Supporters of proposed legislation that would prohibit future sales of dogs and cats at pet stores say it would ensure that animals are treated well and protect consumers while not harming current store owners.
The bill, which was heard by the House commerce committee last week has a grandfather clause that would allow any pet stores that currently sell cats and dogs to continue, but would prevent any more shops from doing it in the future. It would also require more transparency on where the animals are coming from to make sure they are ethically sourced. The bill aims to combat the inhumane practices of puppy mills and backyard breeders.
Rep. Matt Norris, DFL-Blaine, said pet stores that sell cats and dogs have already dwindled for two reasons.
“One is there has been growing awareness of the fact that in many stores, in many cases, these animals were coming from places like puppy mills,” Norris said. “It's caused animal welfare groups to raise awareness of this issue and has caused certain pet shops to move away from selling live dogs and cats.”
The second reason is economics, Norris said. Many shops have transitioned to selling only pet supplies and found financial success. Despite that, the biggest concern from opponents of the bill is that it would have a negative financial impact on the businesses that would be allowed to keep selling dogs and cats.
Norris disputed that.
“As long as the current owners continue to own those pet shops they will still be able to sell live cats and dogs,” Norris said. “They just have to comply with transparency requirements where they publicly list the breeder of the dogs or cats that they're selling so that we have an ability to verify that these animals are being responsibly sourced.”
At the House hearing, Rep. Nolan West, R-Blaine, brought up concerns that the bill would hurt the value of the businesses. That concern was echoed by other Republican representatives who also said the bill unfairly targets the low number of pet store owners left in the state.
Norris said the bill is already a compromise between legislators and pet store owners, since last year he proposed a bill that would ban the practice immediately.
Rep. Leigh Finke, DFL- St. Paul, said that a full ban would be in the best interest of Minnesotans.
“The reason there are only three of these businesses left in Minnesota is because Minnesotans don't want businesses that sell abused and tortured animals for profit,” Finke said.
The bill has bipartisan support and could be included in a larger bill. Norris said changes will still need to be made to make it fair for all parties but that what they have now is a good compromise to start with as they move forward.
“We also don't want to ruin anybody's livelihood,” Norris said. “So I think this bill really strikes a good middle ground where we say, ‘yeah we're not gonna allow this practice to expand in the future, but if you're currently engaging in this practice, you can continue to do so.’ But in exchange the public is going to expect you to be transparent about where you're sourcing your animals from to make sure that those animals are being well treated, and that consumers can be confident when they make a purchase from your store.”
Report for Minnesota is a project of the University of Minnesota’s Hubbard School of Journalism and Mass Communication to support local news in all areas of the state.
