LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY– 2006.

During the Connecticut General Assembly session in 2006, six bills concerning dogs and their owners/guardians were introduced. Two of the bills were passed in the House and Senate, and they became law with the Governor's signature on June 2. The remaining four bills died in committee. During the legislative process, information regarding these bills was made available by CDF officers and trustees to CDF member organizations via delegates from those organizations.

APPROVED BILLS

Senate Bill S.B. 411, Public Act No. 06-105 : An Act Concerning Exemption from Rabies Vaccination Requirements. Effective October 1, 2006.

This law modifies existing statute Sections 22-338, 22-339 and 22-359 to permit exemption from State-mandated rabies vaccinations for a dog or cat if a licensed veterinarian has examined the animal and determined that a rabies vaccination would endanger the animal's life due to disease or other medical considerations. The veterinarian is required to apply to the Commissioner of Agriculture on a State-approved form. When the application has been approved, the Department of Agriculture issues an exemption certificate good for one year, with copies to the owner/keeper of the animal and the animal control officer of the municipality where the animal resides.

The law also requires the Commissioner to “institute such measures as the commissioner deems necessary to prevent the transmission of rabies associated with animals in public settings, including, but not limited to, fairs, shows, exhibitions, petting zoos, riding stables, farm tours, pet shops and educational exhibits.”

House Bill H.B. 5795, Special Act No. 06-5 : An Act Concerning a Study of the Expansion of the Animal Population Control Program. Effective from passage.

The bill was originally titled, “An Act Concerning the Spaying, Neutering and Vaccination of Dogs and Cats.” It called for an expansion of the existing Animal Population Control Program to assist low-income individuals in getting their animals spayed/neutered and vaccinated through a system of discount vouchers for veterinary services. Increases in Program cost would be covered by tax donations (check-off box on tax returns), increased and new fees for redeeming free roaming cats and dogs, changes in penalty for an unlicensed dog, and increased fines. It would also provide for payment of bonuses to animal control officers. Due to many inequities in the bill, e.g., a major portion funded by dog owner/keepers versus cat owner/keepers, and increased administrative costs to municipalities, opposition was strong. Of particular interest was the controversial requirement to spay/neuter any dog running at large not later than 60 days after being redeemed by the owner/keeper. There was no exception for a valued companion pet or a prized breeding/show dog that accidentally or through malice escaped and was intercepted by an animal control officer or other official.

CDF was instrumental in alerting dog owners/keepers to the compulsory spay/neuter requirement, and the response to legislators from dog fanciers helped defeat the original bill in committee. The Department of Agriculture was also opposed to the original wording. The revised bill, now law, deleted all of the original language and substituted a requirement that the Commissioner convene a study group to assist in preparing his findings and recommendations to the joint standing committee of the General Assembly having cognizance of such matters.

FAILED BILLS

Senate Bill S.B. 429 : An Act Adopting the Connecticut Uniform Trust Code

This was a comprehensive, 20-page bill that sought to invoke uniform procedures for setting up and administering trusts of various types. For the first time in this state, a person would be able to create a trust “to provide for the care of an animal alive during the settlor's lifetime. The trust terminates upon the death of the animal or, if the trust was created to provide for the care of more than one animal alive during the settlor's lifetime, upon the death of the last surviving animal.” The person could designate a trustee or request that the court do so.

House Bill H.B. 5743 : An Act Concerning the Establishment of a Training and Certification Program for Municipal Animal Control Officers

This bill would set up a training and certification program for regional animal control officers and municipal animal control officers, and for their assistants. It would apply to all new officers, and to all existing officers except those who have served as officers for at least five years since July 1, 1996. Training would cover all aspects of federal and state laws applicable to search and seizure, state laws relating to animals, basics of investigation, disease recognition, cruelty and neglect investigations, animal bite and vicious animal investigations, safety, and many other related subjects. The intent was to insure uniform application of state animal laws by competent, qualified persons. The Environment Committee that sponsored this bill voted 18 to 9 in favor.

House Bill H.B. 5751 : An Act Concerning Additional Powers of Municipal Animal Control Officers

This bill would allow animal control officers to issue citations for violations of laws relating to dogs or other domestic animals. Municipalities would be permitted to set fines not exceeding $150.00 per day for each day a violation continues. In a municipality having a population of 25,000 or more, the appointed animal control officer could be a member, or become a member, of the local police department. The Environment Committee that sponsored this bill voted 27 to 0 in favor.

House Bill H.B. 5804 : An Act Concerning Monk Parakeets and Hearings Prior to the Euthanization of Dogs

In its original form, the bill concerned only euthanization of dogs. Amendments were added to permit Sunday hunting with bow and arrow on private land, and for protection of monk parakeets against capture or destruction.

The bill would allow any animal control officer to order the restraint or disposal of any dog that bites and seriously injures another dog in an unprovoked attack. It allows exception for a dog that was protecting itself, its owner, its custodian, a member of its household, its kennel or its offspring. The owner of the attacking dog would have the right to request a hearing before the Commissioner of Agriculture, and to appeal an order for euthanization to Superior Court. The Environment Committee that sponsored the bill voted 27 to 0 in favor.