CT - Research animals - § 10a-150e. Offering for adoption of cat or dog used for conducting research or testing |
This Connecticut law (effective 2016) states that an institute of higher education must offer for adoption by an animal adoption or animal rescue organization any cat or dog that that was subject to research or testing after the completion of any such research or testing and the dog or cat is no longer needed. |
CT - Spay and Neuter - Chapter 436A. Animal Population Control |
This set of Connecticut laws provides the state's dog and cat sterilization laws. Under the section, no pound is allowed to sell or give away any unspayed or unneutered dog or cat to any person unless such pound receives $45 from the person buying or adopting such dog or cat. These funds are paid quarterly by the municipality into the animal population control account established under section 22-380g. At the time of receipt of such payment, the pound shall provide a voucher, for the purpose of sterilization and vaccination benefits to the person buying or adopting such dog or cat. The chapter also provides the procedure for a veterinarian to participate in the program and the method by which he or she would be paid. Further, the law states that a town clerk may collect an additional $6 for each license issued pursuant to section 22-338 for an unspayed or unneutered dog. |
CT - Transport, poultry - § 53-249. Cruelty to poultry |
This statute makes it illegal to transport poultry in any manner that is not sanitary, warm, and ventilated. Poultry must receive "reasonable care" to "prevent unnecessary suffering." Violation of this provision is a class D misdemeanor. |
CT - Vehicle - Title 14. Motor Vehicles. Use of the Highway by Vehicles. Gasoline |
Any person who knowingly operates a motor vehicle and causes injury or death to a dog shall stop and render assistance and shall immediately report such injury or death to the dog's owner or the owner's representative. If unable to ascertain and locate such owner or representative, the injury or death shall be reported to a police officer. Violation of any provision of this section shall be an infraction. |
CT - Vehicle - § 14-272b. Transport of dogs in pick-up trucks. Restrictions |
This Connecticut law prohibits any person from transporting a dog in the open bed of a pick-up truck unless the dog is secured in a cage or other container to prevent it from jumping out of the truck. |
CT - Vehicle - § 52-557u. Entering the passenger motor vehicle of another to remove child or animal from vehicle |
This Connecticut law, effective in 2018, gives an affirmative defense to civil or criminal penalties for any person who enters a passenger motor vehicle of another, including entry by force, to remove a child or animal from the passenger motor vehicle provided certain criteria are met. The person must have a reasonable belief that such entry is necessary to remove the child or animal from imminent danger of serious bodily harm and use no more force than necessary under the circumstances. Additionally, the person must report the entry to law enforcement/public safety within a reasonable period of time after entry and must also take reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of the child or animal after removing from the vehicle. |
CT - Veterinary - Chapter 384. Veterinary Medicine |
These are the state's veterinary practice laws. Among the provisions include licensing requirements, laws concerning the state veterinary board, veterinary records laws, and the laws governing disciplinary actions for impaired or incompetent practitioners. |
CT- Pet Shops - Sec. 22-344-21a. Prohibited sales |
This Connecticut regulation lists the animals of which the exhibition, sale or offer for sale by a pet shop is prohibited. The condition in which commercial kennel facilities, pet shops, grooming facilities, training facilities, and animal shelters must be kept are described including sanitation, health requirements, ventilation, and other structural requirements. |
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Haaland |
A small porpoise called the vaquita is on the verge of extinction, largely due to gillnet fishing of the totoaba fish that commonly traps and kills vaquitas as well. This fishing takes place in waters in Mexico’s territory, where the last few vaquitas live. In 2020, under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the United States banned the importation from Mexico of seafood products caught with gillnets inside the vaquita’s range. The Center for Biological Diversity, the Animal Welfare Institute, and the Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Plaintiffs) brought this lawsuit in 2022 against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior Deb Haaland and the U.S. Department of the Interior (Defendants). Plaintiffs argue that Defendants caused an unlawful delay responding to a 2014 letter requesting that Secretary of the Interior certify the embargo against Mexico in order to curb the fishing of the totoaba, as doing otherwise diminished the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) by furthering the extinction of the vaquita. Plaintiffs also requested an order enjoining defendants from further delay in responding to the petition to certify Mexico, and costs and attorneys’ fees associated with the lawsuit. After settlement negotiations took place, parties reached a conditional settlement, and Secretary Haaland certified to the President that the fishing of totoaba by Mexican nationals and related killing of vaquita diminishes the effectiveness of CITES. It remains unclear whether Mexico has made progress in implementing the plan to save the vaquita, whether CITES is being implemented effectively by Mexico, and whether the President will act on the Secretary’s certification. After confirming that the Secretary of the Interior certified Mexico pursuant to the settlement agreement, parties entered into a voluntary dismissal and the court dismissed the lawsuit. |
Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. NSF |
The Center for Biological Diversity sought a temporary restraining order to enjoin the National Science Foundation from continuing its acoustical research in the Gulf of California.
The scientists who conducted the acoustical research in the Gulf of California, which was an environmentally sensitive area, used an array of air guns to fire extremely high-energy acoustic bursts into the ocean. The sound from the air guns was as high as 263 decibels (dB) at the source. The government had acknowledged that 180 dB caused significant injury to marine mammals. The court found that the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), governed the activities of the scientists on the research vessel, and that any injury or harassment to marine mammals in the course of the research project in the Gulf of California, outside the territorial waters of Mexico, would violate the MMPA.
|