HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0798.001 2004-2006
Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Hilodik@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2006 1:18 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Bill 258
Aloha,
Attached in letter form is testimony from Big Island Gun Dogs on Bill 258, addressed to the Chairman and
Members of the Hawaii County Council. It is understood that you will distribute hard copies of the 3-page
attachment to the addressees.
It would be appreciated if you would acknowledge receipt of the subject testimony by telephone or return e-
mail. Thank you very much for your help.
Richard Hoeflinger 982-5094
Comm. No.
Ref. To.
Ref. Date
4/27/2006
&1~ r Vev
~z~v~cotu y ~xeePQeKCe ui rye ~a S~zeeeta
HCR I Box 5344, Keaau, Hawaii 96749
Telephone (808) 982-5094
F mail hilodik aol.com
April 26, 2006
Comments On Bill 258, A Proposed Replacement For Chapter 4,
Animals, Hawaii County Code
Dear Chairman Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
We have submitted substantial written and oral testimony on Bill 4 on
numerous occasions over the past year, and will refrain from duplicating it
here. Suffice to say that now in its seventh draft, we still have serious
reservations regarding the proposed bill's benefit to Hawaii residents. Bill 4
remains a hodgepodge of unrelated "solutions" in search of a problem. As
we have stated previously, this flaw likely stems from the fact that the bill's
purpose was never clearly stated.
Bill 258, by comparison, is more concise and coherent, although it too lacks
a clear statement of purpose. We suggest that a statement of objective(s)
precede the details of implementation.
Bill 258 does address the issue of cat regulation, the most often discussed
and contentious issue in the series of hearings held on Bill 4. While the
mandatory identification requirement of the proposed ordinance may not
satisfy those demanding equitable licensing fees, it provides a useful start on
controlling Hawaii's burgeoning cat population.
Comments on Bill 258:
Bill 258 is modeled after a Honolulu animal control ordinance, and will
require amendment to adapt urban legislation to the more rural character of
Hawaii. We submit the following specific comments for your consideration:
I . Page 2, Section 4-5 (1): "Makes noise continuously and/or incessantly
for a period of 10 minutes or intermittently for one-half hour.."
We believe this restriction is (a) an unusually short period of
inconvenience, and (b) ambiguous. We recommend changing this to
read, makes noise continuously and/or incessantly for a period of
20 minutes, period.
2. Page 3, Section 4-5: "Poultry means chickens, pigeons, turkeys,
geese..." Change to domestic turkeys to distinguish between wild
turkeys, a Hawaii game bird.
3. Page 3, Section 4-7 (b): "Enclosures for animals, farm animals, and
poultry shall meet all applicable zoning and building code
requirements for structures, shall not be located within any
required front, side, or rear yard setback;..." On page 2, Section 4-
5, "Enclosure" is defined as "any kennel, coop, cage, hutch, hive, or
other structure..." We have two comments; (1) if enacted into law, a
significant portion of the island's residents will become instant
violators, since most dog runs, pigeon coops, and rabbit hutches are
located along property lines, and (2) building codes are not enforced
by animal control personnel. So why is this in an animal control
ordinance? It is unclear what animal related problem this restriction
attempts to resolve, and we recommend it be removed in its entirety.
4. Page 4, Section 4-8 (c): "Dogs. The number, four months of age or
older, shall not exceed ten per household." We recommend adding
the important qualifying statement, "in a residentially zoned area".
We also suggest a grandfather clause that would exempt residents
from this restriction who can show proof of occupancy prior to
residential zoning.
5. Page 4, Section 4-8 (d): "Chickens and peafowl. The number of
chickens or peafowl shall not exceed two per household." We
recommend adding the important qualifying statement, "in a
residentially zoned area", and providing the same grandfathering
exemption as stated above.
6. Page 5, Section 4-13 (b): "...the court also may order the owner to
attend a training program conducted or designated by the animal
control contractor or train an animal , farm animal, or poultry in
a manner recommended by the contractor to stop the animal
nuisance which caused the offense." While the concept of the
Hawaii Island Humane Society or other animal control contractor
attempting to train a chicken to stop crowing, a cow to stop mooing,
or a dog to stop barking may provide comic relief, the reality is no
2
such agency can do so. We ask the following: what expertise is
required to conduct such "training"; what agency determines who has
it; and how is it regulated? We suggest there is no such program, nor
are there "qualified" and regulated personnel to conduct it. It is not
believed that this regulation would survive a court challenge, and we
recommend it be removed in its entirety.
7. Page 6, Section 4-16 (a): "The biennial license fee neutered
dogs..$9.50...$28 for unneutered dogs..." This represents a four-fold
step increase over current fees, and presents a particular economic
hardship to owners of multiple dogs. These inordinately high fees are
counter productive to licensing compliance, and need to be
substantially reduced.
8. Page 10, Section 4-31 (3): "A microchip registering the owner with
the National Computer Recovery Network.." We are familiar with
the two popular suppliers of animal identification systems employing
microchips, Avid and Home Again. We have not heard of, nor can we
find any information on a "National Computer Recovery Network".
Before such terminology is incorporated into an ordinance, the
organization's actual existence and relevance should be verified.
9. Page 15, Section 4-40 (e) (9): "The owner and dog...attend training
sessions conducted by an animal behaviorist, a licensed
veterinarian, or other recognized expert in the field". We know of
no veterinarian who conducts such "training", and question the
definition, requirements, and regulation of "animal behaviorists" and
"other recognized experts in the field". Recognized by whom? Belief
that behavioral modification training will correct undesirable
characteristics in dogs deemed dangerous to the public is more
wishful thinking than fact. Vague and unsubstantiated statements have
no place in an enforceable ordinance. The subject statement should be
removed from the proposed ordinance.
10. Page 16 (bottom): Section 4. This is a repeat of the preceding
paragraph, Section 4-45.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed ordinance, and
hope our suggestions will assist the Council in drafting fair, useful, and
enforceable animal control legislation.
Respectfully,
Jz;.6" HO#L, , President
3