San Francisco To Ban Pet Sales

Yes, so because of a few asshats - lets restrict the rights of everybody else.

I moved to America 20 years ago because it was free (and Great). Now it's neither. Might be time to move on.

Good intentions? Sure.

Good execution? Uh... nope.

Will singing "How much is that doggie in the window?" be banned too?

I live in San Francisco, and I think this is insane.

Another double-edged sword in the guise of welfare for all??
-Bottom line in San Fran?..The reason it's up for vote lies somewhere between idiots not knowing the first thing about the care of animals (themselves included) and a cradle-to-grave mentality of "keep people from hurting themselves or others with new laws."

Are imbeciles incapable of caring for insects, rodents, reptiles and (god forbid) mammals also in need of a municipal government making laws prohibiting stupidity alive and well in the bay city?? THINK SO!!!

All for it...save the animals form retarded, developmentally disabled long pigs!

"Guinea Pigs For Sale. Free To A Good Home."

Presumably you can still do that? Can the law actually stop you from giving pets away for free -- without making the pets themselves illegal?

If it does, then "draconian" just got a new "best practice" example.
But if it doesn't, then it doesn't solve the problem...

Doesn't this only apply to pet stores? I think breeders and shelters are off the hook, here.

Pets aren't that hard to come by, people, and pet stores are a nasty, nasty business.

I know a guy who gets free kittens and feeds them to his snake.

If this really only applies to pet stores, I'm all for it. If it applies to ALL pet sales, then this sucks.

the government has no soul...you can witness that with the gassing of hundreds of geese in nyc...banning pet sales? be glad they don't take your existing pets and shoot them in front of you...

Personally I think we should ban San Francisco! Kind of makes you wish those fictional accounts of sections of California sliding into the Pacific Ocean during an earthquake would come true for this particular locale!

San Francisco, this time you've gone way too far. That's an infringment on peoples rights. That's a perfect example of meaning well, but going about something completely ass backwards. Someone put a band aid on their bleeding heart.

As someone else said, this has good intentions, to keep idiots from buying pets, but what about the rest? Not everyone that buys a pet, even on impulse will be a bad pet owner.

And why not include fish as well?? So I guess it's still ok for idiots to buy fish and not properly take care of them. So they can go dump their fish in to a lake or river when they realize fish keeping is A LOT of work or when their fish just gets too big.

Totalitarianalism always comes in the name of compassion and safety.

this. is. ridiculous. I work in a pet store - and a good one. Our animals are healthy and well cared for, and the dogs come from good lineages. If this is a back handed attempt to shut down disreputable pet stores, this is done all wrong. If this is truly, as they claim, an attempt to stop people from getting animals on a whim and abandoning them, it is also done wrong. Why not instate a waiting period? Forcibly shutting down an industry that is not crying out for government bailouts is ludicrous. Think of how many more people will be out of work! Can they, in good conscious, do that to those citizens, in this economy?

one last note - what's to stop those same "irresponsible impulse buyers" from going to a neighboring town and buying that dog or hamster or what have you?

It's okay to eat fish 'cause they don't have any feelings.

What will they do with all the extra hamsters if this passes? Will they be released into the wilds of San Fan? Then they will have to make a committee on how to deal with mutant feral hamsters. We need to keep the hamsters where we can see them.

They should also do something about trees. Has anyone looked into the Arbor Massacre that is going on? People are out there right now buying trees and not planting them deep enough or not watering them properly. The people of San Fran should get their trees they way they will have to get their hamsters. Go out into the wild and hunt it. Once you hunt something and catch it you will have a better understanding of it.

If this anti-pet-selling does pass then the next step is to do something about people recklessly having children they can't take care of. They could make a DMV for having children. Put chastity belts on everyone and require them to take courses before they can get the key. We need a first line of defense before Protective Services even enters the picture.

^^yeah, and that delicious static facial expression

Banning doesn't work and just shows how stupid they are. Instead of trying to make the problem go away--which it won't, they should try educating people. Make people take an animal care course. If they fail, they can't buy the pet.

It's a great idea! I work in animal rescue and know for a fact thousands of animals are killed in shelters every year in our area alone. Please give homes to all the animals out there put the puppy mills out of business. Besides all that animals are living feeling beings that deserve the right to live just as much as any of us humans. ADOPT DO NOT BUY!

I'm with Cathy. I like the idea. But then again, I have never bought an animal. Adopt! There is no shortage of animals at the shelters!

They should just send all of the animals to Africa so the starving kids can eat them. It's a win-win situation.
Except for the animals.

Has anyone ever TRIED to find a breeder for a small companion animal (ie not dog or cat)? Because they are few and far between, and certainly can't keep up with the demand that would result from banning sales in pet stores.

I like the waiting period idea mentioned above, as well as cracking down on puppy mills and the specific pet stores that support them.

I think the ban will be similar to craigslist rules, where a person can still charge an "adoption fee" for the pet to ensure they are in good hands, which is actually a great idea for most animals.
Still, there are certain animals that are just too hard to come by through adoption, such as chinchillas, that should still be available for purchase. It shouldn't be such a blanket rule.

Cathy, adopting instead of buying is a wonderful practice. However, my family purchased our dog from a local pet store owned by a family friend. Were we a little to the north, they'd now be facing closure. They support animal rescues and, in fact, encourage people to check the local shelter/rescue chapter before buying at their OWN store. That said, they are a store. Why should they be penalized for stupid customers?

Ultimately, that's the thing I have issue with here. They're deciding, as a city, to eliminate the wrong part of this equation. If the problem is so great in San Francisco, institute a waiting program or- as someone else suggested- a class. Don't punish responsible, reputable pet stores and their owners for the mistakes of potential buyers!

And, yeah, what the hell is with the fish?

Even cities have pet peeves.

I kind of feel like fish always get the short end of the stick. If they're going to ban pets from being sold they should ban fish too. People think of adopting cats and dogs and such because they're obviously able to be taken to a shelter, can't really do that too easily for fish. Don't think people realize just how many fish end up dead because you can just flush them down the toilet. This one guy who lived in my college dorm had a gallon tank with two crabs and about 15 goldfish crammed in it. Every single thing died.

I agree with whoever said people should take classes before they can buy a pet. Should they pass and have suitable income so it shows they're competent enough to take care of it and they can provide the care financially they can buy it. I mean just look at how many people are selling their salt water aquariums on craigs list. Can't care for them anymore. It's depressing.

This is probably a Cass Sunstein-esque "Nudge" against "owning" of animals, driven by the animal-rights people, instead of any sort of anti-impulse-buy initiative. Note that they have the oh-so-PC "companion animal" code-speak, that avoids calling them "pets". That's a giveaway right there.

The "adopt, don't buy" paradigm is a strong nudge toward seeing animals as pseudo-people instead of as chattels. This is the animal rights wackos giving a shove on the frame of the Overton Window. Don't fall for it.

Selling puppies and kittens in pet stores should definitely be banned.

This is a great example of punishing good people for evils people's deeds. That's why ephedrine, a chemical found in drugs that help with breathing problems, has been banned in Florida: because SOME people might make methamphetamine out of it. Does it never occur to these lawmakers that by punishing innocent people, they're committing a greater evil than that which they seek to prevent? Following this "logic", the entire human race should be banned because SOME people might do bad things.

I think this law is good intentioned but misguided. I've been a volunteer at animal rescues, I've helped cats and dogs give birth, I've seen the sick abuse people visit upon their 'property'. The laws need to change, and more importantly the way we think of pet ownership needs to change, but I don't think this is the way to do it.

Having a pet is not a right, it's a privilege. Animals feel pain, both physically and emotionally, and we have a responsibility to care for them properly when we accept the responsibility of ownership. To me, adopting an animal is no different than adopting a child in so far as the responsibility involved. Unfortunately, human beings are really good at 'otherifying' lifeforms different than them. Throughout history we've convinced ourselves that our people are the real people and everyone else are souless non-beings so it's ok to kill them, rape them, make them our slaves. It's 2010 and we still think of animals that way. It's sad and shameful.

The right way to go about this is education and enforcement of existing laws. Start by making people take a course (similar to adoption courses) on how to care for their pet. Pass and you get a license, fail and no pets for you. Then, strictly enforce laws regarding animal cruelty and animal mills. Finally, devote some funding to education programs and rescue assistance.

"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."

... since reading the actual article appears to be optional.

Also, it has yet to pass.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/around-town/shopping/Pet-Sale-Reprieve-SF-Commissioners-Delay-Sale-Ban-Decision-98129244.html

I thought they were now 'sea kittens' not fish.

I'm so glad I moved out of that $h17hole of a city :)
Other than Newsom (the mayor), everybody involved in running SF (the board of supes, commission memembers, etc) are so massively incompetent that it's mind boggling.

You'll start seeing signs that say "$200 fancy dog collar on sale. It comes with a free dog."

ttteeecchhniicaallly they're selling the dog collar, not the dog.

What about people who buy pets and keep them? They've banned EVERYONE in the name of controlling a portion of the population.

Such a concept never goes over with americans, I've noticed. I doubt this piece of legislation will go through.

I would like to see a compromise though.

Surprised this issue wasn't up earlier: Next step, banning all people from San Francisco due to inhuman treatment of people..

Yet another brilliant idea from the lefties. Before you say " I'm a lefty and I don't agree with this!!!", ask yourself if any of these totalitarian ideas EVER come from the right?

"Can the law actually stop you from giving pets away for free -- without making the pets themselves illegal?"

I can tell you from personal experience, the answer is "No". I live in South Carolina. Up until a couple of years ago it was illegal to sell ferrets here but every freakin pet store around sold ferret cages for around $200 and they would include a "free ferret" with every cage. Anybody who could plunk down the cash for this illegal pet could get one in any number of pet stores that openly flouted the law, thus making it completely pointless and useless to ban ferret sales to begin with. I don't know why it was illegal, but I do know it was a complete waste of time and resources for such a law to be made and (maybe) enforced.

It will be the same if this pet sales ban is actually passed in SF. The pet trade will still go on almost exactly as it is now except a few stores will go out of business, and some others might actually stop selling anything but fish. The taxpayers will foot the bill for *trying* to enforce a law that has more loopholes than a knitting machine. The amount of animal cruelty and neglect cases in that city isn't going to change.

This law is a stupid idea and I hope the legislators there see that and stop it from passing. It will cause more problems than it will solve!

I encourage my friends to get pets at a shelter, but this scenario does pop up.
Friend: Hello, shelter clerk! Do you have any guinea pigs?
Clerk: This one.
Guinea pig: SNARL.
Friend: Wow, he's...vicious.
Clerk: That's why they gave him up.
Friend: Any others?
Clerk: Nope, just this one.
Friend: *Goes to pet store, finds a friendly guinea pig*
This has happened with kittens and dogs as well. Sometimes animals are in shelters for a good reason.

Thousand of animals will be put to death rather than raised. Boycott genocidal San Franciscans.

I think that's a great idea. So great in fact that the idea should be expanded. We should ban children. Clearly there are parents who are abusive and abandon their children. We could similarly prevent this abuse by simply banning the practice of having them.

San Franciscans are truely progressive and serve as a inspiration for all.

Poor fish.

Instead of ban --

License and Registration. Owner foot the bill for the process.

Just like cars.

Dogs and cats go stray, clog up under-funded shelters, really cause some serious ethical and budget problems. This law would be a good idea for dogs and cats, because there are plenty to go around for free, and they can have such a negative impact. But why for those other dumb less common pets? there's not really a hamster problem, and really, who cares if a lame hamster dies at the shelter?

Next step is to ban animal flesh sales. Vegans rejoice. :rolls_eyes:

Im very okay with a ban on the sale of puppies and kittens at pet stores. There are plenty of unwanted, perfectly good animals in shelters and (provided you can pass the screening process) you can just get one from there. I would like to add that birds (or at least parrots) should be included in this, since they are are really smart, live a very long time and can become self-harming when not taken care of properly, essentially making them as terrible a choice for impulse buys as dogs and cats.

However, I dont think this should extend to smaller animals. Its not that I dont think that rodents arent entitled to respect, but the fact of the matter is that they are often sold as food for other animals. I bought a ball python expressly because even full-grown it will eat small rodents that are commonly availble through local stores.

When I heard about this idea, I was intrigued. When I bought my first dog from a pet store I felt like I was rescuing him. He is so awesome. A great first pet. Since my good experience I have adopted 2 other animals from the street. Without the good experience with my first pet, I'm not sure if I could have adopted the other two.

I have very mixed feelings about this law.

Let the gov't monitor and close down the bad puppy breeders. If pet stores get all their puppies and small animals from approved and good breeders, most of the problems are resolved. Then work on weeding out the bad pet stores. This is still AMERICA, and people and business need to be up to gov't standards. This is NOT a communist country. Good, well run pet stores exist. They bring fun and animal companionship to many families. The typical pet store owner works hard and long hours for a minimal (if any) profit. Animal rights activists have good intentions, but their focus is off.