S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

[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..............