Back on March 14, 2024, the Greenwich Board of Selectmen first considered an ordinance recommended by the Humane Society of the US to ban traveling circuses with specific wild animal species.
At the time, First Selectman Fred Camillo said Annie Hornish of the Humane Society’s CT Chapter had approached him about the possible ordinance.
At that March meeting Laura Hagen, the Humane Society’s Director of Trafficked Wildlife, said, “It’s clear that life in a traveling show is nothing but misery for these animals.”
Hagen said nowadays people don’t want to see these shows in their communities, and the desire has translated into public policy.
She said eight states and 200 + localities across the country had already banned these type of acts, including Stamford and Bridgeport in Connecticut.
Ringling Bros and Barnum & Bailey Circus “Greatest Show on Earth,” who performed with wild animals for over 150 years, dropped all their animal acts in 2023.
Two Greenwich residents recalled traveling acts with wild animals visited Greenwich in the 1970’s and early 1980s.
Despite it having been decades since wild animals performed in traveling circuses in Greenwich, the ordinance was framed as closing a loophole.
“While states and localities are taking action on the issue, it’s important to close every door that remains open to these types of exhibits,” Hagen said.
At their May 9 meeting, the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously 3-0 to approve the ordinance.
From there, the ordinance would need approval of the 230-member Representative Town Meeting, and the Sept 16 RTM agenda includes the proposed ordinance as item 17 on the call.
However, there have been signals that the ordinance may not pass at RTM.
On Friday morning State Representative Steve Meskers (D-150), noted during a radio interview with Tony Savino on WGCH 1490am that the RTM’s time was valuable, and described the ordinance as “feel good legislation.”
Later that morning, during his call-in radio show on WGCH 1490am, Fred Camillo said he knew the ordinance would not pass.
“It’s clear that people don’t want to put that into place right now,” Camillo said. “I will thank the RTM for considering it.”
Mr. Savino wondered why the RTM would not want to take it up.
Camillo said the proposal was partly symbolic, but also partly reality-based.
“Right now someone with a lot of money and some acreage in back country, who wants to give their kid a party with some exotic animals – they can do it. We can’t stop it,” Camillo said. “And if there is an attack, of course government will jump in and be reactive. We were trying to be proactive.”
On Sunday, Kim Blank a member of RTM in district 7, submitted an email to the all-230 RTM distribution saying she opposed item 17 on the Sept 16 call.
She said she 0bject to the ordinance because, “It doesn’t solve a real problem for constituents.”
“…a more likely danger is from exotic animal pets who live in our community and which are not addressed by this ordinance,” she wrote.
Second, she said, instead of solving a problem, the ordinance would create hassle and potential costs for enforcement.
“The list of banned animals is not intuitive,” she wrote. “It is based on some people’s idiosyncratic perceptions of which animals are appropriate to use for performances and which aren’t. Any time someone wants to book a performance for a private event they will need to refer to this list and make sure that the performers don’t bring any prohibited animals. Moreover, how is the town supposed to enforce this with any consistency? I don’t want my tax dollars spent policing birthday parties or elementary school events.”
“Some people feel it is wrong to eat any animal products or to wear leather or fur. Others feel that strays should never be euthanized,” she added, possibly hinting at the draft ordinance addressing keepers of feral cats in town.
“Some people find animal performances entertaining; others feel that they are per se cruel,” Ms Blank continued. “Without broad consensus, we should not step into the role of morality police and impose our own personal views on our fellow townspeople.”
Ms Blank added that she believed ordinances should arise organically from the citizenry, and the proposed ordinance was from an outside group that had been unable to pass the law at the state level.
She described the situation as “an example of a bad trend of external interest groups taking up RTM time to advance their own agendas.”
Finally, she said, the process for debating and amending ordinances is very cumbersome, and the RTM’s time would be better spent on more vital issues or on shorter meetings.
Monday’s RTM meeting will take place at Central Middle School, but can be viewed via Zoom starting at 8:00pm.
Click here for Zoom link to RTM meeting on Sept 16, 2024 at 8:00pm.
###
See also:
Proposed Ordinance Would Ban Traveling Circuses with Wild Animals March 17, 2024
*ITEM 17 on the call is, “Amend Code Chapter 4, Health to add Article 12 – Traveling Animal Act
Item 17. To consider and act upon the following resolution.
WHEREAS, to prohibit the performance of certain animals in traveling animal acts; RESOLVED, that the Representative Town Meeting amend Chapter 4, Health to add a new Article 12 as follows:
ARTICLE 12 Traveling Animal Acts
1. 4-143 Purpose.
– The provisions of this Article shall have the intent of promoting the health, safety, and welfare of the Town’s inhabitants; preventing animal cruelty and detriment to animal welfare; and protecting the local environment.
2. 4-144 Definitions.
• As used in this Article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated:
(a) Covered animal means any of the following animals, and hybrids thereof:
(A) The following Artiodactyla: giraffe, Bactrian camel, dromedary camel, pygmy hippo;
(B) Canidae, including any hybrids thereof, but excluding domestic dogs;
(C) Crocodilia;
(D) The following Elasmobranchii: lemon sharks, nurse sharks, rays:
(E) Elephantidae;
(F) Felidae, including any hybrids thereof, but excluding domestic cats;
(G) The following marsupialia: kangaroo, wallaby;
(H) Non-human primate;
(I) Otter;
(J) Perissodactyla, excluding domestic horses, ponies, donkeys, or mules;
(K) Pinnipedia;
(L) The following Procyonidae; coatimundi, kinkajou, raccoon;
(M) Skunk;
(N) The following ratites: ostrich, emu
(O) The following Rodentia: capybara, Patagonian cavy;
(P) Sea lion;
(Q) Sloth;
(R) Ursidae;
(S) The following Viverridae: binturong, civet, genet; and
(T) Zebra
(b) Mobile or traveling house facility means a transporting vehicle such as a truck, trailer or railway car, used to
transport or house animals while traveling for exhibition or other performance.
(c) Performance means any exhibition, public showing, presentation, display, exposition, fair, animal act, circus,
ride, trade show, petting zoo, carnival, parade, race, or similar undertaking in which animals are required to
perform tricks, give rides, or participate as accompaniments for the entertainment, amusement, or benefit of a
live audience.
(d) Traveling animal act means any performance of animals where such animals are transported to, from, or between locations for the purpose of such performance, in a mobile or traveling housing facility.
3. 4-145 Prohibition
(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall allow for the participation of a covered animal in a traveling animal act.
(2) This section shall not apply to a performance that takes place at a non-mobile, permanent institution or other fixed facility, provided that the covered animal is not transported to such location for the purpose of such performance.
(3) This section shall not prevent any animal that is traveling through the Town of Greenwich from receiving necessary veterinary care.
4. 4-146 Penalties.
(a) Unless otherwise provided, any person who violates any provision of this Article shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each violation.
(b) It shall be the responsibility of the offender to abate the violation as ordered by the Director. Each day’s violation shall be deemed a separate offense.
5. 4-147 Severability.
If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Article should be declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, for any reason whatsoever, such decision shall not affect the remaining portions of this Article, which shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this Article are hereby declared severable.
Section 2. This Article shall become effective six (6) months after its approval by the Representative Town
Meeting.