San Francisco mulls ban on all pet sales, including goldfish and hamsters

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Telegraph

San Francisco mulls ban on all pet sales, including goldfish and hamsters
San Francisco, a city named after the patron saint of animals, is considering banning sales of all pets including goldfish and hamsters in a sweeping attempt to end cruelty.
By Nick Allen, Los Angeles
4:37PM BST 27 Jun 2011

The ban would cover everything from dogs and cats to snakes, lizards, guinea pigs, parrots, mice and rats.

All mammals, reptiles, amphibians, birds and fish would be banned from sale in pet stores in what would be the most radical measure of its kind in the Unite States.

Those behind the proposal want to end impulse buying of animals, which they say can lead to unnecessary cruelty, and to stop them being treated as “commodities.”

The proposed ban initially only covered dogs and cats but grew to include all other animals because they are bred “under inhuman conditions” or taken from the wild, and in the case of tropical fish that could deplete stocks in Southeast Asia.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8601312/San-Francisco-mulls-ban-on-all-pet-sales-including-goldfish-and-hamsters.html

[Seedersandleechers]

1. Great!

No puppy or cat mills. Now maybe shelter animals will have more of a chance of getting adopted.

[jwirr]

6. I understand why many would support this but where do people who

want a pet get one after the shelters are empty?

[EFerrari]

26. You'd drive or bus to the next county -- a 10 minutes drive

to San Mateo Country, freeway the whole way to Serramonte shopping center, for example.

[mulsh]

36. I know many people from SF are afraid of it but Oakland has

lots of aquarium supply stores. We have thriving Asian communities and in SF I see lots of aquarium supply stores in Asian neghborhoods. Our animal shelters have all been upgrade in recent years.

You can take a bus, BART or a nice ferry ride, you can even have cocktails on the ferries.

[EFerrari]

45. I was born on Pill Hill.

:)

[mulsh]

146. me too, at Providence Hospital

it's still on Pill Hill but its now called Providence Pavilion, kinda festive :toast:

[harmonicon]

37. Now that would be a great problem to have.

I only wish that that day would eventually come. If it ever does, by some miracle, I think we'll start to look into solutions.

[PotatoChip]

42. I haven't gone to the link yet,

but my guess is that they would still allow for licensed breeders to continue selling purebred cats and dogs under existing laws.

Plus, many shelters don't (can't afford) to spay/neuter the pets they adopt out, even though they highly encourage the people doing the adopting to do it. Often w/discount vouchers from charitable local vets. I don't know if that is the case in SF, but it is where I live, and too often people won't do the right thing voucher or no.

The point is, I think it'd be unlikely that there would be a shortage of unwanted pets, sadly. But this law, if passed might help cut down on the number.

[hamsterjill]

43. To San Antonio

We're still killing massive numbers on a daily basis because there is no where for them to be homed. It is maddening and it is very sad.

If you find a dog or cat, rabbit or duck - whatever that you want, and to save its life, we'll figure out a way to ship it to you if we can possibly do it!

I'm not trying to grind on your post. But the AKC has used this argument for years to substantiate the continuation of puppy mills, etc. We are a LONG way from having empty shelters!

[WatsonT]

72. Get a lot of goldfish in animal shelters do you?

[edbermac]

2. What about ants?

Oh, Gawd!

[chervilant]

3. Wow!

It's about time!

[hack89]

4. What about circumcised pet? nt

[rayofreason]

53. Just don't feed it ham. n/t

[slackmaster]

5. That would be unconstitutional - The state of California regulates commerce in pets.

Local governments can't legally make up their own regulations.

Slam dunk.

[pscot]

7. Yes, bu this is about the abscence

of commerce in pets.

[slackmaster]

8. San Francisco has tried to ban sales of handguns multiple times, all found unconstitutional

This is exactly the same kind of thing.

Obviously an outright ban falls under the heading of regulation.

[pscot]

12. I have a constitutional right to own a cat?

Man! The Framers thought of everything.

[slackmaster]

14. It means that cities and counties in the state of California have no power to ban the sale of cats

Your rights are not the issue. This is about government powers.

But you do have a constitutional right to own a cat, for what it's worth.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[sudopod]

90. The right to privately-purchased kittens is in the Constitution.

Look it up, commie.

[Ter]

9. Federal marshals need to arrest anyone who votes for this

Stores need to ignore this law if it passes, and sell it anyway. This is gonna start a Tea Party in SF, great that's all we need! :(

[sudopod]

92. First they came for the kittens, and I said nothing.

This is clearly the first step on the road to granola-flavored fascism, I tell ya what.

[Imajika]

10. Thank god most Democrats don't think like the ones in SF

We'd never win another election almost anywhere.

This is taking "nanny state" to a whole new level of stupid.

You'd think with all the problems facing San Francisco, they could find a better use of their time than trying to stop people from buying goldfish and guinea pigs.

[slackmaster]

13. It's not really about stopping the sale of pets, because the supervisors know the law won't stand

It's about creating the appearance of caring, in a world where intentions and emotion are everything and results don't count. It's government by Kabuki theater.

[spin]

16. Another "feel good" law that accomplishes nothing. Just what we need. (n/t)

[EFerrari]

30. Who is this "we"? You're not even in California.

lol

[Throd]

66. Well I am, and I think it is ridiculous.

[EFerrari]

68. Is El Dorado County a no kill shelter?

They don't have a person answering the phone and their website is out of commission. But I bet you can buy anything you want there.

[Throd]

69. I can also circumsize the toy from my Happy Meal up here.

[EFerrari]

71. So you don't know if your shelter is no kill or not?

:)

[Throd]

80. I don't buy the relevance

Shutting down unethical breeders should be the chosen route to the puppy mill problem. If people want to purchase an animal from a reputable pet store, they should be able to.

For the record, my pooch is a rescue from the Long Beach shelter.

[EFerrari]

83. Shutting down impulse buys works for me.

If people are bent on buying a pet, they have the resources to go ten minutes on the freeway to Daly City or to Oakland to make that purchase. We don't even have enough adequate housing for people in San Francisco. Slowing down the stream of dumped pets is a legitimate goal.

/typo

[Throd]

86. Sending folks to Daly City seems to be the answer to everything you don't approve of.

[EFerrari]

89. As long as they don't eat my supper at my uncle's house.

lol

The thing is, San Francisco is not an island. It's connected by freeway to everywhere. There is no real effect in banning pet sales except to make people have to think about what they're doing before they go to Daly City or Oakland or anywhere else to get the animal they want. Making people think about what they're doing can't be all bad.

[Throd]

96. They might be thinking "Crap! Why do I have to go to Daly City for everything?"

We both agree that puppy mills are horrible. We just disagree onways of combatting them.

About once a year we agree on something. "Holy shit, I can't believe I'm agreeing with her on this!"

[EFerrari]

98. Good enough.

lol

I actually love pet stores. Visiting pet stores was the closest I came to having a pet as a kid. But recently, seeing all these guys being dumped around here has just really overwhelmed me. People come up here and shove their cats and dogs out of the car and I find them one or two or three days later if we're all lucky, scared shitless. The other night, I saw four kittens running across the road. They couldn't have been 8 weeks yet and given the coyotes, they most likely won't get to 9 because they ran away too fast for me to catch. I'm open to suggestions, that's for sure.

[Throd]

102. Don't go to Long Beach harbor, it will break your heart.

I kept bringing kittens and puppies home until my wife had to put her foot down. "Miguel, you can't save them all."

[EFerrari]

103. You guys are lucky because the rescue community in that area

rocks the house. They are ruthless, lol. They've recruited just about every vet in the phonebook to help out. But, they can't will homes out of the air. If our pet sales ban is successful, maybe you will get adoption tourists. :)

[spin]

107. All to often "feel good" laws that start in California spread across the nation ...

so eventually it may make its way to Florida.

[EFerrari]

109. Feel good law, my granny. What is your community doing

to avoid dumped pets when funding is being slashed for everything?

[spin]

114. In the first place, I live in one of the poorest counties in Florida ...

they do the best they can but they were limited even before the economic problems.

We try to help and often keep a stray dog until we can find an owner.

My cat was found as a tiny kitten by a neighbor child's father in the engine compartment of his car. When he threatened to kill it, his eleven year old daughter brought the kitten to us. I adopted it and now he is my best friend and lives a good life. Of course, he is neutered. He appears to have come from a long line of feral cats as he still has the attitude of a wild animal although he trusts me.

I fail to see the value of stopping all sales of pets. While there are owners who are too responsible to own any animal, the majority love and care for their animals.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, I have often said that I would love to return as a cat or dog that was the pet of a loving owner.

[EFerrari]

123. So, do you not know what your community is doing?

That's fine. But before you put down mine for trying to avoid animal abuse or worse, shouldn't you at the very least try to find out what the hell measures your community has taken if any to try to keep domestic animals safe?

[spin]

125. Where did I say that I didn't know what my community was doing?

I said "they do the best they can but they were limited even before the economic problems."

We have indeed visited animal shelters in search of a Boston Terrier which my grandson had his heart set on. We were unable to find one and he searched out a breeder on the internet that had one for sale. We visited the breeder and bought the dog. He turned out to be possibly the best dog that I have ever been around. He has a great, happy personality. He absolutely loves life and loves us as we do him.

I have known many animal owners over the years and while I have found a few that were abusive, the overwhelming majority loved their animals and were responsible owners. I've known pet owners who refused to leave their animals when a hurricane evacuation was in effect as they could not take their animals to a shelter.

While puppy mills do exist and there are disreputable dealers the idea of stopping all sales of pets is extreme, foolish and overkill. Regulation of dealers and abusive owners is a far more reasonable solution.

The idea of banning everything to prevent potential problems irritates the hell out of me. We do have a problem with obesity in our nation but I totally disagree with banning hamburgers or fast foot establishments and forcing everybody to eat tofu. This nation was not founded as a nanny state and I value freedom.

If I chose to buy a pedigreed animal from a reputable dealer I don't want to find when I call his kennel that he can no longer sell his animals because some group decided that everybody should be limited to pets at a shelter and got a foolish law passed.

As a Democrat I feel we have some very important issues to work on and banning the sale of pet animals is not one. If we continue down this nanny state path we will alienate far more voters than we attract and the Republicans will kick our ass at the polls. We will become a nation of the corporations, for the corporations and by the corporations and the middle class will disappear.

[snooper2]

135. San Fran has 5.2 million to put new roofs on your jails...

http://sfmayor.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=112

[John Paul Jones]

11. Another story about something else being banned in San Fran...

They are becoming the right-wing dictatorship of the left coast...

[BigDemVoter]

94. Oh Pu-lease

You're being victimized by right-wing talking points.

[spin]

126. The right wing will take advantage of this story to cause voters ...

to believe Democrats have lost their minds.

Why do we have to give them talking points to bash us with.

Do we want to be seen as the party that wants to ban everything from salt to hamburgers and even to the sale to pets.

[Name removed]

139. Deleted message

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

[John Paul Jones]

140. .

[spin]

15. So rather than go after puppy mills and limit the sale of animals taken from the wild ...

San Francisco just decides to ban all sales of animals.

If the city wanted to stop impulse buying it might have considered a three day waiting period.

For some reason the more extreme liberals always recently feel the solution to many problems is to ban. Ban smoking, ban salt, ban guns, ban hamburgers, ban soft drinks, ban, ban, ban, ban.

I've been a Democrat all my of my adult life and I just turned 65. I find the "Nanny State" approach to governing foolish and ill conceived in a nation that is supposed to be free.

I understand, for example, that eating fast fool on a daily basis will have a negative impact on my health. I enjoy a good hamburger from Burger King or Hardy's but I only indulge in one perhaps once a month. Somehow I don't think that the idea of banning fast food restaurants in poor neighborhoods makes good sense.

In South Los Angeles, New Fast-Food Spots Get a ‘No, Thanks’
By JENNIFER MEDINA
Published: January 15, 2011

Los Angeles is making one of the nation’s most radical food policies permanent by effectively banning new fast-food restaurants in South Los Angeles, a huge section of the city that has significantly higher rates of poverty and obesity than other neighborhoods.

A handful of much smaller cities have enacted similar regulations for primarily aesthetic reasons, but Los Angeles, officials say, is the first to do so as part of a public health effort. The regulations, which the City Council passed unanimously last month, are meant to encourage healthier neighborhood dining options. Supporters envision more sit-down restaurants, produce-filled grocery stores and takeout meals that center on salad rather than fries.

“If people don’t have better choices or don’t have the time or knowledge or curiosity, they are going to take what’s there,” said Jan Perry, a city councilwoman who represents part of South Los Angeles and pushed for the regulations. “To say that these restaurants are not part of the problem would be foolish.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us/16fastfood.html

Maybe I'm just getting old and I am no longer as liberal as I once was.

Do any other Democrats who post here feel that all these bans are somewhat ridiculous and hurt our the image of the Democratic Party?

Sorry for the rant.

[Imajika]

20. Yup, the left is plagued with some of these types...

"For some reason the more extreme liberals always recently feel the solution to many problems is to ban. Ban smoking, ban salt, ban guns, ban hamburgers, ban soft drinks, ban, ban, ban, ban."

This is the group on the left I wish we could marginalize. The type that want to rush out and ban everything they think is unhealthy or don't otherwise like. Ban fireworks, ban sugary drinks, ban kids meal toys, ban lawn darts, ban fast food, ban pet sales, etc, etc, etc.

This is supposed to be a free country and having the government interfering in these kind of personal decision making is pure nanny-statism and hardly better than the right wing fanatics wanting to ban contraception, porn, etc.

It isn't the government's job to try to create some perfect utopian society where we all eat what the government thinks is most healthy, play games the government thinks are safe, etc, etc. God forbid someone get a boo boo from a butter knife - San Francisco government would probably try to institute "knife control".

[spin]

21. Thanks, I'm glad at least one Democrat agrees with me....

I was worried that as I get older that I was starting to become a conservative. I thought it might have had something to do with my hair loss.

[Oasis_]

29. Great points

This kind of stuff also casts a poor light on Democrats nationally as well. Republicans point to the craziness that San Francisco has become and state "See, this is what will inevitably happen to our city/state/country as well if Democratic politician X is elected/re-elected"

I honestly, truly believe we could easily convert significantly more people to our side that currently vote Republican--voters that are disillusioned with joblessness, unemployment, tax policies that only cater to the wealthiest of Americans--if we were able to demonstrate that we ideologically share little in common with the extreme far left nanny statists.

All this does is give loads of ammunition to the right wing demagogues generally found on national talk radio

Oasis

[rayofreason]

54. I agree!!!! n/t

[EFerrari]

28. I doubt there are any puppy mills in San Francisco County,

too dense and too expensive, so there really isn't anything to "go after".

[harmonicon]

40. I have mixed feelings.

I'm fine with government regulations, but most bans creep me out. I am all for banning the sale of pets, but I think this is different than dealing with people... of course this may be my personal bias clouding the issue. I have no problem with strict zoning and government control of business and land uses. For instance, I think it's fine for a city to decide what sorts of businesses can go where. I'm against smoking bans, but I would have no problem with a government determining how many businesses can allow smoking in a certain area. I didn't think it was a problem when there were laws about the proportion of smoking to non-smoking sections in restaurants for instance.

It does strike me as kind of odd that these things are now somehow attached to liberals, where I do think of them as being very right-wing and tyrannical in many cases.

[InvisibleTouch]

50. Can these "mad banners" even be considered liberals?

What's liberal about curtailing people's choices and forcing an extreme ideology on others? How is that any better than the government insinuating itself into our bedrooms and our reproductive rights?

[spin]

106. In the good old days Democrats were for freedom and rights and Republicans were for big business ...

and crushing the middle and poor classes.

Democrats really didn't believe that they were smarter or better than the average person because they were the average person.

Times appear to have changed. Republicans are still the same despicable bastards they were years ago, but now liberal Democrats believe that are far more educated and therefore superior. Suddenly they feel that they can regulate behavior and create a better world.

I long for the the good old days when Democrats were union steel or auto workers, worked in factories making products for the world or were busy building our nation with their hands. They were tough as nails and drank beer and whiskey not wine. They were willing to go on long strikes to insure that those who followed in their footsteps could live a better life. They built what we have today through their sweat. They created a strong middle class and were able to implement programs that benefit all citizens such as social security, medicare and medicaid. They fought for civil rights and freedom for all.

Democrats still fight some good battles such as the right for gays to marry, but too many Democratic politicians appear to have sold out to the big corporations for campaign contributions. We see our country entering a period of decline and our middle class becoming the upper poor class. The divide between the rich and everybody else is turning into a chasm. High paying worthwhile jobs are being outsourced and while the products we no longer produce are cheaper, they often are inferior and all too often dangerous.

I read news stories like this and wonder how we could allow this to happen.

Mattel toys' lead was 180 times the limit
Updated 9/18/2007

Lead in the paint on some of the toys Mattel recalled this summer was 180 times the amount allowed by law, and Oriental Trading Co. sold jewelry that was almost 100% lead, documents released Tuesday by a congressional subcommittee show.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/retail/2007-09-18-lead_N.htm

Chinese Wheat Gluten in Deadly Pet Food Banned from U.S.
Monday, April 02, 2007

WASHINGTON — The U.S. is blocking imports of wheat gluten from a company in China, acting after an investigation implicated the contaminated ingredient in the recent pet-food deaths of cats and dogs.

The Food and Drug Administration took action against wheat gluten from Xuzhou Anying Biologic Technology Development Co. in Wangdien, China, after the U.S. recall of nearly 100 brands of pet food made with the chemically contaminated ingredient. The pet food, tainted with the chemical melamine, apparently has resulted in kidney failure in an unknown number of animals across the country.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263424,00.html#ixzz1QXAtOhCU

I lost my best friend, a cat, to this food. The vet could not believe the test results that he ran that indicated kidney failure. The results were off the scale! A month after my cat had to be put down, I learned of the problem with pet food.

It's time for the Democrats who are focused on banning fast food, salt and everything else they can think of to work instead on fighting to regain control of our country before it is too late.

[InvisibleTouch]

112. That's horrible, so sorry about your cat. :(

Yes, the poisoned pet food was unforgivable.

Rather than trying to micromanage everyone's lives, Dems need to return to the fight of giving people expanded opportunities, and yes, focusing on environmental and safety regulations. That doesn't mean banning happy meals - it means upholding safety standards for the food industry.

[spin]

117. Damn right. [n/t]

[get the red out]

17. Couldn't they just enforce existing cruelty laws?

If they want to put the money into policing the sale of pets they can put that money into enforcing existing cruelty laws it seems. Just a thought. It seems like good dog breeders (as opposed to puppy mills) aren't the enemy, for instance, and it would be a waste of taxpayer money to shut them down just to catch the bad guys. If they put all sellers of animals out of business that will just boost the sales of puppies from puppy mills elsewhere, even outside the country. I have a shelter dog and she's the best, but some people want to get a purebred puppy/kitten and that's what they are going to get no matter what.

I do not believe that non-domestic animals should ever be taken from the wild and sold as pets.

[harmonicon]

41. I don't think I'm the only one...

who thinks "good dog breeder" is an oxymoron.

[PavePusher]

47. Presumeably, you use no animal products at all? n/t

[harmonicon]

75. No. I use loads of 'em.

I eat food animals like nobody's business.

However, I also love pets, and I think it's a shame that lovable pets are senselessly killed while even more are being produced who will also be abandoned. I don't think pets should be a commodity to be bought and sold.

[spin]

111. Bullshit ...

Sitting beside me right now is a fantastic Boston Terrier. He is probably the happiest and best adjusted dog that I have ever seen.

While he has a pedigree he lacks the markings to be a show dog and was the runt of the litter. However he is well worth every penny we paid for him.

Good breeders may be rare but they exist. We were careful to find a reputable breeder and visited his kennels before we bought the dog. He definitely wasn't running a puppy mill and he was as concerned that we would be good owners as we were concerned about the quality of his puppies.

[harmonicon]

119. I think we're talking (well, typing) at cross purposes.

I understand that there are many breeders who don't abuse animals and see that they are healthy to the best of their abilities, and also only sell them to people who will give them good homes.

The reason that I think there are no good dog breeders is because we have no need for dog breeders. So long as there are perfectly good dogs in shelters, we have no need for breeders.

[spin]

124. While I have no problems with adopting an animal from a shelter ...

and in fact my family tried but we were unable to find a Boston Terrier in a shelter. We tried for several months and checked a number of shelters without finding one.

The dog I referred to was a present for my twelve year old grandson. He had his heart set on a Boston Terrier as my daughter owns one. Therefore our choices were limited and the dog was for his birthday. My grandson actually found this dog advertised on the internet. He has indeed proved to be a great dog for my grandson and in fact for all my family.

Currently we live within the city limits but if we finally sell our home and move into a more rural area we may well decide to acquire another dog. If so we will once again check the shelters.

You have to realize that pedigreed dogs have both advantages and disadvantages. If you are looking for a specialized dog with a predictable personality that suits your lifestyle, a dog from a breeder with a good reputation may be your best choice. If you are just looking for a good dog, a shelter may be the best choice as often mutts are healthier than the pedigreed dogs.

One potential problem with obtaining an animal from a shelter is that it may have been abused by its previous owners. Much depends on the age of the animal. It's a lot like buying a used car, you don't know the abuse the car suffered before the owner decided to trade it in.

Still if you are familiar with animal behavior, you should be able to find a great pet in a shelter.

[harmonicon]

131. I understand your position. I just disagree with it.

I think how a dog is raised/trained has a lot more to do with its temperament than does breed. I don't suppose I'm an expert, because I've only ever had mutts, and they've all been good dogs in different ways.

My problem isn't with people having pure-bred dogs as such, but with how they're cared for. So many people get these dogs thinking that they'll be like some description in a breeder book, only to find out that they have personalities all their own, as individuals and become disillusioned. A lot of people will also refuse to have these pets fixed, because they somehow think they'll breed them, or that their dog is somehow "worth more" if it can be bred. These are the dogs which go on to get doggy knocked-up and make lots of the mutts in the shelters.

I had a girlfriend who worked at a no-kill dog rescue where they were very careful about placing dogs with the right families. Still, in the short time she was there (3 months or so), one family took a dog home only to ask to give it back a week or two later. Why? Because it barked and dug holes in their yard. ... A dog did those things. Can you believe it? What would those same people have done with that dog if they hadn't taken it from this nice shelter in the first place? It would be just one more dog bought from a breeder and put into a shelter.

[spin]

137. I definitely agree that how you raise a dog is extremely important ...

When I lived in the Tampa Bay area of Florida I used to encounter Pit Bulls while walking and they impressed me as very aggressive dogs. However my daughter and son in law owned one that was a great dog and while it was a good watch dog it was very gentle.

When I moved to northern Florida I found Pit Bulls to be a very common bread. I have yet to encounter one that was excessively aggressive. The locals in this area appear to know how to train their dogs. Of course, many people in the Tampa area want an aggressive dog for protection. In my opinion, this is a bad idea. I prefer a good alarm dog that will alert me to a problem and let me deal with the situation.

We have had some experience with taking in dogs and saving them from going to a shelter. We have been able to find good homes for these animals.

[get the red out]

143. Well

There are those better than puppy mills. I have a shelter dog, half-Aussie/half-Mutt, so I didn't seek one out, but some people are going to buy a "pure-bred" puppy whether they go to a breeder that is at least better than a puppy mill, or orders one online (from a puppy mill) if other breeders are not permitted in their area.

[mopinko]

77. +1

[frebrd]

18. There was a time when I wished I could.......

afford to live in SF. That time is long gone!

:wtf:

[snooper2]

19. Way to go San Fran, spend money and time on shit like this, while buying bridges

from China to save a couple percentage points..

Bravo!!! :hi:

[Auggie]

38. Wrong

The bridge contract was awarded by the State of California, not the city of San Francisco.

[Freddie Stubbs]

22. Sounds like a pretty good stimulus package for pet stores right across the city line

[w4rma]

23. San Fransisco politicians are crazy. They believe in cheap labor and are hardcore on social issues.

They are like the perfect Goldwater Republicans.

[EFerrari]

31. That's nonsense. Being a sanctuary city means that undocumented people

aren't prosecuted as a matter of course and their wages go UP because they are harder to exploit. There are two or three day laborer agencies that I know of and when you call them, you pay the worker minimum wage or better depending on the job.

[w4rma]

33. San Fransisco just bought a bridge from China. (nt)

[Auggie]

39. Wrong again -- do some research, people.

The bridge contract was awarded by the State of California

[w4rma]

81. Thanks. That makes me feel better about them. (nt)

[Auggie]

100. Apologies for the snarky response above

There's no way San Francisco could fund the bridge project. But if you raised hell over former Mayor Willie Brown's battle over the bridge design (that wasted years in construction and added millions to the cost) you'd have my full endorsement.

BTW, only a handful of people get these propositions & bans on the ballots. The intentions are sound -- who doesn't want to protect animals? But they go beyond reason at times.

[EFerrari]

46. San Francisco and the whole Bay Area

is a defense industry hotbed, with everything that goes with that. But that's big name Democrats, not the SF supervisors, the majority of which have to do battle with the MIC every day to try to make the city livable for most San Franciscans and not just the wealthy.

[BigDemVoter]

116. Your reference for this spurious charge?

:)

I have a hard time seeing they believe in "cheap labor" as it's a very strong union city.

I'm not sure what "social issues" you're talking about, but do you mean those regarding gun control? I don't find those types of issues "extreme" or "on the edge."

On Edit: Spelling Error corrected

[leftynyc]

24. I used to love SF

With all the fucked up things they've done (or tried to do) in the last several years, I have no desire to go back. It's like they've taken the worst excesses of the left and put them all into one city. Ban this, ban that.....insanity. Nanny state bullshit.

[w4rma]

25. And the cheap labor policies of the right. Don't forget that. They're nuts. (nt)

[OwnedByFerrets]

27. Ban ALL pet sales or just those by "pet stores"....if its the latter

I'm all for it.

[BigDemVoter]

32. SHEESH

I've lived in San Francisco for about 15 years. I work as an RN in a local hospital, and I make more than enough money to live on, save for retirement, and do what I want. I have the city of SF to thank for its pro-union, pro-workers, pro-Democratic stand that it takes.

I've been surprised by the anti-San Francisco fervor around here. Chill out folks! You sound like fucking republicans! I mean it's not the end of the world that the city council has brought up banning circumcisions & the sale of pets! Hell, it can be quite irritating. But to state that one doesn't care about visiting SF anymore, etc, etc, etc, I found really stupid. We have the most pro-Democratic base of voters here in the country. We are known as the "cash ATM" for all Democratic candidates. Do YOU live in a perfect world? We certainly don't live in one here in SF, but I can assure you that it FUCKING beats hearing about banning something REALLY fucking idiot like Sharia law. Do you get my point? We may do some idiotic things but AT LEAST it's NOT RIGHT WING idiotic shit!

[slackmaster]

44. I find it hard to tell the difference between right-wing idiotic shit and left-wing idiotic shit

As a Chinese co-worker once told me:

"A left jack boot up your ass feels no better than a right jack boot up your ass."

Authoritarianism is the real issue.

[Matariki]

60. Oh! that's my new signature line.

[PavePusher]

48. So, it's O.K. if it's stupid... as long as it comes from the "Left"....?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RA06Z5e1ZFc&feature=related

Sigh.

[EFerrari]

52. Because trying to stem animal abandonment is real stupid, is it?

:wtf:

[PavePusher]

55. You do know how to miss a point and move the goal posts, don't you.... n/t

[EFerrari]

57. Baloney. SF critics don't even bother to think through the basics

of this issue.

[slackmaster]

61. They're not really trying to stem animal abandonment. You are missing the point completely.

The law, if passed, will not stand because it violates a section of the California Government Code that prohibits cities and counties from regulating activities that the state regulates.

The San Francisco Supervisors KNOW that it won't stand. The whole thing is political, designed to appeal to an electorate that is easily swayed by emotion.

[name not needed]

76. Yeah, but it's still idiotic shit.

[defendandprotect]

34. Agree ... and no one should be breeding animals -- cats or dogs --

[PavePusher]

49. How about cow/chickens/pigs?

And we should return all our pets to the wild?

[defendandprotect]

127. And what impact on the planet is animal-eating having? Slaughterhouses on

human psyche -- when not ignored --

We're back to "The Jungle" -- in blood and filth --

Why would YOU suggest that you or anyone else should ever behave in any

other way than responsibly to your pets?

[PavePusher]

144. Damn, 50K years of animal domestication, down the... ummm... rabbit hole.

And where was anyone suggesting anything other than responsibility? Though how a ban on pet stores relates to "responsibility", I still don't understand.

[defendandprotect]

150. Of course, it was YOU who asked ... "Should we return all our pets to the wild?" ....

Which would, needless to say, be an irresponsible suggestion -- wouldn't it?

Therefor, I responded that the expectation is that pet owners will always act

"resonsibly" towards their pets!



From your post --

How about cow/chickens/pigs?
And we should return all our pets to the wild?

[Matariki]

58. Just wondering - where would cats and dogs come from if they stopped breeding?

I really like living with cats. I sort of assume they have to come into the world via the normal channels.

[PavePusher]

63. Worst near-pun of the day....

Congrats! :toast:

[defendandprotect]

128. And you don't therefore have your pets neutered?

"Breeding" animals of course is different from what happens naturally --

There is barely an animal left on the planet who hasn't been altered in

some way by "breeding" -- from horses to dogs --

If America wants pets, they are available in animal shelters --

[PavePusher]

145. "Breeding" occurs in the wild, too.

It's just a lot slower, more random, and we call it "evolution".

[defendandprotect]

149. Eh ... no ... we have genetically altered about every species of animal... made horses smaller --

for one ---

and, in fact, many of the dogs suffer for the changes we've made in their

DNA - - !!

About as natural as Monsanto's Frankenfoods -- genetically altered!!

[Matariki]

147. Yes, my cats are neutered. And they both came from shelters.

And if everyone does that there won't be a need for animal shelters. Then I guess the few cats and dogs that manage to get born will be available only to the wealthy, due to the laws of supply and demand?

[SpankMe]

35. I'm against this.

It makes us liberals look like real crackpots.

California used to be a trend-setting, culture-leading, forward-moving and thinking state that helped move the country ahead on many important and serious issues in civil rights, freedoms and social innovations. Now, we can't even get gay marriage passed. Iowa made it happen first.

When Iowa beats California on a marquee social and civil rights issue, then it's time to throw in the towel.

When we can't win the noble fight for marriage equality and instead pursue such dumb-assery as banning the sale of pets, we have ceased being serious about making life better for people and we become a laughing stock.

I was born in S.F. and I still consider it one of America's classiest cities in a multitude of respects. But, let's not turn it - and, by extension, the whole state - into a fun house of bizarre and intrusive rules.

Let's leave the crazy to Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and the Montana state legislature.

[EFerrari]

51. Spend a month doing rescue work in San Francisco County

and then come back and tell me that pet buying shouldn't be encouraged to be more of a rational decision.

You spend a month trying to pick up terrified, dumped pets of all kinds from parking lots and parks and even dumpsters, then come back and tell me how bizarre and crackpot it is to try to slow that down, especially for a city that is trying hard to operate no kill shelters.

There's nothing more free and unintrusive than animal abandonment, that's for sure.

I don't know if this bill is the answer but I'm sure as hell glad SOMEONE is thinking about this. Services are being slashed everywhere and vets that used to help out are going under. Something has to change and starting at that first point when someone impulsively buys an animal they will not keep seems like as good a place as any to intervene.

[PavePusher]

56. Prohibition.... hmmmm, where have we seen this before.... n/t

[EFerrari]

59. The county line is about ten minutes away

in all directions. That means, you have to turn on your frontal lobes before you get in a vehicle and go buy a kitten. If you can't do that, you're probably not pet owner material.

[BigDemVoter]

62. Amen

And I really appreciated your comments regarding no-kill shelters. We have the most innovative animal shelters in the country.

Anyway,I'm not going to keep protesting & stating, "no, SF is actually a great place to live." I'm just pleased to be able to live in such a forward-looking progressive place and am thrilled not to be in republican hell. Thank God!

[EFerrari]

64. Welcome to DU, BigDemVoter.

I'm out of town right now and dealing with dumped pets every day up here in the East SJ Foothills. It hits home.

[BigDemVoter]

93. Thank you, EFerrari!

[PavePusher]

67. And we close the circle to post #55. Sigh.... n/t

[EFerrari]

70. And a #57 to you.

[shanti]

122. exactly

this is about san francisco taking charge of its animal population, and i commend them for it! as stated, you can own animals, just not BUY them in the county limits. opens up more strays to be adopted in the city. what's not to like?

:thumbsup:

[totodeinhere]

73. But why should the responsible pet owner be denied the opportunity to purchase a pet just

because someone else is irresponsible? That's not fair. I bought a beautiful chocolate lab puppy 14 months ago and provided him with a loving home. He has been neutered and he is current with his shots. Under this proposed law, I couldn't have bought him and that would be shame.

[EFerrari]

78. I bought my lab puppy up in the Gold Country.

No one denied me the opportunity to go up there and buy her.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=5688481&mesg_id=5688481

[totodeinhere]

85. Your puppy is cute. But what if you were a poor elderly person who didn't have the wherewithal to

travel that far for a pet?

[EFerrari]

87. Dogs can be real gifts to isolated seniors, I'm so there.

My first girl used to volunteer at the hospital.

But there are senior programs in town that share dogs. And if the senior is able, there are shelters, too, that need adoptive families. If the senior has dough, they can ask someone to go out of town to purchase a pure breed, if that is what is right for them. There are a lot of options.

No one really breeds dogs here, anyway. There's no room. If you want a breed, you will wind up going out of town.

[defendandprotect]

130. The shelters are full of animals who need homes -- why create more?

[totodeinhere]

134. I thought that the law was intended to end impulse buying of animals.

Couldn't someone also get an animal from a shelter on impulse? Isn't it more likely that I will provide proper care if I buy an animal for several hundred dollars? But don't get me wrong. I also adopted a rescue dog in addition to the dog I bought from a breeder. IMO there is room for both methods of obtaining a pet.

[defendandprotect]

136. You don't "buy" animals at shelters -- and when you adopt a pet from a shelter ....

they don't go out and BREED more of them!!

Rather, it's more likely that when people buy animals from pet stores that

they will get an unhealthy pet due to the poor breeding standards and

conditions the animals are kept in.

If you understand what is going on with the environment, overpopulation, Global Warming

I think the last thing we need is encouraging any more growth.

Paying for a pet encourages more breeding.

[totodeinhere]

142. I'm talking about buying from a responsible breeder, not a disreputable pet store that

obtains it's animals from puppy mills. If you want a pure bred dog, sometimes it's hard to find just what you want at a shelter. As I said, I advocate adopting rescue dogs and I have done so myself. But I also had a specific breed in mind for my other dog and that's why I bought him from a reputable breeder. And breeders like that do not breed more dogs than there is a demand for and they screen potential buyers to make sure that they can give the dog a good home.

[defendandprotect]

148. Again, wherever you PAY for a pet, it encourages breeding ....

and, yes, puppy mills are atrocious --

I'm familiar with breeders -- we did something like that when our kids were young --

however, where we are now is quite different from that time and our understanding of

where we are has to catch up.

[WatsonT]

74. People abuse and abandon children as well

but I suspect a law banning reproduction would be viewed in a dim light.

I suspect there are many legal activities that a few people take to an extreme that could be used to justify banning that activity for everyone.

[EFerrari]

79. Every community has an animal control policy. n/t

[WatsonT]

88. Yes and so far none outright ban the purchase of animals

controlling strays and controlling legally purchased and owned animals is two different things.

Much like all communities have a set policy on appropriate conditions under which a child may be removed from a household.

But none ban children.

[EFerrari]

91. Waffles.

[WatsonT]

95. Pancakes

that was fun.

[defendandprotect]

129. Education is the answer, but ignorance pays well --

[flvegan]

65. Awesome. I love it.

[EFerrari]

82. You just love Big Government and Mary Poppins or something.

lol

[flvegan]

113. You and Ignis cracked me the hell up.

Literally, out loud.

[Ignis]

84. UR A NANCY STATER!!

:rofl:

I'd say more, but post #51 says it all, really.

[flvegan]

115. You do know that EFerrari

is a secret Muslim trying to rob us of our freedoms. I question the birth certificate, but nobody listens to me.

[EFerrari]

132. Busted.

:yoiks:

[Ignis]

141. Don't you mean "a seekrit MARXIST muslin," mon frere?

Why do you hate Murka?

[jmowreader]

97. What is the name of this bill?

I'm thinkin' "The Bay Area Suburban Strip Mall Rent Enhancement Act of 2011."

Exactly how many days would it take for a pet store owner in San Francisco to rent a spot in a strip mall just outside the city limits and go right back into business? Better: no business taxes going to the City of San Francisco!

And to steal one of the right's most cherished slogan, "if selling pets is outlawed, only outlaws will sell pets." The backyard breeders will just go on Craigslist and offer to sell puppies for "roses." (That's what they call dollars when you're buying sex on CL, right?)

[EFerrari]

99. And all of that takes planning, aka, not impulse. Duh. Edit

I shouldn't be so rude, sorry.

I've watched so many vital programs shut down here. For AIDS, addiction, homeless services, all kinds of just really basic ones. SF also has federal real estate like the beach that the feds don't take care of. There's 1 (one) National Park ranger for our whole beach. There is nothing aplenty here right now and it's going to get worse. Of course, the deepest cuts happen in the areas where no one is available to fight back, like Animal Services. No dumped animal is going to grab a taxi and lobby City Hall.

[jmowreader]

108. It doesn't take very much planning...

to drive from San Francisco to Daly City or Oakland and pick up a dog from one of the pet stores that will undoubtedly move there if this law passes.

[EFerrari]

110. But it takes some. That's harm reduction.

[BigDemVoter]

120. I don't think there's a vast

number of stores in the city that sell dogs or cats anymore, if any.

I VERY seriously doubt this will pass. If you listed everything anybody ever presented in the legislature you didn't agree with, the list would be really outrageous.

I have mixed feelings about this bill; I'm not 100% certain how its sponsor came up with it (nor who its sponsor IS). My rep on city council (Scott Wiener), who is QUITE a wiener, most certainly didn't sponsor it, nor would he, I suspect, vote for it.

[lynne]

101. I'm afraid to ask if you're allowed to EAT fish in SF -

- not to mention chicken and beef. I hear that hamsters are stringy and tough so no concerns there.

[EFerrari]

104. Just don't try to abandon your entree, little lady, and you won't have any trouble.

:rofl:

[lynne]

121. What if I take my pet with me in a carry-out box?

- Think that would work?? :-)

[zonkers]

105. I don't like this all or nothing take on pets for sale. I think kids learn an awful

lot from having to take care of a fish, aquarium, pets, etc.

[spin]

118. I would be a lonely old man without a pet ...

and statistics show my life would be shorter.

It's not just kids that benefit from pets.

[JoeyT]

133. Let's just ban everything we don't like the idea of.

That always ends well. Three cheers for authoritarianism.

[Odin2005]

138. This kind of inane crap is what makes the Left look bad.