|
|||||
      |
|||||
 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
| Boycott Watch
previously reported that we had to assume that since a law suit was filed by
PETA against Petco, Boycott Watch expects the fact to only come out as the case
progresses. We therefore assumed the facts as presented by PETA since companies
in such situations can not comment on pending legal matters, even though it
puts them at a disadvantage. Since that time, Boycott Watch conducted our own investigation into Petco stores by randomly visiting numerous stores across the country, and in California in particular since that is where the claims of abuse are based. Our study also included stores in Illinois, Michigan and New York, among other states. Since the various boycott Petco websites tend to complain about the conditions of the stores birds, our investigation concentrated on birds in every store, but we examined the conditions of all animal species on display. Boycott Watch rated the stores on the following criteria: Overall Cleanliness General Store Appearance and Lighting Friendly Staff Knowledgeable Staff Clean Animal Environments (cages, fish tanks, etc.) Animal Health and Welfare Proper Animal Identification Labels Proper Feeding, bedding and Clean Cages Clear Identification of Verification of the Veterinarian Responsible for that Store Proper Animal Pairings (We don't want to have kids seeing rabbits mate in a store) Sensitivity to Children Regarding Feeder Animals Overall Impression of Animal and Store Condition Boycott Watch rated each store on the above criteria. The category of "Overall Impression of Animal and Store Condition" was designed to allow comments by our staff while reviewing the stores in order to go beyond the ratings and lower the stores overall grade, but not raise it. This was done so we could give maximum credibility to the boycott claim, not because we may or may not agree with the boycott. Boycott Watch always wants to be as fair as possible, and this time we gave the boycotters the benefit of the doubt so we can not be judged as being biased against those who are sponsoring the boycott in case we decided against them. In our survey, every store except one received an A- or higher grade. The exception is a store in Los Angeles that received an overall grade of B because there were 2 unattended stacks of pet food in an isle that was most probably intended for the shelves and because the store should have had brighter lighting. One store in Illinois was on the border between an A- and a B+ because it's lighting made the store look dirty even though it was spotless, but received an A- because the stores overall impression was excellent and the store manager took extra time to explain how the store acquires the animals they sell. The stores we visited received an overall and average grade of A in spite of the single B that one store received. Boycott Watch found no evidence of any animals being placed in freezers or mistreated in any way as the boycotters claim. The store managers and staff all appeared to have animal welfare in mind. Every store had a sign listing the name of the veterinarian for that store as well as the doctor's phone number so any customer can call that doctor. The store managers we spoke to were all happy to answer every question we had to our complete satisfaction and no store was ever aware that Boycott Watch was conducting an investigation. Boycott Watch investigators posed as customers and we saw no evidence of any attempt to cover up any of the claims in the boycott web sites. In essence, the Boycott Watch investigation resulted in no evidence to backup any claims by the boycotters. As a result, Boycott Watch believes that the claims leading to the boycott of Petco stores is unfounded and baseless. |
|
||||
Boycott Watch visited several Los Angeles area Petco stores and saw no evidence of abuse as charged by PETA - Full investigation started.
|
 |