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.'"

Comments

Save important pet lives...?

[jonamous]

What lives will it save? Without the pet industry, these animals would never be born.

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[i kan reed]

More importantly, if prohibition and the war on drugs are any sign, this will create a high value pet black market, which makes for-profit breeding operations more, not less, likely to be abusive. Law of unintended consequeneces.

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[pla]

Many pets are specifically bred to be sold. If there are no buyers, people are not going to breed these animals

Ferrets make a particularly good example - As induced ovulators, the females will remain in estrus until they mate or die. For that reason, you almost never see non-fixed ferrets for sale. Though considering the city involved here, they probably already ban ferrets outright. Horrid, vicious things, with their cute burbling and playful nipping - Can't have that, why, someone might leave a newvborn alone with one after starving it for a month!


However, I found one particular quote from the article especially revealing about the mindset involved here...

"Why fish? Why not fish?" said Philip Gerrie, a member of the city's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare and a coauthor of the proposal.

Why not fish? Because, Mr. Gerrie, believe it or not, you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control. Until something becomes a clear problem, just leave it the hell alone. "Not fish", because NO ONE ABUSES FISH. Because you don't see stray fish picking through garbage outside restaurants. Because you don't hear about feral fish attacks when a child wanders down the wrong alley. Because fish lead to as close to zero potential for abuse as you could hope from any possible pet-animal.

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[ginbot462]

Not to mention, pet "contraband" will be sold in other store.

Dude, the leash and collar were for my wife I swear!

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[Nutria]

Because, Mr. Gerrie, believe it or not, you don't need to regulate every last detail of the domain arguably under your control.

Sure he does. It's a biological need to meddle in other people's lives that's just as great as that of the conservative who makes buggery illegal.

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[Tharsman]

I was too lazy to read TFA, but there is a big distinction between selling pets and adopting pets. In one you just pay a small amount for the paperwork, covering vaccines and the like.

Even if pet selling was illegal, adopting should still be an option. There are quite a few pet shops that only sell supplies and refuse to support the Puppy Mill market, instead these host regular foster home gatherings where you can adopt pets and give them a proper home.

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[Denogh]

Who said you couldn't take your dogs? This is about banning the sale of animals. You can bring dogs in, adopt a dog at the Humane Society shelter or go about getting a dog in whatever kind of way you like as long as it doesn't involve a breeder.

That said, I know that this is aimed at the pet stores that are stocked with puppy mill puppies. While I like the idea of discouraging that practice, that will also discourage (or outlaw) legitimate breeders that use humane practices and breed responsibly.

Re:Save important pet lives...?

[Xest]

I think the point of this law has been entirely missed by the kneejerk croud here on Slashdot.

It's a law that wouldn't effect me because I live in the UK but I could quite appreciate perhaps not such a drastic measure but something along those lines here in the UK.

Pet breeders all too often treat animals as little more than stock that makes money, they keep them in shitty conditions that whilst may not make the animal look scruffy will cause it distress and can lead to behaviour problems. They don't care about that because once they've sold the animal they deem it not their problem any more. Further, there's no real checks on breeders here, they can sell to whoever they want, and that can mean selling to people who will let their 3 year old kid throw their hamster or whatever around like a toy, or accidently stand on it, somewhat brutally crushing it to death- these sorts of things happen all the time.

Meanwhile we have rehoming centres absolutely full to the brim of animals that have been abandoned, or previously mistreated, whose behaviour issues have been noted, or corrected. They're full of animals of all shapes and sizes just begging for a home, and these rehoming centres do home visits to check suitability of a household for a pet before they allow someone to adopt. Further, they even have clauses that allow them to reclaim pets that are found to be mistreated so that they can seize them from incompetent or outright malicious owners. They will also neuter pets such that they do not go on to add to the problem of growing numbers of strays.

Really, in the UK at minimum there needs to be stricter licensing on breeding. Such measures might not put an end to the problems entirely, and black markets might exist- just as they do for banned dangerous dog breeds, but it would at least stop parents going out and buying a hampster for little timmy just because timmy cried about wanting one and they didn't have the balls to tell him he's not responsible enough to look after him, a pet that might then die in any number of horrid ways in which kids manage to kill their pets through not knowing better.

It's about stopping the market of pets as "accessories" and improving welfare for many animals as a result. It's about maximising adoption of rescued animals by more responsible and trustworthy pet owners, rather than going to their local shop out of convenience and leaving the stray problem a problem because so many strays go unadopted.

Personally I've always had rescued dogs through my entire life, and wouldn't dream of getting one from a shop, ignoring the countless genetic defects, and behaviour issues that arise from inbreeding and mistreatment amongst such breeders, rescued dogs just come in shapes and sizes you'd never expect (I had a jack russel / doberman cross once- no I don't know which was the mother and which was the father), and for me, have always been full of character and extremely loyal.

The point is there's not even a need for a pet industry when it's proven itself often untrustworthy and sometimes contributory to the stray problem (which your tax dollars have to deal with) when excess / imperfect animals are chucked out on the streets. When there's already a problem of too many pets needing homes out there in the first place such that a lack of pet shops would decrease the stray problem (hence saving your tax dollars) then it's ludicrous to go on allowing such an irresponsible industry to at least carry on without regulation.

I suspect this will be an unpopular view with Slashdot's liberal idealists where any mention of government is seen as a bad thing but oh well, it's just my personal opinion, this is at least one area where some kind of regulation can actually improve things for tax payers, animal charities, and animals alike, at the cost only of the detriment to an industry that more often causes detriment to those 3 sections of society.

Just odd.

[LWATCDR]

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?

Dear animal activists

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Re:Dear animal activists

[rahvin112]

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.

There are plenty of good organizations out there that try to stop animal abuse, but PETA gets all the attention and I'd be 90% of the people that support PETA fail to realize just how radical the beliefs of their founder. PETA believe pet ownership is slavery and they want it gone. Honestly if you want to stop animal abuse you are far better off sending your money to ASPCA or Humane Society.

Wait, what?

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

They're going to outlaw gerbil sales in San Francisco?

Re:Of course we consider them living beings!

[tkrotchko]

"and spoiler her mercilessly"

She probably didn't appreciate when you told her that Darth Vader was Luke';s father, before "The Empire...:" came out.

It's More Cruel to *Prevent* Pet Ownership

[RobinEggs]

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.

PETA: hated by 100% of house dogs

[argStyopa]

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.

Re:Really?

[Steauengeglase]

I guess it would end up like hermit crabs. Illegal to buy one, but you get one for free if you buy a cage. If there is a market people and the product is cheap, people will make it work.

Personally, I quit reading after this:

Snake food was almost exempt from the proposal. After all, pythons have to eat, and they like their lunch alive. But at a heated meeting, Commissioner Pam Hemphill questioned how it could be humane to sell live animals to be fed to other live animals.

At that point I can't help but think you've crossed a line somewhere and gone into some kind of pseudo-religion where it isn't nature on the throne but human ego. Animals gotta eat and they don't know a damned thing about this humane thing you keep talking about.

Re:Of course we consider them living beings!

[DaveV1.0]

The problem is that dog "breeds" are so inbred that they often have serious medical conditions. Besides things like epilepsy and hip dysplasia, there are pugs and other short snout breeds often have breathing problems. Bull dogs are often delivered via cesarean because their heads are too big. Shar peis often have skin problems. Great Danes and other large breads die young because of heart problems. Most herding breeds develop neurological problems when not allowed to follow the instincts for which they have been bred.
 
Mutts are often much healthier and smarter than pure breads.