• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Proposed Dangerous Animal Ban in CT

jenneses

Confuzzled
I found this posted on another forum. I wasn't surprised, but for all the fellow CT'ers here, I think you should be aware.


http://www.newsday.com/news/local/w...t--chimpanzeeattack-0306mar06,0,3519477.story

Newsday.com

Conn. officials consider dangerous animals ban

March 6, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn.

The chimpanzee attack that has left a Connecticut woman fighting for her life has led to a proposed state ban on private ownership of dangerous animals.

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Gina McCarthy outlined the bill Friday.

Their proposal would prohibit private citizens from owning chimpanzees and other wild animals. In addition to chimps, the bill bans private ownership of other primates as well as several other animals including alligators and some dangerous snakes.

Charla Nash was critically injured Feb. 16 in Stamford when she was attacked by a chimp, owned by her friend.

The proposal calls for penalities of up to one year in prison and a $2,000 fine. It also increases the civil penalty from $1,000 to $2,000 a day.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State bill would ban ownership of exotic pets
By Ken Dixon
STAFF WRITER
Updated: 03/06/2009 05:50:25 PM EST

HARTFORD -- The leaders of the Environment Committee on Friday promised to create legislation to ban private ownership of exotic animals, including chimps like the one that nearly killed a woman in Stamford last month.

Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, and Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, co-chairmen of the committee, said although it is weeks past their mid-February deadline to raise bills, they'll find a parliamentary maneuver to create penalties of up to a year in prison and $2,000 fines for violating the law.

While current law bans private ownership of large cats, wolves and bears, it does not specifically list chimpanzees.

Roy and Meyer made the announcement during a news conference with Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Gina McCarthy, commissioner of the state Department of Environmental Protection and a representative of the Humane Society of the United States.

Legislation drafted by Blumenthal's office and the DEP would prohibit the possession of primates, alligators, kangaroos, wolverines, hippopotami, rhinos, elephants and snakes including pythons.

"The simple truth is wild animals belong in the wild, in their natural habitat or sanctuaries, not in suburban homes where they can do the kind of horrific damage that a chimpanzee did in Stamford very recently," Blumenthal said.

The bill would also require veterinarians who treat potentially dangerous animals to notify the DEP within 24 hours and provide the location of the
Advertisement
animal.

"The incident in Stamford provided all too graphic evidence that primates are wild animals, they're not pets," McCarthy said.

Roy said if the bill becomes law, if animal owners don't report they own dangerous animals, their neighbors will.

To report the potential illegal possession of wild animals, people may call the DEP at (860) 424-3010.
http://www.newstimes.com/ci_11854435
 
Last edited:
We've had a similar thing in place over here (The UK) since the mid seventies. Up until then you could have just about anything you wanted. Because of the ban the Dangerous Wild Animal Licence (DWAL) was introduced, and it was for the best.
Now we have to prove we know about the animal we are going to keep, local authorities issue the licence (which has to be renewed annually), a vet has to inspect the premises and a liability insurance for £2000000 has to be in place.
We have never had a death from any exotic reptile since the ban... All animals are cared for properly and only dedicated keepers can be bothered to go to the trouble.
Mentoring is now common place before anyone ever gets as far as getting any animals. So it's win win ....... Who can argue with that.
 
I have a feeling it will be closer to a pit bull ban, or the ban on ferrets in California. Meaning no one will be able to have these animals in CT, even with a license unless you're a zoo or similar entity. That would be a bad thing.
 
The ban has passed:

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
 
Okay, I'm not as good on my Latin as I used to be. Please tell me what all the snakes in section 18 are being as they only listed the latin names and I'm not there yet. ( Sneaky of them! ) I'll probably hate it anyway!

Devon
 
boiga = brown tree snake
thelotornis= twig snake
enhydris = Rainbow water snake
dispholidus= boomslang
rhabdophis= Oriental Tiger Snake
hydrodynastes= false water cobra
malpolon = Montpellier Snake

I can't remember the rest.
 
THIS IS WHY WE FIGHT THESE BANS!!!

Seriously, banning tarantulas?! Most bee stings are worse than common tarantuala bites.

Banning poison dart frogs??? WHY?! They aren't even poisonous in captivity!!!

These are just gut-reflex bills that solve nothing and hurt people who are responsible keepers. Irresponsible keepers will still have their animals... why would a little law worry them when proper care and ethics has no meaning in their normal life?

Now imagine a ban like this, but WORSE, across the entire US......

WRITE THOSE LETTERS PEOPLE!
 
THIS IS WHY WE FIGHT THESE BANS!!!

Seriously, banning tarantulas?! Most bee stings are worse than common tarantuala bites.

Banning poison dart frogs??? WHY?! They aren't even poisonous in captivity!!!

These are just gut-reflex bills that solve nothing and hurt people who are responsible keepers. Irresponsible keepers will still have their animals... why would a little law worry them when proper care and ethics has no meaning in their normal life?

Now imagine a ban like this, but WORSE, across the entire US......

WRITE THOSE LETTERS PEOPLE!
The problem seems to be, unsuitable owners releasing pets into the wild and unsuitable animals, kept in unsuitable conditions...
America is having a knee jerk reaction to a lot of problems concerning exotics....
I suggested last year, when Kathy posted the feds are out to get us, that you need to legislate yourselves...
If the authorities legislate, it's bound to work against you... If you do it you can keep it reasonable, but you need to be seen to be doing something about a growing problem...
The Chimp attack was just the straw that broke the camels back IMO...
I belong to a pro keepers lobby, that tries to pre-empt the powers to be..
 
It's really vague and that's what really worries me. It's poorly written and just doesn't make sense as far as some the species on there. It does open the door for more animals to be added at a later date.
 
That's so sad. I can't believe that Savannah cats are on there either. :(

I couldn't believe that either Carol.
This ban is bad news for all pet owners. It opens the door wide open to banning many more species and will snowball with many other states following suit.
What can we do besides writing our congressmen, who unless you pad their pockets, wont' do much for ya anyway.
It's a sad say for us animal lovers for sure.
 
I am starting to wonder if we shouldn't start lobbying for a permit system similar to what Britain uses, or similar to the permit system Florida uses for venomous snakes. It seems to me that we are just going to keep fighting and fighting until we lose... whereas we can use a permit system to say "Look, we're doing something proactive and it works."

That being said, I just really don't feel like tarantulas, scorpions, and dart frogs need to be on a permit system, let alone a ban. The vast majority of species are too delicate to survive in the wild, and are not a significant danger to humans, even if they were to directly contact them.

If it's just fear that is the issue... well damn, I am terrified of clowns! Does that mean my neighbors have no right to hire clowns for birthday parties? I don't think so......

Does anyone else feel like lobbying for permits as a reptile community might be a good "solution" to this issue?
 
I am starting to wonder if we shouldn't start lobbying for a permit system similar to what Britain uses, or similar to the permit system Florida uses for venomous snakes. It seems to me that we are just going to keep fighting and fighting until we lose... whereas we can use a permit system to say "Look, we're doing something proactive and it works."

That being said, I just really don't feel like tarantulas, scorpions, and dart frogs need to be on a permit system, let alone a ban. The vast majority of species are too delicate to survive in the wild, and are not a significant danger to humans, even if they were to directly contact them.

If it's just fear that is the issue... well damn, I am terrified of clowns! Does that mean my neighbors have no right to hire clowns for birthday parties? I don't think so......

Does anyone else feel like lobbying for permits as a reptile community might be a good "solution" to this issue?

I think a permit system is a great solution.
 
I can't believe that. I am next door in RI and here only retics and anacondas are outlawed as far as non venomous (It doesn't stop people from owning/breeding both). I can't believe they outlawed burms too. I would uaually agree with a permit system but we have one in RI and it is almost impossible to get one. Forget that I know much more about the snake species than the DEE DEE DEE that is questioning me the end result has always been there is no reason for me to own that snake (lets just forget that this is america and if I can properly care for it I have a RIGHT to have it). I was actually at a friends pet store once selling him a 10 foot tiger retic when DEM came in, commented on how pretty it was and when I told him it was a burm/afrock hybred he didn't think twice and he was there to investigate reports of retics in the store. All the law will do is drive up prices,there will always be people willing to drive to NH and deliver them to people who want them.
 
This bill was turned down in General Assembly. Here is the newpaper article:

As wild pet ban dies, state declares exotic animal amnesty
Move comes as wild pet legislation dies
By Ken Dixon and Brian Lockhart

STAFF WRITERS
Updated: 05/30/2009 03:29:22 AM EDT


HARTFORD -- Legislation that would have banned a long list of wild and potentially dangerous animals as pets has failed in the General Assembly this year because lawmakers from Litchfield County want to protect a family-owned farm that has several elephants.

But the state Department of Environmental Protection hopes residents will voluntarily turn over questionable pets on July 25 at an "exotic animal amnesty day" at Beardsley Zoo in Bridgeport.

The wild animal ban was drafted this year after Travis, a 200-pound chimp, nearly mauled a friend of his owner's to death in Stamford.

Although the state in 2004 passed limited regulations on exotic pets, Travis was grandfathered because he was a local celebrity.

The proposed ban would have targeted animals large and small, from primates and big cats to certain snakes, tarantulas and scorpions. Only some small monkeys known to be kept by families in the state would have been grandfathered into the ban.

State Rep. Richard Roy, D-Milford, co-chairman of the legislature's Environment Committee, said Friday the ban will be abandoned because there was disagreement over the continued keeping of pachyderms at the Commerford Farm in Goshen.

"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, which Mr. Commerford, I'm told, was going to being passing off to his family," Roy said.

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

Roy said Goshen-area lawmaker, state Sen. Andrew Roraback, a Republican, and state Rep. Roberta Willis, a Democrat, fought the change.

"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," Willis said.

Even though the session ends at midnight June 3, Roy said the bill will not go forward because it will consume too much time.

State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, said he was surprised by the bill's failure.

"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," he said.

The Commerford dispute was not the only cause of the bill's failure.

Different lawmakers were pursuing a variety of amendments to the bill, from grandfathering existing exotic animals to legalizing bow hunting on Sundays.

DEP spokesman Denis Schain said the agency was aware the exotic animal ban "could be dead," but that was not related to Friday's sudden announcement of the amnesty day at Beardsley Zoo.

According to the DEP, the amnesty day will "provide a convenient, safe and 'no questions asked' way for people to bring in exotic animals they may own legally or in possible violation of state law."

Zoo director Gregg Dancho said: "We get a lot of people calling us all the time about [exotic] pets that have worn out their welcome ... We're trying to utilize this day as an education process to get people to think about what they're doing before they buy something they may not be able to handle."

Dancho said he hoped lawmakers could work on refining the bill for next session.


They are going to attempt to refine the bill and pass it again, so now would be the time for herpers in CT to get involved.
 
It made me laugh that Savannah's were on there, but not Bengals. Though admittedly, because I've been faced with a 30 pound, pissed-as-hell Savannah cat, I do wish people needed permits and training to own those things, not just a lot of money to throw around. They're huge and they are often massively aggressive. :/

I'm glad this bill was removed. Hopefully a reworked version will be more... yaknow... *useful*?
 
Back
Top