S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

[BPelizabeth]

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

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

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????

[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. 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'.

[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?

[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! 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!