One city in Minnesota has just passed an ordinance that prohibits pet stores from selling dogs and cats as pets. Should Rochester do the same thing?

ThinkStock

According to this ABC-6 story, the city of Roseville has just banned sales of cats and dogs from pets stores within its borders at a meeting Monday night.

If follows what the story says is a "a citizen-led movement to end the practice which has been criticized by animal rights advocates who say keeping the animals in cages is harmful."

Should Rochester do the same thing?

I wouldn't be opposed to such a ban. I firmly believe in the 'Adopt, Don't Shop' policy, meaning, that if you're looking to add a furry member to your family, adopt one from a rescue or animal shelter, because there are SOO many animals out there who need a good home.

Out of all the animals I've ever owned-- and that's been at least 4 dogs and 4 cats-- I've always adopted them from local shelters and rescues. I even volunteer at Paws and Claws, helping to walk dogs waiting for their forever homes, so I know firsthand just how many heartbreaking stories of homeless pets there are out there. We don't need to be breeding and then selling even more-- especially for profit, if you ask me.

Breeders, though-- who sell puppies or kittens directly to families-- wouldn't be affected by the ban, believed to be the first of its kind here in Minnesota, the story noted.

So what do you think? Should Rochester adopt a similar ban?