An Act Designating The Spring Peeper As The State Amphibian.
Summary
HB 5159 is a short bill that would amend chapter 33 of the Connecticut General Statutes to designate the spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer) as the state amphibian. The measure is purely symbolic and does not create a regulatory program, funding mechanism, or enforcement scheme. Its effect would be to add the spring peeper to the state’s roster of official symbols.
The bill’s practical impact on state law is limited to the official state-symbol provisions in chapter 33. If enacted, it would formally recognize the spring peeper as Connecticut’s amphibian emblem, which could be used in educational, ceremonial, and promotional contexts. No private parties or agencies would face new obligations, and no existing rights or duties appear to be altered beyond the state’s official designation.
Impact
The bill would amend chapter 33 of the general statutes to add the spring peeper as the official state amphibian. It would not materially change substantive law, but it would expand the list of state symbols and could be referenced in schools, state publications, tourism materials, and civic events. The bill does not impose costs, penalties, or administrative requirements on residents, businesses, or state agencies.
Sentiment
The available record suggests little to no controversy around the bill. The only recorded vote is a committee vote-to-draft tally sheet with 0 yeas and 0 nays, and there are no committee transcript excerpts indicating opposition or support. Because the bill is a symbolic designation, the general sentiment appears neutral and procedural rather than partisan or policy-driven.
Contention
There is no documented substantive contention in the provided materials. Any discussion would likely center on whether the spring peeper is an appropriate choice for a state amphibian and whether the legislature should add another official state symbol, but no specific objections or competing proposals are shown in the record. The absence of recorded yeas and nays and the lack of transcripts indicate that no clear factional divide is evident from the available information.