S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

[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.

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

[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.