This is a placeholder text
Group text
by hodie on 17 February 2010 - 15:02
W. Hollywood Officials Hope Vote Will Be Seen As Stand Against Puppy Mills, Kitten Factories
CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -- The vote to ban the sale of dogs and cats in this famously liberal enclave will likely have more bark than bite, since no pet stores in the city currently sell animals.
But officials hope that Tuesday's unanimous city council vote will be seen beyond West Hollywood as a symbolic stand against puppy mills and kitten factories.
"You have to start somewhere," said Michael Haibach, deputy to Councilman Jeffrey Prang, who sponsored the legislation. "The more people who jump on the bandwagon the better."
This famously quirky city has a reputation as a trailblazer in animal welfare rights.
It became the first city in the country to prohibit cat declawing in 2003, a measure that has since spread to dozens of other cities, including Los Angeles. Another West Hollywood ordinance officially terms pets as "companion animals" and gives their "guardians" a local tax deduction for pet adoption fees.
Since the pet sales ordinance was introduced earlier this month, the city has received dozens of inquiries from other municipalities across the country interested in replicating it, Haibach said. Some information requests came from Europe, he said.
Pet shops would only be permitted to offer animals from shelters for sale once West Hollywood's ordinance goes into effect in September. South Lake Tahoe adopted a similar ban last year.
Advocates for the pet industry said such ordinances are misguided because they do not tackle the source of the problem -- irresponsible commercial breeders who keep animals in deplorable conditions.
"It's not going after the substandard breeders," said Michael Maddox, vice president of governmental affairs for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C. "A pet store doesn't get you very far. We support people's right to get their pet from the best source that suits them."
At West Hollywood's D.O.G. Pet Boutique, co-owner Christian Velasco said he is against selling puppy-mill dogs that are sold to stores for $20 to $30 then resold to the public for hundreds of dollars.
"We could make a lot of money doing that, but we don't think it's right," Velasco said.
Instead, the store refers customers to shelters and allows a rescue agency to bring its animals to the store for adoption.
CHRISTINA HOAG, Associated Press Writer
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. -- The vote to ban the sale of dogs and cats in this famously liberal enclave will likely have more bark than bite, since no pet stores in the city currently sell animals.
But officials hope that Tuesday's unanimous city council vote will be seen beyond West Hollywood as a symbolic stand against puppy mills and kitten factories.
"You have to start somewhere," said Michael Haibach, deputy to Councilman Jeffrey Prang, who sponsored the legislation. "The more people who jump on the bandwagon the better."
This famously quirky city has a reputation as a trailblazer in animal welfare rights.
It became the first city in the country to prohibit cat declawing in 2003, a measure that has since spread to dozens of other cities, including Los Angeles. Another West Hollywood ordinance officially terms pets as "companion animals" and gives their "guardians" a local tax deduction for pet adoption fees.
Since the pet sales ordinance was introduced earlier this month, the city has received dozens of inquiries from other municipalities across the country interested in replicating it, Haibach said. Some information requests came from Europe, he said.
Pet shops would only be permitted to offer animals from shelters for sale once West Hollywood's ordinance goes into effect in September. South Lake Tahoe adopted a similar ban last year.
Advocates for the pet industry said such ordinances are misguided because they do not tackle the source of the problem -- irresponsible commercial breeders who keep animals in deplorable conditions.
"It's not going after the substandard breeders," said Michael Maddox, vice president of governmental affairs for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C. "A pet store doesn't get you very far. We support people's right to get their pet from the best source that suits them."
At West Hollywood's D.O.G. Pet Boutique, co-owner Christian Velasco said he is against selling puppy-mill dogs that are sold to stores for $20 to $30 then resold to the public for hundreds of dollars.
"We could make a lot of money doing that, but we don't think it's right," Velasco said.
Instead, the store refers customers to shelters and allows a rescue agency to bring its animals to the store for adoption.
by Robin on 17 February 2010 - 18:02
Our Pets Way in town stopped selling puppies and now they house puppies from the pound for free. I don't know about shots or worming or anything like that but I am just glad they stopped buying pet through HUNT Corp.
They first bought from Hunt and that didn't work out to many puppies with health problems-- then they went to local "breeders" not sure what happened- most likely same thing-- then they stopped altogether buying puppies and went to rescue if that is what you want to call it.
They first bought from Hunt and that didn't work out to many puppies with health problems-- then they went to local "breeders" not sure what happened- most likely same thing-- then they stopped altogether buying puppies and went to rescue if that is what you want to call it.
by GSDtravels on 17 February 2010 - 18:02
I disagree with any legislation regarding the ownership of animals. If they would make the penalties for abuse and neglect fit the crimes being commited against said animals, that would go a long way to stop it. If people really feel strongly enough about anaimal abuse, it's time to up the criminal ante, not legislate preventative measures against everybody. In a court of law, animals are treated as property, period. While animal cruelty disgusts me, I don't feel that stripping more rights from a supposedly free society is going to stop it. Making laws restricting free choice for law-abiding citizens is getting out of control. It's time to stop all of the BS legislation restricting and/or stripping rights from citizens, put reasonalbe criminal penalties in place... and ENFORCE them.
by Keith Grossman on 17 February 2010 - 18:02
If you support the rights of pet stores to sell puppies, you support the rights of puppy mills to produce them: video.yahoo.com/watch/2303502/7242336
by Held on 17 February 2010 - 18:02
This is great.No one should be selling puppies in pet stores.Have a nice one.
by GSDtravels on 17 February 2010 - 19:02
If the penalties againg the crimes being commited by the puppy mills, were severe enough, and enforced, THAT would stop puppy-milling. The new mind-set is prevention, save us from ourselves and take our choices away so we can't make the wrong decision. It's about time we make the penalties harsh enough to fit the crimes and hold the courts responsible for enforcing CRIMINAL penalties.
by VomRuiz on 17 February 2010 - 19:02
I would LOVE to see all pet store stop selling puppies. Many years ago, when I was a teenager, one of my first jobs was at a Hunt corp. store. It was heartbreaking.
Puppies would come in with coccidia, giardia, uri, some would obviously be less than 10 weeks old (that was supposed to be the minimum age before they came to the store) There were Parvo outbreaks. It was awful.
With the exception of the rabies shot, any employee "comfortable" with giving shots was allowed to. They were also allowed to give subcue fluids to sickly, dehydrated puppies. Those were usually the toy breeds that ended up hypoglycemic because of the stress.
Some "purebreds with AKC papers" were obvious mixes or just some of the worst representatives of the breed I have ever seen.
Many got sick from constantly being handled by flocks of strangers, parents would let their children hold the puppies, even when we asked them not to, and several were dropped and injured.
Many would be returned to the store because they were impulse buys. They would have to be quarantined for X number of days and then resold. Some would be there so long that is was nearly impossible to housebreak them, since they were used to just going in their little glass showcase.
People would come back and complain about that, as well as behavioral issues, or that their vets said "No way that is a purebred dog." If the buyers came back after the (I believe) 10 days, it was too bad, they were stuck with the puppy/dog. Over the course of the year or so I worked there, I did see fewer AKC dogs and more "registered" with registries that accepted any dog as a purebred. The millers were getting caught once the mandatory DNA tests were being done for kennels with over a certain number of dogs/litters per year and losing their AKC privledges.
Anyway, just a little behind the scenes... I doubt much has changed in the last 17 or so years
Stacy
Puppies would come in with coccidia, giardia, uri, some would obviously be less than 10 weeks old (that was supposed to be the minimum age before they came to the store) There were Parvo outbreaks. It was awful.
With the exception of the rabies shot, any employee "comfortable" with giving shots was allowed to. They were also allowed to give subcue fluids to sickly, dehydrated puppies. Those were usually the toy breeds that ended up hypoglycemic because of the stress.
Some "purebreds with AKC papers" were obvious mixes or just some of the worst representatives of the breed I have ever seen.
Many got sick from constantly being handled by flocks of strangers, parents would let their children hold the puppies, even when we asked them not to, and several were dropped and injured.
Many would be returned to the store because they were impulse buys. They would have to be quarantined for X number of days and then resold. Some would be there so long that is was nearly impossible to housebreak them, since they were used to just going in their little glass showcase.
People would come back and complain about that, as well as behavioral issues, or that their vets said "No way that is a purebred dog." If the buyers came back after the (I believe) 10 days, it was too bad, they were stuck with the puppy/dog. Over the course of the year or so I worked there, I did see fewer AKC dogs and more "registered" with registries that accepted any dog as a purebred. The millers were getting caught once the mandatory DNA tests were being done for kennels with over a certain number of dogs/litters per year and losing their AKC privledges.
Anyway, just a little behind the scenes... I doubt much has changed in the last 17 or so years
Stacy
by Keith Grossman on 17 February 2010 - 19:02
The problem is that there are no real laws against puppy mills operating the way they do and given the number of unwanted animals we euthanize in this country every year, it's pretty much a given that people are not capable of making good decisions. Eliminate the ability to sell pets in pet stores and you eliminate the market for puppies that are bought by impulse buyers and that eliminates the puppy mills. Your solution is no solution and the proposed ordinance does nothing whatsoever to restrict your or anyone else's ownership of animals.
by GSDtravels on 17 February 2010 - 19:02
And no investigations were done, nobody held responsible for the conditions of the dogs, etc. I agree, horrible, but go to the source and file criminal charges. If we really feel these are crimes, make them crimes and make the punishment fit.
by Keith Grossman on 17 February 2010 - 19:02
So now you're recommending legislation instead of legislation? Did you read the original post? It solves a lot more elements of this multi-faceted issue than your suggestion and does so without requiring any real oversight or enforcement. It's simpler, more effective and less costly.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top