The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About 07/15/2015 Public hearing transcript on BILL#2590 PUBLIC HEARING JULY 15, 2015 A public hearing of the Council of the County of Kauai was called to order by Ross Kagawa, Vice Chair, Committee of the Whole, on Wednesday, July 15, 2015, at 1:32 p.m., at the Council Chambers, 4396 Rice Street, Suite 209, Lihu`e, Kaua`i, and the presence of the following was noted: Honorable Mason K. Chock Honorable Gary L. Hooser Honorable Ross Kagawa Honorable KipuKai Kuali`i Honorable Mel Rapozo (present 1:38p.m.) Honorable JoAnn A. Yukimura (excused 3:29 p.m.) Excused: Honorable Arryl Kaneshiro The Clerk read the notice of the public hearing on the following: "Bill No. 2590—A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 22, KAUAI COUNTY CODE 1987, AS AMENDED, BY REPEALING ARTICLE 25, RELATING TO BARKING DOGS," which was passed on first reading and ordered to print by the Council of the County of Kauai on June 17, 2015, and published in The Garden Island newspaper on June 29, 2015. The following communications were received for the record: 1. Armstrong, Dave, July 14, 2015 2. Asuncion, Tim, July 15, 2015 3. Aylward-Bingman, Lynn M., July 14, 2015 4. Basquez, Lorna, July 14, 2015 5. Bautista, Bronson, July 15, 2015 6. Carineo, Lindsey, Sr., July 15, 2015 7. Borja, Joseph, July 15, 2015 8. Callahan, David, July 15, 2015 9. Canartio, Brigid, June 21, 2015 10. cbugg@hotmail.com, July 13, 2015 11. Contrades, Craig Kanani, July 15, 2015 12. Cooper, Rick, July 14, 2015 13. Cremer, Robert Jr., July 15, 2015 14. Davis, Shannon, July 13, 2015 15. Demma, Jeff, July 15, 2015 16. Dizon, Taryn, July 15, 2015 17. Espaniola, Mandy, July 15, 2015 18. Freitas, Dennis T., Jr., July 15, 2015 19. Freitas, KipuKai P., July 15, 2015 20. Gayagas, Boyd, July 15, 2015 21. Gayagas, Kainalu, July 15, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING 2 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 22. Harding, Faith, June 20, 2015 23. Harrington, Michelle, June 26, 2015 24. Hashimoto, Danny, June 20, 2015 25. Henry, Douglas and Carrie, June 19, 2015 26. Hough, Marina, June 19, 2015 27. Imparato, Carl, July 15, 2015 28. Kaluahine, Jamie, July 15, 2015 29. Kaluahine, Joel, Jr., July 15, 2015 30. Kinimaka, Kaupena, July 14, 2015 31. Kennedy, Suzanna, June 13, 2015 32. Kuraoka, Carol, June 19, 2015 33. Kuraoka, Carol, June 23, 2015 34. Lans, Rebecca, June 19, 2015 35. Levy, Joan, June 20, 2015 36. Lopez, Fredrick, July 15, 2015 37. Mann, Michael, June 25, 2015 38. Matara, Kathy, June 20, 2015 39. Matsuyama, Reiko, July 14, 2015 40. McDonald, Joel, June 24, 2015 41. McDonald, Timory, June 24, 2015 42. Medeiros, Kimberley, July 13, 20158' 43. Medeiros-Kane, Bill and Suzette, July 14, 2015 44. Moriguchi, Alison, July 14, 2015 45. Moss, Sandie, July 13, 2015 46. Mulhall, Mary, July 8, 2015 47. Mundon, James P., July 15, 2015 48. Nagano, Sandra, July 15, 2015 49. Nickerson, Tek, June 18, 2015 (5:43 p.m.) 50. Nickerson, Tek, June 18, 2015 (11:08 p.m.) 51. Oganiku, Aleah, July 15, 2015 52. Ono, Karen, June 19, 2015 53. Pappas, Cliff, July 14, 2015 54. Pappas, Nancy, July 14, 2015 55. Parker, Alice, (undated) 56. Parker, Margaret, July 15, 2015 57. Pasadava, Kelvey, July 15, 2015 58. Peterson, Sea and Bill, July 14, 2015 59. Proctor, Terry, July 12, 2015 60. Rocco, April, June 19, 2015 61. Ruiz, Matthew D., July 15, 2015 62. Ruiz, Ross, July 15, 2015 63. Sandblom, Marissa, July 14, 2015 64. Schwartz, David, July 14, 2015 65. Shablow, Janette, June 23, 2015 66. Shimabukuro, Shawn, July 14, 2015 67. Thomas, Joseph, July 15, 2015 68. Tresler, Michael, July 14, 2015 69. Welch, Pam, (undated) 70. Woods, Denise, June 26, 2015 The hearing proceeded as follows: JADE K FOUNTAIN-TANIGAWA, County Clerk: Vice Chair, we have a number of registered speakers. PUBLIC HEARING 3 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Kagawa: Please read the first registered speaker. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: First registered speaker is Felicia Cowden, followed by Carl Imparato. (Felicia Cowden was not present.) Councilmember Kagawa: Next. If you call their name and they are not here, we can read it again at the end. Thank you. To the members of the public, you have three (3) minutes and once your time is up, you can come up again after everyone is done speaking. You may begin. CARL IMPARATO: Aloha Councilmembers. I strongly oppose this Bill. The creation of Article 25 of Chapter 22 of the County Code (the "Barking Dog Ordinance") was long overdue. It was needed to address the long-standing problems that are created by dog owners who demonstrate little consideration for their neighbors. Those are very real problems and we should not pretend that they do not exist. Clearly, if the problems did not exist, there would have been no motivation on anyone's part to invest the time and energy to create an ordinance in the first place. In addition, as to solving those problems, it defies credibility to maintain that having neighbors "talk things out" is a realistic alternative to the ordinance, as the inability to do that with inconsiderate neighbors is what prompted the creation of the ordinance. The ordinance certainly cannot create "bad blood" between neighbors. To the contrary, "bad blood" is created by disagreements about barking dogs and the ordinance provides a mechanism to resolve those disagreements. I am not aware that there have been major problems created by either the existence of the Ordinance, or by the technical details of the Ordinance. On their face, the standards, mechanisms, and penalties laid out in the Ordinance appear to be reasonable, and they have created a reasonable alternative to forcing people to resort to civil litigation when "talking things out" is not a realistic option. But if there are indeed problems with any of the details of the Ordinance, the solution is for the County Council to amend the Ordinance, rather than gut or repeal the Ordinance and leave residents once again with no defense against inconsiderate neighbors than to resort to civil litigation under other, ill-defined provisions of state law. I want to add that this is not about locals versus newcomers and should not be mischaracterized or politicized that way. In my neighborhood, we had major problems with two (2) barking dobermans it was a newcomer, and the problem could not be solved until the dogs finally died. I hope that we will not mischaracterize this Bill as anything other than what it is as an attempt to put together an effective mechanism to deal with the problem when we have inconsiderate neighbors. In conclusion, I ask that you please not take a giant step backwards by revoking an Ordinance that has been an important step forward in creating a more civil and livable community. Thank you for your time. Councilmember Kagawa: Any clarifying questions for Carl? I have one (1). Did you know that we have had two (2) cases go all the way to court, and both have lost? Mr. Imparato: Yes. Councilmember Kagawa: We have a law that basically does not hold up in court, do you think that is a problem or not? PUBLIC HEARING 4 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Mr. Imparato: It is my understanding that there has been other cases that because of the existence of the Ordinance, people have worked them through without going to court. If indeed though there is a problem with the law, the question is why did these cases lose? Before jumping to the conclusion that it all needs to be tossed out, does the language need to be tuned up? Councilmember Kagawa: Just for your information, there are thirteen (13) more cases on the burner to go to court. Mr. Imparato: Yes. Councilmember Kagawa: There are problems with it. Thank you. Next speaker please. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: The next speaker is Denise Thomson, followed by Bill Peterson. DENISE THOMSON: I am a homeowner and taxpayer. Credentials, my family has been here for a hundred (100) years. We have been on our property since the 1940s. There was nothing we can do and I just want to tell you, for me, the law was a success. Once we put the law out, or neighbor did control their dogs. There was nothing we could do. It went on for years and years. They had five to eight (5 — 8) dogs in kennels that were fifty feet (50') from my bedroom. When we implemented the law, it worked. I am a little upset that you folks do not want to work on amendments to the law. I see that there are problems. Ten (10) minutes is short. It is ridiculous, really. It is kindergarten that you folks cannot amend the law. I am done. (Council Chair Rapozo was noted as present.) Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much for coming. I am interested in amending the law if we feel that it can be made better. The Bill before us does not allow us to amend the law. Ms. Thomson: Right. Councilmember Yukimura: It is either repeal or keep it. Ms. Thomson: Ridiculous. Councilmember Yukimura: When you said that the ten (10) minutes is too short, what did you mean and how do you think we could improve the law? Ms. Thomson: I do not know how you could improve the law, but I mean what is going on out here with the dogs barking, ten (10) minutes is ridiculous. The dogs bark ten (10) minutes every day all the time. All my neighbors' dogs bark ten (10) minutes. That is why I am saying that it is ridiculous. Regarding improving the law — good luck. Councilmember Yukimura: But for you, the law has actually worked. Ms. Thomson: Yes, it worked. They still have their kennels and dogs, but what they did was they managed to take out the barking dogs and this is after fifteen (15) years of suffering. PUBLIC HEARING 5 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much. Councilmember Kagawa: I have a question. Council Chair Rapozo: Go ahead. Councilmember Kagawa: You mentioned that amending the law to make it work is like "kindergarten," but did you know that all of the other islands in the state have barking dog laws on the books and none of them are enforced or successful? Ms. Thomson: Well, I can say that I am certainly glad that ours was enforced, because now I can live. It was terrible. It was absolutely terrible. Councilmember Kagawa: But what I am trying to say is that it is not a kindergarten problem, if it was, all of the other counties would be doing it. Ms. Thomson: To me it is a kindergarten problem that you cannot amend the law. Councilmember Kagawa: It is not kindergarten. Council Chair Rapozo: Let us limit it to clarifying questions. Councilmember Kuali`i: Do you see the barking dog issue as a noise nuisance issue, cruelty to animals issue, or both? Ms. Thomson: I see it as a noise issue. Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Hooser. Councilmember Hooser: To clarify, I also support if there are problems with the Bill, to amend the Bill, but the Bill that is before us will not allow that. Ms. Thomson: I know that, which I cannot believe. I am shocked. Councilmember Hooser: Okay. Ms. Thomson: We have to go all the way back, waste taxpayers' money... Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on, what is the question, Councilmember Hooser? Councilmember Hooser: The question is, to clarify, the law that is in place now you are saying works for you? Ms. Thomson: Yes. Councilmember Hooser: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING 6 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. I am sorry, Councilmember Chock. Councilmember Chock: You said that the remedy was that they took the dogs out of the kennel; what happened to those dogs? Ms. Thomson: I have no idea what happened to those dogs. Councilmember Chock: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: I am looking at the list from the Kaua`i Humane Society, is yours Casey Thomson? Ms. Thomson: Yes. Councilmember Kagawa: The Kauai Humane Society says, "That the case was closed, dog is no longer barking," so I do not know the details. Ms. Thomson: In other words — it worked. Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Ms. Thomson: Okay. Anybody else? Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next speaker is Bill Peterson, followed by Sea Peterson. WILLIAM "BILL" PETERSON: Good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to speak about this Bill. I reside in Kapa`a. My family has been there for more than thirty-two (32) years. We have seen a lot of change when the family originally moved there, it was a very quiet neighborhood, over the last eight (8) years we have seen a lot of dogs move around the neighborhood, and up until this law was passed, it was getting to the point where we could not sit through a dinner without hearing dogs barking. They would bark for twenty (20), thirty (30), to forty (40) minutes at a time, at least two (2) or three (3)times a day. I actually have a recording, which we could play, if you would allow. In any case, whatever you are doing now, please continue it. Do not repeal this law because in the last year, since Ordinance No. 967 went into effect in March of 2014, we have seen the dog barking decrease in our neighborhood substantially. Before the Ordinance was passed, every night and morning the dogs at a neighbor's house across the canyon would bark incessantly for thirty (30) to forty (40) minutes at least twice a day. It sounded like they were just outside of our windows. The noise made it difficult to think, let alone enjoy our peaceful home. Another near neighbor's dog would howl throughout the night keeping us awake and the dog across the street would bark at every car that drove by. Since the ordinance was passed, there has been a gradual decrease in dogs barking in our neighborhood. It did not happen right away, but over the last year the noise has substantially decreased. We were not forced to place complaints. The mere existence of this Ordinance helped make our neighbors more aware of the impact their barking dogs were having on their neighbors. The worst-case scenario we had was speaking to a neighbor and reminding them that their dogs were barking. Finally, we got quiet — so in our neighborhood we can sleep through the night, have PUBLIC HEARING 7 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 dinner quietly — I mean aside from the guy who does not have a muffler on his truck that drives past every day. Please do not take this Ordinance away. If you need to modify it, please do. If you need a lawyer's advice to help with that, please get it, because it is a worthwhile law. Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Kagawa. Councilmember Kagawa: Did you file a complaint? Mr. Peterson: No, as I said, we did not have to file a complaint. The mere existence of the law helped to solve our problem. Councilmember Kagawa: Secondly, do you have a dog? Mr. Peterson: No, I do not have a dog. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Peterson: I have had dogs in the past. Councilmember Kuali`i: Noise nuisance, cruelty to animals, or both? What is the issue? Mr. Peterson: To us the larger issue is the noise, but I believe there is a cruelty to animals issue. The gentleman across the canyon had at least four (4) to six (6) dogs that would bark every night and they were confined in a very small space. Councilmember Kuali`i: So you would say both? Mr. Peterson: I think there is an issue there. Council Chair Rapozo: So your answer is both. Councilmember Kuali`i: Thank you. Mr. Peterson: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. SEA PETERSON: Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My husband spoke for us well enough, I just wondered if you would be interested in hearing the recording of just some of the dog noises that we used to hear and we do not hear anymore —I am very happy about. Would you like to hear it? (Recording of dogs barking played.) Have you had enough? So this is what we would get to listen to at dinnertime, and they were across the canyon. This is at dinnertime, breakfast time, and it would • go on for thirty (30), forty (40) minutes. Now, I do not know if this Ordinance had anything to do with it, but we have seen a vast difference in the amount of barking going on in our neighborhood. We are very grateful for this Ordinance. Thank you very much. PUBLIC HEARING 8 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next speaker. LYNN M. AYLWARD-BINGMAN: I did submit written testimony and I think in the interest of time, I am going to read that, but before I get into that, I do want -Co say that what is not in there is that this law is constitutionally defective in part because you have made it a criminal ordinance, which should never have happened. In checking similar noise abatement ordinances, on the mainland, they are all part of a noise abatement and they are administrative. They are not criminal. Anyone who holds a professional license, if they are convicted of this and the term "conviction" is in the statute, has a real problem. This is what I sent in for the June hearing. I have read and reviewed the Ordinance in great detail and I firmly believe that it suffers from constitutional defects and the mere fact that it authorizes the conviction of the accusers found guilty and that a criminal summons is issued without any guidelines or procedures in place to support these actions is only the beginning. I have not found another state that makes a violation of the barking dog noise ordinance a criminal matter. No matter how small, convictions must be reported and have serious consequences for professional licenses. Further, none of the protections for a criminal defendant exist in this Ordinance. There is not even an explanation as to why or how the KHS (Kauai Humane Society) is to enforce it. There is a total absence of guidelines and procedures the enforcing authority is to follow. A legal importance and an issue addressed by Council Chair Rapozo and Councilmember Hooser in the hearing of this Ordinance, nothing more is required than a complaint by a single neighbor, and that is a problem. No collaboration at all by any other neighbor and no inquires or investigation is done by anyone. This provides for unmitigated vengeful action by an vindictive adjacent property owner, or even a person with mental issues. Corroboration and investigation is absolutely essential of any ordinance of this kind. If it cannot be done due to budgetary or other constraints, the complaints should not go forward. In reviewing the legislative hearings on this matter, I saw the statements made by the current Humane Society Director, unfortunately as with so many other matters involving our animals, I was not able to find any truthful statements in her testimony. A neighbor who has harassed me and my dogs for fourteen (14) years, almost fifteen (15) years now, pounced upon the Ordinance even sending me the news article about it before it became effective indicating she was going to use it to force me to get rid of my dogs. I have three (3) by the way, two (2) of which were rescued; a dachshund, a poi rescue dog from Honolulu, and currently I have an eighteen (18) month old German shepherd/husky mix. When I first became aware on the afternoon of January 2, 2015 that they had filed a complaint with KHS, I prepared a six (6) page, single-spaced rebuttal... Council Chair Rapozo: I hate to interrupt you, but your three (3) minutes are up. You can come back for the second round, if you like. Ms. Aylward-Bingman: I do not speak as fast as I thought I did. Council Chair Rapozo: We have a question for you. Councilmember Kagawa: Was the complaint filed against you? Ms. Aylward-Bingman: Yes. And one of the things I said, there was a pending matter. Councilmember Kagawa: I cannot see your name whether the dog owner's name, so if you can share with Staff your address and then maybe I can figure it out. PUBLIC HEARING 9 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ms. Aylward-Bingman: Okay. It is probably under Aylward-Bingman, but I will do that. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. TARYN DIZON: Aloha Council. Mahalo Council for bringing up the repeal of Article 25 of Bill No. 2490. I am here today to express my support of the repeal as the Bill again was designed based on emotion. A few years ago, I purchased my first house at nineteen (19) years old with the support of the County's gap loan program, which I really hope they do more of. When I signed up for that program I took a class from the County and the biggest thing I learned was that I could never change my neighbors and to learn about my neighborhood prior to thinking of whether this is where I was going to raise my family. I wish people would understand that more. Most of my day I spend conducting root-cause analysis. There is normally a reason that dogs bark. Being a dog owner of ten (10) dogs including puppies, I need to understand why they bark. Controlling them, I mostly have to go outside to chase the neighbor's cat. The cat knows that my dogs are either in a cage or on a leash...the cat's presence causes my dogs to bark. I have to go outside and chase this cat constantly or a few neighbors' cats because they constantly harass my dogs on my rock wall. I work with my neighbors' and notify them when I will not be home, so that they can chase the cat for us. My biggest issue as a dog owner is that the Humane Society needs help from you to gather lost or stray dogs that also cause other dogs to bark. My wish is that the Humane Society adopts technology and posts lost dogs online instead of flipping dogs for money, which I am a victim of and my seven (7) year old son is a victim of this January, of them flipping my dog. With stealing as Kaua`i's number one issue due to our crystal methamphetamine problem, I feel much safer with my barking dog to prevent items from being stolen from my hard working family. I am a responsible dog owner and I support the repeal of the Ordinance as barking is the way dogs talk, just as the way we do. Mahalo for your time. Councilmember Yukimura: I did not understand your reference to "flipping" dogs. Ms. Dizon: I have numerous issues with the Humane Society and they are not very helpful. I hunt all the time, and my dogs somehow get lost or they get picked up by a hiker. A lot of times they get picked up by hikers because the dogs are very friendly, I have children. The hikers turn the dogs in. I live in Kekaha and it is like every other day or every three (3) days I drive over there and I look for my dogs, and it is not easy to see whether my dog is available, and they do not help me at all. Councilmember Yukimura: I see. Ms. Dizon: I even had an instance I was giving them the information of the dog and then I said, "Oh, it looks like that dog," and no help. "What is your dog's name?" "Ula," and the dog barked. No help from the Humane Society in trying to get my dogs back. Also in my neighborhood, there are stray dogs, which is another reason as to why my dogs are barking. Council Chair Rapozo: What is the "flipping" though? PUBLIC HEARING 10 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ms. Dizon: "Flipping" — they make more money if they adopt it out. Council Chair Rapozo: So you mean they take the lost dog and they put it up for adoption. Ms. Dizon: They "flip" it, yes. Councilmember Yukimura: But they have so many dogs to find homes for...but the law that is in existence that we are talking about; has anybody used the law against you? Ms. Dizon: I have worked with my neighbors. My neighbor will talk to me or I will talk to them. I understand when the dogs bark. Most of the time I have a dog who is in heat, it is not constant, but there are different factors that make my dogs bark. If they are in heat, I cannot control that, and I need that female. I cannot get my dogs spayed, because I need to keep my line going for my kids. Councilmember Yukimura: I am not clear how the law is impacting you. Ms. Dizon: I just would support not having this law. Councilmember Yukimura: You just do not want to have a law? Ms. Dizon: Yes. I work with my neighbors a lot and I think if we have more open communication...as a local person, I do have...two (2) of my neighbors are rentals, so it is constantly changing. Most of the time they just moved to the island. Councilmember Yukimura: Where is the house that you live in? Ms. Dizon: I live in Kekaha. Councilmember Yukimura: Obviously, you are working with your neighbors, so no neighbor has actually filed a complaint or anything. Ms. Dizon: Whenever they had an issue, they talked to me, and I let them know the reasoning for the barking. Right now, my dogs are barking because I have puppies. Puppies like to play a lot. There are different issues as the days go on. Councilmember Yukimura: So it is to your credit that you and your neighbors can work things out, but you do not think a law 1111Mary in as w' ere a. dog owner is not like you, not sensitive, and does not want to work with their neighbors... Ms. Dizon: Like I said in my testimony, we need to look root-cause analysis and instead of...it is hard to control a dog from barking, but maybe we can control why the cat is loose, or why the loose dog is...we have way more loose dogs because the Humane Society does not come and grab the dog. They do not even do any patrols. I PUBLIC HEARING 11 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: Do you call the Humane Society when there are stray dogs? Ms. Dizon: Normally I hold on to them and post them. It just happened to me this week, where I had two (2) dogs come into my... Councilmember Yukimura: And you found the owners? Ms. Dizon: Yes, we found the owners. Councilmember Yukimura: So it is not actually stray dogs, but it is owners who are not taking care of their dogs? Ms. Dizon: Well, dogs are smart and they get out. Especially if there is a dog in heat around, dogs will somehow get out and when they come into my yard, of course my dogs will start barking. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: Taryn, do you think that we need a dog barking bill/law that loses in Court one hundred percent (100%) of the time? Ms. Dizon: I do not think we need a law at all and that is why I came out of my way to come here today. Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: I just want to remind the Members, today is a public hearing, so today's function is to receive testimony. If you have a question, like the last speaker mentioned, "flipping" and you want to know what it means, that is a legitimate question, but that is not an opportunity to extend the testimony of a testifier, not today, that is for the Committee. I appreciate you folks understanding that today is for public testimony. Thank you. LISA TAMURA: I am in favor of Bill No. 2590. We have two (2) dogs that bark. They bark to communicate that something is not normal. They bark at cats, people, and anything out of the ordinary. Our dogs bark late at night because somebody's cat comes on our property. Our dogs bark early in the morning because people are walking past our house to exercise. From 2010 to 2013 our neighbor sent us three (3) letters to complain about our dogs barking. He claimed that our dogs barked so much he could not sleep. We became a lot more aware of our dogs barking, but we felt like it was normal barking, so we did not react to his accusations. We spoke with five (5) other neighbors and they all agreed that the barking did not bother them, because it was a reasonable amount of barking for two (2) dogs. In 2013, we were served papers to appear in court. Our neighbor was suing us for four thousand five hundred fifty-eight dollars and twenty-five cents ($4,558.25) for excessive noise. The monetary amount consisted of his sick leave pay, hotel expenses to get sleep, excess travel to and from work, unnecessary meals while away from home, purchase of a decibel meter, and overnight awakenings, though I am not sure how a monetary amount could equate to his sleeplessness. We hired an attorney and we went to court. My husband and I both took off from work to appear in court for two (2) days. The first day for mediation, which could not be resolved, and the second PUBLIC HEARING 12 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 day for an actual appearance before the judge. Six (6) of our neighbors also took off of work to appear in court, prepared to testify for us, supporting our dogs. To make a long story short, our neighbor lost in court. He could not prove that our dogs' barking was excessive, so we won. But, the unnecessary expense and stress placed upon our family was overwhelming. Our attorney's fees for preparation, mediation, and the trial totaled approximately four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500), almost the same amount that we were being sued for. A financial burden is one (1) thing, but the emotional toll it took on me was unforgivable. Throughout the entire litigation process, I became a very angry person. I felt as if my neighbor was attacking my family, and I went on the defensive. How dare he claim we were inconsiderate neighbors who lack respect for people around us. My family is made up of good people. My husband is a firefighter who helps the community. I am a kindergarten teacher who works with young children. My two (2) daughters are good, responsible students, and our two (2) dogs are the protectors of our household. Yet, it did not matter that we were good citizens, we got sued, our names appeared on court documents. I was more than embarrassed, I was mad and what is worse is I still hold this anger towards him. I cannot let go of the fact that he attacked my family in court. Back in January 2014 when you were considering this law, I took a personal day off from work and I came here to attend the public hearing. I told you back then that this law would not be effective because it is difficult to identify the reasons for a dog's bark and to enforce this law, would be way too complex and very subjective. So, my family already paid the price of time, money, and emotional stress. Council Chair Rapozo: Excuse me, your three (3) minutes are up. Ms. Tamura: How many other families have to go through this? Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on, I think we have some questions. Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for being here. I do remember you coming. This whole history that you described and I can understand your distress, but that did not happen under the law. Ms. Tamura: It happened a month before it became a law. Councilmember Yukimura: So you filed a civil suit...he filed, I am sorry. Ms. Tamura: He filed a civil suit. Councilmember Yukimura: So it had nothing to do with the law. Ms. Tamura: No, but... Councilmember Yukimura: What evidence do you have that the law is not working? Ms. Tamura: Because if it was a law when he took us to court, the outcome would have been the same thing. He would not be able to prove...you cannot prove why a dog is barking. If it is barking at a cat, a person, or if it is just barking...The way the law is written it says, "A dog shall not be deemed a barking dog if it is barking at something that is provoking..." PUBLIC HEARING 13 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: Yes, and if you can prove it in court, then you will be exonerated. Council Chair Rapozo: Question, Councilmember Yukimura. Councilmember Yukimura: How is this particular experience related to the law then? Ms. Tamura: Because if this happened to me a month later... Councilmember Yukimura: Has your neighbor used this law? Ms. Tamura: He cannot do it again. I think once you file a civil suit, he cannot sue us for the same thing again. Councilmember Yukimura: I believe he can under a different law, but thank you very much. Council Chair Rapozo: Any other questions? Councilmember Yukimura: He has not tried, right? Ms. Tamura: No. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. BRIGID CANASTRO: About ten (10) years ago, I was having problems with my neighbor's dogs barking. I do not have problems with dogs barking, but it is when it is excessive barking, barking all the time. These dogs were barking 24/7, and I had a problem with that. It was so bad that I finally moved. Luckily, where I live now there is no problem. I do not think the law should be repealed because I think people who have excessive barking dogs need to be held accountable. That is about it. JOSEPHINE "JO" STECIUK: I testified before you in the public from about the neighbor below us with approximately fifteen (15) dogs in kennels, we have been told, fifteen (15) dogs. I know you just heard some barking, would you like to hear what I live with every day, or do you think you can imagine it? Council Chair Rapozo: It is your three (3) minutes and you can use it how you want. Ms. Steciuk: I am going to give you a few seconds of it. (Recording of dogs barking played.) We live with that on a daily basis. Believe it or not, we have gotten used to it to some extent. I spoke in favor of the law and I do think that we do need a barking dog law. I was hoping that on the heels of that, we might also at some point look into cruelty to the hunting dogs affected as there are no laws that protect them. I took a picture on my way here of two (2) dogs that live in a box, on stilts down the street PUBLIC HEARING 14 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 from me, it is like 8x8, and that is what they live in. I was hoping that we be civilized to keep this law in place, and maybe even add on to that at some point to care about how these animals are being treated. They bark for a reason, whether it be boredom, hot, hungry, or in pain. These dogs, I do not know why they are barking. I cannot read their brain, but they do it constantly. Thankfully, they no longer bark at night, except for one (1) that moans in the middle of the night, and I worry about what is wrong with it. I do think we need this law. I am not sure that it is perfect. I did not use the law. At this point if I wanted to sell the house though, which we might be doing, then it would become a problem, because if I bring anybody up there and they hear "this," I am not likely to be able to sell it. For us, we are used to it, the neighbor is unpleasant when he arrives home at 3:30 in the afternoon, the dogs start to bark, he yells at them, "shut up, shut the "F" up." So he cannot take it for two (2) minutes and we live with it all day, off and on, it is not constant, but definitely there are times when it is over thirty (30) minutes at a time. Council Chair Rapozo: Any more questions? Councilmember Kagawa: I am familiar with you from the beginning of the dog barking bill. Did you file a complaint? Ms. Steciuk: No, I did not. When I called the Humane Society, I was told that the law had not been passed yet, and I said, "Yes, it has," and she said, "No, it has not." She went to ask her supervisor who said, "Yes, it had been." She told me that I had to write a letter and they would notify all of my neighbors and all of the neighbors had to answer a questionnaire — so she had the law all wrong. Now I understand that for seven (7) days, you have to keep a log of when they bark. I just do not have the time to sit for seven (7) days and write that down. I do not think it is perfect. Councilmember Kagawa: You put in a lot of time testifying for the Bill, but you never filed a complaint. Ms. Steciuk: When I went to do it, I was given misinformation in the first place, and in the second place, my husband was away for about a month at that time, and I am afraid of this man. He is not a very nice man. I think these dogs are suffering, you asked others if they think it is just the barking noise or cruelty, I think it depends on why the dogs are barking, and I cannot know that. I cannot see them. They are in a kennel. I do not know why. I just know that nobody but me, would put up with it. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura: Has the barking gotten less? Ms. Steciuk: I do not think so. My husband thinks that it has. I really think that we just are used to it during the day, but we do have to keep the back of our house closed. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. JEFF DEMMA: Aloha. I speak today as a Kaua`i resident who • was raised on a forty (40) acre farm with cows, horses, pigs, chickens, rabbits, dogs PUBLIC HEARING 15 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 and cats, as well as six (6) brothers and sisters. I understand rural living. Many speak of Kaua`i's neighborhoods as rural, but as the island has grown, so have large subdivisions with homes within a stone throw from each other. I owned a home in Wailua Homesteads for eight (8)years which I sold at a loss to move to a quieter area without barking dogs. I tried to discuss concerns with my neighbors, some made attempts to train and work with their animals, however, one told me that he would report me to the Police Department for harassment. Yet, another told me in a written letter, "You need to find other means to have your peace and quiet time." Research showed Kaua`i was the only county without an ordinance relating to noise from barking dogs. I felt trapped and frustrated that all I wanted was a quiet enjoyment of my home from which I worked during the day and to find that my only remedy was to file a costly civil lawsuit, and I was certainly not alone. I began meeting with Councilmember Yukimura and a group of concerned citizens in 2011. We tried to identify all committee organizations to involve in finding a solution. Over the next two and a half years (2.5), we met with the Kauai Humane Society, Kaua`i Police Department, Kaua`i Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Kaua`i hunters, and reached out to Kaua`i's courts, KEO, and the DOH. We spoke with the other islands' Humane Societies and reviewed in detail their ordinance language and their procedural requirements. We used some of the most lenient provisions of all three (3). We drafted, put out for comment to all of our parties, and reached for a consensus for a carefully crafted bill. Educating people and changing behavior especially where their dogs' barking becomes a nightmare for their neighbors is not something that happens overnight. Kauai in the past swept this issue under the carpet, but as the number of residents continues to grow and more people live closer to each other, it is not going away. It is unfortunate that some people ignore the problems caused by their barking dogs. This is not the aloha spirit. Just like the TVR (transient vacation rental) situation, bad-blood is created when a situation grows unattended where neighbors feel pitted against each other simply in search of a peaceful day or night's sleep. I respectfully ask the Council to consider the careful and critical work that has been done. This Ordinance has been working as it was intended, to simply discard it without concern or awareness of the positive benefits it has produced, would be a step backwards. Some dog owners have made changes, while others have been fine with ignoring the situation. Remember if there was a noise disturbance due to somebody having a loud party, I can call KPD and they would respond to get the situation under control. If the nuisance continued, KPD would return, and they would cite or make an arrest. However, if the disturbance was due to excessive barking dogs, previously nothing would be done. The Ordinance has created an opportunity to address the problem where historically bad-blood festered because no resources would be available. I am dumfounded that the Council would consider repealing a working Ordinance versus studying it and making it better for all of Kauai citizens and its dogs. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you, Jeff. You stated you were in the working group that worked on the Ordinance. Mr. Demma: Yes. Councilmember Kagawa: Did you folks take the time to ask the other counties; City and County of Honolulu, Maui, and the Big Island, if they were successfully enforcing their dog barking ordinance? Because I did, but I am just wondering if you did? Mr. Demma: Yes, we did. PUBLIC HEARING 16 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Kagawa: And what did they say? Mr. Demma: We had a legislative analyst that reached out to each of the humane societies, in particular we talked to Oahu, and when we talked to them, they said that they believed that the ordinance was working. Councilmember Kagawa: That is not the answer I got. No other island is successfully enforcing a dog barking ordinance, as far as I have checked with fellow Councilmembers on the other islands. I think that is important that the working group did find out, instead of just saying, "They have a dog barking ordinance, but we do not know if it is working or not." Mr. Demma: We did reach out, spoke with representatives, and actually documented that in our meeting notes. . Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. ROCCO APRIL: I apologize at the beginning for saying that I will not be able to come down on either side of the issue. I am afraid that I have more questions than answers. Just a few things that I have come up with, I am in the middle of these, actually physically/literally in the middle with a person on one side that complains about the dogs and then a person on the other side that owns the dogs. I believe there are some cases where dogs are being mistreated. Just like there are parents who are less effective, maybe there are pet owners who are less effective. Slight tangent, maybe the way to address that is to talk about it at the licensing point. Educate them at that point when they are licensing a pet. It seems to me that there are many people who hunt with their dogs, right, the young lady that left earlier, those dogs are probably well taken care of, they are part of the family, they are used a lot for hunting. I know plenty of hunters that I rely on for good food, so I would not want to curtail that. Whether it is amending the current legislation, or redrafting, there is probably a way to make this situation reasonable. I would hate to think that there is not a way that we can facilitate these kind of discussions, so I would encourage the Council to focus on creating legislation whether it is criminal or hopefully just something that does not have the word "criminal" in it, to allow facilitation of these kinds of discussions. Maybe I am too optimistic, but I believe that everyone wants to be friendly, happy, and go about their lives. They do not mind helping others...I did not grow up here as you can probably tell, but I love the culture here. It is built on helping. Even if it is not somebody that you know or your family, you help. I would hate to believe that it is not the case here as well. People want to be good and help each other. I would encourage you again to facilitate these discussions whatever the legislation ends up being. Finally, I encourage both sides and again, I hate to even think of these issues as "sides" that we are all good people, we want to help each other, resolve conflict, and that we want to have the best come out of every situation. Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Yukimura: The Bill that is before us is proposing to repeal that law, are you in favor of having no law at all? Mr. April: I would not say that. PUBLIC HEARING 17 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: You are saying that we should have some form of the law and that is what we should be looking at rather than no law? Mr. April: Councilmember Yukimura, I apologize I do not know anything about legislation, so I am not sure whether the word"law" is right or "ordinance"... Councilmember Yukimura: Law and ordinance is equivalent in this case. Mr. April: Something that would help facilitate the discussions, I think would be in order. Again, I do not know enough about the structure and how these things go forward. The court case seems bad to me. I hate to hear about people having to go to court for things like that. I always want it to be settled. Again, if you folks can muster the resources to facilitate that kind of thing, I would encourage that. Councilmember Yukimura: I would encourage you to read the law. Mr. April: I did. Councilmember Yukimura: And you can see that there is a process for facilitation. Mr. April: It seems to me a little bit loosely written. Councilmember Yukimura: Well any suggestions you have to tighten it would be appreciated. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Mr. April: I would be happy to. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. ALICE PARKER: You folks all know my position on this, "No barking dogs, including mine." I made some notes as we went along. I second Carl Imparato's testimony, and we definitely need a new barking law ordinance, if this one is not working. Let me go down my notes here, revise the current law so it is enforceable, but we desperately need such a law. To ensure that breeding dogs are in kennels is not legal or acceptable in residential neighborhoods. Three, ensure that dogs cannot get out. The owners are responsible if the dogs get out. Sufficient fencing, ground reinforcement with cement because I have terriers and boy, can they dig. I put cement blocks down, and they cannot dig through those. Dogs cannot dig out under the fence. If they jump or climb over the fence, I had an uncle who built a wire...he had a boxer who kept jumping out, so he built a wire back into the yard so the dog would jump up, hit her head, and come back into the yard. Have legal aids research the mainland and other countries ordinances to determine effective wording for enforcement. Lengthen barking times to twenty (20) minutes constantly or thirty (30) minutes intermittently with no obvious cause. Residential neighbors have housing close together and these are not insolated against noise. Make the law a misdemeanor instead of a criminal offense. Incessant barking is probably a result of negligent owners or insufficient housing and exercise regimes by the owners. Microchip all of your dogs, because if they get out, they can be returned to you. Mahalo to all of you, Councilmembers, and good luck. PUBLIC HEARING 18 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Council Chair Rapozo: Okay. PAMELA WELCH: Aloha and good afternoon. My husband, Kent, and I are here to support Ordinance No. 987, Article 25, commonly known as the Barking Dog Ordinance. In August of 2011, we moved away from our Wailua home of six (6)years because of nuisance noises created by two (2) of our neighbors' animals. The first was a large rooster farm, which ran up adjacent to our property, and that is a story for another day. The second was four (4) caged dogs placed by a neighbor as far away from his home as possible, and twenty feet (20') from our bedroom window. These dogs barked randomly at all hours of the day and night. When we approached the dog owner about the problem, he basically said, "That excessive dog barking was not against the law, and there was nothing we could do about it." Just FYI (for your information) the National Real Estate Institute claims that neighborhood nuisance noise can lower the value of your home by five percent to eight percent (5% - 8%) — a little something for all homeowners to think about. When the situation became unbearable, we made the painful decision to leave the home we loved in hopes to finding peace elsewhere. We vetted our next home very carefully, bypassing many wonderful houses because we saw and heard barking dogs in the area. We were so pleased when we visited a house we liked where the closest neighbor had one (1) golden retriever, who never seemed to bark. We would park in different locations around the property in different times of the day and the night, and listened. We were satisfied that we had found our new quiet home. Literally, within two (2) days after getting the keys to the property, two (2) rehomed retrievers showed up at that neighbors, and our four (4) year nightmare began. Now, all three (3) dogs would race along the fencing barking frantically at cars, trucks, walkers, kids, and other dogs on the County road fronting the property. They behaved the same to similar activity on the common driveway separating our two (2) properties. Summers were especially tough because we could not have our windows closed to help muffle the noise. The barking was pretty bad whenever the owner was gone. Normally, five (5) days a week from 8:00 a.m. — 9:00 p.m. and intermittently on weekends. We spent the next eight (8) months trying to convince the owner that the dogs were really behaving this way, and then out came her version of a now familiar and infamous phrase, "Incessant barking is not against the law and there is nothing you can do about it." Shortly thereafter, the owner informed us that she had spent a lot of money to outfit her dogs with bark collars. We were so grateful we gave her a thank-you note with a Safeway gift certificate and a dog treat at her front gate. These tokens of appreciation were promptly returned to us as soon as she got home. We soon learned that the collars were not being used in a consistent manner, just wearing a bark collar or having it turned on and working are two (2)very different things. Gradually the bark returned to pre-collar levels. Thank you and part two will be coming up. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: I saw that you filed a complaint and that the dog owner was cited. What is the status now? Is it going to court? Ms. Welch: Vice Chair Kagawa, I respectfully request that we hold all questions until after my second presentation, because I think your question will be answered. Councilmember Kagawa: Okay. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Next speaker. • PUBLIC HEARING 19 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 MARILYN SALISMAN: I am a retired RN (registered nurse) from Wilcox and this February I was a recipient of one of the dog complaints from the Humane Society. I was astounded because the neighbor never came and talked to me. I am a homeowner, and I have been at my house for eighteen (18) years. I always had one (1) to two (2) dogs. My neighbors around me all have my phone number. I tell them when I am going to be cutting trees. The people who complained are renters. Their house is over here...so for this house here, their house, the house right there, the house there, and there, and then my house... a total of six (6) houses, there are ten (10) dogs. The dogs bark. They are talking. They never came to talk to me. The two (2) times that I did talk to them, the first time, it took the husband ten (10) minutes before he said, "Yes, we did this." So when reading the Ordinance where it is totally their saying what is going on...I have nothing. They can say whatever they want to say. They can lie. I think the bill needs to be taken away and a new one done. I agree with the teacher that you need to talk to the neighbors. My neighbors say that there is nothing wrong, they know I am receptive to anything whether it is trees hanging over, anything...to let me know, and these people have never done that. At this point, there are totally negative feelings. That is not what I want. My neighbors talk, but these folks do not talk. They have never made any effort. It was all done anonymously. The situation that they can say whatever they want to say as to when the dogs bark, it says that you do not do it if the dogs are protecting the property, but how do they know? And it does not say that I have a choice or a chance to say anything about that. Cats come in the yard — my dogs are going to bark a little bit. I had a puppy, she barked a little bit, and at this point one of my dogs barks once and I yell, "quiet." There needs to be a give and take, and that is what I am used to from living here since the `70s. You work together, that is the point — communication, cooperation—that is what you want to have. These folks are not like that. Now, they are young, so maybe that is the new style, which is really sad. I understand excessiveness, but it is a subjective situation. I was a nurse, and subjective does not cut it. That is where we need a new bill to have more research of the situation before there is any true legal actions taken, would be the best way. Thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: I see your case here, it says that the Humane Society never received the log. Ms. Salisman: Right, but they still threatened me. Councilmember Kagawa: The Humane Society threatened you. Ms. Salisman: No, the couple. They told me that what was going on was resolved— my puppy got older, that is what it was. Councilmember Kagawa: How many dogs do you have? Ms. Salisman: I have three (3) right now, at the time, I had two (2). Councilmember Kagawa: What kinds of dogs are they? Ms. Salisman: A retriever, who is five (5), a German short hair pointer who is a year and two months, and I just adopted a foster dog that I think is about two. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING 20 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ms. Salisman: And I take them to the Humane Society every day for two (2) hours at the dog park and we are out and about, so they get lots of exercise. Councilmember Yukimura: You got a notice from the Humane Society that a complaint had been made. Ms. Salisman: First, I got an anonymous letter. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Ms. Salisman: Though it was from the Humane Society about barking and then I got citation stuff. Councilmember Yukimura: The law does not allow anonymous complaints. Ms. Salisman: Well, they did. Councilmember Yukimura: They might have made it to you, but that was not from the official legal process under the law. Ms. Salisman: I only know their first names, I do not know anything else about them, except I do know where they live. To me, that is anonymous. When I get a letter addressed to me, which is the P.O. Box and a printed letter with nothing from anybody... Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but the process has envolved...the law starts when the Humane Society gets a complaint. Ms. Salisman: Okay. Councilmember Yukimura: Then your next communication would have been from the Humane Society. Ms. Salisman: Right. Councilmember Yukimura: And you got that, but apparently if there is no follow-up from the complainant, then it is dropped. You are not cited... Ms. Salisman: Right, but the law is only in favor of the complainer because it is the complainer who keeps the log and there is nothing stated in there that gives the person a right or a chance to say, "Someone was coming to my house..." Councilmember Yukimura: That is not correct. Ms. Salisman: On the paper you get, I do not have the paperwork, but it strictly says that they are going to be keeping a log. Councilmember Yukimura: After they turn in the log to the Humane Society, the Humane Society will investigate whether there is in fact a problem. We PUBLIC HEARING 21 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 will take that up in Committee, but if you have not received anything else, that means it stopped. Ms. Salisman: Well, it has done nothing. It just made our relationship become hateful. Councilmember Yukimura: Well an anonymous letter already started the problem. Thank you. Ms. Salisman: And for them to not have the integrity to say that they did it...it took the husband ten (10) minutes to say it. How can I trust what they are going to say? Council Chair Rapozo: Hang on. I have a question. You said "anonymously," when you get the packet from the Humane Society. Ms. Salisman: It was addressed from the Humane Society. Council Chair Rapozo: And there is no mention of who is accusing... Ms. Salisman: No. Council Chair Rapozo: Really? Ms. Salisman: Yes. It is strictly all paperwork, it is very thorough... Council Chair Rapozo: I have seen the packet, but I would assume that you would...I think the Constitution says that you have the right to face your accuser. I think that is just Constitutional. Ms. Salisman: Exactly, and that is the whole thing with neighbors... Council Chair Rapozo: I am not going to get into a debate, I just wanted to clarify that when you said, "anonymously," you meant anonymously from the Humane Society. So you do not know who the complainant was based on what they sent you. Ms. Salisman: Right. Council Chair Rapozo: Interesting. Okay, thank you. Next speaker. ALTON COUTURION: Good afternoon. I am one of the former persons who testified. I was testifying about the situation that I was involved in. I can talk about before and after the law. Before the law, I sent four (4) to five (5)letters to the party asking that they do something about their dog, because I was being awaken eight to ten(8— 10) times, for instances, about three (3)years ago on Mother's Day weekend, the family appeared to go away with no familiar sounds or smells and so on. The dog barked continuously for three (3) days and nights. In August and September of 2013, I had to move out of my home twice to a hotel because the barking was so bad that I simply could not work, and in fact I took emergency leave from my position, because I could not perform my occupation. I went to the KEO mediation project and asked them to do something. They sent a letter to the other party, and PUBLIC HEARING 22 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 they ignored it. We went to court and the Judge said, "Well you are in my court, you are going to mediation," but again it did not go any place. We finally went to trial where I did allege in small claims court, forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500) and expenses because I stayed in a hotel, I ate breakfast in Kapa`a, and then in the afternoon or evening, I would stay at home and then go to the hotel. Let us talk about after the implementation of the law. Since then, a person moved in across the street, and the person handled the dog very nicely, but they would go away and leave the dog chained behind the house and it would bark all day long. I sent them a letter informally as I had done with the Tamura's, and nothing happened there, so I filed a complaint with the Humane Society, and they did investigate. They called me back to say that there was no finding, that the neighbors would not sustain my complaint. Really, how do you expect neighbors in this aloha community to do so? They are not going to say to a neighbor, "Yes, that dog really barks far too much." In actuality, it did work out the next time around, since the Humane Society did investigate, and since my informal letter to the other party, that noise has gone away. I strongly support the implementation of the law. There has to be some tools for the citizenry for people who simply will not be obligated to act nice. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you very much. Councilmember Yukimura: So you are saying that in the second situation where someone moved across the street from you, you sent a letter informally and then when that did not work, you filed a complaint with the Humane Society. They investigated and then the problem was resolved, the barking stopped? Mr. Couturion: Yes. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Mr. Couturion: They ultimately moved away. I do not know if it had anything to do with the dog, but it was clear that there was some tension in the neighborhood. This dog is right in front of me. The lady who testified before. Forty feet (40') from me there is a very large dog barking throughout the night. Memorial day two (2) years ago... Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, I am going to stop you there...she asked the question, you answered it, and I am going to stop it right there. Mr. Couturion: Okay, thank you. • Councilmember Kagawa: How long have you owned that property? Mr. Couturion: Seven (7) years, as of May of this year. Councilmember Kagawa: And when you bought it, did you check it out to see if dogs were barking? Mr. Couturion: No, I was still living in Washington State. Councilmember Kagawa: Okay, thank you. Mr. Couturion: And I do not think the dogs were barking at first, I am not sure how long they have had the dogs. PUBLIC HEARING 23 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. I have to stop you. Thank you. Next speaker please. STEVE MICKLE: Good afternoon. I live in Kilauea. I would suggest that this law be strengthened and not thrown out. Without the law or an improvised law, is what you are saying to those affected by the problem, and it is a real problem, that we do not matter. You are automatically siding then with those creating the problem rather than choosing to help solve the problem. How many of you today were awake at 5:00 a.m.? I was - yesterday, the day before that, probably five (5) or six (6) days out of every week for the last several years. It is relentless. Ten (10) dogs living next door, the owners do not care. They do not take the time to train them to shut up...they do not yell at them to shut up, they do not care about...they do not have manners. They do not care about me. It is a serious problem. I would like to know why the barking dog cases did not result in conviction in court. I made a complaint. As soon as they were served, the barking ceased for about a month or two. I called the Kaua`i Humane Society and asked them, "What happened? When is the court date?" "We cannot tell you." "What do you mean you cannot tell me?" "We cannot tell you." "Okay, ask your supervisor." Came back, and told me. "Do I need to go?" "No, no...it will all be handled and then you can find out afterwards." I called back afterwards. "What was the result?" "I cannot tell you and that is not something we can give you. You have to go down and through proper channels find out what happened." The law needs to be strengthened. My life is centered around this noise. I cannot get to bed too late, or I will be tired all day. The barking is the worst when the owners are not there, so they do not know that it is happening, because they are not there. They just think I am complaining too much. I do not complain anymore because it makes my blood pressure go up and it makes my day worse, I just keep quiet and mellow out. Counting on the fact that if I make a complaint that I will have somebody overseeing it in court. That someday this might work and help me out. My house is worth less. If I were to see it now, I would lose a hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: Steve, I see here that your case has been closed. The dog owner has been cited. I do not know if it is headed for court. Do you know? Mr. Mickle: No, I do not know. Councilmember Kagawa: Is this a residential area or agricultural? Mr. Mickle: It is on agricultural land, but these dogs are two hundred feet (200') away from my bedroom. Councilmember Kagawa: Just a simple question. Thank you. Mr. Mickle: Yes. Council Chair Rapozo: Councilmember Yukimura. Councilmember Yukimura: So, it worked for a while, but now the barking has resumed? Mr. Mickle: Yes. PUBLIC HEARING 24 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: And it is your understanding that the case is going forward? Mr. Mickle: Only just now...I understand that it is going forward. I do not know where it stood. Councilmember Yukimura: I do not know, it said, "Closed." There seems to be some lack of communication that should happen between the Humane Society and the complainant. It did work at one point, where the barking stopped. Mr. Mickle: When they got the notification, I noticed it changed. They were informed and they were put on notice and so it quieted it down, but it resumed. Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you very much. Mr. Mickle: Thank you. MART DENTE: I live in the Olohena ahupua`a. I am glad to be here today. Thank you for allowing us to testify. I am only here because this affects me personally. I do not have time usually to attend your hearings. In 1989, we purchased our property. Five (5) acres, totally rural, nobody around us. There was a fence between me and one of my neighbor's property; also five (5) acres. When that person built his house in 1990, he soon later acquired one (1) hunting dog. I have nothing against hunting dogs or hunters. I have many friends who are hunters, who hunt and prepare the meat, give it away, or eat it themselves. I think it is an excellent experience for people on this island to have that and to have hunting dogs. Over the years this person, my neighbor, was quite respectful when the dog barked and kept the dog in a cage. Now these people; husband, wife, and two (2) children, have four (4) dogs who bark all day long starting early in the morning and ending about 8:00 in the evening. Fortunately, they do not bark all night. When I have approached the male of the next door neighbor, he is now becoming very belligerent to me. My other neighbors who are more incensed with the barking, but do not want to complain, and I hear that from other speakers today. We really try to get along with our neighbors. That is what Kaua`i is all about. That is what aloha is all about, as far as I am concerned. I have very good relations with all of my other neighbors, but not this belligerent person. I agree with the previous speaker who said that facilitating would be a really good idea, and Councilmember Yukimura, you said that is in the current law, and perhaps that needs to be emphasized— hob pono pono or something. I have a question to the person who testified earlier, that she has ten (10) dogs and sometimes they are in heat and incites other dogs to come around. My question, for people with dogs who leave for the day, they are gone all day, we know dogs get lonely, these people...do they hire a dog-sitter?Would they leave their children home without a child-sitter all day, being gone? Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Ms. Dente: Any questions? Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you for being here. The neighbor with whom you now have a problem was not your initial neighbor. PUBLIC HEARING 25 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ms. Dente: That person built a house. There was no house there. That person has been there since 1990. Councilmember Yukimura: And that is not the same neighbor with whom you have a problem with now? Ms. Dente: Yes, it is the same neighbor. Councilmember Yukimura: Oh, I see. It is just that they have four (4) dogs now. Ms. Dente: Yes. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Ms. Dente: And he used to be a hunter, but he is not a hunter anymore, but they have increased the number of dogs. Councilmember Yukimura: I see. You approached him to express how you are being impacted, and there has been resentment about that? Ms. Dente: Yes. He has been very belligerent and not only do his dogs bark, but he has not confined them with secure fencing, and they roam the neighborhood and cause the other dogs on the other side of me, who are very well-trained to bark at them when they get out. I want the existing law not to be repealed, if anything, strengthen it, so that it really does have some positive effects. Thank you very much. ROBERT CREMER JR.: I am in support of the repeal of this Bill. You said that seventeen (17) cases went to mediation. Fifteen (15) cases went to mediation, okay. Fifteen (15) cases went to mediation, do you know why? They did not want to pay forty-five hundred dollars ($4,500) in attorney's fees to fight the case in court. I am going to mediate first. You are damn tooting I am going to mediate. Then, I am going to be a criminal because my dog is barking at a chicken or a cat. I have a commercial driver's license. Someday I will apply for a job, and it will show on my criminal record. We do not need this law in place. It is not right. How can you tell a bunch of puppy siblings to not play with each other? It is like telling your children to shut up when they are playing. Let us be realistic in this world. Documentation...we are going to document them for seven (7) days. Will the Humane Society sit there for twenty-four (24) hours to listen to them? Do you know who the burden is on...the person with the dog... Council Chair Rapozo: Excuse me...whoever's phone keeps ringing, please turn it off. Mr. Cremer: I bet ninety percent (90%) of the people who are in favor of this dog barking ordinance do not own a dog—I can bet that. This law is faulty. I am going to show you something. Did you folks look in the commentary today? This is from The Garden Island. Can you pass this around? This is what you folks do a lot, not all of you, but this what the past Council has done before — exactly what the article states. Pass the article around, and then I will pass it around to the audience. That is what happens. You folks pass things to see how it will work, and then after when it comes to the floor, it is all a bunch of problems. You folks have to get somebody to guide you folks if you cannot make the right decisions. It will affect PUBLIC HEARING 26 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 people in the working community. Look at how many people took off of work to come here? How many cannot come here to testify? We need to be realistic. We live on an island, with people who gather for subsistence. Come and look in my freezer at what my dogs provide for me. So if the neighbor keeps complaining, I have to get rid of my dogs. My grandson who loves my dogs will not see the dogs. Wake up. Councilmember Yukimura: Are your neighbors complaining? Mr. Cremer: No, they do not, but I still feel for everyone else who has to deal with it. Who knows who is going to move next to me some day. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, but you take care of your dogs, I know that. Mr. Cremer: It is not about care. It is about barking, remember. Councilmember Yukimura: Right. Do your dogs bark incessantly? Mr. Cremer: They bark at chickens, cats, the neighbor's dog that runs into my kennel area. Councilmember Yukimura: Right, those are provocation where that cannot be brought forward. They have to show that they bark... Council Chair Rapozo: Clarifying questions, Councilmember Yukimura. Councilmember Yukimura: Do you not believe that there are situations where in residential areas people have dogs that bark continuously. Mr. Cremer: There are. Councilmember Yukimura: And you feel people, even though they cannot sleep... Mr. Cremer: There are...but it affects all dog owners, you folks have to think about that. That is why I said the law is faulty. Councilmember Yukimura: So are you saying that there should be no law, or that the law should be... Mr. Cremer: You have to repeal the law to make a law that will work. Councilmember Yukimura: No, that is not necessary. Mr. Cremer: Can you amend it? Councilmember Yukimura: Yes. Mr. Cremer: I thought earlier you folks said it could not be amended? PUBLIC HEARING 27 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: You cannot amend it through this Bill, but you can amend it through another bill. It is how this Bill was written. Mr. Cremer: Repeal it and find the right way to do it. Councilmember Yukimura: I would appreciate any suggestions that you have on how to make it right. Thank you. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: Next speaker is Valerie Freitas, followed by Shyla Moon. (Valerie Freitas was not present.) SHYLA MOON: I come here representing the Hunter/Farmer/Fisherman Association. I am a Board Member. I also come to speak as an individual dog owner and an individual who is a victim of excessive barking every day. I work on the graveyard shift, so I sleep during the day. My neighbors right across the valley in Kalaheo, their dogs bark all the time for two (2) hours straight. What I do is I put the radio on. I call him up to tell him that his dogs are barking, but what else am I going to do? My three (3) dogs, they protect our home. Sorry to say this, but we have a crackhead next door that is a problem, and he walks around with guns on his property back and forth. When he is walking in the proximity of my dogs, they tell me that he is outside. My dogs tell my aunties and my grandmother. I do not care if my dogs are irritating my neighbors because it is more important for my dogs to tell me if my neighbor is outside walking around with a bat or gun, so with that saying, there are also people walking up and down my neighbor's property of ten (10) acres through the valley. I need to know when people are going through that property because I do not want them coming by my property, so my dogs bark at them. My dogs also bark at stray cats, chickens, the KIUC (Kaua`i Island Utility Cooperative) worker — he hates him. Let me explain that I did grow up with hunting dogs. My grandpa raised them, my uncle raised them, and I took care of them. I love them and call my dogs "my fur babies." I feel for people who are not sleeping because of excessive dog barking. I am a victim. I really do not sleep well. I wake up in the middle of the day, I tell her shut up, my neighbor's dogs are over there, I cannot tell them to shut up because they are too far away. I have many neighbors with hunting dogs and other dogs. The little barkers are the most irritating, but not the hunting dog— I can sleep with that one. My concerns with Section 22.25(3) and how they are going to prove the excessive dog barking. I do not think it is going to work to have a journal, video tape, or record, because when they are in close proximity, which is the key word. It is the key word that you need to include in Section 22.25(4). Affirmative defense. That language means everything. It matters. Proximity matters. As you know I have people walking around my neighborhood stealing and who knows what else. Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. MATTHEW BERNABE: We should not be pitting neighbor against neighbor, having a neighbor have to go record the dogs for seven (7) days. This obviously is a bad law, it should be repealed because we should have an entity, maybe not even the Humane Society. Maybe the current park rangers that are in charge of • the County parks. They do have rangers now. Maybe a ranger should show up and see if the conditions are consistent with inserting themselves in the problem, because everything to me still sounds like a civil issue. Earlier a lady mentioned, "decreasing of property taxes," the way we are running our property taxes, I want my taxes to go PUBLIC HEARING 28 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 down. That is a bad argument to locals. I really think this is a cultural divide. Everybody that has testified and I do not mean white and local, because obviously some of the people that have been affected on the dog side, right, I am talking about cultural and mindset. I am going to tell you in my neighborhood, it is a utopia, because my pit bulls are loved by the neighbors of all people that have moved into my neighborhood or have been there their whole lives. My dogs bark. Like the girl before me said, the little dachshunds next door who belongs to a local, they bark because in Hawai`i you have to work two (2) or three (3) jobs, the teenagers do not play with the dogs anymore, they do not have attention, so what did I do, instead of starting something, I just went in and called and played with the dogs. Now, I call them from my window and shush them. I trained them, maybe they cannot do that. Many people on the side of grumbling have had lawsuits and things that we do not do. We go and knock on the door. We start the dialogue there before we send five (5) letters, because the guy earlier said he sent five (5) letters. Send me five (5) letters, I am not going to respond to you if you are not man enough to come and knock on my door. That is a cultural difference. He is expecting a letter back. I am not writing a letter back. That is how it is done. You get a phone call, you call back. You get a letter, you write back. What we do over here is we knock on the door and explain that my job hours are this, and if it goes sour from there, then you do your thing. Hunters, maybe you have to show the aloha and show up with smoked meat for these folks. Invite them over for a tour. Maybe we have to put out the hand and show them aloha. My neighborhood is great. We have a lot of dogs that bark, maybe I tune them out, or we are just so tolerant. Maybe we live the true aloha. I am not sure. That is all for now. I will come back for my other three (3) minutes. Councilmember Yukimura: Matt, I think you heard much testimony where people have gone to talk to their neighbors face to face. Mr. Bernabe: That is why I said that the locals have to give smoked meat now. Councilmember Yukimura: Maybe it does not substitute for not being able to sleep at night. Mr. Bernabe: You are right, but then it should not be a neighbor to neighbor... Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on, Matt. Councilmember Yukimura: The question is, if there has been that effort and still there is no change, what do you then suggest? Mr. Bernabe: I suggest you put a little bit more responsibility on one of those park rangers or you make an equivalent of animal patrol. Something that is not the Humane Society, because there is a lot of distrust. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay, whoever you designate, but the Humane Society was designated to take the pressure off the police who already have a lot of things to do, and so do our park rangers. Whoever you designate, if there is not a law, they will not be able to do anything, just like the police were not able to do anything. What do you suggest? PUBLIC HEARING 29 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Mr. Bernabe: Take it away from neighbor versus neighbor, because that is what this law currently has in place. You have to go out there and record for seven (7) days. Council Chair Rapozo: Matt, hold on. We are getting into a debate. Mr. Bernabe: I am not trying to debate. Council Chair Rapozo: I am not talking to you. Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Before we start with the next speaker, a clarifying question is, if you said something that I did not understand. A clarifying question is not, "What do you think about." That is extending the testimony, which happens next week at the Committee Meeting. FELICIA COWDEN: I will be very brief. We have had so much excellent testimony from both sides. For me, what is strikingly clear is that a different ordinance needs to be there, whether you can amend it or fix it. I hear how people are suffering over these dogs... Council Chair Rapozo: Hold on, excuse me. I am sorry. Please, everybody take the time to pull your phones out and turn them off. Can we reset her time? Ms. Cowden: I am still going to be quick. Council Chair Rapozo: We will see. Ms. Cowden: So adapting is the most important thing, because it seems like some people are suffering really hard and then this is a rural place. I know I live easily in an earshot from three (3) packs of hunting dogs and it just does not bother me. I just sleep through it. I hear it and I go right to sleep because I am used to it. I am right next to them. My own little barker passed away. I was very conscious of not wanting to bother my neighbors, but I am sorry that this is set up in a way where this cannot be adopted, because it seems to have a whole other process over dog barking and it seems like a lot of time to spend when we have housing issues and all kinds of other crises. It is too strong the way it is written, and maybe too unclear. I do not like the idea of taking it totally out, but I do not like the idea of leaving it because it does not work the way it is. That is it. Councilmember Yukimura: Can you clarify how it does not work? Ms. Cowden: It does not work...I am in an agreement with Matt. It is a cultural divide and people decide that they cannot cope with certain sounds. We have heard when people put their sound up, I think any of us would go crazy with that, right. If you are listening to that incessant barking 24/7, they have a very real issue. I think it could be adopted where...agricultural parks or where it is too small of a neighborhood, maybe that is not the right place to have caged dogs. There are neighborhoods like Princeville; you cannot even put your laundry out. When we have people who move in to neighborhoods that have more of a rural feeling because it is a good deal, they get there, and then they are unhappy because there are barking dogs. It seems too severe. Ten (10) minutes is too much. PUBLIC HEARING 30 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: Seventeen (17) out of thirty (30) cases, the problem has been solved, you say that it is not working? Ms. Cowden: I know with my one (1) dog who has passed away, when he would bark, I started to feel really uptight even being gone at all. I always kept the dog in at night, but it is just like...people who break the law are not usually even conscious of it. It just creates tension in the neighborhoods. We should just outlaw dogs if nobody can bark. Council Chair Rapozo: Do not give them ideas. Ms. Cowden: Well, okay. I am not saying that. It just seems a little severe the way it is. I know it caused me a lot of anxiety and I never had a complaint from a neighbor, though they should have complained sometimes. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. LISA SHEWMAN: Good afternoon. My husband bought a house in Ulu Ko, sort of a dream of ours. We are living next to barking dogs. I will make this brief. We are going through the process. We have made our complaint, we have logged for ten (10) days. A lot of time was involved in that logging. We video taped. It is not a matter of just talking to a neighbor that has dogs. We are in a situation where she is a renter, and she has them in the garage, the backyard, and she came over two (2) months ago and she had two (2) litters in the house, reason being she was too busy to get the "alpha" fixed. I did not know what an alpha was at that time. I educated myself of the situation. The Humane Society came, made them shave the dogs because they were dreadlocked. The following day they came and removed the dog, but yet the dogs are just so mange. I saw one chewing at his arm for over fifteen (15) minutes. I thought he was chewing a bone, he got up, and there was nothing there. We are dealing with this situation. It is not about culture. It is about peace and quiet in your home. You work all day and you come home and you hopefully you have that. These are from Maltese "yip, yip, yip," it almost permeates into your brain, where it creates the aggravation, agitation, and stress. From 2:00 a.m., 3:00 a.m., and 4:00 a.m., we are doing what we can at this point. We need all of you to back us up as victims, because if you take it away, what do we have? We need something, right? Repeal it. I can video tape for twenty (20) minutes. I am getting quite good at it, because I am not going to stop. My husband and I both said that we are not going to stop until we have this problem rectified. We have been in there for five (5) months. My husband says, "I love my house," and I just look at him. I have not fallen in love with my house yet, because of this situation that is right behind me. Ulu Ko is a quiet community and everybody else is quite patient, but everybody that I have spoken to has dealt with these dogs for over five (5) years. I have a petition with five (5) members, and I have not even gone to everybody. Take that into consideration. Any questions, please feel free to ask. Councilmember Kagawa: Lisa, how long have you folks lived here? Ms. Shewman: We moved in February 19. Councilmember Kagawa: Of what year? Ms. Shewman: Of this year. We did go and check the property out several times, different times of the day... PUBLIC HEARING 31 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Kagawa: I see that the dog owner has been cited... Ms. Shewman: Correct, and her appearance was today, so I am very curious to see how she pleads. Councilmember Kagawa: The court appearance was today. Ms. Shewman: I have been dealing with Sally Tobin... Councilmember Kagawa: So far a hundred percent (100%) have lost. Ms. Shewman: I do not understand what you mean. Councilmember Kagawa: Hundred percent (100%) of the cases that have gone to court, have lost. The dog barking law is not working. When the final hammer hits the table...do you know what I mean. Ms. Shewman: I am sorry, please forgive me. You mean, "lost" as I am not getting ahead in this situation? Councilmember Kagawa: That you would probably lose, if it follows the hundred percent (100%) trend. Ms. Shewman: Okay. Councilmember Kagawa: So that is why I am trying to repeal this law. I believe it is invalid. It is not working. A law should hold up in court. We will see with your case. Ms. Shewman: Okay. Council Chair Rapozo: If the court case was today, were you not subpoenaed to be there? Ms. Shewman: No, this is for her to appear and all she does is say "Guilty or not guilty." I did not want to spend more time with her, and then I guess I am going to be informed. Thank you so much. Council Chair Rapozo: To the people here for the Veterans' Resolution, I apologize, this is going a lot longer than we expected. Hang tight, if possible. Thank you. CRAIG CONTRADES: I guess no one likes incessantly barking dogs, I am one of them. I do not like incessantly barking dogs, I grew up next to the airport, that was really noisy. I do not like roosters crowing all night long. I do not like cats screeching. I do not like a lot things. I do not think we should look around the world, see something we do not like, and pass a law. I am not saying that I have the answer necessarily, but simply passing a bad law is not a solution. I think it is easy to frame this issue as a barking dog issue. We forget what dogs mean to people. They are companions, protection, security, production for farmers and hunters. For some people, dogs are all they have. If that one (1) person or one (1) animal in their lives gets labeled as a barking dog, and taken away, they lose everything as far as they are concerned. I think the law is a little too arbitrary. There is intermittent barking — • PUBLIC HEARING 32 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 what does that mean? There is provoked barking — what does that mean? And actually what I think this will end up being is a death warrant to a lot of dogs, because...let us be realistic, if I have to pay a few thousand dollars to go to court, the dog has to go. This is what will happen. Maybe not me, but there are a lot of people who would look at it that way. Not too many people in this economy have that kind of cash laying around. I think the law itself is a poorly-written law and you should repeal it. Councilmember Yukimura: Do you think there should not be any law at all? Mr. Contrades: I think there should be no law if it is going to be a bad law. Councilmember Yukimura: Do you have suggestions about how to make • it a good law? Mr. Contrades: I suggest not being arbitrary in saying, "intermittent or provoked barking," for example. Councilmember Yukimura: What should we say that would not be arbitrary? Mr. Contrades: I am not sure. My grandfather ran the cannery a long time ago, and he would say that people around the place did not like the noise. I grew up next to the cane field, and I did not like the noise. It is not that simple to have a noise issue that you do not like and pass a law against it. I just do not see the validity in it. Councilmember Yukimura: We really tried to define "excessive barking," so you are saying that no matter what, people should just live with the barking. Mr. Contrades: I come from the `old-school," I am almost fifty (50), I grew up here, and I guess times are changing. I get it. I see the divide. I see where it delineates itself, but I just do not understand why a bad law should not be repealed, regardless of whether we have a good law in place to replace it. Councilmember Yukimura: You feel that no matter how bad and long the barking is, people should just live with it? Mr. Contrades: Do you feel that you should pass laws that cannot really be enforced? Councilmember Yukimura: No, I am asking the question. I am looking for how to do a good law, so I am asking what you would consider a good law. Mr. Contrades: I think the first step towards a good law is to repeal a bad law. Councilmember Yukimura: I understand that, but then what do we put in its place? Council Chair Rapozo: I do not know what you are trying to clarify, Councilmember Yukimura... PUBLIC HEARING 33 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: I am trying to clarify what he would consider a good law. Mr. Contrades: I already said I am not sure that this could be reasonably resolved, but I am pretty sure that passing a bad law that is arbitrary is... Councilmember Yukimura: I think we can agree on that. Council Chair Rapozo: Perfect, let us end on the agreement. Thank you, Craig. Next speaker. TIM ASUNCION: I am from Kilauea. I think that the law should be repealed because it is a bad law. The reason why is because, I have a bunch of collars that I bought in the past. Most of them states that you cannot leave the collar on for more than eight (8) hours, so what happens after eight (8) hours when you are not home? It works, but if you leave them on too long, the dogs get used to the shocking and after that, they are going to start barking. I have a bunch of collars over here and I have the paper that says you cannot leave them on for more than eight (8) hours. The neighbors cannot be the ones to monitor the dogs, because I do not think it is fair. We have to get somebody else to monitor the dogs. Councilmember Yukimura: In the case where there is a lady who goes to work and they bark only when she goes to work, the collars could work? Because then when she comes home, she can take the collars off and they do not bark when she is at home. Mr. Asuncion: Oh, yes, but a lot of times people work two (2) or three (3) jobs because things are so expensive. Councilmember Yukimura: Right, so they work in some cases and some cases are... Mr. Asuncion: It is not hundred percent (100%) guaranteed. When you go online, it does not say a hundred percent (100%) guarantee. Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Mr. Asuncion: I tried every collar and so far none of them are a hundred percent (100%). Councilmember Yukimura: Okay. Is there a complaint that has been filed against you? Mr. Asuncion: No, there is no complaint, but I am just here to support and stop the law. Councilmember Yukimura: Has anybody... Mr. Asuncion: Nobody yet, but I want to be a good neighbor. Councilmember Yukimura: Has any neighbor complained to you? Mr. Asuncion: No. PUBLIC HEARING 34 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Councilmember Yukimura: So, you take care of your dogs. Mr. Asuncion: Yes, I try to. Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. CHRISTOPHER TAKENAKA: I guess I am doing double-duty today, I just came in for this Veterans Resolution and ran into this dog situation here. I am from Kilauea. I see a lot of my neighbors, friends, and classmates over here. I have two (2) out of three (3) dogs that I have had this year living at home. I am constantly yelling at them to shut up. One is a German Shepard who is just as old as my son, who has just turned fourteen (14), and then the other one is four (4) to five (5) years old who has learned to bark from the other one. Neither of those dogs are more annoying than the old man Sakai. He is constantly yapping at his television. Council Chair Rapozo: You are talking about your dad? Mr. Takenaka: Yes, I try not to admit that. That is kind of my point, what has been spoken as arbitrary, to one is one's opinion and that is just an opinion. I can go hours at a time with the next door neighbor's dog that is yapping, because I love my neighbor, and I am thinking, how can I soundproof my room and try to work around things myself. That is what I can control. I can control how I feel. At the same time, my dog barks once...or my old man's dog, and I am out there saying, "Shut up," and if I have to I go and reprimand the dog. I also train my dogs. My cruiser, who passed away this year, and that is why I said...he rarely barked, but I would still train him the same way...giving him attention. If I had my way the dogs would be in the house, but what has been brought up is that we do not have our way. We always have to work our way around someone...whether it is our neighbor, friend, or somebody that just came in, I am just a short five (5) generations here, basically in Hanalei/Kilauea. We had to live through all kinds of things. I am not going to complain when my neighbors kid is whining. We have noise pollution everywhere. What is the underlying factor of that noise? Is it me coming in 4:00 a.m. from a late night on my Harley-Davidson? I try to put it in a higher gear, so I can quiet the noise level. I do not like that noise either. Council Chair Rapozo: I have to stop you there, because your time is up. Councilmember Yukimura: Have any of your neighbors complained about your dogs? Mr. Takenaka: I, as an individual am the noisiest in the neighborhood. Everyone will hear me one way or another, but no, we have old timers there, we have some newcomers. The newcomers usually are the ones who are blasting their music and have parties over the weekend. Councilmember Yukimura: So no one has complained about your dogs. Mr. Takenaka: No, my point is that there is already an ordinance that is in place for noise level. It is just looking at the underlying factor of what that noise level relates to, such as if it is my motorcycle, which might be too loud. If it is sustained, it is hard to tell, but just go by the existing noise ordinance PUBLIC HEARING 35 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 factor. All in all repeal this law because it is not going to work as we have heard the court cases cannot be upheld. There is too much involved. Councilmember Yukimura: Thank you. Ms. Fountain-Tanigawa: That was the last registered speaker. Council Chair Rapozo: That was the last registered speaker. Was there anyone that wanted to speak for the first time? Ms. Steciuk: I am a little confused. Councilmember Kagawa, you said a hundred percent (100%) of the cases failed. Councilmember Yukimura, you said something about seventeen (17) out of thirty (30), succeeded... Council Chair Rapozo: First, questions should be directed here. A public hearing is really intended for testimony. If you have a question, we can try to answer it. He was talking about the criminal cases, and she was talking about the cases that were filed with the Humane Society. Ms. Steciuk: Those that failed were the ones that went on to be criminal cases. Council Chair Rapozo: Correct. Went to court. Ms. Steciuk: The seventeen (17) that did not succeed, did not become criminal, do I understand that correctly? Council Chair Rapozo: Whether it was done through mediation or the complainant did not respond. Ms. Steciuk: So, the law has succeeded on some level. My concern and obviously this law is not perfect and I am not a lawyer so I cannot tear it apart. My concern is that if you repeal this law, are we going to have something to put right in its place, or are we going to complain for another five (5) years. We have worked on this with Councilmember Yukimura for five (5) years, my husband was very involved with the group that kept trying to get something passed. And Jeff, I believe, was also working in another avenue. If you are going to repeal this, you do not want to repeal this until we have something else in place. We need something for this problem. You heard what we live with and that is not right. Culture, whatever you call it, it is neighbor caring about neighbor. My neighbor who owns this kennel and these dogs is gone all day. When he comes home, he starts screaming at the dogs. He cannot even stand it. We need a law. I am not sure that the Humane Society is the right entity to control and handle this. I still think it should be the Police Department, because if it is in the middle of the night, you cannot have anybody come out and verify what is going on because the Humane Society, you cannot even get a hold of anyone. This needs to be a Police matter. It works on the mainland. I know this is not the mainland, but we need to be as civilized as the rest of the islands. There has got to be something that works right, and I am also a little confused; can we amend it? No. So we need a whole new bill in its place, am I correct about that? Okay. Please do not repeal this with nothing to put in its place, if you decide to repeal it. Obviously, there are problems with the law. I do not think it should be a criminal thing. It is negligent, certainly, and this man who owns these dogs does not give a rat about what they are feeling or caring. I hear them sometimes "yelp" when he is screaming at them, I do not know if he kicks them, I cannot see that. He is not a kind PUBLIC HEARING 36 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 person to these animals. These animals in my way of thinking, are mistreated. Please do not repeal the law without having something ready to put in its place. Thank you. Ms. Parker: Perhaps the bark sound frequency may be such that it is more painful to human hearing than other noise sources. There may be something in there, maybe the anger or just the frequency that bothers humans more. Two, somebody said something about getting a dog-sitter. Yes, I was working for. Census in 2000 and I was out in the Kalaheo area, and I was going down a driveway looking for the front door, and I came across this big dalmatian laying there. He was tethered in the driveway. He has access to the garage for shelter, he had a bed, he had water, and the radio was on. I learned that when I keep a radio on or the television on when I leave, my dog knows that I will be back and that she has a soothing noise. Thank you. Mr. Bernabe: I came up with this just for you, Councilmember Yukimura. Instead of barking, target abuse and a criteria of things such as emancipated dogs with no water, no shade, and use the barking as the mechanism to have an inspection done. Keep it out of the neighbor to neighbor hands, right, other than the complaint has to be legally known who made the complaint. That is a solution right there that is better than what is currently in the law. Some of the mainland standards will need to be adopted, for sure, but there needs to be a balance with the cultural sensitivities that are unique to our areas. Some of the standards in the mainland are a little bit more polarized, and the reason they are is because animal abuse in the mainland is directly contributed to gang activity. That is one of their criteria. Some of those extremities are in those mainland standards, however, there are many of those standards that are sound, for example, lack of food or water for the dogs. Instead of attacking the dog barking, let the barking be a mechanism to...a dog barking just does not seem to be...sounds like there is something going on. Maybe not the Humane Society, I will be honest, the Humane Society does not have the trust of the public, just so that you folks know. I am just saying maybe the park ranger might have to have a little bit...and he is twenty-four (24) hours. He has got to show up at the park. I have seen him doing his rounds down behind the golf course. My point being is that this is a different way of addressing the issue. Most of these testifiers that are actually griping, sounds like there may be a correlated abuse case with this. Why not make the law target abuse versus barking. Nobody in here is going to argue that if somebody is abusing their dog, we do not support you folks a hundred percent (100%). We cannot support attacking a dog barking because that is what they do. I am Portuguese, and imagine if you attack me for speaking. I would die. Thank you. Ms. Welch: I was going to play a minute of a recording of dogs barking, but I think we have heard plenty of that. I do have twenty-three (23) hours of it, if anyone cares to listen to it. I would like to finish my sad story now. We have moved into our new home, two (2) days later, we now have three (3) barking dogs. The stress of listening to those dogs for over two (2) years has begun to take a toll on our physical and emotional wellbeing. After much anguish, we reached the difficult decision to not be driven away from a second home. With no other recourse we were ready to file a civil lawsuit knowing full well that the only two (2) winners in that scenario would be the lawyers who would be happy to take our lifesavings, as well as that of our neighbors. Then, a miracle. We learned through Councilmember Yukimura's campaign letter that a barking dog ordinance had been passed. Following all the ordinance requirements, we filed a complaint in October of 2014, and we PUBLIC HEARING 37 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 worked through the entire process, which culminated in a court hearing on May 28, 2015. Sadly, the complaint was overturned in that action. In my opinion, this "not guilty" ruling was largely due to the litigation inexperience of the deputy prosecutor dealing with the new ordinance. Although working through the ordinance process was trying at times, and we eventually lost the ruling, the wonderful outcome is that somewhere along the way, the dog owner was encouraged to take care of the problem. Since then we have had a glorious, mostly bark-free six (6) months. Words cannot express how thankful we are to Councilmember Yukimura for having the courage to introduce the Bill, and to those Councilmembers who acknowledged the problem and enacted legislation to improve the quality of life for those of us unfortunate enough to have barking dogs as neighbors. We also appreciate the Kaua`i Humane Society, and the Fifth District Court for their involvement in the process. Does the process work perfectly? No. But with experience and fine-tuning, we believe it can become an invaluable asset to help promote peace and enjoyment of life and property on the beautiful island of Kauai. We are begging you to not take away the only voice that we have. Please, do not pass Bill No. 2590, repealing the Barking Dog Ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration and what questions do you have for me. Councilmember Kagawa: I am looking at this sheet from the Humane Society and it says that the dog owner was cited and the case was closed. The Humane Society does not have a name for me so that I can call or a number. How can they go to court, cite, and you do not have a name? If you can let them know what the name of that person was, I think the Humane Society should put it in their report. Can you do that? Ms. Welch: I am not understanding your question. Councilmember Kagawa: Can you provide the name of the person that was cited to the Humane Society? Ms. Welch: Yes, I can. Councilmember Kagawa: Because they do not know it, and I... Ms. Welch: Would you like me to do that now? Councilmember Kagawa: No, later, if you can. Ms. Welch: Okay, sure, I will be glad to. Councilmember Kagawa: How much did you pay for your prosecuting attorney? Ms. Welch: Nothing. Councilmember Kagawa: But the defendant had to hire an attorney? Ms. Welch: She represented herself. Councilmember Kagawa: Okay, thank you. (Councilmember Yukimura was noted as excused at 3:29 p.m.) • • PUBLIC HEARING 38 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ms. Aylward-Bingman: After listening to everybody, I wanted to make clear, I am of the belief that you do need some sort of an ordinance. Number one, it should be administrative and not criminal. There is no burden of proof here. It makes the person who has been cited, bear the burden, and that is wrong. There is no speedy trial. I am going on eight (8) months of living under this because the neighbor who has been a problem for almost fifteen (15) years has delayed it. The only time I talked to this neighbor in person was when I first moved into my house. My husband was in the ICU (intensive care unit) at Tripler Army Medical Center for nine (9) months and two (2) days prior to his death on December 30, 2011. I moved into my house in September 2011,just before 9/11. They came over, I thought to welcome me. The wife who is the primary complainer said to me, "We understand you have dogs," and my dogs have not even come to the island yet. I said, "Yes, I do." She said, "We do not believe dogs should bark," and I looked at her and I was not in the best mind frame anyway because of my husband's situation. I said, "Well dogs bark and I have them for security. They are our babies because we do not have children." She said, "We do not believe dogs should bark," and they left. I have never seen her talk to me face to face since. She lives on more than two (2) acres. I have about an acre. Her house is more forward— it is on Pu`u Road in Kalaheo, more towards Po`ipu, mine is closer to the road. She has complained about the design of my house, the fact that I use metal bowls to feed the dogs, she has been spying and stalking me for over a year that I know of, thanks to the production of some of the documents from the Humane Society. She has been video taping me, she tortures my dogs, I caught her just a few days...actually in June, spraying Roundup into the yard, into the dog pen, which by the way she calls it a cage, it is thirty feet (30') long by ten feet (10') high and nine feet wide (30'x9'x10') and has two (2) dog houses in it. I have been the victim and I do not like being a victim, I refused to do that, but I have been a victim for almost fifteen (15) years of this particular person. Now, I have not heard any neighbors that bad here, but there is a real problem. And yes, we are going to trial. Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? We need to take a caption break. How many of you are going to testify for the second time? Okay. Let us take a ten (10) minute caption break, which is required. Sorry about that. We will be back in ten (10) minutes. There being no objections, the Council recessed at 3:32 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 3:42 p.m., and proceeded as follows: Mr. Cremer: I will have to differ with a lot of the conversation about today as far as "this is not a cultural thing" or "this is not about neighbors and neighbors," and "this is not about people that are coming from away and moving here." Majority of the people that are against the dogs barking are from away whether they want to hear it or not. They come into a neighborhood, on an agricultural subdivision, and say, "I want to live in Hawai`i in a beautiful place called Kaua`i, and I want to come here with no noise at all." Prime example, my brother does ranching in Kilauea; he manages a ranch. We have cattle and lock them in the corral, and the next morning, the cows are loose. They let them out because they do not want to hear the cows moo. When you come into a community and you are going to buy a house, come into the community and do some kind of surveillance, ask around the neighborhood if there are dogs and hunters there, maybe that should be put in brochures about real estate. I do not know. Honestly, ninety percent (90%) of the people complaining about the dogs barking are from elsewhere and not lifetime residents. The lifetime residents, we work it out amongst ourselves — one way or another. It is just how our culture is. Again, I do not think the Dog Barking PUBLIC HEARING 39 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ordinance law should be in place. I think the majority of the complaints from all of the people that are supporting this Bill all talked about inhumane care of a dog and that is why the dog is barking. The hunter is not taking care of his dog, then it is up to Penny and the Humane Society to come forward and cite these folks for cruelty to animals. My dogs bark, but I take care of the barking. Like I said, I have puppies that will play with each other during the day, but I will not let them during the night. What are you going to do about kids playing and talking. They are not at the dinner table or church, where you have to stop them to be quiet. I say we repeal the law, and figure out what you folks want to do after that. Find some kind of legal way, something legal that can help you folks figure out how to be able to work in the right manner. The biggest problem we have is that we go to the toilet, sit down, and we do not look if there is toilet paper on the rack. Ms. Tamura: I strongly feel that this law should be repealed because there is no sense in having a law that cannot be enforced. It is clear it cannot be enforced. Dogs will bark. Nobody is going to be there to figure out why the dogs are barking, so why have a law if it cannot be enforced. I think that if you choose to live on this island, Kaua`i, and it is a choice for everybody, then take it for what it is — dogs bark. There are chickens all over the place, mean traffic problems, there is nothing to do for the young kids at night, but it is what it is. Take the good and the bad. Accept it. Tolerate it. If everybody can be a little bit more tolerant, it would be a good place to live. People think it is paradise and it is, but it is your definition of paradise. It is not going to be perfect. When the people were holding up the recording of dogs barking, I grew up with that. In my opinion, it does not bother me, but I grew up with that. I can tolerate that. I think if everybody can take a look at themselves instead of their neighbors and start to see what you can do to make it better and be a little bit more tolerant of each other's imperfections, Kaua`i would be a really good place to live and raise your family. Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Lisa, I have a question. It is about the court case that you talked about earlier. You said the case was dismissed, what was the • reason? Ms. Tamura: He could not prove that... Council Chair Rapozo: The cause of the barking? Ms. Tamura: Yes, the dogs barked when he rode his bike past our house, and the Judge said, "Yes, if you go past somebody's house, the dogs are going to bark." So there were reasons for the dogs barking, but he had a whole log. This was before the law, he had a whole log of the time that the dogs barked, but my thing is, who determines which bark is okay and which bark is not? Council Chair Rapozo: Okay, thank you. Councilmember Kagawa: Lisa, since you went through that case and you can see it from the defendant's point of view, do you think it is fair that the plaintiff gets the Prosecuting Attorney to represent him for free, and then the defendant has to go and hire an attorney? And if he is found not guilty, so far I said two for two (2:2), we are batting one thousand (1,000) this dog law is failing. Do you think it is fair that this guy, even though he wins the case, the defendant, he has to pay for his attorney. Do you think that it is fair? PUBLIC HEARING 40 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Ms. Tamura: It is not fair. Definitely not fair. We even looked into countersuing or to have him pay for our attorney, but you cannot do that if it is a civil case. Councilmember Kagawa: In a civil case, you cannot try and go after your attorney's fees? Council Chair Rapozo: In small claims, correct. Ms. Tamura: So we eat the cost. That is a whole month's paycheck. It could be used for other things. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else? MANA BROWN: Up until the ending of June, I was the Chief Humane Officer for the Kauai Humane Society. I was one (1) of the twelve (12) employees that asked for Penny's removal and one (1) of the two (2) managers who got fired. From the beginning, I was opposed to this Ordinance. I stated many times that the Humane Society should not be the first responders. This is a noise ordinance, not an animal welfare law. Number two, to have neighbors documenting each other only causes more animosity, which we have seen. All this Ordinance has done is further destroy our community. I have seen firsthand as to how this Ordinance has totally destroyed everybody's lives. Neighbors are now at war with each other. In closing, I do believe there needs to be some kind of ordinance, but I do not support the one there now. Putting the community in charge of an investigation is nuts. There is no other ordinance that relies so heavily on the investigation of a member of the public, everything needs to be taken into account. Councilmember Kagawa: Do you believe that it should be like Maui and the Big Island, and let KPD go and investigate and do the reports? Mr. Brown: Yes. Councilmember Kagawa: Not the Humane Society? Mr. Brown: Well, we are not there twenty-four (24) hours of the day. Dogs normally bark when somebody is not home. Councilmember Kagawa: Were you included in those discussions when they said their group was working on it from five (5) years? Mr. Brown: I have been in on a couple of them, yes. Councilmember Kagawa: You were in a couple of those meetings? Mr. Brown: Yes. Councilmember Kagawa: One of the outcomes was that there was not going to be citations...they said, "Let us just put it in the law, but we are not going to actually issue it. We are going to work it out before it happens," but that is not the case, right? Mr. Brown: How it works is, the complainant complains, we send out the...the Humane Society sends out the complaint log, they fill it out, PUBLIC HEARING 41 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 they turn it in, it gets evaluated, and if it is found that there is something that we can cite them on, the Humane Society can cite them on, then they will get cited. A lot of ones that come in are not necessarily cited. There is certain criteria that it needs to fit in. Councilmember Kagawa: You said the Humane Society should not be involved, do you think this Dog Barking Ordinance is taking away from some of the primary functions that should be better handled by the Humane Society at this time? Mr. Brown: Correct. Councilmember Kagawa: Thank you. Council Chair Rapozo: Next speaker. Ms. Moon: After listening to all these people speaking, I am not sure if I said in my first testimony and I do want this Ordinance to be repealed. If you do put something else in place, you really have to make sure that the wording, the language is...I mean it is really about neighbors. This is about neighbors arguing about something in their neighborhood. I know this because I am dealing with it and what I do is talk to my neighbor. He is angry with me, yes, I call him at all kinds of hours of the day and night, but I do not care I am going to call him, and he answers his phone. But what is happening is, I do not think the Humane Society should be handling it. I have seen them come out for complaints before and I see the pain in their eyes about coming there and reporting things. The KPD is there for us, they work for the public, they do reporting, and there will be a police report. I think that would be the best, to have the noise ordinance be used for the barking, it is a noise. I do not think we are being supportive of our hunting community either because a lot of these are half pets and half hunting dogs. We do need to support the hunters and their way of life. It is a way of life and the dogs are part of it; they are part of the family. Please consider the repeal of this. Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to testify at this public hearing? Mr. Takenaka: Under the cultural sensitivity of it, our buildings are to code, single wall designs. The mainlanders who come here and I know this for a fact, because I spent a whole year in Tucson with various apartments and houses where usually most residents have double walls and it is very soundproof, to a certain degree. Yes, the noise ordinance does come into effect, but we have to realize that it is cultural sensitivity as pertaining to the make-up of our building codes. Culture in Hawai`i for building codes is about half of what it is on the mainland, as far as soundproofing of the homes. Obviously, we basically live out on the lanai. And so we are going to have all kinds of noises that we usually do not have on the mainland. Specifically, I refer to Tucson, Arizona, California and different places like that, where they are used to double-walling their homes so you do not hear the outside noises. I second Robert Cremer and the last few testimonies. You hear it again and again...for those of us who have lived here for a few generations or more, we have become tolerant and that is because we love our neighbors. If we are going to create some animosity by not repealing this law or Ordinance rather...my suggestion is that we keep the Ordinance that we do have in place and force those such as the noise ordinance in working with that, as well as being inhumane to any, whether it be animal or human, we have got to learn to work together. The noise ordinance is already in place, and use KPD because they are already there. We got so many laws PUBLIC HEARING 42 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 in place already that it is just unbelievable. Where do we spend more money? Let us live in our homes, and not just complain about it. Anyway, that is my time. Council Chair Rapozo: Christopher, I had one (1) question. You talked about the noise ordinance or the other ordinances that governs noise. Are you suggesting that we incorporate all the noise issues in one (1)...like a comprehensive noise ordinance? Mr. Takenaka: I am not too privy to the law, but I believe there is a decibel limitation on the amount of noise you can create. There is a chart which shows the difference in noise levels, for example, a motorcycle, a radio...all those kinds of things, and they all have to comply with one (1) noise ordinance. So it is already, in that way, comprehensive. That way we can be educated in how to control our noise level pertaining to what we have. Maybe in all those material things that is listed, we also have to include us humans who yell a lot, dogs that bark, or cats that makes noise. We have to take ourselves into consideration, in this matter, because we are responsible of our animals, and not the other way around. The animals will just do their thing. A lot of these animals might not be in any person's control and that is what it is about. It is the neglect of the animal rather than one who is under control. We already have an ordinance in place for that. That is why we have the Kaua`i Humane Society to go after...but after the police report. First responder is KPD, and then the second, if need be as was testified, would be the Kaua`i Humane Society, for the neglect cases. The noise ordinance is already in place, just go by that. Council Chair Rapozo: Got it. Thank you. Anybody else? FORREST CALLAHAN: Aloha. After sitting here for, however long, I am not going to be redundant. First, I am in support of the repeal. Basically, without sugar-coating and like Robert said, let us face it, it is about mainlanders coming here and just not accepting our lifestyle and they have to change things. With that whole smoke law, by any chance, are they not the same group of people? By coincidence? What next to complain about? The clothes on the line, maybe it offends them or the music. I am not going to move to southern California and start complaining about Mexican music. Maybe I would move there because I like that, and I moved there with an open mind to embrace the new culture. I am not going to say, "This place needs to be like Hawai`i," for that matter, I am going to stay in Hawai`i. It just blows my mind that one of the speakers said that they were here since January 2015, seriously. Personally, I do not know if any of you up here would move to the mainland and think, I have an opportunity to change some things and I was here since January of 2015. I mean who are we trying to cater to, seriously? You folks were elected by the people, for the people. Listen to the people. Yes, sure we are all people in here, we are all human beings, but I mean born and raised, like I said is just an acceptance of the lifestyle. If you do not like it, you can always go back to where you came from. If you do not like this food, you are not going to eat it. If you do not want to see things, close your eyes. If you do not like barking dogs, close your ears. Sorry if I offended anybody, but like I said I am not going to sugar-coat anything. If you do not like it, you can always go someplace else. It is just a fact of life. Dogs bark. Babies cry. So what is next? Smell. I do not know how much of you live next to Filipinos, but they cook with patis. It is stink, let us ban that too. Where does it end? That is all I have to say. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING 43 JULY 15, 2015 BILL NO. 2590 Council Chair Rapozo: Thank you. Anybody else who wants to testify for the second time? Anyone who wants to speak who has not spoken before? If not, this public hearing is now closed. There being no one present to testify on this matter, the public hearing adjourned at 4:03 p.m. Respectfully submitted, SCOTT K. SATO Deputy County Clerk :dmc