In reading the papers late last night I stumbled on to this article, http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/08/MN9L1EAT90.DTL, which talked about San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare is proposing a ban on the sale of all pets except for fish. Commission Chair Sally Stephens quipped, "People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized. That's what we'd like to stop." To stop the euthanization of animals the proposal is to close pet stores. In a state that struggles to raise enough tax money to meet budget demands the city of San Francisco is proposing a ban that would shut down businesses and put people on the unemployment line. A quick search via dexknows displayed 59 pet stores in the metro area.
Michael Maddox, general counsel for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C., quipped in the article above, "This is an anti-pet proposal from people who oppose the keeping of pets. If their goal is to ban the ownership of pets entirely, then this is a good first step." If the proposal goes through it would require people in San Francisco to purchase pets from other cities, via the classifieds or through the shelter. Is there something the shelter does differently than a pet store to curb impulse buying? If shelters are being overrun with pets then demand more money from those that drop off pets. Or, as I am sure may already take place, take the animal back to the pet store. Or why cannot the shelter just sell the abandoned or left pets to local pet stores?
Just seems like the liberals in San Francisco are trying to restrict people's choice.