Sorry, San Francisco, no more pets for you

[halik]

lolkalifornia

 

[Double Trouble]

Funny how in a bastion of liberalism, there's an awful lot of banning and life control going on. The liberals are not happy to just make their own choice as far as where to get a pet, they want to use the force of (nanny state) government to coerce everyone else to do the same. Reminds me a lot of religious conservatives who are not happy just to simply make their own choices of what to watch or what kind of club to frequent, they want to use the state to make it so others are forced into the same choice (blue laws anyone?). Same concept.

Just another example of how the right and the left are really not all that different, they both want to control your life and actions. The only difference is what aspect of your life they want to control first.

 

[Red Dawn]

http://www.fox40.com/news/headlines/la-me-goldfish-20110627,0,3994180.story?hpt=us_bn7



Ridiculous, in the name of curbing puppy/kitty mills. Not that it will actually stop any of those mills, because they can simply sell outside the city lines, across the state/country/etc. Seems like more PETA BS to me, but the article is pretty biased.

And how does that prevent the residents from owning pets?

 

[Double Trouble]

And how does that prevent the residents from owning pets?

It doesn't, the topic of the thread is not accurate.

Still, complete idiocy in SF, but haven't we all become completely accustomed to people in SF being the left wing equivalent of a fundie-run town in the bible belt?

 

[Red Dawn]

It doesn't, the topic of the thread is not accurate.

Still, complete idiocy in SF, but haven't we all become completely accustomed to people in SF being the left wing equivalent of a fundie-run town in the bible belt?

Modern day Sodom and Gomarah. I wouldn't want to live there but it's a great place to visit. On the other hand, Fundie ran Bible Belt towns and cities are neither a great place to live or visit.

 

[Atreus21]

Funny how in a bastion of liberalism, there's an awful lot of banning and life control going on. The liberals are not happy to just make their own choice as far as where to get a pet, they want to use the force of (nanny state) government to coerce everyone else to do the same. Reminds me a lot of religious conservatives who are not happy just to simply make their own choices of what to watch or what kind of club to frequent, they want to use the state to make it so others are forced into the same choice (blue laws anyone?). Same concept.

Just another example of how the right and the left are really not all that different, they both want to control your life and actions. The only difference is what aspect of your life they want to control first.

The left is immune to this.

 

[her209]

Because mills directly contribute to mistreatment of pet-animals. Our pet-animal population is already over the breaking point and they pump out more. It costs us, society, money. Banning them while increasing education on adoption or funding something like a "pet fair" for people to attend and bring their new litters out would be a far better thing. Not to mention forcing people to do things never ends well, never.

Also, mills don't exactly follow free market principles. They just pump out product and make it someone elses problem, ours, which costs us more money. They far exceed demand simply because they can and they know it's not going to be their responsibility once the puppy leaves their care.

I think its the opposite. How do you think those pets ended up at the shelter? Its because the people/families who owned them no longer want them for whatever reason. But if they were to pay more for their dog/cat, e.g., from a reputable breeder, I contend, they're more likely to take better care of it and therefore, the pet is less likely to end up at the local shelter. And if they decided to give it up, they're more likely to remember the financial hit if they wanted to get another pet in the future.

 

[Capt Caveman]

I think its the opposite. How do you think those pets ended up at the shelter? Its because the people/families who owned them no longer want them for whatever reason. But if they were to pay more for their dog/cat, e.g., from a reputable breeder, I contend, they're more likely to take better care of it and therefore, the pet is less likely to end up at the local shelter. And if they decided to give it up, they're more likely to remember the financial hit if they wanted to get another pet in the future.

Pet Stores charge more than a reputable breeder yet millions of dogs/cats/pets end -up in shelters and are euthanized.

Reputable breeders will interview/screen potential buyers and require them to sign contracts requiring the buyer to surrender the dog/cat/pet back to them if they are not able to keep the animal. And if the animal is not going to be Shown, the animal will be required to be neutered/spayed at an appropriate age.

 

[Deeko]

This is absurd.

PS - hey people not reading the article, this isn't about puppy mills. Try harder next time.

 

[piasabird]

Just go accross the state border, buy your pet and come back.