Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday November 04 2017, @04:58PM   Printer-friendly
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]


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tfried on Saturday November 04 2017, @08:24PM (1 child)

    by tfried (5534) on Saturday November 04 2017, @08:24PM (#592281)

    tyrants usually have Reasons

    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).

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:54PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 04 2017, @11:54PM (#592309)

    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.