CT Pet Importers Charged for Violating State Law

The shelter manager and the executive director of the Little Guild of St. Francis animal shelter in CT were each charged with eight counts of failure to maintain examination records and eight counts of importing pets without health certificates. The women reportedly traveled regularly to out of state shelters to obtain animals.

The charges stem from an investigation by the state which alleges that some of the imported shelter pets were sick, others were not vaccinated for rabies.  Both women had spoken with police about the state laws regarding animal importation multiple times and had the requirements explained to them.  They allegedly told police they would stop importing animals in violation of the law.  A written warning was issued to them in October.

Following their arrests, the shelter manager resigned and the executive director is planning to resign.  They are due to enter their pleas in court on December 1.

(Thanks Clarice.)

6 thoughts on “CT Pet Importers Charged for Violating State Law

  1. I’m interested in hearing their side of their pet importation practices. If the imported pets (imported from out of state, not out of the country) were examined and vaccinated upon import and prior to adopting out, I can’t criticize them. Sometimes the exporting shelter or rescue gives verbal promises about the health of the animals and then the receiving shelter finds out otherwise later–when it’s too late and they’ve already committed to rescuing the animals and have sent drivers there, often long distances, to retrieve them. It’s a risk some are willing to take to save lives. Perhaps the receiving shelter should develop a relationship with a vet in the state where the pets originate so they can be examined and vaccinated before taking them out of that state. In the end, it’s the pets’ lives that matter.

  2. Excellent! About time the Retail Re$cue dog traffickers were regulated just like any other animal dealer.
    Groups like THAT make it more difficult for groups doing the REAL work, with minimal resources.

    1. Adrianne, I’m curious: Why do you call them “traffickers” if they’re pulling dogs from another shelter that would otherwise euthanize them for lack of adopters? If they can get them into good homes in CT, what’s wrong with that? I checked out their FB page, which says its an animal shelter that has been around for 50 yrs, they hold fund raisers (so they obviously aren’t swimming in money) and they host vaccine clinics. Not defending them, but not bashing them, either, since little is known yet about who they are and how they operate.

      1. PETA, ASPCA, and HSUS all hold fund raisers. You cannot tell me they aren’t “swimming in money”. I don’t know anything about this group’s funds. However, the fact they hold fund raisers doesn’t mean they are hurting for money or honest. The three groups I mentioned also throw token vaccine clinics and low cost alteration out there once in a blue moon. Just when they need positive press to bury the latest horror show they took part in.

        What effort (if any) was there to reunite the animals with their owners? There have been groups that take animals out of state when no true effort has been made to reunite. Worse, some transported knowing damn well who the owner was.

        Further, what effort was there to adopt them out locally? Again, there are many groups that raise money to transport animals that could have easily found homes where they were. Also, are we to believe there are ZERO animals dying for homes in CT? If not, they have no business bringing in more animals. Please look at the Michigan Humane Society if you want prime examples of anything I am referring to.

        Again, I know nothing about this group or the people behind it. But the things you point to as evidence of them being upstanding really mean nothing.

    2. Adrianne, these are not the people who drive up with a van full of dogs that they proceed to sell in parking lots. This is a legitimate rescue, actually going to other states to help save animals. “Retail Rescue dog traffickers” simply is inaccurate.

      1. Assuming they are a legitimate rescue, they would have more credibility as such if they conducted their operation in accordance with the law. Especially after having been counseled by officials about requirements. Is it common practice for shelters/rescues in Connecticut to ignore laws aimed at protecting animal health?

Leave a Reply