Toronto Bans Sale of Puppy Mill (kittens and puppies) Pets

A claim with so far with zero backing but even if 100 percents true now if you can limit the source of dogs to the public shelters and private approve rescue groups for pet stores why the hell could you not add small license local breeders to the mixed?

This is once more just an excuse to limit not puppy mills but any commercial sources of dogs.


Why do you not be honest about the true goals of such laws as an argument could be make to shut down private breeding of dogs even it I do not agree with it.

By the way knowing human nature if the only legal source of dogs for pet stores are approve rescue groups and the public shelters how long is it going to be before one or more of those rescues groups become a front for puppies mills?

Seem the simpler solution would be to give those stores a legal source of commercial puppies that is not puppy mills if once more the true goal is stopping the sales of dogs from puppies mills and not just a hidden attempt to stop the private breeding of dogs in or out of puppies mills.

It's always about people. The dog and cats aren't abusing one another. The Puppy Mills aren't a force of nature.

I guess the argument Bill and I have made are about priorities, but not in the way you think.

You have created a false choice: We can protect animals or we can protect the rights of honest, law abiding breeders, but we can't do both.

If anyone has argued that a person's right to breed animals supercedes the safety and well being of the animals, I wish you would point it out, because it's such a big part of your "it's all about me" case and frankly I haven't seen a sign of it.

It's because so many laws are created as a result of impassioned impulse rather than reasoned deliberation that so many of them are ineffective and rather than solving the problem they were designed for, they create separate unintended ones.

You're really not the only one participating in this thread who cares deeply about the well being of animals, and if it's impossible to discuss how the laws can achieve the end we both desire and still remain fair to innocent parties then I guess I will have to work to stop or correct the bone headed ones that get passed on the wave of emotion.

Thanks

I don't profess to be an expert of Puppy Mills, and pet stores anywhere in North America let alone Toronto, but the law clearly assumes that all of the breeders who sell to pet stores are disreputable breeders. I don't know how anyone could know that, especially if regular inspections are not being conducted for lack of funds.

It's not a travesty, and I doubt the negative impact of this law will be all that great, ( unless it is a stealth precursor to outlawing dog and cat breeding of any kind), but it's an unnecessarily hamfisted law. There's no reason why legislators can't take the time to consider all the angles and draft an effective law that does only what it is supposed to do.

Toronto has made this a law because the city doesn't have the jurisdiction to go after puppy mills. Many of the puppy mills are not in the city or even in the province. As far as I know, most pet stores in canada sell domestic stock, at least when it comes to dogs and cats. Cities in Canada don't have a lot of power and if they want to change things they can only do so through a municipal mandate.

Hearing you.

It's difficult, not just getting people interested, but re dealing re law.

Strange that they had the power to limit the city pet stores from getting dogs from only repeat only public shelters or private approve rescues groups but they could not also limit them to being able to get stock from local approve breeders as well instead of out of the area puppy mills.

Give me a break they surely are exercising the right to control where pet stores in the city can get stocks of dogs so they do have that power.

This seem to have nothing to do with a city just doing the best it can with limits powers and you are reaching for some justification where there is none for their over reaching anti commercial and anti breeders actions.

Thank you for addressing an important aspect of this story and the topic in general: the propriety of pet breeding of any sort.

I would be amazed if anyone stepped up to defend a breeder's "right" to use irresponsible breeding practices and abuse the animals being bred.

Maybe Ron Paul might argue that the government need not regulate breeders because the market will eventually take care of the offenders, but I didn't see anyone making such an argument on this thread.

I did see some argue that an alternative to the Toronto law and laws like it would be to raise the standards for breeders and improve enforcement.

The expected response to this last argument (and I wasn't disappointed) was that we can't raise the standards and improve enforcement because there isn't enough money in the government's coffers. The main problem with this law is that it agrees with the expected response.

We are debating on an almost daily basis in this forum whether or not the government is the best source for solutions to our problems, and here is a situation where the government has failed to solve the problem, not because the people will not accept government imposed regulations, or the businesses have effectively blocked any attempt at regulations, but because the government can't or won't enforce the regulations.

So what's the solution to the problem of a government solution that doesn't work? Allow the government to exercise even broader power than it had before and expect it to be able to execute properly when it couldn't before.

To me this seems such an obvious mistake that I am left wondering if the people who support the law don't have a hidden agenda. Obviously not all do; most just want the see the abuse stop. I really do believe that there are a lot of people who like you are wondering if breeding of any kind is appropriate, but who, unlike you, aren't willing to acknowledge and discuss it frankly. Instead, they hope to achieve its end through manipulation.

I would strongly oppose a bill that banned all breeding, but it's certainly not an obscene idea and we should be able to honestly discuss it in the daylight. Unfortunately (for its proponents) it's not an idea that would get much support from the public and any bill advancing the notion would be DOA. Unfortunately (for us all) there are people who are so convinced that they are right about a topic of great and immediate importance that they have no problem with the ethics of their means as long as their end is achieved.

Issues which generate intensely passionate beliefs concerning injustice and cruelty are ripe for this type of zealot sponsored legislation. Abortion is one such issue and another is Animal Cruelty.

The fact that the folks are basically well intentioned doesn't make up for the possible damage their manipulation of democracy can result in.

Again, the practical implications of this specific law are probably minimal, but it's the concepts involved that are important. No matter what the issue, we should never have legislators telling us they have to pass a bill before we can know what it calls for, or which intentionally sets up an outcome that was never considered by the public to be the original intent of the law.

BTW I totally agree that animal breeders (large and small) should be licensed if their state doesn't already require it.

I totally disagree that the State should get involved in establishing breed standards. In the incredibly unlikely event that the organizations who do establish these standards modify them to the point where they call for something grotesque like blindness or a physical structure that results in constant pain or early death, there are anti-cruelty laws already on the books that can be used by the State.

A lot of animals that show up in Toronto pet stores come from either Quebec or the Carolinas in the U.S.

I have to read that again, which is to say manana. I might agree or not. Picked up some nots

Notes. (I hate my own misspelling).

And now add that I meant nots.

nothing so great as misunderstanding yourself..

That's funny. I understood you the first time, by the way.

Ok, surprising, but that just proves the point that Toronto couldn't do anything about the puppy mills in the States. Quebec is notorious for it's lax animal abuse laws, thus the vast supply of animals bred there. These would both be cases for state/provincial or federal laws. So, the only way Toronto can fight these mills is by-laws to restrict the animals sale. The can issue tickets to breeders who ignore municipal bylaws, but they can hardly jail or fine someone for breaking a federal or provincial laws.

Thanks, kiddo.

Look my friend they can surely ban the sale of animals from the US or anywhere else without a total ban if they can ban the sale of all commercial sales as they had done!!!!!!!!!!

So your excuse for their actions is nonsense on it face!!!!!!!!

You really think a city (Toronto is a city) can ban imports? Kind of a novel theory.

Sure they could ban imports pets from being sold in their pets stores without a total ban as all they would need to do is to enacted licensing requirements for any commericial breeders to be able to sell pets in thier pet stores that would be far too costly to even try for a US firms but by it nature local breeders would not have too must trouble or cost to meet.

They had in fact already forbidden imported dogs from being sold in thier pet stores now so it is sadly doable.

The so-called "puppy mills" are illegal in the province. (In 2005 Ontario made amendments to the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act to specifically address puppy mills.)

However, there was a loophole which made it possible for unlawful breeders to sell their animals through pet stores.

AUnder this new by-law (sic!) in the Toronto Municipal Code (sic!), the only way a pet store can provide pets is in partnership with an animal rescue organization, Toronto's Animal Control Services or the Toronto Humane Society.

An once more how long is it going to be before one or more animal rescue groups become a front for puppies mills?

Or for that matter pet shops will relocated one foot outside the city limits.

In any case this is just a stupid means/attempt of limiting the citizens of that city from being able to get commericial pets for the benefit of the shelters and the puppies mills issue seems on it face just an excuse for so doing.