Is Banning The Selling Of Puppies From Pet Shops The Solution?

[shortstep]

[sounds good but its not that easy.

There are not enough purebred breeders, there are not enough purebred breeders who breed enough purebred puppies. The minute yo start talking about how we should or should not be more open to people who want one of our dogs you overlook the fact that for many- most purebred breeders this is a life's mission a passion - looking after the breed is like a religion.

Its part of the solution but it needs some heavy work first.

I think this is such a big part of the problem.

[Mystiqview]

Some people should not reproduce let alone breed animals. While I don't believe in kittens/puppies in pet stores, I agree, market demand will always be there. As long as people think they can make a quick buck, it will be there. It is not helped by fad breeds and colours within certain breeds and some breeders both registered and non cashing in on these various fads. Especially when you see in my breed, black/white $800, Blue Merle $1200 and in some cases much higher prices, with some advertising "Rare" as a feature selling point to justify more money for a certain colour.

With microchipping becoming compulsory in Qld as of July last year, I still see a number of registered breeders omitting the pups will be microchipped, let alone BYB puppies.

I agree the current legislation needs to be regulated and policed. Until it is administered properly, people will still fly underneath official radars. At present, the only people truely accountable to current legislation are registered breeders where there is some form of paperwork to trace animals back to them.

BYB and puppy farmed dogs are not traceable as there is in many cases not register. Without that, it is very hard for authorities to track animals back. I know for my own permit here, I have to be a CCCQ registered breeder to get my council permit for breeding plus the yearly registrations to both council and the CCCQ.

BYB breeders pumping out litter after litter will not even have this basic council requirement as they cannot get the permit without being a registered breeder. Without CCCQ membership, they have to pay the $90 odd a year for whole dog registration.. Hmm. How many dogs are out there unregistered and being bred and advertised on a certain free website or local paper.

Pet shops operate under different rules, but they still need to be accountable for the pups they buy in and then sell. Personally I think it is cruel to have the animals in those small glass boxes. I don't care how often their cage is cleaned or they are taken out for play by the staff.

[Ker]

I do think the sale of pets needs to be banned in pet stores AND newspapers and internet. The only people selling pets should be registered breeders and pound/rescue.

Yes, it may force it underground, but if someone has a puppy, questions need to be asked "where did you buy it?" And then the owner needs to prove it came from an allowed organisation. Your average Joe Blow wont have much idea where to start looking for a dog on the black market and they wont know where to sell them if they can't offload them to the pet store or put an ad in the paper.

Even if it does go underground, it will dramatically decrease the number of dogs being bred. And if someone is found to have a dog from a disallowed organisation, they should get a fine. Another fine if the dog is unregistered, another if dog is not chipped and yet another if dog is not desexed. Compulsory desexing is also needed.

The public needs to be educated as well as to why Fido or Fluffy does NOT need to have a litter and why it is better for his or her health to desex their dogs and cats. I believe cats need to be registered as well.

There are too many animals dying daily in pounds, so something is obviously not working. So why not start making changes - they can only benefit.

[Steve]

I do think the sale of pets needs to be banned in pet stores AND newspapers and internet. The only people selling pets should be registered breeders and pound/rescue.

Yes, it may force it underground, but if someone has a puppy, questions need to be asked "where did you buy it?" And then the owner needs to prove it came from an allowed organisation. Your average Joe Blow wont have much idea where to start looking for a dog on the black market and they wont know where to sell them if they can't offload them to the pet store or put an ad in the paper.

Even if it does go underground, it will dramatically decrease the number of dogs being bred. And if someone is found to have a dog from a disallowed organisation, they should get a fine. Another fine if the dog is unregistered, another if dog is not chipped and yet another if dog is not desexed. Compulsory desexing is also needed.

The public needs to be educated as well as to why Fido or Fluffy does NOT need to have a litter and why it is better for his or her health to desex their dogs and cats. I believe cats need to be registered as well.

There are too many animals dying daily in pounds, so something is obviously not working. So why not start making changes - they can only benefit.

This isn't going to happen it breaches a whole pile of free trade laws which are federal in this country and will always win out over any other.Registered breeders breed less than 10% of puppies born each year in Australia and just because we think everyone should only own or breed registered animals whether we like it or not the majority of the population don't agree. If you cant sell them via newspapers and internet that wont stop anyone breeding them.

There are too many animals dying in pounds and suffering at the hands of breeders who don't care about the welfare of the animal more than they care about how much money they can make.

However, if we start making changes just because we focus on one issue without knowing the entire story the chances of actually making it worse rather than better is pretty high.

I'm about to distribute an email to MDBA breeder, rescue, pet owner and professional members this morning giving them opportunity to tell us what they think about the RSPCA recommendations for regulating breeders as part of our preparation for attending a round table meeting in Canberra next month with interested parties regarding puppy farms - We [ MDBA] happen to think we have a solution - a simple one with few if any potential unintended consequences with no financial considerations for government which we will present for discussion to our members soon.However, before we do that we are calling for their feed back in case we have missed something they feel is important.

[Mystiqview]

I do think the sale of pets needs to be banned in pet stores AND newspapers and internet. The only people selling pets should be registered breeders and pound/rescue.

Yes, it may force it underground, but if someone has a puppy, questions need to be asked "where did you buy it?" And then the owner needs to prove it came from an allowed organisation. Your average Joe Blow wont have much idea where to start looking for a dog on the black market and they wont know where to sell them if they can't offload them to the pet store or put an ad in the paper.

Even if it does go underground, it will dramatically decrease the number of dogs being bred. And if someone is found to have a dog from a disallowed organisation, they should get a fine. Another fine if the dog is unregistered, another if dog is not chipped and yet another if dog is not desexed. Compulsory desexing is also needed.

The public needs to be educated as well as to why Fido or Fluffy does NOT need to have a litter and why it is better for his or her health to desex their dogs and cats. I believe cats need to be registered as well.

There are too many animals dying daily in pounds, so something is obviously not working. So why not start making changes - they can only benefit.

Lets just go back to the dark ages, shall we? Prohibition has never worked and will wont work again.

Plenty of registered breeders advertise in those mediums you want banned. How else do people find the registered breeders?

Queensland tried the path of compulsory desexing legislation. It was quashed. Registered Breeders cannot keep everything in their back yard to keep the lines going. There are plenty of people who compete in dog showing, which the dog has to be whole, who are responsible owners with their whole and NON desexed animals.

The pounds here admitted they did not have a problem with the registered breeders and their dogs being dumped in the pounds.

The general population needs to be whacked over the head. Puppies are not like appliances, if it stops working so throw in in the bin.

The current legislation here is fairly good, it had teething problems when it first came out. IF IT CAN BE POLICED!!! There are not the resources by the authorities to oversee the current legislation of compulsory microchipping, permits etc.

Even some registered breeders are responsible for hiking prices for the fad colours/breeds for demand. And there is where you got to start looking.. Supply and Demand. If there is Demand, there will be supply. The big reason why Prohibition won't work.

[Shmurps]

There are two things we can get better at:

1. Getting accurate signals from the world. Right now, we take in information from many places, but we're not particularly focused on filtering the information that might be false, and more important, what might be missing.

2. Sorting and ranking information based on importance. We often make the mistake of ranking things as urgent, which aren't, or true, which are false, or knowable, when they're not.

Dealing successfully with times of change (like now) requires that you simultaneously broaden your reach, focus on what's important and aggressively ignore things that are both loud and false.

Easier said than done.

I think this is interesting for the animal welfare industry. There is a lot of information out there. A lot of it is false and/or misleading. Filtering through the information is hard -- but necessary. There is a lot of good information out there that we can learn from -- but we need to be better at listening to the information provided by those who have been successful, and filtering out the info from the loudmouths and naysayers.

Banning the sale of pets in pet stores - redux

Posted: 16 Jul 2010 02:37 PM PDT

Over the past week, one of the biggest discussions (it seems) around the country has been efforts by animal welfare advocates to ban the sale of pets in pet stores.

Earlier this week, the Austin Animal Advisory Commission approved a proposal that would ban the sale of pets. The proposal will go before the full council in October.

Earlier this week, San Francisco began considering similar policy (although San Francisco's policy would ban the sale of hamsters, gerbils, reptiles, guinea pigs, and birds) and El Paso, TX is also considering such a measure.

Proponents of a ban on pet sales in pet stores suggest that ending the sale of pets in these locations would help stop 'puppy mills' -- who they say are the primary supplier of dogs and cats to pet stores. They also believe that by stopping pet sales, it will drive more people to adopting and help solve the problem of an over-abundance of homeless pets.

Puppy mills are often a target for animal welfare and animal rights groups as these groups feel that these breeding operations do not take proper care of their animals, keep them in unhealthy conditions and over-breed their animals.

The keeping of animals in horrible, unsanitary conditions is already illegal under the national Animal Welfare Act -- however, the USDA admitted recently ina 69 page report that it is not doing a good job of enforcing their own policies.

However, this lack of enforcement aside, I think it's fair to look at this from a data-standpoint to see if banning pet sales in pet stores would work to solve the problem.

Last year, PetSmart charities did a research study on a variety of topics. From their research, here is where people got their pets from:

Family member - 25%

Adoption org/shelter - 24%

Stray - 19% (8% for dogs, 30% for cats)

Purebred breeder - 12% (21% for dogs, 2% for cats)

Pet Store - 8%

Own litter - 5%

Other (undefined) - 7%

So pet stores themselves make up only a small percentage of all of the obtained pets in the U.S. And while banning pet stores would possibly lead to an increase in adoptions, adoption isn't the only option and people who would have bought at a pet store may find other options. So let's dig deeper into the report.

When people chose not to adopt, here are the reasons they gave for not adopting. Now, admittedly people often make emotional decisions and then rationalize them, so these may not be entirely accurate, but I think this will give us a good guide on why people chose options other than adopting:

Org/Shelter did not have the type of dog/cat looking for: 17%

I wanted a purbred dog/cat: 13%

Don't know what you'll get with a shelter animal: 12%

I don't know much about pet adoption: 10%

Adoption process is too difficult: 10%

Org/Shelters depressing/sad, don't like going there: 7%

Not convenient hours: 6%

No adoption org close to where I live: 6%

Feel that pets from shelters have health problems: 5%

Feel that pets from shelters have behavior problems: 4%

Feel pet org/shelters have poor customer service: 4%

Other: 50% (includes took in a stray, was not planning to get a pet, wanted a puppy, mention of a specific breed, too expensive for adoption fees/pay for spay neuter).

There are some that shelters can't do much about (particularly on some of the specific purbred wants/needs) and others that are educational elements shelters have to overcome -- but a good number of the reasons people said they didn't adopt (I bolded them) are completely fixable by the shelters themselves if they would choose to make more adoptor-friendly policies.

When you look at the reasons people chose to go to purebred breeders, the top reasons were:

I wanted a specific breed: 67%

I wanted a pet with known history: 46%

I wanted a purbred: 41%

It was the most reputable: 19%

There are others -- but these are the majors. Many of these may be tough for the shelter/rescue community to overcome (although some of these people could be reached). But since we're talking about pet stores, let's look at why people chose to buy from a pet store:

Could get everything pet needs at one place: 44%

I wanted a specific breed: 42%

It was most convenient: 31%

It was least expensive: 14%

Shelters could easily take a lot of this market share if they provided more convenient hours for adoptions, worked to secure more convenient off-site adoption spaces, and provided a more 'pet store-like" environment where people could buy everything their pet needs all in one place.

My take away is that much of the reason people choose pet stores over things like reputable breeders or adoption has to do with convenience and price - -and much of the reason they choose not to adopt is because of the non-inviting, inconvenient and labor-intensive adoption process.

If these shortcomings are not overcome, it seems likely that the shelter/rescue community would gain the available market share even if pet stores were to close down. Currently,the majority of people already say they plan to get their next pet from a shelter or rescue.

The reality is that pet stores make up only a small source of all of the obtained pets in the community -- making up only 8% of the newly owned pets (it should also be noted, that some of these animals may have been "adopted" from a pet store that handled adoptions instead of purchased pets and the owner didn't really realize it). From looking at the reasons people choose to buy vs adopt, it sure seems like setting up some form of "retail" location would certainly overcome the majority of the hurdles -- and judging by the success of others that have done so, it sure seems like the case.

Meanwhile, if ending 'puppy mills' is the goal, it sure seems as if taking their market share, and pushing the USDA to enforce their current legislation would sure be a more sure-fire route to doing this.

I just think the banning pet stores is a bit of a smoke screen for rescues and shelters to try to hide their own shortcoming. I think the pet store bans are completely unnecessary, and a scary trend.

Have we done any research in Australia such as above?

[Steve]

Very interesting - Can you get me that original article - a link or similar ? Might just do some of those studies here.

I would also like to point out that even if legislating no live animals in pet shops made any difference in the states the impact here would be much less from a puppy mill perspective as the states cant export their puppies around the world with out long lengthy costs and quarantine.

We can whiz them out to any country and they can be in their new homes that day.

Edited July 17, 2010 by Steve

[Guest]

Puppy farms should be banned. but thats never going to happen while we have such p... weak government bodies doing nothing to stop these crimes.

I also think the puppy's sold from pet shops should be desexed and Microchiped before being sold,at the cost to the breeder as most of them are bought as family pets for children, and are very expensive to buy, I can't understand why you would wan't to pay so much for a pup at a pet shop when you can get a shelter puppy, for half the cost, and they are desexed, vaccinated, wormed and micro chipped.

And I'm sure that people wanting dogs for showing and agility, would want to buy them from a reputable breeder anyway.

I would also like to know what becomes of the pups that are not sold, at the pet shops.

lablove.

Save a pound puppy.

[Mystiqview]

You know with all this.

Honestly, I wonder how much is made up of BYB vs puppy farm.

To me, and please correct me if I am wrong (nicely), Puppy farm is large can I say commercial enterprise. No doubt they should be stopped for a variety of reasons.

You just have to go Petlink and see all the BYB's advertising there. There have been many scams over the years with the website classifieds closing briefly a number of years ago due to some.

While much smaller scale, BYB's are more widespread in the local community and I suppose have easier access to the local community as the prospective buyer does not have to travel too far to get their pup, they think they are buying from a "breeder" (which in a term they are, but quality in a range of areas is lacking in reality), so they THINK they are getting a better product than something from a puppy farm/pet store.

Now for me, these are the biggest concern, as they are "hidden" from mainstream.. They are small operations, flying under all the legislative red tape as I mentioned previously in one of my posts. While law DICTATES they must do certain things, because there is no tracking facility on them (EG: CCC membership, local council permits etc) they continue to fly underneath the law undetected unless someone in the local community reports them. Whereas puppy farms are large commercial enterprises that need a range of permits, likewise with pet stores, given their more "open" nature shall I say, they are more traceable and therefore more reportable. The animals there, mostly need to have the appearance of being well cared for, as many are in glass boxes in full view of the general public.

The biggest problem as mentioned above the way I see it, is regulating the existing legislation. It is there, but there are not enough resources (namely man power by Governments) to enforce them.

[Steve]

However, the recommendations the RSPCA has presented are in the main supposedly targeting the big filthy enterprises which do everything from go to end illegally.

They hide away without council permits and keep their dogs locked in sheds in filthy conditions out of sight , they don't declare their income etc. they sell to agents and dealers and never show up in the chain until someone catches them out and by then they have had hundreds if not thousands of dogs suffering at their hands.

If we stick to the topic of pet shop sales whether the dogs come from BYB or puppy mills to a pet shop at least we know the pet shop isn't going to be stupid enough to buy sickly,unhealthy pups because of the regs on them and their desire to make money too. What I'm saying is that at least the pet shop acts as some kind of buffer to protect the public but if they just sell them from their back yard or even from the puppy mill there is no protection AT all for the buyer.

[mita]

If we stick to the topic of pet shop sales whether the dogs come from BYB or puppy mills to a pet shop at least we know the pet shop isn't going to be stupid enough to buy sickly,unhealthy pups because of the regs on them and their desire to make money too. What I'm saying is that at least the pet shop acts as some kind of buffer to protect the public but if they just sell them from their back yard or even from the puppy mill there is no protection AT all for the buyer.

I realise that one case does not necessarily show a trend. But I was talking with a person who works at a pet store which sells puppies . I happened to mention Protexin supplement to her. She replied that they give Protexin to the puppies brought into the store for sale.

Because, she said, we don't know how well they were cared for, where they came from.

Apart from the welfare issue, this is a consumer issue. Public attention has to be directed to actual circumstances where puppies are sourced from. Just as the public has become more demanding re knowing where food supplies come from. It'd help tremendously, if it were mandatory for all puppies sold, to 'carry' with them (via microchip) the name of the person who bred & raised them.

The public also needs to be educated in what background factors are most likely to be found in a puppy that has been bred & raised with a base to be a good companion dog. First, they need to know what these factors are...& second, they need information (that's accountable for 'truth') about how they apply in the life of a puppy they're considering buying.

I also agree with the folk who've pointed out that internet ads & newspaper ads are as worrying as pet store sales. In the last US administration, a couple of politicians from opposite parties, formed a joint project to get strict laws set down for sale of puppies in their particular state. But they found that puppy farmers could still advertise from outside that state...using the net. The politicians then decided it'd be necessary to have something which took in all states. But they were bundled out in an election before the matter could progress further.

Edited July 18, 2010 by mita

[TsarsMum]

Sorry i have not read all replys but this is how i feel.

1. i think that if they dont ban puppys in shop windows they should at least make a size restriction. I have seen large dog breeds sold in our local and it just scares the pants off me, one was a pure masstif (thats what they advertised it) and that makes me freak, this is a huge dog and people may not realise the size it will grow and how well it needs to be trained.

2. they need to be held accountable. i know of a lady who fell inlove with a dog in the window and was told oh it will be small to med dog oh not this thing grew to bigger then my rotti. she was not happy but loved the dog so it worked out ok.

i love the idea of shelters joined to pet shops.

also the person who said about breeders and people looking at pups. I have been looking into a few breeds (i narrowed it to 3 then 2 and now im getting a samoyed )

Now one breed i basicly did not even get replys from breeders (good way to show your breed off) my mate has one and she had the same she nearly gave up and after 1 year she finally got one and it took alot of dedercation. me i was like well ill look eles where thanks.

I emailed another breeder and got 1 worded emails back i email a few times and thought nope not bothering with this.

i have a few that would email me and then just not bother (i had lots of questions and being a mum i forget and get distracted so email is best)

NOW i have found my pup, this breeder has emailed me back answered my questions, send me pics, even skyped with me showed me one of the pups and and older pup. and this is where my money is going. and i CANT WAIT :D

[Shmurps]

Very interesting - Can you get me that original article - a link or similar ? Might just do some of those studies here.

I would also like to point out that even if legislating no live animals in pet shops made any difference in the states the impact here would be much less from a puppy mill perspective as the states cant export their puppies around the world with out long lengthy costs and quarantine.

We can whiz them out to any country and they can be in their new homes that day.

btoellner.typepad.com/kcdogblog/

[fuzzy_dragonfly]

Actually I honestly think part of the problem comes from poor dog ownership. I've never whelped a litter but provided books and resorces to two collegues at work who "accidentally" had an entire male and female dog together, one wasn't really an accident .

Thankfully I convinced ONE collegue to desex both male and female....whoopie-do-dah. The unfortunate thing is in both cases my collegues chose to give the enitre pups away "free to a good home" ....

Big accident waiting to happen....I kept in touch with one of the homes that adopted and found out their undesexed pup had "run away" ;) . I've since found another one also "ran away" .

And no they weren't all that keen on finding their lost pups either .

Simple maths:

That equates to approx 12 crossbred pups, at least another 8-10 from the runnaways, goodness knows how many from the next generation if they fall into the wrong hands .... and the cycle continues.

Nothing illegal, it's not deliberate BYBing either.

Just two very ignorant dog owners doing very irresponsible things with their dogs. They aren't bad people ... stupid (putting it nicely) ... I agree.

It's more than likely these "free to good home" pups are the type that would end up in pounds. .

It's not their fault they were born.

Maybe there should be more focus on the responsibilities and consequences of owning a dog.

No matter where you buy it from, if you aren't registered as a breeder yourself. Desex it, vaccinate it ... love it.

A dog is a dog, wheather they are a show dog or a mongrel they all deserve the same level of care!