Going to the dogs...again

I thought the ban was on Free Dogs not Dogs for Sale?

http://www.t-g.com/story/1444010.html

"Ordinance number 821 makes it illegal to sell or give away animals in public places in the city limits, unless the person in question is a dealer."

And what is the difference between someone who is a "dealer" and someone who just raises puppies and sells them?

It also seems to me that the phrase "Public Place" needs to be defined. Public usually means owed by the city or county such as The Public Square, Public Parks or City Hall, etc. Wal-Mart is privately owned not operated by the city..so if Wal-Mart allowed people to sell puppies in their parking lot, considering the parking lot belongs to Wal-Mart who is the city to tell them that they can not? Selling or giving away puppies is not an illegal act so exactly what law would be broken? I could understand a business that sells puppies not wanting puppies to be sold in their parking lots but Wal-Mart does not sell puppies in fact I would say if someone bought a puppy in Wal-Marts parking lot it would cause them some more business. The person who purchased the puppy would need dog food and supplies for their new puppy and considering they were already at Wal-mart they might as well go ahead and purchase what they needed for their new addition, wouldn't you think?. Would my own yard be a Public Place just because I am in view of the Public even though the yard belongs to me?

I am not trying to be rude or sarcastic here I just do not understand how the law can step in and tell businesses what they can allow and what they can not allow on their own property.

Gee Maybe next they will Ban all Yellow Cars from "Public Areas" I really don't care much for Yellow Cars.

I believe you have a valid point about "public places". It does seem to be too vague.

And I am not sure that GIVING an animal away should be illegal. It probably save them from being dumped or put to sleep, but it seems to me that selling the animals encourages "puppy mills" and abuse.

I thought that is what they were trying to curtail, but I am not 100% sure of that. I would bet that someone else knows more about that?

Maybe Wal-Mart considers transactions unrelated to them as an "attractive nuisance" that needs to be banned.

Others who object might find fault with such adoptions the same way they'd fuss about human trafficing in such a setting.

When people adopt a member of their own species,both sides undergo close scrutiny and efforts are made to insure that bringing this person into this particular home will create a family-not a disaster.

We'd be leery of someone who offered toddlers out of the back of a pick-up and really wonder about the folks who'd take them.

Yes,the screening,the counselling,the red tape,the expense and the follow-up mean that more children die unwanted or remain institutionalized but when the safeguards were absent,too many children were parcelled out by people who had no rights to them and handed over to people who were incompetent at best and demonic at worst.

Like the parking lot puppy,a child who got a good home out of such a set-up had had the benefit of a miracle.

When anonymous,non-permanent places are used for disposing of non-human critters,there are no medical exams.

There are no background checks.

The people making the deal may never know each other's names.

Living,feeling beings are treated like produce and wind up with folks who may be unwilling or unable to give them the love and training they need.

(What happens to the critters that AREN'T picked?)

When folks "go through proper channels" to get their new family members,there's a much bigger chance that a good match has been made,there's a "clear title" making the transfer of custody legal,any health problems are out in the open and there'll be no dumping done because that adorable impulse acquisition has turned out to be a big responsibility.

The lawmakers may seem like spoilsports or hamperers of free enterprise when they discourage people making dates with folks they meet under lamposts or taking home pets they meet in a store parking lot.

But,they see the crime,disease and other tragedy that can come from such hook-ups.

It may involve more time,money and effort to find someone to love in the regular way but it's safer for all concerned and it reinforces the idea that the "products" are living,thinking,feeling entities in their own right who deserve the chance to give and receive a life-long,loving commitment.

But,they see the crime,disease and other tragedy that can come from such hook-ups.Posted by quantumcat on Wed, Dec 31, 2008, at 10:50 AM

And what do they see from dumping unwanted puppies or kittens in the middle of a dark country road. Because we both know this "ban" will produce just that. It will not stop dogs or cats from becoming pregnant with unwanted litters. At least at Wal-Mart or Kroger or any where else these critters are given away, they are at least taken in by someone who thinks they want them..

As far as giving away children from the backs of pick up trucks ..maybe that isn't such a bad idea it sure would be a better system than they have now. At least the child would have a chance at a real home instead of being stuck inside the system traveling to foster home after foster home, being abused, unwanted, unloved and nothing but a state check to the foster parent.