San Francisco Pet Sales ban

This is nuts.

But I have to ask why they banned chocolate milk?

Chocolate Milk was banned to prevent unwanted pregnancy in school age girls. It is a known aphrodisiac and was being abused by teenage boys too young to get a viagra prescription.

Originally Posted by Clay Davenport

If only those poor residents of San Fran could somehow escape the confines of the city limits, or gain access to the internet, they would be free to continue to purchase animals as they have been able to.
Wait..... they can. So this proposition is aimed at accomplishing basically nothing aside from grandstanding and what may be considered a stepping stone and "win" for the radical animal rights faction.

Encourage adoptions? Not likely when it comes to exotics. Considering 95% of exotics that are up for adoption are species that most people aren't interested in, or else they wouldn't be up for adoption, and even those are probably low in numbers compared to demand even in a large city. Who ever heard of a fish at an animal shelter anyway?

This is one of the most inane, and completely pointless propositions I can think of, with the only resulting effect being the damage done to small business, and large business for that matter, and their employees.
Way to go San Fran, once again a beacon in the night for all to look toward for guidance.

Agreed. Although, It isn't pointless. We should all know by now that all of these moves are only used as stepping stones. It is to get to that "ideal world" that the colorful post referenced after yours. Which would be yet another stepping stone to all pets being banned worldwide in the end game for these people.

Originally Posted by Ivyna J Spyder

I don't agree with a full ban, but it SHOULD be more difficult to obtain a pet. You shouldn't be able to waltz in, pay 5 bucks for a mouse .

Five bucks for a mouse and a dollar for a goldfish is a crime in of itself.

Who are you to decide what I do with my money and purchase what I want?
I'm guessing you would eventually require a class on how to properly take care of a mouse? Then the permit will be suggested.

I'm sorry but that is just a bunch a "crap" as you would state. It reminds me of the BS law they tried to pass statewide here in California a couple of years ago. Snakes having food available at all times and mice having so much space per mouse it would have made it impossible for anyone to carry feeders.

Originally Posted by Ivyna J Spyder

This is in an ideal world anyway. -_- I know in some countries you need permits and things to even keep stuff like beardies, but that'll never happen here

They are already doing it here species by species. Cause by cause. Yeah, lets permit and regulate everything. It all turns into nothing more than a money making scheme for the state and a loss of individual freedoms. You can have it elsewhere but I think many here are tired of being pushed. That's why we have stood up, taken notice and started fighting these pushes to take away the animals most of us on this board works with.

I think you will find you are in the wrong place to be pushing more regulation on a site whose members are constantly being threatened with their animals being banned are being regulated out of business.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Agreed. Although, It isn't pointless. We should all know by now that all of these moves are only used as stepping stones. It is to get to that "ideal world" that the colorful post referenced after yours. Which would be yet another stepping stone to all pets being banned worldwide in the end game for these people.

Yep, Just read all of the article.

But she said that symbolism, and the conversation that it raises, is critical in improving the lives of millions of helpless creatures.

"For us as an organization, we've identified the larger problem of online purchasing of dogs, and we hope this is an avenue to get to that," she said. Still, when it comes to birds and fish, "there's a lot of cruelty around where they are sourced from. We see the cruelty."

Originally Posted by Ivyna J Spyder

I don't agree with a full ban, but it SHOULD be more difficult to obtain a pet. You shouldn't be able to waltz in, pay 5 bucks for a mouse and then neglect it or give it to a shelter in a week when your kid gets bored of it. Or pay a buck for a goldfish so it can languish in a tiny bowl.

If someone has to put some effort into getting their pet, maybe they'll be more likely to put effort into caring for it.

This is in an ideal world anyway. -_- I know in some countries you need permits and things to even keep stuff like beardies, but that'll never happen here

The government should never be allowed to put itself in charge of social engineering. That never works in the long term and only serves to strip its constituents of their personal liberties. Just take a look at how our "war on drugs" is working out.

And btw, most states in the U.S. already have permitation systems of some sort for whatever exotic animals have made their "lists," most states never grant those to private individuals. Ever. Permitation systems may seem like a good idea in theory, however, only in theory.

that is a load of bogus crud.... That proposal cant possibly succeed what with the purchase of animals at such a high demand.... people will either import export or travel by automotive to buy their animals in other towns and cities and than petstores and other places in San Fran will suffer and or go out of business

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York City pet store that's surrounded by bars has banned drunken puppy-buying.

Workers at Le Petite Puppy in Greenwich Village say customers tend to stumble in after happy hour and purchase a dog without thinking. Drunken customers now are forbidden to even hold the puppies, because they can drop them.

Store owner Dana Rich tells WINS-AM that she instructs people who have clearly been drinking to come back the next day.

Employees say they stress how much work it is to own a dog. They say they would rather lose a sale than send a puppy into an unsafe home.

Originally Posted by BobOblak

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

NEW YORK (AP) -- A New York City pet store that's surrounded by bars has banned drunken puppy-buying.

Workers at Le Petite Puppy in Greenwich Village say customers tend to stumble in after happy hour and purchase a dog without thinking. Drunken customers now are forbidden to even hold the puppies, because they can drop them.

Store owner Dana Rich tells WINS-AM that she instructs people who have clearly been drinking to come back the next day.

Employees say they stress how much work it is to own a dog. They say they would rather lose a sale than send a puppy into an unsafe home.

They had to recently institute this ban? If they had been responsible they would have banned them from day one. Not just dogs but any animal. I can't see how this could even be considered an option by an ethical animal seller. I know a guy who used to open his shop at 2 am just to get the drunks as they left the bars. Highly unethical if you ask me.

As far as the SF pet ban, it will affect some small shops (I don't know how many) but all in all it won't have a huge affect on pet ownership, or abuse. A lot of thing are banned but people still get them. Its another example of feel good accomplish nothing legislation that is running rampant. The thing is, its easier and cheaper to just ban things all together than it is to set up stricter enforcement of abuse laws already in effect.

Gov't is slowly losing its mind and respect of the people.

The pet store in NY should have never sold pups to intoxicated folks and people just need to be own up to the responsibilities they have chosen (a pet).

Personal responsibility and not laws is what we need.