There was a full hour of citizen comments, mostly on two topics:
- The proposed puppy mill ban. A lot of speakers both against and for the ban.
This is Item 17: Pet stores may only sell animals sourced from shelters and rescue operations.
Here are some basic implications of the ban:
- If residents want a pure bred animal, they are supposed to buy directly from in-state breeders.
- Pet stores can coordinate with shelters to have adoptable animals on site, but pet stores have to run their business model off of pet supplies.
It quickly turned into a referendum on Pick-a-Pet, a new pet store in the outlet mall. It sounds like their animals come straight from 1000+ puppy mill operations. Also: neither side – those in favor nor those opposed – was making the strongest arguments.
Speakers who want the ban mostly argued that these laws are widespread. All the major cities in Texas either have them, or are on their way to adopting them. There are state-wide laws in California and other states regulating the sourcing of pets in pet stores.
Pick-A-Pet was under existential threat. So they trotted out speaker after speaker, talking about their darling new pet. They love animals so much! They love their darling new purebred who has no health problems. (Actually, this is the strongest argument they could have made – an appeal to emotions and snuggles.)
The other argument the pro-Pick-a-Pet People made was that this ban would create a black market for pets. Listen: this argument applies to every single law. You’ll create a black market for stealing VCRs unless you legalize stealing VCRs! If the thing is bad, then the black market is a law enforcement problem. If the thing is good, keep it legal. (Nevertheless, the argument might have been persuasive to Council.)
The best arguments in favor of the ban are:
- why puppy mills are awful. This is the best argument, and they should have dwelled here.
- that people can buy pure bred animals directly from Texas breeders. All the animal lovers can still have happy households.
I did like the part where the Pick-a-Pet guy said that they follow all Texas laws and regulations, and then a non-profit person said “There are no Texas laws and regulations. There was one being considered, but it died in session.”
One other thought: all the organizations have sympathetic names, regardless of which side they were on. Kennel Club? Humane Society? It made the debate sound much more balanced than it is.
Stay tuned for the anticlimactic non-resolution in Hour 3.
2. There were maybe five speakers in favor of the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan, and why we should continue our partnership. This is really important for the health of the river. The speakers focused on bank erosion down river from the falls at Cheatham Street, and how bad that is for species and the river. Hopefully this is a slam dunk.
The San Marxist 