Talk:Pet store

Article Bias
Large scale breeding operations (dogs) are governed by the USDA and are inspected by APHIS (Animal Plant Inspection Service) https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare These operations are expected to comply with the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) https://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/animal-welfare-act Many concerns have been raised about the standards and enforcement of the AWA provisions for breeding of puppies. https://www.aspca.org/news/usda-enforcement-animal-welfare-act-hits-new-low

Many municipalities and a few states have restricted the retail sale of dogs, cats, sometimes rabbits to nonprofits or rescue organizations. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/02/us/california-pet-store-rescue-law.html; https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/maryland-to-become-second-state-to-ban-sale-of-puppies-in-stores-but-the-store-owners-are-pushing-back/2018/04/23/330ec5a2-4356-11e8-bba2-0976a82b05a2_story.html?utm_term=.73fb67e2d827

Retail pet shops selling puppies are more often privately owned. The Pet Valu chain of stores provides its store owners with the Humane Society's Puppy Friendly Pet Store pledge. This pledge reportedly "means that the company commits to not sell puppies from puppy mills, but instead to support local pet adoption programs and provide literature that helps customers learn how to locate a puppy from a reputable source." https://www.petfoodindustry.com/articles/2172-pet-valu-signs-us-humane-society-s-puppy-friendly-pet-store-pledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesliekinstler (talk • contribs) 18:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an animal rights activist and I'm not disputing the truthfulness of this, however, it does seem a little opinionated:

There are many small, privately owned pet stores that carry puppies and kittens, maintain a superb level of care and get their animals from small, private breeders.

=

This page reads like PETA propaganda, or - at best - an about.com article on shopping for a pet.

"Before purchasing a pet, potential customers should ask questions and observe the conditions and employees in the store to determine whether the establishment is reputable."

Great advice, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia entry. The whole article is shot through with this tone; and not just under the "Criticism" header. There's no useful imformation here on the history of pet shops, or any detailed information on their business practices. Wikipedia is not intended as a means of giving advice or opinions. --Levity


 * I did some work on this article, but I do personally maintain a high level of caution regarding pet stores due to a plethora of negative experiences with them, so I am admittedly biased. However it seems like only the section on puppies/kittens and the criticism section are biased.  The rest of the stuff is straight facts, no tone in either direction.


 * I'll see if I can find any books about pet store history to help with that, but I don't really know anything about the topic. It also seems like the only people interested in writing about pet stores are people who are opposed to them on some level, so it might be hard to find neutral information about pet stores. --Krishva 20:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Being the MD of a dog training company I have to say that the information written is very accurate. Our company see many dogs that are facing posible death just because their start in life was in a cage in a shop which left them badley socialised with society. From a humane view alone this information should stand.


 * That said, the reference to pet shops in "Wikipedia" should not just be about the pets that they carry but the modern day explanation relating to the products they sell and the type of shops that sell them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by K9capers (talk • contribs) 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

The statements made are opinions and those opinions generalize pet shops as having the the same state of business conditions in all pet shops. This by reason cannot be true. Not all pet shops can be the same all over the world. This is unreasonable and this article should be judged as very biased.

Critisism section?
Perhaps the negative stuff is best included and placed under a criticism heading.

Bleedingcherub 09:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is going to have the negative information the people will hear, they should also have the opinions of pet stores too. We've all heard those from PETA, ALF, and the HSUS talk about pet stores and know that they think each and every pet store is inhumane on the basis that they sell animals. We should also get the information that pet stores have. After all, like someone has previously stated, not every pet store is the same. Plenty of them care about their animals and do right by them. Why shouldn't their voices be heard? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.62.174 (talk) 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It was removed here, and personally I saw no reason for the removal in accordance with NPOV, but seriously this is a really badly written article, no sources whatsoever.--Yo Dawg! What&#39;s Going On Today? (talk) 00:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article is particularly badly written. It's very short, yes.  It lacks references because everything in the article is common knowledge.  But I wouldn't say it was badly written.  Anyway, here's a perfect opportunity to create a fantastic article nearly from scratch.  Go for it.  Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Common knowledge" is not how wikipedia works, even "the sky is blue" would need a source.--Yo Dawg! What&#39;s Going On Today? (talk) 15:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring
I'm interested in helping out rewriting this article to be a better overview of the topic. Any ideas where to start on sourcing? In my initial searches I'm finding it difficult to find good high-level coverage. Sam Walton (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And in terms of layout, articles like Discount store and Department store take a per-country approach. They're hardly the best examples of quality Wikipedia content, but I can see the advantages to doing so. I wonder if that's the best idea too, beyond the general concept overview. Sam Walton (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)