As The Regional News reported last week, there is an ongoing debate in Orland Park over whether the village should use its home-rule powers to opt out of the Cook County Companion Animal & Consumer Protection Ordinance, set to take effect Oct. 1.
The county ordinance is designed to strike a blow against so-called puppy mills, which as most of us know are commercial breeders who engage in sloppy and even inhumane treatment of dogs and cats.
Its chief proponent, County Commissioner John Fritchey of Chicago's North Side, says that the ordinance will limit 'the retail sale of puppies and kittens in Cook County pet stores to animals sourced from shelters and other humane adoption centers.'
The ordinance would almost certainly drive out of business one of village's oldest and most respected retail establishments: Happiness Is Pets, 15647 S. 94 th Ave., and throw its staff to the uncertainty of the unemployment line-despite the fact that owner Ron Berning insists that he does not purchase puppies from mills.
At a recent village board meeting, Berning said that breeders he deals with meet and sometimes exceed USDA standards. He even offered to take trustees on a tour of a breeding facility. We suggest that they take him up on it. We'll go, as well.
Like all men and women of good will, we at The Regional News oppose puppy mills and other inhumane treatment of dogs.
We have several additional observations to add to the debate.
We question whether it is appropriate to attack a wholesale problem at the retail level, if it is fair to punish a licensed, respected pet shop owner for the sins of puppy mills with which he says he has no dealings.
Think about that, and think about the ramifications.
Imagine if legislators decided to expand the attack on animal cruelty, addressing horrific conditions at factory farms, where animals suffer every bit as much as dogs suffer at puppy mills.
Imagine if the village banned the sale of all eggs, except those laid by free-range hens at small farms.
Imagine if the village banned the sale of veal, the sale of beef from cattle kept in pens, the sale of pork and bacon from pigs kept in cages.
Now imagine the reaction of Orland Park grocers and restaurant owners, as shoppers and diners abandoned local food establishments and went instead to Oak Forest, Orland Hills, Tinley Park, Mokena, Homer Glen and elsewhere.
Rest assured that the Orland Park business community would rise up and use their muscle to stop the idea in its tracks, and then they'd talk about electing new faces next time around.
But when the target is a solitary business owner, 'just one pet shop,' as a village trustee said chillingly on April 21--well, you get the picture.
So what is the right direction here? What should Orland Park officials do regarding the Cook County Companion Animal & Consumer Protection Ordinance?
We see the answer in one of the options described by Trustee Dan Calandriello, chairman of the village board's Public Safety Committee and an attorney who has successfully prosecuted those who abuse animals.
Orland Park should use its power to opt out of the new county ordinance and at the same time craft its own law, made with input from the business community, animal rights advocates from Orland Park, and other interested parties in the village.
Such an ordinance would be enforced by the village itself, by a code enforcement officer.
If done right, such a law would demonstrate that there is a sensible middle ground, that Orland Park can be pro-dog and pro-business at the same time.
If done right, such a law would serve as a model for other communities and show that Orland Park uses its head as well as its heart.
The opportunity is there.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar