# Site General > Pet Related Laws & Legislation >  S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

## tiny_tiger60978

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. 

"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," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

San Francisco residents who want a pet would have to go to another city, adopt one from a shelter or rescue group, or find one through the classifieds.

The Board of Supervisors would have final say on the matter. But not before pet store owners unleash a cacophony of howling, squeaking and squawking.

"It's terrible. A pet store that can't sell pets? It's ridiculous," said John Chan, manager of Pet Central on Broadway, which has been in business 30 years. "We'd have to close." 

'Terrible for our business'
Joe Taylor, bird manager of Animal Connection on Judah Street, called the proposal "ludicrous."

"What difference does it make if you get a parrot at the SPCA or a pet store? If it doesn't work out, in either case, you just bring it back," Taylor said. "This would be terrible for our business."

The idea originated about two years ago, when the commission began looking into a ban on dog and cat sales as a way to discourage puppy and kitten mills. But the city's animal control staff said that excess puppies and kittens are not the problem at the city shelter, thanks to the plethora of rescue groups. In any case, only one or two pet stores in San Francisco sell dogs and cats. The rest stick to small animals.

The hamster problem
The real problem, staff said, is hamsters. 

People buy the high-strung, nocturnal rodents because they're under the temporary impression that hamsters are cute and cuddly. But the new owners quickly learn that hamsters are, in fact, prone to biting, gnawing through expensive wiring and maniacally racing on their exercise wheels at 2 a.m.

So the animals end up at the shelter. Just about every species has its own rescue group in San Francisco, but no one seems to want hamsters. Hamsters are the No. 1 animal euthanized at the city's shelter, said San Francisco Animal Care and Control director Rebecca Katz. 

"It's definitely a concern," she said. "They're an impulse buy, and we do sometimes get tons of them, especially babies."

Committed owners
On Wednesday, the shelter, which is on 15th Street in the Mission District, had six hamsters, nine rabbits, nine mice, nine rats, two guinea pigs, a bowl of goldfish, two birds, a leopard gecko, a bearded dragon and a hermit crab named Charlie. 

But those shelter hamsters almost certainly did not originate at a pet store, said Michael Maddox, general counsel for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C.

Studies by UC Davis and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy have shown that only a small fraction of shelter animals were purchased at pet stores, he said. People who buy animals at pet stores are just as committed, emotionally and financially, to caring for their pets as people who procure pets elsewhere, he said.

"This is an anti-pet proposal from people who oppose the keeping of pets," he said. "If their goal is to ban the ownership of pets entirely, then this is a good first step."

The commission plans to listen to testimony from pet store owners, among others, before voting. Among the items it will consider is the impact on small businesses, whether to allow the sale of feeder rodents for snakes and other reptiles, the sale of fish, owner education, penalties and rescue groups that host adoptions at pet stores.

"We're still in the information-gathering phase," said Commissioner Philip Gerrie, who is sponsoring the proposal. "We're trying to get at the problem of people buying these creatures with the best intentions, but then the reality turns out quite different."

Meeting tonight 
San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare meets at 5:30 p.m. today at City Hall, Room 408, to consider an ordinance banning the sale of pets, except for fish, in San Francisco. 

-- For more information, go to sfgate.com/ZJYO.

Euthanized pets in S.F. 
13% Percentage of dogs and cats at the San Francisco animal shelter that are euthanized, including aggressive, injured and sick animals.

35% Percentage of dogs and cats in shelters nationwide that are euthanized.

30% Percentage of hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits and other small animals at the San Francisco shelter that are euthanized.

Source: San Francisco Animal Care and Control 


found at :
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MN9L1EAT90.DTL

----------


## tiny_tiger60978

I know it's a long read, but i think it's at least worth skimming through...Only posted it because it will ban the sale of all reptiles (except fish) too

----------


## jfreels

I hardly doubt the main reason for this is hamsters.  Everyone knows the dog/cat thing costs every city hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.  They wouldn't need so many rescue groups if there wasn't a problem  :Wink: 

On another note though, it just bans the sale in the city limits and from my understanding, you could still breed within the city with no fault.  You just can't have a storefront.  I'm against the goverment regulating if I can purchase a "companion animal", but at the same time, I am tired of animals going to bad homes.  A parent will be less inclined to drive to another city just to get an $8 hamster.  And if SF is anything like Atlanta, there are very few places to actually get those animals within the city limits.  Unfortunately, the good independant stores have all closed down.

----------

_Beardedragon_ (07-08-2010)

----------


## tiny_tiger60978

I totally agree. I just put the story up to yall to read. Thanks for looking though!!!  :Razz:  :Wink:

----------


## West Coast Jungle

If businesses aren't struggling enough this should put a nail in their coffin!

----------


## WingedWolfPsion

Fish are more badly abused than hamsters.  I don't see this being a popular move.  :Razz:

----------


## j_h_smith

What do you expect, it's SanFran.

Jim Smith

----------


## Ham

What a joke! These commision board members who are even considering this are obviously mentally ill... They must be closet PETA members... 

Why dont you just make animal abuse illegal?  Oh wait it already is!

Drugs are illegal in San Francisco, doesnt seem to stop anyone from doing them though... You make pet sales illegal and you will suddenly make basement breeding very profitable, black market hamsters will suddenly flood the city, and I can guarantee their living conditions will be even more atrocious than any commercial breeder!

----------


## jfreels

> You make pet sales illegal and you will suddenly make basement breeding very profitable, black market hamsters will suddenly flood the city, and I can guarantee their living conditions will be even more atrocious than any commercial breeder!


Not true, the reason that they are a "problem" is because kids see them at the petstores and tell daddy to buy them one.  Take the hamster out of the site of the child, then "problem" fixed, eh?

----------


## Ham

Thats debatable, you dont see many dogs in pet stores and people still buy and abuse alot of them. (but I do see your point)\

Not only that, you are ruining the livliehood of a large number of families, and shutting down buisinesses that help the local economy!

People need to step in and take personal responsibility for the pets they buy, it is not the governments job to run every nuance of our lives.  If people abuse these animals than they should be punished, there should not be some arbitrary law that unjustly punishes everyone for the idiocy of others...

These blanket bans will do less to protect these exploited animals than they think...

----------


## jfreels

> Thats debatable, you dont see many dogs in pet stores and people still buy and abuse alot of them. (but I do see your point)\
> 
> Not only that, you are ruining the livliehood of a large number of families, and shutting down buisinesses that help the local economy!
> 
> People need to step in and take personal responsibility for the pets they buy, it is not the governments job to run every nuance of our lives.  If people abuse these animals than they should be punished, there should not be some arbitrary law that unjustly punishes everyone for the idiocy of others...
> 
> These blanket bans will do less to protect these exploited animals than they think...


Agreed.

----------

_Ham_ (07-08-2010)

----------


## Ham

These laws they are enacting to blanket ban animals are so illogical to me, they are not addressing the root of the problem which is the animal abuse itself (this is supposed to be their reasoning for the laws in the first place)
If the laws that are already in place were enforced more vigorously, than I believe that it would do more to protect pets.  Animal Abusers should be rooted out and viciously punished beyond what standard sentencing is today.
In singapore even grafitti is punishable by public caning, this seems more suitable to me than a piddling fine and a few hours community service (which is what most convicted animal abusers receive).  Let the punishment fit the crime, if you cause pain and suffering for the creatures under your care than you should suffer the same fate.  Thats the way I feel anyway...

----------


## nixer

just so everyone knows this also includes corals!

----------


## wolfy-hound

San Fran was always one of the most pet friendly cities ever, I guess they're changing that.

People buying pets in other towns isn't a good answer! If people stop buying the companion animals, then they get used to a "non pet home" and that means when HSUS goes for national bans on all pets, they don't CARE.  Plus, "Oh it's just San Fran, people can go buy pets elsewhere"? Oh no.. San Fran will be city #1, not the last city this happens in.

My prediction for the last 6 months has been that in ten years, the US won't have pets at all, unless you are super rich and import your dogs or cats from out of country.  No matter how hard we seem to try to fight it, they just have more money and more ignorant people and fanatics on their side. Some days I don't feel like anything I can do makes any difference.

----------


## nixer

> San Fran was always one of the most pet friendly cities ever, I guess they're changing that.
> 
> People buying pets in other towns isn't a good answer! If people stop buying the companion animals, then they get used to a "non pet home" and that means when HSUS goes for national bans on all pets, they don't CARE.  Plus, "Oh it's just San Fran, people can go buy pets elsewhere"? Oh no.. San Fran will be city #1, not the last city this happens in.
> 
> My prediction for the last 6 months has been that in ten years, the US won't have pets at all, unless you are super rich and import your dogs or cats from out of country.  No matter how hard we seem to try to fight it, they just have more money and more ignorant people and fanatics on their side. Some days I don't feel like anything I can do makes any difference.


wolfy keep your hopes up.
in the end all governments eventually fail

----------


## nixer

is there any updates on this?

i found a new article posted today 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=67477

must read it clearly says they want to ban all pets

there is also another one on banning of all cats in S.F.

----------


## Lolo76

> is there any updates on this?
> 
> i found a new article posted today 
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/...entry_id=67477
> 
> must read it clearly says they want to ban all pets
> 
> there is also another one on banning of all cats in S.F.


They don't want to ban _owning_ pets, just selling them in pet shops... I live in San Francisco, so I'd know if that was happening!! We already have so many restrictions here in terms of sales, it's really not going to change much. Only a few pet shops still sell live animals, and we're talking guinea pigs, parakeets and hamsters. There is one shop in the business of selling reptiles (colubrids only), so they will be affected quite badly. No biggie for me, since Daly City & SSF are only 5-10 minutes away - and already where I go for my pet needs & feeders.  :Razz:

----------


## Lolo76

> Drugs are illegal in San Francisco, doesnt seem to stop anyone from doing them though...


P.S. Marijuana is basically legal in San Francisco (all you need is a "prescription," which anyone & their mother can get for $90), so that might not be the best example.  :ROFL:  I get your point though, LOL.

----------


## AaronP

SF is freaking crazy...

----------


## Lolo76

> On another note though, it just bans the sale in the city limits and from my understanding, you could still breed within the city with no fault.  You just can't have a storefront.


That's basically how I understand it... animal control generally doesn't care what you keep in your home, they only care about what's sold in stores. And like I said above, they already have many restrictions on that - you can't sell pythons, boas, gerbils, hedgehogs, ferrets, ASFs, and probably more that I don't even know about.




> I'm against the goverment regulating if I can purchase a "companion animal", but at the same time, I am tired of animals going to bad homes.  A parent will be less inclined to drive to another city just to get an $8 hamster.


That's not so true around here, since we're the type of metro where everyone drives from town to town... most people live & work in different places, usually commuting from the Peninsula to the city (I did the opposite for years). So for us, it's really commonplace to live in San Francisco and shop in Daly City or Colma/SSF - they have all the good shopping anyway, since SF is very anti-big-box store.  :Wag of the finger:  There are only three Petcos and one Petsmart in SF city limits, and they rarely even have mice for sale.




> And if SF is anything like Atlanta, there are very few places to actually get those animals within the city limits.  Unfortunately, the good independant stores have all closed down.


Yup. And you'd be really hard-pressed to find dogs & cats in a pet shop, since that's been passe for YEARS... only one left is Serramonte Pet Shop, and they deal with protests and complaints on a regular basis. For good reason too, since their dogs are total puppy-mill products.  :Sad:  It's sad that independent shops are scarce, but I'm not sad about the lack of live animal sales.

----------


## Lolo76

> SF is freaking crazy...


Yes, we are all crazy here... and darned proud of it too!!  :Rolleyes2:

----------


## Dragoon

the logic behind the ban seems rushed and not thought out.

----------


## wolfy-hound

The logic behind the ban is easy to see.  It's a 'feel good' thing to pass, since the legislator type folks can say it's to help prevent animal abuse, to protest the pets from being an impulse buy, etc.  No matter that there's laws againt animal abuse and neglect already.
The ban will only hurt the stores, and set a precident for banning all sales of pets for not only San Fran but for other cities in California, then other parts of the country.  Don't make a mistake of thinking that these types of bans and legislation hasn't been well planned and well thought out.

Plus, San Fran doesn't allow some animals already, including pythons.  They will confiscate and/or arrest/fine you for owning them also, even if it's rare that it happens.  All it takes is a complaint from anyone and you're busted.

----------


## mainbutter

I'm never setting foot within San Fran. I'm officially declaring my San Fran tourism boycott.

----------


## BPelizabeth

I with mainbutter!!!  Boycotting...but then again they are boycotting AZ...sooo :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

In a time where the economy is a mess and ppl are barely surviving...lets go ahead and cause more small businesses to close....oye.   :Wag of the finger:   Don't deal with the puppy mills and the animal abuse....just stop selling and that should take care of it.   :Rolleyes2: 

Drives me nuts!!

----------


## BPHERP

> What do you expect, it's SanFran.
> 
> Jim Smith


Um, what he said. 

Frisco is a sad state of affairs, much like the rest of California.

----------


## Lolo76

> I'm never setting foot within San Fran. I'm officially declaring my San Fran tourism boycott.


I'm sad for you then.... you're missing out on one of the greatest cities in the WORLD, and I'm saying that as somebody who's literally traveled the world. But seriously, we have enough tourists already, so we're not missing anything by losing a few.  :Razz:

----------


## Lolo76

> Um, what he said. 
> 
> Frisco is a sad state of affairs, much like the rest of California.


How so? I don't think we're any worse than the rest of the country, at least not at this time... and things should improve even more after November's election.  :Cool:  We do some things a little wacky in this city, but we also do many things right - hence the reason I returned after 10 years away, seeing what else the US has to offer. None of the other places I've lived compared to SF, but I guess to each his/her own.

----------


## Lolo76

> I with mainbutter!!!  Boycotting...but then again they are boycotting AZ...sooo


Our government officials are boycotting, not the people... unlike some of you here, I wouldn't "boycott" an entire state (or even a city) based on their government legislation. Heck, if that were the case, I'd never be able to visit a red state! And that would be a problem, since I visit family & friends in red states on a regular basis.  :Embarassed: 

I mean really?? Not saying you should all come visit tomorrow, but it's pretty silly to write off a place based on one law that's not even passed. Do you know how many ridiculous laws are proposed every day? Most don't even make it to City Hall, and I doubt this one will go much further either. Look through the proposed laws over the years in your town, and I bet there will be a few that make you cringe or laugh.




> In a time where the economy is a mess and ppl are barely surviving...lets go ahead and cause more small businesses to close....oye.    Don't deal with the puppy mills and the animal abuse....just stop selling and that should take care of it.  
> 
> Drives me nuts!!


I don't think it would actually cause much harm, since as I said earlier, there are very few live animals sold in SF pet stores... I can only think of one or two that would be affected, and they could easily switch gears to selling only supplies instead. Even those 1-2 stores don't seem to sell many animals, and probably make 75-80% of their profit in supply sales.

----------


## dsirkle

Only in the PRK  :Very Happy:

----------


## nixer

> They don't want to ban _owning_ pets, just selling them in pet shops... I live in San Francisco, so I'd know if that was happening!! We already have so many restrictions here in terms of sales, it's really not going to change much. Only a few pet shops still sell live animals, and we're talking guinea pigs, parakeets and hamsters. There is one shop in the business of selling reptiles (colubrids only), so they will be affected quite badly. No biggie for me, since Daly City & SSF are only 5-10 minutes away - and already where I go for my pet needs & feeders.


did you read the link i posted? obviously not!

it clearly says that they support a total ban and there is also a bill to ban all cats in S.F., but if you read that article you would know that also

----------


## wolfy-hound

Well.. obviously, it's fine to ban pet sales.. because you'll just go to antoher city to get your stuff.  Then what if Daly City and SSF also follow SF's lead? Then anywhere in California? Heck.. let's just have that rule everywhere!

Then it'll be only USDA facilities can breed animals.  That's already being proposed too, you know? Haven't you seen those?  That sounds great, only licensed breeders can breed! They'll be inspected, etc.  Wonderful, excpet that only large scale operations are able to do the volume and the permit fees, etc.. so only the biggest will still be able to breed animals.

Oh.. guess what? Those "big breeders" that are to be the USDA licensed ones? They already have been labeled puppy mills, or kitten mills, or snake mills.  Once they're shut down with some more feel-good legislation.. no more pets bred or sold in the US.  Bingo. HSUS is happy.

Do you REALLY think that HSUS doesn't have a long term plan to get rid of all pets and animal agriculture? They state it themselves with their "one generation and gone" goals.  They are not STUPID.  They have plenty of funds, and the attitude of "As long as it doesn't directly affect me" is how they will win. Congrats.  Euthanize your pets before PeTa  gets them.

----------


## Lolo76

> did you read the link i posted? obviously not!
> 
> it clearly says that they support a total ban and there is also a bill to ban all cats in S.F., but if you read that article you would know that also


I did read that article, thankyouverymuch... in fact I read it TWICE, and it says nothing about banning ownership and cats. Maybe you need to read it again? Here's the only part that even mentioned pet ownership, and I don't see how you interpreted this as banning cats & dogs.  :Confused: 

"_And while it was admittedly wrenching testimony, the average pet owner probably wanted to know if he would be able to buy a puppy at a local pet store. As commission Chairwoman Stephanie Stephens said, no one wants to see an animal mistreated, but what about the responsible pet owner who keeps an animal in good condition and forms a mutual bond of trust an affection?

Nope, testified the bird advocate, they shouldn't have a pet either. (Is that what confused you? It's just something random a "bird advocate" said, not a law that was being considered.)

In a town where it is often said that dogs outnumber children, that's going to be a tough sell._" (And as it indicates here, most people in SF would scoff at the idea of not owning pets.)

----------

_anthonym_ (07-11-2010)

----------


## Lolo76

Ah, I see what you were reading now... it was a "newsflash" in one of the comments, which had no outside link for reference. I did some further research on that comment, and can't find anything regarding this issue. The board of supervisor members who supposedly "proposed a ban on all cats in SF" have only proposed a ban on *declawing cats*: http://www.aolnews.com/article/san-f...awing/19260543
These same people also were instrumental in the ban on plastic bags (stores can only use them if they pay a fee), so I guess the commenter on your link got a little confused - as it also mentioned bagging cats, or something like that. Funny!

Challenging or questioning a reference librarian (myself), you've gotta provide actual sources - or I'll find them for you, LOL.  :Wink:

----------

_anthonym_ (07-11-2010)

----------


## j_h_smith

I would hope this is a pie in the sky type bill, but with this being SanFran, it could become law.  What I don't understand is how the people of the city would let this become law?  Where are the people and why are they not outraged by this?

Jim Smith

----------


## wolfy-hound

Well, look right in the thread at Lolo who lives in SF and apparently thinks it's just fine to have such a ban.  Obviously to me at least, if the reptile hobbiests don't care, why should the rest of the city? Of course, they'll probably all howl when it ban crops up in other nearby cities and they suddenly can't just drive a short ways to get supplies or pets.. but then it'll be too late.

----------


## mainbutter

Lolo, do you reside in SF?

Are ball pythons legal to have there?

----------


## Lolo76

> Well, look right in the thread at Lolo who lives in SF and apparently thinks it's just fine to have such a ban.  Obviously to me at least, if the reptile hobbiests don't care, why should the rest of the city? Of course, they'll probably all howl when it ban crops up in other nearby cities and they suddenly can't just drive a short ways to get supplies or pets.. but then it'll be too late.


I never said it was fine... I just said it won't make a huge difference, since there aren't many live animals sold here already.  :Cool:  Do I agree with the ban? Only partially, as I think small animals (rodents, birds & reptiles) should be allowed - cats and dogs, on the other hand, should NOT be sold in pet shops. Does anyone disagree with that?

As for the reptile restrictions, I completely disagree with those... so I definitely do care!! I'm actually looking into getting those laws repealed, or at least modified to allow small boids.

----------


## Lolo76

> Lolo, do you reside in SF?


My profile says "Bay Area," and I'd like to keep it at that...  :Wink: 




> Are ball pythons legal to have there?


No, all pythons and boas are illegal in the city of San Francisco... it's rarely enforced unless you're selling them, but on the books nonetheless.

----------


## tonyaltn

US Government..PFFFT..pretty soon there will be the US version of the Berlin Wall around the entire country. We will all be wearing tracking collars, everyone will work the exact same hours so they can force us off the streets at 10pm wich afterwords will be patrolled by armed enforcers in armored vehicles. Everyone will be assigned a watcher that does nothing but watch your every move by sattalite. Then there will be people like me living in the desert trading goat skins and scrap metal for goods.

This is after the constitution has been destroyed by a giant robot with a flame thrower by order of the overlord..I mean president.
Damn robots !  :Soapbox2:

----------


## anthonym

Funny how most of us love to talk about how terrible pet store's are and that people shouldn't buy animals at them, and only from good breeders. But then throw a fit when the city of SF agrees with that!

I live just across the bridge from SF, so I've been keeping tabs on this a bit. They aren't trying to ban owning animals. Anyone that is coming to that conclusion obviously isn't reading much into this. Lolo is right; the restrictions in SF are already pretty tight. Not much will actually change. Honestly, the only problem I have with this is that it will put some pet store owners  out of business. But most in sf these days make all their money from pet supplies and don't really sell any live animals except a some fish and a few rodents and such. So yeah, this won't really affect a whole lot, and most likely people won't even notice.

----------


## j_h_smith

So where do the pets come from?  Where do you buy a pet other than fish?  Not talking about dogs and cats, but other human companion pets?

Jim Smith

----------


## Austin236

Hell this doesn't seem like that huge of a change, yes its a bit upsetting but if this starts moving city to city then state by state the US is done for with animals. And why bash California because of one law? Im from California, born and raised in San Leandro.

----------


## anthonym

> So where do the pets come from?  Where do you buy a pet other than fish?  Not talking about dogs and cats, but other human companion pets?
> 
> Jim Smith


Like what, birds and rabbits and such? Craigslist from local breeders.

We always push for people to buy reptiles from reputable breeders. Why shouldn't we advise the same for other species of animals? Most people that buy those kind of animals usually just purchase on a whim because they see it and think, "aweee, that's so cute!" Then end up getting rid of it once they get bored with it or realize birds are loud or some other various reason. Sounds like the kind of thing this bill is trying to prevent since they won't just be buying random animals on a whim just because they saw it in a pet store... I have no problem with that personally, since those that still want to get an animal will still be able to do so, and it will most likely be healthier and better quality. I'm not a big fan of pet stores for the most part.

----------


## mainbutter

> US Government..PFFFT..pretty soon there will be the US version of the Berlin Wall around the entire country. We will all be wearing tracking collars, everyone will work the exact same hours so they can force us off the streets at 10pm wich afterwords will be patrolled by armed enforcers in armored vehicles. Everyone will be assigned a watcher that does nothing but watch your every move by sattalite. Then there will be people like me living in the desert trading goat skins and scrap metal for goods.
> 
> This is after the constitution has been destroyed by a giant robot with a flame thrower by order of the overlord..I mean president.
> Damn robots !


At least I have a backup plan.

BWCA MN and nowheresville Ontario.. I'm well practiced on subsistence living, all I need is a few supplies to get me started, or at least a good axe.

----------


## j_h_smith

> Like what, birds and rabbits and such? Craigslist from local breeders.


So, let me get this straight.  Buying from Craigslist is buying from responsible breeders?  Buying from some backyard breeder that can't sell animals anywhere else other than Craigslist is the answer to S.F. issues?

Okay, I guess with that, I can see where this bill came from.

Jim Smith

----------


## j_h_smith

> At least I have a backup plan.
> 
> BWCA MN and nowheresville Ontario.. I'm well practiced on subsistence living, all I need is a few supplies to get me started, or at least a good axe.


The state of Montana has many times in the past suggested that they will succeed from the union.  I am planning to own a piece of property there before they do.

Jim Smith

----------


## anthonym

> So, let me get this straight.  Buying from Craigslist is buying from responsible breeders?  Buying from some backyard breeder that can't sell animals anywhere else other than Craigslist is the answer to S.F. issues?
> 
> Okay, I guess with that, I can see where this bill came from.
> 
> Jim Smith


Are you saying people should be buying low quality mass bred pets from a store over a small breeder that usually has a genuine interest in the animals they breed? Would you rather start buying ball pythons from petco? I'm not really getting what you're trying to insinuate? I'm still not seeing the upside to a pet store.

----------


## j_h_smith

> Are you saying people should be buying low quality mass bred pets from a store over a small breeder that usually has a genuine interest in the animals they breed? Would you rather start buying ball pythons from petco? I'm not really getting what you're trying to insinuate? I'm still not seeing the upside to a pet store.


Why do you think all pet stores sell "[B}low quality mass bred pets[/B]?  I have many pet stores in my area that sell top shelf animals.  Your small breeder is many times the same backyard breeder that you're so afraid of.  How many of these back yard breeeders really know what they're doing?  

What makes you think a small breeder has a genuine interest in anything but selling that 8 week old puppy or that ball python that hasn't eaten yet?

The upside to a good quality pet store is the owner has knowledge of what they are selling and that they do buy from a quality breeder because they know that their name is on the sales receipt and they don't want any problems with a returned animal. Why would you think most pet store owners want to sell "junk"?  Maybe they do things differently in S.F. ( I can't believe I said that), but a pet store in my area wouldn't last no time if they sold poor quality animals.

Do you honestly think that most pet store owners are interested in selling defective animals?  Do you think that pet stores would continue to do business this way?  

If you can't see where pet sores fall in the scheme of things, either you haven't seen a good quality pet store or your a different breed than me.

Jim Smith

----------


## wolfy-hound

Umm, isn't it against Craigslist rules to sell pets? Don't people flag those ads down? Am I thinking of some other selling website?

----------


## j_h_smith

> Umm, isn't it against Craigslist rules to sell pets? Don't people flag those ads down? Am I thinking of some other selling website?


Very good point.  It is in fact against the policy of Craigslist to SELL animals, so I guess that's another option that has to be tossed out.  

Jim Smith

----------


## Jeremy78

Obviously someone who ignores the laws where they live (lolo) won't care when a new one comes in...

----------


## Lolo76

> So where do the pets come from?  Where do you buy a pet other than fish?  Not talking about dogs and cats, but other human companion pets?
> 
> Jim Smith


Shelters/rescues and _legitimate_ breeders... or if you're really desperate, there's always Craigslist and the newspaper classifieds.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic): 

I have 3 cats and a dog - the dog was rescued from Peninsula Humane Society, one cat was rescued literally from the street, another cat was from a friend's "whoops" litter 13 years ago, and the other (a blue persian) was purchased from a breeder in Oregon. How many people these days really get cats & dogs from a pet store? I can't think of a single friend or family member who has, and just about everyone I know has furry companions.

Edit: I see you were asking about "other than cats and dogs" - so I guess Craigslist and stores outside of SF city?

----------


## anthonym

> Why do you think all pet stores sell "[B}low quality mass bred pets[/B]?  I have many pet stores in my area that sell top shelf animals.  Your small breeder is many times the same backyard breeder that you're so afraid of.  How many of these back yard breeeders really know what they're doing?  
> 
> What makes you think a small breeder has a genuine interest in anything but selling that 8 week old puppy or that ball python that hasn't eaten yet?
> 
> The upside to a good quality pet store is the owner has knowledge of what they are selling and that they do buy from a quality breeder because they know that their name is on the sales receipt and they don't want any problems with a returned animal. Why would you think most pet store owners want to sell "junk"?  Maybe they do things differently in S.F. ( I can't believe I said that), but a pet store in my area wouldn't last no time if they sold poor quality animals.
> 
> Do you honestly think that most pet store owners are interested in selling defective animals?  Do you think that pet stores would continue to do business this way?  
> 
> If you can't see where pet sores fall in the scheme of things, either you haven't seen a good quality pet store or your a different breed than me.
> ...


I hear and see posts, often enough to notice, that are negative regarding the quality of reptiles in pet stores.

I suppose I just haven't seen many high quality pet stores myself either. More often than not, in my experience, they haven't been that great. Anytime I've bought snakes from private breeders, more often than not, I've had a good experience. I suppose we can agree to disagree on this issue, cause I dont think either of us will be convincing the other of their viewpoint anytime soon.  :Wink:

----------


## Lolo76

> Obviously someone who ignores the laws where they live (lolo) won't care when a new one comes in...


I didn't want to go into this on here, but that was kinda rude.  :Wag of the finger: 

First of all, I never actually said I live in SF city limits... second of all, I had no idea about the python law until AFTER I already had them. It's a little-known ordinance, and one that is very rarely enforced - and honestly needs to be changed. Besides, I'm sure everyone here has "broken a law" of this level once in their life... speeding, running a stop sign, smoking pot, drinking before they were 21, etc. Does that mean you have no regard for _any_ laws?  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):

----------


## anthonym

> Umm, isn't it against Craigslist rules to sell pets? Don't people flag those ads down? Am I thinking of some other selling website?


That I wasn't aware of. Thanks for pointing that out. Selling pets is mostly what I see the "pets" section used for, and I myself have found some really great animals on there from local people.

Regardless, it's not that difficult to find a reputable local breeder for various animals. At least not here in the bay anyway. Maybe it is in other places?

----------


## Jeremy78

> I don't want to go into this on here, but that was kinda rude. 
> 
> First of all, I never actually said I live in SF city limits... second of all, I had no idea about the python law until AFTER I already had them. It's a little-known ordinance, and one that is very rarely enforced - and honestly needs to be changed. Besides, I'm sure everyone here has "broken a law" of this level once in their life... speeding, running a stop sign, smoking pot, drinking before they were 21, etc. Does that mean you have no regard for _any_ laws?


Actually many, many, many people who are into exotics look into the laws before they move somewhere. Many people wouldn't even consider moving somewhere where there hobby is illegal. Ignorance to the law is not an excuse. 
If you don't live in SF then this still won't affect you. 
Another thing, if you are in fact in SF, what are your plans if you get caught? Are you prepared to have your pets euthenized (sp?).

----------


## Lolo76

> I hear and see posts, often enough to notice, that are negative regarding the quality of reptiles in pet stores.
> 
> I suppose I just haven't seen many high quality pet stores myself either. More often than not, in my experience, they haven't been that great.


Serramonte Pets is one of the few shops here that sells cats, dogs & snakes... and they are mostly pathetic looking as heck.  :Sad:  Last time I was there, the snakes were covered in stuck sheds, sharing tanks (up to 5 BPs in one), and probably had mites. As cute as some of them were, I would NEVER support a place with animals like that - and I'm not even getting into their puppy-mill dogs in the back.  :Cool:

----------


## Lolo76

> Actually many, many, many people who are into exotics look into the laws before they move somewhere. Many people wouldn't even consider moving somewhere where there hobby is illegal. Ignorance to the law is not an excuse.


I have only been a "herper" for a little over a year, and got the first snake without thinking to look into legislation... because honestly, I knew little enough about snakes that I didn't realize such a law _would_ exist. Did you know hedgehogs are illegal in SF? I didn't until recently, and who would have thought to look for that?  :Confused:  Plus I grew up in the Bay Area, and have lived on the Peninsula/SF on & off since 1983 - so I didn't move here, I've pretty much always been here.




> If you don't live in SF then this still won't affect you. 
> Another thing, if you are in fact in SF, what are your plans if you get caught? Are you prepared to have your pets euthenized (sp?).


IF I were in San Francisco, I would not have my pets euthanized in a million years... I would move 2 miles away to Daly City, or keep them at a friend's house until I decided what to do. My pets are like my children, all 25 of them, and no law would make me kill them.  :Mad: 

But on a side note, my former vet who practices in SF has always treated pythons/boas (you just have to sign a waiver stating you're aware of the laws) - and she said in her 15 years of practice, it's never been an issue or led to a seizure. So clearly the city doesn't care about this law either, which is why I'm looking into having it amended.

----------


## Lolo76

P.S. Another option for me would be an educator's permit, which is fairly easy to obtain & allows you to keep boids... I'm a school librarian, and looked into this when I considered keeping a "class snake" in the library. Unfortunately my principal shot down the idea, but I was already in the process of applying for the permit - and may still pursue it just in case.

----------


## BPelizabeth

I will not get into whether there are good pet stores or bad ones.   :Cool: 

I think when you open the door to these types of laws....it is just the beginning.  It will continue and continue until peta's dreams are realized.  Therefore I think this is absurd!!  Not to mention the fact that most of the reasons for this law could be prevented by arresting those that run the bad puppy mills or comitt the animal abuse.

----------


## Jeremy78

I'm sorry I made the assumption you lived in SF.

About getting the law changed, it would definately be a loss for pet owners. If they already have so many pet related laws and are trying to pass more, looks like a losing battle to me.

Again, sorry for my previous post about ignoring the laws.

----------

_spk329_ (07-12-2010)

----------


## wolfy-hound

Lolo, you implied you live in SF, so it's not exactly a stretch for folks to think you do.  Whether you do or not, there HAVE been times that people are "found out" and told either get rid of the animals, have them seized, or move.  In the case on tv, the person moved and got his snakes back thank goodness.  

But still, you have this attitude of "it doesn't affect ME, so I don't care".  What about folks who can't go running to another city? Again, what will you do when the nearby cities do the same thing, and you are faced with nothing within a reasonable distance? What if the surrounding areas decide to outlaw boids like SF? How many laws have to get passed that DO affect you before you get concerned?

I'm not picking on YOU.. but I am using you as an example of a herper who is passonate about her animals, yet doesn't seem to care that her city is passing more restrictive laws that will not allow for sales in the city.  Craigslist has rules against selling animals, so now you're reduced to buying online for pets you can't get locally.  How many hamster/parakeet/etc breeders are around any particular area? You can't ship those like reptiles. 

I just find it more and more hopeless, when even those that are supposed to be passionately about the hobby don't care about laws being passed because they don't directly impact THEM.  I mean.. why should I care if California wants to outlaw owning any reptiles? After all, I don't live there.

----------

Jeremy78 (07-12-2010)

----------


## Lolo76

> Lolo, you implied you live in SF, so it's not exactly a stretch for folks to think you do.  Whether you do or not, there HAVE been times that people are "found out" and told either get rid of the animals, have them seized, or move.  In the case on tv, the person moved and got his snakes back thank goodness.


I'm not going to discuss my exact location, mostly for anonymity reasons... so I understand why you'd assume that, and I am still neither confirming nor denying the fact.  :Wink: 




> But still, you have this attitude of "it doesn't affect ME, so I don't care".  What about folks who can't go running to another city?


I never said that, so please don't put words in my mouth... but really, if ANYONE is in desperate need of a hamster, they can drive or bus the 5 miles to Serramonte Pets or Petco Colma. It's not far at all, especially if you want that animal badly enough. And hey, maybe it would cut back on impulse buys? That would be a good thing IMO! I do need to repeat my actual point, however, that SF *already doesn't sell many live animals*. Can anyone address that, rather than focusing on who it will affect? Because those are directly related, considering once again that *it won't change much*.

I don't want this law to be passed, but I am playing devil's advocate and informing non-locals of this point. Even the SF Petco doesn't have live animals too often, as I discovered when I tried to get ONE feeder mouse in a moment of desperation... they didn't even have one for me, so clearly it's not a big part of their business.  :Cool: 




> Again, what will you do when the nearby cities do the same thing, and you are faced with nothing within a reasonable distance? What if the surrounding areas decide to outlaw boids like SF? How many laws have to get passed that DO affect you before you get concerned?


One more time, and then I'm done with arguing in circles... _I do care about this law, do not support it, and have already tried to become involved in changing local herp laws._ Where did you all get the idea I supported this legislation? I was mostly trying to make myself & others feel better in case it is passed, by letting you know how little this will affect locally.

As for myself, I haven't bought a pet store animal of any kind in years, so I wouldn't even notice if this passed tomorrow. But do I care? YES. Cats and dogs shouldn't be sold in pet shops, but I think it's ridiculous to stop selling rodents, birds & reptiles. Got it????  :Frustrated:

----------


## Jeremy78

> Dammm, that makes me jealous... wonder if he'd deliver to San Francisco? It's not _that_ far, LOL!


If you do live here, and get caught. It won't only be bad for you, but for all of us. A person with 50+ animals in there house is going to make news for sure in a place that has, as you said, so many live animal laws.

----------


## Lolo76

> If you do live here, and get caught. It won't only be bad for you, but for all of us. A person with 50+ animals in there house is going to make news for sure in a place that has, as you said, so many live animal laws.


I only have 12 pythons... the rest (9 other snakes) are colubrids, which are perfectly fine in ANY city.  :Wink:  And for the record, in the 25+ years I've lived in the Bay Area, I've never read about snake seizures in the news - only dog fighting rings and animal abuse cases, at least that I can recall.

----------


## Lolo76

P.S. Regarding that quote, even when I lived in East Palo Alto (30 miles away) I'd say "San Francisco" to non-locals... it's simply easier, since nobody outside of the Bay knows where EPA is. Just sayin'.  :Razz:

----------


## Lolo76

Just thought you all might want to read this update: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...7WZNQD9GSBCD03

Looks like we won't know anything for at least a month, but it certainly is stirring up trouble! More laws are proposed and rejected than passed, so hopefully this one will be reconsidered. I think they need to return to their original idea, of only concentrating on cats and dogs. Apparently rabbits, chicks, python/boas, gerbils, hedgehogs, ASFs and ferrets are already illegal to sell... so this would leave rodents, birds & non-boid reptiles alone. Sound better?  :Embarassed:

----------


## Skiploder

> If you do live here, and get caught. It won't only be bad for you, but for all of us. A person with 50+ animals in there house is going to make news for sure in a place that has, as you said, so many live animal laws.


SF is famous for passing bull spit laws and not enforcing them.  

If I was Lolo I'd worry more about getting pregnant from a toilet seat.

----------


## Lolo76

> SF is famous for passing bull spit laws and not enforcing them.


Yep, that is so true!  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  We also have a tendency to over-legislate in some areas, and under-legislate in others... for example they can't sell cigarettes in drug stores (i.e. Walgreens), but you can legally buy marijuana in about 20 shops. Can't say I'm mad about that one, but it does seem a bit hypocritical! Also weird how SF still hasn't legalized gay marriage, considering the history with gay civil rights - although you do have to give Newsom credit for trying.




> If I was Lolo I'd worry more about getting pregnant from a toilet seat.


Uh-oh... I'd better use those paper thingies more often!  :ROFL:

----------


## j_h_smith

> SF is famous for passing bull spit laws and not enforcing them.  
> 
> If I was Lolo I'd worry more about getting pregnant from a toilet seat.


That may be true, but like many other laws in the US, these bull spit laws usually start in California and spread to other parts of the US.  

Jim Smith

----------


## Skiploder

> That may be true, but like many other laws in the US, these bull spit laws usually start in California and spread to other parts of the US.  
> 
> Jim Smith


Jim:

Many municipal codes around the country - even some in major metropolitan areas - have restrictions on keeping of boas and pythons (Des Moines, Georgetown/Lexington, NEW YORK CITY, etc.)

These are laws dating back thirty years or more and are hardly (if ever) enforced.

These are in the same category as laws that prohibit the smoking of chicken feathers on odd tuesdays, or wearing tall hats on sunday.

SF is not to be confused with mainstream California.  SF Public employees are eligible for a free sex-change operation on the tax-payer dime - has that spread to the rest of the Country?

----------


## j_h_smith

> Jim:
> 
> Many municipal codes around the country - even some in major metropolitan areas - have restrictions on keeping of boas and pythons (Des Moines, Georgetown/Lexington, NEW YORK CITY, etc.)
> 
> These are laws dating back thirty years or more and are hardly (if ever) enforced.
> 
> These are in the same category as laws that prohibit the smoking of chicken feathers on odd tuesdays, or wearing tall hats on sunday.
> 
> SF is not to be confused with mainstream California.  SF Public employees are eligible for a free sex-change operation on the tax-payer dime - has that spread to the rest of the Country?


I will give you that, but what does that have to do with a law making it illegal to sell animals in a pet store?  Keeping a snake and getting a $25 fine is completely different than selling a snake in your pet store and possibly losing your license to operate?  

If that's the case, why were poeple, all around the country, trying to defeat the Florida SB 318?  We all know these types of laws are all the ammo these fringe groups need to further their agenda.

If we allow these groups to take bites out of our hobby, before too long they will have eaten the entire elephant.

Jim Smith

----------


## Skiploder

> I will give you that, but what does that have to do with a law making it illegal to sell animals in a pet store?  Keeping a snake and getting a $25 fine is completely different than selling a snake in your pet store and possibly losing your license to operate?  
> 
> If that's the case, why were poeple, all around the country, trying to defeat the Florida SB 318?  We all know these types of laws are all the ammo these fringe groups need to further their agenda.
> 
> If we allow these groups to take bites out of our hobby, before too long they will have eaten the entire elephant.
> 
> Jim Smith


Read the article Jim.  The agenda for SF isn't targeted at reptiles - it has to do with the moon bat view of selling pets in pet stores bad/ public paying for transgender surgeries good.  The ideaology behind anti-reptile legislation is 180 degrees from what the hemp sweater, Gandalf bong smoking, patchoulie wearing _moon battus americanus san franciscus_  are trying to achieve.

SF has no pet stores worth mentioning.  Parking sucks, commercial lease rates are sky high and no one but SF natives would deal with the horrendous traffic, non-existant parking and urinating winos on the streets to go into the City to buy anything when better alternatives ring the Bay.

This is a law that will affect very few people except those that will have to take BART into the East Bay to buy their gerbils, hairless cats and rat sized toy dogs.

The dirty secret here is that if most people read their local municipal codes, they'd realize that they are already law breakers..............

----------


## j_h_smith

> Read the article Jim.  The agenda for SF isn't targeted at reptiles - it has to do with the moon bat view of selling pets in pet stores bad/ public paying for transgender surgeries good.  The ideaology behind anti-reptile legislation is 180 degrees from what the hemp sweater, Gandalf bong smoking, patchoulie wearing _moon battus americanus san franciscus_  are trying to achieve.
> 
> SF has no pet stores worth mentioning.  Parking sucks, commercial lease rates are sky high and no one but SF natives would deal with the horrendous traffic, non-existant parking and urinating winos on the streets to go into the City to buy anything when better alternatives ring the Bay.
> 
> This is a law that will affect very few people except those that will have to take BART into the East Bay to buy their gerbils, hairless cats and rat sized toy dogs.
> 
> The dirty secret here is that if most people read their local municipal codes, they'd realize that they are already law breakers..............


Sorry, but I disagree.  ANY law that prohibits the selling OR keeping of pets needs to be fought.  Regardless of the location or possibility of it's enforcement.

With this attitude, it will be okay to stop selling anything in the pet trade, unless approved by some over-regulated government agency.

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this passive approach that, "oh well, it won't mean that much because....".  

This was the same approach the anti-2nd Amendment folks used for many years until we woke up and some of our firearms were illegal.  This, all by our Federal government, not some hippy friendly city.  So don't say it can't happen, recent activity in Florida only proves my point.

Jim Smith

----------


## Skiploder

> Sorry, but I disagree.  ANY law that prohibits the selling OR keeping of pets needs to be fought.  Regardless of the location or possibility of it's enforcement.
> 
> With this attitude, it will be okay to stop selling anything in the pet trade, unless approved by some over-regulated government agency.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this passive approach that, "oh well, it won't mean that much because....".  
> 
> This was the same approach the anti-2nd Amendment folks used for many years until we woke up and some of our firearms were illegal.  This, all by our Federal government, not some hippy friendly city.  So don't say it can't happen, recent activity in Florida only proves my point.
> 
> Jim Smith


How about focusing on reversing 30 year old laws that already restrict - by specific design - ownership of reptiles?

You can start with New York City and San Francisco.  You already can't own any pythons, boas or rear-fanged colubrids in both those places.  

Problem is people don't look at the big picture.  The sale law is small change - the existing law that prohibits ownership is what people should be fighting to reverse.  If people had any concept of the big picture, that is.

The recent activity in Florida was targeted specifically at reptiles.  This "legislation" in SF started out targeting cats and dogs and has now swelled to cover everything but mexican jumping beans.  Sorry, Jim, you can't compare the two laws - one is aimed directly at your throat and the other is a freak accident propagated by a bunch of freak accidents.

That law is a small issue compared to the existing reptile-restrictive municipal code in SF.  If people were organized, if people stopped _reacting_ to what they were told instead of doing the thinking and the footwork themselves, the mighty and vaunted reptile nation would be hard at work reversing existing restrictive bills as fast or faster than new ones were being proposed.  I just identified three targets - Des Moines, NYC and SF.  

That would be a bigger feather in our cap than getting all arm-flappy over a pie-in-the-sky ban on selling all pets in SF.

----------


## wolfy-hound

So if it doesn't FOCUS on reptiles, we shouldn't care if it AFFECTS reptiles? What sort of baloney is that?
Yes, work on reversing laws, it rarely happens.. but sure.  Go wave a few arms about that.. but ignore the laws they're passing now? No way!
Yes, fight pet legislation, especially when it's stupid stuff like "No selling pets in stores".  Once they restrict things bit by bit, you'll wake up with Animal Control seizing everything, because once you add up all the little laws, it's illegal for everything.  Even if they won't seize your animals because those are grandfathered in, where will you get a new hamster?  One law becomes two.. becomes a state law.. becomes the same HR 669 that we already fought in Congress!

I don't care how small a change it is.. I swat mosquitos as well as bat away crocodiles biting me.  All of them draw a blood, and you think that mosquito is a minor annoyance until malaria spreads.  The attitude of allowing legislation because you think it's mostly harmless to you is how these things continue and spread.  Maybe if people HAD stood up when they wanted to originally pass the laws against pythons in NYC, you wouldn't have it as an example.

----------


## j_h_smith

> How about focusing on reversing 30 year old laws that already restrict - by specific design - ownership of reptiles?
> 
> You can start with New York City and San Francisco.  You already can't own any pythons, boas or rear-fanged colubrids in both those places.  
> 
> Problem is people don't look at the big picture.  The sale law is small change - the existing law that prohibits ownership is what people should be fighting to reverse.  If people had any concept of the big picture, that is.
> 
> The recent activity in Florida was targeted specifically at reptiles.  This "legislation" in SF started out targeting cats and dogs and has now swelled to cover everything but mexican jumping beans.  Sorry, Jim, you can't compare the two laws - one is aimed directly at your throat and the other is a freak accident propagated by a bunch of freak accidents.
> 
> That law is a small issue compared to the existing reptile-restrictive municipal code in SF.  If people were organized, if people stopped _reacting_ to what they were told instead of doing the thinking and the footwork themselves, the mighty and vaunted reptile nation would be hard at work reversing existing restrictive bills as fast or faster than new ones were being proposed.  I just identified three targets - Des Moines, NYC and SF.  
> ...


Okay... let me get this straight, you would rather try to repeal a 30 year old law instead of trying to prevent any new bills from becoming law?  You can't be serious about that, can you?  Then on top of that, you think you'd have a better chance of repealing 30 year old laws that pertain JUST to reptile ownership, then preventing a law on the selling of almost all pet animals?  Come on now.

You talk about the big picture.  I think the ban on sales of ALL pet animals is a pretty big picture, painted with a very broad stroke.  I do feel sorry for the citizens of these cities you mentioned, but at this point in time, do you really think it's plausable to strike down 30 year old laws, where the general populus could care less if you ever own a python or not?  Do you think that's a smart fight?  I don't.  

Don't you think that the sales is just the first step to a total ban on ownership?  After all, if you can't buy the pet animal in that city, why should you be able to own that said animal?  It seems like it's a natural progression.  Take away the sales and you automatically think that if you can buy it, why should you be able to own it.

Then you talk about Florida law.  If you think that law isn't pertinent, think again.  Two things come to mind immediately.  First Florida law bans only a certain kind of animal, but if this SF ban were to pass and become law, don't you think the representatives in Florida could say that if SF can ban ALL pets, then we can try to ban all snakes.  After all, snakes are the issue in Florida.  Give them another round in their gun and I bet they try to hit the reptile owners again.  Secondly, any law that takes away any liberties of the common man is unjust.  Regardless.  Whether it's owning a snake or owning something else.  

I don't care which law you are talking about, both laws are coming for MY throat.  Dog, cat, snake, lizard, rabbit, whatever, they all are directed at me.  You know me, the common citizen, the guy that goes to work each day, comes home to a wife and 2.3 kids.  The guy that pays their salaries.  The guy that takes pride and joy at owning a dog, or a cat, or a snake, or whatever.  

The anti 2nd Amendment people tried exactly what you're talking about.  They went after the "Assault" weapons first, the sporting folks didn't care, it didn't effect them.  Then they went after the "High Capacity" handguns, the hunting folks didn't care either, it didn't effect them.  Then Austrailia banned almost all firearms and there was word that was what was going to happen here in the US.  Well, because of that and a few other blunders made by the anti's, it woke up a giant.  The gun owners in this country said no more, they decided the election of the President of the United States.  

You keep on letting the anti pet groups take little bites and eventually they WILL eat the entire elephant.

Jim Smith

----------


## wolfy-hound

Just thinking too.. why can't we multitask.. try to change unjust laws against owning pets, and also fight new legislation?

Oh yeah, we've been doing some of that already.  Overturning 30 yr old bans is a bit hard though, but hopefully that'll get put on the list at some point, unless of course, the new legislation we ignore manages to outlaw owning all pets.  Then it's a moot point.

----------


## Skiploder

> Just thinking too.. why can't we multitask.. try to change unjust laws against owning pets, and also fight new legislation?
> 
> Oh yeah, we've been doing some of that already.  Overturning 30 yr old bans is a bit hard though, but hopefully that'll get put on the list at some point, unless of course, the new legislation we ignore manages to outlaw owning all pets.  Then it's a moot point.


Theresa - this community has shown little effectiveness when fighting one battle at a time - let alone two.  

Why?  Well, you and I know why...............don't we?  A lot of talk and very little walk...................

That 30 year old ban isn't so hard to overturn if it's approached in a smart manner and people are willing to fight.  Muni codes are constantly being amended.

Unfortunately at this point it's Monty Pythonesque to get all lathered up about a sales ban when most of the species on the proposed banned for sale list are already illegal to own in SF anyway.

----------


## wolfy-hound

So we shouldn't get lathered up if your town decides to ban ball pythons, because they already had bans on other stuff?

I've seen very very few times that bans on certain animals have been overturned anywhere.  But like I said.. you go fight those.  I'll concentrate on helping prevent all of our rights being infringed.  When you get that effort started on overturning bans, let me know so I can sign your petition.

----------


## j_h_smith

> Theresa - this community has shown little effectiveness when fighting one battle at a time - let alone two.  
> 
> Why?  Well, you and I know why...............don't we?  A lot of talk and very little walk...................
> 
> That 30 year old ban isn't so hard to overturn if it's approached in a smart manner and people are willing to fight.  Muni codes are constantly being amended.
> 
> Unfortunately at this point it's Monty Pythonesque to get all lathered up about a sales ban when most of the species on the proposed banned for sale list are already illegal to own in SF anyway.


Since when are dogs and cats illegal to own in SF?

Jim Smith

----------


## Skiploder

> So we shouldn't get lathered up if your town decides to ban ball pythons, because they already had bans on other stuff?
> 
> I've seen very very few times that bans on certain animals have been overturned anywhere.  But like I said.. you go fight those.  I'll concentrate on helping prevent all of our rights being infringed.  When you get that effort started on overturning bans, let me know so I can sign your petition.


Your missing the point.  Check the SF municipal code and the proposed law.

They are not banning anything.  Only sales though pet stores.

Then look and see how many of those animals marked for the sales restriction are already banned via the 1978 municipal code.

Amend the code instead of riding full tilt at the windmill.  We're not talking new ownership bans.

----------


## Skiploder

> Since when are dogs and cats illegal to own in SF?
> 
> Jim Smith


They are not.  The proposed law is about sales, not ownership.  Specifically it's about sales through PET STORES.  

In other words if Lolo decides to breed her corn snakes and the law passes, she can still do so, sell them in the City and not be labelled a scofflaw.

In the meantime even if you defeat this insidious attempt at your liberty, if you own a ball python or a hognose snake and live in the City you are still breaking the law.  Get it?  Your liberty has already been raped, all you've done is prevented a kiss on the cheek goodnight.

See where we are going with this?

If you'd actually read the law, it would also still be legal to adopt all of these wonderful animals from shelters and rescue groups.  Mull that over for a bit...........or go the classifieds or another town, or a breeder who is not a pet store.  The law isn't targeting at banning ownership - only pet store sales.  It's misguided but stop acting like this is targeted at ownership.  The sponsors of the law still want people adopting out these animals.

Is the proposed law good?  Of course not.  Will it solve the problem - well prove to me that shelter animals all come from pet stores.  It's badly thought out and as such, will affect pet store sales only.

Let's do this - go look up the SF Municipal code and then check of how many of those proposed banned pet store animals are already illegal to keep in SF.  

Then maybe we can have a discussion not based on phantom bans and inaccurate assumptions.

So in the meantime, I'm glad the law is being proposed because it's focusing attention on animal laws in SF and will be easily beaten down (maybe - you never know the power and influence (or lack of) of the Reptile Lobby).  Luckily, the bird and the hamster lobby have already proven their mettle in squashing last year's state wide outdoor sales ban on pets.  Organizing the scary Reptile Nation to defeat this poorly thought out law is a baby step and should not be considered the final objective.

No the final objective should be to spend 5 minutes, look up the municipal code and list all of the pets already prohibited by law.  Approach the fan groups for those animals and, here's a novel idea, JOIN FORCES and go after the SF BOS.  Better yet - get the swap meet lobby to help us out.

Then ball python owners will be able to own all the ball pythons they want without a cloud of fear hanging over their heads.  

They will also be able to come on this forum and flap their gums about the sorry state of the ball pythons being kept at the SF Petco.

----------

_anthonym_ (07-14-2010)

----------

