S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Shelters/rescues and legitimate breeders... or if you're really desperate, there's always Craigslist and the newspaper classifieds. :rolleyes:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

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

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy78

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. :colbert:

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? :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lolo76

I don't want to go into this on here, but that was kinda rude. :colbert:

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? :rolleyes:

---

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?).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anthonym

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. :( 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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy78

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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. ;)

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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???? :frustrate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lolo76

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy78

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. ;) 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.

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'. :P

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? :oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeremy78

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

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

---

Yep, that is so true! :rolleyes: 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.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

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..............

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j_h_smith

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.