Thread: San Francisco wants to ban the sale of pets

ridiculous.

it will pass......nancy pelosi's 9th circuit court district passes everything retarded

I don't think you can preclude people from all animal purchases. I'd think this would make buying a purebred dog in the city, for example, pretty difficult. I see the necessity to promote adoption through rescue agencies, but outlawing pet stores seems a bit much.

What!? If you gotta ban something in Frisco, should it really be the sales of pets? I say, no!

Maybe they should start by banning males from engaging in unsafe sexual practices, such as

SFO needs to ban the sale of fags and trannys.

Originally Posted by Prince

ridiculous.

Don't try to cover it up. You know that you treat your pets horribly.

Let me list the offenses:
- regular meals
- protection from predators
- protection from the elements
- access to medical care
- interaction vital to emotion health

How do you live with yourself?

I love the part where they say "Unless you plan to eat it" Who's up for some cat nuggets or dog burgers?

They have my approval images-1.jpeg

This is called a media stunt to facilitate discussion about animal adoption. Judging from the post of this thread on this forum, it's clearly working. I'm not sure how all of you can't see through things like this. This law would never pass, and they know that. But their goal is already met.

Jennifer Scarlett, a veterinarian and co-president of the San Francisco SPCA, notes that only a handful of stores in San Francisco sell animals of any kind and that the effect of a ban would be largely symbolic. But she said that symbolism, and the conversation that it raises, is critical in improving the lives of millions of helpless creatures.

"For us as an organization, we've identified the larger problem of online purchasing of dogs, and we hope this is an avenue to get to that," she said. Still, when it comes to birds and fish, "there's a lot of cruelty around where they are sourced from. We see the cruelty."

^ You mean these are still ok ^ images.jpeg

first of getting rid of the homeless and the smell that has been the problem for years, they wish to have doggie bags to pick up the waste from the pets... now they've go still no talent syndrome and it is the sale of pets.


dumb as ever, they are still

I think people should just rescue dogs for the next 10 years. No more breeding until then. There are to many dogs that need homes. To many people buy these animals and don't realize how tough it is at times. Then they have kids and say "lets get rid of the dog". Now there's a dog 7 years old with no home. I didn't read the article but that's just what I think after reading the title of this thread.

In the meantime, the human society can to continue to euthanize animals that no one wants to adopt. That's fine, but god forbid someone should purchase a dog from a pet sore. Only in San Fransicko.

Originally Posted by maxpro2

This law would never pass, and they know that. But their goal is already met.

That city commission in San Fran are some of the weirdest people I have ever seen in government. The city is crumbling around them, but they obsess over plastic bags at grocery stores, florescent versus tungsten light bulbs now this. As far as this not passing, last month they banned the sale of gold fish as pets. "Because it is cruel to keep them captive."

This is right in line with the circumcision ban.

Originally Posted by GearsMcGilf

In the meantime, the human society can to continue to euthanize animals that no one wants to adopt. That's fine, but god forbid someone should purchase a dog from a pet sore. Only in San Fransicko.

Did you not read the article? Not selling pets is one of the solutions to having an abundance of unadopted animals (i.e., it forces people to have to adopt dogs), which would ideally save animals from euthanization.

Originally Posted by dogsoldier

The city is crumbling around them, but they obsess over plastic bags at grocery stores, florescent versus tungsten light bulbs now this.

I agree that the pet proposal is pretty outrageous, but the other examples you gave are actually highly legitimate issues.

Plastic bags have devastating environmental consequences. Google it.

Florescent bulbs use 75% less energy than regular light bulbs. In the aggregate, that is a huge saving and mandating their use is absolutely a great idea.

Originally Posted by maxpro2

This is called a media stunt to facilitate discussion about animal adoption. Judging from the post of this thread on this forum, it's clearly working. I'm not sure how all of you can't see through things like this. This law would never pass, and they know that. But their goal is already met.

So I take it that you're not familiar with the people that run San Francisco then?

These are the same people that outlawed plastic bags and made recycling and composting mandatory.

I'm quite certain they played a role in the law that makes it mandatory to teach kids about homosexuality in school.

I wonder if the people in SF pushing the law realize that it also means no more gerbils?

Originally Posted by maxpro2

I agree that the pet proposal is pretty outrageous, but the other examples you gave are actually highly legitimate issues.

Plastic bags have devastating environmental consequences. Google it.

You've missed the reality of it.

A great majority of people that shop and receive plastics bags don't just take the groceries home and then throw out the plastic bags. They use them as garbage bags around the house. So now instead of the using the free bags from the store, they now have to spend more money to replace those bags.

Almost the same amount of bags are going to end up at the dump, but now people must spend more money to get them.

I wouldn't care what they did if they didn't infect the rest of the country.

Florescent bulbs use 75% less energy than regular light bulbs. In the aggregate, that is a huge saving and mandating their use is absolutely a great idea.

There's only 'savings' if you don't want your house warmer at that particular time. Florescent bulbs will probably be obsolete in the next ten years or so(replaced by LEDs); mandating their use is not a great idea. Also some people(craftspeople, scientists,etc) have legitimate uses for incandescent bulbs, we don't all use bulbs simply to light our house. Let the free market(people) decide which bulb to use.

There's something disturbing on another level when authoritarians institute measures like this. The goal is energy savings but you can still crank the AC and run your oven at 450 degrees and waste as much energy as you want. There's something disturbing about how they treat people as a domesticated mass. It like trying to hit a tin can with a rock so you pick up as many rocks in your hand as possible and hurl them at the can and claim victory. There's something insulting to the thinking individual.

i heard in canada you cant own a pitbull, not sure if its true.

P

Originally Posted by Nightowl

first of getting rid of the homeless and the smell that has been the problem for years, they wish to have doggie bags to pick up the waste from the pets... now they've go still no talent syndrome and it is the sale of pets.


dumb as ever, they are still

Anybody else's Nightowl decoder ring on the fritz?

The real problem they might have are the irresponsible owners out there.

I don't think it's legal to own irresponsible owners either. Fuckin Nazis

Originally Posted by withoutrulers

I don't think it's legal to own irresponsible owners either. Fuckin Nazis

LOL, what I meant are the owners who buy these pets and then lose interest in them or neglect and abuse them.

Originally Posted by min0 lee

LOL, what I meant are the owners who buy these pets and then lose interest in them or neglect and abuse them.

The very same people that shouldn't have children. So where's the bill to outlaw the possession of a uterus?

I think most pet owners treat their pets well. That's been my experience.

I guess people have nothing better to do with their time. I think we spend more money on our vet bills then we do our own medical bills.
I do agree, some POS should not have pets, but those of us who cherish and love the love of our pets should not be punished.

Originally Posted by DOMS

The very same people that shouldn't have children. So where's the bill to outlaw the possession of a uterus?

I think most pet owners treat their pets well. That's been my experience.

There should be a law for both!

I have seen plenty of owners treat animals like their own but remember these are animals and humans wont think twice about dumping and animal in the street, the same caring people would think twice dumping a kid.