Connecticut House Bill HB07297

Connecticut 2019 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/5/19
• Refer: 3/5/19
• Report Pass: 3/25/19
• Refer: 4/5/19
• Report Pass: 4/11/19
• Engrossed: 6/5/19
• Report Pass: 6/5/19
• Chaptered: 6/26/19
• Enrolled: 6/28/19
• Passed: 7/12/19

Caption

An Act Concerning Quarantine And Disposal Orders Of Animal Control Officers.

Impact

The legislation significantly impacts state laws concerning animal control by formalizing the powers of animal control officers in managing rabies outbreaks. The bill outlines clear guidelines for the management of animals that pose a threat to public health and safety, which is crucial for preventing rabies spread. It emphasizes the responsibility of animal owners to comply with quarantine orders and bear the costs associated with these actions, which may include veterinary care and testing fees.

Summary

House Bill 07297, concerning quarantine and disposal orders by animal control officers, amends existing laws to enhance the state's response to rabies and ensure public safety. The bill authorizes state, municipal, and regional animal control officers to quarantine, control, or euthanize animals as deemed necessary to prevent rabies transmission. It specifies the conditions under which an animal can be quarantined, and sets forth procedures for dealing with animals that have bitten a person, including the circumstances in which euthanasia is appropriate for rabies testing.

Sentiment

Discussion surrounding HB 07297 indicated a generally positive sentiment toward the necessity of robust animal control measures to protect public health. However, concerns were raised regarding the potential for overreach in the powers granted to animal control officers, particularly regarding euthanasia decisions. Proponents argued that the bill is essential for ensuring swift and effective response to rabies exposure risks, while detractors highlighted the need for checks to ensure humane treatment of animals.

Contention

A notable point of contention within the bill concerns the empowerment of animal control officers to euthanize unowned or vaccination-lapsed animals that pose a health risk. This provision raises ethical questions about animal rights and the potential for improper execution of authority. Opponents feared that without stringent oversight, there could be instances of unnecessary euthanasia when less drastic measures could be taken. The balance between public safety and animal welfare remains a significant debate among stakeholders.