S.F. considers banning sale of pets except Fish.....

S.F. considers banning sale of pets except Fish.....

www.sfgate.com

That's the law under consideration by San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. If the commission approves the ordinance at its meeting tonight, San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country's first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.

(visit the link for the full news article)

That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.

What is in the water in San Fransisco? I am a pet owner and I enjoy having a pet. I treat my dog as a parent would treat their child. My dog travels with me everywhere except on international and business trips. I just can't imagine this law being adopted anywhere else besides this liberal/progressive watering hole.

San Francisco residents who want a pet would have to go to another city, adopt one from a shelter or rescue group, or find one through the classifieds.

They are only banning sales of pets by shops, though you can eventually get a pet through a shelter or a breeder through a classifieds. I see this law would incentivize individuals into opening up kennels just to make a buck. How many of those stories have we already seen, crowded kennels and starving animals?




www.sfgate.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

S.F. considers banning sale of pets except Fish.....

Translation:

The city needs to divert funds from animal control to support city union salaries and pensions.

Well what if you have some extra kittens or puppies to just give away, is that ok? What if you want to have a pet and you know someone who is giving away a pet, can you do it that way? I mean, many people breed dogs or cats or other animals and they do this for a living. What will happen to people who base their income on selling animals?

Is this being done because there are too many stray pets or do they just want it so people aren't making money from selling animals or what?

Originally posted by wutone
S.F. considers banning sale of pets except Fish.....

Translation:

The city needs to divert funds from animal control to support city union salaries and pensions.

You can still have pets in the city from shelters or through the classifieds. Animal control still would be necessary as it is not a all ban on pets.

Just another liberal/progressive law that does nothing to solve any problem but create more problems like private owners taking breeding in their own hands to make a few bucks.

I wouldn't be totally opposed to the idea of forcing people to adopt animals as opposed to buying new ones. This year alone I, personally, have raised 8 stray kittens which were born unplanned in the streets (not that cats really plan these things). I raised them until they were old enough to take to a no kill shelter.

The problem is that I have two baby kittens I rescued right now and I can't find a no kill shelter to take them to because all the shelters are full. These cats recieve the best of care and are, generally, healthier, happier and better socialized than cats from "breeders".

People should ALWAYS consider adoption first when they want a new pet.

According to the article, the problem the city has with pets it that it ends up having to deal with pets people no longer want for whatever reason. The best solution would not be an outright ban, but some sort of fee or bond all pet owners in the city would have to pay.

This way, the city does not loose money on dealing with unwanted pets. Furthermore, the ban does not address the problems caused by pets purchased outside the city that end up unwanted.

reply to post by Shadowflux


I have no issues with adopting animals, I have 2 adopted pets. The issue is with shutting down businesses who have to hold a degree of professionalism and care when selling these pets and in there place will come private citizens taking breeding in their own hands to meet the need those stores used to provide. There are many good private breeders out there and they take the utmost care for their animals & highly professional.

There are local businesses, with quite a lot of life savings and investments in them, called pet shops, and IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL to discriminate or cause hardship or force closure on ethical businesses, pet shops are not = to their monopoly and wealthy businesses which are unethical, their penis enlargement companies, their advertisers, their strip joints and gambling places.

What amazes to no end is that people look at politicians and allow them to draft "laws", well their ordinances and legistlation is often AGAINST the law, basic law, and constiutional law, and in fact is a crime to follow in any way.

I can't imagine any country in the western world allowing arbitrarily having a city declaring a whole group of ethical sound businesses illegal and destroying lives and having them get away with it, they would be facing huge court cases and alot of money given over to the harmed parties, tax payers money at that.

In additon, why do you guys take any of it. You're all born free and nearly every single law, even constitutional nightmares, and legistlation is all crimes against humainity, including all bankers, realtors etc. YOU ARE FREE. BREATHE IN THE FREEDOM AND RISE UP TO SET THEM ALL ON THEIR ASSES!

Think free, I never in my life have ever ever thought otherwise even as a child, and am waiting rather impatiently for enough people to get rid of this criminal fascist banking system over our heads and the idea that we are electing authority, NO ears all we elect are ears and they need to have fast firing scripts in place as well.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Unity_99]

reply to post by prionace glauca


Except that private breeders are breeding large numbers of animals that are not needed. We already have an over abundance of homeless cats and dogs, among other animals, that are often put in municipial shelters where they litererally have a few days to live. I feel it's wrong to continually produce new animals simply because they are "rare" or "designer" simply with the end goal of profit when there are animals being systimatically murdered simply because people don't think of visiting a shelter when they want a new pet.

A child isn't going to care if their puppy is a 5th generation pure bred, documented poodle (who probably has myriads of health problems from inbreeding) or a loveable scruffy little mutt from a shelter.

Puppy and kitten mills are wrong and are acting in detriment to thousands of animals every year.

As for pet shops, they won't have to close, they can keep selling kibble, cat toys and little balls for hamsters. If anything they'd be cutting overhead by emliminating the need to care for live animals and the staff they'd have to hire and pay to do so.

To the poster above, I think you need to read my posts. There are some very good private breeders out there that only breed after getting an order and then there are those who want to make a buck & continue breeding eventually leading to overcrowded kennels. It is the latter that will occur after such a ban is imposed on stores to sell live pets.

[edit on 8-7-2010 by prionace glauca]

it seems like there trying to kill off small buisnesses(pet stores). i dont see any other side effect of this law other then maybe to get rid of the weird pet shops in china town....

what if you have a reptile that needs feeder animals,how are they suposed to get there food....answer in my opinion is then people will have to go out side of sf and then have to pay the tolls to get back in its all a money scheme

reply to post by prionace glauca


I read your posts, i just don't follow your logic. Where do the puppies in the store come from? Private breeders who churn them out.

The problem is that people buy these designer puppies, realize they have to take care of them and dump them in a shelter. If this law forces people to adopt stray and unwanted pets as opposed to simply buying new designer pets then I'll be happy to see these private breeders forced to find a day job.

You can't just breed a dog when one is ordered, it's actually a bit of a process which takes several months and produces an unpredictable number of puppies. What do you think the breeders do if one of the puppies comes out wrong? They're living creatures you can't just keep them locked in cages until it's time to order up a couple more puppies.

I understand your frustration with a government that can hardly keep it's pants zipped trying to create new laws that seem, at first, to be rediculous but I'd have to say that this is a pretty good idea if it reduces the number of animals put to death in shelters simply because someone would rather pay thousands of dollars for a fancy designer dog.

Pet slavery must end!

If these shops were selling people we would want them closed.

The truth is that many pets end up with owners that do not care well for them, and exploit them in ways that are not healthy for the animal.

The owner simply creates a dependency in feeding the animal and sheltering it, preventing it from acquiring the skills it needs to live free and naturally, by more or less humanizing it.

In exchange the pet must make itself available nearly 24/7 as a companion, guard, or recipient of affection.

The pet receives no monetary compensation, is given no annual vacation, is not allowed to unionize and in some cases is even mutilated by spading or neutering, to make it more docile and domesticated!

The animals of the world deserve to be free.

Now while some of this post is satirical there is a lot of truth in it. I had a neighbor up until not to long ago, that their dog preferred to spend every waking moment it could at my house to escape the behavior of its owner.

If an animal naturally befriends you, well it’s alright to befriend it back, providing you respect it as a creature of freewill and allow it to exercise it.

Otherwise it is a form of slavery, and unfair to the animal born and sold or kidnapped into it.

Free the animals!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


So you wish to punish all those businesses and those who want make a pet purchase based on a neighbor whose dog wanted to escape?

Did this dog use twitter, instant message, sms, or any other communications to signal is desire to escape?

If the neighbors' dog was a male, was there a female dog in the vicinity in heat?

Though some of my questions might be satirical, not all owners & businesses are malicious and pets are considered more than pets, they are treated like family.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Proto,

I totally agree with you, I just wish my cats word afford me the same luxury. More often than not I feel like I'm being taken advantage of and I'm pretty sure they have the better end of this deal

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


i don't think its slavery but your in-titled to your opinion,pets have for years been companion animals and gaurd dogs etc don't think anyone will be giveing up general pet ownership any time soon. But i agree that those puppy mills etc are horrible i personally have 4 pits i rescued from a shelter(former fighting dogs) and there the sweetest creatures ive ever encountered so i can see there logic but banning the general sale of all pets is nonsense its local government forcing more rules and regulations on to us. if your gonna get angry about treatment of animals as "slaves go yell at sea world or better yet the us navy which has trained and maintained attack dolphins for years that seems a bit more like slavery to me.. at least our pets get food and love(from the good owners at least)
if i offended you i apologize im just a typical american omnivore(you can tell this by our teeth) so just doing what nature intended me to do

PS least we dont eat them like some cultures(dogs cats etc) do! peace and my the monkey gods favor your house

Pet stores that sell puppies and kittens get their "stock" from puppy mills. This is an issue very near and dear to my heart so it goes without saying that I think S.F. is making the right move.

No reputable breeder, I repeat, no reputable breeder, would ever use a pet store to sell one of their puppies. Reputable breeders require their pet puppies to be spayed/ neutered, a contract, they do health testing on their breeding stock (that does not mean they just take the animal to the vet and get a clean bill of health, they pay a lot of money testing for various inheritable diseases) and never encourage rash purchases of a living animal they have spent years planning for by accepting credit cards. Reputable breeders do not breed to make a profit. They have a passion for a particular breed and study pedigrees and the breed standard to try and produce the best example of that breed. They actively attend dog shows to prove their breeding stock.

S.F. is actually trying to stop puppymills and unsavory conditions in pet stores. Pet stores do not all operate on some sort of "code of ethics." They are there to make a profit, pure and simple. All anyone has to do is see a pet store puppy with a grade five luxating patella or uncontrollable seizures being put to sleep to understand why pet stores are so terrible. Or visit a puppymill auction to view the deplorable conditions of the parents of those adorable puppies and kittens in the pet shop window. Or see my darling Italian greyhound rescue.

There is a huge difference between a backyard breeder (BYB), a puppymiller, and a reputable breeder.

Rant is over.

Yeah, what is in the water in San Fran?

Anyway, my advice to pet stores?

Give the pets away - sell their collars for the price of what the pet would have normally cost...

peace

reply to post by prionace glauca

S.F. considers banning sale of pets except Fish.....

San Fran Sicko had to do it. They were running out of room hiding all the illegal aliens in their "sanctuary city".