Quote:
Originally Posted by saltcreep
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.
|
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.