Letter to PetSmart!

[john]

The rhetoric's getting deep in here....

 

[mark]

I disagree with the comparisons. I believe that pet super stores aim to provide what they think are suitable conditions for herps but their lack of knowledge is what fails them so frequently. Agricultural industries are all about food production and the need for mass production leads to somewhat inhumane or battery farming. Mass production is not required in the pet industry and you’ll probably find that many of the herps are wild caught rather than captive bred. Pet stores don’t set out to get it wrong (you won’t find a rabbit in an aquatic set-up) but they generally don’t have a clue about herps and space is often an issue, hence ludicrous species mixing and poor housing.

Complaining is an excellent start. Here in the UK so many people complained about the conditions of herps in Pet Smart that they removed the herp section in all their stores and haven’t sold any for years. You can make a difference.

As for illegal immigrants… there is a limit to how many worms can escape the can on a caudate forum….

 

[abrahm]

The large corporate pet stores vary quite wildly even within the chain. Much of it depends upon the people who work there. There is no criteria to find out who will work there so there are people there who work everyday to ensure the health of their animals and then there are people who don't know what newts are, think oscars do well in 10g aquaria and that hamsters are baby guinea pigs.

But even the best employees can't change huge corporate policy and sometimes the higher ups do odd things to try and earn more money. Our local Petco invests large amounts of money in marine fish that continually die through improper setup and care because people like to look at their pretty colors. This is despite the efforts of a very qualified aquatics person who just doesn't have the resources available.

I think Heather has quite a few very good point on the way our society treats animals and living creatures in general.

This doens't mean I don't think you should have sent the letter, you definitely should have! We have to stand up and point these things out and make the big wigs change their tunes. Signing your name to it is definitely a must as an anonymous letter is just so much trash.

As far as toxins go I would consider that only a problem if there were possible attack/feeding reactions with the tankmates. These animals don't continously produce toxins as that would be metabolically taxing and unnecessary.

Other good issues to include would be stress levels due to differing activity levels, crowding in the tank, lack of hiding spaces for one species and the bioload produced by a larger amount of animals in an enclosure.

Writing letters to PETA and telling them about Petco definitely gets their attention, but it doesn't seem to work with PetSmart all that well to my knowledge

 

[leanne]

John---rhetoric? "Language that is pretentious or insincere"?? I don't think so. These people, including you, are speaking from the heart and really trying to help, and I appreciate all the thought and effort going into each of these posts. This issue is relevant on a literal, ethical and philosophical scale. It DOES trace to our treatment of food industry animals and fellow humans. Thank you to those are helping reason this whole thing out.

(Message edited by Tadpole on March 31, 2006)

(Message edited by Tadpole on March 31, 2006)

 

[mark]

What usually works best if deplorable conditions are found is to report it to your local animal welfare group. Unfortunately most either don't care if it doesn't have fur or feathers or don't have anyone on staff qualified to determine what is right for fish, amphibians, reptiles or invertebrates. Don't bring in PETA or any such organization if it can be helped at all. They usually create more problems than they solve.

 

[john]

"John---rhetoric? "Language that is pretentious or insincere"?? "

Not sure why you offer this definition solely, but my Webster's defines rhetoric as the art of communication for persuasive purposes. It does give "insincere" as a descriptor in a separate definition but this is not the primary definition. I had no intent to imply that anyone was stating something they did not honestly believe but merely to point out that your post concerning a letter was being used as a platform to advance ideas largely unrelated to the topic. I have a great deal of respect of for what you are doing Leanne since you are actually acting in a responsible manner to correct a poor situation in your community. As an aside, my reference to PETA was completely in jest. To even mention them in such a context would imply condoning their extremism, which I certainly do not. Sorry for any confusion my quick postings may have caused.

 

[leanne]

Ah...sorry John, you are right about there being a separate definition there---I'm just depressed about the whole situation, please forgive me!

I kind of feel helpless, like nothing is going to work with these pet store people, you know? Sorry for really sounding like a butthead there.

 

[john]

No need to apologize to me. I'm sure I came across as being kinda pissy, I often do, unfortunately.

it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

 

[leanne]

Hey, nice website---good job on Alexander the Great!