Hacker News Reader

Comment by topmonk | Hacker News Reader

This sort of thing sits wrong with me.

Why don't they force the breeders to have better conditions for the animals, and include livestock and lab animals along with it?

By doing it this way they aren't acknowledging there is a demand for certain breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter. The market is going to find a way around this, either by dealing with the dealers' directly (or through some sort of "finder") or going out of state.

Either way, the poor conditions for animals are going to continue in some shape or form, and no one is going to be able to set up a breeder farm that treats its animals ethically without finding a way to sell their animals, which means jumping through yet another hoop.

It's just dumb, kind of insulting to the voters, and I suspect the politicians for this were intending to avoid taking the heavy donors of the farming/pharmaceutical industries to task while still trying to cast themselves in a progressive light.

View on HN

> Why don't they force the breeders to have better conditions for the animals, and include livestock and lab animals along with it?

Breeding dogs isn't hard / has a low barrier to entry. You need a male and a female and a place to house the puppies. Conditions could be generally terrible. Enforcing licensing is unrealistic - who's going to do the inspections? Who's going to pay the inspectors?

Further, there are too many dogs and cats, period. Disincentivizing commercial breeding (making it harder to sell) is a _good_ thing, and rerouting some of the animals who would be killed by shelters who can no longer accomodate them is also a good thing.

The point about inspection overhead / regulatory capture is a good one.

Regulation is difficult because of unintended consequences. So given a choice between "ban pet stores from selling bred animals" and "create a new bureaucracy to oversee animal conditions" (then pairing it with something like a transfer tax), the former is a lighter market touch.

And if we want to get realpolitik, mongrels tend to have stronger genetics than pure-breds ("Life finds a way"), so this is probably long-term good for pets in general.

But you need purebreds to get mongrels, otherwise you eventually wind up with mutts (which are healthier than purebreds but not as good as mongrels).

I thought that mutt and mongrel were synonyms. Is there some formal distinction?

I meant it as a synonym, debated on which to use, and decided mongrel carried fewer pejorative connotations.

'Cross-breed' is term I've heard involving pure-bred ancestors.

E.g. this adorable Bassador on Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_crossbreed#/media/File%3...

I find the overpopulation argument really interesting in how it compares to similar issues:

1. There's too many humans, killing humans to reduce the population isn't really a palatable solution to anyone. 2. There's too many cats/dogs, killing them seems much more reasonable to some, and awful to others. They're in the sweet spot between family and wildlife. 3. Pests (deer, rabbits, etc) are over-populating, killing them is pretty much A-OK.

Personally I see a cultural issue akin to wastage. Especially in the US, we love to buy and throw stuff out all the time. I would hypothesize that people who buy/rescue mutts and less desirable breeds are more likely to abandon them after some time. Others who spend thousands of dollars on a specific breed they like will be more likely to keep it the duration of its life.

I see the solution as more of a tax. Stop letting people get cats/dogs for $20. I also don't think inspections are unreasonable. The government already inspects half of the industries, what's one more?

The insinuation that people that adopt “less desireable” animals are less responsible is verging on insulting. The people that I have met that are working for neglected animals are some of the most dedicated and compassionate people that I know. Meanwhile, on any given day you can find “fancy” breeds that have been abandoned at the municipal shelter by owners that couldn’t be bothered to accomodate them.

>Meanwhile, on any given day you can find “fancy” breeds that have been abandoned at the municipal shelter by owners that couldn’t be bothered to accomodate them.

At least in my area, any expensive breeds (any pure breed that's not a Chihuahua or Pit Bull really) are scooped up by rescues almost immediately. Then if you want to adopt one, you have to go through an interview processes ran by people who are temporarily caring for the dog who are looking for reasons to disqualify you.

The approval process is completely arbitrary and far too invasive. The president of the ASPCA was turned down by a rescue a few years ago, and he wrote about the process.

In my experience I find that hard to believe, and if true, those rescues are doing a poor job. Everyone that works in animal rescue knows which animals are at high risk of being euthanized, and always prioritize pulling those animals.

Regarding adoption, rescues are more invested in what homes their animals go to because they often are making a promise to take back any animals they take resposibility for. They don’t want animals to go back to the shelter, so any sign of potential issue will get an adoption canceled. Are there false positives? Of course. But a lot of animals going to good homes that would otherwise be killed.

>In my experience I find that hard to believe

Just looked at my local shelter website. 78 dogs for adoption at the shelter. Not a single pure breed that wasn't a pit bull. And 90% of the dogs were pit bull or pit bull mixes.

>so any sign of potential issue will get an adoption canceled. Are there false positives? Of course.

That's the problem rescue workers are in a poor position to make this determination. They are in a perfect position to suffer from confirmation bias, plus they are too emotionally attached to the dogs.

They need more objective standards. When the Head of the ASPCA can't meet your standards, something is wrong.

>But a lot of animals going to good homes that would otherwise be killed.

And there are rescue organizations that buy dogs from breeders. Sure rescue organizations do a lot of good, but they could be ran a lot better I think they need more oversight.

>I see the solution as more of a tax. Stop letting people get cats/dogs for $20

Not getting on the specific argument, but any such kind of tax, it should be analogous to the buyers income/wealth, and not to the price.

Such that a poor person and a rich person have a proportionally equal penalty for buying the item -- else it's just a restriction on poor people.

One of these classes is wildly better equipped to care for an animal.

With that logic, we should just ban poor people from breeding as well. After all, they are not as well equipped to do it.

Actually that not true. You are reducing my logic to an absurd level.

A static price is not a prevention, but a disincentivization. Enabling people to do something they are otherwise economically incapable of doing is how we got the 2008 recession. Granted this is a whole different level, but the point is the same. A functioning economy reflects the value, not the means. And as a result, some are less able than others. A price point that makes it difficult for someone to afford a pet will (presumably) make them think twice before taking on a responsibility they might not be able to handle.

Banning is a strong word, but we should definitely discourage it. Poor unmarried people shitting out kids that the rest of us have to pay for is not something I am a big fan of.

Someone well off with those ideas forgets that he's here only because untold numbers of "poor people" had children up to his lineage -- even when they faced much worse odds than poverty...

If what somebody learnt from life is that "they have to pay for poor people's kids", then indeed some are better for all of us to not have been born in the first place. But those are not necessarily the poor people's kids.

I seriously doubt that a person with $70K/year income is less "equipped to care for an animal" than a person with $10M/year income in any meaningful way.

You'd be surprised. Vet bills can be unexpectedly expensive and a sick or injured pet can run up a thousand dollar vet bill pretty quick. A family with a $70K income and a couple of kids could find that pretty difficult to accomodate into the budget.

We could find terrible dog owners everywhere. Dogs are social animals and their psychological wellbeing and health is related with spending as many time as possible with their family group. Rich people have busy lifes and lack of free time to walk or play with the dog. They can overfeed they animals also to compensate.

Here's a few links describing the regulatory situation in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/dog-breeding-licence-england-scotland-wal... https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/breeding/dog-breeding-regul... https://www.dogstrust.org.uk/news-events/issues-campaigns/pa...

How would you enforce a ban on backyard breeders? I personally detest them as they flood the market with unhealthy dogs.

The law is specific to pet stores because it is one step removed from the breeder. You can still buy directly from the breeder.

If a person cares about a particular breed they typically buy directly from the breeder anyway. That way they can check on the pedigree of the dog. At the same time they can see the condition of the dogs. The people who buy from pet stores really want a dog similar to a particular breed but don't particularly care about the breeding much less the conditions of the puppies at the puppy mill.

This. Pet stores have zero interest or ability to influence the conditions at a breeder and rarely sell papered animals. They just cash in on trends around certain breeds and will happily sell any animal to a buyer who isn't really that discerning.

My wife & I work with a rescue and the breakdown tends to looks like:

RESCUE ANIMAL conditions: abysmal when rescued; then the most loving fosters and homes around breed: "brown dog" cost: ~ $200-$400 depending on fees owner: really wants a dog (our screening is quite strict)

PET STORE ANIMAL conditions: unknown, but lots of rescues come from backyard breeders that willingly or not have terrible conditions breed: looks like whatever is hot this year (yorkie cross, french bulldog, chocolate lab) cost: $hundreds to thousands owner: wants a type of dog but cost, effort or timing prevents planning with a breeder

BREEDER conditions: usually pretty good if they're a registered breeder or breed, though the females have more litters than breed: very specialized, registered cost: $thousands owner: wants a very specific dog for various reasons, willing to plan 6+ months in advance, disposable income

Interestingly the type of people who adopt rescues are very similar to many of those who buy the expensive breeder animals.

Interesting that you compare this with livestock. Certainly in the EU, the herd animals are all extremely heavily regulated and tracked individually. You can't keep a goat at home without being registered with DEFRA.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/guidance-on-keepin...

It feels a bit panopticon to require all breeding animals to be registered, but technologically it's now quite easy. Allowing neutered animals out of the control system would be a compromise so this doesn't affect the average pet owner.

Many breeds operate breed registries anyway. It's just the "puppy mills" we're trying to do away with.

"International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights requires, within a reasonable number of years, the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all [children]." - Wikipedia

That could also be described as a bit panopticon, but is the counterargument not the same: children and animals should be raised with care, under threat of law, because we can assume in the current world they will suffer otherwise?

Doesn't technically require the panopticon; it's not a mandate for ear-tagging children. It's a lot easier to implement and enforce if you have a database of children but it's not a strict requirement.

People get very easily upset by this kind of child welfare thing, regarding it as distrustful, but it's very necessary.

> “t feels a bit panopticon to require all breeding animals to be registered...”

is “panopticon” now fashionable? in any case, i quibble with your usage here. the panopticon is not merely a tracking apparatus, but an apparatus of self-discipline. it’s function was to control, and it illustrates a systemic application of micro-power (discipline you apply to yourself) on large populations.

that’s why it was insidious and that’s why it was interesting. you’re losing this interesting and essential feautre the way you throw around this word.

What's a better shortcut for "system of tracking all the elements of a population continuously"?

Big Brother

i think that's just called mass surveillance.

but that doesn't fit the situation here anyway. the animals are not being tracked continuously and in every way, but rather, just their existence and general health at a few checkpoints. you are being forced to be good stewards and record keepers of your own bovine, so there are some inspections and certifications of the facilities for example.

these animals are usually meant for (wider) human consumption, so you might disagree, but i don't see that as overly onerous.

Puppy mills produce registered puppies.

Every single person I know that bought a specific breed bought from a breeder not a pet store.

This is a very good move, as the only impact it will have is shutting down the puppy mills.

Because California can't do anything to regulate breeders in Missouri, Nebraska, Iowa or Arkansas.

https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-unc...

Can't make up a set of rules, and breeders that don't respect them don't get to send their pets to Californian stores?

Or put it differently: force pet stores in California to sell only pets that were treated humanly.

Well, there is a Supreme Court case in this realm about eggs http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/missouri-v-califo...

> Can't make up a set of rules, and breeders that don't respect them don't get to send their pets to Californian stores?

I think the weak federal rules that are referenced in the story here are preemptive, so, it's quite possible that California can't adopt stricter rules.

In any case, it's a lot easier to enforce a “sell from shelters only” rule than one that requires state enforcement of standards on out-of-state suppliers.

As far as I understand, ethical breeders who raise dogs with care tend to operate direct already. Have you never heard someone say "I got such-and-such a dog from a breeder"?

> By doing it this way they aren't acknowledging there is a demand for certain breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter.

They are attempting to reduce the abuses by increasing transaction costs by removing the main retail channel; this is not intended to prevent sales of specific breeds by breeders.

> The market is going to find a way around this, either by dealing with the dealers' directly (or through some sort of "finder") or going out of state.

Yeah, people who have an intense desire for a specific breed (or a non-rescue for some non-breed reason) will still have a number of other avenues less convenient than the pet store. That probably won't cut mills out entirely (but it will narrow the convenience advantage they offer over conventional, reputable breeders), but then a solution doesn't have to be total to be an improvement.

>By doing it this way they aren't acknowledging there is a demand for certain breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter.

Well, there's a demand for all kinds of things, doesn't mean it should be satisfied (or that "the market will find a way around it" means we should make it open).

You're not wrong, but this law will still (IMHO) have a positive effect in that it will reduce the number of impulse purchases of non-rescue animals. Also, shortening the supply chain will make it harder for breeders to dump animals with genetic defects on the market without repercussions.

"People may still buy dogs or cats directly from breeders."

> there is a demand for certain breeds of dogs unlikely to be found at a shelter.

The article states that the law allows for purchasing animals directly from a breeder.

Hey look, it's the same arguments against the Nordic model of prostitution laws.

Can you describe the conditions of cats and dogs with today's breeders in a few sentences, instead of just saying "poor"? At least by quoting someone else.

https://www.humanesociety.org/news/horrible-hundred-2017-unc...

People have been buying from out of state forever. I've went with friends to pick up pups at the airport. If you're spending $3,500 on a dog it's not a big deal to have it shipped.

And you see no difference between the demographic that has dogs shipped for multiple thousands of dollars, and those shopping at a pet store?

Seems to me, then, that this law punishes the poor who may want easy access to a specific breed, while still allowing the wealthy to do whatever they want. That strikes me as regressive.

In other news, rich people can afford some things that poor people cannot.

Fortunately a pet is not a basic necessity.

Seems to me, then, that this law punishes the poor who may want easy access to a specific breed

Yup, being poor sucks. Have to drive a shitty car instead of a BMW, have to have a mutt instead of a Standard Poodle. The social injustice of it all...

If the breeder raises the desired animals, then 'abandons' them in a pen, then they are 'rescued' by the person who usually transports them... that seems like an easy workaround. It's not hard to convert a non-rescue animal into a rescue animal.

It's not hard to detect that, either.

A $2,000 "rescue" animal for sale at a pet shop clearly isn't a rescue. (Especially if it comes with a purebred certificate!)

Additionally, it sounds like shelters have to be a gobetween, so can't just be a pet store and say, "oh i found a bunch of dogs out back and rescued them and they are for sale."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com