SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Californian law change means pet shops can sell only rescued animals
California is set to become the first state in the US to ban the sale of non-rescue animals in pet shops.
The new law, known as AB 485, takes effect on 1 January. Any businesses violating it face a $500 (£400) fine.
The change means cats, dogs and rabbits sold by retailers cannot be sourced from breeders, only from animal shelters.
Animal rights groups have heralded it as a step forward against so-called "kitten factories" and "puppy mills".
Previously: California Commercial Pet Breeding Law Passed, Signed
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Californian Law Change Means Pet Shops Can Sell Only Rescued Animals
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 71 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Can anyone remember when the times were not hard, and money not scarce?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @04:39PM (4 children)
True. If you look at the actual data, you'll notice that the vast majority of pit bulls never cause problems. If you look at the issue even more closely, you'll realize that it's difficult to even properly identify pit bulls in the first place, so many of the (already very small number of) bites blamed on pit bulls might not have even been done by pit bulls. Pit bulls also just happen to be the latest breed of dog that the media is fearmongering about; this isn't the first time this has happened.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 31 2018, @08:24PM (1 child)
I've heard the same thing about doberman, if you don't raise them to be mean, they're actually quite nice to have as pets. So much of the trouble here isn't the animals, but the people who care for them.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Monday December 31 2018, @11:09PM
Doberman's make up 1.4% of fatal attacks over the past decade compared to pitts 65.5%. Lot more shitty pitt owners out there.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Tuesday January 01 2019, @03:37AM (1 child)
There has always been some "scary breed" of dog. Before Pitbulls it was Dobermans. Before Dobermans it was German Shepherds. Before German Shepherds, it was -- are you ready for this? Collies. And before that, it was what we now know as the English Mastiff.
Mastiffs descend from dogs of war.
Collies were bootleggers' preferred guard dog, because they bark at everything (including the cops), and old-line collies were fairly aggressive toward intruders.
Dobermans and German Shepherds were both developed primarily as man-killers for the German army.
Pitbulls were developed from a mix of bulldog (bred to catch and hold bulls) and terrier (bred to kill small vermin) ... to fight other pitbulls. They were NOT developed to go after humans (indeed, a pit-fighting dog that bit its handler would catch a bullet).
Now, tell me which one you think most likely to default to "dangerous to humans".
Where pitbulls have been banned, the number of serious bites has not decreased. Why? Because the same idiots who want a "scary" dog find some other scary dog. And increasingly, because 'rescue' dogs of iffy provenance and uncertain temperament are being foisted on unsuspecting pet owners. Per CDC numbers, 'rescue' dogs are about 18% of the pet population, but commit 50% of the serious bites (with two cases that I know of where a 'rescue' dog killed its new owner within 24 hours of being adopted). How does that jive with the idea that pet stores, where the least-experienced people shop for a pet, should only sell 'rescues' ?? Cue the liability lawsuits.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 01 2019, @07:55AM
I'm not sure I believe your assertion and the more important statistic is the number of deaths anyway.
Whichever the case, this is why I earlier suggested that owners be held criminally liable for the actions of their dogs. You want a big scary dog that bites? Better make damn sure he stays under your control at all times and never escapes. Otherwise, you send someone to the hospital and it's a charge of felony battery. Maul a kid to death? That's first degree manslaughter. If cops have to come out more than once to corral your dog, you lose your rights to be a pet owner just like felons lose their right to firearms. Cops make a visit for aggressive behavior and you have no license, shot records, or liability insurance? You lose your rights to be a pet owner. Motorists lose their rights to drive if they fail to have liability insurance and face jail time if they drive with no license. We make gun owners lock up their guns for safety sake. We make swimming pool owners install fencing and locked gates. Why not sensible rules for aggressive dog owners? Can't afford a homeowner's policy that covers pit bulls? You can't afford to have one then.
If people are the problem, punish the people. Misdemeanor charges and chalking it up injury to force majeure is what gets people mauled to death.