The Middletown Press (Middletown, CT)
Reps to hear conflicing legal views
STAMFORD — Dueling legal opinions have emerged over a proposal to ban the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores.
A Board of Representatives committee was set to vote on the proposal last month after a crowded, contentious public hearing, but the meeting ended when Director of Legal Affairs Kathryn Emmett said she’d received a call from an attorney with the Connecticut Department of Agriculture.
The attorney said the city might not have the authority to ban pet sales because such an ordinance could preempt state law, Emmett told the Legislative & Rules Committee.
The members held their vote on the ban and asked Emmett to give them a legal opinion.
Emmett’s staff has found that the city cannot prohibit Stamford pet stores from selling dogs and cats.
But the Humane Society of the United States also has weighed in, providing the committee with an opposite opinion.
Committee members will consider the arguments when they meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Democratic Caucus Room on the fourth floor of the Stamford Government Center, 888 Washington Blvd. If an ordinance eventually passes, Stamford will become the first city in the state to prohibit retail sales of dogs and cats.
According to the opinion from Emmett’s office, the state Legislature may reserve exclusive jurisdiction over an entire subject area, such as pet stores, which prevents cities from acting in that area.
Generally there is no problem if a city simply seeks to strengthen a prohibition already imposed by the state.
There is a problem, however, if a city seeks to prohibit something the state allows, or allow something the state prohibits.
In this case, the state, by its regulation of pet shops, authorizes the retail sale of dogs and cats, according to the law department opinion. By banning such sales, Stamford would prohibit what the state allows and preempt state law, which it cannot do.
The Humane Society of the United States offered the Legislative & Rules Committee a different opinion. It says state law recognizes a city’s authority to require licensing for dog breeders, which arguably gives a city the authority to regulate retail sales of dogs.
More, cities have the authority to regulate the keeping of animals, prevent cruelty, prohibit actions that harm the public health and safety, and regulate businesses that harm citizens, the HSUS opinion says.
Because animals sold in pet stores come from puppy mills, which breed them in substandard conditions, Stamford would prevent cruelty by banning sales, the opinion says, and a ban would protect the public health because puppies can sicken humans.
The HSUS cites an outbreak last year of antibiotic-resistant Campylobactor infection, which sickened 113 people, including two from Connecticut, who had contact with pet-store puppies. A ban would be consistent with a city’s police powers to do what it must to protect public health, its opinion says.
Because consumers often don’t know the true origin and condition of pet-store animals, a ban would be consistent with a city’s authority to regulate businesses to protect consumers, it says. It concludes that a ban would merely enlarge upon existing state law.
Emmett said Monday she will attend Tuesday’s meeting to answer representatives’ questions.
A subject that might come up is the board’s approval in 2016 of a ban on the sale of bunnies, chicks and ducklings less than 8 weeks old during the month before Easter. The grown animals, which can live up to 20 years, were ending up at the Animal Control Center or with rescue groups that struggled to find them new homes. Many died.
That ban is different because the state already prohibits the sale of chickens and ducks younger than three months, and the rabbit sale prohibition is limited, Emmett said.
“You can buy a bunny that’s nine weeks or older, or you can buy one at another time,” Emmett said. “I don’t know that it’s in conflict with state statute. It’s more specific than state statute.”
During representatives’ last meeting on the pet store ban, opponents said it would hurt businesses and drive potential pet owners to unregulated sources. Connecticut has warranty protections for those who buy from pet stores, they said, and stores are allowed to sell only animals from breeders with good reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which regulates breeders.
But proponents of a ban, including the HSUS and other groups, said puppy mills and kitten factories, which supply nearly all pet stores and online retailers, are a serious problem in the United States. Parent animals live in small, stacked wire cages and offspring are not properly bred or socialized, and are prone to disease and illness, they said.
USDA standards are bare minimum and do not ensure a humane existence, they said. Breeders licensed by the USDA continue sell to pet stores even after they are cited for serious violations, they said, and the underfunded, understaffed USDA no longer publicizes breeder inspection reports, so there is no way to check for violations.
Stamford state Rep. David Michel, D-146, said last month that one-tenth of the approximately 120 pet stores in Connecticut, including one in Stamford, sell dogs and cats. Michel was among those who tried unsuccessfully to pass a statewide ban during the last legislative session.
About 330 U.S. towns and cities in 25 states have banned pet-store sales of puppies and kittens, according to Best Friends Animal Society, a nationwide animal welfare organization with members in Stamford. Two states, Maryland and California, have enacted bans.
In New York, six municipalities, including Port Chester, Rye Brook and New Rochelle in the Stamford area, have banned pet store sales. So have 122 municipalities in New Jersey.
What’s different in Connecticut?
“Bans have been enacted only where states have authorized municipalities to do so,” Emmett said. “If Connecticut didn’t regulate pet stores at all, (Stamford) wouldn’t be in conflict with anything.”
acarella@stamford advocate.com; 203-964-2296.