Skip to comments.San Francisco Considers Ban on Small Pet Sales
Posted on 07/08/2010 1:42:57 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Law would apply to sales of cats, dogs, hamsters, rats, birds
It could soon be illegal for pet stores in San Francisco to sell pets.
The San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission will take up a proposal tonight that would ban the sale of all small animals from the City's pet shops. Only fish would be allowed to be sold under the ordinance, which is believed to be the first of it's kind in the country.
The proposed law is designed to encourage people to rescue animals from the shelter instead of buying from a pet store. Supporters say it would reduce overcrowding and euthanasia rates.
Animal shelters say they are overrun with perfectly adoptable dogs, cats, hamsters and rabbits. The law would also crack down on puppy mills, which sometimes supply pet stores.
"If puppy mills don't have a place to sell their puppies, then they wont be in business," Sally Stephens, with the San Francisco Animal Control Welfare Commission said.
But there is some concern that the animal sale ban would be bad for businesses. A small bird store owner told us the measure would put him out of business, even though shelters are not overrun with birds.
ER’s must be overwhelmed with gerbilectomies.
too many Chinese restaurants in San Fran....
Without their fresh, healthy gerbils those San Franciscans are going to just rot and die from the ground up eh.
But the cock fights will continue, right?
San Francisco... sad really.
The shelter and puppy mill parts are good - have some good intentions, anyway, but it sounds like a badly written law overall.
A reverse of abortion clinic policy.
Why not just require inspections of breeders’ operations?
Hey, just because the USSR Failed doesn't mean it wouldn't work here.
Perhaps these people should consider entering into a heterosexual marriage and having children instead of living together with their partner and getting a dog.
There are more dogs than kids in SF.
I’ve already been on the receiving end of sanctimony because I bought my dog at (gasp) a pet store. Fact of the matter is, we tried a shelter, but had a bad experience there dealing with surly dogs and surly workers.
Why doesn’t SF save time and list what is still legal in SF? Would it even fill a single sheet of paper?
Still, it is democracy in action. The people of SF, like Chicago, WANT to be helpless sheep cared for by their political masters.
Years ago I saw a story (and I bet you did too, by your commnent), about a gay “couple” treated for burns at a hospital in California, which involved a gerbil. Do you remember it? I would love to find it and print it out, people don’t believe me when I tell them about it; I think it was hilarious.
lib quotes: "democrats don't want socialism! that's what they had in the Soviet Union, that's not what democrats want!" "they just didn't do it right - the people in power today are much smarter than that"
So silly. This all goes back to the pet purchaser. If he understands that to buy a puppy from a pet store is in effect condeming another animal in a shelter, they may think twice. But the average purchaser is fixed on getting the latest breed and could care less.
Enter big brother.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.