Slashdot Mirror
San Francisco Considers Ban On All Pet Sales
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that the Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is on its way to the Board of Supervisors of San Francisco. It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it. Representatives of the $45-billion to $50-billion-a-year pet industry call the San Francisco proposal 'by far the most radical ban we've seen' nationwide and argue that it would force small operators to close. Animal activists say it will save small but important lives, along with taxpayer money, and end needless suffering. 'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal. 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"
What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.
Plans change. Look at those adorable eyes! How can I eat it now?
Well that won't stop the pikeys offloading dags on to you will it baye!
Pet sales will just become black market and underhanded.
I like having a cat, and spoiler her mercilessly. We have many good times. What is this guy smoking? Oh, wait, San Francisco, riiiight!
It's clear where the problem really lies -- in the idiots who insist that we should suddenly kowtow to the rights of dumb animals. If we weren't supposed to keep or eat tasty animals, they'd have a bad flavor and wouldn't be so cuddly.
Save money? Yeah right. Now they will need a whole new division for enforcing and investigating these laws.
I assume this would mean that people could still own pets, correct? I'm not sure how this would change much.
None of this really makes sense though. We have been trading animals as commodities since the beginning of human civilization. Either for work, food, or pets.
Totally unenforceable.
(And whats to stop people from buying their animals in another town/state, or online?)
Do these people know any pet owners? They tend to treat their pets very well, sometimes even better than people. Isn't that exactly what they want animals to be treated like?
Perhaps they can zone them out next, just like minorities are zoned out of most of the good areas of San Fransisco.
So basically what we have is your typical people in power mindset, I was going to say liberal but conservatives in power do it to, they will all be for freedoms they want (in the case of this city same sex marriages) but damn if you dare buy Spot in a local store, why that is inhumane. I am surprised you can't buy dogs to eat in SF but you can buy live fish and poultry. What is that? Are laws based on ick factor?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Would I be allowed to buy a rat, for example, if I promised to test drugs on it?
A guppy has feelings but a fetus doesn't? And I am not for making abortion illegal but I am a fan of truth and logic. What about sea monkeys? Will people with fish now still have the option to buy live life food for them like brine shrimp?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It seems to be largely meaningless.
Is there anybody who is actually selling pets in San Francisco? Hell, I had a hard enough time finding a place to reliably buy the cat food I feed my cat. And while I'm sure there's a couple of backyard breeders of birds, reptiles, and maybe even small dogs that might be hurt by this, I can't think of anywhere in the city limits of San Francisco where a breeding operation is a "good idea."
Hey, San Francisco: does everybody in the city have food, housing, and most importantly does MUNI still have buses that leak in the rain? Sounds like you've got misplaced priorities.
Fuck off.
Sincerely,
Animal Lovers.
Seriously, I get really tired of these dumbshit activists that think that pets somehow have a horrible life and if all animals just roamed free they would be so much better off. I think the problem is they watch Disney movies and believe that is how the wild actually is: Animals living together in harmony and having the best of time. I think these people need to take a trip to Africa and see nature in all its brutal Darwinian glory. Nothing dies of old age there, they just get older and slower until something eats them.
Sorry, but I think my house cat has a much better life. He gets to lay around all day, safe from weather and predators, he eats when he wants, gets attention lavished on him, and has access to medical care to handle his problems (asthma in his case).
Pets bring a lot of joy to humans, and it isn't bad for the pets. They have their needs met in a way they'd never get in the wild.
Mobile pet mill that sells pets (bred elsewhere) on the outskirts of San Fransisco anyone?
I wonder how the Bonsai industry is going to be very soon.
especially for small operations
Dear SF board of supervisors, can a fast food restaurant give away circumcised pets as toys with a happy meal? *poof*
apart from the stray's that would need to be put down, i think you would create cities which are pretty much inhabited by human's only, Keeping pet's is a positive thing in general, not necessary for the animal's or the individual human's, but it create's a coexistence between Human's and some form's of Animal's. Separating Humanity and the Animal Kingdom further, will more than likely result in a disconnect that make's it more common for cruel behavior as Human's would lack that personal connection with animal's and they simply all become food or clothing.
The more i read on group's like PETA etc , i think they don't really like animal's to be honest.
http://news.discovery.com/animals/pets-humans-evolution.html
And how does having a pet harm the pet? The reason we have dogs is because they learned it's EASIER to help humans out for food than it is to hunt for the food themselves.
With purchase of any dog leash. Only $499.95.
So Coral and anemones are okay, then?
I wish that environmentalist and animal rights activist would spend time actually educating and engaging the public and convince people on the merit of their argument, rather than use the government as a hammer against people who disagree with them. They are going to ruin some livelihoods and do next to nothing to eliminate animal suffering.
Forgive my spelling from time to time. I'm often posting during short breaks.
But i don't think it will work.
As disgusting as the puppymill industry is...
This isn't something you can fix with more laws. We need better humans to fix this problem. And we have a LONG way to go on that front.
This proposal needs to be evaluated within its proper context.
'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal. 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'
Talk about a dude with a serious superiority complex. Last I checked, something that breathes, eats and poops is living. I can understand putting a ban on the sale of sub-intelligent beings (fish, lizards, etc), but when it comes to cats, dogs and the like, anyone who has owned a pet at some point knows that animals deserve a basic set of rights and that they do in fact experience the same perception of neuro-processes that we call "emotions".
This guy obviously doesn't have any emotion himself. That or his parents never let him have a pet.
These are all crazy people.
They're the same people who want to ban Ronald McDonald.
They're the same people who want to Nanny you from cradle to grave.... for your own good.
I don't wish these people ill, but if they had a decent hobby, we wouldn't run into these issues with them.
They really are bat-sh*t crazy.
So if this law does pass what happens to all the people who have animals? There are plenty of different possibilites of what will happen but I'm guessing they all have the same ending, they all get killed of.
everyone who is still dualist after 350 years raise your hand.
I am not.
If selling pets is illegal then only criminals will have pets.
do they count as pets?
what happens when they retire?
the same goes for all service dogs.
pah
... So now all the ads selling cocker spaniel puppies will read "delicious cocker spaniel puppies for sale."
I can see where they are seeking to rid themselves of "puppy mills" and the like, but how about pet retailers (wow, that just sounds creepy doesn't it? pet retailer? Is that were you go if you want to reverse the procedure for your doberman pinscher?)? Will Petsmart no longer sell pets? (They do sell pets right? I thought they did...) They show reptiles, birds, fish and rodents on their site.
This does not surprise me coming from SFO though...
They're going to outlaw gerbil sales in San Francisco?
" 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"
Plants are living things too. Should we ban the sale of them.
On other news, San Francisco pet owner ate his cat.
it's a great way to draw attention to a real problem. There are a lot of unwanted animals in this world and a little public debate on where pet animals come from is a good thing to my mind. I am the proud owner of a pound puppy and I can't think of any circumstance where I would want to purchase a dog from a breeder. Some of the breeders are downright shady. I'm not saying I would want all pet sales banned, but I welcome the discussion.
Nullius in verba
It would be nice if we could eliminate puppy mills and get more people to adopt or buy from good reputable breeders that actually take care of their animals.
This isn't the way to do it, and people still ignore shelter pets which need homes so they can get a "purebred" dog which is safer than some shelter mutt.
You mad
ahhh yeah that's so humane! LOL
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
In San Francisco, and other so called 'liberal' bastions, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer. So if the elites are tree-hugging PETA members, then they want to fashion society in that image, regardless of the hypocracy and stupidity it causes. One could say that all social engineering is applying a first order linear model to a chaotic system and then crying about how the results don't work.
How this is different than theocracy, I don't know.
Now, are these people actually the "OMG Teh Petz is slavery!!!" morons, or are they holding the much less unreasonable position that:
a) "Farm" dogs/cats (bred for sale) tend to suffer from poor health and poor treatment in the pet stores and
b) Every pet bought at a pet store is a rescue that gets the needle?
If the former, then yes. Fuck the nutters sideways with a chainsaw. Three cats and formerly a dog (RIP, buddy), all rescues, and damn if I don't enjoy their company more than most people's...
In other news, SF outlaws heterosexual coupling... citing the fact that it can lead to pregnancy and childbirth. People as not responsible to care for children, and so hetero-sex must be stopped!
Isn't that already on the endangered species list?
More PETA gubbish.
I really wish they would go away, and I'm a vegetarian myself.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
So Petco changes its name to Exotic Foods Co., adds a curious looking butcher department and nothing changes. Mean while bolstered by Exotic Foods Co's new direction various ethnic restaurants start adding hamster, guinea pigs, dog, horse, etc. to the menu.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
how ironic, i wonder what Buster Friendly will have to say about this.
Time for an outdated meme to become real:
http://www.ding.net/bonsaikitten/bkmethod.html
It doesn't walk, fly, swim, crawl or slither.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You can't own animals maaaannnnn!
Small operators should switch to doing other businesses.
not everything can be justified because people make money off of it. this is what has brought our civilization to this upside down state, on the brink of collapse.
Read radical news here
All that pet stores need to do is give away cooking instructions with every pet sold. Not their fault if you happen to decide not to eat it after you get it home. Sheesh.
Why stop there? Just ban pet ownership and take care of the whole problem.
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein
So, what's to stop one from just going to the next town over and buying a pet there? All I can see this doing is reducing tax revenue for the city by killing local sales and businesses, and inconveniencing pet-buyers.
Their may be a grammatical error, misspeling, or evn a typo in this post.
If I say something bad about them would it be considered a HPAP smear?
Anemones are flowers. You might think it's being pedantic, but lions, horses, and cucumbers would all like to remind you that the "sea" part of the name is quite important ;)
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
How is it not crazy and silly? More importantly, what problem is this supposed to fix? Are pets sometimes mistreated? Then legislate and prosecute that. Are pets bred for sale under crappy conditions? Then legislate and prosecute that. Or are all pets bred and kept under horrible conditions? In that case, just ban pet ownership. But I will go so far as to call this proposal crazy and silly indeed.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
OK, I plan on eating my dog. Sell me a dog. What, are they going to make an additional law saying that you must eat your pets if you say you will? How about a law saying that pets must be stamped with a "best before" date? Or here's one, make it so you have to eat your pet in public or better yet, slaughter the animal when the credit card is swiped.
These legislators are stupid. Their state is completely broke, yet they have time to dream up bullshit like this. Congratulations on putting pet stores out of business (although surprisingly I'm sure that big-box pet food/supply retailers will be just fine) and causing people to travel out of state to buy their animals. Here's a tip. If puppy mills are a problem (and they can be), then GO AFTER THE DAMNED PUPPY MILLS.
I bought my dog at a pet store because no breeder currently had her breed. Yes, perhaps she came from a puppy mill. But she's the happiest dog in the world now (despite my sig) and I certainly wouldn't exchange her for any other dog now that we've gotten to know each other.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Damn. There goes my protozoa business.
Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment Of Women
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2z2lTUR5Ao
Whether you agree or not, I think such proposals will simply add more fuel to those that say all them SF people are nutjobs. This will impact future ideas/programs/conferences/whatever put forth by the city even if it is generally accepted and considered good ideas. There may be large groups or companies planning a SF conference (or perhaps hosting Olympic Games) but oh no, they may say, "uhmmm, them SF folks sure are nutzoid, maybe we should look into another city."
I think they need to look at proposals more carefully and see how it will impact the city 20, 30, 40 years from now. Pet ban sale may not do a whole lot over the long run. Also will have to deal with "pirated pets" and "illegal sales" which may lead to greater problems (i.e. pot is illegal and contributes to costly drug wars).
mfwright@batnet.com
Even if one were to accept the (dubious) notion that pet-dom is an unpleasant experience for pets, their criteria seem absurdly broad. Banning based on type of locomotion, rather than, say, neural net complexity, means freaking out more or less equally about the treatment of everything from arthropods and annelids with some degree of stimulus response up to great apes(while more or less arbitrarily allowing you to buy and slaughter anything culturally sanctioned as edible).
The idea seems profoundly divorced from anything resembling actual concern for animal welfare.
I have a friend or two who are vets and who blog. Judging from their blogs, breeders are the scum of the earth. They won't learn enough about the animals they breed to do the basic things necessary to keep them healthy. They won't pay the vet they call in when things go wrong. They refuse to let the vet treat the animals if it would cost them money or even just make their lives a little inconvenient.
Now, I'm guessing there are good breeder's out there. And I'm guessing those breeders have vet visits that are much less frequent and angst filled and so don't result in diatribes on blogs. But I don't know how to tell whether or not an animal came from a breeder who cared, or one who didn't. It's hard to vote with my wallet.
I think this law is very dumb. But there is a real evil here.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Those advocating the ban need to speak with some archeologists and evolutionary anthropologists before making their decisions. These experts now believe that cats and dogs adopted humans as companions, and not the other way around. With cats, agrarian life led to grain storage, which attracted rodents, and some kitties evolved to play nice with humans in order to access all the tasty mice in human settlements. For dogs I don't remember the whole story off-hand.
It was a valid evolutionary step for many animals to prefer and enjoy the company of people; banning pet "ownership" merely leaves dozens of cat and dog sub-species without their proper habitat and social environment.
I just want to know if kittens with no legs will be legal...
This just helps reinforce the state's reputation as anti-business. Just what it needs.
It says you can't SELL animals, not that you can't give them away. This is to stop factory farming of pets, not ban having pets altogether.
Please read the article and engage your brain before posting in future.
You insensitive clod! I work at the Actiniaria Rescue Shelter.
"Before God we are all equally wise - and equally foolish"
Albert Einstein
I read this aloud to my wife, and our 10lb yorkie-poo dog just walked over to me and said "If those goddamn animal activist hippies think they're going to make me live outdoors, they're fucking crazy."
Then he took his surgically-fixed knee, went back to his comfortable place on his knitted afghan in our predator free air-conditioned home, stopping by for a bite of nutritionally-balanced dog food and a sip of parasite-free drinking water, and proceeded to fall back asleep for his 20-hours-out-of-every-24 rest pattern.
-Styopa
I guess we'll have to release half of congress into the wild. Which is all good because nothing tastes better than free range conservatives.
Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
...kicked to the curb.
"No, those aren't my pets. They're an infestation."
I like my puppies domestic, free-range, and aged to natural perfection.
They can't tell you WHEN to eat your pet... So eat them when you're good and ready. Until then, you're just stocking up for "later."
Something witty.
...yet the same people would probably be against the Patriot Act because they don't want government interference in their lives. But the government is good when it supports a cause you believe in, right? Idiots.
From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal.
Hey, uh, Mr. Gerrie... that is the western mindset, yes, but, uh... look where you are buddy.
Multiple choice: In terms of which hemisphere it is, what the mindset is there, where it is in the US, and which coast it is on, where is San Francisco?
A. North B. South C.East D. West
Is this guy so loony that to him "Western mindset" is an indictment of some thought in and of itself? "Oh that's how we think in the UNITED STATES, so obviously that's the dumbest possible mindset." Is that what's going on here? "If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently." Yeah, but we don't, so why are you acting like we do or should?
People have too many pets anyway; here in France it is a pandemic of dogs, dogs everywhere, cant go out for a peaceful walk without a dog in the way or some dog shit somewhere. Not small dogs either, also owners can't be arsed to follow the law and keep them on a leash.
I have nothing against pets in general, but the amount is getting ridiculous.
There should be limits, only so many pets per so many humans in an area.
"LUNCH"
It's gonna look weird on a collar but it it keeps me legal.....
That would be illegal as kittens without legs can fly. Only the landing is a bit difficult.
A city without legal sales of something generally has very little of that something. What little something it has becomes trafficked as a high, high price.
Or is just transacted elsewhere and imported. Can't buy a dog in San Francisco? Hop down the road to just outside the city limits, get your dog, and head home.
They'd be better off enacting a tax on animal sales if they really wanted to change something. The tax could be used as evidence of transfer and used to enforce living conditions and educate pet owners, thereby saving more lives than simply banning pet sales. Unfortunately, it's another tax. It's CA, though -- they ought to be accustomed to paying out the ass for everything.
We know what Soylent Green is. Does that make dogs and other pets Soylent Red? Or maybe Yellow?
You know how expensive it is to buy pretty much anything in SF? By banning pet sales, it would just force me to go somewhere else and pay less than to support their various make no sense social programs. So go for it. Ban it. Please!
I've thought for a long time that something should be done to address the fact that people continue to buy animals from pet shops and puppy mills while perfectly good pets die by the thousands in pounds and shelters.
Buying pets through commercial operations directly contributes to the suffering of thousands and thousands of pets every year. It contributes to this by reducing the market for shelter pets, and by providing a never ending source for more pets that end up at shelters for a variety of reasons (neglect, owner gets fed up, lost pets, etc).
If the market for commercial pet operations was killed, it would likely greatly reduce the number of pets in shelters, and consequently could also lead to shelters becoming non-kill by alleviating the budget impact of running them.
Perhaps this law is not the exact best way to address this problem, but I hope it will at least start the discussion among the general public, and perhaps it will eventually lead to better laws to address the issue.
Another way that this situation could be helped would be to mandate that all animals were microchipped and spayed/neutered before being sold, and to mandate that all pet sellers were registered and regulated.
Will this include lawyers and politicians?
I can understand puppies and kittens.. but FISH?
but this is the same City looking to BAN CIRCUMCISION - it goes on the ballot this fall
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2077240,00.html
SF politics is too much sometimes... City residents don't want BROADBAND because the boxes on the street look ugly.
WHAT. THE. FUCK. San Francisco?
I can't stand living here sometimes.
Forget the War on Piracy. There's a new War in town: the War on Pets is finally here. If you are really quiet, you can hear millions of crazy cat ladies screaming in despair.
Laws in a theocracy must accord with some sacred book, an arbitrary measure. At least liberal societies argue their points and participate in the give-and-take of contemporary debate on ethics.
Perhaps they can zone them out next, just like minorities are zoned out of most of the good areas of San Fransisco
Are you aware that San Francisco is a majority asian population?
Keep your government hands off my pet rock!
Why not just regulate the hell out of selling pets?
Spend some money in research, and find out how and what you should regulate? Maybe instead of keeping newly born cats / dogs in a 2'x2'x2' cage, you are required to have 25sqft per kitten, 50sqft per puppy, etc. Shared environments are ideal, as it helps foster an environment where the animal is in a group setting (try adopting a 3yr old cat that has never seen another cat or animal its entire life).
Toss in some regulations about food, water, etc.
Basically take the incentive away from the the "pet factories" but still allow the caring breeders to continue doing what they love.
(there IS a market for spending $2k on a puppy with good heritage, etc)
Hmm, hop? Kangaroos for pets? Anyone know how successful anyone's been domesticating 'roos?
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
In San Francisco, and other so called 'liberal' bastions, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer. So if the elites are tree-hugging PETA members, then they want to fashion society in that image, regardless of the hypocracy and stupidity it causes. One could say that all social engineering is applying a first order linear model to a chaotic system and then crying about how the results don't work.
How this is different than theocracy, I don't know.
Liberal bastions, eh? And how is this any different from those 'conservative' bastions that try to - for example - outlaw abortion?
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
I usually don't care for government getting involved in these things, but we have an epidemic here. Hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs are being put down every year in this country b/c of over population and lack of homes. It's not a laughing matter.
I think it should be incumbent on our government(s) to respect these lives, to realize they not only represent humans but all animals that live in their jurisdiction, and fix the problem! The first thing they need to do is provide 99% free spading and neutering and it should be illegal to breed pets without registering the births --which should cost some $. And breaking the law should result in hard punishments, like mandatory jail time.
:T:R:A:N:S:
Good. I hope this is approved. Animal mills are reprehensible and should be banned. Churning out inbred domestic creatures so the general public has a cheap object to anthropomorphically refer to as "happy" is absurd and disgusting. Everyone wants a baby animal, kitten, puppy...whatever. Trap an animal within the same few rooms, feed it on dried cereal, and (if lucky) take it outdoors to tend to natural functions. All so the emotionally retarded can boast of how contented the animal is. Buy a Tamagotchi if you need positive reinforcement for your twisted nurturing instincts.
This is such an awful, one-sided article. Was it written by a pet store owner??
It completely ignores the fact that tens millions of cats, dogs and other pets are killed annually in the US due to 'overpopulation'.
Banning the sale of these animals means people have to instead turn to shelters, where all the unwanted animals (often from bored or inconvenienced owners) end up.
This decreases demand from breeders (and starts shutting them down), and solves the issue of 'overpopulation' - which is probably the actual reason this is coming about -- although completely neglected by the author of TFA.
We'll have to destroy their territory and NOT keep them around, not even as pets. It's the new age of humane imperialism.
That this does not bar the humane society from adoption, etc. It only prevents mills and breeding which is why I'd be in favor of such a provision.
For those who seek perfection there can be no rest on this side of the grave.
The arguments used by proponents also apply to children. They have feelings too! It's immoral to take them out of their natural environment and keep them tied to school desks. Banning them would prevent untold suffering.
Aiptasia anemones? Endangered? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yup, definitely only a 'liberal' problem, which is why freedom loving folks migrate to 'conservative' bastions, that generally support ALL private 'indecencies' such as suicide, pornography, sodomy, racial equality, drug and alcohol use, and the tamale, a women's right to save her own live by terminating the tubal pregnancy given to her by her uncle for her 12th birthday.
Citation needed.
I don't see the intent as to punish anyone, but the sale of living things for other than eating somehow seems... demeaning. I wish I could explain more. The thought only came to me as I read the article.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
i will buy a dog, and eat him when he dies
First of all, let me make a few things clear:
1. I'm a proud meat eater
2. I believe people should have pets
3. I put the survival and comfort of human beings above any other species.
This is great news. It's easy to get around obviously giving the geographic jurisdiction.
We might not have full scientific insight into emotions and understanding of pets. That doesn't mean we can't give animals the benefit of doubt. Take a fish in a bowl for example, does he suffer? I don't know. I say give the species the benefit of doubt when the answer is unknown and don't cage it. I've been proposing this idea to friends for a few months now. The breeding industry is disgusting. There are millions of pets put to death, because they weren't pretty enough, the right type, or not young enough.
It’s humane. No one is outlawing having pets, just the sales. Animal/Pet breeding shouldn’t be a capitalistic venture. If you want a pet, it’s should take some effort to get one through acquaintances without cash-incentives. I believe that this will ensure a better decision-making on part of the owner (no impulse buys and dumps) and give the pet adequate non-monetary worth in the eyes of the owner-to-be. Hopefully, it will prevent overproduction of life for pleasure. Will it make it harder to get a pet? Sure, life isn't cheap and no species should be at your disposal so readily and cheaply.
The arrogance to think they can legislate against 10,000 years of mutualism between human and domesticated animal is astounding. If this prohibition were somehow to pass and was somehow enforceable in any way, It will only serve to further disconnect people from nature and from animals, and lead to increased ignorance about animal welfare: out of sight, out of mind. What will they do with Aquarium of the Bay or San Francisco Zoo?
What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.
Without the pet industry, people who want pets will get them from the pound/shelter, which is what they should have been doing anyway. Strays that might been destroyed because people chose to buy their pets from pet shops now have homes.
By the way how is your war on poor people^H^H poverty?
How is it not crazy and silly?
Due to differences in opinion.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Sure I have seen animals treated badly but I would think the vast majority a treated well, much better than if they were strays or in the wild. I think its funny that he really thinks that people don't think their animals have feeling and don't care about them when any pet owner knows that owning a pet is not cheap. Feeding it alone can cost hundreds of dollars a year. Add in it getting sick and buying it toys, people end up spending a lot of money on the comfort and well being of something they think has no feelings.
Right after getting my dog he ate a marble, if it was in the wild it would have died but we spent $1000 to get it surgically removed. Somehow I think my dog would agree with me more than these so call Animal Activists.
"ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers"
buy kangaroos, frogs and maybe those trans-dimensional beings from the Hitch Hiker's Guide.
As opposed to conservative bastions, where laws are created to radically socially engineer a population according to the specific mores the OTHER 'elites' prefer. The difference being that it's explicit as opposed to implicit theocracy.
I'd point to the right-libertarian bastions, but I'm not sure Somalia is great example to be holding up to the light. Not to mention, anyone with a basic grasp of game theory and externalities would laugh at the idea. And unfortunately there aren't any left-libertarian bastions that I know of.
"Pretty much Everywhere, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer"
There, fixed that for you.
Save the liberal rhetoric for the Rush Limbaugh call-ins.
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Yeah, but triffids are right out.
It's the whole "people are too stupid to do the right thing, so we need to create a law to ensure they do the right thing" along with the "let's impose less freedoms because if people have too much freedom, they will make the wrong choice" mentality.
Apparently, we don't need a "Red Dawn" event to force us to Socialism. Just sit back and do nothing; we'll get there on our own.
'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'
Not so much...now if we thought of them as equal living beings then yes but for that to happen they have to stop pooping and fucking in the streets and drinking water reservoirs we use and assume the responsibilities as well as the rights due to all self-aware and self-altering patterns of information we call minds. Regardless of whether a pet ban is a good idea equating all life as sacred is a stupid and simplistic idea. Where does it end? Do we stop fighting infections? Bacteria is alive after all. Is there a certain level of consciousness that we require before you get set A of the superset of universal life rights and responsibilities and then at another level you get set B and so on? Do we create animal jail for those that don't uphold their end of the social contract?
I'm a conservationist, environmentalist, and vegetarian for health reasons (obviously not for faux-moral reasons). I'm not a pet owner and I really don't care if pets get banned because short of domesticating one for labor/protection/hunting/etc. purposes I see little point in the exercise (though there are some health benefits to companionship). All of that said when people like this guy start blathering on it irks me. How about using rational thought and evidence based approaches to determining how we should act rather than just hoping, wishing, and feeling our way through life like cognitively blind imbeciles.
They are only banning the sale in the city... last time I looked it didn't take very long to leave the city of SF... guess you will have to take your pet buying business to the next city, who will get the sales tax, etc.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I don' know what to think of this:
1- I love pets, and if i didn't live in a city, I'd definitely have at least a dog. OTOH because I live in a city, I don't allow myself to torture a poor dog by keeping it locked up so much, and with pitiful sidewalk walks instead of wide open field runs. OTOOH, some city pets do seem reasonably happy.
2- I'm sure I don't want pets to cost anything to non-pet owners. So if pets currently cost more to the community (poop clean up, rescues, attacks...) than they bring in in taxes, something must be done.
3- there may be more important stuff for lawmakers to busy themselves with right now. basically, anything regarding humans ?
4- Most pet shops I know are horrible, horrible places for pets. Not to mention the pet shop boys.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
I assumed that's why the "unless you plan to eat it" exemption was left in there.
Works for that, too. Both parties are filled with asshats trying legislate their idea of "morality", when the basis of "morality" should be how actions directly affect others and not much beyond that.
So I have to leave town to buy my pets? Or, go to to the guy in the alley selling puppies out of a van. This will do nothing except hurt those who are tying to make a living selling pets humanly and encourage puppy mills and the like.
If they ban outright the sale of pets, someone will find a way to get around the law. For example, perhaps someone will establish enthusiast clubs. Members of the clubs may obtain pets at no cost (provided they meet certain requirements). These clubs would have membership fees. Membership fees would fund the cost of acquiring the animals, along with any administrative overhead.
Perhaps simpler, someone might give away a dog, but then charge $300 for its carrier and some accessories...
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
If I come across a puppy dog with all four legs broken (which therefore cannot walk, fly, swim, crawl or slither), can I still legally sell it?
What about corals? They are animals too, just because they don't walk, fly, swim or slither shouldn't make them exempt now should it? I know my zoanthids, palythoas and protopalys have feelings.
I'm curious. I'm not completely up on California law, but seeing as many, if not all, these pet stores are legal businesses who have paid for a business license to operate within San Francisco, won't they be able to go to court if they aren't grandfathered in?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
People
Eating
Tasty
Animals
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
News for nerds?
So we were given permit and paid by the town to eradicate the mess. We placed traps in residential areas, and used Liquitox mixed with milk in city limits attached to stop signs, main street medians, etc.
It took about 2 weeks, but man it was like some post apocalyptic scene the following days with dead dogs and cats numbering the hundreds scattered all around town on main streets, post office steps, etc.
Astro along with local city garbage workers spent early mornings daily cleaning up the carcasses.
Needless to say, the town had enough, and felt the residents had proved they were untrustworthy or unfit to keep pets so the city passed an ordinance banning the ownership of pets mainly cats and dogs, since many due have the odd ferret/hamster/aquarium/ but it mainly bans the ownership of cats and dogs in city limits.
They can still be owned outside of city limits.
but reading the OP article brings back some memories on the 2 weeks of hell cleaning up probably a thousand or more cats and dogs strewn all over town. And taken to city incinerator.
It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it.
"Officer, I bought the dog planning to eat it, but it was so cute I changed my mind."
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
Liberal bastions, eh? And how is this any different from those 'conservative' bastions that try to - for example - outlaw abortion?
Or marrying the person you love.
Animal activists say it will save small but important lives . .
. . unless you plan to eat it.
I love how the crazy people just make themselves look stupid! We don't even have to do anything!
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Works for that, too. Both parties are filled with asshats trying legislate their idea of "morality", when the basis of "morality" should be how actions directly affect others and not much beyond that.
Except that, in my experience, when conservative "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people live their own lives, but when liberal "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people affect others' lives.
Personally, I'm less offended by the latter.
"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein
"From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them. If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently. Our culture sanctions this, treating them as commodities and expendable."
What a load of BS. Throw a rock near the fish and see how fast it flees from there. Thats Fear at work. Fear is an emotion.
For starters that is just the most stupid thing i have ever heard because "SAYS WHO" is not from an animal perspective. The activists exists because - Its that dumbasses who shouldn't be allowed to breed have a pet and think its a person. Case and point. The fool in the building next to me who thinks its OK to have a full grown great dane (that's a dog) in a 1 bedroom unit. Unfortunately, most people are not selfless when it comes to pets then again its not the pets happiness that is being bought. I extend this to the throwaway society that exists. So you buy it now it has outgrown you OR your lifestyle has changed. Well, give it away or let it go back into gods country. Whats wrong with that - you mean its not part of the family? Ask why Florida has a snake issue....ha ha. As for Descartes mixing Science and religion, idiotic, nonsense violence. The need for a pet has NOTHING to do with providing a home for an animal. Outlaw all of it and legalize weed for gods sake.
So horses, ants, humans (they can be pets [grin]), etc. will be banned in SF? :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
The author of the proposal, Philip Gerrie, is a bee keeper and is (was) even president of the local association.
Evidently, his abhorrence of "treating [pets] as commodities and expendable" doesn't extend to stealing bees' honey and selling it for his profit, nor to manipulating the bees social structure and ecology, as is required of any successful bee keeper.
...just how alien these "people" really are. This is a liberal thing, it's something they've wanted to do for decades. Why don't people listen to them before electing them and realize just what they are voting for? I notice most people here think this is stupid, but it's part and parcel of the liberal mindset of fascist control over every aspect of human life - and I predict this post will be modded down "troll".
In San Francisco, and other so called 'liberal' bastions, laws are not created to give people the freedoms to live the life that they choose, they are created to radically socially engineer a population according to specific mores that the 'elites' prefer.
As opposed to the conservative/libertarian/Rand-FanBoi "elites" who want to fashion a society in their own distorted image, regardless of the stupidity and suffering it causes. And please, stop lumping "liberals" in with the likes of PETA. It's inaccurate and only makes you look ill-informed.
Forcing this into the black-market will only cause more harm to animals than good. Keep it above board so that it can be regulated. The far left is sometimes as goofy as the far right when it comes to trying to legislate morality. This is just one of those times.
I hate to break it to these people, but domesticated pets have been with us for about as long as human history and for them to outlaw them is one warped in the brain slap in the face to these animals and to those who love them. Again, if you don't like the pet industry, regulate it. Make sure its up to par. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Take the Red Pill.
oh those oversensitive people.. do something else
So... I guess UCSF is going to have a hard time getting animals for testing.
I propose a ban on San Francisco. It will save small but important lives, along with taxpayer money, and end needless suffering.
Thank PETA. If you've ever been stupid enough to support PETA you need to understand they want to ban pet ownership. Yes Ban it. It's one of their top priorities.
PETA collects unwanted pets from owners and immediately kills them in the van they drove up in. This first came to light when someone found PETA illegally dumping lots of dead animals in someone's dumpster.
The Truth about PETA
PETA Trial Day 5: Deception and Tears
Shocking New Crime-Scene Photos
PETA's Shame
PETA Kills Pets | Seattle Dogspot
Not News for Nerds!!!
Why should these dirt-worshipping squirrel cuddlers have any say over other people's lives at all? They've obviously failed at the most basic aspects of being an adult human being. They shouldn't be allowed to run free through our society, much less have an influence on its laws.
These liberals need to stuff a gerbal where the sun does not shine - again SF IDIOTS UNITE !
If you live on the west coast, California especially, you'll see why things like this come up - 90% of pet owners love the idea of having a pet, so on a whim they hop down to the local PetCo and buy whatever cute thing gets their attention (usually a puppy) and about $60 worth of pet supplies.
Cut to a few weeks later and the owner has really lost all interest in having a pet, because they realize that it's a HUGE time commitment to properly take care of a living creature. Best case scenario is the neighborhood has a new pest barking 24 hours a day, running around knocking over trash cans and shitting all over other people's lawns. Worst case is it gets hit by a car or gets locked up in a yard and is left to suffer, because the owner has other time commitments they didn't consider before taking home the dog/cat/whatever.
This does suck for the 10% of people who can properly train, care for, and love their pet, but having to make the drive outside city limits may just be the deterrent that's needed so we don't have another careless pet owner.
Well, some people are mean to their pets. And, because of these few people, pets must no longer be sold to anyone!
Clearly this is the wrong way to go about it though. It is not the pets that are the problem but the mean people who buy them. So surely the correct response is to ban mean people from San Francisco? Of course since it is hard to tell who is mean and who is not the safest thing to do would be to just ban all people from the city. Afterall that would solve not just the animal abuse crime rate but the total crime rate as well not to mention the benefits to the city's carbon footprint, pollution etc.
Come on San Francisco - if you really think the solution to problems is to ban things then don't be shy: ban the root cause of a lot of our problems, ourselves. Clearly using education, innovation and deterrents to solve problems like everyone else is the wrong way to go: stick to your guns (since you are a US city I'm guessing that you cannot ban those) and think of the small, furry creatures.
'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,' says Philip Gerrie, coauthor of the proposal. 'If we considered them living beings, we would deal with them differently.'"
To go with the consensus great minds of western philosophy or Philip Gerrie from San Fransesco. It's a tough call.How do you plan on winning an arguement with a conditional premise? If we considered ... Well here's one for you "If we thought bricks were composed entirely of gellatanous alien lifeforms we wouldn't build our houses out of them." Sure seems reasonable except the conditional isn't. He needs to prove that living beings have feelings not that if we associated "dealing gently with" or whatever to just the state of living. If that was the case what about vegetables? At some point we have to draw a difference between plants, animals and people and what makes each different. Whether keeping animals for the sole purpose of our amusement is ethical is something to be considered not just attributed as obviously true since they live.
They ll still sell Rubber Dogs and Fake Kittens in the SEX SHOPS and Call it Good...
Who wants to eat a DOG Or Rubber Pussy Cat anyway ?
The Parade of Trans-Pet Idolators who time is Running Short in Biblical porportions...
Next NABLA will set up shop and sell-rent young boys However, This Will Be OK for SF but, Damn anyone for buying or selling a real life Dog - Cat- Lizard - Fish or anything wholesome and is good for society !
So glad you are speaking for yourself here. Don't include the majority of pet owners with your analysis, though. Its a bit unrealistic to tell us that we share your view ~that these creatures don't share any kind of emotional or physical pain or joy is really idiotic. Bad apples..
Liberal bastions, eh? And how is this any different from those 'conservative' bastions that try to - for example - outlaw abortion?
Idiot. Liberal or 'conservative' bastions are all pretty much the same thing. Don't get stuck on the descriptor. It's typical for both sides to toss the same shit back at the other, instead of addressing the valid point that was made.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
'From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them,'
As a Westerner, let me be the first to say "fuck you". Animal Welfare != Animal Rights, and animal welfare has been a theme in our grand old civilization for, basically, forever.
Pretty soon they can call San fran , San Ban City, You sell it .. We ban it.. C'mon people lets be real .. obviously the wrong people are in charge in this city. perhaps they can build a big fence around it and as long as your gay, don't eat happy meals and don't want pets, you can move in..P.s I don't have anything agains gays, too bad i feel like i have to explain that to you but spam filter doesn't include hate mail.
PETA has already announced more than once that they are AGAINST human having pet not matter the nature of the animal pet, and would like to forbid any human having a pet. Thus i am guessing wildely it was probably orchestrated by PETA. I can't think any reasonable human going for this, knowing the backlash potentially.
Loads of comments here seem to be along the line of "my pet has a great life therefore this is retarded." Sure - you've got a good anecdote. I imagine PETA are pretty cool with you. What I imagine they're trying to target is the purchase of trophy pets that get abused &/or dumped - fighting dogs, handbag dogs, "guard dogs" (thisnk: chained up in the shadeless yards 24 hours a day etc.) It's a blunt instrument, but if the stats read (not saying they do, just pointing out your anecdote ain't much better) that these pets are the majority or a significant minority then perhaps some form of regulation is the right idea.
Idiot. Liberal or 'conservative' bastions are all pretty much the same thing. Don't get stuck on the descriptor.
That was my point.
The OP pointed out how horrible these liberal bastions are... But whether they call themselves liberal or conservative is irrelevant. There are an awful lot of people out there who think they know how to live your life better than you do, and they're more than happy to pass legislation to make you conform to their beliefs.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
So pets that exclusively hop, brachiate, burrow, or use jet propulsion. So I guess its kangaroo mice, spider monkeys, badgers and scallops for pets from now on.
We'll train them to not use other forms of locomotion...
"Waste not one watt!" - CZ
Lets just ban something that should have very strict regulations in place, its way cheaper and worked for prohibition and the sex trade right?!
What I find sad is that people can't even imagine an existence that doesn't involve the exploitation or killing and eating of animals. They can't even conceive how it can be possible. You mention it and people think you are crazy. Literally crazy. Like you had suggested turning off gravity or the sun or that you come from the future. Yet, every movie about aliens coming to the planet to eat humans ultimately ends in us fighting back and killing them for trying such a thing. If it's so awesome for both sides, why do we always fight the aliens? "We're going to subjugate the creatures on our planet but goddamn you if you try to subjugate us in the same way!"
He can be used to spin webs and eat small crawlers that would otherwise find their way into your kitchen/cookie jar.
While quite friendly he loves to scare the living hell out of your neighbors and friends.
$1000 plus shipping and handling. Money back if your not terrorfied. Offer void anywhere thinking has been shown to cause cancer.
Don't get him started on urchins!
...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
I guess I'll have to stop cockfighting on sundays.
They want to ban pet *sales* to encourage people to adopt from animal shelters. This would not make owning pets illegal, it would make the sale of pets illegal. I see the point, but I personally cringe at the thought of making anything illegal especially if it is a moral issue.
This level of stupid has all the earmarks of Peta somewhere down the line. Why the hell is this actually being considered?
They can continue to sell pet supplies, but i suspect there won't be any grandfathering. The practice of selling animals is being banned. It'd be like if, say, asbestos were banned, and shops selling it previously were 'grandfathered' - no, it's illegal to sell.
Oh, no, they have their bibles as well - just that it isn't bound into one convenient tome. They also have their priests (certain politicians, philosophers, authors, professors, etc), and even their own catechism of sorts if you dig deep enough. There are even sects (or rather, bastions of single-minded issues). The give-and-take you mention usually ends up with deviating viewpoints being shouted down, or politely but soundly ignored as if they were never uttered.
There are no innocents in the political realm, on/from either side... please stop trying to pretend that there are.
(nope - not posting AC, because I prefer to stand behind my words).
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Agree completely. I had to fight the urge to mention this in my post, to simply keep it 'on target', but this is a much deeper underlying issue, that also ties into the feeling of entitlement and dominion - that people can just 'own' other animals as they desire. There's little questioning of this. Most pet owners have pets for THEMSELVES, not for the sake of the pets (which is a big difference from the perspective of a rescuer.)
A really good book that discusses this (among other related issues) is 'On Their Own Term: Bringing Animal-Rights Philosophy Down to Earth` by Lee Hall, a co-worker of mine at Friends of Animals. It can be ordered from our website, or Amazon. A very worthwhile read.
Thanks for your thoughts. =)
... but when liberal "asshats" try to legislate morality, it tends to involve limiting how people affect others' lives.
Unless you own guns, father a child that the mother refuses to carry to term (or if you happen to be that child), own a large vehicle, and now if you run a pet store you're screwed as well, as least in SF.
Statist tendencies know no bounds, no matter the guise.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This just shows how far out of touch they are with reality. Maybe they want the US to be like other - third-world countries where they eat cats and dogs rather than lavish love and affection upon them. CA is ready for the trash-heap of society... They are so anti-business that they are already begging to the US government for hand-outs, they need a dose of reality - if they close up pet-shops, people will gladly sell them pets on the black-market for thousands of dollars... Psstttt... Wanna buy a labra-doodle????
Seriously? All Petsmart needs to do is replace their training manuals with cookbooks. Swap out the doggie treats with doggie seasonings... Cat cookers instead of cat carriers...
Join PETA... People Eating Tasty Animals.
Claim you 'plan' to eat your pet at some time in the future. It say nothing to the effect that you 'have' to eat them. Authorities can not be judgmental about what 'plan' to eat.
Why do you have to resort to 'whataboutery'?
In a socially conservative area, you at least know what you're going to get, because it's patently obvious that they want to enforce judeo-christian conservative social mores.
In a Liberal place, I'd expect that your lifestyles and personal choices would be tolerated to the hilt, as long as you were responsible for your own actions, and didn't try to shove your beliefs down someone else's throat.
Except thats not true. You simply swap one set of religious morals for another set of religious morals and end up without any freedom whatsoever to simply life free of screaming governmental ninnies with personal issues.
I'm pretty sure that what passes for 'debate' in the halls of most western societies is more like "which pressure group can provide me more votes in the fall" vs. "I once took a class in science, so I know everything!"
It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers
So where do I go to buy these immobile, rolling, skating, biking, driving, jet-/rocket-propelled, and/or hovering pets? Or must I buy mutilated pets that need one of these alternate modes of propulsion not banned by the statute?
Someone's been bought off by the pet rabbit consortium.
And what of service animals? Seeing-eye dogs? Helper monkeys? Will SFPD have to do without their dogs trained to find drugs, explosives, and missing, escaped, and/or deceased persons?
Is San Francisco really going to do without their truffle-hunting pigs?
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
So what? Most parents have kids for similarly selfish reasons; doesn't mean they're necessarily bad parents.
but only if i plan to eat it?
How stupid do these people need to be. Just wondering, is it because all are gay or drugged up in San Fran, or both for them to come up with crap like this?
Well to counter the effects of an underground market and an "illegal" pet trade... all you have to do is tax the hello out of pets, or require (i.e. mandatory or jail time for you) that the pet has all vaccinations and licensing....
after all that's what proponents would say would kill the illegal drug problem... legalizing and taxing it. look what it did for tobacco and alcohol!!!!
Seriously, look! LOOK! Discreet fags shop at pet stores, so where can they hide behind if not an entrepid comforter for animals?
A walking through Petco reveals the cookies taste mighty good, particularly when none are watching.
My two cats and one dog are very happy, well fed, safe, and loved. People that want whats in this story are not only stupid but sick, sick, sick !!!!
not some irresponsible rednecks and rubes we have to suffer living in the same town/state/country with. Exceptions can be made for members of organizations that advocate the kinds of progress we like.
their book? - an inconvienient truth their leader? al gore their goal?to ruin the lives of normal people
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
because we are talking about san fran! Why bring up something that has nothing to do with what we are talking about unless it is to say...well we may be crazy but so are they! I hate that argument, talk the topic, dont bring in needless bullshit.
growing up I always wanted to move to cali, over the past few years i wouldnt go there if you paid me
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
but we are not talking about them, we are talking about san fran, and doing a compare to san fran... save the conservitive jabs for something rightful
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Hi,
:)
I don't see the problem here. The summary states "It would ban the sale of any animal that walks, flies, swims, crawls or slithers — unless you plan to eat it."
So, if anyone asks, you tell 'em that you plan on eating it when you deem it ready. If they come to your house and ask why you still have it, all you have to say is "Well, Spot isn't quite there yet - we're thinking that he'll be ready for Thanksgiving dinner in 5 years or so, check back then". Repeat every 5 years, and then, when Spot is old and they ask again say "Why, he's too damn old and tough to eat now!"
That's all tongue in cheek, of course. At my current job, when the topic of pets comes up, everyone involved in the conversation has a "spoiled pet" story or three to tell... and when I jokingly say "I want to be reincarnated as a cat", they all say: "No, you want to be reincarnated as YOUR cat, and so do I!" *grin*
Which, of course, would not only be a neat trick, but would also be heaven on earth for me
My current saying about cats in general is this: "Cats are God's perfect creation - just ask them!"
Regards,
dj
The other white meat.
Have gnu, will travel.
exactly, I took in 2 strays, one a cat another a pure (or damn close) chocolate lab, they CHOSE ME! I just happened to want to love them back.
are pets an extensions of ourselves? of course, but to say MOST pet owners want the pets for themselves and not for the sake of the animal is at best misguided at worst a straight up lie
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Ah, but that's the whole point, isn't it? This is too drastic.
I've known a few small and medium-sized breeders in my life, and they are not like what you describe: they wait until a few people asks for a certain race, and only then they allow the parents to mate. And how can the breeder know if they'll be good keepers? Easy, he/she can't There are owners who mistreat their pets, and owners who don't, but even if it's bad this is not different than other situations. The government doesn't inspect you a whole year to know if you are allowed to marry, it can only trust, same thing here. This ban is just too extreme.
Heavy regulation on breeding, while an interesting concept if applied to big breeders, is unenforceable at low and medium scales such as the hamster example... unless you have surveillance equipment at an Orwellian scale (although I've been told by a few friends that it's common in the UK). Let's be honest... a license for breeding hamsters? Really? Have you ever had/bred hamsters? This is like requiring a license for making a cake: just too easy to do, too small to notice.
Nevertheless, what you said about neutering/spewing is actually a much better solution than just banning the sale, as it guarantees that there would be no propagation whatsoever. It has been applied in my home town ten years ago and now the problem is effectively solved. And mind you, it had a HUGE stray dog problem, with numerous packs of five or six dogs terrorizing the population (there's even a movie about it, although it's in German).
There's this paragraph of yours (the "pet as accessory" one) that's really weird: you assume that people who can't buy would go to a shelter? Maybe, but consider someone who wants an animal companion and lives in a department that poses as a tuna can (really common these days). A hamster or a fish would be an acceptable animal but you won't find those there. So, let's assume you pick a dog: small dogs are more sought than big ones because of space-constraints, with disastrous consequences for their gene pool, I'll agree (chihuahuas that become retards and weaklings, etc). Thing is, the only way to change this is to change the way cities are designed AND people's mentality, not with a ban.
Don't worry, a few of us don't bite (pun intended :) ). It's the nature of the internetz, we can't see a face so it's hard for people to think there's a human being on the other side. Personally, I always disliked this fact about liberalism: it can be adopted by both the left and the right, with different outcomes. Finally, this may come as a surprise for you given that I bashed your comment, but although I'm quite the tree-hugger and prefer plants over animals, I had two hamsters that died of rip-old age and have now an oversized chihuahua with mandibular prognathism, ugly as hell and with a similar disposition. But if I don't love and care him, who would? :)
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
I promise I will eat my pets... eventually.
Liberals don't believe in being responsible for their own actions, they believe in identifying who's victim they are so they can find the 'responsible person' (invariably a white male).
Somewhere in the liberal bible: 'Blessed are the victims, for so shale they always be, pure in their victimhood'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
This seem unlikely to pass. SF is the most dog friendly city I know. People take their dogs everywhere. On buses, on the Muni. There are parks all over the city with dog walkers in all of them. I can't imagine they would let this pass.
Banning animal (pet) sales, like the idea of animal rights, is lunacy. As for animal emotions, if dogs and cats have them, they're very fleeting, both positive and negative emotions. Animals get over them in seconds. Nervous feelings (pain, pleasure), sure. They have those, just like people. Needless infliction of pain and torture is best punished by social, and maybe business, ostracism by private people and entities, not by fines or jail time under "law", of all things. Destruction of a whole industry, by "law", out of such lunacy or any other reason, is a perversion. It's a crime. That it's done by "government", under "law", doesn't change that.
SF people ARE nutjobs.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
. 'If we considered them living beings...
What are they dead already?
If that's the logic you're going with, we're gonna have to ban tree farms and greenhouses as well. Raised in captivity for the sole purpose of being either planted in your front garden like some sort of decoration, or worse yet, simply cut down in the prime of their lives and put on display! Think of the Christmas trees!
How the fuck is a two week old goldfish more alive than a hundred year old tree?
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Somebody mod this up.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Of course they are, as is cutting down a perfectly healthy tree and putting it in your living room in December like some sort of macabre trophy. Meet the hypocrisy and ignorance of the animal rights crowd.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Very. Kangaroo farms are common in places where kangaroos are common. Obviously not "domesticated" as in pets, but "domesticated" as in livestock.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
I think the provision that live animals for consumption is great. Now PETA will stand for People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.
Interesting. I hear they make a pretty good burger too. Win win.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
for example - outlaw abortion?
What a terrible argument; the abortion discussion is about whether or not the thing being aborted is properly understood to be human, and therefore an act of murder to abort it. I think that falls squarely under "things that should be legislated"; I doubt youd raise a fuss if people wanted an explicit law outlawing the killing of just-born infants.
The incredible irony here is that I bet if you polled these folks, they would be pro-choice on abortion, despite thinking that pet ownership is NOT a choice people deserve. How, exactly, is one a choice that is sacred (when it could potentially mean "killing a human") and the other not (when pets are generally treated well)?
"From Descartes on up, in the Western mindset, fish and other nonhuman animals don't have feelings, they don't have emotions, we can do whatever we want to them"
This is fine so far as it goes, but that's not very far. Legal codes aren't based on feelings or emotions, and they'd probably work extremely badly if they were. The function of law is to regulate the functioning of society; only *humans* can meaningfully be considered as part of society. It's very hard to come up with any workable logical basis for the code of law to be extended over animals, at least beyond the point where it's more about human interests in said animals.
I'm pretty sure this is the same guy... The Philip Gerrie they quote in the article, the guy talking about the 'western mindset'? He is a beekeeper. We must ban beekeeping! All those poor helpless ENSLAVED bees (millions of them) that Mr. Gerrie keeps for his own pleasure! Work themselves to death all summer just so he can steal their honey from them!
http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2009/03/plan_bee_top_sf_beekeeper_doub.php
How can he not see the double standard here? Fish can't be sold to a kid because they deserve better but the bees don't? (For the record, I think the whole thing is silly. I have bees, chickens, cats, dogs...They are all well cared for and happy (and the chickens are sometimes food....Better to live a good life in the open versus chicken from supermarket raised in cramped, dirty, nasty conditions...)
The Ban Francisco crowd has once again gone over the edge with proposed "me first" legislation. In that urban cesspool it is always about the individual and what they want, regardless of the consequences. Unfortunately, the local government seems to only listen to the extremist voices who yell the loudest. I can't believe that the great unwashed sit idly by and put up with this nonsense. Are they all rampant individuals?
Definition:
Individualism makes the individual its focus and so starts "with the fundamental premise that the human individual is of primary importance in the struggle for liberation." Classical liberalism (including libertarianism), existentialism and anarchism (especially individualist anarchism) are examples of movements that take the human individual as a central unit of analysis.
It has also been used as a term denoting "The quality of being an individual; individuality" related to possessing "An individual characteristic; a quirk." Individualism is thus also associated with artistic and bohemian interests and lifestyles where there is a tendency towards self creation and experimentation as opposed to tradition or popular mass opinions and behaviors as so also with humanist philosophical positions and ethics.
So much for E Pluribus Unum. Will we never stop suffering from the 60's mentality that has infected that city.
Prejudice against plants goes back much farther than animal, that will take more time.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
And once we've vanquished this "prejudice" against animals, and this "prejudice" against plants...we starve. Get outta here.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
:-) I should use more sarc marks when appropriate.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
lol :)
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Why can't liberals ever stay on topic?
Liberal ideas coming from the most Liberal city in America, and you wonder why these people are ruining our country...
You've got to either have this proposed San Francisco ordinance wrong or be kidding.
The right to have a pet is one of those unenumerated but fundamental, God-given, natural human rights, like privacy and child-rearing, declared to exist in the Declaration of Independence and explicitly guaranteed, despite not being named, in the Ninth Amendment to the U. s. Constitution. Check he California Constitution, too.
A dog, unlike many things heavily advertised or traded, has real value. It costs money to raise good puppies, so you would have to recoup it somehow. Whether you buy one from a good breeder, or from the pound, and we have got great dogs from both, you expect to pay for their services. Banning sales would make it impossible for both good breeders and the pound to care for and provide animals. Regulating unethical "puppy mills" and abuse or neglect is a different subject altogether and does make sense, but if you start arguing that dogs, much less snakes, monkeys, and rats have the same rights as humans, yhou quickly spin out into absurdities.
My brother and his family lived for awhile in San Francisco and I have spent time there. I wouldn't live there if they gave me the place.
Interesting choice of examples to demonstrate your points. I won't go into the first one (although, despite whatever your favorite neo-con has told you, most liberals do not want to take your guns away), but the second is an example of you wanting to control somebody else's body (oh, and by the way, in that example you didn't "father" a child, you had an orgasm, there's a big difference), the third involves you wanting to pollute other people's bodies, and the last one involves you wanting to be able to sell other beings' bodies.
So I'd say you did a decent job of supporting the GP's point.
I won't go into the first one.
Nice - you start with total avoidance of that point. Congratulations on losing before you begin.
but the second is an example of you wanting to control somebody else's body
*bzzzt*
Nice fallacy, though. During pregnancy, there are two bodies involved.
I know it's convenient for you to not think of an unborn kid as not being a distinct human being with its own body, but science actually says otherwise. QED: Abortion limits/affects another's life.
you had an orgasm, there's a big difference
False naivete as to what an orgasm entails won't help you escape basic facts. Spermatozoa is required for pregnancy.
the third involves you wanting to pollute other people's bodies
That massive battery in your hybrid isn't exactly made from unicorn poop, kiddo. Those chemicals had to come from somewhere, and that somewhere usually involves China - care to research how those chemicals are generally mined and refined, and what the ecological effects are? And we haven't even covered the paint, plastics, and energy required to assemble the whole thing. Long story short, lecturing on automotive pollution won't get you anywhere at all. ;)
and the last one involves you wanting to be able to sell other beings' bodies.
...which are human how, exactly? Ah, but there's the dodge on your part - they're no longer animals, but "other beings". Well, last I checked there are very few progressives out there who have given up wearing/using leather, makeups/perfumes, eating meat, or various other objects and activities that involve the ability to "sell other beings' bodies".
My point is simple, kiddo... *all* governmental/political types want to limit what others do, or affect others' lives. I originally pointed out what I did to break GGP's (or shall I say your?) little illusions, to show that there are no angels in the political realm.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?