Senate Bill 3028, under consideration by legislators, would ban the sale of dogs and cats at pet stores, closing several family-owned businesses in Massachusetts. Proponents of the legislation say that these small businesses are a necessary sacrifice in the name of finding more homes for shelter animals and combating “puppy mills,” or irresponsible dog breeders.
But as a longtime shelter animal advocate who used to advocate for bills like S. 3028, I’ve learned that these pet-sale bans simply don’t help on either front.
In theory, it might seem logical: Ban pet stores from selling dogs, and people will go to shelters instead. But in reality, that’s not what happens at all.
Families go to pet stores precisely because they are looking for dogs that aren’t at the local shelter. They often have a specific breed of dog in mind. They may need a hypoallergenic dog that doesn’t shed, or a dog with predictable temperament or behavioral traits.
If they can’t get a dog from a local store, then they’ll look elsewhere – typically on the Internet.
Go on TikTok or Craigslist, and you’ll find no shortage of people hawking puppies. Where do these dogs come from? It’s anyone’s guess, but it’s likely that many are sourced from puppy mills.
Which is ironic. Proponents of S. 3028 say banning retail pet sales will fight puppy mills. In reality, it will help puppy mills.
California gives proof to this. A Los Angeles Times investigation following the state’s ban on pet stores selling dogs found that “a network of resellers — including ex-cons and schemers — replaced pet stores as middlemen.”
Nor has California’s ban on retail pet sales reduced animal shelter overcrowding. Shelters in Los Angeles and San Francisco are struggling to deal with crowding in animal shelters more than five years after the ban was passed.
As the former head of the national ASPCA, and a former executive director of the San Francisco SPCA, I always advocate that people adopt from shelters. But I also recognize that people want choices in where to get a dog. We should make sure that these avenues are well-regulated for animal and consumer protection.
And that’s why S. 3028 is counterproductive: It drives dogs and families away from pet stores, which are regulated brick-and-mortar local businesses, and into the black market where there are essentially no regulations to protect people and animals.
If Massachusetts goes down this road, it won’t stop with dogs and cats. Activists will lobby, as they have in Cambridge, for the entire Commonwealth to ban the sale of all pets at pet stores. Fish, hamsters, guinea pigs, you name it.
Where then will people get pets?
Some families will just drive to New Hampshire, as some Bay Staters already do for other goods. But others, particularly less-advantaged people without personal vehicles, will either have to turn to shady online marketplaces or perhaps not get a pet at all.
The human-animal bond is something that all people should be able to experience and cherish. We can make the process of getting a pet both convenient and well-regulated so that animals and consumers are protected. Banning pet sales under S. 3028 would take us backwards.
Ed Sayres is the former CEO of the ASPCA and former president of the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, whose career in animal welfare spans four decades.
