STAMFORD — A veto late Friday by Mayor Caroline Simmons of what would have been the state’s first municipal ban on the sale of dogs and cats sourced from large-scale commercial breeders ignited criticism from animal advocates and civic leaders who worked to secure passage of the ordinance.
The ban, which was intended to curb the sale of animals from so-called “puppy mills” and “kitty mills” where breeding practices often prioritize profit over animal welfare, garnered overwhelming support from the Board of Representatives at its last regular meeting of the year on Nov. 5.
The 35-1-1 vote reflected what appeared to be strong public backing, with Rep. Carl Weinberg casting the only “no” vote and Rep. Amiel Goldberg casting the only vote of abstention. Rep. James Grunberger was absent from the Nov. 5 meeting, and Reps. David Blank and Chanta Graham were on hand for the start of the meeting but no longer present at the time of the vote.
Still, with the mayor vetoing the ordinance and a new Board of Representatives taking office, the proposal appears to be on political life support.
Animal advocates meanwhile are questioning whether opposition to the measure properly reflects the balance of power between state and local government or the public will.
In a statement accompanying her veto, Simmons said she supported efforts to bar the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits in pet shops. However, according to her interpretation of state law, the city cannot enact a ban on its own unless the state legislature passes a law explicitly authorizing it to do so.
Nina Sherwood, whose term on the Board of Representatives and as board president ended in November, disputed that interpretation of the law. She pointed to municipal laws such as plastic bag bans and other regulations affecting firearms, land use, and housing that frequently exceed state standards without legal challenge from the state. She suggested that rules limiting pet sales were no different.
Annie Hornish, Connecticut state director of Humane World for Animals, said she was “deeply disappointed” by the mayor’s veto as well.
Both she and Sherwood suggested that the mayor’s veto was rooted not in legal concerns but in political pressure from state-level lobbyists and officials opposed to any regulation of pet sales.
They noted that just a week before the Board of Representatives voted on the proposed ordinance, a city attorney – Michael Thoma – confirmed that a lawyer from the state Department of Agriculture had warned the city it would sue if the ordinance was approved. His statement was recorded on video and confirmed by CT Examiner.
Hornish said it wasn’t the first time officials from the Department of Agriculture had objected to a proposal such this, but she said it’s the first instance she’s aware of that state officials threatened a municipality with litigation over the issue.
“This is unheard of,” Hornish said. “Usually, lawsuits such as this come from pet store owners, not from the state itself.”
Asked whether she was aware of any direct contact between the Board of Representatives and industry lobbyists or state officials on the issue, Sherwood said no, but suggested the pressure from above was less direct.
“They don’t have relationships with us,” Sherwood said. “They’re not serving us meals or taking us out to lunch or coming to our offices. Where they are doing that is in Hartford, and they’re in everybody’s face including the governor and probably [Attorney General] William Tong. And because the mayor of Stamford is very close to Lamont, she uses the city’s lawyers to come to the Board of Representatives and try to put pressure on us.”
Lamont, who was in Norwalk for a press conference on affordable housing Monday, told CT Examiner he’d need more information and would have to review the specific ordinance before he could comment on the matter, but declined to distance himself or his administration from threats of legal action by lawyers for the Department of Agriculture.
Sherwood, however, said when she pressed Thoma, the city attorney, to cite a state statute prohibiting a municipal ban on dog and cat sales, he was unable to do so. “I literally said to him, ‘I’m looking at the state statutes. Can you please point out to me the section of the statutes that supports your position that we cannot do this?’” she recalled. “And he paused for a moment and then said there’s no specific statute that says we can’t.”
Hornish said her sense of external pressure being brought to bear on Simmons was reinforced when, in the days leading up to the veto, the mayor reached out to her directly and implied to her that the state could come after the city legally if the ordinance took effect.
The recent opening of a pet store in Danbury, attended by Danbury Mayor and State Democratic Chair Roberto Alves and State Sen. Julie Kushner, D-24th Dist., accelerated calls for local restrictions, Hornish said.
Still, Hornish said, “the primary goal is to protect animals, not regulate businesses.”
Hornish expressed concern that the veto in Stamford could slow momentum for similar regulations in other municipalities including Danbury, where she said Humane World for Animals is actively supporting similar efforts.
Hornish stressed the importance of immediate local action, noting that municipal ordinances can have an immediate impact while state legislation can take years to pass and be subject to political compromises that weaken animal welfare protections.
She also worried that existing stores could end up grandfathered under proposed state legislation.
Sherwood echoed her concerns.
“There’s a lot of pressure in Hartford to not regulate the sale of dogs and cats and to allow the status quo, which is unacceptable to most residents in the state of Connecticut,” Sherwood said. “Unfortunately, the mayor is choosing the side of the insiders and lobbyists. And frankly, she should be embarrassed.”
Simmons agreed to speak to CT Examiner on Monday afternoon prior to publication of this story, but as of 5 p.m., no one had called back.
—
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this story stated that Simmons recently attended the opening of a pet store in Stamford, that is incorrect. The opening was in Danbury and attended by Danbury Mayor Roberto Alves.