Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this a serious question?
I ask because it all boils down to whether you believe the nanny state should dictate every aspect of a free people lives. CA likely has more rules, regulations and laws than any other state in America.
To think that they would impose such a restriction on commerce and peoples choice to buy the type of pet they like, is frankly absurd.
But lets take the liberal cradle to grave politics out of it for a moment. Here is a practical story that might make some sense to those who would gladly give more power to the state to control their lives/choices.
I own a breed of dog with a very short life expectancy, on average just 7 years. The reason is typically that it has various maladies that can be bred out, but backyard breeders do not give a flip about having a genetically superior Sire/Dam. Instead they will throw any two dogs together that might be riddled with genetic inferiority.
As it turns out, if you go to a quality breeder who has the best breeding lines, they can almost guarantee a much longer life span, without high vet bills. Thus my last two dogs of this breed have lived 11 1/2 years and the current one is 9 and still acting like a puppy.
If I were to be forced to buy a rescue dog, I would have no clue as to it's lineage, breeding, temperament of the parents, etc., etc.
Thus I could be buying a dig that in the long run could run up huge vet bills, only to die an early death and put my family though heartache. It also might not be suited to be around other pets or people since I cannot evaluate the parents to see what they are like.
Thus I would never buy anything but a pure bred dog. To think that CA wants to force people to do what bureaucrats think is the feel good thing to do once again shows the folly of leftist/liberal Utopian dreams meeting up with practical/pragmatic reality.
So many unintended consequences are spawned from the "best of intentions" or mandated edicts of government, it is enough to drive sane people crazy.
`
Maybe we should do the same with the human race. All those puppy mills are collateral damage just so breeders can continue because some pure breeds live longer.
Is this a serious question?
I ask because it all boils down to whether you believe the nanny state should dictate every aspect of a free people lives. CA likely has more rules, regulations and laws than any other state in America.
To think that they would impose such a restriction on commerce and peoples choice to buy the type of pet they like, is frankly absurd.
But lets take the liberal cradle to grave politics out of it for a moment. Here is a practical story that might make some sense to those who would gladly give more power to the state to control their lives/choices.
I own a breed of dog with a very short life expectancy, on average just 7 years. The reason is typically that it has various maladies that can be bred out, but backyard breeders do not give a flip about having a genetically superior Sire/Dam. Instead they will throw any two dogs together that might be riddled with genetic inferiority.
As it turns out, if you go to a quality breeder who has the best breeding lines, they can almost guarantee a much longer life span, without high vet bills. Thus my last two dogs of this breed have lived 11 1/2 years and the current one is 9 and still acting like a puppy.
If I were to be forced to buy a rescue dog, I would have no clue as to it's lineage, breeding, temperament of the parents, etc., etc.
Thus I could be buying a dig that in the long run could run up huge vet bills, only to die an early death and put my family though heartache. It also might not be suited to be around other pets or people since I cannot evaluate the parents to see what they are like.
Thus I would never buy anything but a pure bred dog. To think that CA wants to force people to do what bureaucrats think is the feel good thing to do once again shows the folly of leftist/liberal Utopian dreams meeting up with practical/pragmatic reality.
So many unintended consequences are spawned from the "best of intentions" or mandated edicts of government, it is enough to drive sane people crazy.
`
I fail to see what this has to do with the topic. The new law in no way stops you from buying a purebred dog from a backyard breeder or the best breeder in the country. It only prohibits pet stores from selling dogs because they come from puppymills. The last thing you want to do if you want a healthy well bred dog, is buy one from a pet store.
I know it was an obvious joke, so slaves were happier in captivity, so many upsides to slavery.
Compared to their tribesmen living in the jungle life, slaves were indeed "happier" because they didn't need to worry about food, shelter and etc.. That's the same argument pet owners use.
As expected, this thread has turned into a circus. It was a good and interesting topic. It's not anymore.
It is a good topic and interesting topic. Just ignore the troll who is attempting to take it over. His posts are just a lot of useless noise in the midst of a conversation that is worth having. Scroll right past them.
It is a good topic and interesting topic. Just ignore the troll who is attempting to take it over. His posts are just a lot of useless noise in the midst of a conversation that is worth having. Scroll right past them.
Truth offends you. I understand.
Nothing I said was trolling. I merely pointed out the truth.
1. Is pet owning not the driving force behind straits and puppy mills?
2. Are pets not kept by the owners against their wills?
3. Do animals not belong in the wild?
4. Do pet owners not confine and mutilate their pets for their enjoyment?
5. Is owning pet not for the enjoyment of the owner?
As expected, this thread has turned into a circus. It was a good and interesting topic. It's not anymore.
Sorry, guilty. But I don't think it turned into a circus, it just turned into a wider discussion about pet ownership. Maybe a bit outside the scope in some ways but not irrelevant.
It's probably because by itself it's not a very controversial event. I agree with California's decision as I think most people do. I mean who has advocated for puppy mills on here?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
