Sorry, San Francisco, no more pets for you

[Bateluer]

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

Reporting from San Francisco—
The first vision was simple and straightforward: To curtail puppy mills and kitten factories, the sale of cats and dogs should be banned in San Francisco, where the loving guardians of animal companions come to regular blows — politically — with the loving parents of children.

The ban was put on hold last year after animal advocates broadened it to include anything with fur or feathers. Now it's back, with a new name and a new strategy: More is more. The Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is on its way to the Board of Supervisors, and it hopes to protect everything from Great Danes to goldfish.

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.

 

[her209]

The pet stores will now offer pets up for adoption... with a fee equal to its former sale price, of course.

 

[Craig234]

False topic description. There's no problem with having pets in San Francisco - plenty of sources, e.g., shelters. The topic should say COMMERCIAL SALE of pets.

 

[bfdd]

Puppy/kitten mills are terrible, but so is PETA and their "no pets for anyone because animals are people too" policy. Why not just make puppy/kitten mills illegal, crack down on those fuck holes for it and leave the decision of pet ownership up to private citizens. Fucking nanny ass fucks. God Northern Californians are shitheads.

 

[her209]

Why not just make puppy/kitten mills illegal, crack down on those fuck holes for it and leave the decision of pet ownership up to private citizens. Fucking nanny ass fucks. God Northern Californians are shitheads.

Why do you feel the cities need to declare the mills illegal? If enough people adopted, the mills wouldn't make as much money and eventually go out of business. Free market at work. Amirite?

 

[Capt Caveman]

False topic description. There's no problem with having pets in San Francisco - plenty of sources, e.g., shelters. The topic should say COMMERCIAL SALE of pets.

This. Good job SF!!! Screw puppymillers and the stores that sell dogs/cats for more money than an educated person could from a reputable breeder.

People will hopefully learn that rescues/shelters(see my link) have dogs/cats of different ages(puppies to senior) and breeds(mixed, designer and purebred).

 

[gevorg]

Just send 'em to China as a payment for Bay Bridge replacement.

 

[bfdd]

Why do you feel the cities need to declare the mills illegal? If enough people adopted, the mills wouldn't make as much money and eventually go out of business. Free market at work. Amirite?

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.

 

[IGBT]

liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[HeXen]

i thought Gerbils were the San Francisco thing?....you know, uh...yeah.

 

[Bateluer]

Puppy/kitten mills are terrible, but so is PETA and their "no pets for anyone because animals are people too" policy. Why not just make puppy/kitten mills illegal, crack down on those fuck holes for it and leave the decision of pet ownership up to private citizens. Fucking nanny ass fucks. God *Snip* Californians are shitheads.

Fixed it for you. Agree with everything else.

 

[FuzzyBee]

I guess when you're going to get a new fish, you can just go on down to your local fish shelter and pick one up, right?

Asinine.

 

[jruchko]

I guess when you're going to get a new fish, you can just go on down to your local fish shelter and pick one up, right?

Asinine.

Didn't you hear? Fish are Sea Kittens. http://features.peta.org/PETASeaKittens/

 

[Craig234]

What PETA actually says, contrasted to the people who lie about it:

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.

Those radicals.

 

[RedChief]

SF...the city where its legal to have a illegal in your house but illegal to have a pet....

Of course this is the city where pot smoking in public is fine, but dare lite up a tobacco cigarette and you will be crucified.

 

[cubby1223]

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.

Wow, you have a *serious* problem with logic skills.

The mills you hate so much do what they do for money. How does the "free market" work? Prices are set by supply and demand. Now what you claim is, that these businesses are creating a supply that "far exceed" demand, which drowns prices. Drowned prices means no profit means no business means no mills. They exist, but somehow they cannot exist.

Stop getting all super-sappy-emotional and actually *think* through what you are saying.

 

[Craig234]

Wow, you have a *serious* problem with logic skills.

The mills you hate so much do what they do for money. How does the "free market" work? Prices are set by supply and demand. Now what you claim is, that these businesses are creating a supply that "far exceed" demand, which drowns prices. Drowned prices means no profit means no business means no mills. They exist, but somehow they cannot exist.

Stop getting all super-sappy-emotional and actually *think* through what you are saying.

Actually, it's your logic that's flawed. You are ignoring the apples and oranges between shelter pets and commercial pets - from the preference of some owners for commercial pets (certified purebreed etc.) to the marketing that can create demand for commercial pets over shelter animals, and so on. A mall having a store with commercial pets can replace the same family who would otherwise go to a shelter for a pet.

Fact is, commercial pets do have a downward impact on demand for shelter pets.

 

[cubby1223]

What PETA actually says, contrasted to the people who lie about it:

What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering

Those radicals.

They are radical. SF is banning genital mutilation. At least there, the bits are still functional.

You provided the quote right here, PETA is a strong advocate of genital mutilation. Hence, radicals in the eyes of San Francisco-ites.



(sorry, I couldn't resist pointing this out)

 

[FuzzyBee]

What PETA actually says, contrasted to the people who lie about it:

Those radicals.

Who is lying about what? Where does anybody here or in the article say that pets are going to be confiscated?

 

[FuzzyBee]

Actually, it's your logic that's flawed. You are ignoring the apples and oranges between shelter pets and commercial pets - from the preference of some owners for commercial pets (certified purebreed etc.) to the marketing that can create demand for commercial pets over shelter animals, and so on. A mall having a store with commercial pets can replace the same family who would otherwise go to a shelter for a pet.

Fact is, commercial pets do have a downward impact on demand for shelter pets.

Are there fish shelters where you live?

 

[D-Man]

Next come the home inspections when you get a pet from a shelter you will have to have home inspections. The pet police will need to check medical records where the dog or cat sleeps what type of healthy food you feed them. You will be required to submit a 3 page report quarterly for 2 years. There will be no more flushing goldfish down the toilet and feeding gold fish to your Oscar will be banned if caught you will be fined $150 per gold fish. It's a good thing you can get a little pot to smoke if you live in California.

 

[waggy]

what a fucking stupid idea.

besides it stops ways of buying feeders (mice, goldfish, crickets etc) it kills the bird, mouse (well small rodent), fish pet market.

 

[khon]

Meh, idiots like this give liberalism a bad name.

 

[umbrella39]

liberalism is a mental disorder.

Sometimes I like to un-ignore you long enough to reassure myself you are still a lonely retard. Check.

 

[Craig234]

They are radical. SF is banning genital mutilation. At least there, the bits are still functional.

You provided the quote right here, PETA is a strong advocate of genital mutilation. Hence, radicals in the eyes of San Francisco-ites.



(sorry, I couldn't resist pointing this out)

Hehe, that was funny.