 since dog and cat owners alike will have to abide by the same rules in this bill. We feel all of the violation of fines should go into the spay-neuter and micro chipping special fund and all other needs that the humane society and animal care centers require. Unless those additional monies (i.e. fines) can be shown to the public that it is going toward the humane society and animal care centers "only" then the fines should be reduced. These fines should not be used for anything else other than for dogs and/or cats. The monies from the fines should not be put into the general fund of the County of Hawaii. We hope that you take all of the above and the attached of our "Rewrite of Bill 4, Draft 5" into consideration before making an updated law. -4- feel tree to contact us at 808-929-8397 (home), love8ball(c~msn.com (email), or via mail at P.O. Box 781, Kealakekua, HI 96750-0781. Thank you in advance, Roger Dagdag, Sr. Michelle Travis Smith Ocean View, HI/Kealakekua, HI ec: Mitchell D. Roth, Amy W. Miwa„ Stacy K. Higa, Donald Ikeda, Gary Safarik, James Y. Arakaki, Pete Hoffmann, Pred Holschuh, Virginia Isbell, K. Angel Pilago -5-