HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0798.023 2004-2006
Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: Hilodik@aol.com
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2006 7:00 PM
To: Henricks, Jon
Cc: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us
Subject: Bill 258, Draft 3
Attachments: Draft 3 Testimony.doc
Jon,
I will not be able to attend the public hearing on the subject bill, which I understand will be on Wednesday,
November 15. 1 have attached our group's comments on Draft 3, and would appreciate your help in getting it to
the individual Council Members in advance of the hearing.
Thank you for your help.
Richard Hoeflinger
C:)
_ lT!
4
O, o
-a
3
Comm. No.
Ref. To:V
Ref. Dote, NOV 1 5 9(la~
11/13/2006
"Vzoowr4t~ gxee &oee &t tle ;Dou" Vweda
HCR 1 Box 5344, hcaau. Hawaii 96749
Telepholxe (808) 982-5094
E-mail hilodiknaol.com
November 11, 2006
Testimony on Bill 258, Draft 3, "Animals" - Comments
Dear Chairman Higa and Members of the Hawaii County Council:
We have previously testified in support of Bill 258, Draft 2, as a reasonable
compromise county ordinance relative to human and animal welfare. We
have concern over two of the amendments incorporated in Draft 3, and
suggest clarification to another. We will be unable to testify personally at the
scheduled November 15 hearing, and hope you will consider the following
comments in your deliberations on the matter.
Draft 3 adds "noxious and/or offensive odors" under Section 4-5,
Definitions, but does not define what they are. It references HRS Section
142-75, which is unrelated to the subject 142-75 Human bitten by dog;
duty of dog owners; action against owner.)
It also references HRS Section 322-2, which states that handling noxious
odors is the responsibility of the Department of Health (§322-2 Ordering
owner to remove. Whenever any such nuisance, foul or noxious odors is
found on private property, the department of health shall cause notice to be
given to the owner to remove and abate the same.)
Further under Section 322, it is stated that all such instances of noxious
odors are to be reported to the Department of Health (§322-6 Who to report
nuisances. The sheriff and all officers of police, and physicians, shall report
to the department of health, or its nearest authorized agent, the existence of
any nuisance injurious to the public health.)
It would appear that the State Department of Health has a statutory
responsibility to handle the noxious odor issue, and it is unclear why it is
included in a County animal control bill.
Regarding "offensive" odors, it would be interesting to see how they would
be defined. Perfume samples are deemed offensive to some, to the extent
that warnings are issued when they are included in newspaper mailings.
Ill-defined, subjective, and redundant, it is suggested that this amendment to
Draft 2 be removed in its entirety.
Draft 3 also modifies Section 4-17 to place all dog license fees into a
Spay/Neuter Fund, which presumably benefits other non-contributing
animals. The issue is equity, since other animals, notably cats, are not
required to pay license fees. It is requested that the county require the animal
control agency to supply a breakout of effort by species to determine if dog
owners are unfairly targeted financially. This information should be publicly
available.
As amended in Draft 3, Section 4-8 reads, "...The form may be obtained by
private citizens from the animal control contractor, at the Humane Society
Offices, or the office of information and complaints." From this wording one
could conclude that the Humane Society is, and will continue to be, the
animal control contractor. It is suggested that the sentence be reworded as
follows: "...The form may be obtained by private citizens from the animal
control contractor, the Humane Society, or the Office of Information and
Complaints."
We found Draft 2 of Bill 258 to be clear, concise, and enforceable. In our
opinion, the amendments offered in Draft 3 dilute that clarity.
Respectfully,
Jz-~C" H 041 President
2