CT just outlawed cats & dogs!

[kc261]

Actually, I'm REALLY hoping that I read the bill wrong, but it is true according to what the actual words of the bill say, from what I read on this thread:
http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?t=89528

It says:

No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal. For the purposes of this section, the following wildlife, or any hybrid thereof, shall be considered [as] potentially dangerous animals:
(1) The felidae, including, but not limited to, the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, [and] bobcat, [the] tiger, serval, caracal, jungle cat and Savannah cat;
(2) The canidae, including, but not limited to, the wolf, [and] coyote and fox;

Last I checked, house cats are member of the family felidae, and dogs are members of the family canidae.

I read the bill carefully (as quoted in the above thread, I haven't seen where an original copy of it is), and there are no exceptions for cats & dogs.

And people still think HR 669 has no chance because it is poorly written? I don't think lawmakers actually read the bills they pass.

Now, do I think CT is going to start enforcing the bill as written and make everyone get rid of their cats & dogs? No. And maybe that could be used to fight the bill... aren't there some sort of laws about enforcing laws equally? Like you can't arrest me for breaking this law because I have a harmless poison arrow frog, when you aren't arresting my neighbor who is breaking the law by having a not-quite-so harmless cat?

Truly crazy.

[Stewart_Reptiles]

the following wildlife, or any hybrid thereof, shall be considered [as] potentially dangerous animals:

Both dogs and cats are considered domesticated so it would not apply to them.

[kc261]

How do we know? In HR 669, "nonnative wildlife" is defined as "any live species or subspecies of animal that is not a native species or subspecies, whether or not born or raised in captivity". So domesticated or not doesn't matter.

The problem with the CT bill is it does not clearly define the terms it uses, so who knows what it means.

[Kaorte]

If they were to ban domesticated cats and dogs, I don't think this bill would even have a slight chance of passing. it seems that they are banning the ownership of larger animals in the felidae and canidae genus.

I dunno, it makes sense to me. The only thing I have a problem with is banning burmese and retics. :/

[kc261]

Like I said, I do not think they are going to enforce it as a ban on cats & dogs. I also do not think they intended it to be a ban on cats & dogs, nor even thought about the fact that it could be interpreted that way.

My point was that it is poorly written, and can be interpreted to mean possessing a cat or dog in the state of CT is now illegal (or will be when it goes into effect). Also, a lot of people seem to think that HR 669 can't possibly pass because of its flaws. Wrong. Poorly written legislation passes all the time.

Legislation should not be ambiguous. It is the same point PIJAC made when arguing against HR 6311, and the lawmakers obviously thought it was a valid point, because they fixed it in the new version, HR 669.

Failure to provide a clear definition of “wildlife” further adds confusion to HR 6311. As crafted, “nonnative wildlife species” includes “any species that is not a native species.” The definition goes on to specifically cover the entire animal kingdom including insects, mollusks, crustaceans, arthropods, coelenterates, and all other invertebrates.
By this definition, many species of animals that are longstanding staples of the pet industry, food aquaculture, sports fishing, and livestock would have to go through the process to ascertain if they pose the “likelihood” of harming the environment or other factors set forth in HR 6311. These would include cattle, cats, dogs and numerous animals considered “domesticated.” A clear definition of “wildlife” is essential.

Quoted from:
http://www.pijac.org/files/public/HR..._Testimony.pdf