+- Punaweb Forum (http://punaweb.org/forum)
+-- Forum: Punaweb Forums (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Punatalk (http://punaweb.org/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing (/showthread.php?tid=17067)
Pages:
1
2
Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - Eric1600 - 04-04-2016
I recently noticed readers of this forum are as disturbed as I am about the treatment of many animals in this state and particularly Big Island.
Here is a chance to express your disappointment on 3 bills that were rejected to even be heard for discussion in hearings. Senate Bills 2263, 2273 and 2270, introduced by state Sen. Russell Ruderman who represents Puna.
The focus of the 3 bills were:
- 2263, would ban slaughtering or raising dogs for human consumption
- 2273 limit of three adult dogs per person, or otherwise require a person to get a kennel license. Requiring a tether to be at least 10 feet long. And would allow dogs to be seized after a third animal cruelty offense, and place the owner on a county registry of people unfit to own dogs. The bill would set an annual license fee of $20 per dog, with a three-year fee waiver if the dog is fixed.
- 2270 requires a person to complete a state veterinarian-established training course in order to become an animal control officer. Gives animal officers the right to seize or inspect an animal that’s been treated cruelly, abandoned or in an unsafe situation.
All 3 bills were rejected without even discussion last month.
http://westhawaiitoday.com/news/local-news/animal-cruelty-bills-die
You can contact your Representative (https://russellruderman.com/contact-russell-ruderman/) to show support and ask what can be done to reverse this trend in Hawaii. Or via facebook (https://www.facebook.com/friends.russell.ruderman)
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - Chunkster - 04-04-2016
There are ethnic and "cultural" forces aligned against this much needed legislation whose support Hawaii politicians (perhaps falsely) think they need to get re-elected. My only complaint is that the tether restriction did not go far enough, but it at least was a decent start. Russell Ruderman has earned my respect for trying to do something about a truly shameful situation. He will probably also get my vote, especially given that Ilagan, his main opponent, (whom I used to support) should really stay on the county council where he might actually finally get something done.
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - birdmove - 04-04-2016
I would think these bills are reasonable, and should have been taken up for discussion and possibly voted on. Are the politicians here without backbones? I know of one that has a backbone of steel. That would be Congressman Tulsi Gabbard. What's wrong with the rest?
Jon in Keaau/HPP
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - Kenney - 04-04-2016
This is a really sad situation. Personally, I think I'd prefer to be well fed and eaten than spend a lifetime on a chain in the hot sun, without regular meals, affection or exercise. I cannot imagine life without beloved pets.
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - PrismaticMenehune - 04-04-2016
Is there any place to find an explanation for the decision process (or lack thereof) behind bills that are rejected without a hearing?
Looking at, for example, SB2273 (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2273&year=2016), there's not really any info about the process other than some referral mentions, but those are from a while back.
Mahalo.
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - Chunkster - 04-04-2016
As I understand it, the committee chairs and Democratic party leaders decide which bills will get hearings. This is supposedly designed as a way to nip any meaningful reform in the bud, but it also extends to bills that powerful figures in the legislature don't want to even be heard. In this case, it would force legislators to choose between offending certain "cultural" constituencies or doing the just and humane thing. This being Hawaii, it's better from their perspective to not have to choose. That way they can smile and pretend that everything is OK.
Meanwhile, Russell Ruderman has some new friends. I hope it helps him on election day.
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - Kapoho Joe - 04-04-2016
Were these bills rejected because of their content or because Russell is persona non grata in Honolulu?
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - kalakoa - 04-04-2016
I'll bet a little of each, plus some "just an outer island problem".
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - Chunkster - 04-04-2016
If Russell Ruderman is indeed "persona non grata" in Honolulu, I might have to add that to my list of things to like about him. Since Puna never gets anything, no matter how compliant our elected guys are with the so-called leadership, I would rather have someone there who has a conscience and is willing to rock the boat.
RE: Anti-Animal Cruelity Bills Rejected Before Hearing - HereOnThePrimalEdge - 04-04-2016
There are ethnic and "cultural" forces aligned
That is the crux of the matter.
People who view dogs as dinner, regard supporters of this bill in the same way hamburger eaters warily look over at a table full of vegans discussing protein.
"How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives." -Annie Dillard