California becomes the first state to require pet stores to sell rescue animals

[bcr229]

I don't support this at all. Puppy and Kitty mills are disgusting but stores should be allowed to sell products that are legal to own to fulfill customer demand.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html

California will be the first state to require pet stores to sell rescue animals under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday.

Starting in 2019, pet stores will transition to selling dogs, cats and rabbits from shelters or adoption centers. Stores can be fined $500 for each animal for sale that is not a rescue.

“This is a big win for our four-legged friends, of course," said bill author Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) in a statement.

The bill, AB 485, is aimed at reducing the number of animals in shelters and businesses with mass breeding operations, known as "puppy mills" or "kitten factories."


The advocacy group Social Compassion in Legislation and multiple animal rescue, welfare and shelter groups supported the measure.

The American Kennel Club and California Retailers Assn. were among the groups that opposed it.

“AB 485 blocks all of California’s pet lovers from having access to professional, licensed, and ethical commercial breeders,” said Sheila Goffe, vice president of government relations for the kennel club, in a statement. “This is not good for Californians or their companion animals.”

[Sunnieskys]

I agree with this bill. You can still contact a breeder if you want a specific animal. The less stores promote puppy mills the better.

[tttaylorrr]

i think i agree with this bill, though i am cautious and do not know that much about it. hopefully without the easy access to puppies at their local pet shop, this will curb impulse and ignorant purchases, and cause people to do research before making the decision to own a puppy/kitten/rabbit/etc. i want to be optimistic. i really hope this hurts mills in California.

what's your argument against, bcr? i'm sure you know much more about it than i do.

[bcr229]

The law will not stop the mills - they will simply sell direct using CL or FB - nor will it change the behavior of people who let their unfixed mutts run loose to create more pound fodder.

[tttaylorrr]

The law will not stop the mills - they will simply sell direct using CL or FB - nor will it change the behavior of people who let their unfixed mutts run loose to create more pound fodder.

that was my first thought, too: CL. i wonder if there are any statistics out there about pet "adoptions" through social media that could support or undermine this bill. i do like the idea of mills needing to jump through more hoops and it becoming more difficult for them to make their money; i think that's a good thing, tho short-sighted.

i also agree that this doesn't help people understand the need to spay/neuter their pets to help control pet populations. i honestly think education is the way to help stop these mills. i feel that's a whole other conversation, tho.

i do hope this bill helps in some way. only time will tell.

[AbsoluteApril]

I was rather surprised by this because I thought it was ALREADY outlawed here in CA. I haven't seen dogs or cats for sale here at any pet shop or mall shop since the late 80s.
Even the petcos/petsmarts and local dog/cat food supply shops only work with rescues already.

I like the idea behind it to promote people adopting but I think it may be a bit misguided and people shouldn't be restricted from buying a pure breed if that' what they want. However CA loves to put laws on every and anything /shrug

Backyard breeders and mills have always sold on CL and will continue to do so as long as people are willing to support/buy from them, sadly.

[KevinK]

It seems to me that this bill would take legitimate businesses out of the equation (who probably already have it in their best interest not to do business with puppy mills).....and force sales of pure bred animals to private breeders who will now look to profit on this new legislation by catering to new market conditions.

In return, you just created a surge of black market pet dealers and in the process created more puppy mills to fill the demand. The price of pure bred animals will rise and you'll see numerous shady individuals who will attempt to capitalize on that, and you can't tell me California currently has the resources to enforce it.

I can't say I support this although I believe it's well-intentioned.

[Newbie39]

I don't support this at all. Puppy and Kitty mills are disgusting but stores should be allowed to sell products that are legal to own to fulfill customer demand.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/esse...htmlstory.html

California will be the first state to require pet stores to sell rescue animals under legislation signed by Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday.

Starting in 2019, pet stores will transition to selling dogs, cats and rabbits from shelters or adoption centers. Stores can be fined $500 for each animal for sale that is not a rescue.

“This is a big win for our four-legged friends, of course," said bill author Assemblyman Patrick O’Donnell (D-Long Beach) in a statement.

The bill, AB 485, is aimed at reducing the number of animals in shelters and businesses with mass breeding operations, known as "puppy mills" or "kitten factories."


The advocacy group Social Compassion in Legislation and multiple animal rescue, welfare and shelter groups supported the measure.

The American Kennel Club and California Retailers Assn. were among the groups that opposed it.

“AB 485 blocks all of California’s pet lovers from having access to professional, licensed, and ethical commercial breeders,” said Sheila Goffe, vice president of government relations for the kennel club, in a statement. “This is not good for Californians or their companion animals.”

Great law. Need it here in Canada. All 4 four legged friends I ever have had have all been rescues. My current dog which I have had for 10 years was a rescue from the states. Apparently a product of strays that were homeless due to Katrina.

[distaff]

Ugh. More nanny state laws.

[Vipera Berus]

These laws are well intentioned but they will not have much affect on some people or ensure that less people have a predictable pet. I am pretty confident in the behaviour of a pure bred subspecies of Testudo graeca tortoise and far less in interspecific (hybrids) of the various subspecies.

As an example I currently have three tortoises of the same species but differing subspecies only one of which has purely one subspecies as ancestors the other two have different subspecies for ancestors. Every pet shop I've visited that has the same species has proven to only have interspecific hybrids of the subspecies of the species of tortoise I have. Currently Testudo graeca (Mediterranean spur thighed tortoises) have at least 20 subspecies. If I want to breed my pure bred Testudo graeca ibera male tortoise to a purebred female of the same subspecies then I'm up the proverbial creek without a paddle as all the tortoises available and that I have seen in many years aren't of his subspecies.

If a similar law in the UK was passed then my chances at breeding pure Testudo graeca ibera tortoises goes straight to hell. As it is without such a law and with all the cross breeding between testudo graeca subspecies I have yet to find any pure bred ibera subspecies to mate him with. I have two other interspecific hybrids of the subspecies but this law if someone sets it up in the uk will have an impact on spur thigh keeping. One of my interspecific hybrids at the age of 4.5 actually chases me round the house biting my feet while my pure bred ibera despite having been owned by me and my family for over two decades has never done that.

I can only say that this sort of law worries me since it could have a major effect on animal keeping and make animal keeping of the more unusual or specific subspecies of animals a nightmare.