
A new law in California requires pet stores to sell only rescue animals - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/california-pet-store-rescue-law.html
======
topmonk
This sort of thing sits wrong with me.

Why don't they force the breeders to have better conditions for the animals,
and include livestock and lab animals along with it?

By doing it this way they aren't acknowledging there is a demand for certain
breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter. The market is going to find
a way around this, either by dealing with the dealers' directly (or through
some sort of "finder") or going out of state.

Either way, the poor conditions for animals are going to continue in some
shape or form, and no one is going to be able to set up a breeder farm that
treats its animals ethically without finding a way to sell their animals,
which means jumping through yet another hoop.

It's just dumb, kind of insulting to the voters, and I suspect the politicians
for this were intending to avoid taking the heavy donors of the
farming/pharmaceutical industries to task while still trying to cast
themselves in a progressive light.

~~~
flavor8
> Why don't they force the breeders to have better conditions for the animals,
> and include livestock and lab animals along with it?

Breeding dogs isn't hard / has a low barrier to entry. You need a male and a
female and a place to house the puppies. Conditions could be generally
terrible. Enforcing licensing is unrealistic - who's going to do the
inspections? Who's going to pay the inspectors?

Further, there are too many dogs and cats, period. Disincentivizing commercial
breeding (making it harder to sell) is a _good_ thing, and rerouting some of
the animals who would be killed by shelters who can no longer accomodate them
is also a good thing.

~~~
meesles
I find the overpopulation argument really interesting in how it compares to
similar issues:

1\. There's too many humans, killing humans to reduce the population isn't
really a palatable solution to anyone. 2\. There's too many cats/dogs, killing
them seems much more reasonable to some, and awful to others. They're in the
sweet spot between family and wildlife. 3\. Pests (deer, rabbits, etc) are
over-populating, killing them is pretty much A-OK.

Personally I see a cultural issue akin to wastage. Especially in the US, we
love to buy and throw stuff out all the time. I would hypothesize that people
who buy/rescue mutts and less desirable breeds are more likely to abandon them
after some time. Others who spend thousands of dollars on a specific breed
they like will be more likely to keep it the duration of its life.

I see the solution as more of a tax. Stop letting people get cats/dogs for
$20. I also don't think inspections are unreasonable. The government already
inspects half of the industries, what's one more?

~~~
jack_jennings
The insinuation that people that adopt “less desireable” animals are less
responsible is verging on insulting. The people that I have met that are
working for neglected animals are some of the most dedicated and compassionate
people that I know. Meanwhile, on any given day you can find “fancy” breeds
that have been abandoned at the municipal shelter by owners that couldn’t be
bothered to accomodate them.

~~~
learc83
>Meanwhile, on any given day you can find “fancy” breeds that have been
abandoned at the municipal shelter by owners that couldn’t be bothered to
accomodate them.

At least in my area, any expensive breeds (any pure breed that's not a
Chihuahua or Pit Bull really) are scooped up by rescues almost immediately.
Then if you want to adopt one, you have to go through an interview processes
ran by people who are temporarily caring for the dog who are looking for
reasons to disqualify you.

The approval process is completely arbitrary and far too invasive. The
president of the ASPCA was turned down by a rescue a few years ago, and he
wrote about the process.

~~~
jack_jennings
In my experience I find that hard to believe, and if true, those rescues are
doing a poor job. Everyone that works in animal rescue knows which animals are
at high risk of being euthanized, and always prioritize pulling those animals.

Regarding adoption, rescues are more invested in what homes their animals go
to because they often are making a promise to take back any animals they take
resposibility for. They don’t want animals to go back to the shelter, so any
sign of potential issue will get an adoption canceled. Are there false
positives? Of course. But a lot of animals going to good homes that would
otherwise be killed.

~~~
learc83
>In my experience I find that hard to believe

Just looked at my local shelter website. 78 dogs for adoption at the shelter.
Not a single pure breed that wasn't a pit bull. And 90% of the dogs were pit
bull or pit bull mixes.

>so any sign of potential issue will get an adoption canceled. Are there false
positives? Of course.

That's the problem rescue workers are in a poor position to make this
determination. They are in a perfect position to suffer from confirmation
bias, plus they are too emotionally attached to the dogs.

They need more objective standards. When the Head of the ASPCA can't meet your
standards, something is wrong.

>But a lot of animals going to good homes that would otherwise be killed.

And there are rescue organizations that buy dogs from breeders. Sure rescue
organizations do a lot of good, but they could be ran a lot better I think
they need more oversight.

------
matwood
This is a great move. Many pets sold in a pet store come from puppy mills
which are terrible places. Even if a person wants a particular breed, you can
almost always find a specific rescue. Rescues also typically stop people from
doing stupid things like bringing an English bulldog into a house with small
children. Which in turn ends up putting another animal into a shelter or
rescue.

My wife volunteers for a bulldog rescue, and we have adopted 3 French bulldogs
(in addition to many cats over the years). If my wife had her way we would
live on a farm and adopt every animal in need.

~~~
gnicholas
> _Even if a person wants a particular breed, you can almost always find a
> specific rescue._

Is this true at a city level? There are many popular breeds and it’s hard to
imagine that there would be sufficient inventory at all/most times.*

> _Rescues also typically stop people from doing stupid things like bringing
> an English bulldog into a house with small children._

How so? Maybe if you adopt from a diligent rescue organization, but if the
only organization in contact with the customer is a commercial pet store, the
diligent vetting will likely go out the window.

Note: I’m all in favor of rescue animals, and several family members have
adopted rescues from petsmart’s years-old program. I’m just not sure statewide
legislation is the way to go here.

~~~
gwern
> Is this true at a city level? There are many popular breeds and it’s hard to
> imagine that there would be sufficient inventory at all/most times.*

It's not. Expect more shabbos goys: "Dog Fight: Dog rescuers, flush with
donations, buy animals from the breeders they scorn"
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/investigations/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/investigations/dog-
auction-rescue-groups-donations/)

------
ironcan
Is there actually any reason why we should allow pet stores to sell animals at
all? Even outside of radical animal rights, it seems like a breeding ground
for terrible conditions for the animals.

~~~
xvedejas
Pets provide happiness for many people, and pet stores make more animals
available as pets. Probably including options you wouldn't find at a shelter.
And I personally don't see the harm.

(Disclaimer: I have never bought a pet at a pet store)

~~~
detcader
"Joyous! How is one to tell about joy? How describe the citizens of
Omelas?..."

~~~
xvedejas
If you want to dive into the philosophy... What is the relevant
counterfactual? If the alternative to animals living in conditions below your
standards is no animals at all, (or worse conditions), then I find pet stores
to be morally good. If the counterfactual is happily living animals, or a
world that is better in some other way, then you have an argument for me. But
does banning pet stores create a place for happy animals? Or does it have some
other effect that makes something else better about the world?

~~~
detcader
Me and people I've known growing up have found many, many friends in foster
homes, vet offices, shelters, the street. Where profit motive doesn't really
exist...

~~~
xvedejas
From my perspective, profit motive is good when it's tied to a good thing. And
we're trying to figure out if pet stores are a good thing or not.

------
talltimtom
I under stand the feel-good driving force behind this. But isn’t this
essentially just a protection racket baring pet stores from competing against
dog breeders?

~~~
Cthulhu_
I'm not sure where you're coming from. Where do pet stores got their animals
from before this law? If anything it's the opposite, providing a solution for
pet shelters that have too many animals they can't rehome.

~~~
Illniyar
I think he's saying that now people would go to the breeders directly instead
of the pet stores to buy pets, which I assume isn't disallowed by the law.

~~~
casefields
I mean dog breeders are no better or worse than drug dealers. There's bad
ones, good ones, there's some with better product and some with worse product.
Dogs and cats are property and don't have some natural rights or some such
nonsense.

~~~
tertius
I guess you could replace "drug dealers" with "grocers" if your emphasis is
not on the thing being sold as being bad for you?

------
skybrian
I expect this will result in more fake rescue groups:

[https://www.thedodo.com/close-to-home/puppy-mill-dogs-
sold-a...](https://www.thedodo.com/close-to-home/puppy-mill-dogs-sold-as-
rescues)

------
njarboe
I know two people in California who paid over a thousand dollars to import a
"rescue dog" from Taiwan. There are just not enough rescue dogs in California
to meet demand.

"People may still buy dogs or cats directly from breeders."

So I guess pets stores will have to become breeders? Do they have to breed
them at the store or can it be done elsewhere? Does the person doing the
breeding have to be your employee or can it be a contractor? California is so
full of these silly laws.

------
yellowapple
> Some customers do not have the option to adopt, particularly if they are
> looking for a certain type of dog, she said. “That is why we believe they
> should be given a choice.”

Which they still have by going directly to a breeder instead of relying on a
middleman (which is exactly what people who actually care about breed purity
and all that jazz actually do).

I think the new law is a bit draconian, but weak counterarguments like this
one ain't gonna get it overturned.

------
chooseaname
Won't this just push more puppy mills to sell, ahem re-home, animals on
Craigslist?

I don't see this solving the problem it was intended to solve.

------
f055
Great move, California!

------
natch
I mostly support this law but it does mean we are going to have a lot of pit
bulls. Sweet creatures, you may say. But they can be dangerous, at rates
higher than most other breeds.

~~~
AWildC182
Can we stop with this? I fly rescues as a hobby and of the dozens of pits I've
had, I've literally never encountered a hostile one to spite having to put the
dogs in a somewhat unsettling environment. Yes, you can train them to be
hostile like any dog, but targeting them specifically is insanity.

~~~
jhkiehna
anecdotal evidence. Statistics contradict your personal experience.

~~~
AWildC182
Actually most studies agree with my experience. You can cherry pick some that
don't but ultimately if people have the perception that X dog makes a good
fighting dog, they train them to become a fighting dog therefore skewing the
stats. It doesn't matter what dog you start with, you can make a golden
retriever a viscous killing machine if you're abusive or encourage violent
behavior, which is also abuse.

~~~
geebee
Well, sure, but if your goal was to create a vicious killing machine, would
you be indifferent to the breed of the dog? Pits aren't good fighting jobs
simply because people perceive them to be.

------
jccalhoun
I predict a lot of animal breeders opening "shelters" and "rescue groups."

~~~
casefields
They already do. Cutting out the middleman will just help them up their
profitability per dog.

------
patrickg_zill
So you have no idea what the history of the animal is, how they were treated
etc, vs. a relatively simple history for a younger puppy or kitten.

It is likely that pet stores will see this (possible behavior issues) as a
liability, with the result being less stores will carry pets at all.

~~~
mcguire
Here's the deal: most of the pets for sale in pet stores come from industrial
breeders whose primary concern is not the welfare of the animals. This is why
many popular breeds (or previously popular breeds) have genetic diseases out
the wazoo, as well as behavioral problems.

[https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-
hundred-2017-unc...](https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-
hundred-2017-uncovering-us-puppy-mills)

------
jhkiehna
the most important part of this article is "the California legislation was
“well intentioned but misguided”"

------
nailer
Hrm, I'm normally against restricting a free market but saving the lives of
animals transcend that. In a sense this isn't different to making companies
pay to clean up their waste, except in this case the 'waste' is unwanted
animal life.

------
mikerg87
I fear this is just going to create a Cobra Effect

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect)

~~~
detaro
How?

------
CuriouslyC
Until California bans animal-based agriculture, this is just hypocritical
bullshit...

This reminds me of people who are clamoring for a minimum wage hike with a
closet full of sweatshop clothing.

~~~
tdb7893
You can't just jump to the endgame here. Getting people to actually care about
the animals that they see is a good first step

~~~
mbrumlow
But if people cared about the animals then the laws would not be needed. Laws
don't magically make people care.

~~~
tdb7893
Right, the law came about because a majority of people cared about companion
animals. It doesn't make people care but it came about because enough people
do.

~~~
mbrumlow
I do not think laws come about because a majority of people. They normally
come about because a loud minority. At least in these days.

