HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0022.093 2004-2006 _ _
'~za~sro~s
y ~xce~e~cce icc tlse ~a;rxt`uzg S~zeect!Q -
HCR 1 Box 5344_ ICeaau, llawaii 9674~~)
[~clephone ~ 80S) 9R?-SQ94
f;-mai l hilodik~a aol.com _ ;
February 14, 2006
Testimony Related To Flawaii County Bi114, Draft 6, Entitled "Animals"
Dear Chairman Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
We appreciate the opportunity to address the issue of animal control, once again before
the Council. We have previously expressed our views on this subject when it was before
the Council in March of last year, in subsequent public hearings, and in informal
meetings and communications over the past several months.
First let me state that we are appreciative oFthe fact that several of our recommendations
have been incorporated into the current draft. In the public hearings on this bill, it was the
opinion of the majority that the existing draft was unworkable, and that it should be
scrapped and rewritten. This has been done, and Drafr 6 is certainly more readable and
coherent.
Another recommendation arising from public discussion was reduction in licensing fees
for animals having implanted microchip identification devices. We are pleased that that
recommendation has also been incorporated into the current draft. Other issues
concerning enforceability of certain provisions of the previous draft have likewise been
clarified or deleted. There remain, however, several provisions in the current draft that we
find objectionable, and hope that the Council will correct before final action is taken on
this ordinance:
In the definitions section, the specific term "dog" is used in several places where the
generic term "animal" is appropriate. We would be pleased to point these out to the party
assembling the document. The same holds rue for several typographical errors found in
the draft.
The definition of "microchip" is professionally imprecise. It focuses on size, rather than
function. Microchips have been used for animal identification for the past 15 years. A
microchip is a surgically implantable electronic device which is externally readable and
provides a unique identification code for the host animal. Whether it is the size of "a
Comm. No~p~2 2.4 ~ .
Ref. To; 1
Ref. i7ata 1
grain of rice" or that of a football has no bc,azing on its purpose. The reference to a food
product should be deleted.
The definition of "Stray" makes no provision for hunting dogs unrestrained in a "public
place", i.e., while hunting in forest preserves, game management azeas, etc. Such
exemption should be incorporated in the definition.
Division 3, Stray Dogs, enumerates the responsibilities of dog owners whose animals
have been impounded. We believe the impounding agency also has a responsibility to
attempt to locate the owner of a lost dog, and suggest the addition of a section such as the
following: "It shall be the responsibility of the animal caze center upon receipt of a stray
dog with no identifying information apparent, to scan the animal for an implanted
microchip, and notify the owner of record within 24 hours."
Division 4, Noisy Dogs, Section 4-16, Noisy Dogs, continues to sepazate "day" and
"night" time barking, presumably assuming all persons sleep at prescribed intervals. We
point out once again that a sizeable portion of the population does not fit that template,
and that succumbing to that paradigm is discriminatory.
Section 4-17 states that the owner of a noisy dog may be ordered to "attend obedience
school" with the noisy dog. I have conducted dog obedience classes, and can train a dog
to heel; sit; stay; and come, the conventional curricula of most, if not all "obedience
schools". I can also train bird hunting dogs to run quartering patterns, hold point, and
retrieve downed birds. I cannot train a dog to not bark. Neither will an "obedience
school".
Dogs bark because (a) they are bored, or (b) they are provoked by a person, animal, or
disturbance (thunder, fireworks, etc.). Barking can be controlled by eliminating the cause,
such as boredom, or by equipping the animal with a bark limiting device such as a "bark
collar". It is suggested that the unobtainable result mandated by attendance at an
undefined and unregulated "obedience school" be eliminated.
There is a similar problem with paragraph (f) (8), under Section 4-19, Dangerous Dogs.
What is an "animal behaviorist"? Who defines one, and how are they regulated? Absent
specificity, we suggest that the subject paragraph be eliminated.
We have reserved our most significant comment until last. In reviewing an outline of the
proposed amendment to Chapter 4, one is struck as much with what it does not contain,
as with what it does. Under Article 1, Section 4-1, Definitions, the term "dog" is used 33
times. By comparison, "cat" is mentioned twice.
Article 2, Dogs, consists of 6 pages devoted exclusively to dog regulation and behavior
control. There are sections on dog licensing, dog license fees, dog sterilization, dog
identification, dog leashes, confinement of female dogs, stray dogs, noisy dogs, and
dangerous dogs. The remaining Articles of the ordinance, 3 through 8, discuss farm
2
animals, animals in general (dogs mentioned 7 times, cats twice), enforcement, animal
pounds, spay-neuter fund, and state law.
Obvious by its absence in the proposed ordinance is discussion of control of the most
prolific, and one of the most destructive animals in Hawaii. Completely missing from the
ordinance is the compliment to the Article regulating dogs, which would logically be
entitled "Cats", and would contain similar restrictions related to licensing, identification,
sterilization, confinement and mobility.
Birds, not rodents, are cat's preferred prey. Feral cats impose a major threat to both native
and introduced game birds, and extract a heavy toll on their populations every year. They
are so destructive that last year Wisconsin considered listing them as an unprotected
species so they could be hunted.
Mark Twain visited the Hawaiian Islands for four months in 1866. He marveled at its
"millions" of cats, "just about cats enough for three apiece all around". At that time he
wrote, "I saw cats individual cats, groups of cats, platoons of cats, companies of cats,
regiments of cats, armies of cats, multitudes of cats, millions of cats...." Hawaii's cat
overpopulation is legendary, and it appears not much has changed in the last 140 years.
What is striking is that a bill entitled "Animals", and directed toward "animal control",
essentially ignores this large component of the island animal population.
The extensive focus on dogs and absence of any significant consideration of cats was the
most contentious issue of the proposed ordinance in public hearings. The overwhelming
presence of feral and freely roaming domeetic cats was identified as the primary cause of
inciting the barking of confined dogs. Dog owners believed themselves unfairly targeted
for a problem not of their making, and outside their control. It is unlikely that the
ordinance will receive support from dog owners until this inequity is addressed.
To add insult to injury, the ordinance, as proposed, requires dog owners, through
licensing fees, to support aspay-neuter fund for cats. Cat owners apparently get a free
ride. We would hope this inequity will be corrected.
Sincerely,
President
3