HOW YOU CAN HELP ANIMALS!
Help ISAR to amend dozens of inadequate laws purporting to prohibit retail sales of certain companion animals.
In our blog of May 14, 2014, we wrote the following:
As recipients of ISAR’s E-Newsletter/Blog know, we’re probably alone in seeking to prohibit retail sales of companion animals.
- We’ve prepared a Model Statute Prohibiting Commercial Retail Sales of Dogs and Cats.
- In our April 1, 2014, E-Newsletter/Blog — “Understand That Chicago’s Ban Against Companion Animal Retail Sales Isn’t A Complete Prohibition (Part I)” — we noted that:
ISAR applauds the City of Chicago for taking what we consider to be not the last word on the subject, but rather a desirable way-station on the road to ban all retail sales. In this regard, please note that the Chicago ordinance still allows sales by kennels. ISAR opposes this breeder exception. Note also that if allowed “sales” from other entities named in Section 4-384-015(b) are in reality adoptions, we are in agreement.
- In our April 15, 2014 E-Newsletter/Blog — “Understand That Chicago’s Ban Against Companion Animal Retail Sales Isn’t A Complete Prohibition (Part II)“– one recipient claimed that the Chicago ordinance did not contain an exception for breeders. We responded that:
Among the responses to that portion of our E-Newsletter/Blog was this polite but uninformed email from an animal protection activist: “I don’t think ISAR’s analysis is correct. There is no exemption for breeders — when the Chicago statutes refer to ‘kennels’ they are referring to any government operated facility, e.g. ‘pound.’ No government entity will be in the business of breeding animals ….”
Sadly, the drafters of the ordinance have made it easy for those like the activist to misunderstand the importance of the law. Please note these three points:
(1) Section (b) specifies five exemptions from the ordinance’s requirements, of which a kennel is one;
(2) According to Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language, the primary definition of “kennel” is “a place where dogs are bred or kept,” (our emphasis), meaning, as we said, that use of the word “kennel” in the ordinance acts to create an exemption that can be read to gut the entire ordinance; and
(3) The ordinance’s words “state or federal government” are intended to, and do, plainly refer not to kennels, but rather to the words that precede “state or local government,” namely “pound or training facility operated by any subdivision of local. . . .”
As we said in our previous E-Newsletter/Blog, “ISAR opposes this breeder exception.” Because that’s how we read the ordinance and, if we’re correct, the breeder exception guts the ordinance.
Because other jurisdictions have enacted similar ordinances, and doubtless some other jurisdictions soon will, we’ve decided to widen our commentary.
Best Friends Animal Society has posted a list of jurisdictions, domestic and foreign (Canada), which have laws similar to Chicago.
Unfortunately, many of them suffer from some of the problems we’ve mentioned in our Model Statute. For example, the West Hollywood ordinance is a boilerplate law used as a template by other jurisdictions. Among the problems with it, and all the other jurisdictions that have used it, is that:
- Its Findings note with approval other statutes which regulate, but do not prohibit.
- It approves in principle the breeding of cats and dogs so long as certain regulatory requirements are met.
- It’s prohibition extends only to “pet stores,” but not to any other commercial retail seller of dogs and cats.
- The ordinance’s prohibition addresses sales within West Hollywood, but does not bar sales from elsewhere which end up in that city, such as via the Internet.
- An exemption guts the entire ordinance, which does not apply to, “1. A person or establishment that sells, delivers, offers for sale, barters, auctions, gives away, or otherwise transfers or disposes of only animals that were bred and reared on the premises of the person or establishment.” This paragraph guts the entire ordinance.
As to this exemption, in our Model Statute we noted that:
It is bad enough that its core prohibition expressly applies only to pet stores, thus making the law inapplicable to every other commercial retail source of dogs and cats. It is far worse that the exemption contained in this paragraph can legitimately be read to expressly allow puppy farms and kitten factories to continue to operate. It is beyond irony that the ordinance affects only pet stores, but not far worse offenders.
Although in fairness, it has to be recognized that this boilerplate ordinance/statute is apparently well-intentioned — though not nearly adequate to narrow, let alone shut down, the pipeline from companion animal mills to local retail commercial sellers — the law is simply not enough to achieve that goal.
ISAR commends our Model Statute Prohibiting Commercial Retail Sales of Dogs and Cats to the attention of those who would like to work with us in shutting down that pipeline.
One way is to amend the dozens of laws that are now on the books in this country and Canada.
Please contact ISAR to learn how you can help us prohibit retail sales of certain companion animals.
* * *