Friday, May 6, 2011

Apparently, LA City Councilmember Paul Koretz is proposing a ban on the sale of commercially bred dogs, cats and rabbits in Los Angeles. This was presented as a ban on pets from "puppy mills," that undefined term which has lately been applied to breeders of any kind.

Perfect example of that incremental chip-away factor. First it’s puppy mills, then commercial breeders, then pet stores, then anyone who ever breeds a litter. So if Joe Blow’s dog accidentally has an “intimate moment” with his neighbor’s bitch, he won’t be able to make a buck off the puppies, so they’ll be let loose in traffic or dumped at the shelter. Not that I recommend this type of unplanned breeding, but it happens. The how or why isn’t the point. What IS the point is that Joe’s puppies will end up dead.

Wait, I forget, what’s the purpose of this type of legislation? To protect animals? Well, of course, what was I thinking? PETA has always said animals are better off dead than living on this planet with evil humans. When the intention of these laws is to end our association with animals, ALL animals, death is as good a way as any, right?

Hey, Paul, it’s working! Koretz is not Korect, he’s Korupt.


  1. commercially bred RABBITS and CATS.. LOL.. time for everyone to Komplain

  2. After DECADES of declining shelter numbers, intakes at LAAS shot up by over 38% when Los Angeles implemented its mandatory spay, neuter and microchip ordinance, and the intakes and deaths continue to steadily rise. It also now costs $325 per year to license an intact animal in the City of Los Angeles.

    Punitive laws and high animal fees and fines always cause shelter intakes and deaths to rise wherever they are tried. Fort Worth, Texas repealed their mandatory spay-neuter law after licensing compliance dropped and rabies cases increased.

    Nathan Winograd wrote an essay about this phenomenon, called "the Dark Side of Mandatory Licensing and Neutering Laws". You can read it here:

    Perhaps the city might do better to reduce licensing fees, eliminate pet limits and repeal their mandatory sterilization and microchip laws. IF they really want to help save the animals. A knee-jerk proposal like a ban on sales will only create a black market for dogs and cats.

  3. Koretz, in an article on "my Fox LA", claims that pets from pet stores are overburdening our shelters. Brenda Barnette agrees with him.

    Surveys show that less than 5% of shelter animals originate from pet stores, so that is a specious argument for a ban on pet store sales.

    Do they honestly believe that none of the shelter animals are ever lost dogs, or feral cats, or animals brought in by their owners for health or temperament reasons. They're all from pet stores! DUH!

    With morons like Koretz and Barnette in positions of responsibility, it's easy to see why California is in such dire economic straits.

    Koretz has it wrong. There IS no link between pet store animals and those who end up in shelters. Dogs enter shelters because we have a problem with responsible ownership. There is a segment of the population that is unable or unwilling to to keep or train their dogs who suffer from health or temperament problems. Education and support is the answer to that.

    Bans on sales and breeding do nothing to address the root problem of irresponsible ownership.
    Shame on Brenda Barnette, she should know better.

    Let's just make it illegal to own animals. Then obviously none will ever end up in shelters! Idiots!

  4. I was in our local mall today (a place that I usually avoid like the plague) and Tracy Animal Rescue had a storefront and was selling dogs. O.K., dogs and and cats of questionable parentage and temperament being sold at retail. Hmm, sounds like a pet store.