HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0798.044 2004-2006
'C"6 NQU 28 fln g U5
November 27, 2006
COUN
County of Hawai'i
Testimonial for Bill No. 258 (Fourth Draft)
In ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition,
as Amended), relating to animals
Ladies and Gentlemen of the Council,
Good morning. I am writing this testimonial on behalf of the above-mentioned bill.
As a citizen and tax payer in this county, I am in favor of Bill 258, draft 4, in its
present form. However, I do take exception to the following aspects of the bill:
* High Fines and Jail Terms:
If a person like myself, has numerous and varied animals such as dogs,
goats, cbickens, and cows, I could be subjected to numerous fines for each
animal. In one week, if one animal is cited, then a different animal the next
day, I could face several offenses for several animals within a matter of a few
days. Consequently, the two (2) year period of time between offenses would
place those with numerous animals at a grave disadvantage.
The fine of not more than $1,000.00 and imprisonment not exceeding thirty
days, are similar to petty misdemeanors that are cited in the Hawaii Revised
Statues for those possessing small amounts of marijuana or those convicted of
shoplifting or driving under the influence of intoxicating substances. Also,
in lieu of imprisonment, the bill allows for the Court to order the defendant to
serve a period of probation of not more than six months. This would place
additional "strain" on an already overworked judicial system that is dealing
with high caseloads, involving the use of crystal methamphetamine and its
associated crimes that comes with addiction, such as shoplifting, petty thefts,
assaults and criminal property damage. Basically, the severity of these
punitive sanctions are not consistent with the nature of the offenses outlined
in this bill, and would tax the already limited resources of law enforcement,
the county, and the judicial system.
Comm. N ON 44
Ref. To:Pre re
Ref. Date 2q
County Council Bill 258 Page 2
Testimonial
* Article 2.4-11(C Q):
The Bill states: A person who commits an offense within two years of the
occurrence of a previous offense involving the same provision shall be subject
to the escalating penalty of subsections (b)(2) or (b)(3), even if the animals
involved in the offenses differed;
Again, those of us who own and raise different types of animals are targeted
and placed at a disadvantage. As I stated earlier, if one of my goats is cited,
then the following day, my dog is cited, I will be subjected to severe fines and
penalties. ALL ANIMALS BEHAVE DIFFERENTLY. To place all animals
in one group is unfair. Nature dictates that animals behave differently based
on the various circumstances that they are exposed to. This could greatly
affect animal owners who own different animals.
Obviously, members of the county council cannot predict or specifically
outline sanctions for each animal and each circumstance. Because everyone
would agree that this would be futile and extremely time consuming, so will
the implementation of this bill as it exists in its present form. It is unrealistic,
and appears to be unenforceable. While it may "look good" on paper, it will
place undo strain on land and animal owners, law enforcement, animal
control, the county, and the judicial system.
I strongly express these opinions as a farmer, animal owner, full-time worker,
tax payer, voter, and life-time resident of this county. I appreciate your time
and effort in reading this testimonial, and encourage each of you to consider
the points that I have made.
Thank you,
Christopher I. Bernabe