• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

LA bans store pet sales from commercial breeders

radcen said:
As TD mentioned in a previous post, both Petco and PetsMart here "sell" shelter cats. I have a good friend who volunteers to clean their cages at Petco as she is a member of the rescue shelter they work with.

Neither store does dogs, though. At least not here.
Click to expand...

No they don't. They provide those cages for shelters to display animals, any money from the animals while the shelters aren't there still goes to the shelter. They only do cats because dogs wouldn't do well in the cages provided. Shelters still come on the weekends with both dogs and cats.
 
TurtleDude said:
what does the US constitution have to do with a state law unless it violates the bill of rights

its a stupid law which is frequently the case with the crap we see from a state that leads the nation in stupid laws
Click to expand...

This is not a state law - this is a city law. LA, in this case, refers to the city of Los Angeles, CA not the state of Louisanna. ;)
 
Cephus said:
No they don't. They provide those cages for shelters to display animals, any money from the animals while the shelters aren't there still goes to the shelter. They only do cats because dogs wouldn't do well in the cages provided. Shelters still come on the weekends with both dogs and cats.
Click to expand...

:roll: Oh, geez. Give it a break. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I put "sell" in quotes, so all you did was boost your ego by attempting to correct someone who wasn't wrong to begin with.
 
Northern Light said:
How? It's not telling pet stores they can't sell animals, it's making laws around the supply of animals.

I can't count the number of times I've walked into a pet store and wondered, "why are people buying these animals instead of animals at a shelter?" Finally LA has a solution, an obvious one that I hadn't considered.

I also can't understand why anyone would have a problem with this law. You seem to be disagreeing with it on principle, but is there any other reason?
Click to expand...

The reason is because people want pure breeds and puppies. You dont generally find those in a shelter. My local one has 95% Chows and Pit Bull mixes, mostly older dogs.

Supply and Demand.

I dont really care what some other state does, but I would oppose it here because I dont think govt should be telling people what they can and cant sell. So long as the animals are treated humanely, breed them and sell them. I do think people need to be prohibited from owning un-neutured dogs and cats, though.
 
It still astounds me how many people still have the attitude of this quote "This is America alright and in America if a man wants to beat his own animal that's his business."
Animals are not simply property to do with as you please. This isn't like telling a rug merchant what kind of weave they have to use.
This is to protect the rights of living creatures (not humans but living creatures regardless).
If idiocy like puppy mills and breeding "production lines" didn't exist then maybe LA wouldn't say "Ok. Since you people are too stupid to breed animals in a humane and fair way we are going to tell the pet industry not to buy from you."

When it comes to animals, I'm for anything that helps protect them. A female "pure breed" has more right not to be bred to death than some hoity toity LA status symbol has to have the latest and greatest trend in fashionable pet (especially since people are increasingly buying animals, getting bored with them, and shipping them off to shelters if the animals are lucky).

I'd love to hear a better solution on this one since the public is obviously too stupid to help in protection efforts.

That being said. If LA didn't already try (I don't know LA law so they might have gone down this road already) then the in between compromise of Government inspection of breeder facilities might have been better. Again, IF they didn't already try this. I don't really know.

Personally. I'd love to see more laws against animal cruelty in mass industry. But that's me.
 
Ntharotep said:
It still astounds me how many people still have the attitude of this quote "This is America alright and in America if a man wants to beat his own animal that's his business."
Animals are not simply property to do with as you please. This isn't like telling a rug merchant what kind of weave they have to use.
This is to protect the rights of living creatures (not humans but living creatures regardless).
If idiocy like puppy mills and breeding "production lines" didn't exist then maybe LA wouldn't say "Ok. Since you people are too stupid to breed animals in a humane and fair way we are going to tell the pet industry not to buy from you."

When it comes to animals, I'm for anything that helps protect them. A female "pure breed" has more right not to be bred to death than some hoity toity LA status symbol has to have the latest and greatest trend in fashionable pet (especially since people are increasingly buying animals, getting bored with them, and shipping them off to shelters if the animals are lucky).

I'd love to hear a better solution on this one since the public is obviously too stupid to help in protection efforts.

That being said. If LA didn't already try (I don't know LA law so they might have gone down this road already) then the in between compromise of Government inspection of breeder facilities might have been better. Again, IF they didn't already try this. I don't really know.

Personally. I'd love to see more laws against animal cruelty in mass industry. But that's me.
Click to expand...

Wouldnt it make more sense to target the puppy mills rather than than retailers?
 
radcen said:
:roll: Oh, geez. Give it a break. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. I put "sell" in quotes, so all you did was boost your ego by attempting to correct someone who wasn't wrong to begin with.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just being accurate. Petco and Petsmart aren't selling anything. They are providing space to non-profit charitable animal shelters, they do not charge additional fees for the service, it's all a tax write-off. They also both provide food free of charge to the shelters, at least they used to, although that's underwritten by the pet food manufacturers. I never said you were wrong, I was correcting potential misconceptions for people who don't understand what's going on.

But to get back to the actual OP, this law won't affect any of the big pet stores because they don't sell dogs or cats to begin with. It's the little guys that will bear the brunt of the law and will just move out of LA, thus increasing the demand for backyard breeders who won't be stopped at all by the law.
 
jonny5 said:
Wouldnt it make more sense to target the puppy mills rather than than retailers?
Click to expand...

Read: If they didn't already try that.
Like I said, I'm speaking from a position that I don't know what LA already tried regulation wise.
Since this was voted on, perhaps the city council got complaints from the people and decided on the compromise of not shutting down the breeders but keeping them out of the easier to purchase industry, making people go directly to them instead.
Anything would be conjecture though since the article doesn't cover what discussion led the council to this vote or what was already tried beforehand.
Its easy to assume that this was a knee-jerk reaction and nothing else was tried but city and county councils don't generally work that way to be fair.
 
Southern Dad said:
If people do not like the laws their state pass, they can feel free to move or they can toss their own hat into the ring to run for the job.
Click to expand...

And if right wingers don't like taxes, Obamacare and business regulations, they can do the same
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is not a state law - this is a city law. LA, in this case, refers to the city of Los Angeles, CA not the state of Louisanna. ;)
Click to expand...

state and local laws are constitutionally in the same basket
 
sangha said:
And if right wingers don't like taxes, Obamacare and business regulations, they can do the same
Click to expand...

Oh they are, and you all are whining about it like crazy. Remind me again, which direction has California's unemployment rate went? What about their per capita rate of people on food stamps? Let's compare those numbers to Texas. Oh snap!
 
Southern Dad said:
Oh they are, and you all are whining about it like crazy.
Click to expand...

Actually, they're not

Remind me again, which direction has California's unemployment rate went? What about their per capita rate of people on food stamps? Let's compare those numbers to Texas. Oh snap!
Click to expand...

Why don't you remind us about how Kansas and Mississippi are doing?
 
sangha said:
Actually, they're not

Why don't you remind us about how Kansas and Mississippi are doing?
Click to expand...

Kansas and Mississippi haven't recently decided to really raise taxes even though California already had some of the highest taxes in the nation.
 
Southern Dad said:
Kansas and Mississippi haven't recently decided to really raise taxes even though California already had some of the highest taxes in the nation.
Click to expand...

Umm, they cut taxes and ran their economies according to right wing economic theory

And their economies suck
 
sangha said:
Umm, they cut taxes and ran their economies according to right wing economic theory

And their economies suck
Click to expand...

Don't worry, no one can afford to live in California any longer. Look at that cost of living... And those taxes. Y'all keep it up.
 
Ntharotep said:
Read: If they didn't already try that.
Like I said, I'm speaking from a position that I don't know what LA already tried regulation wise.
Since this was voted on, perhaps the city council got complaints from the people and decided on the compromise of not shutting down the breeders but keeping them out of the easier to purchase industry, making people go directly to them instead.
Anything would be conjecture though since the article doesn't cover what discussion led the council to this vote or what was already tried beforehand.
Its easy to assume that this was a knee-jerk reaction and nothing else was tried but city and county councils don't generally work that way to be fair.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty standard for liberal policy making. Treat the symptom, not the cause.
 
sangha said:
It's called "regulating commerce" and it's in the constitution
Click to expand...

It's called government meddling where it doesn't belong.
 
sangha said:
which is why CA's population is larger than KS and MS combined :lamo

"No one goes there any more; It's too crowded"
Click to expand...

Give it some time. It's not about which state has the biggest population it's the trend. Which way will the population go? Of course, as more illegals come to California and more Americans leave it might work out. I'm sure that you are smart enough to understand that the unemployment in California is higher than the national average. California is at 5.4% unemployment whereas Texas is at 4.3%, of course, keeping in mind that California has 12 million more people that's a significantly higher number of people who are out of work. Good job, California.
 
yankintx said:
Laws like this are usually grandfathered in, so those pets already for sale in the window should be exempt, depends on how the law is written.
Click to expand...

You are a rotten human being!!!! Now I have that song stuck in my head... So, in hopes of sharing the misery:


:mrgreen:
 
faithful_servant said:
You are a rotten human being!!!! Now I have that song stuck in my head... So, in hopes of sharing the misery:


:mrgreen:
Click to expand...


Oh my lol

That was not my intent

You get an extra point if you can tell me who sang the original version, for the life of me I cant remember.
 
Northern Light said:
Los Angeles Permanently Bans the Sale of Non-Rescue Cats & Dogs | The Catington Post



Interesting idea. People already hashed this out in the comments section, so I'll summarize it here. On the one hand, what's the deal with telling a pet store what it can and cannot sell? On the other hand, we already do that with laws against exotic animals and what not.

This seems like a really sensible way to deal with overcrowding in shelters while still letting individuals seek out private pet breeders if they want to.
Click to expand...

umm that is a terrible idea.

those dogs in rescues and such are almost like special needs animals at times.
I know we tried getting a dog from a rescue. we gave up as every time we found
a dog that we liked they had things like no kids or not good with this or that.

it was basically impossible.

they have rules in place for rescue dogs to ensure that the family that gets them
are able to take care of them.
 
yankintx said:
Oh my lol

That was not my intent

You get an extra point if you can tell me who sang the original version, for the life of me I cant remember.
Click to expand...

Written in 1952 by Bob Merrill and recorded by Patti Page.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom