CORRECTION: A previous version of this story contained an incorrect bill number, and Sen. Baker, the committee chairwoman said the amendments to the bill were “technical, non-substantive” instead of technical and substantive. The Tribune-Herald regrets the errors.
A bill is advancing in the state Senate that would require sellers or providers of “emotional support animals” to issue a written disclaimer that an emotional support animal isn’t a service animal under the law.
In addition, as those who offer certificates, identifications, tags, leashes and harnesses for such animals also would be required to include a disclaimer with those accessories.
Senate Bill 2438, if passed into law, would require those vendors to state in the disclaimer that emotional support animals don’t have the training required to qualify as service animals and aren’t entitled to the rights and privileges granted by law to service animals.
It also would require vendors to inform buyers of emotional support animals or accessories that it is unlawful to publicly misrepresent the animals as service animals.
The measure would provide civil penalties for those providers who don’t include such a disclaimer of not less than $100 and not more than $250 for the first violation, and not less than $500 for each subsequent violation.
Under existing Hawaii law, a service animal is defined as “any dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for the benefit of an individual with a disability, including a physical, sensory, psychiatric, intellectual, or other mental disability.”
Service animals and their partners are legally required to be accommodated in public places, while the law doesn’t extend those privileges to emotional support animals.
SB 2438, introduced by Sen. Karl Rhoads, an Oahu Democrat, was passed with amendments, 7-0, on Feb. 3 by the Committee on Commerce and Consumer Protection.
Among the committee members voting yes were Sen. Joy San Buenaventura, a Puna Democrat. She and Sen. Dru Kanuha, a Kailua-Kona Democrat, were co-introducers of the measure.
The bill on Feb. 8 also passed its second of three required floor readings and has referrals to the Judiciary and Ways and Means committees, neither of which have scheduled hearings.
Peter Fritz, an Oahu attorney with a hearing disability who provided video testimony in support of the legislation, noted that former state Sen. Russell Ruderman of Puna introduced a 2018 measure that called for identical penalties to those described above for pet owners who misrepresent their animals as service animals in order to receive accommodations in public.
“One of the things that came about when Sen. Ruderman brought a bill out to make some changes and firm up some definitions regarding service animals and public accommodations was the fact that many people were misrepresenting the nature of their animal — and they really weren’t service animals,” Fritz testified. “And (the current) bill was designed, and actually, a similar bill was brought in California by a guide dog group because of these problems.”
The Hawaiian Humane Society submitted written testimony saying it “supports the intent of the bill to ensure that pet owners are not misrepresenting their pets as service animals and that they understand the legal distinctions between service animals and emotional support animals or other similar terms.”
The group, however, requested the bill be amended to exclude pet purveyors from the bill and “to focus exclusively on entities that sell or provide certificates, identifications, tags, vests, leashes, and harnesses for emotional support animals.”
The requested amendment was not among those made to the measure. Amendments that were made were described by Commerce and Consumer Protection Chairwoman Rosalyn Baker, a Maui Democrat, as “technical, non-substantive amendments for purposes of clarity and consistency.”
Email John Burnett at jburnett@hawaiitribune-herald.com.
