Posts: 2,484
Threads: 10
Joined: Feb 2008
The original question was "Should I have done something different?" The answer depends on what you were trying to accomplish. Even if there had been an effective leash law governing the dog in the store, which it now appears there is not, the course of action that the original poster took was optimized for creating conflict, and at this it succeeded. I am not defending the dysfunctional dog owner who tried to follow him and confront him. I am only stating that the consequences of his actions, the irrational defensiveness of someone irresponsible enough to force his dog on others in the first place, were predictable.
I suppose that the proper if unsatisfying thing to have done would have been to call the police. At that point they would have told the original poster that there was no law that applied, which sadly appears to be the truth. I don't think that getting the jerk with the dog to quietly get up and leave was ever an option unless you were planning some kind of effective and almost necessarily illegal intimidation. Practically speaking I have no idea how to get something like that to work and I am sure that it is not something that could be done on the spur of the moment while holding an injured child.
In the end the original poster should have refrained from saying anything to the jerk with the dog. The cops maybe. The store owner maybe. His half dozen burly friends waiting outside maybe.
Posts: 6,214
Threads: 354
Joined: Feb 2006
From my reading (no legal ability to advise... so it is only my opinion... and is given with absolutely no idea if it is right...) of the section 4-18 that I posted today:
The store owner & employee should not have allowed the dog in.
Knowing this is the law will help in the future, as the employees would have been the one to talk in this case.
Gotta say that I would have thought there was more to leash law in the County Code.
The fact that the county paid for for an independent assessment over eight years ago & did not even address the recommended code improvements in the county response tells me that maybe the county did not even realize that their code had been assessed as very inadequate in the report.... that assessment was in chapter 10 of the report... probably was never read..
Posts: 151
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2007
Hawaii is VERY slow to do anything about anything.
Once Dogs sprout wings, fire lasers from their eyes and begin killing us by the thousands, Hawaii MIGHT begine enforceing laws. But then we will have to create a Hawaii Law Enforment Agency to act as a police force since it seesms that we dont have one.
Or...
If a dog keeps the Governer up at night or bites a VERY weathly person things might change over night.
Posts: 151
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2007
quote:
Originally posted by jimbob
This is hawaii. Why would or should anyone follow or be required to follow the law as stated when there apparently no consequences for not doing so. The way the laws are enforced in Hawaii you would think that this is a third world country. As if you didnt already know in Hawaii "IT'S NOT WHAT YOU KNOW BUT WHO YOU KNOW"
Unless you don't wear your seat belt. The police seem to be all over that one. In fact it's pretty much the only time we see the police in Ocean View. They set up check points to tag people for not wearing their seat belts but seem to ignore the people driving around with beer bottles in their hands. And before somebody asks or suggests it, no I've never gotten a ticket for not wearing my seat belt.
Posts: 218
Threads: 10
Joined: Dec 2005
While appreciating the excerpts of the County code already posted related to this subject (love the one on keeping females in heat confined - can think of a few humans to which this should apply!), the clearest reference seems to be in the "Definitions" section:
[Quote]
Chapter 4 – Animals
Section 4-1. Definitions.
As used in this chapter:
® “Stray” means:
(1) An unlicensed dog or dog without a license for the current year;
(2) Any dog on the premises of a person other than the owner of the dog, without the consent of an occupant of such premises;
(3) Any dog on a public street, on public or private school grounds, or in any other public place, except when under the control of the owner by leash, cord, chain or other similar means of physical restraint, provided that such leash, cord, chain, or other means is not more than eight feet in length, and provided further that this provision shall not be construed to permit that which is prohibited by any other law; [Unquote]
This is followed by the enforcement section:
[Quote]
Section 4-4. Power to seize and impound dogs, cats, and small domesticated animals.
The County or the humane society with whom the County has contracted for services shall be authorized to seize and impound any dog, cat, or other small domesticated animal, when such dog, cat, or other small domesticated animal is a stray, and to dispose of such dog, cat, or small domesticated animal in accordance with chapter 143, Hawai‘i Revised Statutes.
(1973, Ord. No. 11, sec. 1; Am. 1975, Ord. No. 86, sec. 1; Am. 1980, Ord. No. 510, sec. 2; Am. 1992, Ord. No. 92-93, sec. 2.)4 [Unquote]
Seems to be a leash-law to me. Of course, this leaves open the question of bringing about effective enforcement.
Posts: 2,149
Threads: 90
Joined: Feb 2006
"Seems to be a leash-law to me. Of course, this leaves open the question of bringing about effective enforcement." -- Janet
Yes, that enforcement part is the bugaboo. I have only heard of one case where a person was taken to court for roaming dogs.
Posts: 1,581
Threads: 26
Joined: Jun 2007
quote:
Originally posted by janet
Seems to be a leash-law to me.
There are two areas regarding dogs in public. One deals with required leash at public parks, beaches, etc. The other deals with public streets and that only states under the control (not leashed) of the owner or responsible party. The section your reading pertains to the authority and reasons why government and it's authorized agents have the authority to seize an animal. It's common in most animal control ordinances because places without an always leash in public law (Hawaii County) or an inadequate definition of control (Hawaii County), people can say they had control over a dog when they really don't. So by placing the stray provision in the law, animal control won't incur liability due to a claim of control as the law gives them seizure rights based on the stray provision.
Posts: 31
Threads: 9
Joined: May 2008
All of these comments are excellent and greatly appreciated on both sides of the situation.
"Having control of Dog, doesn't necessarily mean having a leash, possibly verbal command." I can understand, but not in a public establishment when food is stored or being prepared.
This drives another question which I witnessed today. Again a woman was jogging on a street passed my residence, with three full grown rotweilers with no leash.
I have no idea her reasoning for doing so, For her protection from other strays possibly, but the dogs started to wander, and what if there was a dog restrained or not on their property. If there was any type of conflict with her dogs and others (not limited to people), how is she to restrain and control with verbal command because there were no leashes.
Again Mahalo
Posts: 10
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2009
quote:
Originally posted by dirk1609
Hawaii is VERY slow to do anything about anything.
Once Dogs sprout wings, fire lasers from their eyes and begin killing us by the thousands, Hawaii MIGHT begine enforceing laws. But then we will have to create a Hawaii Law Enforment Agency to act as a police force since it seesms that we dont have one.
Or...
If a dog keeps the Governer up at night or bites a VERY weathly person things might change over night.
Dont you mean POLICE FARCE rather than police force?
|
