It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

San Francisco considers banning the sale of all pets

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   

San Francisco considers banning the sale of all pets


www.latimes.com

The proposal started with dogs and cats, expanded to birds and hamsters, and now includes any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it.

Yes, goldfish. And guppies, gobies, gouramies, glowlight tetras, German blue rams. No fish, no fowl, no reptiles, no amphibians, no cats, no dogs, no gerbils, no rats. If it flies, crawls, runs, swims or slithers, you would not be able to buy it in the city named for the patron saint of animals.



(visit the link for the full news article)


edit on 27-6-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The idea is to stop the "puppy mills" and industrial animal trade. San Francisco is not banning pets but the sale of creatures to casual and disinterested pet owners that really don't know how or don't care about caring for their pet.


"From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them. If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.… Our culture sanctions this, treating them as commodities and expendable."


But there is that other side to the coin, when it is a matter of us vs. them for survival, i.e., food. No pet turtle allowed but one to be eaten OK. I guess it is not humane enough to let an animal languish on uncared for, but soon to be eaten would be fulfilling a noble purpose.


It is legal in San Francisco to sell live animals for eventual human consumption, and the proposed ban would not stop markets from selling live fish, poultry, turtles or seafood for that purpose.


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


edit on 27-6-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
What if they only banned the sale temporarily, until the shelters could all be closed for lack of animals to put in them? How's about that?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schkeptick
What if they only banned the sale temporarily, until the shelters could all be closed for lack of animals to put in them? How's about that?


HEHE that's like saying "we will just implement this tax to pay of this project only for a year."



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:15 AM
link   
But pets are tasty. If your dog bothers me too much I will cook him on a stick and add some BBQ sauce to it I just get hungry looking at any animal. MMMMM good. Kinda ridiculous to ban pets, next step kids.
edit on 27-6-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Schkeptick
What if they only banned the sale temporarily, until the shelters could all be closed for lack of animals to put in them? How's about that?
I don't know how that shuts down the puppy mills, especially if they are outside city limits which I presume most are.

"The Dog Whisperer" did a special show on puppy mills, I didn't know much about them before that. If you ever heard of "free range chickens" versus those that are confined to a small space their whole life, there is such a disparity among different puppy mills too. Some are apparently driven only by profit and the owners don't seem to care too much for the dog's welfare, just how many they can breed and sell. Some are run by owners that really care about the dogs and they are treated much more humanely. The show kind of gave the impression that the latter is in the minority, but without any statistics I'm not sure.

I was reading another forum earlier today and it was apparent that people there asking questions about their pets have no idea how to take care of them properly, it's sad.

So let's say I buy a turtle in San Francisco. I can eat it if I want, but if I change my mind and decide to keep it as a pet, can I do that? Or do I have to eat it?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
Yes! Go for it! Ban sale of ALL pets, not just the "mills"! If people cannot deal with people and would prefer the companion of pets, there is something to be said of society --- escapism. "Profits from pets" is not nice. Eating pets is not nice either. Old towns would most surely cook up "fido" if given a chance.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
So let's say I buy a turtle in San Francisco. I can eat it if I want, but if I change my mind and decide to keep it as a pet, can I do that? Or do I have to eat it?



It is legal in San Francisco to sell live animals for eventual human consumption, and the proposed ban would not stop markets from selling live fish, poultry, turtles or seafood for that purpose.


Turtles can live a long time, perhaps this one is for your grandson's graduation dinner, or for when he wins the Nobel Prize??



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


This seems like one of those "chop off your foot to cure a hangnail' type of decisions. I'd almost think this was an Article from The Onion!
I couldn't stop laughing at the talk of whether it was humane to feed one animal to another (in the sense of feeding mice to snakes)!!!

I couldn't be more against Puppy Mills....but this just seems insane...I had to check just to make sure this story wasn't written on April 1st...



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
So it's ok if we eat them, as long as they don't eat each other?


Snake food was almost exempt from the proposal. After all, pythons have to eat, and they like their lunch alive. But at a heated meeting, Commissioner Pam Hemphill questioned how it could be humane to sell live animals to be fed to other live animals.


And this just shows how dumb they think people are...


"If a snake is caught with a rodent in a box, the rodent can scratch its eye and cause an infection,"


Why aren't they saving the poor snakes that risk infection everyday in the wild! How cruel it is to force these creatures to find their own, dangerous food!

edit on 27/6/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Glad this isn't happening in Southern California. My red ear sliders are dear to me and the only pets that I have that have outlived my dogs. I wonder how long this ban would be if it really gets approved.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
Another option would be to regulate the breeding of animals for profit - if you are selling puppies (versus giving away the results of not getting your pet fixed in time), you have to prove you are raising them in a good environment, or face heavy fines.

If they watched out for this, and shut down puppy mills, that would help.

Out of all the dogs we've had, all of which were rescues, we've only had ONE live a full life. The rest died of various health problems long before they should have.

The last one, before I finally had her put to sleep, we had spent more than FIVE TIMES as much money keeping her alive with Lupus in the final year of her life, than we would have spent getting a healthy dog from a reputable breeder with a proven healthy ancestry.

So I totally understand why people are scared of rescue dogs - I am, too, now. I've had too many sad endings. If you're really going to make a 15-year commitment to a pet, why would you buy one of questionable breeding from a pet store? Why? Why not make the investment with a GOOD breeder, and put those puppy mills out of business by voting with your dollars?



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Hi mate. Yeah I thought this a tad harsh at first when i originally read the article.. thinking it was taking something away from the people. But its really to stop the pet farming thats going on over there.

Already posted

I must admit.. im not sure which side of this fence i sit on!?!?!



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


Im thinking its time to ban San Franciscos City Government. People complain about the Federal Government interfering in the personal lives of the people. San Francisco is taking it to a whole new level.

The San Fancisco City Counil, along with Reichs Chancellor Pelosi, need to be rounded up and swatted in the nose with a rolled upnewspaper while people yell "no, bad politician" at them.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Utter insanity. It's quite bizarre that the minute puppies and kittens enter the conversation, reason goes right out the window and the usual reaction is BAN BAN BAN.

Next you will be sanctioned for accidentally stepping on a fly's carcass while walking down the sidewalk-- after all, dead flies deserve a dignified burial too.



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Well, you put it all in the nutshell, and that's good because they're going after the nuts next! I hope in fact the good people of San Fran go ahead with pursuing this. I'm sure the "Commision" people, sounds alot like, communist people, who are looking for a city "Stuporvisior" to sponsor the the ban, can find someone that wants to jump on board (but hopefully, not up on the furniture!). But, don't the actual "little people", you know the tax-paying servants, sorry, citizens of that great city by the sea have a say in this? I mean, it is going to be an initiative that must be put to the vote right? Anyway, hope they keep this issue on the front burner. There's really probably no other REALLY pressing issues in the city of San Fran that really need attention anyway! S&F for you!

edit on 27-6-2011 by CosmosKid because: spelling



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread
Utter insanity. It's quite bizarre that the minute puppies and kittens enter the conversation, reason goes right out the window and the usual reaction is BAN BAN BAN.

Next you will be sanctioned for accidentally stepping on a fly's carcass while walking down the sidewalk-- after all, dead flies deserve a dignified burial too.


Well that anaolgy would go hand in hand with the UN effort to have "rights" establsihed to animals.

I know the City of San Franciso has policies that violate not only state law, but federal Law as well. If San Francisco wants to be a sanctuary city, thats fine as its their choice. However I feel they should lose ALL Federal funding for that view point.

I fail to understand how the people of San Francisco are ok with these off the wall left brain hip checks their city government keeps having. Is it that they agree, or does it go back to the debate that citizens are just apathetic about Government and just dont care anymore.

Or is this going to be where people who dont won dogs / cats are going to say dont involve us, we dont have dogs or cats so we dont care. Is it going to take animal control showing up at these peoples houses and taking their gold fish into protective custody while charging the owners with false imprisonment and violation of the Geneva convetion.

Heck if a cat ws present and swatted at the fish, are they violatin the convention against torture.....

What a crazy world we live in. I for one am glad its isolated to the Left Coast, which coincidentally houses the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.

go figure....

/end sarcasm
edit on 27-6-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I don't know how that shuts down the puppy mills, especially if they are outside city limits which I presume most are.

........ Some are apparently driven only by profit and the owners don't seem to care too much for the dog's welfare, just how many they can breed and sell. Some are run by owners that really care about the dogs and they are treated much more humanely..............

I'll admit, I do not know much about 'puppy mills', but I have no doubts about what you're saying here. This is something that occurs with anything and everything that can be sold. There are some people who take pride in what they do, and just genuinely care. There are others who care about nothing other than making a buck.

This may not shut them down, but it definitely could slow them down. Regardless of what the product being sold is, if someone can't sell as many as they have been, they are left with 2 main options.
1. Find a new buyer.
2. Stop producing as much.

If some of these 'mills' are half as bad as I imagine that they are, then I agree with this, but only to a certain extent. Banning ALL pet sales, is taking it too far. It almost seems as if they're looking for the easiest/laziest method to use. Easier to enforce.

It does seem as though some (not all) people buy small pets for kids, and view them more as a toy, than as a living creature. I have 1 'pet,' but I do not view him as a pet. He is my friend. He is smarter than many humans. He's a little man, in a cat's body.

 



in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them.



Underneath the bridge
The tarp has sprung a leak
And the animals I've trapped
Have all become my pets
And I'm living off of grass
And the drippings from the ceiling
[color=CFECEC]But it's ok to eat fish
Cause they haven't any feelings

Something in the way
Ummmmm
Something in the way, yea
Ummmmm
.........................




edit on 6/27/11 by BrokenCircles because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrokenCircles
I have 1 'pet,' but I do not view him as a pet. He is my friend. He is smarter than many humans. He's a little man, in a cat's body.


Touching to hear that. Not many people think like that.

I see them as friends also.




But it's ok to eat fish
Cause they haven't any feelings


Reminds me of something someone said to me many years ago. He was saying how when he caught fish, he would immediately cut their throats instead of leaving them to drown in a bucket. He said something like, "if they made a noise, people would think about them differently".
edit on 27/6/11 by NuclearPaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


This article highlights one of the most ridiculous things about the way that some people veiw our world , and what happens on it.
You have a bunch of people attempting to ban the sale of pets of any kind, and they use the fact that shelters are rammed and need to have thier inmates given to potential owners, and you have the animal rights activists trying to prevent ownership of pets of any sort.

First of all, while I agree that shelters ought to be considered before actual purchase of a pet from a store or breeder, I must say that FORCING a potential pet owner to go to a shelter, rather than a pet store, removes thier freedom of choice , and is an attack on the free market economy around which the econofascism that is captialism revolves. Much as I personaly hate the free market BS , and the capitalism which attatches , parasitically to it, if a bunch of people have voted to live that way, then it goes against the will of the people to force pet stores to cease selling thier main product.

Further more, the pet store owners, and employees of every store in the city will have thier right to work and earn impeded by this ruling. I also hear that they are considering banning the stores themselves! So even those who manage to get by just selling food and accessories, will find thier hard work, thier investments in the business, pulled out from under them. This will ruin the lives of hundreds of people, and will not affect the harmful ways of mass breeders of dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals. These mass production farms have the clout and reach to distribute to anywhere, not just inside the city, or the jurisdiction of this ruling, and many have the financial clout to move thier operations elsewhere in any case.

And what about all the people who already have a well cared for dog or cat, or lizard or fish? Where the hell are they supposed to get thier food, thier playthings, flea treatments, treats and so on? Are pet owners going to be forced to give thier animals the fattier less healthy food stuffs that they themselves are eating? I happen to know that people very rarely eat as well as thier animals (assuming the owner is worthy of the responsibility of pet ownership), and that in many cases the food provided for animals, has better nutrition and fortification than do the popular foods eaten by human kind. Put simply, Go Kat, is better for cats, than Burger King is for humans by an awful long way.

To sum up my attitude to this ruling, this is a bad call, which does nothing to adequately address the real issues, it will harm businesses, and working people, it will prevent people from being able to aquire food for thier pets in adequate amounts and quality ranges, and will likely as not result in far more harm than it would prevent. In short, this is just about one of the stupidest and most counter productive bits of legislation I have ever heard of, and if it comes off, no good will come of it.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join