Ideally this is obviously better but not the case. Ideally I should be able to drive my car 10X as fast as a fully loaded semi on the highway but perfection doesn't exist in this world. Nothing will favor every individual 100% and trying to do so results in too much grey zone making it virtually useless. I guess making things black and white is easier to manage and enforce producing better results. I've gotten use to this and tend to look for the greater good, don't always agree with the approach but if the results are sound I'm usually OK with it.

Yeah I know, my point was it won't ban puppies, you'll still be able to get a puppy when you want one. Pet stores will be forced to work with rescues and shelters and by doing so can still sell puppies.

But if Pet Stores don't sell puppies where will these shelters get puppies for anyone to buy???? Anyway enough of this, good chatting with you again, it's been awhile, miss your opinions!!!

Which is why I keep asking what will this do? What is the percentage of dog sales via pet retail stores? Why punish the reputable store owners?

What's your point? What regulations are you referring to? I don't think I need to remind you that the animals in our hobby don't come from our ocean.

I'd also be interested to know who sits on the board of this organization that is proposing this bylaw.

Nice straw man argument.

But what will the results be of this ban?

Again, based on history with various municipalities around, what happens when marine ornamentals are targetted? What if they are just "collateral damage"? If it's for the greater good, you're okay with that? Legislation like this makes it easier for marine ornamentals to legislated.

Supply and demand bro, currently supply is too high so you go right for testicles and tie a Herculies knot around them. Hurts like hell but effective. If demand becomes too high you loosen the knot a little perhaps allowing regulated breeding. The important thing to remember is yes at first your balls will be blue but eventually they will swing free.... wait what was I talking about again?

Based on what stats? What percentage do pet retail stores contribute to the availability of dogs? Again, this is misdirected legislation.

Do you really want me to show stats saying there are too many dogs out there??? What percentage stores contribute is irrelevant, if car accidents keep occurring at an intersection do they stop younger, older, or ethnic drivers from using it? No they decrease the speed limit and make everyone suffer for the greater good.

The percentage that stores contribute is very relevant due to sole fact that this legislation targets them and them only. Are the unwanted dogs coming from sales from pet retail stores?


You make my point. Banning dog sales in pet stores is akin to shutting the intersection down.

All I will say is anything like the proposed is usually an extremist move. I do agree with what will it do? Why penalize responsible store owners? etc, etc, etc....

It is like our hobby, wait until they start on us... Lets all just try to be responsible humans. Yes I said HUMANS... Overall, we can be a very STUPID species. We have a long history to prove our stupidity, ignorance or whatever you wish to call it.

I myself bought my last dog from Petsmart, and would buy again from there!

Which is my point. It won't stop at dogs. "Solutions" like the one that is proposed are far too easy to implement yet don't really address the issues.

and your point is?

No point really. Just the results of the CTV poll.

I find it odd how regulating (read prohibit) a legally operating business from selling dogs, yet any person in the city can breed their animals and put adds in newspapers/online. There's something wrong with that.

Of this group that is advocating for the legislation, how many are breeders themselves? If by passing this legislation, would they not stand to financially benefit?

Just sayin'.

as a "backyard breeder" I thought I would just throw my two cents in.
As far as I am concerned, the more we allow the government to step and regulate all aspects of our lives, the more we are going to regret that in the future.
I personally believe that people should have the right to buy what they want to buy.
I said this last time this topic was brought up, when I was selling my non registered boston puppies and caused a sh*t storm when I dared announce it here.
I have a hard time taking advice on the advocation of pet rights from people who have saltwater fish tanks... If asked, I don't think that the critters and fish would opt to live in our tanks vice the wide open ocean.
We all have these fish for our entertainment, not theirs and in the process we rip apart the ocean and kill untold creatures in the process of getting the stuff to our tanks.
what about the rights of the dead fish, shrimp, corals, snails, etc....
what about the rights of the ones that were once swimming in a vast expanse of water and are now swimming in our 4 feet of ocean.
in my opinion, if you stand on a soapbox, you should be darn sure that the people around you cant kick it out from underneath you.

BTW, I love adding fuel to the fire because I always find these types of conversations enlightening as to how two sides of the argument can both be right (at least in their minds).

Neal

Funny you should mention supply and demand. If the paying public did not want Pet Stores to sell puppies then they would not be buying puppies there and this issue would not be discussed. Pet Stores sell puppies because the public wants them to and continues to buy their puppies from these stores.

+1, well put!

This is the most important part that most people fail to realize.

Again, the attention can easily be focused on this hobby.

Won't argue that, it's obvious most people would prefer to go to the local pet shop to buy a dog. Unfortunately not all pet stores take the time to educate people on what they are getting into or take to time to be sure the animal is going to a good home so quite often the dog is given up or abandoned. If all pet stores where as good as some already are and more people pursued adoption from shelters we probably wouldn't have a problem. Yes it's a shame but as always one bad apple can spoil the bunch. If we cut out the supply it will force people to seek there pets from overcrowded shelters and adoption events. Not a perfect solution but I don't see anyone else pursuing a better one, very easy for one to say how things should be done but a different story for someone to actually do something about it.

I really don't see this as a big deal, it's worked well with positive results in other areas and the only down side is pet stores won't be able to sell puppies (or at least in same way). So who cares, plenty of pet stores do just fine without the need to sell this kind of livestock.

I'll also add that I always laugh when people get upset about the government stepping in with more regulations. Sorry but the vast majority of the population isn't anywhere near responsible or smart enough to take care of things the right way or even close to it. You don't have the right to buy whatever you want when you want, the same as you don't have the right to do whatever you want when you want. Imagine what the world would be like if you could, chaos. Our system is far from perfect but if you think you'd be better off without it go for it, nobody is stopping you.

And as for comparing to this hobby I think you're all out to lunch, I see no reason what so ever for the assumption such a by-law will also lead to banning fish sales as well. The two issues are so unrelated it's not even funny. The only thing that ties this proposed by-law to the fish hobby is this forum it's being discussed in.

people aren't smart enough to figure out things out on their own? wow, and I thought I was cynical.....
btw, I wasn't suggesting that the two were related in banning of sales.
I was suggesting that you shound not preach about animal ethics when you have a glass box in your house that is full of creatures that did not agree to be there.
is it ethical to support the salt water industry?
I guarantee that over half of the stuff taken from the ocean does not make the process of getting to your house.
I don't think that any dog breeders would have quite such a deplorable result.
yet, it is ok for you to support the saltwater trade??
please, hypocracy anyone?
as well, so if I don't think that a government who regulates every aspect of my life, I should move??? I'm sorry, but I like the idea of free and democratic country where I can make my own decisions.
I have a better idea, maybe you should look at moving at somewhere like China, where the government can take of all your needs.
give me a break.

If we removed all traffic laws would people drive safely? Would the number of accidents decrease? People need laws and regulations to form a society, it's part of evolution. You want to back to the stone age that's fine but I'm more than happy here with the way things are and are continuing to go. Just because I support the government by no means does that make me a communist. It makes no sense that someone that is happy in there society should move elsewhere, so take your break if that's what you need.

Yes I have a salt tank but I try and do things responsibly although I'll be the first too admit the hobby really has no positive results on the environment. It's pure entertainment and I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with many pet stores selling dogs and other animals as many do things properly but I don't think it's right for Joe to breed animals in his yard for profit when there's an overpopulation and many dogs and cats are put down on a daily bases simply because nobody will house them. Two wrongs don't make a right, just because something else isn't perfect doesn't mean we can improve on other things. I'd also gladly support almost any action that promoted responsible fish keeping, even if it was extreme at first.

And BTW studies have shown over 90% of all fish and coral imported do not live for more than a year in captivity.

btw, my dogs don't breed in the yard...I rent them a hotel room for the night.

I would assume the Pet Stores who have invested 100's of thousands of dollars in their stores would care if they are not permitted to sell the puppies that they have designed their store to sell. Here's and easy solution for you, make every person who breeds dogs get a licence and be inspected. I have visited many people who breed dogs and if you believe that "purebred" breeders do it better than so called "backyard" breeders you are sorely mistaken. I will ask this question for the 3rd time in this thread, how do you think banning stores who sell almost all small breed dogs will help shelters who are full of almost all med to large breed dogs??? Pet Stores selling puppies and over filled shelters are actually not that closely related no matter how the huggers try to spin it.

So out of curiosity what exactly is your motivation for breeding dogs?

Hey lets look at things differently here.

Right now we don't even have a functional government. Going on our 4th election in 7 years, with over a billion dollars of our money wasted on these elections.

If our government can't take care of itself, and doesn't really care about the common people overall. Do we really need legistlation from them on this topic. Personally I don't think so.

I think this thread has had its time. Now time to die....:biggrin:

If you buy a puppy, you have your choice and do what you want... If you own a puppy mill or are a backyard breeder, again you have that right and choice. We the people do not need to agree on how others live their lives or the choices they may make. But we also don't need to bully others because their views may differ from ours.

Accidents are lower on the autobahn than most places in the world and about 20 years ago when Montana had no speed limit the number of accidents did not increase. Just sayin!!

all synde remarks aside, I truly do admire and commend people who go to the pound and adopt a dog.
Personally, I have done so in the past and it didn't work out so well.
therefore, I bought a puppy from a breeder, who is not a ckc breeder, because I wanted to know the dogs background...not adopt another dog with issues.
I can assure you that I take as much care of my dogs, am concerned about the genetics and health issues of the breed and would NEVER do anything that would jeopardize my dogs health just as much as any CKC breeder.
My dogs are my kids, I just happen to breed them...and of course, like everyone that breeds dogs, the ultimate goal is money..even the CKC breeders..if not they would be giving their dogs away.
not all "back yard breeders" are bad.
just having a piece of paper from the CKC doesn't make you an expert or a better breeder.
anyways, I don't see this discussion going anywhere but in a circle, lets agree to disagree.

Neal

Yeah like I said before I would prefer if things could be done that way, if someone had that petition I'd be happy to sign it.
I don't think pure bred breeders are better than non pure breeders but "good" breeders have different goals than others but it's hard to tell and there are way too many out there which is why I support the bylaw. Also I've seen plenty of big bred dogs at pet stores, not all stores are the same and not all have the same principals which is part of the problem but the biggest problem is the source not the distribution.

Also you take a risk with any investment, sometimes it pays off other times it doesn't. If the by-law passes it'll be a result of the majority agreeing to it so it's not just a few "huggers", it's society taking a stand and doing something, might be ideal but like I keep saying better than nothing.

Haha but traffic laws still exist on the autobahn, police use discretion and hard limits of different types of vehicles. I wish we could do that over here, I really do.

Do you seriously believe that this will be decided by the "majority"? The vocal minority push these issues while the vast majority sit idly by as they don't believe it affects them. I never said there are never large breed dogs in stores but almost all puppies sold in Pet Stores are of the small breed nature. Most Pet Stores would not be dumb enough to put big dogs in small kennels based on the optics alone.

I'll agree to disagree as always but I'll add my definition of a "good" breeder.

First you shouldn't breed for the money period, you breed for the breed and the pure enjoyment you get out of it. Any real reputable breeder with tell you they don't turn a profit and if they do it has nothing to do with their motivation. There are a lot of expenses and time involved in doing things properly.

Also a good breeder should:
Provide documentation including genetic screens of the parents (not just a vet check)
Strict criteria for potential buyers
Offer health guarantees
Will take the dog back from the owner, no questions asked, if for any reason the owner decides they can no longer care for the dog.
Will not sell the dog before it's time
Offer extra care and pre-training so the dog is less likely to have behavioral issues
Always offers support
Shows and competes his own dogs

The list goes on but that's basically what I looked for and was able to find.

Yeap the majority of people who actually have interest in the subject. The others sitting idle could care less either way and more than likely it doesn't effect them, how would it effect them?

Excellent points, I'm not so fussy about whether it's purebred or not... My dog is 10 years old and still going strong and is not a purebred collie, we wouldn't trade him for the world. I think you can get excellent breeders and poor breeders in both the purebred and mixed breed.

The two big problems I see with dogs and cats is the sheer number being "produced" by people who just can't be bothered to have their animals spayed or neutered. Rural Alberta is crawling with stray cats and dogs and farmers are a huge part of that problem.

The second problem and this is why I support the petition, is impulse buying. People who go into a petland with their kids and its "MOM I NEED A PUPPY" and then after 2 or 3 months they decide they're not really ready for a dog and it ends up in a pound.

This petition won't solve the problem, but at the very least if people are looking for a dog they will go online or into their newspaper and actually spend some time reading and THINKING about what they're getting themselves into.

I would even go so far as to say dog and cat ownership should be conditional on someone completing a course and getting an "ownership" licence. How many problems would that solve.

You seem to assume that all the potential dog purchasers are going to magically get their animals from shelters. You also seem to assume that BYB and individuals selling dogs are a much better source for them than pet retail stores.

Why does the proposal not target the backyard breeder? Why does the proposal not make it illegal to advertise a dog for sale in the newspaper or online? If it's good for a legal business to have this ban in place, should it not be the same for everyone else?

Based on what? What stats prove this has helped?

That is where I'm afraid to say you are simply wrong. What I am saying is that if it is this easy to ban dog sales based on emotion and ethical reasons, why would it not be easy to ban marine ornamental sales from stores too? It's not a big leap. As I have stated, the City of Richmond has already gone on record by saying that they may look at sales of other animals in pet retail stores. The City of Vernon has had proposed legislation put forward banning marine ornamentals.

If someone had the will, I'm sure it could easily be done for marine ornamentals in some sort of fashion.

Backyard breeders and individuals selling dogs are much tougher to go after. Also, people have to actively look for these people. Pet stores with puppies on the other hand are much more open to impulse shoppers. As I mentioned above, if someone has to spend some effort looking for a place to buy an animal then you increase the chance that they are at least thinking about their purchase.

I can't think of a situation where an individual wouldn't be better off buying a dog or cat from a reputable breeder than they would purchasing from any kind of pet store. Ultimately it would be great to go after irresponsible breeders but it's not a practicle thing to do right now.

As far as it spreading to Marine ornamental fish I don't see it going there. Stray cats and dogs are a huge community problem. They either end up in the pound waiting to be destroyed or they roam around towns creating a mess and possibly attacking people. I've never heard of a stray clownfish mauling a toddler or costing cities thousands of dollars to impound and then destroy them.

I agree it's tougher to go after, however, why don't "they"? The powers that be just gives them a pass. If they are truly wanting to deal with the issue, then deal with the suppliers. I also agree that there are some pet retail stores that do contribute to the problem, but there should be a better way to deal with the issue that an across the board ban.

Can there not be a way to deal with impulse shopping for dogs? Make a care program mandatory. Have a "cooling off" period for dog purchases whereby there is a delay in time between the time of purchase and the time of pick up of the animal. Make the purchaser do some reasearch. I don't know...something has to be better than what is proposed.

So the best option is to bury your head in the sand and ignore it? Again, why single out the retailer? I've also asked what percentage of dogs do the pet retail stores contribute to the total purchases of dogs? What percentage do the BYB contribute?

Another one that misses the point. I will repeat...the City of Richmond, who has introduced a similar ban on dogs has said they may look at sales of other animals.

All it takes is one complaint from an individual for the issue to be raised with a sympathetic ear. I've had a personal experience of an "investigation" by the SPCA due to a complaint of an individual regarding packing of fish. I've seen it...it won't take much.

What happens if the irresponsible LFS owner puts a lionfish within reach of a small child who gets stung after they put a hand in the tank? Again, it won't take much.

Because you mentioned Petland and impulse buying i will inform you that Petland has a policy called "Pets for a Lifetime" where the consumer agrees that if their situation changes and they cannot keep their puppy for whatever reason they will return the puppy to Petland and Petland will ensure that the puppy finds a good home.

I don't disagree with your statement that there are probably better ways... however what it would come down to is ease of enforceability and cost vs. benefit derived. I would imagine too that most pet store don't make very much money from selling dogs. They probably make their money selling all the accessories that come with pet ownership. Requiring pet stores to focus on re-homing pound animals still allows them to make their money and takes away at least a few of the sales that go to puppy mills and irresponsible breeders.

The proposed legislation isn't perfect, but what is? It's a good step in the right direction.

I mentioned earlier that I think an "ownership licence" is something I would definitely support. I would actually envision it as something similar to the current firearms legislation where you're required to take a course and have people (references) sign off on your ability to look after the animals. This would solve the impulse purchase problem.

I understand what you're saying about opening the floodgates towards banning sales on fish. I think the risk is small, but that's simply my opinion. I don't see a political will to enact that kind of legislation for a couple of reasons, primarily because as I mentioned unwanted fish don't become a community problem, secondly you don't have the breeding going on to the same kind of scale that you see in dogs and cats. Even if there was, I would suggest that it's a pretty weak reason to support neglectful and abusive practices against Dogs and Cats. The onus should be on us to prove we don't need that kind of oversight. Dog and Cat owners and breeders in general have failed that test.