Senate Judiciary panel adopts amendment narrowing stronger animal‑cruelty penalties to pet animals

The Senate Committee on Judiciary voted to adopt amendments to House Bill 698 that narrow increased criminal penalties for animal‑cruelty offenses to pet animals and clarify separate penalties for service and law‑enforcement animals.

The action, taken at the committee’s decision‑making meeting, adopted a proposed Senate Draft 1 and additional amendments that define "pet animal," exclude chickens, roosters and pigs raised for food from that definition, and reinsert changes to a Hawaii Revised Statutes provision addressing injury or death to service animals. Senator Xin Zhang expressed concern about agricultural impacts and said she would "vote with reservations." Chair Rose and other voting members approved the recommendation.

The bill as amended places the enhanced penalties for cruelty to animals only on offenses involving pet animals and specifies that a prohibition against owning a pet animal for a minimum of five years from the date of conviction applies only to convictions involving pet animals. Committee staff said the committee would accept the Attorney General’s recommendation to break the increased penalties into separate subsections for clarity. The committee also agreed to include a statutory definition of "service animal" limited to dogs in the bill preamble and to reinsert amendments to HRS §711‑1109.4 that raise the level of offense for second or subsequent convictions causing injury or death to a service animal.

The committee discussed exclusions in the pet‑animal definition; the adopted language noted explicitly that the definition does not apply to chickens or roosters or to pigs raised for food. The staff presentation said the proposed SD1 limits the bill to pet animals and that the additional amendments would "sharpen the focus on pet animals."

During public discussion of the item, Senator Xin Zhang said, "I really appreciate your efforts to tighten up the bill and to, really clarify the scope of the bill. I still have some serious concerns after having consulted with some of my colleagues about the potential impact on the agricultural sector, and so I'll be voting with reservations today." Her comment was recorded during the committee’s question period and was reflected in the voting record.

Votes at the committee meeting recorded: Chair Rose — aye; Vice Chair — aye; Senator Chang — yes (vote recorded as with reservations); Senator San Buenaventura — excused (absent); Senator Waugh — aye. The committee’s recommendation was to "pass the amendments." The motion to adopt the SD1 and additional clarifying amendments carried.

The amendments accepted by the committee primarily adjust scope and structure rather than adding new categories of prohibited conduct: they limit the enhanced penalties to pet animals, clarify that the five‑year ownership prohibition applies only to pet‑animal convictions, separate penalty language into subsections per the Attorney General’s recommendation, and restore changes to HRS §711‑1109.4 concerning service animals. The definitions agreed for insertion into the bill preamble exclude certain farm animals and state that the committee intends the statutory definition of service animal to include only dogs.

The committee concluded its business immediately after the vote.