HILO — Claiming an ordinary dog to be a service animal will soon be illegal in Hawaii.
Thanks to a law passed in July, the new year will add “misrepresentation of a service animal” to the state’s list of offenses punishable by a civil penalty.
If an offender is found guilty of presenting a nonservice animal as a service animal, they will be subjected to a fine of between $100 and $250 for their first offense and at least $500 for each subsequent violation.
However, state Sen. Russell Ruderman, D-Puna, who introduced the bill, said the law will be very difficult to enforce and will instead largely serve as a deterrent.
“It’s like a littering law,” Ruderman said. “I don’t know if we’ve charged anyone with littering all year. It doesn’t get used a lot, but it still changes people’s perceptions.”
The law was written to prevent people circumventing “no animals” policies in public places such as supermarkets by claiming a pet as a service animal, a dog trained to assist a person in managing a disability. This behavior has led to unruly animals causing problems in public places, while unfairly stigmatizing users of genuine service animals.
Jim Kennedy, executive director of Hawaii Fi-Do, an Oahu nonprofit that provides people with service dogs, said he hopes the law will serve to remind animal owners that even a seemingly harmless act such as bringing a dog to a public place under the guise of a service animal has harmful consequences.
Kennedy named four specific consequences of the offense. The first two consequences are similar, he said: the first is that businesses will not know whether to trust any purported service dog; while owners of legitimate service dogs will be placed under unfair scrutiny.
“They don’t need even more stress,” Kennedy said.
The other two issues concern the behavior of the dogs themselves. While service dogs are trained to focus on their tasks and ignore other animals while doing so, Kennedy said unruly animals might cause a dog to lose focus and interfere with its work.
Finally, Kennedy said, in rare occasions, an unruly dog might behave aggressively toward a service dog and even attack it. In some cases, the trauma of an attack might force the dog to “retire” from service.
“I’m not naive, people will try to fake it anyway,” Kennedy said, saying there is nothing preventing any dog owner from purchasing a vest for their dog proclaiming it to be a service animal. “But if people realize that it’s wrong, then I think some people might decide not to do it.”
Kennedy also said because of the legal leeway provided to “emotional support animals” — animals that help owners cope with mental illness, which are legally allowed on airplanes and in housing that otherwise prohibits animals — many owners might be led to think erroneously that their emotional support animal is a service animal. The two are distinct concepts, Kennedy said.
Ruderman said the law likely will only be enforced if the offending behavior raises complaints from other people, such as if the animal attacks or threatens others. However, the law might also be enforced if the offender is charged with other offenses.
“Say there’s someone who refuses to leave,” Ruderman said. “That way, the person could be charged with trespassing, and while they’re at it, they could be charged for misrepresenting a service animal.”
Ruderman acknowledged that police departments do not have the resources to enforce action against such a minor penalty, but said it is sufficient that the law exists and people are aware of it. Establishments — such as grocery chain Island Naturals, which is owned by Ruderman — likely will post notices on their premises informing people about the penalties of misrepresenting an animal, which Ruderman said will hopefully make some people think twice before bringing a dog to the store.
“It’s just another one of the tools that businesses can now use,” Ruderman said.
Email Michael Brestovansky at mbrestovansky@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
Are our people in HI really this much of haters of domesticated pets? They are really family members and should be allowed to accompany us to ALL reasonable places as long as the owners are responsible. The Democrats seem to be money generating Nazi’s by enacting law such as these. We should be more accepting of God’s creatures. Once again the Democratic party has shown they are hypocrites and non-inclusive. But should you not follow in their belief system they will fine you, kill you animals and shame you out of existence! Love our Animals as they provide comfort on many levels not just what the Democrats Dictate. Please visit www-dot-westhawaiihumanesociety-dot-org
Twice in the last 6 months i have been in stores when a dog defecated on the floor. The owners were oblivious; store employees had to clean it up and other customers were rather disgusted. Nothing to do with Democrats or Republicans, but about public sanitation and safety.
Exactly those are the people you want to hit with fines.
I’d agree with you if we could find a way to legislate responsibility or maybe mandate a minimum of 10 million in pet liability insurance as part of pet ownership. Responsible owners with responsible pets are usually not a problem but there are many irresponsible owners with ill-behaved animals. There is no way to determine the difference until something happens. A good friend was attacked in a public place by a dog there with it’s owner. The dog was viscous, completely out of control and had no business being in public, the owner brought it anyway. My friend has scars she will carry for life, mental trauma that is evident whenever a large dog is near and medical bills ongoing. No person should have to endure that because someone feels it their right to bring their animal along. I also have seen numerous pet to pet conflicts in public spaces, many leading to injury. Keep pets at home or in designated spaces.
We no person should have to endure crying, yelling and misbehavior from children then as well? Perhaps you should have children kennels?
Another cantankerous old man making it a Democratic versus Republican issue when it’s nothing of the sort. It’s known as personal responsibility for your pets, your children, and your own personal behavior. Personal responsibility is neither a Democratic or Republican principle and your OP shows you lack it yourself in more ways than one
Well you may be partially correct. The difference is if one said something about ones parenting and or child’s behavior one would they would be berated for judging even though many children do not act appropriately in public and are not offered that guildance with their parents sitting right next to them. So there should be no fines for either.
I don’t see peoples kids causing serious bodily harm requiring medical attention.
Well I have.
I don’t doubt you but the overall numbers of child attacks vs dog attacks does not seem to support children being a problem.
You know everything.
Again, was the dog in question being presented as a service animal. Are you saying blind individuals should not have seeing-eye dogs because a vicious animal attacked your friend? Well trained service dogs are lifesaving for many legitimately disabled people. Something that Ruderman’s self serving law now makes harder for an already oppressed community. This some of the worst legislation on record and is openly discriminatory to the disabled community. Shame.
“Say there’s someone who refuses to leave,” Ruderman said. “That way, the person could be charged with trespassing, and while they’re at it, they could be charged for misrepresenting a service animal.
Sir, the ACLU and some disabled persons will sue you into the stone age and you will rightly deserve the correction in values. Who makes disability access more difficult? Shame.
Kennedy also said because of the legal leeway provided to “emotional support animals” — animals that help owners cope with mental illness, which are legally allowed on airplanes and in housing that otherwise prohibits animals — many owners might be led to think erroneously that their emotional support animal is a service animal. The two are distinct concepts, Kennedy said. Sir are you a psychiatrist or psychiatric APRN? How dare you denigrate the disabilities of those with brain disorders? I am a psychiatric APRN and strongly object to your characterization of brain disorders as somehow not as “worthy” of service animals and disability access as visible, physical disabilities. what you are really saying is disabled veterans and first respondents who need PTSD service dogs are not equal to those who have lost limbs or are legally blind. And the general public with brain disorder that respond to animal assisted treatment are just not worth anything at all. Take a seat next to Sen. Ruderman and declare them all to be second class citizens and then be sure to call HPD to have them “removed” if they object.
The ADA says a SD must be trained with at least two tasks that mitigate handlers’ disabilities. There are cases of psychological disorders like PTSD where this “might” apply like a dog blocking the public from its handler or laying on the handler to protect him during flashbacks. Unfortunately, the sole act of a dog providing comfort to its owner by its mere presence doesn’t mitigate a disability, plus many doesn’t even have a mastery of their basic obedience commands. My service dog went through 2 1/2 years of training from the time he was 8 weeks at an organization that’s trained mobility and alert dogs for 30 years. You may be a Psychiatric APRN, butbyiure clearly not versed in service dog law and how it differs. Read the ADA website. ESA’s may serve a valuable purpose to some people, but your senator is not being discriminatory when he’s saying ESA’s don’t and shouldn’t have the same rights as SD’s. The ADA laws state this, and if you stop to read it, maybe you’ll come to understand why — public safety, lack of training, putting legit service dogs and their handlers at risk by distracting behaviors, and many other reasons.
EKB, this is the typical knee jerk reaction of Government. Don’t think about the issue just put the squeeze on everyone and tax, fine or imprison them until into submission. I know animals that are far more intelligent and behaved than humans. As far as Ruderman his day will come since I believe there is competition coming as I hear Whole Foods and or Trader Joe’s may be looking at the old Safeway location. It will be good night now for him should they show up in town. I would look at though Dogma my bite him in the Arse of Karma!
Again, My comment appears under Buds4All’s because I was not responding to the article specifically but instead to Buds4All’s comment “(pets) should be allowed to accompany us to ALL reasonable places as long as the owners are responsible”. Maybe you are OK with any animal being allowed in public putting service animals, adults and children at risk?
Blind individuals with service dog credentials are not affected by this law, they are protected. Service dogs are trained, generally well behaved and likely backed by liability insurance.
The law does not make it harder for people with service dog credentials, it protects them from people trying to cheat the system by passing their animals off as service animals.
Why its it discriminatory to the disabled community? These people have or can get service dog credentials and are not the ones running around with fake ones…or at least they shouldn’t be.
Was the handler of the dog posing as disabled and presenting the dog as a service animal? Otherwise this is non sequitur.
Not so. My comment appears under Buds4All’s because I was not responding to the article specifically but instead to Buds4All’s comment “(pets) should be allowed to accompany us to ALL reasonable places as long as the owners are responsible”
True service animals are usually well trained and well behaved. Fake service animals generally have no training and are a result of an owner trying to cheat a system put in place for disabled people in order to bring their animal where it is not allowed or supposed to be. That seems wrong from any angle.
Useless law.
Makes him feel big; beating up on sick people.
Right in the middle of this article at the time I was reading it was an ad for “fake” service animal credentials. I understand why WHT is supported by advertising, but really?
That’s your browser or adware, not WHT. Run a adware scan, clear your cache and use an incognito browser….no more ads!
Runderman is an animal hater! #BoycottIslandNaturalsNow
Best looking island women shop there. The business is booming. Rudermann is a savvy business man and has the right product consumers buy. Go shop for your edible substances at L&L!
Ruderman is a disabled person hater.
Unless you’re blind you do not need one…..this comfort crap is a joke!