Pet ownership ban to happen soon in San Francisco?

[IDrinkaRum]

To stop impulse buys of pets, San Francisco has come up with a plan to ban goldfish, dogs, cats, tropical fish, other animals as pets

I do understand the need to curb impulse buys where the people who take the pets in then decide they don't want the animal anymore and so leave them at a shelter. But do we really need a law to ban this?

Is this too much government interference?

[Andara Bledin]

So... they want to outlaw pets?

Seriously, kittens, puppies, goldfish, hamsters.... That leaves, what... tropical fish and reptiles?

This has got to be one of the most assinine 'feel good' measures I've ever heard about.

Oh, and I see they leave bunnies on the table... how many thousands of bunnies are abused every year around Easter? I guess they don't count, somehow.

^-.-^

[telecom_goddess]

that is the dumbest idea ever. That takes the whole concept of freedom and throws it away. Pets have been a part of life since humanity started taming animals.

I don't see how this can possibly fly.

I imagine service animals and companion animals would be excluded....

[HYHYBT]

That's the stupidest thing I've read today. (Which is saying a lot, because in another window I'm trying to converse with people who think allowing gay marriage will lead to Sharia law in the US.)

[Giggle Goose]

I feel like SF is proposing some boneheaded measure every time I turn around:

Banning circumcision

Banning soda

So, considering their history, yes, this is too much government interference. It's so far left that's it's almost the same as the far right-wingers trying to control what's going on in your bedroom.

[lordlundar]

That's the stupidest thing I've read today. (Which is saying a lot, because in another window I'm trying to converse with people who think allowing gay marriage will lead to Sharia law in the US.)

A BUH?

Part of me is curious to wonder that train of thought, another, much larger part of me just does not want to go there.

[smileyeagle1021]

As much as I don't like the pet sales industry, this is taking it too far (adopting pets I'm all for, buying pets like an accessory though is wrong).

This is also why when/if I move the to bay area I intend to live in the east bay... close enough to San Francisco to enjoy it's culture, but not actually in it having to deal with the city government's idiocy.

[linguist]

let's hear it for sensationalism!

this is not a ban on pets. it's a ban on retail pet sales, which frankly i agree with. pet stores keep their animals in horrible conditions. pet ownership and adoption is still totally allowed.

but i guess fox news left that important bit out, so as to paint the dirty hippie liberals in san francisco in the worst possible light.

[Andara Bledin]

Article from the LA Times

It's still an asinine idea.

You want to take out puppy mills, then go after puppy mills and the stores that buy from them. There are a lot of reputable breeders and stores out there and it's unfair to punish them, and the citizens, with this type of one-size-fits-all feel-good legislation.

Aside from the fact that it will do nothing to actually effect the pet mills.

Seriously, has prohibition of anything actually worked?

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

A BUH?

Part of me is curious to wonder that train of thought, another, much larger part of me just does not want to go there.

I'll start another thread, because it would be distracting to go into here.

Banning the *sale* of pets is somewhat less stupid than banning the ownership of them, though the one seems to me likely to lead to the other. How can something be said to be owned if it cannot be bought or sold? Ultimately, what's the difference between selling a kitten and giving it away with conditions attached, such as having to pay for its being fixed? Or giving it away in general, as that's essentially a sale with the price set at $0 (or £0, if you prefer. No conversion rate needed)

[Andara Bledin]

Banning the *sale* of pets is somewhat less stupid than banning the ownership of them, though the one seems to me likely to lead to the other. How can something be said to be owned if it cannot be bought or sold? Ultimately, what's the difference between selling a kitten and giving it away with conditions attached, such as having to pay for its being fixed? Or giving it away in general, as that's essentially a sale with the price set at $0 (or £0, if you prefer. No conversion rate needed)

It's specifically a ban on retail sales of pets, which will do nothing but prevent the city from getting revenue as people buy their pets outside city limits.

Almost entirely pointless and a waste of money, time, and effort.

^-.-^

[ExRetailDrone]

I can understand the mindset behind this, but going about it in this way will accomplish exactly...nothing.

I hate puppy mils with a passion. My first dog, a gift for my 10th birthday, was from a pet store and very likely a puppy mill. She only lived 2 years and the last few weeks were not nice She had many issues but I have no idea what exact ailments she suffered with. All I know is that after growing up more and learning about puppy mills, I loathed them even more when I combined my experience with what I read.

My second dog was from a breeder. It was considered a sale as far as I know. Are breeders going to be disallowed from continuing what they do as well? And, like Andara said, what about the pet stores who do not get puppies and kittens from mills and factories? They are not adding to the problem in that regard whatsoever.

The amount of animals that end up in shelters is no fault of those who sell them... it's the fault of those who buy pets willy-nilly without doing their proper research to even know if the pet they are choosing will fit in with their family structure. I remember reading articles about way too many dalmatians ending up in shelters after the 101 Dalmatians movie came out, because stupid parents didn't look into the breed to realize how hyperactive and energetic they are. Still not the fault of the pet shop who sold the animal to Mr. I'm Too Good to Research.

I agree they should go after any puppy mills and kitten factories that may be in the area, but this approach will just waste money and anger people.

[tabbyblack13]

I can see the purpose of this ban if you are trying to get rid of puppy/kitten mills by stopping pet sales but if you are trying to stop the sales from breeders you are destroying their trade. Now I am talking about good breeders who want to improve the breed not make money off of the animals. Also what about the people that sell their puppies on the side of the road or in parking lots. Does this band affect them too? I do not want puppy/kitten mills to exist but banning the sales of the animals will leave a lot people out of jobs if business go under. How about a ban on the puppy/kitten mills or even enforcing the current ordinances/bans/laws.

The ban on pocket pets is a little over board too. If the Humane Society is have such an issue with too many of these animals why don't they advertise that they have these animals? I'm willing to bet that a lot of people do know that they have these animals for adoption. There are also people who prefer these animals for what ever their reasons are.

If I wanted to get a certain pet and I couldn't get it in the town that I lived in I would go to the next town to get that animal. I would assume that other people would do the same thing as well so this ban would be ineffective unless you ban the ownership of these animals.

[linguist]

It's specifically a ban on retail sales of pets, which will do nothing but prevent the city from getting revenue as people buy their pets outside city limits.

Almost entirely pointless and a waste of money, time, and effort.

^-.-^

not necessarily. my city enacted a similar ban (only ours was only on retail sales of dogs and cats) several years ago, and since we've seen a steady decline in kill rates and associated rise in adoption rates in almost every local shelter. the shelter i volunteer at hasn't had to euthanize any animals for reasons other than illness or injury in almost two years.

I can see the purpose of this ban if you are trying to get rid of puppy/kitten mills by stopping pet sales but if you are trying to stop the sales from breeders you are destroying their trade. Now I am talking about good breeders who want to improve the breed not make money off of the animals. Also what about the people that sell their puppies on the side of the road or in parking lots. Does this band affect them too? I do not want puppy/kitten mills to exist but banning the sales of the animals will leave a lot people out of jobs if business go under. How about a ban on the puppy/kitten mills or even enforcing the current ordinances/bans/laws.

the ban only affects retail sales. it doesn't affect private sales by breeders or between individuals.

[Lace Neil Singer]

this is not a ban on pets. it's a ban on retail pet sales, which frankly i agree with. pet stores keep their animals in horrible conditions.

Really? That's not been my experience. I worked in a pet store once, and the animals were well kept, clean and happy. Seeing as unhappy animals tend to show their unhappiness by for example, refusing food or you know, dying, it's fairly easy to tell. Maybe it's different over where you are; I agree that puppies and kittens shouldn't be sold in pet stores, due to the fact that those animals require a lot more space and exercise than pet stores can give them. But over where I am, pet stores don't sell them.

I'm all for a bit more education on the care of animals, and of getting people to understand that pets are not an accessory or one level up from a cuddly toy, but I'm not so sure that a rule like this is the way. At least a pet store can be monitored; if people want pets and can't buy them from a store, they'll find other ways. For example, buying off ebay, or from unauthorised breeders. Someone will always find a way around such a law, and it won't help the pets one bit if trade in them is driven underground.

As for puppy mills; I hate them with a passion. It's thanks to them that there are so many dangerous dogs including weapon dogs roaming the streets; dogs like staffies that could, if they'd been bred properly, have a chance to be a happy pet, but cuz they've been bred and interbred for no other reason than to supply a demand, are mixed up mentally and potentially dangerous. I say staffies cuz the fashion over here at the moment is mainly for them; it's starting a demonisation of the breed similar to that of the pit bull terrier.