New Pisces Location

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Jamieh

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!!

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.

[Jamieh]

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.

Originally Posted by sphelps

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.

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by howdy20012002

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

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.

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Jamieh

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.

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?

[Slick Fork]

Originally Posted by sphelps

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.

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.

[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.

[Jamieh]

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.

Originally Posted by Slick Fork

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.

[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.