.

Bill 51 Context

Why Humane Cat Policy Became an Election Issue

Hawaiʻi County Bill 51 became one of the clearest examples of why county elections matter for animals, wildlife, public health, and community trust.

Bill 51 amended Hawaiʻi County law to prohibit feeding or attempting to feed stray or feral animals on property owned, leased, rented, managed, or operated by the County. The final law became Ordinance 25-63. The county code language now defines “feed” broadly as deliberately introducing food material, substance, or attractant directly to or near an animal.

For Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy, Bill 51 was not simply a debate about feeding cats. It was a debate about whether Hawaiʻi County would move toward humane, accountable managed cat policy or rely on a punitive feeding ban that does not, by itself, create a population management plan.

HAA believes the real policy choice is not “cats or wildlife.” The real choice is managed cats or unmanaged cats.

.

What Bill 51 Did

As finally adopted, Bill 51 prohibits feeding or attempting to feed stray or feral animals on County-connected property, including property owned, leased, rented, managed, or operated by the County. Violations may carry fines, including up to $50 for a first violation and up to $500 for subsequent violations.

The final version did not include a certified community cat caretaker exception or county-authorized managed colony program. Creating a clear county-authorized caretaker pathway would likely require additional County Council action or formal county policy direction.

That distinction matters.

A feeding ban may stop visible feeding in some places, but it does not automatically: sterilize cats, vaccinate cats, stop abandonment, create adoption pathways, reduce shelter intake, prevent kittens, track colony populations, protect sensitive wildlife areas with site-specific plans, or create measurable population-reduction outcomes.

Without those tools, feeding bans may push feeding underground while leaving the underlying population problem unresolved.

The Caretaker Amendment That Was Removed

During the Bill 51 process, the Council considered a version that included a pathway for certified community cat caretakers. According to the voting reconstruction reviewed by HAA, Draft 3 would have allowed feeding on County property only by a certified community cat caretaker authorized through an annual County contract and subject to designated places and times, training, best practices, environmental and public-health mitigation, trap-neuter-vaccinate-return-manage procedures, recordkeeping, reporting, and County identification requirements.

This was important because it would have moved the issue from unmanaged feeding toward accountable management.

However, at second reading, the Council amended the bill again and removed the certified-community-cat-caretaker exception. Hawaiʻi Public Radio reported that the Council voted to remove the provision that would have allowed a community cat management program to certify caretakers to feed and care for cats at designated locations and times.

The final bill therefore became a feeding prohibition without a county-authorized caretaker pathway.

.

Voting History Summary

Based on the voting reconstruction reviewed by HAA, Bill 51 moved through the Council process in three major stages: committee review, first reading, and second/final reading.

Committee / First Reading

At committee and first reading, the bill advanced in amended form. The version that passed first reading included the certified community cat caretaker pathway described above. The reconstructed vote shows six councilmembers voting yes, one voting no, and two absent/not voting at first reading.

Yes at committee / first reading:
Michelle Galimba
James Hustace
Jenn Kagiwada
Ashley Kierkiewicz
Heather Kimball
Rebecca Villegas

No:
Dennis “Fresh” Onishi

Absent / not voting:
Holeka Goro Inaba
Matt Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder

.Second and Final Reading

At second and final reading, after the caretaker pathway was removed, Bill 51 Draft 4 passed by a 6–2 vote, with one member absent. Hawaiʻi Public Radio also reported the final vote as 6–2. (Hawaii Public Radio)

Yes on final passage:
James Hustace
Holeka Goro Inaba
Matt Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder
Heather Kimball
Dennis “Fresh” Onishi
Rebecca Villegas

No on final passage:
Jenn Kagiwada
Ashley Kierkiewicz

Absent:
Michelle Galimba

The final version became Ordinance 25-63.

.

What Changed Politically

The Bill 51 record matters because the version that advanced at first reading included a managed-care pathway, while the version that passed final reading removed that compromise.

Several shifts are important for voters to understand:

• Jenn Kagiwada and Ashley Kierkiewicz voted yes earlier in the process when the certified-caretaker pathway was included, then voted no on the final version after that pathway was removed.

• Dennis “Fresh” Onishi voted no earlier in the process, then voted yes on the final version.

• Holeka Goro Inaba and Matt Kānealiʻi-Kleinfelder were absent or not voting earlier, then voted yes on final passage.

• Heather Kimball and Rebecca Villegas voted yes at both first and final reading.

• Michelle Galimba voted yes earlier in the process and was absent for the final vote.

HAA is presenting this history for voter education so residents can understand how the bill changed and how councilmembers voted at different stages.

.

What HAA Did During Bill 51

Bill 51 became a defining moment for Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy and for Hawaiʻi County residents who support humane, evidence-based cat policy.

HAA helped voters get their voices noticed.

During the Bill 51 process, HAA created and circulated public petitions opposing the feeding ban and supporting humane, accountable cat population management. Those petitions have received more than 7,900 signatures, and HAA continued communicating with signers through updates, action alerts, and voter-education messages.

HAA also helped residents submit written testimony to the Hawaiʻi County Council. It is estimated more than 1,600 written testimonies were submitted for the first reading, and more than 400 written testimonies were submitted for the second and final reading. Some participants believe Bill 51 may have received one of the highest volumes of written testimony ever submitted on a Hawaiʻi County Council measure.

The public response was not limited to written testimony. HAA also organized sign-waving and public visibility efforts to let Hawaiʻi County voters know that many residents did not support Bill 51 and wanted humane, practical, accountable solutions instead of a feeding ban without a population-management plan.

Local media coverage reflected the intensity of public concern. The Hawaiʻi Tribune-Herald reported that the Bill 51 process was controversial, that live testimony was overwhelmingly against passage, and that there were almost three hours of testimony at the final hearing, most of it in opposition. The same article reported the final vote as 6–2 with one absent, and described the measure as banning feeding or attempted feeding of feral or stray animals such as cats and pigs on county property.

For HAA, this organizing effort showed three important things:

1. Humane-cat-policy voters are real.
   Thousands of residents were willing to sign, testify, share information, and speak out.
   
   
2. Feeding bans are not population management.
   Voters were not asking the County to ignore cats, wildlife, public health, or nuisance concerns. They were asking for a real plan: prevention, spay/neuter, adoption pathways, managed community cat programs, responsible caretakers, wildlife protections, and measurable outcomes.
   
   
3. Elections matter.
   Bill 51 showed that County Council decisions can directly affect cats, caretakers, public trust, enforcement priorities, and wildlife policy. It also showed why voters need to know where candidates stand before policy decisions are made.

HAA’s 2026 Election Center grew out of this experience. The goal is to help voters understand which candidates support humane, accountable managed cat policy and which candidates need more clarification.

.

Why HAA Opposed Bill 51

HAA opposed Bill 51 because cat feeding bans are not cat population management.

A policy that prohibits feeding without replacing unmanaged feeding with structured management risks creating new problems. Cats do not disappear because food becomes illegal. Without sterilization, vaccination, monitoring, adoption pathways, caretaker standards, and targeted management in sensitive areas, the population issue remains.

HAA’s concern is that Bill 51 may:

• push feeding underground,

• discourage collaboration with caretakers,

• reduce the county’s ability to track cat populations,

• fail to prevent kittens,

• fail to reduce abandonment,

• fail to create measurable wildlife outcomes,

• increase public conflict, and

• weaken trust between government and animal-welfare stakeholders.

HAA supports protecting native wildlife. HAA also believes wildlife protection should be tied to measurable outcomes, site-specific evidence, proper predator attribution, and effective management tools.

A feeding ban alone does not meet that standard.

.

Managed Cats vs. Unmanaged Cats

The Bill 51 debate showed why HAA’s Coexistence Framework is needed.

HAA’s Coexistence Framework recognizes three connected zones of policy:

Pet Cat Zone
Owned cats should be sterilized, identified, and kept from contributing to the homeless-cat population.

Community Cat Zone
Free-roaming cats should be managed through targeted sterilization, vaccination, adoption pathways, certified caretakers, managed feeding, transparent tracking, and outcome monitoring.

Wildlife Conservation Zone
Sensitive habitats require special protection, conservation-manager oversight, exclusion where appropriate, targeted intervention when needed, and measurable wildlife outcomes.

This is the central point:

The problem is not managed cats.
The problem is unmanaged cats.

Bill 51 did not create a comprehensive management system.

HAA’s position is that Hawaiʻi County needs a policy framework that reduces the number of homeless cats, prevents new kittens, protects sensitive wildlife areas, and improves public trust through accountability.

.

Why Bill 51 Matters in the 2026 Election

Bill 51 showed that county policy can directly affect cats, caretakers, native wildlife, public health, enforcement priorities, shelter systems, and community trust.

It also showed that voters need to know where candidates stand before policy decisions are made.

HAA’s 2026 Candidate Survey asks candidates about humane treatment, prevention, spay/neuter access, TNR/TNRM familiarity, managed community cat programs, One Health, public accountability, community partnership, and alignment with the broader Coexistence Framework.

The purpose is not to endorse a single candidate. The purpose is to help voters understand which candidates support humane, accountable managed cat policy and which candidates need more clarification.

.

HAA’s Position Moving Forward

HAA urges Hawaiʻi County to move beyond feeding-ban policy and toward a managed-cat approach that includes:

• targeted spay/neuter,

• vaccination,

• microchipping and traceability,

• adoption pathways,

• certified caretaker standards,

• transparent colony tracking,

• responsible feeding management,

• sensitive wildlife area protections,

• site-specific conservation planning,

• measurable outcomes, and

• public accountability.

Cats, wildlife, public health, and community trust all deserve better than unmanaged outcomes.

The real choice is not cats or wildlife.

The real choice is managed cats or unmanaged cats.

.

Voter Education Notice

HAA’s Election Center, Candidate Summary, candidate snapshots, and candidate pages are provided for issue-based voter education. They are based on candidate survey responses, follow-up clarification when provided, public records, and HAA’s assessment of alignment with humane, accountable managed cat policy.

They are not formal single-candidate endorsements and should not be represented as such.

.

Continued Reading:

HAA 2026 Election Center
Candidate Summary 2026
Candidate Pages 2026
Hawa'i County Voter Impact Profile

.