Pet ban misleading, anti-business (Via Herp Digest)

Editor - trying to find copy of new rules in Fort Collins, CO. But meanwhile the op-ed war over it in a college paper has started.

Guest Column: Pet ban misleading, anti-business
by JOSH PHILIPS
The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/25/2011

You may have heard of the initiative to ban pet sales in Fort Collins, and some of you may have even signed the petition to include it on the ballot this year. If so, you may want to consider finding the petition and scratching your name out before you become an accomplice to prolonging the recession in Fort Collins.

The proposed ordinance originated from a local CSU student, Laure Molitor, who has taken it upon herself to ensure pet establishments can no longer feed on the "uninformed"-- and possibly inept -- animal lovers of Fort Collins.

The ordinance, according to a website dedicated to the initiative, would "negatively impact commercial breeders such as puppy mills and kitten factories." While this intent is not a bad one -- nobody wants to see animals suffer in disgusting living conditions --the ordinance is clearly designed to punish pet stores by utilizing a perverted sense of justice.

Perhaps the most incredulous aspect of the proposed ordinance is that it completely ignores the recession, and its advocates seem incapable of understanding that removing any business in Fort Collins can only lead to negative consequences. This blind mindset clearly shows a failure to grasp the basics of economics.

For example, they suggest that pet stores will not suffer from the loss of pet sales but fail to offer evidence anywhere to the contrary. Even if they could offer such proof, the idea of diminishing the revenues of local businesses for the sake of sending a message remains on shaky moral ground.

Strangely enough, the rest of the website seems to be an attack against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its inability to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, especially in the case of "puppy mills" and "kitten factories." The backers of the ordinance have come to the conclusion that pet stores must pay for the USDA's transgressions because "it's too difficult to fight the government." So with the ordinance in mind, the ends justify the means, no matter who gets hurt along the way.

This proposal carries with it numerous unintended consequences. If pet stores can no longer sell pets, people will buy them online. And if you think people are "uninformed" walking into pet stores, imagine how uninformed will they be when buying from somebody in Kansas on Craigslist.


If the large chains like Petco and Petsmart are reduced to selling only feed, they will assuredly sell their products at a lower price -- and no doubt they will offer a much wider variety. The feed stores she offers as poster children for the wild agenda will lose their niche in the local community, post record losses, and no doubt be swallowed whole by the very corporate giants she wishes to subvert. Once again, a basic understanding of economics.

Not to mention the number of veterinarians who will lose business. Less supply of animals means less visits to the vet's office, which means less revenues, which means people will start losing jobs. It's that simple.

It's doubtful the ordinance writers took the time to study pet stores before they made such outrageous and indefensible claims against them. The employees at Petco are instructed not to sell any animal to a person unwilling to care for it -- one merely has to be a customer to see how much compassion the employees and managers are capable of.

The scariest aspect of the ordinance is that it has loose ties to PETA, the extremist group that tends to provide "euthanasia services" for those adorable puppies and kittens they claim to protect. The website for the ordinance offers links to PETA, suggesting they either are supportive of or, at the very least, inspired by the group's aberrant behavior.

In the end, the ordinance is poorly thought-out and, if put in place, would offer more problems than solutions. It seems its advocates spent very little time weighing the pros versus the cons and are simply out to implement an anti-business law for the sake of a few sad photos they saw on the Internet. It is little more than a personal vendetta against pet stores, which just isn't worth the cost to the community.

Josh Philips is a Fort Collins resident and former Collegian columnist.

A response to the pet ban ordinance, Really to editorial above.
by MARY ROBERTS

The Rocky Mountain Collegian
01/26/2011

Ah, Josh, after reading your column (in Monday's paper) I see that people who write in to the Collegian still spout meaningless metaphors, convoluted thinking, personal attacks and a basic misunderstanding of the topic altogether.

Allow me to explain. First, I wrote for the Collegian many years ago (almost 40), and I disparaged anyone who looked cross-eyed at me, and thought that I was most clever. So I understand the thrilling aspect of having a bully pulpit. So, rah, rah and all that.

Let's go point by point.

1. The ordinance is designed to cut off the puppy pipeline to buyers from large-scale, commercial dog breeders who run an inherently abusive practice. Keeping breeding dogs in cages for a lifetime to breed time after time is abusive. You cannot argue that. And every large-scale breeder of necessity has to do that. They can't take out the 100 or so breeding females for a romp in the park. Most of them live in wire cages for their entire life.

We don't want to punish pet stores. There is a movement that is asking pet stores to reconsider their practices and instead work with shelters and breed rescues to help get dogs (and other animals) adopted. One thousand pet stores have taken the "no puppy" pledge. Diminishing revenues for the sake of a message is shaky moral ground? Really? How about killing 1,200 dogs because the owner didn't want to pay their vet bill?

2. Jeff Fortin, who killed his 1,200 dogs because he couldn't manage their care, is not the exception. He is the rule. I have been researching this for seven years. Laurie Molitor has worked for Humane Societies, including the Reptile Humane Society, and has seen first-hand how reptiles are bought on a whim and die when the owners either lose interest or have no idea how to care for a non-native reptile. Many pet store employees are not educated on their care either.

3. In 2010 The USDA's Office of Inspector General published a highly critical report of the Animal and Pet Health Inspections Services organization that oversees pet care nationally calling it inept and mismanaged. We have known that for years. There are numerous groups working with the USDA to improve their oversight of animal welfare. Meanwhile, animals suffer. We are no longer willing to wait for the slow wheels of government.

4. We euthanize annually 4 million to 5 million dogs and cats that are healthy and adoptable. How about if the American public thoughtfully adopted instead of walk by a pet store, become enamored of that "poor thing" in the window and impulsively pay hundreds of dollars for an animal that's not even spayed or neutered? Shelters vet their adopters; breed rescues even do a home visit. Pet stores and commercial breeders don't care who buys their animals. Adopt these millions of dogs or cats, and I don't think vets are going to run out of clients.

5. I have decided to not address your fear of PETA. We don't always agree on each other's tactics, but calling them aberrant just because you disagree with someone is adolescent.

6. We have seen more than a few little sad photos on the Internet. I suggest you visit a puppy mill. How about Fortin's Beaver Creek Kennels in Kansas where it took days to kill 1,200 dogs and acres to bury them. Laure Molitor is in school full-time hoping to become a veterinarian. She also works at a vet clinic. She does not know the owners of any of the pet stores and has no thought of a "personal vendetta." She could no longer stand by and wait for someone else to do something.

Like all great Americans who have ever stood up to be heard, she has risked personal ridicule, sacrificed any leisure time and acted on her sense of right and wrong.

It's easy to mock someone with whom you disagree, and it gets you a lot more ink. A thoughtful exchange of ideas and concerns, a mutual show of respect, well that's just too damn boring.

Mary Roberts is a local real estate agent and writes about animal welfare. She earned her bachelor's in technical journalism from CSU in 1974 and a master's in communications in 2010.