CT New State Law (what pythons????)

Passed on Tuesday April 21st:

HIMP ATTACK REACTION
Panel Votes To Ban Ownership Of Dangerous Animals
By CHRISTOPHER KEATING | The Hartford Courant
April 22, 2009
Prompted by a vicious chimpanzee attack in Stamford, a key legislative committee voted Tuesday to ban the ownership of potentially dangerous animals.

The General Assembly's judiciary committee agreed to ban the private ownership of gorillas, chimpanzees, baboons, kangaroos, wolverines, hyenas, elephants, alligators, crocodiles, rattlesnakes, cobras, pythons, and many other wild animals. The measure, approved 40-1, would also ban the ownership of a rhinoceros or hippopotamus.

Anyone violating the law could be charged with a class A misdemeanor, which carries a maximum fine of $2,000 and up to one year in prison.

The measure was prompted by an attack on Charla Nash, 55, in February by a 200-pound chimpanzee. Nash was critically injured and is now recovering at the Cleveland Clinic. Nash went to the home of her close friend, Sandra Herold, to help her with Herold's 14-year-old chimpanzee, Travis.
Travis attacked Nash, causing severe injuries to her face and hands. Police shot and killed the animal. Nash has had numerous surgeries to stabilize her condition and more are expected.

The bill, which had been approved 28-2 by the environment committee, still needs final approval by the House of Representatives, the Senate, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell.

Several Republicans said the bill goes too far because it also bans small monkeys that are often kept as pets. Rep. Bill Aman, a South Windsor Republican, said legislators should amend the bill to allow about 30 small monkeys, which generally weigh less than 30 pounds, to remain with their current owners.

"They have a track record of not being violent," said Aman, who agreed with Rep. William Hamzy of Plymouth that the small monkeys are treated "like children" by the families.


Rusty

General Assembly File No. 516
January Session, 2009 Substitute House Bill No. 6552
House of Representatives, April 6, 2009
The Committee on Environment reported through REP. ROY, R. of the 119th Dist., Chairperson of the Committee on the part of the House, that the substitute bill ought to pass.
AN ACT BANNING THE POSSESSION OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS AND THE IMPORTATION, POSSESSION AND LIBERATION OF WILD ANIMALS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) No person shall operate, provide, sell, use or offer to operate, provide, sell or use any computer software or service in this state that allows a person, when not physically present, to remotely control a firearm or weapon to hunt a live animal or bird.
(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 2. Section 26-40a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):
(a) 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; [and the]
(3) The ursidae, including, but not limited to, the black bear, grizzly bear and brown bear;
(4) The hominidae, including, but not limited to, the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan;
(5) The hylobatidae, including, but not limited to, the gibbon or "lesser ape";
(6) The cercopithecidae, including, but not limited to, the baboon and macaque;
(7) The macropodidae, including, but not limited to, the kangaroo and wallaby;
(8) The mustelidae, including, but not limited to, the wolverine;
(9) The hyaenidae, including, but not limited to, the hyaena;
(10) The elephantidae, including, but not limited to, the hippopotamidae, including the hippopotamus;
(11) The rhinocerotidae, including, but not limited to, the rhinoceros;
(12) The suidae, including, but not limited to, the warthog;
(13) The alligatoridae, including, but not limited to, the alligator and caiman;
(14) The crocodylidae, including, but not limited to, the crocodile;
(15) The gavialidae, including, but not limited to, the gavial;
(16) The elapidae, including, but not limited to, cobras, coral snakes and mambas;
(17) The viperidae, including, but not limited to, copperheads, rattlesnakes, cottonmouths and all other adders and vipers;
(18) The rear-fanged members of the colubridae in the genera lothornis, boiga, thelotornis, thabdophis, enhydris, dispholidus, clelia, rhabdophis, hydrodynastes, philodryas and malpolon;
(19) The Burmese/Indian, African Rock, amethystine and reticulated of the pythonidae;
(20) The green, yellow and dark spotted anacondas of the boidae;
(21) The helodermatidae, including, but not limited to, Gila monsters and beaded lizards; and
(22) The Nile monitor, water monitor, black-throat monitor, white-throat monitor, crocodile monitor and komodo dragon of the varanidae.
[No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal.]
(b) Any such animal illegally possessed may be ordered seized and may be relocated or disposed of as determined by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such potentially dangerous animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, [and] relocation or disposal of such animal. Additionally, any person who violates any provision of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed [one] two thousand dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense and in the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may request the Attorney General to institute an action in Superior Court to recover such penalty and any amounts owed pursuant to a bill issued in accordance with this section and for an order providing such equitable and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to municipal parks, zoos [and] accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or the Zoological Association of America, public nonprofit aquaria, nature centers, [or] museums [,] or laboratories and research facilities maintained by scientific or educational institutions [;] registered with the United States Department of Agriculture or to a person possessing a Bengal cat certified by an internationally recognized multiple-cat domestic feline breeding association as being without wild parentage for a minimum of four prior generations which cat was registered with the Commissioner of Agriculture on or before October 1, 1996, provided no such cat may be imported into this state after June 6, 1996. [; or to persons possessing animals legally on or before May 23, 1983.] In any action taken by any official of the state or any municipality to control rabies, a Bengal cat shall be considered not vaccinated for rabies in accordance with accepted veterinary practice.
(d) Any person who wilfully violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 3. Section 26-55 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):
[No] (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, no person shall import or introduce into the state, or possess or liberate therein, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit therefor from the commissioner. [, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to require such permit for any primate species that weighs not more than fifty pounds at maturity that was imported or possessed in the state prior to October 1, 2003.] Such permit may be issued at the discretion of the commissioner under such regulations as the commissioner may prescribe. The commissioner may by regulation prescribe the numbers of live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates of certain species which may be imported, possessed, introduced into the state or liberated therein. The commissioner may by regulation exempt certain species or groups of live fish from the permit requirements. The commissioner may by regulation determine which species of wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates must meet permit requirements. The commissioner may totally prohibit the importation, possession, introduction into the state or liberation therein of certain species which the commissioner has determined may be a potential threat to humans, agricultural crops or established species of plants, fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates. The commissioner may by regulation exempt from permit requirements organizations or institutions such as municipal parks, zoos, laboratories and research [laboratories, colleges or universities] facilities maintained by scientific or educational institutions, museums, public nonprofit aquaria or nature centers where live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates are held in strict confinement.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the importation and possession of the following species is prohibited: (1) Any primate in the families cheirogaleidae, lemuridae, lepilemuridae, indriidae, lorisidae, loris, daubentoniidae, galagidae, galago, tarsiidae, callitrichidae, cebidae, pitheciidae or atelidae; (2) the sciuridae, including, but not limited to, the prairie dog; (3) the viverridae, including, but not limited to, the civet and genet; (4) any venomous species in the family arachnidea, including, but not limited to, the tarantula and scorpion; and (5) any poisonous species in the family dendrobatidae, including, but not limited to, poison arrow frogs.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection may issue a permit for the possession of a service primate to a permanently disabled person with a severe mobility impairment, provided such disabled person submits written certification to said commissioner: (1) From a licensed medical doctor attesting to such disabled person’s disability, mobility impairment and the need for a service primate to provide an essential function that cannot be performed by the disabled person; (2) that such service primate was legally obtained, is from the genus Cebus and is trained by an accredited service primate training organization; and (3) that the organization furnishing the service primate to the disabled person is a nonprofit organization and is in compliance with all applicable federal and state animal welfare laws.
(d) Any such fish, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate illegally imported into the state or illegally possessed therein [shall] may be seized by any representative of the Department of Environmental Protection and [shall] may be relocated or disposed of as determined by the commissioner. [Any person, except as provided in section 26-55a, who violates any provision of this section or any regulation issued by the commissioner as provided in this section shall be guilty of an infraction. Importation, liberation or possession of each fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate in violation of this section or such regulation shall be a separate and distinct offense and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day of continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.] The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, relocation or disposal for such animal.
(e) Any person who violates any provision of this section or any regulation adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense. In the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may request the Attorney General to institute an action in Superior Court to recover such civil penalty and any amounts owed pursuant to a bill issued in accordance with subsection (d) of this section and for an order providing such equitable and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate.
(f) Any person who wilfully violates any provision of this section or any regulation adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1 October 1, 2009 New section
Sec. 2 October 1, 2009 26-40a
Sec. 3 October 1, 2009 26-55

further explainations of possible penalties here http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/FC/2009HB...R000516-FC.htm

Thank you, I had a PDF of this before my computer crashed recently and I've been having a heck of a time finding it. Thank you.
Rusty
PS the bottom link is broken

Its terrible they can have this kind of power. They shouldn't just straight BAN animals. But have owners get permits for the truly dangerous animals. Does it look like that is a possibility?

Makes me wanna move to CT w/my rhino and feed it the prairie dogs I raise in my backyard. *%%__^)_*$#&$:mad:

So now what??!?? Ppl are gonna dump or kill all their afrocks, burms and retics, etc. b/c by Oct 1 they'll all be illegal and could cost the owner $1k fine a day!?????? That's aaaall the hobby needs! < NOT!!! > Start here in CT with these and it's just the toes of the foot in the door for the other states.......just b/c some idiot didn't take care of the problems w/the chimp. *sigh*

And what about the Rhesus-type monkeys that are being raised and trained for assistance animals????? Gonna fine some parapalegic every day if they don't get rid of their helper?

This bill specifically makes provision for a capuchin (South American) monkey as a service animal, but does not address rhesus monkey (Indian) service animals.

This bill also _bans_ tarantulas, scorps, dart frogs and ferrets (The mustelidae, including, but not limited to, the wolverine; <- this includes ferrets, folks.) as well as those scary, scary prairie dogs, chipmunks and all other squirrels.

~Bruce, displeased in CT.

If I remember right, this bill is open to revision until that October date am I right?

It's open for revision until passed by the State House and Senate. After that, it goes to the Governor's desk, and if signed, becomes law as written on its effective date.

~Bruce

I absolutely agree with you Bruce:
Whenever you see this in any type of legislature:
"including, but not limited to"
Then the door is wide open to easily attach anything else from that family group. God forbid this goes through and a pet ferret gets loose and bites a child because of an irresponsible owner.
Say good by to the loving ferret pets in CT.
Rusty

It isn't necessarily going to be passed. What with HR669 being a fairly big deal there is a chance they will look at it and decide to make the same decision. So don't give up hope, just send letters in, and pass the information off to any residents of CT that you know.

This, however, does not seem like a deliberate attack on the pet-trade.
They are only banning larger species of pythons and boide. If this thing were to pass, I almost guarantee that a permit system will have to come about.

I highly doubt ferrets will be included if they are considering small monkeys to not be banned because they are 'pets'.

Just my .02

http://www.courant.com/news/nationwo...0,677423.story

Quote:

---

Conn. lawmakers say they won't ban wild animals as pets, want to protect farm

By Associated Press
3:02 PM EDT, May 30, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — The Connecticut General Assembly won't take up a bill this session banning a long list of wild and potentially dangerous animals as pets.

The legislation stems from the February attack on a Stamford resident mauled by a 200-pound chimpanzee.

Rep. Richard Roy, co-chairman of the legislature's Environment Committee, told the Connecticut Post on Friday that the bill is being abandoned because some lawmakers want to protect a family-owned elephant farm in Goshen.

Many state politicians were outraged that potentially dangerous animals were allowed as pets after learning of the chimpanzee attack on Charla Nash, who lost her hands, nose, lips and eyelids in the assault.

But Roy said Goshen-area lawmakers fought the bill.

"It's dead because there's a piece that was put into the bill that would have not allowed the Commerford family to bring in any new elephants in the years ahead, thereby, essentially closing the business down," he said.

The farm has several elephants, a petting zoo and a variety of exotic animals, including zebras and camels. Commerford brings the animals to fairs and malls along the East Coast.

"The Commerford Farm is a community fixture up in Goshen and it would be sad to see that business have to terminate what it does as it moves into the future," said Rep. Roberta Willis, D-Lakeville.

Even though the legislative session ends on Wednesday, Roy said it won't be brought up because the debate will take up too much time.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, was surprised by the bill's demise. The legislation has been supported by the Attorney General and the Department of Environmental Protection — which is hosting an exotic animal amnesty day in July to persuade residents to turn in their illegal and legal exotic pets.

"The legislation is extraordinarily important and I understand that there were concerns expressed by some legislators, but there's certainly no excuse for not coming up with a reasonable compromise that would assure the safety of the people of our state," McDonald said.

Besides the Commerford dispute, the legislation also faced challenges from lawmakers who wanted to propose various amendments, such as grandfathering existing exotic animals to legalizing bow hunting on Sundays.

---

That farm in Goshen has been around a LONG time too!! I would be SAD to see them go. I watched that place turn into the farm it is today, as i grew up and have lived in the area all my life.

Well.... that's a twist. Let's stop a bill that bans praire dogs.. because we want people to be able to own elephants.
...
...
...
Yes... that makes perfect sense in a governement point of view. *rolls eyes*
At least they might be able to write more sensiable bills, now that they have pointed out to themselves that a vaguely written bill can have FAR reaching unforeseen consequances. A bill that is not specific can kill off your kids' ferret... oopsie! Let's read those proposals a LITTLE more closely!

I hope this has a good influance on all state's lawmakers.

I think the officials in CT need to look at the new law passed in NC.
The folks in NC have a much better and thought out plan.

Obvioulsly there are some animals that should not be kept as pets but banning such a huge group to me sounds like they were to lazy to do their homework like the officials in NC did.

! WTF?! "Amnesty Day"???? And just what were they planning on DOING with all those animals that are "surrendered"???????? :mad::mad: Bet PETA would just LOOOOOOOVE that!