Pitbull ban in Hawaii

[Guest]

well said Mark,

[oink]

I had an interesting experience in my own S. Fl neighborhood last week. I was going for my 3 mile walk, which I had reinitiated again after my BP started skyrocketing. I had my son with me along with my beagel(on a leash). My son had to turn around at a point and my old beagle was pooping out so I gave the leash and my pepper spray to my son who headed back. On my way back from my further mid point, two young great danes came growling and barking along their fence. Note that this is a paved county road. I didn't worry until they came through a gate that had the boards spaced too widely. Now I have two growling great danes on my heals. Ignoring them didn't work. I'm now in a face off with these two large beasts that are now scaring the holy crap out of me as they seem intent on attack. Out pops my kel tec .380. Pepper spray is no longer an option as I sent it back with my son and beagle. I'm glad I have the .380 but I'm feeling badly under guned and I'm wishing I had something much bigger. Strangely, when I decided it was time to take action and pointed at the closest dog (2 feet max) they both backed off until I could get out of what they percieved as their territory. I don't know if they recognized a gun or sensed that I was fixing to try and kill them. So much for the walk lowering blood pressure. The next day on my walk I did have a larger bark and bite along with pepper spray but as I passed I saw that the owners had fixed the gap in the gate. The dogs were there but they couldn't get out. I really don't want to shoot a neighbors dog (same neighborhood but 1.5M away) and will try pepper spray first but holy crap I thought I was going to get killed. By the way, there isn't a way to avoid this house as there is essentially only one road although it changes names.


Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[Dave M]

"Out pops my kel tec .380."

Those (kel tec) are great little autos for the money

"I'm wishing I had something much bigger. Strangely, when I decided it was time to take action and pointed at the closest dog (2 feet max) they both backed off until I could get out of what they percieved as their territory."

Nope, I think u had the perfect weapon as well did those two big Danes. The reason I think this is because that lil kel tec was small enoughto be "with you".

I don't know if they recognized a gun or sensed that I was fixing to try and kill them.

Bingo..when you whipped out the kel tec you actually stopped being scared of them and started to make a business decision and I promise you that's what they sensed. We tend to forget that we are superior beings.

So much for the walk lowering blood pressure.


LOL.. this is exactly what I was thinking as I was reading this. I have to walk for my BP too

The next day on my walk I did have a larger bark and bite along with pepper spray.

Honestly I think that little keltec would dispatch of those danes in short order. Glad your son wasn't with you, If your like me (not ment as an insult)it probably would have been shoot first and ask questions later.


Blessings,
dave

"It doesn't mean that much to me.. to mean that much to you." Neil Young

[Jon]

Kel Tec P3AT...
Carried one in Texas for a years.... Small, simple, light and effective.


-----------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe that America is better than everybody else...
America "IS" everybody else.
HBAT

[rusty h]

from my little experience any dog that is chained becomes aggressive. leading cause of death in Alaska (in the bush or villages)is the malemute. they seem to go after kids and are normally chained. very sad to see a child killed by a dog.

peace

[TheodoreJay]

Oink: I had similar experience w/ Great Dane, was gonna spray the hell out of it then it backed down after bounding at me several hundred yards away on the beach. Owner said it was harmless (ya right). Biggest problem w/ pit bulls if they bite they clamp down and don't let go nor do they back off. A responsible dog owner would keep them under control at all times. That's why a few dog owners have ruined it for everyone else ;/

[MarkP]

Great Danes can be incredibly intimidating since they are almost as tall as you are, but I had always understood that they were naturally retiring and shy, not aggressive. I knew a Great Dane that weighed more than I did and who would make the windows on your car shake when he barked. He would keep his distance and bark until he got to know you. Once he figured out you were OK he would sidle up beside you and lean against you till you about fell over. He did catch a pig once and the owner admitted it was scary the change that came over the dog.

[AlohaSteven]

Questions for KathyH &/or others who may know the answers, along with a new comment or two:

Regarding my comments "if a dog (of whatever breed) is trespassing onto peoples' property and attacking livestock &/or presenting a clear and present danger to children, then it sure seems to me like it would be well within legal right and reasonable conscience to deal with such a dog --quietly, permanently, and without a bunch of fuss-- as feral and a threat" and "it seems to me that parents, farmers, and property owners also need to be responsible in those roles: if a dangerous dog is running loose and trespassing onto private property to attack livestock and menace children then it would be irresponsible, imho, to take no effective action to eliminate such feral marauders"

...and with respect to KathyH's observation "Not so under Hawai'i law. It is currently illegal to kill a pet (misdemeanor, I think). It is legal to trap a pet and turn it over to the Humane Society. It is not legal to kill ferals either. Nor can the definition of feral be applied to an owned animal. Wild and vicious are not the same"

-does anyone have available to share the specific text passage(s) of Hawaii's statute(s) in law regarding this matter...or a link to such?

Seems to me in a situation where life and limb are in peril, especially if within one's own property lines, then acting on reasonable cause in self-defense and/or defense of family and property (livestock, poultry, and pets falling under "property" in law) would be a very different matter than (quite inappropriately) just unilaterally declaring hunting season on other peoples' dogs and going after them when they are within their owners property lines and not offering offense.

Likewise, regarding the definition of "pet" versus "feral," seems to me that a menacing dog (whether a pomeranian or pit bull) ceases to be a pet and becomes feral the moment a person feels in fear for their life or the life of the child. If an animal is trespassing onto private property to attack livestock or poultry --especially if its specific identity is in question for whatever reasons (rain, darkness, because the animal itself is not observed but the ripped udders and dead chickens it leaves behind are evidence of its activity)-- then contextually it seems like the animal is by definition feral by reason of marauding activity.

I'd agree that "wild" and "vicious" are not the same and would not advocate the elimination of wild animals not doing any harm. Vicious behavior, however, whether evidenced by wild (however one might define the term) animals or owned animals (pets, livestock, service animals) cannot be tolerated on one's own property when such animals are trespassing and bringing the nuisance.

If the law really is so flawed as to currently prevent homeowners and farmers from taking legal action to defend themselves, their families, and their property from marauding vicious dogs then the law needs to be changed. Laws which turn responsible citizens acting reasonably into law-breakers are flawed laws which clearly and urgently need changing. Making such a change in law if called for by the people would be a much more constructive use of time for our elected representatives than enacting yet more restrictive nanny-state nonsense for which there is neither funding nor enforcement.

Beyond the haggling of lawyers over definitions and wording of laws (which has its place yet is seldom pleasant or inexpensive to experience firsthand), it seems to me when there is a genuine sense of community present then with it comes shared norms as to what is and is not acceptable in the local culture.

Laws are part of that process, as conscious articulations of the social contract, but laws are only part. If there are bad elements in a community and the community tolerates them poisoning the environment for everyone with fear and intimidation, then whose responsibility is that? Laws will not keep decent members of a community safe if those laws are flawed, or good but disregarded and unenforced.

Likewise, flawed laws will not prevent good, self-reliant, responsible citizens of a community from taking action when the system is failing to do so. As witness dogs which rip udders and kill lambs developing a terminally bad stomach-ache when they venture into the barnyard under cover of darkness to wreak yet more mayhem and happen upon tainted hamburger that has somehow fallen out of a trash can, or when vicious dogs which present a clear and present danger to children simply disappear during thunderstorms, as if vaporized by lightning. A community which makes technical criminals of good responsible citizens while allowing genuine criminal thugs to intimidate and terrorize others is a community which needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

It is easy for thugs to deliberately cause fear in good people if the community does not sort out its acceptable norms and stand together in solidarity. When a community pulls together and stands together then the thugs become those stepping carefully, and rightly so! Ultimately, the outcome of genuinely coming together in community is that people seek to not become a problem in the first place -and raise their children likewise. Yes, there are many aspects to this process from good quality education and after-school activities for youth to substance abuse treatment, job development, and so on ...and all this as well flows from the values and shared norms of a community.

If I ever find a dog of mine is becoming a liability then nobody else will need to complain to the police or Humane Society or whatever, because I will be putting the dog down, myself, before it reaches that point. My kids would do exactly the same because that is how they have been raised. We accept responsibility for our outcomes with our dogs and seek to be good neighbors. We expect the same of others and will not accept being intimidated in our home and on our property by either vicious dogs or their owners. Though we all live together on a big island no one person and no one family is an island unto itself, so how that story ends for anyone --in any community-- depends on the quality of the community and the willingness of good people to find their courage and stand together in solidarity.


)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

A pleasant slideshow: http://www.thejoymovie.com

)'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'( )'(

[Greg]

It seems to me that going after the dog (or breed) may have a quick, but temporary effect. A**holes will find other breeds to make agressive and dangerous.

Going after the owners of bad dogs seems to be a more permanent solution.

[Bob Orts]

Kathy is correct. Under Hawaii law, you can not kill an animal simply because it's pissing on your wall on your property. But Hawaii law does give everyone the right to protect life and prevent serious injury. So if Fifi wonders on your property and starts sniffing your garbage can, you can shoo it away, trap it and turn it over to the humane society, trap it and return or have the owner retrieve it, but not kill it. But if Fifi turns into Cujo and attacks or becomes vicious, you have the right under Hawaii law to defend and protect yourself. The line is if the animal presents a danger versus an annoyance.

Domesticated pet and feral has more to do with personal liability of the owner. A pet dog that jumped your fence, caused damage to your property results in liability to the owner but no liability if feral.

Wild and vicious is correct in your interpretation. A vicious animal is just that vicious and can be wild, domesticated, pet, feral, etc.

The State has a responsibility to the people to prevent a danger where there is sufficient evidence to suggest that a certain type of animal will or could present significant harm to the people or the environment. Such is why snakes are controlled; certain felines are controlled, certain birds, etc, etc, etc. They don't need actual cases of harm right here on Hawaii otherwise where is the proof that a lion, wolf, rattlesnake, hyena, dingo, or bobcat has ever harmed a person on Hawaii to justify a ban? There isn't any yet we don't question the authority and motivation of government to impose such a ban. Should a person be allowed to bring their sweet, cuddly, raised in a loving home, good around the kids Grizzly Bear to Hawaii and keep it just like Fifi? The people want government to protect them and yell and scream when it's not done, yet in the same breath they want it only to the point it doesn’t impact them personally.

If the State has sufficient evidence and documentation that a particular breed or type of animal posses a threat to the environment or the people, why are people arguing such a protection? This is what I read over and over, in post after post, government isn't protecting its people! Yet when government tries, those same people, because it now impacts them personally, wants government out of the business of protecting. This is the – laws should apply to you but not apply to me – mentality. If this was placed to a vote of the people, what do you think the outcome would be?