For years now, cases involving pet stores where ARs have passed laws prohibiting sales of ANY cat, dog,puppy, kitten, rabbit, etc.– unless the animal was “sourced” from a shelter, rescue, non profit related to same— pose as a huge potential constitutional issue in the making, most likely a commerce issue in most cases, and a potential equal protection case as well.
The choice to buy/sell should really not be determined by people who are trying to corner the market with their own products or goods. By using the ploy of “poor little shelter” animals, etc, ARs are FORCING the sourcing/selling only of specific items. These specific items just happen to be the animals that the ARs or others want to sell. Notice we said sell, not give away.
Usually this is not allowed unless there is really a legitimate reason, and there should be some relationship between the means/ends. In other words, the prohibition should be tailored to the alleged result that the proponents claim they are achieving.
According to the ARs, they claim that eliminating choices of which animals to buy will therefore increase sales of shelter/rescue animals and eliminate sales of commercial bred animals. Yet absolutely no evidence at all can prove that sales of shelter animals would be increased BECAUSE the commercial kennel dogs were eliminated from pet stores… and even if it did somehow prove that sales would go down [of commercially bred animals], there is no direct evidence that animals sold at pet stores are more defective than shelter animals. In fact, the evidence is likely contrary.
Thus, we are down to fact that proponents simply do not like commercial kennels, and they use pics of errant kennels. To us, this amounts perhaps to negligence but they always claim abuse. We should POINT out that one of the key players in this game (those PM “non profit” groups taking out pet stores) has a law degree from Santa Clara–and she also has worked in marketing a long, long time.
These groups band together with HSUS et al, to go city by city to pass the laws. It would be outright illegal for a STATE to pass such laws–so they are forced to go city by city. **The group’s income in 2012 increased from 200k to nearly $700k with grant money; almost 50% of income (267k) is spent on advertising/office.
The Gentle Giants “non profit” in Southern CA for example, routinely takes seized animals (expensive ones) and resells them for $900. Or more. They also offer expensive puppies. They are not giving them away, and they are not charging $99. The same goes for most seized animals that HSUS would bust via their alleged PM busts. They would get sold by Best Friends, which built an entire dog hotel for the puppies and the mothers of the puppies.
In the end, ARs admit they want no commercial kennel animals to be sold at all, despite the legality of such kennels. We have repeatedly gone over this fact for the past 8 years. Only in the pet store lawsuits (and on this blog and a few others), have we ever seen any support against the ARs who pass these laws.
Yet the pet store challenge is likely the one key legal point that directly affects commerce and interferes with it nationally. Even the APHIS lawsuit challenge involving thousands of breeders who breed/raise/sell from their homes, was not strong enough to dismantle the HSUS change which was done administratively for APHIS. But the pet store challenges are NOT administrative.
So if the pet stores challenges produce a positive constitutional ruling for the stores, this is a step in the right direction AGAINST AR bullying. Our prediction is most of the laws promoted against pet stores are not legally sound.
Oceanside City Atty PM law Legal (explains legal issues and how city council should expect LAWSUITS…)
The AR money train and their endless mantras have grown so worn, everyone knows them and basically accepts them. WE WILL NEVER ACCEPT AR NONSENSE, ESPECIALLY LEGAL NONSENSE.