Dear Editor: Re: Pet ban issue heating up for the City of Burnaby, Burnaby NOW, Aug. 9. After reading the comments made by David Chan in the article, Pet ban issue heating up for the City of Burnaby, it would appear the best argument for the ban comes from the behaviour and words of those against it.
If a man can ask "Why would any politician support such a ban? It affects cash flow," it is a clear indication of his priorities and what he thinks of our local politicians.
My question is, do we want people who hold such a mindset to be responsible for the care of any sentient being? The comment that, "A ban would sweep the problem under the carpet and out of sight," suggests the person is aware that pet store animals come from puppy mills and is more than willing to support this practice.
I suggest Mr. Chan's concern for helping to keep the issue in the forefront of the public's conscience is disingenuous at best.
In regards to Katherine Kinman's concern that a ban on pet sales would be detrimental to her business, this suggests she doesn't understand the moral dilemma being addressed.
She claims, "Banning selling pets in pet stores does not solve the problem."
Rarely does a law entirely resolve an issue with just one piece of legislation. Legislation designed to protect children hasn't eradicated child abuse, but it would be ridiculous to say those laws haven't brought powerful welfare change. I say shame on you, Ms. Kinman. In my opinion, you are looking out for yourself and for the pursuit of the almighty dollar.
You claim that you can help educate the public. By banning pet sales in stores, our city will help educate the public. The people who are fighting for this ban are educating the public. I don't see you in that role.
I believe the vast majority of Burnaby citizens are caring people who will welcome a ban on pet store sales.
G & A Williams
Burnaby
