San Francisco trying to ban pet sales.
06-20-2011, 08:53 PM
#1
Elite Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Houston
Posts: 2,914
Total Cats: 5
San Francisco trying to ban pet sales.
More wasting of peoples tax money.
http://www.care2.com/causes/san-fran...pet-sales.html
http://www.care2.com/causes/san-fran...pet-sales.html
San Francisco is Renewing Efforts to Ban Pet Sales
by alicia G.
June 18, 2011
7:50 pm
106 comments San Francisco is Renewing Efforts to Ban Pet Sales
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Digg
E-Mail
Text Size: A | A | A | A
San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission is renewing efforts to ban pet sales in the city, which has been extended to include goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in an effort to raise awareness of the plight of even the smallest of animals who are raised inhumanely and to discourage impulse buys of pets.
Last year a ban on the sale of puppies, kittens and other small animals was proposed in hopes of increasing adoptions and dropping euthanasia rates, but a decision was put off and the issue was scrapped altogether.
This year’s proposal comes after a year of study and was expanded to include breeders as well as pet stores to help protect pets, consumers and the environment.
“The pet trade is a multi-billion dollar industry that treats animals as commodities to be bought and sold for profit. This leads to suffering on a massive scale when animals are warehoused, bred for sale, denied socialization and basic veterinary care, and finally transported with minimal care. Animals from mills develop diseases creating public health problems. Importation of sick animals to SF is bad for SF animals. Buying animals from local breeders and adopting from rescue/shelters are healthier companion animal choices,” according to a statement from the commission from their meeting on June 9.
They also point out that the ban will address problems with taking animals from the wild, along with the problems that come with releasing domestic pets who are no longer wanted.
“Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred” under inhumane conditions “or taken from the wild,” commission member Philip Gerrie told the San Francisco Chronicle. That leads to “devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia.”
Some of the recommendations of the commission haven’t made any progress, but others have, including the ban on declawing cats in 2009. San Francisco also wouldn’t be the first city in California to ban pet sales. West Hollywood passed a ban last year, and was more recently joined by Los Angeles.
The ban does not in any way mean a ban on pets, it only means that people will need to choose alternative methods of bringing them home. According to the commission, this can include 1) Pet store adoptions events; 2) Pet store permanent adoption centers/partnerships; 3) Direct sale from small breeders; 4) Adoption from shelters such as Animal Care and Control and the SF/SPCA; 5) Adoption from animal rescue organizations.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/san-fran...#ixzz1PrqLFgOQ
by alicia G.
June 18, 2011
7:50 pm
106 comments San Francisco is Renewing Efforts to Ban Pet Sales
StumbleUpon
Digg
Text Size: A | A | A | A
San Francisco’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission is renewing efforts to ban pet sales in the city, which has been extended to include goldfish, tropical fish and guppies in an effort to raise awareness of the plight of even the smallest of animals who are raised inhumanely and to discourage impulse buys of pets.
Last year a ban on the sale of puppies, kittens and other small animals was proposed in hopes of increasing adoptions and dropping euthanasia rates, but a decision was put off and the issue was scrapped altogether.
This year’s proposal comes after a year of study and was expanded to include breeders as well as pet stores to help protect pets, consumers and the environment.
“The pet trade is a multi-billion dollar industry that treats animals as commodities to be bought and sold for profit. This leads to suffering on a massive scale when animals are warehoused, bred for sale, denied socialization and basic veterinary care, and finally transported with minimal care. Animals from mills develop diseases creating public health problems. Importation of sick animals to SF is bad for SF animals. Buying animals from local breeders and adopting from rescue/shelters are healthier companion animal choices,” according to a statement from the commission from their meeting on June 9.
They also point out that the ban will address problems with taking animals from the wild, along with the problems that come with releasing domestic pets who are no longer wanted.
“Most fish in aquariums are either mass bred” under inhumane conditions “or taken from the wild,” commission member Philip Gerrie told the San Francisco Chronicle. That leads to “devastation of tropical fish from places like Southeast Asia.”
Some of the recommendations of the commission haven’t made any progress, but others have, including the ban on declawing cats in 2009. San Francisco also wouldn’t be the first city in California to ban pet sales. West Hollywood passed a ban last year, and was more recently joined by Los Angeles.
The ban does not in any way mean a ban on pets, it only means that people will need to choose alternative methods of bringing them home. According to the commission, this can include 1) Pet store adoptions events; 2) Pet store permanent adoption centers/partnerships; 3) Direct sale from small breeders; 4) Adoption from shelters such as Animal Care and Control and the SF/SPCA; 5) Adoption from animal rescue organizations.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/san-fran...#ixzz1PrqLFgOQ
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 09:45 AM
#4
Newb
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 34
Total Cats: 0
next headline: San Francisco trying to ban self-thinking.
Let's see, can't buy your kid a happy meal with a toy in it because apparently you can't be trusted to feed your kid properly. Can't smoke in public, but you can walk down haight street and see guys blowing other guys right on the street.
Am I missing something here?
Let's see, can't buy your kid a happy meal with a toy in it because apparently you can't be trusted to feed your kid properly. Can't smoke in public, but you can walk down haight street and see guys blowing other guys right on the street.
Am I missing something here?
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 10:45 AM
#6
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
next headline: San Francisco trying to ban self-thinking.
Let's see, can't buy your kid a happy meal with a toy in it because apparently you can't be trusted to feed your kid properly. Can't smoke in public, but you can walk down haight street and see guys blowing other guys right on the street.
Am I missing something here?
Let's see, can't buy your kid a happy meal with a toy in it because apparently you can't be trusted to feed your kid properly. Can't smoke in public, but you can walk down haight street and see guys blowing other guys right on the street.
Am I missing something here?
And smoking pole versus cigarettes? That's pretty obvious. Some guy sucking another guy's dick doesn't affect my health when I walk by.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 10:55 AM
#8
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: atlanta-ish
Posts: 12,659
Total Cats: 134
Puppy mills are disguising and I think morally wrong. I have no sympathy for them. That being said, I don't see why I have a right to demand to take away their livelihood and ability to feed and clothe their children. My dogs come from the animal shelter or local humane society. They've all been wonderful. I don't care for puppy mills, so I vote with my wallet. That's my right, and some people disagree with me and pay breeders. God bless the USA.
Anyway, this seems pretty transparent. It's not about helping conditions at breeders. It's about lessening the overhead at their animal shelters. I have a hard time with the thought that LA enacted something based on morality. CA is in a deep hole.
Anyway, this seems pretty transparent. It's not about helping conditions at breeders. It's about lessening the overhead at their animal shelters. I have a hard time with the thought that LA enacted something based on morality. CA is in a deep hole.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 01:52 PM
#9
Newb
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 34
Total Cats: 0
Maybe. Other companies have voluntarily stopped including toys in meals. Perhaps parents need to learn how to say "no" or just stop buying their kid shitty fast food but people aren't smart enough.
And smoking pole versus cigarettes? That's pretty obvious. Some guy sucking another guy's dick doesn't affect my health when I walk by.
And smoking pole versus cigarettes? That's pretty obvious. Some guy sucking another guy's dick doesn't affect my health when I walk by.
What you have in San Fran is some power-crazed left-wing nuts who are under the impression that they're "progressive" when everyone else is "*** backwards".
I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but if I ever see a dude blowing another dude in public and cops not paying attention, I'll petition for a law allowing heterosexual intercourse in public. THAT will raise some flags.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 02:19 PM
#13
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
Both my pets (1 dog and 1 cat) were rescued from people who didn't want them. The cat was actually abandoned in an apartment with the mother and entire litter when some guy moved in.
Next SF Headline: San Francisco bans living..
Next SF Headline: San Francisco bans living..
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 02:47 PM
#15
2 Props,3 Dildos,& 1 Cat
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Fake Virginia
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 573
A parent's ability to say or not say no is not something that can be regulated by the government. If you can't say no to your child and you stuff 'em until they're fat and have health problems, that's your own damn fault. The constitution protects my right to go out and eat what I want and parent how I want. Don't see fat ugly bitches trying to breastfeed in public "because they can" getting banned from that, do you? Don't think for a single second the women who make a fuss about breastfeeding are doing it for their children, it's all about attention on themselves.
What you have in San Fran is some power-crazed left-wing nuts who are under the impression that they're "progressive" when everyone else is "*** backwards".
I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but if I ever see a dude blowing another dude in public and cops not paying attention, I'll petition for a law allowing heterosexual intercourse in public. THAT will raise some flags.
What you have in San Fran is some power-crazed left-wing nuts who are under the impression that they're "progressive" when everyone else is "*** backwards".
I don't care what you do in the bedroom, but if I ever see a dude blowing another dude in public and cops not paying attention, I'll petition for a law allowing heterosexual intercourse in public. THAT will raise some flags.
SF is merely trying to provide (perhaps excessive) social guidance. They don't care about your moral code but they care about your health.
And while I agree that nobody should be eating fast food without knowing what it does to them (dont try to convince me that most people understand how bad it is) or smoking because of the health effects, I do believe people have the right to do it.
How about this: I'll let you feed your kid McDonalds if you let me abort mine.
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 03:20 PM
#17
Elite Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Overland Park, Kansas
Posts: 5,360
Total Cats: 43
If you want to smoke, drink, shoot up, become a fat ******* slob that is 100% your choice. That's a choice YOU made, and your education (if you have one) should have made it pretty obvious this was a bad choice to make. Do they even teach things like that in school anymore? Probably not. Tell you what else they don't teach in school, taking responsibility for your own actions and accepting the consequences of your actions. Add to that that nothing in life is free, you shouldn't expect to be handed ANYTHING, and taking something that doesn't belong to you is against the law (rightfully so.)
What pisses me off is these fat slobs who sue McDonalds for making them fat. Sue them for their health problems because they're obese. Then, MY tax dollars have to pay for these ******* slobs health care and everything else because they're unable to maintain a job. That is what I disagree with. I'm sorry, you'll NEVER convince me healthcare is a right. It isn't. Show me where in the United States Bill of Rights where you're guaranteed health care? United States Constitution? The only thing I have seen social guidance accomplish is a homeless man standing on the street corner begging for money, to later observe him buying alcohol from a gas station.
But I'm just a gun toting rightwing terrorist, Right?
What pisses me off is these fat slobs who sue McDonalds for making them fat. Sue them for their health problems because they're obese. Then, MY tax dollars have to pay for these ******* slobs health care and everything else because they're unable to maintain a job. That is what I disagree with. I'm sorry, you'll NEVER convince me healthcare is a right. It isn't. Show me where in the United States Bill of Rights where you're guaranteed health care? United States Constitution? The only thing I have seen social guidance accomplish is a homeless man standing on the street corner begging for money, to later observe him buying alcohol from a gas station.
But I'm just a gun toting rightwing terrorist, Right?
Reply
0
0
06-21-2011, 03:37 PM
#18
there have been laws trying to ban public breastfeeding. And i disagree with them. No matter how ugly the tit is.
Sf is merely trying to provide (perhaps excessive) social guidance. They don't care about your moral code but they care about your health.
And while i agree that nobody should be eating fast food without knowing what it does to them (dont try to convince me that most people understand how bad it is) or smoking because of the health effects, i do believe people have the right to do it.
How about this: I'll let you feed your kid mcdonalds if you let me abort mine.
Sf is merely trying to provide (perhaps excessive) social guidance. They don't care about your moral code but they care about your health.
And while i agree that nobody should be eating fast food without knowing what it does to them (dont try to convince me that most people understand how bad it is) or smoking because of the health effects, i do believe people have the right to do it.
How about this: I'll let you feed your kid mcdonalds if you let me abort mine.
Reply
0
0
