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

pete

Active member
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
550
Reaction score
30
Points
28
Location
CA
Country
United States
Display Name
Pete
I just read this story about San Francisco considering a broad scale pet sale ban. It seems that it would include caudates, but it is a very local issue. I think that it highlights how extreme things can get....

S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish

Carolyn Jones, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2010



That's the law under consideration by San Francisco's Commission of Animal Control and Welfare. If the commission approves the ordinance at its meeting tonight, San Francisco could soon have what is believed to be the country's first ban on the sale of all pets except fish.

That includes dogs, cats, hamsters, mice, rats, chinchillas, guinea pigs, birds, snakes, lizards and nearly every other critter, or, as the commission calls them, companion animals.

"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

San Francisco residents who want a pet would have to go to another city, adopt one from a shelter or rescue group, or find one through the classifieds.

The Board of Supervisors would have final say on the matter. But not before pet store owners unleash a cacophony of howling, squeaking and squawking.

"It's terrible. A pet store that can't sell pets? It's ridiculous," said John Chan, manager of Pet Central on Broadway, which has been in business 30 years. "We'd have to close."

'Terrible for our business'

Joe Taylor, bird manager of Animal Connection on Judah Street, called the proposal "ludicrous."

"What difference does it make if you get a parrot at the SPCA or a pet store? If it doesn't work out, in either case, you just bring it back," Taylor said. "This would be terrible for our business."

The idea originated about two years ago, when the commission began looking into a ban on dog and cat sales as a way to discourage puppy and kitten mills. But the city's animal control staff said that excess puppies and kittens are not the problem at the city shelter, thanks to the plethora of rescue groups. In any case, only one or two pet stores in San Francisco sell dogs and cats. The rest stick to small animals.

The hamster problem

The real problem, staff said, is hamsters.

People buy the high-strung, nocturnal rodents because they're under the temporary impression that hamsters are cute and cuddly. But the new owners quickly learn that hamsters are, in fact, prone to biting, gnawing through expensive wiring and maniacally racing on their exercise wheels at 2 a.m.

So the animals end up at the shelter. Just about every species has its own rescue group in San Francisco, but no one seems to want hamsters. Hamsters are the No. 1 animal euthanized at the city's shelter, said San Francisco Animal Care and Control director Rebecca Katz.

"It's definitely a concern," she said. "They're an impulse buy, and we do sometimes get tons of them, especially babies."

Committed owners

On Wednesday, the shelter, which is on 15th Street in the Mission District, had six hamsters, nine rabbits, nine mice, nine rats, two guinea pigs, a bowl of goldfish, two birds, a leopard gecko, a bearded dragon and a hermit crab named Charlie.

But those shelter hamsters almost certainly did not originate at a pet store, said Michael Maddox, general counsel for the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council in Washington, D.C.

Studies by UC Davis and the National Council on Pet Population Study and Policy have shown that only a small fraction of shelter animals were purchased at pet stores, he said. People who buy animals at pet stores are just as committed, emotionally and financially, to caring for their pets as people who procure pets elsewhere, he said.

"This is an anti-pet proposal from people who oppose the keeping of pets," he said. "If their goal is to ban the ownership of pets entirely, then this is a good first step."

The commission plans to listen to testimony from pet store owners, among others, before voting. Among the items it will consider is the impact on small businesses, whether to allow the sale of feeder rodents for snakes and other reptiles, the sale of fish, owner education, penalties and rescue groups that host adoptions at pet stores.

"We're still in the information-gathering phase," said Commissioner Philip Gerrie, who is sponsoring the proposal. "We're trying to get at the problem of people buying these creatures with the best intentions, but then the reality turns out quite different."

Read more: S.F. considers banning sale of pets except fish
 
"People buy small animals all the time as an impulse buy, don't know what they're getting into, and the animals end up at the shelter and often are euthanized," said commission Chairwoman Sally Stephens. "That's what we'd like to stop."

I think it's not the customer's fault at all but merely the stores themselves because lack of information being given. I think they should enforce telling people about animal care that they sell and making sure that the person has EVERYTHING they need in order to house animals.
 
Why euthanize the hamsters? Feed them to the snakes! :p

BTW, only in San Francisco would a bill this radical be introduced - still, I have a hard time believing it would ever pass.
 
From what I've heard, it didn't pass.

What drives me crazy is that the "solutions" proposed to animal problems always have to go to extremes. As Chrisinator pointed out, it would make a lot more sense to mandate consumer education as way to stop the abuses and abandonment of pets. People should be required to sign some kind of document when they buy a pet - something that would force them to acknowledge the drawbacks of that particular pet (i.e., hamsters bite, dogs require training, etc.). Or some sort of pet licensing requirements. Instead, the groups that oppose pet ownership (and I can see their reasons for doing so) keep trying with legislation to ban animals or totally stop sales. It's really vexing. There are improvements to the current system that everyone could agree to, but those things are never proposed.
 
Last edited:
While it is sadly true that many pet stores sells animals just to make a profit and people are often left with animals that they know nothing about, SF has gone a little over the edge. instead of banning the sale of animals, they should encourage responsible pet store managment so that they educate there buyers about the animals they want to buy. Many responsible dog breeders and pet shelters practice this.
 
That's good to hear. It wasn't expected to pass. I agree with your sentiment. Sadly, it seems that extreme and reactionary laws are the fad these days rather than moderate and thoughtful laws.... Though, I don't want to stray from pet banning topic.

These groups identify real problems for pets in society, but the proposed bans are absurd. Even if you consider it a noble goal to control the hamster problem in SFO it can't be accomplished because they went so extreme in the proposal it won't pass. Tomorrow SFO will still have the same problem and all they got was a headline in the newspaper for a day. Maybe that was their goal....

I, however, fear the day when something in this spirit does pass and it encourages these groups to build on their small victories in other places.
 
The irony is that municipalities like SF that espouse “personal freedoms” and wrap themselves in the idea of self determination as a rule have more laws and codes than any bible-belt town. They’ve raped the word “progress” and left most of their residents at the whims of Big Brother. Thinkspeak is alive and well in America.
 
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    There are no messages in the chat. Be the first one to say Hi!
    Back
    Top