Oahu dog owners who fail to properly secure their pets may soon face significantly higher monetary fines and potential jail sentences under newly passed municipal legislation designed to curb loose and roaming animals across the island.
The Honolulu City Council voted unanimously to approve the third-reading committee draft of Bill 16, forwarding the regulatory measure to Mayor Rick Blangiardi for his consideration. According to municipal records, the mayor has until September 24 to decide whether to sign the legislation into law, allow it to pass without his signature, or issue a veto.
The measure was originally introduced in January by Council member Val Okimoto in response to growing community frustration over uncontrolled dogs and persistent safety hazards. Island residents have repeatedly raised alarms regarding whether existing local regulations and enforcement procedures are capable of preventing animal attacks and protecting neighborhoods.
Under the provisions of Bill 16, criminal penalties for violating Honolulu's dog-control ordinances will see a substantial increase. For a first offense committed without any prior violations in the preceding two-year window, the baseline criminal fine will climb from the current $50 up to $250.
Repeat offenses will trigger even harsher financial and legal consequences. A second criminal violation occurring within two years will carry a $500 penalty, an increase from the previous $100 fine. Those who commit a third or subsequent infraction within a two-year timeframe will be subject to a $1,000 fine, a jail term of up to 30 days, or a combination of both penalties.
In addition to adjusting fines, the bill establishes a clear legal standard holding pet owners accountable for negligence. Under the updated language, it will become explicitly unlawful for an owner to permit their canine to become a stray or to fail to take reasonable precautions to prevent the animal from roaming loose.
Beyond bolstering criminal penalties, the legislation establishes a distinct civil enforcement pathway. This mechanism introduces civil penalties mirroring the criminal scale, setting fines at $250 for an initial violation, $500 for a second offense within two years, and $1,000 for any subsequent infractions involving the same provision within that two-year period.
This civil citation structure will be administered and executed directly through the city’s designated animal-control contractor. Authorized animal-control officers will be granted the authority to issue formal notices requiring pet owners to correct noncompliant conditions and bring their animals into alignment with city standards.
To oversee this framework, the director of the city Department of Customer Services—or another department head selected by the mayor—must embed specific enforcement obligations into the contractor's agreement. The city agency will also be required to conduct periodic reviews to assess whether the contractor is adhering to the mandated standards.
The bill outlines procedural due process for pet owners facing civil citations, guaranteeing them the opportunity to attend an administrative hearing prior to the levying of any civil fines. However, these civil enforcement rules will not take effect immediately upon enactment; they will become operational only after the Department of Customer Services officially drafts and adopts the governing administrative hearing rules.
Bill 16 also alters how the city processes criminal citations by requiring individuals who receive summonses to appear directly in District Court rather than going through the city’s violations bureau. If an individual fails to appear or comply with a court summons, the court can enter a formal complaint and issue an arrest warrant. All financial proceeds generated from dog-control penalties will be directed into the city's general fund.
The push for legislative reform was underscored by harrowing public testimony from residents who have experienced dog attacks firsthand. Stephanie Hilton, a local service-dog handler, submitted written testimony recounting a violent encounter that occurred while she was camping at an Oahu site on August 23.
Hilton described being set upon by three or four unleashed, medium-to-large canines. In an effort to shield her working animal, she hoisted her service dog above her head, but one of the aggressive animals managed to bite its leg. While she succeeded in freeing her animal before it suffered fatal trauma, Hilton sustained puncture wounds across both of her legs, requiring emergency medical care at Tripler Army Medical Center.
Hilton noted that the animals belonged to a nearby homeless individual who acknowledged responsibility and admitted he lacked the physical gear necessary to restrain his dogs. Reflecting on the incident, Hilton testified that punitive measures alone cannot resolve the root problems of animal neglect, stressing that comprehensive safety requires preventative equipment, education, resources, and intervention before severe injuries occur.
Despite calls for broader systemic support, animal welfare organizations have largely rallied behind the council's legislative action. Advocates, including the Hawaiian Humane Society, submitted testimony supporting the measure as a necessary step toward holding irresponsible pet owners accountable.
Susan Collins, representing the Bird and Bee Hawaii Animal Sanctuary, submitted testimony for the Council's September 9 meeting, stating that the bill provides essential enforcement teeth to the Revised Ordinances of Honolulu. Collins observed that under the previous framework, habitual offenders whose pets continuously escaped often faced no real repercussions because criminal courts routinely dismissed stray-animal citations. By creating a parallel civil penalty system, she argued, the city provides authorities with a functional enforcement tool that protects both the general public and the animals themselves.
(0)