S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.

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.

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.

"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

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.

The Board of Supervisors would have final say on the matter.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/MN9L1EAT90.DTL

---

This should be more of a headline grabber than a very serious consideration unless there's something that the people with kneejerk "nanny state" reactions don't know much about animals. And is it really necessary to strangle pet shops during a recession? I say no.

[HockeyMom]

1. I have adopted every single cat I ever owned

in my entire life, going back to childhood. I have a mixed Maine Coon cat who was resued as a kitten, minus his mother, off the side of a highway. He just turned 20 years old. Would he have lived that long on the streets?

[StarryNite]

6. I hope you know you're a hero..

:loveya:

I'm particularly opposed to pet shop dogs and cats because so many of them come from puppy mills. A lot of people think that before a woman has an abortion she should be forced to watch a video of the procedure. How about if before a person buys a dog or cat from a pet shop they should be forced to watch a video of healthy dogs and cats being euthanized in dog pounds because there are more animals than there are homes for them. Once again, it's a matter of greed on the part of irresponsible breeders. And I'm not saying all breeders are irresponsible.

[HockeyMom]

14. Every cat I ever adopted

has been spayed or neutered by either the adoption agency, or us. All my cats have subsequently been indoor pets. I now live in Florida and my only concession to that has been to let them go out onto our enclosed, screened in lanai with us. I get nervous even letting them outside on the lanai when I am not with them.

I say "them" because we recently lost our 14 year old Tortie girl (adopted) to kidney failure last January. She liked basking in the sun, but our 20 year old Maine Coon doesn't like the Florida sun. He only goes out on the lanai at night. Not surprising. lol

[StarryNite]

37. Good for you!

I'm so sorry your Tortie died. It's heartbreaking when they pass. That's why I can't understand how people can be so cavalier about letting their dogs remain un-spayed and un-neutered. Don't they realize how many animals, in the millions, are put down every year? Don't they care?

Between my husband and I and our grown daughter and son, we have six dogs and one cat. All of them are adopted from various organizations and places. The newest member is a stray my husband and I found when we were camping last summer. Actually, she found us. They're all females and have all been spayed either before we adopted them or after. I really wish more people were responsible with their dogs and cats. All of these deaths are preventable if people would just care enough.

[TerribleLarryDingle]

12. Every pet I have owned

3 dogs and 3 cats are from the Atlanta Humane Society. Mutts make the best dogs imo.

[Rhiannon12866]

40. K&R. All my pets have been rescue, too.

With the exception of my current pup, a pet shop rescue who had a health problem, I've adopted senior animals. People who patronize pet shops are just ignorant. :(

Kudos to you! I feel the same way about my guys. I adopted my beloved cocker at age 10 or 11 and had him for eight wonderful years. :)

[wordpix]

139. my friend rescued 2 pups from a pet shop. She said they looked so sad

and were in filthy cages so she bought them on the spot.

[Rhiannon12866]

170. I can't go into pet shops where they sell animals, or I'd do the same thing...

A vet tech at the local Animal Emergency Clinic rescues the ones with health problems and places them. I was offered Jack, an eight-pound, five-month-old Brussels Griffon (with a hernia that was repaired when he was neutered) and I just couldn't resist that face. Still can't... :loveya:

[Ignis]

57. Same here, and we've had a few over the years.

Adopted kitties have more love to give. :D

:yourock:

[saracat]

103. Ahem. You realize you never "own" cats? They "own" you!

I am currently "owned" by two. They sometimes allow me out in order to provide for them in the manner to which they have become accustomed!

[tango-tee]

115. Now *that* is a given.

When my son got married last June in Texas, I left Mosche the Cat in the care of a lovely, cat-loving young girl. No problems. Once I returned home, he seemed to be fine, purring and smooching. But then... within the next 24 hours he pooped on the sofa, the armchair and my pillow on the bed. And he kept giving these smelly gifts for weeks on end. I'm not going anywhere in the near future, believe me.

[tango-tee]

112. Same here.

Mosche the Cat just turned sweet sixteen.

[Chulanowa]

2. And the sad irony...

The tropical fish trade is perhaps one of the most environmentally-damaging aspects of the pet industry, save for those species which regularly breed in captivity. Marine pet fisheries are especially dangerous. And given that collecting reef fish often involves wholesale reef destruction / poisoning, I would say it rates above even the exotic bird trade in terms of harm done.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

52. hmm, seems like that's info you should send to the SF Commission.

Sounds like something they need to be informed of.


Thanks for the info!

[jgraz]

63. I agree with you on tropical fish. We're trying for as much as we can.

We were lucky to get birds into this round. They were going to prevent sales of gerbils, but still allow pet stores to sell "small birds", which includes some species who live to be 40 and have the intelligence of a 3-year-old child.

Fish may have to be a separate fight, since you'd be effectively outlawing the tropical fish trade. It's not like people can go down to the shelter and pick out a triggerfish. That doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile cause. It's just a different fight that might distract from this one.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

68. hmm. yes, I see your point.

Can,t really discuss more...power,s out. I,m on my Droid

[Chulanowa]

70. I thought the state of California had already outlawed gerbils and hamsters?

Something about the southern Californian climate making them a potentially very damaging invasive species?

[jgraz]

87. I believe it's just gerbils.

But I haven't followed the small mammals very closely. I do know that monk parakeets are illegal for the same reasons (specious, in the case of the birds).

[Chulanowa]

96. Monk parakeets have established breeding colonies in many places in the US

In fact there's a colony of red-faced parakeets living on Telegraph Hill right there in San Francisco. There are several feral parrot populations up and down California, along the gulf coast (I lived neat a small colony of feral cockatiels in western Mobile County in Alabama) and even inland and up the east coast. In the case of the gulf and east coast, feral monk parakeets are actually a benefit, as they end up filling the ecological niche left by the extinction of the Carolina parakeet. Elsewhere... they're as much a pest as any other feral bird. Though on the plus side, they compete with pigeons, and actually cause less damage than those flying rats, because their poop is less acidic. A lot of pet parrots actually come from temperate or subtropical zones (the monk parakeet actually comes from a rather chilly range in the Andes) so they establish fairly well in the US.

While I wouldn't say they're ecologically damaging (perhaps in areas where there are still bluebirds or other native hole-nesters, it could be a problem) I guess I can't blame California for not wanting to muck up their assorted species more than they already have.

[jgraz]

98. I'm very familiar with the SF feral parrots. I have four of them living in my house.

I can see the point about not wanting non-native species taking hold in California. It's just that canard about crop damage that I think is ridiculous.

BTW, don't be too quick to dismiss pigeons. They're really wonderful birds who make great pets. (Our group does pigeon and dove rescue, too)

[Chulanowa]

104. ...Crop damage?

Crop damage.

CROP DAMAGE?!

:rofl:

Yes, the ravening hordes of monk parakeets that will denude the whole and breadth of california!

[jgraz]

113. Stupid, huh?

Makes you wonder if the gerbil fear is that well-founded.

[Darth_Kitten]

153. I think pigeons are such funky birds......

I've always gotten a kick out of them. :)

[jgraz]

161. They're sweet, scary smart and their vision is almost supernatural

They see in five colors (we see in 3), can discriminate between wavelengths that look identical to us and they see well into the ultraviolet. It's estimated that they can distinguish around 1 trillion separate colors (though we really have no clue how they'd process that much information).

Also, their constant head-bobbing lets them use parallax to build a three-dimensional view for each eye. Even compared to other birds, their vision is extremely complex and sophisticated. Freaky, almost.

[XemaSab]

167. Gerbils are illegal in California

n/t

[jgraz]

169. Yeah, I meant hamsters

[Tejas]

3. Who are those idiots?

Do they just sit around and discuss various maniacal plans of how to insult the people who pay their salary? I saw NO mention of citizens filing complaints etc with the dept, this is simply some hair-brained idea cooked up by a department head that wants more POWER over citizens.

Are they THAT bored?

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jgraz]

18. Actually, I was one of the citizens involved in filing complaints.

I work with a parrot rescue and the majority of our intakes are "bad outcomes" from pet stores. We've taken in birds that have been severely traumatized by poorly-prepared or abusive adopters, birds that have been starved or left to die of diseases in their tiny pet store cages and birds that have had their feet bitten off by rats attracted by the filth in cages that were never cleaned.

There are many pet stores that do just fine without selling animals. The big profit is in the accessories and food anyway. Pet store owners have fought us for years on basic inspection and licensing requirements. This is our latest attempt to cut down on profit-driven abuse and to hopefully take some of the pressure off of severely overloaded and underfunded rescue organizations.

Maybe you should try donating a bit of time to your local animal rescue. You'll gain a better understanding of the suffering caused by profit-driven animal sales.

[Plucketeer]

26. Hats off to you!

We've had parrots in our home since I rescued one flying free in LA in 1984. They're SUCH precious creatures, and I can not fathom idiots mistreating them as in the many horror stories I've heard thru the years.

[Yavapai]

33. We have five african grey parrots.

We started with them in 1985, and my wife completely cleans their large cages every other day. When we travel, we travel in a Rv that has space
for them plus our dog (a Rottie) and two pet quail who live without being caged. The only thing that we have a problem with is the thought that they
will probably outlive us and we will need to find really good adoptive people for them.

Now, if I lived in San Francisco, I couldn't sell them. I guess I would be forced to just "flip" Ole San Fran the bird...

[jgraz]

34. You'd really want to sell your birds?

Instead of finding a competent rescue organization to place them in an appropriate home? Seriously?

[Lorien]

39. I can't imagine asking anyone for money for one of my pets

even when I had a serval hybrid that needed a home and was worth $5,000 I never thought of asking for any money for him. Finding a safe and loving home was my only consideration. Selling a pet that I had owned for 25 years?? Never!

[jgraz]

44. I honestly can't fathom the heartlessness of some people.

Caring for a creature like an African Grey is a huge responsibility. They're not one of your "possessions" that you just sell to the highest bidder. It's this sort of mentality that leads to the hundreds of emotionally damaged birds we take in each year.

[Tejas]

42. Jail people or educate them - more $ in jailing them?

Education of the public as to the problem would go a lot farther than drafting laws to throw everyone in jail.

I question motives here.

[jgraz]

43. Does the fact that you're completely ignorant of the situation give you any pause?

We do educate the public. I teach classes almost every weekend on proper bird care, avian lighting and intellectual enrichment for parrots. We go to pet stores and try to work with the owners on properly caring for their "merchandize". Some listen, many do not.

This law comes at the end of a long, frustrating process of dealing with unscrupulous animal sellers -- a long, heartbreaking process of dealing with sick, dying and/or traumatized animals that store owners couldn't care less about.

So you go ahead and question all the goddamn motives you want. I guess things seem pretty simple on your side of the keyboard.

[Tejas]

74. 2-way street there Mother Superior

"This law comes at the end of a long, frustrating process of dealing with unscrupulous animal sellers -- a long, heartbreaking process of dealing with sick, dying and/or traumatized animals that store owners couldn't care less about."


Again, where are the angry crowds of citizens jamming City Council chambers demanding action? If the problem were even remotely as drastic as you claim, the evil corporatist store owners would've been put on notice by Animal Control, heck, PETA would've run them out've business by now.

Your allies downtown are just hucksters looking to justify their existence and fatten their coffers with tax dollars.


By the way, who annointed you the expert in this thread?

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

89. "where are the angry crowds demanding action?" - cat got your tongue?

Oh wait, they showed up at the meeting.



All two of them :rofl:

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tejas]

122. Yes, everyone in this thread is stupid, we heard you the first 35 times.

Good luck in your persuit of domination over the citizens of SF.

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[backwoodsbob]

134. while your intent is obviously noble this law would AT BEST

have no affect and could make things worse.Pet stores will simply locate one block outside city limits and go about their business.

If you REALLY want to have a positive effect may I give a humble suggestion?

Instead of just moving pet stores out of the city limits why not instead push for registering/licensing of store employees and pet owners?

All store employees would have to be trained in the care of any species they sell and any person wanting to own whatever must take a class first and be certified by the instructor.

In your case,birds,the city could pay you to hold a class once or twice a month and you would certify..or not,the prospective owners.

Also throw into the mix that owners must submit to inspections and if the animal is not being treated properly they lose their rights to the animal.

Seems like that would be more effective than simply pushing the stores into the next neighborhood :shrug:

[BlancheSplanchnik]

55. Good work. Did you see post #2? I think that's some critical info there...you might want to act on

that too.

Yes, many many uninformed irresponsible people buying pets on a whim. I've done it myself over the years (don't want to pretend to perfection). I want to see some protection for those animals.

[jgraz]

65. Yep. The fish thing is going to be a different fight.

I'm just happy we got birds into this round.

[wordpix]

140. THANK YOU!

[XemaSab]

168. I read this whole thread

and I am with you 100%.

[Hansel]

23. They are the ones who are forced to clean up after idiots

who refuse to take responsibility for the pets they abuse, torture, neglect and throw away. They are the ones who are forced to kill 10's of 1000's of terrified innocent animals every year because of the irresponsibility of people who buy pets on an impulse and aren't even responsible enough to spay or neuter them. They are tormented souls who get daily complaints filed through the eyes of those on death row.

I worked in a humane society and in animal rescue for nearly a decade. There is absolutely no excuse for the way some Americans treat animals. And there are plenty of animals in humane societies so there is no need for the mass breeding of animals in the deplorable conditions of puppy and kitten mills so they can be sold in stores to people who have no business having a pet.

And no, they are not bored at all. They are disgusted and heart broken. And trust me, they do not give a f*ck about those who feel insulted by this. And neither do I.

[Ignis]

58. A decade? That's amazing.

:yourock:

[Chulanowa]

105. I applaud you on your work and dedication

I did a pit bull rescue for all of two years, and even with only a very few dogs coming through (it was a small town) it became more than I could take. Once you toss out all the sensationalist horror stories, they are wonderful animals, and even at their dying moment they're just oozing affection for you. To this day, if I mention I worked as dog rescue, I get compliments and interest... and then I get treated like I'm some sort of sociopath because i took care of the pits.

Anything that can shut down the mills has my support. That goes for the small animals as well as dogs and cats; after seeing the treatment that "surplus" rodents get in the back rooms of pet shops...

[TheEuclideanOne]

31. Surprisingly, I am the only one who agrees with you

Yeah... yeah....yeah..... pet horror stories.... blah.... blah..... blah.....

I have always had dogs and cats and currently love my dog very much. I actually like him more than most peoople. I am happy that a pet store sold him to me. Sure, maybe I would be a saint if I got him from the humane society, but I didn't.

My point is that there are more than just horror stories that come from people buying pets from pet stores. There are kids who get there first pets, women with enough cats to never need to date again, snakes that have an endless supply of hamsters, blind people with guide dogs. All sorts of happy endings. Besides, if you ban the selling of pets, people will just get them from the Hamster black market. You will see guys opening up their trench coats saying "Hey, you need a hamster?", selling hamsters on the street corner. Do you really want that? I know I don't.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

47. What are the statistics?

Out of 100 parrots sold how many are abused? I would say the vast majority of owners take good care of them. I know of only two people who have parrots, and treat them like their kids.

We wouldn't have one due to the fact neither of us is into birds in our house, plus we have cats. We do have a Bichon also we "bought" from a lady at a traders market. He was already 4 months old and you could tell he needed attention/love. She was nice enough but more than likely running a small mill, but had all his papers. Most all the dogs at the place were only a few weeks old and we wanted to make sure something bad didn't happen to him if he didn't sell.

He's three now, but come to find out he has some really bad bone structure from bad breeding and will need $1200 surgery on his knee. We will do whatever it takes for him.


I can understand working in a spot where all you see is the bad all day and becoming jaded.

[jgraz]

49. Oh FFS, this thread is setting the record for idiocy

Do you honestly expect me to have some sort of peer-reviewed, socio-economic analysis of abuse at local pet stores in the Bay Area? And even if I did, how many dead and abused birds would you be willing to tolerate? 5%? 10%?

You would say the "vast majority" of owners take good care of them? From your two-person sample? Why does this subject make people think they can just pull shit out of their ass?

We take in hundreds of birds a year. Hundreds. Most of them are bad outcomes from pet stores or breeders. Many have permanent physical or emotional disabilities.

I teach at least two classes per month on bird care. The vast majority of the people in there have NO FUCKING CLUE how to care for a parrot before they have taken the class. Every class, at least one attendee decides to get a different pet because they had no idea how difficult it is to care for a bird.

Many of the attendees have birds from pet stores already -- many have had them for years -- and they've been methodically sickening and traumatizing their birds the entire time they've had them. They aren't bad people, and they treat the bird "like their kids", but they made the mistake of listening to a clueless pet store employee on how to care for their parrot. Their bird has been fed nothing but seed, or has been left in a too-small cage with no toys for years. Or both. We can help some of the birds recover, but not all.

So no, I'm not "jaded". I'm in the middle of this issue every goddamn day. I know almost every pet store in the Bay Area that sells birds and I can think of exactly *one* that even approaches acceptable. Most are large chains that only care about the bottom line, and a few of them are fucking horror shows. A ban may seem drastic to the uninformed, but we've tried everything else to stop the abuse and it doesn't work. Maybe this law will help.

[snooper2]

50. So getting a pet for free vs. paying for it

Will help limit the numbers as far as abuse goes...

That logic doesn't make any sense.

[jgraz]

51. I educate people about birds, so I'm gonna stick with this

but you need to realize the vast amount of shit you fail to understand about this situation. Vast. Amounts.

First, they don't get the bird "for free". We ask them to pay a small adoption fee to help offset the 10-to-15,000-dollar-per-month expenses we incur, most of it for veterinarian services. And before you jump on that: NO ONE in the organization gets paid, up to the CEO. Every single dollar goes to bird care. When we have our yearly holiday party, the volunteers dig out their wallets to pay for it -- and we still use the occasion to raise more money for the birds.

Second, the adoption fee is the least of your expenses when adopting a bird. A decent cage will run you at least $500 for a medium-sized parrot, and the vet expenses are about twice what they are for dogs and cats. Mix in toys, food and accessories and you're into thousands of dollars.

Third, does it make a difference that people get their bird from a non-profit who's totally focused on parrot welfare? OF COOOOOURSE. All we do is make sure that birds get good homes and are well taken care of. No one makes a dime off of our efforts. The only objective is providing a good life for these birds.

So yes, when we take in sick and abused birds, rehabilitate them and then place them with well-educated and prepared adopters, it DOES tend to cut down on abuse. Which part of that are you having trouble with?

[snooper2]

56. I guess San Fran can be a live trial to see how it goes then

Some of what you say makes sense, but it's not like the adoption process for a pet is anything like a child. Do you inspect the family home? Do background checks?

Also, we are focusing on parrots for some reason. This is for all pets...

I think a better idea would limit the number of "new" pets that can be sold by retail stores. You don't do breeding at the shelters, so how would new stock come in after so many years? Surrounding cities? What if this was nationwide?

Regulated government pet breeders who only were allowed to breed so many of each type of animal per year?

[jgraz]

62. Vast. Amounts.

OF COURSE we inspect the family home! It's at least a 90 minute process that includes going through your cupboards to check for teflon pans (teflon gives off a gas that kills birds).

And that's after a required bird care class, a phone screen and a credit check (to see if people are financially able to care for a parrot). We're also pushing for a statewide (or national) registry of animal abusers so we can screen more effectively.

And I'm focusing on parrots because that's what I know. I don't do bunny rescue or small mammal rescue. You'll have to ask someone else about that. But I suspect that you'll hear similar horror stories. I do know that my friends who work at animal shelters deal with small mammals and that most of them are euthanized.

[boppers]

101. Teflon pans kill birds?

Any more details you can offer? I've never heard of this.

[KurtNYC]

107. All non-stick cookware emits poisonous fumes

(and produces bland food).

http://www.ecomall.com/greenshopping/teflon4.htm

[jgraz]

114. More details

A bird's respiratory system is much more complicated and sensitive than ours. Inhaled air stays in their lungs for two breath cycles. Air is also circulated throughout their skeleton and air sacs, meaning that any inhaled toxin will stay in their bodies for a very long time.

Teflon gives off toxic fumes when heated, even to normal cooking temperatures. A bird exposed to teflon fumes can experience acute pulmonary hemorrhaging and die within minutes -- or hours if they're not so lucky. Even small exposures to these fumes will build up in a bird's tissues, eventually causing death. Veterinarians are beginning to suspect that many unexplained "sudden bird deaths" are due to a buildup of toxins from teflon outgassing.

It's not just pans: clothes irons, hair driers, space heaters, self-cleaning ovens and all sorts of appliances can have parts coated in teflon. My basic rule is if I can't see bare metal, I don't buy it.

[TheEuclideanOne]

146. Perhaps if you smack the bird around with a teflon pan.

But each person has his own way of disciplining pets, I suppose. The good news is that no matter how hard you hit the bird, it doesn't stick to the pan.

[Jamastiene]

164. I know nothing about bird care and I know about Teflon toxicosis.

[Tejas]

75. "Maybe this law will help"

Maybe?

Well by golly, "maybe" sure sounds like a good enough reason to me! :sarcasm:

[DerBeppo]

92. Well,

"Do you honestly expect me to have some sort of peer-reviewed, socio-economic analysis of abuse at local pet stores in the Bay Area?"

If you're instrumental trying to get a law that makes a previously allowed action a crime, then yes.

[jgraz]

93. Because all city ordinances are based on peer-reviewed social science.

You cannot be serious with this. :eyes:

[Lorien]

38. They are more thoughtful and in touch with reality than anyone calling them

"idiots". Go to petfinder.com and search for any pet. You'll find one that's up for adoption. Even Petco now carried adoptable hamsters and rabbits. Pet overpopulation is a serious problem in this country, as are puppy mills and other types of irresponsible breeders. Shelters can't take it any more, especially since the foreclosure crisis started. Banning the sale of pets would be a good first step toward ending the suffering and euthanization of millions of uncared for animals.

[Socal31]

4. Wow..just....wow.

[NJCher]

5. good idea

I'm for it.


Cher

[FBI_Un_Sub]

7. I have adopted every cat and dog over 60 years

from "Rescue" -- but sometimes the SF Board of Managers is just plain silly.

[-..__...]

9. So... fish have no rights in SF?

Screw the discriminatory bastards that came up with this scheme!

[Posteritatis]

11. Fish are people too! (nt)

[alcibiades_mystery]

127. Think of all the traumatized fish with emotional disabilities

:rofl:

[keepCAblue]

10. Good for S.F. Now if only the rest of the country would do likewise...

...banning the sell of live animals from retailers is long overdue. This is the first step to putting the puppy mills, brokers and other inhumane and unregulated breeding operations out of business. I have seen first-hand the neglect that animals suffer in pet stores and it is inexcusable.

[Zephie]

13. I technically "bought" my wolfdog...

If you consider paying $20 to a guy that beat her sensless on a regular basis to get her away from him "buying". Poor girl had BB holes in her paws and bumps and bruises everywhere. So, technically what I did by giving money to save her life and give her a loving home was illegal under this proposal. She's a gentle giant who adores chihuahuas and jack russles she meets at the dog parks and is best friends with our hound. I always find myself shocked when I think of what a difference $20 made in her life.

[Butch350]

15. Ah...kinda missing the point aren't we....

[Zephie]

17. Not really, money still changed hands

So technically it would have been illegal. I'm not for puppy mills and the like (I've been an active promoter of PETA and animal rights educational videos my whole life!), and maybe the solution to the hamster problem would just be to outlaw hamsters as has been done with quaker parrots and ferrets by the state of California already. But this proposal goes a bit too far in my opinion - there are other reasons someone might pay for an animal other than just an "impulse buy". My sweet Pandora's story is just one example.

[Hansel]

25. Having worked in a humane society and animal rescue for 10 years

I can guarantee you that the problem is not just hamsters. We euthanized 10's of 1000's of cats and dogs every year in a city much much smaller than SF.

[Zephie]

27. I agree, it's a much greater problem than just the hamsters

I was referring to the article making specific mention of the hamster problem in SF. The argument I was making is that the passing of this law could be potentially harmful to people attempting to help. In the case of my wolfdog, had I just called animal services on the man, they would have simply put her down for her wolf genes being considered "dangerous". I do agree steps need to be taken to reduce the amount of abandoned and subsequently euthanized animals. I apologize if my responses have been misunderstood as a statement to the contrary. I just feel that a citywide ban on animal "purchases" would be a mistake, given that purchases can be used as such a blanket term to cover just about any situation where money may have changed hands. The whole of the USA, not just the city of San Francisco could use some extensive animal ownership and rights reform.

[Duppers]

16. you saved a life

and that's tops in my book.

:yourock:

[keepCAblue]

28. The law is aimed at pet stores (retailers) and backyard breeders...

...not at good Samaritans who rescue animals from abusive or neglectful conditions. The goals is to shut down the pipeline that keeps puppy mills and irresponsible backyard breeders in business.

[Ignis]

59. LOL, you're more likely to get in trouble for not paying tax on the sale.

[CreekDog]

19. Well they asked all the animals first

But the fish never said anything. :shrug:

[Robb]

20. The dogs claimed they were treated ruff.

[tomm2thumbs]

21. why don't they just ban outright pet ownership - why do fish get a free ride??

yes, sarcasm.

if San Francisco's city govt is attempting to look stupid, I'd call it a grand success -- if the problem is 'hamsters' as the article says, then regulate hamsters

[jgraz]

29. I really don't think it's SF that's looking stupid right now.

Perhaps a bit of self-education before your next post, hmm?

[tomm2thumbs]

54. (holding up mirror)

how's that? better?

[jgraz]

64. Not sure why you're proud of your ignorance on this issue

Most people would be embarrassed to pop off on a subject they have no clue about.

Once again, go volunteer at your local animal rescue. You might learn something.

[tomm2thumbs]

109. (holding up mirror)

[Name removed]

111. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wordpix]

142. lol, you nailed it, jgraz

[LostinVA]

46. I think SF government's looks educated and compassionate, but stupid

eom

[Ignis]

60. What's wrong with adopting a pet from a shelter?

:shrug:

[Skip Intro]

22. Awesome! K&R! nt

[femrap]

24. I love San Francisco....

adopt the poor animals that are already here at the pounds.

I've never liked pet store pets....puppy mills.

And I don't particularly like 'people' who make $$$$ selling pets when there are already so many available at the pound.

San Francisco had one of the first NO KILL pounds in the US.

San Francisco has always been the most tolerant and avant-garde of this nation.

I miss living there....so many caring and intelligent people compared to the rest of the nation.

OPer....are you saying you don't give a rat's ass about the animals just so the 'people' who own them make $$$$$$?????

[jberryhill]

30. City ordinances regulating trade in livestock aren't unusual

...but I can't see getting excited about this either way.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Unvanguard]

35. Good for SF. Commercial sale of animals is a terrible business. n/t

[Kringle]

41. what about lobsters .nt

[boppers]

102. What about fungi?

Don't kind-of animal, kind-of plant, but-not-actually-either, species, get any consideration?

(I see your point and raise it)

[Whoa_Nelly]

45. This won't stop animals from being sold or traded behind closed doors

And would think it would increase the risk of fewer animals being vaccinated, and possibly more animals being treated with cruelty.

WTF are these idiots thinking?

[hughee99]

61. You're missing the point, it makes everyone "feel" like they've done something good.

Basically, they've outlawed pet stores in city limits because some pet owners aren't responsible with their pets.

[jgraz]

66. Basically, you have no clue what you're talking about.

No. Fucking. Clue.

Go read some of my posts on this thread. I'll check back to see if you've managed to educate yourself.

[hughee99]

67. No clue?

From the article...
"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

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.


You can still get a pet, you can still take shitty care of it, you can still drop it off at a shelter, and it can still be euthanized. After reading your posts I still don't see how I'm incorrectly interpreting this plan.

Will people not be able to buy pets and only afterward, realize they're in over their head?
Will they not be able to drop those pets off in a shelter, where they will likely be euthanized?

[jgraz]

69. Yes, absolutely zero. None. Nada.

You read an article from 3000 miles away and that somehow gave you the illusion that you know something.

I live here, work in animal rescue and have worked directly on the pet store issue for years. Forgive me if I don't take you and your little keyboard seriously.

If you want to see the problem that pet stores cause, go volunteer for your local animal rescue. You'll see neglected, abused and sick animals sold to people who have no idea how to care for them. Animal rescues don't do that. We screen carefully and educate people before allowing them to adopt pets.

At the very least, read up a bit on the issue before you insult me and the other committed people working on this. My clue-stick is getting a bit worn out.

[hughee99]

72. Did you actually read the article?

From the article...
"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

The idea originated about two years ago, when the commission began looking into a ban on dog and cat sales as a way to discourage puppy and kitten mills. But the city's animal control staff said that excess puppies and kittens are not the problem at the city shelter, thanks to the plethora of rescue groups. In any case, only one or two pet stores in San Francisco sell dogs and cats. The rest stick to small animals.
The hamster problem

The real problem, staff said, is hamsters.

People buy the high-strung, nocturnal rodents because they're under the temporary impression that hamsters are cute and cuddly. But the new owners quickly learn that hamsters are, in fact, prone to biting, gnawing through expensive wiring and maniacally racing on their exercise wheels at 2 a.m.

So the animals end up at the shelter."

There's NOTHING about neglected, abused and sick animals in pet stores in the article. People who want pets can still go just outside city limits, or get one through the classified ads. Many will then bring them into the same animal shelters that they did before and you'll have the EXACT SAME PROBLEM. I'm not arguing about the problem, I'm just saying this is not any kind of a solution to that problem.

You can tell me to "get a clue" and "educate myself", and lob your personal attacks all you want because it's easier than explaining how this will fix anything, but if you think this will even put a significant dent in the problem, perhaps you're then one most in need of your "clue stick". As far as insulting you, I haven't done that until now, though I did insult this proposal. But then you've managed to insult just about everyone you've responded to on this thread, so I don't feel too bad about doing it.

[jgraz]

79. Because an article in the paper is undoubtedly more accurate than someone who's actually there

:eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

82. You really have the patience of a saint.

Now you see why I rarely participate in animal threads on DU. I can't handle the frustration of arguing with the Aggressively Ignorant.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hughee99]

86. Exactly, why would I trust quotes from the Commission Chairwoman

on the proposal, or the SF animal control staff, who knows if they've ever been to San Francisco. :sarcasm:

Which piece of information am I basing my opinions on isn't accurate?

Do people in SF only or mostly buy pets only from pet stores in SF?
If SF pet stores stop selling pets, will people not go to the next town over and buy animals or get them through the classified ads?
When those animals turn out to not be what they expected, will people keep them anyway instead of bringing them to the shelters?
Will the shelters not end up having to euthanize a significant percentage of them?

Is this statement from the Committee Chairwoman not true?
""People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

Is there some other, greater, purpose for this policy that the Chairwoman isn't saying?
Is this not an actual quote from her?

People are still going to get these pets, they're still going to have problems with them, and they're still going to bring them to shelters. Despite the name calling, you haven't presented a single actual argument to explain why my conclusion that this will not have a significant impact is wrong. Sorry, saying that I don't live there, "educate yourself" or calling me ignorant doesn't qualify as an actual argument by even the loosest definition.

[KurtNYC]

110. +1

[jgraz]

117. A good question, considering she's simply repeating the info that rescue groups have given her

You really don't understand how things work, do you? :rofl:

[hughee99]

118. Still, you're not even close to making a point.

Look, if I don't understand how things work, and I can't trust newspapers, the internet, or anyone who's not from San Francisco, then why don't you take a shot at EXPLAINING THINGS. Apparently you're the only person in a position to make informed statements on the matter, but I have over and over asked you to refute my conclusions and you have completely failed at it. It's clearly NOT because you don't have the time to do it, since you seem to have found the time to make personal attacks, so here's another conclusion that I've come to.

Either my conclusions and the information they are based on are essentially accurate, or it's just that YOU are not capable of forming a sufficient argument to refute them.

Now go on with your little, "your ignorant, ROLF" act that you've been substituting for an argument, but you're the one who looks like a fool here.

[jgraz]

120. You're the one who leveled the charges. Still waiting for you to back them up.

1. My fellow volunteers and I are just doing this because it makes us "feel" like we've done something good. Not that we're actually doing anything -- or have done anything, but that we're just so stupid and naive that we waste our time instead of really helping animals. That's a pompous and condescending insult, leveled from your comfy computer chair after reading a single article. You've yet to support that charge.

2. We've outlawed pet stores in city limits

Again, this is a completely uninformed statement. No one has outlawed "pet stores". In fact, no one has outlawed anything yet. If your precious single article has information to the contrary, please post it.

3. because some pet owners aren't responsible with their pets.

Again, pure ignorance. I've stated several times that it is pet stores that start the problem of poor animal care. They do not care properly for their "merchandize" and they do not inform owners on how to properly care for their "purchases". Sure, there are some bad caregivers out there, but that's not the problem this proposal is designed to solve.


So, I await your crushing and well-informed response from your comfy little computer chair. Feel free to read a second article if you think it will help.

[jgraz]

160. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *

Sooo not surprised. :eyes:

[hughee99]

162. We're getting closer to AN argument...

So if I understand you #1 correctly, you're turning my characterization of this particular proposal as a "feel good" rule that will do little to prevent the rodents in particular from being returned to shelters and euthanized in significant numbers into me saying all that people who volunteer in pet rescue, shelters and placements are stupid, naive and wasting their time, but not really helping animals. I agree that it would be pompous and condescending to say that, but no where did I say any such thing. Not only that but it's really disingenuous to describe it that way since you KNOW I've never said anything of the sort. If I had said anything resembling this, I wouldn't have had to pry and prod a response like this, you would have been all over me the moment I said it (and rightly so). While I realize the proposal is not to close pet stores, it is to prevent pet stores from actually selling pets.

For #2, yes, although several times in this thread I referred to this as a "proposal" or "plan", the wording in my first post gives the impression that I'm assuming it's already passed. Though I think I've been pretty clear in my subsequent posts, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

For #3, are pet owners who don't understand the pets their getting responsible? IMHO, no. You are right about pet stores, and no where in this thread have I defended pet stores, nor have I suggested that preventing pet stores from selling pets will not address some other issues (at least within city limits). What I have asserted, and what you have not even attempted to refute, is that IF this proposal is passed, people will still get pets that they are not prepared for, particularly small rodents, and that they will still bring those pets into shelters in significant numbers.

And yes, my computer chair is quite comfortable, but you already knew that. I find it easier to type when sitting down. I'm guessing you're chair is quite comfortable as well, so feel free to post your response from your similarly comfy chair.

One more thing, I could read a second, third and fourth article on this, but since you've already suggested I can't learn anything about the situation unless I live in SF, why would you now suggest such a thing?

[jgraz]

166. You could at least own up to the fact that your first post was dismissive and condescending

The scare quotes around "feel" are pretty obvious.

You really are quite wrong about #3. I deal with many "responsible" bird owners who listened closely to what the pet store employee was telling them and bought every worthless piece of crap they were told to. They also bought books with 20-year-old information in them. It's only when they get to a bird class that they realize that they've been slowly killing their bird with junk food while driving them insane with boredom and/or loneliness.

This proposal has a benefit even if it doesn't become law. Many pet stores have cleaned up their acts because of the threat of a ban. Others have simply decided to quit selling animals altogether. It's no longer that easy to find small animals at Bay Area pet stores. San Francisco is one of the few locales that has a number of animal sellers concentrated in a relatively small area. A ban in the city would have a huge impact on the number of abandoned animals.

[hughee99]

173. It was dismissive and condescending

with respect to the fact that someone feels that THIS policy will significantly impact the SPECIFIC issue that the article says it was intended to address. It will not.

I don't think I'm wrong about #3 at all. There are absolutely people who get pets that they are not prepared for, and the pet store does a poor job of giving them adequate information (or maybe even gives them bad information). "Responsible" pet owners, IMHO, will follow up on that. They take classes if available, talk to someone who has a similar animal, read books on care, especially if it's not like any pet they've had before. When you spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on an animal, you're more likely to do this research than if you spend $20 on a pair of dwarf hamsters. I'm absolutely not saying that everyone does it, but that's one of the reasons you have more people turning in small rodents than birds to the shelters.

I'm all for cleaning up pet stores, I just don't believe that preventing them from selling pets (removing the "supply") will do much to hurt the demand. People will, for the most part, engage in the same sort of purchasing activities though either private sales or out-of-town pet stores (where they'll get the same sort of information about their new pets ), bring the pets home to SF, and when the bring them to the shelter, they'll bring them to their local shelter instead of a shelter near where they bought the animal. I don't believe the impact on the number of abandoned animals will be nearly as significant as you do.

[hamsterjill]

48. I would support this in my own city!

I hope this trend catches on! Too many animals die in pounds on a daily basis, especially in my own fair city of San Antonio, Texas.

[Amaril]

53. Both of my "boys" (lab mixes) are rescues

One from a shelter and the other from a private family that was moving and couldn't take him with them.

Shelter dogs -- IMO -- make the very best of furry friends because they just seem to know how lucky they are to have found a family, but they can - sometimes - require a bit more work. My shelter baby was attacked by another dog while in the shelter - he still had horrible scabs on the back of his neck from where the other dog had bitten him when I brought him home (and he was left with a permanent white stripe in that spot in his otherwise jet black coat) - so it took several months of patient and persistent work to socialize him with other dogs........but, it was SOOOOOO worth it. He has the most loving and gentle spirit of any creature -- human or animal -- that I have ever had the pleasure of knowing.

[Ter]

71. People need to rise up and break these laws

Who's proposing these laws, police state conservatives, or the nanny state wing of the Democrats? IMO, both are an assault on freedom. This is what drives many to be libertarians.

[Tejas]

76. "I'm from the .gov, and I'm here to help you"

"Did you purchase your dog from an unlicensed source? I'm afraid him and the iguana will have to come with me."

"Wait, was that a meow I heard, are you hiding something?"

[jgraz]

97. And we get the loving quote of Unca Ronnie. Perfect.

Just perfect. :eyes:

[superduperfarleft]

81. "An assault on freedom."

Lulz. This is almost as good as the GD thread last night.

Stand up against this law, you brave patriot! How dare these fascists violate your gawd-given right to buy a puppy from a puppy mill!

And no, laws like this don't drive people to be libertarians, brain damage or the political sophistication of a 14-year-old drives people to be libertarians.

[Ter]

94. Your intolerance for the little guy makes your side look weak

Libertarians with a small "l" are from both parties sick of unnecessary laws. I've always thought that 90% of laws are BS, and this isn't helping. 234 years ago a bunch of patriots stood up so we wouldn't have these unjust laws. Let us not forget.

[superduperfarleft]

95. Are you trying out for Braveheart.

:rofl:

[alcibiades_mystery]

128. "234 years ago a bunch of patriots stood up..."

Oh Gaaaaawd.....:eyes:

[Ter]

165. Thanks for chiming into something directed to someone else

And showing your disapproval for the events that took place 234 years ago.

[alcibiades_mystery]

171. Pffffft

I chimed into your utterly cringe-worthy lionization of said events, which is embarrassing and hackey in the extreme. Who walks around talking like that? Whenever I see one of the Framer-Invoking Nuts I want to flee the room from being completely skeeved by their ugh, eeew, I can't even finish, it's so embarrassing for you.

[wordpix]

143. I guess you prefer puppy mills & owners who don't feed or clean their pets, right?

everyone has "rights" to treat their pets the way they want and then dump them when the pets get too big/too much to handle/have babies/cost too much...

Yeah, that's a great way to handle the problems of unwanted, uncared for pets such as jgraz described

[Redstone]

73. Is this real? Surely, it cannot be, even by San Francisco standards.

Or can it?

Redstone

[Tejas]

77. update - - - - - - the Fascists/elitists showed up

But most of the early speakers were more focused on caged tropical birds. Mira Tweti, the believe-it-or-not-named author of "Of Parrots and People," had a PowerPoint presentation about captive parrots and the tribulations they must endure. And a representative from In Defense of Animals called for a ban on breeding, selling and keeping birds - unless the person is rescuing the bird from an abusive home.

And while it was admittedly wrenching testimony, the average pet owner probably wanted to know if he or she would be able to buy a puppy at a local pet store. As commission Chairwoman Stephanie Stephens said, no one wants to see an animal mistreated, but what about the responsible pet owner who keeps an animal in good condition and forms a mutual bond of trust and affection?

Nope, testified the bird advocate, they shouldn't have a pet either.

In a town where it is often said that dogs outnumber children, that's going to be a tough sell.




http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/09/BAKI1EBLPK.DTL





Now, remind me...who are the idiots? :rofl:







edit - spleling

[anigbrowl]

131. You're the idiot

C.W.Nevius is the Chronicle's resident right-wing whiner. Is a liberal involved? He's against it.

[wordpix]

144. there are literally thousands of homeless pets on petfinder.com

many are purebred dogs----if you want a pet you can find one; you don't need puppy mills and unscrupulous people both buying and selling.

[Terry in Austin]

78. Why does San Francisco hate fish? -nt

[superduperfarleft]

80. I'm glad there are so many people on DU willing to stand up for the long maligned puppy mills.

[MikeW]

108. just the wrong approach

If you want to controll the problem then pass leg. that regulates the industry and make laws
outlawing puppy mills. Require licensing and yearly trianing for breeders.

That weeds out the lowlifes.

But come on people banning the sale of animals? Please, this is the kind of stuff that makes

SF look like a laughing stock.

[Jefferson23]

83. Rescue a greyhound, they literally run for their lives.

Best dog you'll ever have, except they believe they're lap dogs, lol.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

88. so fish aren't pets?

[w4rma]

91. dumb. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

99. I support what they would like to stop..

"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

[krabigirl]

100. Well, I guess there will be puppy and kitten cartels now.

[cigsandcoffee]

106. Right. Lets criminalize puppies and make meth legal.

No wonder the word "liberal" is so easy for the right wing to demonize in this country. Good Lord.

[superduperfarleft]

116. Meth already is legal, and no one is criminalizing puppies.

Good lord, indeed. The ignorance on this thread is astounding.

[MikeW]

124. Meth is legal exactly where? Thats news ....

[superduperfarleft]

126. Desoxyn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine_%28medical%29

"Methamphetamine, known by the brand name Desoxyn, is a psychostimulant drug which is FDA approved for the treatment of ADHD and exogenous obesity.<2>

Methamphetamine is currently a Schedule II substance of the Controlled Substances Act in the United States. Drugs that are listed as Schedule II substances, such as methamphetamine, are drugs that are recognized to have clinically accepted medical usage, but have high potential for abuse and addiction.<3>"

[MikeW]

172. legal only as prescribed

[cigsandcoffee]

149. Thank you for setting me straight.

For a minute there, it sounded like nitwits in the SF Commission of Animal Control and Welfare wanted to make it illegal for pet stores to sell puppies. And I could have sworn that on a recent thread in GD, a fair number of posters were calling for the legalization of recreational meth to the general public, and not alluding to some sort of prescription control.

Good thing I'm ignorant - quite unlike you - or I'd have gone on thinking I read what I read. Thanks for setting me straight, because that's the last time I'll trust my own fucking eyes, isn't it?

[superduperfarleft]

150. Again, meth is already legal, and it will be perfectly legal to buy a puppy in SF.

I don't know what a DU thread has anything to do with anything in regards to meth, and you this law will still allow someone to get a puppy at a shelter or through private sale. "Criminalizing puppies" is as much of a distortion as the death panel lie.

Not sure how you think you've debunked anything I've posted. I think you've just made it clearer and clearer that you knee-jerked and (a) didn't read the article and (b) didn't read the thread before you posted. Don't get pissy with me because you can't be arsed to understand the subject matter before you respond.

[cigsandcoffee]

151. Repeating your bizarre assertion...

...that a form of meth available for prescription is remotely related with what I said in my initial post will not help it along to becoming a valid argument.

And then there's this: it's very apparent by the article above, that a pet store selling a puppy will be an illegal act - a criminal offense, even. It will criminalize the sale of puppies by retailers. Yes, you will be able to adopt or get one from a neighbor. I'm not sure where I said the very ownership of a puppy would be illegal, but that - for some inane reason - appears to be what we are arguing about.

Perhaps you didn't like the glib way I stated my initial comment. That's fair enough. But next time, just say so instead of creating a time-wasting argument, against loosely-related tangents, that are frankly boring to address.

[TheEuclideanOne]

154. What is this world coming too. Next it will be illegal to give meth to my puppy. Our freedoms are

being taken away one by one!! Makes me happy to be a tea bagger so I can fight for getting our freedoms back and live in a world where I can take Meth and play with the Puppy that I got from a pet store.

[superduperfarleft]

155. I kno rite! This is why people become libertarians! n/t

[TheEuclideanOne]

156. So True, and as a Libertarian, if my puppy comes down with a bad

case of Doggie Meth Mouth or dies of a heart attack, I can use the great Libertarian line of reasoning... "Did you ever just think.... Accidents happen!?"

[superduperfarleft]

157. Well, it's your Personal Choice. (tm)

[TheEuclideanOne]

158. True. :)

I am actually going to move on to other things. I think that I have done my share of contributing absolutely nothing useful to this thread. I think that even that group of patriots from 234 years ago would agree that I have not really added much to this thread as it degraded from discussing (and I use that term loosely) SF Laws to talking about Puppy Meth Mouth.

Good to see at least somebody else not taking things overly serious.

[sofa king]

119. And how about the cyanide using, reef killing tropical fish industry?

Huh? If you're going to ban small pets, you need to start with tropical fish.

[jgraz]

121. Tropical fish is a different fight with different rationale.

I would welcome and help a fight to ban tropical fish. In this case, it would be an outright ban -- of sale and ownership. That's a much bigger fight than what we're currently proposing and it wouldn't be helpful to lump all of it together in one big package.

[alcibiades_mystery]

129. I'm the only one capable of comment on that

I've spent years attending to the emotional trauma suffered by reefs.

:-)

[wordpix]

145. reefs are animals, too

[Jayendra Sandeep]

125. So let dogs and cats roam the streets of the U.S.?

Breaking news: People like dogs, and dogs like people. I disagree with this odd move.

[Gormy Cuss]

130. Breaking news:

This move will, if anything, reduce the number of dogs and cats and birds and rabbits and hamsters roaming the streets. Part of the motivation for the ban is that so many of these animals end up abandoned.

[backwoodsbob]

132. this won't stop anything....that is the point

This simply drives pet stores to the suburbs.It won't change one single thing except changing the local of the pet stores

[jgraz]

135. Yeah, because picking up and moving a business is a snap in the Bay Area.

More likely, the businesses will do what other pet shops have done: just stick with the truly profitable things like toys, feed, cages and accessories. Several businesses have done quite well without live animal sales in-house.

[backwoodsbob]

136. they won't have to move

the big chain store pet stores ALREADY exist in the burbs.ALL this does is force someone to drive an extra mile or two to buy a pet

[jgraz]

137. Which will cut down on impulse buys.

And it's not an extra mile or two in San Francisco. It's more likely a 30-to-45 minute drive, maybe across a bridge.

We understand that the SF law won't solve every problem. But several Bay Area cities have already shown interest in similar bans. Some state legislators are also interested.

You're right in one sense: the big-box pet stores are the real problem. I personally don't care if we drive those assholes out of business.

[Gormy Cuss]

141. Most of the suburban pet stores in the SF Bay area don't sell dogs or cats as it is

and some don't sell animals at all. Pet stores here are largely pet supply stores.

[jgraz]

152. Yep, it's mostly the small animals

Including, as I've mentioned upthread, species of parrot who live to be 40 and have the intelligence of a human toddler.

I recently dealt with a situation where a mother bought one of these parrots as a present for her 10-year-old austistic child. She TOLD the pet store she was buying the bird for her son and they assured her it would be fine, i.e. not dangerous for her son. Of course, no one thought of the bird's safety. So, the kid treated the bird like a stuffed animal, took it to bed with him, and smothered it while he slept.

There are dozens upon dozens of these stories just dealing with birds. I'm sure the hamster rescues have similar tales to tell.

[wordpix]

147. oh you mean you GOT the point of the ban? So many here haven't

[jillan]

133. I think what they are doing is for a great cause - BUT it seems a bit extreme.

The real question is will it help stop the puppy mills? How I wish it would, but seriously doubt it.



My Rescue dog - Tobi Jo, Australian Cattle Dog & love of my life.

[wordpix]

148. something's better than nothing and from a little seed a mighty tree does grow

[wordpix]

138. Good! End the puppy mills and illegal fish and snake dealers

[X_Digger]

159. My marine tank thanks them for the exception

Not that a lot of my coral and fish come through SF, but still!

We have three rescue dogs now, and have fostered a few more in the last decade. Not sure how I feel about this issue, though.

How many people 'impulse' purchase a dog / cat? Most of the purebreeds / pet store dogs around here run anywhere from $500-$1500. (I don't know about cats, sorry.)

[kestrel91316]

163. Rats make nice pets. DOMESTIC rats. If they aren't to be sold,

where are people supposed to get pet rats? Off the streets of San Francisco?

And yeah, I'm serious.

I see the occasional rat in my practice.