Hanabusa for Hawai`i
More info on Senate Bill 79
There are two important things to remember about Senate Bill 79, which would prohibit owning or selling specific breeds of dog.
First, Senator Hanabusa introduced the bill “by request.” That means that a member of the public asked her to introduce the bill for consideration by the Senate. Because Hawaii state law does not allow for any kind of initiative or referendum, many lawmakers—including Senator Hanabusa—feel it is important to introduce bills when requested by constituents; it gives the public access to the lawmaking process that they would not otherwise have. To put that into context, in this legislative session, 16 Senators introduced over 425 bills “by request.”
Introducing a bill by request does not mean that a Senator supports a bill or approves of its contents. It is entirely up to the person who requested the bill to earn support among legislators.
The second thing to keep in mind is that by requesting that the bill be introduced, someone in the community expressed a concern about their personal safety, particularly in the case of large dogs.
Banning a specific breed of dog wouldn’t resolve all of our concerns about potential attacks. Any breed of dog, from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane, has a potential to bite, and a particular dog’s behavior is at least partly a reflection of its owner. Anyone who owns a pet has a responsibility to ensure the pet does not harm others.
The person who requested the introduction of SB79 was probably responding with fear and frustration to media reports of pit bull attacks or, possibly, an attack involving a friend or family member.
At the same time, others who own or admire pit bulls have responded with fear and frustration to the possibility that their pets will be taken away. It is time for all of us to move beyond those negative responses and try to address the real question: how can we hold pet owners liable for the behavior of their animals, and reduce the likelihood of dog attacks—by any breed—in the future?
Any responsible pet owner should be anxious to get involved in that discussion.
First, Senator Hanabusa introduced the bill “by request.” That means that a member of the public asked her to introduce the bill for consideration by the Senate. Because Hawaii state law does not allow for any kind of initiative or referendum, many lawmakers—including Senator Hanabusa—feel it is important to introduce bills when requested by constituents; it gives the public access to the lawmaking process that they would not otherwise have. To put that into context, in this legislative session, 16 Senators introduced over 425 bills “by request.”
Introducing a bill by request does not mean that a Senator supports a bill or approves of its contents. It is entirely up to the person who requested the bill to earn support among legislators.
The second thing to keep in mind is that by requesting that the bill be introduced, someone in the community expressed a concern about their personal safety, particularly in the case of large dogs.
Banning a specific breed of dog wouldn’t resolve all of our concerns about potential attacks. Any breed of dog, from a Chihuahua to a Great Dane, has a potential to bite, and a particular dog’s behavior is at least partly a reflection of its owner. Anyone who owns a pet has a responsibility to ensure the pet does not harm others.
The person who requested the introduction of SB79 was probably responding with fear and frustration to media reports of pit bull attacks or, possibly, an attack involving a friend or family member.
At the same time, others who own or admire pit bulls have responded with fear and frustration to the possibility that their pets will be taken away. It is time for all of us to move beyond those negative responses and try to address the real question: how can we hold pet owners liable for the behavior of their animals, and reduce the likelihood of dog attacks—by any breed—in the future?
Any responsible pet owner should be anxious to get involved in that discussion.
Comment
-
Comment by Geri Salvador on February 11, 2009 at 2:21pm - I don't feel as if the responses on the board were negative, we are basically stating our position,clarifying points and defending our pets. I do agree, it is owner responsibility and hopeful that SB1176 may help in enforcing owner responsibility. My responses were not meant to be negative. Tact can work both ways.
About
Honolulu Advertiser
© 2009 Created by Hanabusa for Hawaii on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Hanabusa for Hawai`i to add comments!
Join this Ning Network