UPDATE: California

I really don't see what so bad about this one...I mean, it's silly that they don't want stacked cages, and want 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. But I think it has some positive things about it too, especially regarding cat and dog breeding. Tighter regulation on that stuff is needed with all the animal cruelty going on, with puppy mills, over breeding, and the like. i don't know if many of you have noticed the animal neglect and cruelty in many different pet stores. having worked in a local pet store I know how the owners see all the animals, they're just trying to make a profit, and if they loose animals due to poor care they just order more and get credit for the lost ones. I'm not saying all pet store chains are like that, around here they are improving. But I don't see what would be so bad about pet stores having to keep records/info on all their animals(all the tiny fish might be difficult, but heck, maybe they can lump species together). I think this would help put value on each individual animal. At the pet store where I worked, we were often under-staffed, and it was really hard to get everything taken care of. I see this bill as an improvement on the way people run businesses that deal in animals. Some bits could be revised, but again, I don't see what's so bad about it. Alright, I'm done rambling, but I'd like to hear some feed back if anyone has it.

I don't see how you can say it is "not so bad". You can't look at laws and because there are some good parts and some bad parts, take the average and say it is neutral. This law, if passed as it was originally written, would have made large numbers of people into criminals, just because they owned a tank of fish, and also had a job, so their fish tank was not staffed 24/7. That is bad! There is no possible other way to look at it!

If tighter regulation is needed on some things to decrease animal cruelty and neglect, then a law should be written that addresses those specific things.

A law that oversteps its bounds as badly as this one did, even though there is absolutely nothing cruel about leaving a fish tank unattended for the majority of the day, is not an acceptable way of dealing with some relatively isolated issues of cruelty or neglect to cats & dogs.

And to clarify, before anyone jumps in and says that the cruelty issues are way too common to be called isolated...they are extremely isolated in comparison to the number of people who would have been turned into criminals due to owning 50 or more fish, or snakes, or rodents, etc. A law that makes more criminals out of "innocent bystanders" than its intended target, is definitely a bad law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

I really don't see what so bad about this one...I mean, it's silly that they don't want stacked cages, and want 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. But I think it has some positive things about it too, especially regarding cat and dog breeding. Tighter regulation on that stuff is needed with all the animal cruelty going on, with puppy mills, over breeding, and the like. i don't know if many of you have noticed the animal neglect and cruelty in many different pet stores. having worked in a local pet store I know how the owners see all the animals, they're just trying to make a profit, and if they loose animals due to poor care they just order more and get credit for the lost ones. I'm not saying all pet store chains are like that, around here they are improving. But I don't see what would be so bad about pet stores having to keep records/info on all their animals(all the tiny fish might be difficult, but heck, maybe they can lump species together). I think this would help put value on each individual animal. At the pet store where I worked, we were often under-staffed, and it was really hard to get everything taken care of. I see this bill as an improvement on the way people run businesses that deal in animals. Some bits could be revised, but again, I don't see what's so bad about it. Alright, I'm done rambling, but I'd like to hear some feed back if anyone has it.

---

The bill is poorly written. A tank of 50 fish doesn't need 24/7 staff. The max you need to do is feed them and change the filter. Maybe do a partial water change every few months.

I think enforcing the laws they have on the books instead of passing new laws would be a better option. Yes, I'm sure some puppy mills are out there, but isn't that what local animal control is for. This law is just too broad and effects too many industries to be effective.

So, what if a manufacture makes a high quality stacked caging for dogs and cats? What wrong with selling a product which is good for the consumer? If the consumer cares or neglects animals that's a different story.

Also, If your on a budget and can't afford extra help why should you be required to have employees if your capable of caring for your animals yourself. People need to report neglect and this would solve the issue. These are just some of my thoughts on the proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

I don't see how you can say it is "not so bad". You can't look at laws and because there are some good parts and some bad parts, take the average and say it is neutral. This law, if passed as it was originally written, would have made large numbers of people into criminals, just because they owned a tank of fish, and also had a job, so their fish tank was not staffed 24/7. That is bad! There is no possible other way to look at it!
.

---

There are plenty of other ways of looking at it.
The bad parts of this bill aren't even that bad. If passed it doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 fish in a tank. It's referring to pet stores, and saying they need 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. And if that means 50 tiny fish, that is pretty silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

The bill is poorly written. A tank of 50 fish doesn't need 24/7 staff. The max you need to do is feed them and change the filter. Maybe do a partial water change every few months.

---

You don't have to tell me, I worked in a pet store in the fish and reptile department. i know the care requirements. And yes, I agree it is silly to have 24/7 staffing for a tank of 50 fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

There are plenty of other ways of looking at it.
The bad parts of this bill aren't even that bad. If passed it doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 fish in a tank. It's referring to pet stores, and saying they need 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. And if that means 50 tiny fish, that is pretty silly.

---

Not for owning the fish, but for not having them staffed 24/7. When I read the law, I didn't see anywhere it talked about it only applying to pet stores. It seemed to me it would apply to everyone.

And perhaps I'm mistaken about this, but I thought a criminal was a person who broke a law. And if this law had been passed as originally written, then anyone who owns 50 fish in a tank and does not have staff caring for those 50 fish 24/7 would be breaking the law, and thus a criminal. The law doesn't have to say "you will be a criminal if you don't do this." It just has to say "you must do this," and then if you don't, you become a criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

Not for owning the fish, but for not having them staffed 24/7. When I read the law, I didn't see anywhere it talked about it only applying to pet stores. It seemed to me it would apply to everyone.

And perhaps I'm mistaken about this, but I thought a criminal was a person who broke a law. And if this law had been passed as originally written, then anyone who owns 50 fish in a tank and does not have staff caring for those 50 fish 24/7 would be breaking the law, and thus a criminal. The law doesn't have to say "you will be a criminal if you don't do this." It just has to say "you must do this," and then if you don't, you become a criminal.

---

That doesn't make sense friend. Who is gonna come into your home, and regulate whether or not you have 'staff' tending to your 50 fish 24/7? or maybe I'm misunderstanding?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

That doesn't make sense friend. Who is gonna come into your home, and regulate whether or not you have 'staff' tending to your 50 fish 24/7? or maybe I'm misunderstanding?:confused:

---

You are absolutely right it doesn't make sense! That's why it is (would have been) a bad law.

It doesn't matter whether or not they would have been able to enforce it effectively, and it seems pretty obvious to me that they really weren't aiming it at people with a fish tank or two. That doesn't change the fact that if the law had been passed as written, people who did own 50 or more animals of any kind would have become criminals. Not convicted criminals. But breaking the law makes you a criminal, whether or not you get caught, whether or not the law makes sense. That is what was so extremely bad about the law as it was proposed.

I have read over parts of the bill and stand by my thoughts that it is not bad at all. Particularly section 10.40.010. It's basically requiring people to do for their animals what they should be doing anyway. And if you read through it you'll see it is mainly referring to dogs and cats. And it's all in the LA county, where there are problems with animal neglect and cruelty every day. And agian, if you have more than fifty animals in your home, you're gonna be there more often then not, so the whole staffing thing still doesn't seem to apply there. The last thing I want to say is, the bill doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 animals, only if you do not comply with the conditions of the bill, which are things people owning that many animals should be doing already.