HAA PUBLIC ACTION & PUBLIC TESTIMONY GUIDE

Protect Humane Cat Management Across Hawai’i

DLNR Wildlife Admin Rule Request - Needs Your Input!

Public Testimony on Aug 13, 2026 -  Written Testimony by Aug 26, 2026
Go to dlnr.hawaii.gov/dofaw/comment - see example testimonies at bottom

Note: This guide focuses on how the proposed DLNR rules could affect community cats, caretakers, TNR, and humane population management. For the broader public-interest issues — including the expansion of “take,” “harm,” and “harass” to all indigenous wildlife, causation, ordinary pet ownership, driving, property use, and agency authority — see HAA’s companion DLNR Wildlife Rule Truth Sheet: Why This Is Bigger Than Cats.

Proposed rules could severely restrict feeding, TNR, and community cat management — while raising serious questions about whether DLNR is expanding its authority beyond what Hawaiʻi law allows.

DLNR’s proposed wildlife rule changes could have major consequences for community cats, their caretakers, and humane animal management across Hawaiʻi.

This issue is much broader than whether someone can place food on certain state lands. The proposed rules may expand how DLNR defines and enforces wildlife “take,” “harm,” and “harass,” create new restrictions affecting community cat care, and potentially interfere with TNR, colony management, trapping, veterinary care, and other humane population-management practices.

Just as importantly, some of these changes raise serious questions about whether DLNR is going beyond the authority actually granted to it by the Hawaiʻi Legislature.

HAA supports prohibitions on animal abandonment, deliberate harassment or killing of protected wildlife, and legitimate measures necessary to protect sensitive wildlife populations. Our concerns involve provisions that may exceed statutory authority or undermine effective humane population management.

.

.

Why This Matters

The proposed rule changes could reshape how community cats are managed in Hawaiʻi and how wildlife law is interpreted and enforced.

Examples of what could be at stake include:

• Community cat feeding could be prohibited on broad categories of DLNR-managed land, including parks, harbors, wildlife areas, coastal lands, forest reserves, natural area reserves, and other state properties.

• Existing managed colonies could lose their food source without any required transition plan for sterilization, adoption, relocation, continued monitoring, or humane disposition.

• TNR and colony management could become much harder to carry out if feeding associated with trapping, monitoring, sterilization, veterinary treatment, or recovery is not clearly protected.

• DLNR proposes to broaden both the meaning and reach of wildlife concepts including ‘take,’ ‘harm,’ and ‘harass,’ including extending them beyond threatened and endangered species to indigenous wildlife more broadly.

• The rules could potentially create a much shorter path between caring for a cat and being accused of harming wildlife, even when no one directly injured, killed, trapped, captured, or harassed a protected animal.

• A caretaker could face questions about liability simply because a native bird accesses food intended for a cat, including potentially on property that is not directly managed by DLNR.

• Managed and unmanaged cats may effectively be treated the same, even though sterilized, monitored colonies are fundamentally different from reproducing, abandoned, and unmanaged populations.

• There is no clear population-management solution built into the proposal. Stopping food does not stop reproduction, abandonment, migration, or the arrival of new cats.

• The rules may indirectly create conditions that favor removal or lethal control without first requiring humane, nonlethal population-management alternatives.

• The Hawaiʻi Legislature has previously considered aggressive statewide cat-removal legislation and did not enact it. That makes it especially important to ask whether similar policy goals are now being pursued through administrative rulemaking instead.

• This is also a rule-of-law issue. State agencies may implement laws passed by the Legislature, but administrative rules must remain within the authority the Legislature delegated to the agency.

• Once adopted, these rules could affect cat caretakers statewide for years. That is why public participation now matters.

This is not just a feeding-rule change. It could reshape how community cats are managed in Hawaiʻi, how wildlife “TAKE” is interpreted, and how much authority DLNR has over humane cat care.

.
What DLNR Is Proposing

DLNR’s Division of Forestry and Wildlife is proposing amendments to Hawaiʻi Administrative Rules Chapter 13-124, which governs indigenous, threatened, endangered, introduced, and injurious wildlife.

Among the proposed changes are provisions that would:

• broaden protections involving wildlife “take,” “harm,” and “harass”;

• prohibit feeding indigenous wildlife statewide—including indigenous species that are not listed as threatened or endangered—as well as threatened and endangered wildlife;

• prohibit feeding domestic animals on DLNR-managed lands;

• prohibit abandonment of domestic animals on DLNR lands;

• expand habitat-related concepts of wildlife harm;

• expand controls involving injurious wildlife.

HAA supports legitimate wildlife protection measures.  Our critical concern is whether some of these provisions go beyond simply implementing laws already passed by the Legislature.

One significant proposed change is therefore not simply adding more species. DLNR is also proposing broader concepts of “harm” and “harass,” increasing both the potential meaning and reach of wildlife “take.” 

.

A Major Legal Concern: Can DLNR Create New Law Through Rulemaking?

Administrative agencies do not have unlimited authority.

The Legislature passes laws. Agencies may create administrative rules to implement those laws, but those rules must stay within the authority granted by statute.

This raises a basic question:

What specific Hawaiʻi statute authorizes each new prohibition, definition, expansion, and enforcement power contained in these proposed rules?

HRS §195D-3 gives DLNR authority to regulate the taking and protection of indigenous wildlife. However, HRS §195D-2 separately defines the specialized legal term “take” in relation to endangered and threatened species.

That creates an important legal question:

Does §195D-3 authorize DLNR to import the broader Chapter 195D concepts of “take,” “harm,” and “harass” — which the Legislature expressly defined in relation to endangered and threatened species — and apply those concepts to all indigenous wildlife through administrative rulemaking?

This is a major expansion of the potential reach of wildlife law — not merely a technical wording change.

Expanding “take,” “harm,” and “harass” could potentially expand:

• which species are covered;

• what conduct is prohibited;

• where liability may arise;

• what evidence is required;

• what cat-care and population-management activities may be challenged;

• and the discretion available to enforcement officers.

Those are significant policy and enforcement decisions that may require clear legislative authorization.

.

Feeding a Cat Is Not Automatically a Wildlife “Take” Violation Under ESA / MBTA

One of the most important issues is causation — the legally sufficient connection between a person’s conduct and the wildlife injury the government alleges resulted from it.  Being somewhere in a chain of events is not automatically the same as legally causing everything that happens afterward.

Under federal wildlife law, feeding a cat is not automatically equivalent to Taking protected wildlife.

A theoretical chain such as:

Person feeds cat → cat exists → cat might hunt → protected wildlife might be harmed,  should not automatically become a wildlife offense!

Where government alleges indirect wildlife take, there normally must be a legally sufficient connection between the person’s conduct and an actual prohibited injury or death.

Questions of causation matter.

For example:

• Was protected wildlife actually injured or killed?

• What caused that injury?

• Was a specific animal involved?

• Can the government connect the alleged conduct to the injury?

• Was the result reasonably foreseeable?

• Did the person directly participate in the prohibited act?

• What evidence proves the causal relationship?

• Is the connection sufficiently direct, or is it too remote?

• Was the particular result reasonably foreseeable?

• What mental state applies — intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability? 

A rule should not remove those requirements simply because someone feeds, sterilizes, monitors, or medically treats a community cat.

Actual injury, causation, foreseeability, proximate cause, mental state, and evidence all matter. 

.

Why the Federal ESA and MBTA Matter

Hawaiʻi’s endangered species framework has important similarities to federal wildlife law.

Under the federal Endangered Species Act, indirect “harm” requires much more than the existence of a hypothetical risk.

Federal interpretations have required a meaningful causal connection between conduct and actual injury or death to protected wildlife.

In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon (1995), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld certain indirect forms of ESA “harm,” but indirect did not mean unlimited. Justice O’Connor specifically emphasized ordinary principles of proximate causation and foreseeability. 

In plain English: the government cannot simply identify an action somewhere earlier in a chain of events and automatically treat that person as legally responsible for the final wildlife injury. 

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act also does not simply make ordinary care of another animal equivalent to taking a migratory bird.

Our prior review has not identified a reported federal case establishing that merely feeding a free-roaming cat, without evidence connecting that conduct to a legally prohibited wildlife injury or death, constitutes take under the ESA or MBTA.

That makes the state proposal especially important.

If Hawaiʻi law mirrors important aspects of federal wildlife law, DLNR should not be able to administratively shorten the legal chain and transform ordinary cat care into a wildlife offense without clear statutory authority.

.
The 2022 Cat-Removal Legislation Matters

In 2022, Hawaiʻi legislators considered HB 1987.

That proposal sought a statewide feral-cat reduction program with specific and far-reaching population-reduction targets, including elimination of free-roaming cat populations on several islands.

The measure did not become law and that legislative history is important.

It does not automatically prove that the present DLNR rule is intended to accomplish the same result.

But it raises a legitimate question:

After the Legislature declined to enact a statewide cat-elimination program, could administrative rules now create enforcement mechanisms that achieve portions of the same policy indirectly?

Those mechanisms could include:

• prohibiting feeding;

• disrupting colony management;

• expanding wildlife “take” concepts;

• increasing legal pressure on caretakers;

• and ultimately leaving removal as the primary management option.

DLNR should answer this question directly.

.
What Happens to the Cats?

This is one of the biggest unanswered questions. Wildlife risk is site- and species-specific. Before disrupting an existing cat-management program, DLNR should identify the protected wildlife involved, document the actual limiting factors affecting that population, and explain how the proposed action is expected to improve measurable wildlife outcomes.

Modern conservation management requires evaluating the relevant threats at each location rather than assuming that one statewide intervention will produce the same result everywhere.

If feeding is prohibited at an existing colony:

• Who becomes responsible for those cats?

• How will they be sterilized?

• Can caretakers continue trapping?

• Can food be used to safely trap them?

• Can animals receive veterinary treatment?

• Is temporary feeding allowed during recovery?

• Will adoption be attempted?

• Will cats be relocated?

• Where would they go?

• What happens if shelters have no capacity?

• Will lethal removal be used?

• What happens to cats that simply disperse into surrounding neighborhoods?

• How will DLNR measure whether wildlife actually benefits?

Stopping feeding does not make existing cats disappear.

Cats may:

• roam farther;

• scavenge;

• migrate into surrounding areas;

• become harder to trap;

• lose caretaker monitoring;

• reproduce if sterilization efforts collapse;

• and become increasingly unmanaged.

That can be the opposite of effective population management.

.
Stopping Food Does Not Stop Reproduction 

Only sterilization directly stops cats from producing kittens. 

A common assumption behind feeding restrictions is that if people stop feeding community cats, the population will eventually disappear..

But stopping food does not sterilize cats.

As long as unsterilized males and females remain on the landscape, they can continue to reproduce. Cats may find other food sources, move into surrounding areas, scavenge, hunt, or receive food elsewhere. Abandoned and newly arriving cats can also enter the population.

A feeding prohibition therefore does not address the primary sources of new cats:

• unsterilized cats reproducing;

• pets being abandoned or lost;

• new cats moving into an area;

• kittens being born before cats can be sterilized;

• and loss of caretaker monitoring that identifies newcomers and reproductive cats.

In fact, eliminating caretakers and regular feeding locations can make population control more difficult because cats become harder to locate, monitor, trap, sterilize, and track.

What actually stops kittens?

Sterilization.

A female cat that has been spayed cannot produce kittens. A sterilized male cannot impregnate females. High levels of sterilization, combined with abandonment prevention, adoption where appropriate, monitoring, and rapid response to new arrivals, directly interrupt reproduction.

Food deprivation does not.

If the goal is fewer cats, stop the reproduction—not simply the food bowl.

The important scientific and humane distinction is that food availability can influence animal survival and carrying capacity over time. But starvation or food deprivation is not a precise, humane, or reliable population-management program. It does not substitute for sterilization and source control.

.
Managed Cats and Unmanaged Cats Are Not the Same

Good public policy must distinguish between different situations.

There is an enormous difference between:

• abandoning a pet;

• indiscriminate feeding with no sterilization;

• an unmanaged reproducing population;

• a sterilized and monitored colony;

• temporary feeding used for trapping;

• feeding associated with veterinary care;

• and a formal population-reduction program.

Humane management should include:

• sterilization;

• abandonment prevention;

• adoption when appropriate;

• monitoring;

• rapid response to new arrivals;

• controlled feeding;

• veterinary care;

• population tracking;

• and exclusion from highly sensitive wildlife areas where warranted.

A blanket feeding prohibition does not perform any of these population-management functions—and may undermine the caretakers and infrastructure needed to accomplish them..

Questions DLNR Should Answer

DLNR should be asked to clearly answer the following:

1. DLNR cites HRS §195D-3 as authority. The critical legal question is whether that statute authorizes the particular expansion of “take,” “harm,” and “harass” proposed here, especially when HRS §195D-2 defines “take” specifically in relation to endangered and threatened species?

2. What statute authorizes DLNR to extend ESA-style “harm” and “harass” concepts to broader categories of wildlife?

3. Does DLNR believe feeding or managing a community cat can constitute wildlife “take”?

4. If yes, what factual and legal elements must the State prove before issuing a citation?

5. Must DLNR prove actual injury or death to wildlife?

6. What causation standard will DLNR apply between the caretaker’s conduct and the alleged injury?

7. How will proximate cause and foreseeability apply to indirect “harm” or “take”?

8. Could a caretaker be cited where no wildlife has actually been injured or killed?

9. What mental state applies: intent, knowledge, recklessness, negligence, or strict liability?

10. Does DLNR intend “harm” to include feeding, sterilizing, returning, monitoring, or treating free-roaming cats?

11. Does DLNR intend to use these rules to facilitate removal or lethal control of cats?

12. What humane, nonlethal alternatives will be required before feeding is terminated?

13. What transition plan will be required for existing managed colonies?

14. Why does the proposal not contain protections for trapping, sterilization, veterinary treatment, and managed population reduction?

15. How does the proposal differ in purpose and practical effect from cat-removal policies previously considered by the Legislature?

16. What evidence demonstrates that prohibiting feeding—without simultaneously requiring sterilization, abandonment prevention, removal/adoption capacity, and newcomer management—will reduce the number of free-roaming cats or improve measurable wildlife outcomes? 

.

What HAA Is Asking For

Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy is not asking DLNR to weaken wildlife protection.  We are asking for wildlife rules that are lawful, humane, evidence-based, and operationally effective.

We believe DLNR should:

• Clearly identify the statutory authority supporting each new prohibition;

• Ensure the rule does not expand “take” beyond what the Legislature authorized;

• Preserve appropriate causation and evidence requirements;

• Clearly state how actual injury, proximate cause, foreseeability, and mental state will apply to indirect wildlife “harm” or “take”;

• Clearly define “harm,” “harass,” and incidental feeding;

• State whether community-cat feeding or management can constitute wildlife take;

• Create explicit protections for trapping, sterilization, veterinary care, and approved population-management programs;

• Distinguish managed colonies from unmanaged populations;

• Require humane transition plans for existing cats;

• Require measurable population and wildlife outcomes;

• Consider abandonment, reproduction, migration, and other causes of population growth;

• Require site- and species-specific assessment of relevant limiting factors before attributing population-level wildlife impacts to cats or selecting a management intervention;

• Work with animal-welfare, veterinary, community-cat, conservation, and local-government partners.

THE OUTCOME HAWAIʻI SHOULD WANT

Fewer unmanaged cats,
      ↓
Fewer kittens,
      ↓
Less abandonment & migration,
      ↓
Less wildlife exposure,
      ↓
Better wildlife protection.

Achieve the outcome through management—not starvation.

.
Example Written Testimony

RE: Proposed Amendments to HAR Chapter 13-124

Aloha DLNR,

I support protecting Hawaiʻi’s indigenous, threatened, and endangered wildlife. I also support humane and effective management of Hawaiʻi’s community cats.

I am concerned that the proposed amendments to HAR Chapter 13-124 may go beyond implementing existing state law and may unintentionally interfere with effective community-cat population management.

DLNR cites HRS §195D-3 as authority for extending wildlife “take” protections to indigenous wildlife. At the same time, HRS §195D-2 expressly defines “take” in relation to endangered and threatened species. I respectfully ask DLNR to explain whether §195D-3 authorizes this broader expansion through administrative rulemaking.

I am especially concerned that feeding or managing a community cat could potentially be characterized as indirectly harming wildlife without sufficient evidence connecting the caretaker’s conduct to an actual wildlife injury or death.

Feeding a cat is not itself bird predation.

A theoretical chain such as:  feeding → cat → possible hunting → possible wildlife injury  should not automatically become the equivalent of proven wildlife take.

Causation and evidence matter.  Actual injury, foreseeability, proximate cause, and the applicable mental-state requirement matter as well. 

I am also concerned about what happens to existing cats if feeding is prohibited.

Stopping food does not make cats disappear.  Without sterilization, monitoring, adoption, abandonment prevention, and a humane transition plan, cats may simply roam farther, migrate into surrounding neighborhoods, become harder to trap, and become increasingly unmanaged.

I also ask DLNR to consider the Legislature’s previous consideration of aggressive statewide cat-removal legislation in 2022. That proposal did not become law.

DLNR should therefore clearly explain whether the current rules could be used to facilitate removal or lethal control of free-roaming cats and identify the specific statutory authority for any such program.

I respectfully request that DLNR revise the proposal to:

• protect trapping, sterilization, veterinary treatment, and approved community-cat management;

• distinguish managed cats from unmanaged populations;

• provide humane transition plans for existing cats;

• clearly define the evidence and causation required for wildlife harm or take;

• and ensure that administrative rules remain within the authority granted by the Hawaiʻi Legislature.

We can protect Hawaiʻi’s wildlife while also using humane, science-based animal population management.

Mahalo for considering my testimony.

Example Two-Minute Oral Testimony

Aloha, and mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

I support strong protection for Hawaiʻi’s indigenous and endangered wildlife. But I am concerned about whether the Legislature actually authorized this particular expansion of “take,” “harm,” and “harass.”

I am especially concerned about community cats.

Feeding a cat is not itself a wildlife take.

There is a major difference between proving that someone injured or killed protected wildlife and assuming that because someone feeds a cat, that cat may someday hunt and therefore the person has harmed wildlife.

Causation and evidence matter.  The public should know what DLNR must prove before indirect conduct becomes wildlife “harm” or “take.” 

I am also concerned about what happens when feeding is prohibited at an existing colony.

Stopping food does not make cats disappear.

Effective population reduction requires sterilization, abandonment prevention, adoption, monitoring, and managed transition. Without those tools, cats may simply disperse and become even harder to manage.

The Legislature has also previously considered aggressive statewide cat-removal legislation and did not enact it. DLNR should tell the public plainly whether these rules are intended to facilitate removal or lethal control of community cats and identify the statutory authority for doing so.

I ask DLNR to revise these rules to protect legitimate wildlife interests while preserving humane, science-based community-cat management and staying clearly within the authority granted by the Legislature.

Mahalo.

Important To Make Your Testimony Personal

Please do not simply copy the example testimony word-for-word.

Your own experience matters.

Consider adding one or two sentences such as:

• “I have cared for community cats for ___ years.”

• “The cats at our location are sterilized and monitored.”

• “I have personally helped trap and sterilize cats in my community.”

• “I have seen what happens when cats are abandoned.”

• “I care deeply about both native wildlife and animal welfare.”

• “I support reducing free-roaming cat populations through humane, effective management.”

• “I believe Hawaiʻi can protect wildlife without abandoning humane treatment of animals.”

• “I am concerned about rules that make it difficult for ordinary people to know where legal responsibility begins and ends.”

Individual testimony carries more weight when it reflects your own experience and concerns.

Speak Up Now!

For the broader implications of the proposed expansion — including impacts involving dogs, driving, property use and ordinary daily activities — see HAA’s companion DLNR Wildlife Rule Truth Sheet: Why This Is Bigger Than Cats. 

Please know these rules could have long-term consequences for community cats, caretakers, humane animal-management programs, and the interpretation of wildlife law across Hawaiʻi.

This is not simply about feeding cats.

It is about:

Humane population management, wildlife protection, evidence, legal authority, and what kind of animal policy Hawaiʻi chooses to follow.

Cat and animal supporters should review the proposal, submit written testimony, and participate in the public hearing.

Public Hearing: August 13, 2026
Written testimony deadline: August 26, 2026

The strongest message we can send is simple:

Protect wildlife. 

Reduce unmanaged cat populations. 

Protect humane management. 

Follow the law.

Key Sources & Further Reading

The following official laws, proposed rules, government documents, court decisions, and research publications provide source material for the legal and animal population management issues discussed in this HAA Action Alert & Public Testimony Guide.

DLNR Proposed Rulemaking

Hawaiʻi DLNR — Notice of Proposed Amendments to HAR Chapter 13-124
Official public-hearing notice describing the proposed expansion of “take” protections for indigenous wildlife, habitat-modification provisions, statewide feeding restrictions for protected wildlife, and feeding restrictions for domestic animals on DLNR lands.
DLNR Public Hearing Notice — HAR Chapter 13-124

Hawaiʻi DLNR — Proposed Administrative Rule Changes to HAR Chapter 13-124
Official Ramseyer-format version showing the actual language DLNR proposes to add, delete, or modify.
DLNR Proposed Amendments — HAR Chapter 13-124

Hawaiʻi DLNR — Frequently Asked Questions on Proposed Amendments to HAR Chapter 13-124
DLNR's explanation of the proposal and its asserted legal authority. The FAQ states that DLNR proposes to prohibit “take” of indigenous wildlife and identifies HRS §195D-3 as authority for that expansion. It also explains proposed definitions of “harm” and “harass” and discusses feeding restrictions.
DLNR FAQ — Proposed HAR Chapter 13-124 Amendments

Hawaiʻi DLNR — Public Comment & Testimony Page
Official page containing the proposed rules, public-hearing information, testimony registration, written-comment submission instructions, and deadlines.
DLNR Public Comment & Testimony Page

Hawaiʻi DLNR — Current Division of Forestry and Wildlife Administrative Rules
Includes the existing HAR Chapter 13-124 rules for comparison with the proposed amendments.
DLNR Administrative Rules

Hawaiʻi Statutory Authority

Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §195D-2 — Definitions
Contains Hawaiʻi's statutory definitions for endangered species, threatened species, indigenous species, wildlife, and “take.” The statute defines “take” as conduct involving endangered or threatened species, including harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect.
HRS §195D-2 — Definitions

Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §195D-3 — Conservation of Particular Species
Authorizes DLNR to investigate species and limiting factors and adopt rules concerning the taking and other treatment of species deemed in need of conservation. This is the statute DLNR specifically cites as authority for its proposed expansion of take protections to indigenous wildlife.
HRS §195D-3 — Conservation of Particular Species

Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes §91-7 — Declaratory Judgment on Validity of Rules
Provides that a court shall declare an administrative rule invalid if it violates constitutional or statutory provisions, exceeds the statutory authority of the agency, or was adopted without compliance with statutory rulemaking procedures.
HRS §91-7 — Validity of Administrative Rules

Hawaiʻi Supreme Court — Limits on Agency Rulemaking

Asato v. State Procurement Policy Board, 132 Hawaiʻi 333 (2014)
The Hawaiʻi Supreme Court reaffirmed that an administrative agency possesses only the rulemaking authority delegated to it by the Legislature and may exercise that authority only within the statutory framework. The Court also explained that implied agency powers are limited to those reasonably necessary to carry out expressly granted authority.
Asato v. State Procurement Policy Board — Hawaiʻi Supreme Court

Federal Endangered Species & Migratory Bird Law

Endangered Species Act — 16 U.S.C. §1532, Definitions
Federal statutory definition of “take”: harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt such conduct.
16 U.S.C. §1532 — ESA Definitions

Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687 (1995)
U.S. Supreme Court. The Court upheld the federal interpretation of ESA ‘harm’ that included significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife. Justice O’Connor also emphasized proximate causation and foreseeability as limits on indirect liability. This case is important for understanding the historical federal standard for indirect “take” and the requirement of actual injury or death.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/515/687/
https://www.fws.gov/project/endangered-species-act-regulation-revisions 

50 CFR §17.3 — ESA Definitions
The federal regulation historically defined “harm” as an act that actually kills or injures wildlife, including significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually causes such injury by significantly impairing essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. It also defined “harass” in terms of conduct creating a likelihood of injury through significant disruption of normal behavioral patterns.
50 CFR §17.3 — Legal Information Institute

Migratory Bird Treaty Act — 16 U.S.C. §703
Federal statute prohibiting pursuing, hunting, taking, capturing, killing, possessing, selling, and related conduct involving protected migratory birds.
16 U.S.C. §703 — Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Prior Hawaiʻi Cat-Removal Legislation

Hawaiʻi HB 1987 — 2022 Legislative Session
Proposed a statewide feral-cat reduction program. The bill proposed eliminating the feral-cat population on Kauaʻi, Maui, and Hawaiʻi Island and reducing the Oʻahu population by 50 percent by December 31, 2025. The measure was not enacted.
HB 1987 (2022) — Hawaiʻi Legislature

Humane Cat Population Management

International Companion Animal Management Coalition — Humane Cat Population Management Guidance
International guidance emphasizing comprehensive cat-population management rather than reliance on a single intervention. The framework addresses assessment, population dynamics, management options, implementation, and monitoring.
ICAM — Humane Cat Population Management Guidance

Levy, Isaza & Scott (2014) — Effect of High-Impact Targeted Trap-Neuter-Return and Adoption of Community Cats on Cat Intake to a Shelter
The Veterinary Journal. A two-year targeted program sterilized approximately 54% of the estimated community-cat population in the treatment area. Shelter cat intake from that area declined 66%, compared with 12% in the rest of the county.
Levy, Isaza & Scott 2014 — The Veterinary Journal

Spehar & Wolf (2019) — Integrated Return-to-Field and Targeted Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return Programs
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Examined six municipal community-cat programs involving more than 70,000 cats. The programs were associated with substantial reductions in shelter intake and euthanasia.
Spehar & Wolf 2019 — Frontiers in Veterinary Science

Boone et al. (2019) — A Long-Term Lens: Cumulative Impacts of Free-Roaming Cat Management Strategy and Intensity on Preventable Cat Mortalities
Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Modeled multiple population-management strategies over ten years and found important differences in kitten births, mortality, and final population size depending on management intensity.
Boone et al. 2019 — Full Open-Access Study

Spehar & Wolf (2019) — Back to School: Updated Evaluation of a Long-Term TNR Program
Animals. A 28-year managed program at the University of Central Florida documented an 85% decline from the initial census and elimination of 11 of 16 colony sites, illustrating the importance of sustained sterilization and ongoing colony management.
Back to School — Long-Term TNR Study

Spehar & Wolf (2020) — The Impact of Targeted Trap-Neuter-Return Efforts in the San Francisco Bay Area
Animals. An initially documented population of 175 cats declined by 99.4% over a 16-year managed program. Regular feeding also served as part of the monitoring system for identifying and tracking cats entering the managed population.
San Francisco Bay Targeted TNR Study

Gunther et al. / High-Intensity Sterilization Research — Population Reduction Requires Sufficient Intensity and Geographic Coverage
Long-term controlled research emphasizes that sterilization must reach sufficiently high levels and be spatially coordinated to overcome continued reproduction and immigration. This provides important nuance: sterilization works as population management when implemented at adequate scale and intensity; casual or low-level sterilization may not.
High-Intensity Sterilization and Free-Roaming Cat Population Study

Feeding Bans & Community-Cat Management

ASPCA — Position Statement on Community Cats
The ASPCA states that feeding bans are difficult to enforce and ineffective at decreasing community-cat populations and can be inhumane for cats dependent upon caretaker-provided food. It also emphasizes sterilization, adoption, management, and prevention of immigration into sensitive sites.
ASPCA — Position Statement on Community Cats

Alley Cat Allies — Community Cat Feeding Bans Position Statement
Provides a focused discussion of why food restriction alone does not constitute a population-control program, including the availability of alternate anthropogenic food sources and the practical relationship between regular feeding and TNR/monitoring. This is an advocacy source rather than an independent scientific publication, but it includes supporting references.
Community Cat Feeding Bans — Position Statement

About These Sources 

This guide combines primary legal authorities, official DLNR rulemaking materials, peer-reviewed scientific research, international population-management guidance, and selected animal-welfare policy resources. Sources are provided for transparency and further review. HAA encourages readers and policymakers to examine the underlying statutes, proposed rule language, and scientific literature directly.

About the Author

Greg Puʻuwai Aloha Baker is the founder of Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy and holds an MBA and a Certificate in Community Cat Program Management from the University of the Pacific’s Benerd College.

His work focuses on the intersection of humane animal management, conservation policy, public health, and community stewardship. He has been actively involved in community cat management, rescue, and advocacy on Hawaiʻi Island for more than five years, including participation in the trapping, sterilization, and return of more than 100 community cats and volunteer work with high-volume PetFix Spay/Neuter MASH events.

His field experience includes community cat trapping, colony support, direct animal care, public education, and participation in high-volume sterilization efforts. This practical experience informs his emphasis on prevention, measurable population reduction, humane treatment, and accountable management systems.

His policy work developed in response to Hawaiʻi County Bill 51, the county cat-feeding ban measure. In that effort, he helped organize public education and advocacy that contributed to more than 7,600 petition signatures opposing the measure and supporting humane, science-based alternatives.

These efforts led to the founding of Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy, a Hawaiʻi-based organization advancing evidence-based approaches to animal population management, wildlife protection, public health, and community accountability.

About Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy

Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy is a Hawaiʻi-based organization focused on science-based, humane policy for animal population management.

HAA works at the intersection of animal welfare, conservation, public health, and community stewardship. The organization promotes evidence-based strategies that address the root causes of free-roaming animal populations while supporting protection of native wildlife, ecosystem health, and community well-being.

HAA recognizes that conservation challenges in Hawaiʻi are complex and multifactorial, involving habitat loss, invasive species, disease, watershed degradation, climate pressures, and human activity. Effective management therefore requires integrated, measurable, and publicly accountable approaches rather than single-factor responses.

The organization supports humane population stabilization through targeted sterilization programs, responsible colony management, adoption pathways, public education, and collaborative community engagement. HAA also supports improved scientific rigor, transparent policymaking, and management strategies grounded in verifiable evidence and real-world outcomes.

www.HawaiiAnimalAdvocacy.org

© 2026 Hawaiʻi Animal Advocacy. Educational use permitted with attribution.