New Pisces Location

[sphelps]

Originally Posted by Jamieh

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.

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.

[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 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?

[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.