SB301 amends Hawaii’s dog-liability statute to add a new penalty when a dog injures or destroys property on private property zoned for agricultural use. Under the bill, a dog owner remains liable for the value of any sheep, cattle, goats, hogs, fowl, or other property damaged by the dog, and must still confine or destroy the dog if required under existing law. The bill adds that if the violation occurs on agricultural-zoned private property, the owner found liable must also be fined at least $1,000, on top of the existing damages and penalties.
The measure also preserves county authority to regulate owners, harborers, or keepers of dogs that injure or destroy animals, so long as local ordinances remain consistent with state law and do not alter civil liability. The bill includes standard language preserving rights, duties, penalties, and proceedings that arose before the effective date, and it is set to take effect on July 1, 3000, which is a common placeholder date used in Hawaii bills when the effective date is not yet finalized.
SB301 would directly amend section 142-74 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by creating an additional mandatory fine for dog owners whose dogs cause damage on agricultural land. It would strengthen the existing civil and penalty framework for livestock and property losses caused by dogs, particularly in rural and farm settings, while leaving intact the current rules on damages, dog confinement or destruction, and county ordinance authority. The bill primarily affects dog owners, livestock owners, agricultural landowners, and county governments that regulate animal control.
The available voting history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It passed the Senate Judiciary Committee 2-1 with amendments and later passed the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee 4-1 without amendment, indicating support for the bill’s goal of protecting agricultural property and livestock from dog-related damage. The lack of committee transcripts limits insight into detailed debate, but the vote pattern shows the measure had clear backing in both committees despite some opposition.
The main point of contention appears to be whether an added mandatory $1,000 fine is the appropriate response when a dog causes damage on agricultural-zoned property. Supporters likely view the penalty as a deterrent and a way to better protect farms and livestock, while opponents may be concerned about the burden on dog owners, the rigidity of a mandatory minimum fine, or how the new penalty interacts with existing civil liability and county enforcement authority. The committee votes, including one dissenting vote in each committee, indicate some disagreement, but not broad resistance.