A lot of things have changed in the 100 years since prohibition empowered Al Capone and other mobsters to get rich selling booze on the black market. One thing hasn’t changed: Prohibition still doesn’t work.
But, unfortunately, California families and pets have been forced to relearn the lessons of prohibition the hard way.
In 2019, a state law went into effect banning California pet stores from selling puppies. Proponents said the law would increase animal welfare and fight puppy mills. The opposite has occurred.
“[A] network of resellers — including ex-cons and schemers — replaced pet stores as middlemen,” the Los Angeles Times reported in February. “[I]n some cases, pet owners were left heartbroken or facing thousands of dollars in veterinary bills when their new puppies got sick or died.”
This was completely predictable — and preventable. But now, the Legislature is considering doubling down.
AB 519, sponsored by Assemblymembers Marc Berman, D-Palo Alto, and Steve Bennett, D-Ventura, would extend the “puppy prohibition” from pet stores to brokers or similar third-party businesses. The bill has passed the Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate. And it’s based on the same flawed premise that has created a mess for pets and people.
The premise is that you can stop “puppy mills” — unlicensed, unregulated dog breeders — by banning highly regulated, above-board pet sales. It’s as flawed as saying you’re going to combat moonshiners and booze traffickers by banning grocery stores from selling wine.
Banning pet stores from selling puppies doesn’t hurt puppy mills — it helps them. Here’s how.
When a family wants to get a dog, they may have certain needs. Some families may have restrictions on the types of pets they can have where they live; they may have a preference on a certain breed or size of dog; or they may need a hypoallergenic dog.
A local shelter might not have the dog they want. And if their local pet shop is banned from selling puppies, then a family will turn to the internet — where scams are prolific, and consumer (and animal) protections are minimal.
The Better Business Bureau has a database of more than 23,000 pet scams that have been reported to it in recent years, driven by pet sale bans like California’s. Since California’s ban went into effect in 2019, the BBB reported a 350% increase in scams.
California’s “puppy prohibition” has fueled the black market. Because the ban has an exception for selling “rescue” dogs, it creates an incentive to import certain breeds into California. These imports can come from foreign “puppy mills” and can bring risks such as disease.
In 2017, Los Angeles experienced an outbreak of H3N2 Asian dog flu, the first time the deadly disease had been found in the county. It was traced to a “rescue” dog from China. This dog flu was first found in the United States in 2015 in Chicago, where it was also linked to “rescue” imports.
Unlike a purchase from a store, buying a dog over the internet means the buyer will have fewer warranties and protections. If you pay $800 for a “rescue” dog that gets sick, you may have little recourse.
By driving sales from a licensed, regulated market — pet stores — to the internet and underground markets, California has made things worse for people and pets.
California likes to be a leader in progressive policies. But driving families and pets to a black market is not progress.
The solution is not to double-down on failed policies that will entrench a black market. Instead, a better framework is to try to ensure that every dog sold or adopted in California has proper consumer protections and transparency on sourcing. This will root out the bad sources while keeping the good.
California was the first state to pass a ban on pet sales. California can lead again — by being the first state to repeal “puppy prohibition.”
Miller-Hurley is the vice president of governmental affairs at the Pet Advocacy Network. She lives in Alexandria, Va.
