View Full Version : San Francisco considers banning the sale of all pets

06-28-2011, 02:19 AM
This is way overboard though I sadly see why they want to try. They need a better way of doing it without putting so many people out of job; especially now when nothing is available.


Tiger Cowboy
06-28-2011, 04:28 AM
This seems to be one of those laws that isn't expected to pass but is proposed to share a viewpoint. At least in most other states that would be the case. Given my preconceived notions of some regions of California this just might make it through....

I can understand why they are proposing it. I agree to a certain extent. I personally wouldn't buy a dog or cat. I agree that there are to many in shelters and to many animals are abused, etc etc etc.

I would also propose their next move should be a license for people to reproduce. Or an outright ban on reproductive sex. Adoption only from here on out.

06-29-2011, 01:03 AM
That is why I won't leave Texas. California is ridiculous. You know it is bad when your family is from there and you can't even stand it. Beautiful place, but everything there has become so unreasonable. Both its pet and wildlife laws are so freakin unbelievable and bad for the state, it is funny. Remember watching an animal cops episode where they confiscated a guy's "dangerous snake collection" including pairs of womas. Since when are womas considered dangerous? Must have hurt watching a grand plus or minus per pair walking out the door along with the rest of the collection which included some other high dollar animals.

06-29-2011, 02:45 AM
They can have my animals when they pry them from my cold, dead hands.:twisted:

06-29-2011, 12:08 PM
Wow, this certainly is a big step... but, can't you get around it by saying... you must make a minimum donation to adopt this pet, and still have pet stores "accepting donations" for pets?

Dragonberry Geckos
06-29-2011, 01:11 PM
I remember last year when I signed a petition at a local petstore in SF against this bill. Having lived in San Fran for three years, I had a working relationship with several of the locally owned pet stores (none of which sell cats or dogs). I know for a fact that they educate their customers and refuse animal sales at their discretion. How about banning the sale of animals at chain pet stores that are known to not properly care for their critters instead? I think education and stricter laws regarding animal welfare make more sense than a ban on sales.

Of course, this is coming from the same organization that stole and released into the wild, fifty white mice from a local pet store in NC. Can anyone guess what happened to these poor domestic white mice once it got dark in the woods? Of course, this is the least of their actions regarding the "war on pets". They are known for putting a variety of animal (including human) lifes in danger.

Now I am totally all for the ethical treatment of animals. I have a philosophy more of good stewardship towards our planet (and all its life) than one of seperation. I believe that our animal companions help keep us connected.

End cruelty and ignorance but I agree with foxe:

You can pry my animal companions and teachers from my cold dead fingers.

07-03-2011, 12:58 PM
So I thought I'd start a discussion on this very topic yesterday. Then I posted it in the wrong section while also neglecting to see if a similar thread had already been started. I'm 0 for 2 now but here's my final attempt! (Maybe I'll get it right this time. :-P ) This would be my edited version.

A ban on the sale of pets. Their reasoning: to prevent abuse. It doesn't really matter if this is a serious bill or not. (Shouldn't they all be serious anyways? It is San Fran after all...they may just do it.) Anyways, if a ban on sales is to prevent abuse, perhaps next they will want a ban on having children because sometimes children get abused? If San Francisco folks want to look at their animals as on par with humans, then this is a next logical step, right? Like what Tiger Cowboy said--adoption only from here on out. I think that a better solution is education and that is a thing that can easily be improved without destroying people's businesses.

Besides, banning sales doesn't guarantee that adoptions will rise anyways. People should have free choice in what and where to buy a pet, no? The logic that by banning pet sales that abuse cases will go down is flawed. Abuse can happen to a pet store-bought pet or an adopted pet. If you can assume that the less someone spends on an animal the more likely it will be abused then adopted pets (which typically cost less than something from a breeder or a store) are at a higher risk of being abused.

The end of the article says that direct sales from individual breeders is okay, but doesn't that include large-scale breeders (who were potentially selling to the pet stores to begin with?) Wouldn't that also be wrong? How many private fish breeders do you know?

07-03-2011, 05:24 PM
I think this is a very dangerous law that has a lot of ignored consequences.

1. Pet stores can allow adoptions but how do they obtain the animals in the first place? Wouldn't charging an "adoption fee" same as selling pets?

2. What is considered a small breeder? Who has the authority to declare the limit on number of animals?

It's one of those laws that's like giving the government a blank check on giving away our freedoms.

The Wildlife org and animal control seems just too fed up dealing with animals that they want to punish everyone indiscriminately including the caring and responsible pet owners.

08-16-2011, 05:36 PM
That is why I won't leave Texas. California is ridiculous. You know it is bad when your family is from there and you can't even stand it. Beautiful place, but everything there has become so unreasonable.

...which is exactly why I left my home there of 20+ years, and moved the the GREATER state of Texas. ;)


08-16-2011, 07:57 PM
. and moved the the GREATER state of Texas.

Hell ya! ;)

08-16-2011, 10:10 PM
Hell ya! ;)


09-14-2011, 07:48 PM
welcome to the communist state of california....

09-14-2011, 09:52 PM
If you think San Francisco is doing this as a "test", you are kidding yourselves. The animal rights activists are hard at work to remove your rights to own (and breed) animals.

As I stated in other threads, I raised/showed rats (as well as dogs) and have kept my website up for those who still have my purchased stock and for others who would like info on care, links, etc. I wrote a page on this very subject before the last election that you may find quite applicable here; please check out the links, especially where PETA states there is no such thing as a responsible breeder.


As I state in my article, if all responsible breeding ends, where do we obtain healthy, good-tempered, *quality* breeding stock? Do we stop having cats and dogs altogether?? Do we start anew -- with sickly, displastic, thyroid-deficient, epileptic, and blind animals? And NO specific breeds (that have been with us for decades if not hundreds of years?

09-14-2011, 10:12 PM
In addition, the HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) is as crooked as a barrel of snakes. Most people think they are the "parent" organization of your local humane society, but they are not; and the CEO has been under fire for everything from tax evasion to how the HSUS spends it's funds: