Animal-rights loons are quietly WINNING their wacko war on pet stores

When Mike Ricci wanted to buy his daughter a puppy, he ran into an unexpected problem: in his state, “There were pet stores but none that sell puppies (or kittens).”

Ricci, president of Stossel TV, decided to investigate. He found that eight states now ban retail sales of dogs, cats, and rabbits, and animal-rights activists are pushing to expand those bans nationwide. They argue it’s necessary to protect animals—and pet buyers—from abusive puppy mills, which repeatedly breed animals, often resulting in inbred and unhealthy puppies. Activists urge people to buy only from “responsible breeders.”

But how can buyers tell which breeders are trustworthy?

“Every site says, ‘This is the best breeder . . . ethically sourced, treated well,’” Ricci notes. “They say, ‘Don’t trust the pet stores!’ But am I supposed to figure out from a website which breeder is actually good?”

Alyssa Miller-Hurley, who lobbies for small pet stores, says these stores are the real experts. “Most don’t sell abused puppies. Business owners know you can’t survive if you’re providing a bad product.”

Ricci agrees. “Had there been a pet store in my town, I could have gone there and complained, ‘Hey, why’d you sell me a bad dog?’ I would have warned my friends, ‘This pet store sells bad dogs! Don’t go there.’ That store would have closed.”

But Brian Hackett of the Associated Humane Societies disagrees. “Just because they’re still in business doesn’t mean they’re operating humanely.”

Ricci asks: “So just ban all sales?”

“Every pet-store ordinance or law I’ve worked on has overwhelming support from both pro-business Republicans and left-leaning liberals,” Hackett says.

Indeed, activists on both sides often enjoy political support, especially when they raise money and run emotionally charged ads highlighting animal abuse. But what about the small pet stores being forced out of business?

Hackett’s response: “They don’t have to sell puppies.”

Not everyone agrees. While chains like PetSmart and Petco can survive without selling puppies, smaller stores often rely on them. In California, after the ban went into effect, 95% of affected pet stores closed.

Despite this, the push to ban pet stores continues. More states are expected to adopt similar laws.

But critics question whether bans actually solve the problem. Animal activists argue that bans are necessary to eliminate abusive puppy mills.

“Ten years ago, there were said to be over 10,000 puppy mills in the U.S.,” Miller-Hurley points out. “Since then, eight states and hundreds of localities have passed retail-sales bans. Yet we’re still told there are 10,000 mills.”

By that measure, she says, bans haven’t been effective. “What they are good at is fundraising. They aren’t actually engaged in real animal care.”

Many Americans assume organizations like the ASPCA run shelters. But Miller-Hurley notes that the ASPCA collects more than $300 million in donations annually but gives only 2% to shelters, with much of the rest going to advertising and salaries. The CEO’s salary alone exceeds $1.2 million.

Ricci’s experience illustrates the practical downsides. Because New York bans pet-store sales, he had to drive over 100 miles to a breeder in Pennsylvania. Though he is happy with his puppy, he admits, “I have no way of knowing if the breeder treats dogs humanely. They showed me medical records, but how do I know they’re legitimate?”

Ricci concludes that pet-store bans do more harm than good. “There are already laws against animal abuse and neglect. Enforce those. Don’t pass new laws.” History shows banning things people want rarely works: Prohibition created more problems than it solved, and pet-store bans may be following the same path.

After California’s ban, for example, puppy scams surged by 350%.

Miller-Hurley warns, “It is not up to the government to tell people where they can get their animals.” Yet politicians are increasingly doing just that—state by state.

original source