What to name municipal legislation proposing a ban on sales of puppies and kittens at retail pet stores?
Paw Patrol? No, wait. That’s the name of a little kids’ show where animals look eerily like humans.
Seriously though, this feel-good ordinance will come before Durango City Council at its Tuesday meeting.
As reported in The Durango Herald on July 19, councilor Olivier Bosmans made a formal request for this ordinance. According to text drafted by City Attorney Mark Morgan, the ordinance would not affect residents’ ability to adopt puppies and kittens from animal rescues and shelters, nor would it affect breeders’ abilities to sell domestic pets if they sell directly to the public. The idea for the ordinance came from a resident, who reached out to Bosmans.
In Durango, we don’t have a retail shop selling puppies and kittens, nor do we see a want or need. Most animals we know were adopted.
Council voted 4 to 1 to consider the proposed ordinance, with Gilda Yazzie voting against. On Tuesday, if councilors vote to support the ordinance, it will then appear on their next meeting agenda for a final reading and a vote.
The resident who delivered the model ordinance to Council argued most puppies and kittens sold in pet stores originate from large-scale, inhumane commercial breeding facilities – mills – where animals’ health and safety are disregarded in favor of profits. Banning retail pet sales would decrease the demand for animals bred by mills. Of course, the thought of mills sickens and disgusts us.
Durango clearly adores its dogs and cats. Sometimes, we like our pets more than family members. But is it wise to create a law for a problem that does not exist at this time? Will this open the door to more feel-good ordinance? That’s not a bad thing, but is this the best use of councilors’ time with more pressing concerns?
There is no case law to help Morgan write the ordinance text. If passed, it would be Durango’s first law directly regulating any sort of business, which is like looking ahead through the fog.
In the news story, Morgan said: “Let’s say you put this on the books and then there’s a breeder of French bulldogs or whatever who does it humanely, and then they can’t market their product in your community because of your ordinance. That creates legal issues that you might have to deal with later down the line.”
So true.
We see Durango as a mutt kind of city with unknown mixed breeds, unless genetic testing is done. Mutts that rub shoulders with those fancy Labradoodles and Goldendoodles.
But some animal lovers prefer particular breeds for particular behaviors and characteristics.
This proposed legislation comes at a time when The Pampered Pup, an online source for dog lovers, surveyed Colorado residents on what breed of dog should earn the honor of “state dog.”
Sprinting to first place was the Bernese Mountain Dog, known to be from Switzerland, where for centuries farmers herded cattle and used the dogs to protect crops. Curiously, the Bernese Mountain Dog is not one you see around town much.
The Labrador retriever came in second and the Australian Shepherd, third.
To be clear, Yazzie’s vote against moving the process forward was not a vote against puppies and kittens. Over the years, she’s had – and loved – rescue dogs. Her vote was against hamstringing businesses.
“We have a long history of trying to promote free enterprise,” she said. “I don’t want to start making hardships for businesses. I believe the long-term effects of putting unnecessary regulations on businesses, such as this ordinance, are unneeded. Let the free market work. We have bigger issues to deal with now. Like ethics.”
As Morgan referenced, what if an ethical breeder wanted a storefront to sell well-cared for animals? It’s a hypothetical long shot, but it would be an implication of this ordinance.
That brings us to another question. What about other pets – bearded dragons, turtles, hamsters, hedgehogs and tropical fish? Is there discrimination against the scaly, poky, less cute and less cuddly, but no less lovable creatures? Are they worthy of legislation, too?
