>

I 100% agree that if you want to get an animal, you should also do the proper research first. But a lot of people don't, or want to give an animal as a "gift". 
I still think stores should do what they can to provide the correct information to customers, but I'm more concerned with the products. 
Fish bowls should not be sold at pet stores. They're unsuitable habitats for any fish. Same thing for the tiny .25 gallon tanks.
Also I think it's more of a U.S. thing, but the bettas in cups need to go.
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. >

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. >

It has nothing to do with expectation. 
One of the rules of this sub is that top level comments must challenge the OP, and it doesn't seem like you're challenging the OP, so I wanted to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding your post. >

I’m sorry. I think you’re missing my point. 
I think the rules also state the following, quoting rather than contributing my own interpretation of them as a fellow visitor:

Rule 2 - Rude/Hostile Comment, Description: Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if the rest of it is solid. 'They started it' is not an excuse. You should report it, not respond to it.
Rule 3 - Bad Faith Accusation, Description: Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting ill behaviour, please message us.

Message the moderator if you have concerns, or apply to become one. >


I’m sorry. I think you’re missing my point.

That's why the very first thing I asked was 'how does this challenge the OP's view'. Because I thought I was missing your point. 
But then you reiterated your point, and it became clear that I had understood you the first time.
And then I explained why I thought I had misunderstood your post. 
And now to sink to some late night pettiness, I like how you bolded  "If you are unsure whether someone is genuine, ask clarifying questions" as though the very first thing I ever said to you wasnt a clarifying question. >

I’m not going to engage in rulebreaking behavior and argue meta rules. You have the option to report me. If you feel my contributions are abusive of the rules, you can do so. >

Whose responsibility is it to learn how to care for an animal they want to own?