Cambridge could go beyond Boston in banning animal sales at local stores
The Cambridge Civic Journal reports the Cambridge City Council today hears a proposal to essentially ban the sale of all animals except fish in local pet stores - unless the animals come from local shelters.
In March, the Boston City Council approved a ban on the sale of dogs, cats and rabbits from non-shelter sources at stores and a ban on their sale from the back of vans by the side of the road.
Across the river, some city officials say that's good as far as it goes, but that smaller furry animals - and animals without any fur - deserve similar protection:
Many people are aware of the terrible conditions in which large-scale breeders house and breed dogs and cats, but are unaware that the same terrible conditions effect birds, reptiles, and small mammals - conditions that often violate the federal Animal Welfare Act. ... The law protects dogs, cats, and other mammals, birds and cold-blooded animals bred for the pet trade lack even these minimal protections and are completely unregulated under the Animal Welfare Act; and animals sourced from these breeders have high instances of disease, genetic disorders, and behavioral challenges. ... The MSPCA takes in hundreds of animals each year who were acquired at pet stores as consumers, unaware of hidden problems, are often unprepared and unable to spend the time and money required to properly care for these animals.
ns.
Ad:
Comments
Just curious
What definition of shelter they're using? Does this allow rescue groups to partner with Petco/Petsmart/etc to use their space for adoptions? Or is it only the MSPCA?
Not just the MSPCA
The proposal, linked above, refers to animals from "an animal care facility or an animal rescue organization."
We Only Want To Save The Cute Ones
I know puppies are soooooooooo cute, but isn't this an example of lookism? Shame on you Cambridge for your attempts to impose an animal hierarchy retail paradigm on us.
Um, what?
I dunno, something tells me you really don't care, but in any case, Boston was the one that singled out dogs, cats and cute, fluffy little bunny rabbits, with their big floppy ears and their cute little whiskers. Cambridge is the one that thinks geckos and rats are worth protecting, too.
Perhaps You Are Right
Still, people do gravitate towards the animals that make them feel good and there are resulting protections for them.
don't worry
yur illeagal puppy breeding mill under your front porch will stil be illeagal.
What can I sell you?
People who cannot spell usually are the best customers.
Sell him...
... an illeagle begal.
... an ill eagle.
or any such thing.
Nowhere in this (self proclaimed) enlightened
Cantabrigian endeavor is there a mention of Turkeys. This slight among others is fodder for self radicalized Turkeys and a boon for the TLF.
What about food?
Will stores still be able to sell live mice and rats for people who have pets which eat such critters for food?
For that matter, will supermarkets be able to keep selling live Lobsters?
If you are really concerned,
If you are really concerned, which i doubt, it says the proposal is about pet shops, not supermarkets.
Economic development for the south?
Ban sale of "non-shelter" pets, increase demand for the southern industry of furnishing dogs to northern pet shelters.