Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 635

0 members and 635 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,916
Threads: 249,118
Posts: 2,572,201
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Wilson1885
Results 1 to 10 of 84

Threaded View

  1. #3
    Registered User jfreels's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-29-2010
    Location
    Marietta, Georgia, United States
    Posts
    1,081
    Thanks
    302
    Thanked 200 Times in 162 Posts
    Images: 2

    Re: S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

    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

    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.
    -J.B.
    http://www.iherp.com/jfreels
    Technology & Reptile mashup blog
    YouTube Channel
    "STOP ANTHROPOMORPHIZING YOUR ANIMALS." - WesleyTF

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to jfreels For This Useful Post:

    Beardedragon (07-08-2010)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1