San Francisco seeks to ban Goldfish!, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 4 times

Topic started on 16-6-2011 @ 06:43 PM by w3nd1g0

Source

Whilst I agree that impulse purchases of kittens and puppies should be closely monitored and controlled to the amount of neglected "gifts".. I don't think the humble goldfish should have made the cut

Oh well.. is it just me that thinks this a tad too extreme?

Your thoughts?

Peace

reply posted on 16-6-2011 @ 07:03 PM by littled16

I think that's going just a wee bit overboard! I have a Beta fish that I love dearly. He is very entertaining and it's soothing to watch some of the things he does. If someone tried to tell me I couldn't have him as a pet I would keep him anyway. What are the Councilmen going to do- go door to door on an illegal Goldfish hunt?

If people want a Goldfish and they can't buy one in San Francisco they will just buy one somewhere else and bring it home. It's not like the neighbors are going to hear it bark and report them!

reply posted on 16-6-2011 @ 07:04 PM by Carseller4

Bet they never ban Gerbils.

The people of San Francisco would rise up if this ever happened.

edit on 16-6-2011 by Carseller4 because: 5 second edit rule

reply posted on 16-6-2011 @ 07:05 PM by Mykey420

reply to post by w3nd1g0

It's good to see that we have so few real problems, that things like this consume our time.

reply posted on 16-6-2011 @ 07:36 PM by mydarkpassenger

Only in San Francisco..

reply posted on 16-6-2011 @ 07:38 PM by g146541

reply to post by Carseller4

Ahhhhh yer killin me!!

Seriously back on topic, how stupid banning goldfish.
What if someone wanted a renewable source of food for their cat that they knew was safe and clean?

reply posted on 16-6-2011 @ 08:07 PM by Terrormaster

reply to post by Carseller4

Only until Armageddon.

Seriously though... Goldfish?! What next, ant farms?

reply posted on 18-6-2011 @ 04:24 PM by incrediblelousminds

Aaaaaand once again the majority of ATS posters dont read the article before commenting:

First of all, it's not 'San Francisco" it's the SF Animal Control. And it's not just goldfish, it's all pets bread specifically for mills.

The idea is to put the squeeze on puppy and kitten mills that supply pet stores, and to discourage "impulse buys" of hamsters and other small pets that often wind up being dumped at shelters.

"Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred" under inhumane conditions "or taken from the wild," commission member Philip Gerrie said. That leads to "devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia," he said.

The proposed ban, which the commission just adopted after a year of study, was expanded to cover animal breeders as well as pet stores.

Read more: www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2011/06/14/BA661JTO52.DTL#ixzz1PfINoiuK

reply posted on 18-6-2011 @ 04:26 PM by incrediblelousminds

Originally posted by littled16
I think that's going just a wee bit overboard! I have a Beta fish that I love dearly. He is very entertaining and it's soothing to watch some of the things he does. If someone tried to tell me I couldn't have him as a pet I would keep him anyway. What are the Councilmen going to do- go door to door on an illegal Goldfish hunt?

If people want a Goldfish and they can't buy one in San Francisco they will just buy one somewhere else and bring it home. It's not like the neighbors are going to hear it bark and report them!

Again, it might behoove you to read the article. City Council isn't seeking this, the SF Animal Control is, and it isnt banning people from owning them. It is seeking to ban pet stores from selling them, since they generally come from animal 'mills'.

edit on 18-6-2011 by incrediblelousminds because: (no reason given)

Pages: ^^TOP^^