Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

San Francisco Considers Ban On All Pet Sales

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the no-kitty-for-you dept.

Earth 733

Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is on its way to the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco. It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it. Representatives of the $45-billion to $50-billion-a-year pet industry call the San Francisco proposal 'by far the most radical ban we've seen' nationwide and argue that it would force small operators to close. Animal activists say it will save small but important lives, along with taxpayer money, and end needless suffering. 'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal. 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"

cancel ×

733 comments

Save important pet lives...? (4, Insightful)

jonamous++ (1687704) | about 3 years ago | (#36599212)

What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (0)

swanzilla (1458281) | about 3 years ago | (#36599258)

Biology would beg to differ.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (3, Insightful)

jonamous++ (1687704) | about 3 years ago | (#36599340)

What does biology have to do with this? Many pets are specifically bred to be sold. If there are no buyers, people are not going to breed these animals (they don't want to be stuck with four macaws, or six puppies). The ones that do breed will turn in to strays. Sounds a lot better.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (4, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 3 years ago | (#36599596)

Many pets are specifically bred to be sold. If there are no buyers, people are not going to breed these animals

Ferrets make a particularly good example - As induced ovulators, the females will remain in estrus until they mate or die. For that reason, you almost never see non-fixed ferrets for sale. Though considering the city involved here, they probably already ban ferrets outright. Horrid, vicious things, with their cute burbling and playful nipping - Can't have that, why, someone might leave a newvborn alone with one after starving it for a month!


However, I found one particular quote from the article especially revealing about the mindset involved here...

"Why fish? Why not fish?" said Philip Gerrie, a member of the city's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare and a coauthor of the proposal.

Why not fish? Because, Mr. Gerrie, believe it or not, you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control. Until something becomes a clear problem, just leave it the hell alone. "Not fish", because NO ONE ABUSES FISH. Because you don't see stray fish picking through garbage outside restaurants. Because you don't hear about feral fish attacks when a child wanders down the wrong alley. Because fish lead to as close to zero potential for abuse as you could hope from any possible pet-animal.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (2)

geekboybt (866398) | about 3 years ago | (#36599740)

Actually, ferrets are banned in the entire state of California. Doesn't stop a lot of people though.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599266)

My mind goes the opposite direction. Without the pet industry, these animals will starve to death. The political movement to ban "teh EVUL PET SELLERS!!!111" holds no compassion or consideration for the needs of the actual animals.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (4, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 3 years ago | (#36599294)

More importantly, if prohibition and the war on drugs are any sign, this will create a high value pet black market, which makes for-profit breeding operations more, not less, likely to be abusive. Law of unintended consequeneces.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 3 years ago | (#36599528)

Well unlike the drug industry, pets will be legally sold elsewhere. Yes there will be the rise of some black market shops inside the city but all this does is move the legal shops just outside city jurisdiction taking their businesses and tax dollars with them. It just makes it inconvenient for everyone but really won't stop anything.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (1)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | about 3 years ago | (#36599554)

Really can't wait until people start traffic tabby cats across the Mexico boarder to fuel this new illegal market! Think of the headlines!

Re:Save important pet lives...? (2)

Kielistic (1273232) | about 3 years ago | (#36599710)

Finally a practical use for the kitten cannon!

Re:Save important pet lives...? (5, Funny)

ginbot462 (626023) | about 3 years ago | (#36599716)

Not to mention, pet "contraband" will be sold in other store.

Dude, the leash and collar were for my wife I swear!

Re:Save important pet lives...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599324)

Actually, in absence of legal trade of animals, the animals will still be born but now there will be no choice but to have them killed.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (3, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#36599480)

What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.

If you read the article before rushing to get first post you'll see the problem. Most shop-animals are bred in horrible conditions and spend the first part of their lives in cages in shop windows. Not nice.

This way you'll have to get them from friends/neighbors/shelters. Hopefully the lives it saves will be the ones which would be put down when nobody takes them at the shelter.

Re:Save important pet lives...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599620)

What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.

If you make it illegal to sell but otherwise don't change things you will see the commercial market for pets disappear. So we will see a drastic reduction in quantity supply. It turns out that today quantity supply of dogs exceeds quantity demand of dogs in the USA by about 4,000,000. In other words we spend money to collect, temporarily house, and then kill 4,000,000 dogs a year. If the quantity supplied were to drop by about 4,000,000 dogs per year then we would have the same amount of dogs being bread as are being taken into presumably loving homes. Sounds good so far. But you're worried that no one would risk allowing their bitch to breed but given a gentle demand for puppies it is likely that some folks will continue to breed. In fact if a few of my neighbors or friends expressed an interest in about a litter's worth of puppies I would be willing to breed my dog and carry the burden of dealing with pregnancy and the first few months of puppy life.

I don't totally agree with the proposal, at least not my first impression. I think a fine alternative is to chop up all the dogs we kill every day (about 11,000 of them) and give them to folks on welfare or otherwise in need of food.

So which is worse:
1) shutting down a commercial industry that is known to create misery
2) killing 11,000 dogs a day and throwing them away
3) killing 11,000 dogs a day and feeding hungry people with them

Good thing... (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 3 years ago | (#36599216)

Plans change. Look at those adorable eyes! How can I eat it now?

Re:Good thing... (2)

Onuma (947856) | about 3 years ago | (#36599368)

Lightly roasted with shallots and some sherry.

Animals are tasty :)

Re:Good thing... (2)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 years ago | (#36599402)

Dammit, you're gonna eat that puppy or you're going to PMITA prison, boyo.

Re:Good thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599722)

I don't think that's a deterrent in San Francisco, though...

---
Somehow, in light of this, the Submit button seems wrong.

Dyalikedags? (1)

tom17 (659054) | about 3 years ago | (#36599238)

Well that won't stop the pikeys offloading dags on to you will it baye!

Pet sales will just become black market and underhanded.

Curious (-1)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | about 3 years ago | (#36599242)

As much as would like to say this is crazy and silly, it's not. I applaud the effort, though I doubt it will pass. I'm curious if an "I fell in love with my food" loophole will be used, ala the INS "I feel in love and married an illegal alien" method.

Re:Curious (2)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about 3 years ago | (#36599704)

How is it not crazy and silly? More importantly, what problem is this supposed to fix? Are pets sometimes mistreated? Then legislate and prosecute that. Are pets bred for sale under crappy conditions? Then legislate and prosecute that. Or are all pets bred and kept under horrible conditions? In that case, just ban pet ownership. But I will go so far as to call this proposal crazy and silly indeed.

Of course we consider them living beings! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599246)

I like having a cat, and spoiler her mercilessly. We have many good times. What is this guy smoking? Oh, wait, San Francisco, riiiight!

Re:Of course we consider them living beings! (5, Funny)

tkrotchko (124118) | about 3 years ago | (#36599518)

"and spoiler her mercilessly"

She probably didn't appreciate when you told her that Darth Vader was Luke';s father, before "The Empire...:" came out.

Re:Of course we consider them living beings! (2)

wagnerrp (1305589) | about 3 years ago | (#36599640)

I was imagining a cat with a big wing over her hind legs.

Re:Of course we consider them living beings! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#36599520)

RTFA. They want people to own/spoil them, they don't want them bred in factory conditions and kept in cages with no love when they're tiny and most need it.

When shops are banned you'll have to get them from friends/neighbors/shelters.

Kill the treehuggers!! (1)

Eggplant62 (120514) | about 3 years ago | (#36599254)

It's clear where the problem really lies -- in the idiots who insist that we should suddenly kowtow to the rights of dumb animals. If we weren't supposed to keep or eat tasty animals, they'd have a bad flavor and wouldn't be so cuddly.

Re:Kill the treehuggers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599394)

They do have a bad flavor. That's why you have to cook them.

Re:Kill the treehuggers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599516)

You're doing it wrong.

Re:Kill the treehuggers!! (1)

thebra (707939) | about 3 years ago | (#36599524)

They do have a bad flavor. That's why you have to cook them.

Clearly you've never had raw Salmon, delicious.

Re:Kill the treehuggers!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599652)

Maybe you are tasty too! Let's eat you.

Save money? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599276)

Save money? Yeah right. Now they will need a whole new division for enforcing and investigating these laws.

I assume this would mean that people could still own pets, correct? I'm not sure how this would change much.

None of this really makes sense though. We have been trading animals as commodities since the beginning of human civilization. Either for work, food, or pets.

Really? (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 years ago | (#36599278)

Totally unenforceable.

(And whats to stop people from buying their animals in another town/state, or online?)

Re:Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599420)

CraigsList bans sale of animals, but a "re-homing fee" is ok. I imagine pet stores will adopt this policy as well.

Re:Really? (2)

tverbeek (457094) | about 3 years ago | (#36599642)

The only thing this will accomplish is to force pet dealers to relocate outside the San Francisco city limits, to one of the adjoining cities in The Bay Area. This will inconvenience some number of business owners, and a larger number of pet "companions" (i.e. owners), lose some tax revenue for the city, relinquish any ability by the city to regulate the pet industry, and accomplish absolutely nothing. It'll be like all those "dry" counties that have thriving liquor dealerships just outside their borders.

As fond as I am of the loony left on a personal level, and as much as I appreciate San Francisco in earlier times enacting things that were once seen as "loony" but really aren't (e.g. equal rights for all people), I do wonder sometimes if the loony left government of SF realizes what a laughingstock they've become... pretty much everywhere that isn't San Francisco. Can we stage an intervention?

Know any pet owners? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599304)

Do these people know any pet owners? They tend to treat their pets very well, sometimes even better than people. Isn't that exactly what they want animals to be treated like?

Guess they will have to ban their transport too? (2)

Shivetya (243324) | about 3 years ago | (#36599316)

Perhaps they can zone them out next, just like minorities are zoned out of most of the good areas of San Fransisco.

So basically what we have is your typical people in power mindset, I was going to say liberal but conservatives in power do it to, they will all be for freedoms they want (in the case of this city same sex marriages) but damn if you dare buy Spot in a local store, why that is inhumane. I am surprised you can't buy dogs to eat in SF but you can buy live fish and poultry. What is that? Are laws based on ick factor?

Re:Guess they will have to ban their transport too (3, Insightful)

SteelAngel (139767) | about 3 years ago | (#36599556)

In San Francisco, and other so called 'liberal' bastions, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer. So if the elites are tree-hugging PETA members, then they want to fashion society in that image, regardless of the hypocracy and stupidity it causes. One could say that all social engineering is applying a first order linear model to a chaotic system and then crying about how the results don't work.

How this is different than theocracy, I don't know.

Re:Guess they will have to ban their transport too (2)

smitty777 (1612557) | about 3 years ago | (#36599650)

Why stop there? Just ban pet ownership and take care of the whole problem.

Animal experiments (1)

leastsquares (39359) | about 3 years ago | (#36599326)

Would I be allowed to buy a rat, for example, if I promised to test drugs on it?

Re:Animal experiments (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599552)

Would I be allowed to buy a rat, for example, if I promised to test drugs on it?

I LIKE where you're going!

"Gee officer, this bag of weed isn't for meeeeee, it's for my rat! I'm investigating mammal's responsiveness to THC and hunger. Yes, officer, that's why I have all those pizzas and bags of cheetoes."

Re:Animal experiments (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | about 3 years ago | (#36599736)

Probably not, too many PETA and ELF members in San Francisco.

Just odd. (4, Insightful)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#36599334)

A guppy has feelings but a fetus doesn't? And I am not for making abortion illegal but I am a fan of truth and logic. What about sea monkeys? Will people with fish now still have the option to buy live life food for them like brine shrimp?

Re:Just odd. (2)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#36599476)

Depending on how many weeks we are talking about a guppy might be farther developed. An adult cat surely has more feelings than a fetus.

Re:Just odd. (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 3 years ago | (#36599600)

Until it is born, a baby is called a fetus, but once full term is reached, a human fetus is fully developed and has the same capacity to think, reason and feel as any adult. What the fetus lacks is experience and knowledge.

Re:Just odd. (-1, Troll)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 3 years ago | (#36599580)

It's a liberal-american mindset. They're often anti-progress, anti-nationalism, anti-religion, anti-counrtrymen (military), anti-american, and overall, anti-human. Without question, this is culture deeply set within a guilt complex rooted in judeo christian values (of all things). It's as though the more we suffer ourselves as a species, the more we can atone for our sins in the eyes of mother nature. The irony however, is that a new religion as spawned from all this. Environmentalism, which is not to be confused with the overall practice of being just a good steward.

More pointless law.. (1)

faedle (114018) | about 3 years ago | (#36599352)

It seems to be largely meaningless.

Is there anybody who is actually selling pets in San Francisco? Hell, I had a hard enough time finding a place to reliably buy the cat food I feed my cat. And while I'm sure there's a couple of backyard breeders of birds, reptiles, and maybe even small dogs that might be hurt by this, I can't think of anywhere in the city limits of San Francisco where a breeding operation is a "good idea."

Hey, San Francisco: does everybody in the city have food, housing, and most importantly does MUNI still have buses that leak in the rain? Sounds like you've got misplaced priorities.

Dear animal activists (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about 3 years ago | (#36599364)

Fuck off.

Sincerely,

Animal Lovers.

Seriously, I get really tired of these dumbshit activists that think that pets somehow have a horrible life and if all animals just roamed free they would be so much better off. I think the problem is they watch Disney movies and believe that is how the wild actually is: Animals living together in harmony and having the best of time. I think these people need to take a trip to Africa and see nature in all its brutal Darwinian glory. Nothing dies of old age there, they just get older and slower until something eats them.

Sorry, but I think my house cat has a much better life. He gets to lay around all day, safe from weather and predators, he eats when he wants, gets attention lavished on him, and has access to medical care to handle his problems (asthma in his case).

Pets bring a lot of joy to humans, and it isn't bad for the pets. They have their needs met in a way they'd never get in the wild.

Re:Dear animal activists (4, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 3 years ago | (#36599598)

Thank PETA. If you've ever been stupid enough to support PETA you need to understand they want to ban pet ownership. Yes Ban it. It's one of their top priorities.

There are plenty of good organizations out there that try to stop animal abuse, but PETA gets all the attention and I'd be 90% of the people that support PETA fail to realize just how radical the beliefs of their founder. PETA believe pet ownership is slavery and they want it gone. Honestly if you want to stop animal abuse you are far better off sending your money to ASPCA or Humane Society.

Re:Dear animal activists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599686)

You can still get a pet from a shelter.

Re:Dear animal activists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599692)

Dear missed-the-point of the law,

This was aimed at stopping puppy mills, where dogs are routinely mistreated.

The law is stupid, but that doesn't excuse you from jumping to bad conclusions about the intentions and beliefs of the authors.

Business Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599372)

Mobile pet mill that sells pets (bred elsewhere) on the outskirts of San Fransisco anyone?

I wonder how the Bonsai industry is going to be very soon.

Re:Business Plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599702)

If I lived just outside of San Francisco i would start an Bonsai Kitten breeding/smuggling business.

unenforcable (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | about 3 years ago | (#36599378)

especially for small operations

circumcised pets as toys with a happy meal? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599384)

Dear SF board of supervisors, can a fast food restaurant give away circumcised pets as toys with a happy meal? *poof*

Re:circumcised pets as toys with a happy meal? (2)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 3 years ago | (#36599590)

Dear AC. Please be sure to use contraception, as I'm not sure that you know what the word circumcised means.

Re:circumcised pets as toys with a happy meal? (0)

smitty777 (1612557) | about 3 years ago | (#36599732)

Man...and I just used up all my mod points. Nice one.

this ban would hurt animals (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599398)

apart from the stray's that would need to be put down, i think you would create cities which are pretty much inhabited by human's only, Keeping pet's is a positive thing in general, not necessary for the animal's or the individual human's, but it create's a coexistence between Human's and some form's of Animal's. Separating Humanity and the Animal Kingdom further, will more than likely result in a disconnect that make's it more common for cruel behavior as Human's would lack that personal connection with animal's and they simply all become food or clothing.

The more i read on group's like PETA etc , i think they don't really like animal's to be honest.

Re:this ban would hurt animals (2)

b.emile (1222958) | about 3 years ago | (#36599558)

hoooooly apostrophes, batman

Domestication vital to evolution of humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599410)

http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets-humans-evolution.html

And how does having a pet harm the pet? The reason we have dogs is because they learned it's EASIER to help humans out for food than it is to hunt for the food themselves.

Re:Domestication vital to evolution of humans (1)

tom17 (659054) | about 3 years ago | (#36599536)

It's the same with cats, they came to us for the free ride. We like their company so we let them in. So it turned commercial, but really, what *hasn't* turned commercial.

As for any cruelty, there are some people that will always be cruel to animals/humans, this won't change that.

Free Dog! (2)

Leuf (918654) | about 3 years ago | (#36599416)

With purchase of any dog leash. Only $499.95.

Any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or sli (1)

Annirak (181684) | about 3 years ago | (#36599430)

So Coral and anemones are okay, then?

Re:Any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or (1)

McNihil (612243) | about 3 years ago | (#36599570)

Isn't that already on the endangered species list?

Re:Any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or (1)

canajin56 (660655) | about 3 years ago | (#36599698)

Anemones are flowers. You might think it's being pedantic, but lions, horses, and cucumbers would all like to remind you that the "sea" part of the name is quite important ;)

For a change (1)

Ohio Calvinist (895750) | about 3 years ago | (#36599450)

I wish that environmentalist and animal rights activist would spend time actually educating and engaging the public and convince people on the merit of their argument, rather than use the government as a hammer against people who disagree with them. They are going to ruin some livelihoods and do next to nothing to eliminate animal suffering.

A good idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599452)

But i don't think it will work.
As disgusting as the puppymill industry is...
This isn't something you can fix with more laws. We need better humans to fix this problem. And we have a LONG way to go on that front.

Summary forgot link to video (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599462)

This proposal needs to be evaluated within its proper context. [youtube.com]

No emotions (1)

applematt84 (1135009) | about 3 years ago | (#36599464)

'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal. 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'

Talk about a dude with a serious superiority complex. Last I checked, something that breathes, eats and poops is living. I can understand putting a ban on the sale of sub-intelligent beings (fish, lizards, etc), but when it comes to cats, dogs and the like, anyone who has owned a pet at some point knows that animals deserve a basic set of rights and that they do in fact experience the same perception of neuro-processes that we call "emotions".

This guy obviously doesn't have any emotion himself. That or his parents never let him have a pet.

Re:No emotions (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#36599612)

Sub-intelligent species are not pets anyway, they are decorations. Which is why I hate to see snakes fed mice and rats. Those are far smarter and make for actual pets, unlike a snake.

Re:No emotions (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599630)

Sorry buddy. Animals have no rights. I am for treating animals ethically, but this is fundamentally different from giving them "rights". They are not human, nor are they sentient. No matter how politically incorrect that may be, it is the unfortunate and inconvenient truth.

These people are bat-sh*t crazy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599468)

These are all crazy people.

They're the same people who want to ban Ronald McDonald.

They're the same people who want to Nanny you from cradle to grave.... for your own good.

I don't wish these people ill, but if they had a decent hobby, we wouldn't run into these issues with them.

They really are bat-sh*t crazy.

What happens if it passes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599470)

So if this law does pass what happens to all the people who have animals? There are plenty of different possibilites of what will happen but I'm guessing they all have the same ending, they all get killed of.

Descartes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599496)

everyone who is still dualist after 350 years raise your hand.

I am not.

If it is made illegal... (1)

thebra (707939) | about 3 years ago | (#36599504)

If selling pets is illegal then only criminals will have pets.

what about guide dogs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599510)

do they count as pets?
what happens when they retire?
the same goes for all service dogs.

pah

Unless you plan to eat them... (1)

erroneus (253617) | about 3 years ago | (#36599512)

... So now all the ads selling cocker spaniel puppies will read "delicious cocker spaniel puppies for sale."

I can see where they are seeking to rid themselves of "puppy mills" and the like, but how about pet retailers (wow, that just sounds creepy doesn't it? pet retailer? Is that were you go if you want to reverse the procedure for your doberman pinscher?)? Will Petsmart no longer sell pets? (They do sell pets right? I thought they did...) They show reptiles, birds, fish and rodents on their site.

This does not surprise me coming from SFO though...

Wait, what? (5, Funny)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 3 years ago | (#36599514)

They're going to outlaw gerbil sales in San Francisco?

Re:Wait, what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599656)

They can still sell them if you're going to eat them. No one said you have to use your mouth.

Living things (1)

sourcerror (1718066) | about 3 years ago | (#36599530)

" 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"

Plants are living things too. Should we ban the sale of them.

On other news, San Francisco pet owner ate his cat.

Whether this succeeds or not (1)

bugs2squash (1132591) | about 3 years ago | (#36599538)

it's a great way to draw attention to a real problem. There are a lot of unwanted animals in this world and a little public debate on where pet animals come from is a good thing to my mind. I am the proud owner of a pound puppy and I can't think of any circumstance where I would want to purchase a dog from a breeder. Some of the breeders are downright shady. I'm not saying I would want all pet sales banned, but I welcome the discussion.

Puppy Mills (1)

Broken scope (973885) | about 3 years ago | (#36599546)

It would be nice if we could eliminate puppy mills and get more people to adopt or buy from good reputable breeders that actually take care of their animals.

This isn't the way to do it, and people still ignore shelter pets which need homes so they can get a "purebred" dog which is safer than some shelter mutt.

So you can eat it but not feed it? (1)

mrnick (108356) | about 3 years ago | (#36599550)

ahhh yeah that's so humane! LOL

Wait... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 3 years ago | (#36599562)

Now, are these people actually the "OMG Teh Petz is slavery!!!" morons, or are they holding the much less unreasonable position that:

a) "Farm" dogs/cats (bred for sale) tend to suffer from poor health and poor treatment in the pet stores and

b) Every pet bought at a pet store is a rescue that gets the needle?

If the former, then yes. Fuck the nutters sideways with a chainsaw. Three cats and formerly a dog (RIP, buddy), all rescues, and damn if I don't enjoy their company more than most people's...

In other news, SF outlaws heterosexual coupling... (1)

crath (80215) | about 3 years ago | (#36599566)

In other news, SF outlaws heterosexual coupling... citing the fact that it can lead to pregnancy and childbirth. People as not responsible to care for children, and so hetero-sex must be stopped!

More PETA gubbish. (2)

compro01 (777531) | about 3 years ago | (#36599584)

More PETA gubbish.

I really wish they would go away, and I'm a vegetarian myself.

Pet Stores to turn Grocer? (1)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 3 years ago | (#36599602)

So Petco changes its name to Exotic Foods Co., adds a curious looking butcher department and nothing changes. Mean while bolstered by Exotic Foods Co's new direction various ethnic restaurants start adding hamster, guinea pigs, dog, horse, etc. to the menu.

Mercer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599610)

how ironic, i wonder what Buster Friendly will have to say about this.

Good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599628)

You can't own animals maaaannnnn!

Fuck small operators. (1)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#36599636)

Small operators should switch to doing other businesses.

not everything can be justified because people make money off of it. this is what has brought our civilization to this upside down state, on the brink of collapse.

Trivial workaround. (2)

manutter51 (1785060) | about 3 years ago | (#36599648)

All that pet stores need to do is give away cooking instructions with every pet sold. Not their fault if you happen to decide not to eat it after you get it home. Sheesh.

Ridiculous? (1)

Ambiguous Coward (205751) | about 3 years ago | (#36599660)

So, what's to stop one from just going to the next town over and buying a pet there? All I can see this doing is reducing tax revenue for the city by killing local sales and businesses, and inconveniencing pet-buyers.

"Nice Beaver" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36599690)

If I say something bad about them would it be considered a HPAP smear?

So if you (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36599706)

OK, I plan on eating my dog. Sell me a dog. What, are they going to make an additional law saying that you must eat your pets if you say you will? How about a law saying that pets must be stamped with a "best before" date? Or here's one, make it so you have to eat your pet in public or better yet, slaughter the animal when the credit card is swiped.

These legislators are stupid. Their state is completely broke, yet they have time to dream up bullshit like this. Congratulations on putting pet stores out of business (although surprisingly I'm sure that big-box pet food/supply retailers will be just fine) and causing people to travel out of state to buy their animals. Here's a tip. If puppy mills are a problem (and they can be), then GO AFTER THE DAMNED PUPPY MILLS.

I bought my dog at a pet store because no breeder currently had her breed. Yes, perhaps she came from a puppy mill. But she's the happiest dog in the world now (despite my sig) and I certainly wouldn't exchange her for any other dog now that we've gotten to know each other.

How about flagellates and ciliates? (1)

h1q (2042122) | about 3 years ago | (#36599728)

Damn. There goes my protozoa business.

creates bad image (1)

k6mfw (1182893) | about 3 years ago | (#36599744)

Whether you agree or not, I think such proposals will simply add more fuel to those that say all them SF people are nutjobs. This will impact future ideas/programs/conferences/whatever put forth by the city even if it is generally accepted and considered good ideas. There may be large groups or companies planning a SF conference (or perhaps hosting Olympic Games) but oh no, they may say, "uhmmm, them SF folks sure are nutzoid, maybe we should look into another city."

I think they need to look at proposals more carefully and see how it will impact the city 20, 30, 40 years from now. Pet ban sale may not do a whole lot over the long run. Also will have to deal with "pirated pets" and "illegal sales" which may lead to greater problems (i.e. pot is illegal and contributes to costly drug wars).

Impressive... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 3 years ago | (#36599746)

Even if one were to accept the (dubious) notion that pet-dom is an unpleasant experience for pets, their criteria seem absurdly broad. Banning based on type of locomotion, rather than, say, neural net complexity, means freaking out more or less equally about the treatment of everything from arthropods and annelids with some degree of stimulus response up to great apes(while more or less arbitrarily allowing you to buy and slaughter anything culturally sanctioned as edible).

The idea seems profoundly divorced from anything resembling actual concern for animal welfare.

I can guess where the impetous comes from (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 3 years ago | (#36599750)

I have a friend or two who are vets and who blog. Judging from their blogs, breeders are the scum of the earth. They won't learn enough about the animals they breed to do the basic things necessary to keep them healthy. They won't pay the vet they call in when things go wrong. They refuse to let the vet treat the animals if it would cost them money or even just make their lives a little inconvenient.

Now, I'm guessing there are good breeder's out there. And I'm guessing those breeders have vet visits that are much less frequent and angst filled and so don't result in diatribes on blogs. But I don't know how to tell whether or not an animal came from a breeder who cared, or one who didn't. It's hard to vote with my wallet.

I think this law is very dumb. But there is a real evil here.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...