8 ms·

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

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 8y ago
> 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.
- ethbro 8y ago
  The point about inspection overhead / regulatory capture is a good one. Regulation is difficult because of unintended consequences. So given a choice between "ban pet stores from selling bred animals" and "create a new bureaucracy to oversee animal conditions" (then pairing it with something like a transfer tax), the former is a lighter market touch. And if we want to get realpolitik, mongrels tend to have stronger genetics than pure-breds ("Life finds a way"), so this is probably long-term good for pets in general.
  - firethief 8y ago
    But you need purebreds to get mongrels, otherwise you eventually wind up with mutts (which are healthier than purebreds but not as good as mongrels).
    - johnkpaul 8y ago
      I thought that mutt and mongrel were synonyms. Is there some formal distinction?
      - ethbro 8y ago
        I meant it as a synonym, debated on which to use, and decided mongrel carried fewer pejorative connotations. 'Cross-breed' is term I've heard involving pure-bred ancestors. E.g. this adorable Bassador on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_crossbreed#/media/File%3AFred_the_Bassador.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_crossbreed#/media/File%3...
- meesles 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      >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.
      - 8y ago
- timthorn 8y ago
  Here's a few links describing the regulatory situation in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/dog-breeding-licence-england-scotland-wales https://www.gov.uk/dog-breeding-licence-england-scotland-wal... https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breeding/dog-breeding-regulation/faqs-dog-breeding-regulations-in-england/ https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breeding/dog-breeding-regul... https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/news-events/issues-campaigns/partnershipaward/240718_local%20authority%20report_digital.pdf https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/news-events/issues-campaigns/pa...
- bluedino 8y ago
  How would you enforce a ban on backyard breeders? I personally detest them as they flood the market with unhealthy dogs.
detcader 8y ago
Hey look, it's the same arguments against the Nordic model of prostitution laws. Can you describe the conditions of cats and dogs with today's breeders in a few sentences, instead of just saying "poor"? At least by quoting someone else.
- mcguire 8y ago
  https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-uncovering-us-puppy-mills https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-unc...
coldtea 8y ago
>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. Well, there's a demand for all kinds of things, doesn't mean it should be satisfied (or that "the market will find a way around it" means we should make it open).
otakucode 8y ago
If the breeder raises the desired animals, then 'abandons' them in a pen, then they are 'rescued' by the person who usually transports them... that seems like an easy workaround. It's not hard to convert a non-rescue animal into a rescue animal.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  It's not hard to detect that, either. A $2,000 "rescue" animal for sale at a pet shop clearly isn't a rescue. (Especially if it comes with a purebred certificate!)
  - justizin 8y ago
    Additionally, it sounds like shelters have to be a gobetween, so can't just be a pet store and say, "oh i found a bunch of dogs out back and rescued them and they are for sale."
ip26 8y ago
As far as I understand, ethical breeders who raise dogs with care tend to operate direct already. Have you never heard someone say "I got such-and-such a dog from a breeder"?
yig 8y ago
"People may still buy dogs or cats directly from breeders."
e40 8y ago
Every single person I know that bought a specific breed bought from a breeder not a pet store. This is a very good move, as the only impact it will have is shutting down the puppy mills.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
maire 8y ago
The law is specific to pet stores because it is one step removed from the breeder. You can still buy directly from the breeder. If a person cares about a particular breed they typically buy directly from the breeder anyway. That way they can check on the pedigree of the dog. At the same time they can see the condition of the dogs. The people who buy from pet stores really want a dog similar to a particular breed but don't particularly care about the breeding much less the conditions of the puppies at the puppy mill.
- ticmasta 8y ago
  This. Pet stores have zero interest or ability to influence the conditions at a breeder and rarely sell papered animals. They just cash in on trends around certain breeds and will happily sell any animal to a buyer who isn't really that discerning. My wife & I work with a rescue and the breakdown tends to looks like: RESCUE ANIMAL conditions: abysmal when rescued; then the most loving fosters and homes around breed: "brown dog" cost: ~ $200-$400 depending on fees owner: really wants a dog (our screening is quite strict) PET STORE ANIMAL conditions: unknown, but lots of rescues come from backyard breeders that willingly or not have terrible conditions breed: looks like whatever is hot this year (yorkie cross, french bulldog, chocolate lab) cost: $hundreds to thousands owner: wants a type of dog but cost, effort or timing prevents planning with a breeder BREEDER conditions: usually pretty good if they're a registered breeder or breed, though the females have more litters than breed: very specialized, registered cost: $thousands owner: wants a very specific dog for various reasons, willing to plan 6+ months in advance, disposable income Interestingly the type of people who adopt rescues are very similar to many of those who buy the expensive breeder animals.
pjc50 8y ago
Interesting that you compare this with livestock. Certainly in the EU, the herd animals are all extremely heavily regulated and tracked individually. You can't keep a goat at home without being registered with DEFRA. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-on-keeping-cattle-bison-and-buffalo-in-great-britain https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-on-keepin... It feels a bit panopticon to require all breeding animals to be registered, but technologically it's now quite easy. Allowing neutered animals out of the control system would be a compromise so this doesn't affect the average pet owner. Many breeds operate breed registries anyway. It's just the "puppy mills" we're trying to do away with.
- detcader 8y ago
  "International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires, within a reasonable number of years, the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all [children]." - Wikipedia That could also be described as a bit panopticon, but is the counterargument not the same: children and animals should be raised with care, under threat of law, because we can assume in the current world they will suffer otherwise?
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Doesn't technically require the panopticon; it's not a mandate for ear-tagging children. It's a lot easier to implement and enforce if you have a database of children but it's not a strict requirement. People get very easily upset by this kind of child welfare thing, regarding it as distrustful, but it's very necessary.
- clairity 8y ago
  > “t feels a bit panopticon to require all breeding animals to be registered...” is “panopticon” now fashionable? in any case, i quibble with your usage here. the panopticon is not merely a tracking apparatus, but an apparatus of self-discipline. it’s function was to control, and it illustrates a systemic application of micro-power (discipline you apply to yourself) on large populations. that’s why it was insidious and that’s why it was interesting. you’re losing this interesting and essential feautre the way you throw around this word.
bluedino 8y ago
People have been buying from out of state forever. I've went with friends to pick up pups at the airport. If you're spending $3,500 on a dog it's not a big deal to have it shipped.
- mikestew 8y ago
  And you see no difference between the demographic that has dogs shipped for multiple thousands of dollars, and those shopping at a pet store?
  - zeveb 8y ago
    Seems to me, then, that this law punishes the poor who may want easy access to a specific breed, while still allowing the wealthy to do whatever they want. That strikes me as regressive.
    - tinus_hn 8y ago
      In other news, rich people can afford some things that poor people cannot. Fortunately a pet is not a basic necessity.
    - mikestew 8y ago
      Seems to me, then, that this law punishes the poor who may want easy access to a specific breed Yup, being poor sucks. Have to drive a shitty car instead of a BMW, have to have a mutt instead of a Standard Poodle. The social injustice of it all...
lisper 8y ago
You're not wrong, but this law will still (IMHO) have a positive effect in that it will reduce the number of impulse purchases of non-rescue animals. Also, shortening the supply chain will make it harder for breeders to dump animals with genetic defects on the market without repercussions.
mcguire 8y ago
Because California can't do anything to regulate breeders in Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa or Arkansas. https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-uncovering-us-puppy-mills https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-unc...
- eloisant 8y ago
  Can't make up a set of rules, and breeders that don't respect them don't get to send their pets to Californian stores? Or put it differently: force pet stores in California to sell only pets that were treated humanly.
  - protomyth 8y ago
    Well, there is a Supreme Court case in this realm about eggs http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-california/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-califo...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Can't make up a set of rules, and breeders that don't respect them don't get to send their pets to Californian stores? I think the weak federal rules that are referenced in the story here are preemptive, so, it's quite possible that California can't adopt stricter rules. In any case, it's a lot easier to enforce a “sell from shelters only” rule than one that requires state enforcement of standards on out-of-state suppliers.
setgree 8y ago
> there is a demand for certain breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter. The article states that the law allows for purchasing animals directly from a breeder.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> 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. They are attempting to reduce the abuses by increasing transaction costs by removing the main retail channel; this is not intended to prevent sales of specific breeds by breeders. > 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. Yeah, people who have an intense desire for a specific breed (or a non-rescue for some non-breed reason) will still have a number of other avenues less convenient than the pet store. That probably won't cut mills out entirely (but it will narrow the convenience advantage they offer over conventional, reputable breeders), but then a solution doesn't have to be total to be an improvement.

flavor8 8y ago

> 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.

ethbro 8y ago
The point about inspection overhead / regulatory capture is a good one. Regulation is difficult because of unintended consequences. So given a choice between "ban pet stores from selling bred animals" and "create a new bureaucracy to oversee animal conditions" (then pairing it with something like a transfer tax), the former is a lighter market touch. And if we want to get realpolitik, mongrels tend to have stronger genetics than pure-breds ("Life finds a way"), so this is probably long-term good for pets in general.
- firethief 8y ago
  But you need purebreds to get mongrels, otherwise you eventually wind up with mutts (which are healthier than purebreds but not as good as mongrels).
  - johnkpaul 8y ago
    I thought that mutt and mongrel were synonyms. Is there some formal distinction?
    - ethbro 8y ago
      I meant it as a synonym, debated on which to use, and decided mongrel carried fewer pejorative connotations. 'Cross-breed' is term I've heard involving pure-bred ancestors. E.g. this adorable Bassador on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_crossbreed#/media/File%3AFred_the_Bassador.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_crossbreed#/media/File%3...
meesles 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    >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.
    - 8y ago
timthorn 8y ago
Here's a few links describing the regulatory situation in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/dog-breeding-licence-england-scotland-wales https://www.gov.uk/dog-breeding-licence-england-scotland-wal... https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breeding/dog-breeding-regulation/faqs-dog-breeding-regulations-in-england/ https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breeding/dog-breeding-regul... https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/news-events/issues-campaigns/partnershipaward/240718_local%20authority%20report_digital.pdf https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/news-events/issues-campaigns/pa...
bluedino 8y ago
How would you enforce a ban on backyard breeders? I personally detest them as they flood the market with unhealthy dogs.

detcader 8y ago

Hey look, it's the same arguments against the Nordic model of prostitution laws. Can you describe the conditions of cats and dogs with today's breeders in a few sentences, instead of just saying "poor"? At least by quoting someone else.

mcguire 8y ago
https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-uncovering-us-puppy-mills https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-unc...

coldtea 8y ago

>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. Well, there's a demand for all kinds of things, doesn't mean it should be satisfied (or that "the market will find a way around it" means we should make it open).

otakucode 8y ago

If the breeder raises the desired animals, then 'abandons' them in a pen, then they are 'rescued' by the person who usually transports them... that seems like an easy workaround. It's not hard to convert a non-rescue animal into a rescue animal.

ceejayoz 8y ago
It's not hard to detect that, either. A $2,000 "rescue" animal for sale at a pet shop clearly isn't a rescue. (Especially if it comes with a purebred certificate!)
- justizin 8y ago
  Additionally, it sounds like shelters have to be a gobetween, so can't just be a pet store and say, "oh i found a bunch of dogs out back and rescued them and they are for sale."

ip26 8y ago

As far as I understand, ethical breeders who raise dogs with care tend to operate direct already. Have you never heard someone say "I got such-and-such a dog from a breeder"?

yig 8y ago

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

e40 8y ago

Every single person I know that bought a specific breed bought from a breeder not a pet store. This is a very good move, as the only impact it will have is shutting down the puppy mills.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

maire 8y ago

The law is specific to pet stores because it is one step removed from the breeder. You can still buy directly from the breeder. If a person cares about a particular breed they typically buy directly from the breeder anyway. That way they can check on the pedigree of the dog. At the same time they can see the condition of the dogs. The people who buy from pet stores really want a dog similar to a particular breed but don't particularly care about the breeding much less the conditions of the puppies at the puppy mill.

ticmasta 8y ago
This. Pet stores have zero interest or ability to influence the conditions at a breeder and rarely sell papered animals. They just cash in on trends around certain breeds and will happily sell any animal to a buyer who isn't really that discerning. My wife & I work with a rescue and the breakdown tends to looks like: RESCUE ANIMAL conditions: abysmal when rescued; then the most loving fosters and homes around breed: "brown dog" cost: ~ $200-$400 depending on fees owner: really wants a dog (our screening is quite strict) PET STORE ANIMAL conditions: unknown, but lots of rescues come from backyard breeders that willingly or not have terrible conditions breed: looks like whatever is hot this year (yorkie cross, french bulldog, chocolate lab) cost: $hundreds to thousands owner: wants a type of dog but cost, effort or timing prevents planning with a breeder BREEDER conditions: usually pretty good if they're a registered breeder or breed, though the females have more litters than breed: very specialized, registered cost: $thousands owner: wants a very specific dog for various reasons, willing to plan 6+ months in advance, disposable income Interestingly the type of people who adopt rescues are very similar to many of those who buy the expensive breeder animals.

pjc50 8y ago

Interesting that you compare this with livestock. Certainly in the EU, the herd animals are all extremely heavily regulated and tracked individually. You can't keep a goat at home without being registered with DEFRA. https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-on-keeping-cattle-bison-and-buffalo-in-great-britain https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-on-keepin... It feels a bit panopticon to require all breeding animals to be registered, but technologically it's now quite easy. Allowing neutered animals out of the control system would be a compromise so this doesn't affect the average pet owner. Many breeds operate breed registries anyway. It's just the "puppy mills" we're trying to do away with.

detcader 8y ago
"International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires, within a reasonable number of years, the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all [children]." - Wikipedia That could also be described as a bit panopticon, but is the counterargument not the same: children and animals should be raised with care, under threat of law, because we can assume in the current world they will suffer otherwise?
- pjc50 8y ago
  Doesn't technically require the panopticon; it's not a mandate for ear-tagging children. It's a lot easier to implement and enforce if you have a database of children but it's not a strict requirement. People get very easily upset by this kind of child welfare thing, regarding it as distrustful, but it's very necessary.
clairity 8y ago
> “t feels a bit panopticon to require all breeding animals to be registered...” is “panopticon” now fashionable? in any case, i quibble with your usage here. the panopticon is not merely a tracking apparatus, but an apparatus of self-discipline. it’s function was to control, and it illustrates a systemic application of micro-power (discipline you apply to yourself) on large populations. that’s why it was insidious and that’s why it was interesting. you’re losing this interesting and essential feautre the way you throw around this word.

bluedino 8y ago

People have been buying from out of state forever. I've went with friends to pick up pups at the airport. If you're spending $3,500 on a dog it's not a big deal to have it shipped.

mikestew 8y ago
And you see no difference between the demographic that has dogs shipped for multiple thousands of dollars, and those shopping at a pet store?
- zeveb 8y ago
  Seems to me, then, that this law punishes the poor who may want easy access to a specific breed, while still allowing the wealthy to do whatever they want. That strikes me as regressive.
  - tinus_hn 8y ago
    In other news, rich people can afford some things that poor people cannot. Fortunately a pet is not a basic necessity.
  - mikestew 8y ago
    Seems to me, then, that this law punishes the poor who may want easy access to a specific breed Yup, being poor sucks. Have to drive a shitty car instead of a BMW, have to have a mutt instead of a Standard Poodle. The social injustice of it all...

lisper 8y ago

You're not wrong, but this law will still (IMHO) have a positive effect in that it will reduce the number of impulse purchases of non-rescue animals. Also, shortening the supply chain will make it harder for breeders to dump animals with genetic defects on the market without repercussions.

mcguire 8y ago

Because California can't do anything to regulate breeders in Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa or Arkansas. https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-uncovering-us-puppy-mills https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-unc...

eloisant 8y ago
Can't make up a set of rules, and breeders that don't respect them don't get to send their pets to Californian stores? Or put it differently: force pet stores in California to sell only pets that were treated humanly.
- protomyth 8y ago
  Well, there is a Supreme Court case in this realm about eggs http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-california/ http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-califo...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Can't make up a set of rules, and breeders that don't respect them don't get to send their pets to Californian stores? I think the weak federal rules that are referenced in the story here are preemptive, so, it's quite possible that California can't adopt stricter rules. In any case, it's a lot easier to enforce a “sell from shelters only” rule than one that requires state enforcement of standards on out-of-state suppliers.

setgree 8y ago

> there is a demand for certain breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter. The article states that the law allows for purchasing animals directly from a breeder.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> 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. They are attempting to reduce the abuses by increasing transaction costs by removing the main retail channel; this is not intended to prevent sales of specific breeds by breeders. > 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. Yeah, people who have an intense desire for a specific breed (or a non-rescue for some non-breed reason) will still have a number of other avenues less convenient than the pet store. That probably won't cut mills out entirely (but it will narrow the convenience advantage they offer over conventional, reputable breeders), but then a solution doesn't have to be total to be an improvement.