Hawaii needs to strengthen its laws aimed at preventing animal cruelty

There is something very wrong when history is allowed to repeat itself at the expense of innocent dogs, which is what happened when James Montgomery was given the opportunity to continue his inhumane treatment of helpless animals, who could not speak for themselves or care for themselves.

He had already pleaded guilty to animal cruelty 10 years ago, yet the judge still ordered the dogs to be returned to him.

Since there was no law in place to allow him to be monitored, countless more dogs apparently suffered and died in the 10 years that he continued to breed.

It would have gone on indefinitely if his daughter had not called HPD.

As wonderful as this rescue was for these dogs, this must be only the beginning and not the end of efforts to prevent this from happening yet again, not only with Montgomery, but with the many others like him.

Our legislators — who have done some wonderful things in the past for animals — need to put in place a law that would enforce some form of humane standard for breeders and allow the monitoring of them.

They are in a position to try to stop, or at least reduce, this kind of activity.

Thank God for the Honolulu Police Department and the Hawaiian Humane Society for rescuing these dogs, and to the city Prosecutor’s Office for taking animal cruelty cases seriously — but they can only do what the law permits them to.

If HPD had not received a call from Montgomery’s daughter, he would have been allowed to continue his deplorable and abusive treatment of his animals because there was no oversight and no one could get onto his property.

These dogs deserve some kind of protection. Responsible breeders who truly care about the well-being of their animals should welcome some form of standard and oversight because they should want to weed out the bad breeders.

Consumers actually unwittingly play the biggest role in this kind of activity by supporting it.

When people see something like this on the news, gasp and shake their heads, and then proceed to go on Craigslist or to the pet store or meet a breeder at a parking lot to buy an animal, they are actually supporting what they are so appalled at.

If they truly care but still choose to shop rather than adopt, they should at least take the time to go to the source, meaning, to see the condition in which they are being bred.

If the seller won’t let you do that, that should raise a red flag.

The buyer should realize that if the mother dog is living in her own waste with no ventilation, drinking contaminated water and malnourished, then the chances of the puppies that she produces being healthy are pretty slim.

More important, shouldn’t one care about the conditions under which the animals are being bred and refuse to support breeders who are unethical?

We shouldn’t have to wait to see it on the news to be reminded that this is going on far more than we care to admit.

Ignoring it doesn’t make it go away. It just perpetuates it.

(We shouldn’t care about only our own pets, but it should bother us to know of the countless other animals who are being mistreated, knowing that we can do our part to help them.)

Like everything else, it is all about supply and demand. If more people would choose to be a part of the solution rather than the problem, by adopting one of the many wonderful animals at the shelters, or at least by buying responsibly, there would be fewer James Montgomerys.

And wouldn’t it make you feel good to know that you helped to make that happen rather than to fund and encourage the likes of him?