Californian law change means pet shops can sell only rescued animals

[JacksinPA]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46717173

California is set to become the first state in the US to ban the sale of non-rescue animals in pet shops.

The new law, known as AB 485, takes effect on 1 January. Any businesses violating it face a $500 (£400) fine.
===========================================
The change means cats, dogs and rabbits sold by retailers cannot be sourced from breeders, only from animal shelters. This is bad news for so-called 'puppy mills' & 'kitten factories.' But it's great news for animal lovers.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

This involves causing suffering to other living things so I am fine with this sort of government intervention.

 

[Cardinal]

I don't know this issue entirely well, though I'll say that it's a positive to diminish the emphasis on selecting purebreds. Purebreds have enormous health issues, and psychologically they tend to be completely nuts. Pushing the emphasis toward rescues will result in healthier animals overall.

 

[ttwtt78640]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46717173

California is set to become the first state in the US to ban the sale of non-rescue animals in pet shops.

The new law, known as AB 485, takes effect on 1 January. Any businesses violating it face a $500 (£400) fine.
===========================================
The change means cats, dogs and rabbits sold by retailers cannot be sourced from breeders, only from animal shelters. This is bad news for so-called 'puppy mills' & 'kitten factories.' But it's great news for animal lovers.

What is a "pet shop" under this law? If one places a "critters for sale" ad online or in the newspaper are they exempt? I assume that "breeders" are not "pet shops" so they could still sell their animals directly. It seems to harm "pet shops" much more than "breeders".

 

[OrphanSlug]

On initial glance this seems like the right effort, but I’m concerned about unintended consequences.

 

[Mason66]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46717173

California is set to become the first state in the US to ban the sale of non-rescue animals in pet shops.

The new law, known as AB 485, takes effect on 1 January. Any businesses violating it face a $500 (£400) fine.
===========================================
The change means cats, dogs and rabbits sold by retailers cannot be sourced from breeders, only from animal shelters. This is bad news for so-called 'puppy mills' & 'kitten factories.' But it's great news for animal lovers.

This is also bad news for any animals currently in inventory. I hate to think what the pet shops will do with those guys.

 

[Xelor]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46717173

California is set to become the first state in the US to ban the sale of non-rescue animals in pet shops.

The new law, known as AB 485, takes effect on 1 January. Any businesses violating it face a $500 (£400) fine.
===========================================
The change means cats, dogs and rabbits sold by retailers cannot be sourced from breeders, only from animal shelters. This is bad news for so-called 'puppy mills' & 'kitten factories.' But it's great news for animal lovers.

It's good news for "small time" AKC (and similar) breeders too.

 

[Xelor]

This is also bad news for any animals currently in inventory. I hate to think what the pet shops will do with those guys.

Transfer them to stores outside of CA.

 

[Cardinal]

On initial glance this seems like the right effort, but I’m concerned about unintended consequences.

I predict the execution of this policy will be initially flawed. I'm not entirely sure why, and the analogy is probably flawed, but I'm reminded of the "rat effect."

"A similar incident occurred in Hanoi, Vietnam, under French colonial rule. The colonial regime created a bounty program that paid a reward for each rat killed. To obtain the bounty, people would provide the severed rat tail. Colonial officials, however, began noticing rats in Hanoi with no tails. The Vietnamese rat catchers would capture rats, lop off their tails, and then release them back into the sewers so that they could procreate and produce more rats, thereby increasing the rat catchers' revenue."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect

 

[Xelor]

On initial glance this seems like the right effort, but I’m concerned about unintended consequences.

Fair enough...What are the most odious unintended consequences that, IYO, portend to be plausible and with high probability pervasive?

 

[Cardinal]

What is a "pet shop" under this law? If one places a "critters for sale" ad online or in the newspaper are they exempt? I assume that "breeders" are not "pet shops" so they could still sell their animals directly. It seems to harm "pet shops" much more than "breeders".

From the article:

"It does not, however, affect sales from private breeders or owner-to-owner sales."

The law really does seem to be targeting pet mills in particular.

 

[Northern Light]

The law is in response to shelters that are constantly overburdened by abandoned pets. It makes no sense that perfectly nice animals are being put down while animals are being pumped out in huge numbers from puppy mills and sold at pet stores.

The law is conscientious.

 

[Mason66]

Transfer them to stores outside of CA.

That is not financially viable.

 

[ttwtt78640]

From the article:

"It does not, however, affect sales from private breeders or owner-to-owner sales."

The law really does seem to be targeting pet mills in particular.

If breeders can no longer sell to pet shops then are they not all immediately transformed into "private breeders"?

 

[Xelor]

That is not financially viable.

Why are inventory transfers not financially viable in the pet industry?

 

[Cardinal]

If breeders can no longer sell to pet shops then are they not all immediately transformed into "private breeders"?

Who? The pet shops?

 

[jimbo]

I don't know this issue entirely well, though I'll say that it's a positive to diminish the emphasis on selecting purebreds. Purebreds have enormous health issues, and psychologically they tend to be completely nuts. Pushing the emphasis toward rescues will result in healthier animals overall.

Some do, some don't. The same is true of rescue dogs.

I'm not convinced that rescue dogs are overall healthier or less nuts. Many of which are there for a reason.

 

[Cardinal]

Some do, some don't. The same is true of rescue dogs.

I'm not convinced that rescue dogs are overall healthier or less nuts. Many of which are there for a reason.

Purebreds have higher incidences of health problems than mixed breeds. It's a systemic issue.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/

 

[EMNofSeattle]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46717173

California is set to become the first state in the US to ban the sale of non-rescue animals in pet shops.

The new law, known as AB 485, takes effect on 1 January. Any businesses violating it face a $500 (£400) fine.
===========================================
The change means cats, dogs and rabbits sold by retailers cannot be sourced from breeders, only from animal shelters. This is bad news for so-called 'puppy mills' & 'kitten factories.' But it's great news for animal lovers.

Another violation of property rights in the People's Socialist Republic of California.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Who? The pet shops?

No - the breeders since they must then sell their animals directly, rather than to pet shops.

 

[Cardinal]

No - the breeders since they must then sell their animals directly, rather than to pet shops.

I don't know. I'm not exactly an expert on the business. I only know about purebreds and their poor health, which is why I was focusing on that aspect.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

From the article:

"It does not, however, affect sales from private breeders or owner-to-owner sales."

The law really does seem to be targeting pet mills in particular.

Yeah but what's the problem with that? They could've passed a law requiring best standards and practices for breeders. Instead they are telling stores they have to source dogs their customers don't want. Because if everyone wanted a rescue dog they'd go to a rescue or pet stores would stock rescue animals with no government force necessary.

 

[X Factor]

Some do, some don't. The same is true of rescue dogs.

I'm not convinced that rescue dogs are overall healthier or less nuts. Many of which are there for a reason.

Yeah, and by and large that “reason” is idiot owners.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Purebreds have higher incidences of health problems than mixed breeds. It's a systemic issue.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...can-be-best-in-show-are-they-worst-in-health/

Nature does not tolerate extended dalliances with "purity". That is a universal truth that extends not only to genetics but to art, literature, music, and even economics.

Purity is poison.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Another violation of property rights in the People's Socialist Republic of California.

Well, thankfully you won't have to worry about it in Grapeview.
I wonder if Grapeview got so tired of you being such a malcontent that they told you to go take a hike.
Is that why you're constantly trying to tell Californians how to live?

I have a great idea! Why not tell a bunch of Texans how to take care of their lives.