• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Californian law change means pet shops can sell only rescued animals

Cardinal said:
I'm pretty sure I had to fill out more paperwork for adopting my pet from a shelter than I did for applying for a loan to buy a house.

There's a two part benefit to all that paperwork, actually. Sure, it's about screening out bad pet owners, but the practice is also self-screening. Answering all those penetrating questions about your willingness to take care of a pet forces you to ask whether you're actually up to the task of taking care of a pet.

A lot of people go into adopting a pet like they're trying out new curtains. They don't really consider that these living things are going to be their friends.
Click to expand...

Good point... the screening process also educates would-be pet owners.

Really, the pet store vs. shelter system is based on a really old paradigm of pet ownership, back when we viewed animals as just objects, when now we know better. The law seems to partially rectify that.

If this even increases pet adoption by 10%, it would breathe new life into an incredibly overburdened system. It would also prevent a lot of suffering from being inflicted by idiot pet owners.
 
My city started this a few years ago. I say it's B.S. And, I suspect I'll catch some flack about my opinion here.

What the hell exactly is being banned, here? And why? If there's a problem with canine over-population, address that. If there's irresponsible breeders, address that. At the source.

But don't beat on us dog lovers that prefer pure-breads. I've had dogs all my life, usually - but not only - pure-bread. I've bought from both private breeders, and from pet stores. It's been about 50/50 for me.

I believe I'm as much or more responsible than most. So if there's a problem here, I suggest attacking it at the source, rather than in a manner that affects those like me.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I mean if California wasn't in the same country as me and we could control the movement of californians with visas and immigration restrictions I wouldn't care at all.
Click to expand...

That works both ways, you know. You must be very unhappy being so far away from Idaho, or at least Spokane.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
The default in a free land full of free people is that people can have what they want.
Click to expand...

We've seen what happens when we let people have whatever they want: massive consumer waste, suffering, and needless loss of life. The whole planet is feeling it. Our oceans are filling up with plastic garbage.

When humans procreate they are responsible for their offspring. Having a pet is no different. They aren't a piece of furniture. You don't just get to "want them" and then let society deal with the consequences when you no longer want them anymore.

The law was obviously created in response to a crisis. Materialism and pet ownership are not compatible.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
That works both ways, you know. You must be very unhappy being so far away from Idaho, or at least Spokane.
Click to expand...

in about two years I'm going to move to AZ or Florida or Michigan, so no problem.
 
Chomsky said:
My city started this a few years ago. I say it's B.S. And, I suspect I'll catch some flack about my opinion here.

What the hell exactly is being banned, here? And why? If there's a problem with canine over-population, address that. If there's irresponsible breeders, address that. At the source.
Click to expand...

Why should people, in a democracy, be limited to actions directed at breeders? Should we limit our drug laws so that they only affect those who grow poppies or weed?
But don't beat on us dog lovers that prefer pure-breads. I've had dogs all my life, usually - but not only - pure-bread. I've bought from both private breeders, and from pet stores. It's been about 50/50 for me.

I believe I'm as much or more responsible than most. So if there's a problem here, I suggest attacking it at the source, rather than in a manner that affects those like me.
Click to expand...

pure breeds will continue to be available under this law
 
Chomsky said:
My city started this a few years ago. I say it's B.S. And, I suspect I'll catch some flack about my opinion here.

What the hell exactly is being banned, here? And why? If there's a problem with canine over-population, address that. If there's irresponsible breeders, address that. At the source.

But don't beat on us dog lovers that prefer pure-breads. I've had dogs all my life, usually - but not only - pure-bread. I've bought from both private breeders, and from pet stores. It's been about 50/50 for me.

I believe I'm as much or more responsible than most. So if there's a problem here, I suggest attacking it at the source, rather than in a manner that affects those like me.
Click to expand...

Maybe the issue of overburdened shelters and the wholesale slaughter of millions of perfectly good pets at those shelters was thought to outweigh the issues of a few purebred aficionados, who can still obtain any purebred they want by dealing directly with private breeders.
They just might not be able to do it through pet shops anymore, that's all.

So I am sorry but I fail to see the problem as being insurmountable.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Then what's the point? People will just go to breeders to buy puppies. Pet stores will go out of business. It feels like government is getting too involved.

I have the same philosophy about drug laws and many other laws. I favor government spending money on ad campaigns to persuade people rather than using laws and coercing people. Laws are just never perfect. There are always instances where they lead to injustice. We have too many laws in this country. That's why we have so many people in prison.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what happened in my city when they did this. It forces the dog & puppy stores out of business.
 
Chomsky said:
My city started this a few years ago. I say it's B.S. And, I suspect I'll catch some flack about my opinion here.

What the hell exactly is being banned, here? And why? If there's a problem with canine over-population, address that. If there's irresponsible breeders, address that. At the source.

But don't beat on us dog lovers that prefer pure-breads. I've had dogs all my life, usually - but not only - pure-bread. I've bought from both private breeders, and from pet stores. It's been about 50/50 for me.

I believe I'm as much or more responsible than most. So if there's a problem here, I suggest attacking it at the source, rather than in a manner that affects those like me.
Click to expand...

I'll say that a professional breeder is probably a lot more likely to raise healthier purebreds than a puppy mill, so I'm not totally coming down on purebreds.* Keep in mind that the law really targets a segment of the population that may not care one way or the other, and would be just as happy with a mixed breed as a purebred. These people don't know anything about purebreds, their higher incidence of health problems and how to research good breeders. They just want a damn pet. Other people who absolutely need to have their purebreds can still go to a private breeder.

Also keep in mind that everything I've been saying about the law has been from the theoretical. I like the intention of the law but have no idea how it will be executed and whether there'll be negative unintended consequences. Since you don't have to argue from the theoretical like I do, can you tell us how your city executed the policy and whether there were any negative outcomes?



*That said, we've had purebreds from professional breeders and every single one of them were completely nuts and had health problems that ended their lives prematurely.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Yup. It starts with moving people to adopt rescue animals and it ends with Soylent Green.
Click to expand...

Our government is always grabbing for more power for itself, where that ends we know.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
Our government is always grabbing for more power for itself, where that ends we know.
Click to expand...

California's law will end with everybody induced into a coma state and plugged into machines to supply power like in The Matrix.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Maybe the issue of overburdened shelters and the wholesale slaughter of millions of perfectly good pets at those shelters was thought to outweigh the issues of a few purebred aficionados, who can still obtain any purebred they want by dealing directly with private breeders.
They just might not be able to do it through pet shops anymore, that's all.

So I am sorry but I fail to see the problem as being insurmountable.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it's insurmountable, but it's imposing a hardship on the innocent rather than addressing the problem at it's source.

And I'm not sure "a few" purebred aficionados is an accurate description. I don't know if those numbers are so small, from what I see in the dog parks. And even if they were, so what?

If the problem is owners not being realistic when adopting, or then abandoning, then go after them.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
I wouldn't count on FL or MI for very much longer but I imagine you will be very happy in Arpaio-Land.
Click to expand...

Florida is more R then Arizona right now.

In any event. I have no problem with a state where the democratic party is healthy, healthy competition prevents corruption and stagnation. I love how the FL Republican party has been able to incorporate the Hispanic community into it as well and the National Party needs to take notice. The Florida GOP is maybe the strongest state level party in the Country.
 
Chomsky said:
I'm not saying it's insurmountable, but it's imposing a hardship on the innocent rather than addressing the problem at it's source.

And I'm not sure "a few" purebred aficionados is an accurate description. I don't know if those numbers are so small, from what I see in the dog parks. And even if they were, so what?

If the problem is owners not being realistic when adopting, or then abandoning, then go after them.
Click to expand...

I'm really just not seeing the problem here. The non-purebred-aficionados are going to be just as happy with their rescue animals, people will have to go through a more thorough process to determine if they should even have a pet at all, puppy mills are put out of business and millions of animals get adopted that would have otherwise been put down.

The people who run puppy mills can go on to become telemarketers or mosquito breeders or whatever else they want to do to add misery to the planet.
 
Xelor said:
Transfer them to stores outside of CA.

cabse5 said:
Yeah. I'm sure pet shops will absorb the cost.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

??? What are you talking about?
  • Do you have any idea of what an intercompany transfer is?
    • The cost of the transfer would have to be so high that executing the transfer eliminates the possibility of making a profit by selling the inventory to a customer, third-party non-wholesale buyer of such inventoriable items.
  • Do you realize that in the retail industry a transfer is not a sale?
  • Do you understand that a sale of obsolete inventory to another business occurs at a discounted price?
 
Cardinal said:
I'll say that a professional breeder is probably a lot more likely to raise healthier purebreds than a puppy mill, so I'm not totally coming down on purebreds.*
Click to expand...

California is a state that has very specific laws and regulations that govern professional breeders.

Operating outside these laws defines that operation as a puppy mill or cat mill, and subjects the involved parties to criminal prosecution, so the main target of this new law is to reduce the burdens of animal shelters, and to shore up deficiencies in the breeder regulations, and to handle the flow of disowned pets from irresponsible owners.

I am not attempting to say that this law is perfect or that it will not impact pet shop owners, as it well might affect some of them.
I am not attempting to say that this is even remotely perfect.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
California is a state that has very specific laws and regulations that govern professional breeders.

Operating outside these laws defines that operation as a puppy mill or cat mill, and subjects the involved parties to criminal prosecution, so the main target of this new law is to reduce the burdens of animal shelters, and to shore up deficiencies in the breeder regulations, and to handle the flow of disowned pets from irresponsible owners.

I am not attempting to say that this law is perfect or that it will not impact pet shop owners, as it well might affect some of them.
I am not attempting to say that this is even remotely perfect.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody claimed it would be perfect (how many laws have accomplished a perfect outcome?), but I definitely see it as an improvement to a large, systemic problem.

Your post has me wondering whether the breeders my parents got their animals from were well regulated. Unfortunately I have no idea.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
Then what's the point? People will just go to breeders to buy puppies. Pet stores will go out of business. It feels like government is getting too involved.

I have the same philosophy about drug laws and many other laws. I favor government spending money on ad campaigns to persuade people rather than using laws and coercing people. Laws are just never perfect. There are always instances where they lead to injustice. We have too many laws in this country. That's why we have so many people in prison.
Click to expand...

So often buying a pet at a pet store is an impulse because they’re just so dang cute, until you get them home and they chew holes in your carpet and make noise. At least in seeking out and contacting a breeder, it isn’t an impulse by the time you finally see a puppy.
 
Cardinal said:
I'll say that a professional breeder is probably a lot more likely to raise healthier purebreds than a puppy mill, so I'm not totally coming down on purebreds.* Keep in mind that the law really targets a segment of the population that may not care one way or the other, and would be just as happy with a mixed breed as a purebred. These people don't know anything about purebreds, their higher incidence of health problems and how to research good breeders. They just want a damn pet. Other people who absolutely need to have their purebreds can still go to a private breeder.

Also keep in mind that everything I've been saying about the law has been from the theoretical. I like the intention of the law but have no idea how it will be executed and whether there'll be negative unintended consequences. Since you don't have to argue from the theoretical like I do, can you tell us how your city executed the policy and whether there were any negative outcomes?



*That said, we've had purebreds from professional breeders and every single one of them were completely nuts and had health problems that ended their lives prematurely.
Click to expand...

Professional and reputable are not interchangeable or even synonymous - I am reasonably sure that applies to pet breeders. There are definitely many more professional handymen than reputable handymen. You always pay for what you get from a professional, but you don't always get what you paid for.
 
By the way, I kind of regret introducing purebred versus mixed breed into the thread since it's become kind of tangential to the main point of the article.

It should also be noted that the law does not criminalize breeders or the right of people to purchase purebreds.
 
Mason66 said:
That is not financially viable.
Click to expand...

There’s a group called Project Freedom Ride that transfers dogs from high kill shelters in Texas to the Pacific Northwest. It was started by a 6 year old boy and his mom. They’ve transferred over 1300 dogs over the last few years and they’ve recently moved to Georgia and are trying to start transfers from there. Some of the rescue organizations around the Seattle are have also received animals from San Bernadino, but I don’t know how often they do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom