Pet Stores Required To Have $500 Permit To Sell Unaltered Cats And Dogs

Pet storesThe City Council of Lawton, Oklahoma is set to impose a $500 fee on pet store owners who sell dogs and cats that haven’t been spayed or neutered.

Pet store owners will be required to have this $500 permit to sell unaltered puppies and kittens. They must obtain a permit for every 50 animals they sell each year. Pet owners are also limited to four permits a year.

City council officials said this new permit will be put into effect to reduce the number of unwanted dogs and cats

“I’m in favor of the highest cost we can get,” Councilor Randy Warren said. “Pet shops aren’t the problem, but they contribute to the problem. We can’t stop the sale of animals, but we can limit the sale and trading of unaltered animals that have the potential to produce more.”

Pet store owners disagree. The owners of Fins and Critters, a pet store in Lawton, said that the city just wants more money and by doing this the city wants less people to have pets. She said pet owners in the city are already paying too much to the city in sales and property taxes. The city doesn’t go after people who allow their pets to become stray dogs and cats, so she said the city goes after pet stores instead.

The pet store owner also added that because of the new fee, this will add $150 to $200 to the price of puppies at her store. She said the $500 fee will not accomplish anything because pet store owners will still pay for the permit to sell their animals.

The City Council said that they are all fighting for the same cause, to save animals from being euthanized. “This whole ordeal has been about the fact that we spend half a million dollars every year to euthanize more than 4,000 animals,” Council Member Randy Warren said. “That has gotten lost in this whole discussion.”

Source: Tulsa World

12 Responses to “Pet Stores Required To Have $500 Permit To Sell Unaltered Cats And Dogs”

  1. G in INdiana says:

    I think a better idea is to have a per pet charge for selling an unaltered dog or cat. Say $500 EACH.

  2. Lynne says:

    I respectfully disagree with the counciler. I think pet shops are the problem since every one I’ve ever been in get their animals from puppy mills. I would even venture a guess and say that if there were no pet shops selling dogs (and cats) there would be no puppy mills.

  3. Nancy says:

    I’m still trying to understand the pet shop owner’s math. How does a $500 permit per 50 animals sold translate into $150-$200 per individual sale? Seems like gouging to me. I agree, Lynne, puppy millers would soon cease to exist without the pet shops to market their “produce”.

  4. nora says:

    Selling dogs and cats in pet stores should be completely outlawed nation wide. It is a disgusting trade and so many animals suffer and die and are neglected and abused because of it.

  5. Jenny Bark says:

    Lynne, Nancy & Nora I agree with all of you.

  6. Max says:

    I also think that selling puppies and kittens in pet stores should be abolished. such sales support the inhumane treatment of breeding animals in the hands of puppy milers - the primary source of pet shop ’stock’.

    However I think it is also cruel and inhumane to require pets be spayed or neutered at such young ages - they need the time to have their systems mature so that they can maintain good health in their lifespan. Spay and neuter should be done at an appropriate age which is clearly not the age most pups and kittens go to pet stores at. The decision of when to sterilize should be left to the owner and their vet - not to government agencies. licensing pets who are unaltered is more costly and should remain so.

    This type of mandate would be comparable to one that would force parents to sterilize their sons and daughters upon entering kindergarten.
    -it flies in the face of common sense.

  7. HighNote says:

    I agree with Max one hundred percent. I think at the pet shops they are still to young when they are sold to be spayed or neutered. Beside some owners like to have a set of babies from their pure bred dog. This should be up to the owner of the pet and not the government agencies. What are they trying to do anyway if they make sure that all pets are spayed and neutered then how do we get any more of them? Are they trying to wipe them out or what? Or is this just another way for the government to get more money. Next thing you know we will have to pay taxes on our pets too. I would gladly pay taxes on my pet if the government would see to it that we had untainted pet products!!!!!!!!!!!

  8. Trudy Jackson says:

    I don’t believe in pet stores at all. If they didn’t sell live animals then there would be no need for puppy mills. There is a person in this town who has over 50 breeds of dogs and sells them to pet stores in Virginia.
    Pet shops should be a thing of the past. What’s the matter with people?

  9. Donna says:

    A purebred pet from a pet store , does not need a litter or two. No puppy mill is going to talk about certin genetic defects that are carried in their pets ! I do not think any one is prepared to deal with a litter of eplipsey affilicted puppies. Just do not buy from pet stores. You are enabling puppy millers by making a purchase. Go to a reputable breeder, if your heart is set on a pure bred animal.

  10. Samantha says:

    I actually Live in Lawton, Oklahoma. Seeing as the first time these new laws came around, the breeders and pet store owners would have had to pay $250 for each unaltered animal sold (oppossed to the now $500 per 50 animals sold permit), it has come a long way. I believe these fine need to be in place because of the pet over population here. Although I think the steeper $250 fee per animal sold should have stayed in place. The amount of animals Euthanized each year compared to the amount actually adopted out at the shelter are staggering. Of the average of 7,350 animals taken in by the City pound each year, over 4,500 are euthanised.

    Whats more upsetting with this town is when you drive through a neighborhood and see in a yard (chainlink) that there are pitbulls with weights chained around their neck. We have even seen Animal control officers drive by them!!! We called them in and the chains were removed. But what happens after that? The owners build a wood privacy fence, to no doubt hide their animal cruelty from wandering eyes. We should be fighting against animal cruelty more sternly AS WELL as control the breeding population.

  11. S6 says:

    I am a Lawton resident. I have read the article and the comments above. I must say that I have a few comments that don’t fall in line with the above comments. The first comment is in regards to pet stores. I am not suggesting that every pet store operates with integrity, BUT, I do not believe that pet stores in general deserve the blame that they have gotten in the above comments. Pet stores, when they aren’t puppy milling mutant animals, carry other products. Good products. IAMS, Science diet, etc. Products that are useful, healthy, and give our pets a better quality of life. If a pet store offers the product and WM doesn’t, I know where I am buying it. Also, in the above comments, there is mention of cruelty in the form of chains around dogs necks. Pets store aren’t the ones doing that. INDIVIDUALS DO THAT!!!! It was also mentioned that animal control drives right by……CLUE…..WHO EMPLOYS ANIMAL CONTROL? WHY ISNT MORE DONE BY THE ANIMAL CONTROLS EMPLOYER to those that are cruel to their animals? I personally feel that if you believe that the permits were implemented soley in the genuine interest of animals please email me….I have land I want to sell you. I am a pet owner,pet lover, and definitely do not believe in animal cruelty. However, what was really accomplished with the permits? If you think that it reduced the amount of strays, pick up a paper and look in the classifieds in neighboring towns. If you live in Lawton, tell a friend you want a puppy. I bet you will find one with little to no difficulty (that a permit wasnt purchased for). I also believe that you cant lose sight of the forest for the trees. There are several worthwhile points listed above, BUT, the permits didn’t do anything to reduce the cruelty or injustices. As I mentioned before, I am a pet owner, pet lover, and private resident in Lawton. I believe that there is a better solution than what was offered by City Council.

  12. Jeff says:

    I also am a resident of Lawton. There are a number of problems with the above law mandated by the Lawton City Council. First and foremost, no mention of a pet problem in Lawton was I ever aware of. There was never a mention of this problem in the paper or in my neighbor hood. The city put this to a vote with out consulting the community as far as I am aware. While some of your readers consider pet shop owners a low breed, I differ with you, if any of you ever had the pleasure of doing business with Maggie’s pet shop, you would of met one of the most caring pet shop owners I ever met. She went above and beyond with my children, trading pets, free help and information, taken back pets that my kids outgrew. Do proprietors like her not deserve the right to conduct business in Lawton, since we are not a pet friendly community. Lets talk about the professional breeders, people who take extreme pride in their animals. They usually suffer all the expense of the right food, medical and accommodation’s of prize winning animals. These heroes, by your own reporting, suffer the same laws as the pet stores. A couple of professional dog breeders in town are moving there operations out of Lawton, so they don’t have to pay the fees associated with their trade. My boxer, a beautiful male, never ever left the yard, 6 years old, now mutilated to ward off a $500 fine for not neutering him. So the community is not asked if this is what they want, it is ordered. Businesses are lost, kids have mutilated pets, what lofty goals for our city council. The pit bulls that are vicious, are made that way by the owner. If I was to abuse “Air Bud” long enough I could turn it in to a killer mongrel. Pet store problem? No..owner problem, correct the problem! Remember when you let government into your home, you lose your freedom, what will be the next businesses closed by government for our own good. First smoke shops, then casinos, then bars, followed by fast food(we are a fat society), then you lose the right to pick your own music, movies, TV shows. Guard your freedoms, and don’t let someone else tell you what to do with your property.

E-mail It