The other day, I heard a person call into Colin McEnroe’s show who mentioned HR 5368, An Act Extending Certain Pet Shop Licensee Requirements to Persons and Organizations That Import Animals for Adoption. Essentially, the bill would require that any person importing dogs or cats from out of state, register with the Department of Agriculture. The registration would cost $100, and there would be a yearly $100 fee. It requires ten days notice before any animal is brought into the state at a public location. This is addressed at transports coming into the state, where people pick up the dogs or cats from the transports.

Various organizations, such as the Connecticut Dog Federation, the Connecticut Veterinary Medical Association, and the Department of Agriculture support this bill, and the intent of the bill is clearly laudable. Specifically, the concerns are that various organizations and transports bring unhealthy dogs into the state. This presents a risk to other dogs in the state, unnecessary financial burdens on the new pet owners and may discourage people from adopting animals in Connecticut’s shelters.

While I haven’t looked at recent numbers, the average number of animals killed in municipal shelters in Connecticut over the past few years has been running in the two to three thousand animals per year. It is worth noting that some southern states have kill rates approaching 100,000 dogs per state per year.

There are some who say that making it more difficult to adopt rescues from out of state will reduce the number of Connecticut dogs that get killed each year. Others maintain that many of the dogs in Connecticut shelters are ‘bully breed’ dogs, especially pit bulls, that are hard to get adopted. They also maintain that a dog adopted is a dog adopted, it doesn’t matter whether you are saving the life of a dog from Connecticut or a dog from Georgia.

There are lots of things that can be done to address these problems; raising awareness of the kill rate in municipalities in Connecticut, making sure dogs are spayed or neutered, and getting people to recognize that bully breed dogs, and particularly pit bulls, can make wonderful pets are important steps.

Meanwhile, quite a battle is developing online about HR 5368. It can perhaps best be seen in messages from the Federation of Responsible Rescues and the Connecticut Dog Federation. The early battle lines can be found in the public testimony about the bill where pet shop owners applauded the bill, but wanted to make sure it didn’t apply to their sources, and CT Votes for Animals opposition to the bill.

Having read through the bill, the testimony, and the Fiscal Notes, I while I like various provisions, I generally oppose this bill and have contacted Gov. Malloy to veto it. While the goals are laudable, the bill does not really do anything to achieve the goals. In fact, the bill has many negative unintended consequences. As an example, if my elderly mother, living in Massachusetts gets to the point where she can no longer care for her pet cats, the way the law is written, if I go to her house, pick them up, and bring them home, without registering with the Department of Agriculture, I am in violation of the act and can be fined $500. That just doesn’t make any sense.

Yet the bigger concern is how this act gets carried out. The fiscal note talks only about possible revenue from the licenses and fines. There is no financial information about costs to the state of implementing, tracking, or enforcing the licensing. This became a concern to me a few years ago, when I tried to get information from the Department of Agriculture about the licensing of pet shops. There was no automated system for accessing this information. At the time, it sounded as if the reports were faxed in, and thrown into a box somewhere without any tracking or organization of the information. Without funding to the Department of Agriculture, I fear the same thing will happen again.

With the lack of funding to properly maintain this, I fear that larger, unscrupulous operations may continue to skirt the intent of the law, and smaller, more responsible organizations may be forced to stop importing dogs.

Currently, we have a dog that was imported from Tennessee by a member of the Federation of Responsible Rescues. While there were some problems and confusion with the transport, the dog had been properly cared for before the trip north and has proven to be a wonderful pet. It is my hope that experiences like ours will not be curtailed by an ineffective effort to curtail some of the less scrupulous importers.