SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the puppies-and-bunnies-and-kittens...-oh-my! dept.
Fears Of A Black Market After Calif. Bans Some Commercial Breeding
California is now the first state to ban pet stores from selling animals from commercial breeders, thanks to a new law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October. Animal advocates say it will reduce what they claim is the needless suffering of animals like puppies, kittens, and rabbits bred for sale. But critics say it will hurt pet store owners and force consumers to go underground. The law goes effect in January 2019.
Pet industry and commercial breeders oppose the measure, as does the American Kennel Club. They say the law will make it more difficult for Californians to obtain dogs with the characteristics and traits they want, including breeds that are recommended for health considerations. However, individual breeders would still be able to sell to customers.
California 'Puppy Mill' Ban Would Also Cover Kittens and Bunnies
[But what would you cover them with? ;) --martyb]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @06:27PM (8 children)
i agree that commercial breeding is not the best thing in the world. i, myself have decided to only adopt from now on (unless civil war demands i breed war dogs with callous methods) but a law from the state? no thanks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @06:35PM (4 children)
It's an issue of how the breeding is done as much as anything else. For dogs and cats there are so many of those out there that the only reason to get one from a breeder is if you absolutely have to have a particular breed.
This law seems to be a gross overreach. Requiring that the shops change how they source their animals isn't necessarily unreasonable, but completely banning them from using breeders seems a bit of an overstep. A much more sensible thing to do would be to set regulations about how the breeders operate and require the shops to work with licensed breeders. People are going to want animals from breeders, I personally prefer rescue animals and ones from shelters where possible, but some people are going to want ones that are bred to be pets.
Unless there's some effort to prevent people from bringing in pets from neighboring states, I don't see how this is going to solve any of the problems they're trying to solve.
However, for other types of pets, the breeders are the best option. It's better to get a snake that's been bred than one that's been captured, you know what you're getting and they don't have to disturb the local wildlife and deal with that. Plus, the breeders come up with some fascinating color schemes that would never be viable in the wild.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Saturday November 04 2017, @07:14PM
Unless i'm misunderstanding, you can still buy pets from commercial breeders. A pet store, however, cannot sell pets from commercial breeders.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Saturday November 04 2017, @07:52PM (1 child)
AFAIU, the law is in fact specifically about dogs, cats, and rabbits, not any other type of pet.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:10PM
Yeah, no one's worried about tens of thousands of unadoptable parakeets. It's dogs and cats that are a real problem.
(Score: 3, Informative) by slap on Sunday November 05 2017, @02:55AM
"It's better to get a snake that's been bred than one that's been captured, you know what you're getting and they don't have to disturb the local wildlife and deal with that. "
Many if not most states have laws prohibiting taking wildlife as pets.
With snakes, ones that have been captured and imported into the US tend to be more difficult to handle compared to snakes that were born in captivity.
"Plus, the breeders come up with some fascinating color schemes that would never be viable in the wild."
Regular Ball Pythons go for $35-$70. Some of the fancy morphs go for as much as $2500 to $10,000. Crazy.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Saturday November 04 2017, @08:24PM (1 child)
Part of the reason seems to be that there is an oversupply of dogs, cats, and rabbits, and this causes considerable externalities. Article says "California taxpayers spend about $250 million a year on animals in local shelters." No specifics on whether that is by way of government expenses or private donations, but it is a significant figure, to be sure.
Now, my favorite approach would be impose and extra tax dog, cat, rabbit sales, while offering an equivalent subsidy for adoptions. I.e. a soft push, instead of a hard ban. But since that idea has both the words "tax" and "subsidy" in it, lawmakers will be rightfully afraid of being caught even thinking about it. (And admittedly it might require quite some dedication to guard against cross-state exploits).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:54PM
That cost is the cost of pandering to animal rights people.
That cost would cover shooting a billion animals. California has no where near that many cats, dogs, and rabbits.
Animals that get loose are not loved, are not being cared for, are not well protected, are killing endangered wildlife, and are a sometimes-deadly hazard. Shoot them on sight.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @09:43PM
If you live in a major city, war dogs might be a good idea for next year.