Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Sell a guinea pig, go to jail.

That's the law under consideration by San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. If the commission approves the ordinance at its meeting tonight, San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country's first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.

That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.

Read more...
S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

This should be a wakeup call for anyone who doubts the ability of the Animal Rights Movement to accomplish their TRUE AGENDA, which is the banning of the use of any animal for any purpose.

Did I miss something, or why are we just hearing about this now, at the 11th hour?

>>Did I miss something, or why are we just hearing about this now, at the 11th hour?

I just heard about it myself - PIJAC apparently knew as Mike Maddox was interviewed but I haven't received a Pet Alert

>>>>Did I miss something, or why are we just hearing about this now, at the 11th hour?
>>
>>I just heard about it myself - PIJAC apparently knew as Mike Maddox was interviewed but I haven't received a Pet Alert

The minute I heard I rang every bell I had access too.

Thank you, Jeff!!! I'm so glad you're getting more directly involved in all this!

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This one does not surprise me too much since it is S.F. and since the guy who pushed for the state wide pet ban was from S.F. I hope the stakeholders over there are on top of it. I am camped inland now or I would go. I will say it again: neither PETA nor HSUS is afraid of us. They want to set precedent and pry open a little crack in our fundamental rights. They do not want animal welfare, they want power over people. Simple.

I'm pretty sure it's the Wine and Cheese Crowd passing judgment on the Commoners, dispensing choices in personal taste as judiciously as can be.

While we're at it, I'm all for banning their vineyards, other agricultural endeavors, and their cheese factory modified livestock lands.

Many more people are harmed from the behavioral effects of Ethyl Alcohol consumption. The social costs are significant.

Their land holdings are natural habitat destroyed. Their livestock contribute to Climate Change with excessive Methane Gas production.

My reasoning here is significantly more tangible and more quantifiable than their emotional justifications for their legislative initiative.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

While we're at it, I'm all for banning their vineyards, other agricultural endeavors, and their cheese factory modified livestock lands.

As someone who's name by blood ends with a O. I can tell you that prohibition was one of the greatest things that ever happened to this country and to my actual blood relatives. They have and still do make lots of money from prohibition, not only from alcohol but from gambling and prostitution as well.
I don't see one freakin' dime of it but a few of my cousins do quite well for themselves from what I hear.

>>Many more people are harmed from the behavioral effects of Ethyl Alcohol consumption. The social costs are significant.
>>

Good point, John.
I've always believed this is the ultimate "progressive" hypocrisy. The following excerpts are from a DOJ report:

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf

"Two-thirds of victims who suffered
violence by an intimate (a current or
former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend)
reported that alcohol had been a
factor. Among spouse victims, 3 out
of 4 incidents were reported to have
involved an offender who had been
drinking. By contrast, an estimated
31% of stranger victimizations where
the victim could determine the
absence or presence of alcohol were
perceived to be alcohol-related."

"Based on this compilation and new
analysis of data on alcohol and crime,
we know that nearly 4 in 10 violent
victimizations involve use of alcohol,
about 4 in 10 fatal motor vehicle
accidents are alcohol-involved; and
about 4 in 10 offenders, regardless of
whether they are on probation, in local
jail, or in State prison, self-report that
they were using alcohol at the time of
the offense."

This translates to THOUSANDS of human deaths EVERY YEAR in
the US.

You'd think the elitist progressives would be focusing solely on
banning alcohol if they were consistent in their reasoning.
But I guess banning pythons, hamsters and parakeets will turn society into a Utopian playground of rainbows and flowers where nothing bad ever happens.

Well, if you're gonna ban alcohol at least legalize marijuana. Or must I do nothing else but work to pay the government and my bills?

B.

>>Well, if you're gonna ban alcohol at least legalize marijuana. Or must I do nothing else but work to pay the government and my bills?
>>
>>B.

Just to clarify, I wasn't advocating banning anything, just pointing out the hypocrisy.

What the heck are they thinking. The majority of Pet Stores out there rely on new animal sales to keep repeat business commng back to keep their doors open. There are very few retial PetStores out there that are'FISH ONLY' Stores and the majority of them that are not fish specific woudn't last more than 18 months without sales of new animals. The store I work part time at is so financially unstable that it won't last 6 months without the sale of puppies. Our fish sales that used to be over $1500 per month are now lucky if they exceed $500 a month the way it is. This coutry is in for a real rude awakening if this passes anywhere.

Just to clarify, they are not actually trying to ban sales in the city, just in pet stores.

Clearly this proposal needs revision to allow the sale of appropriate species in San Francisco's pet stores, but to characterize this as a "sales ban" isn't really accurate. And while in many places this could easily be seen as a wedge to get a complete ban on pet sales and breeding, I don't think that's likely in this case.

With the exception of as regards pit bulls, San Francisco has a tradition of being friendly or at least neutral towards breeders, intact pets, etc. The city has never supported, and has at times actively opposed, breeding bans, mandatory spay/neuter, and other limits that neighboring counties have championed and embraced.

I'd encourage everyone who wants to weigh in on this proposal to do so in a constructive and informational way, and particularly to support the good, responsible stores that sell birds, herps and small pets in the city. That's what this commission will respond to best.

Agree with everything - don't mean to mislead, just limited in space on subject line

Where the raided a mans house in San Fransisco who had snakes, and from what I could tell was keeping them well, and they confiscated them because they were not allowed to be kept in the city...

I think he moved and was "allowed" to have his (some very high dollar) snakes back after they had finally run him off to some other county...

Doesn't seem like a "pet" friendly city to me...Seems like the kind place I'd never even want to visit, let alone live.

Raven, this is the relevant city code of members of the Class Reptillia that can only be kept with permits):

A)Order Squamata

1.Sub-Order Serpentes, all front and rear fanged venomous snakes and all species of the Families Boidae and Pythonidae.

2.Sub-Order Lacertilia, both venomous species of the Family Helodermatidae (Gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard).

Agree with that or not (and as regards "all species of the Families Boidae and Pythonidae," I do not), it still leaves a lot of herps that can be kept, and is not an uncommon list of restrictions as compared to other municipalities. It's the kind of list made by someone who is ignorant, that's all.

As a fourth generation native San Franciscan, and someone who has been very active in the local animal community, I would say that if a group of herp keepers appeared before the commission and tried to get the ordinance language modified to be more reasonable, they'd probably succeed.

San Francisco is not how most people think it is, who don't live here.

It seems even the people of San Francisco think this is too far
and some of them are downright hilarious.

>>It seems even the people of San Francisco think this is too far
>>and some of them are downright hilarious.

Yeah, seems like even liberal San Franciscans think this proposal is too elitist and "progressive"! I liked these two:

"Ban pet sales in SF? You're kidding right? Normally I regard the 'liberals = the devil' posters here as nothing more than internet trolls, but I'm beginning to wonder. Seriously, what is San Francisco thinking?"

"Why is it all these 'progressive', 'liberal' commissions want to take away our freedoms? I'm a traditional liberal democrat. What these folks represent is not liberal but autocratic; not liberal but goofy. How is it that the City has money for this kind of nonsense but can't find money for basic city services? Dump
this commission!"

It would be great if one or more politician would lose their next election over something related to the AR agenda.

When they go to far, I believe it is possible. In Morro Bay last year the city opted for a 4th of July laser show intead of the traditional fireworks show. One of the reasons was the explosions might scare the endangered Snowy Plover. Well the Snowy Plover lives on the beach next to what? Booming surf including areas that get 20' to 30' surf from time to time. It's rediculous to think one night of fireworks is going to hurt them.

The laser show was a dismal failure with many complaints from the public and bussiness owners who rely on tourism around the 4th as one of their bussiest times of the year. The following year, this year, the city went back to a regular fireworks show. Just shows how loony and out of touch these politicians can be.

Jeff,

Even Michael Savage is talking about it on his talk show tonight...

What are the odds here? Any SWAG?

Thanks for any update you or USARK can post...

Later,
Jim.
-----
CSRAJim

>>What are the odds here? Any SWAG?

My guess is that if they do anything at all it will be much more moderate than what has been proposed and the person who pushed this
will be wondering how they ended up with a "hamster around their neck" while they seek gainful employment elsewhere for making S.F. appear foolish nationwide.

Jeff,

>>My guess is that if they do anything at all it will be much more moderate than what has been proposed and the person who pushed this will be wondering how they ended up with a "hamster around their neck" while they seek gainful employment elsewhere for making S.F. appear foolish nationwide.

A "hamster around their neck" as opposed to some place else or was that a gerbil...This is San Fran-sicko! HA! HA!

Seriously, I've sent the information on to my congressman and also to Senatorial Candidate, Clint Didier (R-WA) and former NFL Tight End for the Redskins and current farmer...I heard him on talk radio today speaking about how the ESA has, and is, affecting America's farming industry...After all, the ESA was written to regulate the commerce of commodities (agricultural and mining commodities traded on a market)...The other stuff is just the socialist dialectic (false premise to conceal the truth)...

Later man,
Jim.

Later,
Jim.
-----
CSRAJim

It would be great if the wind just stopped blowing and his boat sat out in San Francisco bay. Water water everywhere nad not a drop to drink.

Jaime over at PIJAC forwarded me their Pet Alert, dated and broadcast June 28
PIJAC Pet Alert - SF Pet Sales Ban