Why Ban Pet Sales?

Well the debate sure has heated up here on the Soapbox as a result of my request for the City of Calgary to implement a ban on the sale of companion pets in pet stores.  The proposed by-law amendment is similar to ones already in place in several US cities and the one recently passed in Richmond, B.C.  Richmond is the first Canadian city to introduce such a by-law, and it looks like Langley, B.C. might soon be the second.

And why am I proposing this ban?  A couple of simple reasons.  To review:

1.  Decrease the sales of puppies bred in “puppy mills” and bring a more widespread awareness of the issue of puppy mills in the first instance.  Pet stores are the most visible sales medium for these substandard, high volume breeders.

2.  Put an end to impulse pet purchases.  The addition of a dog or cat to the family is not something to be taken lightly, but it often is, resulting in the surrender of dogs and cats to rescue organizations when unprepared purchasers will or can no longer care for them.  To ban the sale of companion animals in pet stores will decrease these impulse pet purchases, relieving some of the strain on local animal rescues.  Since the City of Albuquerque, NM, imposed a by-law banning commercial pet sales, they report animal adoptions have increased by 23% and euthanasia at city shelters has decreased by 35%. 

Of course, implementing a ban such as this has some pretty strong critics, not the least of which is Petland, as anyone following my blog knows.  I can only assume such a ban will detrimentally affect their bottom line, or they wouldn’t be so opposed to the suggestion that they instead feature pets from rescue agencies in their stores.  (I should note a Petland location in East Liberty, PA has in fact opted to do this anyway, even though the city has no such ban in place.)  The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada (PIJACC) also openly opposed the ban in Richmond. 

The critics claim a widespread acknowledgement that banning the commercial sale of pets is the wrong approach and that provincial legislation is more appropriate to put an end to puppy mills (think Prop B in Missouri).  Of course that kind of solution also has many critics (again, think Prop B in Missouri). 

First, I actually find that this “widespread acknowledgement” isn’t really there.

The BC SPCA writes “Reputable breeders do not sell to pet stores; puppy mills do.”

The Canadian Federation of Humane Societies writes: “Many pet store puppies are born to suffering, malnourished dogs in puppy mills.”

The Humane Society International/Canada writes: “HSI Canada applauds Richmond (a Vancouver suburb) City Council for drafting a bylaw amendment that will ban the sale of puppies in commercial pet stores. […] Investigations have shown time and again that the vast majority of puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills, cruel mass-production facilities where the breeding dogs are often confined to small wire cages for life and often deprived of the basics of humane care, solely to produce puppies for the pet trade. HSI Canada hopes that Richmond’s actions will inspire other councils across Canada to take similar actions to combat the cruel conditions in which dogs are factory-farmed for profit, and congratulates Richmond for having the courage to be the first city in Canada to take this important step towards reducing the demand for puppy mill puppies.”

And while I certainly would support most provincial initiatives to regulate, monitor, and otherwise police high volume breeding facilities in an effort to put an end to puppy mills, the fact is that a municipality banning the sale of companion animals in pet stores is still a quick, effective, and important step to take.  Consider, for example, the City of Richmond, which found upwards of 90 pet store dogs per year were surrendered to the city-run shelter for various reasons – and Richmond only has three stores that actually sells pets (until April 2011, that is).  It is not only a burden upon the shelters who to care for and re-home these animals, but also the municipality and its taxpayers who pay for the shelter services.  Not to mention that a municipal solution is going to be the most effective, as it is more easily implemented (to the best of my knowledge, the provincial government doesn’t currently have this issue on the agenda), and it is the individual cities who regulate businesses with their respective by-laws.  And finally, while the province may regulate breeders within its borders, pet stores still often obtain dogs and cats from out-of-province, and even out-of-country, sources.  Instead, a city by-law amendment covers all these bases.

While considering this issue, I decided look back and see how Richmond determined to push through and become the first Canadian city to ban the sale of dogs and puppies in pet stores, and the following is taken from City Council Minutes.

Council Meeting, Monday, February 8, 2010

Marcie Moriarty, General Manager of Cruelty Investigations for the BC SPCA, was in favour of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Moriarty spoke of concerns related to dogs being sold in stores, noting that although pet stores claim that their dogs come from loving homes, these stores often hide behind puppy brokers.  In March 2009, CBC aired a documentary that exposed Hunte Corporation, a puppy broker, and showed the conditions in which puppies are kept.

Ms. Moriarty noted that currently there are no regulations or authority that oversees dog breeders.  Thus, pet stores can claim anything on their websites.  In regards to Richmond pet stores’ claim that their dogs come from ‘licenced breeders’, she questioned who licenced them.

She commented that neither the members of the Canadian Kennel Club nor other reputable breeders sell to pet stores as they do not know where their puppy will go. […]

In response to queries from Committee, Ms. Moriarty advised the following that (i) puppy mills are only in business because they have buyers; and (ii) although some puppies from mills may be healthy, they are bred in poor conditions.

Christie Lagally, volunteer with the Richmond Animal Protection Society (RAPS), distributed materials and spoke in favour of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Lagally stated that RAPS would like to see a full ban as many puppies purchased from Richmond pet stores are surrendered to RAPS within the first two years.

She spoke of figures related to surrendered or abandoned purebreds, and noted that almost every jurisdiction in BC consistently only sees 25% of purebreds surrendered or abandoned.  However, in Richmond this figure is 57%.

Ms. Lagally advised that surrender forms are included in the materials she distributed and noted that many of the forms indicate that the dogs were purchased from Richmond pet stores.  Also, she referenced a petition in favour of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.

Ernest Ang, owner of the Richmond Pet Habitat, was opposed to the proposed ban.  He stated that Richmond pet stores comply and perhaps exceed the standards of care set out by the Canadian Veterinarian Medical Association, humane societies, and the SPCA.  He advised that Pet Habitat only receives puppies from government certified facilities.  Mr. Ang was of the opinion that the banning of puppies being sold in Richmond stores would increase unregulated ‘backyard breeding’ and would create unfair competition for Richmond pet stores.

In response to the previously referenced CBC documentary, Mr. Ang noted that the video was one-sided and as such CBC has removed the link to the video on its website.  He concluded by stating that pet stores want to be part of the solution and he invited the City to work with them. …

Discussion ensued regarding Richmond’s current dog bylaw, and in reply to a query made by Committee, Wayne Mercer, Manager, Community Bylaws, advised that only three dogs are permitted per household.  He clarified that puppies are not considered dogs until six months of age.  […]

Discussion ensued regarding the CBC documentary and in response to comments made by Committee, Mr. Ang advised that Pet Habitat is against puppy mills and he has visited Hunte Corporation breeders.  He noted that he would share more information regarding Hunte Corporation.

Sarah Henderson, representing PJ’s Pets, spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in pet stores, and noted that a 2008 study conducted by Ipsos Reid indicated that only 10% of dogs owned by Canadians came from pet stores.  The remaining 90% come from other sources, therefore, selling dogs in stores is not a problem.  Ms. Henderson was of the opinion that a ban of the sale of dogs in pet stores will decrease jobs in Richmond as PJ’s Pets has a particular position that solely deals with the care and wellbeing of puppies:  Kennel Technician. …

In reply to queries from Committee, Ms. Henderson advised that (i) an employee of PJ’s Pets selects breeders; (ii) PJ’s Pets puppies come from a family-oriented environment within Canada; (iii) puppies are checked by PJ’s Pets’ veterinarian once they arrive at the store; and (iv) Kennel Technicians receive in-store training.

Cheri Simmons, former Store Manager for PJ’s Pets, was opposed to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  She was of the opinion that this ban would take away accountability and responsibility to find good homes for dogs.  There are no rules regulating breeders, therefore pet stores, which are regulated, are better places to purchase dogs. 

Ms. Simmons spoke of PJ’s Pets efforts to work with RAPS and indicated RAPS’ Board of Directors declined to work with them as they did not endorse the sale of animals in pet stores. 

In reply to queries from Committee, she noted that (i) better records should be kept in relation to where puppies come from; and (ii) PJ’s Pets does screen potential puppy buyers in order to match the future owner to the proper dog. […]

Gary Batt, President, Petland Surrey, spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Mr. Batt spoke of his involvement with the National Board of Directors of the Pet Industry in Canada and highlighted his participation during the creation and implementation of regulations related to dogs being brought into Canada.

Mr. Batt spoke of dogs being members of families, and companions. He stated that many parties are concerned with the proper breeding of any animal, and noted that his pet store attempts to regulate breeding and care as much as possible.  Mr. Batt stated that he does not support puppy mills and believed that pet stores are not the problem, but instead part of the solution.  He commented that often he sees puppies for sale on the side of the street and there are lists of puppies for sale in the classified ads of newspapers and on the internet.

Also, Mr. Batt advised that Canada does not licence or regulate the breeding of dogs, therefore there are no standards for kennels, no regulations, and no inspections.  He noted that such licences and regulations fall under the Provincial governments’ mandate.  […]

Council Meeting, October 12, 2010

For the ban:

Christie Lagally, Animal Welfare Advocacy Coalition (AWAC), spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Lagally referenced the gratitude that had been expressed to her and other animal welfare groups since the City’s proposal to change Business Licence Bylaw No. 7538 to ban the sale of dogs in pet stores.  Ms. Lagally then had all members in the audience in support of the ban raise their hands to illustrate the support to Council.

In conclusion Ms. Lagally read a statement from a City of Coquitlam Councillor who expressed her support for a province wide ban of the sale of dogs in pet stores, as well as increased sentences and fines for animal abuse and abandonment. 

Lori Chortyk, General Manager, Community Relations BC SPCA, spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Chortyk indicated that there is a perception that banning the sale of dogs in storefronts would drive the puppy mill industry underground.  She pointed out that the puppy mill industry is already underground, and that is why the industry has managed to survive.  In conclusion, she thanked Council for its consideration of this issue, noting that the BC SPCA has been inundated with feedback from people who are saying that proceeding with the ban would be a landmark decision, and that many other jurisdictions are watching this matter closely.

Helen Savkovic, Richmond Animal Protection Society, spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  In an effort to create an image of the living conditions and dangers that puppy mill dogs are exposed to, Ms. Savkovic referred to a number of United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Reports for various breeders’ sites and provided examples of infractions and spoke of the related dangers.

Kristin Bryson, Director, BC SPCA, spoke in support of banning the sale of dogs in storefronts.  Ms. Bryson spoke about how some US exporters of puppies being brought into the City of Richmond as well as numerous other Canadian cities, suggest that those puppies are from a licensed USDA source and that those puppies come from parents that are healthy and humanely cared for when they are not. 

Ms. Bryson made reference to the May 2010 report entitled “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers”, from the USDA Inspector General’s Office, (on file City Clerk’s Office), and advised that the Inspector General identified the following concerns: (i) the enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers; (ii) inspectors did not cite and document violations properly, or support enforcement actions; (iii) inspectors mis-used guidelines resulting in lower penalties for violators. 

She also advised that at this time there are only 99 inspection officers employed by the USDA and that they are responsible for inspections of dog breeders as well as other animal facilities such as zoos and labs.  Ms. Bryson further noted that when violations were actually recorded, enforcement action beyond an official warning was only given in 4% of the cases.

Rae Goodridge, Manager, Richmond BC SPCA, spoke in support of banning the sale of puppies in storefronts, and described her experience when purchasing a puppy from a breeder.  Ms. Goodridge advised that she had to go through an intense approval process which included a three page application form.  She noted that this breeder had allowed the dogs to live in her home and play in her yard.  She commented that animals that are shipped to pet stores are usually treated as livestock rather than pets.  She also noted that the SPCA provides information on reputable breeders for anyone searching for pure bred puppies that may otherwise be difficult to find in rescue shelters.

Don Clintoff, Richmond resident, spoke as a taxpayer, stating that he financially supported the animal shelters and that he did not see any shortage of animals for adoption in Richmond.  He expressed his belief that the pet stores do not have a strong argument against the ban on the sale of dogs in storefronts as they sell other products.  He remarked that unless there is a very large mark-up on pets, the marginal impact associated with the proposed ban  should be minimal to the pet stores.  In closing, Mr. Clintoff stated that the shelters are subsidized by taxpayers funding to collect and store animals, and that something had to be done to protect the taxpayers from expenditures that should not be happening.

Naz Gamadia, Richmond resident, stated that when searching for a puppy for herself, she researched breeders, shelters, and pet stores for approximately one year.  Ms. Gamadia stated that she found that most of the employees of the numerous pet stores she visited in Vancouver and Richmond did not have much knowledge about the dogs that were for sale in the stores.  She noted that the breeders and rescue shelters were able to provide far more information regarding different breeds and best care practices.  She also stated that pet stores do not take puppies back after seven days, whereas the rescue shelters will always take the animals back if the owner is no longer able to provide proper care.

Against the ban:

Roger Somm, National Director, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada (PIJAC), spoke in opposition to the banning of dogs in storefronts, and spoke of his involvement in the development of the Province of Manitoba’s Animal Care Act (on file City Clerk’s Office).  He also spoke about some of the regulations within the Act, including: (i) mandatory reporting of suspected abuse; (ii) increased fines for animal abuse; and (iii) licensing of pets stores, breeders, and shelters across Manitoba.

In answer to queries, Mr. Somm advised that it took approximately a year and a half to implement the new regulations in Manitoba, and that he had not made contact with the provincial government in BC to start a process similar to the one in Manitoba.

Robert Church, National Director, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council of Canada, advocate for responsible pet ownership, and pet store owner, provided an overview of the work he has done in the pet industry for the past 25 years.  He spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts, and requested Council to take a leadership role in abolishing substandard breeding operations across BC by encouraging, lobbying, and demanding that the provincial government establish an animal care act that licenses, regulates and inspects all breeders, pet stores and animal shelters.  Mr. Church questioned the rationale of the proposed ban which would “shut down” the only visible source of puppies that the public, the City, and animal protection officers are able to monitor.

Margaret Schmitky, Sr. Field Representative, Pet Land Canada, spoke in opposition to the banning of dogs in storefronts, and stated that Pet Land Canada was one of the largest full line pet stores in Canada, and that their 400 employees across Canada loved pets.  She advised that Pet Land has been regulating itself in accordance with PJAC guidelines and the Canadian Code of Kennel Practices.  She further advised that every Pet Land location has one or more companion animal purchaser and that their job is to actively investigate and inspect every puppy breeder before purchasing pets.

Ms. Schmitky stated that she personally believed that the proposed bylaw to ban the sale of dogs in storefronts had been brought forward with good intentions and emotion, but lacked futuristic and logical thinking.  She expressed her belief that the proposed ban would leave the public with little choice but to purchase puppies outside of their jurisdictions or directly from puppy breeders.  In conclusion, she stated that the only viable option to eradicate puppy mills is by implementing provincial legislation for regulation and licensing of breeders.

Gary Batt, owner, Petland Surrey, and formerly a representative of the PIJAC, spoke against the banning of dogs for sale in storefronts.  He stated that the pet industry was nationally setting standards to find a real solution to deal with the issue of puppy mills.  Mr. Batt stated that the provincial government should bring in strong licensing and regulation requirements. He expressed his belief that the City of Richmond’s proposed action was wrong and attacked the only publicly visible source of puppies in Richmond.

In conclusion Mr. Batt advised that he operates his pet store in the highest standards and has a willingness to work with City Council.  He urged Council to table the proposed ban and refer the matter back to staff for further investigation.  He encouraged the City to approach the province to regulate puppy breeding, and to join together with the Richmond Animal Protection Society (RAPS) and the BC SPCA to resolve the puppy mill problem in BC.  He also stated that pet stores behave much more responsibly than many believe.

Tim Hansen, Assistant Store Manager, PJs Pets, spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts, stating that the City was about to make a huge mistake by driving the supply of dogs even further underground, which would result in uncontrolled and unregulated sale of dogs.  Mr. Hansen stated that pet stores represent a known reputable source for the community to purchase pets.  He suggested that the City undertake more regulatory measures to deal with the matter and questioned where people would get their pets once the reputable sources have been eliminated. 

Mr. Hansen advised that an online poll indicated that the majority of residents were opposed to such a ban.  He also provided information related to the number of dogs for sale in Richmond pet stores in comparison to internet sites such as Kijiji.  In conclusion, Mr. Hansen stated that if the City of Richmond approached the provincial government regarding regulation of dog breeding operations, it would have the pet industry’s support. 

Ernest Ang, owner of the Richmond Pet Habitat, spoke in opposition to banning the sale of dogs in storefronts, and expressed his frustration, stating that he had been a proud member of Richmond’s business community until the issue of puppy mills and cruelty to animals had emerged.  He stated that his store attracts business into Richmond because a portion of his customers are from other jurisdictions.  Mr. Ang concluded by stating that he would like to work with the BC SPCA and RAPS, and advised that he has suggested that they work together to market and find good homes for unwanted pets in Richmond’s rescue shelters. 

Josef Demcak, Richmond Resident, spoke against the banning of dogs in storefronts, expressing his belief that his rights were shrinking.  He stated that every time a group decided to speak up, the City implemented a new bylaw and the City’s residents were stripped of their basic rights.  He expressed frustration that the proposed ban would take away the right to go to a neighbourhood pet store to buy a puppy.  Mr. Demcak stated that people needed education on this matter rather than a bylaw. 

Bob Harrison, Richmond resident, spoke in opposition to the banning of dogs in storefronts, expressing his belief that such a ban would drive the sellers underground.  He noted that pet stores are the only controlled source of puppies.  Mr. Harrison stated that responsible laws to outlaw puppy mills and abuse of animals are required and urged City Council to think seriously about maintaining control over the industry and solving the problem rather than banning dogs from the pet stores. 

The End

Even the inattentive should notice that the debate that took place last month in Richmond is the same as the one going in my little blog.  Even some of the cast is making an encore appearance, and the arguments and objections sound very familiar.

Will such a ban completely solve the puppy mill problem?  No, unfortunately it will not.  As long as there are irresponsible people out there purchasing puppy mill dogs, they will remain in business.  But we should do what we can – and what will be effective – in the meantime.

And, finally, to those who may think puppy mills are an American phenomenon, and need not be a pressing concern for Calgarians or Canadians: you are absolutely incorrect.  Here are some select examples of puppy mills discovered in our midst:
Abbotsford, B.C., September 2010
Southern Alberta, February 2010
Edmonton, Alberta, October 2009
Winnipeg, Manitoba, March 2008
Langley, B.C., December 2007
Bruce County, Ontario, December 2003
Toronto, Ontario, August 2001

About ThatJenK
Writing from Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 90% pictures of my dogs; 10% miscellaneous opinions nobody asked for.

17 Responses to Why Ban Pet Sales?

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention Why Ban Pet Sales? « Back Alley Soapbox -- Topsy.com

  2. Jessica says:

    An acquaintance of mine who works for bylaw here in Calgary mentioned to me that Calgary is actually a perfect area for puppy mills to form (and that there are several garage-based puppy mills in the city limits) – there is no bylaw governing how many adult dogs a household in the city limits can have, and as long as the dog’s basic needs (food water shelter ONLY) are met, there is nothing officers can do to prevent it. If all dogs over 3 months of age are licensed and the basic minimum needs are met, the puppy mill can legally continue to operate. Disgusting, no?

    • thatjenk says:


      And while I’m not sure an animal limit is the answer (the limits are often 2/3 dogs per household, and I know responsible folks who have more than that, or vary when fostering, but they’re also not breeding them), I think a ban similar to Albuquerque’s would address this very issue too (copied from my letter):

      (C) Residential Property. No Person shall display, sell, deliver, offer for sale, barter, auction, give away, or otherwise dispose of any Companion Animal puppies or kittens upon residential property without a Litter Permit.

  3. Violet says:

    I figured I’d throw in my 2 cents. For me anyway, I think the con’s outweigh the pros when it comes to buying a pet from Petland (or whatever pet chain store). What are the advantages of buying from petland? Well you get a cat or dog that comes already fixed and having had its shots so you don’t have to take the animal in yourself. So if you’re really lazy or forgetful or something than I guess that’s an advantage. But I mean if you handle taking the animal in yourself why would you buy one from a Pet store that costs an exorbitant amount of money? There’s plenty of free pets out there. And related to the shelter pets issue, why is Petland so against this? Gee whiz you’d think that would reflect positively on their reputation. Its rather suspicious their staff are all bulking at the idea of selling exclusively shelter pets if they are allegedly already doing this sooo much already.

    • Jessica says:

      Most reputable rescues only adopt out pets once they are vaccinated and spayed/neutered, and for much less than some of Petland’s “designer” dogs. So no advantage to Petland on that one. 😉

      • Vic says:

        I would like to point out that Petland’s puppies DO NOT already come neutered/spayed. They give you an “incentive”, which means if you get the dog fixed before 6 months of age, you get $30 back. That is a petty amount of cash back, considering you paid $1300 for your pug x shih tzu x poodle x bichon.

        • thatjenk says:


          Thanks for reading!

          PetLand’s spay/neutering depends on the dog and how long it’s been there, and also on the vet schedules. When I was in a local PetLand in November, there was a 9 week old puppy that had already been neutered. Whether you agree with prepubertal neutering is a whole other issue, but as a dog owner, that’s a decision I’d like to make myself in any event.

          And you’re absolutely right: the “incentive” they propose to spay/neuter intact pets is hardly an incentive at all.

  4. HAL says:

    I know exactly which (independant) pet store in LANGLEY, BC that has brought this concern to the surface of puppy mills. They had at any given time 10-12 different puppy breeds in their store. I was concerned where they would find these puppies with such ease, and always having a full house.

    Now having lived in Calgary before, Calgary has no ‘effective’ bylaws that curve puppy mills. My neighbor at one point would have anywhere from 15 to 20 dogs and would breed all of them. This is common all over Calgary and all over the Province of Alberta. No regulation. Go on Kijiji (Calgary) and you will see for yourself the massive amount of dogs for sale in the city and the entire province.
    Shame on Alberta. Shame on Calgary. Start with residential bylaws with how many dogs an owner can have in the city. Its not perfect, but there is no law saying you can’t have 10 dogs, and if there is now, its not being enforced. By not allowing pet stores to sell dogs and not changing city bylaws only sends this industry further underground.

  5. Vic says:

    Pet stores are NOT a visible source of puppies. The only visible “source of puppies” is a reputable breeder and/or rescue organizations. That should be common knowledge to the public. Sadly, it is not and hopefully this ban will open people’s eyes.
    Just search the internet on what to look for in a reputable breeder and you shall see. Pet stores meet none of this criteria.
    In fact, I used to work at a pet store not too long ago and I will give you the good and the ugly of buying a puppy from a pet store.
    The only good point I can come up with is that if the puppies have been there a decent amount of time, they become well socialized with children. At least this was the case in the store I worked in.
    Now it is onto the bad. I will try and keep my points brief. Firstly, pet store prices of puppies are extremely overpriced, especially for what you are paying for. In the one I worked at, puppies ranged from $1100 to $3700, most of them cross breeds. And for what? Nothing special. Yeah, they may have a $1000 one year health warranty, but what is that going to do when the majority of health problems arise after the first year and would cost more than $1000 to fix anyway? A reputable breeder will also have a health guarantee, but they are checking the health of the parents BEFORE they breed as to not pass down any hereditary defects that are common in many breeds. Pet stores do not care if your Chihuahua’s parent has a heart murmur. The responsible breeder will also stick by you for advice and care about your dog throughout its lifetime. If you want someone who will rip you off and then once that first year is over say “bye-bye”, then go with a pet store.
    Secondly, the majority of dogs at pet stores are sick. At this store common diseases were Giardia or Coccidia, or both. One set of pups were not allowed to come out because they had Giardia for a month as they kept re-infecting themselves due to eating their own faeces. If they were not in wire-bottomed cages, they would not have eaten their own faeces. Some pups even had Parvo. I will not disclose what happened to those dogs. A responsible breeder would not sell you a sick puppy, nor have sick puppies in the first place.
    My third point is about pet store owners. How do they make their living? Well, selling puppies and kittens, of course. Why would you trust the well-being of an animal on someone who exploits puppies for a living? Responsible breeders take a lot of time and consideration in planning their litters and often do not make a profit out of breeding. They breed simply to better the breed, that is how purebred dogs came about in the first place. The simple joy of making a beautiful creature that is man’s best friend.
    Next point I shall make is one on impulse. Pet stores do not care if you want their $2000 Burnese Mountain Dog and live in an apartment. Often times, people would walk into the store, sit down in the “play room” with a puppy and half an hour later they are walking out the door with it. I would say about 25% of those dogs came back. How traumatic is that for the animal? To go from the supplier to the pet store to a home and back to the pet store and then ultimately into another home? Very stressful. With a responsible breeder, the breeder will often help you decide on which puppy in the litter, based on its temperament and what suits you best. You will often visit the puppies to see their temperaments and different stages of development, see where they are being raised and meet the parents. There is nothing to hide and you get to spend a lot of time in preparing and making sure that the breed, and even a dog is right for you.
    I mentioned in my last point about responsible breeders having nothing to hide. You get to meet the parents, meet the breeder, meet the puppies as they grow, see their environment that helps to shape them. When you go to a pet store, what do you get? You get a certificate with the names, ages and weights of the mother and father on there. That is pretty useless information and that is all you will ever know about where your puppy came from. If you ask where your puppy comes from at a pet store, they will often say “a reputable breeder” and won’t disclose the breeders name or information. This is what we were told to say. If there was nothing to hide then why not tell the buyers?
    My last point sort of ties up all my points in a personal account. There were puppies (and still are) that would sell for $2400 a pup. These pups were tiny and would come from the same breeder each time. They came every time we ran out of supply. Often times, the pups would become Hypoglycaemic within a couple of days and have to be rushed to the vet. Apart from the obvious reasons why a small pup would become Hypoglycaemic in a pet store, it was because the dogs had a hereditary disorder where it was difficult for them to metabolize their food. Instead of discontinuing the use of this breeder, the pet store continued to use this breeder. Why? Well they sold for 2400 bucks a pop that’s why.
    It is ridiculous to call pet stores a “visible source of puppies” when it is quite the contrary. Just pop into your favourite search engine about any of your local pet stores and see what comes up about them. Countless stories and countless complaints.

    For the comments about “driving the supply of dogs even further underground”, I think that is a little extreme. It’s not like we are talking about totally illegalizing the buying/selling/owning of dogs here as if they were drugs and you needed to go to unscrupulous sources to get your hands on them. As I have said, there are many excellent sources of puppies out there that do not involve walking into a store.

    I applaud the Council of Richmond for their efforts. It is a step in the right direction. We just have to look at some statistics mentioned in this article from other cities that have gone before Richmond. I can all assume that anyone who cares about animals wouldn’t argue that this is a great achievement.

    If you want a dog, go to a rescue organization or a REPUTABLE breeder. Do your homework and don’t buy from a pet store, a back yard breeder or any other sub-standard source. You will thank yourself in the long-run.

    • thatjenk says:

      Thanks for the comments, Vic! I could not agree more.

      • Helen Savkovic says:

        Fabulous post, Vic!!! Wish you could have spoken to council because the pro ban side didn’t have a former pet store employee to counter all the pet stores’ claims of what a good job they were doing of selling puppies. Wish you all could have been there when council spoke for and voted for the ban. It was amazing!!! They really understood that pet stores are the retail arm of puppy mills.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: