Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Vote “Yes” for Health Care
Next Post: Needed tax break reform or barrier to growth?
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** * From the Humane Society…
I just wanted to send you a heads up that the bill regarding the sale of cats and dogs in pet stores will not be heard today. The parties are working on an amendment.
* From the Humane Society…
Representatives from The Humane Society of the United States and other witnesses will testify at the Illinois Senate Executive Committee hearing in support of HB 4056.
The first of its kind, the bill would allow pet stores across the state to only acquire dogs and cats from shelters and rescues.
* From CBS 2…
A new report from the Humane Society of the United States lists the 100 worst puppy mills in the country and two of them are in Illinois. […]
“We’ve documented reports of dogs so horribly matted that there was a fur coat like mat going from one end to the other in a sold mass, dogs with injuries and illnesses and injuries that hadn’t been treated by vet and dogs in small stacked cages,” said Summers. Other documented problems included overbreeding, inbreeding, minimum veterinary care and the lack of monitoring of other health issues. […]
“The only thing that’s going to stop this is to ban the sale of puppies at pet stores,” said Ida McCarthy, Chicago Coordinator of the Companion Animal Protection Society. As many as 30 cities in the U.S. have done just that including Los Angeles. San Diego is the latest considering a ban. In Canada, Toronto has enacted a similar law.
“You have to stop the demand and the puppy mills – where are they going to sell their dogs? There are always going to be puppy mills but there’s not going to be thousands of them like there are now,” she said.
* From the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council…
You, and other supporters of our cause, know that closing pet stores by banning the retail sale of pets in Illinois does not effectively address the problems associated with bad, out-of-state breeders. In fact, the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association-whose members include over 1,000 veterinarians in the Chicago area-echoed this in in a statement opposing the recent Cook County ban:
“The Chicago Veterinary Medical Association strongly believes that ongoing education of the public is a much more effective method to increase pet owner awareness and bring about the desired positive change necessary to address valid concerns regarding unethical, unscrupulous breeders who are the ultimate problem.” […]
An Illinois-wide ban means consumers will have limited choice in where they obtain a healthy, happy pet as there will be no pet stores to sell them, which will:
Hurt animal welfare since other sources (like rogue internet operators) are not regulated at all. In fact, Illinois pet stores are the most regulated source for consumers to obtain purebred pets in the state-while other sources for purebred pets have no veterinary requirement;
Remove some of the most stringent consumer protection laws in the United States which only apply to retail pet sales;
Negatively impact the state’s economy by putting people out of jobs and reducing tax revenue collected by Illinois and localities; and
Limit the availability of pets and foster an environment for unregulated black market breeding.
* The Question: Should pet stores be forbidden by the state to sell dogs and cats from breeders and mandated to only sell those animals from shelters and rescues? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:11 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Vote “Yes” for Health Care
Next Post: Needed tax break reform or barrier to growth?
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Can all breeders be that bad?
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:16 am
No, this is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation I have seen, almost as dumb as Senator Brady’s puppy gas chamber bill.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:19 am
This is truly a ridiculous law. Pet sales establishments should be properly regulated for the care and treatment of animals, and I understand that statutes already exist for this regulation.
It’s just my impression here, but what it looks like is that the shelters are just looking for more revenue (and subsequent jobs for “friends”), and forcing those buying dogs to come to THEM instead of legitimate, caring breeders is reprehensible, IMHO.
That being said, I fully support dog shoppers going to the shelters first, and only going to pet stores if they can’t find a suitable pet.
Bringing a pet into the home is like bringing in a new member of the family who’ll likely be part of it for the pet’s entire life. The best match possible should be made, be it through a shelter, breeder or pet store.
I think the shelters taking this option away from pet owners is selfish, and it stinks!
Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:21 am
Attack the abuses. Fine and put out of business the abusers.
This just goes too far, though I don’t especially mind a community voting to do this within their own borders.
There are responsible and humane breeders. The state shouldn’t be in the business of killing any legitimate business.
Comment by Walker Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:24 am
Responsible breeders sell directly to owners, where purchaser can see the parents, facilties and how they are cared for. If a breeder dosen’t want people to see what they are doing, they are doing it badly.
Comment by independent Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:25 am
I voted no. This is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. Completely unnecessary.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:25 am
No, give a tax break to stores that hold adoption days at their sites..
Comment by Mouthy Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:27 am
Clearly a problem exists. This isn’t the solution. Anyone who’d hurt a dog or cat is a jerk. It doesn’t occur to me that this remedy would solve this or reduce any reason so many animals wind up as Rescue or Shelter animals.
Comment by A guy... Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:27 am
Sorry this seems like a really dumb idea and out dog and cats all came from shelters
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:43 am
I get the spirit of the law, and in theory I’d like to see this happen, but to mandate it sounds over-reaching, not to mention impossibel to enforce effetively. How bout offering tax incentives for rescues instead?
Comment by @Adam_Heenan Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:46 am
Now Pet stores are bad? This is what happens when the legislature can’t and won’t deal with our budget and pension and other governmental problems; they are in session and need to do something. Cut their pay and send them all home!
Comment by votecounter Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:47 am
small breeders care. dumb to keep them from selling to pet stores. some of the shelters are becoming dictatorial in their approach to animal care and push this approach. go after the puppy mills instead of limiting small breeders.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:50 am
What people here are missing is that responsible breeders simply do not, and will not, sell to pet stores. Period. They deal directly with customers because they want to know what homes their dogs are going into.
My experience has been that many people are against this based on their gut reactions but once they learn the real facts, they quickly understand the rationale behind legislation like this.
I have been in office for 18 years and I will say that I don’t think that I ever saw and heard so many misrepresentations be made on an issue as I did on this one. And that’s saying something.
And keep in mind that this is as much about consumer protection as it is about animal welfare. There are certain vets who have said that a large portion of their business is basically servicing pet store dogs to make them just healthy enough to sell.
You then have consumers who have added a new member to their family only to wind up with hundreds (or thousands) of dollars in vet bills, or with having to try to return an animal with whom they have already bonded. (That also makes you wonder about the opposition of some vets to this bill).
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:52 am
No, the puppy mills will turn to the Internet to sell dogs, this won’t affect them at all.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:53 am
===responsible breeders simply do not, and will not, sell to pet stores.===
That was true of Oscar the Puppy’s breeder.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:58 am
And with respect to the issue of limiting consumer choice, if a consumer wants a specific breed of dog, there are countless breeders with whom they can deal directly as well as breed-specific rescues through which they can get the dog of their choice.
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 11:59 am
“Wensicia -No, the puppy mills will turn to the Internet to sell dogs, this won’t affect them at all.”
If this won’t affect them at all, why do you think they are fighting this as vehemently as they are?
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:01 pm
“Attack the abuses. Fine and put out of business the abusers.”
I agree. I’m not sure pet stores can get dogs from responsible breeders, but if they can, they should not be prevented from doing so.
Comment by Pelon Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:02 pm
I can understand requirements for minimum standards of care, but like many one size fits all solutions, hurts more of the good players in the industry than they will hurt of the bad players.
Not to put too fine a point it, are all the more important issues handled? budget, pensions, bankruptcy, education, violence etc…..
Comment by Plutocrat03 Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:04 pm
In addition to what everyone else has said, it seems to me as the “Spay and Neuter” programs become more and more successful, good shelter/pound pets will become more and more scarce. So if you just want a plain old mutt, you can’t just go down to the pound and pick the first dog that poops on the keeper’s shoe (a true story btw), you’ll be forced to go to the pet store (that’s assuming reputable breeders aren’t going to breed mutts.) That’ll drive up costs for the consumers. And if we can’t convince people to get their from the pound for free (or low nominal cost), why should they spend real money at the pet store? That’s a rambling way of saying I think everyone loses.
Comment by Skeptic Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:05 pm
Pelon, the legislation I passed in Cook County specifically
allows pet stored to obtain dogs from small-scale breeders. But as I said, (and Rich backed up, so it must be true), responsible breeders simply won’t sell to pet stores.
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:06 pm
===the legislation I passed in Cook County specifically allows pet stored to obtain dogs from small-scale breeders===
This legislation does not, however.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:07 pm
Candidly, I think that they should put it in there. It would address some of the naysayers but in reality, I’m not sure that it would change much, for the reasons I said.
Rich, all people need to do is look at Oscar and Kobe to understand how great a dog they could get from a small-scale breeder or rescue.
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:15 pm
I always purchase dogs through private breeders. But the language of this bill seems to block pet stores from obtaining stock from legitimate private breeders. What does that actually accomplish? Or can pet stores in the future be banned from linking up private breeders with potential purchasers?
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:23 pm
We got Dorothy Barker from an “ethical” puppy store. The owners were great people and they ran a wonderful operation. It went out of business pretty quickly - because the economics do not support this model.
Why would a responsible breeder offer a “wholesale” price to a pet store when s/he can get a higher price directly from the consumer — not to mention being able to check out the buyer to make sure the puppy is going to a good home?
And how can a pet store provide the hours of one-on-one socializing that a puppy needs and still make a profit?
The pet shop model only works for high-volume breeders and low-end pet shops. It should end in Illinois.
John, Gatsby is planning to move to your district so he can vote for you. He would give this legislation two thumbs up if he had thumbs. (It’s kind of a sore issue for him…)
Comment by Soccermom Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:31 pm
This issue should be one of the highest priorities for the ILGA. Higher than the pension, higher than corruption and job creation. Let us lead the nation in SOMETHING!!! Save the puppies!
Comment by Statesman Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:32 pm
I’m always amused when people retreat to the ‘we have so many more important issues to work on!’ argument. As if the Legislature can only deal with one issue at a time.
Every year, thousands of ideas get introduced and worked on, and most all of them are important to somebody. Keep that in mind because one day that somebody may be you.
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:42 pm
The market is already taking care of the problem, I can’t think of a single pet store in Springfield that sells dogs/cats, they only do the occasional adoption. So, why do we need draconian laws to regulate a soon-to-be-nonexistent problem ?
Comment by countyline Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:45 pm
Join the thousands leaving Illinois every year in order to have a more non-intrusive state government.
Illinois doesn’t want to do business with you for this new reasons….
That is the message here.
Comment by VanillaMan Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:51 pm
–As if the Legislature can only deal with one issue at a time.–
Maybe if they did deal with one issue at a time they would do a much better job? This is obviously snark, but let’s admit it, our legislature doesn’t really deal with issues very well.
Comment by Ahoy! Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 12:58 pm
Businesses need profit. A pet store would have to markup the cost of the shelter dog. Why then would anyone not just go straight to the shelter? No matter how you slice it, this is going to put pet stores out of business. Pet stores employ people. This will cost those people their jobs. You want to do that because puppy mills exist? Well this bill won’t fix that problem, but it will put people out of work. Good job doing the exact opposite of what you should be doing in a recession. Sheesh.
Comment by Jimbo Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:04 pm
I’m not sure, so I’m not voting on this, but when PIJAC says Illinois is “the most regulated” pet store state I don’t buy it because there are no comparisons, not to mention PIJAC is made up solely up pet stores and pet supply manufacturers.
==The state shouldn’t be in the business of killing any legitimate business.==
Does the status quo define what is a “legitimate” business? Selling your body and acts with it are legitimate because pornography is legal, but prostitution is not. Why is the former okay but not the latter?
==Cut their pay and send them all home!==
Right, that’s really going to solve the budget issues you want solved. Great idea Einstein! What next, burying toxic waste in your garden?
==The market is already taking care of the problem, I can’t think of a single pet store in Springfield==
Because Springfield is representative of the entire state…
==be doing in a recession==
We’re not in a recession.
Comment by Precinct Captain Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:19 pm
The Hon. John Fritchey (HJF) puts forth a good argument. There are market alternatives available to those who wish to purchase specific breeds of dogs that somewhat diminishes the freedom of choice argument. One important type of consumer not able to do so is those who can’t afford a private breeder but would like to have a specific breed. However, they are such a small number, with most looking to shelters or rescues out of pure economics, that it would make no sense to impede legislation to protect what one assumes is a small, negligible minority.
Soccermom’s argument on small scale breeders is likely correct; lower margins make no sense for small volumes unless they cannot “unload their merchandise” elsewhere. This suggests that they will either leave the marketplace or the owner is willing to take the loss and continue losing money, a highly unlikely, or at least very rare, scenario.
It should be obvious that shelters would welcome the extra influx of cash, just as vets value their current cash flows from pet stores utilizing their services. Also, this makes for good campaigning for the sponsors of the bill, especially in an election year where democrats are light on material. Do campaign politics and transfers of income justify legislation? Hardly.
It is very likely that puppy mills can continue to operate despite this legislation. The internet and local black markets will still continue to operate and serve as a marketplace, though the legislation might have some effect on the scale of the puppy mill’s operation. HJF’s argument against this proposition is weak, at best.
In general, most people abhor puppy mills. A well designed campaign to inform the public of where pet stores receive their puppies, thereby rectifying the information disparity for consumers, would produce the best results, while limiting the negative effects of increase legislation.
Comment by Average Joey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:24 pm
increased regulation, not legislation.
Comment by Average Joey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:25 pm
You are a lot closer to this than I am John and you have always impressed me as a smart guy. So I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but I want to understand.
It seems a logical future business model might be a few breeders or even a larger group (but not huge) might enter into some sort of marketing agreement where they use a central location and a trusted dealer to help them.
So if for want of a better term, I wanted to become a puppy broker (that is matching buyers and sellers) would the law preclude that?
What if I wanted to create something like PuppyList that matched buyers and sellers, would that be prohibited?
Is it not selling to an intermediary that makes a breeder reputable or not?
Because it seems this industry might be ripe for a certified breeder (terrible example but think certified organic) that could sell to pet stores. Wouldn’t economic pressure for that improve conditions as well. The answer might be no, but I am curious.
Comment by OneMan Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:26 pm
Also,I admittedly do not know what percentage pet stores comprise of the average puppy mills consumers.
Comment by Average Joey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:28 pm
I voted “no”. Senator Fritchey makes some good points, but I am still sticking with my vote for several of the reason stated above.
My question is, since the “no” votes are being defeated in this question, where are the “yes” comments- you look back through, and most of the comments are from “no” voters.
Comment by downstate commissioner Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:33 pm
Tell you what, Fritchey. I’ll take you to three Petsmart stores of your choosing,and we’ll take a look at the puppies being sold there. You can ask about, and equest, them to show you vets reports on the dogs. You can examine and even play with the dogs if you wish.
If you can find any puppies that are malnourished, ill-treated, or improperly taken care of, you will have made your point.
If you can’t, are you honest enough to stop this BS and let dog purchasers choose the breeds they want from well regulated pet stores and breeders?
Better yet, why don’t you give us a list of the puppy treatment violations that you found at legitimate pet retailers (like PETSMART) that show we have problem?
Comment by Arizona Bob Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:46 pm
Fritchey is right.
Four years ago, I was the first to point out that pet owners outnumber registered voters in Illinois. Sorry about that, Senator Brady.
More bad news for opponents of this bill:
The Best Friends Animal Society has nearly 500,000 likes on Facebook.
Compare that to 250,000 for the Girl Scouts.
Or 132,000 for the United Way.
Or 26,000 for Dick Durbin.
Or 14,000 for Pat Quinn.
And Best Friends Animal Society is just one of four major animal rights nonprofits in the U.S…I don’t even count PETA.
Not to offend anyone, but pet lovers are an easily riled bunch. Look at Rich and his Oscar posts. Anyone thinking of voting against this measure should think again.
- Dog
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 1:54 pm
=== I’ll take you to three Petsmart stores of your choosing,and we’ll take a look at the puppies being sold there===
I’ve been to several, and none I’ve been to sell breeder puppies. Just facilitate sales of rescue animals.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:03 pm
I don’t get my dogs from a pet store but every time the passes a restriction on one group it adversely effects too many others.
Comment by reflector Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:31 pm
I’m surprised the Ag lobby allows a bill like this to see the light of day. I guess Ag ain’t what it used to be in Springfield.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:36 pm
Rich is Correct.
The most widely respected animal rights nonprofit, according to Harris, is PetSmart Charities.
From the PetSmart website:
Today, there are millions of loveable, healthy cats & dogs for adoption that desperately need homes. Due to overpopulation of homeless pets, 4 million are euthanized every year– that’s 11,000 pets every day. For this reason, PetSmart has chosen not to sell dogs or cats and instead we join forces with PetSmart Charities to help save the lives of pets through adoptions. Many homeless pets are purebred, so even if you’re looking for a particular breed, or whether you want to adopt a puppy or a kitten, our adoption program can help you find your next best friend.
- Dog
PS: PetSmart, I am still job hunting!
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:44 pm
Commissioner Fritchey– I recommend you stop listening to the HSUS who want to eradicate pet ownership and start listening to your constituents. They want the pet stores open and able to sell puppies. Illinois has the strictest, most highly regulated laws in the US for pet stores. Let the puppy lemon law and Animal Welfare Act work. Cook County is over reaching and the State was smart enough to realize it.
Comment by Sarah Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:46 pm
I voted Yes. Commissioner Fritchey is right. Pet stores don’t get dogs from reputable breeders.
And Anon 2:36: Why would the Ag lobby be opposed? Am I missing something? Do you consider commercial dog breeders part of the agricultural industry???
Comment by Rahm's Middle Finger Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:47 pm
The bullies in Cook County and Chicago should be sued by pet store owners.
Comment by Anthony Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:48 pm
This State bill was opposed by AKC, ACA, Illinois Vet Assoc., Illinois Breeders Assoc, PIJAC, Illinois Retailers Assoc and others. When so many groups are opposed, are they all wrong.
Comment by Sandra Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 2:51 pm
Sandra,
All sorts of people don’t like all sorts of things down here. If you judged the merits of a piece of legislation based on the number of opponents nothing productive would ever get down. The entrenched interests would always win.
Comment by Rahm's Middle Finger Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 3:02 pm
Sarah, speak for yourself: Commissioner Fritchey is absolutely listening to this constituent — and many, many others — who are passionate advocates for this effort. Google “puppy mill conditions” and spend some time with those images. You can still get the puppy of your choice from a breeder or a shelter — s/he will just be healthier, and cost much less over his / her lifetime because s/he was not born in an unhealthy environment. Glad Fritchey is a voice of reason in a wildly reactionary environment.
Comment by 5th Generation Chicagoan Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 3:03 pm
Done=down
Long day.
Comment by Rahm's Middle Finger Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 3:03 pm
I voted yes and I agree with Comm. Fritchey’s reasoning. And, that said, it wouldn’t surprise me if the amendments they’re now considering include one involving the exclusion he mentioned in his comments. The fact is that if you want a specific breed, you should want papers, and you have to find a responsible breeder for that anyway. If that’s not what you’re looking for, if what you want is just a loving pet, shelters are full of those. Nobody’s choices are being limited here except for the choices of puppy mill owners and facilitators.
But, hey, Comm. Fritchey, if I were you I’d take Az Bob up on his offer; at least that way, you’d get him to buy plane tickets to fly halfway across the country to Illinois and spend a day or two here pumping a few bucks into the Illinois economy he seems so concerned about.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 3:10 pm
YES, a thousand times YES!! I invite all of you who think this a joke to come spend hours volunteering at an animal shelter like I do. Anything to put the puppy mills out of business. And yes, I know, there are other ways, but that doesn’t mean just do nothing.
Comment by formerGOPer Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 3:25 pm
There are many caring, responsible and dedicated breeders who love, own, and produce specific healthy breeds with specific characteristics that pet owners seek. There are many disreputable and unclean pet factories, mills, where animals are forced to live and breed in horrendous conditions with little regard for the mothers or the resulting babies. In my opinion this law does not do enough to distinguish between the two. That must be fixed.
Comment by Responsa Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 3:44 pm
I was going to vote no but read the Comments first and voted yes.
Comment by Bigtwich Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 4:07 pm
Arizona Bob, YDD and Rich were much more tactful than I would have been in replying to you. For future reference, before you call somebody out as not knowing what they’re talking about, you might want to know what you’re talking about. Facts > Rants.
Comment by Hon. John Fritchey Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 4:10 pm
=====responsible breeders simply do not, and will not, sell to pet stores=====
This is simply not true. I know in the case of one pet store in particular that only gets dogs from responsible small family breeders. They have gone above and beyond to only offer healthy pups and had no problem following the regulations in the ‘Puppy Lemon Law’ when it went into effect just a few months ago because they were already practicing most of it already. I say let that new law gain some traction.
If you want to get rid of the two puppy mills in Illinois, do so, but not on the backs of small business owners. Especially those who don’t support the puppy mills in the first place.
Comment by Maryl Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 4:42 pm
The intentions on this bill are honorable but it is “over-reach” once again by well-meaning but misguided do-gooders.
Comment by Forrest Gump Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 5:03 pm
I bought my dog from a puppy store- was shown pictures of a “farm” and the mom laying in the sun. This was 10 years ago and I wasn’t well informed about puppy mills and rescue. I received papers for my dog and everything only to find out that was a lie and he was in fact a puppy mill dog.
That pet store is in Chicago and I’m sure it lied to thousands of people. It recently turned into a “pet spa” because of the new Chicago law that bans puppy mill sales, so my suspicions were confirmed.
People often protested in front of it, but only the city council voting to ban puppy mill sales was able to shut it down.
Comment by Anon Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 5:14 pm
This bill eliminates all consumer protections and will force people to look elsewhere for purebred dogs. Puppy mills will thrive through their internet business.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 7:07 pm
Is there really a problem with ALL pet stores? If not, address the bad ones.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 7:08 pm
I got a shelter pet. It had parvovirus and other issues. It cost me thousands of dollars within a few weeks. The rescue wouldn’t take the dog back and said they wouldn’t help with the bills. What about regulating shelters and rescues so that they guarantee health and disclose health issues. They should reveal their sources too. Pet stores take responsibility. Go to the NAIA website and humanewatch.org for the truth about shelters and HSUS
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 7:12 pm
Chicago pushed their legislation through. Cook County, sponsor Commissioner Fritchey, skipped committees altogether and forced their bill through in a week, even though several commissioners wanted to send it back to committee and questioned Fritchey’s methods. Now Kotowski and the Governor gut a pseudo rabies in pigs bill and try to sneak this bill through the Senate once again. When they didn’t have enough votes in the Ag. committee, they switched it to Exec Committee and still couldn’t get it through. If you are so proud of the legislation, follow the normal process of committees and talk to stakeholders. Stop sneaking around and skipping steps with this legislation.
Comment by Amy Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 7:44 pm
Commissioner Fritchey-
Please don’t accuse me of being tactful. I have a reputation to protect.
Amy: with all due respect, this is the legislative process.
Is anyone really shocked?
When the smoking ban passed in Chicago, how long was it before it passed in Cook County and then the rest of the state?
If the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council is truly surprised, they ought to hire some additional public policy staff who have been to the rodeo before.
Right now, my best advice to you is hire some really good contract lobbyists if you can. Start with the single lobsters. The ones with kids especially don’t want to go home and try to explain to their kids why they are defending the rights of those who mistreat puppies.
Not dog farms or pet factories, but “puppy mills.” This one was pretty much over before it started.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 8:04 pm
-Amy: with all due respect, this is the legislative process.-
No YDD, it’s not…its sneaking around trying to get something passed that you know most people don’t support…if legislation is worthy of passage, put out a clean bill though the normal channels for all to see and debate. Par for the course with Kotowski and his ilk, only its usually guns.
Comment by countyline Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 9:04 pm
There are responsible breeders, and laws in place to monitor them. Though I believe it would be great for folks to go to shelters first to find a pet, in my opinion there is no need for this law which essentially puts legitimate and caring breeders out of business.
Enforce the laws we have.
Comment by Sunshine Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 9:23 pm
The idea from “opponents” of, well puppy mills will just sell online, well if that’s a problem then work with someone to intro legislation to ban that too! That’s doesn’t work as an argument against limiting the sales in stores because that goes beyond a ban in stores, however it keeps coming up time and time again from the puppy mill lobby.
Comment by P. Wednesday, May 14, 14 @ 9:52 pm
Just Go after the bad eggs leave the rest alone.
Comment by the Cardinal Thursday, May 15, 14 @ 6:34 am
It features a Lycra floral print bodice with elbow length sleeves on the top.
No need to pay for it, just find a street and park that car.
Some people like to write a poem from the baby’s level of view or only a short, poem to say thank you.
Comment by Arnoldo Monday, May 19, 14 @ 7:48 pm