The Pet Care department is an ethical quagmire. As much as I love working with animals and even though it would mean I'd be out of a job, I really think PetSmart ought to stop carrying companion livestock. There is simply no way to do it profitably and properly at the same time.
* I'm not sure whether the purchasing manager for livestock at corporate realizes this fact, but it is well-understood by veterinarians and research scientists that once a rodent colony acquires certain diseases, the morbidity for EVERY animal in that colony is 100%. Our supplier routinely sends us animals that arrive symptomatic (which I reject, obviously).
* But I can't reject all of them, which means that -- literally -- every mammal that is shipped to the store is carrying diseases (usually respiratory and gastrointestinal) that can have high mortality rates, particularly when the animal is subjected to stressors. Shipping alone causes many deaths, sometimes as high as 50% in certain species. Those that remain subclinical long enough to make it out onto the floor are subjected to a constant state of stress from which they cannot flee as people routinely bring their dogs by the mammal/bird enclosures for the dogs' entertainment (it is against policy to reprimand a customer for this).
* While we are theoretically able to take our animals to Banfield, this does nothing to address the root problem, and it has its own limitations. Most prey animals will try to hide their illness, thus they do not show symptoms that can be readily recognized by a non-veterinarian until they are so sick that they require IMMEDIATE emergency medical treatment. Often, just the stress of moving the animal to the vet can kill them while they wait for treatment. Not every locum vet at Banfield is qualified or willing to treat "exotic" animals, such as rodents, fish, reptiles or birds, which means it may not be possible to get timely treatment. Some species are very sensitive to antibiotics and can develop serious complications, including enterotoxemia, which often kills without warning. The frequent symptom-management use of antibiotics also increases the risk of MRSA, which is worrisome in an environment where zoonoses are a serious risk.
* Such a working environment is difficult for anyone with a conscience to handle, particularly the types of people who apply to work in this position. It is not uncommon to have animals die in your hands while you are helpless to do anything. Just as often, you may find an animal dead in a bin first thing in the morning or late at night,. That never gets any easier. It doesn't matter whether it is a guinea pig or a bearded dragon, it is always so demoralizing to find one dead knowing that it was a preventable death, but you just didn't have the tools to prevent it.
* They do not pay their associates adequately for the level of expertise the position requires to perform the duties necessary for the care and management of so many species, nor do they provide adequate time, training or resources. There are so few people tasked to this department that just ONE lazy or careless employee can make it absolutely impossible to maintain even basic standards of hygiene. Those who do carry the larger burden of the animals' care also bear the responsibility for any losses, even if they are totally unpreventable due to the problematic system within which we are expected to operate.
* I do not believe that the people at corporate are aware of the extent of the problems related to carrying live companion animals as stock in their stores. I think if they realized how bad it is, they would begin to phase out the livestock immediately until all we carried were insects and manageable fish.
* In the mean time, this job is simply unfit for the pay scale they provide, bearing in mind that Pet Care employees are also expected to perform regular retail sales tasks and are often "cross-trained", which means they cashier and/or stock, as well. It is simply unrealistic.
.
