The members of the Los Angeles City Council like to portray themselves as supporters of business. And they like to publicly support any project that brings jobs to the city — at least jobs they like, such as unionized solar power companies or unionized housing construction jobs or unionized grocery workers.
However, if the jobs happens business that council members find personally or politically abhorrent — like those at the proposed Wal-Mart in Chinatown — not only will they not support them, they will go on the attack.
The proposal before the City Council this month to clamp down on pet stores is such a case. The ordinance would prohibit pet stores from selling dogs, cats or rabbits unless the animals came from non-profit organizations or the city’s animal shelters. The reasoning is that without the competition of commercial pet stores, people interested in a specific breed would turn to the city’s animal shelters and fewer animals would be euthanized. Further, it is hoped that the ban would cut down on the use of “puppy mills.”
Nice fantasy, but more likely such restrictions would have the opposite effect. People who want a, say, Welch Corgi or Shih Tzu will turn to private breeders outside of the city. Or they will look to underground animal sellers — which would actually increase the market for “puppy mills.”
Meanwhile, this ordinance would mean legitimate businesses that have actual paid jobs within the city will shut down — 11 stores with 60 jobs.
It should not be a surprise that the proposal is the effort of Councilman Paul Koretz, a former member of the West Hollywood City Council. That’s the small L.A. city that has taken a number of extreme animal-related stands such as banning the sale of fur and the declawing of cats, and the law that changed the definition of dog from property to companion.
Saving the lives of the thousands of discarded and unwanted domestic animals is a noble goal. But Koretz’s ordinance not only won’t do that, it could make the problem worse while cementing the city’s reputation as a business-killer. The city would be wise to work with pet shop owners and craft rules that would ensure they get their Boxers or Siamese cats or other purebred pets from reputable breeders that produce healthy animals in humane surroundings.
— Opinion page staff
What do all of these listed articles —> have in common? Puppy mill ban gets tentative thumbs up in LA | abc7.com Puppy mills: L.A. council to vote on proposed ban for pet stores … Puppy Mills: L.A. City Council Votes to Ban Stores From Selling Non … Pet Sales Ban For Local Retailers Passes L.A. City Council – Los …Last Chance for Animals – Ban Puppy Mills LA Nears Ban on Sale of Kitten and Puppy Mill Pets by Shops | Life … LA to Ban Sale of Dogs and Cats from Commercial Breeders | Ecorazzi LA City Council approves motion to ban sales of animals from puppy … SCIL – Social Compassion in Legislation Pet Shop Sales From Breeders—L.A. Nears Ban! | PETA.org LA to become largest city to ban shops from selling puppy mill pets Puppy mills: LA council to vote on proposed ban for pet storesLA council votes to ban stores from selling non-rescue dogs, cats Burbank to draft pet store ban – but Peggy Wood’s will still sell dogs LA to Ban Sale of Dogs and Cats from Commercial Breeders City should ban sale of mill-bred pets Pet Store Sales Ban Proposed in LA
None of these articles above, discuss the legality of shutting off the sale of pets, or forcing places to sell rescued/rehomed/shelter animals, or anything else.
Even if there were people in violation of running a substandard kennel– somewhere in the United States, and even if there were animals that got sent out to pet stores, the pet stores themselves guarantee what they sell. So just because anyone purportedly takes pictures of an alleged substandard kennel is certainly not evidence that a puppy bought anywhere in the USA is bad or defective, and it would certainly not mean that a store could not sell animals. But even worse, is the MANDATE by the ordinances, that ONLY rescue/shelter/non profit animals CAN BE SOLD.
We really don’t see a legal connection between selling something that is from a non profit vs an entity which is NOT a non profit; and we do not see legally how a non profit SELLING an animal in a city that has mandatory altering makes any difference? by insisting that NO ONE SELL– or buy—- an animal BECAUSE it did, or may have come from a legally sanctioned commercial kennel– we fail to see how this is an issue with a legal ramification?
The only point of the entire sales ban appears to be forcing people to buy rehomed animals. We just do not find nor see any legal reason why an ordinance MANDATING the purchase of ONLY animals from shelters/rescue/non profit can legally have any basis.
SO IF ANY ATTORNEYS OUT THERE THINK THEY CAN PROVE THIS LAW IS LEGAL BY ALL MEANS PLEASE CONTACT US BY USING THE COMMENT SECTION…ALL COMMENTS ARE VETTED AND WE WILL NOT PUBLISH THEM UNLESS YOU WOULD LIKE US TO DO SO. We have not seen one attorney yet say that this law is valid.
Jul 9, 2013 – The San Diego City Council tentatively voted today to ban the retail sale of dogs, cats and rabbits in pet stores and other commercial establishments in the city. …law enforcement, code compliance officials or other city employees. The owner of the one establishment that will be most affected, David Salinas …
Jul 11, 2013 – San Diego Approves Store Pet Sale Ban … When the law goes into effect, pet stores will be required to possess certificates identifying where …
3 days ago – SAN DIEGO – A pet store owner who refuses to follow a recently passed city law is in … San Diego Puppy now also has a store in Oceanside.
Fri, Sep 6, 2013 1:47 KSWB – San Diego. A pet store owner who refuses to follow a recently passed city law is in trouble with animal control officers. Click to view …
Summary: SAN DIEGO – A pet store owner who refuses to follow a recently passed city law is in trouble with animal control officers. David Salinas, CEO of San …