As many on this blog know, I am a fanatical dog lover and I love virtually everything about my hometown of Chicago (particularly a certain football team). However, I have some serious legal qualms over a new law passed by the Chicago City Council. The City Council has a worthy goal of combating “puppy mills” where dogs are bred in crowded and cruel conditions. The city also wants to increase the adoption of dogs over commercially bred or pure breed dogs. As a result, it has now banned by a vote of 49-1 the sale of commercially bred dogs. (If nothing else, it gives me a chance to run another photo of my dog, Luna.)
Beginning next March, all stores in the city will have to start getting their pets from government pounds, humane societies or animal rescue groups rather than for-profit operations. The law was drafted by The Puppy Mill Project and supported by the Office of the Mayor Rahm Emanuel, Chicago Animal Care & Control and the Department of Business Affairs & Consumer Protection, the Humane Society of the United States, the ASPCA and PAWS Chicago and other groups. Other cities that have such laws include San Diego, Los Angeles, Toronto, Austin, and Albuquerque. (For full disclosure, I bought my dog from a breeder to guarantee a hypoallergenic dog and to buy the same breed as our previous dog who died in an accident. We insisted on visiting the breeder to see the conditions to guarantee that it was humane and not a mill. I have had both adopted and bred dogs and loved them all. The smartest dog I ever had was my mutt, Trinity, that I found on living on the street in the 1970s. I have now had five dogs and each was considered a member of my family).
The law (available here) lists many of the important issues facing animal welfare from such mill operations which extend to cats, rabbits, and other animals. There are some excellent sites detailing the harm from these mills, like this site at ASPCA.
However, the law seems ripe for challenge even with these findings. First, it effectively treats all commercial pet operations as the same as mills, which is clearly not the case. Second, rather than regulate the conditions of such operations for breeding, it limits both the right to sell and right to buy such animals. (I realize that many operations are outside of the state, but the city could require certification of the sources for such animals). Third, it clearly disfavors the purchase of pure bred animals as a general rule unless obtained from pounds etc. Finally, the law only applies to retailers defined as “any person licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter who offers for sale any dog, cat or rabbit in the City.” That would still allow the purchase from breeders or stores outside of the city, even just across the city limit. Presumably, someone could also “purchase” an animal over the internet or phone and have the animal delivered to their home from an enterprising store outside of city limits.
The law seems arbitrary even under a rational basis test in my view. The preference given adoptions also intrudes on the choices of consumers as to the animal that they want to add to their families. It seems like the animal rights version of a “Big Gulp” ban on the issue of choice. There are breeders who raise animals in humane settings. They tend to be more expensive than mills and these breeders tend to resent the mills as much if not more than others.
One of the things I love about Chicago is that it is a dog town. When I take my dog to visit the family, we have a ball in the dog parks — particularly one large park on the Northside along the beach. This is not a question of the ends but the means. I do not favor legislating tastes and I have a serious problem with legislation that is based on such sweeping generalities.
I would prefer a law that required certification by an independent group on the conditions of breeding operations for the importation of animals. Of course, this would not achieve the desire to force people to buy animals from pounds etc.
The sole dissenting vote was from Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd, who bought dogs from a business that would now be barred under the law and subject to potential criminal charges.
The heart of the law states the following:
4-384-015 Retail Sale of Dogs, Cats and Rabbits
(a) Definitions. As used in this section:
“Offer(s) for sale” means to display, sell, deliver, offer for sale or adoption, advertise for the sale of, barter, auction, give away or otherwise dispose of a dog, cat or rabbit.
“Retailer” means any person licensed or required to be licensed under this chapter who offers for sale any dog, cat or rabbit in the City.
“Rescue organization” means any not-for-profit organization that has tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, whose mission and practice is, in whole or in significant part, the rescue and placement of dogs, cats or rabbits.
(b) Restrictions on the retail sale of animals. A retailer may offer for sale only those dogs, cats or rabbits that the retailer has obtained from:
(1) an animal control center, animal care facility, kennel, pound or training facility operated by any subdivision of local, state or federal government; or
(2) a humane society or rescue organization.
(c) Exemptions. The restrictions on retailers set forth in subsection (b) of this section shall not apply to any entity listed in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (b) of this section, or to any veterinary hospital or clinic licensed pursuant to the Veterinary Medicine and Surgery Practice Act of 2004, codified at 225 ILCS 115.
(d) Disclosures required. Any retailer who offers for sale a dog, cat or rabbit shall make the following disclosures to the customer about such animal:
(1) for each dog or cat: a written disclosure meeting all of the requirements set forth in Sections 3.5 or 3.15, as applicable, of the!Animal Welfare Act, codified at 225 ILCS 605; and,
(2) for each rabbit: (i) the breed, approximate age, sex and color of the animal; (ii) the date and description of any inoculation or medical treatment that the animal received while under the possession of the retailer; (iii) the name and address of the location where the animal was born, rescued, relinquished or impounded; and
(iv) if the animal was returned by a customer, the date of and reason for the return.The disclosures required under this subsection (d) shall be provided by the retailer to the
customer in written form and shall be signed by both the retailer and customer at the time of sale.
The retailer shall retain the original copy of such disclosure and acknowledgement for a period
of 2 years from the date of sale. Upon request by an authorized city official, the original copy of
such disclosure and acknowledgement shall be made immediately available for inspection by
such authorized city official.
The retailer shall post, in writing, in a conspicuous place on or near the cage of any dog, cat
or rabbit offered for sale all of the information about a dog, cat or rabbit required under this
subsection and other applicable law.
SECTION 3. Following due passage and publication, this ordinance shall take full force
and effect on March 5, 2015.
In general I believe there is a national problem in this country with “banning” and over regulation. Where possible address situations using existing laws. Not all private owners should be breeding litters either. If owners are both working they not even be home or as attentive as breeders. Inspectors need to do their jobs and we need to demand they do so.,
“Banning” seems to be the lefts response to every problem. The water problem in West Va. was tragic, but where were the inspectors? Those were old tanks and money has gone into regulating the energy issue for years. I ask “what happened to the supervision? Fire some supervisor/gov. managers.
We as a country need industry and jobs and small businesses and the freedom to start and run them. Yes, puppy breeders are running a business too. Government is capable of regulating and inspection. Expecting perfection and zero issues or “banning” an activity only guarantees the erosion of our freedoms.
Good intention???
It might help the city counsel to consult competent lawyers when they are drafting legislation.
I agree that this good intention has gone too far. If they want to control unhealthy and inhumane puppy mills, just mandate standards and certifications. We bought out Lab from a breeder near Galena because we had good references from friends and relatives and we went to the farm and saw the parents of our dog and their whole operation.
Last year here is SanDiego County, the city of Escondido tried a similar ban. It enjoyed a very short life span before it was quietly stricken from the law books with attention being focused on breeder inspections, as it should be. While I personally encourage adopting from an animal shelter or rescue service, it is often hard to find your desired breed or a younger pet ( let’s face it, it takes a special animal lover who is willing do adopt a pet which has only a few years left in its life), however, as a strong believer in the Free Market, it is not any government’s rights to limit the consumer’s rights to buy from whomever or where ever the consumer desires.
http://www.alternet.org/culture/heartbreaking-truth-about-those-cute-doodle-dogs
Well, they’ve been told they can’t ban firearms, so I guess purebred dogs must be the next best thing . . .
Justice, I was simply drawing a comparison to another nanny mayor named Bloomberg. Don’t fire the PC bazooka!
Darren,
So true.
Persona:
There is an old saying…
Nobody’s life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session.
Are there any areas of life off limits to the micro-managing moral-busy-bodies populating city councils across the US?
What does this have to do with the mayor being “Jewish”?
Priorities people! -Justice Holmes
Yep.
“CIA Probed for Possibly Spying on Congress”
https://www.aclu.org/national-security/cia-probed-possibly-spying-congress
March 5, 2014
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@aclu.org
WASHINGTON – The CIA’s inspector general is investigating whether the agency may have been monitoring the computer usage of Senate Intelligence Committee staff members, according to articles today by The New York Times and McClatchy. The inspector general’s office has reportedly referred the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, had this reaction:
“If it turns out that the CIA was spying on the Senate committee that oversees the agency, it would be an outrageous violation of separation of powers. The CIA is prohibited from spying in the United States itself, and there can be few greater violations of that rule than spying on congressional staff carrying out the constitutional duty of being a check on the CIA’s powers. CIA surveillance of Congress would be another sign that the intelligence community has come to believe that they are above the law, and should get only deference from the other branches of government, not the meaningful oversight that’s required by the Constitution. Checks and balances, especially for agencies like the CIA and NSA that have many secret operations, are essential for democratic government. At the very least, these reports should spur the committee to vote quickly for the declassification and release of its full report into the CIA’s torture program so the American people can see what it is that the CIA is so eager to hide.”
In December 2012, the committee adopted a 6,000-page report on the CIA’s Bush-era rendition, secret detention, and torture program. The report concluded that abusive methods were ineffective, and the CIA wrote an extensive response, countering many of the Senate report’s conclusions. There is also a secret CIA report commissioned by former CIA Director Leon Panetta, which is reportedly consistent with the Senate report findings and contradicts the CIA’s response to the Senate report. All three reports are classified.
With all the problems Chicago has, this is what they spend time on. Priorities people!
Typical knee jerk legislating. This puts the most benevolent of dog breeders out of business in Chicago and can even hurt pet stores in general who are forced to buy dogs and cats from shelters where the consumer can just bypass the pet store and get the same product for less. (since a better pet is no longer obtainable from the pet store.)
This seems like a law crafted on emotion to steer people away from the pet store business under the auspices of saving animals to protect entities some politician wants to have sole monopoly.
Regulation, regulation, regulation. Politicians can’t seem to let people alone live their lives and make a living.
So we put Chicago based breeders out of business? I don’t get it. All dogs are not the same, all breeds don’t have the same characteristics. Truth is I’ve got most of the dogs I’ve owned from shelters or individuals. But if I wanted a specific breed for whatever reasons I might have, what am I to do? Well, stay in Oklahoma, I suppose. Not likely I’d move to Chicago for any reason anyway.
Oxa, Great micro point but I would keep the focus on the libertarian macro point. WTF does the government have even thinking about this. Got all those homicides solved? There were 14 murders in a 24 hour period recently. What about some love for the homeless PEOPLE instead of dogs??
There may be other, unintended, consequences of the law. If pet stores are required to get their pets from pounds or animal rescue groups, they may not know about the backgrounds of the animals. Even if they do, the pet stores may lie about the animals’ backgrounds. Animals from shelters may be abused, behaviorally disturbed, or not safe for children. Shelters are usually knowledgeable and upfront about an animal’s background. Commercial pet stores? We’ll see…
What is it about little, Jewish, mayors?
More overcontrolling meddling from our elitist know-it-all overlords. They’re bound and determined to ruin our economy ala France, Argentina, Venezuela, etc.
Not so much with this measure, as with the attitude that it conveys. The examples are endless: taxi commissions, occupational licensing, and on and on.