>

I didn’t suggest it’s economical. I said it’s a big expectation from a store that gives the appearance it makes money from selling betta fish. The financials explain it does not: it sells fish food. It’s expecting a lot from a dog leash salesman.
Big pet stores are in the retail item business. They should prioritize animal welfare. But if there’s no base rule like a state law on lizard rocks, then we can’t really expect a brand like Petsmart with 3% annual revenue from animals to make that a core business priority. They want to sell dog leashes and lizard rocks, not actual lizards. Fish food, not fish. That’s 95% of their business, so the 4 high school clerks working a shift can’t be expected to care for the fish like a zoo employee would be expected to. (Probably better financials from their 10K elsewhere) >

How does this challenge the OPs view? 
Whether or not taking sufficient care of animals is economical for a bit pet store doesn't change whether or not they are abusing animals.