New Pisces Location

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by sphelps

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.

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?

Originally Posted by sphelps

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).

Based on what? What stats prove this has helped?

Originally Posted by sphelps

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.

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.

[Slick Fork]

Originally Posted by saltcreep

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.

[saltcreep]

Originally Posted by Slick Fork

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 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.

Originally Posted by Slick Fork

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Slick Fork

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.

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.

[Slick Fork]

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.

[howdy20012002]

maybe we should petition for having a license for having kids...
I think licensing us before we go out and and do some shopping for food would be a good idea as well.
I mean us poor ignorant people might go and buy junk food...and that is bad for us and our family.
we could go look at what we want one week, do research then go buy the food the next week...
regardless of what we do, there is always going to be people who don't make the right choice.
the problem is that once you start making rules to regulate the stupid ones, the smart ones get thrown in the mix.
less government thanks..
look at the fiasco with a gun registry...can you imagine what it would be like for a dog??? lol..gawd..it would be in the trillions....
hey, at least when the gestapo police come to enforce the law, they will able to look up at whether or not you have a killer chihauhau registered.

[Slick Fork]

Originally Posted by howdy20012002

maybe we should petition for having a license for having kids...
I think licensing us before we go out and and do some shopping for food would be a good idea as well.
I mean us poor ignorant people might go and buy junk food...and that is bad for us and our family.
we could go look at what we want one week, do research then go buy the food the next week...
regardless of what we do, there is always going to be people who don't make the right choice.
the problem is that once you start making rules to regulate the stupid ones, the smart ones get thrown in the mix.
less government thanks..
look at the fiasco with a gun registry...can you imagine what it would be like for a dog??? lol..gawd..it would be in the trillions....
hey, at least when the gestapo police come to enforce the law, they will able to look up at whether or not you have a killer chihauhau registered.

Trouble is when stupid people make the wrong choice it's those of whose who behave appropriately that end up paying the price.

A dog registry already exists, managed by your local town/city council when you buy dog tags for the year.

You're an admitted backyard breeder, what's your solution to stray dogs and overcrowded pounds and shelters?

[howdy20012002]

I meant where people had to take a course of education like was suggested and is currently required for a firearm....that is what I personally think would be over the top for getting a pet.
I am of the opinion that we should have the right to buy things that I want to buy as long as it is something legal and doesn't affect the rights of other people.
I don't know what to suggest for the large numbers of strays and overcrowding. obviously it is not a great situation...I just know that I don't agree with being told that I can't buy a dog from someone that I want to buy a dog from...and I will continue to breed my dogs.

We kill millions of animals a year in North america alone for food. Pigs have been proven to be smarter than dogs, yet we will kill how many a day? were is their justice?
I am not saying that we should slaughter dogs, I am just trying to say that we do things that aren't in the best interest of animals all the time. why do stray dogs have more rights than a pig or a cow?

if you don't think that passing laws that restricts the sale of things won't lead to other things,
just look at the US and the fact that they are looking at passing legislation forbiding any sale of any non-native specie of animal.

on another note,
I do have to say it is interesting that, at times, a bunch of dogs gets alot more media than a bunch of kids that are dying in a third world country. you don't see too many planeloads of orphaned kids who are dying of starvation and disease being flown over from africa for adoption. while, just week, a planeload of dogs just arrived in edmonton...
how many kids died in the time it took us to write these messages?
just a thought.