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