| |
Honolulu Star*Bulletin
Gathering Place
Vol.
10, Issue 51
Sunday, February 20, 2005
______________________________________________________________________________
Foes
Use Scare Tactics Against Dog-Meat Bill
A
few months ago, many of your readers saw articles and TV
reports about information exposing a thriving dog-meat trade
in Hawai’i. Evidence -- including audio and video
recordings with an individual who buys and sells dog meat --
documented conversations about the price of the dog meat;
discounts when buying more than one dog at a time; selling
meat to private parties and some to restaurants/bars; and
the slaughtering itself.
Your newspaper has clearly documented the unfortunate trade
in dog meat. Now, Sen. Suzanne Chun-Oakland has introduced
Senate Bill 564, and there is a concurrent House Bill (HB
866) which would make it illegal to traffic in, distribute,
and consume dog and cat meat in Hawaii. SB 564 speaks to
backyard slaughter, public health and safety, cultural,
enforcement and ethical issues. For example, in terms of
public health, we have regulations governing how animals are
slaughtered, and sanitation laws designed to minimize the
potential for contamination, which could sicken those who
consume the meat. In unregulated backyard slaughter, there
are no such protections, and public safety is jeopardized.
In a Jan. 31, 2005, e-mail to a citizen, Rep. Alex Sonson
made a number of confusing and unfortunate statements
regarding the proposed legislation. He said that “reports
of people eating dog meat in Hawaii are either nonexistent
or unsubstantiated rumors,” and suggests that the bill will
perpetuate a demeaning stereotype of Filipino and Chinese
people.
Perhaps Sonson missed the news reports crediting
EnviroWatch, Inc., for the video and audiotape evidence
shown on TV and written about in your newspaper? Moreover,
if an ethnic group does not indulge in this practice, then
why would legislation be demeaning? He further states that
“as it is written now, it would make it a felony to consume
an animal.” This is just plain wrong. SB564 proposes a
misdemeanor offense.
Perhaps even more troubling are Sonson’s statements about
enforcement. He states that it will involve the police
“forcing themselves into your dining room to check what
animals you have on your plate,” and in his case “may happen
at a most embarrassing time.” His e-mail assures the
citizen that the police will find “no trace of dog or cat
meat” at his home, but the “embarrassment will certainly
kill the party.” This is a slap in the face to the law
enforcement community, and questions their integrity by
suggesting that police will kick down doors, raid parties
and otherwise employ gestapo tactics. The police must
operate on a higher standard and enter homes legally, and to
suggest otherwise is irresponsible.
Finally, Sonson’s statements about this bill and its
introducer, Sen. Chun-Oakland, are an irresponsible and
unprofessional attack on a fellow legislator and her
continued fine work on behalf of the people of Hawai’i.
Surely, he owes the senator an apology.
___________
Pamela Davis lives in
Honolulu
Apr
- Jun 2005
Death of the Dog Meat Bill and the Failure of Our
Legislature
by Pam Davis
VSH Member
As some of you may remember, a few months ago we told
you about an undercover investigation revealing the
existence of a thriving dog-meat trade in our state. The
investigation was conducted by Carroll Cox of EnviroWatch,
Inc. Mr. Cox posed as a person interested in buying dog
meat, and gathered audio and videotape evidence,
transcripts, and photos of the activity. A photo of Koko,
the dog he rescued from the chopping block and dinner table,
was featured in a previous issue of The Island Vegetarian.
It’s time for an update of the situation.
There were two bills before the Legislature, HB 866 and SB
564. On February 10, 2005, the House Judiciary Committee
heard much testimony in support of the bill, and no
testimony in opposition. The committee room was packed,
basically standing room only. Rep. Alex Sonson expressed
opposition to the bill, interrogating Mr. Cox and
insinuating that there is no problem of humans consuming
dogs and cats in Hawai’i. At that time I began to realize
that there are forces at work against this legislation.
Perhaps this explains why the Hawaiian Humane Society (HHS)
and the HPD have had “no success” in uncovering the activity
(even when the evidence is presented to them), yet a
nonprofit organization (EnviroWatch, Inc.) performed this
risky investigation and exposed it in the media. (When Mr.
Cox contacted HHS with the evidence, they told him it is
perfectly legal to slaughter a dog or cat for personal
consumption in your back yard, as long as the animal’s death
is “quick and painless”). Something is wrong here, and it
smacks of political back-room dealing.
Despite the opposition expressed, the bill passed out of
committee unanimously (even he voted for it, with
“reservations”), and was on its way to the Senate. However,
Sen. Colleen Hanabusa then stated that she would not
schedule the bill for a hearing before the Senate Judiciary
Committee because “there are more pressing issues.” This
was disturbing because, in effect, this would block the
hearing of an important bill supported by an overwhelming
majority of citizens.
Why is the dog-meat bill worthy of action? In addition to
the obvious ethical issues, there is public health and
safety. As vegetarians and vegans, we know there are many
cases of salmonella, E. Coli, and other pathogens each year,
which contaminate meat and sicken or even kill unsuspecting
consumers, and as a result the government has enacted many
food safety regulations to establish standards of
cleanliness for food meant for human consumption. No such
inspections and safeguards exist in the dog meat trade,
however, and in EnviroWatch’s investigation the dogs were
kept in filthy conditions, and slaughtering, distribution,
etc., were completely unmonitored. The investigation also
revealed some drug addicts support their habit by stealing
dogs from families or catching strays, and selling them to
those in the dog meat trade. Thus, there is a link between
the two types of illegal activity, and enforcement of
prohibition of dog and cat meat could therefore help fight
illegal drug activity. Yet this was considered not
important enough to warrant a hearing.
According to Carroll Cox, Hanabusa agreed (in a later phone
conversation with him) to hear the bill as long as it passed
out of the House. But Speaker Calvin Say killed the bill on
March 4th by not giving it a hearing in the House, so it
couldn’t cross over to the Senate. Rep. Say stated the
Filipino Caucus (about 4 legislators) opposed it. So, a
bill supported by thousands was defeated by a handful of
lawmakers. Scores of people supported this legislation with
written and oral testimony, faxes, letters, and e-mails but
were ignored if not betrayed by the politicians elected to
represent them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
