 
Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Attendees: Sergeant Chad Basque (HPD), Lilian Beaufrere, Cory, Dan Kama, Kepa (Queen Liliuokalani Subdivision), David Marshall, Josi Morgan (Executive Director, HIHS), Frances (Frannie) Pueo, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Jennifer Sorkin (HIHS), Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn Mitch began the meeting by reading the Task Force objective. Nancy asked for feedback from members who had attended the February 15th meeting of the Council and the first reading of Bill 4, Draft 6. David reported there was a lot of testimony with the outcome being the bill was returned to Jacobson's committee. Mary VanHove presented a letter she wrote to Councilman Holschuh in response to the Councilman's suggestion that zoning play a roll in the animal control ordinance. Mary was strongly in favor of zoning and submitted several suggestions. Josi reported the Council did not appear to be accepting task force input. David suggested we find out when the committee meets and participate in those meetings. In response to how the ordinance could be moved forward, Mitch suggested everyone contact their Councilman. Nancy asked if the omission of legislation concerning the licensing of cats had anything to do with the bill being returned to committee. Josi said she had provided testimony in favor of cat licensing. Mary expressed concerns about the costs of such a program and that, perhaps, those costs should be determined now. Josi pointed out that feral cats are the problem. Mitch suggested that if people don't care enough about their pets to have them microchipped, perhaps they shouldn't have pets. Frannie had talked with a number of community members all opposed to cat licensing. The main concern had to do with collars and tags which could easily become caught and cause the cat to suffer a terrible death. Josi responded that no one suggested collars and tags, only microchipping. Frannie suggested, to avoid future confusion, the term "microchip ID" should be used. Frannie also pointed out that the biggest problem concerns unspayed/unneutered animals and that we need to work towards affordable and/or free spay/neuter. Mary cautioned about accidentally spaying/neutering someone's animal and the potential for lawsuits. David stated he had compiled comments concerning the most recent draft. Lil asked if he would be willing to share his comments and , if so, would it be OK to post his comments on the web site. David was willing to share his comments. Nancy agreed to distribute David's comments to the task force via e-mail. Frannie then reported on the status of the spay/neuter tax credit bill which died in finance. The bill was put together at the last minute, and she was pleased it moved forward as far as it did. She indicated she would work on the bill in order to reintroduce it in 2007. The temporary permit bill (SB1836) was changed to include limitations on the types of services the visiting veterinarian may provide such as spay/neuter, first aid or health check, and euthanization. The bill which initially called for a temporary license has been changed to a temporary permit. The bill went to Finance and is scheduled for a hearing. At the March 1, 2006 meeting, the Finance Committee stipulated the act will take effect in 2020. Frannie explained that this is a strategy used to keep a bill alive for further discussion or to allow for the incorporation of changes. The bill passed from the House to the Senate and should be scheduled for hearing soon. Mitch recommended a petition should be sent. Frannie shared a letter she received from Senator Kokubun in response to a letter she sent the Senator expressing her extreme disappointment concerning the Senator's failure to introduce a Senate version of the temporary license for veterinarians. In the letter, Senator Kokubun apologized for not following through. Josi reported she had learned why the veterinarians had concerns about the bill...they had received an out of date copy which did not limit the types of services provided by the out of state veterinarians. Mitch wondered which veterinarians had been in opposition. Josi replied she had talked to a veterinarian on the Big Island but did not want to disclose the veterinarian by name. Josi had faxed the most recent version of the bill to those veterinarians in opposition. Mitch requested a current draft be sent to Dr. Mina's office. Frannie requested that members forward letters of testimony to her attention so they would be available on short notice. David briefly mentioned bills 2924 and 2930 which concerned animal abuse and 2576 which concerned forfeiture and costs. Mitch pointed out our state is among the worst when it comes to addressing animal abuse. Mary requested breed-specific legislation be considered for our next agenda. Mary had provided members with an editorial article which addressed breed-specific legislation. Josi asked how we might more effectively influence the legislature. One suggestion was to amend the code section by section. It was asked when and how this might be done. David pointed out that the representatives only respond to their constituents and recommended everyone petition their elected representative. Next meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for April 10, 2006. Same time, same locations. 02 13 06 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Attendees: Torun Almer (Starfire Sanctuary), Sergeant Chad Basque (HPD), Lilian Beaufrere, Cory, Rod Crisp (Puuloa Subdivision), Virginia Isbell (Councilwoman), Dan Kama, David Marshall, Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Josi Morgan (Executive Director, HIHS), Phyllis Morris, Susan Morris, Frances (Frannie) Pueo, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Lt. James Sanborn (HPD), Ginger Towle (West Hawaii Humane Society), Mary VanHove, James Weatherford (Councilman Bob Jacobson's Legislative Assistant), Nancy Zorn Nancy began the meeting by reviewing the Task Force objective. James Weatherford reviewed Bill 4, Draft 6 to amend Chapter 4 (Animals) of the Hawai'i County Code which he had presented at the last task force meeting. James pointed out the entire Chapter was substantially reformatted. Key points in Draft 6 included: placing the definitions up front (Section 4-1), lower licensing fees for dogs with microchips (Section 4-4), an increase in all licensing fees, and establishment of a "Spay-Neuter Special Fund" (Section 4-53). Concerning the "Spay-Neuter Special Fund, James mentioned that license, kennel, and impoundment fees plus any grants, appropriations, or private contributions would be directed into the fund, but that collected fines would not. Mary VanHove suggested that breeders should have a special license fees. James drew the group's attention to Section 4-7 (Licensing of strayed or stolen dogs) as an example of a section that had been cleaned up. The wording in Section 4-7 was previously included in section 4-28 (Harboring, holding for reward, or licensing of strayed or stolen dogs). There were no substantial changes made to the leash and confinement sections (Division 2) and fees for stray dogs had been increased (Division 3). Mary VanHove commented that Section 4-10 (Female dogs) was redundant. James said he would check on the redundancy. James stated that holding periods had remained the same, and the new draft addresses seizure and the roll of animal care centers (Article 6). The section which had addressed noisy dogs and included a lengthy procedure was substantially removed. The new section (4-16) includes a lower bark tolerance at night. There was brief discussion concerning the input received at public hearing in which many owners of hunting dogs objected to any differentiation between barking during the day and night hours. James mentioned, with the exception of the section which addresses dangerous dogs (Division 5), fines are consistent throughout Chapter 4. One participant was concerned about being in violation of the law (Section 4-7) should they attempt to keep/license a stray. Torun mentioned she had picked up a stray, turned it in to the Humane Society and let them know she wanted to adopt if no owner came forward. After the required holding period was up, she went in and successfully adopted. Ginger echoed Torun's comments. It was further mentioned that section 4-12 addresses seizure of dogs by officers and section 4-13, seizure by non-officers. James continued discussion with the increase in redemption fees and moved on to dangerous dogs. James drew everyone's attention to the fact that the fines are higher and the language much more strong. He explained there was a move for zero tolerance concerning dogs that have bitten. Restitution for emotional trauma was under consideration but was not included in the current draft. Mitch didn't think restitution for emotional trauma would stand up. Someone mentioned a website: www.dogbite.com. Discussion continued with section 4-25 (Farm animals). Section 4-30 (Duty upon vehicles colliding with animals) had been substantially improved. Cruelty was been changed from dogs exclusively to animals in general (Section 4-31). Mitch suggested the word "cruelty" should be "abandonment" since cruelty was addressed in another section. Nancy concluded the discussion reminding members the first reading of Bill 4 would be February 15th. According to the paper, the County Council meeting would be video-conferenced. Nancy also reminded members they could submit their testimony via e-mail to counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us. Nancy gave the floor to Frannie to discuss the status of SB1836 and SB2631. Frannie reported SB1836 (temporary permits for out of state veterinarians) had been deferred, but the outlook was good. The Hawaii Veterinary Association liked the rewritten bill. The rewrite was very specific as to what services the out-of-state veterinarian could provide - spay/neuter and general health check only. Additionally, the out-of-state veterinarian would be limited to 90 days per year on the permit. Frannie advised members that the bill would die if it doesn't move by February 17th. Frannie requested everyone watch their e-mail for alerts and updates. SB2631 (tax credit for spay/neuter) had run into issues in the Tax Department. They (the Tax Department) needed to know how they would make up for the lost tax revenue as a result of the tax credit. Frannie requested assistance from anyone with ideas or information that could be passed along to address the concerns of the Tax Department. Lastly, Frannie understood that Kokubun would represent SB1836 in the Senate but was very disappointed to learn, on the 30th, there was no representative on the Senate side. Frannie wrote a letter to Kokubun in which she asked why the bill wasn't put through and why did she not, at the very least, receive a courtesy call. Ginger reported that Paul Whalen requested Frannie give him a call. Frannie said 5,000 signatures had been obtained on the petition for low or no cost spay/neuters. Mary VanHove wondered approximately how many people had been turned away once the HIHS coupons sold out. It was estimated 200. Next meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for March 13, 2006. Same time, same locations. 01 09 06 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Lilian Beaufrere, Sharon Burgess, Jerry Halverson, Dan Kama, Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Megan Mitchell (County Council Office), Josi Morgan (Executive Director, HIHS), Phyllis Morris, Susan Morris, Frances (Frannie) Pueo, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Susie Ruddle, Lt. James Sanborn (HPD), Jennifer Sorkin (HIHS), Officer Toledo (HPD), Mary VanHove, James Weatherford (Councilman Bob Jacobson's Legislative Assistant), Nancy Zorn, Chair Nancy began the meeting by reviewing the Task Force objective. James Weatherford presented a copy of Bill 4, Draft 6 to amend Chapter 4 (Animals) of the Hawai'i County Code. James reviewed the changes in this new draft. Mitch also pointed out the fines are consistent throughout, and the "Noisy Dog" sections (4-26 & 4-27) have been substantially changed. As discussed at the last meeting, there is continued concern that judge's are dismissing fines and there was interest in having a judge present at the Task Force meeting so the importance of the Court's support of the fines could stressed. Mary Van Hove asked about the cost to retrieve a lost dog from the Humane Society. The fees were $10 (impound fee) plus a $5 per diem fee. The new fees are higher. James W. pointed out that the new license fee now includes lower licensing fees for microchipped dogs. When Nancy asked about the enforceability of the noisy dog section, Mitch commented the new section is enforceable. Lil asked if about licensing of cats. James stated that licensing of cats was not included in this draft. Lil pointed out that cat licensing was one of the top issues that was discussed at the four public hearings help in March. She expressed concern that this issue was not addressed at all in draft 6. Frannie stated she was not in favor of cat licensing. Nancy asked James W. what would happen next. James responded that the new draft will go to the Council for a first reading. James said it would not come before Council before the first week in February. James suggested Task Force members watch the newspaper for Bill 4, Draft 6 on the Council agenda. Dwayne asked about "pound masters" and if they are addressed in the legislation. Jerry H. asked about who is responsible for removing a dead and decaying steer. The HIHS representatives indicated it would depend upon whether the steer is on private property. Jerry responded that the steer is on private property but the property owner is elderly and unable to remove the steer himself. It was recommend lye be purchased and used. Frannie reported on the status of the bill which would allow licensed, out-of-state veterinarians to practice in the State of Hawaii under a temporary permit. While on Oahu, Frannie met with as many Representatives and Senators as were available in an attempt to find sponsorship for the bill. Kokubun agreed to sponsor the bill. Josh Green agreed to co-sponsor. Jerry Chang also agreed to be a sponsor. Frannie expressed concern that veterinarians on Oahu may not like the bill and see it as introducing unwanted competition. James W. asked if there is any limit to what the temporarily permitted veterinarians may do. Josi asked if it would be possible to remove or alter the requirement that the permitted veterinarian have been in practice for two-years so as to allow for internships. Nancy also asked about the status of the spay/neuter banners Frannie had requested from HIHS. Josi is waiting for Frannie to let her know what the banners should say. Once that has been decided, Josi agreed to purchase and make available to Frannie three sets of banners. Next meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for February 13, 2006. Same time, same locations 12 12 05 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Sergeant Chad Basque (HPD), Lilian Beaufrere, Dr. Philippe Binder, Virginia Isbell (County Council), Dan Kama, Dwayne Mendoza, Susan Morris, Frances (Frannie) Pueo, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Jennifer Sorkin, Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn, Chair Nancy began the meeting by reviewing the Task Force objective. Neither James Weatherford nor Bob Jacobson was present to provide a status of the animal control ordinance. In their absence, Nancy read emails sent by Bob Jacobson concerning the status of the legislation: November 15, 2005, 8:09 p.m.: My legislative assist was ill and missed Monday’s meeting. I can tell you that my final version was sent for another round of approvals from Deputy Clerk Bill Smith’s office. I am hoping that it will soon be scheduled by Chairman Higa or the appropriate Committee Chair. I have heard there are attempts to alter it to others’ desires, but I think that the tinkering with the bill must end so we can pass it. Bill 4 was the 4th bill introduced this session and despite numerous public hearings the bill continues to moulder away while restraining orders are being sent to neighbors for complaining about barking dogs. I think we’re up to about Bill 200 or so now. I believe that unless voters and activists demand that their council member passes good legislation soon, they will take their support elsewhere. Other efforts of mine to incorporate the recommendations of the community and the judiciary are similarly being held up. Most recently an anti littering/dumping measure was delayed again by Chairman Higa. December 9, 2005, 11:11 p.m.: I am being asked to re-write the whole chapter before doing anything. I will not blame anyone, but I am more frustrated than I can believe. At this late date after being told things were being finished now I am told this. James Weatherford is working on this and an anti dumping/littering bill as highest priorities. Evidently work done by a prosecutor, our former auditor, me and 2 legislative assistants is inadequate and must be done over. As chair of Public safety and Parks I should be chairing the meetings when the legislation comes to committee. I now believe that I will not be allowed to file meaningful legislation until early February. As you may know I am fully committed to changing the law to protect our people and hold pet owners responsible for their animals. James and/or I will be at the next task force meeting in January. Rather than continuing to complain to you or make lame excuses, I will simply ask for more patience with the knowledge that I am determined to pass legislation that controls loose or barking dogs as soon as possible. Members of the Task Force expressed frustration at the numerous delays and the appearance that the animal control ordinance was not moving forward. Councilwoman Isbell was asked if she had any information to share about the legislation. Ms. Isbell indicated that she'd not received a recent draft, and the working committee needed to bring a draft before the Council. The Task Force requested that either Bob or James attend the next Task Force meeting, and they bring the most recent draft. Nancy agreed to email the group's request to Bob Jacobson. Dwayne Mendoza explained that Josi was unable to attend today's meeting. Dwayne reported they have been working on the mobile van. Nancy asked about the status of the spay/neuter banners that had been requested by Frannie. Dwayne was not sure of the status. There was a question as to what is enforceable under the current legislation. Mitch indicated that, with the exception of the sections which address barking dogs, the current legislation is enforceable but that judges have been dismissing fines. The group discussed the possibility of having a judge participate in the Task Force meetings. Frannie next reported on the status of the state bill to allow licensure without examination for veterinarians licensed in another state. The bill has been submitted to Josh Green. Frannie reported she has been receiving feedback. Chartere liked the idea that the applicants must hold a current DEA license and must have practiced for two years. Frannie has not heard back from Dr. Jose. Dr. Stokopf was contacted for feedback. Bob Magnet does not want the bill to have too much red tape. Jerry Chang loved the bill and agreed to be a sponsor. Kokubun agreed to represent on the Senate side. Cliff Sugi helped. The bill is in the process of being rewritten. AdvoCats and ARCH have been contacted for their feedback. Frannie said she would have more to report at the next meeting. Frannie also submitted copies of a letter written to the Hawaii Tribune Herald, dated November 28, 2005, from Hilo resident Michael Harvey. Mr. Harvey's wife had been attacked by two pit bulls while taking a walk in their neighborhood. Mr. Harvey expressed frustration at the way in which the attack was handled by the Police. Frannie also submitted a copy of an ad placed in the November 1, 2005 issue of 808 CLASSIFIEDS.COM in which breeders are mixing breeds such as "wolf" and pitbull for aggression. Frannie pointed out that breeders need to be licensed and there needs to be business regulation. Ms Isbell was thanked for taking the time to attend and participate in the meeting. Next meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for January 9, 2006. Same time, same locations. 11 14 05 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Sergeant Chad Basque (HPD), Lilian Beaufrere, Dan Kama, David Marshall, Megan Mitchell (Assistant to County Council Vice Chairman Virginia Isbell), Josi Morgan (HIHS), Susan Morris, Frances (Frannie) Pueo, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Suzi Stretton, Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn The meeting started late due to technical difficulties with the televideo equipment. As such, Nancy skipped the reading of the Animal Control Task Force objective. Councilman Bob Jacobson’s Legislative Assistant, James Weatherford, was absent but had sent an e-mail which Mitch read to the group concerning the status of the animal control legislation. "A draft 6 of the ordinance has been written incorporating draft 5 and input from the public hearings. Two points: (1) Draft 6 does not include cat licenses or most other wording regulating cats in the way dogs are regulated. However, other interests will certainly be preparing one or more amendments regarding cats. (2) The animal control ordinance (Chapter 4) as whole has been amended and re-amended so many times, that it runs the risk of redundancy and internal contradiction at best, and total incoherence at worst. The Legislative Research Branch staff (our full-time legislation writers) have recommended that, rather than patching wording here and there (as draft 6 does), that the chapter, with the same provisions as draft 6, be rewritten end-to-end, which I would be working with them on. That will take longer, but we can expect a much better (and, hopefully more effective!) ordinance as an outcome." Many members of the task force expressed frustration that rewriting of the legislation would cause much needed changes to be further delayed. It was suggested that task force members pressure their Council representatives to address the need for enforceable legislation NOW. Nancy mentioned Frannie’s involvement with AdvoCATS and Resolution Number 177-05 which declared October 16, 2005, National Feral Cat Day in and for the County of Hawaii. Frannie reported that she was outside the Hilo Safeway gathering petition signatures for affordable or no-cost spay/neuter. She also, that day, provided information on trap, spay/neuter, and return and other animal care organizations on the Big Island. Frannie then distributed to task force members copies of her report entitled, "Veterinarian; Licensure Without Examination" and a bill for an act which would allow "Licensure without examination for veterinarian licensed in another state." Frannie explained that by granting a temporary license to veterinarians licensed in other states, visiting veterinarians might assist with spay/neuter clinics. Such a change would help alleviate the shortage of available veterinarians to assist with spay-neuter and allow the visiting veterinarian to write off his/her trip to Hawaii as a business expense. Frannie asked for feedback on the bill. Josi suggested the bill require the applicant hold a current DEA license. Frannie also asked for feedback concerning the section which required the applicant be in practice for a minimum of two years. After discussion, it was agreed that two years was a good number. There was also concern that number of years might not be a good measure, and one participant suggested number of procedures might be a better indicator. All in all, the task force was in support of the bill. Frannie said she would be seeking a sponsor and co-sponsor for the bill in both the House and Senate on a upcoming trip to Oahu. Frannie also read a letter she addressed to the task force, Josi Morgan, and James Weatherford concerning banners to promote spay/neuter. Josi recommended a banner advertising the availability of coupons might not be wise since the coupons sell so quickly. After brief discussion, Josi agreed to provide Frannie with banners to promote spay/neuter. Frannie agreed to be responsible for the location and hanging of the banners. Lil shared her recent frustration in dealing with a barking dog and HPD. She reported she had received mixed messages from HPD concerning the proper procedure for reporting of such violations of the law. Mitch stated the current law is unenforceable. Nancy briefly mentioned an e-mail she received from Gail Loofbourrow concerning animal safety during natural disasters and whether the Big Island has a disaster plan for animals. Josi suggested Gail contact Civil Defense and HIHS to see which plans are already in effect. Lil suggested the County Newsletter be utilized to make announcements since they have an extensive distribution. Nancy offered to forward a copy of the newsletter to task force members. The next task force meeting is scheduled for December 12, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m 09 19 05 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Sergeant Chad Basque (HPD), Lilian Beaufrere, David Marshall, Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Josi Morgan (HIHS), Phyllis Morris, Susan Morris, Frances (Frannie) Pueo, Mike Riviera (HPD), Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Jennifer Sorkin (HIHS), Ginger Towle (WHHS), Mary VanHove, James Weatherford (Councilman Bob Jacobson’s Legislative Assistant), Nancy Zorn Nancy began the meeting by reading the Animal Control Task Force objective. Nancy asked Councilman Bob Jacobson’s Legislative Assistant, James Weatherford, if he had anything to report on the status of the animal control ordinance. James reported he is working on draft 7. Specifically, mentioned were the sections of the ordinance which dealt with fee and fine increases and spay/neuter funding. Also mentioned was a letter to our State representative seeking help in addressing the possibility of changes to state law which would allow veterinarians licensed outside the state of Hawaii to practice within the state under a special permit. Susan Morris asked about whether there wasn’t someone on-island who might be interested in assisting with spay/neuter efforts. Josi said she was talking to a veterinarian who might be interested in assisting with the mobile unit. Frannie suggested we should concentrate on updates to the laws which would allow veterinarians licensed in other states to practice within the State of Hawaii. Mary pointed out that there are two spay/neuter issues -- feral cats and unspayned/unneutered non-feral cats -- and that both issues must be addressed. Nancy asked David Marshall if he had any updates to report on his bill 1669 (Companion Animal Abuse). David reported the bill is on the Judiciary Committee and needs a sponsor. Mary suggested he might receive more support for his bill if it included more species (the bill only specifies dogs, cats, and horses). Ginger echoed Mary’s sentiment further suggesting the bill should be modeled more like others that are currently in place. Josi mentioned the "First Strike" program which is a campaign to raise awareness concerning the connection between animal cruelty and domestic violence. Mitch brought up a dangerous dog case in which someone was bit by a dog at Hilo Intermediate. Mitch wanted to discuss dog bites and taking dogs into custody. Dwayne said that enforcement officers need to analyze the circumstances that prompt the bite as opposed to impounding all dogs involved in a reported bite regardless of the circumstances. Dwayne said this was necessary due to the limited space available for boarding dogs. There was also discussion about cooperation between HPD and HIHS concerning dog bite violations. Frannie felt more pressure should be brought to bear on dangerous dog owners. Frannie reported she has been working on a state law which would allow veterinarians licensed in another state to practice in the State of Hawaii under a temporary permit. The purpose of the new law would be to encourage visiting veterinarians to assist with spay/neuter clinics. The visiting veterinarian would then be able to write off his/her trip as a business expense. State Representative, Josh Green, was mentioned in connection with Frannie’s efforts. In closing, James reported he hoped to have something ready by the second Council meeting in October (to be held around the 20th day of the month). The next meeting originally scheduled for October 10 was canceled due conflicts with Ironman activities. The next task force meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 08 08 05 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Lilian Beaufrere, Philippe Binder, Clyde Kawauchi (CPO), Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Josi Morgan (HIHS), Phyllis Morris, Susan Morris, Alice Prall, Frances Pueo, James Sanborn, Marge Santos (CPO), Jennifer Sorkin (HIHS), Mary VanHove, James Weatherford (Councilman Bob Jacobson’s Legislative Assistant), Nancy Zorn Nancy began the meeting by reading the Animal Control Task Force objective. She also reminded members that the task force was formed to address the highest ranking animal control problems, according to the Solutions: Neighborhoods in Action survey. The three problem animals identified were rats, dogs, and cats. For rats: overpopulation. For dogs: irresponsibility, cruelty, enforcement of laws, and containment/noise. For cats: irresponsibility/containment, cruelty, and enforcement of laws. Nancy pointed out that the task force was comprised of volunteers, was not a County sponsored group, and that no tax dollars were used to fund the group’s activities...in fact, the group had no operating budget. Nancy introduced Councilman Bob Jacobson’s Legislative Assistant, James Weatherford. Nancy asked if James had any information on the draft under the Committee on Public Safety & Parks & Recreation. James reported that he had nothing at this time. It was also reported that Councilman Gary Safarik has taken Stacy Higa’s place as Chairman of the Public Safety & Parks & Recreation committee. As all attending members had a copy of the HIHS statistical information for FYE 2005, the floor was open to questions and comments. Mary Van Hove had a question as to the number of spay/neuter coupons that are issued versus sold. In response to an inquiry, Josi stated it was $60 to adopt an animal from HIHS and that the person adopting an animal paid for the spay/neuter. Someone wanted to know how long dogs were held before they were euthanized. Josi responded that dogs were held 48 hours, minimum. Cats? Josi indicated that feral cats had no minimum hold time. There was a positive comment made about the increase in the number of citations being issued by HIHS. Another positive comment was made concerning the number of sweeps conducted, especially given the number of enforcement officers. Frannie Pueo read a letter she had submitted to the Task Force. Her letter stressed the need to expand the spay/neuter programs. Specific suggestions in her letter included: (1) Free spay/neuter for low-income families. (2) Promotion of the island as a tourist business destination for licensed, out-of-state veterinarians to staff surgical clinics so the visiting veterinarian could write-off their vacation as a business expense. (3) Encourage retired veterinarians living on-island to assist with spay/neuter clinic. (4) Program to trap, spay/neuter, and release cats in designated areas. (5) Grant funding to pay for suggested programs. The floor was open to discussion concerning Frannie’s suggestions. Josi said she had attempted to staff their mobile spay/neuter unit but had been unable to find veterinarians. It was also pointed out that state law prohibits veterinarians not licensed in the State of Hawaii from practicing in the state. There was extensive discussion about how one might go about changing the state law. Frannie asked that a committee be formed to look into making such a change. It was requested that Frannie lead the effort with support of the Task Force members. Josi also pointed out that she would like to find a veterinarian they could hire on a contractor basis to work the HIHS spay/neuter facility. Next meeting scheduled for September 19, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 07 18 05 Prosecutor’s Office, Hilo Mayor’s Office, Kona Lilian Beaufrere, Jerry Halverson, Dan Kama, Clyde Kawauchi (CPO), David Marshall, Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Josi Morgan (HIHS), Susan Morris, Frances Pueo, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Jennifer Sorkin (HIHS), Ginger Towle (WHHS), Mary Van Hove, Nancy Zorn Nancy reported that she and Lil met with Councilman Stacy Higa and Legislative Assistant Amy Miwa to discuss how we might move the animal control ordinance forward. The Stacy’s committee is working on a draft and the task force will be informed once the draft is available for review. Ginger submitted a copy of a letter she wrote to County Council requesting they move forward with the ordinance. Nancy, knowing that Josi was out of town and not expecting her to be at the meeting, had prepared a summary sheet listing some of the HIHS statistics for the period July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2004. Josi was in attendance, however, and brought the HIHS statistics for the period July 1, 2004 through June, 2005. Although Nancy attempted to faxed copies of Josi’s reports to the Prosecutor’s Office in Hilo, they not received in time to facilitate discussion and answer questions. As such, there was limited discussion. Nancy assured the group she would do her best to make copies available for the next task force meeting. Mitch introduced David Marshall. David presented House Bill Number 1669. As David reported: The bill addresses companion animal abuse; specifically dogs, cats, and horses. The bill initially had a provision to pursue violations as a felony or misdemeanor, but the provision had to be deleted. The bill disallows the use of companion animals as "meat". The court could prohibit a defendant from possessing any type of animal for one year upon a first conviction. A second conviction the court could prohibit the defendant from possessing any type of animal for life. The bill also has a provision which would allow the court to mandate behavior or conduct disorder related counseling. David further reported that the U.S. Humane Society felt the bill did not include enough species; however, they would not oppose or support the bill. When asked how the Task Force might help, David requested we ask our legislators to support this bill. Mitch initiated discussion concerning HIHS sweeps. He observed that sweeps are typically done during the day when animals are most often contained. Mitch wanted to know if HIHS would consider doing early morning and/or late afternoon sweeps ... times when owners often allow their animals to run loose. Josi indicated they could. Leilani Estates and Hawaiian Paradise Park were identified as two of the problem areas. There was a brief discussion concerning community volunteers to aid with the shortage of available HIHS officers. Clyde expressed the opinion that the Police should take more responsibility for citing offenders. Ginger disagreed stating animal control was the function of HIHS. Jerry asked about whether the use of an air rifle to shoot at cats was prohibited. There was brief discussion which indicated it was illegal to discharge such a weapon in a neighborhood for obvious safety reasons. Jerry asked about where he might find a copy of the law so he could share this information with a member of his community. Next meeting scheduled for August 8, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 06 13 05 Kona Mayor's Office Hilo Prosecuting Office Attendees: Adam, Lilian Beaufrere, Philippe Binder, Kimura, Halyna Kuheana, Gary Meltzer, Phyllis Morris, Susan Morris, Francis Pueo, Van Reyes, Mike Riviera, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Jennifer Sorkin (HIHS), Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn Nancy reported on the status of the Animal Control ordinance. Councilman Bob Jacobson had sent an e-mail indicating the bill remains in committee under the control of Stacy Higa and that it has not been placed on any agenda since the public hearings. Since Jenny was the only HIHS representative present, Nancy called on her to offer any Humane Society updates. Jenny said there was nothing out of the ordinary to report. Nancy then called on the Police officers in attendance to report on any animal control related updates/issues. They stated that they have been working much more closely with HIHS and further reported that there had been some cross-training between the Police and HIHS. It was also reported that they are pleased with the new relationship which has been formed between the two agencies. Nancy asked of there was any other business any of the attending members wanted to discuss. Halyna wanted to know if HIHS is associated with the U.S. Humane Society. She further asked, if there was an association, how close an association. Her concern had to do with some sort of terrorist activity at the national level. Mary chimed in with her concerns about the Humane Society and outside interests. Nancy said that these issues could not be addressed by the members present and would best be addressed at another time when Josi was in attendance. Philippe requested an update on the proposed legislative changes. Mitch reviewed what had happened since the proposed ordinance had been submitted to the Council. Mitch also reviewed some of the problems they had encountered when trying to establish a spay/neuter fund using proceeds from fees/fines. He reported the spay/neuter fund may not be something that can be done at this point in time. Francis had submitted a letter objecting to the licensing of cats which she read to the group. Francis expressed concern that a tag/collar type license could become entangled and she felt such a requirement would be inhumane and cruel. She further suggested that cats were necessary to help control rat populations. There was group discussion. It was explained that the license would more than likely be a microchip, not a collar and tag. Francis said she did not object to a microchip. There was some discussion as to how effectively cats might control rat populations. Halyna was concerned that cats might pose a threat to indigenous bird populations. Gary referred to a documented study which indicated that reptiles and small birds were the primary prey of cats and that cats did not effectively control rat populations. Gary wanted to know the original intent of the animal control ordinance changes. Nancy and Mitch both explained that the original intent was to make the barking dog portion of the legislation enforceable, make the fines consistent, and address the problem of stray dogs. Nancy said the changes had "morphed" to encompass much more than the group had originally intended. Mary wanted to know what happened with the Special Study that was commissioned. She was concerned about the large amount of money that had been spent on the study and wondered if anyone was taking the study’s suggestions into consideration. As there was no one present who could address Mary’s concern, there was no further discussion on this topic. Nancy said that since our next meeting would be after the end of the HIHS year which runs from July 1 through June 30, she would talk to Josi about possibly presenting the HIHS year end statistics at our next meeting. Next meeting scheduled for July 18, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 02 07 05 Kona Mayor's Office Hilo Prosecuting Office Attendees: Lilian Beaufrere, Barbara Brown, Jean Gray, Jerry F. Halverson, Pete Hendricks, Stacy Higa (Councilman), Roberta Hole, Halyna Kuheana, Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Gary Meltzer, Amy Miwa (Legislative Auditor Assistant), Andrews Montgomery, Josi Morgan (Executive Director HIHS), Alice Prall, Mitch Roth (Deputy Prosecuting Attorney), Dana Simons, Tanya Spencer (HIHS), Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn Since the Animal Control ordinance had come before the Committee on Public Safety and Parks and Recreation on February 1, 2005, Nancy asked if any of the task force members who attended that meeting had anything they wanted to share. Josi, Mary, Dwayne, and Mitch all offered feedback on the Council Committee meeting. Although Mary had offered the only testimony against the ordinance, she said she was impressed that the Committee had considered everyone’s input and, overall, the experience was positive. At Halyna’s request, Mitch reviewed that portion of the current legislation which addressed barking dogs and how barking dog issues would be addressed under the proposed legislation. Mitch proceeded to share his feedback on the Committee meeting. He said there was discussion about cruelty. Additionally, concerns were expressed about the increased fees and fines. Specifically mentioned were the possibility of senior citizen discounts and a lifetime licensing fee for microchipped animals. Mitch said Councilman Arakaki had mentioned that perhaps the County could contract with other animal care centers to provide needed services. It was recognized that on the issue of spay/neuter, a better job needed to be done. Gary said he would like to participate on any group that is responsible for the drafting of animal care center legislation. Mitch said they were currently looking at getting fines, or some portion of the fines, to come back to the County. Currently, a conflict exists because the fines go to the state. Mitch said there was some consideration given to the creation of an Administration Hearings Officer (County judge). Gary wondered if it would be possible to create service fees as opposed to fines. Mitch said that was a good idea which could be used in some cases but not all. The discussion turned to the spay/neuter program. Mary asked Josi what was done in Tennessee. Josi said spay/neuter was free to low income pet owners. Coupons were available monthly and were free or very much reduced with proof of low income. The spay/neuters were done once per week with thirty animals spayed/neutered per day. Josi said dog coupons were $50 with $80-$100 being the portion paid by HIHS. The suggestion was made that perhaps the vets could be paid per hour instead of per operation. Gary wondered if a reciprocal vet license could be considered. Josi said that because anesthesia is a class 3 drug, that would present a problem with a reciprocal program. Mary expressed concern about animal defecation and cats left at the transfer station. Gary expressed concern that judges might not levy the $75 minimum fine and possibly impose a lesser or suspended fine. Nancy asked that discussion proceed to the next agenda item - "Review ‘How Bills Are Processed.’" Amy had distributed a document which outlined the process by which a bill is processed. Stacy and Amy explained the process and addressed questions. Nancy asked when the bill would have its first reading before the County Council. Although it had not been placed on the agenda, it was estimated the bill would be read in the next 1 ½ months. It was not felt the reading would be at the next Council meeting but perhaps the meeting after. Amy said she would e-mail Nancy when the bill comes onto the agenda. Stacy said there had been much discussion about the fee amounts. The main issue concerned licensing fees and it was hoped that some consideration might be given to a lifetime fee option for microchipped animals. In addition, it was suggested that the annual fee for a sterilized animal with a microchip could be an amount less than the fee for a sterilized animal without a microchip. Under the current draft, the licensing fee was increased from $2 to $10 for a sterilized dog. It was suggested some consideration be given to a $4 fee for a sterilized, microchipped dog. The spay/neuter fund was under discussion as were the various identification methods - microchip or acceptable tattoo. Hunting groups were most concerned about the increased fees. Josi stated that the concerns were from hunters who own unaltered males. Josi said these animals are a problem and would like a chip program considered. Gary agreed with the need for a chip program and further agreed that there should be different licensing fees for spayed/neutered animals versus those that remain unaltered. Mitch indicated the lifetime fee for spayed/neutered animals with a microchip was something that could be added to the proposed legislation. Mary expressed concern about licensing of breeders and the number of people she’d seen on the side of the road with puppies for sale. Gary said they should be required to have a business license or perhaps a special permit similar to those issued in other states for garage sales. Such a permit would allow the holder to have a garage sale with only two permits per year being issued to any given individual. Enforcement was a concern. There was brief discussion about S.B. Number 88 which was a bill for an act relating to cruelty to animals. Section 711-1109, Hawaii Revised Statutes, amended subsection (4) to make cruelty to animals a class C felony. Previously, cruelty to animals had been a misdemeanor. Nancy asked if there was any other business to be discussed and further invited any new attendees who’d not yet had the chance to speak the opportunity to do so now. Gary offered that in the Midwest an ordinance was passed that limited the number of animals allowed per square foot of property. Stacy mentioned concerns about barking dogs. Barbara submitted copies of amendments she submitted to Councilman Gary Safarik which she would like considered for inclusion in the animal control code. In one she requested consideration be given to limiting the number of dogs allowed per household. Mitch said this had been considered in previous meetings. The second concerned owners who do not clean up their animal’s waste - specifically on private property. Lil suggested other agencies that could address the animal waste concern - Police (community Policing Officer for the Sunset area), Health Department, Vector Control, and the Department of Agriculture. Someone asked about the use of high velocity air rifles to control the feral cat populations. It was pointed out that use of such weapons is against the law. Next meeting scheduled for March 7, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. The animal control ordinance had its first reading before the County Council on February 16, 2005. The County Council requested public hearings be held around the island during the months of March and April. The Animal Control Task Force canceled their March and April meetings so members could attend the public hearings. The next meeting of the task force was held on May 9, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 01 10 05 Kona Mayor's Office Hilo Prosecuting Office Attendees: Lilian Beaufrere, Officer Joel Field, Pete Hendricks, Councilman Stacy Higa, Roberta Hole, Councilman Bob Jacobson, Barbara Lively, (Assistant to Bob Jacobson), Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS), Jean Michael, Amy Miwa (Legislative Auditor Assistant), Norma, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Mitch Roth, Ginger Towle, Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn Copies of the ordinance amending Chapter 4 were distributed to the attending members. Lil offered to scan the document for distribution via e-mail. Councilman Jacobson said there had been some minor changes to the document the task force had originally submitted, but the changes were not substantial -- primarily, some items had been removed for enforceability. Councilmen Higa and Jacobson offered to address concerns and answer questions about the draft document. Mary VanHove had a number of animal control issues largely concerning cats. Specifically, her concerns centered on population control, cruelty, and that the proposed license fees were too high. Bob J. asked Mary if she had any constructive contribution to make towards the document that was under consideration. Mary expressed the opinion that the spay/neuter program should be expanded. Ginger pointed out that an old version of Chapter 4 had been used as Section 4-32.1 referred to the "finance director" and the most current version refers to the Police Department, Police Chief. Bob J. said they would make certain they issue another draft to correct that error. Ginger referred to Section 4-36 in which it was stated the collected funds would be placed into the County's general fund. Ginger requested some consideration be given to stating the fees, or some portion thereof, would come back to the County for animal control. Bob suggested that particular change should be considered in another bill. Ginger expressed the opinion the ordinance should include a graduated fine structure, wording that would force officers to issue fines, and a provision that would prevent a Judge from suspending fines. Mitch said these issues had been discussed at length at the previous meeting and it was agreed by the group they would not be included with this draft. Ginger acknowledged the previous discussion and reported she wanted to state her position again for the record. Barbara said there were attendees on the Hilo side that had not had a chance to speak and who possibly had issues they wanted to discuss. Jean Michael had several items. One suggestion involved the possibility of requiring deposits and dog transfers. Bob J. indicated the suggestion was unenforceable. Jean M. asked about requiring muzzles. Bob J. responded that under Section 4-31 (Dangerous Dogs), muzzles may be required. Jean M. suggested the possibility of tamper-proof recording devices to deal with barking dog problems. Bob J. said they could look into it. Jean M. asked why noisy dogs couldn't be seized by the appropriate agency. Bob J. responded to Jean's concern. There was discussion as to other additional items the Task Force might consider and Mitch specifically mentioned the group had discussed dog parks. Mary again stated her concern as to the increased cost of licensing and further mentioned microchipping. Nancy asked when the ordinance would be introduced. It was explained that the ordinance would come before the Committee on Public Safety and Parks and Recreation, of which Councilman Stacy Higa is chair, at their February 1, 2005 meeting. The meeting would be held in Hilo in the Council Chambers and a video conference from the Mayor's office in Kona would be made available. [The Task Force was notified at a later date there would be no provision for video conferencing.] The exact time was unknown but Amy Miwa said she would contact the Task Force with that information. It was explained that written testimony would be accepted and needed to be received prior to the meeting. Written testimony needed to include the following information: Communication #22.1, Bill #4, and Draft 2 [later included Draft 3] Amy also indicated that those wishing to appear and provide testimony in person would be limited to three minutes and an additional minute to summarize. Amy said she would e-mail Nancy additional information, and Nancy said she would e-mail the Task Force members. Next meeting scheduled for February 7, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p. 12 06 04 Attendees: Sergeant Chad Basque, Lilian Beaufrere, Kathy Godshall, Roberta Hole, Halyna Kuheana, Gary Meltzer, Susan Morris, Mitch Roth, Ginger Towle, Mary VanHove, Nancy Zorn Nancy began the meeting by reviewing how the Animal Control Task Force was formed, the top animal control issues as identified through the Solutions conference, the Task Force mission statement, and the lengthy process which produced the proposed legislative changes. Nancy pointed out the Task Force had been working together since June, 2003. Nancy also reported that the proposed changes passed muster at the prosecutor's office, Hawaii County Corporation Council, and Councilman Bob Jacobson. Bob Jacobson e-mailed Nancy that he anticipated introduction of the legislative changes within one month and would request implementation either immediately or within 90 days. Nancy then introduced and acknowledged Ginger Towle. She reported that West Hawaii Humane Society, of which Ginger is currently President and General Manager, held the shelter contract until 1990 and Ginger had substantial experience enforcing the laws. Nancy pointed out that Ginger had been invited to all Animal Control Task Force Meetings beginning with the August, 2003 meeting when early work on the legislative changes began. Although Josi had not yet arrived at the meeting, Nancy explained that Josi is the current Executive Director of the Hawaii Island Humane Society (HIHS). She reported that HIHS holds the current shelter contract and is the agency responsible for enforcing the animal control laws. Ginger made clear she is in full support of Josi. Copies of the summary of legislative changes, as submitted to Bob Jacobson, and summary of Ginger Towle's recommended additional changes were distributed to all members. Nancy reported that Ginger requested the legislative changes not move forward and her recommendations be considered for inclusion. Bob Jacobson, via email, recommended the legislation move forward as already submitted with changes submitted separately. Nancy said the purpose of the meeting was to consider one of two options. The first option would be to allow the legislation to move forward "as is" and form another Animal Control Task Force subcommittee to begin the legislative amendment process again. The argument for this option - much needed changes to the legislation would be in place within 90 days of introduction. The argument against this option - some changes that should be included might be missed this time around. The second option would be to pull the submitted changes back to the Task Force, consider inclusion of Ginger's recommended changes, and go back through the approval process. The argument for this option - additional changes/refinements would be incorporated. The argument against this option - needed changes to the legislation would, quite possibly, not be incorporated for another 1 ½ years. Nancy then opened the floor to discussion. Ginger stated the group should take the time to "do it right." She voiced that the laws should be specific and pointed out current newly elected council member Virginia Isbell would be in support of the legislative changes. Mitch commented that the laws, as they stand, are not adequate. Mitch recommended the legislation move forward "as is". Mitch then addressed each of Ginger's recommendations. There was some discussion about exact wording of the summary of Ginger recommendations, but as the recommendations were not being reviewed for inclusion in the legislation at this time, such discussion was not appropriate. The group agreed that Ginger's recommended change to eliminate the requirement that proof of sterilization certificate must come from a Hawaiian veterinarian would be included with the current legislative changes. Mitch suggested that Ginger work on drafting specific wording for the remainder of her recommended changes for consideration by the Task Force. There was additional discussion about Ginger's recommendation that dogs transported in the bed of trucks be cross-tied. After discussion, the group felt that approved "carriers", and definition of such, be included in a future draft. Mary VanHove requested that ear notching be required on all shelter spay/neuters. Gary Meltzer requested the code include a definition of "animal" and that the code needed to be more specific so as to not discriminate. Mitch pointed out the current code included a definition of "animal". There was some question as to where the current County Code could be found. Mitch advised the group that the current County Code could be found on the Hawaii County website. Nancy asked for the group's decision as to whether the legislation should move forward or be pulled back for additional changes. The group agreed the legislation should move forward. Nancy said she would contact the task force members when she has been advised as to the exact date the legislation is to be introduced to the Council. Mitch said copies of the final draft would be made available before introduction. Next meeting scheduled for January 10, 2005, same locations, 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. 11 15 04 Prosecutor's Office, Hilo Mayor's Office, Kona Attendees: Lilian Beaufrere, Kathy Godshall, Lunakanawai Hananio, Roberta Hole, Officer Clyde Kawauchi, Halyna Kuheana, Dwayne Mendoza, Gary Meltzer, Josi Morgan, Lt. James Sanborn, Bobbi Stulsman, Jojo Tanimoto, Ginger Towle, Mary VanHove, Dwayne Waipa, Nancy Zorn Technical difficulties prevented the use of the televideo equipment. The task force attempted to hold the meeting using a speaker phone. Ginger expressed the desire to pull back the legislation so that additional items could be included. Of specific concern to Ginger would be wording to disallow the suspension of a minimum fine and wording that would specify successive violations by the same owner involving a different dog would not be considered a first violation. Ginger had given a copy of the changes she felt should be included in the legislation before presentation to the County Council to Nancy Zorn only minutes before the start of the task force meeting. As the other task force members did not have a copy of these changes, there was no way for the group to hold a meaningful discussion. Gary Meltzer wanted to know why everyone didn't have copies of the agenda, proposed legislative changes, the current ordinances, and Ginger's proposed changes. It was explained that, with the exception of Ginger's proposed changes which were just received, all members of the task force had copies of the agenda, legislative changes, and current ordinances. Since there was no way to anticipate attendance by new participants, there was no way to have the necessary copies available. The attendees decided to adjourn the meeting as constructive discussion was made difficult because of the malfunctioning televideo equipment. In addition, not all participating members had copies of the documents under discussion. The group decided to reschedule the meeting for December 6, 2004, same locations. Time to be announced. 10 07 04 Prosecutor's Office, Hilo Kealakehe Police Department, Kona Attendees: Mitch Roth, Ginger Towle, Lilian Beaufrere, Officer Clyde Kawauchi, Nancy Zorn, Josi Morgan, Officer Dwayne Waipa, Janet Lang, Jenny Sorkin, Bob Peck, Officer Kale Vickery Mitch reported that we're waiting to get the animal control legislative changes on the Council agenda. Elections would likely cause a delay, but Mitch expected the legislative changes to be introduced within one month's time. Nancy asked if any changes had been made to the original submitted document. Mitch said some changes had been made, but they were not of consequence. Nancy said she would contact Bob Jacobson to obtain a status before the next meeting. There was brief discussion as to appropriate public action. There was a suggestion that the public should begin calling their Council representatives to voice their support of the changes. There was mention that letters to the local newspaper might call attention to the upcoming need for public support of the legislative changes. Mitch said there would be an opportunity for public discussion. It was emphasized that letters, calls, and a show of support by attending the Council meeting would be important. Ginger expressed concern as to the wording of Section 4-27 (Injuring or poisoning dogs). The current penalty is $10 for each violation of this section. The Animal Control Task force requested the penalty be changed to "not more than $1,000 for each violation." Ginger said she felt strongly that a minimum fine be included in the section. It was explained that any person in violation of this section would be forced to make a court appearance and the judge would set the fine. Ginger was concerned a lenient judge might not levy a fine if it was not required in the statute. Nancy mentioned that she and Josi had met at the end of August to discuss items which should be considered for inclusion in an informational/educational brochure. Josi had supplied copies of several documents which contained helpful information. Many members of the group felt the "Responsible Pet Ownership" document was very informative. Also included were locations and contact information for the HIHS shelters and island vets. Josi included in the handouts, and briefly reviewed, a document which listed the priority and dispatch/response time for various types of calls received by HIHS. It was requested that information about vacations and pet issues be included. Nancy asked about incorporating instructional information explaining how communities should go about dealing with their animal control issues. Josi was not clear as to the type of information that might include. Nancy agreed to forward Jose a copy of the e-mail received from Ruth Kupcha detailing the steps they took to successfully deal with a loose dog problem in Ruth's community. Lil pointed out that much of the information in the handouts could be made available on the Animal Control section of the Solutions web site. Bob requested that the web address be included in the informational brochure. Nancy asked that Task Force members review the handouts before the next meeting. At the last Task Force meeting Bob and Roberta Hole, both from Leilani Estates, had reported a problem concerning a resident who'd moved away and abandoned two dogs. They were able to trap and surrender one of the dogs to HIHS. They, however, were unable to trap the second dog. Nancy asked Bob if this was still a problem. Bob reported the Humane Society had come out and caught the second dog. Problem resolved. Mary Van Hove was not in attendance at this meeting, but she was on the agenda as a reminder to follow up on the problem of people dumping cats at the transfer station. Mary had been asked to identify witnesses who would be willing to come forward and possibly testify in court. Nancy had spoken with Mary, and Mary had not witnessed animals being dumped since the last meeting. Jenny reported that Dwayne Mendoza (HIHS) had given Mary a camera. There was also a brief follow up on the problem Ruth Kupcha had reported at the previous meeting. The owner who was allowing her dogs to run loose, will receive a substantial fine. The dogs are being confined. The next meeting originally scheduled for November 4, 2004 was rescheduled to Monday, November 15, 2004 from 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Locations: Hilo Prosecuting Attorney's Office and the Mayor's Office in Kona 08 12 04 CPO Mike Silva, Lil Beaufrere, CPO Clyde Kawauchi, Josi Morgan, Mary Van Hove, Roberta Hole, Duane Mendoza, Jenny Sorkin, Dan Kama, Kathy Dodshall, Bob Peck, Philippe Binder, Ruth Kupcha During the introductions, Josi Morgan introduced herself as the new executive director of Hawaii Island Humane Society. Nancy mentioned that Franny Kinslow is on leave from the Humane Society. Josi said she would be meeting with Franny in the next week. Mitch reported the legislative changes have gone from the Legislative Auditor to the Corporation Council for review. Mitch thought we might know a little more by the next meeting. Mitch asked Nancy if she'd received an update from Bob Jacobson. Nancy reported she'd heard nothing from Bob. Nancy asked what the next step would be. Mitch said hearings would be announced and likely held in Hilo. Once announced, it would be appropriate for community members to write or attend to voice their support. Discussion shifted to items which should be included in an informational/educational brochure. There was additional discussion how the brochures would be distributed. Possibilities included Neighborhood Watch, Solutions, and community associations. There was brief discussion about obtaining grant funds to pay for the printing of the brochure. Suggested items to be included were: where to take cats & dogs, places owners might board animals while on vacation (such as PAWS University), spay/neuter information, penalties as revised under the proposed legislation, helpful web site addresses, information on dealing with noisy dogs, a policy statement, dangerous dog information, review of the laws, and names/numbers/addresses of island vets. Nancy and Josi agreed to meet before the next task force meeting to prepare a draft brochure. Mitch requested that Josi take some time to share information about herself, her animal control experience in Tennessee, and her perspective on the animal control issues affecting the Big Island. Josi spoke about how the Big Island laws have not kept pace with the rest of the country. She agreed the laws and fines, as they stand, are a big part of the problem. She shared the observation that most of the violations are committed by repeat offenders. Jose said we need to focus on fines, education, and enforcement. She further commented that in New York, it is against the law to have an unspayed/unneutered cat or dog. In order to breed your pet in New York, a special breeder's permit is required. Mary mentioned the problem with feral cats being dumped at the transfer station. While she feeds the cats, she cannot afford to trap and have them spayed or neutered. Mary was most concerned about the lack of law enforcement in this area. Josi said witnesses to the dumping must be willing to come forward and possibly testify in court otherwise the violators could not be prosecuted. Mary agreed to monitor future incidents and obtain witnesses willing to come forward. Josi promised she would pursue this problem provided there were willing witnesses. Ruth spoke about a problem in her community with a particular owner allowing their dogs to stray off the owner's property. The dogs were surrounding people on foot entrapping them, attacking dogs being walked by their owners, and going so far as to surround vehicles. Many residents were arming themselves with bats as protection. Ruth said her community was doing their best to report the incidents. The dog's owner was being cited but this did not curb the problem. Ruth said they had signed petitions and affidavits citing the incidents but because the dates and times did not coincide with the dates and times of specific complaints to HIHS, the evidence could not be used. She reported her community finally was successful when they incorporated a step-by-step procedure for reporting violations. Since doing so, the dog's owner was fined with some portion of the fine suspended provided there were no additional violations. Because the dog's owner continued to allow her dogs to run loose, the suspended fines (approximately $5,000) have gone back into effect. There was some discussion about including the step-by-step procedure within our brochure. Nancy said she would contact Ruth before the next meeting to obtain additional information. Roberta said she would be willing to make copies of the brochure for distribution within her community of Leilani Estates provided the document can be copied on a photocopier. Bob said a resident had moved away and left two dogs to run loose within Leilani Estates. They were able to successfully trap one dog but have been unable to trap the other. The second dog refuses to enter the trap to eat. The community members do not want to attempt capturing the dog by hand, and Bob wondered how they might otherwise capture the dog. Josi asked if the dog would eat food placed outside, and Bob indicated the dog would as long as the food was not inside the trap. Josi suggested going to a trusted vet, obtaining an appropriate sedative, monitor the food, and call HIHS once they see the dog's eaten the food. The next meeting is scheduled for September 2, 2004 from 11:15 a.m. to 12:15 p.m. Locations: Hilo Prosecuting Attorney's Office and Kealakehe Police Station in Kona 06 10 04 Nancy Zorn, Franny Kinslow, John Dawrs, Mitch Roth, Mary Van Hove and Irene ?, Lil Beaufrere, Dan Kama, Kathy Godshall
Nancy asked if Mitch had forwarded legislative changes to Bob Jacobson. He did and Bob added a change to exempt a/c and humane facilities from barking dog violations. Bob reported that changes are at the Legislative Auditors office and will be prepared for council (maybe within a year). Mary asked if exemption applied to all humane facilities, not just a/c. Mitch not sure if it was just animal control or all 501(c)(3). Franny pointed out these are 2 different things. Mitch thinks it wall all 501(c)(3) for Bob's reasons. Mary thought this might be a problem. At John's request, Mitch briefly reviewed the changes that had been made to the barking dog laws. Nancy - asked the next step would be. Mitch just said sit and wait for Leg Aud & County Council to do their thing. John asked if Mitch did the justification. He said no, Leg Aud will do. Nancy - asked if Mary had a proposal yet for regulating people selling animals. She is still working on it, Nancy will keep her on the agenda. John asked about barking dog changes and other changes - What they included was it what was discussed at Solutions? Discussed change to sec. 31 - 1 re: attack. John felt this could be a problem if "jumping up" was interpreted too broadly. Franny and Mitch reassured that it was the officer's discretion whether the dog should be seized. Nancy - asked if Franny wanted to mention her work with Paws Across Hawaii. She explained that Paws was a coalition of animal welfare groups working on those issues. Currently they are offering promotion of micro-chipping. If any community was interested in bringing education, microchipping, etc she would be happy to work with them. Mary brought up questions about S/N program thru HIHS. Kathy asked why we limit coupons. Franny explained that it was due to $$. They try to budget for a whole month, but it depends on what coupons are requested (if there are more female dog requests and less male cat it uses the dollars up faster). Kathy asked about why some coupons were still available and Franny explained the special Spay Day donated coupons which are for specific surgeries at specific vet clinics. Very limited. Mary expressed that she did not feel the program was working. Franny indicated that for the past 2 years HIHS had sold appx. 3,000 coupons annually plus had sterilized almost 2,000 pets through its adoption program last year. She also noted in the last 5 years there had been a significant decrease in animals coming in to the shelters. Mary showed two flyers she had made up promoting spay/neuter. Nancy thought community presentations would be effective in helping spread the word about S/N in response to Mary's concern about education. Franny asked about doing presentations to groups. Lil said Property Crimes are working on building up neighborhood watch groups. Mitch asked Mary why they feed cats at the Keaau transfer station. Long discussion ensued. Franny explained TNR and Mitch told Mary he would not have a problem if the animals were sterilized. Mary and Irene expressed fear that they would be prosecuted for abandonment for returning the cats once they were sterilized. Franny assured them that HIHS works with numerous colony caretakers on the west side and they do not cite them for sterilizing feral cats. Discussion on Hilo side with Mitch, Dan, Mary and Kathy about the cats. Nancy brought meeting back to order and asked that people email to her for the future with specific concerns such as what came up today so that she could prepare an agenda and give participants a chance to prepare answers. Nancy showed samples of "friendly fence" she ordered from friendlyfence.com, which is much less expensive than regular fencing and is specially designed for both dog and cat containment. Neighborhood associations could suggest these for pet owners who have issues with containing their animals. Lil suggested that we schedule these meeting on a regular day from now on. Decided on every second Thursday from 11-12. 03 03 04 Nancy, Lil, Laura, Franny, Duane, Jenny, Mitch, Pat, Dave Smith (Trib-Herald) Chad Basque (HPD Community Policing) Mitch submitted proposed changes to group prior to meeting. Nancy stated that there seemed to be some confusion because at the last meeting, we had decided to split the legislative and education functions into 2 groups. Mitch said that we would eventually need to do that. Franny read from the minutes from that meeting and confirmed that as a group we had already decided to do so. The plan was to revive the mayor's designated committee that had put the dangerous dog legislation together and have that group produce the proposed changes, so that all the necessary players (HPD, prosecutor's office, HIHS, county attorneys, legislative auditor, etc.) would be involved. As a member of that previous group Duane supported this and thought it would be the most effective way of reaching legislative change. Some discussion ensued of whether the Solutions groups should come up with a proposal for the task force to look at. Most of the present group had thought we would be reviewing the proposals after the mayor's group. Mitch felt that since no one had recovered the changes previously mentioned by Rory that had been put together by Nancy Pissichio and HIHS, that we had to make a new start. It was agreed that we would do a review of Mitch's changes at this meeting but not dwell on legislative issues at future meetings until something solid was ready to go before the Council. In many areas, Mitch suggested fines be increased to "not more than $1000" - Franny pulled minutes from 6/5/03 that showed we had discussed a graduated fee structure and Mitch had previously suggested a minimum not less than $500. (Afternote: Chad arrived late, and upon reviewing the changes mentioned that a max fine of $1000 seemed much too high as it is the same penalty for a misdemeanor. Mitch was agreeable to changing the limit, perhaps to $500.)
Mitch asked if everyone was OK with these. All agreed. Pat thought they seemed high. Franny indicated they were in line - even somewhat low - for national standards, Dunae mentioned he thought Honolulu's were the same. Laura pointed out also that they are 2 year licenses. All agreed on the change.
4-14 (b) - Duane and Mitch had previously submitted a number of changes to 4-14 that the group had reviewed. The group felt that the previous proposal was good and we should stick with that.
Group ok with an increase in fine.
Group ok with increase in fine. Franny asked if we ever issued citations for this as she could not recall one. Duane noted that we had not.
Group ok with increased fine. Franny asked if it was possible to add another possible sentence of community service. Mitch did not think we could do that with County law, only State law anyway. Duane and Jenny stated that HIHS charges under the state statute anyway.
4-18 + 4-19 Group agreed with increasing fines, although felt max of $1000 was somewhat high. Section 4-20 Seizure of dogs by officers (a) (1) Increase impoundment fee of unlicensed dogs from $10 to $50 a day (a) (3) Increase the per day costs of impounded unlicensed dogs from $5 to $15 a day (b) (2) Increase the impoundment fee for licensed dogs from $10 to $25 a day (b) (4) Reflect the change in impoundment fee from $10 to $25 a day and increase the per day cost from $5 to $15 a day. Much discussion on proposed changes here. HIHS was concerned that an impoundment fee of $50 (up from $10) and per diem of $15 (up from $5) would discourage pet owners from reclaiming their pets, as fees could be prohibitive. Franny also pointed out that HIHS adoption fees are only $60, meaning that it would be cheaper for an owner to simply adopt back their own pet. Mitch was agreeable to lowering the fines, although he wanted to make sure that the fees would at least recoup that actual costs of the impoundment. Laura pointed out that as had been mentioned earlier, fees do not directly come to HIHS. Mitch acknowledged that they go to the State general fund. Franny brought up the idea stated at a previous meeting by Rory Flynn, that we needed a mechanism in place to direct those monies right back to animal control. Need to keep in mind for future discussion. All felt the $10 impoundment fee was reasonable, and increasing the per day fee to $10 would be ok.
Group ok with increased fine.
Group felt $10 per day was high as sometimes pets are not reclaimed by their owners because they were away, in the hospital, etc. Compromised agreement on $5 per day.
Group agreed with increased fine.
Group ok with increased fine.
Group ok with increased fine.
Much discussion. Franny felt that it was not a good idea to make mandatory court appearance for this on a 1st offense. Other group members agreed that asking someone to miss a day of work, go to court, for dog running loose, was harsh. Currently there is a graduated fee structure and people can mail in their payment. Mitch said HIHS could use warnings to substitute for 1st offense. Franny felt this was not a good idea because it was too open to interpretation. Some officers may see the law as the baseline and feel compelled to give citation on 1st offense. Everyone felt more comfortable with a set fine for 1st offense, then court appearances for subsequent offenses. Mitch agreed although he wanted fine to be $50. May need more discussion on this. *After meeting, Chad mentioned that the police stations in Waimea & Kona also have video conferencing abilities. It was agreed that we would try to take advantage of those facilities next time if possible so that participants don't have to drive so far. 11 06 03 Lil Beaufrere (Solutions), Nancy Zorn (AC Task Force Chair), Franny Kinslow (HIHS), Duane Mendoza (HIHS), Jenni Sorkin (HIHS), Ken Goodenow (Prosecutor's Office) Legislative Team Report Duane met w/ Mitch and reviewed some areas of legislation and submitted some suggested changes they came up with (sec 4-14, 4-12, and 4-30). Asked everyone to look at the changes and email comments to Mitch (cc: Duane). Nancy to scan the documents in and send them to all previous AC Task Force attendees. Educational Team Report Community Education Lil, Franny, and Laura were supposed to create a flier for Neighborhood Watch, Community Assoc., etc. All were very busy during this time and did not have a chance to work on it, but will follow up before next meeting. Roberta Hole was going to contact Jenni re: ride-throughs in Leilani Estates. Jenni did not hear from her yet. Lil will contact Roberta. Prosecutor's Office - Franny asked if Mitch had followed up on the issue of education in prosecutor's office re: new dangerous dog law (issue had been previously brought up by Keith King). Ken mentioned that they have a regular Monday meeting, and he will ask Mitch then. Police Dept. - Also had issue of not issuing proper citations under dangerous dog law. At Community Resource Meeting, Franny asked Chief Mahuna to issue a memo to all officers alerting them of the change and the proper procedure, as they have indicated they cannot change what they are doing unless it "comes from the top". Mahuna nodded & wrote it down but there is no confirmation that the memo has gone out yet. Lil will check w/ her contacts at HPD. Duane will also ask Dexter Veriato when he talks to him. Paws Across Hawaii -meeting of animal welfare groups throughout the Big Island, took place on Oct 25. Franny asked organizers not to do anything with pursuing changes to legislation, as this was already being handled by this task force. They agreed. She offered to be the liaison and pass the changes along to them for feedback. Duane asked all feed back to go to Mitch. Nancy will put that out and also tell people to do cc to Duane. Discussion of now important it was to get mechanism in place to disseminate info through prosecutor's offices and HPD, especially since we will be introducing new laws. We will probably need to designate "target people" to be responsible in each area. We discussed when legislative talks take place many people need to be involved. Duane asked Franny about cat laws. She confirmed she wants to be a part of any discussion pertaining to legislation on cats. She also mentioned that Cat Killam would probably want to be involved, and she will also try to represent AdvoCats interests as well. Franny thought the most people would be interested in being involved with changes to nuisance laws, especially since so many people previously attended these meetings with that stated interest. Duane mentioned how difficult it was going to be to find a good enforceable law in that area. Lil asked if chicken/rooster complaints would be considered as part of any new nuisance law. Duane had sent Franny a letter from James Arakaki's office to Mayor Kim re: rooster complaints, asking that to be a part of this task force. Franny showed the letter to Lil. Looks like we will need to consider chickens. However, there is an issue pertaining to stray vs. owned - Duane suggested that stray chickens may fall under a new category of "jungle fowl". In this case DLNR would need to be involved. Next meeting date - tentatively set for Thurs. Dec. 11th. Need to confirm date with Mitch. 9 30 03 Lil Beaufrere, Nancy Zorn, Laura Bodell, Franny Kinslow, Mitch Roth, Duane Mendoza, Jenni Sorkin, Roberta Hole , Al Kauli Introductions - led by Nancy. Nancy recapped last meeting, where conversation with Rory led to a possible change in direction. She reported that at least she received a lot of feedback from task force members- people are frustrated at lack of movement. She submitted an agenda which included a suggestion to split into 2 groups - one to concentrate on legislation, chaired by Mitch, the other to focus on education. Mitch agreed that that was a good idea. He asked if Duane wanted to work on the legislative team with him. Duane was willing and also suggested that they include HPD, legislative Auditor, Corporation Counsel, and all other necessary parties. Mitch said that was probably the way to go. Franny added that people from previous task force meetings who are interested in particular areas of legislation, should be asked to participate with the legislative group whenever those areas of legislation came up. Mitch & Duane agreed. Nancy asked if everyone was in favor of the split- all ayes. No nays. Movement passed - we will form 2 sub groups. Education - Franny suggested HIHS use Solutions' resources to get into community groups, Neighborhood Watch, etc. to do education. Mitch brought up issue that those people may not be the "irresponsible" ones. He asked the humane officers what the general response was when they confronted those offenders on the street. Jenni replied that it depends on the person, but most people don't care. Mitch wondered how educating the "good" people helps. Discussion followed of how education helps communities address their own problems, and we shouldn't ignore the "good" people just because they're not breaking the law. Can use this opportunity to help the people with complaints know who they can contact, and make people aware of the applicable laws and how they are interpreted so they can work w/ their neighbors who are offenders. Laura added that often, the authorities are not notified about a problem until it has grown to a huge issue, and that by working directly with the community groups we may be able to offset some of those problems earlier. Other area: Additional education for police. HIHS has been trying to educate HPD officers on new laws regarding dangerous dogs, but have been told that the info needs to come "from the top". Franny suggested that Lil may be able to use her connections to get a meeting with Mahuna and try to get that communication. There is a meeting on Oct. 8th in Kona - resource meeting. Franny invited by Mitch to approach Mahuna about this. Al brought up a problem of renters in his area leaving behind animals when they move. Discussion of how to address this. HIHS has traps available to loan out to catch strays. Would become the land owner's problem if the dog cannot be positively identified as belonging to renter. HIHS can only cite the renter if they can prove ownership. Also they need land owner's permission to go in and trap or catch animals. Franny mentioned there will be a summit meeting of animal welfare groups on Oct. 25th called Paws Across Hawaii, all interested people are invited. Cooper Ctr in Volcano from 10-3. Lil will work with Franny and Laura to put out flyers to groups island wide for education and post to website. Set next meeting for Nov. 6 at 12:00 same place. Mitch & Duane to work on getting their legislative group put together & setting up a meeting for that. 8 28 03 Ginger Towle, Keith King, Mara Tepper, Nancy Zorn, Lee Greenly, Bob Jacobson, Al Kuali, Mitch Roth, Jenni Sorkin, Duane Mendoza, Rory Flynn, Franny Kinslow, Ron Jenkins, Laura Bodell (Introductions) Nancy - How this group came together. Started at Solutions 2003 where 3 areas of concern island wide were identified through a series of surveys. Task Forces were formed for each area, including Animal Control and this group is the result. Survey - 111 respondents identified rodents as #1 animal related problem, dogs as #2, and cats #3. The biggest concerns were containment, irresponsibility, and cruelty. Our task force goal and mission is to come up with solutions to this problem. Mitch opened by stating that this is not a forum to "bash" HIHS, PD, Judiciary, or any particular group, that w all must focus on making positive change. Keith King stated that he is not here to bash individuals but wants to present his personal story to point out how the system failed in every way. Mitch replied that is aware that there are problems with the system and this forum is about addressing those. Bob encouraged Keith to tell his story, as he already knew some of the details and thought it may be helpful for us in this process. Ginger agreed that coming up with solutions is the most important thing, and she feels education at all levels (police, judges, officers, etc.) is essential to meeting that goal. Nancy agreed that is absolutely the #1 goal of this group. Keith : On June 12, he and his chihuahua were attacked by a dog. He called HPD and an officer responded but he did not have tools or training to assist him, was unfamiliar with new law. The officer did try to help, came to his house twice, called several times, very compassionate. However, the Police Department did not respond to Keith's further inquires at as to why the officers were not aware of new law. Keith called HIHS the following week and they then issued a dangerous dog citation. However, the defendant went to court and paid only a $100 fine. Court and prosecutor convicted him under old law, and told Keith they "couldn't find" the new law so they just went ahead and processed him. (Mitch asked who that prosecutor was). Keith has not received full restitution for $808 vet bill and has suffered personal physical injury as well, but can now not pursue that because the case is closed. Mitch stated that he sees that training is absolutely essential in the prosecutors offices and he will personally follow through to make sure that takes place. Lee asked if he could interject because he needed to attend another meeting. He has a noisy dog problem in his area and is here because he is interested in creating a solution that can be enforced. He is looking at EPA standards, which are much stricter than anything HI state or county law has to offer. ww.epa.nf.gov - dog noise, barking, etc. Companion Animal Control Act. We will need to look at these ordinances to see what we can construct that will be enforceable. Rory - Refferred to Leg.Aud. report in Oct. 2000 and subsequent NACA report a year later. All of that led to understanding that entire animal code needs to be re-written. Obviously, irresponsibility is the biggest problem quoted in survey and also from his own opinion having spent a great deal of time on this issue. Community attitude and political picture: lowered euthanasia, higher adoptions- all organizations with a vested interested in animal welfare need to be concerned with developing a long-term, strategic vision. The capital needs ($) of the animal welfare community as a whole are great. Need not just Govt. support but private dollars as well. A PARTNERSHIP amongst animal welfare, gov, and community is essential to success. Staff at shelters is swamped with animals, which limits time they can spend in community addressing Animal Control issues. NACA had recommended County remove Animal Control from HIHS and dedicate full-time force to that within the police dept. Rory believes this would be a really important step. There is currently no funding base from licensing to fund microchipping, Spay/Neuter, etc. Licensing and Citation fees do not come back to HIHS or county Animal Control. He suggested that rather than go ordinance by ordinance to revise the laws, which had previously been done, this group should work on setting objectives for what we want to accomplish with all these changes. Nancy asked Rory whether we could get a copy of the draft he was referring to. Mara noted that Rory's suggestion was an interesting approach that we should consider. Franny suggested we may want to break down into 2 groups: one to address specific legislative changes, and another to address community and education issues. She suggested that Mitch look into putting together the same team that had worked on the dangerous dog legislation, so that all the necessary players would be involved. The Solutions group could then concentrate on reaching out to the communities and doing education, and could provide feedback and recommendations to the legislative committee. Ginger commented that changing the laws will not solve the problem, HIHS needs to enforce the laws we already have. Mitch said that we are getting judges saying that the current laws are enforceable, so the laws are a problem, and changes do need to be made. Rory brought up again that we need to set objectives before we can make legislative changes. Ginger put forth that we need a specific job description for the police officer who is responsible for overseeing Animal Control. Rory agreed, but without the County setting aside money for that position, no one will be willing to make that happen. Mara asked what Rory exactly is envisioning when he talks about objectives (ex: a leash law that is safe and enforceable but flexible enough to meet the needs of the community?) Rory - Yes. Looked at many different areas. Bob believes we can build those from the feedback received from community meetings. Franny asked if she could get copies of that. Nancy has (from solutions). Next Meeting: Sep 30. Noon. 07 31 03 Ron Jenkins, Laura Bodell & Franny Kinslow, HIHS: Lil Beaufrere, Solutions 2003; Pat Olivera, Prosecutor's Office Investigator; Nancy Zorn, Solutions 2003; Mara Tepper, Filipino Clubhouse Road Assoc.; Roberta Hole, Leilani Estates N.W.; Mitch Roth, Prosecutor's Office Hilo; Al Kuaili, Nanawale N.W.; Jenny Sorkin and Duane Mendoza, HIHS Mitch - An issue was brought up at a community meeting he attended regarding rules for people breeding & selling dogs. How can we address this? Franny mentioned that other communities have set limits on the number of dogs which can be owned without a kennel license. Nancy's community had previously addressed such a problem in their area through the planning dept, as the area was not zoned for such a business. However, if owners are breeding "unofficially" and not reporting income legally, this may not work. Is this something we want to pursue? Further discussion necessary. Nancy asked Mitch what other issues came up at the meeting he attended. Mitch made a suggestion to create "community " humane officers to do dog pick-ups, education, etc. because it seems our officers are spread too thin. This led to a discussion of irresponsible pet owners and how community members can address them. Laura stated that it was important that all situations be reported to HIHS, especially if a problem is repetitive - many times officers will go out on a call and think they have addressed the issue with the pet owner because the owner promises to be compliant, but is not. If the public does not continue to call & report those people HIHS may not know the problem is ongoing. Discussion of how Solutions can help with this, as it is set up to help communities address their own problems without reliance on agencies. Franny and Laura have made several contacts through Solutions & will be addressing different community groups (neighborhood watch, community associations). They urged Lil to let people know speakers are available for that for no charge- can distribute info, answer questions, address specific issues. Nancy brought up the goals that we set before - how can we track our progress? Franny told her that HIHS does have some of the numbers she is looking for because they track them internally. However, they can't track noisy dog calls because those are referred to police. Mitch was concerned if HIHS tracks loose or dangerous dogs. Laura explained how loose dogs calls are handles by HIHS, that dogs may be confiscated & impounded if owner is not found or if owner is located they may be given a compliance notice or a fine. Mitch thought everyone should be fined the first time. There was some disagreement and discussion about that. Franny and Nancy brought up the need for an agenda to follow for next meeting. Nancy said she will make sure that one is prepared. She asked Mitch if we could set a deadline for changes to legislation. We still need the previous changes from Rory to look at. Mitch said let's set a deadline of November. Roberta - question about noisy birds (macaws) per Mitch noise ordinance does not cover animals. Mara asked if animals were specifically precluded. Mitch said a special rule would be needed. Nancy - date for next meeting. Noon on August 28. Same locations. 06 30 03 Franny Kinslow, Duane Mendoza, Jenny Sorkin, HIHS. Mitch Roth, Hilo Prosecutor's Office, Rory Flynn, Legislative Auditor's Office, David Ignatius, Nancy Zorn, Lil Beaufrere, Solutions 2003 Nancy - established as Chairperson. She distributed objectives and goals sheets. Expressed hope that Mitch will continue to handle legislative aspects. Noted that minutes are now posted on the Solutions website. Mitch noted that he has invited Rory Flynn from Legislative Auditors office to be a part of the group. Rory : he previously worked with Duane, Mitch and others on dangerous dog legislation with Nancy Pissichio. At that time they also put together a draft of many of the legislative changes we previously discussed. We may be able to simply work from this draft. Mitch asked Rory to send a copy of those proposed changes to Nancy so she can distribute to everyone. Rory needs at least a week to go through and "clean up" the document before he can distribute. Nancy asked Rory if there was a model animal control program we could look at. Rory pointed out that there were a number of them, but an experienced prosecutor would have to look at them to determine what is practical and enforceable in our area. Mitch agreed. He stated that the purpose of these meetings is two fold. (1) We are looking at changes to laws to make them more enforceable. (2) We also need to be looking for ways to make an immediate impact. Rory cautioned that there is a bigger picture here as well, which will require a commitment from the County to support HIHS and the animal control program in a number of ways. We can change the laws but without their commitment to provide resources the situation will actually be worse because the laws will be unenforceable. Also any changes need to be sponsored by a County Council member. Rory suggested the best person for this would be Fred Holschuh, because he is the chair of the pertinent committee. Fred has already agreed to work with us and we think he may be willing to take on this role. Mitch mentioned that the fines need to be raised and we also we went to look at things not currently in the code, such as dog parks. Rory said we would also need Parks and Recreation involved if we planned to pursue establishing dog parks. Mitch let him know that Bob (Jacobson) was handling this area. Rory agreed with Mitch on fines, and added another possibility - is there any way fines could come back to support Animal Control instead of going in to state general fund? Currently Mitch feels that would be difficult. Rory thinks it is worth pursuing because we could get more public support if public knows the $ directly supports the program. Discussion of mission and strategies. Nancy had submitted an outline of a possible mission statement & objectives for this group. All agreed on mission. Mitch mentioned there was a difference between objectives and goals and we need to clarify that. Nancy asked what Rory meant about building public support. Rory explained that we would need support from many groups to push bill through. He suggested that unification between all animal welfare groups would be essential. Franny felt that across-the-board unification might be difficult and suggested in order to make this unification successful, we would need to present solid goals for which we are requesting support. Mitch thought Nancy would be a good person to approach these other groups. Franny gave Nancy names and phone numbers of leaders of other animal welfare groups on the island. Rory mentioned that Fred Holschuh persuaded the County to sponsor a non-profit fundraising workshop in September. He hopes that a rep from each group will attend. Next meeting July 31, same time, same place. At that time committee members can present their findings from the research that was assigned from the previous meeting. 06 05 03 Attendees: Dexter Veriato, P.D., Duane Mendoza, HIHS, Mitch Roth, Prosecutor, Mel Fujimo, Prosecutor, Roberta Hole, Neighborhood Watch Leilani Estate, Lil Beaufrere, Solutions, David & Ellen Ignatius, Kona, Nancy Zoren, Kona Paradise, Cathy Artukovich, Center for Non-Violent Communication, Franny Kinslow, HIHS, Bob Jacobson Councilperson, Jay Sharf Council Aide, Mara Tepper, Filipino Clubhouse Neighborhood Watch Note: Fred Holschuh sends his regrets as he was unable to attend this meeting, but he will continue to be involved in the future. Purpose: Mitch opened meeting by stating our purpose is to make necessary changes to animal control legislation. Nancy and Lil added that they also had goals of building a mission statement for the task force, working on solutions to some of the more common problems, and setting a date for a subsequent meeting. Mitch listed areas of most concern in the current legislation, particularly the sections on: dogs running loose, dog defection & nuisance, leash law and noisy dogs. Duane added we should look at impoundment of dogs to be revised. Franny suggested that we consider adding legislation for cats, such as mandatory sterilization and identification. All agreed these should be efforts of the task force. Lil stated that we have good representation from many areas and we should be sure to concentrate on one issue at a time. For today's meeting, all agreed we would concentrate on just identifying changes that should be made to existing legislation. Copies of the existing animal control code were distributed & discussion went section by section as follows: (2) 4-19 Defecation & nuisance prohibited (3) 4-18 Parks (4) 4-21 - Seizure of dogs by other than officers (general public). Statute currently states that found dogs must be turned into HIHS within 48 hours. Currently only a $10 penalty for violation. Mitch suggested changing this to not more than $500 to sufficiently address cases of people stealing dogs. (5) 4 - 24/ 4-25 Noisy dog (6) 4-23 Female dogs Mitch proposed that ANYWHERE in the code where it states $10 penalties, we should change penalty to "not more than $500" or "not more than $1000". Mara suggested there should also be a minimum. Others agreed. Mitch indicated that judges tend to give minimum fines, even when a high maximum is allowable. Mel agreed on that point, but thought there might be other problems with just a max fine. He supports graduated fines in certain areas. (7) 4-29 Leash reg. For public (8) 4-30 Penalty for straying Conclusion - We didn't touch upon "noisy animals" other than dogs. Mitch asked for volunteers to look into this at other places. Dexter added that sections 4-32 & 4-32-1 re: training and badging of humane officers, needs to be changed as the contract is no longer administered by the Finance Department. The Police Department needs to take over responsibility for authorizing badging of humane officers. Assignments: © Copyright Solutions: Neighborhoods in Action |
|