HB2152 amends Hawaii law governing dog attacks on livestock, with a focus on incidents occurring on land or premises in the agricultural district. The bill expands the definition of “habitual agricultural crime perpetrator” to include persons with repeated civil liability findings under the dog-attack statute, in addition to prior criminal convictions under agricultural crime provisions. It also revises the dog-liability statute to make clear that a dog owner or person responsible for a dog is liable for twice the value of livestock or other property injured or destroyed by a dog on agricultural-district land without consent.
The bill adds stronger enforcement tools and remedies for livestock owners. It authorizes the owner of livestock, the owner’s agent, or a family member to destroy a dog found actively injuring, destroying, or persistently pursuing or harassing livestock, and it bars civil or criminal actions for that destruction when done under the statute. It also allows a district court judge to order humane euthanasia of a dog after a complaint is filed when livestock loss or damage occurs and the dog has not already been destroyed under the statute. The bill further clarifies that any destruction must be carried out reasonably and without undue suffering, and it defines “livestock” broadly to include cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, and other domesticated farm animals.
Impact
HB2152 changes Chapter 142 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by broadening liability and penalty provisions for dog attacks on livestock in agricultural districts and by creating additional enforcement and destruction remedies. It also updates the habitual agricultural crime perpetrator definition in section 142-33 to include repeat civil liability findings under section 142-74, which may increase the consequences for repeat offenders in agricultural crime cases. Counties retain authority to adopt consistent ordinances, but the state statute now provides clearer statewide standards for civil liability, misdemeanor penalties, and court-ordered euthanasia.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported throughout the legislative process. Available votes in the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, and conference committees were unanimous, with 4-0 passage at each recorded stage. The bill’s findings and final description frame it as a response to significant economic and emotional harm to livestock producers, and the final enactment as Act 114 suggests it advanced with little recorded opposition.
Contention
The main policy tension in HB2152 is between protecting livestock producers and limiting harm to dogs and their owners. Supporters emphasize strict liability, stronger penalties, and the need to stop repeated attacks in agricultural districts, while the statute’s new destruction and euthanasia provisions raise animal-welfare concerns and due-process questions for dog owners. Another point of potential contention is the expansion of liability from private property generally to land or premises in the agricultural district, which narrows the statute’s focus but also creates a more targeted enforcement regime for rural and farming areas.