01-29-2009, 09:20 AM
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?
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?