An ordinance is being quickly advanced in the City of Fort Collins to prohibit the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores. The ordinance assumes banning these sales in the city will improve the lives of dogs and cats in large-scale breeding facilities. On the surface, this may seem like a good idea. However, not only is the underlying premise flawed, but there are also significant unintended consequences of enacting this ordinance we have serious concerns about.

The premise that banning the sales of dogs and cats obtained from large-scale breeding facilities will improve the quality of life for the dogs and cats in those facilities is misguided. Large-scale breeders will continue to breed as they always have — they will simply sell their product elsewhere. Consumers will always want breed-specific dogs, and if they cannot obtain them from a pet store they can go directly to the large-scale breeder or order an animal online. The online sale of dogs and cats is completely unregulated and in fact allows irresponsible breeders to hide in the shadows and continue to abuse thousands of dogs and cats every single day. Banning the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores has zero impact on consumer demand for these animals; what it does do is shift the avenue for meeting that demand underground, incentivizing irresponsible breeders who wish to avoid the regulation and oversight that comes with sourcing to a pet store. In no way does this improve the lives of breeding dogs and cats.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Of equal concern is the fact this ordinance explicitly incentivizes and promotes backyard breeders and other unregulated sources, which are far less transparent to consumers than retail pet stores. Sec. 4-122 (b) of the ordinance states “This prohibition shall not apply to lawfully operated hobby breeders, animal rescue organizations, and animal shelters.”

Like them or not, the sale of dogs and cats in pet stores is far more transparent than the alternatives proposed by this ordinance. Colorado pet stores are highly regulated by the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (PACFA) and the breeders they source from by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA.) The level of transparency and traceability as to the source of an animal is much greater with a pet store, especially with the passage of HB 21-1102 Pet Store Consumer Protection Act in 2021, which requires pet stores to “INCLUDE ON ALL ADVERTISEMENTS, INCLUDING WEBSITE POSTINGS, THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE DOG OR CAT AND ANY APPLICABLE FEDERAL OR STATE LICENSE NUMBERS FOR THE BREEDER OF THE DOG OR CAT.”

Conversely, backyard breeders are not regulated in any way; unlike commercial breeders, both small and large, they needn’t be licensed by PACFA, they needn’t be licensed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture — there is no oversight whatsoever. Consumers are at much higher risk of receiving a puppy or kitten that is sick, or has a congenital disorder or other ailment; and then to compound the tragedy, there are no consumer protections in place when something goes wrong.

Furthermore, in addition to saying it will not apply to “lawfully operated” hobby breeders, the ordinance states it “would not affect a consumer’s ability to obtain a dog or cat of their choice from an animal rescue, animal shelter, or the City’s small, reputable, inhome [sic] breeders.” Given the lack of transparency in backyard breeding, it is not possible to identify a backyard breeder as being “reputable” or “lawfully operated.” The ordinance provides no mechanism through which a consumer could identify whether a backyard breeder is “reputable” and/or “lawfully operated.”

We are also concerned about the effect this ordinance would have on the proliferation of retail rescues in Colorado, which are nothing more than pet stores without the oversight and regulation. They handle thousands of dogs under the halo of a rescue when in fact their business model is a retail one — obtain products, sell products quickly, restock inventory, sell products quickly and so on. A major difference to pet stores is, for the most part, retail rescues do not pay for their product. Without the cost of inventory, the overhead of a brick-and-mortar store, or the burden of paying employees or most taxes, retail rescues make a tidy sum often used to pay salaries to directors and officers. Furthermore, though most retail rescues do not obtain puppies from large-scale breeders, most do import puppies from out of state — and sometimes directly or indirectly from out of the country — from unregulated, unlicensed, and often opaque sources. This presents a host of problems, from serious animal welfare concerns to public and animal health risks — as we saw a hint of recently with the discovery of rabies in an imported retail rescue litter in Colorado.

Banning pet stores does nothing to solve the problem it ostensibly intends to. Instead, it merely shifts the market from a regulated, transparent one to an underground, unregulated one, and incentivizes the worst actors. These bans may make their proponents feel better, but they hurt — not help — the animals who depend on us to do better.

Elizabeth Coalson is the founder and chief executive of National Canine Advocacy Group, Inc. based in Denver.