Who hasn’t heard about the 10-week-old Boston terrier that was stolen from a Crystal Lake pet store recently? It was pretty quickly returned. I mean, who could miss the publicity?
But now the pet store owner has had to take the $1,100 puppy out of the display window so that it could “de-stress”. Give me a break!
Maybe pets need shrinks because they are held on display in pet stores, not because they might have ended up, even temporarily, in a home where someone played with them, fed them, held them, exercised them, and did NOT put them back in a wire cage for many hours each day.
Do pets suffer PTSD? Is there anyone who thinks that a pet understands that it is being stolen and held captive away from its lawful owner?
Requiring that a customer fork over ID before “socializing” with a pet (read, holding a pet while you are getting a sales talk) is not mainly for the safety and the concern of the pets, as the pet store owner in the story is quoted; it’s for the financial security of the pet store. If someone steals a $500 or an $1,100 pet, the store is out its “cost” of the pet and the lodging and pet food during the time the pet was for sale and, of course, its potential profit on the sale.
I don’t question the need for a store owner to protect his store against thieves. No problem with requiring ID and even allowing the store to hold the ID temporarily, as long as it is held securely and not available for ID Theft. But let’s call it what it is. It is done, so that the owner can give the ID to the cops, if the person runs off with the pet.