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.
Why do you make this a liberal/conservative issue? Do you take issue with the state of Texas changing its education curriculum to meet "conservative standards"?
ReplyDeleteIts a stupid ordinance with good intentions. People DO buy pets from pet stores on impulse without the proper knowledge on how to care for the animal. Animal shelters currently are overrun with abandoned pets which use donated money for their care and euthanization. Since I am quite the animal lover, this bothers me.
But, you are right. It is a stupid ordinance that only caters to a specific side of the political spectrum. However if you think that San Francisco is the only place this happens, left or right, you would be wrong
I know I took the liberty of assuming that chair is a liberal but it is San Francisco where a true conservative is rare. To be honest I have not read much about the changes Texas made to their curriculum.
ReplyDeleteMy question is why put people out of business and out of work when unemployement is high and the state of California is on the brink of bankruptcy?
That is a fair question. However it is also a fair question as to why people buy pets only to abandon them...I think that you personally share a differing priority.
ReplyDeleteBut on that subject, it seems to me that the city council of San Fran created this because they are representing an interest who approached them. Have they passed to ordinace yet? Do you think that someone wrote this story to create controversy so that the American public could further dislike those San Fran "liberals"? You don't live in San Francisco...what do you care?
Another hyped up media story to create controversy...big deal
Correct I don't live in San Francisco but it is this type of lunacy government control that seems to start in California then spread across the United States. Not sure why but it does.
ReplyDeleteI did check the paper this morning, www.sfgate.com, to see if any new developments took place but it does not look like it. The article last posted, July 9th, touched on the fact that the original intent of the bill was to limit puppy and cat mills. Which is something I agree with. Also, I do not understand the mixing of breeds as I am one who prefers pure breed animals.
I don't think this controversy is getting much play outside of San Francisco though. Probably because the bigger story is the riots that followed the involuntary manslaughter conviction of a BART officer.
"I do not understand the mixing of breeds as I am one who prefers pure breed animals."
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to pry, but that is a disappointing statement that I've heard before. Pure-bred animals have tendancy to be inbred by breeders who want to make money. This allows for problematic recessive traits to show up. This can cause genetic disorders, agression, and hard to handle animals. If you want a particular trait(such as a hunting dog) be careful about who you buy it from. However, for a pet, mixed breeds are the best for temperament and genetic factors. Just letting you know.
I agree that one needs to understand their breeder and breeding habits. When we got Mischka we asked several Rot organizations and talked to about a dozen breeders before choosing.
ReplyDeleteOne can still obtain temperament and good genetics by not using the same dogs all the time.
These people are insane. Telling people to end their livelihood because the animal shelters are overrun is just wrong. Try something different then closing down businesses and putting people out of jobs. Viper, you do make a valid point as it will have tax and budget ripples in California.
ReplyDelete