Here was the big puppy mill conversation. Spoiler: it was anti-climactic.
First, Shane Scott moved to deny, right out of the gate. If I were making Council Bingo, one square would be “Shane Scott moves to postpone or deny a good ordinance.” He did not get a second, so that died.
Once they were discussing the issue: it was very frustrating to listen to.
- “We could be sued by Pick-a-pet!” (Shane Scott)
- “Pick-a-pet creates jobs!” (Also Shane Scott)
- “Pick-a-pet tried to collaborate with our animal shelter, who refused to talk to them. AND many people say our animal shelter is the Gestapo!” (Also Shane Scott, and yes he literally said “Gestapo”.)
Rebuttals:
- “Our animal shelter was very nice to me when I adopted my cat.” (Mayor Hughson)
- On the topic of partnering with the animal shelter, city staffer Greg Carr kind of made a mess of this answer. First he said that Pick-a-Pet would cherry-pick the best, most adoptable animals, and leave the shelter with the difficult pets.
Jane Hughson basically said, “Huh? Come again?” and Carr backpedaled and conceded that the shelter would be happy to collaborate with Pick-a-Pet.
Then there was Mark Gleason. Oh Mark. In the Council Bingo, your square is “Mark Says ‘Verbiage’.”
- Why don’t we add in that pet stores can source from any licensed breeder? Just that one word – licensed – would solve all my concerns!
- What about the mom & pop breeders? This bill would mean that they could get in trouble!
The problem with Gleason is that both of these arguments are manifestly terrible. I believe he believes them. Fortunately, the rebuttals are made:
- Puppy mills are all licensed. The USDA criterion for licensing allows for operations with thousands of dogs in cages. Stop it with your license fetish, Mark. (Both Greg Carr and Alyssa Garza make this point.)
- Mom & pop breeders are breeders, not pet stores. Different legal definitions. (Chase Stapp sort of explains this point. It’s muddled.)
Max Baker was mostly right, but also frustrating. He made the correct points about puppy mills and rescue animals, but can’t resist saying, “There is nothing more bougie that owning a pure bred dog. Put your ego to the side and get a rescue dog. The whole industry should not exist.”
This lets Mark Gleason focus on that, the bourgieness of owning a pure bred. He can then talk about hunting dogs, and why you might want a specific breed for hunting water fowl, or what have you.
Max. You are just throwing red meat to people like Shane Scott and Mark Gleason, who can then clutch their pearls over their fear that you want to outlaw water fowl hunting dogs. (And for the record: it’s okay for pure bred dogs to exist and it’s not unethical to own one. Government should promote adoption of rescues and make it as easy and widespread as possible, but there’s not a strict need to eliminate pure bred dogs, provided they’re raised humanely. )
Finally: Alyssa Garza is the big winner in this discussion. She focused on the underlying issue: puppy mills are atrociously inhumane, and existing licensing allows them to operate. She is clear spoken and focuses on the most-correct argument.
Jane Hughson never did state her position, but suggests that the issue be referred to the newly form Animal Rights Commission, consisting of herself, Alyssa Garza, Shane Scott, and city staff. In the end, that’s what happens. I told you it was anticlimactic.
The San Marxist 