Citing a pending state task force inquiry into retail sale of puppies in Connecticut and the end of this Representative Town Meeting (RTM) in only two more sessions, the full RTM in a bi-partisan vote removed the puppy mill issue from its calendar to await another day.
Many members of the RTM said the issue was absolutely not dead. It would be revived once a new RTM is elected in November and once a state task force presented its findings in January.
Rep. Doug Hanlon, a Democrat from Short Beach, said at Wednesday night’s RTM meeting that after the state task force announced its findings, “I volunteer to serve on an ad hoc committee.”
The RTM meeting was held at the firehouse. The puppy mill topic, the last item on the agenda, brought the most discussion.
David Baker (pictured above), the Democratic majority leader, began the discussion by saying he would vote no on the issue primarily because a state task force, which has the resources to investigate the issue, would be holding a parallel inquiry. “If the majority votes with me, we will remove it from the call [the calendar].” In the end, Baker won.
At the last meeting of the R& O Committee on July 2nd, more than 200 people from the pet community and All Pets Club, which sells retail puppies, often from out-of-state puppy mills, came to speak on a proposed ordinance that would ban the retail sale of puppies, kittens and rabbits in Branford. The only retail store in Branford that sells retail animals is All Pets Club. Click here to read the story.
At the same time, members of lobbying groups and members of the humane society discussed a task force that will take testimony on this issue. Other cities, including Los Angeles, have adopted similar laws banning the retail sale of dogs, cats and rabbits.
Republican Peter Black (standing), who attended the R & O meeting, said it was his impression that those on both sides of the issue expected the RTM to convene an ad hoc committee and to have the public speak at hearings.
“Our credibility of the town meeting is on the line. We are also the town meeting,” he said, adding that many members of the public wanted another opportunity to speak on the issue. Because there were more than 200 people in the room on July 2nd, and the deputy fire commissioner ruled the room was too crowded and people had to leave, Acting Chair Maggie Bruno suggested that night that an ad hoc committee might be empaneled to hold hearings.
She noted at last night’s meeting that she made no promises.
What also loomed large was the fact that this 30-member RTM must stand for re-election this November. Some plan to run again; some do not. In the end, whatever ad hoc committee was convened would be dissolved by law at the end of October, the last month this elected RTM meets. It is not clear the Cosgrove Animal Commission,which proposed the ordinance, understood fully how the RTM works.
Rep. Adam Hansen (pictured), who recently chaired an ad hoc committee into the future of gun shops in Branford, noted that his committee spent an enormous amount of time on the issue and held two public hearings. Referring to the puppy mills issue he said: “I am fearful that if we keep it going our time and effort notwithstanding will likely die at the end of this RTM session. This takes a long time to do.”
Republican Dennis Flanagan, the longtime clerk of the RTM, said “it doesn’t make a lot of sense” for the R&O Committee to look into this issue if the state is doing so. R& O would have “no jurisdiction,” he said.
Rep. Richard Greenalch, Jr., an attorney, at first said he would vote to re-refer the matter back to the R&O Committee, a position voiced by several of his colleagues. He said it was important that the R&O “listen to the people.” But as he was speaking he realized the time constraints. He noted there was “not a lot we can do before the state task forces takes action in January. “And we (the RTM) are effectively done by the November meeting. This RTM won’t be able to do anything this session.”
“No. we can’t take any action. It is too late to even form an ad hoc committee. Reluctantly I will vote not to refer back to committee.”
He and other RTM members said the people in town should know that the RTM will return to the issue in December or January, when the [state] report will be ready. In the interest of the process I will vote against sending it back to committee. I feel bad doing it” he said, noting the RTM had to face the fact that its session as elected leaders was ending.
Rep. Baker observed that the RTM had to be wise in knowing what issues it could take up at this juncture. “Let us not be disingenuous. We can’t do anything about this this term.”
Rep. Mary Davis, the Democratic chair of R&O, said it was important to remember “who we are. We are an important town, but one of 169 towns and our population is under 30,000. We are a drop in the bucket. We have to wait. The state has to speak,” she said, adding she would vote to remove the item from the call.
Rep. Hansen said this wasn’t easy. “The general public is going to mis-perceive our intentions,” he said, but he urged the public to understand the timing issue. “We are taking your concerns and proposals extremely seriously. At the start of the next RTM session, we will be 150 percent going forward.”
###
The proponents of this measure have a good heart, caring about the welfare and treatment of dogs so much. But their proposal is misguided. The can't just shut down a large business in the town like that.
The puppies at All Pets are fine, and well-cared for by a dedicated staff. The store manager is a very decent and caring person, who is a dog lover himself.
What these activists are really trying to do is get at heartless and disreputable out-of-state breeding mills that mistreat the dogs who sire and give birth to puppies then sold out-of-state.
First, they need, but have, no evidence that the puppies at All Pets come from such breeders. Second, maybe town officials can explore for a workable way to ensure that All Pets only sells puppies from out-of-state breeders who have been inspected and approved by officials in their states?
.