# Governor Jerry Brown Signs California AB 485; begins TODAY!



## AZPops (Aug 9, 2017)

AB 485 is an effort to crack down on puppy Mills! 

OK, can't post any links, not enough posts; so check out Google, and you'll see it there.

Now, all we need is 49 more States to (is it to) adapt this law into their State!

Pops


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Yup, now instead of USDA inspected kennels they can sell the unvetted imported meat dogs that the rescues bring in. Great law. <heavy sarcasm instended> I may have a problem with commercial kennels, but forcing pet stores instead to sell rescues from who knows where is not the answer.


----------



## Magwart (Jul 8, 2012)

I don't get why shelters and rescues would want their dogs in pet stores -- which are known to not provide vet care (because of $$$) and don't care much about excercise or mental enrichment since pets are "inventory." 

I'd honestly go ape-poop if anyone wanted to take our breed rescue's dogs out of foster homes and put them in a glass display case in a store, to be purchased by whoever has a credit card.

So where are the stores getting the dogs and who's overseeing care? Are tax-funded shelters subsidizing vet care for the stores too? I'm honestly totally confused by this.

I love the idea of shutting down puppy mills and directing people who want to buy purebred puppies find a legitimate breeder. I'm not sure about directing shelter/rescue dogs into storefronts though -- I don't even like shopping mall adoption events where people take home dogs on the spur of the moment because many tend to have regrets and want to return the dog later.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

Maybe well intended but it really does worry me for the future of good breeders. 

And as you guys probably know I'm getting pretty turned off towards a lot of the "rescue" stuff going on in my area...probably other areas too.

I would like for there to be a stand against puppy mills. But I fear that there are no level headed people with appreciation for good breeding involved in these laws.....


----------



## SuperG (May 11, 2013)

lhczth said:


> I may have a problem with commercial kennels, but forcing pet stores instead to sell rescues from who knows where is not the answer.



When I read the bill/law......I wasn't sure I read it properly.......but it is just as you stated.........


Not only is it not the answer....but it's a recipe for many problems to come.




SuperG


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

I am more then happy they are doing something to shutting down puppy mills. I don’t get rescues in pet stores. I Can see pet stores wanting to have a book or a wall dedicated for photos dogs to adoption and direct people interested to the foster homes/shelters. Rescues do not belong in pet stores to be sold. I do not like the anti- breeder attitude that many rescues promote. I can understand the plight in the people that help these rescue dogs but also they have to understand the importance of good breeders to preserve the breed. The rescue people should promote responsible ownership and not breeder bash.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I agree with Lisa. This is just a win for animal rights extremists who believe that anyone who makes a profit or sells a dog or animal, is exploiting that animal.
I live in California. The other 49 states absolutely do not want to be like California. I've lived here my entire life and what has happened is nothing short of tragic as far as homelessness, poverty, extremism, stealing of the rights of citizens etc. 

The only thing this is accomplishing is a government controlled shift of the market share. As was already pointed out, the commercial kennels are inspected by the USDA. Some people will say they don't do a good enough job because they simply repeat what animal rights activists say. I read one poster express outrage about how there were 3000 kennels and only a 120 inspectors. Well, you can do the math, that's 25 kennels for an inspector to visit annually or maybe they visit more often than that but either way, that is not an overwhelming number of kennels to visit.
The other thing that needs to be considered is that these facilities are known as "puppy mills" because they are called that by animal rights fanatics. There is no legal definition of a "puppy mill". It's simply a slur that creates an image in the minds of the public. You know, those images on television when they say you only have 24 hours to save a dog with your $19 donation. Anytime somebody is trying to rush you into a decision, you should be suspicious. But either way, we can look forward to people looking for their next purebred dog out of the back of pick up trucks, you know the ones that have been smuggled in from Mexico… Craigslist breeders, gang members who have figured out how lucrative dog breeding can be when you cut all the corners and no one holds you accountable. And if you think hobby breeders can keep up with the demand, they cannot. The laws hold them to a certain number of dogs and puppies that they can produce annually. If they produce more, they too will be labeled a "puppy mill". 
Meanwhile, we have so called rescues, purchasing dogs at auctions for $6000 with donation money. And that's not even addressing the tens of thousands of dogs imported from out of the country. 
I'm sure it's true that dogs raised for meat in Korea are living in inhumane conditions. But the consumption of dog meat in Korea is decreasing so those people would be slowly going out of business if it weren't for the stupid American rescues showing up with a handful of cash. You can be sure, they will keep producing those dogs to be "saved" , Not because pet stores can't sell commercial breeder dogs but because rescues have created black markets in other countries. It's beyond frustrating to truly understand what's going on here. 

Any of the breeders on this board can be accused of being a "puppy mill" at any time. In fact, all the large animal rights groups say they are. They are the ones writing these kinds of legislation. I would just encourage everyone to try to look at the other side of the story. Things are wildly better for animals than they were 40 years ago. Everything has improved for the dogs including how they are kept by commercial breeders. None of us agree with every other breeder. You see it right here on this forum. There are things I don't agree with but i'm not jumping in bed with animal rights fanatics to go after them. The AR people know nothing about animal care or how to keep animals or breed them or anything else.. 
I can assure you many dogs that are being produced by two dogs in the middle of the street and then giving birth to their puppies under a house, will be finding more homes now because nothing will be done about that. I know that from personal experience. The government goes after people that are easy to find, not the people breaking the law, the people trying to follow the laws. This law is a perfect example of that. The pet stores in Los Angeles are required to list where the dogs came from. How are they going to do that now? Those commercial kennels are heavily regulated as far as vaccinations and required care.

Again, try to look at both sides of the story and not the one that is just being fed to you. What's that saying?… If it appears too good to be true it usually is. That's absolutely the case here. Sorry.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Magwart said:


> I don't get why shelters and rescues would want their dogs in pet stores -- which are known to not provide vet care (because of $$$) and don't care much about excercise or mental enrichment since pets are "inventory."
> 
> I'd honestly go ape-poop if anyone wanted to take our breed rescue's dogs out of foster homes and put them in a glass display case in a store, to be purchased by whoever has a credit card.
> 
> ...


Many shelters are handing over certain breeds for free to the homeless. That alone is becoming its own problem on the streets.


----------



## NaughtyNibbler (Oct 28, 2018)

Vandal said:


> I agree with Lisa. This is just a win for animal rights extremists who believe that anyone who makes a profit or sells a dog or animal, is exploiting that animal.
> I live in California. The other 49 states absolutely do not want to be like California. I've lived here my entire life and what has happened is nothing short of tragic as far as homelessness, poverty, extremism, stealing of the rights of citizens etc. . . .
> 
> I know that from personal experience. The government goes after people that are easy to find, not the people breaking the law, the people trying to follow the laws.


I'm a California Native and agree with you. This lines up with the plastic bag ban and the new straw ban. This is not the type of trash that I see in the park or that blows into my yard from parents/children from the school at the end of my street. Instead of enforcing a "no littering ordinance", they put restrictions on responsible citizens. I've listened to some discussions on the issue and it boils down to the fact that the majority of people who litter can't afford the fine of littering. So, instead of enforcing the ultimate law on littering, they ignore that and don't try to educate people to NOT litter. They just make it hard on the responsible citizens.

Just a thought on the pet stores. Larger pet chains, like Petsmart and Petco haven't directly sold cats and dogs for some time now. It can vary from store to store. What I've generally seen is that these chain stores let rescue groups place cats in their facilities (not dogs). The cats are in cages and the rescue group volunteers take care of the cats and clean the cages. With dogs, I've seen some adoption events inside a stores on the weekends, but no dogs kept there.

I don't think Petsmart or Petco sell the cats or dogs, the rescue groups do. The stores are able to make profits from all the other things they sell that a new owner needs for their new pet.

I'm not sure about what small pet stores will do. I'm thinking most won't directly sell rescue animals and just let rescue groups hold adoption events on their property.


----------



## Thecowboysgirl (Nov 30, 2006)

NaughtyNibbler said:


> I'm a California Native and agree with you. This lines up with the plastic bag ban and the new straw ban. This is not the type of trash that I see in the park or that blows into my yard from parents/children from the school at the end of my street. Instead of enforcing a "no littering ordinance", they put restrictions on responsible citizens. I've listened to some discussions on the issue and it boils down to the fact that the majority of people who litter can't afford the fine of littering. So, instead of enforcing the ultimate law on littering, they ignore that and don't try to educate people to NOT litter. They just make it hard on the responsible citizens.
> 
> Just a thought on the pet stores. Larger pet chains, like Petsmart and Petco haven't directly sold cats and dogs for some time now. It can vary from store to store. What I've generally seen is that these chain stores let rescue groups place cats in their facilities (not dogs). The cats are in cages and the rescue group volunteers take care of the cats and clean the cages. With dogs, I've seen some adoption events inside a stores on the weekends, but no dogs kept there.
> 
> ...


This is what I also assumed, that rescue groups would bring their dogs into the store like the adoption events. Because pet stores typically sell puppies anyway, right? So they don't even begin to have the facilities to house a bunch of big adult dogs like a kennel of a shelter for instance.

Although I'm not sure how that would work for the store financially, I guess the rescue group could pay them to use the store to sell the dogs or pay a percentage of each dog sale to the store?

Does America have enough adoptable dogs of its own to fill this gap? Or definitely they have to import them?


----------



## Kazel (Nov 29, 2016)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> This is what I also assumed, that rescue groups would bring their dogs into the store like the adoption events. Because pet stores typically sell puppies anyway, right? So they don't even begin to have the facilities to house a bunch of big adult dogs like a kennel of a shelter for instance.
> 
> Although I'm not sure how that would work for the store financially, I guess the rescue group could pay them to use the store to sell the dogs or pay a percentage of each dog sale to the store?
> 
> Does America have enough adoptable dogs of its own to fill this gap? Or definitely they have to import them?


There are more than enough adoptable dogs in America to fill the void. Honestly the bringing dogs in from other countries or even shipping them across the states bothers me. This is because very few places truly health test and quarantine animals so it spreads disease. Montana didn't used to have heartworm but now thanks to people moving up with sick dogs and not getting them treatment and a rescue that ships up tons and tons of heartworm positive dogs it's starting to be a problem. There are often plenty of dogs in local shelters to be adopted but people get hooked on sob stories and how good they'd look adopting that poor dog from so and so. So instead the dog a couple miles away gets euthanized because they'd rather adopt a dog from 1,000 miles away. Not saying these dogs don't need homes but the way many are going about it bothers me.


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

I'm looking at this from the aspect that it is "good for dogs". Most people believe it is, without stopping to consider anything. They just go along with the animal rights propaganda because that's all you can really find now. 
It's everywhere.
Let's just set aside the financial aspect for the pet stores and consider that the source for purebred dogs, will now be coming from unregulated, unlicensed places. Dogs smuggled in from Mexico, Craigslist "breeders", etc.
At the very least, the commercial kennels were regulated and inspected by the USDA. 
There IS a demand for purebred dogs. Once again, hobby breeders, (the licensed ones anyway), are limited to a certain number of breeding dogs and litters they can produce per year. If they exceed those numbers, they become a commercial kennel. And immediately will be labeled a "puppy mill" by the animal rights groups. Make no mistake, that's what's happening to commercial kennels right now. And that's all you really have to do, call somebody a "puppy mill" and you are immediately hated. No proof necessary. Everybody's screaming about puppy mills when they really have no idea what's actually going on at a commercial kennel. Again, just repeating animal rights propaganda.

Try to consider what I'm saying here. They simply shifted the market share to unlicensed and unregulated puppy producers. Those people will not be held accountable, no one is coming to inspect where the dogs are bred, where the puppies are raised, whether or not they have the proper vaccinations, etc. etc. 
When people want to buy something, (like pure bred dogs that the commercial kennels are producing), they will get them from somewhere. And now what's available, (besides the limited amount that a hobby breeder can supply), are the worst of the worst. And the worst of the worst, just got a big boost in business from the California government.


----------



## crittersitter (Mar 31, 2011)

I'm sorry...but I worry about anything California signs into law.


----------



## NaughtyNibbler (Oct 28, 2018)

Thecowboysgirl said:


> Although I'm not sure how that would work for the store financially, I guess the rescue group could pay them to use the store to sell the dogs or pay a percentage of each dog sale to the store?


 I don't believe the rescues pay the stores like Petsmart or Petco anything. I helped out a cat rescue for awhile in the past. They weren't paying the stores anything. Adoption events on their property is good for business. The stores make more money during these events by supplies and food that the pet parents buy. 

I, also, think that stores that don't purchase dogs for resale don't have the cost associated with caring for those animals living in their store. I think it turns out okay financially for the stores to have the rescue groups totally responsible for the care and the adoption of the animals. 

I'm sure there will be a variation in situations with other independent stores or other chains. I'm just familiar with Petsmart & Petco. They haven't sold/housed dogs or cats from their facilities for several years - only adoption events with rescues or rescue groups caring/maintaining a few adoptable animals within the store.

Also, with so many people buying pet supplies from online sources these days, I'm thinking the number of pet stores is shrinking or likely to shrink.


----------



## alexg (Mar 22, 2013)

AZPops said:


> AB 485 is an effort to crack down on puppy Mills!
> 
> OK, can't post any links, not enough posts; so check out Google, and you'll see it there.
> 
> ...


I would rather vote for the Kaliforniya's independence. :crazy:


----------



## Aly (May 26, 2011)

NaughtyNibbler said:


> I don't think Petsmart or Petco sell the cats or dogs, the rescue groups do. The stores are able to make profits from all the other things they sell that a new owner needs for their new pet..


Just a quick note. That policy seems to be changing, at least here (DC). A couple of weeks ago, I stopped by to pick up cat supplies. Wandered over to the Adoption Center where they had 7 or 8 cats and kittens up for adoption. Reading the descriptions, I noticed that no rescue group was listed as the contact. Previously, one of 3 reputable cat rescues staffed the Adoption Center. They brought in cats/kittens, cleaned cages etc, and handled the adoption screening and placement. 

When I asked about that, the staff member (who was cleaning litter boxes when I stopped by) told me, "Yeah that's the way it used to be, but we (Petsmart) handle all of that now." Really, I said and proceeded to ask a few questions as though I was interested in adopting. Were the kittens/cats neutered? Some were, but most weren't. I was assured that the advantage of this approach was that adopters could take the kitten/cat to their own vets and schedule neutering at their convenience. When I asked about the kittens/cats vaccination status, I was told that some were utd, but that over half hadn't started on their vaccinations yet. Bonus: Adopters could take the cat/kitten to their own vets and arrange for vaccinations, as needed, at their convenience. 

And, yes, there was still an adoption "fee."


----------



## NaughtyNibbler (Oct 28, 2018)

Aly said:


> Just a quick note. That policy seems to be changing, at least here (DC). A couple of weeks ago, I stopped by to pick up cat supplies. Wandered over to the Adoption Center where they had 7 or 8 cats and kittens up for adoption. Reading the descriptions, I noticed that no rescue group was listed as the contact. Previously, one of 3 reputable cat rescues staffed the Adoption Center. They brought in cats/kittens, cleaned cages etc, and handled the adoption screening and placement.
> 
> When I asked about that, the staff member (who was cleaning litter boxes when I stopped by) told me, "Yeah that's the way it used to be, but we (Petsmart) handle all of that now." Really, I said and proceeded to ask a few questions as though I was interested in adopting. Were the kittens/cats neutered? Some were, but most weren't. I was assured that the advantage of this approach was that adopters could take the kitten/cat to their own vets and schedule neutering at their convenience. When I asked about the kittens/cats vaccination status, I was told that some were utd, but that over half hadn't started on their vaccinations yet. Bonus: Adopters could take the cat/kitten to their own vets and arrange for vaccinations, as needed, at their convenience.
> 
> And, yes, there was still an adoption "fee."


California has a law that dogs and cats have to be altered before adoption from an animal shelter, humane society or rescue group. Sounds like things are different in DC and other states as well. Probably can't compare California Petsmarts with states that don't have to comply with our laws (nanny state). 

Unless some kittens were too young to start vaccinations, it would be irresponsible to not vaccinate.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

I live in Canada, so maybe I am misunderstanding something. The CKC prohibits members from selling through a pet store so no reputable breeder in Canada would sell puppies that way. I would think that breeders in the US would feel the same? The only source for puppies in pet stores is puppy mills and byb's.

I read the bill and it basically prohibits the sale of puppies and kittens in stores. I clearly missed something because that seems sensible to me. If someone could tell me what I missed?


----------



## Kazel (Nov 29, 2016)

Sabis mom said:


> I live in Canada, so maybe I am misunderstanding something. The CKC prohibits members from selling through a pet store so no reputable breeder in Canada would sell puppies that way. I would think that breeders in the US would feel the same? The only source for puppies in pet stores is puppy mills and byb's.
> 
> I read the bill and it basically prohibits the sale of puppies and kittens in stores. I clearly missed something because that seems sensible to me. If someone could tell me what I missed?


I think the fear is that the adopt don't shop climate is really taking hold and getting more aggressive. And now pet stores can only sell rescue dogs so how are they going to sell those dogs? Many pet stores allow rescues to hold adoption events in them. But making it so they can only sell rescues could still allow for shady animals deals or animals not well taken care of. I think the banning puppies/kittens being sold there isn't a bad idea. But having seen non-chain pet stores I wouldn't want rescues in them any more than the puppies and kittens should be. Basically the rescues should keep custody of the animals, don't encourage pet stores to sell 'rescues'. I've seen the cat adoption rooms in petsmart/petco but they are run by the shelter and I think it should stay that way.


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

The cynic in me says to "follow the money". It always comes to that. It ultimately isn't about the animals. Who stands to gain $$ or look good? If it were truly about the animals the law makers would find out what was good or bad about breeding from breeders, dog owners, kennel clubs, etc and then make their rules. But they don't. 

I saw this in the shut down of dog racing in Florida but that is a different can of worms. It just makes it tougher for me to figure out who gets to cash in on this one. 

In MD we have breeders. Pet stores don't sell puppies or kittens, just smaller animals, birds and fish (how come no one is concerned about long lived birds and crazy ferrets. maybe because no one sees them breeding feral). The shelters and rescues hold events at Petsmart / Petco and they themselves are responsible for placement, not the petstore. It seems like a decent compromise between shelters and breeders. I saw the same thing in South Carolina and NH


----------



## Aly (May 26, 2011)

NaughtyNibbler said:


> California has a law that dogs and cats have to be altered before adoption from an animal shelter, humane society or rescue group. Sounds like things are different in DC and other states as well. Probably can't compare California Petsmarts with states that don't have to comply with our laws (nanny state).
> 
> Unless some kittens were too young to start vaccinations, it would be irresponsible to not vaccinate.


There were _many _ aspects of the arrangement described to me that I found irresponsible, @NaughtyNibbler. I don't know how far this "arrangement" extends to other Petsmarts here or elsewhere, but I found it disturbing. AFAIK, shelters and rescues in the DMV have the same requirement of pre adoption s/n and vaccinations as you describe. (I don't always agree with the policy, but I understand the AC impetus behind it). What's going on in the particular store that I visited had me scratching my head. 

FWIW, I've rarely seen dog/puppy adoption events at that store and, frankly, I'm hoping that that continues. At least, until they get a better handle on whatever it is that they're doing with the cats/kittens ---- several of whom were clearly old enough for s/n.

ETA. As far as CA AB 485 is concerned, AR/PETA groups are clearly winning what I find to be their unsavory agenda-based PR campaign. Yes, it's questionable legislation, at best, with little apparent thought given to its long-term implications. But, what's most concerning to me is the hamfisted direction in which it seems to be moving. (Per the AR/PETA agenda to which I alluded above). Because of that direction, I also fear that unless reputable (as distinct from 'professional') breeders and dog owners band together and push back significantly, none of us will be animal owners in the future --- and that result will have little to do with the quality of care that we can and do offer.


----------

